1432

The Minority Council

Money. Food prices. Royal heralds. John Burgh’s ransom. Henry V’s servants. Sorcery and witchcraft.

The Council and the Church

Cistercians. Master John Milez. Pilgrimages.

The Magnates 

The Earl of Stafford. The Earl of Warwick. Warwick, Talbot and Xaintrailles. John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope. Ladies of the Garter. Death of the Countess of Huntingdon. Death of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk.

Scottish Hostages

Fifteen Scottish hostages were exchanged.

King Henry’s Return to England

King Henry returned to England early February 1432. The pageants to welcome him home.

The Duke of Gloucester, the Council, and the Household

The Duke of Gloucester appointed a new Chancellor, Treasurer and Keeper of the Privy Seal and replaced key members of the royal household with men of his own choosing.

Parliament

Parliament convened on 12 May 1432 with King Henry present and was in session until 17 July. Taxation.

Cardinal Beaufort’s Treasure

Cardinal Beaufort returned to England to defend himself in Parliament against charges laid by the Duke of Gloucester.

Beaufort in Parliament

Cardinal Beaufort defended himself in Parliament and was exonerated. He offered loans to the crown.

The General Council at Basel

The Minority Council agreed to send delegates to the General Council of the Church at Basel.

A Blazing Star

A bright star appeared in the south-eastern sky in the middle of the afternoon in May in 1432 or 1433. 

Foreign Relations

Aragon. Denmark. Brittany.

The Duchy of Gascony

Chateauneuf-sur-Charente and Ratières. Bertrand de Monferrand.

The War in France

Rouen. Chartres. Lord Willoughby and Saint Cénéry.  The Siege of Lagny. The Duke of Bedford’s war finances.

An Army for Normandy

A small army departed for France at the end of the summer led by Roger Camoys and Sir Walter Hungerford.

Death of Anne, Duchess of Bedford

Anne, Duchess of Bedford died in Paris on 14 November at the age of twenty-eight.   

The Prospect of Peace

Peace talks were initiated by Cardinal Albergati but ended in failure. The English did not attend.

Peace talks resumed

Cardinal Albergati reconvened the peace talks at Auxerre in November 1432.

Henry VI and the Earl of Warwick

The Earl of Warwick as the king’s governor, demanded extended powers to discipline King Henry and dismiss members of his household. The Council concurred. Assessments of Henry VI’s character.

Bibliography 1432

 

The Minority Council

The Proceedings record 37 meetings in 1432: two in February, two in March when the officers of state and the household personnel were changed. Seven in May, four in June, nine in July, three in August, three in October, five in November and two in December.

See The Duke of Gloucester, the Council and the Household below.

Food Prices

The price of staple foods dropped slightly at the end of 1432. Wheat cost 13 pence (1s. 1d.) a bushel; a slight drop from 1428-29 when it stood at 1s. 8d. a bushel.  Wine was 4 pence, presumably for a gallon.

“And in his tyme betwene mighelmasse and cristemas whete whas at xiijd a busshell, and wyne i-now for iiijd.”   Chronicles of London, Cleopatra C IV, p. 135

Royal Heralds

The Council employed pairs of heralds and pursuivants to maintain regular communication with the Duke of Bedford and the Grand Conseil in Paris as well as with the Council in Rouen. They crossed the channel carrying news, letters, and messages from England to France and France to England.  One would remain in France while the other returned to England and vice versa (1, 2).

Heralds were associated with battles, it was their job to count the dead and wounded, but they had many other functions. They served as messengers and diplomats carrying letters and verbal communications, often secret, to European courts; heralds were respected and protected by their calling, they did not need safe conducts to travel, although this was not always respected in time of war.

Beville Chivachier was paid £2 in July for bringing letters to the Council from France, possibly from the parlement of Paris or the Grand Conseil (3). Master William Erard and Imbert des Champs coming from Paris were to be paid 40 marks and the Duke of Bedford’s envoys, Master William Duc and John Milet were also to receive 40 marks (4).

The Council set the wages for three royal heralds: Lancaster King at Arms at 20 marks a year, Windsor Herald £10, and Leopard Herald 2d a day (5, 6).  All three had served under Henry IV and Henry V.

**************************************************

(1) PPC IV, p. 114 (heralds and pursuivants as messengers).

(2) Foedera X. p. 505 (heralds and pursuivants as messengers).

(3) PPC IV p. 121 (Beville Chivachier).

(4) PPC IV, p. 122 (envoys from Bedford).

(5) PPC IV, p. 115 (wages of three royal heralds).

(6) Foedera X, p. 505 (wages of three royal heralds).

***********************************************

John Burgh

In June the Council honoured John Burgh’s claim for 100 marks, a legacy from a servant of Henry V, and they advanced him another 300 marks as a loan to help him pay his ransom, otherwise he would have had to surrender himself by the end of the month (1).

John Burgh is a common name, but this John who was a soldier in Normandy who fought at the Battle of Verneuil. Where and when he was captured is not stated, but as was customary, he had been set free on parole to return to England to raise his ransom. He is listed as captain of Regnéville by March 1433 with three men-at-arms and nine archers (2).

******************************************

(1) PPC IV, p. 117 (grant to Burgh).

(2) Marshal, ‘English War Captains,’ p. 268 (Régneville).

********************************************

Henry V’s Legacy

Henry V had bequeathed £4,000 from enfeoffed Duchy of Lancaster estates to be distributed among the servants of his household.  A petition to Parliament in 1432 requested that this debt should be honoured (1).

In October Lord Hungerford, Sir William Porter, Sir Robert Babthorp and John Leventhorpe as steward, chamberlain, and treasurer of his household and the executors of his will, were instructed to provide a list of the names of Henry V’s esquires, clerks, valets, grooms, and pages to apportion the £4,000 so that each could receive what was due to him (2, 3, 4).

They were also authorised to receive from the Archbishop of Canterbury as a feoffee of Henry V £200 in gold to be paid to the clerks of the royal chapel (5, 6).

***************************************************************

(1) PROME XI, p. 32-34 (blanket authorization for distribution of £4,000).

(2) PPC IV, p. 128 (executors to provide lists of Henry V’s household).

(3) Foedera X, p. 523 (order to distribute £4,000).

(4) CPR 1429-1436, p. 254 (order to distribute £4,000).

(5) Foedera X, p. 506 (Hungerford and other executors to pay £200 to clerks).

(6) CPR 1429-1436, p. 205 (£200 to pay clerks).

***********************************************************

Sorcery and Witchcraft

Two cases of sorcery and witchcraft were brought before the Council for judgement in May 1432:

John Colepeper and Robert Passemer, sergeant at arms, were ordered to arrest Thomas Northfelde a Dominican Friar suspected of unorthodox preaching in Worcester. They were to “search and seize all his books treating of sorcery or wickedness and bring him and them before the Council (1, 2).

Margery Jourdemayne, called ‘the Witch of Eye next Westminster,’ and a friar, John Ashwell, had been arrested in November 1430 and imprisoned in Windsor Castle on suspicion of practicing the black arts (3). Lord Hungerford, the Constable of Windsor, brought them and a clerk, John Virley, before the Council.

Margery had come to the attention of the Duke of Gloucester through his wife Duchess Eleanor, who availed herself of Margery’s services over several years. Among other dubious talents, Margery was believed to be able to forecast the future; she is described in the Chronicon Angliae as an ancient pythoness (4). Nine years later, in 1441, Margery Jourdemayne would feature in a major witchcraft trial and give damming evidence against the Duchess of Gloucester.

Virley and Ashwell were set free after giving surety for their future good behaviour while Margaery was released into her husband’s keeping on his security (5, 6). The fate of Thomas Northfelde is not recorded.

*****************************************************************

(1) Foedera X, pp. 504-505 (Thomas Northfelde).

(2) CPR 1429-1436 p. 220 (Thomas Northfelde).

(3 J. Freeman, ‘Sorcery at Court and Manor: Margery Jourdemayne the Witch of Eye next Westminster,’ Journal of Medieval History 30 (4), (2004), pp. 343-357.

(4) Chronicon Angliae IV, p. 31 (antiqua Pythonissa).

(5) PPC IV, p. 114 (Jourdemayne, Virley and Ashwell).

(6) Foedera X, p. 505 (Jourdemayne, Virley and Ashwell).

***********************************************

 The Council and the Church

Two Council appointments in 1432 relating to ecclesiastical matters are obscure:

Cistercians

On 28 February the Council permitted the Cistercian  Abbot Guillaume d’Autun and John of Clairvaux to order a visitation and inspection to reform all the Cistercian monasteries in England, Wales, and Ireland (1).  It would have been a major undertaking. Only the Benedictines maintained more abbeys than the Cistercians, the White Monks. I have found no other reference to this visitation in the printed sources.

Master John Milez

On 26 March the Council appointed Master John Milez (Miles?) as the king’s advocate at the curia in Rome.  He was to receive 50 marks a year (2).  Who was he?  He does not rate at mentioned in England, Rome and the Papacy, Margaret Harvey’s detailed account of England’s relationship with the papal court during Henry VI’s reign.

****************************************

(1) Foedera X, pp. 501 (Cistercians).

(2) PPC IV, p. 111 (Milez to go to Rome).

****************************************

 Pilgrimages

At the beginning of May the Council issued a licence to Peter July and Henry Tremayne to convey twenty-four pilgrims aboard the Trinity of Falmouth on the annual pilgrimage to St James of Compostela in Galicia (1).

See Year 1428  Pilgrimages.

(1) Foedera X, p. 504 (pilgrimage).

The Magnates

Humphrey, Earl of Stafford

The Earl of Stafford had been in France with King Henry. In October the Council agreed that he should receive the same wage for serving on the Council in Rouen as he would have received had he attended the Council in England (1).

(1) PPC IV, p. 129 (Stafford).

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick

The Earl of Warwick played a major and costly part in King Henry’s coronation expedition, entertaining visiting dignitaries and members of Henry’s entourage in Rouen as well as conducting a military campaign.

In July 1432 he requested a licence to send £350 to Calais to repay the merchants of the Staple who had loaned him the money while Henry was in Calais (1). In November the Council authorised payment to him of £1,580 13s 4d pus 16s 8d livres tournois for the 100 men-at-arms and 300 archers he had maintained from 1 November 1430 to 15 July 1431 to defend the town and marches of Meaux. He was also to receive his share of war profits (unspecified, and if any) (2).

***********************************************

(1) PPC IV, p. 120 (Warwick’s repayment of a loan).

(2) PPC IV, p. 132 (Warwick paid for defending Meaux).

*********************************************

 Warwick, Talbot, and Poton de Xaintrailles

Warwick had captured the war captain Poton de Xaintrailles during his campaign in France in August 1431.

See Year 1431: Campaigns of 1431, the Earl of Warwick.

At the end of May 1432, safe conducts were issued, possibly at Warwick’s request, for three of Xaintrailles’s retainers, Bernon de Genestelle, John de Bouzy and Reginald du Conay, to visit Xaintrailles in the fortress of Chateau Thierry on the Marne (1).

Xaintrailles had captured John, Lord Talbot at the Battle of Patay in 1429. Talbot was the Earl of Warwick’s son-in-law, and the visit probably related to negotiations for Talbot’s release.

King Charles VII had purchased Talbot from Xaintrailles in March 1431 for £2,100 and the importance of Xaintrailles to the French war effort is reflected in Charles’s willingness to exchange him for Talbot. Terms for an exchange of prisoners were discussed, but the details are unknown, and nothing came of them until 1433 (2).

See Year 1433: Lord Talbot and Poton de Xaintrailles.

**************************************

 (1) Foedera X, p. 507 (Xaintrailles’s retainers).

(2) Pollard, Talbot, pp. 17-18 (negotiations for an exchange).

***************************************

Sir John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope

Sir John Cornwall was elevated to the peerage by the Lords in Parliament. On 17 July 1432 he became Baron Fanhope, although the exemplification of his barony was not enrolled until November (1, 2).

Cornwall was a successful war captain, he fought at Agincourt and captured the Count of Vendôme; he was at the siege of Rouen in 1419, but returned to England after he was wounded, and his only son was killed, at the siege of Meaux in 1420 (3).

Cornwall had the good fortune to marry Elizabeth of Lancaster, Henry V’s aunt.  ‘The noble deeds which he had performed and which he now performs with great distinction,’ and his marriage were noted in the parliamentary rolls, but the entry reads like a payoff. Cornwall was being side lined. The custody of the Duke of Orleans was transferred to William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk. Nearly a year later in March 1433, the Council ordered that the £40 still due to him for keeping Orleans should be paid (4).

*************************************************

(1) PROME XI, p. 35 (Cornwall created Lord Fanhope).

(2) Foedera X, p. 524 (12 November for exemplification of Fanhope).

(3) Sumption, Cursed kings p. 747 (death of Cornwall’s son).

(4) PPC IV, p. 156 (Orleans’s keep).

****************************************************

Death of John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk

The Duke of Norfolk died suddenly at Epworth on 19 October 1432 (his will is dated that day and is incomplete). He was buried in Axholme Priory in Lincolnshire.

“And about the feast of All Saints the duke of Norfolk died.”  Benet ‘s Chronicle, p.183

The Duke of Gloucester was granted custody of the Mowbray lands during the minority of Norfolk’s son with returns to the king to be negotiated between Gloucester and Lord Scrope, whom Gloucester had appointed Treasurer of England (1).

