1436

King Henry VI (1422-1461) was the third and last Lancastrian king of England. There is no systematic, chronological analysis of the sources for Henry’s reign. Four of the principal sources, the Proceedings of the Privy Council, the Foedera, the chronicles covering Henry’s reign, and Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France are brought together here with references to other authorities, primary and secondary. King Henry’s regnal year dates from 1 September to 31 August.

See Introduction.

Money

A pound sterling (£) was worth twenty shillings.  A shilling (s) was worth 12 pence (d). A mark was the most common money of account in England. It was worth 13s 4d or two thirds of a pound sterling. The livre tournois was the most common money of account in France. Nine livres tournois equalled approximately £1.

Minority Council

The Council was concerned by the level of crown debt. An attempt was made at the end of 1436 to stabilise conditions in Wales. Jacquetta of Luxembourg, the widow of John Duke of Bedford was granted her dower lands. Charles, Duke of Orleans was transferred from the custody of the Earl of Suffolk to Sir Reginald Cobham.

Weather and Food

The winter of 1436-1437 was bitterly cold with hard frosts setting in early in December and lasting well into February, with deaths from cold and malnutrition.

King Henry VI

King Henry would come of age and assume his personal rule at the end of 1437. The Council began to prepare him, and he attended council meetings fairly regularly throughout 1436. At a meeting at Canterbury, he used his personal signet and signed a warrant ‘Henry’ for the first time.

The Bishops            

Four bishoprics were vacant in 1436. Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely died in October 1435 and John Clederowe, Bishop of Bangor, in December 1435. Robert Fitzhugh, Bishop of London died in January 1436 and William Grey, Bishop of Lincoln died in February.  Robert Gilbert became Bishop of London. William Alnwick, Bishop of Norwich became bishop of Lincoln with papal endorsement.  John Bloxwich, an English Carmelite friar is a special case. Pope Eugenius created him Bishop of Holar in Iceland, but he remained in England. He was granted a licence for certain English merchants to trade with Iceland on his behalf provided they did not violate the trade treaty with King Eric of Denmark.

Duchy of Gascony

The Council made appointments to the judiciary in the duchy. A protection was issued to Pey Berland, Archbishop of Bordeaux.

Scotland

King James of Scotland refused to renew Anglo-Scottish truce. He laid siege to Roxburgh in August, but he was forced in a very short time to abandon his artillery and flee back across the border.

Portugal

The Council renewed England’s good relations with Portugal.

The Netherlands

The Council issued a protection order for citizens of the Netherlands claiming they were King Henry’s subjects. They also wrote to Jacqueline o Hainault but by 1436 Jacqueline was powerless.

The Princes of Germany

Sir Robert Clifton and Stephen Wilton visited the Prince-Archbishop of Cologne, the Count of Moers, the Duke of Guelders and the Bishop of  Liège to treat for an alliance with England

Louis of the Palatinate

The Council agreed to pay Louis, Elector of the Palatinate his overdue annuity.

The Hanseatic League

The Council negotiated with the Grand Master of Prussia and the Hanseatic towns for a new trade treaty.

The Marquess of Mantua   

King Henry thanked the Marquess of Mantua for entertaining Lord Scrope on the latter’s way home from the Holy Land.

The War in France

The Minority Council had promised to send a large army into France, but their preparations were far too slow. In the absence of higher authority John, Lord Talbot conducted military operations from Rouen.

The Fall of Paris

The capital of France opened its gates to the French in April and acknowledged King Charles VII as king. Paris would never be recovered.

The Duke of York

An army under the command of the young and inexperienced Richard Duke of York finally sailed in May.

The Duke of Burgundy

The Duke of Burgundy complained to the Council of English hostility towards him, and the Council angrily refuted his claims.

The siege of Calais   

The most important event of 1436 was the Duke of Burgundy’s decision to lay siege to Calais.  

Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain

The Earl of Mortain with a separate army was diverted to defend Calais; his sorites against Burgundy’s Flemish forces had the desired result: by the end of July the duke forced to raise the siege and retreat.

The Duke of Gloucester and Calais

The Duke of Gloucester spent two months gathering an army large enough to give battle to Burgundy but by the time he arrived at Calas in the first week of August, Burgundy was safely back in Lille.  Nothing dauted, Gloucester and his men rode through Flanders for less than two weeks, laying it waste with fire and sword before returning to Calais and sailing for home to report his triumph.

Trade Ban

In reprisal for the Duke of Burgundy’s siege of Calais, and the participation of the men of Flanders, the Council imposed a trade ban on Flanders in the autumn of 1436.

Minority Council

The Proceedings record fourteen meeting for 1436, May being the most active month. Two in February and two in March, five in May with two more that could date to May, or to June and July. One in August, none in September or October, and three in November.

A special meeting held in Canterbury in July with King Henry present, is not recorded in the Proceedings.  The entries in the Proceedings for the three council meetings in November are brief and uninformative except for an interesting piece of advice to King Henry, and a grant by the king to the Duke of Gloucester.   

Archbishop Kemp, the Earl of Northumberland, Lord Hungerford, Lord Tiptoft, Robert Rolleston, Chancellor Stafford, Treasurer Cromwell and William Lyndwood Keeper of the Privy Seal, attended a lengthy meeting in the Star Chamber on 21 November.

A meeting on 22 November with Archbishop Chichele, the Earl of Northumberland, Lord Hungerford, Chancellor Stafford and the Keeper of the Privy seal present is recorded, but there is no record of their deliberations.

Crown Debt

The Council became increasingly concerned, and with good reason, about the level of crown debt. They discussed repayment and passed a memorandum in May that preference at the Exchequer should go to those who held life annuities, granted either to themselves or by inheritance; then to those who had loaned money to the crown, and thirdly to annuities granted during Henry VI’s reign. The Chancellor was to issue writs to the treasurer to make payments as agreed (1).

On the following day, 12 May, the Council instructed the Barons of the Exchequer to investigate the true value of the wealth of everyone ranked as baron and baroness and above to ensure that the tax on them, granted by Parliament in 1435, had been collected (2).

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

(1) PPC IV pp. 339-340 (order of preference at the Exchequer).

 (2) PPC IV pp. 343 (taxes).

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

Crown Jewels

The Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer were to approach anyone who held crown jewels as pledges for payment and make the best deal they could to recover them (1).

Crown jewels would again be offered as security to raise loans, on the authority of Parliament. Chancellor Stafford, the Treasurer Lord Cromwell, John Kemp Archbishop of York, and Robert Whittingham would stand surety. Interestingly, three of the four, Cromwell, Kemp and Whittingham were executors of the Duke of Bedford’s will (2).

See Year 1435: Parliament, Taxation

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 344 (crown jewels).

(2) PPC V, p. 3 (crown jewels).

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

John Stafford

Even the Chancellor had to wait his turn at the Exchequer to receive reimbursement for services rendered. In April 1436 John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Chancellor of England, petitioned for payment of money owed to him for his journey to France during King Henry’s stay there (before he became chancellor), and for attending the king’s coronation in Paris in December 1431. The Council authorized a warrant for payment on 25 April (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 639 (John Stafford).

 Royal Household

In November the Council noted that grooms of the chamber, i.e., members of King Henry’s household, “when they were in the war” (during the coronation expedition?) had only 40 marks (£26 13s. 4d). They were now receiving £40 (collectively) (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 3 (wages of the grooms of the chamber).

Thomas Franc

In July, while the Council was meeting at Canterbury, Thomas Franc, Master of Medicine, a native of Greece, petitioned for and was granted denization (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 650 (Franc).

Wales

In November the constables of Wales were ordered to ‘go home’ to their offices, and the chamberlains were told stay at home. Every lord was ‘to stay in his own county’ and hold their manorial courts on the same given day (1). These measures were intended to enforce royal authority and suppress unrest along the Marches of Wales.

(1) PPC V, p. 3

Jacquetta of Luxembourg

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of Bedford, was granted her dower lands in February five months after the Duke of Bedford’s death, making her a very wealthy widow. As the second lady in the land, she was required to swear an oath that she would not remarry without royal consent. At the end of the month Louis of Luxembourg, still the English Chancellor of France, and Lord Talbot, were instructed to take her oath (1). It was an honour for Talbot to be singled out and attests to the influence he had acquired in Rouen.

See The War in France below.

(1) Foedera X, pp. 630-631 and 633 (grant to Jacquetta).

The Duke of Orleans

In May 1436 Charles, Duke of Orleans was transferred from the custody of the Earl of Suffolk who was about to cross to France with the Duke of York,  to Sir Reginald Cobham. Cobham petitioned the Council in November for payment of Orleans upkeep at the same rates as Suffolk had received (1).

NB: A safe conduct for a messenger from Jean, Earl of Armagnac to Orleans dated 19 May, but with no year, may belong in 1437 when Orleans was trying desperately to raise money for his ransom (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 658 (Cobham petition for payment).

(2) Foedera X, p. 641-642 (safe conduct for a messenger misdated ?).

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

The Duke of Gloucester

On 23 November, after he returned from his expedition to Calais, the Duke of Gloucester petitioned that his annuity of 500 marks assigned on income from Wales and Cornwall should be replaced by a grant to him of the Channel Islands, formerly held by the Duke of Bedford. His petition was endorsed by King Henry: ‘R. H. nous avons graunte,’ although it was not formalized until April 1437 (1).

(1) DKR 48, French Rolls, p. 317 (grant to Gloucester).

Weather and Food

The harsh weather of the 1430s continued. The winter of 1436-1437 was bitterly cold with hard frosts setting in early in December and lasting well into February, with deaths from cold and malnutrition.

“And in this same yere, and the yere of grace M CCCC, xxxv^ti the grete, hard, bityng frost bygan the vij day of Decembre and endured vnto þe xxij day of Feuerere next, which greved þe peple wonder sore; and moche pepel deyed in þat tyme, for colde and for skarcite of wode and cole.  And tender herbes were slayne with þis frost, þat is to say, Rosemary, sauge, tyme, and many oþer herbes.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 470

“This year there was a great frost with snow by day and night which lasted from St Andrews day to St Valentine’s Day and many birds perished.”  Annales (pseudo-Worcester) pp. 760 and 761 (misdated to 1433 and repeated as 1434).

“This yere was another grete frost enduring xj weks.”  Chronicle of London (J.B. I), p. 162.

 King Henry VI

The year 1436 was one of transition for King Henry. Although he would not come of age and assume his personal rule until the end of 1437 when he was sixteen, the Council began, reluctantly, to prepare him. A gradual change took place between late 1435 and 1436.

Until the death of the Duke of Bedford in 1435, the Minority Council  had kept government authority firmly in their hands and discouraged the young king from meddling in what did not concern him. They wrote letters and issued orders in King Henry’s name. But by 1436 they had to accept that Henry would come of age in the not-too-distant future, and they began to expose him to some government business.

The Earl of Warwick was discharged from his duties as the king’s governor ‘at his own request’ in May 1436 (1), by which time Henry was attending council meetings regularly. Warwick probably felt he could no longer advise or control the king, and he certainly did not want to be held responsible for Henry’s actions.

King Henry used his personal sign manual for the first time o 28 July 1436 and signed a warrant ‘Henry’ granting the manor of Canford and the town of Poole in Dorset, formerly held by the Duke of Bedford, to Cardinal Beaufort ‘without rendering anything therefor’ (2, 3).

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

(1) CPR 1429-1436, p. 589 (Warwick discharged).

(2) CPR 1429-36, p. 601 (grant to Cardinal).

(3) Harris, Beaufort, pp. 275 (grant to Cardinal).

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

In November 1436, just before his fifteenth birthday on 6 December, the Council offered Henry advice on how he should conduct himself. Was Henry already showing signs of a willingness to make grants to anyone who petitioned him?  The Council advised him to be governed in the disposal of offices by the rank of an individual, ‘not to high estates a small office, neither to low estate a great office’ (1, 2). This reflects a fundamental concept of the mid-fifteenth century: rank established status and should be rewarded accordingly.  Men of ‘low degree’ should not be promoted above their status. The Council may have been looking to their own future: patronage, appointment to council, grants of lands and offices, would soon rest with the king.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 3 (advice to King Henry).

(2) Wolffe, Henry VI, p. 88 (advice).

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

 The Bishops 

Four bishops died in Henry VI’s regnal year 1435-1436. These deaths are recorded in Chronicon Angliae (p. 15) which adds that Louis of Luxembourg became Bishop of Ely in succession to Morgan.

“And this same yere deyed iiij bisshoppes in England þat is to say, the Bishop of Ely, the Bisshop of London, the Bisshop of Lincoln and the Bisshop of Bangore, and oþer mo prelat[es] of worthynesse and state, in dyuers partyes of the Reame of England.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 468

Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely died in October 1435.

John Clederowe, Bishop of Bangor, died in December 1435.

Robert Fitzhugh, Bishop of London died in January 1436.

William Grey, Bishop of Lincoln died in February 1436.

 

Philip Morgan, Bishop of Worcester and Bishop of Ely

Philip Morgan was a doctor of canon and civil law. He was Welsh, and he probably came to Henry V’s notice when Henry as Prince of Wales was campaigning in Wales. When he became king, Henry V promoted Morgan for his administrative and diplomatic skills. He crossed to France with Henry and became Chancellor of Normandy in 1418. He was created Bishop of Worcester in 1419 and consecrated in the cathedral in Rouen.

Morgan was in England when Henry V died in 1422.  He witnessed the transfer of the Great Seal of England to the Duke of Gloucester.

See Year 1422: The Great Seal and the Temporary Council.

He was named to the Minority Council in 1423 and attended council meetings assiduously, consistently upholding councillor authority. Like other members of the council Morgan loaned money to the crown periodically or stood surety for the repayment of the loans made by Henry Beaufort.

See Years 1425 An Army for France and 1434 Cardinal Beaufort.

Morgan was an experienced diplomat; he took part in the negotiations in 1423 by which King James of Scotland obtained his freedom. Morgan, with the other English commissioners, signed the treaty and truce with Scotland in December.

See Year 1423:  Scotland

Morgan was orthodox in his religious outlook, as was to be expected, but he allowed the notorious Lollard, William Taylor, to persuade him that he had recanted and to set him free. Morgan was nominated to attend the Genera Council of the Church at Pavia called by Pope Martin V in 1423, but there is no evidence that he actually went.

See Year 1423:  A Lollard and Council of the Church at Pavia/Siena

Morgan narrowly missed becoming Archbishop of York. Henry Bowet died in 1423, and Morgan was the Council’s choice to replace him, but Pope Martin V rejected his nomination and named his own candidate Richard Fleming Bishop of Lincoln, whom the Council refused to accept. Morgan remained Bishop of Worcester until 1426 when he was translated from Worcester to become Bishop of Ely.

As a trusted member of the Council, he was selected by the Duke of Bedford as one of the commissioners to arbitrate on the quarrel between the Duke of Gloucester and Henry Beaufort in Parliament in 1426.

See Year 1426: The Duke of Bedford, Pope Martin and the Bishops.

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

At the beginning of 1427 Morgan joined the eleven council members who confronted the Duke of Bedford with the demand that conciliar authority would be the foundation of government in England once Bedford returned to France.

See Year 1427: The Duke of Bedford and the Council.

Morgan and John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Wells were the two bishops on the Minority Council deputed to join King Henry’s coronation expedition in 1430 and serve on the Council in Rouen for six months.

See Year 1430: King Henry’s Coronation Expedition.

