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

 

The English Council

A Great Council meet at Eltham from 22 to 27 February with King Henry present. Safe conducts. Sir John Speke. Heralds’ Livery. Garter King of Arms. University of Oxford. Sir John Steward. Sir John Radcliffe.

Four Knights

King Henry knighted Henry Holand, William, Earl of Arundel, Lewis John and William Estfeld.

Death of Three Noble Ladies

Beatrice, Countess of Huntingdon, Isabel, Countess of Warwick, and Margert Duchess of Clarence died in 1439.

Parliament

Parliament met at Westminster on 12 November and was prorogued on 21 December to meet again at Reading in 1440.

The Church

Louis of Luxembourg was confirmed as Bishop of Ely yet again.

Church Union and Disunion

Pope Eugenius announced the reunion of the Greek Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church. The dispute between the pope and the Council at Basel resulted in a schism in the Catholic Church for the next ten years.  Pope Eugenius refused to resign, and the Council at Basel elected the ‘anti-pope’ Felix V, formerly Amadeus Duke of Savoy.

London

Woodville and Norfolk Joust. Food Shortages. Storm. Accidents at Baynard’s Castle and Bedford shire hall.

City of London

Prostitutes. Merchandise standards. Conduit. Death of Robert Chichele. John Carpenter.

The Princes of Germany

Defensive alliances were negotiated with the Prince Archbishop of Cologne, the Princ Archbishop of Munster and the Count of Marck.

Portugal

The treaties between Portugal and England were confirmed. Justice in a case of embezzlement was requested by King Henry.

The Earl of Warwick

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, the king’s lieutenant in France, died at his post in Rouen on 30 April 1439.

The Earl of Somerset

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset returned to France to serve on the Council governing Normandy after the Earl of Warwick’s death.

The War in France

Lord Talbot maintained the military presence as best he could.  Arthur de Richemont laid siege to the town of Meaux. Talbot raised the siege, but after he withdrew Meaux was forced to surrender to the French.

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

The Earl of Huntingdon was sent to the Duchy of Gascony with an army to defend the duchy against the French.  Gaillard de Durfort made Provost of Bayonne.

A Peace Conference at Oye

Cardinal Beaufort and Isabelle, Duchess of Burgundy convened a conference at Oye outside Calais to negotiate for peace between England and France.

Truce with Burgundy

A treaty for the resumption of trade between England and the Netherlands was negotiated with the Duke of Burgundy.

 

The English Council

  Only six council meetings are recorded in the Proceedings for 1439. One in September, one in October and three in December.

 A Great Council met at Eltham from 22 to 27 February with King Henry present. No minutes are recorded, just a list of those attending.   

 “And that yere a none aftyr cristmas the counsel began first at Eltham, and than it removed to Schene, and ffro þens yn to mortlake, and from thense to Seynt James beside   Westmynster.”   Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 145 

 

The list of those attending the Great  Council on 24 February.   

Magnates

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester

Richard, Duke of York

[NO John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk]

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

Humphrey, Earl of Stafford

Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury

Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland

John de Vere, Earl of Oxford

Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland

William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk

Barons

James, Lord Berkeley

John, Lord Scrope of Masham

William, Lord Lovell

Henry Percy, Lord Poynings

Ralph, Lord Cromwell, Treasurer

Lionel, Lord Welles

Robert, Lord Willoughby

John, Lord Beaumont

John, Lord Tiptoft

Walter, Lord Hungerford

John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope

William Phelip, Lord Bardolf

William, Lord Fitzhugh

George Neville, Lord Latimer

Knights

Henry Brounflete

John Popham

William Oldhall

Comerford (?)

Inglehous( ?)

Bishops

Cardinal Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury

John Kemp, Archbishop of York

John Stafford Bishop of Bath and Wells

Robert Gilbert, Bishop of London

John Lowe, Bishop of St Asaph

Thomas Rudbourne, Bishop of St Davids

Robert Neville, Bishop of Salisbury

Thomas Brouns, Bishop of Norwich

Richard Praty, Bishop of Chichester

Abbots

George Pensherst, Abbot of St Augustine, Canterbury

Richard Harweden, Abbot of Westminster

Reginald Boulers, Abbot of Gloucester

William Ardeley, Abbot of Colchester              

Robert Malory, Prior of St. John of Jerusalem

(1) PPC V, p. 108 (Great Council).

 

Safe Conducts

Safe conducts for an embassy from the Duke of Brittany were issued in March (1).  There is no record of their visit or its purpose.   

A safe conduct was issued to Herbert Heyres (?) Lord of Caerlaverock in Scotland to pass through England on his way to the Holy Land (2).  Sir Herbert Maxwell was Lord of Caerlaverock.  

Alexander Seton, Lord of Gordon received a safe conduct in May to come to England with two clerks and a retinue of forty people on a diplomatic visit. Seton was one of the Scottish commissioners who negotiated of the truce with Scotland in 1438. The reason is not given, but it may have been to elucidate finer points of the truce (3, 4).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 719-720 (envoys from Brittany).

(2) Foedera X, p. 720 (Lord of Caerlaverock).

(3) Foedera X, p. 722 (Lord of Gordon).

(4) Documents relating to Scotland IV, p. 232 (Lord of Gordon).

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

Sir John Speke

In September a warrant was issued to reimburse Adam Moleyns, the clerk of the council for the ten marks it had cost to obtain the release of a carrack from Genoa which Sir John Speke had arrested in Southampton sometime in 1439. 

Speke was a Devonshire knight and probably a ship owner. He may have been on sea patrol and suspected the carrack of illegal trading. That the clerk of the council was sent to obtain the release of the ship on King Henry’s orders suggests that the Council intervened in the interests of good trading relations.  

(1) PPC V, p. 109 (release of a Genoese carrack)

Heralds’ Livery

In December 1439 the Kings of Arms (Garter being the most senior) and the heralds petitioned to receive their livery at every Christmas “like to other squires of the king’s court.”  The petition was granted (1).

Numerous petitions in the Proceedings from royal officials to be granted liveries accorded to their rank and services suggest that either this type of request was a customary procedure to ensure delivery, or that Robert Rolleston, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe, was perennially short of funds and delayed meeting his obligations whenever possible (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 114

Garter King of Arms

William Bruges, Garter King of Arms had been granted an annuity of £20 in 1429. This was increased to £40 in May 1439 and confirmed for payment in October (1).

See Year 1429: William Bruges, Garter King of Arms.

(1) Foedera X, p. 737

The University of Oxford

In October 1439 the Warden and members of All Souls College, Oxford submitted a request for letters patent to confirm their exemption from lay and clerical taxation, as authorised by King Henry at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The request was confirmed in Council by the Duke of Gloucester, the Chancellor, Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, and the Keeper of the Privy Seal (1).   

All Souls had been founded a year earlier, in 1438, by Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, sponsored by King Henry, for a warden and forty fellows all of whom had to be in holy orders.

The Duke of Gloucester was also a patron of the University of Oxford. Benet is the only chronicle to record Duke Humphrey’s magnificent gift. An indenture of 5 November 1439 listed 129 books, and the university described the value of the gift as being worth more than £1,000 (2).

“And after the feast of St Michael [29 September] the duke of Gloucester gave [     ] books to the University of Oxford They were chained in the library at Oxford, being valued at more than one thousand pounds.”   Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

King Henry donated twenty-three books to All Souls in 1440 four of civil law; five of canon law; seventeen theological works and one of philosophy (3).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 109-110 (All Souls, Oxford).

(2) Vickers, Humphrey, pp. 403-404 (gifts of books).

(3) PPC V, pp. 117-118 (Henry VI’s gift).

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

Sir John Steward

Sir John Steward, Master of Horse, purchased a palfrey for King Henry in August 1439.  He received 13 marks for the purchase in June 1440, when he is described as ‘late’ master of horse’ (1). He became constable of Leeds Castle in Kent for life in 1439 (2).  

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

(1) PPC V p 119-120 (purchase of palfrey).

(2) CPR 1436-1441, p 281 (grant as constable).

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

Sir John Radcliffe

The Council attempted to clear the (fictitous) ‘loan’ Sir John Radcliffe made to the king in 1434 by remitting the income assigned to him from ports in the West Country and the manors of Chirk and Chirklands for two years.

See Year 1435: Sir John Radcliffe

The exact amount is not stated in his petition of 1435, but in 1439 in a peculiar method of bookkeeping, £1,000 3s 4½ was assigned to him on customs duties in the same ports, plus £60 from William Beauchamp and £40 from Robert Mansfeld who had replaced Radcliffe as chamberlain of North Wales and receiver of Chirk and Chirklands respectively (1).

(1) CPR 1436-1441,  p. 247

Four Knights

The chronicles note the knighting of four men by King Henry.

Henry Holand ‘the sone and hayre of the Lorde of Huntyngdon’ was the son of John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon. The Holands were cousins of the king. The young Henry was about nine years old, and the knighting was presumably as a favour to his father who was about to lead an army into Gascony.

See The Duchy of Gascony below.

William Fitzalan ‘the sone ande the ayre of the Erle of Aroundelle,’ was the brother not the son, of John, Earl of Arundel who died in 1435. John’s son, Humphrey died in 1438 while still a minor, so the title passed to William, who came of age in 1438 and was knighted in 1439.

Lewis John was a wealthy man, which probably explains the reason for his knighting. He was the MP for Essex and in royal service as steward of the Duchy of Cornwall. He had accompanied King Henry’s coronation expedition to France in 1430.  He accompanied Sir John Popham to Rouen in 1438 to inspect and report on the state of the garrisons in Normandy. King Henry knighted him at Kennington.

William Estfeld was a member of the Mercers Company. He was Mayor of London in 1429-30 and again in 1437-38. He was an MP for London in 1439-1440. He made periodic loans to the crown, including one in 1439, which probably explains his knighting. 

See City of London, Conduit in Fleet Street below.

“And that same yere, a-pon Wytsondaye, the kyng made knyghtys at Kenyngton, that ys to wete, the sone and hayre of the Lorde of Huntyngdon, and the sone ande the ayre of the Erle of Aroundelle, Lewys John, and Wylliam Estefylde, marchaunt of London.                 Gregory’s Chronicle, p.182

 “And in that same yere whas William Estrfeld, mercer and alderman of london, made knyght,” Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 145

“Also the same yere anon after Estre, W. Estfeld of London, mercere, and Lowys John were made knyghtes of the bathe.  Chronicle of London (Harley 565), p. 124  

Harley 565 and the Great Chronicle are mistaken that King Henry created them Knights of the Bath. Whitsunday fell on 24 May in 1439.  The Complete Peerage gives 15 May 1439 for the knighting of Henry Holand but cites no source. King Henry was at Windsor from 10-16 May and at Kennington from 18-27 May.  

Three Noble Ladies

Beatrice, Countess of Huntingdon, Isabel, Countess of Warwick, and Margaret, Duchess of Clarence died in 1439.

“This same yere deyde the countess of Arundell and of Huntyngdon, in Gascoigne.”  Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p, 125

“And in this same yer deyed the Countesse of Warwik, and is buried beside hir lord, Sir Richard Beauchamp, Erle of Warwik; on who soules God haue mercy! amen! Brut Continuation F, p. 475

“And in ϸis same yere the Duchesse of Clarence deyed in the Abbey of Bermondesey without Suthwerk in Surrey. And she was carried to Caunterbury, and buried beside  the lord Thomas hir hushond, which was Duke of Clarence, on whose soule God haue mercy! amen!”  Brut Continuation F, p.  475

“In the nineteenth year (sic) on the 8^th day of January Margaret duchess of Clarence died at Bermondsey and was interred at Canterbury in the chapel of St Michael in the south part of the cathedral [in a tomb] made for her between those of her two husbands who were buried there, that is to say Thomas duke of Clarence and John, earl of Somerset.”  Brief Notes, English Historical Literature, p. 340 (misdated).

Beatrice of Portugal was the widow of Thomas Fitzalan, Ear of Arundel. She married as her second husband John Holand Earl of Huntingdon. She accompanied him to Gascony and died in Bordeaux in November 1439.

