The Yorkist Age

New Link Added

2012-01-13T10:28:00.000Z

Richard III Society (New South Wales):

http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/

No Progress

2012-01-07T15:31:00.000Z

Sorry, but so far I have not found the time, energy and inclination to read up properly on Somerset's capture, so the substantive post I wanted to write can't happen yet. Nor have any ideas for non-substantive posts dropped into my head, hence the lack of recent developments in this space.

Anyone who fancies doing a guest post to disturb the tumbleweed will be duly appreciated. You can even write from a Lancastrian point of view if you like...

Nothing much happening????

2011-09-20T15:18:00.000+01:00

It's been pointed out to me that I haven't been blogging much lately. This is true. It's partly because the days go past so quickly. Those of you under 30 (if any) be grateful for the fact you currently have 36 hours in a day. By the time you get to my age you'll find it's more like 12. I have been doing some writing but I've also been engaged in quite a bit of more tedious stuff, and I often doss as my ailments make me the sort of lazy person my younger self would have held in contempt.

I have in mind some quite interesting write-ups about Edward IV and his crowd but before I write them I need to do you all the courtesy of checking my facts, given that this blog, at least, is not supposed to be part of my world of fiction.

In particular, I want to write about Edward IV and Henry Duke of Somerset, who for a time shared his bed even though they were not at all gay. It has also been pointed out to me that initially Somerset surrendered on terms to Warwick, and thus Warwick's alleged dissatisfaction with the favour shown to Somerset does not make entire sense. I suspect it was the degree of favour that was the problem.

However, before I try to make sense of it I need to work out the chronology of the surrender of the northern castles and the deeds and whereabouts of Queen Margaret and Henry VI, which is currently as clear as mud in my mind.

In the interim, another book recommendation for you: Malory by Christina Hardyment. There's some really interesting stuff in here, especially about the chaos that was England under Henry VI. If you don't 'get' why York and the other reformers were so unhappy with the set-up, this book will certainly help your understanding.

The Open Fetterlock

2011-07-18T11:14:00.000+01:00

For anyone interested my new kindle 'book' The Open Fetterlock is now available from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, and indeed Amazon.de for those who would prefer to pay in Euros.

There isn't a single complete story in here. It amounts to a collection from my 'cutting-room floor', which is why it's so cheap. Short sections from four incomplete novels (including two Ricardian ones and one light-hearted 'Yorkist' one). I hope some of you will enjoy it, and it will at least prove I have done slightly more than zip these last five years.

I am going to try to put it on Smashwords too, so those of you who haven't got a kindle can buy one of the other e-versions. PDF, for example. This is most unlikely ever to be a real book, unless I get really famous and people start bringing out anthologies and stuff. I don't flatter myself.

The Richard III Society have asked me for an Alianore short story and I am working on that right now. After the reception the last lot of fiction got in their letters page I'm surprised that they want it. Still I shall do my best, even though it's a bit like being asked to do stand-up at the Glasgow Empire.

I have also turned my thoughts to This New Spring of Time the Richard II/Anne of Bohemia novel. Don't be surprised if that ends being next up.

Edward and Elizabeth

2011-06-22T09:58:00.000+01:00

Not a post as such, but a link to an interesting article by Eric Ives.

It's a pity that Ives doesn't quote his sources as his conclusions as to the nature of the initial relationship between Edward and Elizabeth are intriguing.

Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot

2011-06-15T17:30:00.003+01:00

For those of you who wish to know more about Eleanor Talbot, I strongly recommend Eleanor, The Secret Queen by John Ashdown-Hill. Even if you disagree with Dr. Ashdown-Hill's conclusions - and if you are sceptical about Richard III you will feel obliged to - there is nothing wrong with the factual content of the book, which gathers together everything that can be known about this lady.

Instead of trying to give you a digest of this text, I shall give you the key points of my conclusions on Eleanor, following my study of this book.

1. She was quite definitely the daughter of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, which (incredibly) has been doubted by some historians. Talbot's name is little known these days, but at the time he was a hero, roughly equivalent to Churchill or at least Field Marshal Montgomery.

2. It is wrong, therefore, to think of Eleanor as 'obscure'. Although her own marriage to Sir Thmas Butler of Sudeley was a modest one, her father was a leading nobleman and her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk. (The same Duchess of Norfolk who served as Principal Lady-in-Waiting at Margaret of York's wedding and was the mother of Anne Mowbray.)

3. Eleanor's mother was a Beauchamp - Margaret, eldest daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. A lady of very high rank by birth, if this needs to be said, half-sister to Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick. Which makes the 'Kingmaker' Eleanor's uncle. (Perhaps fortunately for Edward IV the family quarrel between the Beauchamp sisters meant this connection was not emphasised.)

4. Another Beauchamp sister, Eleanor, married the Somerset killed at St. Albans. So, Henry Duke of Somerset and his brothers were Eleanor's first cousins.

Of course it is impossible for Ashdown-Hill, or anyone else to prove that Eleanor's alleged secret marriage to Edward IV took place. By the nature of such marriages no evidence can be extant, the witnesses being long dead. Then again, we have almost as much evidence for the ceremony as we have for that between Edward and Elizabeth W. It's really Edward's acknowledgement of the latter ceremony that makes the difference. The event itself was equally irregular.

Edward was evidently attracted to women some years older than himself and preferably widows - Eleanor, Elizabeth, 'Jane' Shore and Elizabeth Waite/Lucy all seem to fit the template.

However, let's forget personal attractions for a minute. Could there have been a political reason for Edward to marry Eleanor? Possibly, just possibly. Edward was keen to conciliate Somerset (an issue to which I shall return in due course) and in that context his marriage to Somerset's cousin might have been seen as a white rose/red rose union. With the added bonus of bringing the powerful Talbot family on board into the bargain. Given that Warwick and Montagu were very annoyed by Edward's pardon of Somerset, it would be in line with Edward's trouble-avoidance philosophy to keep the matter temporarily secret. And then when Somerset defected to the other side again, it would give a reason for an angry Edward to dump Eleanor and turn to the gorgeous Elizabeth.

It's a fascinating subject for speculation, but it can't be proved. What Ashdown-Hill has proved is that Eleanor had land which a) she did not inherit b) she did not hold by dower or jointure c) which she could not afford to buy. This land was almost certainly granted to her by Edward; and since Edward did not go around granting lands to random females, there is something there that cannot easily be explained away.

Anyway, read the book, see what you think.

The New Look

2011-05-26T17:10:00.000+01:00

I hope people like the new look. As Blogger has decided to give us all these wonderful new design facilities it seemed churlish not to use them. I can always change to something different if I get fed up with it.

The Character of Edward IV

2011-05-25T16:07:00.002+01:00

I don't feel like writing about anything deep today, so I thought I'd write something about the character of King Edward IV. An interesting topic, in my opinion.

I find Edward hard to pigeon-hole, as he was certainly a complex and multi-layered individual. So let's examine a few aspects.

Edward as warrior. Arguably, he was one of England's greatest warrior kings. Certainly he never lost a battle, although this may be partly because, as Alianore Audley remarked, he always knew when to run away. Seriously though, folks, that is not a bad quality in a general. It takes intelligence and a certain humility to judge when a withdrawal makes sense. Richard III might have benefited from a similar view of life at Bosworth,as indeed might Lee at Gettysburg, to name two obvious examples of commanders who might have been better advised to fight another day.

Of course, Edward was never tested against a foreign enemy, and on the one occasion he met the French army he chose to make peace. But see above. I suspect Edward made peace because he judged a battle was likely to be lost. He was no mug.

There is a view in some circles that a man can only be judged a great general if he has battered foreigners. This would rule out both Edward and Oliver Cromwell (unless you count the Irish)and leave (probably) Marlborough as the greatest English general of all time. I am not convinced - I think Edward is up there. He fought a whole lot of battles and never lost once. That has to be down to more than luck. He's certainly entitled to be spoken of in the same breath as the above-mentioned Cromwell and Marborough plus Fairfax, Edward I and Henry V (spit). And, to be very blunt, his track record exceeds Richard III's as the sun does the moon.

Edward as politician. We need to remind ourselves that he came to the throne at 18. What were you like at 18?* It's probably true to say 'lacking in mature judgement'. Edward was probably too lenient in his dealings with certain individuals early in his reign - I'm looking at you, Henry Somerset - but this was surely a benign fault. Better to be overly merciful than a blood-stained tyrant. He learned and became somewhat less forgiving of opponents in later life. By 1471, if you had showed yourself to be an implacable opponent, he was likely to have your head. However, he could still be accommodating to former Lancastrians (Morton for example) and many of his attempts at conciliation bore fruit. People like the Woodvilles/Wydevilles and Lord Audley are good examples of former enemies Edward converted to faithful supporters.

*If 18 or below please ignore this question.

Edward could be ruthless when he needed to be, particularly in the second part of his reign. Executing your own brother is pretty ruthless by any standards. He was also rather careless of the rules of inheritance, and grabbed lands for his family by quite blatant abuse of his power as king. This did not come back to haunt him, but it was undoubtedly a factor in creating the aristocratic discontent that smoothed Richard III's path to to the throne.

It's a neat question whether Edward could have handled Warwick and the Nevilles better. They were family, and they had more or less put him on the throne. His quarrel with them could easily have led to his deposition and death. On the other hand, if he had cut them much more slack he could easily have ended up as nothing more than Warwick's puppet. The conflict had to be resolved somehow, and there were undoubtedly faults on both sides. A greater king might have found a way to conciliate the Nevilles while retaining his own authority, but it would have been a big ask.

His foreign policy fell to pieces in the latter days of his reign. This was largely due to his failure to support Burgundy in its hour of crisis (because of the fat French pension he was receiving) but when considering this you should bear in mind that Burgundy had proved a somewhat inadequate ally (to put it mildly) while Louis XI - a truly brilliant mind and a great ruler - had built France into a power that England was simply not equipped to defeat in either war or diplomacy. An alternative foreign policy, based on aggression towards France, might well have led to even worse disasters.

Edward as a person My impression of Richard, Duke of York, is that (however arrogant and pig-headed he may have been) he was genuinely interested in good government and reform. My impression of his eldest son is that he didn't give a rat's about such things and was much more interested in having a good time while acquiring as much land and money for himself as possible.

Edward undoubtedly liked women, though I think some of his exploits may have been exaggerated. In particular, he had a liking for handsome widows somewhat older than himself. His decision to marry Elizabeth Woodville/Wydeville/Whatever may be romantic in some eyes, but politically it was a crowning folly, irrespective of whether or not he was previously married to Eleanor Talbot/Butler/Botiller. To be blunt, it was irresponsible and almost cost him his throne. It alienated key members of his family (including, almost certainly, his own mother) and ultimately led to the downfall of the House of York.

Busy with stuff

2011-04-09T12:44:00.002+01:00

I'm rather busy with stuff at the moment, so please don't expect a plethora of posts on The Yorkist Age or indeed my other blogs, as I don't have the time. Will get back to this in time, though.

Sir William Herbert and the mess in Wales

2011-04-04T10:50:00.004+01:00

Just as Edward was inclined to leave the far North to the Nevilles, so he was inclined to leave Wales to his supporters there, of whom the most remarkable was Sir William Herbert. (It appears that originally Edward planned to campaign in Wales in the summer of 1461, but in the event he never got further than Ludlow and returned to Westminster to hold his first Parliament.)

Herbert was a Welshman, and was to be the first of that nation (barring King Henry VI's Tudor half-brothers, who were a bit of a special case) to be granted an earldom. He undoubtedly earned this honour, and was to pay a terrible price for it in the fullness of time. Knighted by King Henry in 1449, William Herbert had fought in the French wars under Somerset, but despite this - or maybe because of it - became a strong Yorkist supporter. Edward was swift to appoint him to his Privy Council and in May 1461 made him Chamberlain and Chief Justice of South Wales.

The main Lancastrian threat in Wales was organised by Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, who had of course fought at Mortimer's Cross and was to continue to be a thorn in the side of the Yorkist dynasty all the way to Bosworth. Jasper was undoubtedly a warrior of some ability and he appears to have enjoyed some popularity in Wales - at least he was always able to find some Welshmen willing to fight for him. (It is a little odd that Wales was as pro-Lancastrian as it was, given the treatment handed out to that country by Henry IV and his son, but there you are.)

Herbert captured the formidable castle of Pembroke on 3o September, then defeated Tudor, Exeter and the main force of Welsh Lancastrians at Twt Hill near Caernarfon on 16 October. On 4 November Herbert was rewarded with a barony, as Lord Herbert, and granted the castle, town and lordship of Pembroke. The promotion was obviously fully merited.

Denbigh and Carreg Cennan castles fell to the Yorkists in early 1462, but Harlech still held out, and was to continue to do so until 1469. One must assume that it was so remote that King Edward did not see its capture as a priority.

Sir John Mortimer Redux

2011-04-02T10:30:00.007+01:00

Stephen Lark kindly referred me to the Hull geneology site which suggests that Sir John was the legitimate brother of the 4th earl Roger (killed 1398) and Sir Edmund. However, further digging about on the web reveals that the 3rd earl only referred to two sons (Roger and Edmund) in his will and therefore the Hull site has almost certainly got to be wrong.

Elsewhere on the web Douglas Richardson points out that if John Mortimer was male heir to the Earl of March (as he allegedly claimed) he would have to be of legitimate descent. This is true as far as it goes, although people making wild claims rarely bother about technicalities. After the 5th Earl of March's death, his claim to the throne went (through his deceased sister, Anne) to his nephew, Richard, Duke of York. The Salic law cannot be used here, as that would make the Lancastrians legitimate kings and wipe out the Mortimer claim altogether! I suppose that an extreme stretch he might have had a claim to the title, Earl of March, but the lands were evidently not entailed to the male heir so this would not have helped him much. But if we assume Sir John Mortimer was of legitimate descent, the most likely explanation is that he was a grandson of one of the two younger brothers of the 3rd earl. Unless you know better?

But, hang about. It was the 3rd earl who married Philippa of Clarence. So his younger brothers and their heirs might have some sort of claim to the Mortimer lands and titles but they would have no claim whatever to the throne as they were not descended from Lionel of Clarence. I still can't make sense of this - at the moment I can't see any way that Sir John Mortimer had any right to the throne, but if he didn't why did the Lancastrian government consider him such a threat?

Wiltshire and Ormonde

2011-03-27T15:45:00.002+01:00

I have just noticed a contradiction in my sources as to the execution site of James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde. In a previous post I implied he had died at Cockermouth, but since then I have discovered (according to Charles Ross) he was beheaded in Edward's presence at Newcastle. I may as well frankly admit that I don't know for sure which account is correct, though I should be surprised if Ross is mistaken. I shall look into this and get back to you, but for the time being please assume he was captured at Cockermouth and beheaded at Newcastle, as I suspect that's what happened.

Trouble in t'North

2011-03-26T10:56:00.004Z

Although Edward's policy, after the executions following Towton, was one of conciliation and pardon, there were still a large number of irreconcilable Lancastrians at large, not least those in exile in Scotland or lying low in the far north of England. The King did not see fit to deal with this problem himself - admittedly he must have had many other matters on his plate - but was content to leave it to his Neville kinsmen, especially Warwick and Warwick's brother, John, Lord Montagu.

Margaret of Anjou, meanwhile, had concluded an alliance with Queen Mary of Guelders, the Scottish regent, on the basis that the Scots would receive Berwick in return for military assistance. Edward himself had been trying to come to terms with Scotland, but the offer of Berwick effectively outbid him. For the time being his enemies, including Henry VI and Margaret, had a secure base.

Edward's reaction was to make use of the Earl of Douglas and his brother, Scots lords exiled in England, to make approaches to other discontented Scots with a view to a little regime change across the border. This had little immediate effect and in June a combined Scottish/Lancastrian force made an attempt on Carlisle. John Neville rapidly raised the siege, if siege it could be called.

Later the same month Henry VI himself, backed by Lord Roos and other Lancastrian nobles, came to Brancepeth Castle, where they raised the standard of revolt. Again, this incursion was easily suppressed, this time by the Bishop of Durham who had evidently decided that his loyalties now lay with Edward IV.

In late summer Warwick managed to establish Yorkist control over much of Northumberland, taking Alnwick and Dunstanburgh Castles, the former a Percy stronghold, the latter a windswept outpost of the Duchy of Lancaster. Sir Ralph Percy, brother of the Northumberland killed at Towton, was allowed to continue as Constable of Dunstanburgh. This may have been part of the general policy of conciliation; equally it may simply be the case that no one else was available who had both Yorkist sympathies and local clout.

Yorkist control of the area remained tenuous. A few months later a Lancastrian force under William Tailboys was able to recapture Alnwick, while Lord Dacre of Gisland took up residence in his own castle of Naworth, near Carlisle, and offered defiance to the government. There was still a great deal of fighting to be done.

The Aftermath of Towton - King Edward on Tour

2011-03-25T16:37:00.005Z

It was perhaps no more than common sense for Edward to remain at York for some weeks after Towton. The North was strongly Lancastrian in sympathy, and he had to at least try to reconcile its people to his rule. (It must be remembered that, apart from Warwick's immediate family and their supporters most of the northern nobility and gentry had been engaged against him at Towton. Many husbands, fathers, sons and brothers had died there, and there was no doubt considerable bitterness against him, as well as uncertainty about the future. Moreover, the leadership of northern society had been - in some cases literally - decapitated.)

Edward moved on to Durham (22 April) where he appointed the Bishop, Lawrence Booth, as his confessor. This was an act of conciliation as Booth had previously been associated with Queen Margaret. He then progressed to Newcastle, where he witnessed the execution of James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, who had escaped the rout at Mortimer's Cross but now paid the penalty for being too prominent a member of the Lancastrian establishment. This execution was perhaps something of a show of force, because the Yorkist hold on the far north was tenuous at best. The strong local loyalty to the Percy family was never successfully overcome and was to lead eventually to the reinstatement of the Percy heir.

The King did not linger in this area but returned south by way of Lancashire and Cheshire. Again, it was useful to 'show the flag' in these counties, which were very far from being Yorkist in sympathy. He then moved into the north midlands, where the Lancastrian element was also strong. I think it's a safe bet that Edward used all of his personal charm, and was to an extent successful in winning 'hearts and minds'. His coronation was being arranged in London, but Edward was in no hurry to arrive there or to take charge of the Westminster machinery of government. Instead he made his way to Norwich.

Norfolk was, in contrast to much of the tour, pretty much Yorkist territory. The dukes of Norfolk (especially) and Suffolk were Edward's men while the Earl of Oxford, the other local magnate, was a moderate Lancastrian who suffered from ill health that had certainly been bad enough to keep him from Towton.

Edward would therefore have received a good welcome in East Anglia. Here I turn to speculation. The Duke of Norfolk had a son, John, Earl of Warenne, whose wife was Elizabeth Talbot. Her sister, Eleanor, Lady Butler, was already a widow at this time and quite possibly living in Norfolk's household under Elizabeth's protection. She had legal problems with her lands that needed the King's favour to resolve. Was this when they met? It's impossible to say, one way or the other. All we can say is that Edward was to prove that he had an eye for a good-looking widow.

