Today is the anniversary of the execution in 1415 of possibly the most obscure member of the House of York, Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of Cambridge.
It is unfortunate we know so little about Richard. Even the conspiracy against Henry V which led to his execution is rather obscure and the available documentation begs as many questions as it answers.
Richard spent his life in relative poverty (for one of his class) and we rarely find evidence of his activities. Yet every sovereign of England from 1461 (bar Henry VII) is descended from him and his equally obscure wife, Anne Mortimer. So, in a way, he had the last laugh.
I don't suppose he felt much like laughing 601 years ago today though!
Showing posts with label Richard of Conisbrough. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard of Conisbrough. Show all posts
Friday, 5 August 2016
Friday, 6 December 2013
Frustrated Falcons
The Amazon version of Frustrated Falcons is now available in both paperback and kindle formats. This is my short triple biography of the three children of Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York. For anyone who doesn't know these were: Edward, the second duke, described by one chronicler as a 'second Solomon' who died at Agincourt; Constance, Lady Despenser and Countess of Gloucester, who organised an interesting plot against Henry IV and was the great-grandmother of Anne Neville - and ancestress of very many more; and Richard, Earl of Cambridge, who was involved in the Southampton Plot of 1415. Richard was, of course, the grandfather of Edward IV and the little-known Richard III.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of Cambridge
I have noticed that the Wiki Page for young Richard has been expanded considerably and now includes reference to his possible illegitimacy. It even provides us with an image of him, and to be honest I don't recall having seen it before, though I may have done somewhere.
What the article fails to mention is the seminal work of T.B. Pugh in Henry V and The Southampton Plot, which is unfortunate because I am 95% certain that Pugh was the first reputable historian to draw attention to the matter and suggest Richard was not born until 1385, or thereabouts. It also fails to mention that Shirley, the 15th century collector of poems and servant of various nobles, the man who first linked this supposed affair to Chaucer's poem, had known links to Isabel Countess of Essex (Cambridge's daughter) and Isabelle, Countess of Warwick (Cambridge's niece.) These ladies were in a position to know their family gossip - whether they shared it with Shirley and told him it was 100% kosher we shall never know.
Frankly I should prefer to think that Edward IV and Richard III were descendants of Edmund of Langley - but we can at least be reasonably sure that they were descended from Lionel of Clarence, which is the key thing from the point of view of the succession.
What the article fails to mention is the seminal work of T.B. Pugh in Henry V and The Southampton Plot, which is unfortunate because I am 95% certain that Pugh was the first reputable historian to draw attention to the matter and suggest Richard was not born until 1385, or thereabouts. It also fails to mention that Shirley, the 15th century collector of poems and servant of various nobles, the man who first linked this supposed affair to Chaucer's poem, had known links to Isabel Countess of Essex (Cambridge's daughter) and Isabelle, Countess of Warwick (Cambridge's niece.) These ladies were in a position to know their family gossip - whether they shared it with Shirley and told him it was 100% kosher we shall never know.
Frankly I should prefer to think that Edward IV and Richard III were descendants of Edmund of Langley - but we can at least be reasonably sure that they were descended from Lionel of Clarence, which is the key thing from the point of view of the succession.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Isabel of York 1408 (?) - 1484
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.
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.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
The Southampton Plot - once more
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.
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.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Hopeless Edmund, the 5th Earl of March
Though he was not a member of the House of York, Edmund Mortimer, 5th and last Earl of March had a huge impact on it, not least by getting all three of Edmund of Langley's children into trouble on his behalf, and then by conveniently dying and leaving all he had to his sister's son, Richard, Duke of York.
Note to Shakespeare lovers - do not confuse this Edmund with his Uncle Edmund, who died in 1409. The Bard of Avon tends to do this, but you see, he was not a historian.
Born on 6 November 1391, Edmund was the son of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March and Alianore Holland, eldest daughter of the Earl of Kent (and half-niece to Richard II). He was only six years old when his father was killed in Ireland in July 1398 and the custody of his estates shared out between Edward of York, Duke of Aumale, John Holland, Duke of Exeter, and Thomas Holland, Duke of Surrey - his mother's brother.
After the accession of Henry IV Edmund and his brother Roger became what Pugh, with his characteristic bluntness, calls 'in effect, state prisoners'. They were lodged at Berkhampstead and Windsor Castles until Constance of York's 1405 plot, after which they were moved to Pevensey for the next three years.
In 1409 they were transferred to the household of Henry, Prince of Wales (future Henry V), and in November 1412 Edmund was given livery of his estates, his brother Roger dying soon afterwards. However Edmund wanted to choose his own wife - Anne Stafford - and because of this marriage Henry V fined him the unprecedented sum of 10,000 marks. (About £6,666.)
