22.5.55 ST.ALBANS 1

After numerous approaches and reassurances to King Henry, the army of York,
Warwick and Salisbury faced a royal force under Buckingham, Somerset,
Clifford, and Northumberland in the town of St Albans. The king raised his
standard inthe town square signalling the start of the first phase of the
Wars of the Roses. The Yorkists were victorious, but many Lancastrian lords
were killed in the fighting, storing up long memories for later Yorkists to
deal with. Clifford, Buckingham, Northumberland and Somerset were all slain,
and the Duke of York took King Henry back to London as a prisoner.
It took a battle for York to achieve what he had tried to do for two
decades. Henry wore the crown, but York rule the country, a state recognised
by Parliament in November, legally making him Protector and Defender of the
Land.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> After numerous approaches and reassurances to King Henry, the army
of York,
> Warwick and Salisbury faced a royal force under Buckingham,
Somerset,
> Clifford, and Northumberland in the town of St Albans. The king
raised his
> standard inthe town square

It's not really a square, just a very wide high street called St
Peter's Street (same as it is today) where a weekly market was held.
There was still a market up St Peter's Street (named for St Peter's
church at the top end) when I lived in St Albans, and probably still
is.


signalling the start of the first phase of the
> Wars of the Roses. The Yorkists were victorious, but many
Lancastrian lords
> were killed in the fighting, storing up long memories for later
Yorkists to
> deal with. Clifford, Buckingham, Northumberland and Somerset were
all slain,

Which does look rather deliberate, of course, since the casualties
all told were very low indeed. In addition to the deaths amnogst the
court lords there were many others wounded, including Somerset's
heir, who was so badly hurt he was initially left for dead, and had
to be carried back home in a cart.
This battle was the thing that brought Warwick the Kingmaker to
public fame. He really won it for York by his strategem of breaking
into St Peter's Street by having his men climb into the back gardens
and burst through the houses (the Lancastrians had barricaded and
defended all the side streets leading in). They went to the new
rallying cry of "Kill the lords and spare the commons!", which of
course made Warwick a hero in the eyes of the people but an assassin
in the eyes of the Lancastrian court party. The Earl of Wiltshire,
despite being the King's banner bearer on this occasion, as ever
survived. He set the banner "against a house end and fought manly
with the heels, for he was feared of losing of beauty, for he was
named the fairest knight of this land." He swapped his armour for a
monk's habit at the Abbey and disappeared into the blue yonder.

> and the Duke of York took King Henry back to London as a prisoner.
> It took a battle for York to achieve what he had tried to do for two
> decades. Henry wore the crown, but York rule the country, a state
recognised
> by Parliament in November, legally making him Protector and
Defender of the
> Land.

The Yorkist position, naturally, was that King Henry was not their
prisoner but with his evil councillors out of the way they were able
to be welcomed back into his good grace. In fact, he and the Nevilles
went down on their kness before Henry and protested that they had
never meant any harm to him. He apparently accepted this (didn't have
a lot of choice, of course).
The battle didn't so much achieve for York what he had tried to do
for decades, but restored him to the position he had been in before
Henry recovered from his first breakdown - ie this was actually
York's second protectorate. And although some historians have
questioned it, it does seem that Henry's mind was in fact gradually
overthrown again by the battle and the terrible atmosphere it left;
thanks to Wiltshire's desertion he had ended up slightly wounded in
the neck and had had to take refuge in a tanner's house. Although
three days after the battle it was reported that Henry "thanked be
God, hath no great harm", On 5th June the King (or someone in his
name) wrote to the Dean of Salisbury complaining of being "occupied
and laboured, as ye know well, with sickness and infirmities", and
asking him to find him some really good doctors within the week. He
was okay for Parliament in July, but by late August he'd disappeared
up to Hertford;. On 28 November one of the Pastons reported that the
King was "still at Hertford, and some men are afeared he is sick
again." Another parliament loomed in November and the day before it
was due to open York was empowered to do the job. On the second day
of the session York's placemen in the commons petitioned for a
protector "because of his [the King's] disposition, and sith he would
not come down to them". Also, the Earl of Devon and his sons were
causing mayhem in the south-west and the country needed a recognised
leader to deal with the growing disorder. York of course was chosen
as Protector again, and he did deal very diligently and efficiently
with Devon, who was actually an old ally of his and probably thought
he could do what he liked while York was in control. In fact York put
him in the Tower, and after Henry recovered he did a deal with the
Queen, and his eldest son married her cousin and maid-in-waiting
Marie of Maine; and that is how the Courtenays became Lancastrians.

Marie

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> After numerous approaches and reassurances to King Henry, the army
of York,
> Warwick and Salisbury faced a royal force under Buckingham,
Somerset,
> Clifford, and Northumberland in the town of St Albans. The king
raised his
> standard inthe town square signalling the start of the first phase
of the
> Wars of the Roses. The Yorkists were victorious, but many
Lancastrian lords
> were killed in the fighting, storing up long memories for later
Yorkists to
> deal with. Clifford, Buckingham, Northumberland and Somerset were
all slain,
> and the Duke of York took King Henry back to London as a prisoner.
> It took a battle for York to achieve what he had tried to do for two
> decades. Henry wore the crown, but York rule the country, a state
recognised
> by Parliament in November, legally making him Protector and
Defender of the
> Land.