More on this another day. Whatever delights he found or did not find in Norwich, duty eventually called him away. On Friday, 26 June he made his state entry into London.

Sir John Mortimer

2011-03-19T10:57:00.003Z

A very interesting article on Sir John Mortimer may be found here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sctuzn19w5EC&pg=PA83&dq=sir+john+mortimer+died+1423&hl=en&ei=BoiETcWjO4OxhQeOoNWuBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sir%20john%20mortimer%20died%201423&f=false

Unfortunately it's still not clear who his parents were.

William, Lord Hastings

2011-02-02T15:25:00.003Z

Relatively few men were knighted in the immediate aftermath of Towton, but one of them was William Hastings. Hastings came from a family with a long record of service to the House of York. In addition, William was a remote cousin of Edward IV, being descended from the Mortimers via Hotspur's widow, Elizabeth Mortimer's second marriage to Lord Camoys. More importantly he was a close personal friend of Edward and few men, if any, had more influence over the new King.

Although remotely related to the 14th century Hastings earls of Pembroke, William's circumstances were quite modest, more gentry than nobility, and in less interesting times he might have remained an obscure squire. After Ludford Bridge he was pardoned for his life only, and his fortunes were very low indeed. Now, knighted on the field, he was soon afterwards promoted to the peerage as Lord Hastings of Hastings (Sussex). He was also made Lord Chamberlain which gave him control of Edward's personal staff and the key advantage of being able to regulate access to the King's person. Unless you were very grand indeed, if you wanted to access Edward you had to go through Hastings. This was obviously a source of profit, as were the various additional lucrative offices that Hastings was able to secure for himself over the rest of the reign.

Hastings seems to have been a popular figure; even Warwick at his most aggressive never took against him. Of course Hastings was (inevitably) married to one of Warwick's sisters, but close kinship was not always a protection from the great earl's wrath. Hastings was to share Edward's more intimate moments - some have suggested that he was more or less or exactly a royal pimp - but there was more to him than this. He was a political manager on a grand scale, a man of unquestionable loyalty, and a good personal friend. Monarchs tend to find such friends in short supply.

Towton - the aftermath

2011-01-31T13:31:00.008Z

King Henry VI, Queen Margaret and the Prince managed to escape, eventually to Scotland. With them were Somerset and Exeter, who presumably had very good horses.

Many Lancastrians were less fortunate. Northumberland died of his wounds, which almost certainly saved him from the block. Wiltshire managed to get away from the battle but was eventually captured at Cockermouth (of all places) probably on his way home to Ireland. He was promptly executed.

Devon was also executed, along with more than 40 Lancastrian knights. Edward's mood was probably not improved by finding his father's, brother's, and uncle's heads still displayed over the gates of York when he arrived. Replacing them with Devon's was doubtless some consolation. (Ironically Devon had been one of York's early supporters.)

After this initial blood-letting Edward's policy became more moderate. Many pardons were eventually issued including ones in favour of Earl Rivers and Lord Fitzhugh. Rivers and his family seem quite genuinely to have changed sides at this time, perhaps swayed by Edward's personal charisma. Fitzhugh on the other hand is an example of a man whose heart probably remained loyal to Henry VI. He was Warwick's brother-in-law and from now on can perhaps be understood better as a satellite of Warwick rather than a devoted subject of King Edward.

Battle of Towton Phase 2

2011-01-31T11:39:00.005Z

One thing the Battle of Towton was not was Lancashire v Yorkshire. I am sure that most of you are well aware of this, but I find that many people are under the delusion that the Wars of the Roses were a Lancashire v Yorkshire fixture. Cricket may have caused this confusion. Or maybe stupidity.

Anyway, passing lightly on. The commanding general on the Lancastrian side was Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, a young man of 25 and a veteran of both the battles of St. Albans and of Wakefield. (He had commanded at 2nd St.Albans and Wakefield, so had a winning track record.) King Henry VI, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward were all safely left behind in York, a prudent and sensible precaution.

We can safely assume that Somerset commanded the Lancastrian centre. Their right was under Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland. His flank was usefully protected by the Cock Beck. It is less clear who commanded the left but a fair guess is Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, by virtue of his rank. (He had few other qualities, but his rank was undeniable.)

On the Yorkist side, Edward IV commanded the centre in person. Their right was under Lord Fauconberg whose performance the previous day was soon to be equalled on this one. Warwick is the most likely commander of their left, facing Percy.

Snow began to fall, and as the morning drew on it turned into something of a blizzard. Fortunately for the Yorkists, the wind was blowing from the south, into the very faces of their opponents. Fauconberg advanced his men, who shot arrows into the Lancastrian left wing. The Lancastrians naturally tried to reply in kind, but because of their conditions their arrows fell short, while the Yorkist ones were 'wind assisted.' The Yorkists eventually ran out of arrows to shoot, but by stepping forward a little way were able to replenish their stocks with the Lancastrian arrows that had fallen short.

The Lancastrians now advanced so as to fight at close quarters. Although doubtless badly mauled by the arrow storm, there were still plenty of them left and anxious to give a good account of themselves. The lines locked together, and an almost unimaginable slugfest ensued, men hacking at one another in the snow.

The blizzard eased somewhat, but it seems likely that visibility was limited and that most of those engaged were only aware of their own local situation. From time to time men drew off to rest; possibly they did so by silent, mutual agreement. However the conflict was always renewed, and it went on for hours, through daylight and beyond. The strength and courage of all concerned must have been tested to the limit. Slowly, faced with superior numbers, the Yorkists were forced back.

Suddenly, out of the gloom, the Duke of Norfolk's division arrived to reinforce the Yorkists. Norfolk, who had been seriously left behind the advance of the main Yorkist force, evidently marched in haste to the 'sound of the guns' or the general racket of a major battle. His men peppered the Lancastrian left with arrows and then fell upon its flank. After what it had already endured that day it's not surprising that the Lancastrian left faltered and broke before this new onslaught.

It was not long before the rest of the Lancastrian army followed suit, as soaring Yorkist morale pushed their men forward in one last effort. Before long the battle had turned into a pursuit and slaughter, halted only by the gathering darkness of night. Many Lancastrians drowned trying to ford the Cock while others were trapped in a killing ground next to it and slaughtered. Edward had ordered that there should be no quarter. The days of 'kill the lords and spare the commons' were over.

Battle of Towton - Phase 1

2011-01-21T11:25:00.004Z

Edward reached Pontefract on 27 March, having passed through Cambridge and Nottingham. Here he concentrated his forces, but the Duke of Norfolk was not yet arrived. Norfolk was sickly (he was to die on 6 November 1461) and his troops may have been commanded (nominally) by his young son, John Mowbray or (in practice) by his kinsman, Sir John Howard. Anyway, the Mowbray East Anglians were missing in the initial phases, putting Edward at a serious disadvantage.

Edward ordered Lord Fitzwalter to take the bridge over the Aire at Ferrybridge. Fitzwalter initially secured the bridge (which had not been guarded) but early next morning was taken by surprise by a Lancastrian force under Lord Clifford (aka 'Butcher Clifford.') In a fierce fight the Yorkist contingent was driven off, with the deaths of Fitzwalter and Sir Richard Jenney (Warwick's illegitimate half-brother.)

This was bad news indeed for the Yorkists, but Edward did not panic. Instead he sent Lord Fauconberg (Warwick's uncle) to take the bridges over the Aire at Castleford and then attack Clifford in the rear. Fauconberg undertook this task with great success, taking the Lancastrians by surprise and more or less wiping out their contingent. Clifford himself was among those killed. The road was now open for the main Yorkist army (still missing Norfolk) to cross the Aire and take up positions ready to attack the Lancastrians next day, 29 March, which was Palm Sunday.

An Irrelevant Post - Edward II

2011-01-11T09:57:00.003Z

I have lately been wound up by various people who insist on believing the fable that Edward III was fathered by William Wallace.

Let me set it out in plain terms for the hard of thinking. He wasn't! Edward III was not born until several years after Wallace's death. Human biology teaches us that the normal term of pregnancy is nine months, not seven years! Moreover, Queen Isabella was only 9 or 10 years old at the time of Wallace's execution, and she was still in France.

Edward and Isabella had several children and Edward also had at least one outside marriage. Fact - it is possible for a gay man to father children. Many if not all of us descend from such men in our ancestry, given that until very recently it was common for them to marry and give the appearance of being 'normal'.

There really is no reason to believe that Edward III was fathered by anyone other than Edward II - but he certainly wasn't fathered by William Wallace.

Rant over!

A bit overdue for a Post so here it is.

2011-01-10T13:35:00.003Z

I know I am a bit overdue for a post. Have I been ill? Yes, but apart from Christmas when I felt like I was dying, no more than usual, which is not enough of an excuse. Have I tired of the project? No, but I'm not in any haste to complete it. Am I lazy? Yes, probably. Unproductive? Yes, tend to be.

Anyway, a few preliminary words about Towton. Obviously a Yorkist v Lancastrian fixture, but in some ways more. Progressives versus traditionalists. The Establishment versus the Outs. Neville v Percy. Neville v Beaufort. Mowbray (a thoroughly pissed off Mowbray) v Lancaster. Warwick v anyone keeping him from the light. South v North. There are probably more sub-plots I haven't thought of.

Edward IV's support among the nobility was a bit limited at this stage. Just one earl fought for him, and that was Warwick. If, instead of a battle, they'd had a vote in the House of Lords there's little doubt Henry VI would have won. Despite his inadequacies, the depth of the continuing loyalty to King Henry should not be underestimated.

Towton is sometimes said to be the largest battle ever fought on English soil. The other contender is Marston Moor in the Civil War, also fought within a few miles of York. I will offer no opinion on this, except to say Towton was certainly a very large battle indeed, with almost the whole nobility engaged. Even Lord Stanley was there, an almost unique event. This was an achievement in itself, a bit like getting me to a current-day football match.

The Yorkists advanced from London in three groups, led by Edward himself, Warwick and Norfolk. They each went by a different route, probably as a means of achieving maximum recruitment to their colours. However, logistics and supply must also have been an issue, because by medieval English standards the forces raised were simply massive.

The Fetterlock Opens - Edward IV becomes King

2010-10-21T14:42:00.003+01:00

Warwick and what was left of his army met up with Edward's army on 23 February near Burford - Warwick territory. They must have had a fairly interesting talk about political and military strategy, and at least at first they must have been uncertain about whether or not the Lancastrians had taken London.

The Yorkist march on London was probably inevitable in any case, but one imagines that the departure of Queen Margaret and the Lancastrian army to the north was not exactly bad news. Edward entered London on 28 February (or 26 or 27, depending on which source you choose to believe) and was very well received; he may have chosen to overlook the fact that the city fathers had been preparing to proclaim him a traitor only a few days earlier. Such are the strange chances of politics, although it appears that the bulk of the city population were Yorkist or Warwick supporters in any event.

Over the next few days there was a concerted propaganda exercise. The nub of it was that Henry VI had reneged on the settlement that had been enshrined in the Act of Accord. Now, given that poor Henry was practically a cipher by this time, controlled by whoever had hold of him, this was a little harsh on the King. However, some pretext was needed to justify Edward taking the throne and in the circumstances this spin is understandable.

Many of the citizens were gathered at St.John's Fields Clerkenwell on Sunday 1 March, where they were addressed by clerics, probably Thomas Bourchier the Archbishop of Canterbury and certainly Warwick's brother, George Neville, Bishop of Exeter. The crowd, reacting no doubt to some excellent speeches, rejected Henry VI and called for Edward of York to take the crown.

This 'election' by the people was reported to Edward and supported by the (relatively) few nobles present, of whom the most important were the Duke of Norfolk and Warwick himself.

Edward, still only eighteen years old, was apparently more than happy to take the crown on these terms. He almost certainly thought it was his by hereditary right in the first place. Now, unlike his father a few weeks earlier, he had Warwick onside.

On Wednesday 4 March there was a slightly more formal mass meeting outside St.Paul's Cathedral at which Edward himself was present. The Bishop of Exeter preached a sermon which dwelt on Edward's ancestry and other good points. Would the people have him as their King? Those people present (less than a representative sample it must be granted) said 'Aye!'

Edward accepted the job at once and went in procession (probably a very long and undignified one) to Westminster where he sat on the King's Bench and formally took possession. He was to date his reign from this day.

This was all very 'revolutionary' - but in such circumstances law offers little guidance. Edward was the legitimist King, Henry the statutory one, and you paid your money and took your choice. I don't think there was a 'right' or a 'wrong'.

There was of course no time for a coronation. Henry and his supporters were in the north and Edward IV's first task was to march north, defeat them in battle, and so make his kingship 'real'. The London merchants showed their faith in his cause by lending him large sums to meet the cost. It was to prove a sound inverstment.

Margaret turns back from London

2010-10-13T15:49:00.006+01:00

London now lay completely at the mercy of Margaret of Anjou and her Lancastrian army. The citizens had no thought of resistance and sent out a team of noble female negotiators to secure terms. It was led by none other than Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, mother of Dame Elizabeth Grey. Another great lady, Cecily, Duchess of York, was meanwhile busily engaged in packing her younger sons, George and Richard, off to the safety of Burgundy.

The Mayor had asked for a guarantee from pillage. Ordinary Londoners were ordered to stay behind doors, and, as a further attempt to placate the Lancastrians a convoy of food was prepared. This was pillaged by a mob of angry Yorkist fans as it attempted to pass out of the city via Newgate, and it appears the 'lower orders' rejected the official city policy and manned the defences. Margaret and her army - which it must be remembered included many Scots, to say nothing of Northerners - were not widely trusted.

On the face of it, Margaret could have overwhelmed the city by force of arms. However, it appears she had no siege equipment, while some of the Scots were already making their way home with their booty. There was also the little matter of the Yorkist army undefeated in their rear. It would have been extremely inconvenient to be trapped between the city defences and Edward of York.

It is not too hard, therefore, to understand why Margaret and her advisers chose to retreat to Yorkshire, though in some ways in was a missed opportunity. The strategic importance of holding London can scarcely be exaggerated. If the Lancastrians had taken possession of the city, it would have made Edward's next step much more complicated.

Warwick and the 2nd Battle of St Albans

2010-09-13T19:40:00.005+01:00

While Edward was thus occupied in the Marches, Warwick was faced with the task of defending London from the oncoming Lancastrian horde. Much has been written about Margaret of Anjou and her terrifying army of Northerners and Scots, and much of this is ultimately based on the comments of the Croyland Chronicler, whose mother was obviously scared by someone from Yorkshire. (Unfortunately my copy of the CC is out on loan so I can't quote it.) My feeling is that the general impression that this Lancastrian Army was a sort of cross between Atilla the Hun and the Waffen SS is exaggerated. But it was a medieval army, probably not outstandingly well disciplined and several towns including Stamford, Grantham, Peterborough and Royston are reported as having been pillaged.

Warwick was outnumbered. He had with him his brother, John Neville, Lord Montagu and the Duke of Norfolk. He also had Henry VI in the camp, and since Henry was of little value militarily this was almost certainly to demonstrate that the 'Yorkists' were actually the official 'Lancastrian' army, representing the lawful government - meaning that the other lot were rebels.

Margaret of Anjou would not have seen it that way. She was with her army and is often said to have commanded it; I suspect her role was actually political rather than military, setting the policy rather than deciding on tactics. With her, among others, were Somerset, Northumberland and Clifford, all these relatively young men keen to avenge the deaths of their fathers at the first St. Alban's.

Warwick took up a position blocking the road north of the town. He strengthed his position with various defensive devices such as calthrops - multi spiked pieces of metal designed to repel cavalry - and cannon and (in modern parlance) 'dug himself in'. He has been criticised for this, but it not unreasonable to fight defensively against a superior enemy and, it should be noted, it was very much in the English tradition to do so. Many victories against the Scots and French had been based on defensive tactics.

Warwick's troops were rather thinly spread over something like four miles, and communication was far from perfect. The earl himself either had insufficient intelligence as to the whereabouts of the enemy or he was confused by the reports coming in. These were the real roots of his difficulty.

Unfortunately for Warwick, Margaret arrived from an unexpected direction. Her army overwhelmed a small defence at Dunstable (led by a butcher and so probably a purely local arrangement) and then (moving by night) attacked the town of St. Alban's itself at dawn of 17 February 1461, thus getting behind Warwick's fixed position. Warwick had left a small garrison in the town, mainly archers. These put up a stubborn defence, especially considering they were isolated, and were not dealt with until noon.

Montagu, nearest to the scene, seems to have thought that the Lancastrians were merely mounting a diversion and was quite late to figure out this was a main attack. When the penny dropped he shifted his position and sent word to Warwick for support. In the interim he faced an attack by the main body led by Somerset and Trollope.

Warwick was slow to react, for whatever reason. Allegedly he had a traitor in his camp, one Lovelace, who gave bad counsel, but he himself may have been uncertain about what was going on and reluctant to abandon his carefully-prepared position. By the time he advanced to help Montagu, it was too late. He withdrew in good order in the falling darkness taking 4000 men with him. Whatever his errors, this feat alone should not be underestimated. (A total rout was more usual in such circumstances.)

Henry VI had supposedly been left in the care of Lord Bonville and Sir Thomas Kyriell. These men were executed along with a captain named Gower. On the other hand, Montagu's life was spared. It is alleged that the Prince of Wales ordered these deaths, but as he was only 7 he was clearly under instructions even if he did. It's also said that Henry wanted to spare Bonville and Kyriell but was over-ruled. Equally it's said Montagu was spared at Henry's request! Propaganda obviously plays its part here and the objective truth is anyone's guess.

This was a Lancastrian victory of some importance, and yet not nearly as complete as it looked. The advantage was soon to be lost.

Bosworth Sunday

2010-08-22T18:15:00.003+01:00

Most people will be aware that today, 22 August, is the Anniversary of Bosworth Field - or whatever it should be called given its relocation - where King Richard III met his end. Let us remember the brave of both sides.

I shall leave my analysis of the battle for a (much) later post.

Mortimer's Cross

2010-07-17T19:14:00.004+01:00

It always puzzles me why Edward continues to be known as Earl of March after his father's death. Surely he immediately became Duke of York, and Regent, as well as in effect becoming Prince of Wales?

Another interesting quibble is that although Mortimer's Cross is usually stated to be a York v Lancaster fixture, Edward, the Rose of Rouen, was technically the accredited representative of Henry VI's government at this point.

Anyway - no one is sure exactly where Mortimer's Cross was fought, although it was obviously somewhere around Mortimer's Cross. It was a relatively small contest, essentially a defence of England from a predominantly Welsh force led by Jasper Tudor (aka Uncle Jasper) Earl of Pembroke, Owen - or Owain - Tudor, his father, and the Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. The objective of the Tudor force - maybe for simplicity I should just go with the flow and call them Lancastrians - was undoubtedly to join up with Somerset's main army.

