Another question that keeps bugging me
Another question that keeps bugging me
I've trying to find out what these opinions are based on, and having some difficulty. The authors I've checked (PMK, Ross, Sutton's recent article on Richard & his finances up 1460-1470, all seem to base their conclusion on a footnote in Cora Scofield's biography of Edward IV. [Vol. 1, p 216, note 6] pretty much quoting it word for word.
At Michaelmas 1465 Warwick received £1000 from the wardship and marriage of Francis Lord Lovell, 'because of the costs and expenses "per ipsum factum super dominum Ducem Gloucestrie fratrem Regis ac super exhibitionem suam, etc"'
PMK adds "see Tellers' Roll, Mich. 5 Edw. IV (no. 36), m.2.; quoted by Scofield, I, p 216, note 6."
The only other source I have been able to track down is
Issues of the Exchequer; being a collection of payments made out of his majesty's revenue, from King Henry III. to King Henry VI. inclusive. With an appendix. Extracted and translated from the original rolls of the ancient Pell office, now remaining in the custody of the Right Honourable Sir John Newport, Bart., comptroller-general of his majesty's exchequer. Frederick Devon (1837); p 489. This says
To Richard, Earl of Warwick, for costs and expenses incurred by him for the Lord Duke of Gloucester, the King's brother, and for an exhibition, &c, of the wardship and marriage of the son and heir of the Lord de Lovell,--1000 l. [Roll of Accounts, Michaelmas, 5 Edward IV.]
Has anyone seen the original (presumably in Latin?) or even know where to find it? Is the translation offered by Newport, consistent with the Latin extract published by Scofield? [My Latin isn't up to making sense of it].
And as an aside, there's also information about Richard taking receipt of a suit of armor just before his tenth birthday. So it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me that he would only have gone to Warwick for training in arms 3 or 4 year later.
A J
Re: Another question that keeps bugging me
Hi AJ,
I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this, but Richard was definitely with the earl before Michaelmas 1465 as in the previous accounting year (i.e. Mich 1464-5) he was with the Earl and Countess of Warwick at Warwick, but he could of course have been sent to Warwick either after the royal marriage, or much earlier, and left Warwick's household at any point after that visit to Warwick but I've heard it said that the later period fits much better with general custom.
The "suit of armour" is I'm afraid a red herring, if you mean the helm, crest and sword mentioned by Scofield. Those were his ceremonial Garter achievements, which would decorate his Garter stall at Windsor, and were nothing to do with combat training. There's also a disagreement between Scofield and Anstis as to when that particular payment dates to - Anstis dates it to the 6th year of Edward's reign. What does seem clear is that Richard was inaugurated into the Order of the Garter in 1466. The Tellers Rolls are a series of Exchequer rolls in the National Archives.
I think the best way to work out when Richard joined Warwick's household would be to look for evidence of his whereabouts throughout the 1460s. My impression is that he is only found in the North before Edward's marriage when Edward himself was there too, but during the later period he was, for instance, the only one of his family to attend Archbishop Neville's enthronization and he seems to have missed the big tournament in 1467, so that option looks much better to me, and it seems to have been accepted now by most historians.
Re: Another question that keeps bugging me
I'm referring to the "harness" mentioned in Anne F Sutton's article in the Ricardian in March 1988 "And to be delivered to the Lord Richard Duke of Gloucester, the other brother..." In the Great Wardrobe accounts, for the accounting period ending Michaelmas, she found that Richard acknowledged on 30 September 1462 a long list of goods that included "one harness (i.e. a suit of armour)."
I've also done a fairly thorough review of what the historians of the Order of the Garter have written & was impressed by the thorough digging into records that Anstis did to augment the translation he provided of the Black Book. He found that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was first mentioned in the account of the Chapter held at Windsor on the 27th of April, in Edward IV's sixth year. He is noted, along with the King of Poland as having not yet taken Possession of the Stalls before assigned to them. Anstis commented in a footnote
There was some other Chapter held in this Year wherein Richard Duke of Glocester [sic] was elected into this Order, for we meet with two privy Seals in this Year. Edward To the Treasorer We wol and charge you, yat ye deliver unto our right entirely beloved Brother the Duke of Gloucestre or to the Bringer hereof in his Name an Helme, a Creste, and a Swerde for our said Brother to be set in the Chapell of our College of Seynt George withynne our Castell of Wyndesore accordyng for hym to thonnour and Order of ye Gartere. Yeven under our prive Seal at our Paleys of Westm. the fourth Day of Febverer ye [feft] Yere of our Regne.
