ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

THE WARS OF

THE ROSES

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

THE WARS OF

THE ROSESJohn A. Wagner

ABC A CLIOSanta Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England

Copyright © 2001 by John A. WagnerAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, withoutprior permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataWagner, J. A. (John A.)

Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses / John A. Wagnerp. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-85109-358-3 (alk. paper) — ISBN 1-57607-575-3 (e-book)1. Great Britain—History—Wars of the Roses,

1455–1485—Encyclopedias. I. Title.DA250.W34 2001942.04—dc21

2001001605

06 05 04 03 02 01 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an e-book.Visit abc-clio.com fordetails.

ABC-CLIO, Inc.130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911Santa Barbara, California 93116–1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper I.Manufactured in the United States of America

To the women who have made a difference:my mother,

Dolores Burmahln Wagner;my grandmothers,

Olivia Gruhle Burmahln and Dorothy Stephanie Wagner;my mother-in-law,

Mary Schultz Bronski;my great-aunt,

Elizabeth Butler Burmahln;and, of course, my wife,

Donna Bronski

Guide to Related Topics, xiiiPreface, xxiii

Acknowledgments, xxviiIntroduction, xxix

Chronology:Wars of the Roses, xxxiii

Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses

vii

Contents

AAccord, Act of (1460), 1Affinity, 2Alnwick Castle (1461–1464), 2Angers Agreement (1470), 3Anglica Historia (Vergil), 4Archers, 5Armies, Recruitment of, 6Armies, Size of, 7Armies, Supplying of, 8Armor, 9Artillery, 11Attainder, Act of, 13

BBadges, 15The Ballad of Bosworth Field, 16Bamburgh Castle (1461–1464), 16Barnet, Battle of (1471), 17Bastard Feudalism, 19Battles, Nature of, 20Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset

(c. 1406–1455), 22Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset

(1439–1471), 23Beaufort Family, 25

Beaufort, Henry, Duke of Somerset(1436–1464), 25

Beaufort, Margaret, Countess ofRichmond and Derby (1443–1509),26

Beaumont, William, Lord Beaumont(1438–1507), 27

Berwick-on-Tweed, 28Blore Heath, Battle of (1459), 29Blount, Walter, Lord Mountjoy

(d. 1474), 30Bones of 1674, 30Bonville, William, Lord Bonville

(1393–1461), 31Booth, Lawrence, Archbishop of York

(d. 1480), 32Bosworth Field, Battle of (1485), 33Bourchier, Henry, Earl of Essex

(d. 1483), 34Bourchier, Thomas, Cardinal

Archbishop of Canterbury (c. 1404–1486), 35

Brackenbury, Sir Robert (d. 1485), 36Bray, Sir Reginald (1440–1503), 37Brézé, Pierre de, Seneschal of

Normandy (c. 1408–1465), 37

Brittany, 38Buckingham’s Rebellion (1483), 39Burgundy, 41Butler, James, Earl of Wiltshire and

Ormond (1420–1461), 42Butler Precontract (1483), 43

CCaister Castle, Siege of (1469), 45Calais, 46Castillon, Battle of (1453), 47Casualties, 48Catesby, William (1450–1485), 49Caxton, William (c. 1421–1491), 50Cely Letters and Papers, 51Charles VII, King of France

(1403–1461), 52Charles VIII, King of France

(1470–1498), 53Charles, Duke of Burgundy

(1433–1477), 54Chinon Agreement (1462), 54Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire

(1470), 55Clarence, Execution of (1478), 56Clifford, John, Lord Clifford

(c. 1435–1461), 57Clifford, Thomas, Lord Clifford

(1414–1455), 58Commissions of Array, 58Commons (Common People) and the

Wars of the Roses, 59“Compilation of the Meekness and

Good Life of King Henry VI”(Blacman), 60

Cook, Sir Thomas (1420–1478), 61Coppini Mission (1459–1461), 62Cornelius Plot (1468), 63Council, Royal, 63Council Meeting of 13 June 1483, 64Court, Royal, 66Courtenay, Henry, Earl of Devon

(Lancastrian) (c. 1435–1469), 67

Courtenay, John, Earl of Devon(Lancastrian) (c. 1440–1471), 67

Courtenay, Peter, Bishop of Winchester(1432–1492), 68

Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon(1414–1458), 68

Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon(1432–1461), 69

Courtenay-Bonville Feud (1450s), 70Coventry Parliament (1459), 71Croyland Chronicle, 72

DDartford Uprising (1452), 73De Facto Act (1495), 74Devereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers of

Chartley (1432–1485), 74Dinham, John, Lord Dinham (d. 1501),

75Dunstanburgh Castle (1461–1464), 76

EEdgecote, Battle of (1469), 79Edward IV, King of England

(1442–1483), 80Edward IV, Overthrow of (1470), 82Edward IV, Restoration of (1471), 83Edward V, King of England (1470–

c. 1483), 84Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales

(1453–1471), 86Elizabeth of York, Queen of England

(1465–1503), 87English Church and the Wars of the

Roses, 88English Economy and the Wars of the

Roses, 89

FFerrybridge, Battle of (1461), 91First Protectorate (1454–1455), 92Fitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of Kildare

(1456–1513), 93

viii CONTENTS

Fitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of Desmond (c. 1426–1468), 93

Fitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of Kildare (d. 1478), 94

Fortescue, Sir John (c. 1394–1476), 94France, 95Francis II, Duke of Brittany (d. 1488),

97

GGeneralship, 99Gentry, 100Grey, Edmund, Earl of Kent

(c. 1420–1489), 101Grey, Thomas, Marquis of Dorset

(1451–1501), 101Gruthuyse, Louis de, Seigneur de la

Gruthuyse, Earl of Winchester (c. 1427–1492), 102

HHanseatic League, 105Harbingers, 106Hardyng’s Chronicle, 106Harlech Castle (1461–1468), 107Hastings, William, Lord Hastings

(c. 1430–1483), 108Hedgeley Moor, Battle of (1464), 110Henry VI, King of England

(1421–1471), 111Henry VI, Illness of, 113Henry VI, Murder of (1471), 113Henry VI, Part 1 (Shakespeare), 114Henry VI, Part 2 (Shakespeare), 116Henry VI, Part 3 (Shakespeare), 117Henry VII, King of England

(1457–1509), 117Herbert, William, Earl of Pembroke

(d. 1469), 119Heworth, Battle of (1453), 121Hexham, Battle of (1464), 122The History of King Richard III (More),

122

History of the Arrival of Edward IV, 123Holland, Henry, Duke of Exeter

(1430–1475), 124Howard, John, Duke of Norfolk

(d. 1485), 125Howard, Thomas, Earl of Surrey and

Duke of Norfolk (1443–1524), 125Hundred Years War (1337–1453), 126Hungerford, Robert, Lord Hungerford

(1431–1464), 127Hungerford, Sir Thomas (d. 1469), 128Hungerford, Sir Walter (d. 1516), 129

IIreland, 131

JJack Cade’s Rebellion (1450), 133Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of

Bedford (c. 1416–1472), 134James II, King of Scotland

(1430–1460), 136James III, King of Scotland

(1451–1488), 136James IV, King of Scotland

(1473–1513), 137

KKennedy, James, Bishop of St. Andrews

(c. 1406–1465), 139

LLancaster, House of (1399–1461,

1470–1471), 141Landais, Pierre (d. 1485), 143Langstrother, Sir John, Prior of the

Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem(1416–1471), 144

Livery and Maintenance, 145London, 145London Chronicles, 147Losecote Field, Battle of (1470), 148Louis XI, King of France (1423–1483),

149

CONTENTS ix

Love-Day of 1458, 150Lovell, Francis,Viscount Lovell

(c. 1456–c. 1487), 151Lovell-Stafford Uprising (1486), 152Ludford Bridge, Battle of (1459), 153

MMalory, Sir Thomas (c. 1416–1471), 155Manner and Guiding of the Earl of Warwick

at Angers (1470), 156March on London (1461), 157Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England

(1430–1482), 158Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy

(1446–1503), 160Mary of Gueldres, Queen of Scotland

(d. 1463), 161Memoirs (Commines), 162Men-at-Arms, 162Mercenaries, 163Military Campaigns, Duration of, 164Mortimer’s Cross, Battle of (1461), 166Morton, John, Cardinal Archbishop of

Canterbury (c. 1420–1500), 166Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk

(1415–1461), 167Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk

(1444–1476), 168

NNavy, 169Neville, Anne, Queen of England

(c. 1453–1485), 171Neville, Cecily, Duchess of York

(1415–1495), 172Neville Family, 173Neville, George, Archbishop of York

(1432–1476), 174Neville, Sir Humphrey (c. 1439–1469),

175Neville Inheritance Dispute

(1471–1475), 176

Neville, Isabel, Duchess of Clarence(1451–1476), 177

Neville, John, Earl of Northumberlandand Marquis of Montagu (c. 1430–1471), 178

Neville, John, Lord Neville (d. 1461),179

Neville, Richard, Earl of Salisbury (c. 1400–1460), 180

Neville, Richard, Earl of Warwick(1428–1471), 181

Neville, Sir Thomas (c. 1429–1460), 183

Neville, Thomas, Bastard of Fauconberg(d. 1471), 184

Neville, William, Lord Fauconberg andEarl of Kent (d. 1463), 184

Neville-Percy Feud (1450s), 186Nibley Green, Battle of (1470), 187North of England and the Wars of the

Roses, 188Northampton, Battle of (1460), 190

OOxford Conspiracy (1462), 193

PParliament, 195Paston Letters, 196Peerage, 197Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(1394–1455), 198Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(1421–1461), 199Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(1446–1489), 200Percy, Thomas, Lord Egremont

(1422–1460), 201Philip, Duke of Burgundy (1396–1467),

202Plantagenet, Edmund, Earl of Rutland

(1443–1460), 203

x CONTENTS

Plantagenet, Edward, Earl of Warwick(1475–1499), 204

Plantagenet, George, Duke of Clarence(1449–1478), 204

Plantagenet, House of (1154–1485), 206Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York

(1411–1460), 207Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York

(1473–c. 1483), 209Plumpton Letters and Papers, 210Pole, John de la, Duke of Suffolk

(1442–1491), 210Pole, John de la, Earl of Lincoln

(c. 1464–1487), 211Pole, William de la, Duke of Suffolk

(1396–1450), 212Prerogative, 213Princes in the Tower, 214Propaganda, 215

RRadford, Nicholas (d. 1455), 219Ratcliffe, Sir Richard (d. 1485), 220Readeption (1470–1471), 220Recueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories

de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nommeEngleterre (Waurin), 221

Retainers, 223Retaining, Acts against, 224Rhys ap Thomas (1449–1525), 225Richard II, Deposition of (1399), 226Richard III, King of England

(1452–1485), 228Richard III, Historical Views of, 230Richard III, Northern Affinity of, 232Richard III (Shakespeare), 233Robin of Holderness Rebellion (1469),

234Robin of Redesdale Rebellion (1469),

234Roos, Thomas, Lord Roos

(1427–1464), 235

The Rose of England, 236Rotherham, Thomas, Archbishop of

York (1423–1500), 237Rous, John (c. 1411–1491), 238Russell, John, Bishop of Lincoln

(d. 1494), 239

SSt. Albans, Battle of (1455), 241St. Albans, Battle of (1461), 242Sanctuary, 243Scales, Thomas, Lord Scales

(1399–1460), 244Scotland, 244Second Protectorate (1455–1456), 246Shakespeare and the Wars of the Roses,

247Shaw’s Sermon (1483), 249Shore, Elizabeth (Jane) (d. 1527), 250Simnel, Lambert (c. 1475–c. 1525), 251The Song of Lady Bessy, 252Stafford, Henry, Duke of Buckingham

(c. 1454–1483), 252Stafford, Humphrey, Duke of

Buckingham (1402–1460), 253Stafford, Humphrey, Earl of Devon

(1439–1469), 254Stamford Bridge, Battle of (1454), 255Stanley, Thomas, Earl of Derby

(c. 1435–1504), 256Stanley, Sir William (d. 1495), 257Stillington, Robert, Bishop of Bath and

Wells (d. 1491), 257Stoke, Battle of (1487), 258Stonor Letters and Papers, 259Sun in Splendor/Sunburst Badge, 260

TTailboys, Sir William (c. 1416–1464),

263Tewkesbury, Battle of (1471), 263Thomas ap Gruffydd (d. 1473), 265

CONTENTS xi

Tiptoft, John, Earl of Worcester (c. 1427–1470), 266

Titulus Regius, 267Touchet, James, Lord Audley

(c. 1398–1459), 269Tower of London, 269Towns and the Wars of the Roses, 271Towton, Battle of (1461), 272Trollope, Sir Andrew (d. 1461), 273Tudor, Edmund, Earl of Richmond

(c. 1430–1456), 273Tudor, House of (1485–1603), 274Tudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and

Duke of Bedford (c. 1431–1495), 276Tudor, Owen (d. 1461), 277Tunstall, Sir Richard (d. 1492), 277Twt Hill, Battle of (1461), 278Tyrell, Sir James (1445–1502), 279

UThe Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious

Families of Lancaster and York (Hall), 281Urswick, Christopher (1448–1521), 281Usurpation of 1483, 282The Usurpation of Richard III (Mancini),

284

VVaughan, Sir Thomas (d. 1483), 285Vere, John de, Earl of Oxford

(1443–1513), 285

WWainfleet, William, Bishop of

Winchester (c. 1395–1486), 287Wakefield, Battle of (1460), 288Wales, 289Warbeck, Perkin (1475–1499), 290Warkworth’s Chronicle, 291Wars of the Roses, Causes of, 292Wars of the Roses, Naming of, 294Weaponry, 295Welles Uprising (1470), 296Wenlock, John, Lord Wenlock

(d. 1471), 297Westminster-Ardtornish, Treaty of

(1462), 298Whethamstede, John, Abbot of St.

Albans (c. 1390–1465), 298Woodville, Anthony, Earl Rivers

(c. 1442–1483), 299Woodville, Elizabeth, Queen of England

(c. 1437–1492), 301Woodville Family, 302Woodville, Lionel, Bishop of Salisbury

(c. 1446–1484), 303Woodville, Richard, Earl Rivers

(c. 1410–1469), 304

YYork, House of (1461–1470,

1471–1485), 307Yorkist Heirs (after 1485), 308

xii CONTENTS

Appendix 1: Genealogies, 311Appendix 2: Map of Wars of the Roses Battle Sites, 317

Appendix 3:Table of Dynastic Affiliations, 319Appendix 4: Involvement of the Higher Peerage in the Wars of the Roses, 323

Appendix 5: European Rulers in the Fifteenth Century, 327Appendix 6: Popes and English Church Leaders in the Fifteenth Century, 329

Appendix 7: Selected Historical Fiction with Fifteenth-Century Characters and Settings, 331Appendix 8: Selected Web Sites for Fifteenth-Century Topics, 337

Bibliography, 343Index, 353

About the Author, 367

Battles and CampaignsAlnwick CastleBamburgh CastleBarnet, Battle ofBattles, Nature ofBlore Heath, Battle ofBosworth Field, Battle ofCastillon, Battle ofDunstanburgh CastleEdgecote, Battle ofEdward IV, Overthrow ofEdward IV, Restoration ofFerrybridge, Battle ofHarlech CastleHedgeley Moor, Battle ofHeworth, Battle ofHexham, Battle ofLosecote Field, Battle ofLudford Bridge, Battle ofMarch on LondonMilitary Campaigns, Duration ofMortimer’s Cross, Battle ofNibley Green, Battle ofNorthampton, Battle ofSt. Albans, Battle of (1455)St. Albans, Battle of (1461)Stamford Bridge, Battle ofStoke, Battle ofTewkesbury, Battle ofTowton, Battle ofTwt Hill, Battle ofWakefield, Battle of

BrittanyBrittanyBurgundyFranceFrancis II, Duke of Brittany

Henry VII, King of EnglandLandais, Pierre

BurgundyBrittanyBurgundyCharles, Duke of BurgundyFranceGruthuyse, Louis de, Seigneur de la

Gruthuyse, Earl of WinchesterHanseatic LeagueMargaret of York, Duchess of BurgundyMemoirs (Commines)Philip, Duke of BurgundyRecueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la

Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre(Waurin)

Simnel, LambertWarbeck, Perkin

Castles and FortressesAlnwick CastleBamburgh CastleCaister Castle, Siege ofDunstanburgh CastleHarlech CastleTower of London

Church and ChurchmenBooth, Lawrence, Archbishop of YorkBourchier, Thomas, Cardinal Archbishop of

CanterburyCoppini MissionCourtenay, Peter, Bishop of WinchesterEnglish Church and the Wars of the RosesKennedy, James, Bishop of St. AndrewsLangstrother, Sir John, Prior of the Hospital of

St. John of Jerusalem

xiii

Guide to Related Topics

Morton, John, Cardinal Archbishop ofCanterbury

Neville, George, Archbishop of YorkRotherham, Thomas, Archbishop of YorkRussell, John, Bishop of LincolnSanctuaryShaw’s SermonStillington, Robert, Bishop of Bath and WellsUrswick, ChristopherWainfleet, William, Bishop of WinchesterWhethamstede, John, Abbott of St. AlbansWoodville, Lionel, Bishop of Salisbury

Economic MattersCaxton, WilliamCely Letters and PapersCook, Sir ThomasEnglish Economy and the Wars of the RosesHanseatic LeagueLondonTowns and the Wars of the RosesWars of the Roses, Causes of

Edward IV, First Reign of(1461–1470)Alnwick CastleAngers AgreementBamburgh CastleBurgundyCaister Castle, Siege ofChinon AgreementChronicle of the Rebellion in LincolnshireCornelius PlotDunstanburgh CastleEdgecote, Battle ofEdward IV, King of EnglandEdward IV, Overthrow ofFerrybridge, Battle ofHanseatic LeagueHarlech CastleHedgeley Moor, Battle ofHexham, Battle ofLosecote Field, Battle ofManner and Guiding of the Earl of Warwick at

AngersNibley Green, Battle ofOxford ConspiracyRobin of Holderness RebellionRobin of Redesdale Rebellion

Towton, Battle ofTwt Hill, Battle ofWelles UprisingWestminster-Ardtornish, Treaty ofWoodville Family

Edward IV, Second Reign of(1471–1483)Barnet, Battle ofClarence, Execution ofEdward IV, King of EnglandEdward IV, Restoration ofFranceHanseatic LeagueHenry VI, Murder ofHistory of the Arrival of Edward IVNeville Inheritance DisputeTewkesbury, Battle ofWoodville Family

Families, Noble and RoyalBeaufort FamilyCourtenay-Bonville FeudLancaster, House ofNeville FamilyNeville-Percy FeudPlantagenet, House ofTudor, House ofWoodville FamilyYork, House of

FeudsBeaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset

(d. 1455)Beaufort, Henry, Duke of SomersetBonville, William, Lord BonvilleCaister Castle, Siege ofClifford, John, Lord CliffordCourtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon

(d. 1458)Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon (d. 1461)Courtenay-Bonville FeudHeworth, Battle ofMowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461)Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1476)Neville FamilyNeville, John, Earl of Northumberland and

Marquis of MontaguNeville, Richard, Earl of Salisbury

xiv GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS

Neville, Richard, Earl of WarwickNeville, Sir ThomasNeville-Percy FeudNibley Green, Battle ofPercy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1455)Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1461)Percy, Thomas, Lord EgremontPlantagenet, Richard, Duke of York (d. 1460)Radford, NicholasStamford Bridge, Battle of

FranceAngers AgreementBrézé, Pierre de, Seneschal of NormandyBrittanyBurgundyCalaisCastillon, Battle ofCharles VII, King of FranceCharles VIII, King of FranceChinon AgreementFranceHanseatic LeagueHundred Years WarLouis XI, King of FranceManner and Guiding of the Earl of Warwick at

AngersMemoirs (Commines)Warbeck, Perkin

GentryBrackenbury, Sir RobertBray, Sir ReginaldCatesby, WilliamFortescue, Sir JohnGentryHungerford, Sir ThomasHungerford, Sir WalterMalory, Sir ThomasNeville, Sir HumphreyNeville, Sir ThomasNeville, Thomas, Bastard of FauconbergPaston LettersPlumpton Letters and PapersRadford, NicholasRatcliffe, Sir RichardRhys ap Thomas

Stanley, Sir WilliamStonor Letters and PapersTailboys, Sir WilliamThomas ap GruffyddTrollope, Sir AndrewTudor, OwenTunstall, Sir RichardTyrell, Sir JamesVaughan, Sir Thomas

Government, Politics, andParliamentAccord, Act ofAttainder, Act ofClarence, Execution ofCouncil, RoyalCouncil Meeting of 13 June 1483Court, RoyalCoventry ParliamentDe Facto ActFirst ProtectorateFortescue, Sir JohnHenry VI, Illness ofHenry VI, Murder ofHundred Years WarLove-Day of 1458ParliamentPrerogativePropagandaReadeptionRetaining, Acts againstRichard II, Deposition ofSanctuarySecond ProtectorateTitulus RegiusUsurpation of 1483Wars of the Roses, Causes of

Henry VI, Reigns of (1422–1461,1470–1471)Accord, Act ofCastillon, Battle of“Compilation of the Meekness and Good

Life of King Henry VI” (Blacman)Coppini MissionCourtenay-Bonville FeudCoventry ParliamentDartford UprisingFirst Protectorate

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS xv

Henry VI, King of EnglandHenry VI, Illness ofHenry VI, Murder ofHundred Years WarJack Cade’s RebellionLove-Day of 1458March on LondonNeville-Percy FeudNorthampton, Battle ofReadeptionSt. Albans, Battle of (1455)St. Albans, Battle of (1461)Second ProtectorateStamford Bridge, Battle ofWakefield, Battle of

Henry VII, Reign of (1485–1509)Anglica Historia (Vergil)Beaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond

and DerbyBosworth Field, Battle ofBray, Sir ReginaldCharles VIII, King of FranceDe Facto ActElizabeth of York, Queen of EnglandGrey, Thomas, Marquis of DorsetHenry VII, King of EnglandLovell-Stafford UprisingMorton, John, Cardinal Archbishop of

CanterburyPlantagenet, Edward, Earl of WarwickRhys ap ThomasRichard III, Historical Views ofSimnel, LambertStanley, Thomas, Earl of DerbyStanley, Sir WilliamStoke, Battle ofTudor, House ofTudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of

BedfordUrswick, ChristopherVere, John de, Earl of OxfordWarbeck, PerkinWars of the Roses, Naming ofYorkist Heirs (after 1485)

Historical Sources and Literary WorksAnglica Historia (Vergil)

The Ballad of Bosworth FieldCely Letters and PapersChronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire“Compilation of the Meekness and Good

Life of King Henry VI” (Blacman)Croyland ChronicleHardyng’s ChronicleHenry VI, Part 1 (Shakespeare)Henry VI, Part 2 (Shakespeare)Henry VI, Part 3 (Shakespeare)The History of King Richard III (More)History of the Arrival of Edward IVLondon ChroniclesManner and Guiding of the Earl of Warwick at

AngersMemoirs (Commines)Paston LettersPlumpton Letters and PapersRecueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la

Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre(Waurin)

Richard III, Historical Views ofRichard III (Shakespeare)The Rose of EnglandRous, JohnShakespeare and the Wars of the RosesThe Song of Lady BessyStonor Letters and PapersThe Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious

Families of Lancaster and York (Hall)The Usurpation of Richard III (Mancini)Warkworth’s ChronicleWhethamstede, John, Abbott of St. Albans

IrelandButler, James, Earl of Wiltshire and OrmondFitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of KildareFitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of DesmondFitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of KildareIrelandScotlandSimnel, LambertWalesWarbeck, Perkin

Lancaster, House of, Membersand Partisans ofBeaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset

(d. 1455)

xvi GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS

Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset (d. 1471)

Beaufort FamilyBeaufort, Henry, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond

and DerbyBeaumont, William, Lord BeaumontBonville, William, Lord BonvilleBrézé, Pierre de, Seneschal of NormandyButler, James, Earl of Wiltshire and OrmondClifford, John, Lord CliffordClifford, Thomas, Lord CliffordCook, Sir ThomasCourtenay, Henry, Earl of Devon

(Lancastrian)Courtenay, John, Earl of Devon (Lancastrian)Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon (d. 1458)Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon (d. 1461)Edward of Lancaster, Prince of WalesFortescue, Sir JohnHenry VI, King of EnglandHolland, Henry, Duke of ExeterHungerford, Robert, Lord HungerfordHungerford, Sir ThomasLancaster, House ofLangstrother, Sir John, Prior of the Hospital of

St. John of JerusalemMargaret of Anjou, Queen of EnglandMorton, John, Cardinal Archbishop of

CanterburyNeville FamilyNeville, George, Archbishop of YorkNeville, Sir HumphreyNeville, John, Earl of Northumberland and

Marquis of MontaguNeville, John, Lord NevilleNeville, Richard, Earl of WarwickNeville, Thomas, Bastard of FauconbergPercy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1455)Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1461)Percy, Thomas, Lord EgremontPlantagenet, House ofPole, William de la, Duke of SuffolkRoos, Thomas, Lord RoosScales, Thomas, Lord ScalesStafford, Humphrey, Duke of BuckinghamTailboys, Sir William

Thomas ap GruffyddTouchet, James, Lord AudleyTrollope, Sir AndrewTudor, Edmund, Earl of RichmondTudor, House ofTudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of

BedfordTudor, OwenTunstall, Sir RichardVere, John de, Earl of OxfordWainfleet, William, Bishop of WinchesterWenlock, John, Lord WenlockWoodville, Anthony, Earl RiversWoodville, Richard, Earl Rivers

Military MattersArchersArmies, Recruitment ofArmies, Size ofArmies, Supplying ofArmorArtilleryBastard FeudalismCasualtiesCommissions of ArrayGeneralshipHarbingersHundred Years WarMarch on LondonMen-at-ArmsMercenariesMilitary Campaigns, Duration ofNavyRetainersSun in Splendor/Sunburst BadgeWeaponry

NobilityBeaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset

(d. 1455)Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset

(d. 1471)Beaufort FamilyBeaufort, Henry, Duke of SomersetBeaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond

and DerbyBeaumont, William, Lord BeaumontBlount, Walter, Lord MountjoyBonville, William, Lord Bonville

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS xvii

Bourchier, Henry, Earl of EssexButler, James, Earl of Wiltshire and OrmondClifford, John, Lord CliffordClifford, Thomas, Lord CliffordCourtenay, Henry, Earl of Devon

(Lancastrian)Courtenay, John, Earl of Devon (Lancastrian)Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon (d. 1458)Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon (d. 1461)Devereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers of ChartleyDinham, John, Lord DinhamFitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of KildareFitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of DesmondFitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of KildareGrey, Edmund, Earl of KentGrey, Thomas, Marquis of DorsetGruthuyse, Louis de, Seigneur de la

Gruthuyse, Earl of WinchesterHastings, William, Lord HastingsHerbert, William, Earl of PembrokeHolland, Henry, Duke of ExeterHoward, John, Duke of NorfolkHoward, Thomas, Earl of Surrey and Duke of

NorfolkHungerford, Robert, Lord HungerfordJacquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of BedfordLovell, Francis,Viscount LovellMowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461)Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1476)Neville, Cecily, Duchess of YorkNeville FamilyNeville, Isabel, Duchess of ClarenceNeville, John, Earl of Northumberland and

Marquis of MontaguNeville, John, Lord NevilleNeville, Richard, Earl of SalisburyNeville, Richard, Earl of WarwickNeville, William, Lord Fauconberg and Earl

of KentPeeragePercy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1455)Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1461)Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1489)Percy, Thomas, Lord EgremontPlantagenet, Edmund, Earl of RutlandPlantagenet, Edward, Earl of Warwick

Plantagenet, George, Duke of ClarencePlantagenet, Richard, Duke of York (d. 1460)Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York

(d. c. 1483)Pole, John de la, Duke of SuffolkPole, John de la, Earl of LincolnPole, William de la, Duke of SuffolkRoos, Thomas, Lord RoosScales, Thomas, Lord ScalesStafford, Henry, Duke of BuckinghamStafford, Humphrey, Duke of BuckinghamStafford, Humphrey, Earl of DevonStanley, Thomas, Earl of DerbyTiptoft, John, Earl of WorcesterTouchet, James, Lord AudleyTudor, Edmund, Earl of RichmondTudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of

BedfordVere, John de, Earl of OxfordWenlock, John, Lord WenlockWoodville, Anthony, Earl of RiversWoodville FamilyWoodville, Richard, Earl Rivers

North of EnglandAlnwick CastleBamburgh CastleBerwick-on-TweedBooth, Lawrence, Archbishop of YorkClifford, John, Lord CliffordClifford, Thomas, Lord CliffordDunstanburgh CastleFerrybridge, Battle ofHedgeley Moor, Battle ofHeworth, Battle ofHexham, Battle ofLovell, Francis,Viscount LovellNeville FamilyNeville, George, Archbishop of YorkNeville, Sir HumphreyNeville Inheritance DisputeNeville, John, Earl of Northumberland and

Marquis of MontaguNeville, John, Lord NevilleNeville, Richard, Earl of SalisburyNeville, Richard, Earl of WarwickNeville, Sir ThomasNeville, William, Lord Fauconberg and Earl

of Kent

xviii GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS

Neville-Percy FeudNorth of England and the Wars of the RosesPercy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1455)Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1461)Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1489)Percy, Thomas, Lord EgremontRichard III, Northern Affinity ofRobin of Holderness RebellionRobin of Redesdale RebellionScotlandStamford Bridge, Battle ofWakefield, Battle of

Princes in the TowerBones of 1674Brackenbury, Sir RobertEdward V, King of EnglandHenry VII, King of EnglandThe History of King Richard III (More)Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York

(d. c. 1483)Princes in the TowerRichard III, King of EnglandRichard III (Shakespeare)Stafford, Henry, Duke of BuckinghamTower of LondonTyrell, Sir JamesUsurpation of 1483The Usurpation of Richard III (Mancini)Woodville, Elizabeth, Queen of EnglandYorkist Heirs (after 1485)

Rebellions, Uprisings,and DisordersBuckingham’s RebellionCaister Castle, Siege ofChronicle of the Rebellion in LincolnshireCornelius PlotCourtenay-Bonville FeudDartford UprisingEdgecote, Battle ofEdward IV, Overthrow ofEdward IV, Restoration ofHeworth, Battle ofJack Cade’s RebellionLosecote Field, Battle of

Lovell-Stafford UprisingNeville-Percy FeudNibley Green, Battle ofOxford ConspiracyRichard II, Deposition ofRobin of Holderness RebellionRobin of Redesdale RebellionSimnel, LambertStoke, Battle ofWarbeck, PerkinWelles UprisingYorkist Heirs (after 1485)

Richard III, Reign of (1483–1485)Beaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond

and DerbyBosworth Field, Battle ofBrackenbury, Sir RobertBray, Sir ReginaldBuckingham’s RebellionButler PrecontractCatesby, WilliamCouncil Meeting of 13 June 1483Edward V, King of EnglandElizabeth of York, Queen of EnglandHastings, William, Lord HastingsThe History of King Richard III (More)Howard, John, Duke of NorfolkHoward, Thomas, Earl of Surrey and Duke of

NorfolkHungerford, Sir WalterLovell, Francis,Viscount LovellMorton, John, Cardinal Archbishop of

CanterburyNeville, Anne, Queen of EnglandPlantagenet, Richard, Duke of York

(d. c. 1483)Princes in the TowerRatcliffe, Sir RichardRhys ap ThomasRichard III, King of EnglandRichard III, Historical Views ofRichard III, Northern Affinity ofRichard III (Shakespeare)Shaw’s SermonStafford, Henry, Duke of BuckinghamStanley, Thomas, Earl of DerbyStanley, Sir WilliamStillington, Robert, Bishop of Bath and Wells

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS xix

Titulus RegiusTyrell, Sir JamesUsurpation of 1483The Usurpation of Richard III (Mancini)Vaughan, Sir ThomasWoodville, Anthony, Earl RiversWoodville, Elizabeth, Queen of EnglandWoodville FamilyWoodville, Lionel, Bishop of Salisbury

Royalty and RulersCharles VII, King of FranceCharles VIII, King of FranceCharles, Duke of BurgundyEdward IV, King of EnglandEdward V, King of EnglandEdward of Lancaster, Prince of WalesElizabeth of York, Queen of EnglandFrancis II, Duke of BrittanyHenry VI, King of EnglandHenry VII, King of EnglandJames II, King of ScotlandJames III, King of ScotlandJames IV, King of ScotlandLancaster, House ofLouis XI, King of FranceMargaret of Anjou, Queen of EnglandMargaret of York, Duchess of BurgundyMary of Gueldres, Queen of ScotlandNeville, Anne, Queen of EnglandPhilip, Duke of BurgundyPlantagenet, House ofRichard II, Deposition ofRichard III, King of EnglandTudor, House ofWoodville, Elizabeth, Queen of EnglandYork, House of

ScotlandBerwick-on-TweedIrelandJames II, King of ScotlandJames III, King of ScotlandJames IV, King of ScotlandKennedy, James, Bishop of St. AndrewsMary of Gueldres, Queen of ScotlandScotlandWales

Warbeck, PerkinWestminster-Ardtornish, Treaty of

Social StructureAffinityArmies, Recruitment ofBadgesBastard FeudalismCommons (Common People) and the Wars

of the RosesGentryLivery and MaintenancePeerageRetainersRetaining, Acts againstWars of the Roses, Causes of

SourcesSee Historical Sources and Literary Works

TownsBerwick-on-TweedCalaisCely Letters and PapersCook, Sir ThomasLondonLondon ChroniclesMarch on LondonTower of LondonTowns and the Wars of the Roses

Treaties and AgreementsAngers AgreementChinon AgreementWestminster-Ardtornish, Treaty of

Tudor, House of, Members andPartisans ofBeaufort FamilyBeaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond

and DerbyBray, Sir ReginaldCourtenay, Peter, Bishop of WinchesterElizabeth of York, Queen of EnglandGrey, Thomas, Marquis of DorsetHenry VII, King of EnglandHoward, Thomas, Earl of Surrey and Duke of

Norfolk

xx GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS

Hungerford, Sir WalterMorton, John, Cardinal Archbishop of

CanterburyRhys ap ThomasStanley, Thomas, Earl of DerbyStanley, Sir WilliamTudor, Edmund, Earl of RichmondTudor, House ofTudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of

BedfordTudor, OwenUrswick, ChristopherVere, John de, Earl of Oxford

WalesDevereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers of ChartleyEdward of Lancaster, Prince of WalesHarlech CastleHerbert, William, Earl of PembrokeIrelandLudford Bridge, Battle ofMortimer’s Cross, Battle ofRhys ap ThomasScotlandStafford, Henry, Duke of BuckinghamThomas ap GruffyddTudor, Edmund, Earl of RichmondTudor, House ofTudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of

BedfordTudor, OwenTwt Hill, Battle ofVaughan, Sir ThomasWales

Wars of the Roses, First Phase(1459–1461)Accord, Act ofBlore Heath, Battle ofCoppini MissionCoventry ParliamentFerrybridge, Battle ofLudford Bridge, Battle ofMarch on LondonMortimer’s Cross, Battle ofNorthampton, Battle ofSt. Albans, Battle of (1461)Sun in Splendor/Sunburst Badge

Towton, Battle ofTwt Hill, Battle ofWakefield, Battle ofWars of the Roses, Causes of

Wars of the Roses, Second Phase(1469–1471)Angers AgreementBarnet, Battle ofCaister Castle, Siege ofChronicle of the Rebellion in LincolnshireEdgecote, Battle ofEdward IV, Overthrow ofEdward IV, Restoration ofHenry VI, Murder ofHistory of the Arrival of Edward IVLosecote Field, Battle ofManner and Guiding of the Earl of Warwick at

AngersNibley Green, Battle ofReadeptionTewkesbury, Battle ofWelles UprisingWars of the Roses, Causes of

Wars of the Roses,Third Phase(1483–1487)Bosworth Field, Battle ofBuckingham’s RebellionButler PrecontractCouncil Meeting of 13 June 1483The History of King Richard III (More)Princes in the TowerRichard III, Northern Affinity ofShaw’s SermonStoke, Battle ofTitulus RegiusUsurpation of 1483The Usurpation of Richard III (Mancini)Wars of the Roses, Causes ofWars of the Roses, Naming ofYorkist Heirs (after 1485)

WeaponsArchersArmorArtilleryWeaponry

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS xxi

WomenBeaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond

and DerbyElizabeth of York, Queen of EnglandJacquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of BedfordMargaret of Anjou, Queen of EnglandMargaret of York, Duchess of BurgundyMary of Gueldres, Queen of ScotlandNeville, Anne, Queen of EnglandNeville, Cecily, Duchess of YorkNeville, Isabel, Duchess of ClarenceShore, Elizabeth (Jane)Woodville, Elizabeth, Queen of England

York, House of, Members andPartisans ofBlount, Walter, Lord MountjoyBonville, William, Lord BonvilleBourchier, Henry, Earl of EssexBourchier, Thomas, Cardinal Archbishop of

CanterburyBrackenbury, Sir RobertCatesby, WilliamCourtenay, Peter, Bishop of WinchesterDevereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers of ChartleyDinham, John, Lord DinhamEdward IV, King of EnglandEdward V, King of EnglandElizabeth of York, Queen of EnglandFitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of KildareFitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of DesmondFitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of KildareGrey, Edmund, Earl of KentGrey, Thomas, Marquis of DorsetHastings, William, Lord HastingsHerbert, William, Earl of PembrokeHoward, John, Duke of NorfolkHoward, Thomas, Earl of Surrey and Duke of

NorfolkJacquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of BedfordLovell, Francis,Viscount LovellMargaret of York, Duchess of BurgundyMowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461)

Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1476)Neville, Anne, Queen of EnglandNeville, Cecily, Duchess of YorkNeville FamilyNeville, George, Archbishop of YorkNeville, John, Earl of Northumberland and

Marquis of MontaguNeville, Richard, Earl of SalisburyNeville, Richard, Earl of WarwickNeville, Sir ThomasNeville, William, Lord Fauconberg and Earl

of KentPercy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland

(d. 1489)Plantagenet, Edmund, Earl of RutlandPlantagenet, Edward, Earl of WarwickPlantagenet, George, Duke of ClarencePlantagenet, House ofPlantagenet, Richard, Duke of York (d. 1460)Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York

(d. c. 1483)Pole, John de la, Duke of SuffolkPole, John de la, Earl of LincolnRatcliffe, Sir RichardRichard III, King of EnglandRotherham, Thomas, Archbishop of YorkRussell, John, Bishop of LincolnStafford, Henry, Duke of BuckinghamStafford, Humphrey, Earl of DevonStanley, Thomas, Earl of DerbyStanley, Sir WilliamStillington, Robert, Bishop of Bath and WellsTiptoft, John, Earl of WorcesterTyrell, Sir JamesVaughan, Sir ThomasWenlock, John, Lord WenlockWoodville, Anthony, Earl RiversWoodville, Elizabeth, Queen of EnglandWoodville FamilyWoodville, Lionel, Bishop of SalisburyWoodville, Richard, Earl RiversYork, House ofYorkist Heirs (after 1485)

xxii GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS

The Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses pro-vides its users with clear, concise, and basic de-scriptions and definitions of people, events,and terms relating in some significant way tothe series of civil conflicts that disturbed En-glish politics and society in the second half ofthe fifteenth century, and that later came to beknown as the Wars of the Roses. Because thebook focuses exclusively on the Wars of theRoses themselves—what caused them, howthey were fought, and what effects they hadon English life and government—it is not ageneral overview of fifteenth-century Englandbut a specialized treatment of one of the mostimportant aspects of English history duringthat century.