Morgan attended the special council meeting at Greenwich in the spring of 1433 to discuss the Duke of Bedford’s summons to a council meeting in Calais, and was one of two bishops, the other being William Grey of London, to cross the Channel with the Due of Gloucester and John Stafford, the Chancellor, to meet Bedford to discuss the future of the war in France. While Bedford was in England in 1433 and urging austerity measures on the Council to raise money for the war in France, Morgan undertook to attend council meetings without pay during term time.

See Year 1433: A Council Meeting at Greenwich and A Council at Calais.

Philip Morgan died at Bishop’s Hatfield in Hertfordshire in October 1435 and was buried in the church of the Charterhouse in London. Thomas Bourchier, Bishop of Worcester, was nominated to succeeded Morgan as Bishop of Ely in August 1436, but his translation was annulled in favour of Louis of Luxembourg, Archbishop of Rouen and Chancellor of France.

John Clitherowe [Clederowe] Bishop of Bangor

Very little is known for certain about John Clitherowe, Bishop of Bangor. He was a parish priest in Kent and a canon of Chichester Cathedral.  He attended the Council of Constance under Henry V.

Described ‘as of noble (but possibly illegitimate) birth,’ he spent time as a clerk in the papal court at Rome where he attracted the attention of Pope Martin V.  Martin provided him to the bishopric of Bangor in Wales in 1423, but its temporalities were withheld by the Minority Council.

Clitherowe’s income was insufficient to support him as bishop and Pope Martin issued a dispensation for him to retain his living in Kent, provided it did not exceed 40 marks a year. There is an intriguing sentence in the Papal Letters VII (p. 256) : Clitherowe “has alienated a great part of his patrimony in order to redeem himself from the hands of certain of his enemies into which he had fallen; and who cannot decently support his episcopal estate from the fruits of his episcopal mensa. . .”  Had he been captured on one of his journeys and ransomed?

The temporalities of Bangor were restored to Clitherowe in 1426 while the Duke of Bedford was in England, and in 1431 he requested and was granted permission to go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

See Year 1426: The Duke of Bedford, Pope Martin and the Bishops

He was named with other delegates to attend the General Council of the Church at Basel in 1433 but there is no record of him at Basel, and it seems probable that he was not in England as he is noted as being ‘overseas’ in 1432, 1434 and 1435.

See Year 1435 The General Council of the Church at Basel

John Clitherowe died sometime towards the end of 1435, but it is not known where. He may have died abroad.  His successor in 1436 was Thomas Cheriton.

Robert Fitzhugh, Bishop of London

Robert Fitzhugh, Bishop of London was a younger son of Henry, Lord Fitzhugh, King Henry V’s chamberlain. He became Warden of the King’s Hall at Cambridge University in 1424.

In July 1429 Fitzhugh and Thomas Spofford, Bishop of Hereford travelled to Rome on a diplomatic mission to meet representatives of King Alfonso of Aragon. Fitzhugh remained in Rome as a royal proctor.

See Year 1429: Aragon

In 1429 Pope Martin offered to send a cardinal to France to settle the differences between the Duke of Burgundy and King Charles VII.  English representatives were not to be invited. Early in 1430 the Minority Council commissioned Master Nicholas Bildeston, to carry a strongly worded protest to the Pope about the omission and to suggest that Cardinal Beaufort be invited. The Council then decided it would be quicker, and less expensive, since Robert Fitzhugh was already in Rome, to instruct him to deliver the Council’s message.

See Year 1430: A Peace Conference?

Fitzhugh became Bishop of London in 1431, while he was still in Italy. He was provided by the new Pope Eugenius IV and consecrated at Foligno. He was recalled to England in 1432 to become a delegate to the Council at Basel. He reached England in 1433, and as this was his first time in England as bishop, the London chronicles record that he became Bishop of London in 1433.

See Year 1433: General Council of the Church at Basel

Fitzhugh remained in Basel until the summer of 1435. He returned to London and died in January 1436. He was buried in St Paul’s Cathedral. His successor was Robert Gilbert, Dean of York.

William Grey, Bishop of London and Lincoln

William Grey was probably the youngest son of Sir Thomas Grey of Heaton in Northumberland, and brother of Sir Thomas Grey who was executed in 1415 for his part in the Southampton plot to kill Henry V. Educated at Oxford, he began his ecclesiastical career as Dean of York Cathedral.

He became Bishop of London in 1426 while the Duke of Bedford was in England.

See Year 1426 The Duke of Bedford, Pope Martin and the Bishops

He joined the Minority Council and was twice employed on diplomatic missions: as an envoy to Scotland in 1427, to settle truce violations along the Anglo Scottish border and as an ambassador to the papal court at Rome in 1428.

Grey attended council meeting regularly when he was not on embassy, and he took part in King Henry’s coronation ceremony in London in 1429 but was one of the few bishops who did not accompany Henry to France in 1430.

Grey was translated to become Bishop of Lincoln in 1431.

He and Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely, were summoned by the Duke of Bedford to attend a council meeting in Calais in 1433. The evidence is scanty, but it appears that Morgan and Grey worked well together.

See Year 1433: A Council at Calais

Grey died in February 1436 and was succeeded as Bishop of Lincoln by William Alnwick, translated from the bishopric of Norwich.

Appointment of Bishops

Robert Gilbert

Robert Gilbert, Dean of York, became Bishop of London in 1436 (1).  As Dean of the Royal Chapel Gilbert had accompanied King Henry V to France but he later had qualms of conscience about rejoicing, as a man of God, in Henry’s victories. He was absolved by Pope Eugenius in December 1435. He was given permission to travel to Rome to obtain confirmation as Bishop of London in March 1436, and was duly confirmed by the pope in June, although the Papal Letters do not state that he was in Rome.

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 636 (Bishop of London).

(2) Papal Letters VIII, pp. 532 and 613 (confirmation by the Pope).

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

William Alnwick

In May the Council requested Pope Eugenius to translate William Alnwick, Bishop of Norwich, the king’s confessor, to the see of Lincoln (1).  Alnwick was a member of the Minority Council and Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1422 until he was dismissed by the Duke of Gloucester in the council shakeup of 1432. He became Bishop of Norwich in 1426. He was provided to the see of Lincoln in September 1436 and the temporalities were restored to him in February 1437.

(1) Foedera X, p. 643 (Alnwick).

John Bloxwich

John Bloxwich, an Englishman and a Carmelite friar, was appointed as Bishop of Holar (Olens) in Iceland by Pope Eugenius (1).  Iceland was inhospitable and rarely visited except by merchants evading the trading restrictions imposed by a treaty between England and King Eric of Denmark.

Bloxwich was a non-resident bishop, claiming to fear the risks of travelling to, and living in, Iceland. He evaded his duties but collected his income from the see by obtaining much sought after licences permitting English ships to visit Iceland.

In May 1436 John May, master of the Katherine of London, was licenced to sail to Iceland on the bishop’s behalf provided, as was customary, two other merchants, John Bristowe and Richard Weston, put up securities of £40 that there would be no illegal trading done contrary to the treaty with King Eric of Denmark (who was also king of Iceland) that all trade in his dominions must be conducted through his staple at Bergen in Norway (2, 3).

See Year 1429: Denmark.

In November, a second licence to send a ship to Iceland and bring back merchandise was issued to Bloxwich as Bishop of Skalholt, with the same proviso, not to violate the treaty with King Eric (4).

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

(1) Papal Letters VIII, p. 499 (Bloxwich appointed).

(2) Foedera X, p. 645-646 (licence to John May).

(3) Power and Postan, English Trade, p. 170 (Bloxwich).

(4) Foedera X, p. 659-660 (second licence).

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

Bishop of Urbino

Antonine de Saint Vito, Bishop of Urbino had been appointed by Pope Eugenius as the papal legate to Scotland. A safe conduct, presumably requested by Eugenius, for him to travel through England was issued in November 1436.

(1) Foedera X, p. 660 (Bishop of Urbino).

 Church appointments

Thomas Lisieux and Richard Wyot

In August Master Thomas Lisieux was granted the prebend in St Pauls church, London, lately held by Thomas Daniet. Richard Wyot, dean of the chapel of the Duke of Gloucester, received the prebend in the chapel of St George, Windsor that Thomas Lisieux had lately held (1).

(1) PPC IV, p. 345 (grants of prebends).

Simon Brekhault

In December 1436 Simon Brekhault was presented to the chapel of St Aichardus in the diocese of Coutances in Normandy following the death of Stephen Caripel (1).

(1) Foedera X, p 660 (Brekhault).

The Duchy of Gascony

See Year 1423: The Duchy of Gascony.

Bernard Angevin a member of the Council in Bordeaux who had been appointed a civil judge in 1433 was appointed a judge of the criminal court in Gascony (1, 2).

Henry Cavier, Bishop of Bazas, and Ayquem du Vignau, prior of St James in Bordeaux, were appointed judges of civil cases in the superior court of Gascony.  Cavier had been Gaston de Foix’s proctor to Henry VI and the Council to argue Gaston’s claim to the inheritance of Pons, Lord of Castillon.

See Year 1428: The Duchy of Gascony.

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

(1) Foedera X, p 651 (judiciary in Bordeaux).

(2) gasconrolls.org. C61 /126 # 28 (judiciary in Bordeaux).

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

Pey Berland

Pey Berland, Archbishop of Bordeaux since 1430, was also a member of the Council in Bordeaux. In August 1436 letters of protection for Berland, his servants, his lands, his revenues and his possessions, were issued for his good service to the king and because he often carried out negotiations on the king’s behalf (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 654 (Pey Berland).

(2) gasonrolls.org. C61 126 # 27

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

Scotland

The search for allies now that the Duke of Burgundy was an ally of France induced the Council to send envoys to King James of Scotland to resume negotiations for an extension of the Anglo/Scottish truce which was due to expire. The five-year truce from 1 May 1431 to 1 May 1436, had been signed on 14 December 1430 and proclaimed on 19 January 1431.

See Year 1430: Scotland.

In February 1436 Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, Marmaduke Lumley, Bishop of Carlisle, and William, Lord Fitzhugh were commissioned to take up where they had left off in the previous summer. There is considerable confusion in the Proceedings and the Foedera as to the make-up of the commission. William Alnwick, Bishop of Norwich and Lord Fitzhugh are listed in the former but not in the latter.

Numerous additional names, which Nicolas believed were added later, appear at the head the of instructions in the Proceedings: Lord Greystoke, Robert Umfraville, John Bertram, Christopher Colwen, Master Richard Leyot, William Felter Doctor of Laws, and Thomas Uldale, clerk (1). These men are also named in the Foedera with the exception of Lord Greystoke, the Constable of Roxburgh, who died in 1436 (2).

The commissioners had the power to deal with violations of the truce and to promise reparations, provided King James agreed to do likewise. If this question was settled satisfactorily, they could offer a new truce for five years. If not, they were to suggest prolonging the existing truce for a year or more until agreement could be reached. They were to be guided by the instructions formerly issued to Stephen Wilton.

See Year 1434: Scotland.

A meeting apparently never took place; perhaps the commissioners never set out.  A letter from King Henry to King James of 8 March 1436 refers to the appointment of an English commission ‘of the whiche, as we understand, noon effect is followed.’

Henry suggested a new meeting date and requested letters of safe conduct for Richard Leyot and Lewis John (not named in the original commission) to go to Scotland with power to treat, but if, as seemed likely, agreement could not be reached without further consultation with the Council, King Henry would willingly grant safe conducts for Scottish representatives to come to him (3).

This dilatory attitude failed to impress King James, and he allowed the truce to expire. The balance of war had tipped in favour of France and James was once again negotiating, as he had in 1428, for a Franco-Scottish alliance and the marriage of his daughter Margaret to the Dauphin.

See Year 1428:  Scotland.

The fourteen-year-old Margaret sailed for France at the end of March 1436 and was married to the Dauphin at Tours in June (4). The Franco-Scottish alliance was now a reality.

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 308 (commissioners) and pp. 313-315 (instructions).

(2) Foedera X, p. 629-630 (commissioners).

(3) Foedera X, p. 635 (Henry VI’s letter, March).

(4) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. III, p. 35 (Margaret’s marriage).

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

Roxburgh

Roxburgh Castle, the great border fortress built in the twelfth century by King David I of Scotland, changed hands several times over the centuries of intermittent Anglo /Scottish warfare. Roxburgh stood just over the Scottish border at the junction of the Tweed and the Teviot, sixty miles west of Berwick on Tweed. The two castles formed the bulwark of English defence along the border and their repair and maintenance was of constant concern to the Minority Council.

Roxburgh had been in English hands since 1346 when it was captured by King Edward. Archibald Earl of Douglas attempted to recapture it in 1417 while King James was still a prisoner in England about to be taken to France by Henry V. The Duke of Bedford, acting a King Henry’s lieutenant, led a large army north and put Douglas to flight. This was not something James chose to remember.

With the truce in abeyance, King James summoned his subjects to arms and, relying on his artillery, laid siege to Roxburgh Castle at the beginning of August.  James had seen Henry V in action at sieges in France, but he had no experience of directing a siege himself and it was not as easy of he thought.

The Northumbrian knight Sir Ralph Grey had been appointed warden of Roxburgh castle for one year in June 1435 (1). He left the garrison to hold the castle while he rode south to summon assistance. The Earl of Northumberland, reinforced by the Earl of Westmorland and other northern lords came to the rescue, just as they had in 1417.  Perhaps James did remember Douglas’s flight. As soon as he heard of Northumberland’s approach, after only twelve days of ineffectual bombardment, James panicked. He abandoned his army and his siege engines and ignominiously recrossed the border. ‘The expedition was militarily an inglorious failure’ (2, 3, 4).

“About the Feast of St Lawrence [10 August] the King of the Scots with 40,000 men (sic) besieged the fortress of Roxburgh for twelve days. But then, without having inflicted any damage on the castle, he fled back to Scotland.”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 185

“And in þis same yere, whils all this doyng was at Caleys and in Flaundre[s] the Kyng of Scottes come with an huge powere of peple and ordynaunce and biseged þe towne of Berwik, and after, the Castell of Rokesburgh, and did moche harme þere as he come.

And þen come þe Erle of Northumberland and þe Erle of Westmerland, with lordes and peple of the Cuntrees, and distroyed and brake his seges; and he fledde with his peple, and turned ageyn into Scotland.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 470           

“Also ϸis same yere ϸe King of Scotland beseged Rokesburgh with myche peple; but Sir Rauf Gray departed from þe Castell & ordeyned for rescouse; but as sone as þe Kyng vnderstode his departyng he soddenly brak his siege & went his way levyng moche ordynnance behinde him; wher he gat no worsshipe.” Brut Continuation G, p. 505

“And this same yeer a moneth aftir that the said duke of Burgoyne was fled from Caleis, Jame[s] kyng of Scottis besegid the castel of Rokesburgh in Northumbirlond with CXL.M men as it was said; but thay withynne the castel kept it with iiij^xx menne of arme[s] ayens the kyng of Scottis, and all his ost. And whanne the said kynge herde telle that certayn lordis of the Northcuntre wolde come and breke the sege, he fledde in Scotland ayenne.” English Chronicle, pp. 55-56

“Also the same yere the xiij day of August the king of Scottes and his wyf lyenge at the sege of the castel of Rokysburgh with a gret power of Scottes and a gret ordinaunce brak up the sege and wente his way shamfully, and lefte his ordinaunce and his stuff behynden hym as a coward. And mo thane vij score of his galuentires schlayn and taken at the same sege; and so myghte he wel say thainthe crook of the mone com he thedirward and in the wylde wanyande went homeward” Chronicle of London (Harley 565) pp. 121-122

The phrase the ‘crook of the mone .  . .’ indicated a decisive defeat, especially of the Scots; the chronicles used it to describe the plight of the Scots after the Battle of Verneuil in 1424.