No one knows the details of what happened, except that Edward won, fairly decisively. Jasper Tudor and Wiltshire ran off and survived to fight another day but many of the other leading Lancastrians, including Owen Tudor, were taken off to Hereford and executed. A woman, generally described as mad, reportedly combed Owen's head, washed away the blood and lit over 100 candles around it. A point often missed is that she must have been a wealthy 'madwoman' as wax candles in this era did not come cheap.

Edward has been criticised for his ruthlessness, but the context must be borne in mind. He had recently lost his father, brother, uncle and cousin to Lancastrian violence and he undoubtedly wanted revenge. Although Warwick sometimes is seen as the more ruthless, Edward was no soft touch as he was later to prove on numerous occasions, not least in executing his own brother!

Edward and his army now moved east, with the intention of joining the Earl of Warwick and dealing with the main body of Lancastrians.

(I should mention that the battle is still re-enacted on a regular basis. See this link)

York rides North (and to his death)

2010-06-19T12:37:00.003+01:00

The threat posed by the Lancastrian peers in the north was too large to be ignored. In addition, Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke was organising resistance in Wales, and there were various rumours about Queen Margaret. (She had actually sailed from North Wales to Scotland to conclude an alliance with he Scots, one that involved the transfer of Berwick to Scotland. Contrary to Shakespeare, she was not at the Battle of Wakefield, any more than Richard of Gloucester (aged 3) was going around axing people at the first Battle of St. Alban's.

The Earl of March (soon to be Edward IV) was sent off to Shrewsbury to hold Pembroke in check. He was well placed to recruit from the (former) Mortimer lands and undoubtedly attracted support from a range of local gentlemen who feared what they perceived as a 'Welsh' invasion.

His father gathered a force from Kent and the Cinque ports, to which was added some followers from his own southern estates. On 2 December 1460 he left London accompanied by the Earl of Salisbury and his own second son, Edmund of Rutland.
Warwick remained in London to run the shop, no doubt assisted by his intellectual brother Bishop George, the Chancellor. The Yorkists were spread quite thinly, though, and neither York nor March was able to prevent the Earl of Devon moving up from his own country to join the Lancastrian forces in Yorkshire. As far as I can discern, they didn't even try.

York eventually arrived at Sandal on 21 December, having recruited some modest additional support from his supporters among the northern gentry. However he discovered (and he should not really have been that surprised) that his lands and those of the Nevilles in the area had been thoroughly spoiled and plundered by the enemy. He faced superior forces that were in control of Yorkshire and held (among other places) York itself and the powerful stronghold of Pontefract.

To make matters worse he was short of supplies and Sandal had not been stocked against his arrival. It is hard to deny that York seriously underestimated the opposition and made a strategic blunder by attempting to take them on with such a meagre force. (Hindsight makes for great commanders, but it might have been better to take out Devon on his route north, join with March and the Mortimer tenants to settle Pembroke and then attack the main Lancastrian force.)

York was under effective siege at Sandal. There are various accounts of how he was tempted out, and it is sometimes claimed he had negotiated a truce with the Lancastrians, which Somerset broke. In any event, given that he had a supply problem, it's hard to see how he could simply have sat in Sandal indefinitely.

What can be said for sure is that York made a sortie on 30 December and was comprehensively defeated. He and Rutland were killed in the battle and Salisbury, taken alive, was executed at Pontefract next day. (He was unpopular in the area.) Another important casualty was Salisbury's son, Sir Thomas Neville.

It has been suggested that John, Lord Neville of Raby (Exeter's brother-in-law) changed sides at Wakefield, appearing as a reinforcement for York then turning on the duke in the battle. This cannot be ruled out, and might explain York's emergence from the castle. However it is also possible that Neville's colours and badges were mistaken for other Neville reinforcement, perhaps even Warwick. We cannot know, though we can have as many theories as we like. If John Neville was a traitor, he soon paid the price, being one of very many killed at Towton a few weeks later.

The Act of Settlement

2010-06-05T13:37:00.005+01:00

First of all, an apology to Elizabeth. I tried to publish your comment, but somehow the system lost it. If you want to make your point again, please do, and I will have another go at making it visible.

On 25 October 1460 the peers, speaking through the Chancellor, George Neville (Warwick's brother if anyone is in doubt) offered a compromise. Henry was to remain King until death, unless he chose to abdicate. However, the succession would go to York.

Henry, perhaps surprisingly, accepted this arrangement. Bertram Wolffe in his Henry VI suggests that the King may have been influenced by the Legate, Coppini. On the other hand he may simply have been influenced by his own taste for peace and a quiet life.

York and Edward, Earl of March renewed their oaths of allegiance and Henry bound himself by indenture to keep the arrangement. The succession statute of 1406 was repealed and York was endowed with the titles and inheritance of the heir and protected by the treason statute. Royal officers were commanded to give York the same obedience as Henry himself, and York effectively became Protector.

There was one very large and very obvious fly in this ointment. The same Act that gave lands and titles to York took them away from Prince Edward of Lancaster, and his mother and the many important peers who supported her were not willing to accept that, law or no law. The moment they resisted York they were technically rebels, but what choice did they have? No specific provision had been made for Prince Edward, not even the right to inherit the duchy of Lancaster. The Queen and her supporters faced political oblivion at best - it was inevitable that they would fight.

Richard Duke of York claims the throne

2010-06-05T11:11:00.004+01:00

Richard, Duke of York arrived at Westminster from Barnet on 10 October 1460. The Commons had just elected their Speaker, and the new Parliament was all ready to go.

York (now, as you will recall, displaying the undifferenced arms of England, not those of Edmund of Langley) had a reported 800 mounted followers with him, a useful but by no means overwhelming armed force. At ten o'clock in the morning he entered the palace with his sword borne upright before him. Entering the parliament chamber he stood by the throne, laid his hand upon it - a la mode Bolingbroke - and apparently expected to be acclaimed King. Instead he was met with a bewildered silence.

The situation was not as it had been in 1399. Perhaps most importantly of all, York was not in command of an unchallengeable army - his own followers were relatively few and he was heavily dependent on the Nevilles, who were allies rather than dependents. In addition, although Henry VI's government was shambolic and unpopular, the lords and gentry were generally not hostile to Henry himself. Indeed there was a strong sense of personal loyalty to the King.

There was now a political crisis. York occupied the King's apartments - Henry for some reason having taken up his lodgings in Queen Margaret's suite - and squatted there like a man who was not to be moved. Frantic negotiations began behind the scenes.

It must be remembered that while all this was going on Queen Margaret and the lords of her faction were far away in the north country, undefeated and ready to take military action when the time was right.

On 16 October York's legal counsel formally submitted his claim to the peers. His claim was on the basis of superior hereditary right to that of Henry VI. As far as it went, this was unanswerable, providing inheritance through the female line was accepted. (Given that this was the basis of England's claim to France, well...)

The lords referred the matter to Henry himself, who ordered them to find means to oppose it. The question was then sent to the judges, who said it was too high a matter for them to rule upon. So the Kings sergeants (barristers) and attorney were tried next. They said that if it was too high a question for the judges it was certainly too high for them.

The lords eventually wheeled out the following objections:

1. Their oaths of loyalty to Henry VI.
2. Henry IV's succession statute.
3. York's use of Langley's arms - as opposed to those of Clarence, one supposes.
4. The mass of general legislation passed under the three Henries.
5. The Crouchback legend. (Interesting, given that Ian Mortimer seems to think that Henry IV never seriously invoked it.)

York brushed all this aside, as well he might. It was, he said, irrelevant in the face of his claim by the divine right of inheritance. The fact he had let his claim lie all these years by no means invalidated it.

Everyone went away to think again.

Richard Duke of York comes home

2010-05-04T17:22:00.005+01:00

York landed near Chester about 9 September 1460. (By this time the River Dee had silted up and it was often necessary for large vessels to tie up at places on the Wirral, for example Redbank.)

He is known to have been at Chester on 13 September and then moved via Shrewsbury to Ludlow. He was in no particular haste. For one thing he needed to reassure his many tenants in the area that he was back in business to protect them and avenge their wrongs. (They had certainly had a hard time of it since his hasty departure from Ludlow.) Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, was a potent threat in North Wales, based in what had been York's own castle at Denbigh, and the Duke was doubtless well aware of this threat to his flank. He started recruiting additions to his retinue as soon as he landed, probably glad of every extra sword.

Some authorities believe that York renounced his allegiance to Henry VI at Chester, and began displaying the undifferenced arms of England, an effective claim to kingship. (The arms of Edmund of Langley, which he had used up to this point, were only superficially different, but that subtle difference had massive implications.) It is known for a fact that by the time he reached Gloucester (2 October) he was issuing retaining indentures without the usual saving reference of loyalty to King Henry.

By 17 September news of York's landing had reached London and on 23 September Duchess Cecily set out to meet her husband. (She had been under the supervision of the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham - the Duchess being her sister, Anne - but the supervision does not seem to have been restrictive.) In addition Warwick (already in the Midlands) rode to meet York at Shrewsbury and stayed with him for four days. It is unlikely that they used this time to discuss the price of fish. Warwick then went directly to London. York went on to Ludlow and spent several more days in the Marches before heading for the capital himself.

It is sometimes suggested that York's claim to the throne was a big shock to Warwick and the rest of the Yorkist Party, and that they all stood back in amazement as York did his imitation of a bull in a china shop. This really cannot be true. I suspect that the political wind was in a different direction to the one they had imagined, and that Warwick was quicker in trimming his sails to it. It is of course also possible that during their discussions at Shrewsbury the two men disagreed as to the way forward, and they parted still in disagreement; but it's beyond belief that Warwick was unaware of York's intention to claim the throne.

A New Government is Formed

2010-04-30T17:47:00.016+01:00

Although King Henry was in Yorkist hands, Margaret of Anjou and Prince Edward were still inconveniently at large, and were (eventually) to form a focus of Lancastrian opposition, thus becoming even more inconvenient. The Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde had fled from Nothampton, as had Bishop Wayneflete and Bishop Booth. Somerset was still besieged in Guisnes and Northumberland was in the north. Devon (at one time a Yorkist but now firmly Lancastrian) was in his own shire.

It was necessary to form a new government and it was more or less as narrowly based as the last Yorkist administration, heavily reliant on Nevilles and Bourchiers. George Neville (Warwick's brother) became Chancellor. Viscount Bourchier (York's brother-in-law) was made Treasurer.A certain Robert Stillington was made Keeper of the Privy Seal. Parliament was summoned with a view to achieving a new settlement, Richard Duke of York naturally receiving a summons even though technically still under attainder.

The Tower (18 July) was taken. It was on this occasion that for some reason Warwick had certain members of Exeter's household executed, though most of the garrison - including Scales - were allowed to toddle off where they would. Scales was subsequently murdered by a mob, but this was not Warwick's fault.

Most of Henry's jewels and ready cash had been stolen during July, so the government was even more penniless than usual. Warwick negotiated the surrender of Guisnes - which involved letting Somerset go free but at least secured Calais and thus London's trade with the continent. However the regime remained weak pretty much everywhere outside the South East and its control over the far West, the North and most of Wales was more nominal than actual.

The House of Stewart Takes Sides

2010-04-30T12:46:00.002+01:00

The following post is by Stephen Lark, and all credit belongs to him. Thanks for the contribution, Stephen!

Three weeks after Northampton, a Scottish army gathered in the grounds of Roxburgh Castle, determined to add to Lancastrian woes. The castle had been in English hands almost continuously since Edward I’s time, although it was not in good condition. James I had attempted to take it on several occasions but his assassination in 1437 halted the strategy due to the minority of his son.

James II came of age at the end of the following decade and determined to recapture Roxburgh and other Border castles. Henry VI’s difficulties aided James in this as his armies took Abercorn and Threave in 1455, formerly held by the Earls of Douglas. James’ character was passionate – hinted at by a prominent facial birthmark and an interest in guns. 1457 saw him order “Mons Meg”, a particularly large cannon.

James’ army lay siege to Roxburgh as July 1460 gave way to August. “Mons Meg” had already misfired once, killing its skilled French gunner but it was repaired as the English army remained inside the castle. On August 3, James took the decision to test-fire his cannon again – Neil Oliver suggests that this was a grand romantic gesture for his queen, Marie of Guelders – with fatal effects. The cannon shattered, a shard severed James’ leg, he died almost instantaneously - and the garrison surrendered.

Roxburgh Castle was soon demolished and a wooden structure added to the site in the 1540s, but not for long. A “James II Holly” marks the spot where a Scottish King died, at his moment of long-planned triumph, in the grounds of the C18 Floors Castle, still the home of the Dukes of Roxburghe. Kelso lies to the east - James III was crowned a week later at its Abbey, his mother serving as Regent until her death in 1463. Either side of the site are the Teviot and Tweed. “Mons Meg”, reconstructed again, sits in Edinburgh Castle.

2010 marks the 550^th anniversary of the end of the siege – and August 2 will be a Bank Holiday in Scotland.

Northampton

2010-04-30T11:41:00.006+01:00

The Lancastrian army was drawn up in the grounds of Delapre Abbey behind a prepared defence of ditch and palisade and on the face of it was in a very strong position. On the other hand they had the River Nene at their back, less than an ideal tactical situation. Presumably they were confident their defences were likely to withstand the Yorkist attack because no sensible person wants to retreat across a river in the immediate aftermath of a defeat.

The morning of 10 July was spent in fruitless negotiation. Warwick kept finding ways to ask for an interview with Henry VI and Buckingham (Lord Constable and Henry's military commander) kept finding ways of saying 'no.' Whether discussion would have achieved anything is questionable, but maybe the Lancastrian leaders feared that Henry would settle for some compromise and were confident of victory.

It is one of the curiousities of the Wars of the Roses that the side that attacked boldly tended to win over the one holding a defensive line. At two o' clock in the afternoon the Yorkists went forward in heavy rain - well, it was England in July! The Lancastrian cannons did not appreciate the weather and worked poorly and it may be that the archers' effectiveness was also reduced, as bow-strings were very vulnerable to water. (Archers usually hid their strings under their hats if marching in wet weather.)

However the key factor was the decision of Lord Grey de Ruthin, on the Lancastrian flank, to change sides. It is highly unlikely that this was a spur of the moment decision, although how exactly the defection was arranged is unknown. (I can only assure you that Alianore Audley was not involved.)

Anyway, instead of fighting Grey's men assisted the Yorkists over the ditch and stakes, and then joined them. The Lancastrian flank was thus cruelly exposed and rolled up. Within half an hour the battle was over.

Acting on orders, the Yorkist soldiers were particularly keen to hunt down and kill the enemy nobles, knights and gentlemen, while disregarding the escaping common soldiers. Buckingham, Shrewsbury, Egremont and Beaumont were all killed. Henry VI was captured in his tent and treated with due respect.

(Grey de Ruthin's grandfather, as readers of Within the Fetterlock will recall, was a strong supporter of Bolingbroke, and his mother, Constance Holland, was Henry IV's niece. It is perhaps surprising that a peer with such an impeccable Lancastrian background should defect, but he became a staunch Yorkist and was created Earl of Kent by Edward IV in 1465. He outlived the Yorkist dynasty, surviving until 1490.)

Warwick's Invasion of England

2010-04-26T16:03:00.002+01:00

It is sometimes said that England has never been successfully invaded since 1066. This is of course complete cobblers - Warwick's successful invasion of June 1460 was neither the first since that date nor the last.

Nevertheless the invasion of England is not an easy task and requires command of the sea, which Warwick possessed. He has often been criticised for his military shortcomings but he was a very able admiral and popular with his sailors, many of whom had defected from Henry VI's forces to join him.

The Yorkists published a manifesto from Calais which was a pretty standard late medieval proposal of rebellion, promising loyalty to the King but attacking his advisers especially, in this case, Shrewsbury, Wiltshire and Beaumont. (The Queen and Prince were not mentioned; more surprisingly nor were Exeter and Pembroke.)

Lord Fauconberg (Warwick's uncle) led an advance party to secure a bridgehead at Sandwich, and on 26 June Warwick, Salisbury and March landed there, accompanied by the Papal Legate, Francesco Coppini, who was accredited to Henry VI. They were received by no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier, later to crown Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII in his long career. They recruited heavily in Kent, a strong area of Yorkist (and more particularly Neville) support. London fell to them on 2 July without resistance, although the Tower held out under Lord Scales.

The Yorkists had already given Coppini a written pledge of their loyalty to Henry VI, and given the Kentishmen/Men of Kent the same line. Warwick now swore a public oath of loyalty at St. Paul's, although he used the occasion to set out their principal grievances once more. It is likely that the Londoners were sympathetic, but they would also have been keen that the Kentish Brigade should not get out of hand (as they had at the time of Cade's Rebellion, 1450) and the leadership at least probably feared to burn all their bridges with Henry VI. The oath was politically convenient all round.

Salisbury remained in London to conduct a siege of the Tower, but Warwick, March and the bulk of the army marched north. A very considerable royal army was in the field to meet them and on 10 July the forces met at Northampton.

Richard, Duke of York in Ireland

2010-04-05T17:36:00.002+01:00

I am no expert on Ireland in the Middle Ages, but I am doing my best here. Essentially there were three main groups: 1. The English - these people were new or relatively new immigrants, thought of themselves as English and tended to live in the area round Dublin (the Pale) where the English government had some sort of control. 2. The Anglo-Irish - this group included some very powerful families who controlled large chunks of Ireland. They were of English (or Norman) descent but did not necessarily have much regard for the English government. Some of the families were in a state of semi-permanent feud with one another. 3. The Gaelic or 'Old' Irish. Mainly descended from the indigenous population they generally had no regard for the English government at all, except when under duress. Warriors had particularly high status among this group and they often fought among themselves, as well as with the other sectors.

Elements of all these groups formed temporary alliances with one another as it suited them, and the hold of the English government was actually quite tenuous. Few English kings showed any interest in Ireland - Richard II was a very rare exception - and it was no longer even a source of net revenue.

That Richard, Duke of York, was a successful Lieutenant of Ireland is in some ways surprising. He was an aristocrat to his finger tips, and not generally noted for his people skills. If he had strengths they lay in his relative honesty and relative efficiency as an administrator and soldier. York failed miserably the unite the English nobility behind him, and yet he seems to have been well-regarded in Ireland. (In contrast to John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, who was positively hated in the same role.)

York had spent several years in Ireland, and it seems his political skills came to the fore, particularly in his relationships with the great Anglo-Irish families, without whom it was impossible for him to function effectively as Lieutenant. He was also generally successful in the field against the Gaelic Irish, which strengthened his position, and after his flight from England he encouraged or allowed the Irish Parliament to pass legislation which left the country almost, but not quite independent, Henry VI's sovereignty being reduced to little more than a cipher. It was even declared that the introduction of English Privy Seal Letters into Ireland was a breach of the country's liberties. In return the Parliament voted York men and money, and rejected Henry VI's attempts to remove York from office. The duke was not quite King of Ireland, but he was something very close.