To be clear, Henry was entitled to levy a fine, but the amount was wholly unreasonable. Not even Henry VII matched this sort of greed. Because of this, and the cost of equipping himself to join Henry's French expedition, Edmund had to raise a huge loan, mortgaging a large proportion of his English and Welsh estates to a syndicate of rich individuals. He still owed much of the money at the time of his death.
It seems as certain as anything can be that this was the motive for his agreement to join in the Southampton Plot organised by his former brother-in-law, Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of Cambridge. However his nerve quickly cracked and it appears he was the one who betrayed the plotters, receiving a pardon on 7 August 1415.
The result of course was that no one trusted him with any further plots, and his 'threat' to Henry V was effectively neutralised. Though absent from Agincourt due to sickness he took a significant part in Henry's French wars, not least because Henry didn't care to leave him in England. His efforts received no reward.
After Henry V's death, Edmund was accused of having too large a household, and of keeping open house to win support. His kinsman Sir John Mortimer was accused of treason and, after escaping from the Tower (twice!) was executed. The final solution to the Mortimer question was to send Edmund off to Ireland as Lieutenant in 1424. Like his father before him, he died there. In January 1425. He had no children, though his widow went on to have children with another man.
Edmund's brother and sisters had died before him (the Mortimers rarely seem to have made old bones) and only Anne, Richard of Conisbrough's wife, had had any children. So the Mortimer inheritance came to the House of York, and, particularly after the debts had been paid and Earl Edmund's widow had died, completely transformed the family fortunes. Richard, Duke of York, was to be the richest subject since Henry Bolingbroke - and with similar results.
Main source for this again the invaluable Henry V and the Southampton Plot by T.B. Pugh.
Note to Shakespeare lovers - do not confuse this Edmund with his Uncle Edmund, who died in 1409. The Bard of Avon tends to do this, but you see, he was not a historian.
Born on 6 November 1391, Edmund was the son of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March and Alianore Holland, eldest daughter of the Earl of Kent (and half-niece to Richard II). He was only six years old when his father was killed in Ireland in July 1398 and the custody of his estates shared out between Edward of York, Duke of Aumale, John Holland, Duke of Exeter, and Thomas Holland, Duke of Surrey - his mother's brother.
After the accession of Henry IV Edmund and his brother Roger became what Pugh, with his characteristic bluntness, calls 'in effect, state prisoners'. They were lodged at Berkhampstead and Windsor Castles until Constance of York's 1405 plot, after which they were moved to Pevensey for the next three years.
In 1409 they were transferred to the household of Henry, Prince of Wales (future Henry V), and in November 1412 Edmund was given livery of his estates, his brother Roger dying soon afterwards. However Edmund wanted to choose his own wife - Anne Stafford - and because of this marriage Henry V fined him the unprecedented sum of 10,000 marks. (About £6,666.)
To be clear, Henry was entitled to levy a fine, but the amount was wholly unreasonable. Not even Henry VII matched this sort of greed. Because of this, and the cost of equipping himself to join Henry's French expedition, Edmund had to raise a huge loan, mortgaging a large proportion of his English and Welsh estates to a syndicate of rich individuals. He still owed much of the money at the time of his death.
It seems as certain as anything can be that this was the motive for his agreement to join in the Southampton Plot organised by his former brother-in-law, Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of Cambridge. However his nerve quickly cracked and it appears he was the one who betrayed the plotters, receiving a pardon on 7 August 1415.
The result of course was that no one trusted him with any further plots, and his 'threat' to Henry V was effectively neutralised. Though absent from Agincourt due to sickness he took a significant part in Henry's French wars, not least because Henry didn't care to leave him in England. His efforts received no reward.
After Henry V's death, Edmund was accused of having too large a household, and of keeping open house to win support. His kinsman Sir John Mortimer was accused of treason and, after escaping from the Tower (twice!) was executed. The final solution to the Mortimer question was to send Edmund off to Ireland as Lieutenant in 1424. Like his father before him, he died there. In January 1425. He had no children, though his widow went on to have children with another man.
Edmund's brother and sisters had died before him (the Mortimers rarely seem to have made old bones) and only Anne, Richard of Conisbrough's wife, had had any children. So the Mortimer inheritance came to the House of York, and, particularly after the debts had been paid and Earl Edmund's widow had died, completely transformed the family fortunes. Richard, Duke of York, was to be the richest subject since Henry Bolingbroke - and with similar results.
Main source for this again the invaluable Henry V and the Southampton Plot by T.B. Pugh.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
The York Family's Financial Arrangements
By the creative use of various footnotes in T.B. Pugh's Henry V and the Southampton Plot I have calculated that Edmund of Langley's income from land and annuities amounted to £2070 a year. Almost £1,100 of this was made of of annuities, and so it follows as night follows day that his income from land was less than £1,000. Edmund's widow Joan (or Joanne) Holland was entitled to a one third share for life.