(1) PPC IV, p. 132.

John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk

John Mowbray, Earl of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England was thirty when Henry V died in 1422. He became a member of the Minority Council but did not attend council meetings regularly.

Norfolk was younger son. His elder brother Thomas was executed for treason under Henry IV, but not attainted, so John  inheritrd the title and estates.

John married Katherine Neville, daughter of the Earl of Westmorland by his second wife, Joan Beaufort.  He redeemed his family’s good name through loyal service to Henry V in Henry’s wars in France, becoming a Knight of the Garter in 1421.

He continued to serve in France after Henry V’s death.  He and Lord Willoughby led an army into France in 1423. Norfolk probably took part in the siege of Le Crotoy, as his destination on mustering is given as Picardy.

In 1424 Norfolk joined the Duke of Gloucester’s expedition to Hainault to recover the patrimony of Gloucester’s wife, Jacqueline, Countess of Hainault. Gloucester failed to control Norfolk’s appetite for pillage. Norfolk led his men across the border and ravaged the countryside in neighbouring Brabant. The Duchy of Brabant, unlike Hainault, was not part of Jacqueline’s inheritance, and his action gave the Duke of Burgundy, Brabant’s overlord, the excuse to declare war.

See Year 1424: The Duke of Gloucester and Hainault.

The long-drawn-out dispute over precedence between Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, and John, Earl of Norfolk, dating back the King Henry IV’s reign, was adjudicated in Parliament in 1425. The Earls of Warwick were the premier earls in England, but Norfolk claimed precedence by right of descent from a half-brother of King Edward II.

Richard II had created John’s father Thomas Mowbray Duke of Norfolk but subsequently stripped him of his title. Nevertheless, the Commons in Parliament in 1425 decreed that since John, as Earl Marshal, was commonly recognised as ‘born to the style’ he was rightfully Duke of Norfolk while Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick was the premier earl in England.

See Year 1425: Parliament.

Norfolk sided with the rest of the Minority Council in 1428 to thwart the Duke of Gloucester’s bid to increase his status and authority as Protector of England. He had a narrow escape from drowning at the end of the year when his barge capsized while attempting to shoot the raids under London bridge.

See Year 1428: London Bridge.

Norfolk officiated as Earl Marshal at King Henry’s London coronation in November 1429, and he went to France with Henry in 1430. He campaigned in the Isle de France where he recovered a number of towns, including Dammartin, Gournay, and Mongay.

See Year 1430: The Campaigns of 1430.

Norfolk was back in England in time to attend the Council meeting in 1431 when its members voted on whether Cardinal Beaufort should be permitted, as a cardinal, to retain his bishopric of Winchester. Norfolk’s salary for attending council meetings was increased to 300 marks, back dated to 1425 when he became a duke.

See Year 1431: The Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort.

Norfolk was not a partisan of the Duke of Gloucester, or of Cardinal Beaufort. He remained neutral and voted with the majority of the Council when its members curbed Gloucester’s ambitious claims as Protector and when Gloucester sough to strip the Cardinal of his wealth. He was warned by Gloucester, along with others, not to come to Parliament in May 1432 with a large escort.

See Year 1432: Parliament.

The Parliament of 1432 was the last Norfolk attended. He died unexpectedly in the following October at the early age of forty. His son, another John, was still a minor when Norfolk died.

Noble Ladies

Only a few noble ladies, and the queens of England, were awarded robes of the Order of the Garter (1).  In May 1432 Robert Rolleston, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe was instructed to deliver garter robes to Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, Isabelle, Countess of Warwick, and Alice, Countess of Suffolk ‘for the Feast of St George last past’ (2).

Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester, was publicly acknowledged for the first time as Gloucester’s wife in March 1432 when she received garter robes, undoubtedly at Gloucester’s instigation (3).

Gloucester requested permission in December 1432 to impark 200 acres of land adjacent to Gloucester’s house at Greenwich, including seventeen acres which King Henry V had granted to his foundation of the convent at Sheen. The Council granted the licence to the duke and duchess of Gloucester (4).

Isabelle Despenser was the second wife of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, King Henry’s governor. She had been with her husband in Rouen where the earl organised (and paid for) feasts and entertainments for the court and visiting dignitaries while King Henry was in residence.

Alice Chaucer the widow of Thomas Montagu, Earl of Salisbury married William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in 1431. It is tempting to see Alice’s admission to the Order as an early indication that Suffolk’s star was on the rise and that he had caught King Henry’s attention as early as 1432. Or it may be that Alice was being recognised as the widow of the great Earl of Salisbury.

**********************************************************

(1) J.L. Gillespie, ‘Ladies of the Fraternity of Saint George and the Society of the Garter’ Albion, vol. 17 (1985) p. 271.

(2) PPC IV, p. 116 (Order of the Garter robes).

(3) Gillespie notes that Vickers, Humphrey’s biographer (p. 249) misread an early account and dated Eleanor’s admission to the Order to 1436.

(4) PPC IV, p. 138 (Greenwich).

*****************************************************

Anne Stafford, Countess of Huntingdon  died in September 1432.

“And about the Feast of St Michael the Countess of Huntingdon, sister (sic) of the Countess of Stafford and formerly Countess of March, died.” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 183

Anne was the widow of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, and wife of John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon. She was the daughter, not the sister of Anne of Woodstock, the dowager Countess of Stafford. She was buried in the church of St Katherine beside the Tower of London; Huntingdon was Constable of the Tower. Her dower lands reverted to the Duke of York, heir to the Mortimer estates, on payment of 1,000 marks to the crown (1).

(1) PPC IV, pp. 130-131 (Mortimer lands reverted to the Duke of York).

Scottish Hostages

An exchange of fifteen hostages, still languishing in the Tower of London and elsewhere for King James’s unpaid ransom, took place in June 1432.

See Years 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427, and 1431, Scottish hostages.

The exchange of 1432 was the last before King James I’s death in 1437. But even this did not free the remaining hostages. They were kept as bargaining chips for negotiations with the ruling Scottish Counsel in the 1440s.

Letters of safe conduct were issued for Duncan of Athol Lord of Rannoch, but no exchange for him is listed. In September 1432 safe conducts were issued to his servants and those of Duncan de Wemyss to come to England. The servants of William Stirling of Cadder received safe conducts in the following July (1).

The Earl of Huntingdon as Constable of the Tower was ordered to release the hostages in his custody into the care of Thomas College, a sergeant at arms, who would escort them north to the Earl of Northumberland at Seamer, and to the Earl of Salisbury at Pontefract (2):

William Meldrom was released, but he is not named in the previous lists of hostages.

Andrew Keith of Inverrurie was exchanged for William Sterling, Lord of Cadder. He died before June 1434.

Thomas Hay of Yester was exchanged for William Jardine of Applegarth who died in the Tower in 1435.

Robert Stewart of Lorne was exchanged for Robert Colville of Oxenham who was released before 1441.

Alexander Ogilvy son of the sheriff of Angus, was exchanged for Duncan Wemyss of Reras and  John of Fenton. Wemyss was still in the Tower in 1438.

David, Lord of Lassell exchanged for William Baillie of Hoprig who was released between 1444 and 1451.

Henry Douglas of Lochleven was exchanged for Alexander Stratton of Lauriston, held at Pontefract until 1444.

John Kennedy of Blathan was exchanged for Henry Kinloch who died before May 1434.

Malcolm Fleming, heir of Cumbernauld and Alan of Cathcart, were exchanged for his son in 1446.

Patrick, Lord of Graham was exchanged for Malcolm, the heir of Colquhoun who may have died in England before 1439 and William Crawford of Hayning who died before May 1444.

Robert Logan of Restalrig was exchanged for Michael Scott of Balwearie, held at Pontefract until 1444.

Walter, Lord of Fenton was exchanged for Laurence Ramsay of Clatto and John Towres of Inverleith who was released before April 1439.

William Douglas of Drumlanrig was exchanged for Adam Conyngham of Caprington.

William Dishington was exchanged for Alan of Kenard who may have been dead by 1437.

William/John Wallace was exchanged for Alexander Erskine of Dun, released between 1444 and 1451 (3, 4).

****************************************************

(1) Foedera X pp. 509-514 (details of exchange).

(2) Balfour-Melville, James I, pp. 201-202 and pp. 294-295 (lists of prisoners).

(3) PPC IV, p. 122. (College was paid £5 for escorting the hostages).

(4) Foedera X, p. 537 (safe conducts for servants of hostages).

***************************************************

Pageants for King Henry’s Return to England

After his coronation in Paris at the end of 1431 King Henry embarked from Calais for Dover where he landed on 9 February 1432.

He was feted at Dover by the barons of the Cinque Ports and he proceeded in a leisurely fashion via Canterbury to Eltham, where he was allowed to rest for some days.

His formal entry into London was as carefully timed as his entry to Paris had been. On 21 February, the day on which his mother, Queen Katherine, had entered London in 1421, Henry rode from Eltham to Blackheath for the traditional welcome by the mayor, aldermen, city officials and all the crafts of London in their finest array. John Lydgate’s verses commemorating the event noted that even the weather rejoiced at his homecoming (1).

London Bridge

The city staged seven pageants for their ‘triumphant’ king, beginning at London Bridge and ending at St Pauls. At London Bridge the city’s champion, a giant, guarded a shield displaying the arms of England and France. The shield was flanked by two antelopes; the antelope, like the swan, was a badge of the House of Lancaster through the Bohun inheritance, when Henry of Bolingbroke, later King Henry IV, married Mary de Bohun (2). The giant declared his readiness to encounter and slay all foreign enemies of the king.  Just so had Henry V been greeted when he returned in triumph after the battle of Agincourt in 1415. The myth that Henry VI, having ‘led’ two armies into France, had now returned victorious was maintained.

A tower stood at the centre of London Bridge where three ‘empresses, richly arrayed’, were attended by fourteen virgins, appearing as angels. They bestowed heavenly gifts on the king. ‘Nature’ presented Henry with strength and might; ‘Grace’ with knowledge and understanding; ‘Fortune’ gave him prosperity and riches.

Seven virgins released white doves, symbolic of the seven pillars of wisdom: intelligence (prudence), knowledge, strength, cunning (understanding) council, pity (wisdom), dread (fear of God) and humility. The other seven sang of the City’s welcome to the king. Their gifts recalled the ceremonial of his coronations: a crown of glory, a sceptre of meekness and pity, a sword of might and victory, a mantle of prudence, a shield of faith, a helm of health and a girdle of love and peace.

Cornhill

A Tabernacle of Wisdom in Cornhill was presided over by Dame Sapience and seven allegorical figures from antiquity representing the seven sciences, the foundation of a classical education:  Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Music, Arithmetic, Geometry and Astronomy.

NB; They are not included in Brut Continuation F’s account. They are mentioned, but not listed, in Gregory’s Chronicle.

Dame Sapience reminded Henry that wisdom in a king, who sits in judgement on his people, will increase his renown.

At the Tun prison in Cornhill, the highest point in the City, a boy about the king’s age was seated on a high platform dressed in royal robes, echoing the lit de justice tableau at Henry’s coronation in Paris.  He was ‘governed’ by Mercy, Truth, and Clemency, the three attributes of a just king.  Two judges and eight sergeants at law (possibly actual people rather than representative figures?) stood as emblems of the king as a dispenser of justice and maintainer of law. “Mercy and right kepe every kyng.”

 Great Conduit, Cheapside

At the Great Conduit in Cheapside free wine was on offer from artificial wells as a subtle tribute to the mayor, John Wells, who was a great benefactor of the City. The wine of temperance, good government and consolation was drawn up in buckets by Mercy, Grace, and Pity. The praise of wine, and its superiority over water (Thetis) occurs only in Lydgate’s verses, as does the elaborate description of fruit trees surrounding the wells bearing exotic (imported) fruits, as well as home-grown varieties, depicting London as an earthly paradise, a city of abundance and prosperity. Two Old Testament figures Enoch, and Elijah (Elias), promised Henry heavenly protection. Both had been protected by God, Enoch being taken up into heaven without dying, and Elijah being rescued by a whirlwind.

Dual Monarchy

The ancient stone cross in Cheapside was the setting for a castle of green jasper, with three trees. This important pageant displayed the dal monarchy in words and pictures, King Henry’s right to the crowns of England and France through his descent from St Edward of England and St Louis of France, a progenitor of both his parents.

The pictorial chart of this descent, and an accompanying poem, was a well-known piece of political propaganda. It had been commissioned in 1423 by the Regent Bedford, from Louis Calot, a royal secretary and displayed in Notre Dame cathedral. The French verses were translated by John Lydgate on orders from the Earl of Warwick in 1426 (3).  The Tree of Jesse was new. It associated Henry’s descent from St Edward and St Louis with Christ’s descent from King David, but the allegory was unorthodox and therefore risky.  Lydgate felt the need to excuse and justify its presence.

 Little Conduit

At the Little Conduit close to St Paul’s stood the Trinity, with attendant angels singing heavenly songs. They pronounced God’s promise: Henry as God’s representative on earth, will have angels to guard him; he will be blessed with a long life, faithful subjects, heirs of his body, fame throughout the world, and peace in both his realms united under one crown.