The Encyclopedia was written primarilyfor students and other nonspecialists whohave an interest—but little background—inthis period of British history. Besides provid-ing a highly usable resource for quicklylooking up names and terms encountered inreading or during study, the Encyclopedia of-fers an excellent starting point for classroomor personal research on subjects relating tothe course, causes, and consequences of theWars of the Roses. The entries provide thebasic information needed to choose or honea research topic, to answer small but vitalquestions of fact, and to identify further andmore extensive information resources. TheEncyclopedia also serves as a handy guide forthose interested in re-creating the militaryand social aspects of the wars, as well as auseful reader’s companion for those whosereading on the period—whether of fictionor nonfiction—is more for enjoyment thanfor study.

Scope of the BookIn chronological terms, the Encyclopedia of theWars of the Roses concerns itself largely withthe most active phases of civil conflict in thelate fifteenth century, primarily the years1459–1461, 1469–1471, and 1483–1487, theperiods when politics was most disordered, so-ciety was most disrupted, and military activitywas most intense. Some entries, such as thoseon the Neville-Percy Feud and the Yorkistpretender Perkin Warbeck, cover the politicalturmoil that preceded civil war in the 1450sor the dynastic uncertainty that lingered afterthe fighting in the 1490s. Other entries, suchas those describing the deposition of RichardII in 1399 or the Hundred Years War of thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries, coverbroader topics or issues related to the long-term causes of the Wars of the Roses.

In geographical terms, the Encyclopedia isconcerned not only with the course of politi-cal and military events in England, but withhow the English civil wars both affected andwere influenced by people and happenings inneighboring states. Readers will find entriesthat relate the Wars of the Roses to relevantcontemporary events in the other states of theBritish Isles (Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) andin the most important states on the continent(Brittany, Burgundy, and France). Also in-cluded are foreign rulers and leaders whoseactions and decisions affected the civil wars,such as France’s Louis XI, Scotland’s Mary ofGueldres, and Burgundy’s Charles the Bold.

Criteria for InclusionTo be included in the Encyclopedia, a topic,event, or person had to have a role in some

xxiii

Preface

significant aspect of the Wars of the Roses.Nonbiographical entries relate mainly tomilitary issues (e.g., the raising of armies, thenature of combat, and the use of navalforces), to political terms and events (e.g., theemployment of attainder, the Readeptiongovernment, and the usurpation of 1483), tothe major battles of the Wars of the Roses(e.g., Towton, Barnet, and Bosworth Field),and to the chief historical sources for thecivil wars (e.g., Sir Thomas More’s History ofKing Richard III, Philippe de Commines’sMemoirs, and the continuations of the Croy-land Chronicle).

Because the Wars of the Roses were dynas-tic struggles concerned with who should ex-ercise the powers of the Crown, the great ma-jority of biographical entries cover the mostactive participants in the conflicts, that is, no-blemen and members of the English royalfamily. Also included are entries on the con-tending branches of the royal family, such asthe houses of Lancaster, York, and Tudor; onkey magnate families, such as the Nevilles andthe Woodvilles; on important members of thegentry, such as Sir John Fortescue and WilliamCatesby; on politically active members of theclergy, such as Bishop John Morton and PriorJohn Langstrother; and on broad social classes,such as the peerage, gentry, and commons.

Structure of EntriesThe Encyclopedia’s 281 entries, 130 of whichare biographical, average about 500 words inlength. Each entry opens with a sentence orbrief paragraph that carefully places its subject,whether a person, event, or term, within thecontext of the Wars of the Roses, explainingthe subject’s significance for the emergence,course, or impact of the civil wars. Each entryalso contains numerous cross-references to re-lated entries (which appear in SMALL CAPI-TALS) and concludes with one or more rec-ommendations for additional reading. Thesereading recommendations include both schol-arly works and popular treatments. In a fewcases, older books have been included if nomore recent study has been published or if theolder work remains the accepted scholarly

standard on the subject, as is the case, for in-stance, with biographies of some lesser-knownfigures. Also included in the readings are im-portant essays and papers published in bookform in collections of articles. All works ap-pearing at the ends of entries as further read-ing are listed in the general bibliography,which also contains numerous other worth-while books not found among the entry rec-ommendations. A reader interested in furtherreading on a particular person or topic shouldcheck both the general bibliography and thefurther reading listings at the ends of relevantentries.

All biographical entries provide the per-son’s title or office. For titles of nobility, onlythe highest title attained is given; thus, An-thony Woodville is noted as Earl Rivers, thetitle he acquired on his father’s death, and notas Lord Scales, the title he had held previously.In a few cases, such as Jasper Tudor, who wasearl of Pembroke throughout the Wars of theRoses and only became duke of Bedford later,both titles are given. Except in cases wherebirth dates are unknown, as is often the casewith fifteenth-century figures, life dates arealso supplied for all biographical entries.When exact birth or death years are uncertain,the c. notation, meaning “circa,” or “at aboutthat time,” precedes the date to indicate thatthe year given is approximate. When a singleyear is preceded by d., the year given is thedeath date, and the birth date is totally un-known. The date ranges supplied for rulingmonarchs are birth and death dates, not theyears of their reign, which are given in the textof the entry. Finally, the spelling for all titles offifteenth- and sixteenth-century publicationshas been modernized.

Additional FeaturesPreceded by a brief, general introduction thatdescribes the historiography of the Wars of theRoses, the entries are augmented by a map ofbattlefield sites, a detailed chronology, and fivegenealogical tables depicting the royal housesand important noble families. Appendixes alsoinclude a listing of fifteenth-century monarchsin England and neighboring countries, a quick

xxiv PREFACE

reference table showing the (sometimes shift-ing) dynastic allegiances of important noble-men, a table showing the consequences of in-volvement in the wars for the higher peerage,and an annotated listing of useful Wars of theRoses Web sites. Besides an extensive generalbibliography, which is divided by broad topics,the Encyclopedia also includes a bibliography ofhistorical fiction with Wars of the Roses char-

acters and settings and a detailed subjectindex. When used with the cross-references inthe entries, the Guide to Related Topics willallow readers to trace broad themes—such asthe north of England, local feuds, or foreignaffairs—through all their most importantevents, ideas, and personalities and so will helpto provide users with a sound basic under-standing of the Wars of the Roses.

PREFACE xxv

I want to thank the photo archive staffs of thefollowing institutions for the illustrations theyhelped provide for this volume: the British Li-brary; the British Museum; the Public RecordOffice, London; the National Portrait Gallery,London; the Birmingham Art Gallery; theUniversity of Ghent; the Brooklyn Museum;and the Bibliothèque Municipale d’Arras.

At Arizona State University, I wish tothank the staff of Hayden Library for assistingme in obtaining necessary and sometimes ob-scure research materials, and the members ofmy British history classes for helping me honeideas and definitions with their questions,comments, and interest.

At ABC-CLIO, I wish to thank BobNeville for his help in getting this book underway and for keeping it on track; Michelle

Trader for carefully shepherding it throughthe production process; Liz Kincaid for han-dling the illustrations; and Silvine MarburyFarnell for expert copyediting.

I also want to thank all the members of myfamily in Phoenix—Gene, Fran, Michael,Mary, Courtney, Mary, and Kerby—and myfamily in Wisconsin—Karen, Fred, Paul,Katie, Patrick, Peter, Charles, Debbie, Scott,Tammy, Haley, and my dad, Joe—for support-ing me in the long and sometimes tediousprocess of putting together a good referencebook. And, for keeping me quiet companythrough long hours at the computer, I thankmy little button-nosed friend, Midnight. Fi-nally, I must express my gratitude and love tomy wife, Donna, without whose unfailingsupport nothing of any value is ever possible.

xxvii

Acknowledgments

Until the mid-twentieth century, the natureand consequences of the series of civil con-flicts fought in England in the late fifteenthcentury were not in doubt. These civil wars,which in the nineteenth century were termedthe “Wars of the Roses,” were a time of polit-ical chaos, economic disorder, social disrup-tion, cultural stagnation, and even moral de-cline. The royal family was torn apart, and thepolitically influential classes, the nobility andgentry, destroyed themselves in a series ofbloody battles fought to determine whowould wear the Crown and control the royalgovernment. The detrimental effects of thisprolonged warfare severely damaged not onlythe English polity, but also the whole of En-gland’s economy and society.

Reflecting this accepted view of the latefifteenth century, the 1911 edition of the En-cyclopaedia Britannica described the Wars of theRoses as a series of civil wars characterized“by a ferocity and brutality which are practi-cally unknown in the history of English warsbefore or since” (Pollard, p. 13). Two decadesearlier, William Denton, a fellow of WorcesterCollege, had written that the Wars of theRoses caused “the baronage of England” to be“almost extirpated,” and that the commonpeople, although slaughtered in greater num-bers “than in any former war on English soil,”suffered even more grievously from the“want, exposure and disease” that the warsengendered. “The standard of morality,” con-cluded Denton, “could not have been lowerthan it was at the end of the fifteenth cen-tury” (Denton, pp. 118–119). This horrificview of the late fifteenth century, which hadslowly but steadily developed throughout thesixteenth century, was largely uncontested for

over 300 years, from 1600 to the first decadesof the twentieth century.

Although the actual term “Wars of theRoses” was unknown in the fifteenth and six-teenth centuries, the concept of the warringroses was familiar to anyone who lived underthe rule of the Tudors between 1485 and1603. Within months of winning the thronein August 1485, Henry VII ordered the blend-ing of the red rose emblem (symbolizing hisown Lancastrian lineage) with the white roseemblem (symbolizing his wife’s Yorkist blood)to form the two-color Tudor rose, a new royalemblem to signify for all the peace and unitythat Henry’s accession and marriage hadbrought to England. Because the size and im-portance of Henry’s accomplishment were di-rectly related to the disorder and destructive-ness of what had gone before, histories of thefifteenth century written under the Tudors inthe sixteenth century tended to magnify thehorrors of the civil war and vilify the actionsof Henry’s defeated predecessor, just as thatpredecessor had sought to justify his ownusurpation by denouncing the actions of thosewho had ruled before him. In Titulus Regius,the parliamentary declaration of his title to thethrone, Richard III had listed in lurid detailthe failings of his brother’s administration,which, the document concluded, had brought“great sorrow and heaviness [to] all true En-glishmen.” And Edward IV, in 1461, had por-trayed his seizure of the Crown as makingright the terrible crime “against God’s law[and] man’s liegance” committed by the Lan-castrians when they deposed Richard II in1399 (Pollard, pp. 8, 9).

By the mid-sixteenth century, the propa-ganda of a succession of usurpers of the En-

xxix

Introduction

glish Crown had become the commonly ac-cepted framework for explaining the courseand consequences of fifteenth-century Englishhistory. Developed by such early Tudor histo-rians as Sir Thomas More in his History of KingRichard III (c.1513) and Polydore Vergil in hisAnglica Historia (1534), the outlines of thisframework were picked up and widely dis-seminated by Edward Hall’s The Union of theTwo Noble and Illustrious Families of Lancasterand York (1548), a chronicle that by its verytitle proclaimed the benefits of Tudor rule. ForHall, the Wars of the Roses encompassed notonly the battles fought between the 1450s andthe 1480s, but the entire sweep of English his-tory from 1399 to 1485, a period defined bythe deposition of a rightful king, the divinepunishment of the whole realm for this un-lawful act, and the restoration of divine orderand favor as symbolized by the accession ofHenry VIII, a descendant of both warringhouses. Such were the “misery . . . murder and. . . execrable plagues” that England had suf-fered before Henry VII that Hall wrote, “mywit cannot comprehend nor my tongue de-clare neither yet my pen fully set forth” all theterrible consequences of that time (Ellis, p. 1).

In 1561, at the start of the reign of Eliza-beth I, Henry VIII’s daughter, Sir ThomasSmith wrote a pamphlet that elaborated onwhat Hall could not describe. According toSmith, the civil wars of the fifteenth centurywere a time when “blood pursued blood andensued blood till all the realm was brought togreat confusion” and England in the last yearsof Henry VI “was almost a very chaos” (Aston,pp. 282–283). Thus, the Elizabethans, thensome seventy years removed from the civilwars, and well aware of the political upheavalsthat disturbed their own times, could be se-cure in the knowledge that their troubles inno way approached the “chaos” that hadreigned before Henry VII.

This notion of chaos before the coming ofthe Tudors was reinforced in the sixteenthcentury by the spread of humanism, a move-ment that saw the Middle Ages as a long bar-ren period standing between the gloriousachievements of the classical world and the re-

vival of classical learning in contemporarytimes. Henry VII’s accession was well suited toserve as the initiating event of this classical re-newal, and the Wars of the Roses servedequally well as the period of most intensedarkness before the humanist dawn. Thus, thehumanist view of the Middle Ages fit wellwith the official view of the fifteenth centurybeing developed by Tudor propaganda andhistoriography. Humanism also encouragedthe writing of English history and the use ofthat history as a moral yardstick for critiquingcontemporary politics and society. And no pe-riod was more fraught with moral lessons thanthe Wars of the Roses.

In the 1590s, William Shakespeare, makinguse of Holinshed’s Chronicles and other histo-ries deriving from Hall, More, and other earlyTudor sources, applied his genius to the rap-idly solidifying historiography of the Wars ofthe Roses. Basing no less than eight plays onfifteenth-century English history, Shakespearedramatized, sharpened, and darkened the con-ventional view of the period, and exploredbroader themes that connected it to the politi-cal concerns of his own times. The plays, fromRichard II to Richard III, presented a unifiedexplanation of the fifteenth century thatwarned anyone in their Elizabethan audiencesto refrain from active opposition to the lawfulmonarch, lest the horrors of the Wars of theRoses descend again upon England. By 1600,few English subjects questioned that the fif-teenth-century civil wars were a time of polit-ical, social, and economic chaos unleashed bythe deposition of one king in 1399 and endedby the accession of another in 1485.

Except for occasional attempts to rehabili-tate the reputation of Richard III, such as theefforts of Sir George Buck in the seventeenthcentury, Horace Walpole in the eighteenthcentury, and Caroline Halsted in the nine-teenth century, the traditional view of theWars of the Roses continued unchallenged al-most into the twentieth century. By encourag-ing the publication and study of fifteenth-cen-tury documents, whether public records orprivate papers, the development of modernhistorical research in the mid-nineteenth cen-

xxx INTRODUCTION

tury confirmed the prevailing interpretationof the period. The Paston Letters, which firstbecame available in an edition published be-tween 1787 and 1823, and the ongoing publi-cations of the Deputy Keeper of PublicRecords and the Camden Society providedhistorians with an accumulating mass of evi-dence that the fifteenth century had indeedbeen a time of turbulence and disorder. Storiesof corruption, violence, and lawlessnessemerged from such sources as the records ofthe Court of King’s Bench and the proceed-ings of royal councils and local commissions.Such evidence convinced the medieval histo-rian Bishop William Stubbs “that all that wasgood and great in [late medieval life] was lan-guishing even unto death” (Stubbs, p. 632) andpersuaded Charles Plummer, as he wrote inthe introduction to his edition of Sir JohnFortescue’s Governance of England, that thescourge of a social system he called “bastardfeudalism” was responsible for a total break-down of law and order in late fifteenth-cen-tury England.

However, certain records seemed to tellanother story, and a few historians in the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuriesbegan to cautiously suggest that perhaps theWars of the Roses had not been as widely dis-ruptive as had been thought. In 1874, in hisShort History of the English People, J. R. Greenagreed that there were few periods in Englishhistory “from which we turn with suchweariness and disgust as from the Wars of theRoses” (Green, p. 288), but he also proposedthat the worst aspects of the conflict werelargely confined to the nobility and their re-tainers. The merchants of the towns and thepeasants of the countryside suffered less fromthe civil wars because they largely avoidedparticipation in them. In 1886, ThoroldRogers, thanks to his detailed study of fif-teenth-century economic documents, sup-ported Green’s dissent by declaring that theagricultural classes “must have had only atransient and languid interest in the factionfight” (Rogers, p. 240), for the evidence wasthat the fifteenth century was for them a pe-riod of general prosperity. In 1923, C. L.

Kingsford, drawing upon the Stonor familyarchives and other legal documents, expandedthis notion by arguing that the Wars of theRoses were not nearly as destructive as hadbeen thought, and that many members of thefifteenth-century gentry, such as the Stonors,had thrived, while taking little or no part inthe conflict.

These first stirrings of revisionism became atransforming movement through the scholar-ship of K. B. McFarlane, who, for more thanthirty years before his death in 1966, con-ducted studies that ranged widely over the latemedieval period. McFarlane refuted Plum-mer’s thesis that bastard feudalism was a struc-turally corrupt social system and the rootcause of the disorder and lawlessness thatplagued fifteenth-century society. Bastard feu-dalism, argued McFarlane, was a generally ef-fective response to the needs of late medievalsociety and the basis of English political inter-action from the thirteenth to the sixteenthcenturies, not simply an aberration of the latefifteenth century. McFarlane also believed thatthe disorder caused by the Wars of the Roseswas limited and arose mainly from the inabil-ity of Henry VI to function effectively.

Although he published little on the civilwars themselves, McFarlane inspired throughhis teaching a great many historians whothoroughly reinvigorated and transformed thestudy of the Wars of the Roses after 1960. Byrevising, expanding, and refining McFarlane’sbasic ideas, a host of scholars working in thelast third of the twentieth century questionednot only the effects of the Wars of the Roses,but their causes and their chronology. In the1970s, J. R. Lander and Charles Ross bothconcluded that the Wars of the Roses saw lit-tle real fighting, caused little real destruction,and had little real effect on trade and agricul-ture. Ross declared that the late fifteenth cen-tury supported a “rich, varied and vigorouscivilization [that] . . . was a product of politicalviolence which did nothing to hinder itssteady development” (Ross, p. 176). By theearly 1980s, when John Gillingham describedfifteenth-century England as “a society orga-nized for peace” and “the most peaceful

INTRODUCTION xxxi

country in Europe (Gillingham, pp. 14, 15),some historians had taken the traditional viewto the opposite extreme and argued that theWars of the Roses were hardly wars at all andhad exercised almost no influence on most as-pects of fifteenth-century society. Althoughthis view has been much revised and largelyrejected, the received tradition of a horrificseries of devastating civil wars has also beenlargely dismissed.

Stripped of the certainty of the past, theWars of the Roses are currently among themost controversial events in English politicalhistory. Most historians now agree that theterm “Wars of the Roses,” no matter how un-satisfactory it may be in any number of ways,can be used to describe a period of about fourdecades in the second half of the fifteenthcentury during which England experiencedongoing political instability and intermittentopen warfare. Beyond that, historians workingat the start of the twenty-first century are indisagreement over such fundamental issues aswhen these periods of warfare started andended, and even over how many such wars ac-tually occurred.

McFarlane described three wars, coveringthe years 1450–1464, 1464–1471, and 1483–1487, while John Gillingham identified threewars dated 1455–1464, 1469–1471, and1483–1487. Ross talked about three periodsof warfare, but only two wars, arguing thatthe conflicts of 1460–1464 and 1469–1471were two parts of the one war between Lan-caster and York, while the 1483–1487episode was really a separate struggle be-tween York and Tudor. Meanwhile, in the1980s, Anthony Goodman characterized theWars of the Roses as merely a related seriesof military eruptions occurring between1452 and 1497, whereas in the 1990s Chris-tine Carpenter sought to understand thecivil wars within the broader context of aperiod running from the commencement ofthe personal rule of Henry VI in 1437 to thepeaceful accession of Henry VIII in 1509. Asthese widely differing views illustrate, thestudy and interpretation of the Wars of the

Roses is today one of the most engaging anddynamic subfields in English history.

ReferencesAston, M. E.“Richard II and the Wars of the

Roses,” in F. R. H. DuBoulay and C. M. Barron,eds.The Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour ofMay McKisack. London:Athlone, 1971.

Buck, Sir George. The History of King Richard III.Edited by A. N. Kincaid. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1982.

Carpenter, Christine. The Wars of the Roses: Politicsand the Constitution in England, c.1437–1509.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Denton, William. England in the Fifteenth Century.London: George Bell, 1888.

Ellis, Henry, ed. Hall’s Chronicle. London, 1548;reprinted New York: AMS Press, 1965.

Gillingham, John. The Wars of the Roses: Peace andConflict in Fifteenth-Century England. BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981.

Goodman, Anthony. The Wars of the Roses: MilitaryActivity and English Society, 1452–97. NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981.

Green, J. R. A Short History of the English People.3d ed. London: Macmillan, 1916.

Halsted, Caroline A. Richard III as Duke ofGloucester and King of England. 2 vols. London,1844; reprinted Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1977.

Kingsford. C. L. Prejudice and Promise in FifteenthCentury England. Ford Lectures of 1923.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925.

Lander, J. R. Crown and Nobility, 1450–1509.Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,1976.

McFarlane, K. B.“The Wars of the Roses,” inEngland in the Fifteenth Century. London:Hambledon Press, 1981.

Plummer, Charles. Introduction to Sir JohnFortescue, The Governance of England, edited byCharles Plummer. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1885.

Pollard, A. J. The Wars of the Roses. New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1988.

Rogers, J. E. Thorold. Six Centuries of Work andWages. London: Sonnenschein, 1886.

Ross, Charles. The Wars of the Roses. London:Thames and Hudson, 1987.

Stubbs, William. The Constitutional History ofEngland. vol. 3. 5th ed. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1897.

Walpole, Horace. Historic Doubts on the Life andReign of Richard III. Edited by P. W. Hammond.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1987.

xxxii INTRODUCTION

1399 29 September. Deposition ofRichard II; accession of Henry ofBolingbroke as Henry IV, first kingof the house of Lancaster.

1411 22 September. Birth of RichardPlantagenet, future duke of York.

1413 20 March. Death of Henry IV;uncontested accession of Henry V,second king of the house ofLancaster.

1415 25 October. Battle of Agincourt—Henry V wins major victory overthe French.

1417– Henry V conquers Normandy.1420

1420 22 May. Treaty of Troyes recognizesHenry V as heir to Charles VI ofFrance, disinherits the DauphinCharles, future Charles VII.2 June. Henry V marries Catherineof Valois, daughter of Charles VI ofFrance.

1421 6 December. Prince Henry, son ofHenry V and future Henry VI, isborn at Windsor.

1422 31 August. Death of Henry V;uncontested accession of nine-month-old Henry VI, third king ofthe house of Lancaster.21 October. Death of Charles VI ofFrance; Charles VII accepted asking in areas of France outsideAnglo-Burgundian control.

1428 28 November. Birth of RichardNeville, future earl of Warwick.

1429 8 May. English abandon siege ofOrleans in France.17 July. Charles VII is crowned kingof France at Rheims.

6 November. Henry VI is crownedking of England at Westminster.

1430 23 May. Joan of Arc is captured byBurgundian forces.

1431 30 May. Joan of Arc is burned atthe stake for heresy in Rouen.16 December. Henry VI is crownedking of France at Paris.

1435 15 September. Death of John, dukeof Bedford, uncle of Henry VI andregent of France.21 September. Burgundians abandonEnglish alliance and conclude treatywith France.

1436 17 April. Paris falls to the forces ofCharles VII.8 May. York appointed lordlieutenant of France.

1437 3 January. Death of Catherine ofValois, mother of Henry VI.12 November. The minority ofHenry VI, now almost sixteen,formally ends.

1440 2 July. York appointed lord lieutenantof France for a second time.12 September. Henry VI foundsEton College.

1441 12 February. Henry VI foundsKing’s College, Cambridge.

1442 28 April. Birth of Edward, earl ofMarch, eldest son of the duke ofYork and future Edward IV.

1443 30 March. Henry VI appoints JohnBeaufort, duke of Somerset,captain-general of France andGascony.31 May. Birth of MargaretBeaufort, future mother of HenryVII.

xxxiii

Chronology: Wars of the Roses

1445 23 April. Henry VI marriesMargaret of Anjou.

1447 23 February. Death of Humphrey,duke of Gloucester, uncle andformer lord protector of Henry VI.9 December. York appointed lordlieutenant of Ireland.

1448 16 March. English surrender LeMans, the capital of Maine, to theFrench.

1449 21 October. Birth of George, son ofduke of York, and future duke ofClarence.29 October. English surrenderRouen, the capital of Normandy, tothe French.

1450 15 April. English defeat at the Battleof Formigny allows French tooverrun much of Normandy.2 May. William de la Pole, duke ofSuffolk, after being impeached byParliament and banished byHenry VI, is murdered by sailorswhen trying to leave thekingdom.June–July. Jack Cade rebels occupyLondon.12 August. French captureCherbourg and end English rule inNormandy.

1451 12 June. French capture Bordeauxin Gascony.

1452 2 March. York ends his oppositionto the court and submits to theking at Dartford.2 October. Birth of Richard,youngest son of the duke of Yorkand future Richard III.23 October. English recaptureBordeaux.November. Henry VI ennobles hisuterine half brothers, Edmundand Jasper Tudor, as earls ofRichmond and Pembroke,respectively.

1453 17 July. French victory at Castillonends English rule in Gascony;Calais is only remaining Englishpossession in France.

c. 1 August. Onset of Henry VI’sfirst bout of mental illness.24 August. Percy and Nevillefamilies clash at Heworth.13 October. Birth of Edward ofLancaster, son of Henry VI andMargaret of Anjou.

1454 27 March. York is named lordprotector during the king’s illness.c. 31 October. Percy and Nevillefamilies clash at Stamford Bridge.c. 25 December. Henry VI recovers.

1455 January. York surrenders the officeof protector.22 May. First Battle of St. Albans—York and his allies, the Neville earlsof Salisbury and Warwick, wincontrol of the king and kill theirchief enemies: Somerset,Northumberland, and Clifford.19 November. York is appointed lordprotector for the second time.

1456 25 February. York resigns as lordprotector.August. Court travels to Coventryand the Midlands.

1457 28 January. Birth of Henry Tudor,earl of Richmond, the futureHenry VII.

1458 25 March. Henry VI mediates thelove-day of 1458, a negotiatedsettlement between York and hisNeville allies and the heirs of theirvictims at first Battle of St.Albans.

1459 23 September. Battle of BloreHeath—Richard Neville, earl ofSalisbury, defeats a Lancastrian forcetrying to block his junction withYork.12–13 October. Heavilyoutnumbered, the Yorkist lordsabandon their men and flee fromthe royal army at Ludford Bridge;York goes to Ireland andWarwick, Salisbury, and March goto Calais.20 November. Lancastrian-controlledParliament opens at Coventry.

xxxiv CHRONOLOGY

1460 26 June. Yorkist earls of Warwick,Salisbury, and March land inEngland from Calais.10 July. Battle of Northampton—Warwick captures Henry VI andcontrol of the government.3 August. James II of Scotland killedby a cannon fired to celebrate thearrival of his wife, Mary of Guelders,at the siege of Roxburgh; accessionof eight-year-old James III.30 December. Battle of Wakefield—defeat and death of York, Salisbury,and York’s second son, EdmundPlantagenet, earl of Rutland.

1461 2 February. Battle of Mortimer’sCross—Yorkist victory in Wales.17 February. Second Battle of St.Albans—Margaret of Anjou defeatsWarwick and reunites herself andher son with Henry VI.4 March. Edward, earl of March,York’s eldest son, takes coronationoath and is proclaimed king asEdward IV at Westminster.27–28 March. Battle ofFerrybridge—Lancastrian attemptsto prevent a Yorkist crossing of theRiver Aire.29 March. Battle of Towton—Edward IV wins throne and HenryVI and his family flee intoScotland.28 June. Official coronation ofEdward IV.22 July. Charles VII of Frances dies;accession of Louis XI.16 October. Battle of Twt Hill—Yorkist victory in Wales.4 November. Opening of EdwardIV’s first Parliament.

1462– Led by Margaret of Anjou,1463 Lancastrians based in Scotland

several times seize and lose theNorthumbrian castles of Alnwick,Bamburgh, and Dunstanburgh.

1464 25 April. Battle of HedgeleyMoor—Yorkist victory in thenorth.

1 May. Edward IV secretly marriesElizabeth Woodville.15 May. Battle of Hexham—Yorkist victory leads to theexecution of Henry Beaufort, theLancastrian duke of Somerset.25 December. Elizabeth Woodville ispublicly introduced to the court asqueen.

1465 13 July. Henry VI is captured inLancashire and imprisoned in theTower of London.

1467 15 June. Death of Philip the Good,duke of Burgundy; accession ofCharles the Bold.

1468 3 July. Margaret of York, sister ofEdward IV, marries Charles theBold, duke of Burgundy.3 August. Edward IV concludes analliance with Burgundy, agreeing tosend English troops to support theduke against France.14 August. Lancastrian defenders ofHarlech Castle in Wales surrender.

1469 April–July. Robin of Redesdale’sRebellion is fomented by Warwick.11 July. Clarence marries Warwick’sdaughter, Isabel Neville, at Calais.26 July. Battle of Edgecote Moor—William Herbert, earl of Pembroke,and other Yorkist lords are defeatedand executed by Warwick.29 July. Deserted by most of hissupporters, Edward IV is taken intocustody by Warwick’s brother,George Neville, archbishop ofYork, who places the king underthe earl’s “protection.”c. 10 September. Warwick is forcedby rebellion to release Edward IVfrom custody.

1470 12 March. Battle of LosecoteField—Edward IV defeats rebelsoperating under the direction ofWarwick and Clarence.early April. Warwick and Clarenceflee England.22 July. Warwick and Margaret ofAnjou meet in Angers to conclude

CHRONOLOGY xxxv

a formal accord known as theAngers Agreement.25 July. Prince Edward of Lancasteris formally betrothed to Warwick’sdaughter, Anne Neville.c. 15 September. Warwick andClarence land in West Country anddeclare for Henry VI.1 October. Elizabeth Woodville, wifeof Edward IV, takes sanctuary withher children at Westminster.2 October. Isolated in the north,Edward IV and a small party ofsupporters, including Richard, dukeof Gloucester, flee England forBurgundy.6 October. Warwick enters Londonin triumph.2 November. Birth in sanctuary ofPrince Edward, eldest son ofEdward IV and future Edward V.26 November. ReadeptionParliament meets at Westminster.c. 13 December. Prince Edward ofLancaster marries Anne Neville.

1471 14 March. Edward IV lands inEngland at Ravenspur, Henry ofBolingbroke’s landing site in 1399.3 April. Clarence abandons Warwickand is reconciled with his brothers,Edward IV and Gloucester.14 April. Battle of Barnet—Warwick is defeated and killed;Margaret of Anjou and PrinceEdward of Lancaster land inEngland at Weymouth.4 May. Battle of Tewkesbury—Prince Edward of Lancaster is killedon the field.7 May. Margaret of Anjou iscaptured and taken to the Tower ofLondon.21 May. Edward IV enters Londonin triumph; Henry VI is murderedin the Tower of London.2 June. Jasper Tudor, earl ofPembroke, escapes from Englandwith his nephew, Henry Tudor, earlof Richmond.

c. 1472 Richard, duke of Gloucester,marries Anne Neville, daughter ofWarwick and widow of PrinceEdward of Lancaster.

1473 c. 17 August. Birth of Richard,second son of Edward IV andfuture duke of York.30 September. John de Vere, theLancastrian earl of Oxford, seizesSt. Michael’s Mount on the tip ofCornwall.

1474 May. An act of Parliament attemptsto settle the long-running disputebetween Edward IV’s brothers, thedukes of Clarence and Gloucester,over the division of their wives’Neville inheritance.25 July. Treaty of Londonconcludes a formal alliancebetween England and Burgundyagainst France.

1475 4 July. Edward IV crosses to Calaisto begin invasion of France.29 August. Edward IV concludesTreaty of Picquigney with LouisXI, ending the English invasion ofFrance.

1476 21 December. Death of Isabel,duchess of Clarence.

1477 5 January. Death in battle ofCharles the Bold, duke ofBurgundy, ally and brother-in-lawof Edward IV.

1478 18 February. George, duke ofClarence, is executed in the Towerof London.