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

(1) Documents Relating ro Scotland IV, p 223 (Grey warden of Roxburgh).

(1) Balfour Melville. James I, pp 228-230 (Roxburgh siege).

(2) Brown, James I, pp. 163-164 (Roxburgh siege).

(3) Nicholson, Scotland, pp. 292 and 323 (Roxburgh siege).

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

King Durate of Portugal

After the Congress of Arras, the Kingdom of Portugal was England’s only certain ally. The Minority Council approached King Durate to confirm that the Treaty of Windsor, signed in 1386, was still valid. Durate replied in replied in November 1435 that he would observe Portugal’s alliance with England, signed by his father, King João (1).

See Year 1428: Portugal

See Year 1434: King Durate of Portugal

In February 1436 Durate and Henry VI signed a further agreement that the trade treaties negotiated under King Richard II and King Henry IV would be adhered to (2).

Dazam, a Portuguese knight who may have carried a copy of Durate’s confirmation of the treaty to England, was well rewarded.  John Merston, Keeper of the king’s jewels was instructed to give him a gold collar and a gold ornament garnished with a ruby, a diamond, and a great pearl.  Dazam’s nephews received three silver collars (3).

In October the king’s officers were forbidden to search any Portuguese ships, or to molest King Durante’s subjects in any way (4).

Durate was made a Knight of the Garter in May 1436. Robert Rolleston, the keeper of the great wardrobe, was ordered send Garter robes to him, and to his brother Prince Pedro, Duke of Coimbra, who had been installed as a Knight of the Grater in 1428 (5).  Garter King of Arms was paid £40 to travel to Portugal 65).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp 625-26 (treaty of alliance).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 631-632 (trade treaties).

(3) Foedera X, p. 641 (jewels to Dazam).

(4) Foedera X, p 656 (protection for the Portuguese).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 639-640 (Durate Knight of the Garter).

(6) Foedera X, p. 641 (Garter paid to carry robes to Portugal).

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

The Netherlands

The Council issued a proclamation at the end of March stating that although the Duke of Burgundy had seduced many Flemings from their allegiance to King Henry, they were still Henry’s subjects and those who wished to remain in England and renew their oath of allegiance to the king would receive full protection. The sheriffs were ordered to pronounce publicly throughout all the counties in England that those choosing to take the oath were not to be molested in anyway (1). This made sound political and economic sense. These men were for the most part merchants, artisans and craftsmen, making a valuable contribution the English economy.  In April the oath of allegiance was administered to seventy-three men from the Netherlands, not all of them Flemings (2, 3).

That the Council had written to Holland and Zeeland in 1435 hoping for their support or at least their neutrality should England go to war with Burgundy is not surprising (4,5) 8). King Henry had suggested that in the altered political alignments after Arras the Dutch should consider their longstanding trading relationship with England and continue to maintain it even in the face of Burgundy’s displeasure.

Jacqueline of Hainault

A letter from King Henry to his ‘cousin’ and godmother Jacqueline as Countess of Holland and Zeeland at the end of March is more puzzling.  It referred to a previous correspondence and reminded her of the friendly relationship and trade ties between her ancestors and the kings of England (6).

By 1436, within a few months of her death, Jacqueline was entirely dependent on the Duke of Burgundy for her income and her freedom; The wording of the letter is vague, but if the Council  believed that Jacqueline, who had abdicated, and was no longer Countess of Holland and Zeeland, had any political influence it is a curious example of the Council’s habit of judging diplomatic ties on the basis of relationships that had existed under King Henry V rather than what they became after his death.

See Year 1428: Jacqueline and the Duke of Burgundy

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 636-637 (proclamation of protection).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 637-639 (oath of allegiance).

(3) CPR 1429-36, pp. 541-588 (a complete list of all those from the Netherlands and Germany who took the oath).

(4) L&P II, Preface p. x (list of fifteen towns to which Henry’s letter was sent).

(5) Monstrelet II, p. 24-25 (letter to Zuiderzee).

(6) PPC IV, pp. 334-335 (letter to Jacqueline).

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

English ambassadors to the Princes of Germany

Sir Robert Clifton and Stephen Wilton

Sir Robert Clifton and Stephen Wilton were commissioned on 15 December 1435 to lead an embassy to the Prince-Archbishop of Cologne, the Count of Moers, the Duke of Guelders and the Bishop of Liège with instructions “to treat for an alliance and receive the homage of” these magnates (1, 2). Stephen Wilton was an experienced diplomat, but this is the only record of Sir Robert Clifton being chosen as an envoy. Clifton and Wilton left England in 1436.

On 29 December 1435 Sir Robert Clifton was appointed as Mayor of Bayonne. The simplest explanation would be that Clifton did not go on embassy and was appointed mayor instead. But there was another Sir Robert Clifton, the brother of Sir Gervase Clifton who was twenty-five in 1435. Was he the Clifton who became mayor of Bayonne? Confusingly, this Clifton wife’s name was Alice.

See Year 1435: The Duchy of Gascony, Bayonne.

The Sir Robert Clifton who went on embassy died in 1442. A pardon to his widow Alice in 1446 of all his debts to the crown refers to ‘his services to King Henry V and Henry VI ‘as late constable of Bordeaux, in France, Normandy, Aquitaine, Gascony, Flanders and other parts beyond the sea and his losses at which time he was captured by the king’s enemies and put to great expense’ (3, 4) Bayonne is not mentioned.

In November 1437 one Peter Cousin received a licence to take 20 marks and two vestments to Hainault ‘for the release of’ two prisoners, Peter Wilton and Sir John Clifton (5). They are named as Stephen Wilton and Sir Robert Clifton in an entry in the French Rolls (6). Were the English envoys captured on their way to or from Germany and was this was a ransom payment?  Sir Tobert Clifton was appointed Constable of Bordeaux in March 1439 (7).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 626-627 (commission to treat with German princes).

(2) PPC IV, p. 308 (100 marks for their expenses).

(3) CPR 1441-46 dated 8 July 1446, pp. 444-45 (Alice, Clifton’s widow).

(4) Vale, Gascony, p. 117 (Alice’s petition and pardon).

(5) PPC V, pp. 79-80 (Peter Wilton and John Clifton and Dolman).

(6) DKR, vol. 48, French Rolls, p. 321 (Robert Clifton and Stephen Wilton).

(7) gasconrolls.org C61_129 dated 24 March 1439 (Clifton constable of Bordeaux).

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

The Princes of Germany

The Duke of Burgundy’s defection from the Anglo-Burgundian alliance after the Congress of Arras in 1435 forced the Minority Council to approach former allies that they had neglected after King Henry V’s death. The Duke of Gloucester, temporarily in control of the Council, may have looked back, as he often did, to King Henry V’s diplomacy, but it was a policy that England could ill afford.

King Henry V had drawn the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund and the Germanic princes into his alliances against France. He paid the Germanic princes an annuity to swear fealty to him and to contribute men to his wars if needed.

Dietrich von Moers [Theodoric in Foedera] was Prince-Archbishop of Cologne.  Henry V had purchased his alliance in 1416 for an annuity of 500 nobles, considerably less than the £1,000 that Richard II had paid an earlier Archbishop of Cologne. Dietrich tried to renew the arrangement after Henry died, but the Minority Council judged him to be an unreliable ally and they allowed his payment, and therefore the alliance, to lapse (1). Frederick von Moers, Count of Moers was Dietrich’s older brother.

The English Council either did not know or chose to ignore the inconvenient fact that the Duke of Guelders had accompanied the Duke of Burgundy to Arras and was constantly in his company, and that the Bishop of Liege spoke in favour of a Franco-Burgundian alliance. They were with Burgundy when he welcomed Cardinal Beaufort to Arras and their courtesy may have been misinterpreted (2).

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

(1) Dickinson, Arras, passim (Guelders and Liège).

(2) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 59-60 (Archbishop of Cologne).

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

Louis, Count Palatine of the Rhine

The 1,000 marks annuity granted by King Henry V to Louis III, Count Palatine, was paid in 1435.

John Stokes had negotiated a delay for future payments, and in March 1436 King Henry thanked Louis for agreeing to postpone the payment due at Easter, until 24 June (1). Letters of obligation to pay 1200 marks in June 1436 were issued to Louis’s agent, Johannes van Wypernotd alias Rosencrans of Cologne (2).

See Year 1435: Louis, Count Palatine of the Rhine.

The 1200 marks was not paid until November 1436 when five servants of merchants of Cologne, John Stockede, Conrad Roiss, William Ketwich, Roger Rynck and John Berensrass, who looked after Louis’s financial interests in London were authorised to collect the 1200 marks due to Louis (always referred to as the Duke of Bavaria).

They acknowledged receipt of the 1200 marks on 21 November as part of the 5,000 nobles (2,500 marks) still owing on Blanche of Lancaster dowry of 40,000 nobles (20,000 marks), dating back to her marriage with Louis in 1402. Blanche died in 1406 but first Henry IV and then Henry V failed to pay off her dowry (3).

See Year 1423: Louis, Count Palatine of the Rhine.

On 23 November the Council agreed that an act should be made for the ‘Duke of Bavaria,’ presumably on how and when future payments would be made (4).

Louis died in December 1436 and no payments were made to his heir, Louis IV, for the next four years (5).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 633-634 (Henry VI to Louis).

(2) Foedera X, p. 634 (obligation to pay 1200 marks)

(3) Foedera X, pp 658- 659 (November, Bavarian receipt for payment).

(4) PPC V, p. 4 (an act for Louis).

(5) Ferguson, Diplomacy, p. 73.

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

 The Hanseatic League

Hanse representatives had boycotted a meeting with English envoys at the end of 1435 and it was not until towards the end of 1436 that relations were resumed.

See Year 1435: The Hanseatic League

A safe conduct for one year was issued in November 1436 to Henry Vorrath, proconsul of Danzig, representing Paul von Rusdorf  the Grand Master of Prussia, and John Clingenbergh, Proconsul of Lubeck, Vicke Von Houe, Proconsul of Hamburg, Master Francke Keddeken, and Master John Hertze, Protonotary of Lubeck, to negotiate a new trade treaty with the Hanseatic League (1).

Powers to treat were issued on 6 November to William Alnwick bishop of Norwich, Lord Cromwell , Lord Tiptoft, and William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal, and John Stokes and William Sprever, doctors of laws. The City of London’s interests was represented by an alderman, Henry Frowyk. (2).

The Council wrote von Rusdorf on 23 November requesting clarification, or possibly agreement, on importing merchandise and corn (3). The issues were complicated, and the deliberations continued into the spring of 1437.

See Year 1437: The Hanseatic League.

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 656 (safe conducts).

(2) Foedera X, p. 657 (power to treat).

(3) PPC V, p. 4 (letter to Von Rusdorf).

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

 The Marquess of Mantua

John, Lord Scrope of Masham was appointed ambassador to Anton Flavian de Ripa, Grand Master of the Order St John, the Knights Hospitaller of Rhodes in 1435. He was granted a licence to travel with his retinue for two years from 1 March 435. (1).

He set out to visit the Holy Land, as well as Rhodes, and on his way home in 1436 he was well received by Gianfrancesco Gonzaga the first Marquess of Mantua. In October King Henry thanked Gonzaga for his courtesy to Scrope and gave Gonzaga permission to bestow the Lancastrian collar of SS on fifty of his servants (2, 3).

The Gonzaga family was extremely wealthy. Gianfrancesco bought the title of Marquess from the Emperor Sigismund for 120,000 gold florins.

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 600-601 (Scrope ambassador).

(2) Foedera X p. 655 (Lancastrian collars).

(3) CPR 1436-41 dated 19 October 1436, p. 27 (Lancastrian collars).

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

The War in France

After the death of the Duke of Bedford in September 1435, military discipline in Normandy broke down. A rebellion in the pays de Caux, directed by French war captains, resulted in the ports of Dieppe, Harfleur, and other towns in Normandy being captured.

See Year 1435: Rising in the Caux.

 In the absence of higher authority Lord Talbot took matters into his own hands. He appointed himself captain of Rouen with Richard Curzon as his lieutenant. Curzon had extensive military experience; he had served under the Earl of Warwick.

Talbot, Lord Scales, Sir Thomas Kyriell, and possibly Sir Thomas Hoo (named only in Cleopatra C IV) vented their fury on the unfortunate inhabitants of the pays de Caux as rebels and traitors.

Talbot’s men devastated the towns and countryside for miles around. Cleopatra C IV estimates that more than 1,000 men were killed, 800 in Lillebonne alone. It and other market towns were sacked, provisions and livestock were stolen and brought back to Rouen. According to the chronicler the beasts were sold off cheaply for immediate profit: a sheep for one penny, a cow for a shilling (2).

“And the iiij day of Janyuer the lorde Talbot and the lorde Scalys, and Sir Thomas Kerryell and Sir Thomas Hoo went to Caux with ij m^l men, and roode in to the contre and brent and slew all that myght be takyn of the contre vn to the nomber of viij^c in the tovne of lilbon [Lillebonne] and brent the tovne; and this whas the vij day of Janyuer. 

And the x day they made another jornay to Caux another wey, toke and slew yn to a m¹ of hem of Caux, and brent many a riall markett tovnes. And euer more all the bestis they brought before them vn to Caux and ther hei solde a schepe for the valew of a peny and a kow for xijd. And thus all the contre of Caux whas destroyed both of men and of bestis and of all her goodis. And so the lordis kept the ffeld ffor dow[gh]t of treson and put a good garyson in to the tovne of Rooen and Richard Curson squier lieutenaunt of the tovne of Rooen vnder the lord Talbot.” Cleopatra C IV, p. 140

Talbot’s actions did not defeat the insurgents, he merely starved them into submission by destroying their villages, towns, and livelihood; the price of his success was the impoverishment of the once prosperous pays de Caux and of Henry VI’s Norman subjects. The excuse that after the Duke of Bedford’s death the people turned traitor, ‘the land was full of treason’ may have been true, but Talbot’s strategy would never have been countenanced by the Duke of Bedford.

Rouen and Rys

In February the indefatigable war captains La Hire and Xaintrailles, expecting help from within the city, planned a surprise attack on Rouen. Lord Scales and Sir Thomas Kyriell turned the tables on them.

Accompanied by about 1,000 men they took the French by surprise at the village of Rys ten miles east of Rouen. Xaintrailles and La Hire, who was wounded, fled back to Beauvais with the remnants of their army (1, 2).

Lord Scales captured their war horses, most of their baggage, and nine war captains, among them: Regnault, Lord de Fontaines who had helped to capture the Earl of Arundel at Gerberoy in 1435, and Alardin de Monssay, whom Lord Scales ransomed for 20,000 saluts..

“And anone aftyr on candelmas day the lord Scalis hadde a full fayre distresse at a place iiij leges ow[z]t of Rooen, callyd the Rys, where whas distressed la hire with all his ffelawshippe vnto the nomber xv^c men; and the lorde Scalys was not passing iiij^c men.

And that same distresse whas takyn all lahire horsses, a vij corserys, and all his pagis, ande of worthie presonerys Sir Richard Reynolde de ffountanys, Alain Geremin baille of Savillis, lynovs de lencrepe, Alardyn de Mousay, presoner of xx m¹ salys to the lorde Scalys and the captan of the Scotts, Geffery la hire, the Bastard of Seint Terre and the Bastard of Seint Basile and the bastard of Dawne, the wiche has a traytor and whas juged to be drawe, hangid and quartered, and behedid; and so he whas at the tovne of Roon. 