St Pauls

Henry was met at the entrance to St Paul’s by Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, John Kemp, Archbishop of York, William Grey , Bishop of Lincoln, John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Robert Neville, Bishop of Salisbury,  William Alnwick, Bishop of Norwich,  Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely, and John Langdon Bishop of Rochester, with Reginald Kentwood, and the canons of the cathedral. He made the traditional offering at the altar, before proceeding, still escorted by the mayor and civic dignitaries, to Westminster Abbey.

Westminster Abbey

As the bells of the abbey rang out, the abbot, Richard Harweden, presented him with the sceptre of St Edward. Despite its weight, Henry carried it resting on his shoulder to the high altar where a Te Deum was sung.

Henry left the abbey for the palace, escorted this time by his lords, where, after a long and tiring day, he was allowed to rest (4). On the following day the mayor and representatives of the Common Council of London presented him with a hamper containing £1,000 in gold nobles, the same sum they had presented to King Henry V (5).

John Lydgate’s verses end with a paean of praise for the City of London, the ‘newe Troye’ founded in the mists of antiquity by Brutus, the son of Aeneas. Londoners witnessing Henry’s procession saw a traditional show, one to which they were accustomed: it was exciting, colourful, and triumphant with easily identifiable figures representing simple, well-known concepts: royalty, peace, justice, wisdom, and grace (mercy/forgiveness). The pageants were a civic reception of the king who had been crowned in France, who was blessed by God because he would bring an end to the war and restore peace and prosperity to his realms. After a lengthy stay in ‘foreign’ lands he had returned to his capital, a city renowned throughout the world for its prosperity and riches, justifiably known as the ‘king’s chamber.’

Gordon Kipling’s tortuously detailed interpretation of the pageantry seriously distorts the religious symbolism of the pageants. Henry might be portrayed as coming like the Messiah, a Christ-like king, ushering in a new age, but not as the Messiah, which would have been blasphemy. The themes of Advent and Epiphany are not much in evidence. There are almost as many classical allusions in Lydgate’s verses as there are biblical: Thetis, Bacchus, Phoebus, Brutus, Julius Caesar, Scipio, and the figures of the seven sciences (6).

“And when the Kyng had riden thurgh Suthwerk, and come to the stulpes without London Brigge þere stode a gyaunt in toure, with his swerd drawe in his hande, shewed with countenaunce doth manace all foreyn enemys to the death without mercy þat seith or doth ayenst the Kynges right. And y, the Kynges Champyon, in full myght and power.                              

And then the Kyng come to London Brigge; and there was made a roiall hevenly toure; and therin was shewed iij ladyes as Emperice, worthely apparaylled in theire aray which were called by name Nature, Grace and Fortune.  And theire girdelles were blewe, shynyng like to sapheres, which shewed to the Kyng in his comyng all goodnesse and gladness in vertuous lyvng; and with oþer vij virgyne celestial in tresses of gold and with coronalles on theire hedes all clothed in white as virgines with sonnys of gold on theire garmentes shewyng as hevenly creatures mekely salewyng the Kyng and gaf him vij giftes, þat were toknes of oure Lord God of heven, þat were white dowves betokening the giftes of the Holy Gost, a spirite of intelligence, a spirite of sapience, and a spirite of strenght and of conning and of consayle, pite, drede and lowlynesse. And on the lifte side of these iij Emperesses were vij oþer virgyns, clothed all in white with sterres of gold on theire garmentes, with coronalles on theire hedes, which presented the Kyng with royall giftes: first, they endewed the Kyng with the crowne of glorye, and with the septre of mekenesse and of pite; a swerd of myght and victorie, a mantell of prudence, a shelde of feith, a helme of helth, a girdell of love and of parfite peas.  And all these ladyes and virgines welcomed the Kyng with all honoure and reuerence.

And then the Kyng procedyng forth to the Condyte in Cornhill; and þere was made in serkelwyse a Trone; and in the myddes sittyng a yonge child as a kyng, whom to gouerne were iij ladyes Mercy, Trouthe and the Lady Clennesse; and ij Iuges of lawe and viij sergeauntes, to shewe the kyngdom law and right.

And then the Kyng rode forth, and entred into Chepe and come to the grete Conduit, þat ranne plente of good wyne, bothe white and rede, to all peple þat wold drynk. And aboue  ouer the Condite, was a royall toure likned to Paradyse, with many dyuers trees beryng eueryche dyuers frutes.  And in this same gardeyn was dyuers welles of dyuers wynes, with bokettes; and iij glorious virgins wounde vp the wyne proferyng the Kyng there full habundaunce, fulsomnesse, and high plente.  And the names of the virgins been Mercy, Grace and Pite. And in the ende of this garden þere appered to the Kyng ij olde men, þat oon Enok; and þat oþer Ely, þat shewed the Kynge chere and grete preysing ministryng his gouernance.

And the Kyng passed forth and come to the Crosse in Chepe. And there was made a castell roiall; and on the Est syde stode ij grene tree[s] which bare the armes of England and of Fraunce, the libardes and the flouredelice, which been the Kinges right and trewe armes be lyne.  And vpon this castell toward Seint Paules, there was the tree of Iesse with all the braunches shewyng the kynrede of oure Lorde Ihesu and our Lady Seint Marye, to the comfort of the Kyng and for the grete solempnite of þe worthy cite of London.

And then they passed forth from þe Castell and come toward Seint Paules at the Litell Conduit; and þere was made an heven indivisible of the trinite; and a trone compassed his roiall See with a grete multitude of angellys hym aboute, with dyuers melodyes and songe, to hertly ioye and comfortyng of the Kyng and all his peple. 

And whan he was come to Seint Paules there he alight doun of his hors; and þere come þe Archebisshop of Canterbury and the Archebisshop of York and þe Bisshop of Lincoln and the Bisshop[es] of Bathe, Salesbury, Norwich, Ely and Rochestre, and the Dene of Paules with his couent, in procession, in their best araye of holy Chirche, and met with hym and did hym obseruance as bylongeth to hym, and censed hym at his comyng in; and so brought the kyng to the high autere with roiall songe.  And there the kyng offred; and then he come oute ageyn, and toke his hors, and come to Westminster; and thider brought hym the Maire, Aldermen and all the communialte of the Cite of London.

And when the kyng was come to Westminster with all his peple, the Abbot and all the Couent come oute, coped royally in procession with high solempnite and gladnesse. And the Abbot brought the King to Seint Edwardes septre; and so he come into the Abbay with all solempnite, ioye and songe, and offred to Seint Edward; and then come oute ageyne and went to his palace. And then the Maire and Aldermen with all the communialte of London toke theire leve of the Kyng and of the lordes and thanked God highly of his welfare and comyng.                                                  

And on the Seturday next suyng, the Maire and þe Aldermen come ageyn to Westminster to the palays with a riche hanaper of gold, and presented it to the Kyng and a M¹ li of gold therin, his bien venewe and welcom hoom; and prayed hym of his high myghty grace, lordship and love to his Chambre.”  Brut Continuation F, pp. 462-465

 Brut Continuation F and Gregory’s Chronicle (pp. 173-175) derive from the same source and are almost identical. The other chronicles record the event but with few details:

Benet’s Chronicle p. 183; Great Chronicle, p. 156; Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles (Short English Chronicle) p.  61; A Chronicle of London (Harley 565), p. 119; Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p.134); Annales (pseudo-Worcester) 760; Brut Continuation G p. 502, and Brut Continuation H, p. 569

*****************************************************

(1) Great Chronicle, pp. 156-170 (Lydgate’s verses).

(2)  Planche, ‘Badges of the House of Lancaster’, pp. 385-86 (antelope and swan).

(3) Rowe, ‘King Henry’s claim’ pp. 77-88 (dual monarchy).

(4) Wolffe, Henry VI, pp. 52-53 and 63-64. (pageants).

(5) Sharpe, Letter Book K, p. 138 (pageants).

(6) Kipling, Enter the King, pp. 143-47 and 152. (interpretation).

********************************************************

The Duke of Gloucester, the Council, and the Household

The Council

The Duke of Gloucester had ‘ruled’ in England as custos from April 1430 until 1432 while King Henry and members of the council, including Cardinal Beaufort, were in France. As soon as the pageants to welcome Henry were over, Gloucester made a bid to retain his hold on power and pre-eminence. Gloucester needed King Henry’s presence to validate changes in council and the royal household. Only the king could require the resignation of the Chancellor of England.

In the Council Chamber at Westminster on 25 February, John Kemp, Archbishop of York, the Duke of Bedford’s choice as Chancellor, resigned his office.

Kemp as Chancellor had demonstrated his distrust of Gloucester in so far as he could. He anticipated that Gloucester would assert his authority over the young king, and he preferred to stand down rather than take part in any future proceedings against Cardinal Beaufort orchestrated by Gloucester.

See Year 1431: The Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort.

King Henry accepted the Great Seals of gold and silver in their white leather bags and handed them to Gloucester, undoubtedly as Gloucester had instructed him.

Two days later in a chamber in the king’s private apartments in Westminster Palace in the presence of the Council, King Henry delivered the seals to the new chancellor, John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Welles and former Treasurer of England (1, 2). Writs to summon Parliament to meet in May were issued on the same day.

Gloucester also reshuffled the Council. Lord Scrope replaced Lord Hungerford as Treasurer of England and William Lyndwood replaced William Alnwick as Keeper of the Privy Seal (3). In June the three newly appointed officers of state were given the same powers as their predecessors, to grant letters of safe conducts to servants visiting foreign prisoners being held in England (4).

In November the Exchequer was ordered to allow £26 5s 4d to John Stopingdon, Keeper of the Hanaper, because of the increase in the price of cloth and fur for the robes given to the ex-chancellor and the new chancellor at Christmas and Pentecost (5).

*********************************************************

(1) PPC VI, p. 349 (surrender of the Great Seals).

(2) Foedera X, pp 500-501 (resignation and replacement of the Chancellor).

(3) Handbook of British Chronology p. 102 (Treasurer, misnamed Henry Scrope) and p. 92 (Privy Seal).

(4) PPC IV, pp. 117-118 (powers to grant safe conducts to prisoners’ servants).

(5) Foedera X, p. 523 (chancellors’ robes).

*************************************************************

The Royal Household

Sweeping changes to the royal household followed Gloucester’s reorganisation of the Council. He tried to put the clock back by reinstating Henry V’s officers to important positions: the chamberlain and the steward of the household were in daily contact with the king. Letters of privy seal were to be sent to those discharged to inform them of the new appointments.

***************************************************

(1)  PPC IV, p. 110 (changes in household personnel).

(2) Foedera X, p. 502 (household officers replaced).

(3) Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 58-59 (changes in household personnel).

(4) Wolffe, Henry VI, pp. 66-67 (changes in household personnel).

*************************************************

Officers

Sir William Phelip, who had been treasurer of Henry V’s household replaced Lord Cromwell as chamberlain by (1). Phelip was made a member of the Council with wages of £100 a year for attending (2).

Sir Robert Babthorp who had been Henry V’s comptroller replaced Lord Tiptoft as steward of the household. Babthorp was instructed to take over as steward immediately and present himself to Gloucester without delay (3). He was also to inform Lord Cromwell of his dismissal.

William Hayton had been appointed as the king’s secretary and keeper of the king’s signet when Henry crossed to France in 1430 (4). He was discharged. The Duke of Gloucester sealed the king’s signet into a purse to be turned over to the Treasury for safe keeping. Gloucester was taking no chance of anyone persuading Henry to show initiative and issue counter measures under his signet.

Robert Rolleston, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe was commanded to deliver furred vestments for summer and winter to Master John Somerset, Henry’s physician, the same livery as John Middleton had under King Richard II (5).

Throughout his long career in Henry’s service Master John Somerset was assiduous in claiming his clothing allowances. One wonders if he based his claim on Richard II’s physician because that king had been more generous in the matter of clothing than either Henry IV or Henry V?

John Merston, keeper of the king’s jewels, was instructed to redeem jewels held in pledge by the Abbot of Westminster as security for a loan. He was to give the abbot a gold crown in exchange for the jewels. The gold crown was probably of lesser value than the jewels; the Exchequer habitually recovered pledged crown jewels at a discount whenever possible; they were always needed as security to raise new loans. Merston was also to recover an alms dish of gold called ‘the Tiger’ (6).

**************************************************

(1) PPC IV, p. 110 (Cromwell and Phelip).

(2) PPC IV, p. 113 (Phelip’s salary).

(3) Foedera X, p. 503 (Babthorp to report to Gloucester).

(4) Otway-Ruthven, The King’s Secretary and the Signet Office, p. 154 (William Hayton).

(5) PPC IV, p. 131 (a physician’s livery).

(6) PPC IV, p. 115 (crown jewels).

***************************************************

Clerics

Richard Praty, who had accompanied Henry to France, was appointed Dean of the Royal Chapel in place of Robert Gilbert (1).

Robert Felton replaced John de la Bere as the king’s almoner. In May royal officers were ordered to assist Felton to resume levying deodands (2).

John Lowe, an Augustinian friar, became the king’s confessor (3).

*************************************************

(1) Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 346 (Praty).