1482 27 March. Death of Mary, duchessof Burgundy, begins ultimatedivision of Burgundy betweenFrance and Maximilian Habsburgof Austria, Mary’s husband andeventual ruler of the Netherlands.11 June. Treaty of Fotheringhay isconcluded between Edward IV andthe duke of Albany, brother ofJames III of Scotland.29 August. Death of Margaret ofAnjou, widow of Henry VI, inFrance.

xxxvi CHRONOLOGY

1483 9 April. Death of Edward IV;accession of Edward V.30 April. Richard, duke ofGloucester, takes charge of hisnephew, Edward V, at StonyStratford on the road to London.13 June. Summary execution ofWilliam Hastings, Lord Hastings.17 June. Richard, duke of York,leaves sanctuary at Westminster tojoin his brother, Edward V, at theTower of London.22 June. Dr. Ralph Shaw delivers apublic sermon at Paul’s Cross inLondon setting forth Richard ofGloucester’s claim to the throne.26 June. At an assembly ofpolitical notables at Baynard’sCastle in London, Henry Stafford,duke of Buckingham, presentsRichard of Gloucester with apetition requesting him to takethe throne.6 July. Coronation of Richard III.30 August. Death of Louis XI ofFrance; accession of Charles VIII.July–September? Probable deaths ofEdward V and his brother Richard,duke of York, in the Tower ofLondon.October. Buckingham’s Rebellionfails; Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, aborts planned landingin England.2 November. Buckingham isexecuted at Salisbury.25 December. Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, takes oath to marryElizabeth of York, eldest daughterof Edward IV.

1484 23 January. Richard III’s onlyParliament opens atWestminster—the membersattaint the Buckingham rebels,including Henry Tudor, andembody the petition of June1483, which asked Richard III totake the Crown, in the statuteTitulus Regius.

1 March. With her daughters,Elizabeth Woodville, widow ofEdward IV, leaves sanctuary atWestminster.April. Death of Edward ofMiddleham, only child of Richard III.September. Three-year truce isconcluded between England andScotland; Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, flees from Brittany toFrance.

1485 16 March. Death of Anne Neville,wife of Richard III.30 March. Richard III is forced byrumor to publicly deny anyintention of marrying his nieceElizabeth of York, eldest daughterof Edward IV.7 August. Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, lands with an invasionforce at Milford Haven in Wales.22 August. Battle of BosworthField—Richard III is defeated andkilled; accession of Henry Tudor,earl of Richmond, as Henry VII.30 October. Coronation of Henry VII.7 November. Henry VII’s firstParliament opens at Westminster.

1486 18 January. Henry VII marriesElizabeth of York, daughter ofEdward IV.19 September. Birth of PrinceArthur, first child of Henry VII.

1487 24 May. Lambert Simnel, whoclaims to be a nephew of EdwardIV, is crowned king of England inDublin.16 June. Battle of Stoke—HenryVII defeats Yorkist supporters ofLambert Simnel.

1488 11 June. Death of James III ofScotland after Battle ofSauchieburn; accession of James IV.

1489 28 March. Treaty of Medina delCampo is concluded with Spain.

1491 28 June. Birth of Prince Henry,future Henry VIII.

CHRONOLOGY xxxvii

November. Perkin Warbeck, anotherpretended son of Edward IV,appears in Ireland.

1492 8 June. Death of ElizabethWoodville, widow of Edward IV, atBermondsey Abbey.3 November. Treaty of Etaples isconcluded with France, forcingWarbeck to leave France forBurgundy. Warbeck spends most of1492 in France and Burgundy,where he is supported by Margaret,duchess of Burgundy and sister ofEdward IV.

1495 23 July–3 August. Warbeck launchesunsuccessful invasion of Kent.November. Warbeck is given shelterin Scotland by James IV.21 December. Death of Jasper Tudor,duke of Bedford and uncle ofHenry VII.

1496 February. The treaty calledIntercursus Magnus is concludedwith the Netherlands.

1497 17 June. Henry VII crushesCornish rebels at the Battle ofBlack Heath.7 September. Warbeck lands inCornwall.30 September. The truce leading tothe Treaty of Ayton is concludedwith Scotland, ending Scottishsupport for Warbeck.5 October. Warbeck surrenders andconfesses his imposture of Richard,duke of York, second son ofEdward IV.

1499 16 November. Execution ofWarbeck.29 November. Execution of EdwardPlantagenet, earl of Warwick, son ofGeorge, duke of Clarence, andnephew of Edward IV.

1501 14 November. Prince Arthur, eldestson of Henry VII, marries theSpanish princess Catherine ofAragon.

1502 2 April. Death of Prince Arthur.6 May. Execution of Sir JamesTyrell for allegedly murderingEdward V and his brother onRichard III’s orders in 1483.

1503 11 February. Death of Elizabeth ofYork, wife of Henry VII anddaughter of Edward IV.23 June. Prince Henry, heir to theEnglish throne, is betrothed to hisformer sister-in-law, Catherine ofAragon.8 August. Princess Margaret, eldestdaughter of Henry VII, marriesJames IV of Scotland.

1506 30 April. The treaty IntercursusMalus is concluded with DukePhilip of Burgundy; the treaty leadsto the expulsion of the Yorkistpretender, Edmund de la Pole, earlof Suffolk, from the Netherlands.

1509 21 April. Death of Henry VII;uncontested accession of HenryVIII as second king of the house ofTudor.29 June. Death of MargaretBeaufort, mother of Henry VII.

xxxviii CHRONOLOGY

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF

THE WARS OF

THE ROSES

Accord, Act of (1460)Although meant to end the political instabilitycaused by the rival claims of the royal housesof LANCASTER and YORK, the Act of Ac-cord of October 1460 helped transform a dy-nastic dispute into a civil war. By disinheritingEDWARD OF LANCASTER, Prince of Wales,and vesting the succession to the throne inRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, andhis heirs, the act compelled Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU and her followers to takearms against the settlement as the only way toensure the future of the prince and the Lan-castrian dynasty.

The Lancastrian defeat at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON in July 1460 left bothHENRY VI and the government in the handsof Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, York’smost prominent supporter. In exile in IRE-LAND since the Battle of LUDFORD

BRIDGE in late 1459, York returned to En-gland in September. By moving across thecountry in leisurely state and settling himselfin the royal apartments at Westminster, Yorkleft no doubt that he intended to claim thethrone. In LONDON, Warwick; his father,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury; andYork’s son Edward, earl of March (see ED-WARD IV), established a Yorkist regime, call-ing a PARLIAMENT to meet at Westminsterin early October. On 10 October, York en-tered the Parliament chamber and made toseat himself on the throne; when this actionelicited silence rather than acclaim, Arch-bishop Thomas BOURCHIER asked the dukeif he wished to see the king. Although Yorkreplied that the king should rather come tosee him, the lords’ obvious disapproval of hisactions caused York to withdraw.

On 16 October, York formally laid hisclaim to the Crown before Parliament. Sup-ported by a pedigree that detailed York’s royaldescent, the claim sought to prove the Lancas-trians usurpers. After a week of debate, thelords crafted the Act of Accord, which disin-herited the Prince of Wales and gave the suc-cession to York and his heirs. On 25 October,both Henry VI and York accepted the settle-ment. Given immediate approval by Parlia-ment, the act avoided the unwanted deposi-tion of Henry VI, while giving York aninterest in maintaining the political stability ofthe realm, even though it lessened the likeli-hood of his accession, the duke being ten yearsolder than the king.

The act assigned York and his two eldestsons 10,000 marks from the revenues of theprince’s earldom of Chester, thus deprivingthe prince of income as well as status.York wasgiven powers similar to those he enjoyed dur-ing his two protectorates in the 1450s. On 31October, the lords swore to accept York as heirand the duke swore to accept Henry VI asking for life. The act was then publicly pro-claimed throughout the realm. The greatweakness of the Act of Accord was its disre-gard of the queen and her commitment to herson’s right to the Crown. The act quicklydrove Lancastrians, who considered Henry VIa prisoner acting under duress, into the field tooverthrow the Yorkist regime.

See also First Protectorate; Second Protectorate;Wakefield, Battle ofFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Johnson, P. A., Duke Richardof York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); Wolffe,Bertram, Henry VI (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

1

A

Act of Accord. See Accord, Act of

Act of Attainder. See Attainder, Act of.

AffinityIn fifteenth-century England, an affinity was aweb of political and social connections con-structed by a nobleman, either on the basis ofroyal favor and personal political standing oron the basis of family and territorial influence.

A noble created an affinity by assembling aband of followers, known as RETAINERS,who were sworn to provide their lord withlegal, political, or military service in return formoney. Retainers also expected that the lord’sinfluence would be exercised on their behalfin legal proceedings and in pursuit of officeand other rewards. Retainers signaled their at-tachment to a lord’s affinity by wearing his liv-ery (i.e., uniform) or his BADGE or emblem.The dispersal of fees and wages by a magnateto the members of his affinity was the heart ofthe social system known as BASTARD FEU-DALISM. Although individual retainers couldbe household servants or legal or financial ad-visors, a large affinity above all provided itslord with a military force that could be usedboth to support and threaten the Crown. Al-though not private armies because they wererarely kept under arms for long, noble affini-ties formed the core of royal forces sent toFRANCE or used to crush internal rebellion.During the WARS OF THE ROSES, suchaffinities constituted the bulk of the militaryforces raised by both parties. Although at-tempts were made through PARLIAMENT tolimit retaining, the Crown, dependent onnoble affinities for military strength, soughtonly to control such groupings.

An example of an affinity created on thebasis of personal influence was the one con-structed by William HASTINGS, Lord Hast-ings, whose peerage and estates derived fromhis close friendship with EDWARD IV. Hast-ings’s influence with the king attracted manymembers of the GENTRY to his affinity, whichwas soon extensive and therefore a valuable

resource for the house of YORK in militaryemergencies. During his 1471 campaign to re-gain the Crown, Edward’s initially thin forceswere soon swollen by the arrival of loyalmembers of Hastings’s affinity (see EDWARD

IV, RESTORATION OF). In 1483, control ofsuch military potential made Hastings a dan-ger to Richard, duke of Gloucester (seeRICHARD III); when he began to fear thatHastings might mobilize his affinity on behalfof EDWARD V, Gloucester ordered Hastings’ssummary execution (see COUNCIL MEET-ING OF 13 JUNE 1483).

A powerful and extensive connection basedon family loyalty and landholding, as well ason personal political influence, was the Nevilleaffinity, controlled after 1460 by RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick. The most influen-tial subject in the realm during the early yearsof Edward IV, and possessing a mighty militaryreputation (see GENERALSHIP), Warwickcould also draw on a deeply engrained loyaltyto his family among the gentry of the north,where the Neville lands were concentrated.When Warwick brought this affinity into al-liance with the house of LANCASTER in1470, he was able to restore HENRY VI to thethrone.After Warwick’s death in 1471, EdwardIV ensured that his brother Gloucester, thehusband of Warwick’s daughter AnneNEVILLE, became heir to the family loyaltyand territorial power upon which the Nevilleaffinity was based.

See also Livery and Maintenance; Neville Family;North of England and the Wars of the Roses;PeerageFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, BastardFeudalism (London: Longman, 1995); Walker, S.,The Lancastrian Affinity, 1361–1399 (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1989).

Alnwick Castle (1461–1464)Along with the other Northumberlandfortresses of BAMBURGH and DUNSTAN-BURGH, Alnwick Castle demonstrated the in-security of EDWARD IV’s throne by fallingseveral times into Lancastrian hands between1461 and 1464.

2 ACT OF ACCORD

After the Yorkist victory at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461,Alnwick was one ofseveral northern strongholds that remainedunder the control of RETAINERS loyal to theLancastrian Percy family (see entries underPERCY). The castle fell to Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, in September, but was lostagain in November to a Lancastrian raidingparty from SCOTLAND under Sir WilliamTAILBOYS. Realizing that the Northumber-land fortresses were vulnerable so long as theLancastrians could cross the border, Edward IVnegotiated a three-month truce with Scotlandto begin in June 1462. Edward used the cease-fire to retake the lost castles, with Alnwickfalling in July after a short siege conducted byWilliam HASTINGS, Lord Hastings, and SirJohn HOWARD. Once again,Yorkist control ofthe fortress was short-lived, for in late OctoberAlnwick capitulated to MARGARET OF

ANJOU and her newly landed force of FrenchMERCENARIES under Pierre de BRÉZÉ. TheLancastrian royal family and de Brézé retired toScotland in November upon receiving news ofan approaching Yorkist army. By early Decem-ber 1462, Warwick was coordinating sieges ofall three castles, with the Alnwick operationunder the command of William NEVILLE, earlof Kent; Anthony WOODVILLE, Lord Scales;and John TIPTOFT, earl of Worcester.

On 5 January 1463, a Scottish relief forceunder de Brézé and the Scottish earl of Angusappeared at Alnwick. Warwick, perhaps con-scious of the low morale of his men, who hadbeen maintaining a difficult siege in midwin-ter, declined to fight. Robert HUNGER-FORD, Lord Hungerford, commander of theAlnwick garrison, marched his men out of thecastle and withdrew into Scotland with deBrézé’s force. Warwick installed a Yorkist gar-rison in Alnwick, but Hungerford retook thecastle in March when the Yorkist commander,Sir Ralph Grey, defected and allowed the Lan-castrians to enter the fortress unopposed. ByJune, Warwick and his brother John NEVILLE,Lord Montagu, were again marching north.The Nevilles surprised a large Scottish army asit was besieging Norham Castle; the Scotsforce, which included not only JAMES III and

his mother MARY OF GUELDRES, but alsothe Lancastrian royal family, fled in panic be-fore the Yorkist army. This defeat cooled Scot-tish support for the Lancastrians and allowedthe negotiation of a ten-month Anglo-Scot-tish truce in December.

With Scotland thus neutralized, the Yorkistsbegan a campaign to end Lancastrian activityin Northumberland once and for all. In April1464, Montagu defeated a Lancastrian forceunder Henry BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset,at the Battle of HEDGELEY MOOR west ofAlnwick. The Lancastrian survivors of thatbattle gathered at Alnwick, where, under thenominal leadership of HENRY VI himself,they reformed and marched out to again faceMontagu. At the Battle of HEXHAM on 15May, Montagu defeated and captured Somer-set, while the demoralized remnants of Som-erset’s force retreated to Alnwick, which theysurrendered to Warwick on 23 June. Alnwickwas henceforth Yorkist, and the Northumber-land phase of the civil wars was over.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Pollard, A. J., North-Eastern England during the Warsof the Roses (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).

Angers Agreement (1470)By forging an alliance between RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU, the Angers Agreement ofJuly 1470 made possible the overthrow of ED-WARD IV and the restoration of HENRY VIand the house of LANCASTER.

In April 1470, after the failure of their at-tempt to dethrone Edward IV, Warwick andhis ally, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, Edward’s younger brother, took shipwith their wives for CALAIS, where Warwickwas captain. Denied entrance to the town by agarrison loyal to Edward, Warwick turned topiracy, preying on Burgundian shipping with asquadron of vessels that had defected from theroyal NAVY under the command of the earl’skinsman, Thomas NEVILLE, the Bastard ofFauconberg.

ANGERS AGREEMENT 3

In May, Warwick’s booty-laden flotilla an-chored in the Seine, providing LOUIS XI withan ideal opportunity to strike at both Englandand BURGUNDY. If Warwick and QueenMargaret could be persuaded to bury theirconsiderable differences, they might, withLouis’s aid, overthrow Edward and establish aLancastrian regime that would gratefully sup-port the French king against Burgundy. Forboth Warwick and Margaret, Louis’s plan,though personally distasteful, was their onlypolitical option. Having failed to control Ed-ward IV in 1469, and to replace him withClarence in 1470, Warwick’s only hope forpower in England was the restoration, underhis auspices, of Henry VI. For Margaret, al-liance with Warwick and his supporters repre-sented her only hope of ever seeing her sonon the English throne.

After conferring privately with both par-ties, and paying for Margaret to come toAngers, Louis brought the two principalstogether in that town on 22 July.Although thebasic outline of the agreement had probablyalready been accepted by all parties, Margaret,upon meeting Warwick, made a show of re-jecting the earl and supposedly kept him onhis knees in supplication for twenty minutesbefore granting him pardon for his Yorkistpast. The settlement that followed called forWarwick to lead an invasion of England, fi-nanced by Louis, to overthrow the house ofYORK and restore Henry VI. In return, Mar-garet agreed to the marriage of her son, PrinceEDWARD OF LANCASTER, to Anne NE-VILLE, Warwick’s younger daughter. The be-trothal was formalized in Angers Cathedral on25 July and the wedding was celebrated in thefollowing December. For Louis, the center-piece of the agreement was the new allies’promise to bring a restored Lancastrian regimeinto an offensive alliance with FRANCE

against Burgundy. The odd man out wasClarence. Although honorably treated, forWarwick needed his support, he was obligedto renounce his claim to the throne in returnfor the lands and title of duke of York and apromise of the succession should the house ofLancaster fail of heirs.

Although she accepted the marriage, Mar-garet refused to allow her son to return to En-gland until Warwick had recovered the king-dom for Henry VI, a decision that was to costWarwick dearly in terms of Lancastrian sup-port.The earl and Clarence issued a proclama-tion, which was widely distributed in En-gland, promising to end Edward’s “tyranny.”Warwick was probably also responsible for theproduction of a PROPAGANDA tract entitledthe MANNER AND GUIDING OF THE EARL

OF WARWICK AT ANGERS, a document,written by someone privy to the Angers dis-cussions, that describes the agreement and thereasons for its conclusion. Fortified by theFrench and Lancastrian aid acquired under theAngers Agreement, Warwick returned to En-gland in September; by early October, he wasmaster of the kingdom and leader of thenewly established READEPTION governmentof Henry VI.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow ofFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998);Kendall, Paul Murray, Louis XI (New York: W. W.Norton, 1971).

Anglica Historia (Vergil)Although commissioned by HENRY VII, andtherefore favorable to the house of TUDOR,Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia (English His-tory) is an important, if controversial, sourcefor the WARS OF THE ROSES, and especiallyfor the reign of RICHARD III.

Polydore Vergil (c.1470–1555) was an Ital-ian humanist who came to England on a papalmission in 1502. He spent most of the rest ofhis life in England and became a naturalizedEnglish subject. Persuaded by Henry VII towrite a history of England, Vergil spenttwenty-six years on the project, which waspublished in 1534 and dedicated to HenryVIII. Running to twenty-six books in total, theAnglica Historia covers the Wars of the Roses inBooks 23–25. Although he interpreted historyin a manner flattering to his Tudor patrons,Vergil was not simply a royal apologist writingwhatever he was told. He was a classically

4 ANGLICA HISTORIA

trained Renaissance historian who carefullybased his work on a wide variety of availablesources—both oral and written—and who waswilling to present and evaluate conflictingviewpoints from those sources. Genuinelyseeking to provide an accurate account ofevents, Vergil tried to strip away myth and tounderstand motives, causes, and effects.

For the reign of EDWARD IV, the AnglicaHistoria is reasonably balanced, describing theking’s virtues as well as his faults. Vergil alsoprovided incisive political analyses for impor-tant events of the reign, such as the king’s mar-riage to Elizabeth WOODVILLE in 1464 andhis execution of his brother, George PLANTA-GENET, duke of Clarence, in 1478 (seeCLARENCE, EXECUTION OF). The AnglicaHistoria also offers detailed accounts of the1469–1471 phase of the civil war and of Ed-ward’s reign thereafter.

Although Vergil condemned Richard III asambitious, devious, and wicked, his criticalview likely derived from his sources, whichprobably included former opponents ofRichard who were prominent at the TudorCOURT, and written sources unfriendly toRichard, such as various LONDON CHRONI-CLES and the Second Continuation of theCROYLAND CHRONICLE. Although conced-ing that Richard had courage,Vergil otherwisedepicted the king as cruel and tyrannous, see-ing even his most innocent actions as calcu-lated attempts to conceal his desire to seize theCrown from his nephew, EDWARD V, forwhose murder Vergil held Richard responsi-ble. Vergil was also the first to claim thatRichard personally murdered HENRY VI inthe TOWER OF LONDON and that Richardpoisoned his own queen, Anne NEVILLE. Be-cause Vergil’s portrait contains the outlines ofthe monstrous Richard later depicted byWilliam Shakespeare in his influential playRICHARD III, modern defenders of Richardhave sometimes dismissed the Anglica Historiaas mere Tudor PROPAGANDA.

See also The History of King Richard III (More);Shakespeare and the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Ellis, Sir Henry, ed., ThreeBooks of Polydore Vergil’s English History, Comprising

the Reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV, and Richard III(London: Camden Society, 1844); Hay, Denys,Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian and Man ofLetters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952);Vergil,Polydore, The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil(London: Royal Historical Society, 1950); the textof Books 23–25 covering the Wars of the Roses isavailable on the Richard III Society Web site at<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html>.

Anne, Queen of England. See Neville,Anne, Queen of England

ArchersHaving themselves learned the lessons theytaught the French during the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR, the English during the WARS

OF THE ROSES adopted equipment and tac-tics that nullified the power and effectivenessof the longbow, which, during the civil wars,was never the decisive weapon it had been inFRANCE. Nonetheless, a sizable contingent ofarchers was an important component of al-most every civil war army.

English victories over the French at Crécy(1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415),as well as thirteenth- and fourteenth-centuryEnglish triumphs in WALES and SCOTLAND,derived in large part from the superiority infirepower that the six-foot longbow conferredon English armies. Able to fire ten to twelvearrows a minute, a rate of fire five to six timesthat of continental crossbowmen, Englisharchers decimated French cavalry charges overan effective range of 165 yards. By the late fif-teenth century, both English and continentalarmies had learned to attack with foot soldierswho employed curved plate ARMOR, whicharrows could not penetrate, or other types oflighter protection, such as leather jerkins,which lessened an arrow’s impact. Also, be-cause both sides in the civil wars had bodies ofarchers, the two contingents often canceledeach other out. As a result, most battles weredecided by the course of hand-to-hand com-bat between struggling lines of dismountedMEN-AT-ARMS. Two exceptions were theBattle of EDGECOTE in 1469 and the Battle

ARCHERS 5

of STOKE in 1487; in both cases, the eventualwinning side enjoyed a distinct superiority innumbers of archers.

Although archers did not decide most civilwar battles, they could significantly shape thecourse of the fighting. Volleys of arrows andARTILLERY opened most civil war encoun-ters, and occasionally forced an opponent toabandon a strong defensive position and launchan unplanned attack. At the Battle of TOW-TON, fought on a blustery day in March 1461,William NEVILLE, Lord Fauconberg, used anadvantageous wind to neutralize the Lancas-trian archers. He ordered his own archers, whowere shooting with the wind, to fire one volleyand then stand still. Stung by the Yorkist ar-rows, the Lancastrians responded in kind, onlyto find that the wind caused their missiles tofall short of the Yorkist line, where Faucon-berg’s men picked them up and fired themback. Under a hail of arrows, and unable to re-spond effectively, the Lancastrian troops suf-fered both heavy casualties and falling morale.To halt the damage inflicted on his lines by theYorkist archers, Henry BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, the Lancastrian commander, orderedhis men to attack, thus opening the close-quar-ter combat that characterized the rest of thebattle. Seeing the enemy advance, Fauconbergrealized that his archers were becoming vul-nerable; he ordered them to withdraw behindthe Yorkist lines, but also told them to leavesome of the Lancastrian arrows in the snowwhere they would obstruct the enemy attack.

See also Battles, Nature ofFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Bradbury, Jim, The Medieval Archer (Woodbridge,Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1985).

Armies, Recruitment ofBecause fifteenth-century England had nostanding armies, WARS OF THE ROSES mili-tary forces had to be raised anew each time acampaign was undertaken. Surviving records,although fragmentary, indicate that thesearmies mainly comprised contingents of RE-

TAINERS that the PEERAGE and GENTRY

supplied to the king or party leader they sup-ported, groups of tenants who held land of thepeer or gentleman who called them to takearms on behalf of his party, and bodies of menwho were summoned to service by officialCOMMISSIONS OF ARRAY, which the partyin power used to mobilize the local countyand town militias.

The best-documented armies of the fif-teenth century are not civil war forces, but thearmies English kings raised for overseas expe-ditions, such as the force EDWARD IV re-cruited for his invasion of FRANCE in 1475.Composed of almost 200 contingents pro-vided by noblemen or gentlemen who hadcontracted with the king to supply specificnumbers and kinds of troops, this expedi-tionary force was an army of indentured re-tainers, men who had contracted to supplypaid military service to a lord so he could, inturn, fulfill his contract (or indenture) withthe king. For example, Sir Richard TUNSTALL

contracted to provide 10 spears and 100archers to serve for one year. Civil war armieswere probably raised in a similar fashion. In1455, Humphrey STAFFORD, duke of Buck-ingham, paid ninety men 6s 8d per head toserve with the royal army at the Battle of ST.ALBANS. These wages were likely based onthe rates the king paid to the contingent lead-ers with whom he contracted.

Because we know that in the 1450s Buck-ingham had less than 130 paid retainers, in-cluding serving women and nonmilitaryhousehold officers, his 1455 contingent ofninety men was clearly recruited from othersources. A wealthy landed noble like Bucking-ham, and powerful noble families like theNevilles and the Percies, had extensive territo-rial influence that gave them a wide networkor AFFINITY of political and military supporton which to draw. Such magnates could sum-mon their tenant farmers to service, as thePercy family did during the NEVILLE-PERCY

FEUD of the 1450s. Of the 710 persons weknow to have been part of the Percy army atthe Battle of HEWORTH in 1453, the largestgroup (about 330) were Percy tenants.

6 ARMIES, RECRUITMENT OF

The last major method of recruitment wasthe issuance of commissions of array, wherebythe party in power used its control of the gov-ernment to call upon men to perform theirpublic duty and assist their lawful king in de-fending the realm from invasion or rebellion.By law, the Crown could summon all able-bodied men between sixteen and sixty toserve for forty days at the expense of theirtown or county. During the Wars of theRoses, the question of who the lawful kingwas severely complicated the use of commis-sions of array. From 1458 to 1460, the Lancas-trian regime of MARGARET OF ANJOU con-trolled the administrative machinery ofgovernment and issued commissions in thename of HENRY VI. Late in 1460, the ACT

OF ACCORD made Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, heir to the throne and head ofthe government, allowing the duke to issuecommissions in Henry’s name. However, thefollowers of Margaret either ignored these or-ders or employed them to raise troops thatwere eventually used to defeat and kill York atthe Battle of WAKEFIELD. After March 1461,when there existed both a Lancastrian and aYorkist monarch, counties and towns eithersent troops to both armies or followed the al-legiance of the most powerful local lord ornoble family.

See also Armies, Size of; Armies, Supplying of;Battles, Nature of; Casualties; Commons(Common People) and the Wars of the Roses;Military Campaigns, Duration of; Neville Family;Towns and the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Boardman,Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Gillingham, John, The Wars of the Roses (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981);Goodman,Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, The Wars ofthe Roses (New York:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Armies, Size ofAside from the fantastically large estimates ofcontemporary chroniclers and commentators,little evidence survives to support the realisticcalculation of the size of WARS OF THE

ROSES armies. However, the pay records forEnglish armies sent to FRANCE in the fif-teenth century are more plentiful and do per-mit historians to make educated guesses as tothe sizes of most civil war forces.

English claims for the numbers engagedwere disbelieved even in the fifteenth century.In 1461, the Milanese ambassador in BUR-GUNDY confessed to his master, FrancescoSforza, duke of Milan, that he was ashamed tospeak of the huge numbers of men (about300,000) who were reported to have partici-pated in the recent campaign and Battle of ST.ALBANS. Such numbers, observed the ambas-sador, resembled “the figures of bakers”(Gillingham, p. 43). For the Battle of TOW-TON in March 1461, the bishop of Salisbury,writing one week after the battle, and theLONDON merchant who likely wrote Gre-gory’s Chronicle (see LONDON CHRONICLES)both claimed that EDWARD IV’s army num-bered 200,000. Because all accounts of Tow-ton agree that the Lancastrian force was largerthan Edward’s, accepting the chronicle figuresmeans accepting that almost a half millionmen fought at Towton. For these numbers tobe accurate, almost every adult fighting manin mid-fifteenth-century England—perhaps600,000 out of an estimated total populationof less than 3 million—must have been presentat the battle. Given the size and extent of con-temporary problems of supply and transport,such figures are clearly incredible (seeARMIES, SUPPLYING OF).

Although few such documents exist forWars of the Roses armies, the surviving payrecords of various other fifteenth-century mil-itary forces allow for more believable size esti-mates. For instance, the accounts of the Ex-chequer, the ancient royal financial office,show that Edward IV transported 11,500fighting men to France in 1475. In 1415,when Henry V crossed the Channel to launchthe Agincourt campaign, he took with him anarmy of about 9,000. The largest English armyof the century was the force of 20,000 menwith which Richard, duke of Gloucester (seeRICHARD III), invaded SCOTLAND in 1482.Because no English king or commander had

ARMIES, SIZE OF 7

the full military resources of the realm at hisdisposal during the civil wars, the armies ofthe Wars of the Roses are unlikely to have ex-ceeded the 1482 force in size. A reasonable es-timate is that the largest armies at the largestbattles, such as the Battles of St. Albans (1461),BARNET, and TEWKESBURY, did not num-ber more than 10,000 to 15,000 men. At mostother battles, and especially later in the wars,when enthusiasm for actively taking sideswaned among the PEERAGE and GENTRY,the armies may have been half or less this size.The one possible exception is the Battle ofTowton, for which exact figures are elusive,but which clearly was the largest, longest, andbloodiest battle of the conflict.

One possible way to explain chronicle fig-ures is to make a distinction between fightingmen and the large numbers of noncombat-ants who supported them. Besides its ARCH-ERS and MEN-AT-ARMS, a fifteenth-centuryarmy might include chaplains, grooms, bak-ers, carpenters, physicians, fletchers, and ser-vants and hangers-on (both male and female)of all kinds. If such noncombatants werecounted as part of the army, an actual fightingforce of 10,000 could be a much larger ag-gregation of human beings. The counting ofnoncombatants may explain why, for in-stance, the force with which Edward IV leftBurgundy in March 1471 was given as 2,000in the HISTORY OF THE ARRIVAL OF ED-WARD IV, the official Yorkist account of theinvasion, but was recorded as 1,200 in Jean deWaurin’s RECUEIL DES CRONIQUES ET

ANCHIENNES ISTORIES DE LA GRANT

BRETAIGNE.

See also Armies, Recruitment of; Battles, Natureof; Casualties; Commons (Common People) andthe Wars of the Roses; Military Campaigns,Duration ofFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Gillingham, John, The Wars of the Roses (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981);Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, The Warsof the Roses (New York: Thames and Hudson,1987).

Armies, Supplying ofSupplying a fifteenth-century army with food,clothing, and other necessary items was a diffi-cult task that often limited the size of theforce, affected its mobility, and influenced thestrategy of its leaders. Three different methodswere employed, usually in combination, tosupply WARS OF THE ROSES armies—thetroops carried their own supplies, purchasedsupplies from merchants accompanying thearmy, or lived off the land.

Records for the armies EDWARD IV raisedin the early 1480s to invade SCOTLAND indi-cate that huge quantities of mutton, bacon,beef (on the hoof), fish, grain, beans, and saltwere collected at Newcastle, the army’s base.Large numbers of carts and horses were gath-ered to carry the food and such cooking sup-plies as kettles, ladles, and dishes, as well as suchother necessary tools and equipment as axes,shovels, and sickles. Although most civil wararmies were half or less the size of the 20,000-man force that Richard, duke of Gloucester(see RICHARD III), led northward in 1482,they still required lengthy wagon trains evento carry only a few days’ worth of supplies.Thus, even for brief campaigns—and mostduring the Wars of the Roses lasted for onlydays or weeks—troops quickly exhausted theirfood reserve and had to turn for supplies tomerchants following the army or to foragingin their area of operations. Merchants andtheir vital supply trains could limit movement,especially when their numbers were added tothe already large number of noncombatantswho accompanied an army—servants (maleand female), fletchers, carpenters, grooms,physicians, chaplains, cooks and bakers, andgeneral laborers. The presence of merchantsalso required that a troop of soldiers—a con-temporary military manual suggests no lessthan 400—be deployed to protect them andtheir wares.

In a civil war, the practice of living off thecountry posed serious political risks. Takingsupplies from the people of the countryside,even upon promise of payment, could easilydegenerate into looting and turn friendly orneutral towns or regions into hostile territo-

8 ARMIES, SUPPLYING OF

ries disposed to favor the other side.The plun-dering that characterized the southwardmarch of MARGARET OF ANJOU’s army in1461 cost the Lancastrians much support inLONDON and southern England and gave aboost to Yorkist PROPAGANDA. Because onlyLondon, with perhaps 40,000 inhabitants, waslarger than an army of 10,000, living off theland also limited movement into sparsely pop-ulated areas and encouraged operations near alarger town or in a richer agricultural area.Speed of movement was also affected by theproblem of supply. In March 1470, Edward IVmarched quickly northward to quell the up-risings instigated by Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick. However, before engaging therebels, Edward had to spend four days in Yorkcollecting supplies; the food his troops carriedwith them had been exhausted on the march,and Warwick’s men, through their own forag-ing, had exhausted the supplies available in thecountryside. The problem of supplying a largearmy in the field may have been the main rea-son civil war commanders tended to seekrather than avoid battle, so as to quickly endcampaigns and disband armies.

See also Armies, Recruitment of; Armies, Size of;Battles, Nature of; Casualties; Harbingers; Marchon London; Military Campaigns, Duration of;Towns and the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Gillingham, John, The Wars of the Roses (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981);Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, The Warsof the Roses (New York: Thames and Hudson,1987).

ArmorDuring the WARS OF THE ROSES, EnglishMEN-AT-ARMS, and especially members ofthe PEERAGE and GENTRY, entered battleencased in a defensive body covering of metalplate armor, which was designed to deflectblows from heavy weapons in close combatand to ward off arrows shot from a distance.Because most civil war battles were decided by

hand-to-hand combat between men fightingon foot, full or partial sets of armor of anyavailable quality were worn by any soldier ableto buy or otherwise procure them.

By the late fifteenth century, the making ofplate armor was a fine art, and new methodsof forging iron allowed for the production oflighter, stronger, more flexible suits that couldbetter protect a larger portion of the body andallowed for greater mobility and endurance.Although a complete set of armor, or “har-ness,” was expensive, and might only be avail-able to wealthy nobles and knights, most menwent into combat at least partially harnessed,even if with older, lower-quality pieces. Thefinest armor had curved and fluted design ele-ments, which gave it strength and allowed it todeflect blows more easily. Totally encased inmetal, a knight in full harness had greater con-fidence in battle, and by the late fifteenth cen-tury many discarded the shields of earliertimes and opted instead to wield the heavytwo-handed weapons, such as poleaxes, whichwere, ironically, designed to crush the new,stronger body armor (see WEAPONRY). Al-though they also employed two-handed,shafted weapons, such as the bill and glaive,more lightly armored men-at-arms continuedto carry a small, round shield known as abuckler, which could be easily slung from abelt or strap worn around the waist.

Full harness was worn over a heavy paddeddoublet that was slit for ventilation. Gussets(i.e., metal or mail inserts) were sewn to thedoublet to protect vulnerable areas such as thearms, elbows, and armpits, where metal jointswould have been too restrictive of movement.Wax cords (arming points) were attached tothe doublet to allow the plate armor to be se-cured to the body. Other undergarments in-cluded heavy, padded hose and leather shoes.The main body armor comprised upper andlower breastplates, which were hinged verti-cally on one side, back plates, a metal skirt, andtassets, which hung from straps on the skirtand protected the lower body. The feet wereencased in plate shoes called sabatons, whichwere attached to lower leg coverings calledgreaves. The greaves and the upper leg cover-

ARMOR 9

ings, known as cuisseis, had two halves thathinged on the side and were secured by buck-les and straps.A special knee piece, attached byrivets or pins, protected the gap betweengreaves and cuisseis. Arms were protected bytwo similar coverings, the vambraces (for thelower arm) and rerebraces (for the upper arm),with special pieces called cowters and paul-drons attached by straps to protect, respec-tively, the elbows and the shoulders. Gauntletsfitted over the vambrace protected the handsand wrists. The sallet, a visored metal helmet

worn over a padded arming cap, protected thehead, while the bevor, a triangular metal plateworn below the sallet, protected the neck.

Although most knights dismounted for bat-tle, the grand cavalry charge, as RICHARD IIIproved at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD,could still be employed to retrieve desperatesituations. During the HUNDRED YEARS

WAR, unarmored horses had been extremelyvulnerable to ARCHERS. Thus, many noble-men armored their mounts during the Wars ofthe Roses. Horse armor involved protective

10 ARMOR

Two fifteenth-century knights in full armor engage in the kind of hand-to-hand combat that characterized Wars of the Rosesbattles. (Cotton Jul. E VI Art. 6 f. 7, British Library)

pieces for the head, neck, chest, rump, andflank, and might even include armor-platedreins to prevent an enemy from cutting themand depriving the rider of control. Nonethe-less, the weight and expense of horse armorlimited its use to the wealthiest combatants,who generally used their mounts only to rideto or escape from the battlefield.