In March 1460 Warwick left Calais with a fleet of twenty-six ships and sailed to Waterford to consult with his party leader. The conference quickly moved to Dublin, where an attempt was made to produce a strategy for the invasion of England. The intention was for the landings to be co-ordinated, Warwick in Kent, York in the north. However, for whatever reason, York was delayed, and by the time he arrived home the fighting was over - for the time being.

The next post will deal with Warwick's successful campaign.

A Note on the Attainders

2010-03-30T14:39:00.003+01:00

Bertram Wolfe in Henry VI points out that the attainders included entailed lands. This was, he says 'in gross violation of the currently accepted practice of English common law that entails were sacrosanct, even against treason, a convention ominously last flouted by the tyrannous Richard II in 1398.'

Well, it was 1397, actually. And, like many critics of Richard II, Wolfe ignores the fact that the proceedings of 1397 deliberately mirrored the harsh treatment of Richard's friends by the Appellants in 1388. So it was the Appellants who were 'tyrannous'.

Anyway, the seizure of entailed lands was harsh. But the treatment of the womenfolk was generous and the Yorkist lords only had to 'humbly submit' to be guaranteed pardon. So I'll leave it to you out there to decide for yourself whether the treatment was 'tyrannous' or not.

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch...

2010-03-22T12:25:00.004Z

A Parliament was held at Coventry (November 1459) and the leading Yorkists (and eventually some lesser ones) were attainted. One attainder passed was against Alice, Countess of Salisbury. Now don't run this past your history professor without checking but I believe she was the first woman ever to be attainted, so we may see this Parliament as one of the steps on the long road to gender equality.

Alice had considerable property in her own right - she was heiress of her family, the Montagus or Montacutes or whatever you wish to spell them as. This may have been the reason for attainder, but then again the Countess of Warwick was substantially richer in her own right and she was not attainted. So maybe, just maybe, Alice was a political animal and really involved in Yorkist conspiracy. Or maybe Margaret of Anjou just plain didn't like her.

Unusually the attainders included a clause promising pardon for humble submission, and one is left wondering what would have happened if York and Co. had humbly submitted. The jointures of wives were protected and Duchess Cecily (or Cecille if you prefer her own version) who had no jointure received 1000 marks a year. This was relatively generous and certainly more so than similar arrangements in the Yorkist and Tudor eras.

The forfeited estates were not dismembered, but some parts of them were granted out on lease to various Lancastrian supporters. These included the Duke of Exeter, the Duchess of Somerset, the earls of Wiltshire and Pembroke, and Lords Dudley and Egremont. There was resistance to the forfeitures, particularly in the Welsh Marches where certain castles, including Denbigh (prop. R. York), were held against the Government forces.

Another good centre of resistance was York's town of Newbury. In June 1460 Wiltshire, with Lords Scales and Hungerford, visited in the role of justices of oyer and terminer in response to a revolt against taxation. Several local men were hanged while seventy-five others were imprisoned in Wallingford Castle.

This made for good propaganda, and Warwick (in particular) was just the man to use it.

Audley Family

2010-03-20T11:05:00.003Z

Recent discussion about this family reminded me that there is a very useful Audley Family History Site out there for anyone who is interested.

They were, among other things, a good example of a family divided by the Wars of the Roses.

Escape Abroad

2010-03-19T14:50:00.005Z

Richard, Duke of York and Edmund, Earl of Rutland escaped to Ireland, where York was remarkably popular by the standards of English Lords Lieutenants. More about Ireland in a later post.

Meanwhile Warwick, Salisbury and Edward, Earl of March (soon to be better known as Edward IV) made their way to Calais. They did not go directly to Calais, nor did they collect their £200. No, it appears they originally planned to go to Ireland too, but somehow found their way to the Channel Islands. To what extent this was a matter of navigation as opposed to a matter of prevailing winds - given that there were no steamships back then - I cannot say. One account has them going by way of Devon, which makes a certain sense, but how exactly they got to Devon is not clear.

By 2 November Warwick was in Calais, and in command of it. This tends to get taken for granted, but when you recall that a substantial chunk of the Calais garrison had deserted him at Ludlow Warwick must have arrived there in some doubt as to his reception.

Somerset had been appointed Captain of Calais in Warwick's room, but when he arrived there he was not admitted. He did manage to capture the fortress of Guines in the Calais March, but was promptly besieged in it. Since Warwick's fleet controlled the Channel it proved impossible to reinforce or supply Somerset and eventually (August 1460) the young duke was forced to capitulate.

Warwick's command of the seas was such that in January 1460 he was able to launch a pre-emptive assault on the town of Sandwich, under the command of Sir John Dynham. A Lancastrian force was based here to discourage a Yorkist invasion but its leaders, Richard, Lord Rivers, his son Anthony Woodville, and Lord Audley were captured and taken across to Calais. Here the Woodvilles were reportedly abused by Warwick and March on account of their 'low' origins and thrown into prison. I suppose they were lucky not to have their heads cut off. Audley - this is John Touchet, Lord Audley*, son of the Audley killed at Blore Heath - may have received kinder treatment. Anyway, he decided he was now a Yorkist.

Some may question whether the Woodvilles were low-born, given that Anthony's mother, Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford had a very impressive continental pedigree and was (under the Lancastrian dispensation) second-ranking lady after the Queen. The point is they were perceived as being low-born and jumped-up by Warwick and those who thought as he did. Richard Woodville had been born a squire and his wife's fancy foreign relations, to a 15th Century English mind, did not count for a hill of beans. Woodville had been 'made by marriage'.

The fact that Warwick, Salisbury and even York's father had been 'made by marriage' was neither here nor there. They belonged to 'good' English families you see, and their fathers had all been earls.

* Familiar to some of you as Alianore's kindly elder brother in The Adventures of Alianore Audley.

Ludlow

2010-03-16T14:41:00.003Z

A Parliament had been summoned, (to meet at Coventry in November) to which the Yorkist lords were not invited. This in itself suggests it was intended to attaint them there.

There was now a period of what might be called negotiation. The Yorkist lords rejected pardons - because they did not see themselves of having offended - but on the other hand they took a solemn oath in front of Garter King of Arms at the high altar of Worcester Cathedral that they were loyal to the King. They also sent a letter to the King via Garter that explained their position. In a nutshell they argued that Henry's supporters were incompetent and wanted to seize their lands and offices. Therefore they were not able to come into the King's presence except under the protection of an armed force.

From their point of view this attitude was understandable, but it did not cut much ice with Henry and would have allowed their opponents (the Queen, Somerset et. al.) to cast serious doubt on their good faith.

From Worcester they moved to Tewkesbury (very much on Warwick's Beauchamp/Despenser territory) but then retreated to Ludlow. The pattern of movement suggests they were trying to break out - perhaps to the London/Kent area where they had significant support - but found themselves outmanoeuvred by the Lancastrian forces.

The strategy was presumably to negotiate from behind strong defences, or if necessary fight. However the position of the Yorkists was quite desperate, and the King was marching against them with a very substantial army. Resistance was treason, at least if they were defeated. Defeat was quite likely, given the odds against, and, although the leadership allegedly made rallying speeches, there was an undoubted collapse of morale.

The King had offered a general pardon, still in force at this point (October 1459) and many of the Yorkist rank-and-file decided to defect and accept it. The best known of these is Sir Andrew Trollope who took with him most, if not all, of Warwick's force from the Calais garrison. However it appears other soldiers may have gone as well. This was not heroic behaviour, but it was understandable in the circumstances.

The position at Ludlow was now untenable, and York, his two elder sons the earls of March and Rutland), Salisbury and Warwick slipped out of the back door and into Wales, leaving Duchess Cecily with her younger sons (George and Richard) and any daughters who were at home (Margaret?) to stand famously at the market cross of Ludlow and beg for mercy and protection. This was granted to them but the town, not being noble, was sacked. Many other prominent Yorkist supporters (including the future William, Lord Hastings) were granted pardon, though in some cases this was for life only in the first instance.

Things come to a head...

2010-03-10T18:07:00.002Z

First an apology for the increasingly intermittent nature of these posts. I have simply been finding other things to do. I do actually have a life away from the 15th century, hard though some may find that to believe.

Queen Margaret and her faction remained suspicious of York and his, and doubtless the feeling was mutual. What seems to have troubled the Queen most was Warwick's entrenched position in Calais. Winkling him and his supporters out of there would be no small task. It was a fortress, and a naval expedition against such a place was fraught with hazard, to say nothing of expense.

At a Great Council held in Coventry in June 1459, it appears York, the Nevilles and their leading supporters were arraigned on unspecified charges. Sorry to be so vague, but the only account of this is in Benet's Chronicle. In response to this (or if Benet's Chronicle is wrong, in response to something) York and his allies decided to concentrate their forces, at this time split between Calais, the Welsh Marches and Yorkshire.

Warwick, having landed from Calais and persuaded the Londoners to admit him (no great challenge given that they were pro-York) headed for Warwick (the place) but was tracked by Somerset and forced to avoid 'home' and go directly to Ludlow, where York was based. Warwick's father, Salisbury, marched down from Yorkshire and was confronted by Lord Audley and a Lancastrian army (much of it comprising the men of Cheshire) at Blore Heath. There was fierce fighting and although Audley was ultimately defeated it was at some cost to the Yorkists. For example, Warwick's brothers, Thomas and John Neville - the latter eventually Marquis Montagu - were captured near Acton Bridge, Cheshire, presumably trying to find their way around the enemy or maybe even trying to escape north.

The bulk of Salisbury's army moved on to Ludlow, and the Yorkist concentration was complete.

James, Lord Audley, killed at Blore Heath married (as his second wife) a daughter of no less a person than Constance of York. By his two wives he had many children and is the ancestor of legions of people. His eldest son, John, (by his first wife) converted to the Yorkist cause and was a staunch supporter of Edward IV and, to a lesser extent, Richard III. On the other hand at least one of his younger sons, Sir Humphrey, was a strong Lancastrian and died for the cause at Tewkesbury.

The Stanley family's behaviour at Blore Heath was 'typical'. Sir William Stanley fought in Salisbury's army. His elder brother, Thomas, Lord Stanley, was nominally part of Audley's army but in fact stood off, indeed was not even at the battle. For this he was accused of treason (against the Lancastrians) but, needless to say, he got off!!!!

'Loveday'

2010-01-19T14:14:00.003Z

On the face of it, the main bone of contention between Yorkists and Lancastrians (if we can use these convenient labels, because labels are all they are) was the death of many prominent Lancastrian nobles at St. Albans. As will be seen from the last post most of the Lancastrian leaders were sons of these men. The knightly class were not brought up to suffer such events with Christ-like patience and forbearance. Indeed they were taught to resent the most trivial offence against their honour and avenge it with violence.

King Henry VI seems to have believed that if he could somehow pacify the resentments over the events of St Albans he could resolve the whole issue and achieve peace. This was a commendable attempt on Henry's part, but it overlooked the underlying political issues that had led up to the present circumstances. The King was probably too optimistic is believing that anything short of death could make the individuals 'forgive and forget'.

A Great Council was arranged for Westminster on 27 January 1458. York lodged in London and the Lancastrians, some of whom did not appear until well into February, outside. At an early stage there was an unsuccesful attempt to ambush York and Salisbury as they rode to Westminster, and the King withdrew, first to Chertsey, then to Berkhampstead. The distance may have been intended to show impartiality, but Henry did receive Somerset, Exeter, Clifford and Egremont on 23 February.

On 9 March there was a failed attempt to ambush Warwick on his way to Westminster. (These Lancastrians seem to have little imagination for new tactics and little skill in undertaking ambushes.)

On 16 March Henry returned to Westminster and led a public procession for peace. He then instructed the Archbishop of Canterbury to act as go-between, the good prelate meeting the Yorkists at Blackfriars in the mornings and Somerset and Co. at Whitefriars in the afternoons. By 23 March an agreement had been patched and financial bonds entered into by the parties.

The agreement provided for cash recompense for the bereaved (noble) families of St. Albans plus the setting-up of chantries for the dead paid for by the York/Neville faction. However, as the payments were to be in tallies and as York was granted various financial arrangements for the reduction of the arrears owed to him by Henry, it was not quite as one-sided an agreement as at first appears.

A service of thanksgiving was held at St Paul's from which York emerged hand in hand with the Queen, Warwick with Somerset, and so on and so forth. One can only imagine what thought bubbles a medieval Private Eye would have set above the procession.

Henry probably thought he had achieved peace, but he was soon to be sharply disillusioned.

The Lancastrian Leadership

2010-01-09T16:15:00.004Z

I was almost tempted to put 'leadership' in quotes but that would look like blatant author bias. However some of these guys were ultimately more useful to the Yorkists than they were to Margaret.

Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (1436-1464)

This youngish man, son of the Somerset killed at St. Albans, was one of Margaret's better bargains, comparatively skilled in military and political matters. He had two younger brothers, Edmund and John, both of whom were eventually to die for the cause. His problems were his relative lack of land (as discussed in previous posts) and his limited experience. His advantages included a wide range of family connections, notably to the Earl of Shrewsbury and the rest of the Talbot clan. These links were by no means to be sniffed at.

Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (1421-1461)

Northumberland's father had also been killed at St.Albans. He seems to have been rather mediocre as leader of his family and had scant control over his younger brothers - though, admittedly, nor had his father before him. He had enormous influence in the north, but very little in the south, where it was perhaps more important. He was hampered by enormous debts run up during his father's time, not least as a result of the Percy/Neville feud which his younger brothers had inflamed.

Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter (1430-1475)

I have mentioned Exeter in an earlier post. Suffice it to say that even the Lancastrians had good reasons for doubting him and not all the time he spent in the Tower was at York's behest. He was very good at quarrelling with people though. He even tried to claim the duchy of Lancaster for himself which, given that Henry VI and his son were alive at the time, was the next thing to treason.

James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde (1420-1461)

Alleged by some to be the Queen's lover, Wiltshire seems to have been singled out for particular hatred by the Yorkists. He was high in favour under the Lancastrian regime and related to Somerset by marriage. His Wiltshire title was new (1449) but he was 5th Earl of Ormond with considerable lands and influence in Ireland. This may have been a factor in his getting across York and York's powerful Irish faction.

Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont (1422-1460)

Irresponsible and violent by nature, the kindest thing that can be said about Egremont is that he was probably a good chap to have next to you in a fight. He was Northumberland's younger brother. He was a leading light in the Percy-Neville feud that preceded his father's death at St Albans. He involved himself in Exeter's witless quarrels and for a time was locked up in London. Needless to say he escaped and eventually became one of Margaret's military supporters.

John, Lord Clifford (1435-1461) aka 'Butcher' Clifford.

He is famed for killing Edmund, Earl of Rutland after the Battle of Wakefield, apparently in revenge for his own father's death at St. Albans. Clifford was a ferocious fighter and quite prominent in Margaret's counsels. His killing of Rutland arguably stepped up the bitterness of the conflict and helps account for Edward IV's pretty ruthless killing spree after Towton. On the other hand, it was no worse than some of the other events of these wars and Rutland was no less a combatant than say the Lancastrian Prince of Wales at Tewkesbury.

Sent to Coventry...

2010-01-08T16:16:00.007Z

In case I did not spell it out sufficiently, it was no longer deemed practicable for the King (or rather Margaret) to rule from Westminster as London was too volatile and pro-Yorkist. This is a remarkable indictment of the Lancastrian government in itself. OK, it was commonplace in the middle ages for the court to go on progress, but generally they didn't go that far from the Thames Valley and they always ended up back in the environs of London.

One or two kings (Richard II springs to mind) got sufficiently cheesed off with the Londoners to punish them by temporarily moving the effective capital elsewhere (York in his case) for a time, but for a government to be effectively driven out is a horse of another colour.

For the Lancastrians the West Midlands had its attractions. They had a lot of property in the area, including a large and powerful castle at Kenilworth, and this added up to the potential of armed support. Coventry was deemed a loyal city, and councils were held there instead of at Westminster.

It was really now only a matter of time before armed hostilities broke out. On 5 November Exeter, Somerset and Shrewsbury attempted to ambush Warwick on his way to London and on 1 December, in Coventry itself, York was attacked by Somerset. Warwick and York survived but (given that the government was now in the Queen's hands) they can hardly be blamed if they felt uneasy and looked for ways to defend themselves.

There was a Great Council held at Coventry in 1457. Records of it are lost but it appears some attempt was made to pin the Herbert-Devereux disturbances on York. The peers were evidently not convinced. York was granted an annuity of £40, supposedly to recompense him for the loss of three Welsh Castles to Jasper Tudor, and his patent as Lieutenant of Ireland was renewed. In the summer he was also granted, among other things, the right to hold a market at Fotheringhay.

Margaret of Anjou redux

2010-01-08T15:34:00.002Z

One or two people have told me that they disagree with my analysis of Margaret and that her son was a bastard. Fair enough, they're entitled to their opinion, and barring the exhumation of his body and a spot of scientific analysis no one can be sure. By the way, according to W.E. Hampton his body could not be found in its supposed location at Tewkesbury and may be in the common pit.

For myself I've come around to the quite radical position on Margaret - that she was more sinned against than sinning. And that even if she did do some naughty things, she certainly paid for them, in her lifetime.

I have got a whole hill of Yorkist-era books for Christmas and am still trying to digest them. Some of them are as difficult to get down as week-old turkey I'm afraid.

And I,--like one lost in a thorny wood,
That rends the thorns and is rent with the thorns,
Seeking a way and straying from the way;
Not knowing how to find the open air,

If you get the picture...

Disorder and Margaret of Anjou

2009-11-10T15:29:00.005Z

When reading about this era, what strikes me is the utter lawlessness, and the lack of responsibility demonstrated by most of the nobility, including York. The attitude was almost 'My violence is good violence - yours is deplorable.'

King Henry was still nominally ruling the country, but his efforts were so feeble that one wonders about his health. OK, he had never been an outstanding ruler, but for quite a time he had made a fair fist of the job. Now he seems to be laid back almost to the point of being horizontal.

As mentioned in the last post, Margaret of Anjou was coming increasingly to the fore. As Helen Maurer points out in her outstanding work on the Queen, Margaret did not take up this role until events pretty much forced her to do so. Once she did, however, she triggered a long-standing hostility against female rule that was deeply rooted in English culture. (OK, yes I know about the various powerful women who ruled as dowagers over their estates, or who influenced their husbands and so on, but rule of the state was another matter.)

Margaret has been vilified as a monster for too long. That the men of the time often exhibited sexist attitudes is no real wonder; modern historians have less excuse.

The Queen had little option in the circumstances but to try to influence events. Some of her actions were undoubtedly ill-advised, and she became quite blatantly partisan, instead of sticking to the mediating role that was traditional for queens - and indeed other noblewomen. However she gets a fair bit of blame for things she did not do, and a lot of the hostility generated against her was not so much based on what she did, but on the fact she was a woman doing it.