(2) Foedera X, p. 508. (Deodands.  English law. Personal chattel which, having been the immediate occasion of the death of a person, was forfeited to the crown to be applied to pious uses.  A sum taken in lieu of the deodand.  OED)

(3) CPR 1429-1436, p 196 (John Lowe).

***********************************

Wages

The wages of the household were, as usual, in arrears. In July John Hotoft, former treasurer of the household, and Sir John Tyrell, the present treasurer, were instructed to compile lists of household servants, knights, esquires, valets, officers and other servants to be delivered to the Treasurer of England for the payment of ‘wages of war and accustomed rewards’ (1).

In October the Council agreed that King Henry’s knights of the body (the king’s carvers), Robert Roos, Edmund Hungerford, William Beauchamp, and John Beauchamp, ‘who had long been in the king’s service without fee or reward’ should be paid £40 annually.  They had to wait for their money until the following year: in May 1433 they were each paid £20 for a half years’ service from 20 October 1432 (2, 3).

*************************************************

(1) PPC IV, pp. 121-122 (royal household wages).

(2) PPC IV, p. 128 (£40 awarded to kings’ carvers).

(3) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 421 (£20 paid to kings’ carvers May 1433).

****************************************************

The Duchy of Lancaster

The Council ordered that a book containing Duchy of Lancaster records held in the Treasury should be turned over to the Duke of Gloucester (1). This may be the same ‘great book containing the records of the Duchy of Lancaster’ that John Stafford the outgoing Treasurer had handed to the incoming Treasurer, Lord Hungerford in 1427.

See Year 1427: Duchy of Lancaster.

Income from Duchy of Lancaster lands enfeoffed under King Henry V’s will went to his feoffees, not into the king’s treasury, and ‘the feoffees were sensitive [to any] implied suggestion that they had misappropriated the revenues of the Duchy’ (2). Cardinal Beaufort was the principal feoffee and Gloucester was amassing all the evidence he could find against Beaufort. An accusation of mishandling Henry V’s legacy might prove useful.

*************************************************

(1)  PPC IV, p. 110 (Duchy of Lancaster records).

(2) Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, p. 205 (Duchy feoffees).

*************************************************

Parliament

Parliament convened on 12 May 1432 and was in session until 17 July.

“And þen anon after Ester next folowyng, the Kyng held his parlement at Westminster and it lasted till seint Jametyde þe Appostell.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 465

“Ande the xij day of May beganne the Parlement at Westemyster, and that duryd unto the xvj day of Juylle nexte followynge.”  Gregory’s Chronicle p. 174

Five days earlier, on 7 May, writs signed by the Duke of Gloucester, the Archbishop of Canterbury and two other bishops had been issued to seven magnates on the Council, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earls of Suffolk, Huntingdon, Stafford, Northumberland and Salisbury, and Lord Cromwell, commanding them to come to Westminster accompanied by no more than the customary number of  retainers (1). The writs can only have been issued on Gloucester’s orders.  Did he anticipate a challenge in Parliament to his authority now that King Henry was back in England?

Gloucester informed the Commons that the lords spiritual and temporal were in complete accord with him and with one another, and that as the king’s chief councillor he would never do anything without the assent of the Lords ‘or at least the majority of them.’ This was far from the truth. He then invited Parliament to give him their full co-operation in governing England! (2). For the moment Gloucester was confident that he had secured his hold on power.

****************************************************

(1) PPC IV, pp. 112-113 (instructions to the magnates attending Parliament).

(2) PROME XI, p. 10 (Gloucester’s speech on the second day of Parliament).

            *****************************************************

Taxation

Benet’s Chronicle records the tax grant of 1432; it was for a half tenth and fifteenth with no relief (1). The chronicler confused this parliament with that of 1433, which met on 8 July (St Thomas’s Day is 7 July) when a tax of a fifteenth and tenth was granted with a relief of £4,000 for ‘poor cities, towns and boroughs which are desolate.’ (2).

[Latin] “And in 1432 the king held a parliament at London in which the king was granted a fifteenth.  And in this parliament, about the feast of St Thomas the Martyr, the king remitted to the laity £6,000 (sic) of the fifteenth throughout England.”     Benet’s Chronicle, p. 183

********************************************

(1) PROME XI, p. 11 (half tenth and fifteenth 1432).

(2) PROME XI, p. 88 (tax and relief, 1433).

******************************************

 Cardinal Beaufort’s Treasure

Cardinal Beaufort did not return to England with King Henry. He had requested and received royal licence to travel to Rome for consultations with Pope Eugenius IV. The writs of praemunire facias to strip him of his bishopric that the Duke of Gloucester had forced through the Council at the end of 1431 were hanging over his head, but they would only be issued if he returned to England.

In February while he was in Flanders as a guest of the Duke of Burgundy, Chancellor Kemp had appointed Nicholas Radford and William Tresham, as Beaufort’s attorneys to prepare a defence against the charges (1).

See Year 1431: The Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort.

Beaufort sent instructions to his agents in England that some of his enormous collection of plate, jewels and coin should be shipped to him at Calais: “four coffers, or standards, besides quantities of plate, twenty ewers of gold, ninety-nine cups of gold, divers gold chalices, candlesticks, salvers, cruets . . . . and a great coffer full of small parcels of gold; it must have included in coin at least £20,000” (4).

This was neither as sinister nor as suspicious as the Duke of Gloucester subsequently made it sound. The Cardinal of England could not go empty handed to Rome, possibly the most expensive and venal city in all of Europe. An opulent display of conspicuous wealth would be expected of him if he was to have any influence at the Roman Curia.

The Duke of Gloucester was at Dover, waiting to welcome King Henry, when he learned that a ship berthed at Sandwich was to be loaded with Cardinal Beaufort’s treasure on the night of 6 February. Gloucester knew that the Council had not issued an export licence.  Beaufort assumed that his special status and the king’s permission to travel to Rome covered him, but legally it did not. Gloucester wasted no time in sending royal officers to impound the cargo and deliver it to the Exchequer for safekeeping.

In his excitement at the prospect of ruining the Cardinal, Gloucester did not stop to consider the consequences of his action. The seizure of Beaufort’s treasure disrupted Beaufort’s plans to travel to Rome and ensured his return to England. Without money he would be almost invisible in Rome, merely one cardinal among many.

*********************************************************

(1) Foedera X, p. 500 (Beaufort’s attorneys appointed).

(2) PPC IV, pp. 109-110 (repayment of Beaufort’s loans).

(3) Foedera X, p. 502 (repayment of Beaufort’s loans).

(4) Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 215-216 (Cardinal Beaufort’s treasure).

(5) Sharpe, London III, pp. 374-75 (Beaufort’s letter to London).

*****************************************************

Beaufort in Parliament

Beaufort was not summoned to Parliament; he was still abroad at the time the writs were issued. In April he wrote to the Mayor and Common Council of London to announce that he would return to England to attend Parliament (5). Exactly when Beaufort arrived in England is not known, probably in July.

“And at the begynnyng of the parlement, the Cardynall, the Bisshop of Wynchestre, come ouer the see into England, and so to London to þe Kyng to excuse hym of the offence[s] and blames þat were put vpon hym for thinges doon in Fraunce, by the compleynt of certeyn lordes; wherof he hath worthely excused hym to the Kyng and to his consayle; and so he was fully excused and the parties at oon.”                   Brut Continuation F, p. 465

The business of parliament was almost complete when Beaufort rose in his seat in the Lords on 17 July to throw his bombshell. He had successfully defended himself against Gloucester in Parliament in 1426 and he was prepared to do so again.

See Year 1426: The Duke of Gloucester and Henry Beaufort.

Beaufort made no reference to the writs of praemunire facias. Instead, he announced that he had forgone his visit to Rome, despite urgent invitations from the Pope, because he had been informed that certain persons in England had accused him of treason. He demanded, in the presence of King Henry, the Duke of Gloucester, and the assembled Lords, that his accusers name themselves and produce their accusations and evidence. He was ready to defend himself against anyone, even the highest in the land (1).

Had an accusation of treason been made, or did Beaufort invent it? There is no evidence other than Beaufort’s dramatic statement. The Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire carried heavy penalties but flouting them was not treason. It was illegal to ship gold or jewels out of the country without a royal licence, but it was not treason.

Gloucester had misread the temper of the Council. They were not prepared to censure Beaufort and risk him refusing future loans. In fact on 1 March 1432, the same day as Gloucester’s changes to the Council and household took effect, the Council had authorised repayment of Beaufort’s most recent loans, amounting to £1,083 6s 8d and £140, and a smaller one  for £593, 6s 8d that he made to Sir John Tyrell, treasurer of the household, for the king’s household expenses in France, against a pledge of the ‘King of Spain’s’ sword and other jewels (2, 3).

King Henry commanded the Lords, with Gloucester’s concurrence, to answer that no one had, or would, accuse Beaufort of treason. Beaufort’s past services and loyalty to the crown were beyond question. Beaufort magnanimously accepted their exoneration, but demanded that it be entered on the parliament rolls (2).

Beaufort played the injured innocent, he claimed not to understand why his jewels and money had been impounded, but said he understood that the country needed relief from the heavy burden of taxation and it behoved loyal citizens to make what contribution they could (which incidentally the Duke of Gloucester never did). To this end he had negotiated with Gloucester and the Council for the suit against him in chancery to be dropped. In exchange he promised to make a conditional gift of £6,000 to the crown.

When King Henry came of age the reasons for the seizure of the treasure would be fully explained to him and it would be up to the king to decide if the £6,000 should be repaid. It appears from the wording on the parliamentary rolls that Gloucester made some sort of claim on a percentage of this sum.

Beaufort then offered to loan a further £6,000 and to defer payment of it, and of the 13,000 marks which he was still owed, until receipts from future taxes granted by Parliament should be available, provided his jewels, plate, and money were returned to him (4). The grateful Commons petitioned that all charges or impending charges against the cardinal be dropped and declared null and void (3).

Cardinal Beaufort had bought his way out of trouble: £12,000 was a small price to pay to recover his fortune and ensure his safety.  He had spiked Gloucester’s guns; to bring an action of any kind against Beaufort after Parliament had exonerated him could only have ended in humiliation for the duke. Beaufort had outsmarted his rival.

As insurance against future embarrassment, the Council decreed that John, Duke of Bedford was entitled to take as much bullion, plate and as many jewels as he wished out of England for as long as he remained the king’s regent in France (5).

***********************************************

(1) PROME XI, pp. 13-14. (Beaufort in Parliament).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 516-519 (full exoneration of Beaufort at the Commons request).

(3) PROME XI, pp. 16-17 (Commons petition in Beaufort’s favour).

(4) PROME XI p. 15 (Beaufort’s offer of loans).

(5) PPC IV, pp. 118-119 (Bedford licenced to export valuables).

************************************************

The General Council of the Church at Basel

One of Pope Martin’s last acts before he died in February 1431 had been to summons a General Council of the Church to meet at Basel as required by the decree of ‘Frequens’ passed by the Council of Constance in 1417. It stipulated that General Councils must meet at regular intervals to curb papal independence for the well-being of Holy Church and to establish a General Council’s superiority over the authority of a pope. The struggle for supremacy between popes and councils was not new, but it had never been resolved.  The clash between the General Council and Martin’s successor, Pope Eugenius IV, form the backdrop to the Council at Basel.

See Year 1431: Pope Eugenius IV.

Initial attendance at Basel was low, and Pope Eugenius had attempted to dissolve it, but the Council under the presidency of Cardinal Cessarini, rejected his right to do so. The Church Fathers summoned Eugenius to come to Basel, and threatened to depose him if he failed to conform to its edicts. Eugenius refused to recognise the council’s authority.

Hussites

One of the reasons for summoning a Council to Basel was to deal with the threat to Church unity posed by the heretical sect of the Hussites in Bohemia, followers of the martyred John Hus. They had repudiated the authority of the papacy and broken away from their adherence to the Emperor Sigismund to set up an independent Bohemia.

“And in this same yere, anon after Cristmasse, the grete conuocacion and consayle of all the landes in Cristendom and also of all oþer seculer lordes and Clerkes þat is to say Bisshopes and other consayle began in the Cite of Basyle in Duchelande, for to make vnite and peas emong all Cristen peple and for to destroye heretikes and erresye þat then reigned emong the peple.”   Brut Continuation F, p. 466

Hussite forces had inflicted several crushing and humiliating defeats on the armies of the German princes, including in 1427 when Cardinal Beaufort was in Bohemia as papal legate for Pope Martin.

See Year 1427: Cardinal Beaufort and Bohemia.

Cardinal Cesarini himself had been present at the battle of Taus in August 1431 when the Hussites scattered Frederick of Brandenburg’s army. Cesarini was not alone in his opinion that as the Hussites could not be exterminated or ignored, negotiating with their leaders was the only way to end the schism and the war.

In October 1431, the General Council formally invited Hussite leaders to come to Basel under safe conduct and strict conditions for their safety. This infuriated Pope Eugenius who refused to negotiate with heretics (1, 2).

********************************************************************

(1) The New Cambridge Medieval History, VII,  C. Allmand (1998), pp. 69-71 (Basel).

(2) The Cambridge Medieval History, VIII, ed. C.W, Previté-Orton (1936) pp. 24-25. (Basel. The interests, and therefore the emphasis, of the two volumes is quite different).