See also Badges; Battles, Nature of; Generalship;Military Campaigns, Duration ofFurther Reading: Ayton, Andrew,“Arms,Armour, and Horses,” in Maurice Keen, ed.,Medieval Warfare (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999); Boardman, Andrew W., The Medieval Soldierin the Wars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998); DeVries, Kelly,Medieval Military Technology (Peterborough,Ontario: Broadview Press, 1992); Prestwich,Michael, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages:TheEnglish Experience (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1996).

ArtilleryBy the start of the WARS OF THE ROSES inthe late 1450s, artillery had been in use innorthern Europe for over a century, and mostcivil war armies included at least a small ar-tillery force.

The pace of advancement in European guntechnology had quickened in the 1370s, whenthe small, inaccurate, and unreliable artilleryused early in the HUNDRED YEARS WAR

gave way to larger, more powerful weaponsable to breach the high stone walls of townsand castles. Although the new artillery couldstill be unpredictable—JAMES II of SCOT-LAND was killed in 1460 when one of hissiege cannons exploded—the English beganusing such guns with great effect in WALES

and on the Scottish border in the early fif-teenth century. The new guns came in manytypes and sizes, ranging from massive bom-bards, which could batter down walls withhuge balls of stone or iron, through a varietyof intermediate-sized serpentines, orgues, andribaudequins, to the smaller culverins, whichcould be fired from tripods or used as hand-guns. Fifteenth-century cannon were made ofiron or bronze, although cast bronze weapons

were most common because techniques forcasting iron did not reach a similar level of ex-pertise until the late sixteenth century. Be-cause weapons were nonstandard and eachlarge gun fired projectiles made especially forit, the gun makers usually also served as gun-ners. This uniqueness in projectile size causedindividual large guns to be given their ownnames, such as Mons Meg, now in EdinburghCastle, a 14,000-pound cannon with a caliberof twenty inches.

Firing a fifteenth-century artillery piece wasa slow and difficult process. The larger siegeguns threw stone and iron projectiles thatcould weigh hundreds of pounds. To fire theweapon, the gunner used a firing iron—aniron bar heated in a pan of charcoal that waskept hot and near at hand. Because one poundof powder was required to throw nine poundsof shot, and because the barrel had to bewashed with a mixture of water and vinegarafter every firing, ten shots per hour was con-sidered a good rate of fire. During the Wars ofthe Roses, this slow rate meant that cannonwere used mainly on the eve or at the start of abattle, firing one volley at the enemy beforethe hand-to-hand combat commenced. Dur-ing the night before the Battle of BARNET,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, fired hiscannon continuously, hoping to create fear anddisorder in the Yorkist ranks; however, War-wick was unaware of how close the enemy wasand his guns overshot. To keep Warwick fromlearning his error, EDWARD IV ordered hisown guns to refrain from revealing their posi-tion by returning fire. A few weeks later at theBattle of TEWKESBURY, Edward drew theLancastrians out of an excellent defensive posi-tion with an opening artillery salvo.

Nonetheless, artillery pieces were much lessof a factor in the Wars of the Roses than theywere in contemporary campaigns on the con-tinent. Able to fire a ball about 2,000 to 2,500paces, cannon could be used with devastatingeffect against massed immobile troop concen-trations, such as at river crossings, or againsttown or castle walls during a siege, situationswhere the slow rate of fire did not matter. Butthe art of fortification was less advanced in

ARTILLERY 11

England than elsewhere, and the English civilwars were therefore characterized by pitchedbattles, not by sieges; during the Wars of theRoses, the enemy’s towns or castles usuallysurrendered soon after the enemy’s fieldarmies had been defeated.

Still, both sides recognized the growing im-portance of artillery and took measures to en-sure a good supply of guns. Since about 1415,the English Crown had appointed a master ofordnance to supervise the king’s artillery. In1456, John Judde, a LONDON merchant, wonappointment to the post by offering to supplyHENRY VI with guns and powder at his ownexpense. Judde’s ambitious program of collect-ing and manufacturing guns for the Lancastri-ans so alarmed the Yorkists that they am-

bushed and killed him in June 1460 as he wassupervising delivery of a new shipment ofweapons. Edward IV also appreciated the im-portance of artillery, and his Masters of Ord-nance (like John Wode, who held office from1463 to 1477) were trusted members of theroyal household. Edward was said to fre-quently inspect his ordnance, and his cam-paigns usually included a sizable artillery train.Thus, by HENRY VII’s reign, the EnglishCrown housed a large and growing collectionof ordnance in the TOWER OF LONDON.

See also Archers; Battles, Nature of; MilitaryCampaigns, Duration of; WeaponryFurther Reading: DeVries, Kelly, MedievalMilitary Technology (Peterborough, Ontario:Broadview Press, 1992); Gillingham, John, The

12 ARTILLERY

Artillery pieces are used to batter the walls of a castle in this fifteenth-century depiction of siege warfare. (Royal MS 14 E IVf. 281, British Library)

Wars of the Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Norris, John, Artillery:AnIllustrated History (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 2000); Rogers, H. C. B.,Artillery through the Ages (London: Seeley, 1971);Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (New York:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Attainder, Act ofDuring the WARS OF THE ROSES, attainderdeveloped as an act of PARLIAMENT wherebythe faction in power could convict its politicalopponents of treason without bringing themto trial. By passing a bill of attainder, Parlia-ment simply declared anyone named in the actto be guilty of treason and subject to the lossof all civil rights and the forfeiture to theCrown of all property. Because attainder de-clared anyone so convicted to be “corrupt ofblood,” all heirs and descendants of attaintedpersons were disinherited, thus allowing theconfiscated property to be parceled outamong members and supporters of the win-ning faction.

Although attainder was originally used tosupplement the conviction of persons foundguilty of a capital offence in a court of law,

Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU and the vic-torious Lancastrians used it in the COVENTRY

PARLIAMENT of 1459 to extinguish the rightsand seize the property of the exiled Yorkistleaders. When the Yorkists won control ofHENRY VI and the royal administration in1460, they used the Lancastrian precedent ofthe previous year to reverse their own attain-ders and to convict and dispossess their ene-mies. Between 1459 and 1500, Parliament at-tainted over 400 persons in the variousreversals of political and military fortune thatmarked the Wars of the Roses. Most acts of at-tainder were reversed in subsequent Parlia-ments, either because attainted individuals ortheir heirs belonged to the party then in poweror because they submitted to the ruling party.

Further Reading: Bellamy, John G., The Law ofTreason in England in the Later Middle Ages(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970);Lander, J. R., Crown and Nobility, 1450–1509(Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press,1976).

Audley, Lord. See Touchet, James, LordAudley

AUDLEY, LORD 13

BadgesIn the fifteenth century, badges were personalor familial emblems adopted by noblemen anddistributed as part of the distinctive livery, oruniform, given to RETAINERS who were partof their AFFINITY of sworn followers. Thesebadges proclaimed their wearer’s political alle-giance and helped combatants distinguishfriend from foe during battle. The red andwhite roses that came to symbolize, and laterto describe, the English civil wars of the fif-teenth century were among the family badgesof the contending houses of LANCASTER andYORK.

The royal family, and such important noblefamilies as the Courtenays, Percies, andNevilles, collected numerous badges reflectingthe lineages and titles inherited from variousancestors (see NEVILLE FAMILY). For in-stance, HENRY VII employed the portcullis, asymbol inherited from his maternal relatives,the BEAUFORT FAMILY; the red dragon ofCadwallader, an emblem deriving from WALES

and his paternal ancestors; and a dun cow,which represented his earldom of Richmond.

Besides family emblems, individuals adoptedbadges and mottoes to symbolize their ownparticular ideals, claims, or associations. As vi-sual PROPAGANDA to secure the house ofTUDOR on the throne and to illustrate theunion of Lancaster and York achieved by hismarriage to ELIZABETH OF YORK, HenryVII devised the Tudor rose, a combination ofthe red rose of Lancaster and the white rose ofYork. In preparation for a visit to the city ofYork in 1486, Henry instructed the civic mag-istrates to construct displays that contained “aroyal, rich, red rose conveyed by a vice, untowhich rose shall appear another rich whiterose” (Pollard, p. 7).

Although the red rose was one Lancastrian(and perhaps Beaufort) emblem, HENRY VI’spersonal badge was an antelope, while MAR-GARET OF ANJOU gave her retainers a swanbadge, and the men recruited in the name ofher son, Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER,received the prince’s ostrich plume emblem.Although the white rose, which was inheritedfrom the Mortimer earls of March, was a well-known symbol of the house of York, and mayhave become the personal badge of Elizabethof York, EDWARD IV favored the SUN IN

SPLENDOR/SUNBURST BADGE as his per-sonal emblem. Edward’s father, RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, used the falconand fetter lock, while Edward’s brothers,George PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,and RICHARD III, chose, respectively, theblack bull and the white boar. While duke ofGloucester, Richard distributed the whiteboar widely among his northern retainers (seeRICHARD III, NORTHERN AFFINITY OF),many of whom had formerly worn the bearand ragged staff of Richard NEVILLE, earl of

15

B

The white boar, the favorite badge of Richard III. (BritishLibrary)

Warwick, an emblem long associated with theWarwick title. Gloucester also adopted a per-sonal motto—loyaulté me lie (loyalty bindsme)—which took on ironic overtones afterthe duke usurped the throne of his nephewEDWARDV in 1483.

See also Bastard Feudalism; Livery andMaintenance; Retaining, Acts AgainstFurther Reading: Bean, J. M. W., From Lord toPatron: Lordship in Late Medieval England(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989);Bellamy, J. G., Bastard Feudalism and the Law(Portland, OR: Areopagitica Press, 1989); Hicks,Michael, Bastard Feudalism (London: Longman,1995); Pollard, A. J., The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1988).

The Ballad of Bosworth FieldThe Ballad of Bosworth Field is one of the fullestpoetic retellings of the 1485 Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD, and may possibly provideauthentic details concerning the battle itself.

The earliest surviving copy of the balladdates to the mid–seventeenth century, al-though a sixteenth-century prose summary ofthe poem also exists. Like THE SONG OF

LADY BESSY and THE ROSE OF ENGLAND,The Ballad of Bosworth Field was composed bysomeone connected with the Stanley family,for Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley, and hisbrother Sir William STANLEY are centralcharacters. The author may also have been aneyewitness to the battle, for the poem gives anextensive listing of the noblemen and gentle-men whom RICHARD III summoned tomeet the invasion of Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond (see HENRYVII).

After describing Richmond’s landing inWALES and his appeal for aid to the Stanleys,the poem recounts Richard’s arrest and nearexecution of Stanley’s son Lord Strange, an el-ement common to all major Bosworth ballads.After detailing the mutual determination ofthe king and Lord Stanley to destroy eachother, the poem uses the long list of Richard’ssupporters to enhance the gallantry of theStanley-dominated shires of Lancashire andCheshire, which are portrayed as standingalone against the mighty royal host.

The account of the battle itself tells of thefearsome strength of the king’s ARTILLERY.Although the numbers of royal cannon arelikely exaggerated, their detailed description isanother story element that points to the poet’sactual presence on the field. Like the otherBosworth ballads, this poem describesRichard’s defiant refusal to flee when the bat-tle seems lost.

“One foot will I never fleeWhilst the breath is my breast within!”As he said, so did it be;If he lost his life, if he were King. (Bennett,

p. 173)

The ballad closes with a listing of the mostimportant nobles and gentlemen to die in thebattle, including, on the king’s side, JohnHOWARD, duke of Norfolk; Sir RichardRATCLIFFE; and Sir Robert BRACKEN-BURY, and, on Richmond’s side, WilliamBrandon, the earl’s standard-bearer, who wasslain by Richard III himself. The Ballad ofBosworth Field ends with the crowning ofRichmond on the battlefield and the publicdisplay of Richard’s corpse in Leicester. Thevalue of the Ballad and the other Bosworthpoems as sources for the battle itself has beenquestioned by modern historians, with oneeven suggesting that the poems may be worksof fiction. However, other researchers havemade cautious use of the Ballad and its com-panion pieces to elucidate certain aspects ofthe battle.

Further Reading: Bennett, Michael, The Battle ofBosworth (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985);Hammond, P.W., and Anne F. Sutton, Richard III:TheRoad to Bosworth Field (London: Constable, 1985);Rowse,A. L., Bosworth Field (Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1966);Williams, D.T., The Battle ofBosworth (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1973);the text of The Ballad of Bosworth Field is available onthe Richard III Society Web site at <http://www.webcom.com/r3/bosworth/ballad2.html>.

Bamburgh Castle (1461–1464)Along with the other Northumberlandfortresses of ALNWICK and DUNSTAN-

16 THE BALLAD OF BOSWORTH FIELD

BURGH, Bamburgh Castle demonstrated theinsecurity of EDWARD IV’s throne by fallingseveral times into Lancastrian hands between1461 and 1464.

After the Yorkist victory at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461, Bamburgh was oneof several northern strongholds controlled byRETAINERS loyal to the Lancastrian Percyfamily (see entries under PERCY). Thefortress fell to Edward IV’s men in July 1462,but the Yorkist garrison surrendered the castleto MARGARET OF ANJOU in October, whenshe landed nearby with HENRYVI and a bodyof French MERCENARIES under Pierre deBRÉZÉ. The Lancastrian royal family and deBrézé withdrew into SCOTLAND in Novem-ber, leaving a garrison under Henry BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset, and Sir Ralph Percyto defend Bamburgh against an approachingYorkist army. In early December, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, began coordinatedsiege operations of all three Northumberlandcastles, giving direction of the Bamburgh ef-fort to his brother, John NEVILLE, Lord Mon-tagu. On 26 December 1462, Somerset sur-rendered the fortress; the garrison was allowedto depart, and Somerset and Percy were par-doned upon swearing allegiance to Edward IV.

Accepting Percy’s pledge of loyalty, Edwardplaced both Bamburgh and Dunstanburgh inhis charge, but in March 1463 Percy revertedto his Lancastrian allegiance and yielded bothfortresses to Margaret, who arrived from Scot-land at the head of a joint Scottish-Lancastrianarmy. In June, another Scottish force, accom-panied by both JAMES III and his motherMARY OF GUELDRES, as well as by the Lan-castrian royal family, laid siege to NorhamCastle, where it was surprised in July by aYorkist force under Warwick and Montagu.The invading army disintegrated in panic be-fore the Yorkist troops, leading to a rout thatdestroyed Scottish enthusiasm for the Lancas-trian cause. In December, Edward IV con-cluded a ten-month truce with the Scottishgovernment as a prelude to a final Yorkistcampaign in Northumberland. However, be-fore this effort could begin, Somerset returnedto Bamburgh, where Henry VI was holding

court, and openly declared himself for thehouse of LANCASTER. From Bamburgh,Somerset launched a campaign that capturedseveral neighboring towns and castles andbrought most of the shire under Lancastriancontrol. Montagu’s victories at the Battles ofHEDGELEY MOOR and HEXHAM in Apriland May 1464 led to Somerset’s capture andrestored all Northumberland outside the threecastles to Yorkist control. Alnwick and Dun-stanburgh surrendered on terms in June, butBamburgh, commanded by the Yorkist turn-coat Sir Ralph Grey, refused and stood siege.When Grey was knocked senseless by fallingmasonry during a bombardment by royal AR-TILLERY, his second-in-command surren-dered Bamburgh to Warwick in July, thus se-curing the shire for Edward IV and the houseof YORK.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Pollard, A. J., North-Eastern England during the Warsof the Roses (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).

Barnet, Battle of (1471)Fought on Easter Sunday, 14 April 1471, theBattle of Barnet began EDWARD IV’s restora-tion to the throne and destroyed RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and his politicalfaction.

On 11 April, one month after his landing inEngland, Edward entered LONDON unop-posed. Warwick was at Coventry awaiting thearrival from the north of the forces of hisbrother, John NEVILLE, marquis of Montagu,while Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somer-set, and other Lancastrian leaders were on thesouth coast awaiting the arrival from FRANCE

of Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU and herson EDWARD OF LANCASTER, Prince ofWales. After taking custody of HENRY VI,whom he eventually dispatched to theTOWER OF LONDON, Edward went toWestminster Abbey, where he reunited withhis wife, Elizabeth WOODVILLE, and saw forthe first time the son (see EDWARD V) whohad been born in SANCTUARY in the Abbey

BARNET, BATTLE OF 17

during the previous November. The next day,as Yorkist supporters flooded into the capital,Edward learned that Warwick had joinedforces with Montagu and was marching onthe city. To meet this threat, a Yorkist army of

almost 10,000 left London on 13 April head-ing northwest on the road to St. Albans.

Accompanied by Henry VI and over thirtymagnates, including his newly reconciledbrother George PLANTAGENET, duke of

18 BARNET, BATTLE OF

This portrayal of the Battle of Barnet illustrates a French version of the History of the Arrival of Edward IV, the officialYorkist account of Edward IV’s restoration in 1471. (MS 236, University of Ghent)

Clarence, Edward learned that evening thatWarwick had deployed north of the town ofBarnet, which lay midway between Londonand St. Albans. Edward advanced through Bar-net and halted his troops only a short distancefrom Warwick’s larger force, although theonset of darkness meant neither army wasaware of the other’s exact position. Warwickordered his ARTILLERY to harass the Yorkistarmy that he knew was somewhere on hisfront. Because the two armies were so close,Warwick overshot the Yorkist position, whichEdward refused to reveal by ordering his ar-tillery not to respond.

The battle began about 4 A.M. in a swirlingfog, when the Yorkist army advanced in re-sponse to a barrage from Warwick’s ARCH-ERS and artillery. Only when the lines clasheddid the commanders on each army’s rightwing realize that the two forces were mis-aligned, with each right wing overlapping theenemy’s left. John de VERE, earl of Oxford, incommand on Warwick’s right, quickly col-lapsed the Yorkist left, but then had troublecontrolling his men, who streamed off thefield to plunder Barnet. When Warwick’s leftwas similarly overrun by the troops of Ed-ward’s brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester(see RICHARD III), in command on theYorkist right, the entire battlefront shifted atright angles. This change of position, unreal-ized because of the fog, meant that when Ox-ford got part of his force back into the battle,he fell upon the rear of Montagu’s men. Mis-taking Oxford’s badge of a star with streamsfor the Yorkist emblem of a sun with streams,Montagu ordered his archers to fire on thesurprised attackers, who then threw Warwick’swhole line into confusion with shouts of“treason” (see SUN IN SPLENDOR/SUN-BURST BADGE). Seeing the enemy in distress,Edward pressed his advantage; when Montaguwas killed in this onslaught, Warwick’s linebroke and the rout began. With his entirefront collapsing, Warwick, who had beenfighting on foot, tried to reach his horse,which, due to the shifting lines, was now far tothe rear. Before Edward could intervene, War-wick was overtaken by Yorkist foot soldiers,

who beat him to the ground and slew him.Shortly after Warwick met this end, Margaretof Anjou and her son landed at Weymouth.Met by Somerset and other old-line Lancastri-ans who had never trusted Warwick, thequeen was persuaded to continue the fight.

See also Battles, Nature of; Edward IV,Restoration of; Military Campaigns, Duration ofFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Hammond, P. W., The Battles of Barnet andTewkesbury (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990).

Bastard FeudalismThe term “bastard feudalism” refers to a soci-ety in which titled noblemen, and some mem-bers of the GENTRY, developed networks oraffinities of sworn RETAINERS who providedpolitical, legal, domestic, and military servicein return for money, office, and influence. Be-cause the system allowed the raising of largebands of armed men, bastard feudalism en-abled wealthy members of the PEERAGE todisrupt law and order and conduct privatefeuds in their localities, and even to contendfor control of the national government. Forthese reasons, bastard feudalism was once con-sidered a primary cause of the WARS OF THE

ROSES, although most historians today view itas a useful and neutral social system thatmerely became susceptible to abuses duringperiods of royal weakness, such as occurredduring the personal rule of HENRYVI and thefirst reign of EDWARD IV.

Charles Plummer coined the term bastardfeudalism in 1885 to describe what he be-lieved was a degeneration of feudalism, theearly medieval social system that was based ona lord’s granting of land (by heritable tenure)to a vassal in return for military or other ser-vices. Plummer blamed bastard feudalism forthe disorder and instability that for him char-acterized the late fifteenth century. Plummer’sphrase came into wide use in the 1940s whenthe influential historian K. B. McFarlane em-ployed it to describe the functioning of En-glish political society between the thirteenth

BASTARD FEUDALISM 19

and sixteenth centuries. McFarlane viewedbastard feudalism not as an illegitimate off-shoot of an earlier, purer system but as a natu-ral response to societal changes that was,through individual abuses and royal incapacity,employed for disruptive and illegal purposes.

Because they were rarely kept under armsfor long periods, noble retinues were not pri-vate armies. Although it could be seriouslythreatened by the military forces of dissidentnoblemen, as occurred to Henry VI in the1450s, the Crown never sought to abolish re-taining, only to control it through statutespassed by PARLIAMENT (see RETAINING,ACTS AGAINST). Lacking standing armies,kings relied on noble retinues for the militaryforces they required to conduct foreign warsor crush internal rebellions. Once Edward IVdestroyed the house of LANCASTER and se-cured himself on the throne, armed forcesraised by bastard feudal relationships tended tosupport rather than threaten the Crown.However, under an inept monarch like HenryVI, or an insecure one like Edward IV before1471, ambitious or disaffected magnates, likeRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, in the1450s and Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,in the 1460s, could use their networks of re-tainers to defy or even control the Crown. Al-though bastard feudalism did not cause thedisorder and instability of these decades, it didprovide powerful men with the means to takeadvantage of royal weakness and their ownambition.

Men recruited under the bastard feudal sys-tem were not exclusively employed for militarypurposes; many were household servants, whileothers bound themselves by indenture (con-tract) to supply various services. Only those re-cruited in emergencies, as when Warwick sum-moned retainers to repel Edward IV in 1471,were meant solely for military employment. Inreturn for money and “good lordship,” whichmight mean using influence to obtain an officeor bribing or intimidating a judge or jury in alawsuit (known as embracery), retainers oftenwore their lord’s BADGE or livery (uniform)and took their lord’s part (except, technically,against the king) in any political or military dis-

pute. Although both Edward IV and HENRY

VII limited retaining, bastard feudalism contin-ued as the basis of English political society untilthe late sixteenth century.

See also Affinity; Livery and MaintenanceFurther Reading: Bean, J. M. W., From Lord toPatron: Lordship in Late Medieval England(Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press,1989); Bellamy, J. G., Bastard Feudalism and the Law(Portland, OR: Areopagitica Press, 1989); Hicks,Michael, Bastard Feudalism (London: Longman,1995); McFarlane, K. B.,“Bastard Feudalism,” inEngland in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays(London: Hambledon Press, 1981).

Bastard of Fauconberg. See Neville,Thomas, Bastard of Fauconberg

Bath and Wells, Bishop of. SeeStillington, Robert

Battle Casualties. See Casualties

Battles, Nature ofAlthough involving the deployment ofARCHERS and ARTILLERY, most battles dur-ing the WARS OF THE ROSES were relativelybrief hand-to-hand mêlées fought by bodiesof armored foot soldiers.

Because the wars were civil conflicts, withEnglishmen fighting Englishmen, neither sidepossessed any great technical advantage. Botharmies had the same components andWEAPONRY, usually an artillery contingent,complements of archers and cavalry, and a coreof similarly equipped footmen. Battles usuallyopened with an exchange of bow and gunfire, but neither weapon had much effect onthe fighting once hand-to-hand combat wasjoined. The great English victories of theHUNDRED YEARS WAR, in which ranks oflongbowmen had decimated enemy cavalrycharges, had taught armored cavalry to fighton foot as heavy infantry wielding swords, bat-tle-axes, maces (heavy, spiked staffs or clubs),or flails (a mace with a spiked ball attached to

20 BASTARD OF FAUCONBERG

it by a chain). These latter weapons were de-vised to counter fluted ARMOR, which coulddeflect sword or arrow but might be crushedby the impact of mace or flail. Unlike the Bat-tles of Crécy (1346) and Agincourt (1415),English victories in FRANCE that were wonby the army on the defensive, most Wars ofthe Roses battles were won by the attackingforce—the impact of the charge giving the at-tackers an advantage at the clash of battle lines.

Because armor was heavy, and a fightingman encased within it quickly grew hot andweary, few battles continued more than a fewhours—the momentous Battle of BOS-WORTH FIELD in 1485 may have lasted littlemore than one hour. The Battle of TOW-TON, fought throughout the length of aMarch day in 1461, was altogether excep-tional in its duration. Because most cavalryfought on foot, the longbow was not a deci-

BATTLES, NATURE OF 21

The straight, regular lines of men shown in this fifteenth-century battle scene give no hint of the confusion and disorder thatcharacterized a Wars of the Roses battle once the men-at-arms engaged. (Royal MS 16 G VIII f. 189, British Library)

sive weapon in civil war battles. After dis-charging a series of opening volleys to drawthe enemy from his position, the lightly ar-mored archers were at a severe disadvantageagainst heavily armored infantry. Battles weredecided by the experience and morale of theinfantry, who slugged it out with one anotheruntil one side gained an advantage. Thus, theheart of any army consisted of the retinues ofthe PEERAGE and GENTRY, men bettertrained and equipped in arms than the locallevies of peasants and townsmen who com-prised the bulk of most civil war forces (seeARMIES, RECRUITMENT OF). The RE-TAINERS of a lord or gentleman tended tobe more disciplined and steadier in battle, lesslikely to break and run when heavily en-gaged. For instance, at the Battle of TEWKES-BURY in 1471, EDWARD IV may have beenvictorious because he had a higher propor-tion of nobility and their retainers in hisarmy than the Lancastrians, who were relyingon hastily recruited shire and town leviesfrom the West Country (see COMMISSIONS

OF ARRAY).In terms of morale, a final factor in the out-

come of civil war battles was the quality ofleadership (see GENERALSHIP). Commanderswere expected to lead their armies into com-bat and to inspire their men with their owndeeds of valor. In this regard, the Yorkists had adistinct advantage, for Edward IV was a skilledand confident soldier and leader, whileHENRY VI never led an army into battle.Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, was alsoan inspiring commander, whose leadershipgreatly benefited the house of YORK in theearly stages of the wars, and the house ofLANCASTER during the READEPTION of1470–1471.

See also Armies, Size of; Casualties; Men-at-Arms; Mercenaries; Military Campaigns, Durationof; entries for each battle listed in the table belowFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Haigh, Philip A., The Military Campaigns of theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1995); Ross, Charles, The Warsof the Roses (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Beaufort, Edmund, Duke ofSomerset (c. 1406–1455)Through his quarrel with Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, Edmund Beaufort, sec-ond duke of Somerset, helped initiate the po-litical conflicts that eventually escalated intothe WARS OF THE ROSES.

Edmund Beaufort was a younger son ofJohn Beaufort, earl of Somerset (d. 1409), eld-est of the legitimated children of John ofGaunt, duke of Lancaster (1340–1399), by hismistress Katherine Swynford (d. 1403). As abranch of the house of LANCASTER, theBEAUFORT FAMILY held a claim to theCrown that could possibly rival the claim ofthe house of YORK. Beaufort succeeded hiselder brother John as earl of Somerset in 1444and as duke of Somerset in 1448. He served inFRANCE from the 1420s, recapturingHarfleur in 1440 and relieving CALAIS in1442. In 1446, he succeeded York as lieutenantof France, but his failure to hold Normandyagainst French assaults, though not entirely hisfault, earned him great unpopularity.

In 1450, anger over the defeats in Francesparked JACK CADE’S REBELLION, which in

22 BEAUFORT, EDMUND, DUKE OF SOMERSET

Table 1 Chronological Listing of theBattles of the Wars of theRoses

Battle Date

St. Albans 22 May 1455Blore Heath 23 September 1459Ludford Bridge 12–13 October 1459Northampton 10 July 1460Wakefield 30 December 1460Mortimer’s Cross 2 February 1461St. Albans 17 February 1461Ferrybridge 27–28 March 1461Towton 29 March 1461Twt Hill 16 October 1461Hedgeley Moor 25 April 1464Hexham 15 May 1464Edgecote 26 July 1469Losecote Field 12 March 1470Barnet 14 April 1471Tewkesbury 4 May 1471Bosworth Field 22 August 1485Stoke 16 June 1487

turn led to the overthrow and murder ofHENRYVI’s chief minister,William de la POLE,duke of Suffolk.Despite his unpopularity and hismilitary failures, Somerset enjoyed Henry’s con-fidence and assumed leadership of the royal gov-ernment. York, angered by Somerset’s appoint-ment to the French governorship and believinghim to be ambitious for the throne, attacked theduke as an obstacle to needed reforms and as atraitor responsible for the loss of France.

Holding few lands of his own, Somerset wasstaunchly loyal to Henry VI, upon whom hedepended for favor and office. The king frus-trated all York’s attempts to remove Somersetfrom power until 1453, when the onset ofHenry’s mental illness initiated York’s FIRST

PROTECTORATE and allowed the duke tocommit Somerset to the TOWER OF LON-DON. Released immediately upon Henry’s re-covery in early 1455, Somerset was acquitted ofall charges and restored to office. Fearing per-haps that Somerset meant to destroy him,Yorkand his noble allies, Richard NEVILLE, earl ofSalisbury, and his son Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, took arms against the COURT. Afterfailing to achieve Somerset’s surrender, Yorkand his allies attacked a royal party at the Battleof ST.ALBANS in May 1455. The battle endedwhen York’s forces slew Somerset. Consideringhis father’s death a murder, Henry BEAUFORT,third duke of Somerset, intensified his family’srivalry with the house of York, thereby ensur-ing the continuance of civil strife.

See also Dartford Uprising; Henry VI, Illness of;Hundred Years War; other entries under BeaufortFurther Reading: Allmand, C.T., LancastrianNormandy, 1415–1450 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1983);“Edmund Beaufort,” in Michael Hicks, Who’sWho in Late Medieval England (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 285–287; Griffiths, Ralph A.,The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Storey, R. L., The End of theHouse of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999);Wolffe, Bertram,Henry VI (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

Beaufort, Edmund, Duke ofSomerset (1439–1471)Edmund Beaufort, younger son of EdmundBEAUFORT, second duke of Somerset, led the

Lancastrian cause during the second phase(1469–1471) of the WARS OF THE ROSES.

Although deprived of his title and propertyby a Yorkist act of ATTAINDER in January1465, seven months after the execution of hiselder brother Henry BEAUFORT, third dukeof Somerset, Edmund Beaufort was regardedas fourth duke of Somerset by the Lancastriansand later by his cousin, the first TUDOR king,HENRY VII. In July 1460, Beaufort was cap-tured by the Yorkists and imprisoned atCALAIS and in the TOWER OF LONDON,where he remained in confinement until1463. By 1464, Beaufort was in exile inFRANCE with Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU and her son, Prince EDWARD OF

LANCASTER. Beaufort, now calling himselfduke of Somerset, had no part in the restora-tion of HENRY VI engineered by RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, in the autumn of1470.After spending the first weeks of 1471 inBURGUNDY seeking aid for the READEP-TION government from Duke CHARLES,Somerset returned to England in February. Hegave little support to Warwick, and was notpresent at the Battle of BARNET in April, pre-ferring to wait on the south coast for the ar-rival of Queen Margaret and her son.

After receiving news of Warwick’s defeatand death, Somerset urged the queen to con-tinue the fight, convincing her that the Lan-castrian cause was stronger without Warwickand his adherents. Given command of theLancastrian army that gathered around thequeen in the West Country, Somerset metEDWARD IV at the Battle of TEWKESBURY

on 4 May 1471. The battle was a disaster forthe house of LANCASTER because PrinceEdward was killed on the field, destroying anyhope of the dynasty’s restoration. Before tak-ing refuge in Tewkesbury Abbey, Somersetwas said to have slain his fellow commander,John WENLOCK, Lord Wenlock, for notproperly supporting his troops during the bat-tle. Hauled out of SANCTUARY, Somerset wasexecuted in Tewkesbury on 6 May. With theduke’s younger brother John Beaufort dead onTewkesbury field, Somerset’s execution endedthe direct male line of the BEAUFORT FAM-

BEAUFORT, EDMUND, DUKE OF SOMERSET 23

ILY and transmitted the family’s claim to thethrone to Henry Tudor, then earl of Rich-mond, the son of Somerset’s cousin, MargaretBEAUFORT, Countess of Richmond.

See also Edward IV, Restoration of; other entriesunder Beaufort

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Hammond, P. W., The Battles of Barnet andTewkesbury (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

24 BEAUFORT, EDMUND, DUKE OF SOMERSET

Only days after the Battle of Tewkesbury, Edward IV witnesses the beheading of Edmund Beaufort, the Lancastrian Duke ofSomerset. Sir John Langstrother (right, with hands bound) awaits his turn to be executed. (MS 236, University of Ghent)

Beaufort FamilyA branch of the house of LANCASTER, theBeaufort family transmitted the Lancastrianclaim to the Crown to the house of TUDOR.

The family sprang from the 1396 marriageof John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster (1340–1399), to his longtime mistress KatherineSwynford (d. 1403). Gaunt was the third son ofEdward III (r. 1327–1377) and the uncle ofRichard II (r. 1377–1399). Although Gaunt’sfour children by Swynford were all adults whentheir parents married, Richard II legitimizedthem in 1397 under the name Beaufort, whichwas drawn from the French castle in whichthey were born. The Beauforts were thus halfsiblings of Henry IV (r. 1399–1413), Gaunt’seldest son by his first marriage,who became thefirst king of the house of Lancaster in 1399when he usurped the throne of his childlesscousin Richard (see RICHARD II, DEPOSI-TION OF). Although Henry confirmed theBeauforts’ legitimation in 1407, he added a pro-viso barring the family from the succession.

The Beauforts prospered under Lancastrianrule. One of Gaunt’s sons, Henry Beaufort,cardinal-bishop of Winchester (c.1376–1447),was chancellor under both Henry IV andHenry V (r. 1413–1422), and a prominentmember of the minority COUNCIL ofHENRY VI. In the 1420s, Beaufort served aschancellor again and fell frequently at oddswith the nominal leader of Henry VI’s coun-cil, Humphrey, duke of Gloucester(1390–1447), the king’s uncle. During theroyal minority, the hostility between the twomen was mainly personal, but in the 1440sthey began to disagree over French policy,with Beaufort advocating peace and Glouces-ter preferring more vigorous prosecution ofthe war (see HUNDREDYEARS WAR). By hisdeath in 1447, Beaufort, who held one of thewealthiest bishoprics in England, had lent theCrown over £200,000.

During the WARS OF THE ROSES, theBeauforts were represented by the cardinal’snephew, Edmund BEAUFORT, second duke ofSomerset; by Somerset’s two sons, Henry andEdmund (see both under BEAUFORT); and bytheir cousin, Margaret BEAUFORT, daughter

of John Beaufort (1404–1444), first duke ofSomerset. The rivalry between Edmund, thesecond duke, and Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, was a major cause of the civilwars. Edmund was killed at the Battle of ST.ALBANS in 1455. Henry, the third duke, com-manded the Lancastrian army at the Battle ofTOWTON in 1461 and was executed by ED-WARD IV in 1464. Edmund, considered thefourth duke by the Lancastrians, commandedthe Lancastrian army at the Battle of TEWKES-BURY in 1471. His execution after the battleended the direct male line of Beaufort onlyweeks before the murder of Henry VI endedthe direct male line of Lancaster (see HENRY

VI, MURDER OF). The Lancastrian claimtherefore devolved on Margaret Beaufort, whoin 1455 had married Edmund TUDOR, earl ofRichmond, half brother of Henry VI. Margarettransmitted the claim to her only child, HenryTudor, earl of Richmond, who in 1485 over-threw RICHARD III and the house of YORK

at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD.Thanks tothe Beaufort blood inherited from his mother,Richmond became HENRY VII, first king ofthe house of Tudor.