Duke Edward's inheritance was therefore roughly £1,366, with maybe £600 from land. OK, he had what was left of the additional lands given him by Richard II, plus Philippa's relatively modest dower rights, but, given that for much of Henry IV's reign annuities were about as valuable as Bradford and Bingley shares in 2009, this was not much to run a dukedom on. It's not hard to see why debts of ten grand from his time in Gascony, and further debts run up while fighting Henry's battles in Wales would have given him serious problems.
Edward received some wages in addition. For example he had twelve pence a day as Master of Hart Hounds and a salary of £200 a year as a member of Henry's Council. However, this would have been a lot less in total than he received from the juicy offices he held under Richard II, and I expect the wages were often paid in arrears, given the state of Henry's finances.
To give some comparisons, the Mortimer inheritance in England and Wales was conservatively estimated at being worth £3,400 in 1398, while circa 1415 the Despenser inheritance, despite all it had suffered from forfeitures and the ravages of Owain Glyn Dwr's friends, was still reckoned to be worth £1,500. In 1391 the duchy of Lancaster was worth about £10,000, while Pugh estimates that Gaunt's total income at the end of his life was more like £20,000.
Despite grabbing what he could from the Despenser wardship Edward was still reduced to mortgaging some of his lands to pay the debts he ran up in the Welsh wars, and in 1404 was wandering around borrowing from anyone he could, including the Abbot of Glastonbury. This was probably one of his motives for seeking to overthrow Henry in 1405, and, frankly, he had more cause to complain on the effect of government policy on his finances than Thomas of Woodstock had in the 1390s.
Although Henry's finances improved in the later part of his reign and Edward (presumably) saw more in the way of hard cash, he still ended up selling (in 1412) the Lordship of Tyndale, together with the reversion of Joanne's one third share to Sir Thomas Grey for £500. This may have had something to do with the proposed marriage of Richard of Conisbrough's daughter, Isabel, to Grey's son, but generally speaking the sale of inherited land was something that was done only as a last resort.
Duke Edward's inheritance was therefore roughly £1,366, with maybe £600 from land. OK, he had what was left of the additional lands given him by Richard II, plus Philippa's relatively modest dower rights, but, given that for much of Henry IV's reign annuities were about as valuable as Bradford and Bingley shares in 2009, this was not much to run a dukedom on. It's not hard to see why debts of ten grand from his time in Gascony, and further debts run up while fighting Henry's battles in Wales would have given him serious problems.
Edward received some wages in addition. For example he had twelve pence a day as Master of Hart Hounds and a salary of £200 a year as a member of Henry's Council. However, this would have been a lot less in total than he received from the juicy offices he held under Richard II, and I expect the wages were often paid in arrears, given the state of Henry's finances.
To give some comparisons, the Mortimer inheritance in England and Wales was conservatively estimated at being worth £3,400 in 1398, while circa 1415 the Despenser inheritance, despite all it had suffered from forfeitures and the ravages of Owain Glyn Dwr's friends, was still reckoned to be worth £1,500. In 1391 the duchy of Lancaster was worth about £10,000, while Pugh estimates that Gaunt's total income at the end of his life was more like £20,000.
Despite grabbing what he could from the Despenser wardship Edward was still reduced to mortgaging some of his lands to pay the debts he ran up in the Welsh wars, and in 1404 was wandering around borrowing from anyone he could, including the Abbot of Glastonbury. This was probably one of his motives for seeking to overthrow Henry in 1405, and, frankly, he had more cause to complain on the effect of government policy on his finances than Thomas of Woodstock had in the 1390s.
Although Henry's finances improved in the later part of his reign and Edward (presumably) saw more in the way of hard cash, he still ended up selling (in 1412) the Lordship of Tyndale, together with the reversion of Joanne's one third share to Sir Thomas Grey for £500. This may have had something to do with the proposed marriage of Richard of Conisbrough's daughter, Isabel, to Grey's son, but generally speaking the sale of inherited land was something that was done only as a last resort.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Edward Duke of York and the Welsh Wars
Edward, the second Duke of York (as the rascal became in 1402) had a fair amount of involvement in the Welsh wars, indeed it was during this period that he served the bulk of his career as a soldier. His younger brother, Richard of Conisbrough, was also active for at least a time.
In some ways it's surprising that Henry IV trusted Edward with any military (or indeed administrative) power, but, as in the case of Richard III and Lord Stanley, it's likely the case that Edward was just too big a player to be ignored. From 1402 he was England's only duke, and remained so until Thomas of Lancaster (Henry IV's second son) was created Duke of Clarence in the twilight days of the reign. Rank and blood meant a great deal.