******************************************************************

Gerardo Landriani

English attention throughout 1431 had focused on efforts to crown Henry VI as king of France and there had been little interest in Basel, but in 1432 the Council agreed to receive a delegation from the Church Fathers: ‘£40 should be paid to a bishop, 40 marks to a knight, and £20 to a doctor of theology who had come on an embassy from the General Council at Basel’ (1).

Gerardo Landriani , Bishop of Lodi, arrived in England in June and was granted an audience with King Henry, Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Gloucester. Landriani hinted that conciliar authority might facilitate peace negotiations between England and France. But the real reason for his visit was to persuade the English Council to send delegates to support the General Council in its battle for dominance over Pope Eugenius (2).

Landriani urged the king to send suitable delegates as soon as possible. He pointed out that the Emperor Sigismund, King Charles VII, and the Duke of Burgundy had all recognised the General Council’s authority. He gave an assurance that the Council at Basel would take whatever steps were necessary to suppress the Hussite heretics of Bohemia and this appealed to both Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Gloucester. The former because he had a score to settle with them, the latter because he was opposed to heresy in any form.

Gloucester promoted English participation at Basel partly because he got on well with Landriani (or so Landriani claimed) partly because he genuinely believed that heresy was a danger to the state (as Landriani had been careful to point out) and partly because he saw an opportunity to get Cardinal Beaufort out of England.

********************************************************

(1) PPC IV, p. 121 and Foedera X, p. 551 (payments to unnamed envoys from Basel).

(2) A.N.E.D. Schofield, ‘First English Delegation to the Council of Basel,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol 12 (1961), pp. 170-173 (for Landriani).

******************************************************

First Delegation

On 19 July, in response to Landriani’s persuasions, the Council commissioned John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, John Langdon, Bishop of Rochester, and Doctor Thomas Brouns, Dean of Salisbury to go to Basel (1).

The standard protections for going abroad on the king’s business were issued to them on the following day. They were to be paid for six months, Huntingdon at 5 marks a day (£3 6s 8d) plus £200 from the Exchequer; Langdon was to receive £100 over and above a sum granted to him by Convocation; an unnamed baron was to receive £2 a day, and Doctor Thomas Brouns was to receive a £1 a day (2). They did not leave England.

After that confusion reigned. John Langdon was awarded 200 marks as about to proceed to France ‘on embassy to the Dauphin’ (3, 4), but on 28 November protection was issued for him to go to Basel, and on 1 December he was licenced to take £1,000 with him (5).  On 9 December, protection letters were issued to Thomas Haltoft (Hotoft?), Robert Burton, John Beaumaris, and Thomas Selater, going to Basel in the retinue of John Langdon, Bishop of Rochester (6).

Also on 1 December, Langdon, Sir John Fastolf, and Thomas Beckington were given powers to treat for peace with ‘Charles of Valois’ (7). A protection letter for Fastolf ‘in the retinue of the Duke of Bedford’ was issued on 20 November (8).

The Council may have originally intended Langdon to meet French representatives at Auxerre and then go on to Basel.

*******************************************************************

(1) Foedera X, p. 519-520 (Huntingdon, Langdon and Brouns named in July to go to Basel).

(2) PPC IV, p. 123 (payment to them).

(3)  PPC IV, p. 130 (Langdon paid 200 marks going to Dauphin 12 Nov).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 524-525 (Langdon to go to France).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 528 protection and 529 (Langdon going to Basel).

(6) Foedera X, p. 531 (Langdon’s retinue to Basel).

(7) Foedera X, pp. 527-528 and 530-531 (Langdon, Fastolf and Beckington to treat with France).

(8) Foedera X, p. 525 (Fastolf protection letter).

*******************************************************************

English Delegates

Licences were issued in November to Cardinal Beaufort, John Kemp, Archbishop of York, Thomas Polton Bishop of Worcester, and Sir John Colville, to go to Basel (1).  Beaufort was to take the enormous sum of £10,000 in coin, and jewels worth 5,000 marks. Kemp was to receive 1,000 marks a year while he was there and the customary wages of an archbishop going on embassy for the king. They did not go to Basel.

Thomas Polton, Bishop of Worcester had been a royal proctor at the Roman curia until 1425. He was licenced to take £1,000 and to receive 500 marks a year for his maintenance; he could leave the council if this was not paid, and after its dissolution he could, if he wished, visit the ‘home of the apostles’ (Jerusalem?) (2).

Robert Fitzhugh, a royal proctor in Rome, was summoned to return to England and prepare to attend the Council at Basel.

Sir John Colville  was licensed to take £500 in money, plate, and jewels to go to Basel as an ambassador (3).

Polton, Fitzhugh and Colville arrived in Basel early in 1433.

See Year 1433: The General Council of the Church at Basel

Safe conducts were also issued for a Scottish embassy to Basel to travel through England: John Fogo, Abbot of Melrose, Sir Walter Ogilvy, and Alexander Lauder, with a retinue of thirty people. Andrew Meldrum with six attendants, and John Cameron, Bishop of Glasgow who was on his way to Rome (4).

*************************************************************

(1) Foedera X, pp. 525-526 (Beaufort, Kemp, Colville)

(2) Foedera X, pp. 527-528 (Polton).

(3) Foedera X, p. 526 (Colville).

(4) Foedera X, p. 537 (Scottish envoys).

NB: Foedera X, p. 525. A letter of protection for John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset ‘in France’ is dated 20 October but with no year. Beaufort was a prisoner in 1432, it may belong in 1438 during negotiations for his release.

NB: Foedera X, p. 529: The protection for John Ansty ‘in the retinue of the Duke of Gloucester’ dated 13 February is misdated; it belongs in 1433 with grants to Gloucester.

*******************************************************************

Peter de Mera, Pope Eugenius’s representative in England lobbied for the English to boycott Basel as Eugenius wished. The Minority Council turned a deaf ear to his expostulations, but they awarded him 50 marks and a licence to leave England with his property, £1,000 in gold coins and jewels, his personal baggage, horses and harness for himself and his servants (1, 2).

***************************************************

(1) Harvey, England and Papacy, pp. (Peter de Mera).

(2) PPC IV, p. 120 and Foedera X, pp. 514-515 (permission for Mera to leave England).

*******************************************************

A Blazing Star

A bright star appeared in the south-eastern sky in the middle of the afternoon in May in 1432 or 1433.  Waltham Annals dates it to Tuesday, 20 May, which was a Tuesday in 1432. Brut K dates it to Wednesday, 20 May; Wednesday was 20 May in 1433. Brief Notes says it was visible for fifteen days and associates it, loosely, with the Council of Basel which could be either 1432 or 1433.

“In 1432, in the month of May on a Tuesday, from the hour of twelve (noon) until three in the afternoon a whirling blazing star appeared in the sky towards the east, close to the sun.”                       English Historical Literature, Waltham Annals, p. 351

“And in þe yer aftyr þat, on þe xx^ti day of Maij, on a Weddenysday, fro þe oure of None to iij. on þe clok at aftyrnoon, ther aperyd a Blasyng sterre in þe firmament, toward þe est, fast be þe Mone.”  Brut Continuation K p. 599

“A general council [met] at Basel, and a star with a bright tail (stella comata) was visible for fifteen days.”   Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, (Brief Notes) p. 149

The Great Chronicle, Gregory’s Chronicle, and Cleopatra C IV record a ‘stella commata’ as their last entries for Year 1432-33, but place it in the south-west, not the south-east where it was reported to have appeared in May. Cleopatra dates it to October 1432, so there may have been two appearances in that year.

“And this yere there appeared a sterre in the South west which was right like Stella commata And therefore it is called the ij^de stelle commata.”  Great Chronicle, p. 171

“Ande that same yere apperyde stella comata, othyr wyse namyde a blasynge starre yn the sowthe weste, etc.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 177

“And the same yere in the month of Ottobre apperid the stella commata in the south west.” Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 136

Foreign Relations

Brut Continuation F records visits by ambassadors from France, Spain and ‘other lands’ in the summer of 1432 while Parliament was in session. The other lands included the General Council at Basel, the Papacy, the Kingdom of Denmark, and the Duchy of Brittany.

“And also to this parlement come Frenssh lordes, bothe spirituall and temporall and ambassadtours of Spayne and oþer diuers lordes of dyuers landes to trete for peas and other certyn maters.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 465

Aragon

There is no record of envoys from Spain coming to England in 1432, but diplomatic discussions between English representatives and envoys from Aragon and Navarre in Bayonne, broken off at the end of 1430 and resumed in 1431, continued in 1432.

See Year 1430: Foreign Relations, Aragon and Navarre.       

Bernard de Planche, Bishop of Dax, Thomas Burton, the mayor of Bayonne, one of the negotiators in 1430, and Pierre Arnaudeu Vescomatu, Dean of Saint Seurin, were commissioned to continue the negotiations (1, 2).

The possibility of an Anglo-Aragonese treaty for mutual military assistance and a marriage for King Henry with a princess of Navarre had been discussed, but English and Aragonese interests were incompatible. The Aragonese even wondered if it was legal for proctors of an underage king to negotiate an international treaty!

Mutual assistance was flatly rejected by both sides. King Alfonso wanted an ally against Castile, but not to be drawn into a war with King Charles VII. The overstretched English war effort meant that the Minority Council could not afford to commit even a limited number of men to fight for Aragon against Castile (with whom they had a truce). No marriage for King Henry could be arranged until he came of age. There was no real hope of the talks reaching a satisfactory conclusion: as Ferguson put it “both countries wanted something for nothing” (3).

***************************************************

(1) Foedera X, pp. 499-500 (Aragonese in Bayonne).

(2) gasconrolls.org.  C61/124, # 99

(3) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 50-53 and pp. 248-250 Appendix (King Alfonso’s instructions).

**********************************************************

Denmark

King Eric of Denmark complained in 1432, as he had in 1429, that English merchants were  flouting the trade regulations requiring them to trade only through his staple at Bergen.

 See Year 1429 Foreign Relations, Denmark.

The Council re-issued the proclamation and prohibition of 1429 (1). English merchants submitted a petition to Parliament requesting that letters of Privy Seal be sent to King Eric   demanding reparation for their losses. They claimed that merchants from York and Hull had lost goods worth £5,000 in one year alone, and that other merchants’ losses amounted to   £20,000 (2).

King Eric had ignored their claims for compensation, and they had no means of recovery because his subjects had no comparable goods that could be seized. Allowing for pardonable exaggeration, English merchants had obviously been trading through ports other than Bergen (3).

William Sprever, England’s envoy to King Eric, had only returned from his mission at the end of 1431. The Council decided that it would be advisable to send him back to Denmark (4). Sprever and Sir Robert Shottesbrook set out in September 1432 with powers to treat for a settlement (5). They met with the Bishop of Roskilde, the Bishop of Bergen, and other Danish commissioners.

The Danes complaints of English depredations were numerous, and presumably at least partially verified. Sprever signed an agreement on Christmas Eve. The English promised “to pay for the damages they had caused in Norwegian territory, to return the people they had abducted, and to forbid all trade with Iceland except the Bergen staple.” (6). Had English merchants indulged in raiding, kidnapping, and the slave trade?

*************************************************

(1) Foedera X, p. 503-504 (reissue of proclamation).

(2) PROME X, p. 39 (petition for redress).

(3) Power and Postan, English Trade, pp. 166-167.

(4) PPC IV p. 124 (agreement to send envoys).

(5) Foedera X, pp 520-521 (power to treat).

(6) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 92-93 (terms of agreement).

*****************************************

Brittany

An embassy from John, Duke of Brittany, led by John de Malestroit Bishop of Nantes, who had been Chancellor of Brittany for twenty-four years, came to England in the summer of 1432 bringing Giles, the Duke of Brittany’s younger son with them.  Malestroit was given a gold cup worth 50 marks and the three other Breton representatives received 40 marks (1). The gift of a palfrey was probably intended for Giles (2).

“And the xxvj day of Juyn come the Dukes son of Bretayn ouer the see into England, and so to London to the Kyng; and with hym come a Bishop of that lande, and certeyn knyghtes and Squyers and theire meny.”  Brut Continuation F. p. 465

Piracy, by English and Breton ships, was a long-standing grievance. Malestroit promised that Brittany would send commissioners to the city of Exeter to treat with their English counterparts for the redress of mutual grievances.

See Year 1433: The Duke of Brittany. Piracy

It is perhaps not coincidental that while his envoys were in England the Duke of Brittany offered a gift of salt to help pay Lord Talbot’s ransom. It might win the future good will of the Council, the Earl of Warwick, and of Talbot.

See Warwick, Talbot and Xaintrailles above.

The Council licenced Talbot to import the 2,000 mewes of salt contributed by the Duke of Brittany free of customs duties (3).  ‘Licence for John, Lord Talbot export whither he will free from custom, the salt which John, Duke of Brittany, the king’s uncle, has given to relieve him from the unbearable charges of his ransom’ (4).

Malestroit and the envoys apparently went on a shopping spree: they were licenced to leave England in mid-July and to export “serges, beds, chamber furniture, robes, tin vessels, certain pieces of woollen cloth, ewers, and other household utensils, together with 100 bows and 100 sheaves of arrows’ (5, 6).