See also: Appendix 1,“Genealogies”Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., andRoger S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985); Harriss,G. L., Cardinal Beaufort (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1988); Jones, Michael K., and Malcolm G.Underwood, The King’s Mother: Lady MargaretBeaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992);Simon, Linda, Of Virtue Rare: Margaret Beaufort,Matriarch of the House of Tudor (Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company, 1982).

Beaufort, Henry, Duke of Somerset(1436–1464)The son and heir of Edmund BEAUFORT,second duke of Somerset, Henry Beaufort,third duke of Somerset, was one of the chiefmilitary leaders of the Lancastrian cause dur-ing the first phase (1459–1461) of the WARS

OF THE ROSES.In May 1455, Beaufort was severely

wounded at the Battle of ST. ALBANS, where

BEAUFORT, HENRY, DUKE OF SOMERSET 25

he witnessed his father’s death at the hands oftroops commanded by his father’s rival,Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York. Bothdynastic and personal considerations made thenew duke a staunch supporter of HENRY

VI—the BEAUFORT FAMILY was a branch ofthe house of LANCASTER, and Somerset con-sidered York guilty of his father’s murder. Inearly 1458, Somerset and the sons of the othernoblemen slain at St. Albans brought large ret-inues to LONDON, where they demanded re-venge against York and his chief allies, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and his sonRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick. After at-tempting to ambush York and Salisbury, Som-erset and his allies agreed to a reconciliationbrokered by Henry VI and sealed by theLOVE-DAY of March 1458.

When that settlement collapsed in civil warin 1459, Henry VI appointed Somerset captainof CALAIS. But being unable to dislodge War-wick from the town, Somerset returned toEngland in October 1460. In December, theduke led the army that defeated and killedYork and Salisbury at the Battle of WAKE-FIELD, and in February 1461 he commandedthe victorious Lancastrians at the Battle of ST.ALBANS. Somerset commanded again at theBattle of TOWTON in late March, but fledinto SCOTLAND with the Lancastrian royalfamily when EDWARD IV won the day. InMarch 1462, after failing to win help fromFRANCE, Somerset returned to Englandwhere Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU en-trusted him with the Lancastrian-held castle ofBAMBURGH, which he surrendered in De-cember. Edward IV pardoned Somerset inMarch 1463, and later reversed his ATTAIN-DER and restored him to his lands and titles.In late 1463, the duke reverted to his old alle-giance, fleeing to the Lancastrian-held castlesof Bamburgh and ALNWICK, from which heconducted a spring campaign that wrestedmuch of northeastern England from Yorkistcontrol. Defeated at the Battle of HEDGELEY

MOOR in April 1464, Somerset regroupedand, placing Henry VI at the head of his army,marched south, encountering the forces ofJohn NEVILLE, Lord Montagu, on 15 May.

Defeated and captured at the subsequent Bat-tle of HEXHAM, Somerset was executedshortly thereafter. Because Somerset was un-married, the Lancastrians conferred his title onhis younger brother, Edmund BEAUFORT.

See also other entries under BeaufortFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);“Henry Beaufort,” in Michael Hicks, Who’s Whoin Late Medieval England (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 313–315; Pollard, A. J., North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990); Ross, Charles,Edward IV (New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress, 1998).

Beaufort, Margaret, Countess ofRichmond and Derby (1443–1509)After RICHARD III’s usurpation of theCrown revived dynastic strife in the mid-1480s, Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Rich-mond, worked secretly to ensure that her son,Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond, made goodthe BEAUFORT FAMILY’s claim to the throne.

Margaret was the only child of John Beau-fort, first duke of Somerset (1404–1444), whodied when his daughter was little more than ayear old. A wealthy heiress with a claim to theCrown, Margaret was only twelve whenHENRYVI married her to his half brother Ed-mund TUDOR, earl of Richmond, in 1455.Three months after Richmond’s death in No-vember 1456, Margaret, now under the pro-tection of her brother-in-law, Jasper TUDOR,earl of Pembroke, gave birth to a son namedHenry. Seeking a husband who could protecther rights and those of her son, Margaret mar-ried Sir Henry Stafford, younger son ofHumphrey STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham,in early 1458. However, after the Yorkist vic-tory at the Battle of TOWTON in 1461, ED-WARD IV granted the wardship of HenryTudor, earl of Richmond, to Sir WilliamHERBERT, Edward’s chief supporter inWALES.

After the restoration of Henry VI in 1470,Margaret was reunited briefly with her son(see READEPTION). However, the deaths at

26 BEAUFORT, MARGARET, COUNTESS OF RICHMOND AND DERBY

the Battle of TEWKESBURY of Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER and Edmund BEAU-FORT, fourth duke of Somerset, ended the di-rect male lines of both LANCASTER andBeaufort, and made Richmond the survivingholder of the Lancastrian claim to the Crown.To save himself from prison or worse, Rich-mond fled to BRITTANY with Pembroke, hisLancastrian uncle. After her husband died ofwounds received at the Battle of BARNET,Margaret made peace with the Yorkists bymarrying Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley, in1472. Although she kept in contact with herson, Margaret, as the wife of Stanley, enjoyedthe favor of Edward IV. In 1483, whenRichard III usurped the throne of his nephew,EDWARD V, Margaret worked with QueenElizabeth WOODVILLE to plan an uprisingthat would put their children, Richmond andELIZABETH OF YORK, on the throne. Therebellion, which eventually encompassedHenry STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, andtherefore became known as BUCKINGHAM’SREBELLION, failed, and the PARLIAMENT of1484 deprived Margaret of her lands, which

were given, along with custody of her person,to her husband. Although Stanley maintaineda careful neutrality when Richmond invadedEngland in 1485, his growing sympathy forthe earl allowed Margaret the freedom toagain involve herself in the planning of herson’s enterprise.

When Richmond achieved the throne asHENRY VII at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD in August 1485, Margaret withdrewfrom politics and thereafter came rarely toCOURT. She continued, however, to have astrong influence on her son, for Henry neverforgot that his right to the Crown came fromhis mother’s family. Margaret devoted her lateryears to religion, separating from her husbandbefore his death in 1504 and taking monasticvows. She also became a great patron of theuniversities, endowing the “Lady Margaret”chairs in divinity at Oxford and Cambridge in1502. Margaret died in June 1509, two monthsafter the death of Henry VII.

See also Tudor, House of, and other entriesunder BeaufortFurther Reading: Jones, Michael K., andMalcolm G. Underwood, The King’s Mother: LadyMargaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992);Simon, Linda, Of Virtue Rare: Margaret Beaufort,Matriarch of the House of Tudor (Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company, 1982).

Beaumont, William, LordBeaumont (1438–1507)A staunch adherent of the house of LAN-CASTER, William Beaumont, Lord Beau-mont, continued to resist Yorkist rule evenafter the destruction of the Lancastrian maleline in 1471.

After his father John Beaumont, LordBeaumont, died fighting for HENRYVI at theBattle of NORTHAMPTON in July 1460,William Beaumont was courted by the York-ist regime and allowed to take possession ofhis family estates. However, he maintained hisfather’s Lancastrian allegiance and in March1461 fought against EDWARD IV at the Bat-tle of TOWTON, where he was taken pris-oner. In November, when Edward’s first PAR-

BEAUMONT, WILLIAM, LORD BEAUMONT 27

Lady Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII,transmitted to her son the Beaufort family’s claim to theCrown. (National Portrait Gallery: NPG 551)

LIAMENT included Beaumont in a bill of AT-TAINDER, the king pardoned him, butgranted the Beaumont estates to WilliamHASTINGS, Lord Hastings, and to JohnNEVILLE, Lord Montagu, both loyal Yorkists.Beaumont did not regain his lands until No-vember 1470, when they were restored tohim by the READEPTION government ofHenry VI, whose leader, the former YorkistRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, was de-sirous of winning the support of all formerLancastrians.

Beaumont fought with Warwick at theBattle of BARNET in April 1471, escapingafter that defeat into SCOTLAND with Johnde VERE, earl of Oxford. Although the deathof Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER at theBattle of TEWKESBURY on 4 May 1471 andthe murder of his father, Henry VI, in theTOWER OF LONDON (see HENRY VI,MURDER OF) some weeks later seemed toend forever all hopes of a Lancastrian restora-tion, Beaumont and Oxford remained im-placably hostile to the house of YORK.

In September 1473, they seized the smallfortress on the island of St. Michael’s Mountoff the Cornish coast. Unable to do any realdamage, Beaumont and Oxford were none-theless sore irritants to a Yorkist governmentseeking to finally secure its hold on power.After a lengthy siege, the two lords surren-dered in February 1474, and Beaumont re-mained in prison until after the fall of thehouse of York in 1485, when the new king,HENRYVII of the house of TUDOR, releasedhim and restored him to his lands and titles.

In 1487, Beaumont suffered a mentalbreakdown that rendered him incapable ofcaring for himself and his property. Custodyof Beaumont’s estates was transferred to Ox-ford, who, in 1495, also received custody ofBeaumont’s person. Beaumont spent the restof his life as Oxford’s guest, dying at the earl’shouse in Essex in December 1507.

Further Reading: Gillingham, John, The Warsof the Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, EdwardIV (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1998).

Bedford, Duchess of. See Jacquetta ofLuxembourg, Duchess of Bedford

Bedford, Duke of. See Tudor, Jasper,Earl of Pembroke and Duke of Bedford

Berwick-on-TweedAn important town and castle on the Anglo-Scottish border, Berwick served as a base forLancastrian and Scottish raids into northernEngland in the 1460s, and remained a compli-cating factor in Anglo-Scottish relationsthroughout the WARS OF THE ROSES.

After the capture of HENRY VI at the Bat-tle of NORTHAMPTON in July 1460, QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU and her son PrinceEDWARD OF LANCASTER fled into SCOT-LAND, where they were honorably receivedby the regency government of young JAMES

III. In January 1461, after negotiations withQueen MARY OF GUELDRES, mother of theScottish king and leader of his regency coun-cil, Margaret agreed to surrender Berwick tothe Scots in return for Scottish military assis-tance against the Yorkists. The agreement wasto be sealed by a marriage between the Princeof Wales and Mary, the sister of James III. Al-though the Yorkist victory at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461 won the throne forEDWARD IV, the north of England remainedloyal to Henry VI, and Edward was unable toprevent the Lancastrian surrender of Berwickto the Scots on 25 April 1461.

The loss of Berwick infuriated Edward IV,but he could do little about it beyond usingMargaret’s surrender of an English town as aPROPAGANDA weapon against the Lancastri-ans. Prince Edward’s marriage to the Scottishprincess never occurred, but a Scottish-heldBerwick became an ideal staging point for re-peated Lancastrian and Scottish military ef-forts, which kept northern England unsettledfor most of the 1460s. Although the Lancas-trian threat to the region ended with EdwardIV’s restoration in 1471, continued Scottishpossession of Berwick irritated the Yorkistgovernment, and Anglo-Scottish relations re-

28 BEDFORD, DUCHESS OF

mained poor (see EDWARD IV, RESTORA-TION OF).

Having unsuccessfully besieged Berwicksince the previous year, Edward IV concludedthe Treaty of Fotheringhay with Alexander,duke of Albany, estranged brother of James III,in June 1482. In return for the surrender ofBerwick and certain other concessions, Ed-ward IV agreed to support Albany’s claim tohis brother’s throne. In fulfillment of the treaty,Richard, duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD

III), led a large army northward in July. Thetown of Berwick capitulated immediately, butthe castle held out. Gloucester then invadedScotland, where the political opposition toJames III prevented any real resistance and al-lowed the duke to enter Edinburgh on 1 Au-gust. With no help coming from the Scottishking, the Berwick garrison surrendered thecastle to Gloucester on 24 August 1482. Aftertwenty-one years in Scottish hands, Berwickwas once again an English town.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Macdougall, Norman, James III:A Political Study(Edinburgh: J. Donald, 1982); Nicholson, Ranald,Scotland:The Later Middle Ages, vol. 2 of TheEdinburgh History of Scotland (New York: Barnesand Noble, 1974); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Blacman, John. See “Compilation ofthe Meekness and Good Life of KingHenry VI” (Blacman)

Blore Heath, Battle of (1459)Fought on 23 September 1459 near the villageof Mucklestone in northwestern Staffordshire,the Battle of Blore Heath initiated a period ofopen civil war that lasted until the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461.

In June 1459, Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU convened a Great Council at Coven-try to consider charges of treason againstRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, and

his chief allies Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salis-bury, and Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,all three of whom were excluded from thecouncil summons. Seeking to repeat his suc-cess of 1455, when he had destroyed his ene-mies and taken custody of HENRY VI at theBattle of ST. ALBANS, York began raising anarmy and called the Nevilles to meet him withtheir own forces at Ludlow in southernShropshire.

Warwick eluded Lancastrian efforts to in-tercept him and reached Ludlow with a con-tingent from the CALAIS garrison, but Salis-bury, coming from his seat at MiddlehamCastle in Yorkshire, encountered a Lancastrianforce under James TOUCHET, Lord Audley,on Blore Heath about halfway between thetowns of Newcastle-under-Lyme and MarketDrayton. Charged by the queen with arrestingSalisbury and preventing his army from join-ing York’s, Audley, who had the larger force,led two unsuccessful cavalry charges againstthe hastily entrenched Yorkist position inhopes of overrunning the enemy line and seiz-ing Salisbury before he could withdraw. WhenAudley died in the second assault, the Lancas-trian command fell to John Dudley, LordDudley.

Because almost no accounts of the battlehave survived, the exact course of the fightingthereafter is unclear. Dudley seems to have dis-mounted some of his cavalry and broughtthem into action on foot. By late afternoon,after three or four hours of combat, the re-maining Lancastrian cavalry, seeing their in-fantry give ground, left the field. This loss ofexpected cavalry support and the possible de-fection of some of its members to the Yorkistscaused the Lancastrian line to break. In theflight and pursuit that followed, Lord Dudleywas captured and various other Lancastriangentlemen were killed. With two other Lan-castrian armies still in the field, Salisburyquickly recalled his scattered force and re-sumed the march to Ludlow, which hereached without further incident.

See also Ludford Bridge, Battle ofFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,

BLORE HEATH, BATTLE OF 29

Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Swynnerton, Brian, and William Swinnerton, TheBattle of Blore Heath, 1459 (Nuneaton: PaddyGriffith Associates, 1995).

Blount, Walter, Lord Mountjoy (d. 1474)Walter Blount, Lord Mountjoy, was a memberof the loyal circle of nobles and gentlemenwho supported EDWARD IV and the house ofYORK throughout the WARS OF THE

ROSES.Born into a Derbyshire GENTRY family,

Blount was a servant of Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, in the 1450s, and prob-ably fled to CALAIS in 1459 with York’s sonEdward, earl of March, and the duke’s chief al-lies, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, andhis son Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick. In1461, after York’s death at the Battle of WAKE-FIELD, Blount fought for March, now EdwardIV, at the Battle of TOWTON, where Blountwas knighted. He was also rewarded with thetreasurership of Calais in 1461 and the treasur-ership of England in 1464. In 1461, he was co-commander at the siege of Hammes, a Calaisfortress that held out for HENRY VI until1462. Raised to the peerage as Lord Mountjoyin 1465 and appointed to the royal COUNCIL,he had previously been allowed to marry theking’s aunt, Anne, the dowager duchess ofBuckingham. He was also granted lands for-merly belonging to Thomas COURTENAY,the Lancastrian earl of Devon, who had diedat Towton in 1461.

In 1468, the king appointed Mountjoy tocommand a campaign against FRANCE, al-though the expedition never sailed. In 1469,he was one of the first peers Edward sum-moned to his presence after the king freedhimself from the custody of the rebelliousWarwick; Mountjoy then accompanied Ed-ward on his public reentry into LONDON.Mountjoy also rode with the king in March1470 during the campaign that defeated War-wick’s second coup attempt at the Battle ofLOSECOTE FIELD. Upon Edward’s flight tothe continent in October 1470, Mountjoy was

one of the Yorkist peers who was arrested andbriefly imprisoned by the READEPTION gov-ernment of Henry VI.Although soon released,he was dismissed from all his offices, includingall commissions of the peace. Mountjoy re-joined Edward upon the king’s return in thespring of 1471 and probably fought for theYorkists at the Battles of BARNET andTEWKESBURY. His eldest son William diedfighting for Edward IV at Barnet. Honoredwith a Garter Knighthood (i.e., membershipin the highest order of English chivalry) in1472, Mountjoy died in 1474.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration of; PeerageFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Bones of 1674The term “bones of 1674” refers to two skele-tons found in the TOWER OF LONDON in1674 and believed to be the remains of ED-WARD V and his younger brother, RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, who both dis-appeared in the Tower in 1483 during the lastphase of the WARS OF THE ROSES. Exam-ined by forensic experts in the twentieth cen-tury, the bones have become another elementin the ongoing controversy over how and bywhose hand the sons of EDWARD IV mettheir end.

In 1674, while engaged in clearing awaysome ruinous structures adjacent to the WhiteTower, workmen discovered a wooden chest ata depth of about ten feet under the bottomstep of an old staircase.The chest contained theskeletons of two children, with the taller onelying on its back and the smaller one lying facedown on top of it. Because the well-knownaccount of the princes’ murders in Sir ThomasMore’s HISTORY OF KING RICHARD IIIstated that the bodies were, at least initially,buried “at the stair foot, meetly deep in theground” (More, p. 88), the skeletons were im-mediately assumed to be the sons of EdwardIV. In 1678, Charles II commissioned Sir

30 BLOUNT, WALTER, LORD MOUNTJOY

Christopher Wren to design a marble urn toserve as a more fitting repository for royal re-mains.Thus encased, the bones were reinterredin Westminster Abbey in the Chapel ofHENRYVII.

In 1933, the urn was opened, and the boneswere examined by several medical experts.Their report, published in 1934, stated that theelder child stood about four feet ten inches talland the younger about four feet six and a halfinches. Although unable to determine the sexof the children, the examiners concluded fromthe development of the vertebrae and jaw-bones that the elder child was about twelve atthe time of death and the younger about ten.Because these ages corresponded well withthe ages of the princes in July 1483—EdwardV and his brother would have been twelveyears and eight months and nine years andeleven months, respectively—the examinersbelieved that death occurred in 1483 and thatHenry VII, who had no access to the boysuntil August 1485, could therefore be absolvedof any responsibility for their fate. The exam-iners also determined that the older child suf-fered from a painful and chronic infection ofthe lower jaw and that a discoloration of thefacial bones of the elder child might indicatedeath by strangulation. In general, the 1934 re-port seemed to strengthen the argument thatRICHARD III had murdered his nephews in1483.

In the 1950s, when Richard III biographerPaul Murray Kendall submitted the findings ofthe original examination to a new team of ex-perts, they concluded that the elder childmight not be as old as originally thought andthat the mark on the facial bones was not abloodstain resulting from strangulation. Be-cause of these new findings, and because thesex and overall age of the remains—the burialcould have occurred well before or well after1483—are uncertain, the Tower skeletons can-not be definitely identified as those of theprinces, and their value in determining whathappened to the princes remains problematic.

See also Princes in the TowerFurther Reading: Fields, Bertram, Royal Blood:Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes (New York:

Regan Books, 1998); Jenkins, Elizabeth, The Princesin the Tower (New York: Coward, McCann andGeoghegan, 1978); More, Sir Thomas, The Historyof King Richard III and Selections from the English andLatin Poems, edited by Richard S. Sylvester (NewHaven, CT:Yale University Press, 1976); Pollard,A. J., Richard III and the Princes in the Tower (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1991); Weir, Alison, ThePrinces in the Tower (New York: Ballantine Books,1992); Williamson, Audrey, The Mystery of thePrinces (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers,1986); see also the many materials on the fate ofthe princes available on the Richard III SocietyWeb site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase>.

Bonville, William, Lord Bonville(1393–1461)Through his long and violent feud withThomas COURTENAY, fifth earl of Devon,William Bonville, Lord Bonville, helped formthe factions of rival nobles that ignited theWARS OF THE ROSES.

Born into a Devonshire gentry family,Bonville rose to local and national prominencethrough talent, ambition, and two shrewdmarriages. He was knighted in about 1417while serving in FRANCE under Henry V. In1423, Bonville was sheriff of Devonshire andin 1424 he again fought in France. By themid-1430s, Bonville was widely active in WestCountry government, serving as justice of thepeace for various counties and sitting on nu-merous royal commissions. In the late 1430s,Bonville came into conflict with Devon, whoperhaps saw Bonville’s growing influence as athreat to the Courtenays’ traditional domi-nance in the region, or who possibly had somegrievance over land arising out of Bonville’s1427 marriage to his aunt. The dispute inten-sified in 1437 when Bonville obtained the lu-crative office of steward of the royal Duchy ofCornwall. In 1438, Devon petitioned the kingfor the stewardship; HENRY VI, ignoring theprevious grant to Bonville, assented to the re-quest. Although the government sought tocancel Devon’s appointment, violence quicklyerupted in the West Country between the ad-herents of both men.

The COUNCIL intervened and imposed ar-bitration, but disorders continued until Bonville

BONVILLE, WILLIAM, LORD BONVILLE 31

left for France in 1444 to become seneschal ofGascony.Returning to England in 1447, he wasraised to the PEERAGE in 1449 as LordBonville of Chewton, a promotion that madeBonville an even greater threat to Devon. After1450, the COURTENAY-BONVILLE FEUD

merged into the national rivalry developing be-tween the COURT party led by EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, and the opposi-tion faction led by Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York. To counter Bonville’s alliancewith James BUTLER, earl of Wiltshire, anotherroyalist courtier with interests in the WestCountry, Devon associated himself with York.

In 1451, Devon raised an army and be-sieged Bonville in Taunton Castle, but Yorkintervened, and Bonville used his influence atcourt to escape without punishment for hisrole in the earlier disorders. With the supportof the government, Bonville was predominantin the West Country until 1454, when theking’s illness and the establishment of York’sFIRST PROTECTORATE weakened the courtparty and strengthened Devon (see HENRY

VI, ILLNESS OF). However, in 1455,York’s al-liance with the NEVILLE FAMILY alienatedDevon, who drew closer to the king’s party,while Bonville, having lost his old patronsSomerset and Wiltshire in the aftermath of theBattle of ST.ALBANS, sealed his new loyalty tothe house of YORK by marrying his grandsonto a daughter of Richard NEVILLE, earl ofSalisbury,York’s closest ally.

In the autumn of 1455, Devon and his sonslaunched an assault on Bonville’s servants andproperty throughout the West Country. TheCourtenays murdered NICHOLAS RAD-FORD for his association with Bonville, ran-sacked Bonville’s residences, and robbed thehomes of his supporters. On 15 December,Bonville, having gathered a large force of RE-TAINERS, was defeated by the Courtenays in abloody battle at Clyst. However, Bonville re-trieved his position by appealing to York, whowas then in control of the government (seeSECOND PROTECTORATE). Devon was im-prisoned, and Bonville was restored to domi-nance in the West, his own transgressionsbeing once more overlooked by the party in

power. The Courtenay-Bonville feud subsidedafter 1456, thanks in part to Devon’s death in1458 and to the aged Bonville’s semiretire-ment from public life.

After the Lancastrian victory at the Battle ofLUDFORD BRIDGE in 1459, Bonville mutedhis Yorkist allegiance, but rejoined the Yorkistsafter their victory at the Battle of NORTHAMP-TON in 1460. Having escorted Henry VI to theBattle of ST. ALBANS in February 1461,Bonville stayed with him after the Yorkist defeaton the king’s promise that he would not beharmed. But Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU,encouraged by Thomas COURTENAY, sixthearl of Devon, ignored her husband’s pledge andordered Bonville’s execution.

Further Reading: Cherry, Martin,“The Strugglefor Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire,”in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown andthe Provinces in Later Medieval England (AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp.123–144; Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of KingHenry VI (Berkeley: University of California Press,1981); Storey, R. L., The End of the House ofLancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Bonville-Courtenay Feud. SeeCourtenay-Bonville Feud

Booth, Lawrence, Archbishop of York (d. 1480)Lawrence Booth (or Bothe) was the onlybishop appointed under the house of LAN-CASTER to later secure ecclesiastical advance-ment and high political office under the houseof YORK.

Educated at Cambridge, Booth obtainedhis first political office in March 1451, suc-ceeding his half brother William Booth asMARGARET OF ANJOU’s chancellor. In Sep-tember 1456, he became keeper of the privyseal, his appointment signaling a general purgeof Yorkist sympathizers from the government.In January 1457, the queen’s influence wonBooth appointment to the COUNCIL ofPrince EDWARD OF LANCASTER, a bodyused by Margaret to encourage Lancastrian

32 BONVILLE-COURTENAY FEUD

loyalty throughout the prince’s lordships inWales and Chester. In 1457, when the kingnominated his confessor to be bishop ofDurham, the queen instead promoted Boothfor the office, which he duly obtained in Sep-tember. At Durham, Booth supported theLancastrian branch of the NEVILLE FAMILY,favoring its members over their Yorkist cousinsfor offices in his gift.

In October 1459, Booth swore loyalty toHENRY VI at the COVENTRY PARLIA-MENT, where Queen Margaret attaintedRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, andhis allies; as a result of the ATTAINDER ofRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, Boothseized Barnard Castle, possession of whichbishops of Durham had disputed with earls ofWarwick since the thirteenth century. In1460, Booth left the royal army before theBattle of NORTHAMPTON, and was shortlythereafter replaced as keeper of the privy sealby a Yorkist appointee, Bishop Robert STILL-INGTON. In 1461, EDWARD IV tried to con-ciliate Booth by appointing him to a royalchaplaincy. The bishop responded in June bydefeating a Lancastrian invasion force led outof SCOTLAND by Thomas ROOS, LordRoos. However, Booth lost favor in December1462, when he was suspended from office,perhaps for suspected dealings with QueenMargaret. Restored in April 1464, Boothspent the rest of the 1460s quietly administer-ing his diocese.

Little is known of Booth’s activities duringthe READEPTION in 1470–1471, but hisrapid reemployment by Edward IV after theking’s restoration in 1471 argues against anystrong support for the Lancastrian regime (seeEDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF). In 1473,Booth led an embassy to Scotland to concludea treaty with JAMES III, whereby the futureJAMES IV was to marry Edward’s daughterCecily. From July 1473 to May 1474, Boothserved as chancellor of England, and in 1476Edward nominated him for the archbishopricof York, the office earlier held by his halfbrother. Booth’s elevation may have been par-tially due to Richard, duke of Gloucester (seeRICHARD III), who found the bishop an ob-

stacle to his assumption of the influence onceexercised across the north by Warwick. Boothdied in May 1480.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Davies, Richard G.,“TheChurch and the Wars of the Roses,” in A. J.Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1995), pp. 143–161; Griffiths,Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Reeves, A.Compton,“Lawrence Booth: Bishop of Durham(1457–76), Archbishop of York (1476–80),” inSharon D. Michalove and A. Compton Reeves,eds., Estrangement, Enterprise and Education inFifteenth-Century England (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998), pp. 63–88.

Bosworth Field, Battle of (1485)Fought on 22 August 1485 near the Leicester-shire village of Market Bosworth, the Battle ofBosworth Field overthrew the house ofYORK and initiated the rule of the TUDOR

dynasty.By early 1485, RICHARD III knew that

Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HenryVII), the remaining Lancastrian claimant tothe throne, intended to invade England. Notknowing where Richmond would land, theking based himself in Nottingham, fromwhere he could strike quickly in any direc-tion. On 1 August, Richmond, having finallypersuaded the government of CHARLES VIIIto back his enterprise, left FRANCE with aforce of about 600 English exiles and about2,000 French and Scottish MERCENARIES.Hoping to take advantage of his Welsh ances-try and the local influence of his uncle, JasperTUDOR, earl of Pembroke, and anxious tocontact his stepfather, Thomas STANLEY,Lord Stanley, whose base was in the north-west, Richmond landed in WALES at MilfordHaven on 7 August.

The earl collected some reinforcements inWales, but upon entering England at Shrews-bury received a message from Stanley that of-fered encouragement but no support. Suspi-cious of Stanley, who was the husband ofRichmond’s mother, Margaret BEAUFORT,

BOSWORTH FIELD, BATTLE OF 33

Richard had demanded that he leave his son,Lord Strange, as a hostage when he withdrewfrom COURT. Upon Richmond’s landing, theking interrogated Strange, who confessed thathis uncle, Sir William STANLEY, was plottingto join Richmond. In receipt of a letter fromhis son begging him to join Richard, Stanleyremained cautiously aloof from both armies.

On 17 August, Richmond met with SirWilliam Stanley, whom Richard had de-nounced as a traitor. Three days later, the earlmet both Stanleys, but, fearing for Strange’s life,neither would openly join Richmond. Doubt-ing the loyalty of some of his supporters, such asHenry PERCY, earl of Northumberland, andrelying mainly on his trusted northern adher-ents, Richard marched west to the town of Sut-ton Cheney, which he reached on 21 August(see RICHARD III, NORTHERN AFFINITY

OF). That same evening, Richmond campedabout four miles away at a place called White-moors, while the Stanleys, with about 8,000men between them, remained at a distancefrom both armies. Next morning, the king,who had the larger force, was on or near Am-bien Hill, high ground above Richmond’s posi-tion. As the two armies maneuvered for battle,the Stanleys arrived within sight of the field,but joined neither army, leaving both Rich-mond and the king to guess their intentions.After barrages of ARCHER and ARTILLERY

fire, the two armies clashed, with John deVERE, earl of Oxford, leading Richmond’s van,and John HOWARD, duke of Norfolk, com-manding the royal van. Tradition placed thefighting on the slope of Ambien Hill, but re-cent research suggests that the battle occurred ahalf mile to the south in the plain betweenAmbien Hill and the village of Dadlington.

The course of the battle is also in doubt.Richmond, seeking to persuade Stanley tocommit his forces, may have started toward hisstepfather’s position, thus providing the kingan opportunity to catch and destroy his oppo-nent in the open field. Or Richard, sensingthat the Stanleys were about to join Rich-mond, may have decided to descend rapidlyon either the earl or Stanley before this con-junction could occur. Whatever his thinking,

Richard led a charge of his mounted RE-TAINERS and became heavily engaged withRichmond’s men, the king himself slaying theearl’s standard-bearer, Sir William Brandon.Before Richard could bring his charge to asuccessful conclusion, Sir William Stanley’smen overwhelmed his small retinue and theking was unhorsed and killed.

The death of Richard ended the fighting.Richmond was immediately proclaimed kingas Henry VII, while Richard’s body was slungon a horse and paraded naked through Leices-ter. Dead on the field were Norfolk, SirRobert BRACKENBURY, and Sir RichardRATCLIFFE, all Yorkists, and 3,000 soldiers,mostly Yorkists. Three other Yorkists weretaken prisoner—William CATESBY, who wasexecuted several days later;Thomas HOWARD,earl of Surrey, Norfolk’s son, who was impris-oned; and Northumberland, who was detainedonly briefly. Tradition says that Richard hadentered battle wearing a gold circlet, whichStanley retrieved from beneath a hawthornbush and placed on Henry’s head. While possi-ble, this story cannot be confirmed.

See also The Ballad of Bosworth Field;The Rose ofEngland;The Song of Lady BessyFurther Reading: Bennett, Michael, The Battle ofBosworth (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985);Foss, Peter J., The Field of Redemore:The Battle ofBosworth, 1485, 2d ed. (Newtown Linford, UK:Kairos, 1998); Hammond, P. W., and Anne F.Sutton, Richard III:The Road to Bosworth Field(London: Constable, 1985); Rees, David, The Sonof Prophecy: Henry Tudor’s Road to Bosworth, 2d ed.(Ruthin, UK: John Jones, 1997); Richmond,Colin,“Bosworth Field and All That,” in P. W.Hammond, ed., Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship andLaw (London: Richard III and Yorkist HistoryTrust, 1986); Rowse, A. L., Bosworth Field (GardenCity, NY: Doubleday, 1966); Williams, D. T., TheBattle of Bosworth (Leicester: Leicester UniversityPress, 1973); see also the Richard III Society Website at <http://www.r3.org> for various sourcesrelating to the Battle of Bosworth Field.

Bourchier, Henry, Earl of Essex (d. 1483)Although a political moderate who followed ageneral policy of reconciliation in the 1450s,

34 BOURCHIER, HENRY, EARL OF ESSEX

Henry Bourchier was, after 1460, a loyal sup-porter of the house of YORK.

A maternal half brother of HumphreySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, Bourchierwas also married to the sister of RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York. Bourchiertraveled to CALAIS with HENRY VI in 1430,and served in FRANCE under York in the1440s, winning appointment as captain ofCrotoy in 1443. On 29 May 1455, only aweek after York won custody of the king andcontrol of the government at the Battle ofST. ALBANS, Henry VI appointed Bourchierlord treasurer, a post he continued to holdeven after the dismissal of York’s SECOND

PROTECTORATE in February 1456. Despitetheir association with York, Bourchier andhis brother Thomas BOURCHIER, arch-bishop of Canterbury, were still identifiedwith Buckingham, their half sibling, as mod-erates not clearly attached to either theYorkist or Lancastrian factions. Dismissedfrom office in October 1456, probably onthe initiative of Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU, Bourchier and his brother, who wasremoved as chancellor, gradually drifted to-ward York.

By July 1460, when he fought withRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, at theBattle of NORTHAMPTON, Bourchier was adeclared partisan of York. In June 1461, threemonths after winning the throne at the Battleof TOWTON, EDWARD IV, York’s son, cre-ated Bourchier earl of Essex, appointed himlord treasurer, and granted him numerous es-tates. Quietly acquiescing in the READEP-TION of Henry VI in October 1470, Essexwas among the first noblemen to raise troopsfor Edward IV upon the Yorkist king’s returnin the following spring (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF). Essex also helped medi-ate the reconciliation of Edward with hisbrother, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence. Reappointed lord treasurer after Ed-ward’s resumption of the throne in April 1471,Essex helped defeat the invasion of Cornwalllaunched by John de VERE, the Lancastrianearl of Oxford, in May 1473. Thereafter, Essexserved loyally as lord treasurer until his death

on 4 April 1483, only days before Edward IV’sown death.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Bourchier, Thomas, CardinalArchbishop of Canterbury (c. 1404–1486)As archbishop of Canterbury throughout theWARS OF THE ROSES, Cardinal ThomasBourchier participated in most of the conflict’smajor events.

The brother of Henry BOURCHIER, earlof Essex, and half brother of HumphreySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, Bourchierwas descended through his mother from Ed-ward III (r. 1327–1377). As a third son, he wasdestined for an ecclesiastical career, and ob-tained his first clerical office in 1424. He be-came bishop of Worcester in 1434 and bishopof Ely in 1443. In 1454, during the FIRST

PROTECTORATE of Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, Bourchier was ap-pointed archbishop of Canterbury. Althoughhis promotion owed much to York’s influence,Bourchier was also acceptable to HENRY VI;in March 1455, after recovering his health andauthority, the king named Bourchier chancel-lor of England. Following the Battle of ST.AL-BANS in May 1455, Bourchier tried to act as apeacemaker, but was unsuccessful and resignedthe chancellorship in October 1456. However,in March 1458, he worked closely with theking to promote the ultimately unsuccessfulLOVE-DAY peace settlement.