What Edward's personal policy was in those days is hard to discern. He was widely mistrusted, that's for sure, and was repeatedly accused of being involved in treason, notably after the Battle of Shrewsbury, where he did not show up. His alleged participation in his sister's plot of 1405 led to a period of imprisonment and forfeiture but, as ever, Edward came out smelling of roses and within a few weeks of his release was actually opening Parliament on his sickly cousin's behalf.
The experience does seemed to have cured any interest he had in supporting the Mortimer claim to the throne, and after this point he becomes a partisan of the Prince of Wales, and appears to support the future Henry V right through to his (York's) death at Agincourt. Not a bad move, politically speaking.
York acted as a lieutenant of the Prince during the latter's campaigns in Wales in the latter half of the reign, and the Prince was suitably grateful. Following the failure of a campaign to capture the castle of Aberystwyth, Edward was once again accused of treason, but kneeling to the King before the Parliament of December 1407 the Prince 'spoke some generous words of the Duke of York, whose good advice and counsel, he said, had rescued the whole expedition from great peril and desolation.' From such a source this is praise indeed!
In some ways it's surprising that Henry IV trusted Edward with any military (or indeed administrative) power, but, as in the case of Richard III and Lord Stanley, it's likely the case that Edward was just too big a player to be ignored. From 1402 he was England's only duke, and remained so until Thomas of Lancaster (Henry IV's second son) was created Duke of Clarence in the twilight days of the reign. Rank and blood meant a great deal.
What Edward's personal policy was in those days is hard to discern. He was widely mistrusted, that's for sure, and was repeatedly accused of being involved in treason, notably after the Battle of Shrewsbury, where he did not show up. His alleged participation in his sister's plot of 1405 led to a period of imprisonment and forfeiture but, as ever, Edward came out smelling of roses and within a few weeks of his release was actually opening Parliament on his sickly cousin's behalf.
The experience does seemed to have cured any interest he had in supporting the Mortimer claim to the throne, and after this point he becomes a partisan of the Prince of Wales, and appears to support the future Henry V right through to his (York's) death at Agincourt. Not a bad move, politically speaking.
York acted as a lieutenant of the Prince during the latter's campaigns in Wales in the latter half of the reign, and the Prince was suitably grateful. Following the failure of a campaign to capture the castle of Aberystwyth, Edward was once again accused of treason, but kneeling to the King before the Parliament of December 1407 the Prince 'spoke some generous words of the Duke of York, whose good advice and counsel, he said, had rescued the whole expedition from great peril and desolation.' From such a source this is praise indeed!
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
The House of York takes stock.
The events of January 1400 had a major impact on the York family, though on some more than others.
Edmund of Langley had established himself as a loyal supporter of Henry IV, though Richard's deposition had naturally cost him the Lancastrian properties and offices he'd been granted. He was in ill health, in particular he had severe skeletal problems, and after this point he seems to have retired from active public life.
Edward of York had lost his Aumale title, and was probably lucky not to have lost his life, being more culpable than most members of Richard's government. He suffered severe financial losses because of the resumption of his 1397 grants, but on the other hand Henry was already showing him limited favour (for example the grant of the Isle of Wight) and was to continue to employ him in various offices, albeit none as lofty as those he had enjoyed under Richard.
Richard of Conisbrough still had his annuities and his position was theoretically unchanged. He was not to know that Henry IV was soon to become effectively bankrupt and unable to honour annuities.
Constance of York had lost her husband and was notionally penniless because although Despenser had not been attainted (yet) everyone proceeded on the assumption that he had been. Widows of attainted men were not entitled to dower, and the jointure she had was in lands granted in 1397 and taken back. Fortunately for her, Henry IV was quite generous in providing for her, starting with the gift of £30 found on Despenser's body. It appears (if my understanding of the process is correct) that she kept submitting petitions, and as each one was granted went back and petitioned for a bit more. Forfeits of treason apart (most of Despenser's moveable property* and certain lands granted quickly away to others) she eventually ended up with the whole of the Despenser lands (bar her mother-in-law's dower) and the wardship of her son. She had to pay a rental (farm) for this, but that was par for the course, and she even had a protection written in that the wardship was not to be taken away if someone else offered to pay more! In the case of the manor of Bawtry (Yorkshire) she was in dispute with someone who had been granted it by the King, but it seems she won this fight as she certainly died possessed of Bawtry.
(*I should mention that some part of Despenser's property went missing, and the King sent out a commission to discover what had happened to it. Presumably it was either stolen or hidden away by well-wishers.)