*************************************************

(1) PPC IV, pp. 120 and 122 (gifts to ambassadors).

(2) Foedera X, p. 515 (gifts to ambassadors).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 514-515 (licence to sell salt).

(4) CPR 1429-1436, p. 211 (licence to sell salt).

(5) PPC IV, pp. 122-23 (licence to leave England).

(6) Foedera X, p.  516 (licence to leave England).

********************************************

Giles of Brittany

Giles remained in England. The astute suggestion to introduce him into the English court probably originated with his mother. Jeanne, Duchess of Brittany, was a more forceful character than her husband. She was Queen Katherine’s sister. Giles and King Henry were first cousins. Giles was also the grandson of the dowager Queen Joan, widow of King Henry IV. Giles was almost the same age as Henry and a friendship between them could benefit Brittany in the future.

Giles was ‘invited’ to join the royal household, and in August 1432 he was granted £20 for his private expenses (1, 2), but he was also a hostage for his father’s good behaviour and continuing alliance with England. Duke John had the dubious distinction of not being trusted by the English or the French, he was prone to changing sides. Giles spent two years in England, before returning to Brittany at his father’s request in 1434 (3).

See Year 1434: The Duke of Brittany.

***************************************

(1) PPC IV, p. 128 (Giles granted £20).

(2) Foedera X, p. 522 (Giles granted £20).

(3) PPC IV, p. 278 (Brittany’s request for Giles’s return).

************************************************

The Duchy of Gascony

Chateauneuf-sur-Charente and Ratières

An obscure account of an attack on Chateauneuf sur Charente and Ratières two towns in Languedoc held by the English is recorded in Stevenson’s Letters and Papers.

 Jean, Count of Foix, King Charles VII’s lieutenant in Languedoc ordered Jehan Brunet to assemble the local lords and prepare to march against Chateauneuf-sur-Charente and Ratières.

See Year 1423: Jean de Grailly, Count of Foix.

The Three Estates of Languedoc met at Beziers in July 1432 and voted a tax of a tenth. William de Champeaux, Bishop of Laon, president of the chamber of accounts in Languedoc, authorised his receiver general, Guillaume Favert, to pay Brunet twenty five moutons d’or out of the clerical grant (1). The mouton d’or was a gold coin, so called because it depicted the Lamb of God.

Brunet was paid in November 1432 so the attack, if it took place, could have been at any time in the first six months of 1432 or, given the lapse of time customary between service and payment, it may have been even earlier. I have found no other reference to it.

(1) L&P II, pp. 214-218 (attack on two English held towns).

Bertrand de Montferrand

Bertrand, Lord of Montferrand was a Gascon nobleman of sufficient status that the Duke of Bedford married his natural daughter Mary, to Bertrand’s son Pierre.

Bertrand’s name appears in a 1435-1436 list as ‘fourth chamberlain to the Regent and captain of Charmesville’ [Charleville?] as having served the Regent Bedford in the French wars, and again in a list of those serving in the Duchy of Gascony which may mean he campaigned with Sir John Radcliffe to recover the towns in Gascony. He was paid 300 livres tournois in another undated list, possibly 1436 (1).

He was rewarded in 1432 for services to Henry V as well as Henry VI. Montferrand was granted ‘all the houses, rents &c in Gascony’ of Amaniu Béguey, to the value of £40, with any surplus to be returned to the king, ‘provided they have not been granted to anyone else’ (2, 3). The Béguey estates had in fact been granted to Sir John Radcliffe ‘during pleasure’ in 1428. There was opposition to the grant by officials in Gascony and Montferrand did not gain possession of the Béguey estates until 1437.

See Year 1428 and 1431: The Duchy of Gascony, Sir John Radcliffe.

See Year 1437: The Duchy of Gascony, Bertrand de Montferrand.

********************************************************

(1) L&P II, ii, pp. 434, 437, 557 (Montferrand’s services).

(2) PPC IV, p. 115 (grant to Montferrand).

(3) gasconrolls.org.  C 61/124, # 33, # 82, # 120 (grant to Montferrand).

*****************************************************

The War in France

The Year 1432 was one of disappointment and disillusion for the Duke of Bedford. He was once again Regent and Governor of France, but the Duke of Burgundy had withdrawn from active participation in the war, and the burden of the success or failure of English arms fell on Bedford’s shoulders. The near loss of Rouen was followed by defeats in the field.

Rouen

Bedford was in Paris in February 1432 re-establishing control over the administration of Lancastrian France after King Henry returned to England when he received appalling news. Jean de Brosse, Marshal Boussac, and three Armagnac captains commanding 600 men had marched from Beauvais to launch a surprise attack on Rouen.

On the night of 13 February, 120 men led by Guillaume de Ricarville gained entry to the castle. Pierre Audebeuf, a Swiss member of the garrison, had turned traitor and opened a gate (that he threw scaling ladders over the walls, as in one version, seems unlikely).

John, Earl of Arundel was asleep with the rest of the garrison in the castle, and they were taken completely by surprise. Some of his men were killed but Arundel and the others escaped by descending on ropes down the castle’s walls. There is a probably apocryphal story, not confirmed by the chronicler Monstrelet, that Arundel was let down in a basket. He and members of the garrison took refuge in the town and by daybreak he had rallied his men; he prepared to recapture the castle with the help of the citizens in Rouen.

Ricarville had no hope of holding the castle without re-enforcements; he returned to the wood outside Rouen where the rest of the raiders lay hidden to urge Boussac to come to his aid. Boussac hesitated. According to Monstrelet the French captains had fallen out among themselves over the distribution of the booty they expected to win, but this is a standard charge often levelled against the Armagnacs.

It is more probable that Boussac expected Ricarville to bring news that the citizens of Rouen had risen against the English and that the town was in French hands, but either through fear of reprisals from the French for accepting English rule, or from fear of reprisals by the English for aiding the French, the citizens remained loyal. Boussac abandoned Ricarville’s small force and fled back to Beauvais. Ricarville and his men withdrew into the great tower of the castle which was well stocked with supplies. Arundel’s artillery pounded the tower’s walls for twelve days before the embattled French were forced to surrender (1, 2).

The Duke of Bedford was so alarmed by the near loss of the capital of Normandy that he abandoned his usual policy of reconciliation. He angrily gave orders for the surviving Armagnacs to the executed (3). Ricarville apparently escaped the fate of his men, he is recorded as being in the French ranks at the siege of Dieppe in 1443 (4). Pierre Audebeuf was beheaded and quartered, with his head set on the gates of Rouen.

Bedford rewarded the twenty-four-year-old Arundel for defending Rouen by making him captain of Rouen; and he became a Knight of the Garter in April 1432 probably on Bedford’s recommendation (5, 6).

The attack on to Rouen is not, of course, recorded in the English chronicles, although there is an oblique and inaccurate reference to it in a marginal note in The Great Chronicle (p. 156):  “this yere the Frenche men toke by stelth y^e towne off montarges & y^e castell off Rouen butt thenglishemen shortly recoveryd them.” 

To strengthen Rouen’s defences Bedford ordered the governor of Vernon to ship in 100 cannon balls of a specific size to fit Rouen’s cannon, left over from the siege of Louviers. If they were not part of the royal artillery the governor of Vernon was to purchase them; Bedford gave his word that the price would be repaid (7).

*************************************

(1) Monstrelet I, pp. 599-600 (Rouen).

(2) Wavrin IV, pp. 12-17 (Rouen).

(3) Williams, Bedford, pp. 211-212 (Rouen).

(4) Chartier, Chronique II, p. 38 (Ricardville at Dieppe).

(5) Marshal, ‘English War Captains,’ p. 279 (Arundel made captain).

(6) Collins, Garter, p 294.

(7) L&P II, pp. 202-203 (cannon balls).

***************************************************

 Chartres

The next shock was the city of Chartres on the Loire, fifty miles south-west of Paris and a major source of the food supply for the capital.  Chartres had been in English hands since 1417 and the Earl of Salisbury had boasted in 1428 that he had captured all the towns and villages around Chartres.

In April 1432 Chartres was betrayed by a trick, a mini-Trojan horse. Carts containing foodstuffs but concealing well-armed men appeared before the gates early in the day. The porters, who knew the carts’ drivers, opened the gate and once the carts were inside an army, led by Dunois, Raoul de Gaucourt, and La Hire, estimated by Monstrelet to be 4,000 strong, stormed and took the city (1, 2).

The citizens of Chartres attempted to defend their city and drive the French force out, but it was too late. William de Villeneuve, the captain of the garrison fled, taking most of the garrison with him. Giles de Aubespine, governor of the city for the English was captured, and Jean de Festigny, the Burgundian bishop of Chartres, was killed. Some prominent citizens were put to death, and Dunois became captain of Chartres. He made it his base for continuing the war (3)

************************************

(1) Chartier I, pp. 141-143 (Chartres).

(2) Monstrelet I, pp. 602-603 (Chartres).

(3) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 400-401

*************************************

 Lord Willoughby and Saint Cénéry

Then it was Lord Willoughby’s turn to suffer a reverse. In May Lord Willoughby, John, Bastard of Montagu, and the veteran captain Matthew Gough, with between 800 and 1,000 men laid siege to the town of Saint Cénéry on the River Sarthe eight miles from Alençon.

Bedford had requested of 20,000 livres tournois from the Estates meeting in Rouen in October 1431 to pay Lord Willoughby’s 300 men-at-arms and 900 archers who had been kept under arms at the request of the Estates. They had been in the field for five months and could no longer be maintained unless they were paid (1).

Ambroise de Loré, the Duke of Alençon’s marshal, soon learned of Willoughby’s presence and he appealed for help to Jean de Bueil, Admiral of France, and other French captains in the vicinity. It took them about six weeks to assemble a force of 1,400 men; they bivouacked between two villages, Beaumont-sur-Vicomte and Vivoin on opposite sides of the river about fifteen miles from Saint Cénéry.

Matthew Gough led a detachment under cover of darkness to launch an attack at daybreak on Vivoin, the smaller of the two French encampments. Surprise gave Gough the victory and he overwhelmed Vivion, but his success was temporary (2).

The noise of the encounter alerted the larger army at Beaumont-sur-Vicomte. Loré led a small force of a few hundred men to engage the English giving the main body of the army time to cross the only bridge.  After several hours of fighting the superior numbers from Beaumont won the day; Matthew Gough was captured, but so was Ambroise de Loré, who had been wounded.

His men, believing Loré had been killed, slaughtered their English prisoners in revenge, against the laws of war.  Lord Willoughby, who had not taken part in the fighting, was so dismayed by the losses in the English ranks that he hastily raised the siege and retreated to Alençon, leaving his artillery behind (3, 4, 5).

This encounter appears only as a marginal note in The Great Chronicle which does not, of course, record the English defeat:

“thys yere the lord wylloghby & other layd sege to a towne callyd sent sceleryn yn Anjou & after dyvers assautes & many scrmyschys made upon them by y^er  ennymes for lacke of artilerie & Vitayle they departyd to Alanson w^towt domage.”  Great Chronicle, p. 156

*****************************************************

(1) Beaurepaire, États de Normandie, p. 43 (payment for Willoughby’s troops).

(2) Sumption, Triumph ad Illusion, pp. 399-400 (Sumption claims the raid was led by the Bastard of Montagu and that he subsequently fled the field).

(3)  Chartier I, pp. 134-141 (Saint St Célerin in Chartier).

(4) Monstrelet I, pp 630-631 (Saint Cénéry. English translation St Severin, misdated to 1434).

(5) Barker, Conquest, pp. 184-185 (Saint Cénéry).

*****************************************************

The Siege of Lagny

John Stanlowe, treasurer of finance, and Pierre Surreau, receiver general of Normandy, were ordered by Bedford and the Grand Conseil to initiate the immediate collection of the third instalment of the tax of 200,000 voted by the Estates of Normandy in October 1431 for the express purpose of defending the inhabitants of the duchy and the recovery of towns along Normandy’s border with Maine (1, 2).

Bedford had failed to take the town and fortress of Lagny in March 1431 and he planned to resume the offensive in May 1432. Situated on the river Marne a mere sixteen miles east of Paris, Lagny blocked the route from Rouen and posed a constant threat to the capital. Its French garrison harassed shipping and interrupted the flow of food and other vital supplies. They raided the countryside up the gates of Paris making it dangerous for Parisians to venture outside the walls, even to bring in the harvest.

Bedford gathered an army and marched on Lagny. He was joined by Lord Willoughby and the Burgundian Jean de Villiers, L’Isle Adam. Monstrelet and Wavrin put Bedford’s numbers at about 6,000, but 3,000 is more likely. Willoughby is said to have lost 400 of his 1200 men at Saint Cénéry and Bedford probably had between one and two thousand, with him, he would not have taken 6,000 men to a siege.

Bedford camped to the east of Lagny a short distance upriver from the town and maintained the siege throughout the summer of 1432.  But the Regent was weary, he was forty-three years old, and he was not the fighting force he had once been.

In July he sent for two of his most trusted councillors, Robert Jolivet, and Raoul Le Sage, to join him, urging them to be with him by the end of the month without fail. They could commandeer an armed escort, for which he would pay, if they feared to make the short journey unescorted. Bedford wished to discuss ‘certain great matters touching the good of the realm’ (3).  He may have intended to instruct them on administrative matters while he was away from Paris, but it is more likely that he intended to send them on diplomatic missions to raise money from local taxes or additional loans.