Just an addition to my earlier response to this, which is I think
rather unfair to York. It is true that he and the Nevilles and their
supporters got all the top jobs left vacant by St Albans, and York
was in control in much the way that Somerset had been before the
battle, but York made no attempt to keep Henry a prisoner, and the
Parliament that met in July was not even packed. The office of
Protector bestowed by Parliament in November was not so much a rubber
stamp of the existing position, but a response to the King's
disappearance to Hertford three months earlier and failure to come
down to preside over same, and to the disorder occasioned by the
King's disappearance.
And it was certainly not York who was keeping the King in the
background as the manor of Hertford belonged to Queen Margaret, and
was indeed one of her favourite retreats. York and Warwick were
evidently concerned to have access to him, and hung around on other
Hertfordshire manors nearby (York at Ware and Warwick at Hunsdon).
This has been construed almost as if they were guarding him, but this
hardly constitutes a siege; in fact it reminds me a lot of 1453, when
the catatonic Henry was shut away at Clarendon and York, denied
access to the court, hovered around curiously on his own Wiltshire
manor of Fasterne. If they did stop Queen Margaret bringing the King
away from Hertford, she never complained of it. Anyway, the Yorkists
were certainly in London by November, and Henry did not follow.
Maurer's statement that "there is no other [than his wound]
indication that he suffered health problems in autumn" is
disingenuous: there is no such evidence for 1453, except
retrospectively. He was, just as this time, simply kept away from
public view for months with no explanation, until parliament could no
longer be put off.
I would also suggest to Maurer (if I were ever to meet her) that
Henry's letter of June (written from Windsor, where she tells us
Queen Margaret had taken him) does not sound much like reference to a
localised physical injury: viz. he complained to Gilbert Kymer that
he was "occupied and laboured, as ye know well, with sickness and
infirmities, of the which to be delivered and cured by, the grace of
Our Lord, us needeth the help, attendance and labour of such expert,
notable and proved men in the craft of medicine as ye be, in whom
among all other our affection and desire right especially is set".
Indeed, it sounds to me as though Henry's mental condition had
worsened by July and Margaret's first reponse was to take him away to
Windsor, and when he got worse she went on with him to the even more
private surroundings of Hertford. I would sugggest that she very
likely composed that letter to Kymer herself; apparently she shared
the same physicians as the King so would have known Kymer's worth
just as well as he did.
Really I can only think of one other possible explanation: ie that
Margaret wrongly hoped that if she held on to the King and witheld
him from the York-dominated government, it would collapse and she
could take back power. However, the initial retreat merely to
Windsor, and the letter to Kymer, suggest otherwise. Also her
experience of 1453 would not tend to suggest to her that such a
strategy would have had any other outcome than to hasten another York
protectorate.

It has in recent years become an orthodoxy amongst historians that
Henry's second breakdown did not exist, but was insinuated by York
for his own purposes; however, I feel they are all copying each other
again without thinking it through. Admittedly, in 1453 he was
eventually brought back to Windsor before his recovery, and people
with acess to the court could see the state he was in, but at that
time Margaret, having just cleverly produced the son and heir and
emerged from her lying-in, was fondly hoping to be recognised as
Regent. She soon learned, to her bitterness, that that was out of the
question in England. In 1455 she would not make the same mistake
again. After all, if Henry did have schizophrenia, as is now commonly
supposed, it is absolutely likely that the stress of St Albans and
its aftermath would set it off again. He certainly seems to have been
out of it by the end of the decade - wasn't he was found sitting
under a tree after one battle, completely oblivious?