The only widow the King treated with similar kindness was his sister, Elizabeth of Lancaster, and as I have mentioned before, it seems to me that Henry Bolingbroke had due respect for Plantagenet blood. He was very much less generous to the countesses of Salisbury and Wiltshire, for example, who received the next thing to damn all.
Edmund of Langley had established himself as a loyal supporter of Henry IV, though Richard's deposition had naturally cost him the Lancastrian properties and offices he'd been granted. He was in ill health, in particular he had severe skeletal problems, and after this point he seems to have retired from active public life.
Edward of York had lost his Aumale title, and was probably lucky not to have lost his life, being more culpable than most members of Richard's government. He suffered severe financial losses because of the resumption of his 1397 grants, but on the other hand Henry was already showing him limited favour (for example the grant of the Isle of Wight) and was to continue to employ him in various offices, albeit none as lofty as those he had enjoyed under Richard.
Richard of Conisbrough still had his annuities and his position was theoretically unchanged. He was not to know that Henry IV was soon to become effectively bankrupt and unable to honour annuities.
Constance of York had lost her husband and was notionally penniless because although Despenser had not been attainted (yet) everyone proceeded on the assumption that he had been. Widows of attainted men were not entitled to dower, and the jointure she had was in lands granted in 1397 and taken back. Fortunately for her, Henry IV was quite generous in providing for her, starting with the gift of £30 found on Despenser's body. It appears (if my understanding of the process is correct) that she kept submitting petitions, and as each one was granted went back and petitioned for a bit more. Forfeits of treason apart (most of Despenser's moveable property* and certain lands granted quickly away to others) she eventually ended up with the whole of the Despenser lands (bar her mother-in-law's dower) and the wardship of her son. She had to pay a rental (farm) for this, but that was par for the course, and she even had a protection written in that the wardship was not to be taken away if someone else offered to pay more! In the case of the manor of Bawtry (Yorkshire) she was in dispute with someone who had been granted it by the King, but it seems she won this fight as she certainly died possessed of Bawtry.
(*I should mention that some part of Despenser's property went missing, and the King sent out a commission to discover what had happened to it. Presumably it was either stolen or hidden away by well-wishers.)
The only widow the King treated with similar kindness was his sister, Elizabeth of Lancaster, and as I have mentioned before, it seems to me that Henry Bolingbroke had due respect for Plantagenet blood. He was very much less generous to the countesses of Salisbury and Wiltshire, for example, who received the next thing to damn all.
Sunday, 9 March 2008
Maud Clifford secures a good divorce settlement.
It's often stated, and not without good reason, that women got a raw deal in medieval times. Maud Clifford (c1391-1446), however, did very well out of her divorce.
Her first husband was John Neville, Lord Latimer (1382-1430) whom she married prior to 1406. It would appear that marriage was never consummated, and Maud sued for annulment. (Pugh thinks that Latimer was probably gay, but he could equally have been impotent, or just plain not very interested in Maud.) In any event, Maud's plea was successful and the marriage dissolved.
Some (of Neville's) lands had been put put into trust for Maud, or, to use the technical term, granted to feoffees. The feoffees must have been sympathetic to Maud, because they allowed her to keep the lands, even though the marriage was invalid!
Thus Maud was free to marry Richard of Conisbrough, which she did probably in 1414. Following his execution on 5 August 1415 she continued to live at Conisbrough Castle until her death in 1446. The brief marriage produced no children, as far as anyone knows.
One sign that the Earl of March may have felt guilty about his betrayal of Cambridge was that he granted Maud an annuity of £100.
Her first husband was John Neville, Lord Latimer (1382-1430) whom she married prior to 1406. It would appear that marriage was never consummated, and Maud sued for annulment. (Pugh thinks that Latimer was probably gay, but he could equally have been impotent, or just plain not very interested in Maud.) In any event, Maud's plea was successful and the marriage dissolved.
Some (of Neville's) lands had been put put into trust for Maud, or, to use the technical term, granted to feoffees. The feoffees must have been sympathetic to Maud, because they allowed her to keep the lands, even though the marriage was invalid!
Thus Maud was free to marry Richard of Conisbrough, which she did probably in 1414. Following his execution on 5 August 1415 she continued to live at Conisbrough Castle until her death in 1446. The brief marriage produced no children, as far as anyone knows.
One sign that the Earl of March may have felt guilty about his betrayal of Cambridge was that he granted Maud an annuity of £100.
Friday, 7 March 2008
Southampton Plot - initial thoughts
I've been trying to make sense of the Southampton Plot, I really have. Pugh is again my main source, and first of all I have to say that the confessions all contradict one another for a start. They are also mutilated, so the documents only give half a tale at best.