By the beginning of August, the French garrison holding out in Lagny, estimated to be between 800 and 1,000 strong, was running dangerously short of food. Bedford intended to starve them into submission. A relieving army under Dunois, Raoul de Gaucourt, and the Castilian mercenary captain Roderigo de Villandrando marched on Lagny from the southwest. Bedford had expected any relieving force to come from the east.

Monstrelet and Wavrin, but not Chartier, record that when Dunois and the French army appeared before Lagny Bedford offered them a set piece battle, a journée, to decide possession of the town (4, 5, 6). Dunois declined: he had not come to engage Bedford in battle, but to bring relief supplies to Lagny. King Charles would not thank him if the French army suffered defeat in a pitched battle with the formidable Duke of Bedford.

Dunois divided his forces into three divisions. Two, under his command, engaged the English fighting under Bedford and L’Isle Adam. Raoul de Gaucourt and the third division fought their way towards the protective bulwark occupied by the English opposite the Porte Vacheresse, the western gate into the town. The men of the garrison, elated that help had reached them in time, opened the gate and entered the fray. A herd of cattle, carts of grain, and other food stuffs made its way slowly over the drawbridge and through the open gate. Lagny had been relieved, but the siege had not been raised.

In a fierce encounter on 10 August, a day of intense heat, on a narrow strip of land outside the town at least 300 of Bedford’s men lost their lives. By the late afternoon both sides were exhausted, and Bedford ordered a retreat. He regrouped and again offered battle, but Dunois was a master tactician, and he had a better idea for raising the siege. He withdrew his troops and crossed the Marne, giving Bedford the impression that he was planning to march on Paris (7, 8, 9).

Bedford fell into the trap. He gathered his army and abandoned Lagny in a headlong dash to put himself between Dunois and the capital. But the French were not heading for Paris, they had done what they set out to do. The time for the King of France to recover his capital was not yet, but it was coming closer.

The failure of the English at Lagny seriously undermined Bedford’s prestige. The French garrison, as well as brigands in the countryside, continued their depredations, depriving Paris of food, firewood, and other essentials. The Parisians blamed the English for the money they had contributed to the siege being wasted.

**************************************************

(1) Beaurepaire, États de Normandie, p. 43 (tax grant).

(2) L&P II, pp. 205-213 (Mandate to collect tax).

(3) L&P II, pp. 148-149 (Bedford’s summons to his councillors is misdated to July 1430 by Stevenson. Bedford was not at Lagny in 1430 and in his summons he used the title ‘gouvernant et regent de France’ which he only resumed after King Henry left France in 1432).

(4) Monstrelet I, pp. 605-606.

(5) Wavrin IV, P 26-30

(6) Chartier I, pp.143-147

(7) Williams, Bedford, pp. 214-217

(8) Barker, Conquest, pp. 185-186

(9) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 401-404 (a differing version of Lagny).

******************************************

Bedford’s Finances

Bedford’s imposition of taxation was harsh. Caen and the Cotentin had been assessed at 3,000 livres tournois. In July Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, a member of the Grand Conseil was permitted to reduce the levy on the Convent of the Holy Trinity in Caen, Normandy’s second largest and wealthiest city, by one half because the convent was seriously impoverished (1).

But Bedford had received little help from England. Payments ordered by the Council were delayed from March to May and then to July and August 1432, and possibly longer.

On 1 March the Council had ordered that £2,500 should be sent to him ‘at the king’s risk’ to pay the army in France for May and June 1432.  In May they instructed Robert Whitgreve and William Leventhorp, who would receive £100 (more or less) for their expenses, to convey the £2,500 to Dieppe.

On 21 July the Council ordered that the money should entrusted to Walter Hungerford, who was about to lead an army into France, William Baron, and Roger Winter, and that letters should be sent to Bedford to collect the money at Dieppe (2). Winter a clerk of the Exchequer, was belatedly paid £85 19s in 1433 for his costs and expenses in a round trip of six weeks, from London to Winchelsea to Dieppe and Rouen and back to London, carrying £2,500 to the Duke of Bedford (3).

On 7 August the Exchequer was ordered ‘in all haste’ to purchase 1,000 bows, 2,000 sheaves of arrows and three score gross of bowstrings to be conveyed to Bedford by Stephen Flaxmere for the defence of the realm of France (4).

***********************************************

(1) L&P II, pp. 115-116 (reduction of levy in Caen).

(1) PPC IV, pp. 109, 112, 125, 126 (£2,500 for the Duke of Bedford).

(2) PPC IV, p. 165-166 (a recapitulation in 1433 of Winter’s journey in 1432).

(3) PPC IV, p. 126 (bows and arrows for Bedford).

***********************************************

An Army for Normandy

An expeditionary force of about 1500 men, to be financed from the loans offered by Cardinal Beaufort in Parliament was assembled in July 1432 but did not sail until August, too late to reinforce Bedford at Lagny (1). It was commanded by Roger Camoys and Walter Hungerford.

‘Walter Hungerford, knight’ contributed ‘50 men-at-arms in armour and 250 archers’ (2) but was this Walter, Lord Hungerford, or his son, Sir Walter?  Lord Hungerford was fifty-five and had been Treasurer of England until he was dismissed from his post, but not from the Council, by the Duke of Gloucester in February 1432. The army sailed in August; Lord Hungerford was in England in October 1423 (3).

Brut Continuation F records that it was Lord Hungerford’s son, Sir Walter, who accompanied Camoys.

“And this same yere, the Lord Camoys, Sir Waltere Hungerford son, went ouer the see into Normandy with knyghtes, squyers, men of arme[s] and archers, to the Nombre of xv^c peple and mo, by ordynaunce of the kyng and his Consayle of the Reame, in strengthing and helpyng of the Duke of Bedford Regent in tho partie[s] and of all the Kynges liege peple and for the keping of the Kynges title and right.      Brut Continuation F, p. 465

Sir Walter had been captured at the battle of Patay in 1429 by a Breton knight, Lord Beaumanoir. His ransom was set at 12,000 crowns (£3,000) but Lord Hungerford was unable to raise the full amount, he contributed 3,000 crowns. Hungerford’s credit as Treasurer of England was good and he borrowed the balance of 9,000 crowns from Lords Scales, Cromwell and Tiptoft. Sir Walter’s ransom was paid in full, but Lord Hungerford did not know that his son had promised his captor a further 6,000 crowns (to obtain an early release?).

Lord Scales and other lords stood surety for this, and Lord Hungerford borrowed 4,000 crowns from (London?) merchants. The Duke of Brittany, possibly embarrassed by one of his subjects fighting for the French against his English ally, contributed another 1,000 crowns. This left 1,000 crowns which the duke’s mother, Joan of Brittany, the Dowager Queen of England, promised to pay out of her Breton estates (4).

It was customary to free prisoners of war on promise of payment, and Sir Walter was probably free by 1432 at the latest. He may well have joined the expedition to France in August 1432 hoping to repair the family fortunes either with booty or ransom from a successful campaign. He was dead by February 1433, but where he died is not known.

***************************************************

(1) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 221 (Beaufort’s loans).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, p. 218 (Hungerford’s retinue).

(3) PPC IV, p. 128 (Lord Hungerford in England in October).

(4) PPC IV, pp. 149-150 (terms for Walter Hungerford’s ransom).

*****************************************************

Anne, Duchess of Bedford died

The final blow to John of Beford came at the end of 1432. His wife, the Duchess Anne, joined him in Paris. The capital was not a healthy place to be. Food was scarce and there was widespread pestilence. Anne contracted a fever and died on 14 November when she was only twenty-eight. She was the best loved sister of Duke Philip of Burgundy and she had kept the peace between her husband and her brother, two naturally autocratic men, for nearly ten years.

The Bourgeois of Paris described her as “the most delightful of all the great ladies then in France for she was good and beautiful . . . the Parisians loved her” (1).  Anne was buried in the Church of the Celestine Monastery in Paris and a full funeral service, complete with coffin and hearse, was held for her at St Paul’s in London in 1433 (2).

“And that same yere beforne the fest of all halowen died the Duches of Bedford at paris; sche is buryed in the Clestins at paris.”  Chronicles of London, Cleopatra C IV, p. 135

Brut Continuation H laments her death as the cause of Burgundy’s eventual defection from the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.  A later insertion in the Great Chronicle repeated this.

“And in the xj yere of his regne, the Duches of Bedford þat was that tyme clepit Madame Regent, and suster to the Duyk of Burgoyn dyet att Roan whos deth turnett Englissh men aftirward to much trouble; for al þe whiles þat she was on lyue hir brothir, Duyk of Burgoyn, was euer holdyng vppon the Englisshe party; but sone after þat she was ded his hert was cast clene away from Englisshe men and turnet to þe Frensshe party, and become enmy to Engelond as ye shall here aftirward.”   Brut Continuation H, pp. 569–570

“And this yere the Duchesses of Bedford ^[sister to philipp duke off Burgoyne^] passed to god Whoos tereament was solempnely holde at powles in london ^[which was a grett lose off alliance^]” Great Chronicle, p. 170             

“And in þis same yere the Kyng let intere the Duchesse of Bedford, which deyed in Fraunce, at Seint Paules in London, with moche royalte and solemnpnite as myght be doon in holy Chirche.” Brut Continuation F, p.  465

**************************************************

(1) Bourgeois, p. 282 (description of Anne of Bedford).

(2) Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 419–420 (funeral expenses in England).

**************************************************

A Prospect of Peace

The Parliament of 1431 had suggested that ‘the king’s uncles’ Bedford and Gloucester should consider exploratory peace talks with ‘the Dauphin.’

Nicolo Albergati

Pope Eugenius had confirmed Pope Martin’s nominee, Nicolo Albergati, Cardinal of Saint Croix, as papal legate and peacemaker. Albergati visited the Duke of Burgundy, King Charles VII, and King Henry and the Council in Rouen in 1431 (1, 2).

Cardinal Beaufort had assured Albergati that King Henry favoured peace and was willing to consider ‘all good, amiable, and reasonable means’ that might lead to peace or a truce (3).

King Charles had agreed to a peace conference with the Duke of Burgundy (with whom he had just signed a limited truce) which could include the English. While King Henry was in Paris for his coronation the Council, probably at Cardinal Beaufort’s urging, sent a letter in the king’s name to Albergati confirming that an English delegation would attend a peace conference to be held on 1 March 1432 at Cambrai, provided the Duke of Burgundy agreed (4, 5).

On 22 February, the first recorded meeting of the council in England for 1432, three low level delegates were appointed to proceed to France to attend a peace conference: John Langdon, Bishop of Rochester would be paid 5 marks (66s 8d), Sir Henry Brounflete 40 shillings, and Master Thomas Beckington, Doctor of Laws, of 20 shillings per diem (6, 7).

The prospect of peace encouraged the Minority Council to investigate precedents. Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, had retained copies of records of earlier peace negotiations from his time as Chancellor. In July Langley was instructed to entrust these documents to the safe keeping of the Earl of Warwick who would bring them to London and turn them over to the Treasurer, Lord Scrope. They were examined by the Council in August.

The most pertinent was between King Charles VI and King Henry V but earlier agreements between England and Scotland were more numerous: King Richard II’s restitution of Berwick and Roxburgh to King William of Scotland and the freedom King William had enjoyed in coming to the English court under King Edward III. Even earlier, a letter from King Edward I to the Abbey of St Mary at York, and the ‘articles presented by the King of Scotland to the King of England with the answers thereto’ after King Edward I asserted his right to rule Scotland (8).

*******************************************************

(1) Harvey, England and Papacy, pp. 150-151 (peace conference).

(2) Dickinson, Congress of Arras, pp. 82-83 (Albergati).

(3) L&P II, p. 251 (Council in Rouen agreed to peace talks).

(4) Beaucourt, Charles VII vol. II, p. 441 (letter in December, English delegates to be sent peace talks).

(5) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 211 (letter in December).

(6) PPC IV, p 109 (English delegates named, February).

(7) Foedera X, p. 500 (English delates named, February).

(8) PPC IV, pp. 127-128 (records of earlier negotiations as precedents).

*******************************************************

Auxerre

Cardinal Albergati met the Regent Bedford at Corbeil early in 1432, but the projected conference in March was postponed when Albergati fell ill and rescheduled for July at Auxerre in Burgundian territory. Langdon, Brounflete and Beckington, commissioned in February, were commissioned again at the end of June, but they did not leave England (1, 2).

The reason for their non-appearance is by no means clear. Beaucourt suggests that the safe conducts which should have been issued by the Duke of Burgundy arrived too late (3).  Harriss and Williams (Bedford’s biographer) suggest that Charles VII insisted on Nevers or Auxerre as the only acceptable meeting place, but that the Duke of Bedford strongly opposed Auxerre (4, 5).

This is based on a passage in a letter from Henry VI to the Duke of Burgundy in 1433 which refers to the roads to Auxerre being difficult and dangerous for the English, but the reference is to the meeting attended by the English in November 1432 despite the roads being dangerous (6). The more probable explanation is the confusion in Council as to who was to be sent to Basel and who was to treat with ‘the Dauphin.’ By the time it was resolved Albergati had adjourned meeting.

