Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-30 10:34:36
Today's life of the day. Apologies for cross-posting.
The picture is stained glass - any idea where it comes from? (It is
only visible for a week if you/your local library doesn't have a
subscription to the Dictionary of National Biography.)
Best wishes
Christine
----- Forwarded message from oxforddnb-lotd@... -----
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:00:00 +0100
From: oxforddnb-lotd@...
Reply-To: epm-oxforddnb@...
Subject: Paper crown
To: ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L@...
========================================================================
To read this Life of the Day complete with a picture of the subject,
visit http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2013-07-30
Richard of York, third duke of York (1411-1460), magnate and claimant
to the English throne, was the only son of Richard of Conisbrough,
fourth earl of Cambridge (1385-1415), and Anne Mortimer (b. after
1388, d. before 1414), daughter of Roger (VII) Mortimer, fourth earl
of March. He was descended from Edward III through both parents, his
father being the son of that king's fourth son, Edmund of Langley,
first duke of York, and his mother the great-granddaughter of Edward's
second son, Lionel of Antwerp, duke of Clarence. It was this
distinguished ancestry that provided the basis for his explosive
participation in the troubled politics of the 1450s. In October 1460,
after a decade of agitation and intervention, he attempted to seize
the throne on the grounds that his descent from Clarence made him
rightful king in place of Henry VI, who, like the other Lancastrian
kings, was descended from Edward III's third son, John of Gaunt, duke
of Lancaster. The attempt failed, and York died a few months later at
the battle of Wakefield, but the claim, of course, lived on to provide
the basis for Edward IV's succession in March 1461.
Youth and inheritance
Richard of York was born on 22 September 1411, to parents who had
married in secret and were soon to be dead. His mother was gone within
a year or two; his father, who married again in 1414, was executed the
following year when details of his plot to depose Henry V came to
light. Cambridge's plan to raise the north and (apparently) to put
Edmund (V) Mortimer, earl of March, on the throne must have thrown his
son's dynastic position into sharp relief: the young Richard's mother
had been the elder of March's sisters, which made the boy himself a
possible heir to the Mortimer-Clarence claim to the throne. On
Cambridge's death he became a royal ward, and it is not altogether
surprising that in March 1416 he was placed in the custody of the
Lancastrians' leading gaoler, Sir Robert Waterton. Three years into
his reign, however, Henry V was busy laying to rest the divisions of
his father's time and Richard of York was destined for rehabilitation.
He was protected from the effects of his father's attainder and, on
the death of his uncle Edward, duke of York, at Agincourt, the boy was
recognized to be his heir. Not long after Henry VI's accession York's
wardship and marriage were sold to Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland.
At 3000 marks the price was a high one, but Neville's investment was
amply repaid when, in January 1425, Edmund, earl of March, died
childless, and York, as his nephew, became heir to the extensive
Mortimer inheritance. At some stage in the 1420s, possibly as early as
1424, the young duke was married off to Cecily Neville (1415-1495),
one of Westmorland's daughters with Joan Beaufort. From the point of
view of the Nevilles, who had married into most of the leading magnate
families of the day, it was a prestigious match that helped to confirm
the family's growing pre-eminence; from the point of view of Henry
VI's government, it was an ideal way to absorb a potentially dangerous
figure by attaching him to some of the dynasty's staunchest supporters.
Over the next few years York was drawn more closely into the circle
around the young king. In 1426 he was knighted, and two years later he
was appointed to take up residence in the royal household. In 1430
York took part in the king's coronation expedition to France. His
retinue was small, but he was handsomely rewarded for his involvement:
over 1000 marks by the summer of 1431. Soon after his return, and
still a minor (though there appears to have been some uncertainty over
this at the time), he was granted livery of his estates on 12 May
1432. At the time both inheritances were encumbered with debts,
dowers, and obligations, while the duchy of York was mainly in the
hands of feoffees. By the summer of 1434, however, a series of
financial settlements and the deaths of the two remaining dowagers had
lifted the worst of these burdens, and the duke was free to enjoy his
extensive patrimony undisturbed. The acquisition of his inheritance
had cost him quite a lot, but he had received fair-even
generous-treatment from the government. York's proximity to the king,
both in blood and in person, and his links with the families of
Neville and Beaufort had stood him in good stead.
Service in France
In 1433 York was admitted to the Order of the Garter-a mark of favour,
a certificate of loyalty, and perhaps a token of martial expectations.
His first taste of military command was to be as successor to John,
duke of Bedford, in the lieutenancy of France, a post for which he
was, in many ways, the obvious candidate: the royal commission, dated
8 May 1436, recited the king's desire to see France ruled by 'some
great prince of our blood' (Johnson, York, 226), and there was no one
else who fitted the bill, apart from Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.
York had agreed to serve in France as early as February 1436, but his
army did not reach Harfleur until 7 June. Had it left England more
promptly, it might have been able to prevent the French reconquest of
Paris and the Ile-de-France, which took place during the spring,
though it is difficult to know where the blame for the expedition's
dilatoriness should lie: York was also to be late leaving for his
second tour of duty in 1441, and the government was sceptical of his
excuses on both occasions, but recruiting an army was no easy feat in
the later stages of the Hundred Years' War, and delays were probably
unavoidable. In the event the French advance was halted by York's
forces. The brilliant campaign of autumn 1436, which ensured the
safety of Rouen, was actually commanded by John, Lord Talbot, but Duke
Richard too seems to have carried out some useful work, regaining most
of the Pays de Caux after the rebellion of 1435, attending to the
grievances of the Normans, and surveying the English garrisons. During
both of York's lieutenancies it seems to have been a policy of his to
delegate the basic management of the war to leading captains: his
retainer Talbot, as marshal, in 1436; his brother-in-law Richard
Neville, earl of Salisbury, as lieutenant-general in 1437; and Talbot
again as 'lieutenant-general for the conduct of the war' (Pollard,
39) during York's second tour of duty from 1441. Although the duke and
his council retained overall control of military policy throughout, it
may be that York saw himself more as a viceroy, responsible for
government as a whole, than as a warrior. This is certainly implicit
in the attention that he gave to matters of domestic governance in
Normandy and the pays de conquete: it was for his good rule of the
duchy and for his genuine attempts to deal with the problems created
by a declining military occupation that York would be remembered in
France. His role in the fighting of the war was undistinguished, and a
number of English chroniclers noted the fact.
Faced with the imminent expiry of his indentures-though not of his
lieutenancy, the term of which was indefinite-York sought permission
to return home in the spring of 1437. His successor was to be the earl
of Warwick, and York was instructed to remain in Normandy until his
arrival, which was delayed until the following November. It is
difficult to know whether the decision to replace York reflects
disappointment with his performance or not: the duke may even have
wished to stand down, possibly because of difficulties in extracting
money from the Norman exchequer for the payment of his troops. In any
event Warwick's service was soon cut short by his death in April 1439,
and Henry VI's government found itself once again faced with the task
of providing for the rule of Lancastrian France. It was apparently as
a compromise candidate that York emerged as the new lieutenant on 2
July 1440: Gloucester appears to have sought his own appointment,
while Cardinal Beaufort, the regime's paymaster, probably pressed the
claims of his nephew John Beaufort, earl of Somerset. York, however,
was the most suitable choice for a post which now, more than ever,
demanded a flexible, diplomatic, and authoritative holder: as the
government pursued both peace and war with greater vigour than before,
the duke was sufficiently neutral, consultative, and grand to act
effectively on its behalf; he was also well connected with all
parties, including the military establishment in France.
On this occasion York demanded adequate funding and increased powers
before he would accept the job: he went to France as a second Bedford,
with all the powers that Duke John had enjoyed after 1432 and a
promise of £20,000 a year from the English exchequer to fund his
troops. Apart from these improved terms of service, however, the
patterns of the first lieutenancy were repeated. York left England
late, not arriving in Normandy until the end of June 1441. He then
moved speedily down the Seine to Pontoise where Talbot was struggling
to lift Charles VII's siege, but this was to be his only military
action in the three years before the truce of Tours. It was not a
particularly impressive one: if York had helped to secure Pontoise for
a further few months, he may also have frustrated a daring scheme of
Talbot's that could have resulted in the capture of the French king.
Caution, it seems, got the better of York, and not for the last time
in his career.
Over the next few years the duke busied himself with matters of
governance and diplomacy while the war effort in Normandy ground
slowly to a halt. In part this was because Charles VII had turned his
attention to the south-west, but it is clear that York's reluctance to
engage the French directly caused dissatisfaction in the English
government and it may help to explain why Cardinal Beaufort was able
to engineer a major military command for his nephew John. The earl of
Somerset's expedition, planned from late 1442 and launched in the
summer of 1443, involved a major diversion of men, funds, and
authority away from York and the Norman theatre. Duke Richard
dispatched an embassy to remonstrate with the English government in
June 1443, but it had no effect, and the campaign itself added injury
to insult: Somerset's attack on Brittany and the duke of Alencon's
stronghold of La Guerche disrupted York's attempts, conducted during
1442-3, to involve the English in an alliance of French princes. In
the light of all this it is hardly surprising that, following the
expedition's failure, the government seems to have felt the need to
appease York: tallies for the payments due at Michaelmas 1443 arrived
in February 1444 and, later in that year, the duke was given a major
apanage in southern Normandy, while earldoms (and, in Edmund's case,
lands) were granted to his eldest sons. After this no more of York's
wages were paid until 1446, but at least the truce contracted in May
1444 reduced his expenses and removed the need for further military
activity. In September 1445 York returned to England: his indentures
were about to expire, parliament was in session, and-rather
ironically, given the government's own failures in this regard-his
management of Norman finances was under investigation.
York and English politics before 1450
It now seems clear that Cardinal Beaufort, William de la Pole, earl of
Suffolk, and the other leading councillors and courtiers who, in the
first instance, managed Henry VI's authority in the 1430s and 1440s
intended Richard of York to be a pillar of the Lancastrian regime.
This did not mean that the already wealthy duke was to be showered
with gifts, nor did it mean that he was to be given a formal role in
the government of England. York was not, for example, appointed to the
re-established council in November 1437, but nothing should be
inferred from this: at twenty-six the duke would have been considered
rather youthful for what was in any case a rather anomalous role;
exclusion from the council would scarcely have excluded him from
influence; and it is likely that already the expectation was that his
service to the crown would be overseas, at least while he was of
military age. It is not known what part, if any, York played in the
politics of 1437-41, during which time he was in England and Henry VI,
somewhat uncertainly, came of age. There is no reason to suppose that
he supported the moves of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, against
Cardinal Beaufort in 1439-40, despite Gloucester's suggestion that
York and other lords had been wrongfully kept out of power; nor should
it be assumed that he was opposed to the release of the duke of
Orleans. He seems to have kept a low profile at this time,
participating in a scheme to restore order in Wales in 1437-8, sharing
in the custody of the Beauchamp wardship in 1439, and touring his
estates. When, in early 1441, the 'longe bareynesse' of his marriage
was suddenly ended and a son born, York named him Henry (Bokenham's
Legenden, 273). This demonstration of dynastic loyalty earned a gift
of £100 worth of jewels from the grateful king: the restoration of the
heir of Cambridge and Mortimer must have seemed to be complete.
As lieutenant of France for the second time York became embroiled in
the government's various diplomatic initiatives, including the moves
associated with the truce of Tours. It has often been assumed that
Duke Richard was hostile to the peace negotiations of the 1440s, but
there is absolutely no evidence for this. While the confusions of
policy in the early years of the decade must have been exasperating
for anyone charged with responsibility for the defence of Lancastrian
France, there is nothing to suggest that York preferred war to
diplomacy as a means of preserving English interests. As the plan to
seek a truce with Charles VII and a marriage alliance with the house
of Anjou emerged as the central plank of royal policy in 1444, York
seems to have given it his full support. In the new spirit of
Anglo-French amity, for example, he sent forces to assist the
dauphin's campaign in Alsace in the summer of 1444. The following
year, and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he
opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward
of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the
French king's daughters. The duke may even have been sympathetic to
the government's plans to surrender Maine, which proceeded alongside
the truce negotiations and formed an integral part of the alliance
policy. Because of the postures that York struck after 1450 historians
have tended to assume that he was opposed to this notorious scheme,
but that is by no means clear. It is very likely that he knew what was
planned by the end of 1445 (if not earlier, since he met Suffolk's
embassy as it travelled through Normandy in 1444) and he was certainly
involved in the arrangements for compensating Maine's English
landholders in 1447. Interestingly York was never explicitly to
condemn the handover of the territory, although its loss was certainly
a prominent feature of popular and parliamentary criticism of William
de la Pole, by then duke of Suffolk, Edmund Beaufort, duke of
Somerset, and the other so-called 'traitors' of 1450.
It is from the period following his return to England in 1445 that
York's alienation from Henry VI's ministers is often supposed to have
dated. The duke found himself accused of mishandling the funds he had
been paid for the defence of Normandy, and his chief accuser, it
appeared, was a central figure in the government, Adam Moleyns, bishop
of Chichester. York had returned to England confident of reappointment
to the French lieutenancy, but he was obliged to wait for more than a
year and then to see the office go to Edmund Beaufort instead. It used
to be thought that because of his alleged hostility to the peace
policy, and his putatively close links to the duke of Gloucester (who
died mysteriously in 1447), Duke Richard was persona non grata with
Suffolk's regime: his appointment to the lieutenancy of Ireland on 30
July 1447 has sometimes been seen as a form of exile, the government's
hope being that, like the earls of March, his predecessors, he would
go there and die.
However, events thus far do not support this interpretation. York was
certainly dismayed by the rumours concerning his performance in
Normandy, but he was explicitly vindicated by king and lords both in
and outside the parliament of 1445-6; it is not even known that
Moleyns had made the accusations York claimed, only that the duke saw
in a public attack on the bishop the opportunity to clear his own
name. Similarly, while York was probably disappointed not to regain
the lieutenancy of France, too much should not be made of this: the
lieutenancy of Ireland, which he was granted in return, was a post
that his most distinguished ancestors (notably Clarence himself) had
held; it bestowed upon him almost sovereign powers in the island; and
it gave him the opportunity to combine military service with the
exploitation of his interests as an Irish landlord. Finally, since the
terms of his commission permitted him to appoint a deputy and return
to England, it cannot be seen as a form of banishment. In some ways,
indeed, 1446 and 1447 saw York more closely involved in the governing
regime than he had ever been: in October 1446 he was granted the abbey
and town of Waltham because he 'will come often to London for the
king's business and his own' (CPR, 1446-52, 43); over the next year
he attended a number of council meetings and was named as a witness to
more than three-quarters of the charters issued from 1446 to 1448;
during 1447-9 he was added to the peace commissions of eleven counties
beyond those to which he had been named at his inheritance (and in
some cases beyond the scope of his landholdings); and finally, almost
for the first time, he began to enjoy the kind of rewards more
commonly bestowed on courtiers-most notably, perhaps, the wardship and
marriage of the Holland heir (Henry) and a series of lands and offices
once held by Gloucester. This last detail is a reminder that there was
almost nothing to link York with Duke Humphrey in the latter's
lifetime: in no sense can York be considered his supporter, and it is
not improbable that, like other members of the nobility, he witnessed
Gloucester's destruction at the Bury parliament and, tacitly at least,
assented to it.
When he finally left for Ireland, in June 1449, Duke Richard did so as
a loyal and well-regarded member of the Lancastrian establishment. If
he had been less involved in affairs during the preceding year or so,
this may well have been at his own choice. Many of the nobility seem
to have withdrawn from the court during 1448 as the government's
troubles began to mount. York cannot have wished to be associated with
the humiliating surrender of Le Mans in March 1448 and he may well
have feared the consequences of the extraordinary coup at Fougeres. A
tour of duty in Ireland must have appeared an attractive alternative.
During his fourteen months in the province York scored a series of
easy (if short-lived) victories, receiving the submission of most of
the island's leaders and campaigning effectively in Wicklow. At the
Drogheda parliament of April 1450 he followed the lead of the Commons
at Westminster by introducing an Act of Resumption. Like the
lieutenant of France he was short of money, and this limited his
achievements, but the contrast between this vigorous performance and
the demoralizing stasis of Somerset's rule in France must have
impressed itself upon contemporaries.
Estates and connections
By the mid-1430s, when he had gained full control over his estates,
York was the richest and most extensive landowner among the king's
subjects. Estimates of his wealth have varied between £2874 and £5800
net, but the most recent and reliable estimate suggests that his
estates in England and Wales were worth about £4000 a year (net) when
he came into them, and that his exchequer annuities yielded an average
of £600 a year. York's lands were scattered through England and the
march of Wales, with notable concentrations in the West Riding of
Yorkshire; in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire; in Dorset and
Somerset; in Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the middle march of Wales;
and in the centre of East Anglia along the border of Norfolk and
Suffolk. Beyond this he held the earldom of Ulster and the lordships
of Connacht and Trim, although only the last of these Irish estates is
likely to have yielded York any real influence or income.
The possession of such vast holdings shaped York's activities as a
lord: like John of Gaunt before him he was a truly national figure,
with interests so widespread and diverse that it was difficult for him
to exert the kind of local authority typical of later medieval
magnates. He had no real 'country'-no county-sized area of
concentrated influence where local gentlemen might turn first of all
to him for lordship-and this helped to determine both the nature of
his affinity and the role that he and it were to play in the politics
of the realm. York's following, like Gaunt's or indeed the king's, was
a disparate group of often important men, many of whom had their own
local allegiances and whose links with York were forged mainly through
military service and the tenure of estate or household office. In
part, of course, this pattern was a consequence of the duke's long
minority and his prolonged service in France: many of the servants of
the duchy of York had melted away in the 1420s into Gloucester's
service, for example; while Duke Richard's appointment as Bedford's
successor in Normandy presented him with a ready-made following
looking for a lord. A spry comment from an anti-Yorkist chronicler has
promoted the suggestion that York was unduly influenced by the men who
gathered round him in Normandy-in particular, by Sir William Oldhall,
who was one of York's most reliable agents during the 1450s-but there
is little to support this notion, particularly when the duke's
involvement in the peace policy of the mid-1440s is taken into
account. On the contrary, it seems likely that York's high status, his
extensive interests, and his relative disengagement from the affairs
of any particular locality beyond his estates meant that he was
exposed to a wide array of different voices. If anyone besides the
king and his ministers was likely to hear the counsel of the realm, it
was surely York, who numbered lords such as Talbot, Ralph Cromwell,
and Thomas Scales among his councillors, but also enjoyed links with
exchequer clerks, lawyers, the widows of Norman soldiers, and local
worthies from all parts of the country. The maintenance of this kind
of connection may have cost York dear-as much as £1300 a year,
according to one recent estimate-but it seems that his money was well
spent. Despite his inability to offer really consistent local support,
he was apparently able to co-ordinate the raising of large retinues
throughout the 1450s. If some of his servants kept away from the
duke's more controversial ventures, a sizeable and prestigious core
remained loyal to the end.
The making of York's rebellion
The last and best-known period in York's political life began in
September 1450, when he suddenly returned from Ireland and took up the
common cry for the traitors surrounding the king to be brought to
justice. This was a significant change of political direction for the
duke, and one that shaped the remainder of his career, but the reasons
for it are not immediately obvious. Modern historians have mostly
rejected the traditional interpretation, which laid stress on York's
dynastic interests and saw his participation in the popular ferments
of the 1450s as a device for seizing the crown. Instead, the search
has been for the causes of personal grievance on Duke Richard's part:
was he moved to anger, or even desperation, by the government's
enormous debts to him? Was he incensed by the new pre-eminence of
Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, the man who had so recently lost
France? Did he fear for his own position, as an old rival took control
of Henry VI's government? Alternatively, was York simply an
opportunist, moving (typically late) to exploit the regime's
difficulties, but without any fixed idea of where his dissidence might
take him?
One difficulty in reaching any conclusions lies in trying to establish
which elements of York's programme, as this slowly unfolded, were
intentional, and intended from the start. It is certainly unlikely
that the duke was seeking to gain the throne in 1450: previous
legitimists had soon revealed their desire to improve the realm by
changing the king, but York was not to assert his Mortimer-Clarence
claim until 1460, after ten years of activism explicitly devoted to
other ends. Even in that year, moreover, his move was greeted with
hostility, and it seems reasonable to suggest that the duke would have
known all along that this was a likely reaction and would have trimmed
his policy accordingly. It is possible that, in 1450, York was
concerned to secure recognition as heir presumptive to Henry VI: the
king was still without a child and there was a (somewhat faint)
possibility of dynastic competition from the house of Beaufort. Like
most noblemen York took an active interest in the claims and titles he
possessed-in 1445 he had sought information on his interest in the
throne of Castile and in 1451 an agent of his was to argue in
parliament that the duke should be named as heir apparent-but, at
best, this can provide only a partial explanation for his actions in
1450.
As far as personal grievances are concerned, meanwhile, it is
difficult to see what grounds York had for complaint. That the duke
was part of the establishment in the 1440s has already been
illustrated. Financially he had fared no worse than any of Henry VI's
other major accountants: indeed, somewhat remarkably, given the state
of royal finances, he received £1200 from the crown at the end of
1449, and even in May 1450 efforts were being made to find him money.
He may have decided to return to England to seek funds-a letter to
Salisbury, written in June 1450, suggests that he feared serious
losses in Ireland unless he received further payments-but this is
rather a different matter from acting on a sense of grievance, and if
seeking money was York's initial aim, it was soon overwhelmed by other
purposes.
What, finally, of York's famous antagonism towards Somerset: was this
the motivation for his assault on the king's ministers? The problem
here is one of disentangling the personal feud between the two men
from the relative positions in which a wider politics had placed them:
did York attack the government because it contained Somerset, or did
he attack Somerset because he was the leader of the government? It is
certainly possible to find grounds for animosity between the two men:
Beaufort's performance in the last years of the war was
undistinguished to say the least, and York may have thought that he
himself could have achieved more; it has recently been suggested,
moreover, that the lieutenant's casual surrender of Rouen would
particularly have rankled with Duke Richard, since he had continued to
be its captain. At the same time, however, it is clear that once York
had made his inflammatory moves of September 1450 (and possibly even
before then), he and Somerset were destined to be at odds: Duke
Richard's political standing came quickly to depend on the argument
that the government was run by traitors, and a large part of his
justification for taking up arms in 1450, 1452, and 1455 was that the
enmity of leading ministers obliged him to take action to defend
himself; Duke Edmund, on the other hand, was not unjustified in
regarding much of York's behaviour as threatening, both to himself and
to the order of the realm; if he sought, in 1450, in 1452-3, and in
1455, to deal with the problem by repression instead of indulgence, it
was an understandable approach. Politics, as much as personality and
private interest, determined the conflict between York and Somerset.
Pursuing this further, it may be suggested that it was in the
extraordinary politics of 1450 that the most likely reasons for York's
sudden attack on the government are to be found. As Normandy fell to
the French and the king's bankruptcy was exposed in parliament, the
authority of Henry VI's ministers disintegrated. MPs and more lowly
members of society appeared to be united in the belief that the king
had been betrayed by a self-serving clique who had pillaged his
possessions in England and surrendered those in France. If Suffolk's
trial and murder had removed the leader of the gang, the rest remained
in positions of power, and until the king and the 'true lords' took
action against them, there could be no justice or order in the realm.
This judgement on the recent past dominated public life in England
between 1449 and 1451, and it continued to exert a certain influence
over the public imagination thereafter. York, like other members of
the nobility, must have known that in certain ways it was wide of the
mark, but this did not mean that it could be ignored. In particular,
in fact, it could not be ignored by York, who had already been
identified by some of the government's critics as the figure most
likely to visit retribution upon the 'traitors'. This appears to be
the explanation for the rough reception that York and his men received
at their landing in north Wales in September: local agents of the
royal household, and possibly their commanders at the centre, had
become alarmed about the duke's intentions. It was at this point,
perhaps, and not in 1447, that 'by treating [the duke] as an enemy the
court had made him one' (McFarlane, 405): if both the king's
ministers and his subjects were going to cast York as the agent of
justice, he might as well fulfil their expectations. Certainly, the
moment must have seemed ripe for someone to take drastic action: the
king's officers could not govern without public confidence, and it may
have appeared that the removal of some of the discredited men-not
least, perhaps, the duke of Somerset-was the best way to restore it.
Beyond all this, it might be added that, even if the government had
not moved against him in 1450, everything in York's make-up would have
given him the sense that he was the man to restore the situation. He
was the greatest prince of the royal blood, head and shoulders above
other lords, the natural successor to Bedford and Gloucester in the
protection of Henry VI's interests. He had already acted as the king's
viceroy in France and Ireland; why not in England too? What, if
anything, York knew of the deeds of men like Gaunt and Woodstock (or
those of Montfort and Lancaster), whose status was much the same as
his and whose actions were to prefigure his own, is not known; but one
model of proper noble service had been made available to him when,
probably in 1445, York was presented with an elegantly decorated
translation of Claudian's life of the consul Stilicho. It was an
account of how the people of Rome and other nations implored this
virtuous prince to accept the office of consul and restore good
government to a city torn apart by the evil advisers of a child
emperor. Its translator had invited York to 'marke stilicoes life'
('Mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung', 256): in 1450 the moment had
arrived when he might put this teaching to good use.
York and the politics of the 1450s
It was with a volley of bills and open letters addressed to the king
that York returned to English political life in September 1450. The
first of these sought to establish the duke's loyalty; the second
advertised his intention to seek justice against his accusers; but it
was the third that was truly controversial-it drew the king's
attention to the universal complaint that justice was not being done
to those who broke the king's law with impunity (in particular, the
so-called 'traitors'), and offered York's services in bringing the
guilty to book. This was an open defiance of the government's
authority, since the essence of the 'traitors' idea was that it was
the men about the king who were most of all responsible for the
disasters that had befallen the realm. As far as York was concerned,
this meant that a true subject was obliged to act against the inner
circle of authority in order to fulfil the terms of his allegiance to
king and realm, and this explains the duke's many affirmations of
loyalty to King Henry: it was the essential justification for actions
that, on the face of it, appeared disloyal. Under normal
circumstances, of course, attempts to separate a king's chosen
counsellors and servants from the ruler himself were unlikely to
succeed: defiance of royal agents easily shaded into defiance of the
king, and that was treason. As York and all the rest of the nobility
knew, however, these circumstances were not normal: Henry VI had shown
no more discernment than a child in the government of his realm; his
ministers were virtually self-appointed, and the policies pursued
during the 1420s, 1430s, and 1440s were essentially theirs. If this
makes nonsense of one aspect of the 'traitors' thesis, it exposes the
truth of another aspect: the government was not in any real sense the
vehicle of the king's will, and thus defiance of it was not treason;
the regime could legitimately be reshaped, and, with large sections of
the public arguing that it should be, York's actions had a certain
justice in them. In reality he was appealing not to the king with
these manifestos, but to the Lords and to the wider public: his plea
was that those who were less compromised by the disasters of 1449-50
must abandon those who were more immediately responsible; a new
government, in which the duke was to play a more prominent role, must
be established.