From her point of view she had a position and a son to protect, and the Duke of York must have looked like a real threat to both. She would have been well aware of his superior hereditary claim to the throne and his widespread support among the people. Given that she obviously distrusted York her hostility to him is understandable.

The problem for the Lancastrian side was that Margaret's strong involvement was a propaganda bonus for the Yorkists, for the plain fact was that a fair proportion of the 'electorate' did not like a 'grete and stronge laboured woman' ruling the country and were only too open to anything that might be said against her. The Yorkists did not call her a witch, but they used the next-favourite weapon in the tool kit for dealing with over-mighty females. They began to question the legitimacy of her son. The rumour went out that the dead Somerset was the real father of the Prince of Wales.

It will remembered that at the time of the Prince's birth Henry had been 'out of it' with mental illness, and his subsequent reaction to the knowledge he had a son was one of bewilderment. This doubtless added flavour to the rumours, but despite Henry's oddities there is no real reason to suppose the Prince was illegitimate. Queens were heavily attended, and for them to commit adultery took some ingenuity. The complicity of a third party would almost certainly have been involved, but no one ever came forward to offer evidence, even in the years after 1461 when such evidence would surely have been richly rewarded.

More chaos

2009-11-09T13:46:00.005Z

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

2009-11-09T09:41:00.002Z

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

2009-10-11T13:52:00.004+01:00

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

2009-10-09T10:28:00.002+01:00

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

2009-09-16T13:04:00.002+01:00

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

2009-09-10T10:40:00.002+01:00

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

2009-09-01T17:11:00.003+01:00

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?

Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (d1397)

2009-08-14T12:43:00.002+01:00

Just a short post to draw attention to an interesting post on Woodstock on the Plantagenet Dynasty blog.

Woodstock clearly fancied himself as a great warrior, but when he had the chance to prove himself in command of military expeditions he showed himself to be mediocre at best.

Book review - Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England

2009-08-13T17:44:00.002+01:00

Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England by Philippe Erlanger. (Published 1970)

(I gave this book two stars on Goodreads.)

This is not the best book written about Margaret of Anjou (check out Helen Maurer's work) but it is useful. The author is French (as I would have guessed even if his name had been Fred Bloggs) and it is his knowledge of the French aspects of Margaret's life that make this book of interest as these very aspects tend to be neglected by English/Anglophone authors and are yet (obviously) important.

On the other hand, when reading about English events in this work please check carefully against other sources. I found factual errors, most notably the presence of Margaret at the Battle of Wakefield, where she very definitely wasn't. There's odd things like Hastings being described as a kinsman of Earl Rivers. (He probably was, in some degree, but I doubt he boasted about it and it certainly wasn't his main selling point.) There were also bits of chronology that made me go - eh? If you really know your wars of the roses you will know what bits to disregard, but if you are still learning do not rely on anything in here as far as English history is concerned.

The author also has the common and infuriating habit of quoting great chunks of Shakespeare which have no place in a work of history. I knocked off a star for that alone as it is something that really cheeses me off.

The White Queen by Philippa Gregory

2009-08-04T14:04:00.003+01:00

I've not read this novel yet but there's a very full review by Marie Burton on the web. It looks intriguing, time will tell whether it hits my wall or not.

I have a suspicion that Yorkists and Woodvillians are generally less tolerant of historical divergence (or more picky) than Tudorites, but we shall see.

It's is probably about time someone did a novel from the POV of Elizabeth Woodville, though of course it has been done before, notably by Rosemary Hawley Jarman in The King's Grey Mare. Apparently a common thread in both is that Elizabeth's witchiness is emphasised. Personally I'm more impressed by what Elizabeth achieved off her own bat, without special powers!

Isabel of York 1408 (?) - 1484

2009-08-02T17:22:00.005+01:00

Stephen's Lark's mention of Leo van de Pas's excellent geneology site reminded me that I haven't said much about Isabel of York, Richard Duke of York's sister, so I used the site to supplement the little I know about her, and thus can produce the following posting.

Isabel was of course the daughter of Richard of Conisbrough and Anne Mortimer and appears to have been born in the early years of their marriage, round about 1408 or 1409**. She was 'married' to Thomas Grey of Heton in 1412 as part of what appears to have been a deal to transfer the Lordship of Tyndale (then the property of Edward, Duke of York) to Grey's father. Due to the treasonable conspiracy of Richard of Conisbrough and the elder Grey (the Southampton Plot) this (marriage) arrangement was dissolved and Isabel was instead married (circa 1430) to Henry Bourchier, Earl (or Count) of Eu and later Earl of Essex.

** This assumes they didn't consummate their marriage until it was legitimised (1408). Since the detail of how they married, and when, is shrouded in mystery, it's possible Isabel was a little older.

Henry was the son of Sir William Bourchier and Anne of Gloucester, the extremely rich daughter and heiress of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. (Anne was of course Richard of Conisbrough's first cousin. As well as being her father's heiress she had two dowers from the Stafford family, having married successive earls. She would make an interesting subject for a novel if anyone out there fancies writing one for her.)

The children of Henry and Isabel were:

William, who married Anne Woodville (or Wydeville or Widville). She was (need I say?) the sister of Queen Elizabeth Woodville. He died in April 1483. His son, also William, succeeded as Earl of Essex and lived long enough to serve at Anne Boleyn's coronation.

Henry, who married Elizabeth Scales, an heiress. After he died in August 1458 she married the well-known Anthony Woodville/Wydeville/Widville, later Earl Rivers.

Humphrey, who married Joan Stanhope, and was styled Baron Cromwell in her right. He was killed at the Battle of Barnet (1471) fighting for the Yorkists. Joan remarried, Sir Robert Radcliffe.

John, who married Elizabeth Ferrers of Groby and in her right assumed the title Lord Ferrers of Groby, though never summoned to parliament. He had a 'prolonged' law suit with Elizabeth Woodville over the Groby lands. His second wife was Elizabeth Chicheley of Cambridgeshire. He died 1495.

Thomas married Isabelle Barre, widow of Henry Stafford of Southwick the (Yorkist) Earl of Devon. After her death (1489) he married Anne, widow of Sir John Sulyard. He was Constable of Leeds (Kent) and was on a commission to investigate treason in Kent in December 1483. He died in 1491.

Isabel, the only daughter. Died apparently unmarried.

Edward, died 31 December 1460. (Battle of Wakefield)

Fulk, died young.

Essex was a 'backroom boy' for the Yorkists, occupying various offices without apparently becoming prominent in government or unpopular with Warwick or other hostile elements. He died peacefully in 1483. Nonetheless it's worth noting that the wars cost him two of his sons killed in action! His brother, Thomas, was of course Archbishop of Canterbury through the Yorkist period and a little beyond. (Their half-brother on their mother's side was no less a person than Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham.)

Isabel of York died in 1484, during Richard III's reign. She was therefore in her early seventies, and so unusually long-lived for a member of the York family, even allowing for the tendency of the York males to have their lives cut short by steel poisoning. (In fact, when you think of it the only adult males of the House of York to die in their beds were Edmund of Langley and Edward IV. The rest either died in battle or were executed!) Isabel would certainly have had some interesting tales to tell and it's a pity that no roving reporter was around to interview her.

Anne Neville's ancestry - Waltheof

2009-07-27T11:23:00.003+01:00

Stephen Lark has kindly sent me this interesting link about Waltheof. Among other things it gives six generations of descent from him and it's clear how he linked to Anne Neville by at least one route.

One area of Anne's ancestry that the coat of arms ignore is that of her descent from the House of York. This gave her some quite remarkable ancestors, including El Cid! I suppose it's proof that even the most complex of quarterings cannot convey everything.

How was Warwick related to the Woodvilles?

2009-07-22T13:13:00.003+01:00

Does anyone know how Warwick was related to the Woodvilles/Wydevilles? Until a couple of days ago I'd have said he wasn't - simple. But then I noticed in Richard III A Medieval Kingship (ed. John Gillingham) the following useful analysis of Anne Neville's arms - which of course were the same as her sister's.

The following families are represented:

1. Sir Guy (This is Guy of Warwick, not Guy of Gisburn.)
2. Rohand (No idea)
3. Gwayr (No idea)
4. Newburgh (Ancestors of the Beauchamps, think.)
5. FitzPiers (Sound like a Norman family but can't say I've heard of them.)
6. Thony (Sometimes spelt TONY or TOENI. Quite famous earlier on I think. [edit] Stephen Lark tells me they were the Staffords, before the Staffords became the Staffords if you see what I mean.)
7. Beauchamp (Famous as earls of Warwick)
8. Colobrand's Head (Colobrand? Sounds like a drink.)
9. Fitzjohn
1o. Mauduit
11. Abitot
12. Waltheof (Definitely heard of him. Saxon hero married to Judith, right?)
13. Montagu (Salisbury bunch)
14. Monthermas. (Sounds like a festival of the church. Do they mean Monthemer? Or whatever the guy was called who got off with Joan of Acre.)
15. Neville (Well yes, we certainly know about them.)
16. Beauchamp (ancient) - bit repetitive, but I suppose it emphasises the Beauchamps.
17. Aeneas (The Greek guy? He had a coat of arms? Cooool!)
18. Balliol (As in Scotland. Probably via the Despensers if I recall aright.)
19. Eldol
20. FitzHamon (Definitely via the Despensers)
21. Consul (As above)
22. Clare (Yep, Despensers again, though probably by other routes too. Those Clares got about)
23. Burghersh. (Despenser lot again. Thomas D's mother, actually.)
24. WYDEVILLE - which is the posh way of spelling 'Woodville.' How did they get in among this lot?
25. Despenser (Obviously)
26. Weyland (Another Despenser input.)

So now we know what Anne did with her youth - embroidering that little lot onto all the cushion covers must have taken hours. You know dear a family tree program would have been much more useful...

But seriously, does anyone know how the Wydeville/Woodville family were related to Warwick? Because it looks as if they must have been.

The De la Poles

2009-07-12T15:02:00.003+01:00

Stephen Lark has kindly pointed out to me that it is believed Richard de la Pole (Richard Duke of York's grandson) had a daughter in France, Marguerite, who has living descendants to this day, members of the French nobility. Her earlier descendants included the famous political philosopher de Montesquieu and the Comte de Frontenac who was a C17 Governor of Canada.

Stephen also mentioned that Richard's brother, William de la Pole may have been alive as late as 1539/40 as a prisoner in the Tower.

Children of Richard Duke of York

2009-07-08T15:13:00.003+01:00

After so much about the political, I think it's high time for a post of the personal, so here are the children of Richard Duke of York and his wife Cecily Neville:

1. Anne, who married the Duke of Exeter. Exeter was York's ward but nevertheless a substantial dowry was paid. Nonetheless the marriage was not a success at either a political or personal level. Exeter became one of York's worst enemies (though he was pretty much the enemy of everyone) and eventually Anne divorced him and married Sir Thomas St.Leger. Exeter conveniently fell overboard on the way back from the French expedition of 1475, having spent several previous years in the Tower. Sir Thomas St. Leger was executed by Richard III.

2. Henry (died young).

3. Edward, Earl of March (later Edward IV).

4. Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Killed at Wakefield 1460.

5. Elizabeth, who married John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. This marriage forged an alliance with the de la Pole clan, previously enemies of York. Suffolk was a political nonentity but there were numerous children. The males in particular had a hard time under the Tudors and were eventually wiped out.

6. Margaret, who married Charles Duke of Burgundy. No children, but Duchess Margaret was a relatively major player in European politics.

7. William (died young)

8. John (died young)

9. George, Duke of Clarence. Executed/judicially murdered 1478.

10. Thomas (died young)

11. Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III).

12. Ursula (died young.)

One interesting and unexplained feature of the Yorks' marriage is the several years** that passed before Anne was born. Clearly the problem was not one of fertility as they eventually had 12 children! It may be that York's absence at the French wars is part of the answer but it's not a complete one as Cecily was often there with him. (For example Edward and Edmund were born in Normandy.)

** Marriage 'before October 1429' (source P A Johnson) Anne's birth 1439.

One internet source states there was another daughter Joan b 1438, but this child is not recorded in the famous ballad about York's offspring printed in Caroline Halstead's Richard III.

The Wiki article on Cecily Neville says that the couple were not 'officially married' (whatever that means) until 1437. I'm inclined to doubt this.

Richard Duke of York and Henry VI

2009-07-07T12:42:00.004+01:00

In the early years of Henry VI's reign there is nothing to suggest that Richard, Duke of York was anything but a loyal subject, or that anyone thought otherwise. So what changed?

In the first part of the reign English politics were dominated by the King's uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and great-uncle, Cardinal Beaufort. (These two heading - in simplistic terms - the 'war' and 'peace' parties respectively). Both treated York with due respect and he performed whatever duties he was allocated without any obvious fuss.

One factor leading to York's disillusionment with the regime was undoubtedly the increasingly chaotic financial situation. This impacted on him indirectly - by limiting the resources available to him as a commander in France - and directly by increasing the government's debt to him in respect of war wages and other fees to an insupportable degree. Even a landowner as rich as York could only tolerate this for so long. Eventually he was forced to pawn his jewels and even parts of his estates to make his books balance.

The second factor was the replacement of Gloucester and Beaufort in the King's counsels by the like of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk and Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. These men favoured peace with France, whereas York inclined more to the war party. More importantly, they effectively excluded York from the King's counsels and got their grubby hands on what little money and patronage was available.

Politics is always ultimately a dispute between those with power and those without it. It's also quite common for the 'outs' to claim that the 'ins' are corrupt and incompetent. In the cases of Suffolk and Somerset there was perhaps more truth attached to this claim than is usual. (Though it would have taken remarkable leadership to square the financial and military circles we are talking about.)

The separation of York from the inner circle of power led to a growing, mutual distrust. Who 'started' this is hard to discern. York would certainly have argued that Suffolk, Somerset, and later Queen Margaret had the King's ear and told him lies about York's intentions, thus alienating Henry from his loyal cousin. On the other hand, Suffolk, Somerset and the Queen did
have reason to be wary of York. He was the obvious (if not only) 'alternative' government and, given the detail of his family tree, might even be put forward as an alternative sovereign. The country was not stable, and those in power must have feared a 'revolutionary' situation arising, after the example of the falls of Edward II and Richard II.

York's claim to the throne (in the event of Henry's death) had been talked about in Parliament, a destabilising factor in itself. York's readiness to take up arms in 1452, and then again in 1455, demonstrated that the doubts and fears about his loyalty were not completely groundless. Though York was successful in 1455 (mainly thanks to the Nevilles) it's fair to say that the bulk of the nobility remained loyal to Henry despite the ineptitude of his government.

York's justification - that he took up arms only because he had failed to get a hearing by 'constitutional' means - is also not unreasonable. As the leading peer he had, in medieval terms, the right to be one of the King's leading advisers. Henry's decision to exclude him from this role, and his undue preference for the likes of Suffolk and Somerset, was bound to lead to trouble.

Untangling the Beauforts (Part 5)

2009-06-25T10:28:00.006+01:00

Sorry for the delay to this. Anyway, in the aftermath of Cade's rebellion and the English expulsion from Normandy, England was a very discontented place. There were lots of discharged soldiers wandering around London, and the arrival of York in October (from Ireland) added to the tense atmosphere as preparations began for Parliament to meet. Various seditious 'bills' were nailed to the doors of St Paul's, Westminster Hall, and even the King's chamber at Westminster!

On 1 December there was an actual rising against Somerset, an attack by more than 1000 men. He was (for his own protection) taken by barge to the Tower, while order was maintained by York, Devon and the Mayor, apparently the only people for whom the insurgents had any respect.

The Parliament petitioned for the removal of Somerset (and others, including the Dowager Duchess of Suffolk) from the King's presence, but Henry managed to evade this demand, and when Parliament was prorogued in May 1451 the pressure on Henry's favourites eased for a time. Somerset was actually appointed Captain of Calais, presumably on the basis that he wouldn't dare to lose that as well. (On the face of it, you'd have thought him the last person eligible for the job.)

In 1452, despairing of removing Somerset by peaceful means, York rose in arms. However he was joined only by Devon and Cobham, and was forced to submit to the King at Dartford. Though swiftly pardoned, in return for swearing never to rebel again, the affair had brought about his total humiliation and strengthened Somerset's position immeasurably.

Unfortunately for Somerset, about the beginning of August 1453, Henry VI had a complete mental collapse. This coincided roughly with the news that Talbot (Shrewsbury) had been defeated and killed at Castillon in Gascony, with the result that English rule in France (barring Calais) was over. In addition, Queen Margaret of Anjou had lately announced that she was pregnant. While either of these events might have added to Henry's stress and pushed him over the edge, it's dangerous to assume that they did.

At first the King's illness was kept quiet, but in October 1453 a Great Council was held - equivalent to a sort of slimmed-down Parliament. Somerset tried to exclude York, but this led to representations, including one from Duchess Cicely to the Queen, and York was sent a belated invitation.

York's supporters now included the Nevilles (alienated by Somerset over the small matter of Glamorgan) and the Duke of Norfolk. It was actually Norfolk who appealed Somerset of treason, mainly based on his failure in France. As a result Somerset was taken to the Tower where he remained for about a year. No charges were brought.

York was not actually named Protector until late March 1454, an alternative proposal that Queen Margaret act as Regent having been dismissed on grounds of precedent.

King Henry recovered (or was said to have done so) around Christmas 1454, and on 26 January 1455 Somerset was released from the Tower, though the release was not actually confirmed until a meeting of the Great Council on 5 February. Soon afterwards York resigned as Protector and, in effect, Somerset regained power. All charges against Somerset were dropped and arrangements were made for a panel of arbitrators to settle all disputes between him and York.

York and the Nevilles now decided that the time for talking and playing politics was over. They believed that Somerset and his clique were poisoning the King's mind against them and that in fact they were not safe to approach Henry in the normal way. Under this belief or pretext they marched to St Alban's at the head of about 7000 men and there met Henry and his court on their way to a further Great Council meeting that had been arranged for Leicester.

York demanded that Somerset should be handed over to him, and when this was refused, the Yorkists attacked. Somerset, having killed four men with his own hand, was slain in the fighting, along with the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford. Their deaths brought the battle to an end, but not unnaturally filled their sons with a burning passion for revenge.

Constance of York

2009-06-22T10:21:00.004+01:00

Constance now has her own entry on Find a Grave and it's quite a nice write up for her, nothing much that I can disagree with. (I'm quite used to disagreeing with the dismissive and patronising remarks from sundry historians on the subject of her ladyship.) You can even leave a memorial message if you like!

Google Alerts strikes again!

Sorry for the delay

2009-06-19T19:39:00.002+01:00

Sorry about the length of time it is taking me to complete the saga of the Beauforts. I am in fairly manic mode at the moment, running about doing all sorts of stuff, and I'm not really in the right frame of mind to put together an entry on Edmund Somerset - he deserves me at my composed and sober best.