Isabel Despenser, Countess of Warwick was second wife of Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick who died in Rouen in April.  Isabel died on 27 December 1439 and was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey.

Margert Duchess of Clarence, the mother of John and Edmund Beaufort by her first husband, John, Earl of Somerset, died at Bermondsey Abbey on 30 December 1439. She married Thomas, Duke of Clarence as her second husband. She was buried beside both husbands in a magnificent tomb in Canterbury Cathedral.

Her death date is given as 30 December 1439 in Complete Peerage III p. 259-260:

[Margaret] “who in 1428 desiring ‘to lead a celibate life and putting aside worldly pomp’ was living at the Augustinian Monastery of St Saviour in London died on 30 December 1439 and was buried [in Canterbury Cathedral] under a magnificent monument to herself and her two husbands. 

NB Margaret was still active in the 1430s could the above date be 1438 rather than 1428?

Parliament

Parliament assembled at Westminster on 12 November and was prorogued on 21 December to meet again at Reading in 1440. No reason is given for its transfer, it may have been fear of plague in London or some of the proposed tax legislation may have been controversial, the Brut says ‘it might not accord.’  

Benet misdates its opening to ‘about’ 1 November, and the Chronicles of London to even earlier, at Michaelmas.

“And about the Feast of All Saints the king held a parliament at London” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

“And also in this same yere began the parlement at Westm’ at Mighelmesse and lasted to Cristemnsse” Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 126 and Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p.146

“And this same yere, on the morne after Seint Martyns Day, Kyng Henry the Sext held his parlement at Westminster, and it endured there vnto Cristmasse next and might not acorde.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 475

“And the same yere, the xij day of Nouembre, began the parlement atte Westm’, and that endewred vnto the xi day of Decembre next folowyng; and then it was enjourned vnto Redyng” Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI)  p. 153

The Church

Louis of Luxembourg, Archbishop of Rouen and Chancellor, had been named ‘perpetual administrator’ and granted the temporalties of the bishopric of Ely in 1437.

See Year 1437: Louis of Luxembourg.

 He was reappointed in 1438 ‘with all the rights and privileges enjoyed by its bishops.’ He was confirmed again in November 1439 (1). This was an irregular proceeding, which may explain why the appointment had to be reconfirmed.

(1) Foedera X, p. 737

Burton Lazer Hospital

A hospital for lepers was founded at Burton in Leicestershire by the Order of St Lazarus in the twelfth century. Geoffrey Shriggeley, master of the hospital of Burton Lazers was granted permission to apply to the pope for new papal bulls to regulate the election of a master of the hospital (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 739

(2) CPR 1436-1441 p. 362

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

William Heyworth

William Heyworth became Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield in 1419/1420 under King Henry V. He was a non-political bishop who took no part in politics during the Minority of Henry VI. His would have been summoned to the Parliament that met on 12 November 1439, but was excused attendance at parliament or councils on 12 December because of infirmity, but he did not die until 1447.

(1)  Foedera X, p. 740 (excused attendance).

Church Union – and Disunion

Pope Eugenius had transferred the Council of the Church from Basel to Ferrara in 1438 without the consent of the participants. The majority of those attending the Council remained in Basel in defiance of Eugenius and in May the Council declared that councils were superior to popes, that a pope had no power to dissolve them, and they suspended Eugenius for contumacy.

See Year 1438: General Council of the Church at Basel.

Eugenius continued his negotiations with delegates from the Greek Orthodox Church for a reunion with the Roman Catholic Church, and early in 1439 he moved the council from Ferrera to Florence, ignoring the Council at Basel. On 25 June 1439, before Eugenius could announce the union of the churches, the Council formally deposed him and chose his successor.  Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, was elected on 5 November as Pope Felix V.  Eugenius ignored him too.

In July Eugenius announced that he had succeeded, the Greeks had acknowledged him as supreme head of the united churches.  The Greek delegates, under instruction from the Greek Emperor John Palæologus, had accepted the union solely on political grounds. The Byzantine Empire was under threat from the Turks of the Ottoman Empire and Palaeologus desperately needed military aid from the West.  Eugenius fulfilled his promise to send troops, but the union was never accepted within the Byzantine Empire (1, 2).  

Copies of the papal decree announcing the union were sent to England; the complier of Gregory’s Chronicle recorded that it was read publicly on 28 August at St Pauls Cross. He was well versed in church history, he referred to the original split between the churches in 1054 and noted that the Armenian church was also reconciled.

King Henry wrote to Pope Eugenius in October to express his ‘gratitude to God’ and to congratulate Eugenius on achieving what ‘had well-nigh been despaired of before.’ He informed the Pope that public thanksgivings were being celebrated throughout his kingdoms (3).

Eugenius refused to recognise his deposition and for ten years there were two rival popes.  Brut Continuation G, compiled long after 1439, noted that Felix never managed to command the obedience that was given to Eugenius. Only God knew which was the rightful pope!

“And in the same yere, Pope Eugent, of the high grace and gifte of God, and of his grete avise and gouernance, conuerted and brought all the land of Grece, and oϸer provynces and kingdoms, into Cristen lawe and feith, and to hold the lawe and feith of Rome and of the Pope, as we doon at all tymes.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 475

“And the same yere, att the generalle counseylle, the Emperoure of Constantyne the Nobylle  and hys sone, whythe alle the clergy of Gryke, obeyd hym unto the Chyrche of Rome to certayne artyculys of the faythe; and they hylde more thane v c yere, and alle the realme of Ermonye [Armenia]  that haddyn ben owte ix c yere, fro the beleve not on the Hooly Goste, nor on the sacrament, nor noo Prygatorye, nor noo sufragys of Hooly Chyrche, as prayers and almysdedys   And there were of Rome viij cardynallys and moo thane v c myters, whythe owte docters.  And thus was proclaymyd at Powlys Crosse the xxviij day of August above sayde, etc.”   Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 182

This yere þe general Counsel of Basile deposed Pope Eugeny; & þei chese Felix, which was Duke of Sauoy; & þan began þe Scisme which endured vnto þe yere of oure Lord Ihesu Crist M¹ iiij^c xlviij.  This Felix was A devout prince, & saw þe sonnes of his sonnes, & after lyued An holy & deuoute lyfe, & was chosen Pope  by þe Counsel of Basile.  Eugeny [was] deposed ; & so þe Scisme was long tyme.  And þis Felix had no moche obedience, bi-cause of þe Nevtralite for þe moste parte; & wel nygh al Cristendome obeid & repute Eugeny for verey Pope: – God knoweth who was þe verey Poper of þame both; for both occupied during þe lyfe of Eugeny.        Brut Continuation G, p. 508

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

(1) Harvey, England, Rome and Papacy, p. 167

(2) Schofield, A.N.E.D., ‘England, the Pope and the Council of Basel, 1435-1449,’ Church History, vol 33, no.3 (1964), p. 268.

(3) Bekyngton, Correspondence II, pp, 49-51 (King Henry’s letter).

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

Indulgences     

Representatives from Pope Eugenius IV were in England to sell papal indulgences from November 1439 to June 1440.  Entertaining the Greek envoys at Florence was expensive, and money had to be raised to fulfil Eugenius’s promise to send them military aid against the Turks (1). 

(1) Harvey, Papacy, p. 168

“And at Christmastide a number of indulgence sellers, licensed by Pope Eugenius, arrived in England.” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

“And in that yere com pardon into Englond ffor the pope of Rome, vnder his letter and sell of leede, of as moch pouer as he hath to euery prest, to assoile euery cristen man that gevith a part of his good to the sustentacon of the popis warris in strenghyng of the cristen feith.” Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 147 and Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 127       

“And this year papal indulgences were granted by papal bull to subsidise the wars of the Papacy.” Annales, p. 762

London

Sir Richard Woodville and the Duke of Norfolk 

Cleopatra C IV is the only source for a two-day joust held at the Tower of London at Shrove tide [17-18 February 1439]. Jousts were usually held in the king’s presence, but King Henry was at Windsor from 16 to 20 February 1439.

Sir Richard Woodville jousted with John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk.  Woodville was renowned as an exponent of jousting, but why John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk met him in the lists is unknown.

 “And that same yere at Schroft-tyde the duke of Norfolk and Sir Richard Woodvyll justed in the Tovre of london, and there were grete justis ij dayes togeder of other squyers also.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 146

Food Shortages

Heavy rains in 1438 caused the harvest to fail and shortages continued into 1439 making it one of the worst famine years of the fifteenth century (1, 2).

See Year 1438: London, Food shortages and famine.

A request in King Henry’s name was sent to Eric, King of Denmark asking for a licence for Robert Chapman, a merchant of York, to buy corn (wheat, oats and barley) in Eric’s domains and import it into England as there was great scarcity of grain in England (3).

Stephen Brown of the Grocers Guild, the Mayor of London in 1438-39, imported grain from East Prussia. According to John Stow the mayor’s action reduced the price of grain by more than one half (4). 

“And this yer þe mair provided full graciously and ordeyned such plenty of whete and greyn that the peple were well comforted.” Bale’s Chronicle, p. 114

“And in all this yere, all greyness of corne were at an high price ; for whete was at xxxij d., barly at xvj d., and rye at ii s., vnto the terme of Michelmasse next ; and then was whete at xviij d., barly at x d., and Rye at xiiij d.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 474

“Also þis yere was A gret derth of Corne in al Englond ; for I busshel of whet was worth iij^s  iiij^d in many places of Englond, & yet men might nat haue ynoghe ; wherfore Stephen Brown, þat tyme Mair of London, sent vnto Prusse, & brought to London certeyn shippes laden with Rye, which eased, & did myche gode to þe peple; for korne was so scarce in Englond þat in some placez pore peple made þame brede of ferne [braken] rotes.”  Brut Continuation G, p. 507

“And that same yere whas a right dere yere of corn of all maner corne thorow all Englond; ffor whete whas worth xl d. a busshell in the most party of Englond and malt whas sold for xiij s. and xiiij s. the quarter, and otis after viij d. a busshell ; and men ete moo benys, and pesyn, and barly that yere than euer whas etyn in Englond a c wynter beborn [beforn]. . . . .  And rede wyne whas sold ffor x d. a galon, and xij d., and gret salt ffor xiiij d. a bushhell &c.” Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV ) p. 146

“Alsoo  this yere was such scarcyte of whete, That It was sold at london for iijs. a Busshell, In Remedy wherof the pouer Commons were ffayn to make brede of barly of Benys pesys & ffecchis & othir, to Releve theym & theyris.  Wherffor this of some wryters Is namyd the Thyrd dere yere.”   Great Chronicle p. 174

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

(1) J.A.F. Thomson, The Transformation of Medieval England, p. 23.

(2) R.H. Britnell, ‘The economic context’, in A.J. Pollard (ed.) The Wars of the Roses,  pp 48-49.

(3) Foedera X, pp. 716-717 (purchase of grain in Denmark).

(4) Stow, Survey I, 109 (reduction in grain price).

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

Storm

A violent thunderstorm on the eve of St George’s Day, 22 April 1439, raged all night, but there were no casualties and less damage than the storm in November 1438. 

“And in this yere on Seint Georges Even  the holy Martir, from ij after mydnyght vnto v of the clok in þe mornyng þer was so huge and so grevous wedryng of thundir and lightnyng, hale, wynde and Rayne, þat the peple were hugely agast and dred of it; bot oure Lord God and his blessed Moder, oure Lady Seint Marye, saved and kept all his hande-werk at all tymes, – blessed myght He and she be! Amen!”  Brut Continuation F, p.  473

 Accidents at Baynard’s Castle and Bedford Shire Hall

The recurring storms may have been responsible for the accidents at Baynard’s Castle in London, and at the Shire Hall in Bedford; the chronicles hint at a supernatural agency, to which storms were often attributed. 

Baynard’s Castle was the London home of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, situated on the Thames between Wood Wharfs and Pauls Wharf.  He had it rebuilt it in 1428 after a fire destroyed the earlier building.

See Year 1428: London.

A stack of wood at Baynard’s Castle collapsed without warning on New Years Day killing three or four men and wounding several others. 