Not surprisingly York's demands fell on deaf ears. The king's circle
saw little reason for a general blood-letting, and the nobility, who
had begun to lend support to the beleaguered regime as the crisis
mounted, appear to have taken a similar view. In a public reply to
York's bills, his offers of assistance were politely rebuffed, and the
duke left London to prepare for the parliament summoned to meet in
November 1450. When it gathered on the 6th, MPs demonstrated their
continuing enthusiasm for reform by electing Oldhall, York's
chamberlain, as speaker and loudly calling for the traitors to be
brought to justice. When the duke himself arrived, with sword borne
upright before him and a large army at his back, the initiative was
his: Somerset was promptly imprisoned and the Lords waited to see what
would happen next. What followed was in part a demonstration of Duke
Richard's hesitancy and conservatism, and in part a reflection of the
constraints of his position. Elements of the Commons' programme were
put into effect, but the duke made no attempt to alter the
institutional framework of Henry's government, and the result was
that, during the Christmas recess, authority drifted back to the king
and his household, Somerset was released, and the Lords, many of whom
had flirted with York while he was in the ascendant, resumed their
former obedience. During the sessions of the parliament in 1451 York's
power waned, and Thomas Younge's notorious attempt to have him
recognized as heir apparent must have seemed to many an act of
desperation. Why had York not done more to secure himself during his
brief ascendancy? It is not, of course, clear what he wanted: if only
the restoration of order, then this was being achieved without his
help; if a role for himself in the government, then his actions had
made this unthinkable unless the king himself were to be altogether
displaced-the men of Henry's household, who effectively disposed of
royal power, were hardly going to welcome a man who had posed as their
nemesis. What York had done, in effect, was to go too far without
going far enough. Perhaps he should have cut his losses and risked a
direct assault on the throne; but such a move was almost certain to
fail. The duke had cast himself as the true liegeman of Henry VI: any
deviation from this role was sure to be seen as the grossest kind of
betrayal; York had many potential supporters, but-apart, perhaps, from
his own servants-their support was for his public, not his private,
interests.
It has been worth looking at the events of 1450 in some detail,
because for the next two years Duke Richard's options were very
largely shaped by what had happened in that year. He could not be
secure while Somerset and the household retained both control of the
king and the support of the Lords, yet there was little he could do to
improve his lot. Moves against Oldhall were under way by the end of
1451, and when, in January 1452, York reacted publicly against them
and against their implications for himself, he was thinly supported.
Apart from the duke's own men only the malcontent Thomas Courtenay,
earl of Devon, and his crony Lord Cobham were persuaded to join the
rising that attempted to repeat the coup of 1450: the rest of the
nobility gathered around the king and Somerset, and York was forced to
capitulate at Dartford in early March. His failure left him worse off
than before. He was obliged to swear a humiliating oath of submission,
his supporters and tenants were harried by judicial commissions, and
his attempts to discredit Somerset were treated as part and parcel of
a private quarrel. As the common people were reduced to order and the
government enjoyed the unfamiliar taste of victory in Gascony, it
seemed that York's political career was at an end: never again would
he be able to take his proper place in the Lancastrian establishment.
At this point, however, fate combined with the contradictions of Henry
VI's regime to bestow new opportunities upon Duke Richard. In the
summer of 1453 Somerset's governing consensus suddenly collapsed, as
the victories in Gascony were reversed, the king lost his mind, and
war broke out in the north between the Nevilles and the Percys. In the
resulting crisis York was the only person of sufficient stature to
restore the situation, and it must be this factor, above all, that
explains the decision of a non-partisan group of councillors to summon
him to London in October 1453, and the agreement in parliament to
appoint him protector and defender of the realm on 27 March 1454. Here
was a means for York to wrest control of government from Somerset and
the king's household men without bringing his loyalty to Henry VI into
question; and here was a means for the rest of political society to
contain the powerful duke and to create an effective government
without the kind of sacrifices that had been demanded in 1450. York
certainly did his part: he went to London full of emollient promises
to attend the council and do all 'that sholde or might be to the
welfare of the king and of his subgettes' (CPR, 1452-61, 143); he
made no attacks on Somerset or other sometime 'traitors' (though his
ally, Norfolk, did); and, on taking up the post of protector, he
committed himself to rule consultatively and representatively with the
Lords. During the succeeding months York made serious and well-founded
attempts to pacify the disputes in the north and north midlands, and
he enjoyed some success. Making genuine efforts to consult widely, he
demonstrated the same statesmanlike qualities that had marked his
management of France and Ireland: 'for a whole year', wrote one
chronicler, 'he governed the whole realm of England most nobly and in
the best way' ('Benet's chronicle', 212). There were certainly limits
to his achievement, and his tenure of office was to be brought to an
abrupt halt in February 1455, but the duke's performance may have
prompted many of his peers to look more sympathetically at his claims
in the years to come.
Unfortunately, however, the moulds of politics were changing in these
years, and the broad unity that had so long been preserved among the
nobility was breaking down. The deterioration of order in the
localities, which had become so dramatic and extensive by 1453, was
now combined with the emergence of a more aggressive Lancastrian
dynasticism to promote significant divisions among the elite. These
had begun to emerge even before York's protectorate: one of the
reasons why it had taken so long to arrange the duke's appointment was
that a substantial group of lords had grouped themselves around the
queen, Margaret of Anjou, who-since the birth of her son Edward in
October 1453-was attempting to secure a regency for herself. In the
winter of 1453-4, indeed, civil war looked a distinct possibility. It
was held off by York's readiness to make explicit his submission to
the dynastic claims of the new prince, and by the agreement of all but
the most extreme figures to join a broadly based regime under the
duke's headship. When Henry VI recovered his sanity, however, at
Christmas 1454, those in the household and the north who had opposed
the protectorate seized the opportunity to assert their interests.
York was removed from office on 9 February 1455, and by early March a
more hard-faced government was taking steps against the duke. The fact
that the Neville earls of Warwick and Salisbury also fell under attack
at this time reveals the factional and divisive aims of those in
control: although the government proceeded with the language of
treason and obedience, its narrowing base and its sponsorship of
conflict began to undermine its claims to such public goods; when York
and the Nevilles confronted the king, Somerset, and the Percys at St
Albans on 22 May 1455, there was a broad equivalence between the two
sides, and the first blows of a civil war were struck.
The Yorkist victory, however, brought this war to a rapid halt. Just
as he had done in the early 1450s, the duke submitted to the king and
attempted to rebuild unity. This was to remain his posture and that of
his allies right up to the disasters of 1459. York was certainly
prepared to strain his allegiance to its very limits-securing
appointment to a second protectorate on 15 November 1455 and depriving
the king of personal authority a week later-but he would not cross the
bounds to an outright repudiation of Henry VI's sovereignty. As a
consequence his pre-eminence remained insecure. His protectorate was
soon terminated (on 25 February 1456) when parliamentary pressure for
a resumption weakened his support among the Lords, but the aim of
preserving unity, or oonhede, among the nobility lingered on for some
years and ensured that if York was not to be admitted to any special
power, he was not to be destroyed either. It seems likely that,
provided he behaved himself, most of the peerage had some respect for
the duke. Pressure from Queen Margaret and her growing band of
partisans meant that he was obliged to repeat his submission of 1452
on a number of occasions between 1456 and 1459, but he was confirmed
in possession of the lieutenancy of Ireland, and even seems to have
been able to direct policy for a time in the wake of the 'loveday'
settlement of 1458. Only in 1459 did the bulk of the Lords finally
accept the case for war against the duke, and then the fault-lines of
1453-4 and 1455 were recreated and York received the support of the
Nevilles. Rather as at St Albans, York, Warwick, and Salisbury revived
the case that evil counsellors around the king were destroying the
common weal of the realm and threatening their own security. On this
occasion, however, their propaganda cut no ice: finding most of the
nobility in arms against them at Ludford Bridge (near Ludlow,
Shropshire) and deserted by a part of the army, York and his allies
fled the field during the night of 12-13 October 1459.
Exile, return, and death
The duke and his second son, Edmund, earl of Rutland, spent the next
eleven months in Ireland, attempting to gain the men and money for an
armed return to England, where the duke's estates were in royal hands
as a result of his attainder at the Coventry parliament (about the end
of November 1459). His younger children, including George, were all
placed in the custody of the duchess of Buckingham. An incidental
result of York's efforts was the famous Drogheda parliament of 8
February 1460, in which the Anglo-Irish establishment obtained
recognition as a distinct political community, separate from England,
ruled by its own laws and financed by its own currency. In return for
these concessions York gained resources, protection for his person,
and an extensive army of archers, which he must have intended to take
to England. Plans for a co-ordinated invasion of the mainland were
apparently made during a conference with Warwick at Waterford in the
spring of 1460, and the duke's Neville allies, accompanied by his
eldest son, Edward of March, duly landed in Kent in June professing
loyalty to Henry VI and protesting about the misgovernment of the
realm. With startling success, they won support in London and the
south-east and proceeded to defeat the royal army at Northampton on 10
July, submitting to the king at the battle's end. Over the next few
weeks March and the Nevilles began to secure the realm and to await
York's return, which finally occurred near Chester on or about 9
September 1460.
Much about the next few weeks is obscure: it is not known why it took
York so long to join his allies on the mainland; it is not known when
he began so famously to assert his claim to the throne (13 September
is the first date for which a plausible case can be made); it is not
known whether or not the initiative had been agreed, or even
discussed, with the Nevilles. It seems clear that there was no option
for York but to attempt to make himself king: all other avenues, as
has been shown, led nowhere; the duke could neither secure himself nor
restore political order without taking the drastic step from which he
had so far shrunk; and it may have seemed that by 1460 the polity of
Henry VI was sufficiently dislocated to permit a direct assault on the
king. Unfortunately for the duke, however, his own options were
different from those of his allies, even his sons. These men had
gained support on the old plea of reforming Henry VI's government.
They had recently made their loyalty to the king explicit. As the
managers of a large and diverse alliance, they could not easily
abandon what they had promised, and it seems clear that the message
from the London elite, who played an important role in the frantic
politics of 1459-61, was that a deposition could not be tolerated.
York marched into London, seized the king, and entered parliament on
10 October, announcing that he intended 'to challenge his right' to
the crown (Johnson, York, 214). The Lords' response was unpromising:
they went into conclave at Blackfriars and sent the young earl of
March to persuade his father to accept a negotiated settlement. By 13
October York had been brought to abandon his plans for an immediate
coronation, and a few days later he submitted his claim for discussion
in parliament. An accord emerged on 31 October, and its central
feature was to leave Henry VI on the throne, while settling the
succession on York and his sons. It is possible that even after this
York attempted to get his way by inducing Henry to abdicate. He must
have realized that, like the treaty of Troyes on which it was
apparently based, the accord promised immediate war with the
disinherited heir. In any event, the king was moved to safety and the
duke was obliged to accept the terms agreed in October, at least for
the time being. Acting more or less as protector he marched north in
early December to deal with the forces of the prince of Wales and
Queen Margaret, which had regrouped in Yorkshire after the defeat at
Northampton. Venturing forth from his castle at Sandal on 30 December
1460, in what may have been an uncharacteristic attempt to surprise
his enemy, York was set upon by an unexpectedly large Lancastrian
force. In the ensuing battle of Wakefield, he and his second son,
Edmund of Rutland, were killed. As a macabre riposte to Duke Richard's
recent pretensions, his head was severed from his body and displayed
on the walls of York bearing a paper crown.
So ended the life of this curious figure, who, having played safe in
the prime of his years, abruptly changed tack at the age of
thirty-nine, pursuing ever more ambitious and dangerous policies
until, with victory almost in his grasp, he fell on an ill-chosen
battlefield. Duke Richard was the true founder of the royal house of
York, but despite a career that a recent biographer has described as
'the most successful failure of the middle ages' (Johnson, 'Political
career', abstract), he has inspired little interest and even less
sympathy among historians. Notwithstanding his many claims to be
acting for the 'common weal' of the realm, York has usually been
presented as a somewhat colourless bungler: all along, it seems, he
wanted power, but he could not decide how far to go until the last
minute, whereupon-fatally-he went too far. In 1964 B. Wilkinson set
the tone for most modern accounts of the duke's career with his
judgement that 'it would be folly to make a statesman out of this
fifteenth-century worldling' (Wilkinson, 88). This view seems
unfairly harsh: like many of his peers, his instincts were to make the
best of things in Henry VI's England, a world in which there were no
easy answers. York's opportunities were closely circumscribed and his
intentions in opposing Henry VI's government are far from clear; in
fact there may be a case for seeing him more as the victim of
circumstances than as their creator. His cautiousness, if ultimately
unproductive, was justified by the sheer impropriety of opposition to
the government. On the other hand, the recklessness that he
demonstrated in 1450, 1452, 1455, 1459, and 1460 was also justified:
sometimes by its results; always by the need to do something to
restore the authority that the king, in his feebleness, had frittered
away. In medieval England, however, the restoration of authority could
only be carried out from the throne. York's final and most destructive
venture was thus his best-conceived one, but it is easy to see why it
has won him few plaudits.
John Watts
Sources P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) + T. B.
Pugh, 'Richard Plantagenet (1411-60), duke of York, as the king's
lieutenant in France and Ireland', Aspects of medieval government and
society: essays presented to J. R. Lander, ed. J. G. Rowe (1986),
107-41 + J. Watts, Henry VI and the politics of kingship (1996) + R.
A. Griffiths, The reign of King Henry VI: the exercise of royal
authority, 1422-1461 (1981) + Chancery records + J. T. Rosenthal, 'The
estates and finances of Richard, duke of York, 1411-1460', Studies in
Medieval and Renaissance History, 2 (1965), 117-204 + G. L. Harriss,
Cardinal Beaufort: a study of Lancastrian ascendancy and decline
(1988) + A. J. Pollard, John Talbot and the war in France, 1427-1453,
Royal Historical Society Studies in History, 35 (1983) + C. T.
Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy, 1415-1450 (1983) + M. K. Jones,
'Somerset, York and the Wars of the Roses', EngHR, 104 (1989), 285-307
+ R. A. Griffiths, 'Duke Richard of York's intentions in 1450 and the
origins of the Wars of the Roses', Journal of Medieval History, 1
(1975), 187-209 + M. L. Kekewich and others, eds., The politics of
fifteenth-century England: John Vale's book (1995) + J. L. Watts, 'De
consulatu Stiliconis: texts and politics in the reign of Henry VI',
Journal of Medieval History, 16 (1990), 251-66 + J. M. W. Bean, 'The
financial position of Richard, duke of York', War and government in
the middle ages, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (1984), 182-98 + T.
B. Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton plot of 1415, Southampton RS, 30
(1988) + A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A history of medieval Ireland (1968) +
'John Benet's chronicle for the years 1400 to 1462', ed. G. L. Harriss
and M. A. Harriss, Camden miscellany, XXIV, CS, 4th ser., 9 (1972) +
E. Flugel, 'Eine mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung (1445)', Anglia,
28 (1905), 255-99 + P. A. Johnson, 'The political career of Richard,
duke of York, to 1456', DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1981 + B. Wilkinson,
Constitutional history of England in the fifteenth century (1399-1485)
(1964) + Osbern Bokenam's Legenden, ed. C. Horstmann (Heilbronn, 1883)
+ 'William Gregory's chronicle of London', The historical collections
of a citizen of London in the fifteenth century, ed. J. Gairdner, CS,
new ser., 17 (1876) + K. Dockray, 'The battle of Wakefield and the
Wars of the Roses', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3), 238-58 + R. Knowles,
'The battle of Wakefield: the topography', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3),
259-65 + C. Ross, Edward IV (1974) + Itineraries [of] William
Worcestre, ed. J. H. Harvey, OMT (1969) + K. B. McFarlane, 'The
Lancastrian kings', Cambridge Medieval History, 8, ed. C. W.
Previte-Orton and Z. N. Brooke (1936), 363-417 + CPR, 1446-61 + CEPR
letters, 8.132
Archives BL, letters relating to a truce between England and Burgundy,
Add. Ch. 75479
Likenesses painted glass window, Cirencester; repro. in S. Lysons, A
collection of Gloucestershire antiquities (1804) · painted glass
window, Trinity Cam. [see illus.]
Wealth at death under £4600 p.a. net: Johnson, Duke Richard, 7, 21-4
========================================================================
© Oxford University Press, 2004. See legal notice:
http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/legal/
We hope you have enjoyed this Life of The Day, but if you do wish to stop
receiving these messages, please EITHER send a message to
LISTSERV@... with
signoff ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L
in the body (not the subject line) of the message
OR
send an email to epm-oxforddnb@..., asking us to stop sending you
these messages.
----- End forwarded message -----
The picture is stained glass - any idea where it comes from? (It is
only visible for a week if you/your local library doesn't have a
subscription to the Dictionary of National Biography.)
Best wishes
Christine
----- Forwarded message from oxforddnb-lotd@... -----
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:00:00 +0100
From: oxforddnb-lotd@...
Reply-To: epm-oxforddnb@...
Subject: Paper crown
To: ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L@...
========================================================================
To read this Life of the Day complete with a picture of the subject,
visit http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2013-07-30
Richard of York, third duke of York (1411-1460), magnate and claimant
to the English throne, was the only son of Richard of Conisbrough,
fourth earl of Cambridge (1385-1415), and Anne Mortimer (b. after
1388, d. before 1414), daughter of Roger (VII) Mortimer, fourth earl
of March. He was descended from Edward III through both parents, his
father being the son of that king's fourth son, Edmund of Langley,
first duke of York, and his mother the great-granddaughter of Edward's
second son, Lionel of Antwerp, duke of Clarence. It was this
distinguished ancestry that provided the basis for his explosive
participation in the troubled politics of the 1450s. In October 1460,
after a decade of agitation and intervention, he attempted to seize
the throne on the grounds that his descent from Clarence made him
rightful king in place of Henry VI, who, like the other Lancastrian
kings, was descended from Edward III's third son, John of Gaunt, duke
of Lancaster. The attempt failed, and York died a few months later at
the battle of Wakefield, but the claim, of course, lived on to provide
the basis for Edward IV's succession in March 1461.
Youth and inheritance
Richard of York was born on 22 September 1411, to parents who had
married in secret and were soon to be dead. His mother was gone within
a year or two; his father, who married again in 1414, was executed the
following year when details of his plot to depose Henry V came to
light. Cambridge's plan to raise the north and (apparently) to put
Edmund (V) Mortimer, earl of March, on the throne must have thrown his
son's dynastic position into sharp relief: the young Richard's mother
had been the elder of March's sisters, which made the boy himself a
possible heir to the Mortimer-Clarence claim to the throne. On
Cambridge's death he became a royal ward, and it is not altogether
surprising that in March 1416 he was placed in the custody of the
Lancastrians' leading gaoler, Sir Robert Waterton. Three years into
his reign, however, Henry V was busy laying to rest the divisions of
his father's time and Richard of York was destined for rehabilitation.
He was protected from the effects of his father's attainder and, on
the death of his uncle Edward, duke of York, at Agincourt, the boy was
recognized to be his heir. Not long after Henry VI's accession York's
wardship and marriage were sold to Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland.
At 3000 marks the price was a high one, but Neville's investment was
amply repaid when, in January 1425, Edmund, earl of March, died
childless, and York, as his nephew, became heir to the extensive
Mortimer inheritance. At some stage in the 1420s, possibly as early as
1424, the young duke was married off to Cecily Neville (1415-1495),
one of Westmorland's daughters with Joan Beaufort. From the point of
view of the Nevilles, who had married into most of the leading magnate
families of the day, it was a prestigious match that helped to confirm
the family's growing pre-eminence; from the point of view of Henry
VI's government, it was an ideal way to absorb a potentially dangerous
figure by attaching him to some of the dynasty's staunchest supporters.
Over the next few years York was drawn more closely into the circle
around the young king. In 1426 he was knighted, and two years later he
was appointed to take up residence in the royal household. In 1430
York took part in the king's coronation expedition to France. His
retinue was small, but he was handsomely rewarded for his involvement:
over 1000 marks by the summer of 1431. Soon after his return, and
still a minor (though there appears to have been some uncertainty over
this at the time), he was granted livery of his estates on 12 May
1432. At the time both inheritances were encumbered with debts,
dowers, and obligations, while the duchy of York was mainly in the
hands of feoffees. By the summer of 1434, however, a series of
financial settlements and the deaths of the two remaining dowagers had
lifted the worst of these burdens, and the duke was free to enjoy his
extensive patrimony undisturbed. The acquisition of his inheritance
had cost him quite a lot, but he had received fair-even
generous-treatment from the government. York's proximity to the king,
both in blood and in person, and his links with the families of
Neville and Beaufort had stood him in good stead.
Service in France
In 1433 York was admitted to the Order of the Garter-a mark of favour,
a certificate of loyalty, and perhaps a token of martial expectations.
His first taste of military command was to be as successor to John,
duke of Bedford, in the lieutenancy of France, a post for which he
was, in many ways, the obvious candidate: the royal commission, dated
8 May 1436, recited the king's desire to see France ruled by 'some
great prince of our blood' (Johnson, York, 226), and there was no one
else who fitted the bill, apart from Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.
York had agreed to serve in France as early as February 1436, but his
army did not reach Harfleur until 7 June. Had it left England more
promptly, it might have been able to prevent the French reconquest of
Paris and the Ile-de-France, which took place during the spring,
though it is difficult to know where the blame for the expedition's
dilatoriness should lie: York was also to be late leaving for his
second tour of duty in 1441, and the government was sceptical of his
excuses on both occasions, but recruiting an army was no easy feat in
the later stages of the Hundred Years' War, and delays were probably
unavoidable. In the event the French advance was halted by York's
forces. The brilliant campaign of autumn 1436, which ensured the
safety of Rouen, was actually commanded by John, Lord Talbot, but Duke
Richard too seems to have carried out some useful work, regaining most
of the Pays de Caux after the rebellion of 1435, attending to the
grievances of the Normans, and surveying the English garrisons. During
both of York's lieutenancies it seems to have been a policy of his to
delegate the basic management of the war to leading captains: his
retainer Talbot, as marshal, in 1436; his brother-in-law Richard
Neville, earl of Salisbury, as lieutenant-general in 1437; and Talbot
again as 'lieutenant-general for the conduct of the war' (Pollard,
39) during York's second tour of duty from 1441. Although the duke and
his council retained overall control of military policy throughout, it
may be that York saw himself more as a viceroy, responsible for
government as a whole, than as a warrior. This is certainly implicit
in the attention that he gave to matters of domestic governance in
Normandy and the pays de conquete: it was for his good rule of the
duchy and for his genuine attempts to deal with the problems created
by a declining military occupation that York would be remembered in
France. His role in the fighting of the war was undistinguished, and a
number of English chroniclers noted the fact.
Faced with the imminent expiry of his indentures-though not of his
lieutenancy, the term of which was indefinite-York sought permission
to return home in the spring of 1437. His successor was to be the earl
of Warwick, and York was instructed to remain in Normandy until his
arrival, which was delayed until the following November. It is
difficult to know whether the decision to replace York reflects
disappointment with his performance or not: the duke may even have
wished to stand down, possibly because of difficulties in extracting
money from the Norman exchequer for the payment of his troops. In any
event Warwick's service was soon cut short by his death in April 1439,
and Henry VI's government found itself once again faced with the task
of providing for the rule of Lancastrian France. It was apparently as
a compromise candidate that York emerged as the new lieutenant on 2
July 1440: Gloucester appears to have sought his own appointment,
while Cardinal Beaufort, the regime's paymaster, probably pressed the
claims of his nephew John Beaufort, earl of Somerset. York, however,
was the most suitable choice for a post which now, more than ever,
demanded a flexible, diplomatic, and authoritative holder: as the
government pursued both peace and war with greater vigour than before,
the duke was sufficiently neutral, consultative, and grand to act
effectively on its behalf; he was also well connected with all
parties, including the military establishment in France.
On this occasion York demanded adequate funding and increased powers
before he would accept the job: he went to France as a second Bedford,
with all the powers that Duke John had enjoyed after 1432 and a
promise of £20,000 a year from the English exchequer to fund his
troops. Apart from these improved terms of service, however, the
patterns of the first lieutenancy were repeated. York left England
late, not arriving in Normandy until the end of June 1441. He then
moved speedily down the Seine to Pontoise where Talbot was struggling
to lift Charles VII's siege, but this was to be his only military
action in the three years before the truce of Tours. It was not a
particularly impressive one: if York had helped to secure Pontoise for
a further few months, he may also have frustrated a daring scheme of
Talbot's that could have resulted in the capture of the French king.
Caution, it seems, got the better of York, and not for the last time
in his career.