See The General Council of the Church at Basel above.

Cardinal Albergati tried to persuade the French and Burgundians to negotiate a unilateral peace since the English had chosen not to come to Auxerre. Charles VII was not interested in making peace, he hoped that a deadlock in tripartite talks would encourage the Duke of Burgundy to renounce his English alliance, but Burgundy had sworn an oath never to forgive Charles for the murder of his father, John the Fearless, in 1419.  Burgundy was signatory to the Truce of Troyes recognising Henry V and his heirs as the rightful kings of France. He had signed a treaty of friendship with Bedford at Amiens in 1423. Until he or his advisors could find an honourable excuse to break these agreements Burgundy would negotiate truces with King Charles, but he would not make peace without English concurrence. Albergati accepted the impasse, but he did not give up. He adjourned the meeting to November.

***********************************************************

(1) PPC IV, p. 119 (delegates named again, June).

(2) Foedera X, p. 504 (delegates named again, June).

(3) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol II, p. 447 (English fail to arrive).

(4) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 225 (Bedford’s opposition to Auxerre).

(5) Williams, Bedford, p. 225 (Bedford’s opposition; pages numbers are coincidental).

(6) L&P II, p. 252 (reasons for objecting to Auxerre).

********************************************************

Peace Talks Resumed

The Duke of Burgundy actively promoted a resumption of the peace talks. Peace between France and England would benefit him enormously: he would not be obliged to break his oath to his English allies or his truce with the King of France. Both sides would owe him a debt of gratitude if a settlement could be reached, and he looked to be suitably rewarded. He had his eye on the county of Champagne.

Cardinal Albergati reconvened the peace talks at Auxerre in November 1432 (1). John Langdon, Bishop of Rochester, Sir John Fastolf, and Master Thomas Beckington were commissioned on 1 December 1432 to treat with ‘Charles of Valois’ (2).

Langdon had received a payment of 200 marks on 12 November ‘as about to go to France on embassy to the Dauphin’ (3), but he was still in England on 29 November when he attended a council meeting (4). Sir John Fastolf, Bedford’s master of the household, was already in France. Thomas Beckington had been in the Duke of Gloucester’s service and may have represented the duke’s interests; he claimed expenses for his attendance at Auxerre in February 1433 (6).

************************************************************

(1) L&P II, pp. 252-253 (Henry VI’s letter to the Duke of Burgundy of March 1433 establishes the presence of English representatives, but not who they were. The letter also refers to French recalcitrance).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 530-531 (English delegates powers to treat dated 1 December).

(3) PPC IV, p. 130 (200 marks to Langdon to go to France 12 November).

(4) PPC IV, p. 137 (Langdon is one of five bishops listed as present on 29 November).

(5) Foedera X, p. 525 (Fastolf protection).

(6) PPC IV, pp. 140-141 (Beckington claimed expenses in 1433).

********************************************************

Auxerre

King Charles’s representatives, headed by Regnault de Chartres, Chancellor of France, arrived at the end of November. The large Burgundian contingent was led by the Chancellor, Nicholas Rolin. Four Breton envoys also attended.

Gilles de Clamecy, Prévôt of Paris, a member of Bedford’s Grand Conseil, Jean du Chastellier Archbishop of Paris, Gilles de Durmont, Abbot of Fécamp, and members of the University of Paris represented Lancastrian France (1).

The meeting was a charade. The French envoys stated bluntly that they would not begin to negotiate for peace until Henry VI surrendered his claim to the French throne, and they would not negotiate a truce unless the French prisoners of war, the Duke of Orleans, the Duke of Bourbon, and the Count of Eu were brought over from England to attend the conference (2).

We do not know how far the English delegation’s ‘power to treat’ went, or what their instructions were, but they obviously could not discuss, let alone accept, King Charles’s terms. They might agree to involve the Duke of Orleans and the other French prisoners, but King Henry’s right and title as King of France was non-negotiable until Henry came of age.

It is difficult to be sure what the English hoped gain at Auxerre. The Council may have feared that without English representatives present Cardinal Albergati would broker a peace between France and Burgundy, leaving England to continue the war without her principal ally. The Regent Bedford may have wanted a truce of at least a year to give him a breathing space to build up his military resources and repair the losses of 1432. It is doubtful that the Duke of Gloucester wanted even that.

Some effort was made to accommodate the French. The Duke of Orleans was transferred into the custody of William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in July (3, 4). Dunois, Bastard of Orleans, the duke’s half-brother, had captured Suffolk at the Battle of Patay in 1429, they had formed a friendship, and Dunois had released Suffolk in 1430 before his ransom was fully paid, probably in exchange for a promise that Suffolk would do all he could to ease the conditions of the Duke of Orleans’s captivity and facilitate his release.

Safe conducts for the Duke of Orleans’s retainers, for Dunois’s servants, and for those of the Duke of Bourbon to come to England were issued in June and July 1432 (5). Safe conducts were issued again in September for Dunois’s retainers (although the number, eighty, seems excessive unless Dunois intended to come to Auxerre himself); and for the Duke of Orleans’s treasurer, secretary, and servants, and a councillor of the Duke of Bourbon in December (6).

The people of Paris were bitterly disappointed; they had pinned their hopes on, at the very least, a truce to spare their city further suffering. The Bourgeois of Paris records that when it became known that nothing had been settled, several of the returning delegates had to be imprisoned for their own protection (7).

*************************************************************

(1) (Beaucourt II, p. 451 n. 3 (names of Parisian, Burgundian, and Breton delegates)

(2) L&P II, pp. 252-253 (French prisoners to be brought to France).

(3) PPC IV, p. 124 (transfer of Orleans custody). Suffolk was to ‘treat with the Treasurer’ for the cost of maintaining the duke.

(4) Foedera X, p. 520 (transfer of Orleans custody).

(5) Foedera X p. 522 (safe conducts for French retainers).

(6) Foedera X, p. 537 (safe conducts for 1432-1433).

(7) Bourgeois, pp. 282-283 (Parisians disgusted).

*************************************************

Henry VI and the Earl of Warwick

King Henry was growing up. He would celebrate his eleventh birthday on 6 December 1432. He had grown ‘in conceyte and knoweleche of his hiegh and royale auctoritee and estate’ and he was beginning to resent being reproved or criticised.

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick had been Henry’s governor for four years.

See Year 1428: The Earl of Warwick: King Henry’s governor.

On 29 November 1432 Warwick submitted a nine-point repetitive memorandum to the Council itemising his concern for his future as governor of the young king and the royal household (1).

Warwick expressed his reluctance to continue his charge unless he could be sure of the full backing of the Council in everything he did for Henry’s education and well-being. He had heard rumours that ‘malicious and untrewe men’ were reporting untruths to the Council about him and he demanded to be informed of them immediately and allowed to defend his good name. He even inserted an insurance clause: if he fell ill, or for any other serious reason, he was to be permitted to tender his resignation and be absolved of any blame or wrongdoing whatsoever.

Warwick was worried that Henry was being influenced by members of his household, as well as outsiders, and that he was being told of things that it would be better for him not to know: “he hath be sturred by some frome his lerynng and spoken to of divers matiers not behovefull.” One wonders what, or whom, Warwick was afraid of. He wanted to restrict access to Henry, and he requested that in future he and at least one knight of the body or other responsible person should be present at all interviews with the king, except for the royal uncles and the steward and chamberlain of the household who could not be denied access.

Warwick was not alone in his determination to retain control over King Henry. The Duke of Gloucester and the Council agreed that Henry should be told only what was considered suitable; he was not to be allowed to do anything, or talk with anyone, of whom Warwick disapproved.

Warwick claimed the right to dismiss any member of the household he considered unsuitable, but the Council insisted that Henry’s four knights of the body and his esquires could not be dismissed without permission, and Warwick could not appoint any additional knights or esquires without consultation. Warwick’s right to remove and relocate the royal household at any time to any place he thought fit had been granted to him in 1428 and it was confirmed by the Council.

Warwick’s principal concern was that when Henry grew up and assumed his personal rule Henry might hold a grudge against him for the way Warwick had treated him. Warwick insisted that his position and authority should be clearly explained to Henry by the Duke of Gloucester and the Chancellor and Treasurer (to make an impression on the young king?). In other words, although Henry had been old enough to be crowned King of England and King of France, he was to submit to Warwick’s censure, but he must not blame Warwick. The Council undertook that Henry would be informed of what was required of him the next time he was in London.

It is not surprising that Henry VI grew up to rely on the opinions of others with little will of his own. His attempt to stand up for himself at the age eleven was to be firmly suppressed, in effect he was to do as he was told. For the most part Henry was biddable and willing to take advice, but throughout life he resented and resisted any attempt to coerce him.

Unless the reports of the foreign diplomats whom Henry received in person in 1432 and 1433 are deliberately mendacious, King Henry knew how to behave. Cardinal Landriani was  “charmed by the bearing and elegance of manner of the ten year old king” (2) and the experienced Burgundian Hugh de Lannoy reported to Duke Philip that Henry “asked very graciously and in the French language how you were  . . . . and after some gracious conversation which we had with him he caused us to retire” (3).

************************************************************

(1) PPC IV, pp. 133-137 (Warwick’s authority over King Henry).

(2) Schofield, ‘First English Delegation,’ p. 171 (Landriani on Henry VI).

(3) L&P II, pp. 225 (Lannoy on Henry VI).

*********************************************************

Bibliography 1432

Primary Sources

Annales (pseudo-Worcester) in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series, 2 vols in 3 (1861-1864)

Benet’s Chronicle. John Benet’s Chronicle for the years 1400-1460, ed. G.L.& M.A. Harriss, Camden Miscellany XXIV, (Camden Soc., 4th ser. IX, 1972)

Bourgeois of Paris, A Parisian Journal, trans. J. Shirley (1968)

The Brut, or the Chronicles of England II, ed. F.W.D. Brie,  (Early English Text Society, 1908)

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1422-1429, 1429-1436

Chartier, J., Chronique de Charles VII, roi de France, 3 vols, ed. A. Vallet de Viriville, (Paris, 1858)

A Chronicle of London, ed. N.H. Nicolas & E. Tyrell (1827)

Chronicles of London, ed. C. L. Kingsford (1905)

Chronicon Angliae, ed. J.A. Giles (1848)

Foedera, conventiones, literae……  20 vols., ed. T. Rymer, (1704-35)

Handbook of British Chronology, ed. F. M. Powicke and E.B. Fryde (1961)

The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A.H. Thomas & I.D. Thornley, (1938)

Gregory’s Chronicle in The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth  Century, ed. J. Gairdner, (Camden Society XVII, 1876)

Issues of the Exchequer, ed. F. Devon (1837)

L&P: Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series, 2 vols in 3 (1861-1864)

Monstrelet. The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet trans. T. Johnes, 2 vols., (1877)

PROME. The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, vol. X, ed. A. Curry (2005)

PPC IV, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, 6 vols., (Record Commission, (1834-37)

Sharpe, R, R., ed., Calendar of Letter Books, preserved among the archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall: Letter Book K (1911)

Short English Chronicle in The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth ^Century, ed. J. Gairdner, (Camden Society XVII, 1876)

Wavrin, J de, Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre, eds., W. & E.L.C.P. Hardy, 5 vols., (1864-91).

 Secondary Sources

 Balfour-Melville, E.W.M., James I, King of Scots 1406-1437 (1936)

Barker, J., Conquest (2009)

Beaucourt, G. du Fresne de, Histoire de Charles VII, 6 vols, (Paris, 1881-1891)

Dickinson, J.G., The Congress of Arras 1435 (1972)

Ferguson, J., English Diplomacy 1422-1461 (1972)

Freeman, J., ‘Sorcery at Court and Manor: Margery Jourdemayne the Witch of Eye next Westminster,’ Journal of Medieval History 30 (4), (2004),

Gillespie, J.L., ‘Ladies of the Fraternity of Saint George and the Society of the Garter’ Albion, vol. 17 (1985)

Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of King Henry VI (1981)

Harriss, G.L., Cardinal Beaufort, (1988)

Harvey, M., England, Rome, and the Papacy 1417-1464 (1993)

Kipling, G., Enter the King, (1998)

Otway-Ruthvin, A.J.  The King’s Secretary and the Signet Office in the XV Century (1939)

Planche, J. R. ‘On the badges of the House of Lancaster,’ British Archaeological Assoc., Journal 6 (1851)

Pollard, A.J., John Talbot and the War in France 1427-1453 (2005)

Power, E., & Postan, M.M., Studies in English Trade in the Fifteenth Century )1933)

Rowe, B.J.H., ‘The Grand Conseil under the Duke of Bedford 1422-35,’ in Oxford Essays in Medieval History presented to Herbert Edward Salter (1434)

Schofield A.N.E.D, ‘First English Delegation to the Council of Basel,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol 12 (1961)

Somerville, R. History of the Duchy of Lancaster 1265-1603 (1953)

Sumption, J., The Hundred Years War IV, Cursed Kings (2015)

Williams, E. Carleton, My Lord of Bedford, (1963)

Wolffe, B.P., Henry VI, (1981)

 

Thesis

Marshall, A., ‘The Role of English War Captains in England and Normandy, 1436-1461, M.A. dissertation, University College, Swansea, (1974)