“This same yere also, on New-yere day, at Baynard Castell, fill down A stakk of wod sodenly at afernone & slew iij men mescieuously, & foul hurt othir.  Brut Continuation G, p. 507

“This same yere upon newe yere day after mete, at Baynard castell fyl a down sodeynly a stak of wode and killed iij or iiij men myschevesly, withoughten othere mo that were there sore hurt.” A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) pp. 123-124. Great Chronicle, p. 174

Bedford Shire Hall

The accident at the Shire Hall in Bedford was more serious: A large number of men fell headlong down the stairs for no apparent reason on Ash Wednesday, 18 February, killing eighteen and injuries many more. The staircase may have been weakened in the bad weather, causing it to collapse under their weight.

“Also at Bedford, on Ashwesday wer iij men murthred without strok, by falling doun of a steir, as þei come out of þer comon hall, & many foul hurt.”  Brut Continuation G, p. 507

“Also anon after at Bedford, on the schire day, weren xviij men at onys murdred myschevously withoughte any strok, in fallynge doun hedlynge at the stayre of there Shire-hous, and manye mo foule hurt.” 

         A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) pp. 123-124. Great Chronicle, p. 174

The City of London

Prostitutes

In August 1439 the outgoing Mayor of London, Stephen Brown, decreed that woman convicted as prostitutes (strumpets) in the City should do public penance. They would be paraded through the streets wearing a distinctive hood made of striped cloth and carrying a white rod in their hands.  If arrested they were tied to a chair (a thew) in a public place for a length of time decided by the city authorities. Brothel keepers (bawds) were set in the pillory, a harsher judgement as they could be pelted with filth. They were then banished from the City (1).

(1) Bellamy, Crime and Public Order, p. 185

“And in that same yere all the strumpetys that myght be take in london were made to were ray hoodes and to bere a white rood in her hondys.” Chronicles of London, Cleopatra C IV, p. 146.

“And the mayre ordaynyd that yere that comyn wemmen shulde were raye hoodys, and bawdys to the pelory.  And thys was cryde the v day of Auguste the same yere, and so hyt was done at dyvers tymys.”   Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 182

“In the monyth of August were ij bawdys and iij strumpettys ladd abowth the Cyte w^t shame Inowth, and afftyr banysshid the Toun.”   Great Chronicle, p. 174

 “Also the same yere in hervest tyme weren too baudes sett on the pillory, and iij strompettes were led to Neugate, and there were put on there  hedes ray hodees, and with roddes of a cubitt of lengthe in there handes, and so they were leed be the schirreves officers to the pillory in Cornhull, and there was there charge reed, how they schulde be put out of the franchise of London citee, and no more comyn withinne the walles of the citee, but [unless] they comen in with there raye hodees on there hedes upon certeyn peyne.”   A Chronicle of London (Harley 565), pp. 124-125

Merchandise standards

The pillory was also the punishment for peddling shoddy or defective goods. The City authorities set rigid standards for all merchandise offered for sale.  Sub-standard goods were burned at the Standard in Cheap in the presence of the offender, who was then set in the pillory (1).   

(1) Bellamy, Crime and Public Order, p. 184

“Also this same yere in hervest time were brent at the standard in Chepe diverses nettes, cappes, sadelys, and othere chaffare, for they were falsly mad and deseyvably to the people.”   A Chronicle of London (Harley 565), pp. 124-125

“And in the same monyth the mayer causid certayn Nettys Cappys Sadyllys & othyr Chaffarr to be brent at the Standard In Chepe ffor they were Insuffycyent & falsly wrowgth, To the hurt of the kyngs subjectys.”   Great Chronicle, p. 174

Bartholomew Dorea

In May Bartholomew Dorea, a physician, and his wife Mary petitioned for protection against Thomas Berry, a skinner of London who had threatened them.  The king ordered the sheriffs are to take sureties from Berry that he will not further molest Dorea or his wife (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 723.

 Conduit in Fleet Street

William Estfeld, whom King Henry knighted in 1439, was Mayor of London in 1437-38 and MP for the City. The water conduit near Salisbury Inn west of Shoe Lane was built in the fourteenth century. It was rebuilt at Esfeld’s expense, although it took his executors until 1471 to finish the job (1). 

“Also the same yere was the newe cunduyt in Fletstret begonnen to make.”  Chronicle of London (Harley 565), p. 124

“And that same yere was the conduyt in fflete street made &c.” Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI)  p. 154

“And in this mayers tyme was the Cunduyt In Fleetstreet begunne, by sir Wylliam Estffeyld mercer which said sir Wylliam was this yere wyth lowys John of Essex & othir made knygth of the Bath,” Great Chronicle, p. 174

(1) Stow, Survey II, pp. 40-41.  

 Death of Robert Chichele

Robert Chichele was a brother of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury.

He was a Master of the Grocers Company. Sheriff of London in 1402-1403, he was mayor in 1411-1412 and again in 1421-1422 and MP for London in 1414. He attended meetings of the Common Council of London regularly as an alderman of Aldgate and Vintry Wards (1). 

Chichele was a generous benefactor to the City, and to the church (2), but the bequest that impressed the chroniclers was money to provide an annual feast for 2,400 poor people in the City of London and the gift of a penny to each of them (Stow says two pence).

“Also the same yere deyde a worthy citezein of London, Robert Chicheley, grocer, that yaf to xxiiij hundred men a gret dyner.”    A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 124

“And this yere dyed Robert Chychele Grocer, That att the tyme of hys buryyng ordeynyd that xxiiij C pouer people were assemblid In a place where they hadd a good dyner & every persoon a peny.”  Great Chronicle,  p 174

Chichele made his will in June 1439 and was dead by 6 November. His bequest to the City of £20 for the maintenance of London Bridge and for work on the Guildhall is recorded in Letter Book K (3).

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

(1) historyofparliamentonline.org (Robert Chichele).

(2) Stow, Survey I, pp 109 and 227 (gift to the poor).

(3) R.R. Sharpe (ed) London Letter Book K. p 231-232 (Robert Chichele).

 ************************ ****    

John Carpenter

Letters patent signed by King Henry and William Phelip, Lord Bardolf, chamberlain of the household in December were issued to John Carpenter, formerly secretary to the Common Council of the City of London. He was excused from all official duties connected with the City, and from serving in Parliament. Nor would he be required to become a knight (1).

Exemptions such as this were usually granted in cases of ill health or old age. Carpenter may have been ill for some time, as three years earlier in 1436, the mayor of London, John Mitchell and the alderman had agreed that ‘their beloved Secretary, John Carpenter’ would not be required to serve on watches, assizes or juries ‘nor be charged with any burden or office other than that he now exercises.’ (2).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 111-112 (John Carpenter).

(2) R.R. Sharpe (ed) London, Letter Book K, p. 210 (John Carpenter).

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

The Princes of Germany

Negotiations with the prince archbishops of Germany resumed in 1439.

See Year 1438:  The Princes of Germany.

Dietrich, Prince Archbishop of Cologne

Three envoys from Dietrich [Theodoric] von Moers, Archbishop of Cologne came to England early in 1439 to continue negotiations with King Henry.  On 4 February Thomas Rudbourne, Bishop of St David’s, John Lord Scrope, Sir John Tiptoft and William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal were given powers to treat. A preliminary agreement for further discussions may have been reached (1).   

Archbishop Dietrich sent one of the envoys, Arnold Brempt, back to England in May 1439. Brempt was to collect 1200 marks, the arrears of the archbishop’s annuity from Henry V, but he was told that although King Henry was prepared to raise the payment to the archbishop from 500 to 600 marks, the 1,200 marks that Arnold had been told collet would be paid off by raising the annual payment to 800 marks. The question of homage and services owed by the archbishop in return would be worked out in discussions between the king’s ambassadors and Dietrich’s representatives. Brempt was sent back to Cologne to thank Dietrich on King Henry’s behalf for his support of England’s attempts to forge alliances with the other German princes (2).

Brempt returned to England later in the year to put a ‘secret matter’ to the Council. Two letters in King Henry’s name in November assured Archbishop Dietrich that the king fully appreciated Dietrich’s zeal in his service, but that since Brempt’s proposal concerned Henry personally, fully instructed envoys would be sent to Cologne. The second letter ten, days later, informed Dietrich that commissioners had been appointed to deal with his envoys but as Dietrich’s envoys did not have sufficient powers to treat, King Henry would save the archbishop further expense by sending his own commissioners to Cologne (3).

What was Brempt’s secret proposal?  It may have concerned the election of the new Emperor, Frederick III after the death of Albert II. This was certainly of interest to the king and Council, but it hardly affected Henry personally.  Frederick was the late emperor’s cousin and head of the Hapsburg dynasty. He acted as regent for Albert’s widow Elizabeth of Luxembourg, and it may be that Albert’s eldest daughter Anne, who was seven years old, was still being considered as a bride for King Henry. 

See Year 1438: Imperial Electors.

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 716-717 (preliminary meeting).

(2) Ferguson, Diplomacy, p. 63.

(3) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 73-74 and 75-76 (Brempt’s visit and proposals).

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

The Bishop of Munster and the Count of Marck

In December William Lyndwood and John Lord Scrope negotiated identical treaties with envoys from Henry von Moers Prince Bishop of Munster, Dietrich’s brother, and Gerhard of Cleves, Count of Marck.

They would each receive and annual pension of 400 nobles in return for a promise to render homage and fealty to King Henry. They would supply him with 100 fighting men on request, at England’s expense, for the rest of their lives. The English would pay two nobles per day for each dux, and then on a diminishing scale for yeomen, archers, and cross bowmen, at 6s a day.

Isbrand de Merwyck did homage to King Heny on behalf of the Count of Marck and the Bishop of Munster in the presence of the Earl of Suffolk,  steward  of the royal household  and Thomas Beckington, the king’s secretary (1). 

In a letter to the Bishop of Muster at the end of December King Henry apologised for the delay in confirming the treaty. It had not been his fault, he would gladly have concluded the agreement much sooner, nor was the fault of the bishop’s envoy, Isbrand Merwick. Henry thought highly of him.  Henry’s messenger would explain the circumstances more fully (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 741-745 and 745- 750 (treaties with Munster and Marck).

(2) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 214-215 (letter to the Bishop of Munster).

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

Portugal

King Durate of Portugal died in September 1438 when his son, who became Afonso V, was only six years old. After a bitter power struggle, Durate’s widow, Eleanor of Aragon and his brother, Pedro, Duke of Coimbra became Regents for the child king.

One of their first acts in Afonso’s name was to confirm the existing treaties between England and Portugal (1).    

See Years 1436 and 1437: Portugal.

The trade treaties required the kings of England and Portugal to extend mutual protection and justice to their respective subjects. At the end of 1439 King Henry requested ‘Afonso’ to ensure that justice was done to William Norton, his wife Egidea, and Thomas Halman. They were presumably trading with Portugal as their factor, Dominico Gato, was accused of embezzlement.

Interestingly, a similar letter was addressed to Pedro, but not to Eleanor (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 735-736 (confirmation of treaties).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 751-752 (two letters re William Norton).

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

The Earl of Warwick 

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick was fifty-five when he became the king’s lieutenant in France. He died at his post in Rouen on 30 April 1439.

See Year 1437: Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick.

“Thys yere dyed In Roan the Good Erle of warwyk, beyng In that Cyte the kyngis lyewtenaunt, namyd sir Rychard Bechamp, whoos body was afftyr browgth unto warwyk, and there buried In a Chapell upon the Sowth syde of the Quere.” Great Chronicle, p. 174                                     

“In þe xviij yere Sir Richard Beauchamp þe gode Erle of Warwick, died at Rone, he beyng þat tyme lieutanaunt of þe King in Normandie; and from þens his body was brought to  Warthewick, where he lieth worsshipfully in a new chapel on þe South side of þe Queer.” Brut Continuation G, p. 507

Chronicles: Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 123: Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 181; Brut Continuation F, pp. 473-474; Benet’s Chronicle p. 186 (misdates the death to 24 June).