In June 1460, when York’s Neville allies re-turned from exile in CALAIS, Bourchier metthem at their landing and followed them toLONDON, where he took their oaths of loy-alty to Henry VI. The archbishop agreed toaccompany the army of Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, to try and arrange a settle-ment. The peace effort failed, and Warwickcaptured the king at the Battle of NORTH-

BOURCHIER, THOMAS, CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY 35

AMPTON. In the autumn, Bourchier partici-pated in the PARLIAMENT that answeredYork’s demand for the Crown with the com-promise Act of ACCORD, which left Henryon the throne but disinherited Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER in favor of the duke.In March 1461, with York dead and QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU’s unruly armythreatening the capital (see MARCH ON

LONDON), Bourchier acquiesced in the ele-vation of York’s son to the throne as EDWARD

IV. The archbishop formally crowned Edwardin the following June, and performed the likeceremony for Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE

in 1465.In 1471, the archbishop raised troops to

support the restoration of Edward IV andhelped convince Edward’s brother, GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, to aban-don Warwick (see EDWARD IV, RESTORA-TION OF). In 1473, the pope made Bour-chier a cardinal in response to a royalpetition. In June 1483, two months after Ed-ward’s death, the archbishop led a delegationto Westminster to persuade Queen Elizabethto release her second son, Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, from SANCTUARY

and into the keeping of her brother-in-law,Richard, duke of Gloucester. Whether thequeen’s acquiescence to this request was dueto Bourchier’s entreaties or to Gloucester’sthreats is now unclear. Most historians acceptthat the archbishop was sincere in his guar-antees of the boy’s safety and that he was notprivy to Gloucester’s plans to usurp thethrone from the duke’s brother, EDWARD V.Nonetheless, within weeks, Bourchier wasobliged to officiate at Gloucester’s corona-tion as RICHARD III, and within monthsboth boys disappeared forever into theTOWER OF LONDON. Whether as a resultof this experience the aging archbishop par-ticipated in the later conspiracies againstRichard III is uncertain (see BUCKING-HAM’S REBELLION).

Bourchier closed his career by crowningHENRYVII in October 1485 and by symboli-cally uniting the houses of LANCASTER andYORK by marrying Henry to ELIZABETH

OF YORK, daughter of Edward IV, in January1486. Bourchier died in March 1486.

Further Reading: Davies, Richard G.,“TheChurch and the Wars of the Roses,” in A. J.Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1995), pp. 143–161; Ross, Charles,Edward IV (New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress, 1998); Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981).

Brackenbury, Sir Robert (d. 1485)A loyal supporter of RICHARD III during thelast phase of the civil wars (1483–1487), SirRobert Brackenbury had custody of theTOWER OF LONDON during the confine-ment there in 1483 of EDWARD V and hisbrother Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork.

The younger son of a minor GENTRY

family from Durham, Brackenbury becametreasurer of the duke of Gloucester’s house-hold in about 1476. Upon Gloucester’s as-sumption of the throne as Richard III in July1483, Brackenbury was given a lifetime ap-pointment as constable of the Tower, a posi-tion of great trust, for it gave Brackenburycharge of important royal prisoners and ofthe royal mint. Although Brackenbury was anortherner, Richard made him a power inthe key southern county of Kent, placing himin charge of all royal manors in the southeastand granting him the Kentish estates of An-thony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers, and otherdefeated opponents (see RICHARD III,NORTHERN AFFINITY OF). In 1484, theking knighted Brackenbury, appointed himsheriff of Kent, and named him to the admi-ralty commission. Invested with numerousduties and offices, Brackenbury soon found itnecessary to exercise many by deputy. By1485, Brackenbury’s annual income fromroyal service approached £500, a substantialsum that made him one of the most heavilyrewarded of Richard’s servants.

According to the account of the deaths ofEDWARD IV’s sons in Sir Thomas More’sHISTORY OF KING RICHARD III, Richardordered Brackenbury to kill the princes, who

36 BRACKENBURY, SIR ROBERT

were in his charge as Tower prisoners. Brack-enbury refused, but did comply with Richard’ssubsequent order to temporarily deliver thekeys of the Tower to Sir James TYRELL, an-other highly favored royal servant, who thenmurdered the boys with the aid of several ac-complices. Whether or not Brackenbury wasinvolved in or aware of the murder of theprinces is now unclear. What is certain is thathe served Richard III loyally throughout hisreign, actively assisting in the suppression ofBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION in 1483 anddying with Richard at the Battle of BOS-WORTH FIELD in 1485.

See also Bones of 1674; North of England andthe Wars of the Roses; Princes in the TowerFurther Reading: Horrox, Rosemary, RichardIII:A Study in Service (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991); More, Sir Thomas, TheHistory of King Richard III and Selections from theEnglish and Latin Poems, edited by Richard S.Sylvester (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press,1976); Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981).

Bray, Sir Reginald (1440–1503)Sir Reginald Bray played a vital role in organ-izing BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION againstRICHARD III during the last phase of thecivil wars (1483–1487) and later became oneof the most active and trusted ministers ofHENRYVII.

Born into an ancient Hampshire family,Bray began his career as receiver-general forSir Henry Stafford, second husband of Mar-garet BEAUFORT, mother of the futureHenry VII. After Stafford’s death in 1471,Bray continued to serve Lady Margaret assteward. In 1483, Bray acted as go-betweenfor Margaret and John MORTON, bishop ofEly, who was then engaged in drawing hisjailer, Henry STAFFORD, duke of Bucking-ham, into the conspiracy being formed to de-throne Richard III in favor of Margaret’s son,Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond. Bray alsoraised much-needed funds for Richmondand won several key gentlemen to the earl’scause, including Giles Daubeney and RichardGuildford.

After the failure of Buckingham’s Rebel-lion in October 1483, Bray was pardoned byRichard III, but continued to support Rich-mond and may have gone into exile with theearl in FRANCE. Knighted after the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, Bray was quicklynamed chancellor of the Duchy of Lancasterand knight of the body. Appointed a memberof the COUNCIL, Bray held various financialand administrative positions, sat in numerousPARLIAMENTS, and served on over 100 com-missions. Bray’s record of loyal service to Mar-garet Beaufort made him a member of HenryVII’s inner circle of advisors, especially in mat-ters of finance. Bray was responsible for the fi-nancial provisions that made possible con-struction of Henry VII’s chapel at Westminsterand his renovations of St. George’s chapel atWindsor. Bray died in August 1503.

Further Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Gill, Louise, Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1999); Guth, DeLloyd J.,“Climbing the Civil-Service Pole during the Civil War: Sir ReynaldBray,” in Sharon D. Michalove and A. ComptonReeves, eds., Estrangement, Enterprise and Educationin Fifteenth-Century England (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998), pp.47–62.

Brézé, Pierre de, Seneschal ofNormandy (c. 1408–1465)A friend of Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU,Pierre de Brézé, seneschal of Normandy,fought for the Lancastrians in the northerncampaigns of the early 1460s.

A vassal of Margaret’s father, de Brézé be-came one of the chief ministers and militarycommanders of CHARLES VII, and took partin the negotiations that led to Margaret’s mar-riage to HENRYVI in 1445. The queen’s con-nections with de Brézé led to rumors thatMargaret had instigated the seneschal’s raid onSandwich in August 1457 to help her win herpower struggle with Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York. This charge has beendismissed by modern historians, but Margaretdid appeal to de Brézé for French naval assis-

BRÉZÉ, PIERRE DE, SENESCHAL OF NORMANDY 37

tance in 1460 to prevent York’s ally, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, from returning toEngland from his base at CALAIS. After theLancastrian defeat at the Battle of TOWTON

in March 1461, Charles VII allowed de Brézé,who had been advocating French support forthe house of LANCASTER since 1459, to as-semble a fleet and attack the English ChannelIslands.

De Brézé seized Jersey in May, but the deathof Charles VII in July ended the Seneschal’s ef-forts on Margaret’s behalf, for LOUIS XI, thenew French king, stripped de Brézé of his of-fices and imprisoned him in Loches Castle.Never on good terms with his father, Louis dis-trusted de Brézé for his past loyalty to Charles.In April 1462, Margaret secured de Brézé’s re-lease as part of the Franco-Lancastrian CHI-NON AGREEMENT, whereby Louis lentmoney to the queen in return for her surrenderof Calais. Although Louis’s enthusiasm for thealliance faded when the Burgundians deniedhim access to Calais, he allowed de Brézé to ac-company Margaret and her son Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER to SCOTLAND inOctober. Commanding 800 French troops inhis own pay, the seneschal and the Lancastrianroyal family landed near BAMBURGH CASTLE

in Northumberland on 25 October. AlthoughBamburgh and the neighboring castles of AL-NWICK and DUNSTANBURGH quickly sub-mitted to Henry VI,Margaret and de Brézé, be-lieving themselves too weak to face the armyEDWARD IV was bringing against them, re-treated to Scotland in November. The royalfamily and de Brézé arrived safely in BERWICK

only after a local fisherman rescued them fromtheir foundering vessel. De Brézé’s troops wereless fortunate, being forced ashore on Lindis-farne, where most were killed or captured bythe local inhabitants.

In January 1463, de Brézé and the Scottishearl of Angus led a mainly Scots force that sur-prised Warwick as he besieged the Lancastriangarrison in Alnwick Castle. Perhaps unwillingto give battle because of the low morale of histroops, Warwick allowed the garrison to with-draw into Scotland with de Brézé’s army. InJune, de Brézé returned to England as part of a

Scottish invasion force that included not onlyHenry VI and Queen Margaret, but alsoJAMES III of Scotland and his mother MARY

OF GUELDRES. The invaders besiegedNorham Castle until surprised by a Yorkistforce under Warwick and his brother JohnNEVILLE, Lord Montagu. The Scots army dis-integrated in panic, and de Brézé, Margaret,and Prince Edward escaped to Berwick, whileHenry VI fled into Scotland. In early August,de Brézé accompanied Margaret and theprince to FRANCE. Restored to his offices in1464, de Brézé was killed while leading LouisXI’s forces against the Burgundians at the Bat-tle of Montlhéry in July 1465.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Kendall, Paul Murray, Louis XI (New York: W. W.Norton, 1971);Vale, M. G. A., Charles VII(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974).

BrittanyAs a potential ally with naval resources, and,after 1471, as the place of exile for HenryTudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY VII),the last royal claimant of the house of LAN-CASTER, the French Duchy of Brittanyplayed an important role in the WARS OF

THE ROSES.Although FRANCIS II, duke of Brittany

from 1458 to 1488, held his title of the king ofFRANCE, the duchy in the fifteenth centurywas an independent state, with its own admin-istrative and ecclesiastical structure and its ownlegislative and judicial bodies. Breton dukeshad achieved political autonomy by playingoff the French against the English during theHUNDRED YEARS WAR. Breton indepen-dence served English interests, for a FrenchBrittany threatened English security. Lyingacross the Channel from England, the Bretonpeninsula had a long coastline, and the duchywas strong in ships and experienced seamen;in French hands, Brittany was a potential basefor invading England. Alternatively, Englandcould employ an autonomous Brittany totrouble France in the same way France en-

38 BRITTANY

couraged SCOTLAND to threaten England,while the Breton fleet was a useful addition toany anti-French alliance.

To maintain Breton independence fromFrance, Francis sought to establish close rela-tions with England and BURGUNDY withoutunnecessarily alienating the French. Thus, inthe early 1460s, Francis, following his own in-clinations and the lead of LOUIS XI, providedassistance to Lancastrian exiles within his bor-ders, such as Jasper TUDOR, earl of Pembroke.However, in 1465, Francis took Brittany intothe League of the Public Weal, a coalition ofFrench princes led by CHARLES of Burgundythat forced Louis to concede privileges andterritories. By 1468, growing threats of Frenchinvasion and a thriving trade with Englandpersuaded Francis to conclude formal treatiesof commerce and alliance with EDWARD IV.In 1471, Channel storms drove Pembroke andhis nephew Richmond, the last Lancastrianclaimant of consequence, onto the Bretoncoast. This literal windfall provided Franciswith the means for pressuring Edward IV, nowsecure on his throne, into maintaining Englishsupport for Brittany.

In 1472, Edward sent English ARCHERS

under Anthony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers, tohelp the Bretons repel a French invasion; in1480, Edward betrothed his son (see EDWARD

V), to Francis’s only child, Anne. In 1483, afterRICHARD III destabilized English politics byusurping his nephew’s throne, Richmond, whowas kept in increasingly rigorous confinement,became a serious threat to the house of YORK.Because Richard was too insecure to materi-ally assist Brittany, Francis provided Richmondwith men and ships and allowed him to joinBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION in October1483. After the failure of that uprising, a bandof English exiles formed around Richmond inBrittany, and the pro-English faction at theBreton court, led by Pierre LANDAIS, thetreasurer, used the duke’s illness to secretly ne-gotiate with Richard for Richmond’s surren-der.Warned of the plot by Bishop John MOR-TON, Richmond and his followers fled intoFrance, from where they launched a successfulinvasion of England in 1485.

Francis II died in 1488 in the midst of aFrench invasion that only ended in 1491 withthe conclusion of a marriage treaty betweenDuchess Anne and CHARLES VIII. Becausethe settlement laid out terms for Brittany’s in-corporation into France, Henry VII led an En-glish army to Anne’s assistance in 1492. How-ever, the invasion ended in the Treaty ofEtaples, whereby Henry acquiesced in thetakeover of Brittany in return for a Frenchpension and an agreement to expel PerkinWARBECK and other Yorkist pretenders fromFrance. Although the Breton Estates (a legisla-tive assembly) did not formally vote for per-petual union with France until 1532, theduchy was effectively under French controlafter 1491.

See also Urswick, ChristopherFurther Reading: Davies, C. S. L.,“The Wars ofthe Roses in European Context” in A. J. Pollard,ed., The Wars of the Roses (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1995), pp. 162–185; Galliou, Patrick, andMichael Jones, The Bretons (Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1991); Jones, Michael, The Creation ofBrittany:A Late Medieval State (London:Hambledon, 1988).

Brittany, Duke of. See Francis II, Dukeof Brittany

Buckingham, Duke of. See entriesunder Stafford

Buckingham’s Rebellion (1483)Buckingham’s Rebellion is the name given toa series of uprisings that occurred in Englandin the autumn of 1483 in reaction toRICHARD III’s seizure of his nephew’sthrone, to the disappearance of that nephewand his brother, and to the growing belief thatboth boys were dead.

Buckingham’s Rebellion comprised twoindependently organized conspiracies againstRichard III that, despite some incompatibili-ties of purpose, joined together to achievetheir shared goal of overthrowing the king.The first conspiracy was planned and led by

BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION 39

Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham,heretofore Richard’s chief ally. The exact rea-sons for Buckingham’s desertion of the kinghe had helped to make are unclear. The tradi-tional reason, used by William Shakespeare inhis play RICHARD III, is the king’s refusal tokeep a promise to restore to Buckingham cer-tain lands to which he had a claim. Most mod-ern historians discount this theory, forRichard restored the lands in question in July1483. More likely theories are that Bucking-ham, aware of the ruthless methods Richardwas willing to use to hold power, and perhapsaware of the fate of EDWARD V and hisbrother, Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, feared that Richard would turn on himwhenever it suited the king’s purposes. Buck-ingham may also have been driven by ambi-tion, for along with Richard III and the exiledHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY

VII), the duke was one of only three survivingadult males of the royal house of PLANTA-GENET. If Richard were eliminated, thethrone would be Buckingham’s.

Hatched probably at Brecon Castle in Au-gust and September 1483, the duke’s plot wasencouraged by Bishop John MORTON, whohad been arrested by Richard and placed inBuckingham’s custody. In his HISTORY OF

KING RICHARD III, Sir Thomas Moreclaimed that Morton persuaded the duke tobetray Richard, but in his ANGLICA HISTO-RIA, the Tudor historian Polydore Vergilstated that Buckingham first suggested rebel-lion to the bishop, who initially suspected thatthe suggestion was a ruse to entrap him. How-ever, once convinced of Buckingham’s sincer-ity, Morton readily cooperated. Morton prob-ably put Buckingham in contact withMargaret BEAUFORT, the mother of Rich-mond, and with Queen Elizabeth WOOD-VILLE, the widow of EDWARD IV and themother of the missing princes. The twowomen were the central figures in a conspir-acy that was forming around former Lancas-trians, adherents of the WOODVILLE FAMILY,and former servants of Edward IV. Assumingthat Queen Elizabeth’s sons were dead, theseplotters planned to overthrow Richard in

favor of Richmond, who would then marryELIZABETH OFYORK, eldest daughter of Ed-ward IV, and thereby unite the houses of LAN-CASTER and YORK.

On 24 September, Buckingham wrote toRichmond, then in BRITTANY, inviting theearl to join his uprising, which would beginon 18 October. The duke did not acknowl-edge Richmond’s claim to the Crown, nor didhe speak of the proposed marriage with Eliza-beth of York. Although later Tudor writersclaimed that Buckingham supported the effortto make Richmond king, it is more likely thathe sought the throne for himself. In Septem-ber 1483, he was probably interested only ingaining the support of the pro-Richmondforces in overthrowing the king and was will-ing to leave the question of who was to beRichard’s successor until later. In any event, aseries of connections were soon establishedbetween the principal figures in both plots.The Welsh physician Lewis Caerleon was themain contact between Margaret Beaufort andQueen Elizabeth, while Reginald BRAY, aservant of Margaret’s who was known toBuckingham, kept the Beaufort-Woodvilleconspirators apprised of what the duke andMorton were planning. To inform her son ofevents in England, Margaret had planned tosend the priest Christopher URSWICK toBrittany, but instead later dispatched HughConway (a servant of her husband, HenrySTANLEY, Lord Stanley) to Richmond with alarge sum of money raised by Margaret inLONDON.

Thanks to spies and the premature out-break of rebellion in southern England,Richard was aware of Buckingham’s betrayalby 11 October. While the king hastily gath-ered an army, Buckingham marshaled hisforces in WALES, and various gentlemen at-tached to the Beaufort-Woodville conspiracyled uprisings in their home counties. Ham-pered by the disloyalty of his Welsh RETAIN-ERS, who were unwilling to rebel against aYorkist king, and attacked by Welsh royalists,Buckingham was on the run by late October.Most of the other uprisings were also quicklysuppressed, their leaders fleeing to Brittany to

40 BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION

join Richmond. Betrayed by an old servantwith whom he had sought shelter, Bucking-ham was in custody by 31 October. Taken toSalisbury by Richard’s servant, Sir JamesTYRELL, the duke was executed there on 2November.

Richmond, meanwhile, did not leave Brit-tany until about 31 October. Given ships,money, and men by Duke FRANCIS II, theearl anchored off Plymouth harbor in the firstweek of November, his fleet having been scat-tered by storms. Unsure of what success Buck-ingham might have enjoyed, Richmond sent aboat to reconnoitre the coast, which was linedby Richard’s men, who urged Richmond toland by claiming to be followers of Bucking-ham. Exercising a lifesaving caution, Rich-mond refused to come ashore until he hadmore certain news. When word arrived ofBuckingham’s execution, the earl and hisflotilla recrossed the Channel, landing inFRANCE in mid-November. Although seem-ing to harm Richmond’s prospects, Bucking-ham’s Rebellion revealed the breadth of theopposition to Richard III, destroyed the rivalclaim of Buckingham, and created a large andtalented group of exiles around Richmond inBrittany—such men as Morton, Urswick,Bray, and many former servants of Edward IV.By 1485, Richmond was ready to try again towin the throne.

Further Reading: Gill, Louise, Richard III andBuckingham’s Rebellion (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999); Horrox, Rosemary,Richard III:A Study in Service (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1991).

BurgundyBurgundy was the wealthiest and most power-ful state in fifteenth-century Europe. Duringthe WARS OF THE ROSES, the principalitywas the chief rival of FRANCE, and thus al-ways a possible ally for whichever English fac-tion lacked French support. Burgundy wasalso England’s chief trading partner and an im-portant influence on English art, music, andCOURT ceremonial during the Yorkist andearly Tudor periods.

Burgundy comprised a patchwork of terri-tories stretching from the English Channel towestern Germany. The heart of the principal-ity was the Duchy of Burgundy, an appanage(territorial grant to a younger son) in north-eastern France given by John II to his sonPhilip the Bold in 1363. By marriage, Philipalso acquired the County of Burgundy(Franche-Comté), which lay east of the duchyin the Holy Roman Empire, and the Countyof Flanders, which lay across the Channel fromEngland. In the fifteenth century, Philip’s suc-cessors became rulers of Luxembourg, most ofthe modern states of Belgium and the Nether-lands, and parts of northern France. Becauseeach province jealously guarded its own laws,privileges, and language, Burgundy’s Valoisdukes had difficulty imposing a centralized ad-ministration on their far-flung territories.However, by the early fifteenth century, thedukes of Burgundy were effectively indepen-dent of either the king of France or the HolyRoman Emperor.

In 1419, while contending for control ofthe French government during the rule of hisderanged cousin Charles VI, Duke John theFearless (1371–1419) was murdered by ser-vants of the future CHARLES VII. This actdrove the new duke, PHILIP the Good(1396–1467), into an alliance with Henry Vthat allowed the English to seal their conquestof Normandy and portions of northernFrance.Although he broke with the English in1435, Philip remained at odds with his royalcousin. Thus, when Charles VII and his sonLOUIS XI supported the house of LAN-CASTER in the early 1460s, Philip assisted thehouse of YORK, pressing his kinswoman,Queen MARY OF GUELDRES, to deny theLancastrians asylum in SCOTLAND, sendingBurgundian handgunners to fight for ED-WARD IV at the Battle of TOWTON, and nul-lifying the Franco-Lancastrian CHINON

AGREEMENT by refusing French troops per-mission to attack CALAIS across Burgundianterritory. Although wary of any permanentties with the insecure Edward IV and involvedin commercial disputes with the English gov-ernment, Philip, by his death in 1467, was

BURGUNDY 41

being drawn into alliance with the house ofYork by a mutual distrust of France and thevital Anglo-Burgundian trade relationship.

Philip’s son, CHARLES the Bold (1433–1477), having inherited Lancastrian bloodfrom his Portuguese mother, was personallyinclined to the cause of HENRY VI. However,being more anti-French than his father,Charles concluded a commercial agreementwith Yorkist England in 1467 and a formal al-liance in 1468, the latter sealed by the duke’smarriage to MARGARET OF YORK, EdwardIV’s sister. This Burgundian connection wasone of the grievances of Richard NEVILLE,the pro-French earl of Warwick, who over-threw Edward in 1470 (see EDWARD IV,OVERTHROW OF). The ANGERS AGREE-MENT of 1470, which created Warwick’s al-liance with MARGARET OF ANJOU and thehouse of Lancaster, was brokered by Louis XI,who won Warwick’s promise that a Lancas-trian England would wage war against Bur-gundy as France’s ally. When Warwick fulfilledhis promise in January 1471, Charles droppedhis refusal to assist Edward IV, who had fled toBurgundy the previous October, and allowedEdward to obtain men, money, and ships forthe March 1471 invasion of England that ulti-mately restored him to power (see EDWARD

IV, RESTORATION OF).In the 1470s, Burgundian cultural influ-

ences permeated Yorkist England; Edward IVadopted the elaborate ceremony of the Bur-gundian court, and English music, art, and ar-chitectural design borrowed heavily from Bur-gundian developments. By 1475, Charles,seeking to establish a Kingdom of Burgundybetween France and the empire, beganforcibly expanding his domains in the east.When the duke died in battle against the Swissin 1477, Burgundy passed to his only child,Mary, whose husband, Maximilian of Habs-burg, heir to the Holy Roman Emperor, con-tended with Louis XI for control of the prin-cipality. The Duchy of Burgundy wasreabsorbed into the French state, and thecounty returned to imperial control, but theNetherlands remained in Habsburg hands andcontinued its diplomatic and commercial part-

nership with England. Also, from 1485 untilher death in 1503, Duchess Margaret re-mained hostile to HENRY VII and the houseof TUDOR and gave valuable assistance to nu-merous Yorkist pretenders, including bothLambert SIMNEL and Perkin WARBECK.

See also Yorkist Heirs (after 1485)Further Reading: Davies, C. S. L.,“The Wars ofthe Roses in European Context” in A. J. Pollard,ed., The Wars of the Roses (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1995), pp. 162–185;Vaughan, Richard, ValoisBurgundy (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1975).

Burgundy, Duke of. See Charles, Dukeof Burgundy; Philip, Duke of Burgundy

Butler, James, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond (1420–1461)James Butler, the Irish earl of Ormond, wasone of the most ambitious and politically dis-ruptive favorites of HENRYVI, and a commit-ted adherent of the House of LANCASTER.

Although several times lord lieutenant ofIRELAND, Butler spent most of his career inEngland, where he built a substantial body ofestates through marriage, inheritance, androyal favor. Created earl of Wiltshire in 1449,Butler’s attempt to increase his political influ-ence in the West Country, challenged the tra-ditional dominance there of the earls ofDevon and aggravated the violent feud be-tween Thomas COURTENAY, earl of Devon,and William BONVILLE, Lord Bonville, an-other royal favorite. By the early 1450s, Butlerwas strongly identified with the COURT andwith opposition to Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York.

Knighted in 1426, Butler accompaniedHenry VI to FRANCE, and served there againduring York’s French regency in 1441. He wasYork’s deputy in Ireland in 1449, but sup-planted York as lord lieutenant in 1453, bywhich time he was also a royal councilor. Hesucceeded his father as earl of Ormond in1452. In 1454, during York’s FIRST PROTEC-TORATE, Ormond lost the Irish lieutenancyand was briefly imprisoned for his role in the

42 BURGUNDY, DUKE OF

worsening COURTENAY-BONVILLE FEUD.Upon regaining his senses in early 1455, HenryVI restored Ormond to favor and appointedhim lord treasurer. Part of the king’s army atthe Battle of ST. ALBANS, Ormond is said tohave saved himself by fleeing the field disguisedas a monk. York’s SECOND PROTECTORATE

cost Ormond the treasurership, but the king’sresumption of power in 1456 led to the earl’sappointment as councilor to Prince EDWARD

OF LANCASTER in 1457 and to reappoint-ment as lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1459.

When the Yorkist earls of Warwick, Salis-bury, and March landed in England in thesummer of 1460, Ormond fled abroad, but re-turned by December to take part in the Lan-castrian victory at the Battle of WAKEFIELD,which led to the defeat and death of York.Demonstrating a pronounced ability to sur-vive, Ormond twice more escaped from Lan-castrian defeats—at the Battle of MOR-TIMER’S CROSS in February 1461 and at theBattle of TOWTON in March. The Yorkists fi-nally captured him at Cockermouth in Cum-berland in the month after Towton, and exe-cuted him at Newcastle on 1 May 1461. Heand his brothers were attainted by EDWARD

IV’s first PARLIAMENT, although his brotherJohn eventually succeeded to the earldom ofOrmond. Because Ormond was childless, hisearldom of Wiltshire lapsed at his death.

See also Attainder, Act of; Neville, Richard, Earlof Warwick; Neville, Richard, Earl of SalisburyFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981);“James Butler” in Michael Hicks,Who’s Who in Late Medieval England (London:Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 301–303; Storey,R. L., The End of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed.(Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Butler Precontract (1483)The Butler precontract, the claim that ED-WARD IV was betrothed to Lady EleanorButler prior to his marriage to ElizabethWOODVILLE, was used by RICHARD III in1483 to justify his usurpation of his nephew’sthrone, an act that revived the WARS OF THE

ROSES in the mid-1480s.

In June 1483, Robert STILLINGTON,bishop of Bath and Wells and former chancel-lor of England under Edward IV, informed theduke of Gloucester that EDWARD V was abastard and therefore not legally qualified torule. According to the bishop, Edward V’s ille-gitimacy resulted from a legally and spirituallybinding betrothal or precontract of marriagethat Edward IV had entered into with anotherwoman some time before his 1464 marriageto Elizabeth Woodville. This exchange ofvows with Eleanor Butler, widow of SirThomas Butler and daughter of John Talbot,earl of Shrewsbury, was unknown until Still-ington supposedly divulged it to Gloucester.Because the precontract meant that Edwardwas considered already married by church andstate, the Woodville union was invalid, and allchildren born to it were illegitimate andthereby barred from the throne. Immediatelyafter Stillington’s revelation, the precontractstory appeared in a petition asking Gloucesterto take the throne; this document, which waspresented to the duke by his supporters in lateJune 1483, was later embodied in TITULUS

REGIUS, the 1484 statute that formally pre-sented Richard III’s reasons for accepting theCrown.

The authenticity of the Butler story ismuch in doubt. Most modern historians be-lieve the precontract to be a fabrication de-vised to give Richard III’s usurpation a veneerof legitimacy. The betrothal cannot be docu-mented beyond the account rehearsed in Titu-lus Regius, and Richard never attempted tohave the precontract authenticated by achurch court, the proper venue for such a case.The timing of the story’s appearance—afterthe death of both parties and just in time toforestall Edward V’s coronation—is suspicious,as is the fact that the tale never surfaced in thePROPAGANDA of Edward IV’s former ene-mies. It is unlikely that either Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU or Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick, would have ignored the story hadthey known of it. Also, even if the story weretrue, the precontract would have barred nei-ther Edward V nor his brother, RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, from the

BUTLER PRECONTRACT 43

Crown, since both were born after 1468,when the death of Eleanor Butler would haveinvalidated the betrothal. Many contemporarywriters also rejected the precontract story, in-cluding the normally pro-Yorkist CROY-LAND chronicler, who considered the Butlerbetrothal “colour” for an “act of usurpation”(Levine, p. 30).

Modern supporters of Richard III acceptthe Butler precontract as genuine, arguing thatthe exchange of vows may have occurredshortly after Edward’s seizure of the throne in1461, when Eleanor Butler was newly wid-owed and seeking (successfully, as it turnedout) to regain family manors confiscated by theCrown.The story of the beautiful older widowin distress who contrived to meet the youngking, a tale often told of Edward’s first en-counter with Elizabeth Woodville, may actu-

ally have been a memory of his first meetingwith Eleanor Butler. Supporters of Richardalso argue that Stillington’s arrest in 1478,when he was fined for speaking in a mannerprejudicial to the king, was a result of thebishop having once incautiously told the re-cently executed George PLANTAGENET, dukeof Clarence, of the precontract. Although thesearguments are often dismissed as unsupportedspeculation, the truth of the Butler precontractcannot now be conclusively determined.

See also English Church and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Kendall, Paul Murray, Richardthe Third (New York: W. W. Norton, 1956); Levine,Mortimer, Tudor Dynastic Problems 1460–1571(London: George Allen and Unwin, 1973); Ross,Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

44 BUTLER PRECONTRACT

Cade, Jack. See Jack Cade’s Rebellion

Cade’s Rebellion. See Jack Cade’sRebellion

Caister Castle, Siege of (1469)In July 1469, Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, seized control of the royal governmentby capturing and confining EDWARD IV. Theking’s detention created a leadership vacuumthat allowed great noblemen to act as theypleased in their areas of influence. Because it isdescribed in detail in the PASTON LETTERS,the siege of Caister Castle in Norfolk is thebest-known consequence of the local lawless-ness that flowed from Warwick’s coup. The vi-olence at Caister is a prime example of thedisorder that afflicted some parts of the coun-try during the WARS OF THE ROSES.

On 21 August 1469, less than a month afterWarwick took the king into custody, JohnMOWBRAY, fourth duke of Norfolk, laidsiege to Caister Castle, a fortified manor housein the possession of a Norfolk GENTRY fam-ily named Paston. Since 1459, Norfolk’s familyhad disputed possession of the house with thePastons, who claimed it by right of inheritancefrom Caister’s wealthy builder, Sir John Fastolf.John MOWBRAY, the third duke of Norfolk,had contested Fastolf ’s will and briefly heldCaister in 1461, until compelled by Edward torestore it to the Pastons.The two families con-tinued the dispute in the courts until thefourth duke took advantage of royal weaknessto resolve the issue by force.

Sir John Paston, the head of his family in1469, was in LONDON when his younger

brother, also named John, found himself sur-rounded at Caister by a force said to number3,000. With only twenty-seven defendersarmed with crossbows and a few small guns,Paston was able to hold out for five weeksagainst the duke’s ARCHERS and ARTILLERY

pieces. Although everyone was anxious toavoid bloodshed and damage to the house, theduke lost two men and Paston one. The elderPaston appealed to George PLANTAGENET,duke of Clarence, the king’s brother and War-wick’s ally, to help mediate a settlement.Thanks to Clarence’s intervention, Norfolkagreed to terms of surrender on 26 Septem-ber, several weeks before the disorders in thekingdom (like the Caister siege) forced War-wick to release the king. Paston marched hismen out of the house under a safe-conductthat allowed them to keep their ARMOR andhorses, but forced them to abandon theirarms, the castle’s furnishings, and all Sir JohnPaston’s private possessions.

Because he needed Norfolk’s support, Ed-ward IV failed to bring the duke to accountfor the siege. As a consequence, the Pastonsbecame retainers of John de VERE, the Lan-castrian earl of Oxford, and, in 1470, sup-ported the restoration of HENRY VI; bothbrothers fought for Warwick at the Battle ofBARNET in 1471. However, Edward IV’s vic-tory ensured that Caister, which had beenbriefly returned to the Pastons during theREADEPTION, remained in Norfolk’s posses-sion until his death in 1476.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration ofFurther Reading: Bennett, H. S., The Pastons andTheir England: Studies in an Age of Transition, 2d ed.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990);

45

C

Davis, Norman, ed., The Paston Letters and Papers ofthe Fifteenth Century, 2 vols. (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1971, 1976); Gies, Frances, andJoseph Gies, A Medieval Family:The Pastons ofFifteenth-Century England (New York:HarperCollins, 1998).

CalaisAn English possession since 1347, the FrenchChannel town of Calais was of immense mili-tary importance during the WARS OF THE

ROSES. Whoever held Calais controlled thetown’s 1,000-man garrison, the largest perma-nent military establishment under the EnglishCrown, and also possessed a secure, fortifiedbase and refuge from which it was possible toprey on Channel shipping or harry the coastsof England.

By 1453, Calais was all that remained of theEnglish empire in FRANCE. Maintenance ofthe town’s garrison and fortifications was ex-pensive, consuming almost a quarter of theCrown’s annual revenues by the 1450s. Since1363, the government had funneled the ex-port of English wool through Calais; this prac-tice allowed the Crown to collect customs du-ties more easily and concentrated the wooltrade in the hands of the Company of the Sta-ple, an association of wool merchants whoseprivileged position made them more willingto lend money to the king. Although the gov-ernment used the Calais customs to pay thegarrison, the fifteenth century witnessed a de-cline in the export of raw wool in relation tothe export of woolen cloth. Because clothmerchants could trade where they pleased, thesubsequent drop in the wool customs created agap between revenues and expenses in Calais.Frequently unable to make up the difference,the government of HENRYVI faced recurringmutinies by the unpaid garrison.

Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset,became captain of Calais in 1451. In 1454,after Somerset’s imprisonment and the estab-lishment of the FIRST PROTECTORATE,nominal control of Calais passed to RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York. However, thegarrison denied York entry to the town untilthey were paid or given license to sell the

wool in their custody. Occupied elsewhere,York never addressed the Calais issue, and thegarrison remained defiant when Henry re-gained his senses and restored Somerset to thecaptaincy in 1455. After Somerset’s death atthe Battle of ST. ALBANS in May 1455, Yorkinstituted his SECOND PROTECTORATE andhanded the Calais captaincy to RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick.The earl finally en-tered the town in 1456 after negotiating a loanfrom the Staplers that allowed the garrison tobe paid. By 1458, Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU, then in control of the English gov-ernment, sought to undermine Warwick bydenying him funds. The earl promptly built afleet of ten vessels and began plundering for-eign shipping in the Channel; his exploits paidhis men, won him a heroic national reputa-tion, and deeply embarrassed the Lancastrianregime.

Summoned to LONDON, Warwick was at-tacked by royal guards during a fight betweenhis servants and those of the king. He escapedand returned to Calais, where he openly de-fied the government. In September 1459, theearl took part of the Calais garrison to En-gland to rendezvous with York’s forces at Lud-low. Led by Andrew TROLLOPE, the Calaiscontingent defected to the king, forcing theYorkists to flee the Battle of LUDFORD

BRIDGE. Warwick; his father, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury; and York’s son, Ed-ward, earl of March (see EDWARD IV) tookrefuge in Calais. Appointed captain by QueenMargaret, Henry BEAUFORT, duke of Somer-set, captured the Calais fortress of Guisnes, butfailed to take the town. Swayed both by hisreputation and by the fruits of his Channelpiracy, the garrison remained loyal to War-wick. In January 1460, Warwick’s Calais fleetcaptured a Lancastrian flotilla in preparation atSandwich, carrying off Richard WOODVILLE,Earl Rivers, and his son. In June, after return-ing from a conference with York in IRE-LAND, Warwick sent John DINHAM to seizeSandwich; possession of the town gave theYorkists the bridgehead they needed to invadeEngland from Calais and allowed Warwick tocapture the king at the Battle of NORTH-

46 CALAIS

AMPTON in July. By depriving him of anypossible assistance from England, Northamp-ton forced Somerset to surrender Guisnes inreturn for his own freedom. Calais was thussecured for Warwick.