Over the next few years the duke busied himself with matters of
governance and diplomacy while the war effort in Normandy ground
slowly to a halt. In part this was because Charles VII had turned his
attention to the south-west, but it is clear that York's reluctance to
engage the French directly caused dissatisfaction in the English
government and it may help to explain why Cardinal Beaufort was able
to engineer a major military command for his nephew John. The earl of
Somerset's expedition, planned from late 1442 and launched in the
summer of 1443, involved a major diversion of men, funds, and
authority away from York and the Norman theatre. Duke Richard
dispatched an embassy to remonstrate with the English government in
June 1443, but it had no effect, and the campaign itself added injury
to insult: Somerset's attack on Brittany and the duke of Alencon's
stronghold of La Guerche disrupted York's attempts, conducted during
1442-3, to involve the English in an alliance of French princes. In
the light of all this it is hardly surprising that, following the
expedition's failure, the government seems to have felt the need to
appease York: tallies for the payments due at Michaelmas 1443 arrived
in February 1444 and, later in that year, the duke was given a major
apanage in southern Normandy, while earldoms (and, in Edmund's case,
lands) were granted to his eldest sons. After this no more of York's
wages were paid until 1446, but at least the truce contracted in May
1444 reduced his expenses and removed the need for further military
activity. In September 1445 York returned to England: his indentures
were about to expire, parliament was in session, and-rather
ironically, given the government's own failures in this regard-his
management of Norman finances was under investigation.
York and English politics before 1450
It now seems clear that Cardinal Beaufort, William de la Pole, earl of
Suffolk, and the other leading councillors and courtiers who, in the
first instance, managed Henry VI's authority in the 1430s and 1440s
intended Richard of York to be a pillar of the Lancastrian regime.
This did not mean that the already wealthy duke was to be showered
with gifts, nor did it mean that he was to be given a formal role in
the government of England. York was not, for example, appointed to the
re-established council in November 1437, but nothing should be
inferred from this: at twenty-six the duke would have been considered
rather youthful for what was in any case a rather anomalous role;
exclusion from the council would scarcely have excluded him from
influence; and it is likely that already the expectation was that his
service to the crown would be overseas, at least while he was of
military age. It is not known what part, if any, York played in the
politics of 1437-41, during which time he was in England and Henry VI,
somewhat uncertainly, came of age. There is no reason to suppose that
he supported the moves of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, against
Cardinal Beaufort in 1439-40, despite Gloucester's suggestion that
York and other lords had been wrongfully kept out of power; nor should
it be assumed that he was opposed to the release of the duke of
Orleans. He seems to have kept a low profile at this time,
participating in a scheme to restore order in Wales in 1437-8, sharing
in the custody of the Beauchamp wardship in 1439, and touring his
estates. When, in early 1441, the 'longe bareynesse' of his marriage
was suddenly ended and a son born, York named him Henry (Bokenham's
Legenden, 273). This demonstration of dynastic loyalty earned a gift
of £100 worth of jewels from the grateful king: the restoration of the
heir of Cambridge and Mortimer must have seemed to be complete.
As lieutenant of France for the second time York became embroiled in
the government's various diplomatic initiatives, including the moves
associated with the truce of Tours. It has often been assumed that
Duke Richard was hostile to the peace negotiations of the 1440s, but
there is absolutely no evidence for this. While the confusions of
policy in the early years of the decade must have been exasperating
for anyone charged with responsibility for the defence of Lancastrian
France, there is nothing to suggest that York preferred war to
diplomacy as a means of preserving English interests. As the plan to
seek a truce with Charles VII and a marriage alliance with the house
of Anjou emerged as the central plank of royal policy in 1444, York
seems to have given it his full support. In the new spirit of
Anglo-French amity, for example, he sent forces to assist the
dauphin's campaign in Alsace in the summer of 1444. The following
year, and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he
opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward
of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the
French king's daughters. The duke may even have been sympathetic to
the government's plans to surrender Maine, which proceeded alongside
the truce negotiations and formed an integral part of the alliance
policy. Because of the postures that York struck after 1450 historians
have tended to assume that he was opposed to this notorious scheme,
but that is by no means clear. It is very likely that he knew what was
planned by the end of 1445 (if not earlier, since he met Suffolk's
embassy as it travelled through Normandy in 1444) and he was certainly
involved in the arrangements for compensating Maine's English
landholders in 1447. Interestingly York was never explicitly to
condemn the handover of the territory, although its loss was certainly
a prominent feature of popular and parliamentary criticism of William
de la Pole, by then duke of Suffolk, Edmund Beaufort, duke of
Somerset, and the other so-called 'traitors' of 1450.
It is from the period following his return to England in 1445 that
York's alienation from Henry VI's ministers is often supposed to have
dated. The duke found himself accused of mishandling the funds he had
been paid for the defence of Normandy, and his chief accuser, it
appeared, was a central figure in the government, Adam Moleyns, bishop
of Chichester. York had returned to England confident of reappointment
to the French lieutenancy, but he was obliged to wait for more than a
year and then to see the office go to Edmund Beaufort instead. It used
to be thought that because of his alleged hostility to the peace
policy, and his putatively close links to the duke of Gloucester (who
died mysteriously in 1447), Duke Richard was persona non grata with
Suffolk's regime: his appointment to the lieutenancy of Ireland on 30
July 1447 has sometimes been seen as a form of exile, the government's
hope being that, like the earls of March, his predecessors, he would
go there and die.
However, events thus far do not support this interpretation. York was
certainly dismayed by the rumours concerning his performance in
Normandy, but he was explicitly vindicated by king and lords both in
and outside the parliament of 1445-6; it is not even known that
Moleyns had made the accusations York claimed, only that the duke saw
in a public attack on the bishop the opportunity to clear his own
name. Similarly, while York was probably disappointed not to regain
the lieutenancy of France, too much should not be made of this: the
lieutenancy of Ireland, which he was granted in return, was a post
that his most distinguished ancestors (notably Clarence himself) had
held; it bestowed upon him almost sovereign powers in the island; and
it gave him the opportunity to combine military service with the
exploitation of his interests as an Irish landlord. Finally, since the
terms of his commission permitted him to appoint a deputy and return
to England, it cannot be seen as a form of banishment. In some ways,
indeed, 1446 and 1447 saw York more closely involved in the governing
regime than he had ever been: in October 1446 he was granted the abbey
and town of Waltham because he 'will come often to London for the
king's business and his own' (CPR, 1446-52, 43); over the next year
he attended a number of council meetings and was named as a witness to
more than three-quarters of the charters issued from 1446 to 1448;
during 1447-9 he was added to the peace commissions of eleven counties
beyond those to which he had been named at his inheritance (and in
some cases beyond the scope of his landholdings); and finally, almost
for the first time, he began to enjoy the kind of rewards more
commonly bestowed on courtiers-most notably, perhaps, the wardship and
marriage of the Holland heir (Henry) and a series of lands and offices
once held by Gloucester. This last detail is a reminder that there was
almost nothing to link York with Duke Humphrey in the latter's
lifetime: in no sense can York be considered his supporter, and it is
not improbable that, like other members of the nobility, he witnessed
Gloucester's destruction at the Bury parliament and, tacitly at least,
assented to it.
When he finally left for Ireland, in June 1449, Duke Richard did so as
a loyal and well-regarded member of the Lancastrian establishment. If
he had been less involved in affairs during the preceding year or so,
this may well have been at his own choice. Many of the nobility seem
to have withdrawn from the court during 1448 as the government's
troubles began to mount. York cannot have wished to be associated with
the humiliating surrender of Le Mans in March 1448 and he may well
have feared the consequences of the extraordinary coup at Fougeres. A
tour of duty in Ireland must have appeared an attractive alternative.
During his fourteen months in the province York scored a series of
easy (if short-lived) victories, receiving the submission of most of
the island's leaders and campaigning effectively in Wicklow. At the
Drogheda parliament of April 1450 he followed the lead of the Commons
at Westminster by introducing an Act of Resumption. Like the
lieutenant of France he was short of money, and this limited his
achievements, but the contrast between this vigorous performance and
the demoralizing stasis of Somerset's rule in France must have
impressed itself upon contemporaries.
Estates and connections
By the mid-1430s, when he had gained full control over his estates,
York was the richest and most extensive landowner among the king's
subjects. Estimates of his wealth have varied between £2874 and £5800
net, but the most recent and reliable estimate suggests that his
estates in England and Wales were worth about £4000 a year (net) when
he came into them, and that his exchequer annuities yielded an average
of £600 a year. York's lands were scattered through England and the
march of Wales, with notable concentrations in the West Riding of
Yorkshire; in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire; in Dorset and
Somerset; in Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the middle march of Wales;
and in the centre of East Anglia along the border of Norfolk and
Suffolk. Beyond this he held the earldom of Ulster and the lordships
of Connacht and Trim, although only the last of these Irish estates is
likely to have yielded York any real influence or income.
The possession of such vast holdings shaped York's activities as a
lord: like John of Gaunt before him he was a truly national figure,
with interests so widespread and diverse that it was difficult for him
to exert the kind of local authority typical of later medieval
magnates. He had no real 'country'-no county-sized area of
concentrated influence where local gentlemen might turn first of all
to him for lordship-and this helped to determine both the nature of
his affinity and the role that he and it were to play in the politics
of the realm. York's following, like Gaunt's or indeed the king's, was
a disparate group of often important men, many of whom had their own
local allegiances and whose links with York were forged mainly through
military service and the tenure of estate or household office. In
part, of course, this pattern was a consequence of the duke's long
minority and his prolonged service in France: many of the servants of
the duchy of York had melted away in the 1420s into Gloucester's
service, for example; while Duke Richard's appointment as Bedford's
successor in Normandy presented him with a ready-made following
looking for a lord. A spry comment from an anti-Yorkist chronicler has
promoted the suggestion that York was unduly influenced by the men who
gathered round him in Normandy-in particular, by Sir William Oldhall,
who was one of York's most reliable agents during the 1450s-but there
is little to support this notion, particularly when the duke's
involvement in the peace policy of the mid-1440s is taken into
account. On the contrary, it seems likely that York's high status, his
extensive interests, and his relative disengagement from the affairs
of any particular locality beyond his estates meant that he was
exposed to a wide array of different voices. If anyone besides the
king and his ministers was likely to hear the counsel of the realm, it
was surely York, who numbered lords such as Talbot, Ralph Cromwell,
and Thomas Scales among his councillors, but also enjoyed links with
exchequer clerks, lawyers, the widows of Norman soldiers, and local
worthies from all parts of the country. The maintenance of this kind
of connection may have cost York dear-as much as £1300 a year,
according to one recent estimate-but it seems that his money was well
spent. Despite his inability to offer really consistent local support,
he was apparently able to co-ordinate the raising of large retinues
throughout the 1450s. If some of his servants kept away from the
duke's more controversial ventures, a sizeable and prestigious core
remained loyal to the end.
The making of York's rebellion
The last and best-known period in York's political life began in
September 1450, when he suddenly returned from Ireland and took up the
common cry for the traitors surrounding the king to be brought to
justice. This was a significant change of political direction for the
duke, and one that shaped the remainder of his career, but the reasons
for it are not immediately obvious. Modern historians have mostly
rejected the traditional interpretation, which laid stress on York's
dynastic interests and saw his participation in the popular ferments
of the 1450s as a device for seizing the crown. Instead, the search
has been for the causes of personal grievance on Duke Richard's part:
was he moved to anger, or even desperation, by the government's
enormous debts to him? Was he incensed by the new pre-eminence of
Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, the man who had so recently lost
France? Did he fear for his own position, as an old rival took control
of Henry VI's government? Alternatively, was York simply an
opportunist, moving (typically late) to exploit the regime's
difficulties, but without any fixed idea of where his dissidence might
take him?
One difficulty in reaching any conclusions lies in trying to establish
which elements of York's programme, as this slowly unfolded, were
intentional, and intended from the start. It is certainly unlikely
that the duke was seeking to gain the throne in 1450: previous
legitimists had soon revealed their desire to improve the realm by
changing the king, but York was not to assert his Mortimer-Clarence
claim until 1460, after ten years of activism explicitly devoted to
other ends. Even in that year, moreover, his move was greeted with
hostility, and it seems reasonable to suggest that the duke would have
known all along that this was a likely reaction and would have trimmed
his policy accordingly. It is possible that, in 1450, York was
concerned to secure recognition as heir presumptive to Henry VI: the
king was still without a child and there was a (somewhat faint)
possibility of dynastic competition from the house of Beaufort. Like
most noblemen York took an active interest in the claims and titles he
possessed-in 1445 he had sought information on his interest in the
throne of Castile and in 1451 an agent of his was to argue in
parliament that the duke should be named as heir apparent-but, at
best, this can provide only a partial explanation for his actions in
1450.
As far as personal grievances are concerned, meanwhile, it is
difficult to see what grounds York had for complaint. That the duke
was part of the establishment in the 1440s has already been
illustrated. Financially he had fared no worse than any of Henry VI's
other major accountants: indeed, somewhat remarkably, given the state
of royal finances, he received £1200 from the crown at the end of
1449, and even in May 1450 efforts were being made to find him money.
He may have decided to return to England to seek funds-a letter to
Salisbury, written in June 1450, suggests that he feared serious
losses in Ireland unless he received further payments-but this is
rather a different matter from acting on a sense of grievance, and if
seeking money was York's initial aim, it was soon overwhelmed by other
purposes.
What, finally, of York's famous antagonism towards Somerset: was this
the motivation for his assault on the king's ministers? The problem
here is one of disentangling the personal feud between the two men
from the relative positions in which a wider politics had placed them:
did York attack the government because it contained Somerset, or did
he attack Somerset because he was the leader of the government? It is
certainly possible to find grounds for animosity between the two men:
Beaufort's performance in the last years of the war was
undistinguished to say the least, and York may have thought that he
himself could have achieved more; it has recently been suggested,
moreover, that the lieutenant's casual surrender of Rouen would
particularly have rankled with Duke Richard, since he had continued to
be its captain. At the same time, however, it is clear that once York
had made his inflammatory moves of September 1450 (and possibly even
before then), he and Somerset were destined to be at odds: Duke
Richard's political standing came quickly to depend on the argument
that the government was run by traitors, and a large part of his
justification for taking up arms in 1450, 1452, and 1455 was that the
enmity of leading ministers obliged him to take action to defend
himself; Duke Edmund, on the other hand, was not unjustified in
regarding much of York's behaviour as threatening, both to himself and
to the order of the realm; if he sought, in 1450, in 1452-3, and in
1455, to deal with the problem by repression instead of indulgence, it
was an understandable approach. Politics, as much as personality and
private interest, determined the conflict between York and Somerset.
Pursuing this further, it may be suggested that it was in the
extraordinary politics of 1450 that the most likely reasons for York's
sudden attack on the government are to be found. As Normandy fell to
the French and the king's bankruptcy was exposed in parliament, the
authority of Henry VI's ministers disintegrated. MPs and more lowly
members of society appeared to be united in the belief that the king
had been betrayed by a self-serving clique who had pillaged his
possessions in England and surrendered those in France. If Suffolk's
trial and murder had removed the leader of the gang, the rest remained
in positions of power, and until the king and the 'true lords' took
action against them, there could be no justice or order in the realm.
This judgement on the recent past dominated public life in England
between 1449 and 1451, and it continued to exert a certain influence
over the public imagination thereafter. York, like other members of
the nobility, must have known that in certain ways it was wide of the
mark, but this did not mean that it could be ignored. In particular,
in fact, it could not be ignored by York, who had already been
identified by some of the government's critics as the figure most
likely to visit retribution upon the 'traitors'. This appears to be
the explanation for the rough reception that York and his men received
at their landing in north Wales in September: local agents of the
royal household, and possibly their commanders at the centre, had
become alarmed about the duke's intentions. It was at this point,
perhaps, and not in 1447, that 'by treating [the duke] as an enemy the
court had made him one' (McFarlane, 405): if both the king's
ministers and his subjects were going to cast York as the agent of
justice, he might as well fulfil their expectations. Certainly, the
moment must have seemed ripe for someone to take drastic action: the
king's officers could not govern without public confidence, and it may
have appeared that the removal of some of the discredited men-not
least, perhaps, the duke of Somerset-was the best way to restore it.
Beyond all this, it might be added that, even if the government had
not moved against him in 1450, everything in York's make-up would have
given him the sense that he was the man to restore the situation. He
was the greatest prince of the royal blood, head and shoulders above
other lords, the natural successor to Bedford and Gloucester in the
protection of Henry VI's interests. He had already acted as the king's
viceroy in France and Ireland; why not in England too? What, if
anything, York knew of the deeds of men like Gaunt and Woodstock (or
those of Montfort and Lancaster), whose status was much the same as
his and whose actions were to prefigure his own, is not known; but one
model of proper noble service had been made available to him when,
probably in 1445, York was presented with an elegantly decorated
translation of Claudian's life of the consul Stilicho. It was an
account of how the people of Rome and other nations implored this
virtuous prince to accept the office of consul and restore good
government to a city torn apart by the evil advisers of a child
emperor. Its translator had invited York to 'marke stilicoes life'
('Mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung', 256): in 1450 the moment had
arrived when he might put this teaching to good use.
York and the politics of the 1450s
It was with a volley of bills and open letters addressed to the king
that York returned to English political life in September 1450. The
first of these sought to establish the duke's loyalty; the second
advertised his intention to seek justice against his accusers; but it
was the third that was truly controversial-it drew the king's
attention to the universal complaint that justice was not being done
to those who broke the king's law with impunity (in particular, the
so-called 'traitors'), and offered York's services in bringing the
guilty to book. This was an open defiance of the government's
authority, since the essence of the 'traitors' idea was that it was
the men about the king who were most of all responsible for the
disasters that had befallen the realm. As far as York was concerned,
this meant that a true subject was obliged to act against the inner
circle of authority in order to fulfil the terms of his allegiance to
king and realm, and this explains the duke's many affirmations of
loyalty to King Henry: it was the essential justification for actions
that, on the face of it, appeared disloyal. Under normal
circumstances, of course, attempts to separate a king's chosen
counsellors and servants from the ruler himself were unlikely to
succeed: defiance of royal agents easily shaded into defiance of the
king, and that was treason. As York and all the rest of the nobility
knew, however, these circumstances were not normal: Henry VI had shown
no more discernment than a child in the government of his realm; his
ministers were virtually self-appointed, and the policies pursued
during the 1420s, 1430s, and 1440s were essentially theirs. If this
makes nonsense of one aspect of the 'traitors' thesis, it exposes the
truth of another aspect: the government was not in any real sense the
vehicle of the king's will, and thus defiance of it was not treason;
the regime could legitimately be reshaped, and, with large sections of
the public arguing that it should be, York's actions had a certain
justice in them. In reality he was appealing not to the king with
these manifestos, but to the Lords and to the wider public: his plea
was that those who were less compromised by the disasters of 1449-50
must abandon those who were more immediately responsible; a new
government, in which the duke was to play a more prominent role, must
be established.
Not surprisingly York's demands fell on deaf ears. The king's circle
saw little reason for a general blood-letting, and the nobility, who
had begun to lend support to the beleaguered regime as the crisis
mounted, appear to have taken a similar view. In a public reply to
York's bills, his offers of assistance were politely rebuffed, and the
duke left London to prepare for the parliament summoned to meet in
November 1450. When it gathered on the 6th, MPs demonstrated their
continuing enthusiasm for reform by electing Oldhall, York's
chamberlain, as speaker and loudly calling for the traitors to be
brought to justice. When the duke himself arrived, with sword borne
upright before him and a large army at his back, the initiative was
his: Somerset was promptly imprisoned and the Lords waited to see what
would happen next. What followed was in part a demonstration of Duke
Richard's hesitancy and conservatism, and in part a reflection of the
constraints of his position. Elements of the Commons' programme were
put into effect, but the duke made no attempt to alter the
institutional framework of Henry's government, and the result was
that, during the Christmas recess, authority drifted back to the king
and his household, Somerset was released, and the Lords, many of whom
had flirted with York while he was in the ascendant, resumed their
former obedience. During the sessions of the parliament in 1451 York's
power waned, and Thomas Younge's notorious attempt to have him
recognized as heir apparent must have seemed to many an act of
desperation. Why had York not done more to secure himself during his
brief ascendancy? It is not, of course, clear what he wanted: if only
the restoration of order, then this was being achieved without his
help; if a role for himself in the government, then his actions had
made this unthinkable unless the king himself were to be altogether
displaced-the men of Henry's household, who effectively disposed of
royal power, were hardly going to welcome a man who had posed as their
nemesis. What York had done, in effect, was to go too far without
going far enough. Perhaps he should have cut his losses and risked a
direct assault on the throne; but such a move was almost certain to
fail. The duke had cast himself as the true liegeman of Henry VI: any
deviation from this role was sure to be seen as the grossest kind of
betrayal; York had many potential supporters, but-apart, perhaps, from
his own servants-their support was for his public, not his private,
interests.
It has been worth looking at the events of 1450 in some detail,
because for the next two years Duke Richard's options were very
largely shaped by what had happened in that year. He could not be
secure while Somerset and the household retained both control of the
king and the support of the Lords, yet there was little he could do to
improve his lot. Moves against Oldhall were under way by the end of
1451, and when, in January 1452, York reacted publicly against them
and against their implications for himself, he was thinly supported.
Apart from the duke's own men only the malcontent Thomas Courtenay,
earl of Devon, and his crony Lord Cobham were persuaded to join the
rising that attempted to repeat the coup of 1450: the rest of the
nobility gathered around the king and Somerset, and York was forced to
capitulate at Dartford in early March. His failure left him worse off
than before. He was obliged to swear a humiliating oath of submission,
his supporters and tenants were harried by judicial commissions, and
his attempts to discredit Somerset were treated as part and parcel of
a private quarrel. As the common people were reduced to order and the
government enjoyed the unfamiliar taste of victory in Gascony, it
seemed that York's political career was at an end: never again would
he be able to take his proper place in the Lancastrian establishment.
At this point, however, fate combined with the contradictions of Henry
VI's regime to bestow new opportunities upon Duke Richard. In the
summer of 1453 Somerset's governing consensus suddenly collapsed, as
the victories in Gascony were reversed, the king lost his mind, and
war broke out in the north between the Nevilles and the Percys. In the
resulting crisis York was the only person of sufficient stature to
restore the situation, and it must be this factor, above all, that
explains the decision of a non-partisan group of councillors to summon
him to London in October 1453, and the agreement in parliament to
appoint him protector and defender of the realm on 27 March 1454. Here
was a means for York to wrest control of government from Somerset and
the king's household men without bringing his loyalty to Henry VI into
question; and here was a means for the rest of political society to
contain the powerful duke and to create an effective government
without the kind of sacrifices that had been demanded in 1450. York
certainly did his part: he went to London full of emollient promises
to attend the council and do all 'that sholde or might be to the
welfare of the king and of his subgettes' (CPR, 1452-61, 143); he
made no attacks on Somerset or other sometime 'traitors' (though his
ally, Norfolk, did); and, on taking up the post of protector, he
committed himself to rule consultatively and representatively with the
Lords. During the succeeding months York made serious and well-founded
attempts to pacify the disputes in the north and north midlands, and
he enjoyed some success. Making genuine efforts to consult widely, he
demonstrated the same statesmanlike qualities that had marked his
management of France and Ireland: 'for a whole year', wrote one
chronicler, 'he governed the whole realm of England most nobly and in
the best way' ('Benet's chronicle', 212). There were certainly limits
to his achievement, and his tenure of office was to be brought to an
abrupt halt in February 1455, but the duke's performance may have
prompted many of his peers to look more sympathetically at his claims
in the years to come.
Unfortunately, however, the moulds of politics were changing in these
years, and the broad unity that had so long been preserved among the
nobility was breaking down. The deterioration of order in the
localities, which had become so dramatic and extensive by 1453, was
now combined with the emergence of a more aggressive Lancastrian
dynasticism to promote significant divisions among the elite. These
had begun to emerge even before York's protectorate: one of the
reasons why it had taken so long to arrange the duke's appointment was
that a substantial group of lords had grouped themselves around the
queen, Margaret of Anjou, who-since the birth of her son Edward in
October 1453-was attempting to secure a regency for herself. In the
winter of 1453-4, indeed, civil war looked a distinct possibility. It
was held off by York's readiness to make explicit his submission to
the dynastic claims of the new prince, and by the agreement of all but
the most extreme figures to join a broadly based regime under the
duke's headship. When Henry VI recovered his sanity, however, at
Christmas 1454, those in the household and the north who had opposed
the protectorate seized the opportunity to assert their interests.
York was removed from office on 9 February 1455, and by early March a
more hard-faced government was taking steps against the duke. The fact
that the Neville earls of Warwick and Salisbury also fell under attack
at this time reveals the factional and divisive aims of those in
control: although the government proceeded with the language of
treason and obedience, its narrowing base and its sponsorship of
conflict began to undermine its claims to such public goods; when York
and the Nevilles confronted the king, Somerset, and the Percys at St
Albans on 22 May 1455, there was a broad equivalence between the two
sides, and the first blows of a civil war were struck.
The Yorkist victory, however, brought this war to a rapid halt. Just
as he had done in the early 1450s, the duke submitted to the king and
attempted to rebuild unity. This was to remain his posture and that of
his allies right up to the disasters of 1459. York was certainly
prepared to strain his allegiance to its very limits-securing
appointment to a second protectorate on 15 November 1455 and depriving
the king of personal authority a week later-but he would not cross the
bounds to an outright repudiation of Henry VI's sovereignty. As a
consequence his pre-eminence remained insecure. His protectorate was
soon terminated (on 25 February 1456) when parliamentary pressure for
a resumption weakened his support among the Lords, but the aim of
preserving unity, or oonhede, among the nobility lingered on for some
years and ensured that if York was not to be admitted to any special
power, he was not to be destroyed either. It seems likely that,
provided he behaved himself, most of the peerage had some respect for
the duke. Pressure from Queen Margaret and her growing band of
partisans meant that he was obliged to repeat his submission of 1452
on a number of occasions between 1456 and 1459, but he was confirmed
in possession of the lieutenancy of Ireland, and even seems to have
been able to direct policy for a time in the wake of the 'loveday'
settlement of 1458. Only in 1459 did the bulk of the Lords finally
accept the case for war against the duke, and then the fault-lines of
1453-4 and 1455 were recreated and York received the support of the
Nevilles. Rather as at St Albans, York, Warwick, and Salisbury revived
the case that evil counsellors around the king were destroying the
common weal of the realm and threatening their own security. On this
occasion, however, their propaganda cut no ice: finding most of the
nobility in arms against them at Ludford Bridge (near Ludlow,
Shropshire) and deserted by a part of the army, York and his allies
fled the field during the night of 12-13 October 1459.