 

 

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, a summary

Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick was one of the wealthiest earls in England. He became earl in 1401 at the age of nineteen. He went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1408 travelling though Rome and Venice and the territories of the Teutonic Knights.  He was a close companion of King Henry V and was with Henry in France when the king died in 1422. Warwick returned to England and became a member of the Minority Council although he did not, as some chronicles claim, become the baby king’s guardian.

Warwick’s reputation for chivalry is based on chronicle descriptions of him, his service under King Henry V, and The Pageants of the Birth, Life and Death f Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick an illustration of his life in 55 detailed drawings commissioned by his daughter Anne Beauchamp.

A precedence dispute between Warwick and John Mowbray, Earl of Norfolk was settled by the Commons in Parliament in 1425.  Mowbray was recognised as Duke of Norfolk allowing Warwick to remain the premier earl in England, a distinction that mattered to the proud earl.

See Year 1425: Parliament: The Earl of Norfolk and the Earl of Warwick.

Warwick’s military exploits

The Duke of Bedford left France for England at the end of 1425, and he appointed Warwick as one of three war captains to maintain the war in his absence. Despite his reputation, Warwick he was an indifferent commander when left to himself.  

He did little while Bedford was away, but early in 1427 he laid siege to Pontorson. Warwick was nervous from the start: Arthur de Richemont threatened to lead an army to recover Pontorson and Warwick exaggerated the danger.  He demanded immediate reinforcements from other garrisons in Normandy.  The threat did not materialise, and although Warwick maintained the siege, he did not take Pontorson until Bedford sent Lord Talbot to the rescue.

Warwick then laid siege to the strategic fortress of Montargis. He split his army into three and ordered temporary bridges to be built over the surrounding waterways. But he was surprised by Dunois, Bastard of Orleans who led a relieving force in September and broke through Warwick’s defences. After some fierce fighting the English retreated and Warwick raised the siege. He abandoned his baggage and artillery and fled back to the safety of Paris. Montargis was recovered in 1433 by a mercenary captain with only a small force at his disposal.

See Year 1427: The War in France: Pontorson; Montargis.

Warwick scored a small success in 1431 when he ambushed a French force near Beauvais and captured the war captain Poton de Xaintrailles. A year later he arranged an exchange of Xaintrailles for Lord Talbot who had been captured at the Battle of Patay in 1429.

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

See Year 1432: Foreign relations, Lord Talbot and Poton de Xaintrailles.

Warwick is listed as accompanying the Duke of Gloucester’s army to Calais in October 1436 with the largest retinue after Gloucester himself, but if he took part in the campaign there is no record of what he achieved. 

Warwick and King Henry

Warwick was formally appointed as King Henry’s governor in June 1428 with detailed instructions on what he must teach the king, where they were to live, and how Henry was to be treated, Warwick could chastise the king if necessary.

Although well-educated and strictly orthodox in his beliefs, Richard Beauchamp was sadly lacking in humour and kindliness. He assumed that Henry would follow in his father’s footsteps, and he tried to shape the boy into a warrior king. Henry did not take kindly to Warwick’s methods, and on at least one occasion in 1432 Warwick appealed to the Council to uphold his authority in the face of Henry’s recalcitrance. He threatened to resign unless the Council made it clear to the king that Warwick was acting on their authority.

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

See Year 1432: Henry VI and the Earl of Warwick.

Warwick naturally accompanied King Henry on the coronation expedition to France in 1430 with his own retinue as he expected to take part in the campaigning there. He played a major and costly part in the expedition, entertaining visiting dignitaries and members of Henry’s entourage in Rouen as well as conducting a military campaign.  After witnessing King Henry coronation in Paris at the end of 1431, and possibly acting as Henry’s interpreter, Warwick returned to England with the king in February 1432.

See Year 1432:  The Council and the Magnates, The Earl of Warwick.

Warwick was discharged as King Henry’s governor at his own request in May 1436 by which time the young king was taking an active interest in council business and Warwick was probably thankful to resign. 

The King’s Lieutenant in France

If Warwick believed that his services to the crown had ended, he was mistaken. The final act of his life was to become the king’s lieutenant in France in 1437 at the age of 55.  Warwick accepted the appointment reluctantly, almost the whole of that year was taken up with Warwick’s demands for adequate military support, protection for his lands at home, and an undertaking that he could relinquish his command at any time if the Council’s guarantees were not met. But his sense of duty kept him at his post, and as far as is known he never requested permission to return home. 

See Year 1437: Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick.

The situation facing Warwick when he finally arrived in Rouen in November 1437 was dire. The harvest had failed for the second year running and grain prices were sky high. The threat of famine was made worse by an outbreak of smallpox. There was widespread discontent and incipient rebellion.

Warwick was sent with an army and cash to pay the garrisons, but this was soon exhausted and no more was forthcoming.  Once he reached Normandy Warwick was the forgotten man as far as the Council was concerned.  No money was sent to him from England during his sixteen months tenure as king’s lieutenant. He was expected to hold the line against the increasingly victorious French, but for the first time in Henry VI’s reign, no reinforcements were sent from England; they had been diverted to the Earl of Mortain’s army. 

Discipline in the garrisons was breaking down, taxes were not being collected, food was in short supply and men deserted to maintain themselves by looting. Warwick was not the man to stop the rot.  Such victories as there were, few and far between, were due to Lord Talbot not to Warwick who rarely left Rouen. 

When the proposed peace talks with the French stalled in 1438, the Council informed Warwick and Louis of Luxembourg that no English delegates or members of the Council would be sent to Rouen as promised. Warwick wrote to Dunois to try to get the talks back on track, but his overture was rejected. 

See Year 1438: The Peace Talks aborted.

Warwick died at his post, perhaps of despair, on 30 April 1439.

The War in France

The administration of Lancastrian France, conducted from Rouen in Normandy, was under pressure on all sides. Rumours that the French were planning an attack on Rouen worried the Earl of Warwick in the weeks before he died.  At the beginning of April he ordered Pierre Baille, receiver general in Normandy to pay Sir Thomas Griffin for an additional force of 120 men-at-arms and archers for the defence of Rouen for fifteen days at a rate of two shillings a day for Griffin, one shilling for a mounted man-at-arms, and six pence for archers, in English money i.e.in pounds sterling not livres tournois (1). 

(1) L&P II, p. 299-301.

John, Lord Talbot

Lord Talbot was maintaining the military presence as best he could, handicapped by the Earl of Warwick’s illness and a lack of men and money.  He was captain of Gisors from 1434 to 1438, but he had not been paid for the garrison at Gisors from 29 September to 10 November 1436 (1).

In May 1439, after the Earl of Warwick’s death, Pierre Baille was ordered to pay Talbot ‘late warden and captain of the town and castle of Gisors during the time mentioned in the letters accompanying the king’s order’ (2). The contents of ‘the said letters’ is not printed. Pollard suggests that from time-to-time Talbot took advantage of his position to cheat the crown by overestimating the numbers of men under arms, but it is more likely that he recovered what he could when and where he could in order to keep the war going and avoid ignominious defeat.

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

(1) Pollard, Talbot, p. 109 and n. 28. (Gisors)

(2) L&P II, pp. 302-303 (mandate for payment).

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

Meaux

On 20 July Arthur de Richemont, the Constable of France laid siege to Meaux, a fortified town on the banks of the river Marne east of Paris one of the few towns outside Normandy that was still in English hands.

The news caused consternation in Rouen and a relief force was hastily cobbled together under the command of Lord Talbot and Lord Fauconberg (1). 

Providentially, Talbot was joined by a small army brought over from England by Sir Richard Woodville.

“And that same tyme ther lay at Winchelse Sir Richard Woodvil, Sir William Chamberleyn, Sir Wiliam Peytoo, Sir Richard Story; and all these kny[gh]tes had with hem a m¹ men of werre, and landyd at hunflewe in Normandy.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 146

“And the same yere went Syr [Richard] Woodevyle in to Normandy and Syr Wylliam Peytowe, and many moo othyr, whythe a fayre mayne.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 182

But many of Talbot’s recruits were from the free companies roaming Normandy and they were paid for only fifteen days, it was all the council in Rouen could afford. Talbot could not keep the field for long. 

Richemont learned of their approach, and on 12 August he decided to launch an attack on the part of the town that lay on the right bank of the river.  Although Meaux was believed to be adequately garrisoned, its provisions were low. The garrison abandoned the town and fled across the stone bridge linking the town to the Marché, a large suburb on the left bank in a bend in the river. 

Talbot’s arrival forced Richemont to withdraw within the walls of the town. Although he had the larger army, Richemont sensibly refused battle, another defeat would further damage his already tarnished reputation. Richemont’s chronicler Guillaume Gruel, who may have been with Richemont, claimed that the Beaufort brothers, John Earl of Somerset and Edmund Earl of Dorset [Mortain] were with Talbot (2, 3). This seems unlikely although they were in Rouen as members of the council established after the death of the Earl of Warwick.

Talbot thought the job was done; he returned to Rouen to raise more troops, leaving Sir William Chamberlain with 500 men to hold the Marché. Chamberlain was the captain of Meaux, he had been on a recruiting drive in England and had just returned with Richard Woodville. Chamberlain held out for a month, but King Charles sent additional troops to reinforce Richemont, and with the Marché surrounded Chamberlain agreed to surrender if a relief force did not reach him by 15 September.

Talbot was unable to respond in time. He mustered at Pontoise but did not arrive at Meaux until 16 September. It was too late; Chamberlain had surrendered as agreed (4). He was charged with treason by Talbot and other irate councillors in Rouen but was acquitted on the grounds that his position had been hopeless, and he had avoided further losses from an already depleted army. Richemont had allowed him and his men to return to Rouen (5).

“Ande the same yere in the same tretys the Fraynsche party wanne Mewys in Bry ayenne, in the whyche was Captayne Syr Wylliam Chambyrlayne.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 182

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

(1) Pollard, Talbot. p. 52 (Lord Talbot and Lord Fauconberg, relief force).

(2) G. Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, p. 151 (Somerset and Mortain).

(3) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ pp. 114-118 (Somerset and Mortain).

(4) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 555-559 (Meaux)  

(5) Barker, Conquest, p. 275 (Chamberlain).

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

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset had been released from captivity in France in the summer of 1438 in exchange for Charles d’Artois Count of Eu and payment of his ransom.

See Year 1438: John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset.

Somerset returned to Normandy in the spring of 1439 as one of twelve commissioners appointed to govern the duchy Rouen after the Earl of Warwick’s death in April 1439.  He came home again in August to make new arrangements with the king,

Somerset’s ransom had crippled him financially. On 12 December he petitioned the council that ‘before his departure for France’ he should receive all that was due to him from the customs duties in the port of London back dated to the Easter term of 1425 when he became of age, which was granted (1). 

He indented in December to raise an army of 100 men- at-arms and 2,000 archers for six months service in France (2). Somerset was angling for the position of the king’s lieutenant in  France.

“And in this same yere, aboute Cristmasse, went the Erle of Somersett ouer the see into Fraunce and Normandy, with a roiall peple of lords, knyghtes, Squyers, men of armes and archers, forto gouerne thereϸe Kynges peple and lands, and to strength the lords and theire peple ϸat hadde been ϸere long tyme, saving and mayntenyng the Kynges right and title.” Brut Continuation F, p. 475

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

 (1) PPC V, pp. 112-113 (petition for payment).

(2) Jones ‘Beaufort Family,’ p. 124 (indenture).

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

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon became the king’s lieutenant in Gascony in April1439 (1).

The Duchy of Gascony had been relatively free from French attack during Henry VI’s reign, but in 1438 King Charles VII’s troops had invaded the duchy and briefly invested its capital, Bordeaux.

See Year 1438: The Duchy of Gascony, French Invasion.

Belatedly, in February 1439, the Great Council discussed what should be done. The Duke of Gloucester was particularly concerned by the potential threat to the estates he had accumulated there. It may have been at his instigation that the Earl of Huntingdon was appointed to prevent a similar incursion in 1439.  