After 1461, Edward IV, realizing Calais’simportance, spent heavily to modernize thetown’s defenses. As part of the 1462 CHINON

AGREEMENT, Queen Margaret agreed tocede Calais to LOUIS XI in return for Frenchassistance. The plan collapsed when Louis,who had to seize the town from the Yorkists,was denied access to Calais by Duke PHILIP ofBURGUNDY, whose territory bordered theEnglish enclave. In 1469, Warwick, who re-tained the captaincy, launched his coup againstEdward IV from Calais, where George PLAN-TAGENET, duke of Clarence, married theearl’s daughter, Isabel NEVILLE, and joined theearl in issuing a manifesto denouncing Ed-ward’s government. In 1470, Warwick, inflight after the failure of his second coup, triedto enter Calais, but his deputy, John WEN-LOCK, Lord Wenlock, warned him that thegarrison was loyal to Edward and advised himto land in France.

In 1471, Thomas NEVILLE, the Bastard ofFauconberg, led part of the Calais garrison toEngland to support the Lancastrian READEP-TION government headed by Warwick. InMay, a month after Warwick’s death at theBattle of BARNET, Fauconberg unsuccessfullyattacked London, and most of the garrisonsoon returned to Calais and to their Yorkist al-legiance. In the 1470s, Edward IV gave theCalais captaincy only to his most trusted sup-porters—Anthony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers,and William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings. In1473, Edward imprisoned the diehard Lancas-trian, John de VERE, earl of Oxford, at Calais.In 1484, part of the Calais garrison defected toHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY

VII), and allowed Oxford to escape. To ensurehis control of the town, RICHARD III gavethe captaincy to his bastard son, John ofGloucester, and installed a new garrison underhis loyal servant James TYRELL. BecauseGloucester was only a boy, his appointmentmade the king the effective captain of Calais.

After Richard’s death at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, Calais readilysubmitted to Henry VII. The town remainedan English possession until captured by theFrench in 1558.

Further Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Hicks, Michael, Warwickthe Kingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,1998); Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Campaigns, Duration of. See MilitaryCampaigns, Duration of

Canterbury, Archbishop of. SeeBourchier, Thomas; Morton, John

Castillon, Battle of (1453)Fought on 17 July 1453, the Battle of Castil-lon ended the HUNDRED YEARS WAR andstripped England of all its holdings inFRANCE except the town of CALAIS.

After their conquest of Normandy in 1450,the French focused their energy and resourceson Gascony, a province of southwesternFrance that had been an English possession foralmost 300 years. As an army of 7,000marched south from Normandy, other Frenchforces besieged the fortresses protecting Bor-deaux, the Gascon capital, while a jointFrench, Spanish, and Breton fleet blockadedthe mouth of the Gironde to prevent the En-glish from relieving the city. Isolated and out-numbered, the English garrison in Bordeauxsurrendered on 29 June 1451. A severe blowto English national pride and to the popularityof HENRY VI’s government, the loss of Bor-deaux was reversed in October 1452, thanks tothe English sympathies of some of the Gasconnobility and the military skill of John Talbot,earl of Shrewsbury (c. 1384–1453), the mostfamous and successful English soldier of thetime. Within months of reentering Bordeauxon 23 October, Shrewsbury had restored En-glish control to most of Gascony.

CASTILLON, BATTLE OF 47

The military victory in France, followed bynews of Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU’spregnancy, placed Henry VI and his chief min-ister, Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset,in the strongest political position they had en-joyed since 1450. On the other hand, Somer-set’s chief rival, Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, already humiliated by the failureof his uprising at DARTFORD in February1452, was further isolated by the government’snewfound success and popularity. However,CHARLES VII was determined to retake andhold Gascony, and by the early summer of1453 he had reestablished the naval blockadeof the Gironde, thereby threatening Bordeauxwith starvation. The English government real-ized the precariousness of Shrewsbury’s posi-tion, and undertook feverish efforts to collectmen, money, and shipping. However, FrenchARTILLERY made all this activity unavailing.On 17 July near Castillon east of Bordeaux,Shrewsbury attacked a strong French positionprotected by cannon. The enemy guns cut theEnglish to pieces, killing Shrewsbury and hisson and ending English rule in Gascony for-ever. News of the battle not only left Somer-set’s government saddled with blame for losingthe province, it may also have triggered HenryVI’s mental collapse, for the king’s illness de-scended upon him in early August 1453, aboutthe time he would have been informed of thedisaster (see HENRY VI, ILLNESS OF). Theking’s incapacity revived York’s political for-tunes, further depressed those of Somerset, anddangerously intensified the rivalry betweenthe two dukes, which, in turn, fostered the vi-olence and political instability that led to theWARS OF THE ROSES.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Pollard, A. J., John Talbotand the War in France, 1427–1453 (London: RoyalHistorical Society, 1983); Wolffe, Bertram, HenryVI (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

CasualtiesAs with the overall size of armies during theWARS OF THE ROSES, figures for the casual-

ties suffered in civil war battles are difficult tocalculate and often seriously inflated by con-temporary commentators.

Because Wars of the Roses armies probablyrarely numbered more than 10,000 to 15,000men, with perhaps some smaller battles count-ing their combatants in the hundreds, chroni-cle accounts such as the one claiming that over3,000 Lancastrians died at the Battle of MOR-TIMER’S CROSS in February 1461 are highlysuspect.The figure 3,000 probably exceeds theentire strength of the Lancastrian force en-gaged at Mortimer’s Cross, which was not amajor battle but a regional encounter betweenthe Welsh and Marcher (i.e., borderland) sup-porters of the houses of LANCASTER andYORK.

The one possible exception to the untrust-worthiness of contemporary casualty figures isthe number given for those killed in March1461 at the Battle of TOWTON, the largestand longest battle of the Wars of the Roses.Various chroniclers claimed that between30,000 and 38,000 men lay dead on the fieldafter the battle. Although modern historiansestimate that between 50,000 and 75,000 menparticipated in the fighting at Towton, thechronicle figures would still strain belief, ex-cept that a letter written immediately after thebattle states that the heralds counted 28,000slain, and the same figure was shortly there-after reported by both EDWARD IV and byseveral other contemporary observers. Clearly,the magnitude of the slaughter at Towton wasunprecedented during the wars, even if oneaccepts later estimates that only about 9,000died in the battle.

In many battles, the number of dead wassmall. At the Battle of ST. ALBANS in May1455 only a few thousand men were engagedand the fighting ended abruptly on the deathof Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset,and his noble allies. At the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON in July 1460, the armiesinvolved were larger, but the fighting wasbrief, and the casualties were highest amongthe Lancastrian noblemen who fought to de-fend the person of HENRY VI, for RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, the Yorkist com-

48 CASUALTIES

mander, told his men to spare the king andcommons and to concentrate their efforts onkilling the peers and gentlemen who led theLancastrian force. At the Battle of EDGE-COTE in July 1469, the slaughter of Welshgentry in the royalist force was particularlyhigh, with one account claiming that 168Welsh gentlemen fell on the field. About2,000 Welsh commons were said to have diedat Edgecote, but that figure is again probablyhigh for the number of men engaged (seeCOMMONS [COMMON PEOPLE] AND THE

WARS OF THE ROSES).Other encounters, such as the Battle of

LUDFORD BRIDGE in 1459 or the Battles ofHEDGELEY MOOR and HEXHAM in 1464,were mere skirmishes or involved small forcesand few casualties. At the Battle of Hexham,the executions of captured Lancastrians afterthe battle may have rivaled the number ofmen killed during the actual fighting. War-wick and his brother John NEVILLE, LordMontagu, who were rarely hesitant to dispatchcaptured opponents, executed over two dozenLancastrian leaders after Hexham, includingHenry BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset; RobertHUNGERFORD, Lord Hungerford; andThomas ROOS, Lord Roos. Although thenumber of noble and GENTRY dead, both inthe fighting and through execution afterward,was high in many battles, the number of casu-alties among the commons probably wascounted in the hundreds for all battles exceptthe largest, such as the Battles of Towton,BARNET, and TEWKESBURY.

See also Armies, Size of; Battles, Nature of;Military Campaigns, Duration of; PeerageFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, The Warsof the Roses (New York: Thames and Hudson,1987).

Catesby, William (1450–1485)In 1483, when RICHARD III’s usurpation ofhis nephew’s throne revived dynastic conflictand political instability, William Catesby

served as one of Richard’s closest advisors andconfidants.

One of the few southern members of theking’s inner circle, Catesby was born into anobscure Northamptonshire GENTRY familyand trained as a lawyer.A councilor of WilliamHASTINGS, Lord Hastings, who later acquiredsome of Hastings’s offices, Catesby’s rapid riseto power and influence under Richard III ledto later charges that he had connived at Hast-ings’s death in 1483. In his HISTORY OF

KING RICHARD III, Sir Thomas More sug-gested that Catesby sounded out Hastingsabout Richard’s decision to claim the throne,and that his unfavorable report of Hastings’sresponse led to Hastings’s summary execution.

After Richard’s accession, Catesby was ap-pointed chancellor of the Exchequer and chan-cellor of the earldom of March. He was alsomade a squire of the body (i.e., a close personalservant of the king) and was given lands worthmore than £300 a year, an income that madeCatesby wealthier than many knights andbrought him much unpopularity as an unde-serving parvenu. He was sent on embassy toSCOTLAND in September 1484 and to BRIT-TANY in February 1485. Catesby served asSpeaker of the PARLIAMENT of 1484, inwhich he sat as member for Northamptonshire.His speakership indicated the position of trusthe held with the king, for it was unusual for amember to be Speaker in his first Parliament.

Along with Sir Richard RATCLIFFE andFrancis LOVELL, Lord Lovell, Catesby becamewidely known as a member of Richard’s innercircle of advisors.A popular satirical couplet ofthe time declared that “The cat [Catesby], therat [Ratcliffe], and Lovell our dog [Lovell’semblem], / Rule all England under a hog [re-ferring to Richard III’s white boar emblem].”In March 1485, Catesby and Ratcliffe weresaid to have opposed Richard’s plan to wed hisniece, ELIZABETH OF YORK. Catesby wastaken prisoner at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD on 22 August 1485 and executed threedays later at Leicester.

See also Richard III, Northern Affinity ofFurther Reading: Horrox, Rosemary, RichardIII:A Study in Service (Cambridge: Cambridge

CATESBY, WILLIAM 49

University Press, 1991); Roskell, John S., WilliamCatesby, Counselor to Richard III (Manchester: JohnRylands Library, 1959) [reprinted from theBulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 42, no. 1,September, 1959]; Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981);“William Catesby,” in Michael Hicks, Who’s Whoin Late Medieval England (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 366–369.

Causes of the Wars of the Roses.See Wars of the Roses, Causes of

Caxton, William (c. 1421–1491)Commencing operations after EDWARD IVhad seemingly ended the WARS OF THE

ROSES, cloth merchant William Caxton in-troduced printing to England in 1477. Withthe patronage of courtiers and members of theroyal houses of YORK and TUDOR, Caxton

produced English works of history, philosophy,religion, and romance.

Born in Kent, Caxton was apprenticed to aLONDON mercer (i.e., cloth merchant) in1438.When his apprenticeship ended in 1446,he was already engaged in trade at Bruges inBURGUNDY. In 1462, the membership of theMerchant Adventurers, an association of En-glish merchants, appointed Caxton their gov-ernor at Bruges, thereby giving him oversightof the group’s continental operations. Becausehe ceased to function as governor in 1470,Caxton may have been dismissed from officeby the READEPTION government of HENRY

VI, which probably objected to Caxton’s closeassociation with Edward IV’s sister, MAR-GARET OF YORK, duchess of Burgundy. Be-cause the king later employed him as a com-mercial diplomat, Caxton may have metEdward IV when he was in exile in Burgundyover the winter of 1470. In 1471, having com-pleted an English translation of a French His-tory of Troy, Caxton traveled to Cologne tolearn about the new printing technology. Pub-lished in Bruges in 1474, Caxton’s History ofTroy was the first book ever printed in English.

Returning home in 1476, Caxton estab-lished the first printing press in England nearthe center of royal government in Westmin-ster. His first printed works in England—TheDictes and Sayings of the Philosophers (1477) andthe Moral Proverbs of Christine de Pisan(1478)—were translations from the French byCaxton’s chief patron, Anthony WOODVILLE,Earl Rivers, the king’s brother-in-law. Al-though Edward IV directly commissionednone of Caxton’s works, the printer soughtand probably obtained the patronage of mem-bers of the house of York. Two books printedin 1481—Tully of Old Age and Godefroy ofBologne—were dedicated to Edward IV, whilethe Life of Jason (1477) and The Order ofChivalry (1484) were dedicated, respectively, toPrince Edward (see EDWARD V) and toRICHARD III. Because Edward IV, who hadan extensive library, may have preferred color-ful hand-illuminated manuscripts to plainerprint publications, he was probably nevermore than a passive patron of Caxton’s press.

50 CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

A Woodcut illustrating William Caxton’s Fables of Aesop.(North Wind Picture Archives)

However, both Margaret BEAUFORT, count-ess of Richmond, and Henry BOURCHIER,earl of Essex, actively favored Caxton, whileHENRY VII commanded Caxton to print hisEnglish translation of Christine de Pisan’sFeats of Arms and Chivalry in 1489.

Caxton printed some eighty different titles,including twenty-one of his own translationsand the first editions of Geoffrey Chaucer’sCanterbury Tales and Sir Thomas MALORY’s LeMorte d’Arthur. Caxton’s concentration onchivalric romances, histories, and religiousworks reflected the tastes of his aristocratic pa-trons and of the wealthy London merchantswho purchased his books in growing num-bers. By the 1480s, the government, thanks inpart to Caxton, was becoming increasinglyaware of the PROPAGANDA potential of theprinting press. After 1485, the Crown ap-pointed a royal printer to publish all the king’sproclamations and began to take steps to en-sure that no politically or religiously subver-sive works issued from English presses, al-though real censorship did not appear untilLutheran works entered England in the 1520s.After Caxton’s death in 1491, his press contin-

ued to operate under his apprentice, Wynkynde Worde.

See also English Economy and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Blake, N. F., Caxton: England’sFirst Publisher (New York: Barnes and Noble,1976); Blake, N. F., William Caxton and EnglishLiterary Culture (London: Hambledon Press, 1991);Hindley, Geoffrey, England in the Age of Caxton(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979); Painter,George D., William Caxton:A Biography (NewYork: Putnam, 1977).

Cely Letters and PapersThe letters and papers of the Cely (or Sely)family, a series of documents describing thelives and business activities of a family ofLONDON wool merchants in the 1470s and1480s, are primary sources of information onEnglish society and the English economy atthe end of the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The letters, accounts, and memoranda inthe collection concern the family of RichardCely (d. 1482), who, with his wife Agnes (d.1483), raised three sons—Robert (d. 1485),Richard (d. 1493), and George (d. 1489). Thesenior Richard Cely was a prominent memberof the London merchant community in the1460s, and in 1481 ran unsuccessfully for theoffice of sheriff of London. The Celys werewool traders, buying wool in England andshipping it to CALAIS for sale to cloth makersin BURGUNDY. Until his death, the elderRichard handled the London end of the oper-ation—the purchase, inspection, sorting, andshipping of wool—while his sons Richard andGeorge (mainly the latter in the 1480s) han-dled the Calais end of the business—the nego-tiation of terms for sale of the wool.After theirfather’s death, Richard and George continuedthe business as a true partnership, with Richardconducting operations in London. Besideswool, the brothers also occasionally traded inother commodities and purchased ships to en-gage in the carrying trade, that is, to transportthe goods of other merchants. The eldestbrother, Robert, seems to have been a ratherunstable character who had a poor relationshipwith his father; he apparently dropped out of

CELY LETTERS AND PAPERS 51

The trademark and initials of the English printer WilliamCaxton. (British Library)

the family business and largely disappears fromthe correspondence after 1479.

Now found in the Public Record Office,the Cely papers survived because they weresubmitted to the Court of Chancery in 1489as evidence in a court case involving a disputeover debts between Richard Cely and thewidow of his brother George. The collectioncomprises 247 letters and over 200 other doc-uments that cover the period from 1472 to1488, although the bulk of the correspon-dence begins in 1474 and no letters have sur-vived for 1475 and the greater part of theyears 1483, 1485, and 1486. The letters shedlittle direct light on the politics of the period,but they are full of concerns about how politi-cal and military events might affect trade. Thisurban merchant perspective distinguishes theCely collection from the other surviving fam-ily archives from the fifteenth century; thePASTON, PLUMPTON, and STONOR letterswere all written from the perspective of rural,landholding GENTRY. The Celys and theircorrespondents had some landed interests, buttheir main concerns focused on London andon trade, an outlook that makes the Cely doc-uments an important source for the social andeconomic history of England in the later yearsof the civil wars.

See also English Economy and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Hanham, Alison, ed.,The CelyLetters 1472–1488 (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1975); Hanham, Alison, The Celys and TheirWorld:An English Merchant Family of the FifteenthCentury (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1985); selections of the Cely letters are availableonline through the Richard III Society Web site at<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/cely/>.

Charles VII, King of France(1403–1461)Although his reign was spent reconqueringthe Lancastrian-controlled areas of FRANCE,Charles VII gave cautious support to thehouse of LANCASTER during the first phaseof the WARS OF THE ROSES.

In 1411, the violent and intermittent insan-ity of Charles VI led to civil war between the

houses of Orleans and BURGUNDY for controlof the French government. After both sides ap-pealed to him for assistance, Henry V of En-gland invaded France in 1415 and within fiveyears controlled Normandy and large areas ofnorthern France. A leader of the anti-Burgun-dian party, Prince Charles assumed the regencyin 1418, but was soon driven from Paris byJohn the Fearless, duke of Burgundy. In 1419,an attempted reconciliation with Burgundyended with the duke’s assassination by some ofCharles’s companions, an act that drove PHILIP,the new duke of Burgundy, into alliance withHenry V. The Treaty of Troyes of 1420 disin-herited Charles in favor of the English king,who was declared heir to the French throne.

However, on his father’s death in 1422, theprince assumed the title of king, even thoughhis capital and much of his kingdom were be-yond his control. In England, the infantHENRY VI, who had come to the Englishthrone two months earlier on the unexpecteddeath of his father, was proclaimed king ofFrance under the terms of the Treaty ofTroyes. With the help of Joan of Arc, Charleswas crowned at Reims in 1429. In 1435, hemade peace with Burgundy and reenteredParis in the next year. After a period of trucein the 1440s, Charles’s campaign of reconquestdrove the English from Normandy in 1450and from Gascony in the southwest in 1453.By the end of the reign, only CALAIS re-mained in English hands.

On the outbreak of civil war in England in1459, Charles gave surreptitious diplomaticand military aid to the Lancastrians. QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU was Charles’s niece,and her marriage to Henry VI had beenCharles’s instrument for improving Anglo-French relations and for persuading the En-glish to surrender the county of Maine. Also,the leaders of the house of YORK, seeking tohighlight Lancastrian military failures, spokefrequently of England’s past triumphs inFrance, a tendency that alarmed Charles withthe prospect of renewed English invasionsshould the Yorkists come to power. Believingthat Margaret could win without French aid,and that too much foreign assistance could

52 CHARLES VII, KING OF FRANCE

cost the Lancastrians support in England,Charles remained largely aloof from Englishaffairs until after EDWARD IV’s victory at theBattle of TOWTON in March 1461. In the re-maining months before his death in July,Charles funded a successful attack on theChannel Islands, which Margaret had ceded toFrance, and provided more open and substan-tial diplomatic, financial, and military supportto the Lancastrian cause.

See also Castillon, Battle of; Hundred Years War;Louis XIFurther Reading: Vale, M. G. A., Charles VII(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974).

Charles VIII, King of France(1470–1498)In 1485, the regency government of CharlesVIII of FRANCE supplied money and men forthe invasion that placed HENRY VII and thehouse of TUDOR on the English throne. In1492, after having assumed personal directionof the government, Charles VIII threatenedthe Tudor dynasty by supporting PerkinWARBECK, a Yorkist pretender to the EnglishCrown.

Because Charles was only thirteen whenhis father, LOUIS XI, died in 1483, control ofthe French government fell to the new king’ssister, Anne of Beaujeau. When a coalition ofFrench nobles sought to overthrow the regentby forging alliances with foreign princes, in-cluding RICHARD III of England and FRAN-CIS II of BRITTANY, the government re-sponded by encouraging internal oppositionin those states.To distract the English king, theFrench offered financial assistance to HenryTudor, earl of Richmond, the remaining Lan-castrian claimant to the English Crown. On 1August 1485, Richmond sailed from Francewith a fleet of seven vessels paid for by theFrench Crown and led by a French vice admi-ral. Most of the 2,000-man force that em-barked with the earl consisted of French andScottish veterans provided by the regencygovernment. Because these troops formed thecore of the army that won Richmond theCrown at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD

on 22 August, the French later claimed thatHenry VII had become king of England “bythe grace of Charles VIII” (Davies, p. 177).

Anglo-French relations deteriorated in1491, when Charles married Anne of Brittany,a match that threatened absorption of theDuchy of Brittany into France. To counterHenry’s opposition to his Breton designs,Charles invited Perkin Warbeck to travel fromIRELAND to Paris, where the king promisedto fund Warbeck’s attempt to overthrow HenryVII. Warbeck claimed to be EDWARD IV’syounger son, Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, who had disappeared in the TOWER

OF LONDON in 1483 with his brother ED-WARD V. Recognizing Warbeck as “RichardIV,” rightful king of England, Charles grantedhim a generous pension and allowed him tolive in comfort at the French COURT.

In October 1492, Henry led an army acrossthe Channel to the defense of Brittany. How-ever, by early November, he and Charles hadconcluded the Treaty of Etaples. In return forHenry’s acquiescence in the French takeoverof Brittany, Charles, who was anxious to un-dertake a campaign in Italy, covered Henry’scampaign expenses and paid the arrears of thepension promised to Edward IV in 1475.Charles also agreed to give no shelter toHenry’s rebels, a clause that forced Warbeck toend his ten-month stay in France and removeto BURGUNDY. Having divorced himselffrom Warbeck’s enterprise, Charles was freedto launch his Italian adventure, which, afterinitial successes, ended in failure in 1495.Charles died childless in April 1498.

Further Reading: Antonovics, A.V.,“Henry VII,King of England, By the Grace of Charles VIII ofFrance,” in Ralph A. Griffiths and JamesSherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in the LaterMiddle Ages (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986),pp. 169–184; Commines, Philippe de, The Memoirsof Philippe de Commynes, edited by Samuel Kinser,translated by Isabelle Cazeaux, 2 vols. (Columbia:University of South Carolina Press, 1969–1973);Davies, C. S. L.,“The Wars of the Roses inEuropean Context,” in A. J. Pollard, ed., The Warsof the Roses (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995),pp. 162–185; Potter, David, A History of France,1460–1560:The Emergence of a Nation State(London: Macmillan, 1995).

CHARLES VIII, KING OF FRANCE 53

Charles, Duke of Burgundy(1433–1477)By supplying a safe place of exile and vital ma-terial assistance, Charles “the Bold” (or “theRash”), duke of BURGUNDY, enabled ED-WARD IV to mount a successful campaign toretake the English throne in 1471.

In 1467, Charles succeeded his father, DukePHILIP the Good, who since the late 1450shad followed a generally pro-Yorkist policytoward England. Having inherited Lancastrianblood from his mother, a princess of Portugal,Charles personally favored the house of LAN-CASTER and befriended such staunch adher-ents of HENRY VI as Henry BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset. After Somerset’s executionin 1464, Charles sheltered numerous Lancas-trian exiles at the Burgundian COURT, in-cluding the late duke’s brother, EdmundBEAUFORT. However, Charles was also morehostile to LOUIS XI of FRANCE than Philiphad been, a stance that forced Charles into acloser alignment with the anti-French houseof YORK.

In 1465, Charles, who had assumed direc-tion of the Burgundian government from hisincreasingly ill father, took Burgundy into theLeague of the Public Weal, an alliance ofFrench nobles, including FRANCIS II ofBRITTANY, that defeated Louis in battle andforced him to make important concessions tohis feudal vassals. When Charles also became awidower in 1465, he opened negotiationswith Yorkist England that led by 1467 to acommercial treaty and by 1468 to a formal al-liance sealed by Charles’s marriage to EdwardIV’s sister, MARGARET OF YORK. Becausethe marriage was a political defeat for RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, who favored a pro-French foreign policy, the alliance withCharles aggravated the growing rift betweenWarwick and the king and forced Warwick toturn to Louis of France when he fled Englandafter the failure of his rebellion in early 1470.

When French assistance allowed Warwickto drive him from the kingdom in October1470, Edward IV fled to Burgundy, where hewas warmly received by the Burgundian no-bleman Louis de GRUTHUYSE, Seigneur de la

Gruthuyse, although denied an audience byhis pro-Lancastrian brother-in-law. However,when Warwick, acting in accordance with theANGERS AGREEMENT, which he had con-cluded in 1470 with MARGARET OF ANJOU

and Louis XI, declared war on Burgundy inearly 1471, Charles determined to supportEdward and provided him with funds to hireships and recruit men.

After Edward’s restoration in April 1471,England’s newfound stability meant that bothCharles and Louis were eager to win Edward’sfriendship; like Louis, Charles paid handsomepensions to important English courtiers, whothen exercised their influence with Edward onthe duke’s behalf. By 1475, Charles’s attentionhad turned to accomplishing the eastward ex-pansion of Burgundy as part of a plan to estab-lish a Burgundian kingdom between Franceand Germany. As he pursued this plan, Charlessuffered several severe defeats at the hands ofthe Swiss, who finally slew the duke in battleat Nancy in January 1477.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration ofFurther Reading: Vaughan, Richard, Charles theBold:The Last Valois Duke of Burgundy (London:Longman, 1973);Vaughan, Richard, ValoisBurgundy (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1975).

Chinon Agreement (1462)The Chinon Agreement of June 1462 was alargely unsuccessful attempt by Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU to create an alliance withFRANCE that could supply her with the men,money, and supplies required to overthrowEDWARD IV and the house of YORK and re-store HENRY VI and the house of LAN-CASTER to the English throne.

In April 1462, Margaret left SCOTLAND,where she and her family had been in exile forthe past year, and sailed for France, where shehoped to convince her kinsman, LOUIS XI, tosupport the Lancastrian cause. Willing to cedeCALAIS to France for a substantial loan, Mar-garet induced the French king to conclude asecret agreement with her at Chinon on 24June. Four days later, the Franco-Lancastrian

54 CHARLES, DUKE OF BURGUNDY

alliance was publicly proclaimed in the Treatyof Tours, which, to protect Margaret’s reputa-tion in England and deprive Edward IV of aPROPAGANDA weapon, made no mention ofthe provisions concerning Calais. As a favor toMargaret, Louis also released her friend Pierrede BRÉZÉ from prison and allowed him to as-sist her in recruiting men.

When Louis informed Duke PHILIP ofBURGUNDY and Duke FRANCIS II ofBRITTANY of the alliance, the former refusedpermission for French troops to cross Burgun-dian territory to attack Calais, while the lattergave modest support to a Lancastrian navalsquadron being prepared in Normandy. Withhis designs on Calais stymied by the Burgun-dians, Louis failed to provide Margaret withmuch of the promised support. Upon her de-parture for Scotland in October, Margarettook with her only about 800 men, who mayhave been largely paid for by de Brézé.Yet, de-spite her lack of men and money, Margaret’sreturn to northern England in late Octoberwas sufficient to cause the surrender to herforces of ALNWICK and BAMBURGH Cas-tles, and the renewal of Lancastrian resistancein northeastern England.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Kendall, Paul Murray,Louis XI (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1998).

Chronicle of the Rebellion inLincolnshire (1470)The Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire is abrief account of EDWARD IV’s campaignagainst the Lincolnshire uprising led by SirRobert Welles in March 1470.

Cast in the form of a journal or day-by-daylisting of events, the Chronicle is an importantsource of information for the second couplaunched against Edward by Richard NE-VILLE, earl of Warwick, and George PLANTA-GENET, duke of Clarence.The narrative tracesthe king’s movements between 7 and 26March, and provides details of the Battle of

LOSECOTE FIELD, fought on 12 March. TheLincolnshire uprising grew out of a feud be-tween Richard Welles, Lord Welles, and SirThomas Burgh, Edward’s master of Horse (seeWELLES UPRISING). By coming to Burgh’said, Edward drove Welles and his son SirRobert to seek assistance from Warwick, who,since the failure of his 1469 coup, had awaitedanother opportunity to seize power. Warwickencouraged Sir Robert Welles to raise Lin-colnshire by claiming that the king was com-ing north to exact retribution for the shire’sinvolvement in the ROBIN OF REDESDALE

REBELLION in the previous July, an uprisingthat had accompanied Warwick’s first coup at-tempt. Although as yet unaware of Warwickand Clarence’s involvement, Edward leftLONDON on 6 March to suppress Welles’sfast-growing rebellion.

The Chronicle was written by someonetraveling in the king’s party and is thus largelyan eyewitness account of the events described.Because the chronicler was particularly wellinformed as to the documents and letters is-sued under the privy seal during the cam-paign, modern historians have speculated thatthe writer was one of the royal privy sealclerks. The Chronicle is clearly an officiallysanctioned PROPAGANDA effort, for its authortook great pains to show that Warwick andClarence were traitors and the instigators ofthe uprising. The chronicler also stressed themagnitude of Edward’s success in crushing therebellion, claiming that Welles brought 30,000rebels to Losecote Field and emphasizing howdangerous the king’s situation would havebeen had Welles successfully rendezvousedwith Warwick. Although its official nature andits obvious exaggerations and biases require itto be used with caution, the Chronicle is valu-able because it was composed within days ofthe end of the campaign. The narrative stopson 26 March, and the Chronicle may have beencompleted before the end of the month, or atleast by mid-April, before the writer knewhow Warwick’s rebellion would conclude.

Further Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Three Chronicles of the

CHRONICLE OF THE REBELLION IN LINCOLNSHIRE 55

Reign of Edward IV, introduction by Keith Dockray(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan SuttonPublishing, 1988).

Church. See English Church and theWars of the Roses

Clarence, Duchess of. See Neville,Isabel, Duchess of Clarence

Clarence, Duke of. See Plantagenet,George, Duke of Clarence

Clarence, Execution of (1478)As punishment for the duke’s betrayal of hisbrother in 1469–1471, the 1478 trial and exe-cution of George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, younger brother of EDWARD IV,terminated the political turmoil of the secondphase of the WARS OF THE ROSES; as an actthat unintentionally eased Richard, duke ofGloucester’s (see RICHARD III), path to thethrone, the death of Clarence contributed tothe eruption of the final phase of the civil warsin 1483.

Although Clarence had been pardoned in1471 for helping Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, overthrow Edward in 1470, theduke continued to antagonize his brother (seeEDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). After thedeath of his wife, Isabel NEVILLE, in 1476,Clarence sought to wed Mary, daughter andheiress of Duke CHARLES of BURGUNDY.Edward forbade the match, fearing thatClarence, backed by the resources of Bur-gundy, might again attempt to seize the En-glish throne. The king also rejected Clarence’sproposed match with a sister of JAMES III ofSCOTLAND. The duke accepted these disap-pointments with ill grace, withdrawing fromCOURT and COUNCIL and refusing to dinewith the king as if he feared poison. Theduke’s enemies, particularly LOUIS XI ofFRANCE, who welcomed any chance todestabilize the English state, and Queen Eliza-

beth WOODVILLE and her family, who sawClarence as a threat to Prince Edward (seeEDWARD V), informed the king of anythingprovocative that the duke said or did.

In May 1477, the king arrested ThomasBurdett, a member of Clarence’s household,for attempting to destroy the king and theprince through black magic. Burdett, who wasalso charged with inciting rebellion, was con-victed and executed, his fate an obvious warn-ing to the duke. Clarence’s response was toburst into a council meeting and have Bur-dett’s statement of his innocence read out by apreacher who was notorious for publicly ex-pounding HENRY VI’s right to the throne inSeptember 1470. An infuriated king sum-moned Clarence to his presence and chargedhim with usurping royal authority by arrestingand summarily trying Ankarette Twynho, aservant of the late duchess, whom Clarence’smen had executed in April for allegedly poi-soning her mistress. For this perversion of thejudicial process, Clarence was committed tothe TOWER OF LONDON in June.

In January 1478, PARLIAMENT arraignedthe duke on charges of treason. The kinghimself introduced a bill of ATTAINDER

against his brother; Edward’s unusual actionwas instigated in part by his belief thatClarence had openly declared that Burdetthad been unjustly executed and that the kingwas a bastard with no right to the Crown. Al-though Clarence was allowed to deny thecharges, no one else would speak in his de-fense, and little attempt was made to prove theaccusations. After a Parliament filled withroyal servants passed the bill, Edward hesitatedfor ten days before ordering that the sentencebe carried out. To spare both the duke andthe house of YORK a public execution,Clarence was put to death inside the Toweron 18 February, probably, as later rumorclaimed, by being drowned in a butt (i.e., alarge cask) of malmsey wine. Although Tudorpropagandists later accused Gloucester of en-gineering his brother’s death, responsibilityfor the execution rests with Edward IV, whoby 1478 had come to see Clarence’s death as apolitical necessity.

56 CHURCH

See also Usurpation of 1483; Woodville familyFurther Reading: “George, Duke of Clarence,”in Michael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.331–333; Hicks, Michael, False, Fleeting, Perjur’dClarence: George, Duke of Clarence, 1449–78, rev. ed.(Bangor, UK: Headstart History, 1992); Lander,J. R.,“The Treason and Death of the Duke ofClarence,” in J. R. Lander, Crown and Nobility,1450–1509 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press, 1976), pp. 242–266; Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Clifford, John, Lord Clifford (c. 1435–1461)Motivated by the slaying of his father by theYorkists at the Battle of ST. ALBANS in May1455, John CLIFFORD, ninth Lord Clifford,committed such violent acts of battlefieldvengeance against his opponents that he wonthe epithets “butcher” and “black-heartedClifford.” His most notorious deed was theslaying, after the Battle of WAKEFIELD, of sev-enteen-year-old Edmund PLANTAGENET,earl of Rutland, second son of Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, as the earl knelt be-fore Clifford imploring mercy.

In February 1458, Clifford, Henry BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset, and HenryPERCY, third earl of Northumberland, twoother noblemen whose fathers had beenkilled by the Yorkists at the Battle of St. Al-bans, came to LONDON “with a greatpower,” clamoring for compensation for thedeaths of their fathers. Clifford was describedas being so bitter about his father’s fate that“the sight of any of the house of York was asa fury to torment his soul” (Haigh, p. 80).HENRY VI and the COUNCIL temporarilymollified the three men by ordering Yorkand his chief allies at St. Albans, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and his sonRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, to fundmasses for the souls of the slain men and topay an indemnity to their heirs (see LOVE-DAY OF 1458).

In November 1459, Clifford was present atthe Lancastrian-controlled COVENTRY PAR-LIAMENT, where he took an oath of alle-

giance to Henry VI, who shortly thereafternamed him commissary-general of the Scot-tish marches (i.e., borderlands) and conserva-tor of the truce with SCOTLAND. After theAct of ACCORD of October 1460 disinher-ited EDWARD OF LANCASTER, Prince ofWales, and recognized York as heir to thethrone, Clifford was one of the Lancastriannobles who took the field against the Yorkistregime on the prince’s behalf, and was a leaderof the Lancastrian force that defeated andkilled York at the Battle of Wakefield in De-cember 1460.

