Constance of York - portrait!

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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.