The expedition would be costly, rates for pay for service in Gascony were higher than they were for Normandy (2, 3). Huntington indented to serve for six years with a force of 300 men-at-arms and 2,000 archers, the largest contingent sent to Gascony since 1412 (4). Numerous letters of protection for men and ships to accompany him are recorded in the Gascon Rolls for the first half of 1439 (5, 6).

“And the same yere the Erle of Huntyngdone wente unto Gyenne whythe a grete navy.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 182

“And in this same yere, on the Monday next after Trinite Sonday, the Erle of Huntingdon, with oþer lordes, knyghtes and Squyers, men of armes and archers, went out of London toward the see for to gouerne and kepe the Cite of Burdeux, and also the Cuntreyes of Gascoyne and Guyan, to the profite of oure liege Lorde the Kyng, and to the welfare of the Reame of England.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 473

“Also in this same yere wente over the see the erle of Huntyngdon with a faire mene into Gascoigne and Gyan, for to defende that land fro the kynges enemyes.” Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 124

Huntingdon was awarded £1,000 to be paid before he left England and granted the revenues of the Duchy of Gascony the same as the former king’s lieutenants. If he became ill or for any other good reason, he his heirs and executors would not be required to repay whatever moneys he had received.  His commission sets out in detail his wide ranging powers over all aspects of administration, taxation an defence of the duchy, including the right to ship wheat Gascony (7).

Huntingdon sailed in July and reached Bordeaux in early August. He was accompanied by Sir Thomas Rempston. Sir Philip Chetwynde, and Lancaster King of Arms (8, 9).  He enjoyed initial success, recapturing the fortresses of La Roquette and Bazas. 

“This yere the Erle Huntingdon wan many tounes castels and abbeys at Guyan in short space.” Bale’s Chronicle, p. 114

“And this same year about the feast of St Peter Advincula [1 August] the Earl of Huntingdon went to Aquitaine and there took the town of Rechelys [La Roquette].” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

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

(1) gasconrolls.org C61/ 129 #10, dated 20 April 1439 ( Huntingdon’s indenture).

(2) M.G. Vale, English Gascony, pp. 108-113 (Huntington to Gascony).

(3) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, p.  600 (Huntingdon to Gascony).

(4) CPR 1436-1441, p 274 (musters taken).

(5) gasconrolls.org C61 / 129 (protection letters).

(6) CPR 1436-1441, pp 312-313 (shipping).

(7) gasconrolls.org C 61 /129.  # 28, 29 (money grants and protection from repayment). # 43, 44, 64 (wide ranging powers detailed). # 49 (wheat).

(8) gasconrolls.org C 61 129  #17, dated 19 April 1439 (protection for one year for Rempston).

(9) Foedera X, p. 722 (Lancaster King of Arms).

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

Gaillard de Durfort

Gaillard de Durfort, Lord of Duras and Blanquefort, was a loyal servant of the Lancastrian kings. Henry IV had appointed him Seneschal of Gascony in 1399 although he lost the position under Henry V.  In 1423 the Minority Council confirmed his request for the office of Provost of Bayonne first granted to his father by King Richard II.

See Year 1423: The Duchy of Gascony, Administration.

Durfort presumably held the position until May 1439 when there are two apparently contradictory entries on the Gason Rolls:

On 12 May Durfort was ordered to deliver the office of prévot of Bayonne to one William Stone, or his deputy, by an indenture made between Durfort and Stone (1). 

A week later, on 18 May, the provostship was granted during pleasure to Durfort (not regranted or confirmed) ‘because of his good service to Henry V and the current king,’ with the wages and profits pertaining to it (2).

Only the grant to Durfort is recorded in the Foedera (3). Did the king and council overlook the indenture with William Stone and forget that Durfort had been provost since 1423?

King Henry granted a patent of nobility and the right to a painted coat of arms to the Gascon brothers Peter and Elias de Bosquat who lived near Fronsac (4, 5).

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

(1) gasconrolls.org C 61 129 # 27 (order to deliver Bayonne to Stone).

(2) gasonrolls.org C61/ 129 # 40 (grant of Bayonne to Durfort)

(3) Foedera X, pp. 721-722 (grant to Durfort)

(4) Foedera X, p. 718 (grant of nobility).  

(5) gasconrolls.org C 61/129 # 45 (grant of nobility)

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

A Peace Conference at Oye  

 

A peace conference between England and France under the aegis of Cardinal Beaufort and Isabelle, Duchess of Burgundy, was held at Oye in the Pale of Calais from July to September 1439, four years after the abortive Congress of Arras when the Duke of Burgundy abandoned the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.

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

(1) PPC V, Thomas Beckington’s ‘Journal of the Proceedings of the Ambassadors who were sent to the Marches of Calais to treat for peace with France through the mediation of Cardinal Beaufort and the Duchess of Burgundy.’  Nicolas’s translation pp. xiii-xxx. In Latin, pp. 335-407. 

(2) C.T. Allmand, ‘Anglo French Negotiations 1439,” BIHR  XL (May, 1967), pp . 1-33.

(3) C.T. Allmand (ed) ‘Documents relating to the Anglo-French negotiations of 1439,’ Camden Miscellany Vol XXIV, Royal Historical Society (1972)

(4) S.E. Dicks, ‘The Question of Peace, Anglo-French Diplomacy 1439-1449,’ Chapter II, pp. 21-72

(5) Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 301-303.

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

Preliminaries

Cardinal Beaufort and Duchess Isabelle met at Gravelines on the border with Flanders at the end of January 1439 to lay the groundwork. Isabelle accomplished what no one else had achieved since Arras, she had persuaded King Charles to send representatives to a meeting with the English.

According to one chronicler Isabelle acted because King Henry refused to negotiate directly with the Duke of Burgundy who had betrayed his English alliance at Arras.

See Year 1438: Isabelle, Duchess of Burgundy.

“þe Duchesse, & nat of þe Duke because he had gone from his othe & legeance þat he had made to King Henry; þerfor King Henre neuer wold write, ne Apoynt, ne haue to do with him after, but al in þe Duchesse name.”  Brut Continuation G, p. 506.

Sir John Popham and Stephen Wilton crossed to Calais to meet French officials and settle the venue with Duchess Isabelle: it must be near the sea for ease of access but not too far from Calais because of Cardinal Beaufort’s age. Somewhere the French could have easy access to the Duke of Orleans who would be brought only as far as Calais, and adequate security for the English could be guaranteed.  

“And affter com certeyn embassitoures ow3t of ffraunce with a yeman of the crovne vnder sauff condite.” Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 146

At the beginning of March King Henry announced that he wished the conference to convene at Calais but if ‘the adversary of France’ preferred Cherbourg he was willing to agree.

Typically, Charles sent only two low level delegates, a councillor Regnault Girard and a maitre des comptes Robert Mallière (1). Their instructions were to suggest possible venues and to insist that Charles, Duke of Orleans be permitted to take part in whatever meetings took place.

On 7 April King Charles piously opined that he had always favoured peace, and he named his ambassadors: the Duke of Burgundy, who prudently declined, Louis de Bourbon Count of Vendôme, Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims and Chancellor of France, Dunois Bastard of Orleans, Adam de Cambray, president of the parlement of Pars, Jean de Harcourt Archbishop of Narbonne, Jean Turdert Bishop elect of Chalons, and Jacques de Chatillon, Lord of Dampierre,   Reginald Eirard Lord of Basoges, Master of the Household, Regnault Girard and Robert Mailliere, the two envoys he had sent to the earlier meeting with Isabelle, and a royal secretary Andre de Bouef.  They were to treat with their English counterparts for peace and for the release of the Duke of Orleans (2). 

King Henry issued safe conducts in May for his ambassadors and 500 people in their retinues to cross to Calais (3). Their mission was twofold, to negotiate for peace with France and for a treaty with the Duke of Burgundy to end the trade war with Flanders.

John Kemp, Archbishop of York would be the lead negotiator, accompanied by the Duke of Norfolk, because of his rank, and Humphrey Earl of Stafford, as King Henry’s kinsman.  The Earl of Oxford, Henry, Lord Bourchier (the English Earl of Eu), and Walter, Lord Hungerford.

Thomas Brouns, Bishop of Norwich, and Thomas Rudbourne, Bishop of St Davids and Nicholas Bildeston, were to treat for a trade treaty with the Duke of Burgundy.  

John Popham, of the advance party, John Stourton (the Duke of Orleans’s keeper), John Sutton, lieutenant of Calais and Richard Whittingham, treasurer of Calais, Thomas Beckington, the king’s secretary (to whom we owe a record of the proceedings) and William Sprever. 

Pierre Cauchon Bishop of Lisieux, Gilles de Durmont Abbot of Fécamp and Jean Rinel the king’s French secretary from Rouen, to represent Lancastrian Normandy (4, 5).

They were issued with their commission and powers to treat (6).

They were to lay claim to King Henry’s title as King of France in whatever terms they deemed appropriate. If the French accepted this, they were to offer ‘the Dauphin’ a peace settlement: he would be granted lands beyond the Loire valued at £200,000 annually to be held of Henry as king of France.

The third instruction was that if the French refused the first two (which was apparently expected) Cardinal Beaufort, as a high-ranking churchman was to appeal for an end to the war, the bloodshed had gone on for too long; the welfare of the people should come before the pride of princes. He was to introduce a novel argument: why must there be only one king in France? Charlemagne’s heirs had divided the kingdom between themselves and there had been more than one king in France. King Henry would not renounce his title, but he would consider using it only in those parts of France which the English held or laid claim to through earlier treaties. 

Beaufort was to state that the alternative to accepting the English proposals was for the war to continue. Peace could only be secured in one of two ways, by honourable negotiation or by outright victory. If peace through a marriage for King Henry with a French princess was suggested the reply was to be that it was not an option as long as Charles remained the king’s enemy. 

Cardinal Beaufort as mediator sought and received special powers from King Henry which were separate from the instructions issued to the English delegation. If the French refused the terms offered in the English embassy’s instructions, he could negotiate on Henry’s title as King of France.

He had the authority to issue safe conducts, to accept the fealty of anyone who chose to acknowledge Henry VI as their king, to grant pardons in the king’s name, and to appoint ambassadors to join in the negotiations, in other words to act as King Henry’s proxy, with wide ranging if vague powers (7). 

As a show of wealth and strength, and to differentiate his status from the other ambassadors, he was permitted to take his plate, furniture and other valuables out of the country (8).

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

(1) Beaucourt, Charles VII vol. III p. 103 (early meeting two French delegates)

(2) PPC V, pp. 346-349 (Charles VII’s procuration).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 720-21 (safe conducts for 500 people).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 724-728 (instructions to English delegates).

(5) PPC V, pp. 354-362 (instructions to English delegates)

(6) Foedera X, pp. 728-730 (power to treat).

(7) Foedera X, pp. 730-733 (Cardinal Beaufort’s special powers).

(8) Foedera X, p. 723 (valuables).

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

Preparations

Cardinal Beaufort, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Oxford and the other English ambassadors landed at Calais on 26 June. Robert Whitingham the Treasurer of Calais and Thomas Beckington, King Henry’s secretary arrived on the following day.

John Kemp, Archbishop of York, the Earl of Stafford, the Bishop of Norwich, Lord Bourchier and Lord Hungerford met the Count of Vendome, Regnault of Chartres, Archbishop of Reims, Chancellor of France, Dunois Bastard of Orleans, the Burgundian Jacques Lord of Crèvecouer, and other French delegates at Newnham Bridge just outside Calais and escorted them into the town.

The English ambassadors convened at Cardinal Beaufort’s residence on the morning of 29 June and agreed that Beaufort and the Duchess of Burgundy as mediators should decide when the conference would open, how many people might attend, and if they should be armed. The French had requested to be informed on these points.

On 30 June in the cardinal’s residence, the French ambassadors took a solemn oath, witnessed by the Bishop of Norwich and the two secretaries, Beckington and Jean Rinel, not to do, or attempt to do, any injury to the English ambassadors. Sir John Popham and Steven Wilton were sent to Saint Omer to receive similar oaths from the Duke of Burgundy and to ask Duchess Isabelle to set a date for the conference to open, where it would be held, who would the delegates be, and would they be allowed to carry arms?