Anybody else any thoughts on this?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > After numerous approaches and reassurances to King Henry, the
army
> of York,
> > Warwick and Salisbury faced a royal force under Buckingham,
> Somerset,
> > Clifford, and Northumberland in the town of St Albans. The king
> raised his
> > standard inthe town square signalling the start of the first
phase
> of the
> > Wars of the Roses. The Yorkists were victorious, but many
> Lancastrian lords
> > were killed in the fighting, storing up long memories for later
> Yorkists to
> > deal with. Clifford, Buckingham, Northumberland and Somerset
were
> all slain,
> > and the Duke of York took King Henry back to London as a
prisoner.
> > It took a battle for York to achieve what he had tried to do for
two
> > decades. Henry wore the crown, but York rule the country, a
state
> recognised
> > by Parliament in November, legally making him Protector and
> Defender of the
> > Land.
>
> Just an addition to my earlier response to this, which is I think
> rather unfair to York. It is true that he and the Nevilles and
their
> supporters got all the top jobs left vacant by St Albans, and York
> was in control in much the way that Somerset had been before the
> battle, but York made no attempt to keep Henry a prisoner, and the
> Parliament that met in July was not even packed. The office of
> Protector bestowed by Parliament in November was not so much a
rubber
> stamp of the existing position, but a response to the King's
> disappearance to Hertford three months earlier and failure to come
> down to preside over same, and to the disorder occasioned by the
> King's disappearance.
> And it was certainly not York who was keeping the King in the
> background as the manor of Hertford belonged to Queen Margaret,
and
> was indeed one of her favourite retreats. York and Warwick were
> evidently concerned to have access to him, and hung around on
other
> Hertfordshire manors nearby (York at Ware and Warwick at Hunsdon).
> This has been construed almost as if they were guarding him, but
this
> hardly constitutes a siege; in fact it reminds me a lot of 1453,
when
> the catatonic Henry was shut away at Clarendon and York, denied
> access to the court, hovered around curiously on his own Wiltshire
> manor of Fasterne. If they did stop Queen Margaret bringing the
King
> away from Hertford, she never complained of it. Anyway, the
Yorkists
> were certainly in London by November, and Henry did not follow.
> Maurer's statement that "there is no other [than his wound]
> indication that he suffered health problems in autumn" is
> disingenuous: there is no such evidence for 1453, except
> retrospectively. He was, just as this time, simply kept away from
> public view for months with no explanation, until parliament could
no
> longer be put off.
> I would also suggest to Maurer (if I were ever to meet her) that
> Henry's letter of June (written from Windsor, where she tells us
> Queen Margaret had taken him) does not sound much like reference
to a
> localised physical injury: viz. he complained to Gilbert Kymer
that
> he was "occupied and laboured, as ye know well, with sickness and
> infirmities, of the which to be delivered and cured by, the grace
of
> Our Lord, us needeth the help, attendance and labour of such
expert,
> notable and proved men in the craft of medicine as ye be, in whom
> among all other our affection and desire right especially is set".
> Indeed, it sounds to me as though Henry's mental condition had
> worsened by July and Margaret's first reponse was to take him away
to
> Windsor, and when he got worse she went on with him to the even
more
> private surroundings of Hertford. I would sugggest that she very
> likely composed that letter to Kymer herself; apparently she
shared
> the same physicians as the King so would have known Kymer's worth
> just as well as he did.
> Really I can only think of one other possible explanation: ie that
> Margaret wrongly hoped that if she held on to the King and witheld
> him from the York-dominated government, it would collapse and she
> could take back power. However, the initial retreat merely to
> Windsor, and the letter to Kymer, suggest otherwise. Also her
> experience of 1453 would not tend to suggest to her that such a
> strategy would have had any other outcome than to hasten another
York
> protectorate.
>
> It has in recent years become an orthodoxy amongst historians that
> Henry's second breakdown did not exist, but was insinuated by York
> for his own purposes; however, I feel they are all copying each
other
> again without thinking it through. Admittedly, in 1453 he was
> eventually brought back to Windsor before his recovery, and people
> with acess to the court could see the state he was in, but at that
> time Margaret, having just cleverly produced the son and heir and
> emerged from her lying-in, was fondly hoping to be recognised as
> Regent. She soon learned, to her bitterness, that that was out of
the
> question in England. In 1455 she would not make the same mistake
> again. After all, if Henry did have schizophrenia, as is now
commonly
> supposed, it is absolutely likely that the stress of St Albans and
> its aftermath would set it off again. He certainly seems to have
been
> out of it by the end of the decade - wasn't he was found sitting
> under a tree after one battle, completely oblivious?
>
> Anybody else any thoughts on this?
>
> Marie

I have been reading Christine Carpenter on this, and her view is
very interesting - and really quite convincing. She refers to the
bleief that news of the English losses at Chatillon, and she also
presents a much more positive view of York's actions. He seems not
to have been plotting for the crown from the start (which I never
believed, but which seems common amongst historians) but attempting
to put authority back into a rudderless centre. Somerset tried the
same, and so a clash of two men both claiming to wield royal
authority on behalf of an incapable king was inescapable. Somerset
had the advantage of representing the household, and thuis had an
element of legitimacy, and so York retrospectively (which I found
interesting) claimed to have supported Humphrey of Gloucester who
had stood against the household dominance of the minority years
earlier - yet evidence sugegsts York had actually done no such thing
at the time. He also claimed mass support from the commons, a far
more dangerous tack. Carpenter does seem to think that Henry was
indeed genuinely away with the fairies, and indeed seems to believe
he was never at any time in the real world. The minority was drawing
to a close as the realisation dawned the Henry wasn't ready to rule,
and so it was extended, and the firsta ttempt at rule by the king
resulted in such confusion of grants that the minority had,
informally, to be recommenced. Carpenter thinks he never ruled, and
that, far from his own rule being what caused the trouble, it was
the inability of the nobles to rule with legitimate authority on his
behalf which was the issue. They seem to have united behind the idea
that they had to fill the power vacuum, but not on how to do it.
Very interesting reading.
Brunhild

---> I have been reading Christine Carpenter on this, and her view is
> very interesting - and really quite convincing. She refers to the
> bleief that news of the English losses at Chatillon, and she also
> presents a much more positive view of York's actions. He seems not
> to have been plotting for the crown from the start (which I never
> believed, but which seems common amongst historians) but attempting
> to put authority back into a rudderless centre. Somerset tried the
> same, and so a clash of two men both claiming to wield royal
> authority on behalf of an incapable king was inescapable. Somerset
> had the advantage of representing the household, and thuis had an
> element of legitimacy, and so York retrospectively (which I found
> interesting) claimed to have supported Humphrey of Gloucester who
> had stood against the household dominance of the minority years
> earlier - yet evidence sugegsts York had actually done no such
thing
> at the time. He also claimed mass support from the commons, a far
> more dangerous tack. Carpenter does seem to think that Henry was
> indeed genuinely away with the fairies, and indeed seems to believe
> he was never at any time in the real world. The minority was
drawing
> to a close as the realisation dawned the Henry wasn't ready to
rule,
> and so it was extended, and the firsta ttempt at rule by the king
> resulted in such confusion of grants that the minority had,
> informally, to be recommenced. Carpenter thinks he never ruled, and
> that, far from his own rule being what caused the trouble, it was
> the inability of the nobles to rule with legitimate authority on
his
> behalf which was the issue. They seem to have united behind the
idea
> that they had to fill the power vacuum, but not on how to do it.
> Very interesting reading.
> Brunhild