Exile, return, and death
The duke and his second son, Edmund, earl of Rutland, spent the next
eleven months in Ireland, attempting to gain the men and money for an
armed return to England, where the duke's estates were in royal hands
as a result of his attainder at the Coventry parliament (about the end
of November 1459). His younger children, including George, were all
placed in the custody of the duchess of Buckingham. An incidental
result of York's efforts was the famous Drogheda parliament of 8
February 1460, in which the Anglo-Irish establishment obtained
recognition as a distinct political community, separate from England,
ruled by its own laws and financed by its own currency. In return for
these concessions York gained resources, protection for his person,
and an extensive army of archers, which he must have intended to take
to England. Plans for a co-ordinated invasion of the mainland were
apparently made during a conference with Warwick at Waterford in the
spring of 1460, and the duke's Neville allies, accompanied by his
eldest son, Edward of March, duly landed in Kent in June professing
loyalty to Henry VI and protesting about the misgovernment of the
realm. With startling success, they won support in London and the
south-east and proceeded to defeat the royal army at Northampton on 10
July, submitting to the king at the battle's end. Over the next few
weeks March and the Nevilles began to secure the realm and to await
York's return, which finally occurred near Chester on or about 9
September 1460.
Much about the next few weeks is obscure: it is not known why it took
York so long to join his allies on the mainland; it is not known when
he began so famously to assert his claim to the throne (13 September
is the first date for which a plausible case can be made); it is not
known whether or not the initiative had been agreed, or even
discussed, with the Nevilles. It seems clear that there was no option
for York but to attempt to make himself king: all other avenues, as
has been shown, led nowhere; the duke could neither secure himself nor
restore political order without taking the drastic step from which he
had so far shrunk; and it may have seemed that by 1460 the polity of
Henry VI was sufficiently dislocated to permit a direct assault on the
king. Unfortunately for the duke, however, his own options were
different from those of his allies, even his sons. These men had
gained support on the old plea of reforming Henry VI's government.
They had recently made their loyalty to the king explicit. As the
managers of a large and diverse alliance, they could not easily
abandon what they had promised, and it seems clear that the message
from the London elite, who played an important role in the frantic
politics of 1459-61, was that a deposition could not be tolerated.
York marched into London, seized the king, and entered parliament on
10 October, announcing that he intended 'to challenge his right' to
the crown (Johnson, York, 214). The Lords' response was unpromising:
they went into conclave at Blackfriars and sent the young earl of
March to persuade his father to accept a negotiated settlement. By 13
October York had been brought to abandon his plans for an immediate
coronation, and a few days later he submitted his claim for discussion
in parliament. An accord emerged on 31 October, and its central
feature was to leave Henry VI on the throne, while settling the
succession on York and his sons. It is possible that even after this
York attempted to get his way by inducing Henry to abdicate. He must
have realized that, like the treaty of Troyes on which it was
apparently based, the accord promised immediate war with the
disinherited heir. In any event, the king was moved to safety and the
duke was obliged to accept the terms agreed in October, at least for
the time being. Acting more or less as protector he marched north in
early December to deal with the forces of the prince of Wales and
Queen Margaret, which had regrouped in Yorkshire after the defeat at
Northampton. Venturing forth from his castle at Sandal on 30 December
1460, in what may have been an uncharacteristic attempt to surprise
his enemy, York was set upon by an unexpectedly large Lancastrian
force. In the ensuing battle of Wakefield, he and his second son,
Edmund of Rutland, were killed. As a macabre riposte to Duke Richard's
recent pretensions, his head was severed from his body and displayed
on the walls of York bearing a paper crown.
So ended the life of this curious figure, who, having played safe in
the prime of his years, abruptly changed tack at the age of
thirty-nine, pursuing ever more ambitious and dangerous policies
until, with victory almost in his grasp, he fell on an ill-chosen
battlefield. Duke Richard was the true founder of the royal house of
York, but despite a career that a recent biographer has described as
'the most successful failure of the middle ages' (Johnson, 'Political
career', abstract), he has inspired little interest and even less
sympathy among historians. Notwithstanding his many claims to be
acting for the 'common weal' of the realm, York has usually been
presented as a somewhat colourless bungler: all along, it seems, he
wanted power, but he could not decide how far to go until the last
minute, whereupon-fatally-he went too far. In 1964 B. Wilkinson set
the tone for most modern accounts of the duke's career with his
judgement that 'it would be folly to make a statesman out of this
fifteenth-century worldling' (Wilkinson, 88). This view seems
unfairly harsh: like many of his peers, his instincts were to make the
best of things in Henry VI's England, a world in which there were no
easy answers. York's opportunities were closely circumscribed and his
intentions in opposing Henry VI's government are far from clear; in
fact there may be a case for seeing him more as the victim of
circumstances than as their creator. His cautiousness, if ultimately
unproductive, was justified by the sheer impropriety of opposition to
the government. On the other hand, the recklessness that he
demonstrated in 1450, 1452, 1455, 1459, and 1460 was also justified:
sometimes by its results; always by the need to do something to
restore the authority that the king, in his feebleness, had frittered
away. In medieval England, however, the restoration of authority could
only be carried out from the throne. York's final and most destructive
venture was thus his best-conceived one, but it is easy to see why it
has won him few plaudits.
John Watts
Sources P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) + T. B.
Pugh, 'Richard Plantagenet (1411-60), duke of York, as the king's
lieutenant in France and Ireland', Aspects of medieval government and
society: essays presented to J. R. Lander, ed. J. G. Rowe (1986),
107-41 + J. Watts, Henry VI and the politics of kingship (1996) + R.
A. Griffiths, The reign of King Henry VI: the exercise of royal
authority, 1422-1461 (1981) + Chancery records + J. T. Rosenthal, 'The
estates and finances of Richard, duke of York, 1411-1460', Studies in
Medieval and Renaissance History, 2 (1965), 117-204 + G. L. Harriss,
Cardinal Beaufort: a study of Lancastrian ascendancy and decline
(1988) + A. J. Pollard, John Talbot and the war in France, 1427-1453,
Royal Historical Society Studies in History, 35 (1983) + C. T.
Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy, 1415-1450 (1983) + M. K. Jones,
'Somerset, York and the Wars of the Roses', EngHR, 104 (1989), 285-307
+ R. A. Griffiths, 'Duke Richard of York's intentions in 1450 and the
origins of the Wars of the Roses', Journal of Medieval History, 1
(1975), 187-209 + M. L. Kekewich and others, eds., The politics of
fifteenth-century England: John Vale's book (1995) + J. L. Watts, 'De
consulatu Stiliconis: texts and politics in the reign of Henry VI',
Journal of Medieval History, 16 (1990), 251-66 + J. M. W. Bean, 'The
financial position of Richard, duke of York', War and government in
the middle ages, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (1984), 182-98 + T.
B. Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton plot of 1415, Southampton RS, 30
(1988) + A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A history of medieval Ireland (1968) +
'John Benet's chronicle for the years 1400 to 1462', ed. G. L. Harriss
and M. A. Harriss, Camden miscellany, XXIV, CS, 4th ser., 9 (1972) +
E. Flugel, 'Eine mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung (1445)', Anglia,
28 (1905), 255-99 + P. A. Johnson, 'The political career of Richard,
duke of York, to 1456', DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1981 + B. Wilkinson,
Constitutional history of England in the fifteenth century (1399-1485)
(1964) + Osbern Bokenam's Legenden, ed. C. Horstmann (Heilbronn, 1883)
+ 'William Gregory's chronicle of London', The historical collections
of a citizen of London in the fifteenth century, ed. J. Gairdner, CS,
new ser., 17 (1876) + K. Dockray, 'The battle of Wakefield and the
Wars of the Roses', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3), 238-58 + R. Knowles,
'The battle of Wakefield: the topography', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3),
259-65 + C. Ross, Edward IV (1974) + Itineraries [of] William
Worcestre, ed. J. H. Harvey, OMT (1969) + K. B. McFarlane, 'The
Lancastrian kings', Cambridge Medieval History, 8, ed. C. W.
Previte-Orton and Z. N. Brooke (1936), 363-417 + CPR, 1446-61 + CEPR
letters, 8.132
Archives BL, letters relating to a truce between England and Burgundy,
Add. Ch. 75479
Likenesses painted glass window, Cirencester; repro. in S. Lysons, A
collection of Gloucestershire antiquities (1804) · painted glass
window, Trinity Cam. [see illus.]
Wealth at death under £4600 p.a. net: Johnson, Duke Richard, 7, 21-4
========================================================================
© Oxford University Press, 2004. See legal notice:
http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/legal/
We hope you have enjoyed this Life of The Day, but if you do wish to stop
receiving these messages, please EITHER send a message to
LISTSERV@... with
signoff ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L
in the body (not the subject line) of the message
OR
send an email to epm-oxforddnb@..., asking us to stop sending you
these messages.
----- End forwarded message -----
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-30 13:04:44
It's the one from Trinity College, Cambridge. There's also a head & shoulders of the Duke of York surviving in a chapel founded by one of his retainers in Cirencester parish church. It's the third picture down:-
http://humphrysfamilytree.com/Royal/york.html
Marie
--- In , Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>
>
> Today's life of the day. Apologies for cross-posting.
>
> The picture is stained glass - any idea where it comes from? (It is
> only visible for a week if you/your local library doesn't have a
> subscription to the Dictionary of National Biography.)
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> ----- Forwarded message from oxforddnb-lotd@... -----
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:00:00 +0100
> From: oxforddnb-lotd@...
> Reply-To: epm-oxforddnb@...
> Subject: Paper crown
> To: ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L@...
>
>
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
> To read this Life of the Day complete with a picture of the subject,
> visit http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2013-07-30
>
>
>
> Richard of York, third duke of York (1411-1460), magnate and claimant
> to the English throne, was the only son of Richard of Conisbrough,
> fourth earl of Cambridge (1385-1415), and Anne Mortimer (b. after
> 1388, d. before 1414), daughter of Roger (VII) Mortimer, fourth earl
> of March. He was descended from Edward III through both parents, his
> father being the son of that king's fourth son, Edmund of Langley,
> first duke of York, and his mother the great-granddaughter of Edward's
> second son, Lionel of Antwerp, duke of Clarence. It was this
> distinguished ancestry that provided the basis for his explosive
> participation in the troubled politics of the 1450s. In October 1460,
> after a decade of agitation and intervention, he attempted to seize
> the throne on the grounds that his descent from Clarence made him
> rightful king in place of Henry VI, who, like the other Lancastrian
> kings, was descended from Edward III's third son, John of Gaunt, duke
> of Lancaster. The attempt failed, and York died a few months later at
> the battle of Wakefield, but the claim, of course, lived on to provide
> the basis for Edward IV's succession in March 1461.
>
> Youth and inheritance
>
> Richard of York was born on 22 September 1411, to parents who had
> married in secret and were soon to be dead. His mother was gone within
> a year or two; his father, who married again in 1414, was executed the
> following year when details of his plot to depose Henry V came to
> light. Cambridge's plan to raise the north and (apparently) to put
> Edmund (V) Mortimer, earl of March, on the throne must have thrown his
> son's dynastic position into sharp relief: the young Richard's mother
> had been the elder of March's sisters, which made the boy himself a
> possible heir to the Mortimer-Clarence claim to the throne. On
> Cambridge's death he became a royal ward, and it is not altogether
> surprising that in March 1416 he was placed in the custody of the
> Lancastrians' leading gaoler, Sir Robert Waterton. Three years into
> his reign, however, Henry V was busy laying to rest the divisions of
> his father's time and Richard of York was destined for rehabilitation.
> He was protected from the effects of his father's attainder and, on
> the death of his uncle Edward, duke of York, at Agincourt, the boy was
> recognized to be his heir. Not long after Henry VI's accession York's
> wardship and marriage were sold to Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland.
> At 3000 marks the price was a high one, but Neville's investment was
> amply repaid when, in January 1425, Edmund, earl of March, died
> childless, and York, as his nephew, became heir to the extensive
> Mortimer inheritance. At some stage in the 1420s, possibly as early as
> 1424, the young duke was married off to Cecily Neville (1415-1495),
> one of Westmorland's daughters with Joan Beaufort. From the point of
> view of the Nevilles, who had married into most of the leading magnate
> families of the day, it was a prestigious match that helped to confirm
> the family's growing pre-eminence; from the point of view of Henry
> VI's government, it was an ideal way to absorb a potentially dangerous
> figure by attaching him to some of the dynasty's staunchest supporters.
>
> Over the next few years York was drawn more closely into the circle
> around the young king. In 1426 he was knighted, and two years later he
> was appointed to take up residence in the royal household. In 1430
> York took part in the king's coronation expedition to France. His
> retinue was small, but he was handsomely rewarded for his involvement:
> over 1000 marks by the summer of 1431. Soon after his return, and
> still a minor (though there appears to have been some uncertainty over
> this at the time), he was granted livery of his estates on 12 May
> 1432. At the time both inheritances were encumbered with debts,
> dowers, and obligations, while the duchy of York was mainly in the
> hands of feoffees. By the summer of 1434, however, a series of
> financial settlements and the deaths of the two remaining dowagers had
> lifted the worst of these burdens, and the duke was free to enjoy his
> extensive patrimony undisturbed. The acquisition of his inheritance
> had cost him quite a lot, but he had received fair-even
> generous-treatment from the government. York's proximity to the king,
> both in blood and in person, and his links with the families of
> Neville and Beaufort had stood him in good stead.
>
> Service in France
>
> In 1433 York was admitted to the Order of the Garter-a mark of favour,
> a certificate of loyalty, and perhaps a token of martial expectations.
> His first taste of military command was to be as successor to John,
> duke of Bedford, in the lieutenancy of France, a post for which he
> was, in many ways, the obvious candidate: the royal commission, dated
> 8 May 1436, recited the king's desire to see France ruled by 'some
> great prince of our blood' (Johnson, York, 226), and there was no one
> else who fitted the bill, apart from Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.
> York had agreed to serve in France as early as February 1436, but his
> army did not reach Harfleur until 7 June. Had it left England more
> promptly, it might have been able to prevent the French reconquest of
> Paris and the Ile-de-France, which took place during the spring,
> though it is difficult to know where the blame for the expedition's
> dilatoriness should lie: York was also to be late leaving for his
> second tour of duty in 1441, and the government was sceptical of his
> excuses on both occasions, but recruiting an army was no easy feat in
> the later stages of the Hundred Years' War, and delays were probably
> unavoidable. In the event the French advance was halted by York's
> forces. The brilliant campaign of autumn 1436, which ensured the
> safety of Rouen, was actually commanded by John, Lord Talbot, but Duke
> Richard too seems to have carried out some useful work, regaining most
> of the Pays de Caux after the rebellion of 1435, attending to the
> grievances of the Normans, and surveying the English garrisons. During
> both of York's lieutenancies it seems to have been a policy of his to
> delegate the basic management of the war to leading captains: his
> retainer Talbot, as marshal, in 1436; his brother-in-law Richard
> Neville, earl of Salisbury, as lieutenant-general in 1437; and Talbot
> again as 'lieutenant-general for the conduct of the war' (Pollard,
> 39) during York's second tour of duty from 1441. Although the duke and
> his council retained overall control of military policy throughout, it
> may be that York saw himself more as a viceroy, responsible for
> government as a whole, than as a warrior. This is certainly implicit
> in the attention that he gave to matters of domestic governance in
> Normandy and the pays de conquete: it was for his good rule of the
> duchy and for his genuine attempts to deal with the problems created
> by a declining military occupation that York would be remembered in
> France. His role in the fighting of the war was undistinguished, and a
> number of English chroniclers noted the fact.
>
> Faced with the imminent expiry of his indentures-though not of his
> lieutenancy, the term of which was indefinite-York sought permission
> to return home in the spring of 1437. His successor was to be the earl
> of Warwick, and York was instructed to remain in Normandy until his
> arrival, which was delayed until the following November. It is
> difficult to know whether the decision to replace York reflects
> disappointment with his performance or not: the duke may even have
> wished to stand down, possibly because of difficulties in extracting
> money from the Norman exchequer for the payment of his troops. In any
> event Warwick's service was soon cut short by his death in April 1439,
> and Henry VI's government found itself once again faced with the task
> of providing for the rule of Lancastrian France. It was apparently as
> a compromise candidate that York emerged as the new lieutenant on 2
> July 1440: Gloucester appears to have sought his own appointment,
> while Cardinal Beaufort, the regime's paymaster, probably pressed the
> claims of his nephew John Beaufort, earl of Somerset. York, however,
> was the most suitable choice for a post which now, more than ever,
> demanded a flexible, diplomatic, and authoritative holder: as the
> government pursued both peace and war with greater vigour than before,
> the duke was sufficiently neutral, consultative, and grand to act
> effectively on its behalf; he was also well connected with all
> parties, including the military establishment in France.
>
> On this occasion York demanded adequate funding and increased powers
> before he would accept the job: he went to France as a second Bedford,
> with all the powers that Duke John had enjoyed after 1432 and a
> promise of £20,000 a year from the English exchequer to fund his
> troops. Apart from these improved terms of service, however, the
> patterns of the first lieutenancy were repeated. York left England
> late, not arriving in Normandy until the end of June 1441. He then
> moved speedily down the Seine to Pontoise where Talbot was struggling
> to lift Charles VII's siege, but this was to be his only military
> action in the three years before the truce of Tours. It was not a
> particularly impressive one: if York had helped to secure Pontoise for
> a further few months, he may also have frustrated a daring scheme of
> Talbot's that could have resulted in the capture of the French king.
> Caution, it seems, got the better of York, and not for the last time
> in his career.
>
> Over the next few years the duke busied himself with matters of
> governance and diplomacy while the war effort in Normandy ground
> slowly to a halt. In part this was because Charles VII had turned his
> attention to the south-west, but it is clear that York's reluctance to
> engage the French directly caused dissatisfaction in the English
> government and it may help to explain why Cardinal Beaufort was able
> to engineer a major military command for his nephew John. The earl of
> Somerset's expedition, planned from late 1442 and launched in the
> summer of 1443, involved a major diversion of men, funds, and
> authority away from York and the Norman theatre. Duke Richard
> dispatched an embassy to remonstrate with the English government in
> June 1443, but it had no effect, and the campaign itself added injury
> to insult: Somerset's attack on Brittany and the duke of Alencon's
> stronghold of La Guerche disrupted York's attempts, conducted during
> 1442-3, to involve the English in an alliance of French princes. In
> the light of all this it is hardly surprising that, following the
> expedition's failure, the government seems to have felt the need to
> appease York: tallies for the payments due at Michaelmas 1443 arrived
> in February 1444 and, later in that year, the duke was given a major
> apanage in southern Normandy, while earldoms (and, in Edmund's case,
> lands) were granted to his eldest sons. After this no more of York's
> wages were paid until 1446, but at least the truce contracted in May
> 1444 reduced his expenses and removed the need for further military
> activity. In September 1445 York returned to England: his indentures
> were about to expire, parliament was in session, and-rather
> ironically, given the government's own failures in this regard-his
> management of Norman finances was under investigation.
>
> York and English politics before 1450
>
> It now seems clear that Cardinal Beaufort, William de la Pole, earl of
> Suffolk, and the other leading councillors and courtiers who, in the
> first instance, managed Henry VI's authority in the 1430s and 1440s
> intended Richard of York to be a pillar of the Lancastrian regime.
> This did not mean that the already wealthy duke was to be showered
> with gifts, nor did it mean that he was to be given a formal role in
> the government of England. York was not, for example, appointed to the
> re-established council in November 1437, but nothing should be
> inferred from this: at twenty-six the duke would have been considered
> rather youthful for what was in any case a rather anomalous role;
> exclusion from the council would scarcely have excluded him from
> influence; and it is likely that already the expectation was that his
> service to the crown would be overseas, at least while he was of
> military age. It is not known what part, if any, York played in the
> politics of 1437-41, during which time he was in England and Henry VI,
> somewhat uncertainly, came of age. There is no reason to suppose that
> he supported the moves of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, against
> Cardinal Beaufort in 1439-40, despite Gloucester's suggestion that
> York and other lords had been wrongfully kept out of power; nor should
> it be assumed that he was opposed to the release of the duke of
> Orleans. He seems to have kept a low profile at this time,
> participating in a scheme to restore order in Wales in 1437-8, sharing
> in the custody of the Beauchamp wardship in 1439, and touring his
> estates. When, in early 1441, the 'longe bareynesse' of his marriage
> was suddenly ended and a son born, York named him Henry (Bokenham's
> Legenden, 273). This demonstration of dynastic loyalty earned a gift
> of £100 worth of jewels from the grateful king: the restoration of the
> heir of Cambridge and Mortimer must have seemed to be complete.
>
> As lieutenant of France for the second time York became embroiled in
> the government's various diplomatic initiatives, including the moves
> associated with the truce of Tours. It has often been assumed that
> Duke Richard was hostile to the peace negotiations of the 1440s, but
> there is absolutely no evidence for this. While the confusions of
> policy in the early years of the decade must have been exasperating
> for anyone charged with responsibility for the defence of Lancastrian
> France, there is nothing to suggest that York preferred war to
> diplomacy as a means of preserving English interests. As the plan to
> seek a truce with Charles VII and a marriage alliance with the house
> of Anjou emerged as the central plank of royal policy in 1444, York
> seems to have given it his full support. In the new spirit of
> Anglo-French amity, for example, he sent forces to assist the
> dauphin's campaign in Alsace in the summer of 1444. The following
> year, and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he
> opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward
> of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the
> French king's daughters. The duke may even have been sympathetic to
> the government's plans to surrender Maine, which proceeded alongside
> the truce negotiations and formed an integral part of the alliance
> policy. Because of the postures that York struck after 1450 historians
> have tended to assume that he was opposed to this notorious scheme,
> but that is by no means clear. It is very likely that he knew what was
> planned by the end of 1445 (if not earlier, since he met Suffolk's
> embassy as it travelled through Normandy in 1444) and he was certainly
> involved in the arrangements for compensating Maine's English
> landholders in 1447. Interestingly York was never explicitly to
> condemn the handover of the territory, although its loss was certainly
> a prominent feature of popular and parliamentary criticism of William
> de la Pole, by then duke of Suffolk, Edmund Beaufort, duke of
> Somerset, and the other so-called 'traitors' of 1450.
>
> It is from the period following his return to England in 1445 that
> York's alienation from Henry VI's ministers is often supposed to have
> dated. The duke found himself accused of mishandling the funds he had
> been paid for the defence of Normandy, and his chief accuser, it
> appeared, was a central figure in the government, Adam Moleyns, bishop
> of Chichester. York had returned to England confident of reappointment
> to the French lieutenancy, but he was obliged to wait for more than a
> year and then to see the office go to Edmund Beaufort instead. It used
> to be thought that because of his alleged hostility to the peace
> policy, and his putatively close links to the duke of Gloucester (who
> died mysteriously in 1447), Duke Richard was persona non grata with
> Suffolk's regime: his appointment to the lieutenancy of Ireland on 30
> July 1447 has sometimes been seen as a form of exile, the government's
> hope being that, like the earls of March, his predecessors, he would
> go there and die.
>
> However, events thus far do not support this interpretation. York was
> certainly dismayed by the rumours concerning his performance in
> Normandy, but he was explicitly vindicated by king and lords both in
> and outside the parliament of 1445-6; it is not even known that
> Moleyns had made the accusations York claimed, only that the duke saw
> in a public attack on the bishop the opportunity to clear his own
> name. Similarly, while York was probably disappointed not to regain
> the lieutenancy of France, too much should not be made of this: the
> lieutenancy of Ireland, which he was granted in return, was a post
> that his most distinguished ancestors (notably Clarence himself) had
> held; it bestowed upon him almost sovereign powers in the island; and
> it gave him the opportunity to combine military service with the
> exploitation of his interests as an Irish landlord. Finally, since the
> terms of his commission permitted him to appoint a deputy and return
> to England, it cannot be seen as a form of banishment. In some ways,
> indeed, 1446 and 1447 saw York more closely involved in the governing
> regime than he had ever been: in October 1446 he was granted the abbey
> and town of Waltham because he 'will come often to London for the
> king's business and his own' (CPR, 1446-52, 43); over the next year
> he attended a number of council meetings and was named as a witness to
> more than three-quarters of the charters issued from 1446 to 1448;
> during 1447-9 he was added to the peace commissions of eleven counties
> beyond those to which he had been named at his inheritance (and in
> some cases beyond the scope of his landholdings); and finally, almost
> for the first time, he began to enjoy the kind of rewards more
> commonly bestowed on courtiers-most notably, perhaps, the wardship and
> marriage of the Holland heir (Henry) and a series of lands and offices
> once held by Gloucester. This last detail is a reminder that there was
> almost nothing to link York with Duke Humphrey in the latter's
> lifetime: in no sense can York be considered his supporter, and it is
> not improbable that, like other members of the nobility, he witnessed
> Gloucester's destruction at the Bury parliament and, tacitly at least,
> assented to it.
>
> When he finally left for Ireland, in June 1449, Duke Richard did so as
> a loyal and well-regarded member of the Lancastrian establishment. If
> he had been less involved in affairs during the preceding year or so,
> this may well have been at his own choice. Many of the nobility seem
> to have withdrawn from the court during 1448 as the government's
> troubles began to mount. York cannot have wished to be associated with
> the humiliating surrender of Le Mans in March 1448 and he may well
> have feared the consequences of the extraordinary coup at Fougeres. A
> tour of duty in Ireland must have appeared an attractive alternative.
> During his fourteen months in the province York scored a series of
> easy (if short-lived) victories, receiving the submission of most of
> the island's leaders and campaigning effectively in Wicklow. At the
> Drogheda parliament of April 1450 he followed the lead of the Commons
> at Westminster by introducing an Act of Resumption. Like the
> lieutenant of France he was short of money, and this limited his
> achievements, but the contrast between this vigorous performance and
> the demoralizing stasis of Somerset's rule in France must have
> impressed itself upon contemporaries.