Popham and Wilton returned with the oath of security sworn by the Duke of Burgundy and informed the cardinal that the duchess would arrive on 6 July. She had agreed that no more than 300 men should attend on both sides, armed only with the swords or daggers they customarily carried. Each party was allowed twenty attendants to serve refreshments. Ten English scouts would explore the countryside in a two-mile radius around Gravelines where they French were to stay, and the same number of French scouts would patrol the area around Calais and Guines. Mistrust and suspicion were in the air even before the conference opened.

The Duke of Burgundy had refused Charles VII’s invitation to head the French embassy, but he was well placed to use his influence. The Burgundian court was nearby at St Omer where he could be readily consulted by Isabelle and the French delegates. They had attended the wedding of King Charles’s daughter Catherine to Burgundy’s son and heir, the Count of Charolais at St Omer in June. The English should have heeded the warning.

The Burgundian delegation consisted of Nicolas Rolin the Francophile Burgundian Chancellor, balanced by Hugh de Lannoy who favoured the English. Jean de Chevrot Bishop of Tournai, who held benefices in Normandy, and Burgundy’s councillor, Jacques, Lord of Crèvecouer (1)

Conference

Cardinal Beaufort and the English ambassadors rode from Calais to Oye on 6 July with a retinue of 260 persons. Duchess Isabelle was expected to arrive on the same dat. 6 July

Tents and pavilions on a lavish scale had been set up four miles from the castle at Oye, conveniently located near the sea, seven miles west of Calais towards Gravelines, not far from Saint Omer. 

The cardinal’s pavilion was the most magnificent. It was built of timber covered with canvas, 100 feet long, containing a pantry, a butlery, a wine cellar, and two chambers. The central hall was lined with scarlet tapestries and could accommodate 300 people at table, with a kitchen at the end.  The English ambassadors had their own tents on the south and west side. The Duchess of Burgundy tent was to the east, and almost as large as the cardinal’s, with two smaller tents nearby.  Beckington recorded disparagingly that it was made from rotten timber and covered with old sail cloth, although he allowed that it was lined with tapestries from Arras.

Duchess Isabelle was attended by Agnes, daughter of the Duke of Cleves and ten ladies all dressed in cloth of gold. Agnes was on her way to Navarre to marry King Charles of Navarre’s grandson, the prince of Viana, escorted by her brother, John of Cleves, and the Burgundians Charles, Count of Count of Nevers, and John of Nevers, Count of Étamps since the Duke of Burgundy had arranged the marriage.  As they were to travel to Navarre by sea, King Henry obligingly issued a safe conduct for them to travel via an English port (2, 3).   

The conference pavilion was furnished with a seat draped in cloth of gold.  Cardinal Beaufort met Isabelle midway between their tents, and they embraced. Beaufort took his seat in the centre of the pavilion with Isabelle on his right and Agnes on his left. The delegates were seated to either side.

John Kemp, Archbishop of York, welcomed the cardinal and the duchess with an extravagant speech in Latin praising their joint efforts to promote peace. Both sides exchanged their credentials and then separated to study them.

In the evening Duchess Isabelle sent the Bishop of Tournai and the Lord of Crevecour to Cardinal Beaufort to complain that the English credentials were hostile and inappropriate for peace talks. The French objected strongly to their king being referred to merely as ‘Charles of Valois’ and not the customary ‘adversary of France.’ And King Henry’s claim to the kingdom of France should not have been included, it belonged more properly in the instructions to negotiate. Furthermore, the credentials did not grant the English ambassadors sufficient powers to conclude a peace. The English replied that the French commission was obscure and contradictory.  

Cardinal Beaufort agreed to amend the English credentials, but they would have to be sent back to England for confirmation. In the meanwhile, he suggested that the peace talks should begin. The French presented him with their commission which he sent to the Archbishop of York.  It was examined by Thomas Beckington, Stephen Wilton and William Sprever who noted a few objections and returned it to the archbishop. In the evening the cardinal, the archbishop and his advisors discussed how best to clarify some of the obscurities.  The Bishop of Tournai ‘and others’ reluctantly agreed to make corrections subject to their delegates agreement.

Envoys from the Earl of Armagnac arrived on 9 July to consult with the Duke of Orleans and to present letters from Armagnac to Cardinal Beaufort.

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

(1) Wavrin IV, p.  263 (Burgundian delegation).

(2) Vaughan, Philip, p. 290 (Agnes of Cleves).

(3) Foedera X, p. 734 (safe conduct to travel to Navarre). 

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

On 10 July Cardinal Beaufort and the English ambassadors, except the Bishop of Norwich who had a fever, rode to Oye where they were met by Duchess Isabelle and the French envoys.  They took their seats in the pavilion and the Archbishop of York produced an amended commission, back dated to 23 May the same day as the original.  A clause to include negotiations for the release of the Duke of Orleans had been added. The use of ‘Charles of Valois for King Charles had been dropped. The aggressive wording of Henry’s claim to the crown of France was toned down but remained uncompromising. Nevertheless, the French accepted it.

These diplomatic niceties being settled, the formal conference opened. John Kemp, the Archbishop of York gave an oration in Latin (as he had at Arras). He began by stating that the ‘most reasonable means of achieving peace’ was for the ‘adverse party’ not to deny King Henry’s right to be recognised as King of France, a claim substantiated by his ancestors, King Edward III and King Henry V, and established by the Treaty of Troyes. English victories in the war demonstrated the justice of their cause: that God was on their side was clearly set out in the Revelations of St Bridget.

No high-ranking cleric could resist a spiritual argument; Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims, replied in French (as he had at Arras) that ‘his king’ had enjoyed as many victories as the English and in any case St John the Hermit had prophesied victory for the French. He added he could not conclude a general peace while King Charles was ill and the Dauphin Louis was absent from court, it was not a propitious beginning.

Kemp rejected St John the Hermit as being of little account and urged that negotiations conducive to peace, to which they had both agreed, should begin. He moved on to the second article in his instructions: provided the French accepted Henry as King of France, he would grant ‘his adversary’ lands beyond the Loire worth 20,000 livres a year, to be held of him as King of France.

This was at best wishful thinking and at worse self-deception. The French considered the Treaty of Troyes to be a dead letter. The lands ‘beyond the Loire’ were not, and never had been, in English hands. The tide had turned, French armies were becoming more and more successful, it one of the reasons why the English Council had agreed to seek peace or at least a truce. 

Regnault de Chartres rejected the offer outright. He could not proceed further until Henry renounced his claim to the French throne and consented to do homage to King Charles for whatever lands the English still held in France. They must also restore the lands of which loyal Frenchmen had been dispossessed by the English occupation.

These proposals being unacceptable, they were rejected, and the conference adjourned. Beaufort invited the English ambassadors to dine with him, except the Bishop of St David who could not eat fish. Beaufort and the ambassadors visited Duchess Isabelle in her tent where Beaufort tried unsuccessfully to persuade her to insist that the French drop the homage requirement. He opined that nothing would come of the talks as long as the French maintained this position.

The Duke of Orleans

To break the impasse the English allowed the Duke of Orleans to meet Isabelle and the French envoys, but not at Oye. Two tents were erected just outside the walls of Calais to accommodate them.

King Henry had agreed to include the Orleans’s release as part of the negotiations although not to allow him to take part in the conference. He was permitted to meet the French delegates in the Great Hall in Calais. It was there that Dunois, Bastard of Orleans met his brother for the first time in over twenty years. The Duke of Orleans’s clerks and councillors arrived on 2 July although they left again three days later. 

See Year 1437: Peace talks and the Duke of Orleans.

See Year 1438: The Duke of Orleans.

Orleans had tried to persuade the Duke and Duchess of Burgundy to insist on his presence at Oye, but the English were taking no chances, there were rumours that an attempt would be made to rescue him. Sir John Sutton, Sir John Stourton, Orleans’s guardian, and Robert Whittingham were left in Calais to guard him. Stourton reported that Orleans was incensed at not being included in the first meeting. He said, “that if he did not go, the others would do nought but beat the wind.”

Isabelle and the French had free access to Orleans although Cardinal Beaufort was present for part of the time. Orleans and Isabelle had a flare for the dramatic. In a theatrical gesture, Isabelle demanded of Orleans if he wanted peace. The duke replied: ‘Yes, even if I die for it!’ It was good diplomatic theatre but meant little. Orleans was taken back to Calais while Isabelle and the French returned Gravelines. 

Isabelle announced that the Duke of Burgundy had been taken ill and that she must go him at once. She left for Saint Omer on 14 July. The English were suspicious, as well they might be, the close co-operation between the French and Burgundian delegates was hard to miss. 

The Church Fathers

A minor interruption occurred when the Bishop of Vicq arrived on 11 July to represent the Council at Basel. Cardinal Beaufort gave him an audience on 15 July. He informed the cardinal somewhat unnecessarily but with many biblical references, that he had come to urge the delegates to make peace.  At dinner in the Great Hall in Calais with the Duke of Orleans present the bishop lectured his audience on the blessings of peace.

Probably exasperated by the bishop’s self-righteousness, Beaufort passed him over to Archbishop Kemp. Kemp did not suffer fools gladly. He informed the bishop that he had no place at this conference; the representatives of the Church Fathers had interfered at the Congress of Arras and must bear some responsibility for its failure. Had they acted impartially instead of favouring the French, peace might have been achieved in 1435 and the present conference need not have taken place.  He urged the bishop to put his own house in order and avoid the schism in the church brought about by the Church Fathers’ unjust quarrel with Pope Eugenius. The bishop was easily distracted, he forgot all about his high-minded peace and vehemently blamed the Pope. Kemp dismissed his arguments and defended Eugenius. He said he had no doubt the Pope would prove his innocence of the charges against him when the right time came.

Isabelle

Isabelle’s visit to her husband had unfortunate consequences. Unsurprisingly Burgundy’s indisposition was not serious, and she returned to Gravelines on the evening of 16 July escorted by a large torch lit procession. The noise was so great and the illuminations so bright that the English soldiers on guard duty jumped to the conclusion that they were about to be attacked. The Earl of Stafford, who was in Calais, alerted the cardinal. Beaufort overreacted, he put an embargo on all ships about to sail to England lest exaggerated reports of conflict should reach the English Council. It was a false alarm, Garter King of Arms was sent to the duchess to require an explanation, and both sides blamed the other.

The meetings resumed on 18 July. The Duchess thought that the prospect of peace was remote because of the French demand that Henry VI renounce his claim to the crown of France and the English refusal to do homage. A truce might founder on the claims of the French for restitution of lands to their original owners.

Isabelle proposed a compromise: to set peace aside and leave out the thorny question of restitution of occupied lands. She suggested a long-term abstinence de guerre to last for thirty, twenty, or ten years, whichever would be most acceptable.  She adopted and adapted the suggestion in the English instructions that each king should use their title only in those parts of France under their control. King Henry need not renounce his title, but he should not use it at all during the period agreed. In return King Charles would not demand homage for the lands Henry held in France and the war would end. Henry could resume the title (and the war) after giving one years’ notice of his intention.

Isabelle informed the French that the English would not make peace without recognition of King Henry’s sovereignty but that a truce might be possible. King Charles was not interested, a truce would give the English time to build up their military resources, and more importantly, a truce would not recognise French sovereignty.

Proposals and Counter Proposals

Beaufort favoured a truce but was not sure of the wider implications of Isabelle’s proposals. Nor did he have the authority to accept them. He asked for time to consider, and Archbishop Kemp demanded that they be put in writing, French speech was so ambiguous!

The French and Burgundians agreed, and a document was drawn up by the Burgundian chancellor, Nicholas Rolin which they claimed, incorporated Isabelle’s proposals as understood by the French delegates:

During the years of ‘peace’ Henry VI must renounce his title as King of France. He should surrender all cities and towns in France except those allowed to him under the terms of the agreement, and the original owners should be restored or compensated. The Duke of Orleans would be freed without ransom.  

Henry VI would be granted lands in France, but he must do homage for them.  At the end of the period of truce anyone living in English held territory would be free to return to their French allegiance. Perpetual peace would be declared at the end of the truce or the status quo might be restored when the term of years expired.