And ther whas many take of them and many slayne and lahire himself fled w^t a grete meyne. And so the lorde Scalis cam into Rooen with all his presonerys. And that meyne hadde cast hem to have had the tovne of Rooen at that tyme; for it whas sold vnto lahire, for he was chef of that ffelawshippe.           

“And within the xij day […. ] the sayd tovne   And than the lorde Talbot with the lorde Scalys cam theder with xviij men and resceved þe seyd tovne; and ther were slayn vn to a iiij^c man and moo. And poton and lahire ffled vnton bovys (Beauvais).    Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 140

Poton de Xaintrailles had briefly occupied Gisors but Talbot recovered it and garrisoned it with 100 men under Sir Thomas Hoo (3).

“And þe tovne of Gesors whas rescevyd at that tyme and the þe castell both, and ther whas moch good gotyn therin And the lond whas at that tyme full of treson aftyr the deth of the Duke of bedford and regent of ffraunce.” Cleopatra C IV, p. 141

Talbot wrote to the Minority Council in April recounting their success. He sent his letter through William Gloucester, master of the ordnance in Rouen, who was about to cross to England, with ‘certain articles’ probably requesting immediate military reinforcements and supplies. King Henry replied in May informing Talbot that the Earl of Suffolk (who was preparing to cross to France with the Duke of York), and William Gloucester would bring Talbot the latest news of what was being done by the Council.

A second letter from the king to Robert Curzon and John Salvain bailli of Rouen, thanked them for their part in the defence of Rouen and made a vague promise that help would be sent. The king told them, as he had Talbot, to await the arrival of William Gloucester and the Earl of Suffolk to learn more (4).

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

(1) Pollard, Talbot, pp. 22-23 (notes that this incident is told three times in Monstrelet and twice in Wavrin on differing dates, 1436 and 1437).

(2) Monstrelet II, pp.  24-25 (Monstrelet has “Le Bois” in 1436 but Rys in 1437 (p. 49); he credits Sir Thomas Kyriell with leading the attack).

(3) Pollard, Talbot, p. 23 n. 47 citing BL Add Chs 6875,94 for Gisors.

(4) L&P I, pp. 496-497 (Talbot’s letter and King Henry’s reply, misdated by Stevenson to 1449) and pp. 498-499 (letter to Curzon and Salvain).

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

An Army for Normandy

Louis of Luxembourg, the Council in Rouen, and the Estates of Normandy all reported the rebellion in the pays de Caux and the losses to the Minority Council. They appealed for immediate assistance, but months passed, and it was not until the end January 1436 that the Council sent a feeble reply, excusing the delay and promising that a relieving army would be sent.

An apologetic letter in King Henry’s name informed  Louis of Luxemburg that the warnings of the dire conditions in France and the appeals for help, including one sent through the Earl of Suffolk, had not been ignored.

King Henry expressed his regret that the Council in Rouen had concluded that Normandy was to be abandoned because they had not received any information to the contrary. He assured them that this was not so; letters had been sent and arrangements were being made, but the bad state of the roads in winter, the storms at sea ‘and some other causes’ prevented letters or messengers from getting through ‘at which we are displeased.’ Those in Rouen should have patience, trust in God, and encourage Henry’s subjects not to give way to disloyal thoughts.

Despite all setbacks the king will send an army into France larger than any yet sent, to remain there until ‘our adversaries’ were defeated. Further details would be supplied by the envoys from Rouen who are returning to Normandy. Henry thanked the chancellor, the council, and his loyal subjects for all they had done; their burden would soon be lifted. In the mean while they should announce these tidings publicly and keep the Council in England informed of any developments on the war front (1).

Fine words and fine promises, not all of them true. Promising to send an unprecedently large army was one thing, raising it and paying for it was quite another. As usual there was insufficient money coming into the Exchequer, and the tax grant of 1435 had yet to be collected. Loans would have to be solicited.

Ineffectual attempts to raise the army began in December 1435. Sir Henry Norbury with twenty-nine men-at-arms and four hundred archers, and Richard Wasteness with thirty- nine men-at-arms and five hundred archers mustered at Portsmouth as the advance guard (2).

Envoys from Rouen, among them the faithful Jean de Rinel, had come to England to report the disasters in Normandy and to plead for help. Norbury was to escort them back to Rouen. They were still waiting at Portsmouth on 25 January when they wrote to the Duke of Gloucester to complain of the lack of action. Where, they demanded, was the army that King Henry had promised? So far only six small ships had assembled (3).

There was insufficient shipping. On 16 January 1436 Norbury was ordered to cross first, to be followed by Wasteness. With the ports of Harfleur and especially Dieppe, closed to him, Norbury was to land wherever he could and march directly to the pays de Caux to help suppress the risings (4). He joined the garrison at Rouen in early February.

“And in that same monyth ther com ow[gh]t of Englond in to Normandy Sir herry Norbery knyght and [Hamo] belknap and wessenes, squyers, with iiij^c men of werre; and thei were put into Rooen for to strenght the tovne of Rooen for ther whas so moch treson walkyng that men wist not what to do.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 140

Commissions of array were issued to all English counties on 18 January (5). A rambling and somewhat confused letter from King Henry dated 21 January appealed for their support to thirteen men of the West Country. The letter is in English; it stressed the recent losses in Normandy and warned that more towns, especially the great port of Cherbourg, would fall to the enemy unless help was sent immediately.

The letter refers to King Henry’s promise to send an army to Normandy, and by means of its presence to establish peace. Henry was sure that his loyal subjects must regret, as he did, the threat posed by ‘the enemy’ who had stirred up the people in Lower Normandy to rebel against him. He suggested that this should be of particular concern to the recipients of the letter because the coast of Normandy was not far from West Country coasts! Henry asked them to muster able bodied men in their counties and send them, well-armed, to his relief. This was scaremongering. There is no evidence of any planned invasion.

Obscurely, the letter also refers to King Henry’s tender age and his ‘grete necessitie’ and to the loyalty and love that the people of Normandy had shown to his father Henry V when the Duke of Gloucester took Cherbourg in 1418 (6). The letter is not in the Council’s usual style. Was it dictated by King Henry himself, possibly encouraged by Gloucester?

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

(1) L&P I, pp. 424-429 (letter to Louis of Luxembourg).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 525-526 (advance army to muster).

(3) L&P I, pp. 508-509 (Norbury’s instructions misdated by Stevenson to 1450 because an English army crossed to France in April 1450).

(4) Beaurepaire, “États de Normandie, pp. 55-57 (envoys from Rouen in England).

(5) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 519-524 (commission of array).

(6) L&P I, pp. 510-512 (Henry’s letter of 21 January misdated by Stevenson to 1450).

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

Loans

On 14 February a country wide appeal for substantial loans was drawn up by the Council to raise an army to be commanded by Richard, Duke of York. It would be sent to France in April. The list of those expected to contribute to its costs included just about everyone, beginning with the Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, other members of the Council, ending with thirty-five named individuals, most of them crown employees of one sort or another.

The cities and towns were allocated specific sums, with a long list of mixed lay and ecclesiastical names beginning with the Archbishop of Canterbury: £2,000. The magnates who would go to France were not included as they were to pay for their own retinues (1).

Despite King Henry’s appeal, it must be doubted if the money was loaned willingly. The demand, for such it was, did nothing to convince most men that the war in France was worth continuing.

Cardinal Beaufort

Cardinal Beaufort made the largest contribution: £12,666 13s 4d in February and a further £4,000 through the feoffees of the Duchy of Lancaster (2).

He was allocated crown jewels valued at 8,000 marks as security for repayment of an earlier loan and given permission to sell them if the loan was not repaid by the specified dates. He was also authorised, as he had been in 1435, to sue for repayment of his loan if necessary (3, 4).

As Bishop of Winchester he was licenced to merge the hospital of Sandon in Surrey with the larger hospital of St Thomas’s in Southwark in his diocese. St Thomas’s hospital was run by the Augustinian canons to house the poor. It was not unusual for a small house such as Sandon to be dissolved and its assets transferred to a larger house, to the benefit of both (5).

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 316-329 (requests for loans).

(2) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 258 (Cardinal’s loans).

(3) Foedera X, p. 632 (security and repayment for Beaufort’s loans).

(4) CPR 1429-1436 p. 602 (repayment of Beaufort’s loans).

(5) Foedera X, p. 633 (Sandon and St Thomas’s hospitals).

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

The Fall of Paris

Arthur de Richemont the Constable of France had cleared the way to Paris. Corbeil to the east and Saint-Germaine en Laye to the west of the capital fell to his forces in December 1435 The Bois de Vincennes, only four miles from Paris where Henry V had died and Henry VI had stayed before his coronation, was betrayed by a Scottish member of the watch and captured in February 1436.

[Inserted in MS] thys yere y^e capitayne off corbuell callyd Ferries sold y^e castell to y^e duke of burbon & lyke wise did other capitaynes off dyvers places for mony also a scott y^t kept y^e wech att boys de vyncennes let yn y^e frenchemen & toke hyt.  Great Chronicle, p. 172

Guillaume de Ferrière the captain of Corbeil was a Burgundian in English service but th wages of his garrison had not been paid. The Duke of Bourbon bribed him to change his allegiance, and he surrendered Corbeil and Brie-Comte-Robert. Paris was now encircled.

The citizens of the strategic city of Pontoise rose against the English and forced the garrison to surrender. They invited the Burgundian L’Isle Adam, who had changed sides with his master the Duke of Burgundy, to become captain of Pontoise for King Charles VII (1, 2).

Lord Willoughby had become the military governor of Paris after he captured Saint Denis in 1435 (with L’Isle Adam then in his ranks).  Louis of Luxembourg left Rouen and returned to Paris in March to shore up its defences, but it was a hopeless task. He convened the Grand Conseil, and citizens and soldiers alike were ordered to wear the red cross of St George to confirm their loyalty to Henry VI.  Anyone failing to do so would be forced to leave the city (3).

L’Isle Adam and Arthur de Richemont gathered their forces at Pontoise. They received word from dissidents within Paris to be ready by 13 April. According to Wavrin, L’Isle Adam persuaded the leading citizens before their army appeared at the gates of Paris, to agree to admit them (4). Dunois Bastard of Orleans, Richemont, and L’Isle Adam, arrived at the Port Saint-Jacques with an army of 6,000 men according to Monstrelet (5).  L’Isle Adam climbed a scaling ladder and set King Charles’s banner over the gate.  He declared that the city was now under the control of the Duke of Burgundy. This was a clever psychological move; the Parisians favoured Burgundy but still distrusted King Charles and ‘the Armagnacs.’

Richemont carried letters from Charles VII promising an amnesty; there would be no reprisals: Richemont announced: “My good friends, the good King Charles gives you a hundred thousand thanks, as I do, for having so peaceably returned the chief city of his kingdom to him. If anyone of any rank, present or absent, has done any wrong to our lord the king, it is entirely forgiven him” (6).

Lord Willoughby rallied his forces in the Rue Saint Antoine but was forced to retreat to the Bastille. He had no hope of holding the city or of repulsing the French. He and Louis of Luxembourg negotiated with Richemont to be allowed to leave (7). As they marched out of the capital with their few remaining troops on 17 April, they were taunted by the Parisians according to the Bourgeois, but Chartier says they did not pass through Paris for fear of causing a disturbance (i.e., being attacked?). They were escorted directly to ships on the Seine to take them back to Rouen (8).

The loss of Paris is briefly noted in only two London chronicles:

“And the [    ] day of Aprill than next suyng they wan ayen Parys.” Great Chronicle, p. 172

“And that same yere the Fraynsche party in the monythe of Aprylle wane a-gayne Parys.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 178

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

(1) Barker, Conquest, pp. 239-240 (Pontoise).

(2) Pollard, Talbot, p. 24 (Pontoise).

(3) Guy L. Thompson, Paris and its People Under English Rule, pp. 233-237 (Louis of Luxembourg).

(4) Wavrin IV pp. 141-145 (recovery of Paris).

(5) Monstrelet II, pp. 28-29 (recovery of Paris).

(6) Bourgeois, pp. 302-307 (for a graphic and biased account of the recovery of Paris).

(7) Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, pp. 118-123 (recovery of Paris).

(8) Chartier, Chronique I, pp. 223-228 (recovery of Paris).

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

The Duke of York

The Minority Council had promised the council in Rouen at the end of 1435 that a large army under the Duke of York would be sent to defend Normandy.

See Year 1435: The Rising in the Caux

Gloucester and the Council clung stubbornly to the belief that a defeat of the French in battle would achieve peace and establish Henry’s right to be king of France but their decision to place the army under the command of Richard, Duke of York is somewhat surprising.

The Estates of Normandy had requested a captain of royal blood. The Duke of Gloucester was the obvious choice, he had succeeded the Duke of Bedford as Captain of Calais. But Gloucester was not interested. With Bedford dead he was free to consolidate his dominance of the Council in England and to pursue his own agenda.

Richard of York came of age and was granted livery of his lands in 1432 making him the wealthiest magnate in England and the premier peer in England after the Duke of Gloucester. York was ‘royal,’ he could claim descent from King Edward III on mother’s side through Lionel Duke of Clarence, King Edward’s second son, and through Edmund, Duke of York, Edward’s fourth son on his father’s side.

York was only twenty-five and as yet untried in war or politics. The chronicles’ claim that the decision to send him to France was made in Parliament, but it is not on the Parliamentary rolls.

“And at the parlement of beforn [1435] whas ordyened for the Reame of ffraunce.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 141

“And at the Parlyment be-fore hyt was ordaynyde that the Duke of Yorke shulde in to Fraunce with certayne lordys with hym in stede of the Regaunt.  And whythe hym went the Erle of Salysbury.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 178

“And it was ordeyned by the said parlement that the duke of yorke sholde into Fraunce with certeyn lordes with hym. And he passed into Fraunce a litell tofore Mydsomer. And therle of Salesbury and the lorde Fawcombrigge with hym.  Great Chronicle, p. 172

York’s Army

York indented in February to muster a force by May. He raised 500 men-at-arms and 2,200 archers, The Earls of Salisbury and Suffolk were in his ranks. Salisbury had 260 men-at-arms and 400 archers, and Suffolk had 40 men at arms and 160 archers (1).  In the end ‘the largest army ever sent’ promised by King Henry was reduced to 4,560 men.

Shipping was requisitioned from fourteen ports in March to assemble at Winchelsea to transport the Duke of York and Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain to France with a separate army (2).

See Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain below

Benet’s Chronicle, (p. 185) says York crossed to Normandy after Whitsuntide [27 May] with12,000 men. (Benet consistently inflates the size of English armies). Annales (pseudo-Worcester p. 761) says 8,000 men.

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

(1) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 535-536, (York, Salisbury, Suffolk musters).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, p. 533 (shipping).

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

Lord Fauconberg

William Neville, Lord Fauconberg, was the Earl of Salisbury’s brother. Their mother Joan, Countess of Westmorland was a formidable woman. Before she would agree to allow either of her sons, to serve in the Duke of York’s army she demanded confirmation of a bond from her stepson, Ralph, second Earl of Westmorland, that he would not attempt to repossess any of the Westmorland estates willed by her late husband to herself and her sons while they were fighting in France. She got it: ‘the king will never release the said earl [Westmorland] his heirs or executors from the said bond’ (1).

William Neville had married Joan Fauconberg and became Lord Fauconberg in right of her inheritance. He petitioned for permission to enfeoff Marske in Cleveland, in the North Riding of Yorkshire and the wapentake of Langberg, to his and his wife’s use, with the remainder (inheritance) to their heirs (2).  In view of the great costs to himself of what might be an extended period of service, he asked that the usual fee to the Hanaper be waived. Which was granted.