>
> Estates and connections
>
> By the mid-1430s, when he had gained full control over his estates,
> York was the richest and most extensive landowner among the king's
> subjects. Estimates of his wealth have varied between £2874 and £5800
> net, but the most recent and reliable estimate suggests that his
> estates in England and Wales were worth about £4000 a year (net) when
> he came into them, and that his exchequer annuities yielded an average
> of £600 a year. York's lands were scattered through England and the
> march of Wales, with notable concentrations in the West Riding of
> Yorkshire; in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire; in Dorset and
> Somerset; in Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the middle march of Wales;
> and in the centre of East Anglia along the border of Norfolk and
> Suffolk. Beyond this he held the earldom of Ulster and the lordships
> of Connacht and Trim, although only the last of these Irish estates is
> likely to have yielded York any real influence or income.
>
> The possession of such vast holdings shaped York's activities as a
> lord: like John of Gaunt before him he was a truly national figure,
> with interests so widespread and diverse that it was difficult for him
> to exert the kind of local authority typical of later medieval
> magnates. He had no real 'country'-no county-sized area of
> concentrated influence where local gentlemen might turn first of all
> to him for lordship-and this helped to determine both the nature of
> his affinity and the role that he and it were to play in the politics
> of the realm. York's following, like Gaunt's or indeed the king's, was
> a disparate group of often important men, many of whom had their own
> local allegiances and whose links with York were forged mainly through
> military service and the tenure of estate or household office. In
> part, of course, this pattern was a consequence of the duke's long
> minority and his prolonged service in France: many of the servants of
> the duchy of York had melted away in the 1420s into Gloucester's
> service, for example; while Duke Richard's appointment as Bedford's
> successor in Normandy presented him with a ready-made following
> looking for a lord. A spry comment from an anti-Yorkist chronicler has
> promoted the suggestion that York was unduly influenced by the men who
> gathered round him in Normandy-in particular, by Sir William Oldhall,
> who was one of York's most reliable agents during the 1450s-but there
> is little to support this notion, particularly when the duke's
> involvement in the peace policy of the mid-1440s is taken into
> account. On the contrary, it seems likely that York's high status, his
> extensive interests, and his relative disengagement from the affairs
> of any particular locality beyond his estates meant that he was
> exposed to a wide array of different voices. If anyone besides the
> king and his ministers was likely to hear the counsel of the realm, it
> was surely York, who numbered lords such as Talbot, Ralph Cromwell,
> and Thomas Scales among his councillors, but also enjoyed links with
> exchequer clerks, lawyers, the widows of Norman soldiers, and local
> worthies from all parts of the country. The maintenance of this kind
> of connection may have cost York dear-as much as £1300 a year,
> according to one recent estimate-but it seems that his money was well
> spent. Despite his inability to offer really consistent local support,
> he was apparently able to co-ordinate the raising of large retinues
> throughout the 1450s. If some of his servants kept away from the
> duke's more controversial ventures, a sizeable and prestigious core
> remained loyal to the end.
>
> The making of York's rebellion
>
> The last and best-known period in York's political life began in
> September 1450, when he suddenly returned from Ireland and took up the
> common cry for the traitors surrounding the king to be brought to
> justice. This was a significant change of political direction for the
> duke, and one that shaped the remainder of his career, but the reasons
> for it are not immediately obvious. Modern historians have mostly
> rejected the traditional interpretation, which laid stress on York's
> dynastic interests and saw his participation in the popular ferments
> of the 1450s as a device for seizing the crown. Instead, the search
> has been for the causes of personal grievance on Duke Richard's part:
> was he moved to anger, or even desperation, by the government's
> enormous debts to him? Was he incensed by the new pre-eminence of
> Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, the man who had so recently lost
> France? Did he fear for his own position, as an old rival took control
> of Henry VI's government? Alternatively, was York simply an
> opportunist, moving (typically late) to exploit the regime's
> difficulties, but without any fixed idea of where his dissidence might
> take him?
>
> One difficulty in reaching any conclusions lies in trying to establish
> which elements of York's programme, as this slowly unfolded, were
> intentional, and intended from the start. It is certainly unlikely
> that the duke was seeking to gain the throne in 1450: previous
> legitimists had soon revealed their desire to improve the realm by
> changing the king, but York was not to assert his Mortimer-Clarence
> claim until 1460, after ten years of activism explicitly devoted to
> other ends. Even in that year, moreover, his move was greeted with
> hostility, and it seems reasonable to suggest that the duke would have
> known all along that this was a likely reaction and would have trimmed
> his policy accordingly. It is possible that, in 1450, York was
> concerned to secure recognition as heir presumptive to Henry VI: the
> king was still without a child and there was a (somewhat faint)
> possibility of dynastic competition from the house of Beaufort. Like
> most noblemen York took an active interest in the claims and titles he
> possessed-in 1445 he had sought information on his interest in the
> throne of Castile and in 1451 an agent of his was to argue in
> parliament that the duke should be named as heir apparent-but, at
> best, this can provide only a partial explanation for his actions in
> 1450.
>
> As far as personal grievances are concerned, meanwhile, it is
> difficult to see what grounds York had for complaint. That the duke
> was part of the establishment in the 1440s has already been
> illustrated. Financially he had fared no worse than any of Henry VI's
> other major accountants: indeed, somewhat remarkably, given the state
> of royal finances, he received £1200 from the crown at the end of
> 1449, and even in May 1450 efforts were being made to find him money.
> He may have decided to return to England to seek funds-a letter to
> Salisbury, written in June 1450, suggests that he feared serious
> losses in Ireland unless he received further payments-but this is
> rather a different matter from acting on a sense of grievance, and if
> seeking money was York's initial aim, it was soon overwhelmed by other
> purposes.
>
> What, finally, of York's famous antagonism towards Somerset: was this
> the motivation for his assault on the king's ministers? The problem
> here is one of disentangling the personal feud between the two men
> from the relative positions in which a wider politics had placed them:
> did York attack the government because it contained Somerset, or did
> he attack Somerset because he was the leader of the government? It is
> certainly possible to find grounds for animosity between the two men:
> Beaufort's performance in the last years of the war was
> undistinguished to say the least, and York may have thought that he
> himself could have achieved more; it has recently been suggested,
> moreover, that the lieutenant's casual surrender of Rouen would
> particularly have rankled with Duke Richard, since he had continued to
> be its captain. At the same time, however, it is clear that once York
> had made his inflammatory moves of September 1450 (and possibly even
> before then), he and Somerset were destined to be at odds: Duke
> Richard's political standing came quickly to depend on the argument
> that the government was run by traitors, and a large part of his
> justification for taking up arms in 1450, 1452, and 1455 was that the
> enmity of leading ministers obliged him to take action to defend
> himself; Duke Edmund, on the other hand, was not unjustified in
> regarding much of York's behaviour as threatening, both to himself and
> to the order of the realm; if he sought, in 1450, in 1452-3, and in
> 1455, to deal with the problem by repression instead of indulgence, it
> was an understandable approach. Politics, as much as personality and
> private interest, determined the conflict between York and Somerset.
>
> Pursuing this further, it may be suggested that it was in the
> extraordinary politics of 1450 that the most likely reasons for York's
> sudden attack on the government are to be found. As Normandy fell to
> the French and the king's bankruptcy was exposed in parliament, the
> authority of Henry VI's ministers disintegrated. MPs and more lowly
> members of society appeared to be united in the belief that the king
> had been betrayed by a self-serving clique who had pillaged his
> possessions in England and surrendered those in France. If Suffolk's
> trial and murder had removed the leader of the gang, the rest remained
> in positions of power, and until the king and the 'true lords' took
> action against them, there could be no justice or order in the realm.
> This judgement on the recent past dominated public life in England
> between 1449 and 1451, and it continued to exert a certain influence
> over the public imagination thereafter. York, like other members of
> the nobility, must have known that in certain ways it was wide of the
> mark, but this did not mean that it could be ignored. In particular,
> in fact, it could not be ignored by York, who had already been
> identified by some of the government's critics as the figure most
> likely to visit retribution upon the 'traitors'. This appears to be
> the explanation for the rough reception that York and his men received
> at their landing in north Wales in September: local agents of the
> royal household, and possibly their commanders at the centre, had
> become alarmed about the duke's intentions. It was at this point,
> perhaps, and not in 1447, that 'by treating [the duke] as an enemy the
> court had made him one' (McFarlane, 405): if both the king's
> ministers and his subjects were going to cast York as the agent of
> justice, he might as well fulfil their expectations. Certainly, the
> moment must have seemed ripe for someone to take drastic action: the
> king's officers could not govern without public confidence, and it may
> have appeared that the removal of some of the discredited men-not
> least, perhaps, the duke of Somerset-was the best way to restore it.
>
> Beyond all this, it might be added that, even if the government had
> not moved against him in 1450, everything in York's make-up would have
> given him the sense that he was the man to restore the situation. He
> was the greatest prince of the royal blood, head and shoulders above
> other lords, the natural successor to Bedford and Gloucester in the
> protection of Henry VI's interests. He had already acted as the king's
> viceroy in France and Ireland; why not in England too? What, if
> anything, York knew of the deeds of men like Gaunt and Woodstock (or
> those of Montfort and Lancaster), whose status was much the same as
> his and whose actions were to prefigure his own, is not known; but one
> model of proper noble service had been made available to him when,
> probably in 1445, York was presented with an elegantly decorated
> translation of Claudian's life of the consul Stilicho. It was an
> account of how the people of Rome and other nations implored this
> virtuous prince to accept the office of consul and restore good
> government to a city torn apart by the evil advisers of a child
> emperor. Its translator had invited York to 'marke stilicoes life'
> ('Mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung', 256): in 1450 the moment had
> arrived when he might put this teaching to good use.
>
> York and the politics of the 1450s
>
> It was with a volley of bills and open letters addressed to the king
> that York returned to English political life in September 1450. The
> first of these sought to establish the duke's loyalty; the second
> advertised his intention to seek justice against his accusers; but it
> was the third that was truly controversial-it drew the king's
> attention to the universal complaint that justice was not being done
> to those who broke the king's law with impunity (in particular, the
> so-called 'traitors'), and offered York's services in bringing the
> guilty to book. This was an open defiance of the government's
> authority, since the essence of the 'traitors' idea was that it was
> the men about the king who were most of all responsible for the
> disasters that had befallen the realm. As far as York was concerned,
> this meant that a true subject was obliged to act against the inner
> circle of authority in order to fulfil the terms of his allegiance to
> king and realm, and this explains the duke's many affirmations of
> loyalty to King Henry: it was the essential justification for actions
> that, on the face of it, appeared disloyal. Under normal
> circumstances, of course, attempts to separate a king's chosen
> counsellors and servants from the ruler himself were unlikely to
> succeed: defiance of royal agents easily shaded into defiance of the
> king, and that was treason. As York and all the rest of the nobility
> knew, however, these circumstances were not normal: Henry VI had shown
> no more discernment than a child in the government of his realm; his
> ministers were virtually self-appointed, and the policies pursued
> during the 1420s, 1430s, and 1440s were essentially theirs. If this
> makes nonsense of one aspect of the 'traitors' thesis, it exposes the
> truth of another aspect: the government was not in any real sense the
> vehicle of the king's will, and thus defiance of it was not treason;
> the regime could legitimately be reshaped, and, with large sections of
> the public arguing that it should be, York's actions had a certain
> justice in them. In reality he was appealing not to the king with
> these manifestos, but to the Lords and to the wider public: his plea
> was that those who were less compromised by the disasters of 1449-50
> must abandon those who were more immediately responsible; a new
> government, in which the duke was to play a more prominent role, must
> be established.
>
> Not surprisingly York's demands fell on deaf ears. The king's circle
> saw little reason for a general blood-letting, and the nobility, who
> had begun to lend support to the beleaguered regime as the crisis
> mounted, appear to have taken a similar view. In a public reply to
> York's bills, his offers of assistance were politely rebuffed, and the
> duke left London to prepare for the parliament summoned to meet in
> November 1450. When it gathered on the 6th, MPs demonstrated their
> continuing enthusiasm for reform by electing Oldhall, York's
> chamberlain, as speaker and loudly calling for the traitors to be
> brought to justice. When the duke himself arrived, with sword borne
> upright before him and a large army at his back, the initiative was
> his: Somerset was promptly imprisoned and the Lords waited to see what
> would happen next. What followed was in part a demonstration of Duke
> Richard's hesitancy and conservatism, and in part a reflection of the
> constraints of his position. Elements of the Commons' programme were
> put into effect, but the duke made no attempt to alter the
> institutional framework of Henry's government, and the result was
> that, during the Christmas recess, authority drifted back to the king
> and his household, Somerset was released, and the Lords, many of whom
> had flirted with York while he was in the ascendant, resumed their
> former obedience. During the sessions of the parliament in 1451 York's
> power waned, and Thomas Younge's notorious attempt to have him
> recognized as heir apparent must have seemed to many an act of
> desperation. Why had York not done more to secure himself during his
> brief ascendancy? It is not, of course, clear what he wanted: if only
> the restoration of order, then this was being achieved without his
> help; if a role for himself in the government, then his actions had
> made this unthinkable unless the king himself were to be altogether
> displaced-the men of Henry's household, who effectively disposed of
> royal power, were hardly going to welcome a man who had posed as their
> nemesis. What York had done, in effect, was to go too far without
> going far enough. Perhaps he should have cut his losses and risked a
> direct assault on the throne; but such a move was almost certain to
> fail. The duke had cast himself as the true liegeman of Henry VI: any
> deviation from this role was sure to be seen as the grossest kind of
> betrayal; York had many potential supporters, but-apart, perhaps, from
> his own servants-their support was for his public, not his private,
> interests.
>
> It has been worth looking at the events of 1450 in some detail,
> because for the next two years Duke Richard's options were very
> largely shaped by what had happened in that year. He could not be
> secure while Somerset and the household retained both control of the
> king and the support of the Lords, yet there was little he could do to
> improve his lot. Moves against Oldhall were under way by the end of
> 1451, and when, in January 1452, York reacted publicly against them
> and against their implications for himself, he was thinly supported.
> Apart from the duke's own men only the malcontent Thomas Courtenay,
> earl of Devon, and his crony Lord Cobham were persuaded to join the
> rising that attempted to repeat the coup of 1450: the rest of the
> nobility gathered around the king and Somerset, and York was forced to
> capitulate at Dartford in early March. His failure left him worse off
> than before. He was obliged to swear a humiliating oath of submission,
> his supporters and tenants were harried by judicial commissions, and
> his attempts to discredit Somerset were treated as part and parcel of
> a private quarrel. As the common people were reduced to order and the
> government enjoyed the unfamiliar taste of victory in Gascony, it
> seemed that York's political career was at an end: never again would
> he be able to take his proper place in the Lancastrian establishment.
>
> At this point, however, fate combined with the contradictions of Henry
> VI's regime to bestow new opportunities upon Duke Richard. In the
> summer of 1453 Somerset's governing consensus suddenly collapsed, as
> the victories in Gascony were reversed, the king lost his mind, and
> war broke out in the north between the Nevilles and the Percys. In the
> resulting crisis York was the only person of sufficient stature to
> restore the situation, and it must be this factor, above all, that
> explains the decision of a non-partisan group of councillors to summon
> him to London in October 1453, and the agreement in parliament to
> appoint him protector and defender of the realm on 27 March 1454. Here
> was a means for York to wrest control of government from Somerset and
> the king's household men without bringing his loyalty to Henry VI into
> question; and here was a means for the rest of political society to
> contain the powerful duke and to create an effective government
> without the kind of sacrifices that had been demanded in 1450. York
> certainly did his part: he went to London full of emollient promises
> to attend the council and do all 'that sholde or might be to the
> welfare of the king and of his subgettes' (CPR, 1452-61, 143); he
> made no attacks on Somerset or other sometime 'traitors' (though his
> ally, Norfolk, did); and, on taking up the post of protector, he
> committed himself to rule consultatively and representatively with the
> Lords. During the succeeding months York made serious and well-founded
> attempts to pacify the disputes in the north and north midlands, and
> he enjoyed some success. Making genuine efforts to consult widely, he
> demonstrated the same statesmanlike qualities that had marked his
> management of France and Ireland: 'for a whole year', wrote one
> chronicler, 'he governed the whole realm of England most nobly and in
> the best way' ('Benet's chronicle', 212). There were certainly limits
> to his achievement, and his tenure of office was to be brought to an
> abrupt halt in February 1455, but the duke's performance may have
> prompted many of his peers to look more sympathetically at his claims
> in the years to come.
>
> Unfortunately, however, the moulds of politics were changing in these
> years, and the broad unity that had so long been preserved among the
> nobility was breaking down. The deterioration of order in the
> localities, which had become so dramatic and extensive by 1453, was
> now combined with the emergence of a more aggressive Lancastrian
> dynasticism to promote significant divisions among the elite. These
> had begun to emerge even before York's protectorate: one of the
> reasons why it had taken so long to arrange the duke's appointment was
> that a substantial group of lords had grouped themselves around the
> queen, Margaret of Anjou, who-since the birth of her son Edward in
> October 1453-was attempting to secure a regency for herself. In the
> winter of 1453-4, indeed, civil war looked a distinct possibility. It
> was held off by York's readiness to make explicit his submission to
> the dynastic claims of the new prince, and by the agreement of all but
> the most extreme figures to join a broadly based regime under the
> duke's headship. When Henry VI recovered his sanity, however, at
> Christmas 1454, those in the household and the north who had opposed
> the protectorate seized the opportunity to assert their interests.
> York was removed from office on 9 February 1455, and by early March a
> more hard-faced government was taking steps against the duke. The fact
> that the Neville earls of Warwick and Salisbury also fell under attack
> at this time reveals the factional and divisive aims of those in
> control: although the government proceeded with the language of
> treason and obedience, its narrowing base and its sponsorship of
> conflict began to undermine its claims to such public goods; when York
> and the Nevilles confronted the king, Somerset, and the Percys at St
> Albans on 22 May 1455, there was a broad equivalence between the two
> sides, and the first blows of a civil war were struck.
>
> The Yorkist victory, however, brought this war to a rapid halt. Just
> as he had done in the early 1450s, the duke submitted to the king and
> attempted to rebuild unity. This was to remain his posture and that of
> his allies right up to the disasters of 1459. York was certainly
> prepared to strain his allegiance to its very limits-securing
> appointment to a second protectorate on 15 November 1455 and depriving
> the king of personal authority a week later-but he would not cross the
> bounds to an outright repudiation of Henry VI's sovereignty. As a
> consequence his pre-eminence remained insecure. His protectorate was
> soon terminated (on 25 February 1456) when parliamentary pressure for
> a resumption weakened his support among the Lords, but the aim of
> preserving unity, or oonhede, among the nobility lingered on for some
> years and ensured that if York was not to be admitted to any special
> power, he was not to be destroyed either. It seems likely that,
> provided he behaved himself, most of the peerage had some respect for
> the duke. Pressure from Queen Margaret and her growing band of
> partisans meant that he was obliged to repeat his submission of 1452
> on a number of occasions between 1456 and 1459, but he was confirmed
> in possession of the lieutenancy of Ireland, and even seems to have
> been able to direct policy for a time in the wake of the 'loveday'
> settlement of 1458. Only in 1459 did the bulk of the Lords finally
> accept the case for war against the duke, and then the fault-lines of
> 1453-4 and 1455 were recreated and York received the support of the
> Nevilles. Rather as at St Albans, York, Warwick, and Salisbury revived
> the case that evil counsellors around the king were destroying the
> common weal of the realm and threatening their own security. On this
> occasion, however, their propaganda cut no ice: finding most of the
> nobility in arms against them at Ludford Bridge (near Ludlow,
> Shropshire) and deserted by a part of the army, York and his allies
> fled the field during the night of 12-13 October 1459.
>
> Exile, return, and death
>
> The duke and his second son, Edmund, earl of Rutland, spent the next
> eleven months in Ireland, attempting to gain the men and money for an
> armed return to England, where the duke's estates were in royal hands
> as a result of his attainder at the Coventry parliament (about the end
> of November 1459). His younger children, including George, were all
> placed in the custody of the duchess of Buckingham. An incidental
> result of York's efforts was the famous Drogheda parliament of 8
> February 1460, in which the Anglo-Irish establishment obtained
> recognition as a distinct political community, separate from England,
> ruled by its own laws and financed by its own currency. In return for
> these concessions York gained resources, protection for his person,
> and an extensive army of archers, which he must have intended to take
> to England. Plans for a co-ordinated invasion of the mainland were
> apparently made during a conference with Warwick at Waterford in the
> spring of 1460, and the duke's Neville allies, accompanied by his
> eldest son, Edward of March, duly landed in Kent in June professing
> loyalty to Henry VI and protesting about the misgovernment of the
> realm. With startling success, they won support in London and the
> south-east and proceeded to defeat the royal army at Northampton on 10
> July, submitting to the king at the battle's end. Over the next few
> weeks March and the Nevilles began to secure the realm and to await
> York's return, which finally occurred near Chester on or about 9
> September 1460.
>
> Much about the next few weeks is obscure: it is not known why it took
> York so long to join his allies on the mainland; it is not known when
> he began so famously to assert his claim to the throne (13 September
> is the first date for which a plausible case can be made); it is not
> known whether or not the initiative had been agreed, or even
> discussed, with the Nevilles. It seems clear that there was no option
> for York but to attempt to make himself king: all other avenues, as
> has been shown, led nowhere; the duke could neither secure himself nor
> restore political order without taking the drastic step from which he
> had so far shrunk; and it may have seemed that by 1460 the polity of
> Henry VI was sufficiently dislocated to permit a direct assault on the
> king. Unfortunately for the duke, however, his own options were
> different from those of his allies, even his sons. These men had
> gained support on the old plea of reforming Henry VI's government.
> They had recently made their loyalty to the king explicit. As the
> managers of a large and diverse alliance, they could not easily
> abandon what they had promised, and it seems clear that the message
> from the London elite, who played an important role in the frantic
> politics of 1459-61, was that a deposition could not be tolerated.
> York marched into London, seized the king, and entered parliament on
> 10 October, announcing that he intended 'to challenge his right' to
> the crown (Johnson, York, 214). The Lords' response was unpromising:
> they went into conclave at Blackfriars and sent the young earl of
> March to persuade his father to accept a negotiated settlement. By 13
> October York had been brought to abandon his plans for an immediate
> coronation, and a few days later he submitted his claim for discussion
> in parliament. An accord emerged on 31 October, and its central
> feature was to leave Henry VI on the throne, while settling the
> succession on York and his sons. It is possible that even after this
> York attempted to get his way by inducing Henry to abdicate. He must
> have realized that, like the treaty of Troyes on which it was
> apparently based, the accord promised immediate war with the
> disinherited heir. In any event, the king was moved to safety and the
> duke was obliged to accept the terms agreed in October, at least for
> the time being. Acting more or less as protector he marched north in
> early December to deal with the forces of the prince of Wales and
> Queen Margaret, which had regrouped in Yorkshire after the defeat at
> Northampton. Venturing forth from his castle at Sandal on 30 December
> 1460, in what may have been an uncharacteristic attempt to surprise
> his enemy, York was set upon by an unexpectedly large Lancastrian
> force. In the ensuing battle of Wakefield, he and his second son,
> Edmund of Rutland, were killed. As a macabre riposte to Duke Richard's
> recent pretensions, his head was severed from his body and displayed
> on the walls of York bearing a paper crown.
>
> So ended the life of this curious figure, who, having played safe in
> the prime of his years, abruptly changed tack at the age of
> thirty-nine, pursuing ever more ambitious and dangerous policies
> until, with victory almost in his grasp, he fell on an ill-chosen
> battlefield. Duke Richard was the true founder of the royal house of
> York, but despite a career that a recent biographer has described as
> 'the most successful failure of the middle ages' (Johnson, 'Political
> career', abstract), he has inspired little interest and even less
> sympathy among historians. Notwithstanding his many claims to be
> acting for the 'common weal' of the realm, York has usually been
> presented as a somewhat colourless bungler: all along, it seems, he
> wanted power, but he could not decide how far to go until the last
> minute, whereupon-fatally-he went too far. In 1964 B. Wilkinson set
> the tone for most modern accounts of the duke's career with his
> judgement that 'it would be folly to make a statesman out of this
> fifteenth-century worldling' (Wilkinson, 88). This view seems
> unfairly harsh: like many of his peers, his instincts were to make the
> best of things in Henry VI's England, a world in which there were no
> easy answers. York's opportunities were closely circumscribed and his
> intentions in opposing Henry VI's government are far from clear; in
> fact there may be a case for seeing him more as the victim of
> circumstances than as their creator. His cautiousness, if ultimately
> unproductive, was justified by the sheer impropriety of opposition to
> the government. On the other hand, the recklessness that he
> demonstrated in 1450, 1452, 1455, 1459, and 1460 was also justified:
> sometimes by its results; always by the need to do something to
> restore the authority that the king, in his feebleness, had frittered
> away. In medieval England, however, the restoration of authority could
> only be carried out from the throne. York's final and most destructive
> venture was thus his best-conceived one, but it is easy to see why it
> has won him few plaudits.
>
> John Watts
>
> Sources P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) + T. B.
> Pugh, 'Richard Plantagenet (1411-60), duke of York, as the king's
> lieutenant in France and Ireland', Aspects of medieval government and
> society: essays presented to J. R. Lander, ed. J. G. Rowe (1986),
> 107-41 + J. Watts, Henry VI and the politics of kingship (1996) + R.
> A. Griffiths, The reign of King Henry VI: the exercise of royal
> authority, 1422-1461 (1981) + Chancery records + J. T. Rosenthal, 'The
> estates and finances of Richard, duke of York, 1411-1460', Studies in
> Medieval and Renaissance History, 2 (1965), 117-204 + G. L. Harriss,
> Cardinal Beaufort: a study of Lancastrian ascendancy and decline
> (1988) + A. J. Pollard, John Talbot and the war in France, 1427-1453,
> Royal Historical Society Studies in History, 35 (1983) + C. T.
> Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy, 1415-1450 (1983) + M. K. Jones,
> 'Somerset, York and the Wars of the Roses', EngHR, 104 (1989), 285-307
> + R. A. Griffiths, 'Duke Richard of York's intentions in 1450 and the
> origins of the Wars of the Roses', Journal of Medieval History, 1
> (1975), 187-209 + M. L. Kekewich and others, eds., The politics of
> fifteenth-century England: John Vale's book (1995) + J. L. Watts, 'De
> consulatu Stiliconis: texts and politics in the reign of Henry VI',
> Journal of Medieval History, 16 (1990), 251-66 + J. M. W. Bean, 'The
> financial position of Richard, duke of York', War and government in
> the middle ages, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (1984), 182-98 + T.
> B. Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton plot of 1415, Southampton RS, 30
> (1988) + A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A history of medieval Ireland (1968) +
> 'John Benet's chronicle for the years 1400 to 1462', ed. G. L. Harriss
> and M. A. Harriss, Camden miscellany, XXIV, CS, 4th ser., 9 (1972) +
> E. Flugel, 'Eine mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung (1445)', Anglia,
> 28 (1905), 255-99 + P. A. Johnson, 'The political career of Richard,
> duke of York, to 1456', DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1981 + B. Wilkinson,
> Constitutional history of England in the fifteenth century (1399-1485)
> (1964) + Osbern Bokenam's Legenden, ed. C. Horstmann (Heilbronn, 1883)
> + 'William Gregory's chronicle of London', The historical collections
> of a citizen of London in the fifteenth century, ed. J. Gairdner, CS,
> new ser., 17 (1876) + K. Dockray, 'The battle of Wakefield and the
> Wars of the Roses', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3), 238-58 + R. Knowles,
> 'The battle of Wakefield: the topography', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3),
> 259-65 + C. Ross, Edward IV (1974) + Itineraries [of] William
> Worcestre, ed. J. H. Harvey, OMT (1969) + K. B. McFarlane, 'The
> Lancastrian kings', Cambridge Medieval History, 8, ed. C. W.
> Previte-Orton and Z. N. Brooke (1936), 363-417 + CPR, 1446-61 + CEPR
> letters, 8.132
> Archives BL, letters relating to a truce between England and Burgundy,
> Add. Ch. 75479
> Likenesses painted glass window, Cirencester; repro. in S. Lysons, A
> collection of Gloucestershire antiquities (1804) · painted glass
> window, Trinity Cam. [see illus.]
> Wealth at death under £4600 p.a. net: Johnson, Duke Richard, 7, 21-4
>
>
>
>
> ========================================================================
> © Oxford University Press, 2004. See legal notice:
> http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/legal/
>
> We hope you have enjoyed this Life of The Day, but if you do wish to stop
> receiving these messages, please EITHER send a message to
> LISTSERV@... with
>
> signoff ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L
>
> in the body (not the subject line) of the message
>
> OR
>
> send an email to epm-oxforddnb@..., asking us to stop sending you
> these messages.
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
http://humphrysfamilytree.com/Royal/york.html
Marie
--- In , Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>
>
> Today's life of the day. Apologies for cross-posting.
>
> The picture is stained glass - any idea where it comes from? (It is
> only visible for a week if you/your local library doesn't have a
> subscription to the Dictionary of National Biography.)
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> ----- Forwarded message from oxforddnb-lotd@... -----
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:00:00 +0100
> From: oxforddnb-lotd@...
> Reply-To: epm-oxforddnb@...
> Subject: Paper crown
> To: ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L@...
>
>
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
> To read this Life of the Day complete with a picture of the subject,
> visit http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/lotw/2013-07-30
>
>
>
> Richard of York, third duke of York (1411-1460), magnate and claimant
> to the English throne, was the only son of Richard of Conisbrough,
> fourth earl of Cambridge (1385-1415), and Anne Mortimer (b. after
> 1388, d. before 1414), daughter of Roger (VII) Mortimer, fourth earl
> of March. He was descended from Edward III through both parents, his
> father being the son of that king's fourth son, Edmund of Langley,
> first duke of York, and his mother the great-granddaughter of Edward's
> second son, Lionel of Antwerp, duke of Clarence. It was this
> distinguished ancestry that provided the basis for his explosive
> participation in the troubled politics of the 1450s. In October 1460,
> after a decade of agitation and intervention, he attempted to seize
> the throne on the grounds that his descent from Clarence made him
> rightful king in place of Henry VI, who, like the other Lancastrian
> kings, was descended from Edward III's third son, John of Gaunt, duke
> of Lancaster. The attempt failed, and York died a few months later at
> the battle of Wakefield, but the claim, of course, lived on to provide
> the basis for Edward IV's succession in March 1461.
>
> Youth and inheritance
>
> Richard of York was born on 22 September 1411, to parents who had
> married in secret and were soon to be dead. His mother was gone within
> a year or two; his father, who married again in 1414, was executed the
> following year when details of his plot to depose Henry V came to
> light. Cambridge's plan to raise the north and (apparently) to put
> Edmund (V) Mortimer, earl of March, on the throne must have thrown his
> son's dynastic position into sharp relief: the young Richard's mother
> had been the elder of March's sisters, which made the boy himself a
> possible heir to the Mortimer-Clarence claim to the throne. On
> Cambridge's death he became a royal ward, and it is not altogether
> surprising that in March 1416 he was placed in the custody of the
> Lancastrians' leading gaoler, Sir Robert Waterton. Three years into
> his reign, however, Henry V was busy laying to rest the divisions of
> his father's time and Richard of York was destined for rehabilitation.
> He was protected from the effects of his father's attainder and, on
> the death of his uncle Edward, duke of York, at Agincourt, the boy was
> recognized to be his heir. Not long after Henry VI's accession York's
> wardship and marriage were sold to Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland.
> At 3000 marks the price was a high one, but Neville's investment was
> amply repaid when, in January 1425, Edmund, earl of March, died
> childless, and York, as his nephew, became heir to the extensive
> Mortimer inheritance. At some stage in the 1420s, possibly as early as
> 1424, the young duke was married off to Cecily Neville (1415-1495),
> one of Westmorland's daughters with Joan Beaufort. From the point of
> view of the Nevilles, who had married into most of the leading magnate
> families of the day, it was a prestigious match that helped to confirm
> the family's growing pre-eminence; from the point of view of Henry
> VI's government, it was an ideal way to absorb a potentially dangerous
> figure by attaching him to some of the dynasty's staunchest supporters.
>
> Over the next few years York was drawn more closely into the circle
> around the young king. In 1426 he was knighted, and two years later he
> was appointed to take up residence in the royal household. In 1430
> York took part in the king's coronation expedition to France. His
> retinue was small, but he was handsomely rewarded for his involvement:
> over 1000 marks by the summer of 1431. Soon after his return, and
> still a minor (though there appears to have been some uncertainty over
> this at the time), he was granted livery of his estates on 12 May
> 1432. At the time both inheritances were encumbered with debts,
> dowers, and obligations, while the duchy of York was mainly in the
> hands of feoffees. By the summer of 1434, however, a series of
> financial settlements and the deaths of the two remaining dowagers had
> lifted the worst of these burdens, and the duke was free to enjoy his
> extensive patrimony undisturbed. The acquisition of his inheritance
> had cost him quite a lot, but he had received fair-even
> generous-treatment from the government. York's proximity to the king,
> both in blood and in person, and his links with the families of
> Neville and Beaufort had stood him in good stead.
>
> Service in France
>
> In 1433 York was admitted to the Order of the Garter-a mark of favour,
> a certificate of loyalty, and perhaps a token of martial expectations.
> His first taste of military command was to be as successor to John,
> duke of Bedford, in the lieutenancy of France, a post for which he
> was, in many ways, the obvious candidate: the royal commission, dated
> 8 May 1436, recited the king's desire to see France ruled by 'some
> great prince of our blood' (Johnson, York, 226), and there was no one
> else who fitted the bill, apart from Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.
> York had agreed to serve in France as early as February 1436, but his
> army did not reach Harfleur until 7 June. Had it left England more
> promptly, it might have been able to prevent the French reconquest of
> Paris and the Ile-de-France, which took place during the spring,
> though it is difficult to know where the blame for the expedition's
> dilatoriness should lie: York was also to be late leaving for his
> second tour of duty in 1441, and the government was sceptical of his
> excuses on both occasions, but recruiting an army was no easy feat in
> the later stages of the Hundred Years' War, and delays were probably
> unavoidable. In the event the French advance was halted by York's
> forces. The brilliant campaign of autumn 1436, which ensured the
> safety of Rouen, was actually commanded by John, Lord Talbot, but Duke
> Richard too seems to have carried out some useful work, regaining most
> of the Pays de Caux after the rebellion of 1435, attending to the
> grievances of the Normans, and surveying the English garrisons. During
> both of York's lieutenancies it seems to have been a policy of his to
> delegate the basic management of the war to leading captains: his
> retainer Talbot, as marshal, in 1436; his brother-in-law Richard
> Neville, earl of Salisbury, as lieutenant-general in 1437; and Talbot
> again as 'lieutenant-general for the conduct of the war' (Pollard,
> 39) during York's second tour of duty from 1441. Although the duke and
> his council retained overall control of military policy throughout, it
> may be that York saw himself more as a viceroy, responsible for
> government as a whole, than as a warrior. This is certainly implicit
> in the attention that he gave to matters of domestic governance in
> Normandy and the pays de conquete: it was for his good rule of the
> duchy and for his genuine attempts to deal with the problems created
> by a declining military occupation that York would be remembered in
> France. His role in the fighting of the war was undistinguished, and a
> number of English chroniclers noted the fact.
>
> Faced with the imminent expiry of his indentures-though not of his
> lieutenancy, the term of which was indefinite-York sought permission
> to return home in the spring of 1437. His successor was to be the earl
> of Warwick, and York was instructed to remain in Normandy until his
> arrival, which was delayed until the following November. It is
> difficult to know whether the decision to replace York reflects
> disappointment with his performance or not: the duke may even have
> wished to stand down, possibly because of difficulties in extracting
> money from the Norman exchequer for the payment of his troops. In any
> event Warwick's service was soon cut short by his death in April 1439,
> and Henry VI's government found itself once again faced with the task
> of providing for the rule of Lancastrian France. It was apparently as
> a compromise candidate that York emerged as the new lieutenant on 2
> July 1440: Gloucester appears to have sought his own appointment,
> while Cardinal Beaufort, the regime's paymaster, probably pressed the
> claims of his nephew John Beaufort, earl of Somerset. York, however,
> was the most suitable choice for a post which now, more than ever,
> demanded a flexible, diplomatic, and authoritative holder: as the
> government pursued both peace and war with greater vigour than before,
> the duke was sufficiently neutral, consultative, and grand to act
> effectively on its behalf; he was also well connected with all
> parties, including the military establishment in France.
>
> On this occasion York demanded adequate funding and increased powers
> before he would accept the job: he went to France as a second Bedford,
> with all the powers that Duke John had enjoyed after 1432 and a
> promise of £20,000 a year from the English exchequer to fund his
> troops. Apart from these improved terms of service, however, the
> patterns of the first lieutenancy were repeated. York left England
> late, not arriving in Normandy until the end of June 1441. He then
> moved speedily down the Seine to Pontoise where Talbot was struggling
> to lift Charles VII's siege, but this was to be his only military
> action in the three years before the truce of Tours. It was not a
> particularly impressive one: if York had helped to secure Pontoise for
> a further few months, he may also have frustrated a daring scheme of
> Talbot's that could have resulted in the capture of the French king.
> Caution, it seems, got the better of York, and not for the last time
> in his career.
>
> Over the next few years the duke busied himself with matters of
> governance and diplomacy while the war effort in Normandy ground
> slowly to a halt. In part this was because Charles VII had turned his
> attention to the south-west, but it is clear that York's reluctance to
> engage the French directly caused dissatisfaction in the English
> government and it may help to explain why Cardinal Beaufort was able
> to engineer a major military command for his nephew John. The earl of
> Somerset's expedition, planned from late 1442 and launched in the
> summer of 1443, involved a major diversion of men, funds, and
> authority away from York and the Norman theatre. Duke Richard
> dispatched an embassy to remonstrate with the English government in
> June 1443, but it had no effect, and the campaign itself added injury
> to insult: Somerset's attack on Brittany and the duke of Alencon's
> stronghold of La Guerche disrupted York's attempts, conducted during
> 1442-3, to involve the English in an alliance of French princes. In
> the light of all this it is hardly surprising that, following the
> expedition's failure, the government seems to have felt the need to
> appease York: tallies for the payments due at Michaelmas 1443 arrived
> in February 1444 and, later in that year, the duke was given a major
> apanage in southern Normandy, while earldoms (and, in Edmund's case,
> lands) were granted to his eldest sons. After this no more of York's
> wages were paid until 1446, but at least the truce contracted in May
> 1444 reduced his expenses and removed the need for further military
> activity. In September 1445 York returned to England: his indentures
> were about to expire, parliament was in session, and-rather
> ironically, given the government's own failures in this regard-his
> management of Norman finances was under investigation.
>
> York and English politics before 1450
>
> It now seems clear that Cardinal Beaufort, William de la Pole, earl of
> Suffolk, and the other leading councillors and courtiers who, in the
> first instance, managed Henry VI's authority in the 1430s and 1440s
> intended Richard of York to be a pillar of the Lancastrian regime.
> This did not mean that the already wealthy duke was to be showered
> with gifts, nor did it mean that he was to be given a formal role in
> the government of England. York was not, for example, appointed to the
> re-established council in November 1437, but nothing should be
> inferred from this: at twenty-six the duke would have been considered
> rather youthful for what was in any case a rather anomalous role;
> exclusion from the council would scarcely have excluded him from
> influence; and it is likely that already the expectation was that his
> service to the crown would be overseas, at least while he was of
> military age. It is not known what part, if any, York played in the
> politics of 1437-41, during which time he was in England and Henry VI,
> somewhat uncertainly, came of age. There is no reason to suppose that
> he supported the moves of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, against
> Cardinal Beaufort in 1439-40, despite Gloucester's suggestion that
> York and other lords had been wrongfully kept out of power; nor should
> it be assumed that he was opposed to the release of the duke of
> Orleans. He seems to have kept a low profile at this time,
> participating in a scheme to restore order in Wales in 1437-8, sharing
> in the custody of the Beauchamp wardship in 1439, and touring his
> estates. When, in early 1441, the 'longe bareynesse' of his marriage
> was suddenly ended and a son born, York named him Henry (Bokenham's
> Legenden, 273). This demonstration of dynastic loyalty earned a gift
> of £100 worth of jewels from the grateful king: the restoration of the
> heir of Cambridge and Mortimer must have seemed to be complete.
>
> As lieutenant of France for the second time York became embroiled in
> the government's various diplomatic initiatives, including the moves
> associated with the truce of Tours. It has often been assumed that
> Duke Richard was hostile to the peace negotiations of the 1440s, but
> there is absolutely no evidence for this. While the confusions of
> policy in the early years of the decade must have been exasperating
> for anyone charged with responsibility for the defence of Lancastrian
> France, there is nothing to suggest that York preferred war to
> diplomacy as a means of preserving English interests. As the plan to
> seek a truce with Charles VII and a marriage alliance with the house
> of Anjou emerged as the central plank of royal policy in 1444, York
> seems to have given it his full support. In the new spirit of
> Anglo-French amity, for example, he sent forces to assist the
> dauphin's campaign in Alsace in the summer of 1444. The following
> year, and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he
> opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward
> of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the
> French king's daughters. The duke may even have been sympathetic to
> the government's plans to surrender Maine, which proceeded alongside
> the truce negotiations and formed an integral part of the alliance
> policy. Because of the postures that York struck after 1450 historians
> have tended to assume that he was opposed to this notorious scheme,
> but that is by no means clear. It is very likely that he knew what was
> planned by the end of 1445 (if not earlier, since he met Suffolk's
> embassy as it travelled through Normandy in 1444) and he was certainly
> involved in the arrangements for compensating Maine's English
> landholders in 1447. Interestingly York was never explicitly to
> condemn the handover of the territory, although its loss was certainly
> a prominent feature of popular and parliamentary criticism of William
> de la Pole, by then duke of Suffolk, Edmund Beaufort, duke of
> Somerset, and the other so-called 'traitors' of 1450.
>
> It is from the period following his return to England in 1445 that
> York's alienation from Henry VI's ministers is often supposed to have
> dated. The duke found himself accused of mishandling the funds he had
> been paid for the defence of Normandy, and his chief accuser, it
> appeared, was a central figure in the government, Adam Moleyns, bishop
> of Chichester. York had returned to England confident of reappointment
> to the French lieutenancy, but he was obliged to wait for more than a
> year and then to see the office go to Edmund Beaufort instead. It used
> to be thought that because of his alleged hostility to the peace
> policy, and his putatively close links to the duke of Gloucester (who
> died mysteriously in 1447), Duke Richard was persona non grata with
> Suffolk's regime: his appointment to the lieutenancy of Ireland on 30
> July 1447 has sometimes been seen as a form of exile, the government's
> hope being that, like the earls of March, his predecessors, he would
> go there and die.
>
> However, events thus far do not support this interpretation. York was
> certainly dismayed by the rumours concerning his performance in
> Normandy, but he was explicitly vindicated by king and lords both in
> and outside the parliament of 1445-6; it is not even known that
> Moleyns had made the accusations York claimed, only that the duke saw
> in a public attack on the bishop the opportunity to clear his own
> name. Similarly, while York was probably disappointed not to regain
> the lieutenancy of France, too much should not be made of this: the
> lieutenancy of Ireland, which he was granted in return, was a post
> that his most distinguished ancestors (notably Clarence himself) had
> held; it bestowed upon him almost sovereign powers in the island; and
> it gave him the opportunity to combine military service with the
> exploitation of his interests as an Irish landlord. Finally, since the
> terms of his commission permitted him to appoint a deputy and return
> to England, it cannot be seen as a form of banishment. In some ways,
> indeed, 1446 and 1447 saw York more closely involved in the governing
> regime than he had ever been: in October 1446 he was granted the abbey
> and town of Waltham because he 'will come often to London for the
> king's business and his own' (CPR, 1446-52, 43); over the next year
> he attended a number of council meetings and was named as a witness to
> more than three-quarters of the charters issued from 1446 to 1448;
> during 1447-9 he was added to the peace commissions of eleven counties
> beyond those to which he had been named at his inheritance (and in
> some cases beyond the scope of his landholdings); and finally, almost
> for the first time, he began to enjoy the kind of rewards more
> commonly bestowed on courtiers-most notably, perhaps, the wardship and
> marriage of the Holland heir (Henry) and a series of lands and offices
> once held by Gloucester. This last detail is a reminder that there was
> almost nothing to link York with Duke Humphrey in the latter's
> lifetime: in no sense can York be considered his supporter, and it is
> not improbable that, like other members of the nobility, he witnessed
> Gloucester's destruction at the Bury parliament and, tacitly at least,
> assented to it.
>
> When he finally left for Ireland, in June 1449, Duke Richard did so as
> a loyal and well-regarded member of the Lancastrian establishment. If
> he had been less involved in affairs during the preceding year or so,
> this may well have been at his own choice. Many of the nobility seem
> to have withdrawn from the court during 1448 as the government's
> troubles began to mount. York cannot have wished to be associated with
> the humiliating surrender of Le Mans in March 1448 and he may well
> have feared the consequences of the extraordinary coup at Fougeres. A
> tour of duty in Ireland must have appeared an attractive alternative.
> During his fourteen months in the province York scored a series of
> easy (if short-lived) victories, receiving the submission of most of
> the island's leaders and campaigning effectively in Wicklow. At the
> Drogheda parliament of April 1450 he followed the lead of the Commons
> at Westminster by introducing an Act of Resumption. Like the
> lieutenant of France he was short of money, and this limited his
> achievements, but the contrast between this vigorous performance and
> the demoralizing stasis of Somerset's rule in France must have
> impressed itself upon contemporaries.
>
> Estates and connections
>
> By the mid-1430s, when he had gained full control over his estates,
> York was the richest and most extensive landowner among the king's
> subjects. Estimates of his wealth have varied between £2874 and £5800
> net, but the most recent and reliable estimate suggests that his
> estates in England and Wales were worth about £4000 a year (net) when
> he came into them, and that his exchequer annuities yielded an average
> of £600 a year. York's lands were scattered through England and the
> march of Wales, with notable concentrations in the West Riding of
> Yorkshire; in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire; in Dorset and
> Somerset; in Herefordshire, Shropshire, and the middle march of Wales;
> and in the centre of East Anglia along the border of Norfolk and
> Suffolk. Beyond this he held the earldom of Ulster and the lordships
> of Connacht and Trim, although only the last of these Irish estates is
> likely to have yielded York any real influence or income.
>
> The possession of such vast holdings shaped York's activities as a
> lord: like John of Gaunt before him he was a truly national figure,
> with interests so widespread and diverse that it was difficult for him
> to exert the kind of local authority typical of later medieval
> magnates. He had no real 'country'-no county-sized area of
> concentrated influence where local gentlemen might turn first of all
> to him for lordship-and this helped to determine both the nature of
> his affinity and the role that he and it were to play in the politics
> of the realm. York's following, like Gaunt's or indeed the king's, was
> a disparate group of often important men, many of whom had their own
> local allegiances and whose links with York were forged mainly through
> military service and the tenure of estate or household office. In
> part, of course, this pattern was a consequence of the duke's long
> minority and his prolonged service in France: many of the servants of
> the duchy of York had melted away in the 1420s into Gloucester's
> service, for example; while Duke Richard's appointment as Bedford's
> successor in Normandy presented him with a ready-made following
> looking for a lord. A spry comment from an anti-Yorkist chronicler has
> promoted the suggestion that York was unduly influenced by the men who
> gathered round him in Normandy-in particular, by Sir William Oldhall,
> who was one of York's most reliable agents during the 1450s-but there
> is little to support this notion, particularly when the duke's
> involvement in the peace policy of the mid-1440s is taken into
> account. On the contrary, it seems likely that York's high status, his
> extensive interests, and his relative disengagement from the affairs
> of any particular locality beyond his estates meant that he was
> exposed to a wide array of different voices. If anyone besides the
> king and his ministers was likely to hear the counsel of the realm, it
> was surely York, who numbered lords such as Talbot, Ralph Cromwell,
> and Thomas Scales among his councillors, but also enjoyed links with
> exchequer clerks, lawyers, the widows of Norman soldiers, and local
> worthies from all parts of the country. The maintenance of this kind
> of connection may have cost York dear-as much as £1300 a year,
> according to one recent estimate-but it seems that his money was well
> spent. Despite his inability to offer really consistent local support,
> he was apparently able to co-ordinate the raising of large retinues
> throughout the 1450s. If some of his servants kept away from the
> duke's more controversial ventures, a sizeable and prestigious core
> remained loyal to the end.
>
> The making of York's rebellion
>
> The last and best-known period in York's political life began in
> September 1450, when he suddenly returned from Ireland and took up the
> common cry for the traitors surrounding the king to be brought to
> justice. This was a significant change of political direction for the
> duke, and one that shaped the remainder of his career, but the reasons
> for it are not immediately obvious. Modern historians have mostly
> rejected the traditional interpretation, which laid stress on York's
> dynastic interests and saw his participation in the popular ferments
> of the 1450s as a device for seizing the crown. Instead, the search
> has been for the causes of personal grievance on Duke Richard's part:
> was he moved to anger, or even desperation, by the government's
> enormous debts to him? Was he incensed by the new pre-eminence of
> Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, the man who had so recently lost
> France? Did he fear for his own position, as an old rival took control
> of Henry VI's government? Alternatively, was York simply an
> opportunist, moving (typically late) to exploit the regime's
> difficulties, but without any fixed idea of where his dissidence might
> take him?
>
> One difficulty in reaching any conclusions lies in trying to establish
> which elements of York's programme, as this slowly unfolded, were
> intentional, and intended from the start. It is certainly unlikely
> that the duke was seeking to gain the throne in 1450: previous
> legitimists had soon revealed their desire to improve the realm by
> changing the king, but York was not to assert his Mortimer-Clarence
> claim until 1460, after ten years of activism explicitly devoted to
> other ends. Even in that year, moreover, his move was greeted with
> hostility, and it seems reasonable to suggest that the duke would have
> known all along that this was a likely reaction and would have trimmed
> his policy accordingly. It is possible that, in 1450, York was
> concerned to secure recognition as heir presumptive to Henry VI: the
> king was still without a child and there was a (somewhat faint)
> possibility of dynastic competition from the house of Beaufort. Like
> most noblemen York took an active interest in the claims and titles he
> possessed-in 1445 he had sought information on his interest in the
> throne of Castile and in 1451 an agent of his was to argue in
> parliament that the duke should be named as heir apparent-but, at
> best, this can provide only a partial explanation for his actions in
> 1450.
>
> As far as personal grievances are concerned, meanwhile, it is
> difficult to see what grounds York had for complaint. That the duke
> was part of the establishment in the 1440s has already been
> illustrated. Financially he had fared no worse than any of Henry VI's
> other major accountants: indeed, somewhat remarkably, given the state
> of royal finances, he received £1200 from the crown at the end of
> 1449, and even in May 1450 efforts were being made to find him money.
> He may have decided to return to England to seek funds-a letter to
> Salisbury, written in June 1450, suggests that he feared serious
> losses in Ireland unless he received further payments-but this is
> rather a different matter from acting on a sense of grievance, and if
> seeking money was York's initial aim, it was soon overwhelmed by other
> purposes.
>
> What, finally, of York's famous antagonism towards Somerset: was this
> the motivation for his assault on the king's ministers? The problem
> here is one of disentangling the personal feud between the two men
> from the relative positions in which a wider politics had placed them:
> did York attack the government because it contained Somerset, or did
> he attack Somerset because he was the leader of the government? It is
> certainly possible to find grounds for animosity between the two men:
> Beaufort's performance in the last years of the war was
> undistinguished to say the least, and York may have thought that he
> himself could have achieved more; it has recently been suggested,
> moreover, that the lieutenant's casual surrender of Rouen would
> particularly have rankled with Duke Richard, since he had continued to
> be its captain. At the same time, however, it is clear that once York
> had made his inflammatory moves of September 1450 (and possibly even
> before then), he and Somerset were destined to be at odds: Duke
> Richard's political standing came quickly to depend on the argument
> that the government was run by traitors, and a large part of his
> justification for taking up arms in 1450, 1452, and 1455 was that the
> enmity of leading ministers obliged him to take action to defend
> himself; Duke Edmund, on the other hand, was not unjustified in
> regarding much of York's behaviour as threatening, both to himself and
> to the order of the realm; if he sought, in 1450, in 1452-3, and in
> 1455, to deal with the problem by repression instead of indulgence, it
> was an understandable approach. Politics, as much as personality and
> private interest, determined the conflict between York and Somerset.