These written proposals varied so much from Isabelle’s verbal proposal that Beaufort and the English envoys expressed amazement; even the Duke of Orleans was surprised by the alterations. Perhaps he had not expected Charles VII to insist on his release without ransom. Beaufort told Isabelle and the Bishop of Tournai that the inclusion of the release of Orleans without ransom was unacceptable.

The English envoys protested that their instructions forbade any agreement prejudicial to King Henry’s rights.  It was up to the king, if he chose to surrender any part of what was rightfully his it would only be because as a Christian prince he wished to avoid bloodshed.

From this point the negotiators were at cross purposes, each repeating the offers they had made which had been rejected. Neither side appeared to be listening to the other.

Beaufort and the English ambassadors again offered the lands beyond the Loire except the Duchy of Gascony. They would retain the lands ceded to the king’s ancestors before the crown of France had been claimed, together with Calais and Guines, to held in full sovereignty and not in homage.

The French requested them to specify the lands in writing. The English demanded the duchies of Normandy and Gascony, the homage of Brittany, Flanders, Picardy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and all the territories ceded to King Edward III under the Treaty of Brétigny, including Calais and Guines.

The French said they were not satisfied with the offer framed by the Duchess of Burgundy and countered with a meagre offer, designed to be provocative: only two bailliages in Normandy, Caen and Coutances which the English indignantly rejected.

On 22 July Archbishop Kemp demanded that the French clarify their position: precisely which lands they were prepared to offer? Would they except the lands beyond the Loire?

The Burgundian chancellor Nicholas Rolin asked the English ambassadors if they accepted the duchess’s proposal, but they replied that it was too vague, they could not commit themselves.  At the very least a list of the lands to be offered by the French must be inserted into the document. This reduced Isabelle to what Thomas Beckington suspected were crocodile tears.

She pleaded with Beaufort to reconsider her proposals. The English ambassadors offered to put their opinions for and against them in writing and send them to King Henry and the council in England, provided the lands to be offered were listed.  This would mean a delay of about three weeks.

The French again demanded details of what lands the Kings of England had held in France before the English king claimed the crown. The Archbishop York agreed to put them in writing.

The Duke of Orleans, despite being confined to Calais had established lines of communication with the French. He warned the English that the French were preparing to leave, they could see no point in continuing the fruitless discussions.

A pursuivant was sent hastily from Calais to ask Isabelle if this was true. She denied it, and promised to advise the English when the next meeting would take place. She appointed Monday 27 July. Beaufort and Isabelle met the French ambassadors without the English ambassadors being present in a last-ditch attempt to save the conference. The French again offered only the two bailliages in Normandy but included Gascony. 

On the following day Beaufort had a long meeting with his ambassadors. He reported that he and Isabelle had discussed a revised offer from the French: under certain conditions they would agree to King Henry retaining the Duchy of Normandy but not Mont Saint Michel and the homage of the Duke of Brittany.

Beaufort persuaded them to put their offer in writing and give him time to send it to England. The English ambassadors would put their recommendations in writing, but they would need new instructions if the talks were to continue.

The Duke of Orleans’s warning that the French planned to leave may have been a ploy to demonstrate his importance to the continuation of the talks. He was asked to intervene, and from then on, he assumed the status of a mediator. Isabelle and the French ambassadors met him in Calais on 29 July. Isabelle had a private talk with him and Beaufort was invited to join them. It was agreed that a document, drawn up Orleans and Isabelle’s names to be submitted to both kings for consultation and further instructions. On 31 July the Bishop of Tournai presented Isabelle and Orleans’s proposal and the opinions of the English ambassadors were recorded. safe conducts from the Duke of Burgundy for those returning to England arrived on 2 August.

Archbishop Kemp, the Earl of Stafford, Lord Hungerford, Sir John Popham and Stephen Wilton and Jean Rinel embarked on 5 August in a fleet of twenty-two vessels and reached London on 8 August. The Duke of Norfolk travelled separately.

 Chronicles

The peace conference was of great interest to the chroniclers. Gregory’s Chronicle  lists other delegates from Flanders, bishops from Spain and Cologne, from the Duke of Armagnac and the Church Council of Basel, but Beckington’s Journal only records Armagnac and Basel.  

The Great Chronicle, with hindsight, disparages the conference, ‘it cam to noon effect but rather to the hurt of this land’ because it gave Charles VII, still referred to as ‘the Dauphin,’ a time advantage in preparing for war.   Brut Continuation F mistakenly includes France in the treaty. Brut Continuation G misdated the conference to 1437.

Robert Bale’s Chronicle omits duke of Norfolk, and includes Richard, Duke of York, who was not present. 

Cleopatra

“And the same yere the Cardinall went to Caleys to mete with the duches of Borgoyn and all the counsell of fflaunderis, [the copyist first wrote ffraunce but marked it for omission] and com ayen sauf.

And than went the Cardinall, the Erchebysshop of York, the Duke of Norfolke, the Duke of Orliaunce, the Erll of Stafford, the Erll of Oxenford, and many other over ayen to Caleys; and mett with the counsell of ffraunce off Spayne, of fflaunderys, off Armynak, and of Breton to entrete for a pees between hem and vs.  But they might not accorde.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 146

Gregory

“And the same yere there was a grete conselle at Calys, there beynge in oure party the Cardynalle Arche-byschoppe of Yorke and many moo spirytualle and temporalle lordys.  And on that othyr party the Duchyes of Burgone and many moo lordys, bothe spyrytualle and temporalle. 

“Ande the same yere the Cardynalle Archebyschoppe of Yorke, the Byschoppe of Northewyche, the Byschoppe of Syn Davys and many othyr docters, and the Duke of Northefolke, the Erle of Stafford, the Lorde Bowcer, and the Lorde Hungerforde, with a grete mayny, wente unto Calys; and they hadde the Duke of Orlyaunce with hem for to trete of pes by twyne Ingelonde and Fraunce. 

And there mette with hem the grete lordys of Fraunce, that ys to wyte, of spyrytualle and temporalle, the Archebyschoppe of Raynys, [Reims] whythe many mooothyr byschoppys, the Erle of Wendon [Vendôme] the Bastarde of Orlyaunce, and many othyr lordys of Fraunce;

and thedyr come the Byschoppe of Spayne and of Colayne, and many moo othyr dyvers contreys that com fro the Counselle of Basylle.” Gregory’s Chronicle, pp. 181-182

The Great Chronicle

“And shortly afftyr The duke of Norffolk & therle of Stafford wyth tharchbysshop of york & othir bysshoppys & othir men of name, Saylid to Caleys There to hold a Treaty ffor a peas atwene Engeland & Fraunce, and Engeland & Flaundyrs.  But it cam to noon effect but Rather to the hurt of this land, ffor evyr the dawphyn of vyen [Vienne] offerid meanys of peas by cautelous meanys soo that alwayes avauntage grewe therof to hys party.”  Great Chronicle, p. 174

Brut Continuation F

“And in this same yere, the v. day of Juyn, the Erle of Stafford, with lordes, knyghtes, squyers, men of armes and archers, in good array, went ouer the see to Caleys, for tretice between England and Fraunce.  And within .ij. dayes after, went ouer the see to Caleys the Archebisshop of York, þe Bissop of Norwiche, and the Bisshop of Seint Sauy, with a grete meyne of clerkes, and moche oþer peple with theym, in good arraye, to Caleis, to this same tretice.  And the Friday next after that, went the Cardinall, the Bissop of Wynchestre, with a grete multitude of peple, ouer the see to Caleys, to the same tretice.  And the Seturday next, went out of the Cite of London toward Caleis, that same tretice, the Duke of Norffolk, with oþer grete lordes, knyghtes and squyers, and moche oþer peple with hym, in good arayee.” 

“And þere þe Cardynall and these Bisshoppes, and the Duke of Norffolk, abode þere, and treted with the Frenssh party vnto þe terme of Michelmasse next folowyng.” 

“And anon after in this same yere, þe Cardynall and oþer Bisshoppes, and the Duke of Norffolk, with all oþer lordes, bothe spiritual and temporall, had ended theire trete, and made a trewes between England and Fraunce and Flaundres for iij yere; and thus was this matere ended. Brut Continuation F, p. 475

Brut Continuation G

“This same yere was A gret treaty holden bitweene Grauenyng & Caleys, bitwen þe King & Duke of Burgoyn, in which was þe Cardinal of Englond & þe Duke of Northfolk, for þe King, with many othir lordes.  And for þe Duke was þe Duchesse, having ful power of hir lorde as Regent & lady of his landis, wher was taken, by trewes of both parties, An Abstinence of Were for A certeyn tyme in þe name of þe Duchesse, & nat of þe Duke because he had gone from his othe & legeance þat he had made to King Henry; þerfor King Henre neuer wold write, ne Apoynt, ne haue to do with him after, but al in þe Duchesse name.  Brut Continuation G, pp. 505-506

Annales

“This year Cardinal Beaufort went to Calais to negotiate with the duchess of Burgundy; and the Archbishop of York, the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Orleans, the Earls of Stafford, Oxford and others went with him.  And negotiators came from France, Spain, and Brittany to treat for peace between England and France.”  Annales, p. 762

Benet

 “And about the feast of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July] the Lord Cardinal Henry [Beaufort], the duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Stafford and others went over to Calais to treat for peace between France and England and they were there until after the feast of St Michael [29 September]”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

Bale

“This yer the cardynall, duke of york, Archebisshop york, the Erle Stafford, the Erle of Ewe and oþer lordes yeden over to Caleis for the entrete of peas.  Robert Bale‘s Chronicle, p.  114

 Archbishop Kemp in England

Archbishop Kemp put the proposals for and against accepting an accommodation with the French to King Henry and the Council in England, as he was bound to do, but there is no record of how he went about it. That he argued strongly in favour of acceptance is based on prejudiced accusations made against him and Cardinal Beaufort by the Duke of Gloucester in 1440 during a heated debate over the release of the Duke of Orleans (1).

Thomas Beckington remained in Calais, and so was not present at the council meeting, but he included twelve reasons for rejecting them in his journal.

The main sticking point was King Henry title. Six of the twelve reasons enumerate the objections: It would put Henry V’s ‘just cause’ for claiming the title in doubt. The title belonged to the crown as well as to an individual and the two could not be separated. A physical withdrawal from France would call into question the judicial authority implied in the title which was required for good governance. Surrendering the title would leave the English open to a charge of tyranny and therefore illegal rule.  If the King was unable to use the title his status abroad, at the papal court or in general councils of the church would be diminished.

The other six objections dealt with the rights of individuals. To restore lands and benefices to those who had not accepted English rule would be to admit that they were not rebels as  the English claimed. Natural justice would not be served by depriving Englishmen of lands legally bestowed on them in France and Normandy. What would happen to those men, who had served the king all their lives, but had nothing to live on except their grants in France? It would be a betrayal of all concerned. Compensation would be far too expensive; men would leave royal service and refuse to serve in future. Setting Orleans free without ransom would be disloyal to Henry V’s memory, he should only be set free if he paid the ransom demanded by Henry V. These were valid arguments, the king was responsible for the well-being of his people.

The news of Arthur de Richemont’s attack on Meaux reached Cardinal Beaufort at Calais just after Kemp left for England. Thomas Warden, the lieutenant of Guines, was sent to inform King Henry. He reached England at the end of August, after escaping near shipwreck in a storm off Sandwich. That the French had attacked before the outcome of the peace conference was settled further inflamed what was already a lively debate and hardened the decision of the English Council to refuse to consider a truce with France.  

See The War in France above.

The ambassadors returned to Calais on 9 September with new instructions for the cardinal.  He was to reject the proposals.  King Henry considered them ‘right unreasonable’ but in the cause of peace he was willing to accept Normandy including Mont St Michel, Gascony, Calais and Guines, and the other towns listed, but not in homage since he was still king of France.

On 11 September, the day the conference should have resumed, the English arrived at Oye only to be told that the French had left Gravelines on 30 July and had not returned.  Archbishop Kemp produced a written protest and insisted that authenticated copies be made and circulated.