“And in this same yere, the iiij^th day of Maye, the Erle of Salesbury and his broder the Lord Faukonberge, went ouer the see into Normandy with a fayre company of knyghtes and squyers, with men of armes and archers, in defence of þe Kyng and of þe Reame of England, for to destroye oure enemys.” Brut Continuation F, p. 469

The Earl of Salisbury did not stay in France. On 23 November, at the last recorded Council meeting for 1436, Chancellor Stafford presented a writ and return of rosencrans to the Council on behalf of the Earl of Salisbury, relieving him of his military duties in France. He was back in England before York’s term of office expired (3).

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

(1) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 595-596 (Westmorland bond).

(2) PPC IV p. 336 (Fauconberg enfeoffment).

(3) PPC V, p. 5 (Salisbury).

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

Sir John Popham

Popham was an annuitant of the Duke of York and in May he indented to serve in France or in Normandy under York for six months at 4s a day for himself, with a personal retinue four men-at-arms at 12 pence a day and twelve archers at 6 at pence a day, although he requested to be excused from serving on the Council in Rouen.

Popham was an experienced campaigner, he had fought at Agincourt and served in France under King Henry V and the Duke of Bedford. He required thirty men at arms and a commensurate number of archers to be assigned to him in Normandy, and permission to return home after the expiry of his indentures (1). Popham also requested an indenture on the same terms for one John Straiton, with two archers.

Before he signed his indenture Popham petitioned to be discharged of a debt claimed against him in the Exchequer from the time he had accompanied King Henry to Rouen in 1430 and served on the Council there. He also requested that tallies be issued for £38 7s 6d for his expenses in accompanying Archbishop Kemp to the Congress of at Arras and going from there to Rouen in 1435.

King Henry V had granted Popham an annuity of 100 marks in 1417, but as usual with the late king’s grants, this had never been paid in full. Tallies totalling £265 had been issued and Popham wanted them reassigned for better security, to be paid by the receiver of the tin mines in Cornwall. In the meanwhile, he hoped for an immediate payment of his annuity for the current year. Henry V had also granted him the town and castle of Thorigny and other lands in Normandy and he wanted confirmation that they would be secured to himself and heirs in fee simple, i.e., not just to a male heir. Parts of his petition were granted, but the assignment of 30 men at arms and archers was left up to the discretion of the Duke of York and his request for payment of his shipping costs to return home was not endorsed (2).

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 337-339 and 342-343 (Popham).

(2) Roskell, ‘Sir John Popham,’ in Parliament and Politics III, pp. 356-361.           

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

Clarencieux Herald

There is a contradiction in the sources: on 4 March 1436 a protection was issued for Roger Legh of London, Clarencieux Herald, alias Roger Gloucester of Newington, Surrey, going to France in the retinue of Richard, Duke of York (1).

There is also a ‘commission to Roger Liegh alias Clarencieux king of arms to provide himself with horses required to take him to and from Scotland on the king’s business” (2).

‘Clarencieux Herald sent by the Council with the king’s letters of privy seal to the King of Scots, for his labours and expenses £4 (3).

Roger Legh was created Clarencieux King of Arms in May 1435.  He had previously been Gloucester Herald.

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

(1) Foedera X p. 635 (Legh protection going to France).

(2) CPR 1429-1436 dated 10 March 143, p. 535 (Legh protection going to Scotland).

(3) Documents Relating to Scotland IV, p. 224 (payment for going to Scotland).

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

The Duke of York in Normandy

On 8 May 1436 the Council appointed York as the king’s lieutenant in France fo one year only, from May 1436 to May 1437 (1).  York was to take charge of the administration of Normandy through the council in Rouen. More in hope than in expectation, the Council gave York, Louis of Luxembourg, Salisbury and Suffolk, and Bedford’s councillors Sir John Fastolf and Ralph Le Sage  the power to treat for a truce with France (2, 3).

York landed at Honfleur on 7 June and went straight to Rouen where he remained. He engaged in no major encounters outside Normandy. Lord Talbot had been commissioned simultaneously in May as a marshal of France (4) and he took charge, as he had all year, of the military expeditions to recover the towns surrounding Rouen that had fallen to the French (4). Lord Fauconberg campaigned to the east in the Vexin, and the Earl of Salisbury recovered Chambrois not far from Falaise.

“And whan that the Duke of York was landid at humflewe (Honfleur) with all his ost, the erll of Salisbury leyd sege vnto a castell called Schambroys (Chambrois) and whas won with a composicion. And than the Duke com in to the tovne of Rooen and ther he lay vnto mielmas (Michaelmas) and than he leyd sege vnto the abbey of ffescham (Fécamp) and whan it; and did no more in all his tyme &c.”                  

 Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 141

“And in this same yere, in the Moneth of Maye, the Duke of York and þerle of Suffolk, with oþer lordes, knyghtes and squyers men of arms and archers and all oþer stuff and necessaryes þat perteyneth to were, went ouer the see into Normandy and Fraunce as lieftenaunt vnder the Kynge of England forto gouerne and kepe þe landes of Fraunce and Normandy ageyns the Kynges enemys and in saluacion of the Kynges people.”   Brut Continuation F. p.  469.

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

(1) Johnson, York, p. 28-29 (York king’s lieutenant).

(2) DKR 48, French Rolls, p. 313 (powers to treat).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 642-443 (powers to treat).

(4) Pollard, Talbot, pp. 36-37 (Talbot’s appointment).

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

Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain

Cardinal Beaufort endorsed the Duke of York’s appointment, but he wanted a separate command for his nephew, Edmund Beaufort Earl of Mortain, partly to advance Edmund’s career but also to expedite the release of his eldest nephew, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset still a captive in France.

The Cardinal financed a second army of 2,000 men under Edmund Beaufort’s command, independent of York: ‘the addition of Mortain’s force and the terms of his separate command were the price exacted by the Cardinal for financing the army to Normandy’ (1).

See Loans, Cardinal Beaufort above.

Mortain mustered in April. His captains were Roger, Lord Camoys, Sir William Ashton and Sir Geoffrey Warburton. Before they could sail alarming news reached the Council. The Duke of Burgundy was assembling an army to lay siege to Calais. There was no time to waste. Monstrelet voiced the general consensus: ‘King Henry and all England would just as soon have lost their thirty years conquests in France as the single town of Calais, as I have been creditably informed’ (2).

The Duke of Gloucester ordered Mortain in the king’s name to divert his force to defend Calais. Mortain sailed immediately but there was no sign of the Duke of Burgundy or his army when Mortain landed in Calais. He launched a series of raids into Burgundian territory, first against Boulogne and then at Gravelines on the border of the Pale of Calais and West Flanders. The relief felt in England was palpable, the situation was under control, and damage had been inflicted on the enemy.

In gratitude for these morale booting exploits, King Henry rewarded Mortain with the Order of the Garter, probably at Cardinal Beaufort’s instigation (3, 4). Chronicon Angliae, (pp. 15-16) is the only chronicle to note the grant to Mortain in December 1435 of the County of Harcourt in Eastern Normandy, previously held by the Duke of Bedford).

“This yere was A gret noyse thrugh all Englond, how þe Duke of Burgoyn wolde come & besegie Caleys.  Wherfore þerle of Mortayn with his Army þat he had for to haue gone with in-to Fraunce, was contermaunded & charged þat he shold go to Caleys which was at þat tyme wel vitailed & manned;”   Brut Continuation G, p. 504

“And sone vpon the erll of Mortayn went into the tovne of Caleys and the lord Camuse (Camoys).  And ther he whas besegid by the Duke of Borgoyn. And ther was a grete multitude of peple with him to the nomber of xl m¹ men with a riall ordinaunce of gones ande of engines and of schott of grete crosse-bowys. And ther he made strong Bulwerkes and Bastiles rounde abowte the tovne &c. Cleopatra C IV, p. 141  

 “And the Erle of Mortayne went to Calys sone aftyr Estyr.  And the xiiij day aftyr he made a roode in to Flaunders. and he slowe and tok xv, C. of Flemmyngys, and many bestys; the nombyr ys more thenne I canne certaynely reherse.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 178

Chronicles: English Chronicle, p. 55; Great Chronicle, p. 172; Brut Continuation F, p. 468.

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

(1) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 281

(2) Monstrelet II, p. 37 (English would not lose Calais).

(3) Foedera X, p. 640 (Mortain awarded the Order of the Garter).

(4) Jones ‘Beaufort Family,’ pp. 91-95.

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

The Duke of Burgundy

The Duke of Burgundy was angry. The English Council had rejected his efforts at the Congress of Arras to end a war he was sure they could not win, and they had repulsed his overtures to resume peace negotiations.

See Year 1435: The Duke of Burgundy and England.

In February 1436 Burgundy addressed a stern letter to King Henry rebuking him for English bad faith and double dealing (1).

The Council did not concede that the Duke of Burgundy had any right, or any grounds, to criticise the King of England’s policies.

A defensive reply to the duke, signed by the Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, and other council members, is preceded by a statement that the most important and valuable thing any man can possess is his honour, and that this is doubly true of a king. Burgundy had impugned King Henry’s honour by failing to address him as King of France (2).

Kings of England had always raised armies without reference to anyone. English armies did not pose a threat, except to the king’s enemies. Burgundy’s accusation that the English had attempted to capture Ardres in Artois, a few miles south of Calais, was not true; Burgundy made the allegation in the hope of turning King Henry’s subjects against him. (A reminder to Burgundy that Henry was King of France).

Burgundy had referred to an attack in the previous November on five Portuguese merchant ships sailing to Bruges. They been captured by English vessels and taken into Falmouth. This had been done without the knowledge or approval of the Council, and King Henry had been seriously displeased. Far from profiting from it, the Duke of Gloucester had ordered the arrest of those responsible and the restoration of their goods to the rightful owners. This was undoubtedly true. Portugal was one of the few allies England had left; an attack on Portuguese shipping would have resulted in immediate punishment and an offer to compensate the burgomasters of Bruges for any losses (3).

As for Burgundy’s complaint that England had approached the princes of Germany, and proposed to ally with the Emperor this was not new or reprehensible. Sigismund had been an ally of Henry V and of Henry VI; he was a member of the Order of the Garter (unlike Burgundy). Henry, and his father and grandfather before him, had entered into alliances with foreign princes whenever it suited them without reference to the Dukes of Burgundy, and Henry would continue to do so.

King Henry had not encouraged his subjects to make war on the Flemings, quite the contrary; ever since Burgundy’s ‘strange behaviour’ at Arras, he had gone out of his way to maintain good relations with them and had issued proclamations to protect those residing in England.

See The Netherlands above.

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

(1) Thielemans, Bourgogne et Angleterre I, p. 81 and III, pp. 437- 438 (for Burgundy’s letter).

(2) PPC IV,  pp. 329-334 (reply to Burgundy).

(3) CPR 1429-1436, p. 527 (five ships from Portugal).

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

 The Duke of Burgundy’s Preparations

The Duke of Burgundy visited Ghent in March to bargain with the Four Members of Flanders (the towns of Ghent, Bruges, the castellany of Bruges, and Ypres, the richest towns in the Low Countries) for their military support to besiege Calais.

The men of Ghent and Bruges were reluctant: they agreed only after Burgundy promised them substantial concessions, one of which was that when Calais was captured, all the wool in the Calais Staple would be parcelled out between the towns of Flanders, and no one else. Another was that the duke would place a total ban on the sale of English woollen cloth throughout his lands. The Flemings agreed to supply him with 60,000 men and 400 ships. They were led to believe that Calais was poorly defended and would be an easy prey (1).

Assembling an army of men who were not professional solders took time. They mustered at the end of June near Gravelines, just over the West Flanders border, between Calais and Dunkirk.

Burgundy also recruited men from Picardy. The Picards under their captain Robert de Saveuses operated separately from the men of Ghent and Bruges and proved to be the better soldiers. Most of Burgundy’s initial success appears to have been due to the Picards.

He sent them to reduce the ring of castles around Calais, while the Flemings prepared to lay siege to Calais itself. The Earl of Mortain, although he led raiding parties into Burgundian territory, did not have the man power to defend the castles in Pale of Calais.

Oye surrendered without resistance, Marck held out for six days then sued for a truce, agreeing to surrender on the promise that the defenders would not be hanged. Balingham fell, Sangatte was betrayed by treachery, but Guines resisted. The Picards pounded its walls with heavy artillery, including the great bronze gun called ‘Dygeon.’  The town fell, but William Picton the lieutenant of Guines and the garrison withdrew into the castle and held out.

“And þe ix day of Iuyll þe Duke of Burgoyn with al þe power of Flaundres & moche other peple come before Caleys & sett his siege About þe town; & euery town of Flaundres had þer tenttes bi þame self. And þis Siege endured thre wekes.” Brut Continuation G, p. 504

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

(1) Vaughan, Philip, pp. 75-76 (Burgundy’s army).

(2) Monstrelet II, pp. 36-38 (claims Oye was taken by the men of Ghent and razed to the ground).

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

 The Siege of Calais

It was not until 9 July, four months after Burgundy made his intentions known, that he laid siege to Calais.

“And in this same yere aboute Midsomer, the Duke of Burgoyne with all his pusance of peple bothe of Fraunce and of Flaundres and of oþer dyuers contreys come and byseged þe towne of Caleys and þe garrysons þat belongen þerto.  And þere they destroyed both Mark and Oye and of þe Kynges peple many oon. And þey come thider with so grete strenght and ordynaunce of werre þat it was impossible [for] any creatures to conquere theym, sauf þe grace of God oonly;”           Brut Continuation F. p.  469

Burgundy planned to blockade Calais by sea as well as by land, but he was let down by his navy. The admiral, Jan van Hoorn, failed to muster anything like the number of ships promised; the towns along the coast of the Netherlands claimed they needed their ships for self-defence, and in any case, they had already made their contribution to the Duke of Burgundy’s army.

Van Hoorn finally arrived off Calais on 25 July, but his ships stood off. They would not enter the harbour for fear of Calais’s guns. Van Hoorn ordered six old hulks to be weighed down with stones and broken bits of masonry and had them scuttled at high tide to block the mouth of the harbour. But he was unfamiliar with Calais’s tides. At low water on the following day the men and women of Calais came out with axes, broke up the ships and hauled everything worth salvaging ashore.

            “Remembre how ye drowned att full see for þe nones,

            With shippes, Calais hauen, masoned with stones,

            How that þe Calisers hem brake the next day,

            When it was lawe water, and bare lxiii clene away,

            Euery stikke & stone and lafte not ther one log.”  Brut Continuation I, p. 583

After only two days Van Hoorn ordered his ships to withdraw (1). The Flemings never forgave Von Hoorn. He was murdered by the Flemings later in the year. (2).

“And then come the Navy of Spayne with oþer dyuers shippes, which were grete vessels and stronge and well-manned and byseged þe towne of Caleys by water. Then come þe Earl of Devenshire with his Navye out of the west costes and with oþer dyuers shippes of England well-manned; and they herd of his commyng and they voided, and went theire wey thens, and wold no lenger abide.” Brut Continuation F. p.  469

A Short English Chronicle notes the presence of English ships off the coast of Flanders.