Perhaps it's time to mention that Richard was created Earl of Cambridge by Henry V. This was one of brother Edward's spare titles and no money or land went with it. Apart from the right to sit in Parliament it was no more than a courtesy title, and Richard may well have felt disappointed - perhaps even insulted.
One thing is clear - if Cambridge and his chums hoped to pull this one off as described they were a bunch of nincompoops. The only other possibility is that there were other people involved - quite a few at that - who somehow managed to avoid the flak. Or the whole thing was somehow a setup - maybe Mossad were in there?
Richard's main home seems to have become Conisbrough Castle, which he presumably rented or borrowed from his elder brother, York, who owned it. As his second wife he married Maud Clifford, sister of Lord Clifford. (More about her later.) It appears he tried to drag Clifford into the plot, but Clifford wasn't having any of it.
Another person involved was Lord Scrope of Masham, who was married to Richard's stepmother, the erstwhile Joanne Holland. This is unlikely to have been a powerful family link, because Scrope and the Dowager Duchess were like cat and dog - Joanne even did a bunk with a stack of Scrope's property at one point. Scrope claimed that he had got involved only to betray the plot, but of course he would say that, wouldn't he?
The other main conspirator was Sir Thomas Grey of Heton, whose young son had recently 'married' Cambridge's daughter, Isabel. So it's sort of a family affair. The Earl of March came in as Richard's former brother-in-law of course.
There was also some chap called Howell who was supposed to raise Wales - he was a squire from Pembroke, so this was asking a lot.
Plan of action - swap someone (not clear who, but maybe Murdoch Earl of Fife) with the Scots for the pretend Richard II (who was already dead) and Harry Percy (Hotspur's heir, who had just signed a deal with Henry V to come home and be Earl of Northumberland).
Next, if Richard II turned out to be dead (which he was) rush off to Wales with the Earl of March and declare him king. Hope that everyone will rally round.
At some point, kill Henry V and his brothers.
Not very promising is it? I mean, would you join up to something as hare-brained as that?
March wimped out and told Henry V what was going on behind his back. Cambridge and the rest were promptly arrested, found that confessions and pleas for mercy didn't work with this king, and were swiftly executed.
It really doesn't make sense, and I wonder what modern conspiracy theorists would make of it.
Perhaps it's time to mention that Richard was created Earl of Cambridge by Henry V. This was one of brother Edward's spare titles and no money or land went with it. Apart from the right to sit in Parliament it was no more than a courtesy title, and Richard may well have felt disappointed - perhaps even insulted.
One thing is clear - if Cambridge and his chums hoped to pull this one off as described they were a bunch of nincompoops. The only other possibility is that there were other people involved - quite a few at that - who somehow managed to avoid the flak. Or the whole thing was somehow a setup - maybe Mossad were in there?
Richard's main home seems to have become Conisbrough Castle, which he presumably rented or borrowed from his elder brother, York, who owned it. As his second wife he married Maud Clifford, sister of Lord Clifford. (More about her later.) It appears he tried to drag Clifford into the plot, but Clifford wasn't having any of it.
Another person involved was Lord Scrope of Masham, who was married to Richard's stepmother, the erstwhile Joanne Holland. This is unlikely to have been a powerful family link, because Scrope and the Dowager Duchess were like cat and dog - Joanne even did a bunk with a stack of Scrope's property at one point. Scrope claimed that he had got involved only to betray the plot, but of course he would say that, wouldn't he?
The other main conspirator was Sir Thomas Grey of Heton, whose young son had recently 'married' Cambridge's daughter, Isabel. So it's sort of a family affair. The Earl of March came in as Richard's former brother-in-law of course.
There was also some chap called Howell who was supposed to raise Wales - he was a squire from Pembroke, so this was asking a lot.
Plan of action - swap someone (not clear who, but maybe Murdoch Earl of Fife) with the Scots for the pretend Richard II (who was already dead) and Harry Percy (Hotspur's heir, who had just signed a deal with Henry V to come home and be Earl of Northumberland).
Next, if Richard II turned out to be dead (which he was) rush off to Wales with the Earl of March and declare him king. Hope that everyone will rally round.
At some point, kill Henry V and his brothers.
Not very promising is it? I mean, would you join up to something as hare-brained as that?
March wimped out and told Henry V what was going on behind his back. Cambridge and the rest were promptly arrested, found that confessions and pleas for mercy didn't work with this king, and were swiftly executed.
It really doesn't make sense, and I wonder what modern conspiracy theorists would make of it.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Richard of Conisbrough part 2
As his name suggests, Richard was born at Conisbrough Castle in Yorkshire. If it was indeed in 1385 it may well be that the Yorks moved there in time for Edmund to join Richard II's expedition to Scotland.