>
> Pursuing this further, it may be suggested that it was in the
> extraordinary politics of 1450 that the most likely reasons for York's
> sudden attack on the government are to be found. As Normandy fell to
> the French and the king's bankruptcy was exposed in parliament, the
> authority of Henry VI's ministers disintegrated. MPs and more lowly
> members of society appeared to be united in the belief that the king
> had been betrayed by a self-serving clique who had pillaged his
> possessions in England and surrendered those in France. If Suffolk's
> trial and murder had removed the leader of the gang, the rest remained
> in positions of power, and until the king and the 'true lords' took
> action against them, there could be no justice or order in the realm.
> This judgement on the recent past dominated public life in England
> between 1449 and 1451, and it continued to exert a certain influence
> over the public imagination thereafter. York, like other members of
> the nobility, must have known that in certain ways it was wide of the
> mark, but this did not mean that it could be ignored. In particular,
> in fact, it could not be ignored by York, who had already been
> identified by some of the government's critics as the figure most
> likely to visit retribution upon the 'traitors'. This appears to be
> the explanation for the rough reception that York and his men received
> at their landing in north Wales in September: local agents of the
> royal household, and possibly their commanders at the centre, had
> become alarmed about the duke's intentions. It was at this point,
> perhaps, and not in 1447, that 'by treating [the duke] as an enemy the
> court had made him one' (McFarlane, 405): if both the king's
> ministers and his subjects were going to cast York as the agent of
> justice, he might as well fulfil their expectations. Certainly, the
> moment must have seemed ripe for someone to take drastic action: the
> king's officers could not govern without public confidence, and it may
> have appeared that the removal of some of the discredited men-not
> least, perhaps, the duke of Somerset-was the best way to restore it.
>
> Beyond all this, it might be added that, even if the government had
> not moved against him in 1450, everything in York's make-up would have
> given him the sense that he was the man to restore the situation. He
> was the greatest prince of the royal blood, head and shoulders above
> other lords, the natural successor to Bedford and Gloucester in the
> protection of Henry VI's interests. He had already acted as the king's
> viceroy in France and Ireland; why not in England too? What, if
> anything, York knew of the deeds of men like Gaunt and Woodstock (or
> those of Montfort and Lancaster), whose status was much the same as
> his and whose actions were to prefigure his own, is not known; but one
> model of proper noble service had been made available to him when,
> probably in 1445, York was presented with an elegantly decorated
> translation of Claudian's life of the consul Stilicho. It was an
> account of how the people of Rome and other nations implored this
> virtuous prince to accept the office of consul and restore good
> government to a city torn apart by the evil advisers of a child
> emperor. Its translator had invited York to 'marke stilicoes life'
> ('Mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung', 256): in 1450 the moment had
> arrived when he might put this teaching to good use.
>
> York and the politics of the 1450s
>
> It was with a volley of bills and open letters addressed to the king
> that York returned to English political life in September 1450. The
> first of these sought to establish the duke's loyalty; the second
> advertised his intention to seek justice against his accusers; but it
> was the third that was truly controversial-it drew the king's
> attention to the universal complaint that justice was not being done
> to those who broke the king's law with impunity (in particular, the
> so-called 'traitors'), and offered York's services in bringing the
> guilty to book. This was an open defiance of the government's
> authority, since the essence of the 'traitors' idea was that it was
> the men about the king who were most of all responsible for the
> disasters that had befallen the realm. As far as York was concerned,
> this meant that a true subject was obliged to act against the inner
> circle of authority in order to fulfil the terms of his allegiance to
> king and realm, and this explains the duke's many affirmations of
> loyalty to King Henry: it was the essential justification for actions
> that, on the face of it, appeared disloyal. Under normal
> circumstances, of course, attempts to separate a king's chosen
> counsellors and servants from the ruler himself were unlikely to
> succeed: defiance of royal agents easily shaded into defiance of the
> king, and that was treason. As York and all the rest of the nobility
> knew, however, these circumstances were not normal: Henry VI had shown
> no more discernment than a child in the government of his realm; his
> ministers were virtually self-appointed, and the policies pursued
> during the 1420s, 1430s, and 1440s were essentially theirs. If this
> makes nonsense of one aspect of the 'traitors' thesis, it exposes the
> truth of another aspect: the government was not in any real sense the
> vehicle of the king's will, and thus defiance of it was not treason;
> the regime could legitimately be reshaped, and, with large sections of
> the public arguing that it should be, York's actions had a certain
> justice in them. In reality he was appealing not to the king with
> these manifestos, but to the Lords and to the wider public: his plea
> was that those who were less compromised by the disasters of 1449-50
> must abandon those who were more immediately responsible; a new
> government, in which the duke was to play a more prominent role, must
> be established.
>
> Not surprisingly York's demands fell on deaf ears. The king's circle
> saw little reason for a general blood-letting, and the nobility, who
> had begun to lend support to the beleaguered regime as the crisis
> mounted, appear to have taken a similar view. In a public reply to
> York's bills, his offers of assistance were politely rebuffed, and the
> duke left London to prepare for the parliament summoned to meet in
> November 1450. When it gathered on the 6th, MPs demonstrated their
> continuing enthusiasm for reform by electing Oldhall, York's
> chamberlain, as speaker and loudly calling for the traitors to be
> brought to justice. When the duke himself arrived, with sword borne
> upright before him and a large army at his back, the initiative was
> his: Somerset was promptly imprisoned and the Lords waited to see what
> would happen next. What followed was in part a demonstration of Duke
> Richard's hesitancy and conservatism, and in part a reflection of the
> constraints of his position. Elements of the Commons' programme were
> put into effect, but the duke made no attempt to alter the
> institutional framework of Henry's government, and the result was
> that, during the Christmas recess, authority drifted back to the king
> and his household, Somerset was released, and the Lords, many of whom
> had flirted with York while he was in the ascendant, resumed their
> former obedience. During the sessions of the parliament in 1451 York's
> power waned, and Thomas Younge's notorious attempt to have him
> recognized as heir apparent must have seemed to many an act of
> desperation. Why had York not done more to secure himself during his
> brief ascendancy? It is not, of course, clear what he wanted: if only
> the restoration of order, then this was being achieved without his
> help; if a role for himself in the government, then his actions had
> made this unthinkable unless the king himself were to be altogether
> displaced-the men of Henry's household, who effectively disposed of
> royal power, were hardly going to welcome a man who had posed as their
> nemesis. What York had done, in effect, was to go too far without
> going far enough. Perhaps he should have cut his losses and risked a
> direct assault on the throne; but such a move was almost certain to
> fail. The duke had cast himself as the true liegeman of Henry VI: any
> deviation from this role was sure to be seen as the grossest kind of
> betrayal; York had many potential supporters, but-apart, perhaps, from
> his own servants-their support was for his public, not his private,
> interests.
>
> It has been worth looking at the events of 1450 in some detail,
> because for the next two years Duke Richard's options were very
> largely shaped by what had happened in that year. He could not be
> secure while Somerset and the household retained both control of the
> king and the support of the Lords, yet there was little he could do to
> improve his lot. Moves against Oldhall were under way by the end of
> 1451, and when, in January 1452, York reacted publicly against them
> and against their implications for himself, he was thinly supported.
> Apart from the duke's own men only the malcontent Thomas Courtenay,
> earl of Devon, and his crony Lord Cobham were persuaded to join the
> rising that attempted to repeat the coup of 1450: the rest of the
> nobility gathered around the king and Somerset, and York was forced to
> capitulate at Dartford in early March. His failure left him worse off
> than before. He was obliged to swear a humiliating oath of submission,
> his supporters and tenants were harried by judicial commissions, and
> his attempts to discredit Somerset were treated as part and parcel of
> a private quarrel. As the common people were reduced to order and the
> government enjoyed the unfamiliar taste of victory in Gascony, it
> seemed that York's political career was at an end: never again would
> he be able to take his proper place in the Lancastrian establishment.
>
> At this point, however, fate combined with the contradictions of Henry
> VI's regime to bestow new opportunities upon Duke Richard. In the
> summer of 1453 Somerset's governing consensus suddenly collapsed, as
> the victories in Gascony were reversed, the king lost his mind, and
> war broke out in the north between the Nevilles and the Percys. In the
> resulting crisis York was the only person of sufficient stature to
> restore the situation, and it must be this factor, above all, that
> explains the decision of a non-partisan group of councillors to summon
> him to London in October 1453, and the agreement in parliament to
> appoint him protector and defender of the realm on 27 March 1454. Here
> was a means for York to wrest control of government from Somerset and
> the king's household men without bringing his loyalty to Henry VI into
> question; and here was a means for the rest of political society to
> contain the powerful duke and to create an effective government
> without the kind of sacrifices that had been demanded in 1450. York
> certainly did his part: he went to London full of emollient promises
> to attend the council and do all 'that sholde or might be to the
> welfare of the king and of his subgettes' (CPR, 1452-61, 143); he
> made no attacks on Somerset or other sometime 'traitors' (though his
> ally, Norfolk, did); and, on taking up the post of protector, he
> committed himself to rule consultatively and representatively with the
> Lords. During the succeeding months York made serious and well-founded
> attempts to pacify the disputes in the north and north midlands, and
> he enjoyed some success. Making genuine efforts to consult widely, he
> demonstrated the same statesmanlike qualities that had marked his
> management of France and Ireland: 'for a whole year', wrote one
> chronicler, 'he governed the whole realm of England most nobly and in
> the best way' ('Benet's chronicle', 212). There were certainly limits
> to his achievement, and his tenure of office was to be brought to an
> abrupt halt in February 1455, but the duke's performance may have
> prompted many of his peers to look more sympathetically at his claims
> in the years to come.
>
> Unfortunately, however, the moulds of politics were changing in these
> years, and the broad unity that had so long been preserved among the
> nobility was breaking down. The deterioration of order in the
> localities, which had become so dramatic and extensive by 1453, was
> now combined with the emergence of a more aggressive Lancastrian
> dynasticism to promote significant divisions among the elite. These
> had begun to emerge even before York's protectorate: one of the
> reasons why it had taken so long to arrange the duke's appointment was
> that a substantial group of lords had grouped themselves around the
> queen, Margaret of Anjou, who-since the birth of her son Edward in
> October 1453-was attempting to secure a regency for herself. In the
> winter of 1453-4, indeed, civil war looked a distinct possibility. It
> was held off by York's readiness to make explicit his submission to
> the dynastic claims of the new prince, and by the agreement of all but
> the most extreme figures to join a broadly based regime under the
> duke's headship. When Henry VI recovered his sanity, however, at
> Christmas 1454, those in the household and the north who had opposed
> the protectorate seized the opportunity to assert their interests.
> York was removed from office on 9 February 1455, and by early March a
> more hard-faced government was taking steps against the duke. The fact
> that the Neville earls of Warwick and Salisbury also fell under attack
> at this time reveals the factional and divisive aims of those in
> control: although the government proceeded with the language of
> treason and obedience, its narrowing base and its sponsorship of
> conflict began to undermine its claims to such public goods; when York
> and the Nevilles confronted the king, Somerset, and the Percys at St
> Albans on 22 May 1455, there was a broad equivalence between the two
> sides, and the first blows of a civil war were struck.
>
> The Yorkist victory, however, brought this war to a rapid halt. Just
> as he had done in the early 1450s, the duke submitted to the king and
> attempted to rebuild unity. This was to remain his posture and that of
> his allies right up to the disasters of 1459. York was certainly
> prepared to strain his allegiance to its very limits-securing
> appointment to a second protectorate on 15 November 1455 and depriving
> the king of personal authority a week later-but he would not cross the
> bounds to an outright repudiation of Henry VI's sovereignty. As a
> consequence his pre-eminence remained insecure. His protectorate was
> soon terminated (on 25 February 1456) when parliamentary pressure for
> a resumption weakened his support among the Lords, but the aim of
> preserving unity, or oonhede, among the nobility lingered on for some
> years and ensured that if York was not to be admitted to any special
> power, he was not to be destroyed either. It seems likely that,
> provided he behaved himself, most of the peerage had some respect for
> the duke. Pressure from Queen Margaret and her growing band of
> partisans meant that he was obliged to repeat his submission of 1452
> on a number of occasions between 1456 and 1459, but he was confirmed
> in possession of the lieutenancy of Ireland, and even seems to have
> been able to direct policy for a time in the wake of the 'loveday'
> settlement of 1458. Only in 1459 did the bulk of the Lords finally
> accept the case for war against the duke, and then the fault-lines of
> 1453-4 and 1455 were recreated and York received the support of the
> Nevilles. Rather as at St Albans, York, Warwick, and Salisbury revived
> the case that evil counsellors around the king were destroying the
> common weal of the realm and threatening their own security. On this
> occasion, however, their propaganda cut no ice: finding most of the
> nobility in arms against them at Ludford Bridge (near Ludlow,
> Shropshire) and deserted by a part of the army, York and his allies
> fled the field during the night of 12-13 October 1459.
>
> Exile, return, and death
>
> The duke and his second son, Edmund, earl of Rutland, spent the next
> eleven months in Ireland, attempting to gain the men and money for an
> armed return to England, where the duke's estates were in royal hands
> as a result of his attainder at the Coventry parliament (about the end
> of November 1459). His younger children, including George, were all
> placed in the custody of the duchess of Buckingham. An incidental
> result of York's efforts was the famous Drogheda parliament of 8
> February 1460, in which the Anglo-Irish establishment obtained
> recognition as a distinct political community, separate from England,
> ruled by its own laws and financed by its own currency. In return for
> these concessions York gained resources, protection for his person,
> and an extensive army of archers, which he must have intended to take
> to England. Plans for a co-ordinated invasion of the mainland were
> apparently made during a conference with Warwick at Waterford in the
> spring of 1460, and the duke's Neville allies, accompanied by his
> eldest son, Edward of March, duly landed in Kent in June professing
> loyalty to Henry VI and protesting about the misgovernment of the
> realm. With startling success, they won support in London and the
> south-east and proceeded to defeat the royal army at Northampton on 10
> July, submitting to the king at the battle's end. Over the next few
> weeks March and the Nevilles began to secure the realm and to await
> York's return, which finally occurred near Chester on or about 9
> September 1460.
>
> Much about the next few weeks is obscure: it is not known why it took
> York so long to join his allies on the mainland; it is not known when
> he began so famously to assert his claim to the throne (13 September
> is the first date for which a plausible case can be made); it is not
> known whether or not the initiative had been agreed, or even
> discussed, with the Nevilles. It seems clear that there was no option
> for York but to attempt to make himself king: all other avenues, as
> has been shown, led nowhere; the duke could neither secure himself nor
> restore political order without taking the drastic step from which he
> had so far shrunk; and it may have seemed that by 1460 the polity of
> Henry VI was sufficiently dislocated to permit a direct assault on the
> king. Unfortunately for the duke, however, his own options were
> different from those of his allies, even his sons. These men had
> gained support on the old plea of reforming Henry VI's government.
> They had recently made their loyalty to the king explicit. As the
> managers of a large and diverse alliance, they could not easily
> abandon what they had promised, and it seems clear that the message
> from the London elite, who played an important role in the frantic
> politics of 1459-61, was that a deposition could not be tolerated.
> York marched into London, seized the king, and entered parliament on
> 10 October, announcing that he intended 'to challenge his right' to
> the crown (Johnson, York, 214). The Lords' response was unpromising:
> they went into conclave at Blackfriars and sent the young earl of
> March to persuade his father to accept a negotiated settlement. By 13
> October York had been brought to abandon his plans for an immediate
> coronation, and a few days later he submitted his claim for discussion
> in parliament. An accord emerged on 31 October, and its central
> feature was to leave Henry VI on the throne, while settling the
> succession on York and his sons. It is possible that even after this
> York attempted to get his way by inducing Henry to abdicate. He must
> have realized that, like the treaty of Troyes on which it was
> apparently based, the accord promised immediate war with the
> disinherited heir. In any event, the king was moved to safety and the
> duke was obliged to accept the terms agreed in October, at least for
> the time being. Acting more or less as protector he marched north in
> early December to deal with the forces of the prince of Wales and
> Queen Margaret, which had regrouped in Yorkshire after the defeat at
> Northampton. Venturing forth from his castle at Sandal on 30 December
> 1460, in what may have been an uncharacteristic attempt to surprise
> his enemy, York was set upon by an unexpectedly large Lancastrian
> force. In the ensuing battle of Wakefield, he and his second son,
> Edmund of Rutland, were killed. As a macabre riposte to Duke Richard's
> recent pretensions, his head was severed from his body and displayed
> on the walls of York bearing a paper crown.
>
> So ended the life of this curious figure, who, having played safe in
> the prime of his years, abruptly changed tack at the age of
> thirty-nine, pursuing ever more ambitious and dangerous policies
> until, with victory almost in his grasp, he fell on an ill-chosen
> battlefield. Duke Richard was the true founder of the royal house of
> York, but despite a career that a recent biographer has described as
> 'the most successful failure of the middle ages' (Johnson, 'Political
> career', abstract), he has inspired little interest and even less
> sympathy among historians. Notwithstanding his many claims to be
> acting for the 'common weal' of the realm, York has usually been
> presented as a somewhat colourless bungler: all along, it seems, he
> wanted power, but he could not decide how far to go until the last
> minute, whereupon-fatally-he went too far. In 1964 B. Wilkinson set
> the tone for most modern accounts of the duke's career with his
> judgement that 'it would be folly to make a statesman out of this
> fifteenth-century worldling' (Wilkinson, 88). This view seems
> unfairly harsh: like many of his peers, his instincts were to make the
> best of things in Henry VI's England, a world in which there were no
> easy answers. York's opportunities were closely circumscribed and his
> intentions in opposing Henry VI's government are far from clear; in
> fact there may be a case for seeing him more as the victim of
> circumstances than as their creator. His cautiousness, if ultimately
> unproductive, was justified by the sheer impropriety of opposition to
> the government. On the other hand, the recklessness that he
> demonstrated in 1450, 1452, 1455, 1459, and 1460 was also justified:
> sometimes by its results; always by the need to do something to
> restore the authority that the king, in his feebleness, had frittered
> away. In medieval England, however, the restoration of authority could
> only be carried out from the throne. York's final and most destructive
> venture was thus his best-conceived one, but it is easy to see why it
> has won him few plaudits.
>
> John Watts
>
> Sources P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) + T. B.
> Pugh, 'Richard Plantagenet (1411-60), duke of York, as the king's
> lieutenant in France and Ireland', Aspects of medieval government and
> society: essays presented to J. R. Lander, ed. J. G. Rowe (1986),
> 107-41 + J. Watts, Henry VI and the politics of kingship (1996) + R.
> A. Griffiths, The reign of King Henry VI: the exercise of royal
> authority, 1422-1461 (1981) + Chancery records + J. T. Rosenthal, 'The
> estates and finances of Richard, duke of York, 1411-1460', Studies in
> Medieval and Renaissance History, 2 (1965), 117-204 + G. L. Harriss,
> Cardinal Beaufort: a study of Lancastrian ascendancy and decline
> (1988) + A. J. Pollard, John Talbot and the war in France, 1427-1453,
> Royal Historical Society Studies in History, 35 (1983) + C. T.
> Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy, 1415-1450 (1983) + M. K. Jones,
> 'Somerset, York and the Wars of the Roses', EngHR, 104 (1989), 285-307
> + R. A. Griffiths, 'Duke Richard of York's intentions in 1450 and the
> origins of the Wars of the Roses', Journal of Medieval History, 1
> (1975), 187-209 + M. L. Kekewich and others, eds., The politics of
> fifteenth-century England: John Vale's book (1995) + J. L. Watts, 'De
> consulatu Stiliconis: texts and politics in the reign of Henry VI',
> Journal of Medieval History, 16 (1990), 251-66 + J. M. W. Bean, 'The
> financial position of Richard, duke of York', War and government in
> the middle ages, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (1984), 182-98 + T.
> B. Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton plot of 1415, Southampton RS, 30
> (1988) + A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A history of medieval Ireland (1968) +
> 'John Benet's chronicle for the years 1400 to 1462', ed. G. L. Harriss
> and M. A. Harriss, Camden miscellany, XXIV, CS, 4th ser., 9 (1972) +
> E. Flugel, 'Eine mittelenglische Claudian-Ubersetzung (1445)', Anglia,
> 28 (1905), 255-99 + P. A. Johnson, 'The political career of Richard,
> duke of York, to 1456', DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1981 + B. Wilkinson,
> Constitutional history of England in the fifteenth century (1399-1485)
> (1964) + Osbern Bokenam's Legenden, ed. C. Horstmann (Heilbronn, 1883)
> + 'William Gregory's chronicle of London', The historical collections
> of a citizen of London in the fifteenth century, ed. J. Gairdner, CS,
> new ser., 17 (1876) + K. Dockray, 'The battle of Wakefield and the
> Wars of the Roses', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3), 238-58 + R. Knowles,
> 'The battle of Wakefield: the topography', The Ricardian, 9 (1991-3),
> 259-65 + C. Ross, Edward IV (1974) + Itineraries [of] William
> Worcestre, ed. J. H. Harvey, OMT (1969) + K. B. McFarlane, 'The
> Lancastrian kings', Cambridge Medieval History, 8, ed. C. W.
> Previte-Orton and Z. N. Brooke (1936), 363-417 + CPR, 1446-61 + CEPR
> letters, 8.132
> Archives BL, letters relating to a truce between England and Burgundy,
> Add. Ch. 75479
> Likenesses painted glass window, Cirencester; repro. in S. Lysons, A
> collection of Gloucestershire antiquities (1804) · painted glass
> window, Trinity Cam. [see illus.]
> Wealth at death under £4600 p.a. net: Johnson, Duke Richard, 7, 21-4
>
>
>
>
> ========================================================================
> © Oxford University Press, 2004. See legal notice:
> http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/legal/
>
> We hope you have enjoyed this Life of The Day, but if you do wish to stop
> receiving these messages, please EITHER send a message to
> LISTSERV@... with
>
> signoff ODNBLIFEOFTHEDAY-L
>
> in the body (not the subject line) of the message
>
> OR
>
> send an email to epm-oxforddnb@..., asking us to stop sending you
> these messages.
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-30 18:23:16
--- In , Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>
> Today's life of the day. <snip>
Carol responds:
Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
Carol
>
> Today's life of the day. <snip>
Carol responds:
Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
Carol
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-30 20:33:12
Carol
According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
Elaine
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> >
> > Today's life of the day. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
>
> A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
>
> Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
>
> Carol
>
According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
Elaine
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> >
> > Today's life of the day. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
>
> A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
>
> Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-30 23:14:45
Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> >
> > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> >
> > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> >
> > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> >
> > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-31 03:31:09
Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
Tamara
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > >
> > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > >
> > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Tamara
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > >
> > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > >
> > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-31 07:54:29
Which is why, Ross asks, did Edward devote so much energy to obtaining lands when he was King? He already 'owned' them but obviously never got his head round that because he was the son of a Duke.
________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 3:31
Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
Tamara
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > >
> > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > >
> > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 3:31
Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
Tamara
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > >
> > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > >
> > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-31 18:56:22
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> Elaine
Carol responds:
But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
Carol
>
> Carol
>
> According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> Elaine
Carol responds:
But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
Carol
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-31 19:03:57
Tamara wrote:
>
> Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
Carol responds:
Hi, Tamara. We're talking about February 1444 when the boys (Edward and Edmund) were not yet two and one respectively, and York had no thought of taking the throne). David's answer has solved the problem for me. (But as I noted in another post, the DoY did consider a marriage for Edward as well, and he aimed high--a French princess.)
Carol
>
> Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
Carol responds:
Hi, Tamara. We're talking about February 1444 when the boys (Edward and Edmund) were not yet two and one respectively, and York had no thought of taking the throne). David's answer has solved the problem for me. (But as I noted in another post, the DoY did consider a marriage for Edward as well, and he aimed high--a French princess.)
Carol
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-31 19:20:54
Is this Paul Johnson, the tall red-haired writer of "Intellectuals" and biographer of Elizabeth I?
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> Elaine
Carol responds:
But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> Elaine
Carol responds:
But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
Carol
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-07-31 21:08:03
Didn't Henry VI start going bonkers roundabout then, or was his first bout with madness after his son Eddie of Westminster was born?
(Being that I got the impression that Henry was incompetent long before he went mad, and Richard of York's bid for the throne was rooted or at justified by a desire to see England ruled competently?)
Tamara
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tamara wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Tamara. We're talking about February 1444 when the boys (Edward and Edmund) were not yet two and one respectively, and York had no thought of taking the throne). David's answer has solved the problem for me. (But as I noted in another post, the DoY did consider a marriage for Edward as well, and he aimed high--a French princess.)
>
> Carol
>
(Being that I got the impression that Henry was incompetent long before he went mad, and Richard of York's bid for the throne was rooted or at justified by a desire to see England ruled competently?)
Tamara
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tamara wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Tamara. We're talking about February 1444 when the boys (Edward and Edmund) were not yet two and one respectively, and York had no thought of taking the throne). David's answer has solved the problem for me. (But as I noted in another post, the DoY did consider a marriage for Edward as well, and he aimed high--a French princess.)
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-01 09:21:08
No, it isn't Paul Johnson. I think the writer was a history teacher and I don't think he has published another book.
I read the book years ago. It was, as far as I remember, factual enough but not very well written, very dull.
Helen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Is this Paul Johnson, the tall red-haired writer of "Intellectuals" and biographer of Elizabeth I?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > Elaine
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
>
> That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
>
> Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
>
> Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I read the book years ago. It was, as far as I remember, factual enough but not very well written, very dull.