Will be back soon - I hope!

Untangling the Beauforts (Part 4)

2009-06-08T16:46:00.004+01:00

Edmund, Duke of Somerset (or Edmund, Marquess of Dorset as he was at the time) replaced the Duke of York as lieutenant-general and governor of France on 24 December 1446. The court party, dominated by Edmund's aged uncle, Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Suffolk, probably thought that York was too committed to the war. Their policy, by this time, was peace on almost any terms. King Henry VI's marriage to Margaret of Anjou (1445) had been undertaken on the basis of a truce with a secret agreement to cede Anjou and Maine.

Obviously, this secret could not be kept for ever, but the surrender was opposed by York, the Lancastrian establishment in Normandy (who could see the strategic implications) and above all by the King's uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. However Duke Humphrey had little influence now and in early 1447 was arrested and shortly after died. Many people believed he had been murdered, but there's no particular proof of this. He may simply have had a heart attack or the like. Meanwhile York was given a 10 year contract to govern Ireland. This was not necessarily demotion or banishment as such, but York was undoubtedly aggrieved, especially as the Crown's debt to him amounted to tens of thousands of pounds.

The appointment of Beaufort to the French post was not, however, all that ridiculous. He had a mixed track record as a soldier, admittedly, but he had had some success, while York, though competent, was not exactly Robert E. Lee. (It might be added that even Lee, Cromwell and Marlborough working together as a team might have strugged to keep the French out of Normandy for very much longer, given the appalling military situation and almost total lack of finances.)

Anyway, the agreed surrender of territory proceeded, despite the attempts of local commanders to be as awkward as possible so as to drag matters out. These stalling tactics made the French wonder about English good faith. If they were sufficiently perceptive, they probably also realised that Henry VI's government was somewhat lacking in grip.

Somerset (as he became in March 1448) was not especially tactful in his dealings with Charles VII, indeed he was rather discourteous, and this cannot have helped in so delicate a situation. Negotiations to resolve the situation were about to begin when an English force seized the town of Fougeres, on the borders of Brittany. Naturally this alienated the Duke of Brittany more than somewhat and gave the French justification for believing the truce had been broken.

Meanwhile, having allowed the capture and sack of Fougeres, the English did not give assistance to the mercenary captain involved and he was eventually forced to capitulate. At the same time Somerset's negotiations - or perhaps the word is dealings - with Charles VII failed miserably, since the French King, quite reasonably, had no faith in Somerset's honesty.

In the Spring of 1449 hostilities began in earnest. It's tedious to recite the tale of towns falling, one by one, and the process speeded still further after Charles VII declared formal war on 31 July. Rouen was captured on 29 October. Somerset obtained a safe conduct to England for his family and himself, and for many of his supporting cast, including Shrewsbury, Abergavenny and Roos. In return he had to agree to surrender not only Rouen but several other fortresses, pay a hefty ransom, and leave hostages behind to secure his good faith. By August 1450 the remaining Lancastrian holdings in northern France (except Calais) had fallen, and the last (rather feeble) English field army defeated.

It was a disaster, and there were many (notably York of course) who put much of the blame on Somerset. However, with Suffolk's fall from power, and subsequent murder in May 1450, it was Somerset who had Henry VI's confidence and became dominant at court.

More another day...

Untangling the Beauforts (Part 3)

2009-06-06T11:05:00.006+01:00

My bewilderment about Edmund Somerset's locus standi in the matter of Glamorgan has been solved by reference to The End of the House of Lancaster by R.E. Storey - another book I am keen to recommend to anyone wanting to understand the complex background to the start of the so-called Wars of the Roses.

Anyway, in 1453 Somerset was was given charge of the lands of George Neville during his minority. This George Neville being the son of Elizabeth Beauchamp, half-sister of Anne Beauchamp on her mother's side - this particular Anne Beauchamp being Warwick the Kingmaker's wife. OK so far?

The only thing is that Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, his son Henry Beauchamp, Duke of Warwick, the guardians of Anne Beauchamp, Henry's little daughter, and finally the Kingmaker himself, in the right of his wife, the other Anne Beauchamp, had all of them held onto George Neville's share of Glamorgan. In the case of Richard Beauchamp, it was undoubtedly because his wife, Isabelle, mother of the aforementioned Henry, Elizabeth and Anne (Kingmaker's wife Anne that is) was the rightful owner of Glamorgan in preference to her own children.

But after Isabelle died (1439) it becomes more problematical, doesn't it? Presumably Henry Duke of Warwick got the whole pot because he was a male. Then his daughter got the whole of his inheritance. But when she died, surely the Despenser inheritance should have been divided between her aunt, Anne and her cousin George, heir of her other aunt? It's hard to discern a legal reason for George not getting his share at that point.

However in 1450 Warwick the Kingmaker was given a grant of all the lands formerly held by his wife's niece (Little Anne Beauchamp, as opposed to Big Anne Beauchamp, aka Mrs Warwick). This included the whole of Glamorgan. (Except for the Countess of Northumberland's dower lands, but that's another story.)

So when in 1453 Somerset was given the wardship of George Neville and started to press for possession of George's share of Glamorgan, we can understand why Warwick would be annoyed, even if, from an objective point of view, his case for possession seems a tad dubious.

There was 'military activity' in Glamorgan , and both Warwick and Somerset were ordered to appear before the King's Coucil to sort things out. Due to events, however, nothing substantive happened to settle the dispute, and Warwick continued in possession of all Glamorgan. He was, however, now second only to York in the I Hate Somerset Club.

The next post will try to summarise the remainder of Somerset's political career.

Untangling the Beauforts (Part 2)

2009-05-30T12:14:00.004+01:00

Edmund Beaufort, second Duke of Somerset, was more a formidable player than his brother - not that that took much - but as indicated in the last post was handicapped by relative poverty, so much of the family's livelihood having passed to his niece, Margaret Beaufort. This in turn made it essential for him to have power at court in order to secure offices and anything else that turned up in the way of patronage. Fortunately for him, he seems to have had no difficulty winning and retaining the favour of King Henry VI and Queen Margaret of Anjou.

Early in his life Edmund had an association - perhaps even an affair - with Katherine of Valois, Henry V's widow in 1426-7, and it seems to have been this that caused the Council to impose formal restrictions on Katherine's right to re-marry. However - it is only fair to point this out in view of Yorkist criticism of Somerset's later record - in the 1430s Edmund became one of England's more successful generals in the French wars. He successfully defended Calais in 1436 and in 1439-40 was responsible for the very last English successes of the war, the relief of Avranches and recapture of Harfleur. On the other hand, even in the mid 1430s he came under criticism for misconduct, particularly for putting his own personal interests above those of the English cause.

Edmund married Eleanor Beauchamp, daughter of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick by his first wife, Elizabeth Berkeley, and widow of Lord Roos of Hamlake. This match was destined to lead him into a serious quarrel with the Nevilles, and was one of the root causes of the Wars of the Roses.

When Richard Beauchamp died, his lands (apart from the Berkeley element, of which more later) passed to his son, Henry, later (and briefly) Duke of Warwick. (Henry was a child of Beauchamp's second marriage, to Isabelle Despenser.) When Henry died a few years later he left behind a daughter, Anne (by Cecille Neville) but unfortunately this child also died in infancy.

This meant that the Beauchamp inheritance had to be split between Richard Beauchamp's four daughters.

There were three elements of the inheritance:

1. Elizabeth Berkeley's Berkeley inheritance, disputed by her cousin, Lord Berkeley, and split three ways between her daughters.
2. The Beauchamp inheritance proper, coming from Richard Beauchamp.
3. The Despenser/Burghersh inheritance, coming from Isabelle Despenser and clearly divisible between the two daughters of Isabelle by her two husbands. This included Glamorgan.

However - it was held that because Anne Beauchamp, the Kingmaker's wife, was whole-blood heir to Henry, Duke of Warwick, she should have the whole of element '2' to the exclusion of her half-sisters. They, and their husbands, were distinctly unchuffed by this. John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, felt that as he was married to the eldest sister he ought to be Earl of Warwick!

As if this was not complicated enough, Richard Beauchamp and his son had kept hold of most of the inheritance (including all Glamorgan) that ought to have been shared with Elizabeth Beauchamp, the elder daughter of Isabelle Despenser. Richard Neville, as Earl of Warwick, continued to retain these lands.

It's not really clear to me why Somerset felt that he was entitled to half of Glamorgan, but for some reason he did, and this led to a violent dispute with the Kingmaker. This was undoubtedly one of the factors that turned Warwick (and his father Salisbury) from Lancastrian supporters into committed Yorkists. Henry VI seems to have been totally incapable of settling this kind of dispute, a factor that helped bring about his downfall. (Contrast how the supposedly ineffective Richard II settled the dispute between the Beauchamps and Mowbrays over Gower, with a fairly harsh decision that nevertheless was not overturned by the usurping Henry IV.)

I think that's enough to digest for one day. So Edmund will get a second posting in a little time.

Untangling the Beauforts (Part 1)

2009-05-27T13:04:00.010+01:00

One of the confusing aspects of fifteenth century English history is that there were several men called 'Somerset' who pop up, and usually authors do not make full distinction between the individuals. I am going to try to clarify who the various 'Somersets' were, and how they related to one another.

The first Somerset was of course John Beaufort, eldest child of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, legitimised towards the end of Richard II's reign. Briefly promoted to Marquis of Dorset, he lost this title in late 1399, but remained Earl of Somerset and gradually won the favour of his half-brother Henry IV. He married Margaret Holland, sister of (among others) Joanne, Duchess of York, Alianore Countess of March and Edmund, Earl of Kent. John died in 1410, and was succeeded by his son, Henry, who unfortunately died in 1418 before he could fall out with the Yorkists.

This brings us to the first of the Somersets to be a Yorkist bogey-man: John, third Earl of Somerset, known to his friends as 'Lucky'. Not really, but see below.

He had barely succeeded to the title before he was captured at the battle of Bauge (1421). After which he was kept a prisoner of the French for seventeen years. Longer than any other English noble they captured. Albeit it was scarcely a case of durance vile, as he was able to sire an illegitimate daughter, Tacyn (nice name, must use that in a novel sometime) who eventually married Lord Grey of Wilton.

Anyway, after a great deal of negotiation, Somerset was released in 1438 in return for a ransom of £24,000 - which was a lot. This encumbered him financially for the rest of his life. The basis of the Beaufort patrimony was a handful of manors bought by John of Gaunt, with sundry bits and pieces added on by Henry IV, notably an annuity of £1000 a year at the exchequer. (Fine when the exchequer had money in it, by no means to be counted upon in Lancastrian England.) To this can be added his mother's share of the Holland (Kent) lands, worth around £600 a year.

In 1442 John married Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe. Her family were (distantly) related to the Beauchamps of Warwick but were more of the status of wealthy gentry than nobility. She was the widow of Oliver St John, by whom she had had six children. This was a perfectly respectable marriage but not a brilliant one for someone of John Beaufort's status - his younger brother had married a mainstream Beauchamp, daughter of the Earl of Warwick!

Apparently Somerset was already in poor health, but in 1443 he was given a chance to redeem his messy financial situation by leading a major English expedition into France. As part of the deal he was given lands of the lordship of Kendal, and other bits and pieces to the value of 600 marks - about £400 - and made Duke of Somerset.

John Beaufort's appointment annoyed the Duke of York immensely, as his commission clashed somewhat with York's existing appointment in France. More to the point, Somerset's expedition was a disaster. Among other things, by holding a Breton town to ransom, it came close to bringing neutral Brittany into the war on the French side. The campaign cost £26,000 and gained nothing.

When Somerset returned to England it was to face Henry VI's anger. Yes, that's right, Henry VI was angry with him! He banished Beaufort from court, and Somerset's financial dealings became subject of an official enquiry.

Somerset went off into the country and died. Some believed he had killed himself. His funeral, at Wimborne Minster, was extremely modest.

Part of his lands reverted to the crown, and his only child, Margaret Beaufort, inherited the lion's share of what was left. The ducal title, and the remnants of the property, passed to John Beaufort's younger brother, Edmund, who will be the subject of the next post.

Source: the most useful source for this has been The King's Mother by Michael K Jones and Malcolm G Underwood.

Eleanor The Secret Queen, by John Ashdown-Hill

2009-05-20T17:09:00.004+01:00

As a great fan of John Ashdown-Hill's series of articles on and around the subject of Eleanor Talbot that have appeared in sundry Ricardians over the past few years I have been looking forward to reading this book with huge anticipation. However, I may have expected a little too much, as there's not much here that was not covered in the said articles.

This is absolutely not to downplay Ashdown-Hill's scholarship in putting this work together, for that has been formidable, and it is extremely useful to have all the information about Eleanor collected in one place. She has been badly neglected by historians, and those that have deigned to write about her have made fundamental mistakes, one even claiming that she was not a daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury!

Sadly, the bottom line is that it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an irregular marriage took place between Eleanor and Edward IV. (This is not to say that it did not, just that it can't be proved.) Geoffrey Richardson used to say that in matters surrounding Richard III one had to sometimes take 'a leap of faith.' I rather think John Ashdown-Hill has taken such a leap. I happen to agree with his conclusion, but it has to be said that the case is not rock solid.

To balance this, the case for the marriage has often been far too lightly dismissed. If Gairdner, the formidable Victorian historian - no friend of Richard III! - felt there was reasonable evidence of the truth of the story, then I feel we should at least accept the possibility that it happened that way. One very interesting point raised by Ashdown-Hill is that had Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville in a regular ceremony - which of course he did not - then the onus would have been on Eleanor to protest at the church in time-honoured fashion. Her failure to do so would have put her and Edward at fault, not Elizabeth, and Elizabeth's children would have been deemed legitimate. (As an aside, they would also have been entitled to inherit land under English law.)

So it sort of begs the question doesn't it? Why the hell did Edward marry Elizabeth in an irregular ceremony? What on earth did he think he was doing? Surely he was not that afraid of Warwick, was he?

If you want to know more about Lady Eleanor Talbot this account cannot be bettered, as it contains everything that is known about her. It also poses some interesting questions - such as how Eleanor came by certain lands that can only have been given her by Edward IV. However, if you are a determined cynic about her marriage to the King, the book will probably not be enough to budge you, though it may give you some food for thought.

The book itself, by the way, is beautifully produced and on the back cover is an artist's impression of Eleanor. Apparently this was partly based on a skull discovered in Norwich which may be hers - or equally may not be.

Off topic - The wise words of Oliver Cromwell

2009-05-18T16:03:00.003+01:00

Sorry to post something completely off topic, but the recent scandals surrounding the UK Parliament have left me incapable of resisting the temptation to post the wise words of Oliver Cromwell in similar circumstances:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!

Nothing much changes does it?

Sorry folks, the next post will definitely centre on 15th century history.

Succession to the throne - a summary

2009-05-16T11:05:00.004+01:00

Henry VI remained childless for much of his reign and this inevitably sparked questions about the succession, always a divisive and potentially dangerous subject in the political arena.

It is often forgotten that for a long time the clear heir was the King's uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, who was himself childless as far as legitimate issue is concerned. (His son and daughter, Arthur and Antigone, are sometimes said to have been born to Eleanor Cobham before he married her, but the chronology makes this improbable.) Gloucester was very much a representative of the war party and his alienation from Henry's governing clique was to lead to his downfall, and very probably his death. (People at the time seem to have thought he had been murdered, but he may simply have had a heart attack or similar event under the shock of being arrested.)

Henry IV's succession statute did not give any directions beyond Henry VI and Humphrey, so after these two it was legally speaking all up for grabs.

The Duke of York had a two-fold claim. One was descent from Lionel of Clarence, via the Mortimers, in the female line. The snag was that this hereditary claim was (at least arguably) superior to that of Henry VI. The last Earl of March had come under deep suspicion without even pressing a claim, so it was potentially dangerous. His secondary claim, via Edmund of Langley, was arguably inferior to a number of Lancastrian claimants.

The Beaufort dukes of Somerset were heir male to John of Gaunt, but as is well known they descended from a line that was born illegitimate, then legitimised. Henry IV had gone to the trouble of specifically excluding them from the succession though whether he had the legal right to do so is arguable. It was not unreasonable for the Beauforts to see themselves as potential heirs to Gaunt, though they were not blood heirs to the duchy of Lancaster itself, which had come from Blanche of Lancaster, not Katherine Swynford.

Setting aside foreign claims (because the kings of Portugal and Castile, among others, had some Lancastrian blood in them) the other senior Lancastrian claimant was Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter, who descended from Gaunt's daughter, Elizabeth of Lancaster. He certainly had a better claim to the duchy of Lancaster than did the Beauforts, and an arguable claim to the throne itself. Holland was, however, a deeply flawed individual, out there on the edge of reason, and even Lancastrian governments were wary of him. Ironically, he was the Duke of York's ward, and first son-in-law. This connection did not bind them at all - if anything it sharpened their mutual hostility.

Richard Beauchamp and the Upbringing of Henry VI

2009-05-06T17:51:00.000+01:00

In May 1428 a Great Council appointed Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick as governor of the six-year-old Henry VI. Warwick was in effect given responsibility for the king's upbringing and education and, like Dame Alice Butler, the governess who had preceded him in the role, was given formal authority to chastise and correct his young sovereign when necessary.

Beauchamp was in many ways an ideal choice. He was certainly one of the leading warriors of the era and had a reputation for chivalry. He had been a close friend of the King's father and ranked high in the English nobility. His appointment continued the policy of separating the care and control of the young King's person from the executive arm of the government, although Warwick naturally had a place on the Council. His (second) wife was Richard, Duke of York's first cousin, Isabelle Despenser.

However, whether, in human terms, a rather serious soldier like Warwick was the ideal person to bring up someone as devout and ascetic as Henry VI is perhaps another question. Henry was provided with a small suit of armour and a sword at around this time, and we may reasonably suppose that his military education began, presumably in company with the other young wards that were kept about the place.

Henry was not meek and mild, and before very long Warwick was complaining to the Council about the King's reluctance to be ruled by him. In 1432 he reported that the King was grown 'in conceyte and knoweleche of his hiegh and royale auctoritee and estate' and was grumbling about Warwick's punishments - probably physical ones given the earl's specific authority to inflict them. There was also concern about unsuitable companions distracting the King from his studies, and it was ordered that a household knight should always be present to supervise the King's interaction with others.

By May 1436 Warwick had evidently had enough of managing the troublesome King, and he resigned the job. He was not replaced. One legacy from Warwick's time supervising the King was the close friendship between Henry VI and Warwick's son, Henry, Lord Despenser - later Henry, Duke of Warwick. The early death of Henry Beauchamp (he was only 21 at the time) removed a major prop from the young King, and in retrospect was to prove disastrous for his reign.