That's very interesting - far more like my own reading of the events
than the usual interpretion. Could you possibly give me the details
of the book?
Clearly Henry's away-ness was less pronounced at some times than
others - he was for instance able to open Parliament most of the
time, but not apparently in late 1453 and 1455. But I too question
the view that the problem was Henry's own interference in government,
except in so far as I would say he probably liked Somerset and was
able to be manipulated into allowing him his own way. I don't know
what the evidence is re York and Humphrey of Gloucester - I'm a bit
rusty on the 1440s. That was before York's own total breach with the
court so he possibly, like Richard over Clarence, kept his thoughts
to himself. What I do know is that many of Humphrey's old retainers
transferred to York; and I have also read recently that when York
returned from Ireland in 1450 he may have been trying to rescue the
Duchess of Gloucester from prison, hence the royal agents sent out
against him in north Wales.

In York's defence I would also like to add that his record of
government during his two protectorates was examplary and by no means
always in his own interest, which does suggest that he was not merely
playing to the gallery.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> ---> I have been reading Christine Carpenter on this, and her view
is
> > very interesting - and really quite convincing. She refers to
the
> > bleief that news of the English losses at Chatillon, and she
also
> > presents a much more positive view of York's actions. He seems
not
> > to have been plotting for the crown from the start (which I
never
> > believed, but which seems common amongst historians) but
attempting
> > to put authority back into a rudderless centre. Somerset tried
the
> > same, and so a clash of two men both claiming to wield royal
> > authority on behalf of an incapable king was inescapable.
Somerset
> > had the advantage of representing the household, and thuis had
an
> > element of legitimacy, and so York retrospectively (which I
found
> > interesting) claimed to have supported Humphrey of Gloucester
who
> > had stood against the household dominance of the minority years
> > earlier - yet evidence sugegsts York had actually done no such
> thing
> > at the time. He also claimed mass support from the commons, a
far
> > more dangerous tack. Carpenter does seem to think that Henry was
> > indeed genuinely away with the fairies, and indeed seems to
believe
> > he was never at any time in the real world. The minority was
> drawing
> > to a close as the realisation dawned the Henry wasn't ready to
> rule,
> > and so it was extended, and the firsta ttempt at rule by the
king
> > resulted in such confusion of grants that the minority had,
> > informally, to be recommenced. Carpenter thinks he never ruled,
and
> > that, far from his own rule being what caused the trouble, it
was
> > the inability of the nobles to rule with legitimate authority on
> his
> > behalf which was the issue. They seem to have united behind the
> idea
> > that they had to fill the power vacuum, but not on how to do it.
> > Very interesting reading.
> > Brunhild
>
> That's very interesting - far more like my own reading of the
events
> than the usual interpretion. Could you possibly give me the
details
> of the book?
> Clearly Henry's away-ness was less pronounced at some times than
> others - he was for instance able to open Parliament most of the
> time, but not apparently in late 1453 and 1455. But I too question
> the view that the problem was Henry's own interference in
government,
> except in so far as I would say he probably liked Somerset and was
> able to be manipulated into allowing him his own way. I don't know
> what the evidence is re York and Humphrey of Gloucester - I'm a
bit
> rusty on the 1440s. That was before York's own total breach with
the
> court so he possibly, like Richard over Clarence, kept his
thoughts
> to himself. What I do know is that many of Humphrey's old
retainers
> transferred to York; and I have also read recently that when York
> returned from Ireland in 1450 he may have been trying to rescue
the
> Duchess of Gloucester from prison, hence the royal agents sent out
> against him in north Wales.
>
> In York's defence I would also like to add that his record of
> government during his two protectorates was examplary and by no
means
> always in his own interest, which does suggest that he was not
merely
> playing to the gallery.
>
> Marie