“And our shippis brentt a gode Ile whiche is called Cagent, [Cadsand]” Short English Chronicle p. 62

Only Brut Continuation F, records that Spanish (i.e., Castilian) ships were with Von Hoorn’s fleet and that it was the appearance of the Earl of Devon’s ships that forced Burgundy’s ships to withdraw. This may well have induced Van Hoorn to hoist sail. The Earl of Devon is listed as being with the Duke of Gloucester’s army, the chronicler may have mistaken him for the Earl of Huntingdon, the Admiral of England sailing from ports in Devon.

The action, or rather inaction, at sea was watched by the Flemings gathered on the hills overlooking the town. After their ships disappeared over the horizon the end came swiftly. Wavrin, who was at Gravelines, gave it as his opinion that without a blockade at sea Burgundy’s enterprise was doomed from the start.

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

(1) Vaughan, Philip, p. 79 (Flemish fleet).

(2) Monstrelet II, pp. 39-40 (Flemish fleet) and p. 45 (murder of Van Hoorn).

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

Early in the siege Burgundy moved with a large part of his army from the west side of Calais to the safer east side, because a gun shot from the castle, situated at the northwest end of the town, tore through his tent. The Earl of Mortain made a surprise sortie from the Boulogne Gate on the east side and attacked the men of Bruges bivouacked on Saint Peter’s Plain.

Bastille Burned

The men of Ghent had erected a wooden bastille on the sand dunes overlooking Calais occupied by 300 to 400 men. They had trained their artillery on the town, but their heavy guns overshot Calais owing to the poor aim of their gunners. The Earl of Mortain and Lord Camoys set fire to the bastille, killing some of the defenders and taking the rest prisoner.

Gregory’s Chronicle (p. 178) and The Great Chronicle (p. 172) date the attack on the bastille to 12 July. The Brut Continuation H, which does not name Mortain or Camoys, dates it to 28 July. This is more likely as the Duke of Burgundy withdrew from the siege not long afterwards. The destruction of the bastille was the decisive encounter that caused the Flemings to desert.

“And then the Erle of Morteyner and þe Lorde Camoys with a certeyn of theire peple issued oute of Caleys and brake the sege þat the Duke of Burgogyne had ordeyned ayenst the towne of Caleys and come to þe Bastyle of strength and slewe þe most party þat were þerin and destroyed moche peple and toke his ordynaunce, and the remenaunt fledde away.  And this was doon ere the Duke of Gloucestre come ouer the see to Caleys with his Navye and people.           Brut Continuation F, pp. 469-470

“Also this yere was openly knowen that the duke of Burgoyne was falsely forsworne to the crowne of England; for he laied sege to Caleis and did make a strong bastille; to the which bastel Englisshemen made strong assaute iij tymes and the iij^d tyme thei gate it, and token certeyn persons, and slough alle the remenaunt and brent the bastille” Chronicles of London (J. B. I) p. 172.

“And anon aftyr the Duke of Burgone layde hys sege unto Calys whythe a stronge ordynaunce and a myghty, with xl M men and moo.  And they made grete bulworkys, and grete bastylys, and stronge fortyfycacyon.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 178 and Great Chronicle, p. 172

Mortain’s action was commemorated in one of several ballads composed in England lampooning the Flemings:

“Remembres on þat wurship ye wann the first day

When the Erle of Mortein come passing with his pray

Before youre toune of Grauenyng , where ye, ass men bold

Come rennyng on hyn fersli, as lyons of Cotteswold, . . . .

Ye laid vpon þeenglisshmen so mightily with your hands,

Til of you iij hundred lay strechid on the sandes.

Ye Fled þen -in-to Grauenyng and wold no lenger bide

And gaue þe Erle keue to passe ouer that same tyde,

In saafte with his prisoners, & lost neuer a man:

This was þe first worship of Caleys that ye wan.”  Brut Continuation I, p. 582

Advance Party

Lord Welles arrived with the advance party of the Duke Gloucester’s army on the night of, 28/29 July and landed at the Rysbank Tower. They deliberately made so much noise that the Flemings, and possibly Burgundy himself, thought the whole English army had disembarked.

Their arrival following immediately after the loss of the bastille completely demoralized the Flemings. On 29 July the men of Ghent mutinied and prepared to go home despite desperate pleas from the Duke of Burgundy that he had summoned reinforcements who would arrive at any moment, and that to run away rather than face an English army would be a disgrace to him and to them.

The Gantois would not listen. They broke camp and marched in a disorderly fashion back across the border to Gravelines leaving their provisions and their artillery behind. The men of Bruges followed them. Burgundy had broken his promises to them, and they felt betrayed.

Monstrelet tried to save face for the duke by claiming that Burgundy gave them permission to go and offered to protect their rear, which explained his retreat, but the fact remained that the siege of Calais was lifted and the fortresses in the Pale of Calais were abandoned on the Duke of Burgundy’s orders. His own army forced Burgundy to raise the siege (1, 2, 3, 4).

The Duke of Burgundy’s Letter

Burgundy put his own spin on the fiasco in a letter to his brother-in-law the Duke of Bourbon to whom he sent for assistance:

He began by stating that Calais was part of his inheritance, and he had every right to recover it, but from the start he had doubted the loyalty of the men of Ghent. (Burgundy’s officials were constantly at loggerheads with the powerful and independently minded oligarchy in Ghent). There had been no siege, since he had not summoned Calais to surrender.

The men of Ghent and Bruges had chosen to pitch their tents in two separate encampments which were not suited to a siege.  It was only when he received a challenge from the Duke of Gloucester, carried by Pembroke Herald, to do battle that Burgundy realised he would have to face a large English army. He had ordered the men of Ghent to withdraw to a more suitable position, but they, disregarding his honour and theirs, refused. Instead, they retreated to Gravelines and induced the men of Bruges to follow them.

What was left of the army was far too small to give battle to the English and left him with no option but to withdraw and follow them to Gravelines.  Burgundy ended his letter by informing Bourbon that the Duke of Gloucester had arrived in Calais. To face this new threat, he had summoned men from all his lands to resist the English, and he hoped that Bourbon would come with as many men as possible for the honour of King Charles and France (5).

“And after the Feast of St John the Baptist [24 June] the Duke of Burgundy besieged the town of Calais by land, with 100,000 men and large and powerful ordnance. On the Feast of St Sampson [28 July] he ignominiously fled from the siege and then destroyed the fortifications of Mark, Oye and Sangatte [Sandgate].”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 185

“Also this same yere the ix of Jule, the duke of Burgoyn with a ryall power leyde a sege to the town of Calys and continued unto the xxix day of the same monthe; and that day blessyd be Almyghty God his male writhed, for a strong bastyll that he hadde mad upon the water syde was taken and distroied and all that were withinne sclayn unto the moumbre of V c men oughttake iij persones, that is fur to sey a knight, a prest, a frere, the whiche knight seyde that the duke of Burgoyn was nought thre men from hym in the same bastill that tyme that he was taken; And thane a morwe erly also the oost sette there tentes a fyre, and wente there wey with sorowe, leyynge gret stuff behynden them bothe of vitailes and of other thynges also.” Chronicle of London (Harley 565) pp. 121-122

“Also this yere was openly knowen that the duke of Burgoyne was falsely forsworne to the crowne of England; for he laied sege to Caleis and did make a strong bastelle; to the which bastel Englisshemen made strong assaute ij tymes and the iij^d tyme thei gate it, and token certeyn persons, and slough alle the remenaunt and brent the bastille.”  Chronicle of London (J.B. 1) p. 172

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

(1) Monstrelet II, pp. 35-42. ‘The Flemings march to the siege of Calais – and march back again.’

(2) Wavrin IV, pp. 157-199.

(3) L. Visser-Fuchs, History as Pastime, pp. 470-474 (Wavrin’s account of the siege).

(4) Thielemans, Bourgogne et Angleterre, pp. 90-102 (detailed account of the siege).

(5) Vaughan, Philip, pp. 80- 82 (Burgundy’s letter).

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

 The Duke of Gloucester’s Preparations

The Duke of Gloucester had demanded the captaincy of Calais in 1435 after the Duke of Bedford’s death and its defence was his responsibility. He had not intended to go there in person, he sent Sir John Radcliffe in his stead.

See Year 1435: Parliament, The Duke of Gloucester

Initially he was not concerned by the threat to Calais. He had ordered the Earl of Mortain to divert his army to defend it. Radcliffe had a garrison of six hundred men, and with the sea lanes open Calais could be supplied by sea if necessary.

Belatedly Gloucester realised that the Duke of Burgundy’s rash action created an opportunity for him to defeat his old enemy and win the glory that had eluded him in Hainault in 1424 and demonstrate his abilities as a military commander denied him in 1434. But first he had to raise an army and a navy that befitted his rank, far larger than would be needed for the defence of Calais. He began his preparations in June. Burgundy’s unpopularity was at its height in England after his ‘betrayal’ at Arras. Anti-Flemish feelings, fostered at times by himself, had been prevalent in England for years.

On 18 June the sheriffs of London were ordered to proclaim throughout the City and in ten southern counties that any man who were prepared to accompany the Earl of Huntingdon as Admiral of England ‘against he who calls himself Duke of Burgundy and Count of Flanders’ would be provided with free passage and all other necessities, ‘and license to retain all they take from the Flemings’ (1, 2).

John Hexham was in charge of shipping. He and Ralph Ingoldsby received several payments for ordnance; Thomas Gille was to procure ships, at a total cost of £1,186 (3, 4, 5).

Recruiting for the army went on throughout July. On 3 July, the sheriffs in seventeen counties were ordered to issue a summons to all men willing to serve the Duke of Gloucester and defend Calais. They should assemble at Sandwich by 22 July. The muster date was then delayed by a week to 26 July (6, 7).

On 5 and 6 July the sheriffs proclaimed that merchants in London, Kent, Essex, Surrey and Sussex, and Norfolk and Suffolk, were to send victuals and food to Calais to support the Duke of Gloucester. Makers of armour, and those who sold armour, must do so at reasonable prices, while bow and arrow makers were not to put too high a price on their labour (8, 9, 10).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 646 (call to serve with Huntingdon).

(2) Letter Book K p. 205 (call to serve with Huntingdon).

(3) L&P II, Appendix to the Preface, pp. liii-liv (shipping).

(4) CPR 1429-1436, p. 611 (shipping).

(5) C. F. Richmond ‘The Keeping of the Seas during the Hundred Years War 1422-1440,’ History 49 (October 1964), pp. 292-294.

(6) Foedera X, p. 647-648 (muster dates).

(7) Letter Book K, pp. 206-207 (muster dates).

(8) Foedera X, p. 648 (price restrictions on food stuffs).

(9) Letter Book K, pp. 205- 206 (supplies for the army).

(10) Foedera X, p, 649 (supplies for the army).

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

Commissions of Array

Gloucester appealed to the country, not for a loan, but for each town, abbey, priory, knight, squire, and hundred to raise and arm able bodied men to join him in the shortest time possible.

Commissioners who would know best how to approach local inhabitants were appointed to spread the word that King Henry and the council had learned that ‘his adversaries’ (Burgundy?) with their friends and allies (the French?) will besiege Calais and Guines, by sea with an outrageous number of ships, and by land with all the ordnance they can gather.

King Henry had a central role to play in the arguments the commissioners were to use, and the wording of the commission is not unlike Henry’s letter to the men of the West Country, it expressed his confidence in his subjects’ love and loyalty, to him and to the country, and he was sure they shared his and the council’s sense of urgency to defend Calais.

The commissioners were to remind people that the value of Calais was inestimable for its profits from trade. It was a bulwark of England’s defence; so much blood had been shed to capture it; it had cost the country £300,000 to take and keep it. To lose Calais would be the greatest dishonour, rebuke, slander, and shame to the king and to his subjects.

It was well known that when Calais was not in the king’s keeping the enemy had invaded and enslaved parts of the country along the English coasts and an army had been required to defeat them. This presumably harks back to the time, over a century ago, before King Edward III captured Calais, when the French had indeed invaded England.

Nothing could be worse than losing Calais or putting it in jeopardy from want of adequate protection. The Council would contribute, the lords had promised in Parliament to raise an army at their own cost and to serve in their own person for six weeks. This is not on the rolls of parliament, but in November 1435 when Parliament was in session and war with Burgundy was discussed in Council, the Council named the Duke of Gloucester as the king’s lieutenant in Picardy, Artois, and Flanders, probably at Gloucester’s instigation. The lords may have given an undertaking at that time to support him.

See Year 1435: Parliament.

The commissioners were to use these arguments and any others they thought might work. They were to report what each town, abbey, priory, knight, squire, and hundred was willing to contribute, to be ready to assemble within fifteen days of a summons by the king. Henry would remember and thank them all for their services (1).

Gloucester’s army was paid for partly by loans raised by the king’s appeal, the City of London loaned 10,000 marks and raised men-at-arms and archers. Its merchants contributed food stuffs and weapons of war. William Cantelowe as victualler of Calais coordinated the war effort. He received £13 from Ralph Ingoldesby ‘by virtue of his office’ (2).

But once again Cardinal Beaufort made the largest loan, 9,000 marks [£6,000] with repayment assigned on the Southampton customs (3, 4, 5).

“And anon, in the begynnyng of Lent next folowyng, þe King, with his conseyle, borowed a somme of gold þurghout the Reame of temporall peple, þat amounted a c. M¹ marc of money, to sende his peple ouer the see; to kepe, mayntene and gouerne his landes byyonde the See. Of which somme, the peple of London lent x M¹ marc in olde and in newe, þat is to sey, iiij M¹ v^c marc of olde and iiij M¹ v^c marc of newe prest.

So these ij sommes drawen x M¹ marc and more ouer the good peple of þe Cite of London, þat is to sey, certeyn craftes found both men of armes and archers to Caleys forto kepe the towne in saufgarde from oure enemys, þat is to sey the Duke of Burgoyne and his strenght. And also the Cite of London sent stuff to Caleys as Gonnes, Gonnepouder with other commoditees for the werre to kepe þat place sauf, to þe worship of oure Kyng and of þe Reame and to þe welfare and profite of all England.   Brut Continuation F, p. 468   

“And the xxvij day of Juyll with the substaunce of all the lordes of Englond shipped at Sandewyche with the noumbre of xl M¹ peple of all the Cuntrees of Englond ygadered to gedir to susteyne the kynges right. For every Citee Toune and Burgh founde certeyn persones as they myght with diverse livereyes according to the bagges of the toune that they come oute of. And so did all the Abbeyes and Priories in England also.” Great Chronicle, p. 172 and Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 179

“And the xxvij day of Jule the duke of Gloucestre with all the sustaunce of lordys of this lande schipped at Sandewiche and at Douer with a x m¹; ffor euery cite, tovne and Borow ffounde certayn men with her leuerays of þ^e osages of the tovne and so did abbayes, prioris thorow all Englond.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 142

and at that tyme every lord found a certen of men of their owne cost and every feed man went with his lord; and every abbeie and house of religion founde certen men to gone over the see.”   Chronicle of London (J. B. I) pp. 172

“And London sent a for that vC sowdyors for to kepe Calys.  And yet London yave to the werrys M¹li.” Short English Chronicle p. 62

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 352b-352d (instructions to commissioners).

(2) L&P II, Appendix to Preface, p. liv (Cantelowe).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 649-650 (Beaufort’s loan).

(4) CPR 1429-36, p. 604 (Beaufort’s loan).

(5) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 263 (Beaufort’s loan).

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

The Duke of Gloucester’s Army

The Earl of Mortain had been sent to defend Calais with 2,000 men; the Duke of York to defend the whole of Normandy with 4,500 men. The Duke of Gloucester’s army totalled nearly 8,000 men. Gloucester’s retinue alone comprised 4,497 men. Not all of them would have mustered, there were always desertions just before sailing. Nevertheless, Gloucester required an army almost twice that of the Duke of York. His soldiers’ wages amounted to £6,084 for one month’s service (1).