King Charles had sent word to the Duchess of Burgundy and to the Duke of Orleans that it would be impossible for his envoys to return to Gravelines before 25 September, the earliest date on which his council could meet for consultations because the Dauphin Louis was not expected to return from Languedoc until then. This, combined with the news from Meux, was taken by the English envoys as further proof of French duplicity.  Cardinal Beaufort pronounced that the conference was at an end. 

Nevertheless, on 15 September the Cardinal, Isabelle, and the Duke of Orleans tabled a joint proposal to resume peace talks in the following year. It remained to be seen if this offer would be accepted by King Charles.  Beaufort and the English ambassadors presented themselves to King Henry at Kennington 9 October and on 10 October, with the Duke of Gloucester absent, Archbishop Kemp read out his final refusal of the French peace proposals. The council endorsed Cardinal Beaufort’s undertaking that another conference should take place on or before 1 May 1440. (1, 2). 

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

(1) PPC V, p. xxx (return to England).

(2) Allmand, ‘Anglo-French negotiations,’ pp. 29-30 (Kemp’s final presentation to the council).

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

Oye, Summary

The conference at Oye failed, but was it ever intended to make peace? Opinion was divided in the English Council; the Duke of Gloucester was not the only council member who favoured continuing the war until the French could be forced to acknowledge Henry VI as king of France. They had fought and won under Henry V, and they consistently underestimated King Chares VII. They persistently referred to him merely as ‘the Dauphin’ and failed to recognise that Charles would never make peace, or agree to a truce, except on his own terms. He agreed to send delegates to Oye partly to please the Duchess of Burgundy and buy her good will, and partly because to refuse to attend would provoke the anger of the Pope, and the Church Fathers at Basel, both of whom wanted peace for different but selfish reasons.  Charles was a past master at delaying tactics, he dictated the behaviour of the French delegation, and of Arthur de Richemont  who attacked Meaux with his full support.

Duchess Isabelle may have believed that peace between England and France was in Burgundy’s best interests, but not at King Charles’s expense. She was King Charles’s secret ally; she had used her influence on his behalf at the Congress of Arras in 1435 and he had rewarded her handsomely. She did so again at Oye. How far the initiative lay with her, and how far she was acting on her husband’s instructions is difficult to determine.

See 1435: The Congress of Arras.

Cardinal Beaufort has traditionally been portrayed as the peace maker and founder of the peace party. Beaufort undoubtedly hoped to negotiate a truce, but not on French terms. He had ambitions for his nephews to acquire more lands and influence in Normandy, if not in France, and he intended to make his elder nephew, John Beaufort Earl of Somerset the king’s lieutenant in France. Beaufort had promoted the war politically and financially all his life, and he would continue to do so, but he was not a hypocrite. If he ever delivered the high-minded moral appeal to end the war for the good of the people, the speech assigned to him in King Henry’s instructions, there is no record of it.

King Henry wanted peace, and he meddled in the instructions to his ambassadors. The speech against the shedding of blood assigned to Beaufort sounds far more like Henry than like Beaufort. At one point he agreed to accept the Duchy of Normandy and the other territories claimed by the English if this would be conducive to peace, but he never offered to renounce his title as king of France which might have ended the war.  Only he could do so, no one in England, magnate or bishop in or out of council would dare to suggest it, that would be high treason. But there is no evidence that anyone, Cardinal Beaufort included, wished him to. The English deluded themselves that the French could be persuaded to partition their country.   

Calais

The officials in Calais were anxious to know if Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Orleans would remain in Calais. On being told that they would, everyone agreed that tight security should be maintained in and around Calais. Cardinal Beaufort and his retinue moved to the castle at Hammes, in the Pale of Calais, presumably because it was considered safer than Calais.

The English ambassadors were nervous. The Flemings had requested a safe conduct for their fishing fleet, but somewhat surprisingly, given that he was there to negotiate a treaty with them, Beaufort refused on the spurious grounds that he had no authority to grant safe conducts by sea, only on land for those coming to Calais.

 In fact, he had referred the question to the English Council who may have suspected it was a subterfuge for an attack. The safety of Calais was never far from their minds (1). The presence of the Duke of Orleans made them nervous, and precautions were taken. Ships with soldiers aboard belonging to the Earl of Oxford had sailed from Calais and were hovering off the coast of Gravelines.

(1) PPC V, pp. xxvi- xxix (concern for Calais).

Robert Whitingham, the Treasurer of Calais declared that he wished to resign his post. The garrison had not been paid, there was no captain or lieutenant resident in the town, and the walls were in such bad repair that defence of the town could not be guaranteed. Whitingham offered to try to borrow money from the Calais Staplers to repair them. 

The Earl of Stafford, the Earl of Oxford and Lord Bourchier met with the soldiers who backed up the treasurer: without a lieutenant or captain, with the stores dangerously low and the walls ruinous, they were in no position to withstand attack.

Treaty and Truce with Burgundy

Duchess Isabelle requested a safe conduct for herself and 300 attendants to come to Calais. She arrived with an escort of 100 mounted men, accompanied by the Duke of Bourbon’s son, a boy of about ten or eleven (as her page?).  A daylong meeting took place between Isabelle, Beaufort, Orleans, and Nicholas Rolin, Burgundy’s chancellor.

For form’s sake, since she knew what the reply would be, Isabelle urged that her peace proposal should be accepted, but when Cardinal Beaufort informed her that this was impossible, she took the rejection amicably. Her only comment on Beaufort’s justification that the offer was too meagre, that more had been offered at Arras than at Oye, was to point out that King Henry was in a far weaker position in 1439 than he had been in 1435. She then enquired with apparent indifference whether the English were still interested in the proposal for a resumption of trade with Burgundy.

The ambassadors to Oye had also been commissioned to meet with Burgundian representatives. King Henry authorised Archbishop Kemp, the bishops of St David and Norwich, Nicholas Bildeston, Sir John Popham, Stephen Wilton, William Sprever and Robert Whitingham the Treasurer of Calais, ‘to conclude a treaty of mercantile intercourse with the Flemings and other subjects of the Duke of Burgundy.” William Sprever, Robert Brampton, Nicholas Hyssham were to treat with representatives from Holland and Zeeland ‘for redress of injures’ (1).

Three representatives from the Duke of Burgundy arrived on 19 September for a meeting in the Great Hall at Calais. Archbishop Kemp asked to see their credentials but, as usual, the Duke of Burgundy had issued only verbal instructions; they promised to obtain them in writing if it proved necessary. On orders from Archbishop Kemp, Thomas Beckington and Stephen Wilton produced a copy of a commercial treaty between England and France from Henry IV’s reign. They had made certain alterations to it for the present purpose.

The Cardinal entertained the ambassadors to dinner on 20 September, but the festivities were marred by the news from Meaux that William Chamberlain had surrendered the town to Arthur de Richemont. An indignant Beckington ascribed the disgrace to treachery and bribery.

It was probably in this context that the ambassadors discussed the value of John of Luxembourg to the English military effort. They debated what sum should now be offered to him for his fealty and ‘to render him more disposed to side with the king’ (2).

Treaty

A treaty was signed on 28 September 1439, to last for three years from 1 November (3, 4). It comprised England, Ireland and Calais, on the one hand and Flanders, Brabant and Malines on the other, covering trade, fishing, and maritime rights. The sea lanes would be open to all, and Burgundian merchants were to be allowed to come to and stay in England. Customs duties would not be levied on cargoes of ships forced into any port by a storm or by a threat from enemy ships (5). The Flemish merchants were duly grateful. They awarded Beaufort, 12, 000 saluts, the equivalent of 2,000 English marks (6).

The terms of the treaty were public proclaimed throughout England in October (7). Negotiations continued productively for the rest of the year. In December John Stokes, William Cotesboke, Batholomew Stratton, and Nicholas Hyssham were instructed to meet with envoys from Holland and Zeeland (8) ‘for the redress of injuries.’

William Lyndwood, keeper of the Privy Seal, John Stopyndon, keeper of the rolls of Chancery, Thomas Beckington and Stephen Wilton were commissioned to negotiate an extension of the treaty for a further five years (9, 10). 

“and peace was made between us and Flanders for three years.” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

“Also in that yere whas cryed pees bewixt Englond, and Selond, holond, and ffreslond  perpetuell.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 147. Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 127

The resumption of trade between England and the Burgundian Netherlands was the only positive outcome of the conference at Oye, which may have been the cardinal’s intention all along. Revenue from the customs on wool were important to repay Beaufort’s loans to the crown. Oye grew out of the original intention of a treaty to end the ban on trade with Flanders.

See Year 1436: Trade Ban.

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 730-731 and 733 (negotiators).

(2) PPC V, pp.  xxviii-xxx (Beckington’s Journal).

(3) R. Vaughan, Philip, p. 108 (treaty).

(4) Harriss, Beaufort,  p. 304 (treaty).

(5) Thielemans, pp. Bourgogne et Angleterre,  pp. 443-454 (Copy of the treaty in French).

(6) Thielemans, p.  138 n. 161 (payment to Beaufort).

(7) Foedera X, pp. 736-37 (treaty publicly proclaimed)

(8) Foedera X, pp. 739-40 (negotiations with Holland & Zeeland)

(9) CPR 1436-1441, dated 24 December 1439, p. 364 (treaty to be extended).

(10) Foedera X, p. 750 (treaty extended).

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

Bibliography 1439

Primary Sources

Allmand, C.T. (ed) ‘Documents relating to the Anglo-French negotiations of 1439,’ Camden Miscellany Vol XXIV, Royal Historical Society (1972)

Annales Rerum Anglicarum in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry the Sixth, J. Stevenson, (ed.) 2 vols in 3, Rolls Series, 1864

Robert Bale’s Chronicle in R. Flenley (ed) Six Town Chronicles of England  (1911)

Bekyngton, T., Official correspondence of Thomas Bekyngton / 2 vols ed. G. Williams, (Rolls Series, 1872)           

John Benet’s Chronicle for the Years 1400-1460, eds., G.L. & M.A. Harriss, Camden Miscellany XXIV, (Camden Soc., 4th ser. IX, 1972), p. 185.

Brief Notes in English Historical literature in the 15th century, ed. Kingsford, C.L., (1913)

The Brut, or the Chronicles of England, F.W.D. Brie, ed,. Part II (1908)

Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland vol. IV ed. J. Bain (1888)

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1436-1441

A Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483, ed. N.H. Nicolas and E. Tyrell, (1827)

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

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

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

Gregory’s Chronicle in The Historical Collections of a London Citizen ed. J. Gairdner        

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

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, 2 vols in 3 (1861-1864)

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

PPC. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, 6 vols. ed. N.H. Nicolas, (1834-37)

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

Stow, J., A Survey of London, 2 vols.  ed. C.L. Kingsford, (Oxford, 1908)

Waltham Annals, English Historical literature in the 15th century, ed, C.L. Kingsford, (Oxford, 1913)

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

 

Secondary Sources

Allmand, C.T., ‘Anglo French Negotiations 1439,” BIHR XL (May, 1967), pp. 1-33.

Barker, J., Conquest (2009)

Bellamy, J.G., Crime and public order in England in the later Middle Ages (1973)

Britnell, R.H., ‘The economic context,’, in A.J. Pollard (ed.) The Wars of the Roses (1995)

Complete peerage of England – l2 vols., (ed) G.E. Cokayne, (1910-1959)

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

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

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

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

Schofield, A.N.E.D., ‘England, the Pope and the Council of Basel, 1435-1449,’ Church History, vol 33, no.3 (1964),

Sumption, J., The Hundred Years War V, Triumph and Illusion (2023)

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

Thomson, J.A.F., The Transformation of Medieval England, 1370-1529 (1983)

Vale, M.G.A., English Gascony, 1399-1453, (1970),

Vaughan, R., Philip the Good (1970)

Vickers, K.H., Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (1909)  

Theses

Dicks, S.E., ‘The Question of Peace, Anglo-French Diplomacy 1439-1449,’ University of Oklahoma PhD thesis (1966)

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

 

Online

www.historyofparliamentonline.org

gasconrolls.org