My own feelings exactly, Marie. I started it last year but got a bit
bogged down in more urgent reading, but am back at it ready for
September. It's The Wars of the Roses, Politics and the constitution
in England c1437-1509, Christine Carpenter (Cambridge Medieval
Textbook) 1997. She comes across well on tv too, unlike Horrocks. I
got mine in Amazon. My own view of York is quite positive, though
the siding with Gloucester may not have been that bright - given the
idiocy of much of what Gloucester sems to have done and stood for -
though I can see why it might have been necessary if it were the
only way of opposing Somerset. I should like to learn more about
Gloucester (Humphrey not our dear one) but he will have to wait in
line. Does anyone know a good biog of the "Good Duke"? Come to think
of it, is there one on the Beauforts?
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > ---> I have been reading Christine Carpenter on this, and her
view
> is
> > > very interesting - and really quite convincing. She refers to
> the
> > > bleief that news of the English losses at Chatillon, and she
> also
> > > presents a much more positive view of York's actions. He seems
> not
> > > to have been plotting for the crown from the start (which I
> never
> > > believed, but which seems common amongst historians) but
> attempting
> > > to put authority back into a rudderless centre. Somerset tried
> the
> > > same, and so a clash of two men both claiming to wield royal
> > > authority on behalf of an incapable king was inescapable.
> Somerset
> > > had the advantage of representing the household, and thuis had
> an
> > > element of legitimacy, and so York retrospectively (which I
> found
> > > interesting) claimed to have supported Humphrey of Gloucester
> who
> > > had stood against the household dominance of the minority years
> > > earlier - yet evidence sugegsts York had actually done no such
> > thing
> > > at the time. He also claimed mass support from the commons, a
> far
> > > more dangerous tack. Carpenter does seem to think that Henry
was
> > > indeed genuinely away with the fairies, and indeed seems to
> believe
> > > he was never at any time in the real world. The minority was
> > drawing
> > > to a close as the realisation dawned the Henry wasn't ready to
> > rule,
> > > and so it was extended, and the firsta ttempt at rule by the
> king
> > > resulted in such confusion of grants that the minority had,
> > > informally, to be recommenced. Carpenter thinks he never ruled,
> and
> > > that, far from his own rule being what caused the trouble, it
> was
> > > the inability of the nobles to rule with legitimate authority
on
> > his
> > > behalf which was the issue. They seem to have united behind the
> > idea
> > > that they had to fill the power vacuum, but not on how to do
it.
> > > Very interesting reading.
> > > Brunhild
> >
> > That's very interesting - far more like my own reading of the
> events
> > than the usual interpretion. Could you possibly give me the
> details
> > of the book?
> > Clearly Henry's away-ness was less pronounced at some times than
> > others - he was for instance able to open Parliament most of the
> > time, but not apparently in late 1453 and 1455. But I too
question
> > the view that the problem was Henry's own interference in
> government,
> > except in so far as I would say he probably liked Somerset and
was
> > able to be manipulated into allowing him his own way. I don't
know
> > what the evidence is re York and Humphrey of Gloucester - I'm a
> bit
> > rusty on the 1440s. That was before York's own total breach with
> the
> > court so he possibly, like Richard over Clarence, kept his
> thoughts
> > to himself. What I do know is that many of Humphrey's old
> retainers
> > transferred to York; and I have also read recently that when York
> > returned from Ireland in 1450 he may have been trying to rescue
> the
> > Duchess of Gloucester from prison, hence the royal agents sent
out
> > against him in north Wales.
> >
> > In York's defence I would also like to add that his record of
> > government during his two protectorates was examplary and by no
> means
> > always in his own interest, which does suggest that he was not
> merely
> > playing to the gallery.
> >
> > Marie
>
> My own feelings exactly, Marie. I started it last year but got a
bit
> bogged down in more urgent reading, but am back at it ready for
> September. It's The Wars of the Roses, Politics and the
constitution
> in England c1437-1509, Christine Carpenter (Cambridge Medieval
> Textbook) 1997. She comes across well on tv too, unlike Horrocks. I
> got mine in Amazon. My own view of York is quite positive, though
> the siding with Gloucester may not have been that bright - given
the
> idiocy of much of what Gloucester sems to have done and stood for -

Yes, Humphrey of Gloucester has a certain cringe factor, doesn't he?
However, he was very popular at the time and was seen to stand for
the chivalric, honourable position - ie nobles making some sacrifice
on their own part in the great cause of maintaining France. I must
say I find it very difficult to sympathasise with, or even
understand, the pro-war position as I don't like empire and it seems
to me the idea of the English king ruling France was a piece of
nosensical and expensive hubris which caused great suffering to the
French people. However, nobody very much thought in those terms in
those days, and the division was seen not as between warmongers and
pacifists, but as between effete, corrupt, self-serving court
sycophants on the one hand, and virtuous, noble, honourable and self-
sacrificing English knights on the other. Also, the consequences of
the loss of France were pretty bad at home: loads of returning
soldiers surplus to requirements finding their jobs had been taken
over by women; slump and unemployment and an anti-feminist backlash.
Not to mention the warrior elite turning on each other at home.
Also, the court party did deal pretty ruthlessly with Humphrey and
his family, which made him into something of a martyr. His only son
(illegitimate - Arthur) was hanged on a trumped-up charge of treason.
His wife was condemned to perpetual imprisonment on charges of using
witchcraft against the king, and the man and woman supposed to have
helped her were respctively hanged, drawn & quartered and burned
alive. Then Humphrey was arrested and promptly died of apoplexy -
it's hardly surprising that he was almost universally thought to have
been murdered.
York's real beef with the court was about France. He actually seems
to have believed that Somerset gave Normandy away deliberately.
Beaufort had, of course, pushed him out of office, and after the
cession of Maine there was a strong (though probably erroneous)
belief around that secret deals had been made with Charles VII. To
see it from York's viewpoint, he had absolutely put his life on the
line to recover Pontoise and other territory. He had governed
Normandy well and justly and was well-regarded by the French
population. The Beauforts pushed him out of office to take the
lieutenancy of France for themselves (though later evidence suggests
they weren't really very interested in France), then they lost
Normandy completely. Suspicious, or what?
By the way, I don't personally see York as a demagogue. His views
were in sympathy with those of the population, and I think he did
care about the ordinary people and good government - his record as
Protector is ample testament to that, and I could quote from a
PRIVATE letter he wrote to his son-in-law Exeter during his second
protectorate lecturing him about his bad behaviour and how he should
know better in his privileged position, and warning him that despite
their close relationship he was going to have to do his duty and take
action against him if he didn't mend his violent ways.
Warwick, however, was a different matter. That business at St
Albans - Kill the lords and spare the commons! - was a pretty
ruthless bit of demagoguery coming from an earl! It would seem that
Warwick rather than York was personally responsible for the deaths of
the Lancastrian leaders at St Albans: in fact he and Lord Cromwell
(another of York's allies) had a public row with each other
afterwards about which of them was to blame.
Anyway, Warwick follows that up with keeping open house in his London
kitchen, giving away roast meat to all and sundry; not to mention
indulging in quite unprovoked but popular acts of piracy against
friendly foreign shipping in the Channel. That was not York's own
style, and in many ways they made strange bedfellows.