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester          £3,594 14s

Richard Earl of Warwick                   £626 10s

Humphrey, Earl of Stafford                £474 16s 8d

Thomas, Earl of Devon                      £388 14s 8d

Walter, Lord Hungerford                    £320 12s

Lionel Lord Welles                             £50 8s

John, Lord Beaumont                         £95 4s

Richard (sic) Lord Cromwell              £142 4s

John Lord Tiptoft                                £70 14s

Philip Courteney                                 £78 8s

John Denham                                      £71 8s

John Stourton                                     £86 2s

Robert Whitingham                             £24 10s

Richard Woodville and William Hauce  £21

Gilbert Parr                                          £16 2 s

Sampson Mombrone and Bydawe de Vyle  56s

John Watford                                       56s

Robert Passemere                                70s

Sir Thomas Comberworthe                 £9 2s.

John Pulforde and other yeomen of the crown £4 4s

(1) L&P II, Appendix to the Preface, pp. xlix-lv (Gloucester’s army)

Brut Continuation F. (pp.  469 -470) and Harley 565 (p. 121-122) include the Duke of Norfolk and Henry Bourchier, the English Earl of Eu. Lord Fanhope is only in Brut F. They are not in the list of Gloucester’s army. John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk did not come of age until September 1436, so if he went, he would have been in Gloucester’s retinue without contributing a force of his own.

Departure

The Council convened at Canterbury on 22 July, to put the finishing touches to Gloucester’s expedition. The Duke of Burgundy was deemed a traitor to the king, his lands were forfeit, and his possessions were up for grabs.

“Ande on Marie Mavdeleyns day [22 July] the kyng held his counsell in Caunterbury with his lordis.” Cleopatra C IV, p. 141; Great Chronicle, p. 172; Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 178

On 27 July the Duke of Gloucester was appointed lieutenant general of the king’s army going to Calais (1).  On the same day the young Lord Beaumont, who was to accompany Gloucester, petitioned for and was granted the county of Boulogne (2).

On 30 July Gloucester was granted the county of Flanders, undoubtedly at his own request (3). It was probably at this time that Gloucester sent Pembroke Herald to deliver a challenge to the Duke of Burgundy to meet him in battle (4).

King Henry was at Sandwich to watch the fleet sail. William Ederiche was paid 13s. 4 d for the ‘logemanage’ of the king from London to Sandwich (5).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 651-652 (Gloucester to command the army).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 649 and 652 (grant to Beaumont).

(3) Foedera X, p. 652 (Gloucester as Count of Flanders).

(4) Wavrin IV, p. 173 (Gloucester’s challenge to Burgundy).

(5)  L&P II, Appendix to Preface p. lv (King Henry’s expenses).

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

Gloucester and Calais

The Duke of Gloucester and his army arrived in Calais on 2/3August. The Duke of Burgundy had raised the siege, and the show was over before Gloucester appeared on the stage. Hoping to catch the duke at Gravelines, Gloucester moved on to Oye and Marck, but Burgundy was safely in Lille. Thwarted, Gloucester crossed into West Flanders and ravaged the countryside.

He marched through Mardyke and Bailleul (Bell in the chronicles). At Poperinge, he announced himself as Count of Flanders and then allowed the town to be burnt possibly as punishment for the insult offered to the Earl of Huntingdon by the men of Poperinge a year earlier when Huntingdon was on his way home from Arras.

See Year 1435: The Earl of Huntingdon

“And so passyd forthe to Mardyke and brent hit and Poperynge and Bell, and so distroyed all West Flawndres.  And our shippis brentt a gode Ile whiche is called Cagent, and sone after the Duke with all his oste retorned to Caleys, and so came a yene in to Englond.”  Short English Chronicle p. 62

A Brief Latin Chronicle in Three Fifteenth Chronicles (p. 165) is the only chronicle to claim that Huntington himself burned Poperinge.

“After Gloucester came to Calais he went from there into Picardy and Flanders for eleven days and proceeded to burn many towns. And there the Erl of Huntingdon and his men burned the town of Poperinge and destroyed many others.”

Gloucester could only afford to keep the field for a month, and he had made poor provision for the size of his army, they ran out of food, and he was forced to turn back ‘on account of sickness in the army occasioned from want of bread.’

He was back in Calais by 24 August and returned immediately to England to celebrate his triumph and claim the relief of Calais as his own (1).  Wavrin, and the English chronicles note that Gloucester lost very few men.  Wavrin who at Gravelines and saw the English army advance as far as St Omer, praised the army’s discipline: there were no stragglers to be picked off, but there was no opposing army to be faced (2, 3).

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

(1) Vickers, Humphrey, pp. 249-254 (for a partisan account of Gloucester’s motivation).

(2) Monstrelet II,  pp. 43-44 ‘Humphrey Duke of Gloucester arrives at Calais . . . . He enters Flanders . . . . and does much damage there.’

(3) Wavrin IV, pp. 200-206 (Gloucester’s expedition).

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

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

Several chronicles record that John Holand, Earl Huntingdon was with Gloucester, and in a sense he was. Huntingdon was Admiral of England, commanding the fleet that carried Gloucester’s army across the channel. Monstrelet records that the ships sailing off the coast were not manned, they were the transport vessels (1).

“for at that time alle the shyppes of England were arrested and went a werr fare half a yere for er these lordes went over the see; and thei did moche harme to our enymys; for thei toke Spaynardes, Britons, Flemyngs, Scotts and other nacions of diverse contreis, and a galey charged with diverse merchandise. Chronicle of London (J. B. I) p. 172

Brut Continuation K confused Huntingdon, who later became Duke of Exeter, with Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter who died in 1426 and was not Gloucester’s brother.  The chronicle condemned the burning of Poperinge as an evil deed, punished by God with crop failure in England.

“Humfray, Duke of Gloucestre & Sir Thomas Bewfourde, Duke of Exeter, his brothyr, with oþer lordes, made a great power and yede ayeb in-to Flaundrys & destroyed moche peple, and brent meny tounnys & dyd moche harme;  & the Duke of Burgoyne fled with his peple.                            

And the Duke of Exetyr yede & brent vp Popryng & meny mo tounnys þere aboute & dyd moche harme, ynsomuche þat they brent whete & crone þat grewe in þe feelde: & þat was an evyl deeede, ffor sen þat tyme hydyrward, our whete & corn haue be brent in Engelond yn on place or in othyr, as it growth in þe feelde be  þe hande of God; whiche brennyng men callyth ‘Ablastid or seynte.”  Brut Continuation K, p. 599

Annales (pseudo-Worcester, p. 761) also names Exeter not Huntingdon.

 Calais: Chronicle Accounts

Benet

“About St Peter ad Vincula [1 August] the Duke of Gloucester went over to Calais accompanied by the Duke of Norfolk, the Earls of Stafford, Warwick, Huntingdon, and many earls and barons with 30 [sic] men of war; they crossed into Flanders and remained there for eleven days, despoiling and burning the towns of Poperinge and Belle, and returned to England with their spoils.”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 185

Chronicles of London, Cleopatra C IV

“and then my lordes the dukes of Gloucestre, and of Northfolke, therle of Huntyngdon, the erle of Stafford, and therele of Warwik, with many other lordes and barons, knyghts and squiers were appointed for to gone over and fight with the seid duke of Burgoyne but the sege was broken er thei came there; And then they were countermandid to diverse havons of England for to have over the seid lordes;” Cleopatra C IV,  p. 142  

“And whan they were landyd att Caleys the lordis helde ther a counsell ffryday and Satterday and Sonday; and on the Monday thei toke ther journay in to fflaundrys ward and did moche harme in the contrey of fflaunderis ffor thei brent þ^e tovne of popering and many moo good tovnys and stately villagis.  And so thei were in that contre till þ^t they myght have no vetaill for the ost.  And the contre whas appatesed vn to the lordis, wher fore they cam sone home ayen within a vj wekisday vnto Caleys withoute eny lettyng of eny man.” Cleopatra C IV, p. 142

Chronicle of London (Harley 565)

“And the seconde day of August nest folwynge the duke of Gloucestre, with the duke of Norfolk, the earle of Warewyk, the erle of Stafford, the erle of Hunt’ the earle of Oxenford, the erle of Denenschire, the erle of Morteyn, and the erle of Uwe with manye othere lordes, barons and knyghtes, squyers and yemen unto the noumbre of l¹ men and mo, passyd over the see with v hundred seyles and mo, and londed at the forseid toun of Caleys;                                                       

And the iiij day after, they passyd forth over the water of Gravelyne and comen into Flaundres where they brenden and sclewe all that they might come to xj days durynge in to gret harm of that cuntre, and pryncypally to the toun of Poperynge and of Belle, where Haukyns drank by note withoughte cuppe; and thane they turned ageyn and comen hom sauf and sounde blessyd by God of his soude.”

Chronicle of London (Harley 565) pp. 121-122

Chronicle of London ( Julius B I)

And my lord of Gloucestre took his ship at Wynchelsee, and many other lordes with hym, and went furth to Caleis with alle his hoste and the shippes aweytyng upon the hoste by the costes of Flaundres, the Munday next after seint Laurence day, in the yere of our lord m¹ iiij^c xxxvij and lay that night in the felde at a place called Sparkes place, bisides Oye; and upon the morowe he passid the water of Gravenyng at x of the belle with l men nombrid a myle byneth the towne; and there he made knyghtys and passid to a village called Meerdike; and that their brent and alle the townes as thei went. And also thei brent a good open towne called Popryng and many other villages and a town was called Belle and so furth, West Flaundres; and our shippes brent an ile called Cagent.                  Chronicle of London (Julius B 1) p. 172

Brut Continuation K

“And þe ij day of August the said Duke of Gloucestre Arriued at Caleys with al his Army & v^c shippes and moo. And þe Duke of Burgoyn & al his ooste þat lay in þe Siegie As sone as þei espied þe Sayles in þe See Before þei Approched Caleys haven, soddenly in A morning departed fro þe Siege levyng behind þame moche stuffe & Vitailes & fled in-to Flaundres & Pycardy.

And at þe last, þe Duke of Burgoyne was fayne to mede þe Duke of Gloucestre & oure lordis, & [they] gave them a myty thing of good to turne ayen & seese theer warre, & do no more harme. & than þey turny[d] ayen in-to Engelond.  Brut Continuation K, p. 600

Not all the chronicles are complementary:

The Chronicon Angliae (p. 16) is scathing: Gloucester’s force was reduced by as much as three companies through inadequate provisioning without meeting any opposition and then he came home.

Brut G notes that ‘he did but litel harme.

And þen when þe Duke of Gloucestre was Arryved with all his oost, he went into Flaundres & was þerin xi dayes & did but litel harme; except þat he brent ij fair villagies Popering & Belle & oþer houses þat wer of no strenght & so he returned home Ageyn.”       Brut Continuation G, p. 505

Waltham Annals (p. 352) credits Sir John Radcliffe: destructa est obsidio Burgundiae apud Calesian per dominum Johannem Ratlyffe tunc tempora capitaneum ville Calisie:  (Sir John Radcliffe, captain of Calais at that time, destroyed the Burgundian bastille at Calais).

The anti-Lancastrian and therefore anti-Beaufort, English Chronicle (p. 55) also credited Radcliffe.

Calais

The siege of Calais is the best documented non-event of 1436. The Duke of Burgundy did not capture Calais, and the Duke of Gloucester did not rescue it. The chronicles credit the Earl of Mortain with forcing the Duke of Burgundy to flee, but his accomplishment is overshadowed by the praise heaped on the Duke of Gloucester for devasting Flanders – Gloucester saw to that. He commissioned the Italian humanist Tito Livio Frulovisi to write the Humphroidos, a poem in Latin lauding his achievements. Composed in 1437 ‘the siege of Calais and Gloucester’s expedition in August occupy about half the poem’ (1)

The relief of Calais and the ‘defeat’ of the Duke of Burgundy was celebrated in England in song and story. English balladeers mocked Burgundy and the Flemings (1, 2, 3).

It is difficult at this distance in time to understand the Duke of Burgundy. His success at the Congress of Arras gone to his head. Did he expect that the English to abandon Calais without a fight? Calais was virtually impregnable, it took King Edward III nine months of blockade by land and sea to capture it, a feat of endurance which Burgundy could never hope to emulate.

Burgundy was a seasoned campaigner and yet he convinced himself that he could take Calais quickly, easily, and cheaply. The men of Ghent and Bruges, and the Picards, disliked and distrusted each other. They were they professional soldiers, nor were they t mercenaries, they paid for their equipment and supplies themselves. Burgundy lured them into his enterprise with false promises. He gathered an army on the cheap, and he paid the price.

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

(1) G. A. Holmes, ‘The Libel of English Policy,’ English Historical Review CCXCIX, (April 1961), p. 213.

(2) J.A. Doig, ‘Propaganda, Public Opinion and the Siege of Calais in 1436,’ in R. Archer, Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century (1995).

(3) J.A. Doig, ‘A New Source for the Siege of Calais in 1436,’ English Historical Review, Vol. 110, No. 436, (April 1995), pp. 404-416.

(4) D. Grummitt, The Calais Garrison: War and Military Service in England 1436-1558, ‘The Burgundian Siege of 1436,’ pp. 21-45

(3) R.H. Robbins: Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Century:  ‘The Siege of Calais, pp. 78-83 : ‘Mockery of the Flemings,’ pp. 84-86 : ‘Scorn of the Duke of Burgundy,’  pp. 86-89.

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

The Brut, Continuation H

The most detailed, and probably the most accurate source for the siege of Calais in English is printed in The Brut, Continuation H, from the MS Harley 53, and Continuation I from LMS Lambeth 6. It is presumably a translation of the lost source used by the Burgundian chroniclers Wavrin and Monstrelet since it records some of the same incidents to be found in them.

The Duke of Gloucester became Captain of Calais in November 1435 after the Duke of Bedford’s death. He had been Captain of Guines since 1423. Gloucester replaced Richard Woodville, Bedford’s lieutenant of Calais, with Sir John Radcliffe, the experienced Seneschal of Gascony. The date of Radcliffe’s appointment is not recorded; was it the threat to Calais that induced Gloucester to send Radcliffe there?

Gloucester trusted him to do what was needed, and a vignette in Brut H adds a personal touch: he was loved by the men who served under him because he was open handed and welcomed their company.

Radcliffe strengthened Calais’s fortifications by ordering strategic bulwarks to be built near the Boulogne Gate and the Princes Inn which lay on the south side of the town, with the castle to the northwest. The Milkgate opened through the eastern wall.

The story of the Earl of Mortain returning to Calais with large numbers of cattle so that a cow sold for one shilling is the same as that told in Cleopatra C IV (p. 140) about Lord Talbot earlier: after he returned to Rouen with a large number of livestock from a raid into the pays de Caux a cow sold for one shilling.

The chronicler thanked God and Saint Barbara for the poor aim of the Ghent artillery. Saint Barbara was the patron saint of artillerymen, was she believed to be misdirecting the guns?

In November 1436 Richard Sellying petitioned for a pardon for having surrendered Balingham. He submitted documents testifying that it was not his fault, he was simply overrun. King Henry ordered that the goods seized when he was arrested should be returned to him  (CPR 1436-1441, p. 29).