Whether Henry VI had a similar brotherly relationship with Warwick's daughter, Anne, later wife of the Kingmaker, is less certain. According to Griffiths the young King made a point of shunning the company of women, and declared at an early age that he intended not to have sex except with his wife. This was unusual - say the least - but was in line with Henry V's attitude to the same subject after he became king. It is probably fair to see it as a sign of extreme conventional piety, and a measure of the influence that the priestly caste had over Henry VI.

New Post

2009-05-06T13:36:00.001+01:00

There is actually a new post about Henry VI and his upbringing by Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. However since I started drafting it some time back, it's decided that it should be dated 30 March. So if you want to read it, I'm afraid a bit of backtracking will be necessary.

Richard's Portuguese Marriage

2009-04-30T17:37:00.003+01:00

Wow, that certainly provoked some debate!

I have looked at Barrie Williams' follow-up article today, and it suggests that the detail of Brampton's instructions is not known. (Though there may be subsequent scholarship of which I am unaware.) Apparently his information rests chiefly on Portuguese sources.

Susan is right about the general use of women as pawns in marriage; however in this particular case Joanna was mad keen to be a nun and had actually turned down no less than Maximilian of Austria (future Emperor!) and the Duke of Orleans (effective heir to France after Charles VIII). As these two were arguably as important as Richard, it's at least interesting that Richard was accepted, and maybe even more surprising if the initiative came from the Portuguese side. Apparently Joanna accepted on the basis that if the proposal fell through she would be allowed to take up religion, and so it transpired. This does not prove in itself that Richard was a saint - this was part of international diplomacy after all - but it does give food for thought.

Apparently the 'alternative option' under consideration was the eldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. From Richard's point of view an attractive aspect of either woman was that she had a Lancastrian claim to the throne, arguably more legitimate than that of Henry Tudor - certainly it would have been a senior claim by 21st century calculation of these things. Richard had some very positive diplomatic contact with Isabella right at the start of his reign, so it might have been another possibility.

Thomas More by Richard Marius

2009-04-29T09:41:00.008+01:00

I've been re-reading Thomas More by Richard Marius, and found this interesting passage on page 99. '...More's account is only one of several (my emphasis) written about Richard III by Richard's contemporaries, (again, my emphasis) and none of them is flattering to the usurper king***. Some of these histories were - like More's own - left in manuscript and published long after the writers died. They can hardly be interpreted as self-conscious efforts to flatter the Tudors.'

*** - Why bring Henry VII into this? Oh, sorry, it's author bias, silly me.

This set me thinking, because the only 'accounts' I can think of that might class as contemporary are More, Croyland and Mancini. (Alianore Audley is actually fictional you know, although probably as close to the truth as any of them.) Scarcely several. Hmmm? What accounts have I been missing all these years?

Let's do a bit of deconstruction. (I love a bit of deconstruction with my morning tea.)

First off, More wasn't even born until 1478. He was, roughly, a contemporary of Richard III like I am a contemporary of JFK! He obviously relied on sources. It's generally assumed the work was virtually dictated by Morton, in whose household More lived as a youth. But there's no real evidence for this, just assumption. Morton was Cardinal Archbishop and Chancellor. Would he have had the time, let alone the inclination, to provide some boy in his household with the full SP on Richard III? Anyway, Morton's opinion on Richard - it'd be like asking Hitler for his views on Winston Churchill. (Or vice versa if you like.)

Of course More could have asked other people, but how many of them would be well informed? The old Duke of Norfolk perhaps, the Surrey of Bosworth? Again, would such an important noble have had time to spare for a young lawyer wanting to talk about the past? What could he have said anyway? 'Well, Mr More, I'm glad you asked that, because Richard III was the best king we ever had, and Henry Tudor was a slimy hypocrite with as much right to the English throne as the Grand Cham of Tartary.' The guy spent 1485-1513 just trying to win his dukedom back! He would be guarded in what he said, as would any other surviving Yorkist with half a brain.

Now Croyland, probably the best source we have. Set aside the author's paranoid hatred of anyone from north of Peterborough for a moment. He is generally assumed to have been a well-informed royal clerk - though historians debate about exactly who he was.

But this 'well-informed royal clerk' says nothing about the proposed marriage of Richard III to Joanna of Portugal and the related marriage of Elizabeth of York to the Duke of Beja. Instead he rattles on about the silly fable that Richard planned to marry Elizabeth. Folks, he simply can't have done as the Portuguese marriage proposals were issued within nine days of Anne's death. So either the Chronicler didn't know about the intended Portuguese marriages (in which case he was not a 'well-informed royal clerk' at least as far as Richard's reign is concerned) or he deliberately suppressed evidence that didn't suit his anti-Richard bias (in which case he is not reliable as a witness.)

As for Mancini, he didn't even speak English. He was here for a short visit and presumably picked up what gossip he could understand from people able (and bothered) to speak to him in Latin or French. It's rather like me visiting Russia for a few months and writing an article on President Putin. Except I would have access to a whole range of English language sources through the internet and other media, and at a pinch I could e-mail Mr Putin and ask for his comments on my account. Mancini could not do these things! (Pity, because Richard's e-mail response would have been fascinating.)

Of course, I have forgotten the following contemporary sources! :

Richard III, My Part in his Downfall, Sir William Stanley.

How I stole Richard III's Virginity and Broke His Bed, Jane Shore.

My Saintly Son, and how Richard III Drowned Puppies, Blessed Margaret Beaufort.

How the Lancastrians Were Always The Rightful Kings Anyway (with an account of the holy life of Henry VI, and how I was forced to serve the evil Edward IV) , Cardinal Morton.

Any Road for Twopence, Rt Hon. Thomas, Earl of Derby.

Reading Abbey

2009-04-20T15:22:00.002+01:00

I found this interesting Blog article on Reading Abbey.

Reading Abbey was of course the burial place of Constance of York and King Henry I, to name but two. It was also the place where King Edward IV presented Elizabeth Woodville as his queen to his astonished council.

New Blog by Me

2009-04-17T11:03:00.003+01:00

I have started a new Blog, mainly about my writing. It's called Greyhounds and Fetterlocks.

I'll probably do any non-Yorkist Age related book reviews over there in future, as well as the usual natter and wittering.

Richard II Facebook Group

2009-04-11T19:31:00.002+01:00

For anyone genuinely interested in Richard the Second (and his times) I have started a Facebook Group for him called the Fellowship of the White Hart. Membership is open to anyone at this time, but I may make it a closed group later if it gets busy or rowdy!

There's also a Group for Richard III, but although I'm a member it's otherwise nothing to do with me. But fun to join if you're interested.

Finances of Richard Duke of York

2009-04-09T17:05:00.003+01:00

At the start of the 1430s, the York estates were supporting no less than three dowagers, the widows of Edmund of Langley, of Edward 'of Norwich' the second duke, and of Edmund, Earl of March. By the time York gained livery of his estates in May 1432 one of these ladies, Philippa Mohun, was already dead. The Countess of March passed over soon afterwards, and Joanne Holland in 1434, when York was still only 23.

There were some complications relating to lands that were enfeoffed, and there were also a few elements that the Crown managed to keep its sticky fingers upon, notably Duchess Philippa's Lordship of Wight. But nonetheless, the duke's income was higher than that of any other lay lord. His net income may be estimated at £5,800 a year. Only Buckingham (£5,020) and Warwick the Kingmaker (at his richest - £4,400) came close. **

It's worth pointing out that even this income was less than half that which John of Gaunt was enjoying in the 1390s. So when considering the topic of over-mighty subjects, it's clear that York was nothing like the threat to Henry VI that the Lancastrian set-up had been, potentially and actually, to Richard II.

The bulk of York's income was derived from the Mortimer (March) estates, the York (proper) inheritance coming next, with a further contribution from a sliver of what had been the Holland (Kent) properties inherited via York's grandmother, Alianore, Countess of March.

Landed incomes generally had been in decline since the Black Death, but a series of 'corporate mergers' meant that although there were fewer great lords than before, the families that suirvived were as rich, if not richer, than their predecessors. The Buckingham inheritance mentioned above was in effect a merger of the lands of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester with those of the former earls of Stafford and half the lands of the Bohun family, earls of Hereford in the 14th century. The Kingmaker's 'corporate history' was even more complex, including the Beauchamp, Despenser and Montagu (or Montacute) families to name but the three most lately 'gone out of business' as well as his father's meaty share of the Neville lands.

The poor relations were the Beauforts. Though they too enjoyed part of the Kent inheritance, the basis of their endowment was the relatively meagre provision John of Gaunt had bought for his eldest Beaufort son, plus a few bits and pieces granted by the Crown. Moreover, most of what there was had been left unentailed, which meant that when John, Duke of Somerset died in 1444 the lion's share went to his daughter, Margaret***. The succeeding Somersets, John's brother and nephews, were left with the proverbial pie's nest. This explains why they had to grapple so fiercely with York (and others) for influence at court and appointment to profitable offices. They had no choice.

** These figures taken from False, Fleeting, Perjur'd Clarence by M.A. Hicks.

*** Lady Margaret Beaufort, the much admired mother of Henry VII.

Book Review - Shadow King by Claude Du Grivel

2009-04-08T11:01:00.012+01:00

I'm not in the mood for serious blogging at the moment, but as I feel the need for a break from writing* I thought I'd do a quick book review. It's a novel that relates to the era of Henry VI.

(*Yay! It is happening, but right now I find that turning out a page of fiction about old Warwick is taking a day's worth of sweat out of me.)

Shadow King by Claude Du Grivel is one of the first historical novels I read. It was published in 1952 and I found it in the library about 20 years later. (In those days libraries had more room for books and didn't suffer from the current neophilia where anything over 2 years old is regarded as an ancient manuscript and sold off for 10p.)

You may have problems getting hold of the novel - my copy came from Australia, complete with the rather cool jacket cover. Yes, I know it's dreadfully old-fashioned, but at least it gives you some idea of what the book is about, more than the current crop of headless women do. Moreover the artist actually bothered to look at some costume books for the era!

Anyway, Shadow King is about Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester, and her downfall. Much of the story is set among the citizens of London, and what provides the link is that an unfortunate girl, Roseann Fauster, is conscripted into the Duchess's household to make headdresses for her. Roseann's home life is pretty awful, and when she gets to court she finds that life there is even worse.

There are several historical errors. For example, Bedford appears, when he was in fact long dead, and Margaret of Anjou arrives to marry Henry VI several years before she actually did. Like Shakespeare, Du Grivel couldn't resist bringing her and Eleanor Cobham together.

Yet despite these errors - and the fact that at times it steers a bit close to melodrama - the novel has something about it - it entertains and is full of incident, with a really surprising plot twist. Well worth reading if you're able to find a copy.

The Character of King Henry VI

2009-03-30T10:07:00.003+01:00

Henry VI was not a wicked man - though I think the pressure group that's trying to have him made a saint is pushing it a bit far. (He could be vindictive, especially if he he felt he was the butt of personal criticism, and he seems to have had a fairly obsessive belief that people were trying to kill him.)

His main faults were connected with his ability to do the job of king. He was a splendid example of the failure of the hereditary principle, lacking both the political skills of his English grandfather and the military qualities of Henry V. He was, in fact, rather ordinary. Had he been a bricklayer it wouldn't have mattered that much - though he might have been thrown out of his gild for incompetence. If he'd been a country gentleman, he'd probably have ruined his family fortunes, but there'd have been no wider implications. As a sovereign, he was a disaster waiting to happen.

In fairness to Henry, it would have required an exceptional talent to steer England through the mid fifteenth century. Parliament was already growing reluctant to fund the French wars in the closing years of Henry V's reign, and the government's financial position went from bad to worse as Henry VI's reign continued. Henry V's conquest (which never amounted to more than a third of France at best) was only possible because the French had been divided among themselves. Once some sort of national unity and confidence was restored a reversal of the situation was inevitable. Henry VI's government inevitably got the blame for this, but it's hard to imagine a medieval sovereign who could have done much better - given the finances allowed.

The other main problem of the reign was political and social disorder. This was of course partly related to the French Question and the related financial mess, but nonetheless it needed sorting and Henry was hopelessly ill-equipped to solve the problem.

Morally speaking there was little to choose between the various political factions that arose. While some had better rhetoric than others, they were all violent and self-seeking in the last analysis. Henry was unable to rise above this battleground and act as an objective judge of the quarrels. Instead he backed his favourites, time and again, seemingly blind to the defects of these men or the hatred he was building against himself.

The 'opposition' eventually came to realise that there was no justice to be had from the King, and they had to turn to violence or be destroyed. York (probably the least bad and certainly the least incompetent of the great lords) was rejected and politically isolated because of Henry's (initially irrational) suspicion of him.

It was bound to end in tears - and it did.

2009-03-29T11:56:00.003+01:00

Bewrite Books, publishers of The Adventures of Alianore Audley, have a Facebook Site.

Richard, Duke of York - a bit more about the early years.

2009-03-23T16:45:00.008Z

I spent some time yesterday leafing through Ralph Griffiths' amazing tome The Reign of Henry VI which I think holds the record for the thickest book in my collection. 968 pages in hardback, costing £25 as far back as 1981 - I must have been loaded in those days! (Well, it was before I got married.)

Anyway, it appears that after the death of Ralph Neville, York and Joan Beaufort lived in the King's Household. (The latter is perhaps the more surprising.) Also in the same household was the King's mother, Katherine of Valois. The Council ordered that all royal wards should live with the King, suitably attended at the King's expense. It must have been rather crowded.

After the death of Henry V, the following arrangements evolved, though they were not what had been ordered in Henry V's will. Bedford, Henry VI's elder surviving uncle, spent most of his time in France, and acted as Regent there. However, when he did come home to England he was pre-eminent there as well.

The second uncle, Humphrey of Gloucester, stayed mainly in England at the head of the Council, but his role as Protector was tightly circumscribed, much to his distaste. He spent much of his time falling out with his uncle, Bishop Beaufort - the pair of them seem to have cordially detested one another. This was the political element - Henry VI himself was under the care of the Duke of Exeter. (Thomas Beaufort, the youngest son of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford.) Exeter's role seems to have been fairly hands-off and mainly delegated to deputies.

One thing this government failed to do was keep order in England. I was surprised how much violence and feuding there was at this time - everyone seems to have been at it, not least John Talbot (later Earl of Shrewsbury) and Joan, Lady Abergavenny, who as important members of the nobility really ought to have known better.

In the era of Richard II domestic violence is often blamed on the absence of a decent war in France to keep the thugs busy. Obviously this argument (which I've accepted myself at times) is deeply flawed, as in the 1420s there was a fair old war going on in France and it clearly did not keep things quiet at home. Nor can Henry VI be blamed at this stage - he was a little boy, and not involved in government. It seems the English (and Welsh) were just a rowdy lot and enjoyed a bit of casual violence against their neighbours.

Richard, Duke of York - childhood.

2009-03-21T11:58:00.006Z

We don't know where young Richard was at the time of his father's execution, although the most likely place would be with his stepmother, Maud Clifford, up at Conisbrough Castle.

In October 1417 he passed into the care of Sir Robert Waterton, a Yorkshire knight with a long record of service to the House of Lancaster, and previous experience in looking after spare royal children. However in 1423 his wardship and marriage were purchased by Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland.

Neville was another long-standing supporter of the Lancastrian monarchy, defecting to Bolingbroke ahead of the crowd in 1399 despite lavish favour shown him by Richard II. His (second) wife was of course the famous Joan Beaufort, half-sister of Henry IV, and their hobby was arranging impressive marriages for their children. By October 1424 Richard was already betrothed to their youngest daughter, Cecily. Cecily was accounted a great beauty in later years, and may have inherited this from her grandmother, Katherine Sywnford.

Ralph Neville died a year later, but that did not prevent a marriage between Cecily and Richard in 1429. Cecily was 14 on 3 May 1429, Richard about 18. It's possible the marriage was consummated at this time, but no children were born for ten years. As the couple were definitely fertile it may be they spent little time together in the early part of their marriage.

Richard was knighted by the Duke of Bedford in 1426, and his next public outing was at Henry VI's coronation in late 1429.

The most useful textbook for Richard Duke of York is Duke Richard of York 1411-1460 by P.A. Johnson. This is highly recommended and particularly useful if you want the full SP on Richard's complex financial affairs. (They are far too complex to be covered in a blog, but also very interesting.)

Trivium Publishing LLC - Facebook

2009-03-19T10:18:00.003Z

Trivium Publishing LLC, publishers of Within the Fetterlock now have a Facebook Page.

The Yorkist Ladies

2009-03-18T11:01:00.003Z

We are now pretty much at the end of the first phase of the House of York (although, in my untidy way, I may well come back to this era from time to time) but it remains to say what happened to the surviving ladies of the family.

Constance of York, Lady Despenser, only briefly survived her brothers, dying on 28 or 29 November 1416, probably at Caversham. She was buried before the high altar of Reading Abbey, and later joined in her tomb by her great-granddaughter, Anne Beauchamp, daughter of Henry Duke of Warwick. Her son Richard had pre-deceased her, but she left two daughters, Isabelle Despenser and Alianore Holland.

Isabelle was already married (1411) to Richard Beauchamp of Abergavenny, created Earl of Worcester by Henry V. He died in 1421. They had one daughter, Elizabeth, who married Sir Edward Neville, Lord Bergavenny. Isabelle next married her first husband's cousin, Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. By him she had a son, Henry, later Duke of Warwick, and a daughter, Anne Beauchamp, later wife of Warwick the Kingmaker and mother of Anne and Isabelle Neville. (Ring any bells, Ricardians?)

Alianore Holland claimed to be the legitimate daughter (and heiress) of Edmund, Earl of Kent. She and her husband (James, Lord Audley) made every attempt to prove this via the spiritual courts, but a petition of her Holland relatives to Parliament in 1431 had the effect of preventing her from inheriting lands and title, irrespective of the findings of the spiritual court. After Alianore's birth Kent married the Lady Lucia of Milan, and the 'other side' alleged Constance had been present at the wedding banquet and made no protest. By 1431 of course Constance was long dead, and scarely in a position to give evidence, one way or the other. However it is interesting to note that in this case the much vaunted power of the spiritual court in these matters was simply ignored as irrelevant.

James and Alianore had many children and their descendants are legion.

Joan Holland, Duchess of York

Joan (or Joanne) Holland, second wife of Edmund of Langley, married three further times, though she had no children by any husband. Her second husband was William, Lord Willoughby. She had a running quarrel with her stepson after Willoughby's death over items of property he claimed she had taken without right.

The third was Henry, Lord Scrope of Masham, who was involved in the Southampton Plot and consequently executed. Scrope was a wealthy man, and he and Joan seem to have been equally grasping. At one point Joan arranged to have herself 'abducted' decamping with various valuables, worth £5000. Scrope bargained with her in his will that she could choose £2000 worth of his belongings providing she let go any right she might have to one third or one half of his goods. Of course, as he died a traitor, his goods were all forfeited anyway!

Joan consoled herself with a new, younger husband, Henry Bromflete, (much) later created Lord Vesci. He outlived her by many years, Joan dying 12 April 1434, but Bromflete not until 1469.