> though I can see why it might have been necessary if it were the
> only way of opposing Somerset. I should like to learn more about
> Gloucester (Humphrey not our dear one) but he will have to wait in
> line. Does anyone know a good biog of the "Good Duke"? Come to
think
> of it, is there one on the Beauforts?

Sorry, not aware of biographies of either.

Marie

>
> Yes, Humphrey of Gloucester has a certain cringe factor, doesn't
he?
> However, he was very popular at the time and was seen to stand for
> the chivalric, honourable position - ie nobles making some
sacrifice
> on their own part in the great cause of maintaining France. I must
> say I find it very difficult to sympathasise with, or even
> understand, the pro-war position as I don't like empire and it
seems
> to me the idea of the English king ruling France was a piece of
> nosensical and expensive hubris which caused great suffering to
the
> French people. However, nobody very much thought in those terms in
> those days, and the division was seen not as between warmongers
and
> pacifists, but as between effete, corrupt, self-serving court
> sycophants on the one hand, and virtuous, noble, honourable and
self-
> sacrificing English knights on the other.

Well they seem to have genuinely believed in the justice of the
royal claim and rights were probably at the top of everyone's
priority list, the right of legitimate inheritance being held
sacrosanct. According to Carpenter there was a distinct war party
and peace party so clearly some had come to a semblance of sense.

Also, the consequences of
> the loss of France were pretty bad at home: loads of returning
> soldiers surplus to requirements finding their jobs had been taken
> over by women; slump and unemployment and an anti-feminist
backlash.

Interesting notion - on what evidence do you base that statement? I
ask because I have been looking into a rather different sort of anti-
feminist issue from pre-1348 and the changes which occur as a result
of the BD. My findings tended to suggest that up until around 1500
was, in fact, something of a golden age for women so evidence of a
backlash would fit in nicely. Perhaps if this is of interest to you
we could discuss it by email?

> Not to mention the warrior elite turning on each other at home.
> Also, the court party did deal pretty ruthlessly with Humphrey and
> his family, which made him into something of a martyr. His only
son
> (illegitimate - Arthur) was hanged on a trumped-up charge of
treason.
> His wife was condemned to perpetual imprisonment on charges of
using
> witchcraft against the king, and the man and woman supposed to
have
> helped her were respctively hanged, drawn & quartered and burned
> alive. Then Humphrey was arrested and promptly died of apoplexy -
> it's hardly surprising that he was almost universally thought to
have
> been murdered.

Mind you, it could be seen as inevitable given the way he had
succeeded in making himself Mr Unpopular with the rest of the nobles.

> York's real beef with the court was about France. He actually
seems
> to have believed that Somerset gave Normandy away deliberately.
> Beaufort had, of course, pushed him out of office, and after the
> cession of Maine there was a strong (though probably erroneous)
> belief around that secret deals had been made with Charles VII. To
> see it from York's viewpoint, he had absolutely put his life on
the
> line to recover Pontoise and other territory.
He had governed
> Normandy well and justly and was well-regarded by the French
> population. The Beauforts pushed him out of office to take the
> lieutenancy of France for themselves (though later evidence
suggests
> they weren't really very interested in France), then they lost
> Normandy completely. Suspicious, or what?

The answer here may lie in the lack of land provision for the
Beauforts. Somerset was given lands in France instead and seems to
have been more concerned with these than in hanging on to Normandy.
According to Carpenter such replacements in charge were not unusual
and shouldn't be taken as evidence of early grounds for feud between
York and Somerset. The jury is still out on that for me, as the
traditional view may be a little ingrained!

> By the way, I don't personally see York as a demagogue. His views
> were in sympathy with those of the population, and I think he did
> care about the ordinary people and good government - his record as
> Protector is ample testament to that, and I could quote from a
> PRIVATE letter he wrote to his son-in-law Exeter during his second
> protectorate lecturing him about his bad behaviour and how he
should
> know better in his privileged position, and warning him that
despite
> their close relationship he was going to have to do his duty and
take
> action against him if he didn't mend his violent ways.
> Warwick, however, was a different matter. That business at St
> Albans - Kill the lords and spare the commons! - was a pretty
> ruthless bit of demagoguery coming from an earl! It would seem
that
> Warwick rather than York was personally responsible for the deaths
of
> the Lancastrian leaders at St Albans: in fact he and Lord Cromwell
> (another of York's allies) had a public row with each other
> afterwards about which of them was to blame.
> Anyway, Warwick follows that up with keeping open house in his
London
> kitchen, giving away roast meat to all and sundry; not to mention
> indulging in quite unprovoked but popular acts of piracy against
> friendly foreign shipping in the Channel. That was not York's own
> style, and in many ways they made strange bedfellows.