Helen
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Is this Paul Johnson, the tall red-haired writer of "Intellectuals" and biographer of Elizabeth I?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > Elaine
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
>
> That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
>
> Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
>
> Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-01 16:18:35
Carol
Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. The book is published as part of the Oxford Historical Manuscripts publications. I have read it and it is very detailed on the accounts and even has an appendix on York's servants and annuitants which runs to 14 pages. I also have a list of the sources he used. It is quite dry and has many footnotes on every page. I managed to persuade Eileen to borrow it from the society, which is what I did, instead of buying, as it is quite expensive. What springs to mind is that there does not appear to be much on York and we really could do with a good biography of him. In Johnson there appears to be a lot of sources regarding accounts; he has obviously researched Exchequer accounts, Inquisitions, Duchy of Lancaster accounts and even those held locally in Salop. Johnson does attempt to trace his whereabouts from these sources. Ultimately though they cannot show York's personality and behaviour, which is where the book falls down. It is a somewhat dry, academic book and Johnson is perhaps a little cautious in his assessment of York. It is worth reading but probably loaned from a library not to own. The alternative, which is what we keep getting today, is sensationalism for the sake of publicity and sales.
As to the other comments on York and Edward
>>>> But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
York packed an awful lot into those final 15 years. I would suggest that the man of 1445 was not the same man in terms of motivation and behaviour and an awful lot of water had flowed under the bridge. Ultimately he gambled and lost but for most of his political career was loyal to his country and tried to act according to what he though was best for the country. I think he was left in an impossible situation. He'd lost his wealth, been attainted at the Coventry Parliament although this was later reversed and his attempt for the throne was probably, in his opinion, his only option if he was to restore his rights and privileges and also those of his heirs.
Your other comment on Edward still being "available "
>>>Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
Yes, I agree with both these this statements but with Edward's track record even this may not have prevented him from doing whatever his wished.
Elaine
--- In , "sweethelly2003" <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> No, it isn't Paul Johnson. I think the writer was a history teacher and I don't think he has published another book.
>
> I read the book years ago. It was, as far as I remember, factual enough but not very well written, very dull.
>
> Helen
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Is this Paul Johnson, the tall red-haired writer of "Intellectuals" and biographer of Elizabeth I?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > > Elaine
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
> >
> > That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. The book is published as part of the Oxford Historical Manuscripts publications. I have read it and it is very detailed on the accounts and even has an appendix on York's servants and annuitants which runs to 14 pages. I also have a list of the sources he used. It is quite dry and has many footnotes on every page. I managed to persuade Eileen to borrow it from the society, which is what I did, instead of buying, as it is quite expensive. What springs to mind is that there does not appear to be much on York and we really could do with a good biography of him. In Johnson there appears to be a lot of sources regarding accounts; he has obviously researched Exchequer accounts, Inquisitions, Duchy of Lancaster accounts and even those held locally in Salop. Johnson does attempt to trace his whereabouts from these sources. Ultimately though they cannot show York's personality and behaviour, which is where the book falls down. It is a somewhat dry, academic book and Johnson is perhaps a little cautious in his assessment of York. It is worth reading but probably loaned from a library not to own. The alternative, which is what we keep getting today, is sensationalism for the sake of publicity and sales.
As to the other comments on York and Edward
>>>> But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
York packed an awful lot into those final 15 years. I would suggest that the man of 1445 was not the same man in terms of motivation and behaviour and an awful lot of water had flowed under the bridge. Ultimately he gambled and lost but for most of his political career was loyal to his country and tried to act according to what he though was best for the country. I think he was left in an impossible situation. He'd lost his wealth, been attainted at the Coventry Parliament although this was later reversed and his attempt for the throne was probably, in his opinion, his only option if he was to restore his rights and privileges and also those of his heirs.
Your other comment on Edward still being "available "
>>>Imagine how much trouble would have been prevented if this marriage had been performed! No marriage to either Eleanor Butler or EW would have been possible. (Christine Weightman, author of "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess," says that the duke's greatest failure was not making (successful) marriage arrangements for his sons.)
Yes, I agree with both these this statements but with Edward's track record even this may not have prevented him from doing whatever his wished.
Elaine
--- In , "sweethelly2003" <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> No, it isn't Paul Johnson. I think the writer was a history teacher and I don't think he has published another book.
>
> I read the book years ago. It was, as far as I remember, factual enough but not very well written, very dull.
>
> Helen
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Is this Paul Johnson, the tall red-haired writer of "Intellectuals" and biographer of Elizabeth I?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > > Elaine
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > But note that the article also includes the following sentence: "The following year [1445], and possibly in response to promptings from the government, he [the Duke of York] opened negotiations for a marriage between his eldest son (now Edward of Rouen-the future Edward IV-born on 28 April 1442) and one of the French king's daughters."
> >
> > That doesn't sound as if he regarded Edward as illegitimate. (Note that I have no stake in Edward's supposed illegitimacy; I'm just not persuaded of its truth at this point.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Re Johnson, the source you mention: I see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460 (1988) listed as a source, but who is P. A. Johnson? (I like the Chicago Manual of Style citations better--they use full names rather than initials!) Has anyone read this bio and is it any good?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-01 17:20:14
Elaine wrote:
> Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
Carol responds:
Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
Carol
> Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
Carol responds:
Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
Carol
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-01 19:35:04
H6's first bout (of catatonic schizophrenia? has anyone diagnosed exactly what was wrong with him?) came before Eddie was born. I remember reading that upon coming out of his current bout of madness and meeting his infant son for the first time, he remarked that the child's conception must have been immaculate.
~Weds
--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't Henry VI start going bonkers roundabout then, or was his first bout with madness after his son Eddie of Westminster was born?
>
> (Being that I got the impression that Henry was incompetent long before he went mad, and Richard of York's bid for the throne was rooted or at justified by a desire to see England ruled competently?)
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Tamara wrote:
> > >
> > > Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hi, Tamara. We're talking about February 1444 when the boys (Edward and Edmund) were not yet two and one respectively, and York had no thought of taking the throne). David's answer has solved the problem for me. (But as I noted in another post, the DoY did consider a marriage for Edward as well, and he aimed high--a French princess.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
~Weds
--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't Henry VI start going bonkers roundabout then, or was his first bout with madness after his son Eddie of Westminster was born?
>
> (Being that I got the impression that Henry was incompetent long before he went mad, and Richard of York's bid for the throne was rooted or at justified by a desire to see England ruled competently?)
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Tamara wrote:
> > >
> > > Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hi, Tamara. We're talking about February 1444 when the boys (Edward and Edmund) were not yet two and one respectively, and York had no thought of taking the throne). David's answer has solved the problem for me. (But as I noted in another post, the DoY did consider a marriage for Edward as well, and he aimed high--a French princess.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-01 20:11:01
Kings were coming under increasing pressure to "live of their own", that is conduct private and state business from Royal revenues rather than from raising taxes.
Edward passed acts of "resumption" bringing lands alienated from the crown under Henry VI back into the Royal estates.
He probably felt the need to appease the commons, since he ran up huge debts borrowing from the citizens of London.
Henry VII spend many a merry evening poring over account books chasing every last penny of Royal revenues; after all the cost of his son's divorce lawyers would have to come from somewhere.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Which is why, Ross asks, did Edward devote so much energy to obtaining lands when he was King? He already 'owned' them but obviously never got his head round that because he was the son of a Duke.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 3:31
> Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
>
> Â
>
> Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> > The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > > >
> > > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Edward passed acts of "resumption" bringing lands alienated from the crown under Henry VI back into the Royal estates.
He probably felt the need to appease the commons, since he ran up huge debts borrowing from the citizens of London.
Henry VII spend many a merry evening poring over account books chasing every last penny of Royal revenues; after all the cost of his son's divorce lawyers would have to come from somewhere.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Which is why, Ross asks, did Edward devote so much energy to obtaining lands when he was King? He already 'owned' them but obviously never got his head round that because he was the son of a Duke.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 3:31
> Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
>
> Â
>
> Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> > The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > > >
> > > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-01 22:48:11
I've been hoping for the publication of Ian Mortimer's version of York's life for a long time. His website once said it would be published in 2010. Now it says:
"Warrior of the Roses
The life of Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), duke of York, father of Edward IV and Richard III. This book has been under contract for some while now but has had to be delayed because of more pressing projects. It will appear one day, I promise."
I read P.A. Johnson's version of York's life. I agree it's dry, but I found it fairer to York than other scholars' versions. I'd like to compare Ian Mortimer's interpretations and sources to Johnson's.
Another scholarly and heavily footnoted book that says a lot about York's conflicts with Henry VI's decision-makers and officials is John Watts' "Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship." I found it slow reading, but I kept at it because it also seems fairer to York than other articles and books I have read.
I think Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers sidelined York. Until the birth of Henry VI's son, York had a strong claim to the throne. That may have been more of a liability than an asset. Those who were taking advantage of Henry VI and his insolvent government may have hastened Humphrey, duke of Gloucester's death in 1447. York may have had reason to fear a similar fate. Maybe Richard was thinking of his father and duke Humphrey while he was Edward V's protector. It seems reasonable to me.
Marion
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Elaine wrote:
>
> > Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
>
> Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
>
> Carol
>
"Warrior of the Roses
The life of Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), duke of York, father of Edward IV and Richard III. This book has been under contract for some while now but has had to be delayed because of more pressing projects. It will appear one day, I promise."
I read P.A. Johnson's version of York's life. I agree it's dry, but I found it fairer to York than other scholars' versions. I'd like to compare Ian Mortimer's interpretations and sources to Johnson's.
Another scholarly and heavily footnoted book that says a lot about York's conflicts with Henry VI's decision-makers and officials is John Watts' "Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship." I found it slow reading, but I kept at it because it also seems fairer to York than other articles and books I have read.
I think Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers sidelined York. Until the birth of Henry VI's son, York had a strong claim to the throne. That may have been more of a liability than an asset. Those who were taking advantage of Henry VI and his insolvent government may have hastened Humphrey, duke of Gloucester's death in 1447. York may have had reason to fear a similar fate. Maybe Richard was thinking of his father and duke Humphrey while he was Edward V's protector. It seems reasonable to me.
Marion
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Elaine wrote:
>
> > Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
>
> Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-02 07:05:26
I thought Edward could raise what revenues he wished by kissing the odd widow :) Ross isn't as kind as you (this is in his E4). He doesn't have Edward acquiring lands to care for the Exchequer, more gaining lands for himself and his family, like a nobleman would.
________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 20:10
Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
Kings were coming under increasing pressure to "live of their own", that is conduct private and state business from Royal revenues rather than from raising taxes.
Edward passed acts of "resumption" bringing lands alienated from the crown under Henry VI back into the Royal estates.
He probably felt the need to appease the commons, since he ran up huge debts borrowing from the citizens of London.
Henry VII spend many a merry evening poring over account books chasing every last penny of Royal revenues; after all the cost of his son's divorce lawyers would have to come from somewhere.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Which is why, Ross asks, did Edward devote so much energy to obtaining lands when he was King? He already 'owned' them but obviously never got his head round that because he was the son of a Duke.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 3:31
> Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
>
> Â
>
> Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> > The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > > >
> > > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 20:10
Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
Kings were coming under increasing pressure to "live of their own", that is conduct private and state business from Royal revenues rather than from raising taxes.
Edward passed acts of "resumption" bringing lands alienated from the crown under Henry VI back into the Royal estates.
He probably felt the need to appease the commons, since he ran up huge debts borrowing from the citizens of London.
Henry VII spend many a merry evening poring over account books chasing every last penny of Royal revenues; after all the cost of his son's divorce lawyers would have to come from somewhere.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Which is why, Ross asks, did Edward devote so much energy to obtaining lands when he was King? He already 'owned' them but obviously never got his head round that because he was the son of a Duke.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 3:31
> Subject: Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
>
> Â
>
> Furthermore, if York had succeeded in 1460 and become king, Edward would have been first in line for the throne upon his father's death, and as the king would have owned all of England in a quite literal sense.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward was to inherit the Duchy of York and Earldom of March; he was well provided for. Remember that a man only reached his majority and took control of his affairs officially at 21 years. York may have intended Edward to take over the Earldom of March on attaining his majority, but Rutland and the other boys would have to be provided for by other means; marrying an heiress or being given newly bought estates.
> > The younger sons of even a Duke could not expect to inherit much of his father's estates; possibly a manor or two for his lifetime to get started, but that would be entailed ultimately on the main line.
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > According to Johnson, who is cited in this piece, York spent time in the south of France in 1460, just before he returned to England and ultimately marching north, trying to arrange a marriage for Edmund. It is interesting that it should be Edmund's future he was concerned with and not Edward.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's life of the day. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for posting this link. May I suggest posting a copy of the article to our Files since the link will only be active for a week and those of us outside the UK have no access to the New DNB proper without a subscription.
> > > >
> > > > A very fair and balanced article (the only anomaly I noticed was his reference to "the younger children, including George"--why not "including Richard" or "including George and Richard"? Poor Margaret would be left out regardless). If it weren't for this slight of our Richard, I would think that this author, John Watts (unknown to me previously), might be a good candidate to write on Richard III, an even more controversial figure than his father. But the omission of Richard's name and inclusion of the less famous George's makes me wary.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting that when the two sons (little Henry having already died and the others not having been born) received their earldoms in February 1444, only Edmund received land. The Edward-was-illegitimate theorists will like that.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-02 17:10:55
Hilary Jones wrote:
"I thought Edward could raise what revenues he wished by kissing the odd
widow :) Ross isn't as kind as you (this is in his E4). He doesn't have
Edward acquiring lands to care for the Exchequer, more gaining lands for
himself and his family, like a nobleman would."
Doug here:
I've always understood that, except for extraordinay occasions, all the
monarchs from William I onwards were *expected* to live off their own
revenues and that it was, I believe, Edward I who began the practice of
having Parliament vote taxes on exported wool?
The problem that developed was that the wool tax was voted as a specific
levy; ie, 3 pence, or whatever, per pound and that was fixed for the king's
reign. If the price of wool went up, for whatever reason, the King still
only got those three pennies. So what may have been a fairly generous income
at the beginning of a reign, depreciated over 10-20 years to an amount that
simply wasn't enough to meet increasing royal expenditures.
Then add in the costs of the fighting in France...
Doug
"I thought Edward could raise what revenues he wished by kissing the odd
widow :) Ross isn't as kind as you (this is in his E4). He doesn't have
Edward acquiring lands to care for the Exchequer, more gaining lands for
himself and his family, like a nobleman would."
Doug here:
I've always understood that, except for extraordinay occasions, all the
monarchs from William I onwards were *expected* to live off their own
revenues and that it was, I believe, Edward I who began the practice of
having Parliament vote taxes on exported wool?
The problem that developed was that the wool tax was voted as a specific
levy; ie, 3 pence, or whatever, per pound and that was fixed for the king's
reign. If the price of wool went up, for whatever reason, the King still
only got those three pennies. So what may have been a fairly generous income
at the beginning of a reign, depreciated over 10-20 years to an amount that
simply wasn't enough to meet increasing royal expenditures.
Then add in the costs of the fighting in France...
Doug
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-04 16:49:59
Yes, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester's death was very strange and resolved a problem for the Lancastrian's in France. York took up the cudgels, so to speak, and was seen as a natural successor for the pro war group. His stance on France where he served Henry's administration loyally and often despite the machinations of the anti brigade surrounding Henry back in England could be viewed as a direct challenge. York's claim was stronger and purer (more legitimate) than Henry's although there does not seem to have been the inclination to mount a fresh challenge for the throne before the problems started to mount from the 1450s onwards. York also appears to be content? with the status quo. However, escalating social and civil unrest, disaffected returning troops and members of the nobility, who had lost lands in France, economic crises, together with the factions surrounding Henry and mismanagement of the country and Henry's lack of interest in ruling apart from his mental illnesses changed the status quo.
Mickael K Jones' book on Bosworth clearly makes the case for Richard seeing parallels between himself and his father and to some degree Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. He stresses how the fates of both his father and Humphrey, who as also Protector could be seen as ominous and that therefore he was willing to become proactive rather than to let things take their course.
Elaine
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> I've been hoping for the publication of Ian Mortimer's version of York's life for a long time. His website once said it would be published in 2010. Now it says:
>
> "Warrior of the Roses
> The life of Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), duke of York, father of Edward IV and Richard III. This book has been under contract for some while now but has had to be delayed because of more pressing projects. It will appear one day, I promise."
>
> I read P.A. Johnson's version of York's life. I agree it's dry, but I found it fairer to York than other scholars' versions. I'd like to compare Ian Mortimer's interpretations and sources to Johnson's.
>
> Another scholarly and heavily footnoted book that says a lot about York's conflicts with Henry VI's decision-makers and officials is John Watts' "Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship." I found it slow reading, but I kept at it because it also seems fairer to York than other articles and books I have read.
>
> I think Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers sidelined York. Until the birth of Henry VI's son, York had a strong claim to the throne. That may have been more of a liability than an asset. Those who were taking advantage of Henry VI and his insolvent government may have hastened Humphrey, duke of Gloucester's death in 1447. York may have had reason to fear a similar fate. Maybe Richard was thinking of his father and duke Humphrey while he was Edward V's protector. It seems reasonable to me.
>
> Marion
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Elaine wrote:
> >
> > > Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
> >
> > Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Mickael K Jones' book on Bosworth clearly makes the case for Richard seeing parallels between himself and his father and to some degree Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. He stresses how the fates of both his father and Humphrey, who as also Protector could be seen as ominous and that therefore he was willing to become proactive rather than to let things take their course.
Elaine
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> I've been hoping for the publication of Ian Mortimer's version of York's life for a long time. His website once said it would be published in 2010. Now it says:
>
> "Warrior of the Roses
> The life of Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), duke of York, father of Edward IV and Richard III. This book has been under contract for some while now but has had to be delayed because of more pressing projects. It will appear one day, I promise."
>
> I read P.A. Johnson's version of York's life. I agree it's dry, but I found it fairer to York than other scholars' versions. I'd like to compare Ian Mortimer's interpretations and sources to Johnson's.
>
> Another scholarly and heavily footnoted book that says a lot about York's conflicts with Henry VI's decision-makers and officials is John Watts' "Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship." I found it slow reading, but I kept at it because it also seems fairer to York than other articles and books I have read.
>
> I think Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers sidelined York. Until the birth of Henry VI's son, York had a strong claim to the throne. That may have been more of a liability than an asset. Those who were taking advantage of Henry VI and his insolvent government may have hastened Humphrey, duke of Gloucester's death in 1447. York may have had reason to fear a similar fate. Maybe Richard was thinking of his father and duke Humphrey while he was Edward V's protector. It seems reasonable to me.
>
> Marion
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Elaine wrote:
> >
> > > Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
> >
> > Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-04 18:56:13
I was just reading the Introduction to the 1447 parliament in the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England on the British History Online website. It seems Henry VI had ordered the justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas to take a recess and report to Bury in time for the parliament, so it may be that they were planning to try Gloucester for treason rather than murder him in secret. Maybe he did just throw such a wobbly he gave himself a heart attack.
Marie
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester's death was very strange and resolved a problem for the Lancastrian's in France. York took up the cudgels, so to speak, and was seen as a natural successor for the pro war group. His stance on France where he served Henry's administration loyally and often despite the machinations of the anti brigade surrounding Henry back in England could be viewed as a direct challenge. York's claim was stronger and purer (more legitimate) than Henry's although there does not seem to have been the inclination to mount a fresh challenge for the throne before the problems started to mount from the 1450s onwards. York also appears to be content? with the status quo. However, escalating social and civil unrest, disaffected returning troops and members of the nobility, who had lost lands in France, economic crises, together with the factions surrounding Henry and mismanagement of the country and Henry's lack of interest in ruling apart from his mental illnesses changed the status quo.
>
> Mickael K Jones' book on Bosworth clearly makes the case for Richard seeing parallels between himself and his father and to some degree Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. He stresses how the fates of both his father and Humphrey, who as also Protector could be seen as ominous and that therefore he was willing to become proactive rather than to let things take their course.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been hoping for the publication of Ian Mortimer's version of York's life for a long time. His website once said it would be published in 2010. Now it says:
> >
> > "Warrior of the Roses
> > The life of Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), duke of York, father of Edward IV and Richard III. This book has been under contract for some while now but has had to be delayed because of more pressing projects. It will appear one day, I promise."
> >
> > I read P.A. Johnson's version of York's life. I agree it's dry, but I found it fairer to York than other scholars' versions. I'd like to compare Ian Mortimer's interpretations and sources to Johnson's.
> >
> > Another scholarly and heavily footnoted book that says a lot about York's conflicts with Henry VI's decision-makers and officials is John Watts' "Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship." I found it slow reading, but I kept at it because it also seems fairer to York than other articles and books I have read.
> >
> > I think Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers sidelined York. Until the birth of Henry VI's son, York had a strong claim to the throne. That may have been more of a liability than an asset. Those who were taking advantage of Henry VI and his insolvent government may have hastened Humphrey, duke of Gloucester's death in 1447. York may have had reason to fear a similar fate. Maybe Richard was thinking of his father and duke Humphrey while he was Edward V's protector. It seems reasonable to me.
> >
> > Marion
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Elaine wrote:
> > >
> > > > Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
> > >
> > > Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester's death was very strange and resolved a problem for the Lancastrian's in France. York took up the cudgels, so to speak, and was seen as a natural successor for the pro war group. His stance on France where he served Henry's administration loyally and often despite the machinations of the anti brigade surrounding Henry back in England could be viewed as a direct challenge. York's claim was stronger and purer (more legitimate) than Henry's although there does not seem to have been the inclination to mount a fresh challenge for the throne before the problems started to mount from the 1450s onwards. York also appears to be content? with the status quo. However, escalating social and civil unrest, disaffected returning troops and members of the nobility, who had lost lands in France, economic crises, together with the factions surrounding Henry and mismanagement of the country and Henry's lack of interest in ruling apart from his mental illnesses changed the status quo.
>
> Mickael K Jones' book on Bosworth clearly makes the case for Richard seeing parallels between himself and his father and to some degree Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. He stresses how the fates of both his father and Humphrey, who as also Protector could be seen as ominous and that therefore he was willing to become proactive rather than to let things take their course.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been hoping for the publication of Ian Mortimer's version of York's life for a long time. His website once said it would be published in 2010. Now it says:
> >
> > "Warrior of the Roses
> > The life of Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), duke of York, father of Edward IV and Richard III. This book has been under contract for some while now but has had to be delayed because of more pressing projects. It will appear one day, I promise."
> >
> > I read P.A. Johnson's version of York's life. I agree it's dry, but I found it fairer to York than other scholars' versions. I'd like to compare Ian Mortimer's interpretations and sources to Johnson's.
> >
> > Another scholarly and heavily footnoted book that says a lot about York's conflicts with Henry VI's decision-makers and officials is John Watts' "Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship." I found it slow reading, but I kept at it because it also seems fairer to York than other articles and books I have read.
> >
> > I think Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers sidelined York. Until the birth of Henry VI's son, York had a strong claim to the throne. That may have been more of a liability than an asset. Those who were taking advantage of Henry VI and his insolvent government may have hastened Humphrey, duke of Gloucester's death in 1447. York may have had reason to fear a similar fate. Maybe Richard was thinking of his father and duke Humphrey while he was Edward V's protector. It seems reasonable to me.
> >
> > Marion
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Elaine wrote:
> > >
> > > > Helen is right. P A Johnson is a teacher and does not appear to have written anything else. <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks for a very informative post, which I've snipped as I have nothing to add. This copied-and-pasted info is all I can find on Johnson: "P. A. Johnson, Deputy Headmaster, Rossall School, Fleetwood, Lancs." When I checked the site for Rossall School, someone else was listed as deputy headmaster, so he has either resigned, retired, or died. No indication anywhere, not even the Library of Congress, of his full name.
> > >
> > > Poor Richard of York! No one interested enough in him to write a biography except a stodgy old schoolmaster, to judge from your description of the book! Evidently, most scholars regard him as an adjunct to other, more interesting people--his sons, his wife, his nephew by marriage (Warwick). Definitely time for a new biography, as you say. Maybe the author of the DNB article will oblige, taking advantage of the surge of interest in York's youngest son.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Re: Richard Duke of York as DNB Life of the Day
2013-08-05 16:18:14
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I was just reading the Introduction to the 1447 parliament in the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England on the British History Online website. It seems Henry VI had ordered the justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas to take a recess and report to Bury in time for the parliament, so it may be that they were planning to try Gloucester for treason rather than murder him in secret. Maybe he did just throw such a wobbly he gave himself a heart attack.
Carol responds:
Or died of "deep displeasure and melancholy" (for which he certainly had cause)? If such a death plausible for Humphrey, it's equally plausible for Henry VI, however convenient both deaths were for king and council. Henry was only forty-nine compared with Humphrey's fifty-six, but given his feeble mental state and lack of exercise, he may have been frail. (Odd that he's always presented as an old man. Maybe he *seemed* old.)
Regarding Humphrey, Richard (his fellow Duke of Gloucester) probably had no better idea of his fate than we do. I suspect, though, that he viewed Humphrey's death as murder given what must have been his view of the Lancastrians (Margaret of Anjou and her allies, not so much Henry VI).
All speculative, of course. (I just discovered another coincidence linking the two dukes of Gloucester. Humphrey's birthday was October 3, the day after Richard's.)
Carol
>
> I was just reading the Introduction to the 1447 parliament in the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England on the British History Online website. It seems Henry VI had ordered the justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas to take a recess and report to Bury in time for the parliament, so it may be that they were planning to try Gloucester for treason rather than murder him in secret. Maybe he did just throw such a wobbly he gave himself a heart attack.
Carol responds:
Or died of "deep displeasure and melancholy" (for which he certainly had cause)? If such a death plausible for Humphrey, it's equally plausible for Henry VI, however convenient both deaths were for king and council. Henry was only forty-nine compared with Humphrey's fifty-six, but given his feeble mental state and lack of exercise, he may have been frail. (Odd that he's always presented as an old man. Maybe he *seemed* old.)
Regarding Humphrey, Richard (his fellow Duke of Gloucester) probably had no better idea of his fate than we do. I suspect, though, that he viewed Humphrey's death as murder given what must have been his view of the Lancastrians (Margaret of Anjou and her allies, not so much Henry VI).
All speculative, of course. (I just discovered another coincidence linking the two dukes of Gloucester. Humphrey's birthday was October 3, the day after Richard's.)
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.