Little is known of Richard's early life - read nothing. He first shows up in Henry IV's coronation procession, but there is no mention anywhere of his doing or saying anything at this time, or being recognised in any way. It does suggest he was quite young.
In 1404 he is found fighting in Wales and the borders against Owen Glendower (Owain Glyn Dwr). In this role he was effectively a lieutenant of Henry, Prince of Wales, the future Henry V.
In 1406 Richard was at last knighted, and sent off to Denmark as escort for Henry IV's younger daughter, who was to be married to King Eric. Pugh says he was given this task because 'he was the least important (and most expendable) member of the English royal house'. (Typical Pugh comment - he tells it like it is, but harsher.)
At some point about this time Richard married Anne Mortimer, sister of the Earl of March. They had at least one thing in common - she didn't have a bean either. However, after her death, she turned out to be her brother's heiress, which was right useful for her son and grandsons, as you shall see. The marriage was in secret (shades of Edward IV, Richard's grandson) and they had to send off to Rome for a Papal Dispensation to put things right. This was granted in 1408.
In the same year Anne inherited some land, through her late mother, from her uncle, Edmund, Earl of Kent. Yes, Richard finally owned some land! Not a lot, but some.
Richard had two children, Richard and Isabel. There was also possibly another son, Henry, but if he existed he must have died very young.
Anne Mortimer (who may have been slightly younger even than I suggested in Within the Fetterlock) died in 1411 and was buried in the same tomb as her in-laws at King's Langley. Her death may have been caused by the birth of her son, Richard. She was certainly not much more than 21 years old, and possibly younger.
Little is known of Richard's early life - read nothing. He first shows up in Henry IV's coronation procession, but there is no mention anywhere of his doing or saying anything at this time, or being recognised in any way. It does suggest he was quite young.
In 1404 he is found fighting in Wales and the borders against Owen Glendower (Owain Glyn Dwr). In this role he was effectively a lieutenant of Henry, Prince of Wales, the future Henry V.
In 1406 Richard was at last knighted, and sent off to Denmark as escort for Henry IV's younger daughter, who was to be married to King Eric. Pugh says he was given this task because 'he was the least important (and most expendable) member of the English royal house'. (Typical Pugh comment - he tells it like it is, but harsher.)
At some point about this time Richard married Anne Mortimer, sister of the Earl of March. They had at least one thing in common - she didn't have a bean either. However, after her death, she turned out to be her brother's heiress, which was right useful for her son and grandsons, as you shall see. The marriage was in secret (shades of Edward IV, Richard's grandson) and they had to send off to Rome for a Papal Dispensation to put things right. This was granted in 1408.
In the same year Anne inherited some land, through her late mother, from her uncle, Edmund, Earl of Kent. Yes, Richard finally owned some land! Not a lot, but some.
Richard had two children, Richard and Isabel. There was also possibly another son, Henry, but if he existed he must have died very young.
Anne Mortimer (who may have been slightly younger even than I suggested in Within the Fetterlock) died in 1411 and was buried in the same tomb as her in-laws at King's Langley. Her death may have been caused by the birth of her son, Richard. She was certainly not much more than 21 years old, and possibly younger.
The Enigma that is Richard of Conisbrough
An invaluable resource for anyone interested in the early history of the House of York is Henry V and the Southampton Plot by T.B.Pugh. I don't always agree with Pugh's conclusions - he is quite hard on poor old Constance for example - but the book does contain almost all that is known about Richard of Conisbrough. Or as he perhaps should be called, Richard the Obscure.
Pugh believes that Richard was born in 1385, and although this contradicts what you may read elsewhere, I agree with him, because it makes sense. Richard was never knighted by his cousin, King Richard II, indeed did not achieve this status until 1406 at the hands of another cousin, Henry IV, at a time when bro. and sis. were both languishing in jail. Given that the Yorks were high in Richard II's favour it seems unlikely to me that a Richard born in say, 1375, would have got to 24 without being made at least a knight. Moreover that annuity I mentioned (worth a total of £333. 6s 8d when the Exchequer had money in it) did not start to be paid until 1395, a couple of years after his mother's death.
Pugh has an even more interesting theory - that Richard was actually the son of John Holland, not Edmund of Langley! Now, the evidence is strictly circumstantial, and as a writer of fiction I would not have dared to suggest it. But as the theory comes from an academic historian of Pugh's standing, I think the idea is worth considering.
Edmund of Langley left his younger son nothing. Although primogeniture ruled, and much land was entailed to the eldest son, it was customary by this era to make some provision for younger sons. John of Gaunt, for example, bought manors for the benefit of his Beaufort sons. Edmund did not leave Richard so much as a coin, a sword, or a second-best bed. So it is possible, and I put it no stronger, that Edmund believed Richard was not his son. It might also explain why Duchess Isabel left almost everything she had (bar the odd keepsake) to provide for Richard's future.