I think this is an area worthy of deeper research by the
professionals. :-) Maybe Stephen Gunn could be pointed that way???
>
>
> > though I can see why it might have been necessary if it were the
> > only way of opposing Somerset. I should like to learn more about
> > Gloucester (Humphrey not our dear one) but he will have to wait
in
> > line. Does anyone know a good biog of the "Good Duke"? Come to
> think
> > of it, is there one on the Beauforts?
>
> Sorry, not aware of biographies of either.

Pity. B
>
> Marie

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, Humphrey of Gloucester has a certain cringe factor, doesn't
> he?
> > However, he was very popular at the time and was seen to stand
for
> > the chivalric, honourable position - ie nobles making some
> sacrifice
> > on their own part in the great cause of maintaining France. I
must
> > say I find it very difficult to sympathasise with, or even
> > understand, the pro-war position as I don't like empire and it
> seems
> > to me the idea of the English king ruling France was a piece of
> > nosensical and expensive hubris which caused great suffering to
> the
> > French people. However, nobody very much thought in those terms
in
> > those days, and the division was seen not as between warmongers
> and
> > pacifists, but as between effete, corrupt, self-serving court
> > sycophants on the one hand, and virtuous, noble, honourable and
> self-
> > sacrificing English knights on the other.
>
> Well they seem to have genuinely believed in the justice of the
> royal claim and rights were probably at the top of everyone's
> priority list, the right of legitimate inheritance being held
> sacrosanct. According to Carpenter there was a distinct war party
> and peace party so clearly some had come to a semblance of sense.

I used to read that, but I'm no longer sure it was so clear-cut. I
haven't read Carpenter, and perhaps I should, but I know there was a
lot of peace rhetoric at the time of Margaret's marriage to Henry,
and great hopes for an honourable settlement that would bring an end
to the war. York seems to have been all for that, as were most of the
nobility. I can't recall Gloucester's position. It was really what
was seen as the rather dishonourable solution of just running out,
after all the sacrifices made, that split the nobility. I have a dim
memory of something written by one of the court party extolling the
virtues of peace - perhaps after the cession of Maine (which was a
deliberate act, and a restoration of land to Margaret's father)? -
but nobody really plugged that line after the loss of either Normandy
or Guienne so far as I recall. I think people's views were more
complex and, to our culture, weird, than can be accounted for by a
war party and a peace party. It was believed by many of what some
historians like to call the "war party" that the only thing stopping
those in power from making a stand was a reluctance to dip into their
own pockets. See next item.

>
> Also, the consequences of
> > the loss of France were pretty bad at home: loads of returning
> > soldiers surplus to requirements finding their jobs had been
taken
> > over by women; slump and unemployment and an anti-feminist
> backlash.
>
> Interesting notion - on what evidence do you base that statement? I
> ask because I have been looking into a rather different sort of
anti-
> feminist issue from pre-1348 and the changes which occur as a
result
> of the BD. My findings tended to suggest that up until around 1500
> was, in fact, something of a golden age for women so evidence of a
> backlash would fit in nicely. Perhaps if this is of interest to you
> we could discuss it by email?

The first I read of it was many years ago. Returning soldiers in some
south-coast town - I think it may have been Southampton - who were
theoretically weavers, tried to get their trade back by excluding
women from the local weavers' guild. The women responded by forming
their own guild, and apparently it remained more successful than the
men's guild for many years. I've heard other stories since.
Certainly there were a lot of women in trade in the first half of the
century, both because of the decline in the population and, espcially
in some areas, because of the absence of many men away fighting in
France. There is no doubt there were great numbers of unemployed
soldiers dumped on the country in the early 1450s; some of these
would have been taken into the private armies of the lords, and some
would have been looking to take up their old occupations. So it's
probably no accident that by Richard's time there was a strong
feeling developing amongst tradesmen especially that a woman's proper
place was at home; in fact, the gradual squeezing out of women from
the workplace after about 1450 was mentioned in one of our talks in
York this year, though the end of the French War wasn't cited as a
cause (the cause was not discussed); the connection, however, seems
fairly obvious. A document was quoted from some provincial place or
other from men arguing that the slump in their trade (I think it may
have been weaving again) was due to the women working in it, who
obviously produced inferior goods and brought down the reputation of
the whole industry! I have also been told, in conversation with
someone who has studied a lot more 15th century wills than I have,
that in earlier wills there is plenty of evidence of women in trade,
but this peters out, and by 1480 you begin to see a lot of charitable
bequests to provide dowries to girls from poor families, because by
this time it was assumed in many quarters that they could not, or
should not, make their own way in the world. I don't think the
backlash lobby had by any means won the day by 1485, but the writing
was definitely on the wall.
I'd be happy to discuss this more by email, but I don't think I've
got a lot more to say on the subject.