The chronicler uses the generic term ‘the Flemings,’ indiscriminately for the men of Ghent, the men of Bruges and the Picards.  According to Wavrin and Monstrelet there was no love lost between them. In the skirmishes around Calais and specially during the last few days of July when they suffered defeat at the hands of the Earl of Mortain’s men, the Gantois and the Brugeois poured scorn on each other’s military ineptitude and laughed at each other’s defeat. It did not make for harmony in the Burgundian ranks.

The chronicle’s report that Mortain intended to execute all the prisoners in revenge for Watkyn Ruskin who was killed in the fighting seems an excessive reaction to the death of one man. The explanation may be that Ruskin was already a prisoner and killing him was against the laws off war.

Brut Continuation H and I in Modern English

Page 573

In the fourteenth year of the reign of Henry VI [1435-1436] Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester Protector and Defender of England became Captain of Calais; he was already Captain of Guines and so he became captain of both Calais and Guines.

Gloucester made Sir John Radcliffe his lieutenant in Calais and sent him there. Radcliffe was a worthy knight; he was well loved by the soldiers in Calais for he kept open house and welcomed anyone who came to dine.

Rumours that Calais was to be besieged increased daily. Sir John Radcliffe, lieutenant of Calais, the Mayor, Robert Clidrowe, and Thomas Thirland lieutenant of the Staple and all the inhabitants, soldiers, merchants, burgesses and the people constructed three large bulwarks of packed earth and clay, one beside the outer wall of the castle, a second at the Bulleyn [Boulogne] gate, and a third at the gate beside the Prince’s Inn on the south side of the town.

Richard Woodville the previous lieutenant of Calais, had constructed another bulwark at the Milkgate made of brick before he was discharged. The walls, the towers, and the dikes of the town were heavily fortified; emplacements of cannon, set to fire high and low, were mounted in the embrasures of the town’s walls.

The six fortresses within the Pale of Calais occupied by the English: Guines, Balingham, Hammes, Sangatte, Mark, and Oye were strongly fortified.

Page 574

Sir John Radcliffe instructed everyone living within the Pale of Calais to come and take shelter within Calais. They were to strip their homes of all valuables and goods and burn the houses down to deprive the enemy of shelter or sustenance. Some people did so, but others did not; they preferred to slip away to the comparative safely of Picardy or Flanders. Those remaining were required to renew their oath of allegiance to King Henry at the town hall. Men who would not take the oath could leave with their belongings and go wherever they wished. Some stayed and some went.

On 23 April, St George’s Day. Radcliffe ordered the Day Watch to ring the alarm bell without first warning the soldiers in the town. There was panic as soldiers and citizens alike ran to arm themselves. People rushed to bring all the livestock inside the walls for fear that the enemy would take them, but it was a false alarm. Radcliffe did it for fun because it was Saint Georges Day and because he wanted to see how quickly his men would react to an unexpected call to arms.

Not long after this Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain, Roger, Lord Camoys, Sir William Ashton, and Sir Geoffrey Warburton arrived in Calais with an army numbering 3,000 men-of- arms and archers. They should have shipped from Winchelsea to defend Normandy, but the rumours that the Duke of Burgundy was about to lay siege to Calais were so widely believed that King Henry and the Duke of Gloucester ordered Mortain to divert to Calais and remain there until reinforcements could arrive.

Then Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Protector and Defender of England, and Captain of Calais and Guines summoned all the lords in England, spiritual and temporal, and all his personal retainers to join him in an effort to rescue Calais. The lords, bishops, abbots, and priors all agreed to contribute to raise an army to serve under Gloucester’s personal command. He retainers responded to his call, and he thanked them all.

Page 575

Shipping was requisitioned from English ports; all seaworthy vessels were to assemble at Sandwich by a certain day. And more than two hundred ships assembled.

While the Duke of Burgundy made his preparations, the Flemings took some English merchants prisoner as they left Flanders for Calais, especially merchants from Dunkirk.

When the Earl of Mortain reached Calais, as before said, he attacked Bulleyn [Boulogne] twenty miles from Calais. He burned the suburbs and he and his men returned to Calais on the following day having encountered no resistance, bringing the livestock and booty that they had captured.

Mortain led a second foray into West Flanders to a place called Lawe.  His men plundered the countryside and stole all the cattle and came to Gravelines to rendezvous with the earl.              

And while the earl and his men were driving the cattle along the sands between Gravelines and the sea the men in Gravelines came out bravely from their town and fought with them, but they were defeated and over 400 of them were killed. They fled back into the town and the English pursued them and took many prisoners.

A mounted English spearman chased the Graveliners right up to the gates of the town and could not check his horse so that he rode into the town without meaning to; he was made prisoners but later ransomed. 

The Earl and his men drove their cattle past Gravelines along the sands at low tide despite the Flemings and brought the cattle and their prisoners into Calais without losing a man. And they brought so many cows with them that a prize milch cow could be bought of one shilling. 

King Henry rewarded Mortain with the Order of the Garter as soon as the news of his exploits reached England.

Lord Camoys, William Ashton and Geoffrey Warburton with men from the garrisons of Calais and Guines made three forays with mounted men and footmen. They rode to the town of Arde and plundered the countryside around it

Page 576

And in the mean while Sir Robert Savois, captain of  Fynes, gathered an army of 4,000 men and hid them in ambush in a grove of trees not far from the fortress of Balingham.

As Lord Camoys and his men were crossing the open country near the trees, the Picards loosed three hares in front of them; straight away the men broke ranks and chased the hares and failed to see the Picards hiding in the trees. They left their hiding place and charged through the disordered English ranks taking them surprise and killing many of the men on foot. Those on horseback left the field and rode for the safety of Balingham, but Lord Camoys and two other knights rallied the footmen to their standard and some of the mounted men too.

They counter attacked and defeated the Picards and killed many of them and drove the rest to the gates of Ardres where a squire named Lucas rode past the outer walls and was killed. He was much mourned, but thanked be God, Lord Camoys had the victory over the Picards in a field called Golden Dale beside Balingham, He and his soldiers returned safely to Calais with their booty.

When the Duke of Burgundy was ready, he came to Gravelines with his artillery and with his Flemish militia to the number of 150,000 men and twelve carts, each with a cock to crow to the host.

The Flemings constructed a bridge over the water at Gravelines to a place called Hoke belonging to the duke. They crossed over an assembled in front of the castle at Oye and sent a herald to Nicholas Horton the captain of Oye to surrender. Horton sent back word that he took no heed of them, and nor would he surrender.  But later by a false agreement they lured him out of the castle to speak with the Duke of Burgundy.

And castle was taken because an iron gate was left open in the buttery, a great gun emplacement, while the soldiers in the hall above were treating with the duke’s herald for a meeting.

Page 577

And suddenly the Flemings rushed in and captured those in the hall. They hanged sixty-two of them under the castle walls without any pity and killed those remaining except Nicholas Horton Captain of Oye, and William Bullion the Constable, and his cousin.  Horton was finally ransomed and came home to England long afterwards and the constable died in prison for sorrow. His cousin William Bullion was well known to and well-liked by the Picards and they let him go free provided he went first to Calais as a spy to inform them when the Duke of Gloucester arrived from Sandwich with his navy.

Everyone in Calais was amazed that William Bullion had been released without ransom; the Earl of Mortain was suspicious and prepared to arrest him as a spy. Bullion admitted that he had been set free became he promised to send word of the Duke of Gloucester’s coming, but he swore he never had any intention of doing so. Nevertheless, he was brought to the pillory in the marketplace and beheaded but many grieved at this, for he was a good archer.

The Flemings won the fortress of Oye on St Peter’s eve in June, [29 June] as before said, by betrayal. They smashed the interior of the hall and the towers and burned every stick of wood. They weakened the walls and the towers and set wooden supports under them which they then set on fire so that the walls collapsed into the dikes.

On 2 July the Flemings laid siege to the castle at Marck adjacent to the castle at Oye and the Earl of Mortain sent Christopher Barton with a troop to reinforce the castle.

Page 578

The Flemings pounded the foundations and the walls of Marck with their cannon and made several strong assaults, but the defenders repulsed them and shored up the walls with timber and dung and whatever materials they had to hand. They held out for six days but when no help arrived, they surrendered and were made prisoners.

The Flemings plundered the castle, smashed up the interior and burned the roof of the hall.  They undermined the walls and towers and set supports under them and then burned them so that the walls and towers fell into the dike just as they had done at Oye.

Then on 9 July 1436 the Duke of Burgundy came to Calais with his Flemings and laid siege to Calais by land; he pitched his tents before the town on the plain of Saint Peter a mile beyond the town.

The duke lay at a short distance from Newname Bridge; the men of Ghent lay beside him, and the men of Bruges and the Flemings lay beside Saint Peter’s church. But the duke left after only two days and the men of Ghent followed him to the east side of the town and there pitched their tents. Burgundy abandoned the west side of the town because a cannon shot passed through his tent.

The men of Ghent constructed a strong bulwark of pipes and timber on a high hill in the sand dunes between their encampment and Calais and fired cannon at the town but for the most part they overshot the town, and their guns never did any harm, thanked be God and the Holy Virgin Saint Barbara (5).

While the Duke of Burgundy lay at the siege with the Flemings, Sir Robert Savois with 4,000 Picards approached the castle at Balingham. Richard Sellyng was lieutenant of Balingham under its captain Richard Buckland. Sellyng surrendered Balingham shamefully without offering any resistance in return for his men being allowed to march out to Guines with their equipment; they left behind their possessions and the supplies in the castle; Balingham was the best supplied place in all the Marches.

When Sellyng reached Guines William Picton, lieutenant of Guines for Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, put him in prison..  

And the Picards plundered Balingham and destroyed the interior, broke down the timbers, and burned the place. They undermined the walls and towers and let them fall into the dike just as the Flemings had done with Oye and Marck).

Page 579

Then the Picards laid siege to Guines and brought up the bronze gun called ‘Dogeon’ with three barrels, and two other great guns of iron called bombards. They laid the bronze gun in a cellar in the town on the dike side of the castle and trained it on a ward next to the Fane Tower and broke it down into the ditch. William Picton and the garrison held Guines cleverly and manfully and fortified its walls where they were damaged with timber and dung.

Another force of Picards approached the castle at Sandgate and ordered it to surrender because all the other castles in the Pale of Calais had surrendered. Sir Thomas Knevet had been made lieutenant of Sandgate by the king and sent to reinforce it. Knevet could not decide what to do, but he was advised to surrender by Thomas Heneley, a priest and a traitor. Knevet surrendered Sandgate shamefully and cowardly without resistance and he and all those within were made prisoners except the false priest who was allowed to go free; he escaped to France, but no one knew where. And when the Picards took the castle, they hacked down and set fire to everything and undermined the walls. But the dungeon was so strong that they could not take it and so they left it and let it stand. 

The Duke of Burgundy and the Flemings maintained the siege of Calais. The men of the garrison opened the floodgates, and the sea flooded the countryside.  There were daily skirmishes between the garrison and the Flemings for fourteen days.

Burgundy ordered twenty ships from Flanders, six of which were hulks. These were filled with stones, calk, mortar and broken pits of masonry.  At high tide they scuttled some of them at the mouth of the harbour and some inside the harbour to prevent any ships from entering. But they did not dare to stay, they were afraid of being fired on by the guns inside Calais. On the following day at low tide the men of Calais came out with axes and broke up the sunken ships, bringing everything they salvaged into the town for distribution to poor people and gave the masonry to rebuild St Mary’s church.

Page 580

About a thousand of the Flemish troops watched from a vantage point high up in the sand dunes. They were both grieved and ashamed by what they saw because they had been told that no English ships would be allowed to enter the harbour.

Not long afterward the men of Bruges encamped on the plain of Saint Peter came before the Bullen [Boulogne] Gate, in great force, some armed with spears and some with crossbows, a large number, but spread out. The men in Calais stationed men-at-arms on horseback in hiding at the Bullen Gate bulwark and sent out footmen to engage the Brugeois. The horsemen bided their time until they saw their advantage and then they charged. The Flemings broke ranks and fled to their tents, but before they could escape, they were caught and thirty-six were taken prisoners; the rest, with those in their encampment, thought a great force had come against them; they abandoned their position and fled from the east side of Calais.

This happened on a Thursday and the Flemings named it ‘Black Thursday.’  After this defeat, the men of Flanders of Bruges and of Ghent who remained with the duke at the east end of the town laughed them to scorn. This caused dissention among Burgundy’s men and thereafter they refused to serve with or aid each other.

And on Saturday, seven nights and two days afterwards, the English left Calais in the afternoon on foot and on horseback and made for the bulwark on the high hill in the dunes.  They took it and killed the defenders who were inside and dismantled the bulwark. Those remaining alive were taken back to Calais as prisoners.

The Earl of Mortain met the returning troops and intended to kill all the prisoners because an Englishman man- at-arms named Watkyn Ruskin had been killed during the taking of the bulwark. 

Unfortunately, Brut H breaks off before Burgundy was forced to lift the siege. The Brut Continuation I records the arrival of Lord Welles with the advance party of the Duke of Gloucester’s army, and very briefly, the lifting of the siege:

“Phelip, Duk of Burgonge & the Flemmynges departed from Calais and þe Pycardes from þe Castel of Guysnes with gret shame & gret diswurship & with gret losse.”       Brut Continuation I, p. 582

Bibliography 1436

Primary Sources

Annales (pseudo-Worcester) in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI.  Volume 2, Part 2 (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)

 Brief Latin Chronicle in Three Fifteenth Chronicles, ed. J. Gairdner (1880)

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

Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland IV, ed. J. Bain (1888)

Calendar of Letter Books of the City of London, Letter Book K, ed. R.R. Sharpe (1911)

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1429-1436

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1436-1441

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)

Chronique de Mont Saint Michel, 2 vols, ed. S. Luce (1879, 1883)

DKR, Forty-Eighth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (1887)

An English Chronicle, ed. J.S, Davies (1856)

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

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)

Papal Letters. Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland VIII (1909)

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)

Robbins, R.H., ed. Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries (1959)

Saint Rémy, Jean le Fèvre, Chronique II (1881)

A Short English Chronicle in in Three Fifteenth Chronicles, ed. J. Gairdner (1880)

Waltham Annals in English Historical Literature, ed. C.L. Kingsford (1913)

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)

Beaurepaire, Ch. de, États de Normandie sous le Domination Anglaise (1859)

Brown, M., James I (1994)

Barker, J.  Conquest (2009)

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

Doig, J.A., ‘Propaganda, Public Opinion and the Siege of Calais in 1436,’ in R. Archer, Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century (1995)

Ferguson, J., English Diplomacy, (1972)

Gruel, G., Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, Constable de France, Duc de Bretagne 1393-1458, (1890)

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

Harvey, M., England, Rome and the Papacy1417-1464 (1993)

Holmes, G.A., ‘The Libel of English Policy,’ English Historical Review CCXCIX, (April 1961)

Johnson, P.A., Duke Richard of York 1411-1460 (1988)

Nicholson, R., Scotland, the Later Middle Ages (1974)

Pollard, A.J., John Talbot and the War in France 1427-1453 (1983)

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

Richmond C. F., ‘The Keeping of the Seas during the Hundred Years War 1422-1440,’ History 49 (October 1964)

Thielemans, M-R., Bourgogne et Angleterre 1435-1467 (Brussels, 1966)

Thompson, G.L.  Paris and its People Under English Rule (1991)

Vaughan, R., Philip the Good (1970)

Vickers, K.H., Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (1907)

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

Theses

Jones, M. ‘The Beaufort Family and the War in France, 1421-1450, University of Bristol PhD Thesis (1982)

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

Online sources

gasconrolls.org

historyofparliament.org