Philippa Mohun, Duchess of York

It is sometimes stated, even in otherwise respectable tomes, that Philippa married Henry Bromflete, but both duchesses simply cannot have done and it appears Joan was the one who did.

Like Joan, Philippa had no children by any of her husbands. The first of these, Lord Fitzwalter, died as far back as 1386. It seems that Philippa may have been born circa 1363, but if you check out her parents' date of marriage even this seems a bit of a stretch unless she and her younger sister were late additions.

Anyway, we can assume she was about 52 at the time of Edward's death and as she lived on until 17 July 1431 she would be at least 68 at the time of her death at Carisbrooke, a very respectable age for the era. Thrice dowered, and with a decent share of York's goods left to her in his will, I think we can assume she had a comfortable retirement, maybe mostly in the Isle of Wight over which she enjoyed lordship. She has a fine tomb in Westminster Abbey.

Edward Duke of York and Agincourt

2009-03-18T09:54:00.007Z

No one seems to have suspected Edward, Duke of York, of involvement in his brother's plot. This demonstrates the political progess he had made by hitching himself to the bandwagon of Henry V. It would be wrong to suggest that he now enjoyed the sort of influence he had under Richard II - when for a time he was more or less the King's right hand as well as his 'brother' - but he did enjoy an element of favour and was not under continual suspicion.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Edward had enfeoffed the bulk of his own lands to support the building of Fotheringhay College. As he really could not expect to suck on the Despenser teat much longer he may have hoped for some big financial dividend from the French wars. Alternatively he may have foreseen his own death. He made a will (not unusual in such circumstances, admittedly). This acknowledged his sins to the last full measure, and he admitted that he was 'bound to pray' for the soul of Richard II.

It is sometimes said it was Edward who suggested the English archers should carry sharpened stakes with which to protect themselves. It's impossible to be sure of this, but it is certain that he commanded the right hand 'battle' at Agincourt - Henry V commanded the centre, with Lord Camoys (husband of Hotspur's widow) on the left. Edward was one of the few English 'men of name' to be killed in the battle. It appears he was crushed by the weight of others falling on top of him - alternatively, it may all have been too much for him, bringing on a heart attack. (By this time he is described as 'fat', quite likely for a medieval prince in his forties.)

I find it wonderfully ironic that Edward should die fighting for the House of Lancaster (after all his efforts to get rid of Bolingbroke), and in a French war at that (given that in his early years he had been so strong a support of Richard II's peace policy).

The bodies of York and the other nobles killed were boiled so that their bones could be taken home to England. Edward was of course brought to Fotheringhay, where originally he lay in the chancel, under a flat slab, probably with a brass memorial over him. In Edward VI's reign the chancel became a ruin, and Elizabeth I had Edward and her other Yorkist ancestors transplanted into the former nave. New tombs were erected, and can still be seen there, next to the altar.

If you'd like to take a look at Edward's tomb this link will take you to a selection of excellent photos of Fotheringhay Church on the Worcestershire Branch of the Richard III Society. The Tomb is among them.

The Southampton Plot - once more

2009-03-17T12:06:00.003Z

I understand from the news this morning that Southampton is considering building a heritage tramway, which will be a wonderful addition if it comes to pass. It's perhaps slightly more likely than a Richard of Conisbrough heritage trail.

In case I haven't mentioned it before, I should explain that Richard of Conisbrough was normally known as 'Lord Richard of York' in his lifetime, until Henry V made him Earl of Cambridge. However historians are rightly keen not to confuse him with his famous son, and so prefer the alternatives.

The gift of the earldom was not much benefit to Richard, as no money or land came with it. This was unusual in the middle ages, and so in effect it was a courtesy title, though with the right to sit in the Lords, for what that was worth. It may have been intended to recognise Richard as the effective heir of the Duke of York. Even if Edward had survived Agincourt, it's most unlikely he'd have left legitimate children, since Philippa lived on until 1431. (Although Pugh tells us that Edward had a long-standing mistress, there's no evidence that York had an illegitimate children either.)

Richard's plot against Henry V seems like a mish-mash of all the conspiracies of the previous 15 years. The Percy heir (in Scottish exile) was to be swapped for the Earl of Fife (a prisoner in England) and then used to rouse the north. The pretend King Richard II was to emerge from Scotland. March was to repair to his estates and rouse his followers, along with what was left of Glyn Dwr's supporters. Even the Lollards were to be brought in.

If Richard really expected this to be enough to overthrow the King, one has to question what was going on in his head. Possibly he had reason to expect support from other quarters, but it all seems rather thin. The more so since the plot to kidnap Fife and convey him to Scotland failed at an early stage, while the Percy heir was busily negotiating with Henry V for the right to come home, a concession that was soon granted.

That left the Earl of March as the only remotely useful aspect of the plot - conceivably from his estates large bodies of armed men could have been assembled. But March did not have the nerve for the job, and betrayed his co-plotters to the King, with the result that they were quickly arrested and executed, after making confessions in which they all blamed each other and March.

It's a pity we know so little about Richard of Conisbrough. In his later years he seems to act chiefly as a deputy for his brother York in various tasks - Pugh makes reference to one incident that may throw a rare shaft of light on Richard's character. In a dispute between York and Sir Edmund Sandford over a wardship, Richard seized Sandford's bailiff and another servant and imprisoned them in Conisbrough Castle. However Sandford was a King's retainer, so this use of force was not particularly well judged! It might even be called naive.

On 5th August 1415, Richard Earl of Cambridge was executed at Southampton by simple beheading. This sentence was annulled by the first Parliament of Edward IV as irregular and unlawful. (Given that Richard was Edward IV's grandfather this was pretty inevitable!)

Richard left behind him a daughter Isabel (born about 1408 and 'married' to the son of Sir Thomas Grey, from whom she was now to be 'divorced') and a son, Richard, born 1411, who was eventually to be the 3rd Duke of York.

The reign of Richard II as told by LOL cats

2009-03-08T16:42:00.011Z

Following on from Susan Higginbotham's brilliant efforts in this vein for Richard III and Edward II, I thought I'd make my own humble attempt in the same style, but for Richard II.

Constance of York - portrait!

2009-03-08T12:12:00.003Z

Unfortunately not a contemporary one. A dear friend of mine, Nancy Medhurst, produced this plate for me many years ago. She was a wonderful artist and did this sort of stuff more or less for love, certainly at no more than cost price. Anyway, as I seem to be in illustrate-the-House-of-York mode I thought I'd throw this in.

I know a bit more about heraldry now, and the truth is Thomas Despenser usually if not invariably, had the de Clare arms placed in the first and fourth quarters, not the Despenser ones. So that part should really be reversed. And as we're really depicting Constance's arms, they should go on a lozenge, not a shield. But I'm still very glad to have it!

The famous Edward of York biscuit tin

2009-03-08T11:41:00.006Z

This biscuit tin has been in my family for a while now, but it was relatively recently that I realised it depicted Edward, 2nd Duke of York. So, in the interests of illustration, here it is.

It represents Henry V and his chums on their way to bash the French. The figure on the rear castle, holding a sword and wearing a crown on his head, is the King. Right next to him, and also wearing a crown, is Edward Duke of York. (You can identify him by his heraldry, at least on the original.

The first banner of the lower deck, at the left hand side, is Edward's. It's England and France with a white label of three points, each of which has three red balls. (OK Mr Herald, I know that's not the right way to describe it, but it'll do.)

I won't try to name all the banners (I couldn't anyway!) but they include Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, Warwick, Salisbury, Oxford, Westmorland and Suffolk, as well, of course, as the King. Why the standard of Edward the Confessor (used by Richard II) is being flown, I'm not sure. (It's the left hand one on the rear castle.) The Earl of March's shield is first on the left, just below Edward's banner.

Edmund of Langley and Edward of York - did they look like this?

2009-03-08T10:46:00.006Z

I have found a couple of pictures on the web, and as they are said to be 'public domain' take the opportunity of reproducing them here. The one above is supposed to be Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York. Quite a handsome fellow, I think. Presumably this is where Constance got her good looks.

Needless to add, the second one is of Edward of York, at various times Earl of Rutland, Duke of Aumale, and second Duke of York. Would you buy a used destrier from this man?

I'd not bet above 1p (one new penny) that these images are authentic; at best they might be based on a lost original. More likely they came out of some Victorian's imagination. But I suppose they are better than nothing - just.

Edward of York's claim to Castile

2009-03-08T09:43:00.002Z

If Edward, Duke of York, were better known, more people might be aware that he tried to claim the throne of Castile!

Towards the end of Henry IV's reign, Edward found himself part of an expedition led by Thomas, Duke of Clarence (Henry's second son) to Gascony, where the idea was they would aid the Orleanists (or Armagnacs) against the Burgundians in line with current English policy. In the event the two parties in the French civil war had second thoughts, and made a truce with each other. The English were paid to go home - though not wholly in cash. (Hostages were taken and some of these remained in England for a very long time.)

Anyway, instead of going straight home to Philippa, Edward started an intrigue with the King of Aragon and certain discontented Castilians with the intent of making himself King of Castile!

Castile already had a king - Juan I (or John) the son of Edward's double first cousin, Katherine of Lancaster, who was also still very much alive. You may remember that Edmund of Langley and his wife Isabel had long since signed over any claim they had to Castile to John of Gaunt and Constanza, Isabel's elder sister, and thus to Katherine and her children.

Edward's interest in Castile inevitably fizzled away to nothing. John of Gaunt himself had failed in a similar attempt, and he had multiple times Edward's resources. It may be that the Duke of York simply hoped to extract some 'nuisance money' from his Castilian cousins. Whether he would have taken the matter further if he'd managed to survive Agincourt is something we can never know.

However the claim clearly lived on in the heart of the York family as may be seen in the very prominent Castilian heraldry that is displayed in the Edward IV Roll.

The best source for Edward's claim to Castile is the Wylie and Waugh tome. It's rarely mentioned anywhere else.

Henry IV - a valediction

2009-03-07T17:34:00.003Z

It's almost time to say goodbye to Henry IV, and I do so with mixed feelings. One author passed lightly over his time as 'a sick king and a dull reign' whereas I think it was one of the most interesting periods in our history. How can a reign with Glyndwr and Hotspur in it be called dull?

Henry's tragedy was that he did not come to the crown by right - if he had, I think he might have been a great king. Instead his popularity - admittedly artificially boosted by the effect of the huge Lancastrian retinue who depended on his prosperity - dropped like a stone almost from the moment he was crowned.

Up until around 1408/9 he was forever grappling with one conspiracy or another, to say nothing of successive armed insurrections, notably the extremely persistent one in Wales. He also had to struggle with royal finances that were in total disarray, a problem that led to further discontent among his nobles.

It's a miracle he survived. He was almost killed at Shrewsbury in 1403, and if he rather than Hotspur had got an arrow through the head it would have been the end of his dynasty. In 1405 his enemies simply failed to get their act together. Had they been better organised he could not have defeated them in detail as he did.

All this broke his health, although historians are not sure what was wrong with him. Anything from ergotism to depression has been suggested. There were periods in his latter years when a virtual regency was in operation, with Henry little more than a figurehead, and there were rumours he was planned to abdicate. He was however able to take over the government once more, and towards the end of his reign the financial position improved and he began to take (and doubtless enjoy taking) an aggressive line with the French.

His achievement was, in fact, that he survived and died in his bed. But he was not much mourned, and a minority of his subjects still thought that their rightful King Richard II was alive and well and living quietly in Scotland.

Henry IV/Henry V Bibliography

2009-03-06T11:04:00.004Z

I think it's about time for a Henry IV bibliography, and I've decided to include Henry V as well because I don't think I'll be saying much about his reign, or about him as a king. Partly because I dislike the guy.

Please check out the Richard II bibliography as well because some of those books are relevant, and I'm not going to repeat them here - unless I forget I've already quoted them.

Factual Books - Henry IV

Henry IV, Bryan Bevan - Easy read, summarises the reign but lacks full detail. Has the annoying habit of quoting Shakespeare.

Hotspur, Henry Percy, Medieval Rebel, A.W. Boardman. Focuses on Hotspur's military career, not much on his political or personal sides.

Owen Glyndwr, A G Bradley. Published 1901, but still useful.

The Usurper King, Marie Louise Bruce. Very useful if you want to know about Henry's early life; it does not cover his kingship.

Henry IV, J D Griffith Davies. Published 1938 and rather old-fashioned, but does have some useful quotes from primary sources.

The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr, R.R. Davies. Much quoted by me and simply invaluable.

Henry IV of England, John Lavan Kirby. Useful, but nothing spectacular.

Owen Glendower, J. E. Lloyd. Published 1931 and regarded as the classic account.

Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights, K B Mc Farlane

Fears of Henry IV, Ian Mortimer. Very pro-Henry, but worth reading. Mortimer is an excellent writer.

History of England under Henry the Fourth, J. H. Wylie. Four volume Victorian work, lots of data but very poorly edited. More to refer to than to read at a sitting. However, if you're interested in Henry IV, you need it. (Parts at least are on the internet.)

Factual Books - Henry V

Henry V, Christopher Allmand. The best and most comprehensive of the modern accounts.

Henry V and the Invasion of France, E F Jacob. Published 1947.

Henry V The Cautious Conqueror, Margaret Wade Labarge. Good account, albeit a bit brief.

Henry V and the Southampton Plot, T B Pugh. Another much quoted by me, and more useful than the title might suggest, particularly for the early history of the York family. Albeit, he does not rate Constance at all!

The Reign of Henry V, J H Wylie and W T Waugh. A massive three volume work, this is much better edited than Wylie's Henry IV work.

Fiction

Rather a thin crop for Henry IV, but check out the Richard II bibliography as several of the novels there cover both, or even all three reigns.

Royal Sword at Agincourt, Pamela Bennetts. Read this years ago, but don't recall much about it.

Azincourt, Bernard Cornwell. Anyone who has read Cornwell will know what to expect. One error is that the Duke of York is called 'Thomas'.

Good King Harry, Denise Giardina. A remarkable novel. The hero, Henry V, is as noxious as I find the real king, so the author must have got him about right. Among other things, Giardina's Henry has an affair with Anne Mortimer and comes over as a proto Welsh nationalist. (This latter would have come to a surprise to the Welsh people he spent several years burning out and hanging but, hey, it's fiction.)

Harry the King, Brenda Honeyman. About Henry V but starts in Richard II's reign. Constance, Edward and Richard of Conisbrough appear as minor characters. Packs an awful lot into 192 pages.

Crown in Candlelight, Rosemary Hawley Jarman. Mainly about Katherine of Valois (Henry V's queen) but also has some weird Welsh stuff in it. Our own dear Philippa, Duchess of York, puts in a guest appearance as a minor character.

He Rides in Triumph, Philip Lindsay. A family of Lollards in Henry V's time, and a plot to kill the king.

Falstaff, Robert Nye. Not a book you would wish your wife or servants to read. In fact if you are offended by bad language and lurid sex, or just easily offended, period, you should not touch it with an extended barge pole.

A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury, Edith Pargeter. About the Percy rising of 1403 - rather romantic in tone. Hotspur is idealised in this even more than Ian Mortimer idealises Henry IV.

Owen Glendower, John Cowper Powys. Heavy-going but incomparably the best novel yet available about Owain.

A Servant of Ambition, Ian C Sharman. Henry IV's reign - contender for the worst novel I've ever read award.

The Captive Crown, Nigel Tranter. Although mainly set in Scotland, Henry IV's court is visited. Tranter changes history by reversing the outcome of a joust that actually happened! For me, this spoiled the book.

Henry IV's claim to the throne

2009-02-28T10:57:00.003Z

Having received the Ricardian Bulletin this morning I find there is an interesting article therein by Ian Mortimer on the subject of Henry IV's claim to the throne.

If I understand him correctly, Mortimer argues that Henry's claim was based on his descent from Henry III via both his father and his mother. He chose Henry III because Edward I, Edward III and Richard II had all purported to settle the crown in a way that didn't suit Henry's book. Notably, in the case of Richard II, by leaving the crown to Edmund of Langley. He says it has nowt to do with the legend that Edmund Crouchback was the elder brother of Edward I.

Well, we have it from Adam of Usk that the Crouchback legend was discussed, as he was one of the team of lawyers who examined and debunked it. So I don't think it can be wholly discounted.

I also can't imagine that Bolingbroke was overly bothered by what Edward I, Edward III and Richard II had or hadn't decreed about the succession, given that in late 1399 he was in a position to pretty much do as he liked.

Maybe the truth is that it was all left deliberately vague, with just a cloak of spurious legality over a very dubious claim. Though I still don't understand why Henry didn't just claim as Richard II's heir male - he was that beyond doubt. Even if we think of him as being under attainder (which he sort of was) that status would have been automatically reversed by his coronation.

Thanks!

2009-02-28T10:45:00.003Z

Thanks to Helen Webberley of the Art and Architecture Blog The Yorkist Age hath received its first award. The award is particularly appreciated because of its reference to Jane Austen, who is a literary heroine of mine.

This is the first prize I have won since (much to the utter astonishment of my headmaster) I received one in the Upper Sixth Arts for scoring the most points in exams. I don't think old 'Bonzo' ever quite recovered from the shock of that, and I often wonder if there were recounts before it was finalised.

Thanks are also due to Lady D over at Lady Despenser's Scribery for a very kind review of Within the Fetterlock.

An Interesting Article in An Obscure Place

2009-02-18T16:51:00.006Z

While I was googling around trying to find anything substantial about Sir John Mortimer (and failing miserably) I did find a very interesting article about Owain Glyn Dwr and his links with the Scudamore or Skidmore family. Actually it goes into all sorts of details, and gives a full list of Owain's children. Well worth a look.

It's on a PDF which can be located via the Scudamore/Skidmore Family History Site. The Occasional Paper you want is:
13. A REVISIONIST’S LOOK AT THE SKYDMORE-GLYN DWR ALLIANCE.

Recommended for anyone interested in Owain.

A note about Sir John Mortimer

2009-02-18T14:20:00.004Z

Who was Sir John Mortimer?

Frankly, I have no idea! I've seen a family tree (In Felbrigg Hall, Norfolk, of all places) that made him the legitimate brother of Roger, 4th Earl of March and Sir Edmund Mortimer. However, I can find no other trace of him as such. He does not figure in the index of Wylie's History of England Under Henry IV, and if you're anyone at all in Henry's reign (and often if you're no one) you show up there.

Could he possibly have been an illegitimate son of the 3rd or 4th earl? Yes. Could he possibly have been a son of Sir Edmund Mortimer? Maybe, but almost certainly not by Catrin ferch Owain. Might he have been a collateral kinsman - for example a son of that Sir Thomas Mortimer who is a known illegitimate uncle of the 4th earl? Could be...

All we can say for certain is that the bloke was accused of treason in 1421 and executed (on the basis of an Act of Attainder - no trial) in 1424. And he was a 'kinsman' of the Earl of March.

If anyone knows more, please tell me.