>
> > Not to mention the warrior elite turning on each other at home.
> > Also, the court party did deal pretty ruthlessly with Humphrey
and
> > his family, which made him into something of a martyr. His only
> son
> > (illegitimate - Arthur) was hanged on a trumped-up charge of
> treason.
> > His wife was condemned to perpetual imprisonment on charges of
> using
> > witchcraft against the king, and the man and woman supposed to
> have
> > helped her were respctively hanged, drawn & quartered and burned
> > alive. Then Humphrey was arrested and promptly died of apoplexy -
> > it's hardly surprising that he was almost universally thought to
> have
> > been murdered.
>
> Mind you, it could be seen as inevitable given the way he had
> succeeded in making himself Mr Unpopular with the rest of the
nobles.

Hmmm. I'm a bit reluctant of talk about this period because I haven't
read Carpenter, and as I say I'm very rusty on the 1440s. But what I
don't like about the Henry HVI court regime is that they tried to
control other nobles by hitting at people of lesser rank connected to
them - a terrible sort of snobbery and contempt for the people in
whose interests they were supposed to be working. There was Arthur of
Gloucester, there were numerous ordinary Joe Bloggs made an example
of, perhaps just for uttering a word out of place about Henry's
marbles. A man who worked as an armourer for York who was condemned
to a trial by combat with some crack swordsman, which he inevitably
lost. Then there was the Harvest of Heads, a sort of Bloody Assizes
of the 15th century, and various royal visitations to terrorise
York's tenants, the most notorious being Hungerford's swoop on
Newbury in 1459/60. It would have been more honest, and more just, if
they had condemned Gloucester and York openly.
>
> > York's real beef with the court was about France. He actually
> seems
> > to have believed that Somerset gave Normandy away deliberately.
> > Beaufort had, of course, pushed him out of office, and after the
> > cession of Maine there was a strong (though probably erroneous)
> > belief around that secret deals had been made with Charles VII.
To
> > see it from York's viewpoint, he had absolutely put his life on
> the
> > line to recover Pontoise and other territory.
> He had governed
> > Normandy well and justly and was well-regarded by the French
> > population. The Beauforts pushed him out of office to take the
> > lieutenancy of France for themselves (though later evidence
> suggests
> > they weren't really very interested in France), then they lost
> > Normandy completely. Suspicious, or what?
>
> The answer here may lie in the lack of land provision for the
> Beauforts. Somerset was given lands in France instead and seems to
> have been more concerned with these than in hanging on to Normandy.

For me you've hit the nail on the head. I think the Beauforts' lack
of land provision (rather than desire to leave France to the French)
explains a lot of their behaviour; indeed, it reinforces the idea
that they were in it for their own benefit. York, when he wasn't
actually in control, tended to get paid in tally sticks which went
for years unredeemed, so that he ended up pawning some of his plate
and jewels to Fastolf. I have read that Somerset supplemented his
meagre landed income from the salaries of his offices, so he would
appear to have been paid in good coin of the realm.

> According to Carpenter such replacements in charge were not unusual
> and shouldn't be taken as evidence of early grounds for feud
between
> York and Somerset. The jury is still out on that for me, as the
> traditional view may be a little ingrained!

Yes, except that I seem to recall that the previous duke was sent
over while York was still in office, sort of put in over his head.
York would no doubt have put up with Somerset getting the lieutenancy
next if he had done a good job. I don't believe Somerset had any
dastardly planns, but was just not as self-sacrificing and public-
spirited (and brave?) as he needed to be for that job. I think York
was getting carried away with himself suggesting it was deliberate
treason. York, to my mind, was a well-meaning but flawed character -
not well cut out for the sort of political atmosphere he found
himself in.
>
> > By the way, I don't personally see York as a demagogue. His views
> > were in sympathy with those of the population, and I think he did
> > care about the ordinary people and good government - his record
as
> > Protector is ample testament to that, and I could quote from a
> > PRIVATE letter he wrote to his son-in-law Exeter during his
second
> > protectorate lecturing him about his bad behaviour and how he
> should
> > know better in his privileged position, and warning him that
> despite
> > their close relationship he was going to have to do his duty and
> take
> > action against him if he didn't mend his violent ways.
> > Warwick, however, was a different matter. That business at St
> > Albans - Kill the lords and spare the commons! - was a pretty
> > ruthless bit of demagoguery coming from an earl! It would seem
> that
> > Warwick rather than York was personally responsible for the
deaths
> of
> > the Lancastrian leaders at St Albans: in fact he and Lord
Cromwell
> > (another of York's allies) had a public row with each other
> > afterwards about which of them was to blame.
> > Anyway, Warwick follows that up with keeping open house in his
> London
> > kitchen, giving away roast meat to all and sundry; not to mention
> > indulging in quite unprovoked but popular acts of piracy against
> > friendly foreign shipping in the Channel. That was not York's own
> > style, and in many ways they made strange bedfellows.
>
> I think this is an area worthy of deeper research by the
> professionals. :-) Maybe Stephen Gunn could be pointed that way???
> >
> >
> > > though I can see why it might have been necessary if it were
the
> > > only way of opposing Somerset. I should like to learn more
about
> > > Gloucester (Humphrey not our dear one) but he will have to wait
> in
> > > line. Does anyone know a good biog of the "Good Duke"? Come to
> > think
> > > of it, is there one on the Beauforts?
> >
> > Sorry, not aware of biographies of either.
>
> Pity. B
> >
> > Marie