Pugh believes that Richard was born in 1385, and although this contradicts what you may read elsewhere, I agree with him, because it makes sense. Richard was never knighted by his cousin, King Richard II, indeed did not achieve this status until 1406 at the hands of another cousin, Henry IV, at a time when bro. and sis. were both languishing in jail. Given that the Yorks were high in Richard II's favour it seems unlikely to me that a Richard born in say, 1375, would have got to 24 without being made at least a knight. Moreover that annuity I mentioned (worth a total of £333. 6s 8d when the Exchequer had money in it) did not start to be paid until 1395, a couple of years after his mother's death.
Pugh has an even more interesting theory - that Richard was actually the son of John Holland, not Edmund of Langley! Now, the evidence is strictly circumstantial, and as a writer of fiction I would not have dared to suggest it. But as the theory comes from an academic historian of Pugh's standing, I think the idea is worth considering.
Edmund of Langley left his younger son nothing. Although primogeniture ruled, and much land was entailed to the eldest son, it was customary by this era to make some provision for younger sons. John of Gaunt, for example, bought manors for the benefit of his Beaufort sons. Edmund did not leave Richard so much as a coin, a sword, or a second-best bed. So it is possible, and I put it no stronger, that Edmund believed Richard was not his son. It might also explain why Duchess Isabel left almost everything she had (bar the odd keepsake) to provide for Richard's future.
Isabel of Castile, Duchess of York
Why did Edmund marry her? Well, it was undoubtedly part of big brother John of Gaunt's plan to secure the throne of Castile for himself. Gaunt married Isabel's elder sister, Constance, or Constanza. The two young women were the daughters and heirs of the deposed Castilian king, Pedro 'the Cruel' who had been murdered by his illegitimate half-brother. Said half-brother then nicked the throne.
From Edmund's point of view this was not a particularly good deal. He and his wife were required to sign over their rights to Castile to John of Gaunt and Constanza - I hope for a consideration. Apart from that Isabel hadn't much but the clothes she stood up in and a few jewels.
Isabel is buried at King's Langley - when her tomb was investigated by curious Victorians in the 19th century she was found to be quite a small lady, estimated 4' 8" in height. If the Chronicles are to believed she - er - liked a good time. It has been suggested that the Chroniclers - churchmen to a person - may have been hostile to her because she favoured the Lollards. This seems improbable, although she did have at least one known Lollard as an executor.
(The Lollards, for anyone who doesn't know, were a sort of early Protestant, though the range of opinions represented by the term is very wide. Orthodox clerics hated them with a passion.)
Isabel had three children, Edward, Constance and Richard, of whom more anon. She is also supposed to have had a lover, King Richard's half-brother, Sir John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon.
If true, this says little for her taste in men, as he was a distinctly nasty piece of work, involved in at least two murders.
When Isabel died in 1393 she left her jewels to King Richard, with a request that he provide an annuity for her younger son, Richard. This the King did, and on a relatively generous basis compared to the value of the bequest. Richard of Conisbrough (often known as Richard of York in his own time, but better known by his birthplace because of the danger of mixing him up with his more famous son) never had any land of his own, and this annuity remained his principal source of income. In royal family terms, he was a pauper.
From Edmund's point of view this was not a particularly good deal. He and his wife were required to sign over their rights to Castile to John of Gaunt and Constanza - I hope for a consideration. Apart from that Isabel hadn't much but the clothes she stood up in and a few jewels.
Isabel is buried at King's Langley - when her tomb was investigated by curious Victorians in the 19th century she was found to be quite a small lady, estimated 4' 8" in height. If the Chronicles are to believed she - er - liked a good time. It has been suggested that the Chroniclers - churchmen to a person - may have been hostile to her because she favoured the Lollards. This seems improbable, although she did have at least one known Lollard as an executor.
(The Lollards, for anyone who doesn't know, were a sort of early Protestant, though the range of opinions represented by the term is very wide. Orthodox clerics hated them with a passion.)
Isabel had three children, Edward, Constance and Richard, of whom more anon. She is also supposed to have had a lover, King Richard's half-brother, Sir John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon.
If true, this says little for her taste in men, as he was a distinctly nasty piece of work, involved in at least two murders.
When Isabel died in 1393 she left her jewels to King Richard, with a request that he provide an annuity for her younger son, Richard. This the King did, and on a relatively generous basis compared to the value of the bequest. Richard of Conisbrough (often known as Richard of York in his own time, but better known by his birthplace because of the danger of mixing him up with his more famous son) never had any land of his own, and this annuity remained his principal source of income. In royal family terms, he was a pauper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)