Priv. Sigill. 1 Martii ad solvendum Mattheo Phelep pro i Garter Ducis Glouc de dono Regis libera[t]. xxx l.
This Duke was chosen to the Stall from which the Earl of Kendal had been deposed Vinc. MS n. 417. in Off. Arm.
From The Register Of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, From its Cover in Black Velvet, usually called The Black Book; with Notes Placed at the Bottom of the Pages, and an Introduction Prefixed by the Editor. In Two Volumes. London, MDCCXXIV. [1724] Author not identified in the book itself, but in an advertisement in Observations Introductory to an Historical Essay, upon the Knighthood of the Bath, By John Anstis, Esq; Garter Principal King of Arms, (1725) .
A J
Re: Another question that keeps bugging me
Hi AJ,
Got back to this at last - I had to do a lot of checking first.
Having looked at sources in more detail, I'm quite confident that Richard didn't enter Warwick's household until 1465.
The reason I brought up Anstis is that the helm, crest and sword to which he refers as having been ordered for Richard in March 6 Edward IV (ie 1467) appears to be the same order which Scofield dates to March 1462. Personally, I'm inclined to believe Anstis because other details found by Anstis indicate that Richard was not elected to the Order until some time between the St George's days of 1465 and 1466, and this would tie in with the fact that he was younger than George, who did join the Order in 1462. Also, having looked up the article by Anne Sutton to which you refer, she notes that in 1462 Clarence was given a 2-year supply of embroidered garters to powder his surcoat, but none were ordered for Richard. Anyhow, that's that out of the way.
The harness made for Richard in 1461/2 is not significant, I think. There is no reason to suppose that Edward had any thought of placing him in Warwick's household at this date, in any case. It may have been for early training or for ceremonial use, I suppose.
What is significant is that it seems that there are orders for Richard in the Great Wardrobe accounts covering 1461-2 and 1462-5, but not after that.
Perhaps in 1463 Richard and George were enjoying that sojourn in Archbishop Bourchier's household for which the Archbishop was recompensed in the early 1470s, because at the time of the royal visit to Canterbury they did not enter with Edward on 24 August, but with the Archbishop on the 27th.
In Anne Sutton's latest article I note she suggests April 1462 as the date of a grant to Richard of northern Duchy lands worth £1,000 pa, for him to defray his living costs and pay his servants, but notes that the extant copy of the document actually gives the year as 1465. Now, I see no reason to query the date stated in the document because it would fit in well with Richard being packed off to the North with Warwick, and having to cover his costs for himself. In fact, it's rather interesting that this grant was later cancelled in view of the fact that Warwick was granted £1000 pa from Lovell's wardship in order to cover his costs looking after Richard. Perhaps the arrangement hadn't worked out very well.
I would suggest that the visit to St Mary's Warwick, which took place between end September 1464 and end September 1465, was probably late summer 1465 as, in addition to Richard and the Earl and Countess, Lord Hastings and Lord Fitzhugh also made offerings there. Both of these lords (and their Neville wives) were to be present at Archbishop Neville's enthronization feast at Cawood that September, as of course was Richard, so I suggest they were probably making their leisurely way northwards; Lady Fitzhugh had been in London in mid June, so it would be after that.
By the way, Richard didn't take up his stall in 1466 because the King couldn't make it so the feast was held by deputy - on such occasions no knights ever bothered to go except for a couple who were there to assist the deputy. In 1467 he didn't turn up either but the King testified that he had a good excuse (stuck in the north?). Then we have a few years with no records.
By the way, as some of you will know, David Horspool queries whether the feast really took place at Cawood as the Archbishop was enthroned at York on the same day, but his register shows that he was indeed at both places on the day in question.
Marie
Re: Another question that keeps bugging me
We have built an awful lot of Richard's "history" from that single payment to Warwick. I'd want to know what the original document says in a reliable translation since what we have are 2 slightly different translations, one of which clearly says for "expenses incurred" by the Earl of Warwick. Since Richard is known to have been traveling, as you mention, in Warwick's company earlier in 1465 - could those have been the expenses referred to? I'd also want to know how that 1000 l compares with what was spent on other boys being maintained & trained in noble households, especially since in Devon's translation, it seems that amount also included the "exhibition, &c, of the wardship and marriage of the son and heir of the Lord de Lovell."
Nor am I ready to ignore the suit of armor received by Richard before he turned 10, since I'm told that age 9 or 10 was the usual age at which a boy of his status would have begun his training in arms. (Although I haven't investigated this issue myself).
A J