At some point after the battle, Cliffordovertook the fleeing Rutland, probablysomewhere on or near Wakefield Bridge, andslew the young man while he knelt in suppli-cation and his chaplain begged for his life.The best-known account, that of the Tudorchronicler Edward Hall, has Clifford refuse allentreaties by saying: “By God’s blood, thy fa-ther slew mine, and so I will do thee and allthy kin” (Haigh, p. 75). Although the exactlocation and circumstances of Rutland’sdeath are uncertain, all accounts agree thatClifford was the earl’s killer. Hall and othersources also charge Clifford with havingYork’s head struck from his dead body andtopped with a derisive paper crown (see THE

UNION OF THE TWO NOBLE AND ILLUS-TRIOUS FAMILIES OF LANCASTER AND

YORK [HALL]).In February 1461, Clifford participated in

the Lancastrian victory at the Battle of ST.AL-BANS. He was slain at the Battle of FERRY-BRIDGE on 28 March 1461, one day beforethe Yorkist victory at the Battle of TOWTON

gave the throne to EDWARD IV. The firstPARLIAMENT of the new reign attaintedClifford, and his estates were divided amongvarious Yorkists, including Richard, duke ofGloucester (see RICHARD III).

See also Attainder, Act of; Clifford, Thomas, LordClifford; North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheBattle of Towton (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1996); Haigh, Philip A., TheBattle of Wakefield, 1460 (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1996).

CLIFFORD, JOHN, LORD CLIFFORD 57

Clifford, Thomas, Lord Clifford(1414–1455)An ally of the Percy family in the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD, which helped instigate the civildisturbances of the 1450s, Thomas Clifford,eighth Lord Clifford, was slain by the Yorkistsat the Battle of ST.ALBANS in 1455. His deathturned his son into an implacable foe of thehouse of YORK and was the cause of one ofseveral feuds among the English PEERAGE

that embittered political relations on the eveof the WARS OF THE ROSES.

Thomas Clifford came of age and was firstsummoned to PARLIAMENT as Lord Cliffordin 1436. He was one of the lords who accom-panied William de la POLE, earl of Suffolk, toFRANCE in 1444 to escort MARGARET OF

ANJOU to England for her marriage toHENRY VI. As one of the leading magnates ofthe north, Clifford, along with the Nevillesand Percies, was excused attendance in Parlia-ment in 1449 to defend the border from pos-sible invasion by the Scots. In 1451, Cliffordwas part of an embassy to JAMES II of SCOT-LAND, and he also served in the 1450s as sher-iff of Westmorland.

Clifford accompanied the royal army thatconfronted Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, at DARTFORD in 1452, and he sup-ported Henry PERCY, earl of Northumber-land, and his sons in their ongoing quarrelwith Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, andhis sons in the mid-1450s. When the Nevillesallied themselves with York and took up armsagainst the king in 1455, Clifford naturallysupported Henry VI and led the defense ofthe barricades against the Yorkist attack at theBattle of St. Albans on 22 May. Like North-umberland and Edmund BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, who were also slain in the fighting,Clifford was likely marked as a special enemyand targeted for death by the Yorkist forces.Clifford’s death at the hands of the Yorkistshad an important effect on the WARS OF

THE ROSES, for it turned his son, John CLIF-FORD, ninth Lord Clifford, into a staunchsupporter of the house of Lancaster and a bit-ter personal enemy of York and the NEVILLE

FAMILY.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Haigh, Philip A., TheMilitary Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Storey, R. L., The End of the House of Lancaster, 2ded. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1999).

Commines, Philippe de. See Memoirs(Commines)

Commissions of ArrayA commission of array was a written grant ofauthority from the king to certain named indi-viduals (commissioners) to gather all able-bod-ied men within a particular town or shire formilitary service, usually to resist foreign invasionor quell internal rebellion.The issuance of com-missions of array was one of the chief methodsfor recruiting armies during the WARS OF THE

ROSES (see ARMIES, RECRUITING OF).Under the Statute of Winchester, promul-

gated by Edward I in 1285, all men betweenthe ages of sixteen and sixty who were fit tobear arms could be summoned annually forforty days of military service. Twice each year,royal commissioners, who were usually mem-bers of the GENTRY, were given authorityunder their commissions of array to inspect andreport on the military readiness of the countyor town in their charge. In times of militaryemergency, the commissioners mustered theselocal levies for service with the royal army.During the Wars of the Roses, the party inpower used commissions of array to call men toperform their public duty to provide militaryservice to the king, even if they lived in a re-gion dominated by a nobleman then in rebel-lion against the monarch, and even if they wereRETAINERS or tenants of a magnate or noblefamily supporting the opposition party.

Because the Wars of the Roses forced mento choose whether to obey a royal commissionor the summons of an opposing magnate towhom they were attached, or, after 1461,

58 CLIFFORD, THOMAS, LORD CLIFFORD

whether to obey the commission of the Lan-castrian or the Yorkist monarch, the operationof commissions of array became extremelycomplicated. For instance, in 1460, RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, having beenrecently declared heir to the throne by the Actof ACCORD, was governing the realm in thename of HENRY VI. To counter increasingLancastrian activity in Yorkshire, the duke is-sued a commission of array to John NEVILLE,Lord Neville, who was to gather troops fromYork’s northern estates for a forthcomingcampaign in the region. Neville raised themen as ordered, but then marched them intothe Lancastrian encampment at Pontefract,where most became part of the army that de-feated and killed York at the Battle of WAKE-FIELD on 30 December.Those of Neville’s re-cruits who did not fight with the Lancastrianarmy probably returned home and so werealso lost to York, whose campaign was trou-bled from the start by lack of manpower. HowNeville’s men made the decision to fightagainst rather than for York is uncertain. Loy-alty to Henry VI, local pride, LancastrianPROPAGANDA, Neville’s presence, York’s ab-sence, and the respect accorded a royal com-missioner probably all played a part. Thanks tothe clash of loyalties engendered by civil war,recruitment by commissions of array becamevery haphazard during the Wars of the Roses.

See also Bastard FeudalismFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Hicks, Michael, Bastard Feudalism (London:Longman, 1995).

Commons (Common People) and the Wars of the RosesThe vast majority of English men and womenheld no titles, owned little or no land, and hadlittle or no political influence. Except for theresidents of LONDON and a few larger towns,the common people of England lived andworked in the countryside, where over 90 per-cent of the English population resided in thefifteenth century. Although comprising the

bulk of most civil war armies, these country-men were generally little affected in their dailylives by the WARS OF THE ROSES, which forthem meant brief, intermittent campaigns andlittle material destruction (see MILITARY

CAMPAIGNS, DURATION OF).The common soldiers who fought in civil

war armies were usually conscripts, country-men thrust into battle not by their own politi-cal convictions but by the social conventionsof the day. The PEERAGE and GENTRY ex-pected that able-bodied men living withintheir spheres of influence or on their estateswould follow them into combat when sum-moned.Accustomed both to bearing arms andto a certain level of violence in their lives,commoners could usually be persuaded by alocal magnate or gentleman, or by a popularpreacher, to take arms in a particular politicalcause. In 1485, for example, John HOWARD,duke of Norfolk, recruiting troops to supportRICHARD III against Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond (see HENRYVII), expected to raise1,000 men from the towns and villages on hisEast Anglian estates.

Common men had much less stake in thewars than their social superiors did, and com-mon soldiers usually had much less to lose bytaking sides. While the noble and gentry lead-ership of civil war armies was often targetedfor death, as the Yorkists likely targeted Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, at theBattle of ST. ALBANS in 1455, victoriouscommanders, such as Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick, at the Battle of NORTHAMP-TON in 1460, ordered their men to spare theopposing commons. The common soldiersalso avoided the executions and bills of AT-TAINDER that consumed noble and gentrylives and property after most battles.

During the HUNDRED YEARS WAR, En-glish armies operating in FRANCE had sys-tematically devastated the countryside, killingvillagers, burning buildings, and destroyingcrops and livestock. During the Wars of theRoses, the English countryside saw very littledestruction. In 1461, when the northern armyof Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU plunderedYorkist towns and strongholds during its

COMMONS AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES 59

MARCH ON LONDON, the great terror thatswept over the southern shires was in part dueto the novelty of such pillaging in England.Attacks on or sieges of towns were also rare,with the 1471 assault on London by ThomasNEVILLE, the Bastard of Fauconberg, beingthe major example during the wars.

The great social evils of the civil war pe-riod were the violence, disorder, and corrup-tion of justice inflicted on the countryside bythe RETAINERS and servants of noblemen. Insome parts of the country, riots, murders, as-saults, and forcible dispossessions were com-mon, especially in the 1450s and 1460s. Al-though these evils arose chiefly from feebleroyal government, especially under HENRY

VI, and from abuses in the system of BAS-TARD FEUDALISM, the Wars of the Rosesaggravated the problem, at least during theperiods 1459–1461 and 1469–1471. ED-WARD IV’s preoccupation with the uprisingsprecipitated by Warwick allowed the five-week siege of CAISTER CASTLE to occur inNorfolk in 1469 and the bloody Battle ofNIBLEY GREEN to erupt in Gloucestershirein 1470. However, the political securityachieved by Edward IV in 1471 seemed toend the wars and allowed a strengthenedCrown to reduce the level of violence in thecountryside thereafter.

See also Battles, Nature of; Towns and the Warsof the RosesFurther Reading: Gillingham, John, Wars of theRoses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of theRoses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981); Harvey,I. M. W.,“Was There Popular Politics in Fifteenth-Century England?” in R. H. Britnell and A. J.Pollard, eds., The McFarlane Legacy: Studies in LateMedieval Politics and Society (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1995), pp.155–174; Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses(London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

“Compilation of the Meekness and Good Life of King Henry VI” (Blacman)An account of the character and personal lifeof HENRY VI ostensibly written by the king’s

chaplain John Blacman, the “Compilation ofthe Meekness and Good Life of King HenryVI” is the basis of later depictions of Henry asa holy and innocent man, whose neglect ofgovernment was a result of his great piety andsanctity.

John Blacman was associated with two ofHenry VI’s educational foundations, being afellow of Eton in the 1440s and warden ofKing’s Hall, Cambridge, in the 1450s. Blacmanmay also have served as Henry’s chaplain orconfessor during these decades. The date ofBlacman’s death is uncertain, as is his author-ship of the “Compilation,” which may simplyhave once been in his possession. The manu-script was unknown until 1919, when it wasdiscovered and published by M. R. James, theprovost of Eton College.The “Compilation” isa collection of first-person anecdotes that il-lustrates the saintly nature of Henry VI. Thehagiographic tone and certain internal evi-dence suggest that the manuscript was writtenabout 1500 at the court of HENRY VII, whowas then attempting to persuade the pope tocanonize his Lancastrian uncle.

Any campaign to make a saint of Henry VI,and thereby transform him into an illustriousforebear of the house of TUDOR, could notbase its argument on the quality of Henry’skingship. However, by relating a series of sto-ries that illustrated Henry’s otherworldliness,simplicity, and lack of deceit, and that made nomention of his mental illness, a case could bemade for his canonization (see HENRY VI,ILLNESS OF). The “Compilation” turnedHenry’s well-known failings as a king into thevirtues of a saint. For instance, after describingHenry as much given to prayer and privatemeditation, the compiler related the king’s an-noyance when he was roused one day from hisdevotions by a duke demanding an audience.The anecdotes also displayed Henry’s highmorals, recounting his shock at seeing menenjoying the waters of Bath in the nude and atwomen appearing at COURT bare breasted.

Besides his own firsthand knowledge, thecompiler also claimed to have interviewedothers who knew the king, including Henry’schamberlain, Sir Richard TUNSTALL, who

60 “COMPILATION OF THE MEEKNESS AND GOOD LIFE OF KING HENRY VI”

lived until 1492 and would have been presentin the early Tudor court, and Henry’s friend,Bishop William WAINFLEET, who died in1486. Whatever the origins of the “Compila-tion,” which Polydore Vergil probably con-sulted for his ANGLICA HISTORIA, it couldnot have appeared before 1485, when such alaudatory account of Henry VI would havebeen considered treasonous by the rulinghouse of YORK. The work must therefore beused with caution as a source for Henry VI’sreign and personality.

Further Reading: James, M. R., ed., Henry theSixth:A Reprint of John Blacman’s Memoir(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1919);Lovatt, R.,“John Blacman: Biographer of HenryVI,” in R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill,eds., The Writing of History in the Middle Ages(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. 415–444;Lovatt, R.,“A Collector of ApocryphalAnecdotes: John Blacman Revisited,” in A. J.Pollard, ed., Property and Politics: Essays in LaterMedieval English History (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Alan Sutton, 1984), pp. 172–197; Wolffe,Bertram, Henry VI (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

Cook, Sir Thomas (1420–1478)A former Lord Mayor of London and one ofthe wealthiest merchants in the city, SirThomas Cook was prosecuted for treason in1468 in a famous episode that was later usedby RICHARD III to illustrate the ambitionand avarice of the WOODVILLE FAMILY.

Apprenticed to a LONDON cloth merchantas a child, Cook so prospered in that profes-sion that by the 1460s his London mansioncontained tapestries, plates (of precious met-als), and art objects worth almost £1,400. Healso owned various properties in and aroundLondon, including a country home at GideaPark, and he lent money to EDWARD IV.Cook served as an alderman of London from1456 to 1468 and as mayor in 1462–1463. Forhis financial services to the Crown, he wasknighted at Elizabeth WOODVILLE’s corona-tion in 1465.

In 1468, Cook was implicated in the COR-NELIUS PLOT. He was accused of failing toinform the government that he had been con-

tacted, in about 1466, by agents of the exiledLancastrian queen, MARGARET OF ANJOU.According to the traditional account ofCook’s case, the merchant declined the agents’request for financial assistance, but, because hewas a former Lancastrian customs officer,aroused enough suspicion to be arrested andimprisoned. During Cook’s confinement,agents of Richard WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers,Queen Elizabeth’s father, ransacked the mer-chant’s house, carrying off cloth and othervaluables, including an £800 arras coveted byRivers’s wife, JACQUETTA, duchess of Bed-ford. Brought to trial for treason, Cook wasacquitted of that charge by a London jury, butconvicted of misprision of treason (i.e., beingaware of treason but failing to report it). Al-though the court imposed a huge fine of over£8000, which effectively ruined Cook, theWoodvilles were so dissatisfied with the ver-dict that Rivers persuaded the king to dismissthe presiding judge, John Markham. Mean-while, Queen Elizabeth revived an ancientprivilege called “Queen’s gold” to demand afurther £500 from Cook.

Several modern historians (e.g., see Hicks,below) have disputed this view. They arguethat Cook’s alleged victimization by theWoodvilles was largely the product of anti-Woodville PROPAGANDA, which was initiallyemployed in the late 1460s by RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, to attack the kingand the COURT party, and was then taken upagain after 1485 by historians writing in sup-port of the house of TUDOR. The modernview also suggests that Cook was activelyworking for the house of LANCASTER andwas, as the jury found him, guilty of mispri-sion of treason.Thus, as regards the Cook case,the conduct of Edward IV and of theWoodvilles was far less reprehensible than tra-dition would have it.

Whatever the facts of the case, Cook sup-ported the READEPTION of HENRY VI in1470 (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).He secured election to PARLIAMENT andreappointment as alderman and sought com-pensation for his losses of 1468. Upon Ed-ward’s return in 1471, Cook strove to keep

COOK, SIR THOMAS 61

London solidly behind the Lancastrian gov-ernment, even exercising the office of mayorwhen the incumbent feigned illness to avoidtaking sides. Upon Edward’s restoration,Cook fled the country but was captured andreturned to London, where he was againtried, stripped of his offices, and fined (seeEDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF). Releasedin 1472, Cook died a relatively poor man inMay 1478.

In 1483, while seeking to convince Londoncitizens of the desirability of replacing theWoodville-dominated kingship of EDWARDVwith that of his uncle, Richard, duke ofGloucester, Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buck-ingham, reminded them of the sufferings sup-posedly inflicted on Cook by the Woodvilles.

Further Reading: Hicks, Michael,“The Case ofSir Thomas Cook, 1468,” in Richard III and HisRivals: Magnates and Their Motives in the Wars of theRoses (London: Hambledon Press, 1991); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Coppini Mission (1459–1461)Although charged by the pope with reconcil-ing the warring English factions, FrancescoCoppini, bishop of Terni, sided openly withthe Yorkists during their invasion of Englandin 1460. By appearing to give papal sanctionto the Yorkists’ demands, Coppini generatedmuch support for the Yorkist cause.

In 1459, Pope Pius II sent Coppini to En-gland to persuade HENRYVI to join a crusadeagainst the Turks. To achieve this goal, Cop-pini was instructed to help the English peace-fully resolve their internal quarrels.The bishopwas also acting as an informal agent forFrancesco Sforza, duke of Milan, whose pa-tronage had helped Coppini obtain his bish-opric in 1458. The duke wanted Coppini topromote an English invasion of FRANCE,which would prevent CHARLES VII from in-tervening in Italy. Although respectfully re-ceived at court, Coppini was largely ignoredby Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU and heradvisors, who were busy preparing for thecoming struggle with Richard PLANTA-

GENET, duke of York. When Coppini sug-gested that the queen consider an accommo-dation with York, Margaret offended thebishop by curtly dismissing his proposal. Am-bitious for promotion to the cardinalate andfilled with self-importance, Coppini angrilywithdrew to BURGUNDY in early 1460.

Hoping to make use of a friendly papallegate, York’s ally, Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, who had been headquartered atCALAIS since being driven from England inthe previous autumn, began to play on thebishop’s vanity. He assured Coppini that theYorkists shared his desire for an invasion ofFrance and declared to him their loyalty toHenry VI.After coming to Calais at Warwick’sinvitation, Coppini was treated with great def-erence and urged to accompany the Yorkists toEngland, where he could bring peace bypleading their cause to the king. Swept awayby Warwick’s charm and flattery, Coppini em-barked for England with the Yorkists on 25June. Once in LONDON, the legate addressedthe convocation of English bishops on War-wick’s behalf and wrote to Henry urging himto give the Yorkists a hearing.

On 5 July, the legate accompanied War-wick’s army northward. Prior to the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON on 10 July, Coppini an-nounced to the Yorkist camp that all whofought for Warwick would have remission ofsins, while the earl’s opponents risked excom-munication. After Warwick defeated the Lan-castrian army and captured the king, Coppinireturned with them to London, where the earlpersuaded him that an invasion of France waspossible, encouraged his ambition for a cardi-nal’s hat, and licensed him to hold an Englishbishopric. However, after York was killed atthe Battle of WAKEFIELD in December, theLancastrians began spreading rumors that thepope had repudiated his legate, and Coppini’sgrowing pretensions—he had even begun of-fering military advice to Warwick—damagedhis credibility among the Yorkists. In February1461, after the failure of a clumsy attempt tonegotiate with Margaret, and with a Lancas-trian army advancing on London, the legateannounced his intention to retire to the conti-

62 COPPINI MISSION

nent (see MARCH ON LONDON). Coppinispent the next year angling for promotion andtouting himself as an expert on English affairs,but the pope, now fully informed of hislegate’s pro-Yorkist activities, stripped him ofhis bishopric and confined him to an abbeyfor life. Although of great service to the York-ist cause, Coppini’s English mission destroyedhis own career.

See also English Church and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Harvey, Margaret, England,Rome and the Papacy, 1417–1464 (Manchester:Manchester University Press, 1993); Hicks,Michael, Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford:Blackwell Publishers, 1998); Kendall, Paul Murray,Warwick the Kingmaker (New York: W. W. Norton,1987).

Cornelius Plot (1468)Uncovered in June 1468, the Cornelius plotwas a shadowy Lancastrian conspiracy thatsought to persuade former supporters ofHENRYVI to again become active in his cause.

The plot came to light when EDWARD

IV’s agents in Kent arrested a shoemakernamed John Cornelius, who was caught carry-ing letters from Lancastrian exiles in FRANCE

to secret Lancastrian sympathizers in England.Cornelius was brought before Edward IV, whocommitted the courier to the TOWER OF

LONDON and authorized the use of tortureto extract from the prisoner the names of theintended letter recipients. This authorizationreveals how nervous the government was atthe time about Lancastrian activities, for theCornelius case is the only example of officiallysanctioned torture in England before the timeof Henry VIII.

Before succumbing to his harsh treatment,Cornelius implicated several people, includingJohn Hawkins, a servant of John WENLOCK,Lord Wenlock, a former Lancastrian thenserving Edward IV as a trusted diplomat.Hawkins, who in his turn implicated severalothers, was executed, but any suspicions aboutWenlock were suppressed so that he couldconduct the king’s sister, MARGARET OF

YORK, to BURGUNDY for her wedding to

Duke CHARLES. Unhappy with the Burgun-dian alliance that the marriage cemented,Wenlock later abandoned Edward and sup-ported Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, insecuring the restoration of Henry VI (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).

Several other persons implicated by Cor-nelius and Hawkins were arrested, includingthe LONDON merchant Sir Thomas COOK

and, most likely, Sir Thomas MALORY, theauthor of Le Morte d’Arthur, who was specifi-cally exempted from a 1468 pardon alongwith several other men known to have beeninvolved in the Cornelius enterprise. The firstof several Lancastrian plots uncovered in 1468,the Cornelius conspiracy revealed a rising dis-satisfaction with Edward IV and his govern-ment, which helped sweep the king from histhrone in 1470.

Further Reading: Field, P. J. C., The Life andTimes of Sir Thomas Malory (Cambridge: D. S.Brewer, 1993); Hicks, Michael,“The Case of SirThomas Cook, 1468,” in Richard III and HisRivals: Magnates and Their Motives in the Wars of theRoses (London: Hambledon Press, 1991); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Council, RoyalAll medieval English kings required expert ad-vice and administrative assistance to effectivelygovern the kingdom. The great nobles of therealm considered themselves the monarch’snatural advisors, and the political conflict ofthe 1450s arose in part from the belief ofRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, thathe and other magnates were being improperlyexcluded from their rightful roles as advisors toHENRYVI. However, the king had the right toseek advice from whomever he wished, andprior to the outbreak of the WARS OF THE

ROSES, the king’s council was largely an infor-mal body of advisors selected by the monarchto give counsel on topics, at times, and inplaces of the monarch’s choosing. After 1461,the emergency of civil war and the subsequentneed to rebuild the authority of the Crown ledEDWARD IV and his successors to give theircouncils more permanent, formal status and to

COUNCIL, ROYAL 63

enlarge the role of the council in the daily ad-ministration of the realm.

Before the Wars of the Roses, royal coun-cils assumed institutional form only duringroyal minorities, such as occurred duringHenry VI’s childhood in the 1420s, or duringtimes of royal incapacity, such as the onset ofHenry VI’s mental illness in 1453 (see HENRY

VI, ILLNESS OF). When the king came of ageor demonstrated his fitness to resume ruling,the council again became dependent on himfor its membership and the scope of its activi-ties. Medieval kings had always drawn theircouncilors from various sources—the PEER-AGE, the GENTRY, and both the greater andlesser clergy. Under Edward IV and HENRY

VII, all three groups were still represented, al-though gentlemen and peers recently raisedfrom the gentry, such as William HASTINGS,Lord Hastings, formed a higher percentage ofYorkist and early Tudor councils.

Although councilors were sworn andsalaried, they were not required to attend meet-ings. The greater use of gentry councilors mayin part have been a result of the inability of busynobles to regularly appear at council; most mag-nates had their own estates to run, and manyhad public offices that kept them from West-minster; for example, in the 1470s, Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III), was toooccupied with governing the north to attendmany council sessions. On fragmentary evi-dence, we know of 105 councilors appointed byEdward IV, although council meetings duringthe reign were normally attended by a workinggroup of nine to twelve persons, consistingmainly of the chief officers of state (e.g., thechancellor and treasurer); experienced clericaladministrators like John RUSSELL, bishop ofLincoln, and John MORTON,bishop of Ely; andfavored gentlemen of the royal household, suchas Thomas VAUGHAN.

In the late fifteenth century, the council ad-vised the king on a variety of matters, fromthe formulation of policy to the answering ofpetitions and the appointment of royal offi-cials. Except perhaps in the late 1460s, whenRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, led a sortof opposition to the WOODVILLE FAMILY

and to the interests of a newly risen group of“King’s men” such as William HERBERT, earlof Pembroke, the Yorkist council was not aforum for contending factions to compete forinfluence, as it had become for a time in thelast years of Henry VI; under Edward IV andHenry VII, men of whatever social status weresummoned to council to advise and supportthe king, not to oppose his wishes or criticizehis government.

Meeting usually in the Star Chamber atWestminster, the Yorkist and Tudor councilsdiscussed questions of war and peace, ad-dressed issues of foreign and economic policy,conducted daily administration, and helpedthe king dispense justice. For instance, the de-cision to retaliate against the HANSEATIC

LEAGUE, which led to a costly trade war, wasreached in council in 1468. The council alsoassisted with such tasks as administeringCALAIS, maintaining trade relations withBURGUNDY, and suppressing Channel piracy.However, all this was done, as it had beenunder earlier monarchs, at the direction andunder the authority of the king.What was dif-ferent, especially after 1471, was the wideningscope of the council’s executive activity andthe institutional continuity given to the royalboard by the development of a large group ofexperienced clerical and non-noble lay coun-cilors who served throughout the rule of thehouse of YORK and into the first decades ofthe house of TUDOR.

Further Reading: Baldwin, James F., The King’sCouncil in England during the Middle Ages(Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1965); Chrimes, S. B.,Henry VII (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press,1999); Guy, John A.,“The King’s Council andPolitical Participation,” in J. A. Guy and A. Fox,eds., Reassessing the Henrician Age (Oxford:Blackwell, 1986), pp. 121–147; Ross, Charles,Edward IV (New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress, 1998); Watts, John, Henry VI and the Politics ofKingship (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996).

Council Meeting of 13 June 1483The meeting of EDWARD V’s regencyCOUNCIL that convened at the TOWER OF

64 COUNCIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483

LONDON on Friday, 13 June 1483, was usedby Richard, duke of Gloucester, to destroypossible opponents to his forthcoming usurpa-tion of his nephew’s Crown. By easing theduke’s path to the throne, this council meetingbecame an important factor in the revival ofdynastic warfare in the mid-1480s.

On 12 June, Gloucester summoned twomeetings of royal councilors to convene thefollowing day. One group, headed by Chancel-lor John RUSSELL, was to meet at Westminsterto discuss the king’s coronation. The secondgroup, led by Gloucester, was to meet at theTower to discuss more urgent political issues.Besides Gloucester, the group that gathered atten o’clock in the council chamber in theWhite Tower included William HASTINGS,Lord Hastings; Thomas ROTHERHAM, arch-bishop of York; John MORTON, bishop ofEly; Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley; JohnHOWARD, Lord Howard; and HenrySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham. During thecourse of the meeting, Gloucester surprisedhis colleagues by accusing Hastings of plottinghis destruction with Queen ElizabethWOODVILLE and with EDWARD IV’s formermistress, Jane SHORE. The two near contem-porary chroniclers of this council meeting,Polydore Vergil in his ANGLICA HISTORIA,and Sir Thomas More, in his HISTORY OF

KING RICHARD III, both believed thatGloucester’s charge was pure invention. Hast-ings was a known opponent of the WOOD-VILLE FAMILY and had helped Gloucesterfrustrate the family’s attempt to control thegovernment, while the queen was consideredmost unlikely to plot with her late husband’sformer lover.

Although Hastings, having grown suspi-cious of Gloucester’s intentions, may havebegun to talk with his rivals, the only decla-ration of such a plot comes from Gloucesterhimself. More likely is that Gloucester, hav-ing decided to take the throne, realized thatHastings would have to be eliminated be-cause he was unshakably loyal to the son ofEdward IV and would never accept Glouces-ter’s usurpation. According to More, whoseinformation, like Vergil’s, probably came from

Morton, Gloucester charged the two womenwith witchcraft and, in a scene made famousby William Shakespeare in RICHARD III,displayed his withered left arm as proof oftheir sorcery. Everyone in the chamber, wroteMore,“knew that his arm was ever such sincehis birth.” Vergil, meanwhile, said nothing ofthe arm and stated simply that the witchcrafthad made the duke weak and unable to sleepor eat. Whatever his claims, Gloucester thenpounded the table and cried “treason,” a sig-nal for Thomas HOWARD, who waited out-side with armed men, to invade the chamberand seize Hastings, Rotherham, Morton, andStanley.

Morton and Rotherham were confined inthe Tower, and Stanley was detained in hislodgings, but Hastings was hauled outside toTower Green and summarily executed on ablock of wood; he was given no trial and onlya few minutes to confess to a priest. AlthoughHastings was the most influential, and there-fore the most dangerous to Gloucester’s plans,all four men were old servants of Edward IVand were thus unlikely to accept Edward V’sdeposition. By striking quickly, and before hisintentions were clear, Gloucester was able toprevent his most dangerous opponents fromacting against him. Within two weeks, theduke had made himself king as RICHARD III,and within two months, rumors began circu-lating that Richard had murdered Edward Vand his younger brother, Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York. Given the king’s will-ingness to use violence to attain his ends,many once loyal adherents of the house ofYORK believed the rumors and began plot-ting with former Lancastrians to overthrowRichard and replace him with Henry Tudor,earl of Richmond (see HENRY VII), the sur-viving Lancastrian heir.

See also Princes in the Tower; Usurpation of1483Further Reading: Kendall, Paul Murray, Richardthe Third (New York: W. W. Norton, 1956); Ross,Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Wood, Charles T.,“Richard III, William, Lord Hastings, and Fridaythe Thirteenth,” in Ralph A. Griffiths and JamesSherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in the Later

COUNCIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483 65

Middle Ages (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986),pp. 155–168; the text of More’s History of KingRichard III, which contains an account of the 13June council meeting, is available on the RichardIII Society Web site at <www.r3.org/bookcase/more/moretext.html>.

Court, RoyalAs the center of power and influence, thesource of favor and patronage, and the meansof access to the king and his most importantmagnates and councilors, the fifteenth-centurycourt was the birthplace of the political ten-sions that initiated and fostered the WARS OF

THE ROSES. Besides a constant throng of suit-ors and petitioners, the court consisted of theroyal household and its officers, all govern-ment ministers and officials, foreign envoys,and the monarch’s personal servants. Thecourt served the personal and political needsof the monarch and his family, displayed thewealth and power of the Crown to the king-dom and to foreign courts, and provided anarena for Englishmen to obtain redress or topursue political and economic advancementthrough royal favor.

Because fifteenth-century monarchy waspersonal, access to the king or to someonewho had influence with the king was vital, es-pecially for the PEERAGE and the GENTRY,who, as the politically conscious landowningclasses, often required favorable royal interven-tion for the furtherance of their private inter-ests. The PASTON LETTERS, which describethe Paston family’s long feud with unscrupu-lous neighboring magnates, clearly illustratethe importance of having friends and influ-ence at court.The letters are a catalogue of thePastons’ constant attempts to find patronswhose standing at court could win the familyeffective royal protection. Besides approachingRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and vari-ous members of the WOODVILLE FAMILY,the Pastons in the 1460s lobbied WilliamHASTINGS, Lord Hastings; Henry BOUR-CHIER, earl of Essex; and George NEVILLE,archbishop of York. By 1470, after EDWARD

IV had frustrated all their efforts, the familyabandoned the house of YORK, welcomed

the READEPTION of HENRY VI and thehouse of LANCASTER, and, in 1471, foughtfor Warwick at the Battle of BARNET. Withthe Yorkist restoration (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF), the Pastons had torenew their suits to Edward IV, even turningin 1479 to several gentlemen of the royalhousehold.

In the 1440s and 1450s, the personal defi-ciencies of Henry VI allowed a group of fa-vored courtiers to gain an unusual hold onpower and patronage. By seeming to divert thegrace and favor of the Crown to the benefit ofthemselves and their supporters, nobles likeWilliam de la POLE, duke of Suffolk, and Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, fueledthe discontent of rivals like Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, who enjoyed noblebirth and royal blood but lacked access to theking and standing at court. By the start of thecivil war in 1459, the court party that hadbeen created by Henry’s favor became the nu-cleus of the Lancastrian party that formedaround Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU. Forthese courtiers,Yorkist rule threatened the endof their ability as favored courtiers to obtainspecial favors from the monarch.

The renewal of civil war in 1469 was atleast partially due to a changing dynamic atthe Yorkist court. The rise of the Woodvillesand of a party of “King’s men” like Hastingsand William HERBERT, earl of Pembroke,caused the slow erosion of Warwick’s specialstanding with the king, and drove the ambi-tious earl to seek new ways to exercise his for-mer dominance. By 1470, Warwick alliedhimself with the Lancastrians in an effort torecreate for himself the favored position thathis one-time enemies had enjoyed under theeasily manipulated Henry VI.

In the 1470s, the English court was given amore formal structure by Edward IV’s adop-tion of some of the elaborate ceremonial ofthe ducal court of BURGUNDY. Edward (andlater HENRY VII) also reinforced the court’srole as the political and administrative centerof the kingdom by requiring courtiers to earnroyal favor by serving as councilors, adminis-trators, diplomats, and soldiers.

66 COURT, ROYAL

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“TheKing’s Court during the Wars of the Roses,” inRalph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country: Englandand Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London:Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 11–32; Loades,David, The Tudor Court (Totowa, NJ: Barnes andNoble Books, 1987); Myers, A. R., The Householdof Edward IV (Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1959); Starkey, David, et al., The EnglishCourt: From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War(London: Longman, 1987).

Courtenay, Henry, Earl of Devon(Lancastrian) (c. 1435–1469)Although rewarded by EDWARD IV for hisneutrality during the fighting of 1460–1461,Henry Courtenay, younger brother ofThomas COURTENAY, sixth earl of Devon,was unable to restore Courtenay dominancein the West Country and remained under sus-picion of harboring his family’s Lancastriansympathies.

Unlike his brothers, who fought forHENRY VI at the Battles of WAKEFIELD, ST.ALBANS, and TOWTON, Henry Courtenaytook no sides in the civil war and escapedmention in the bill of ATTAINDER passedagainst prominent Lancastrians in the PAR-LIAMENT of November 1461. Because hiselder brother the earl had been executed afterthe Battle of Towton and his younger brotherSir John COURTENAY had gone into exilewith Henry VI, Henry Courtenay was left tomake the family’s peace with the new Yorkistregime and salvage the family’s position in theWest Country.

Deprived by the attainder of the Courtenaylands and of his rightful title as seventh earl ofDevon, Courtenay was nonetheless cultivatedby Edward IV with a partial grant of his twobrothers’ former properties. Although the kingemployed him on various minor commissions,Courtenay was not allowed to revive his fam-ily’s influence in the West Country, whichpassed instead to Humphrey STAFFORD, LordStafford, who was given many former Courte-nay lands and offices. Perhaps as a result ofStafford’s rise, or, as was later rumored, as a re-sult of Stafford’s ambition to be earl of Devon,

Courtenay and Sir Thomas HUNGERFORD

were arrested in November 1468 on a chargeof plotting to depose Edward in favor ofHenry VI. Convicted of treason in January1469, both men were hanged, drawn, andquartered, an unusual mode of execution forpersons of their rank.

See also all entries under CourtenayFurther Reading: Cherry, Martin,“The Strugglefor Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire,”in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown andthe Provinces in Later Medieval England (AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp.123–144; Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven,CT:Yale University Press, 1998); Storey, R. L., TheEnd of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Courtenay, John, Earl of Devon(Lancastrian) (c. 1440–1471)A staunch partisan of the house of LAN-CASTER, John Courtenay was instrumental inconvincing Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

to continue the war against EDWARD IV in1471.

In October 1460, Courtenay joined hiselder brother Thomas COURTENAY, sixthearl of Devon, when the earl took the fieldagainst the Yorkist regime established by theAct of ACCORD. He fought at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in December 1460, where hewas later accused by the widow of RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, of participatingafter the battle in the unlawful execution ofher husband. In March 1461, when Devonwas executed after the Battle of TOWTON,Courtenay fled into SCOTLAND withHENRY VI. In 1463, he joined Queen Mar-garet in exile in FRANCE.

Recognized by the Lancastrians as theeighth earl of Devon after Edward IV’s execu-tion of his brother Henry COURTENAY in1469, John Courtenay was among the firstwave of Lancastrian exiles to return to En-gland with Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, in the autumn of 1470 (see EDWARD

IV, OVERTHROW OF). He regained posses-sion of the Courtenay lands in the WestCountry when the PARLIAMENT called by

COURTENAY, JOHN, EARL OF DEVON 67

the READEPTION government reversed theATTAINDER of the sixth earl. In March 1471,Devon traveled north with Warwick to op-pose the landing of Edward IV, but soon re-turned to LONDON to await the arrival of thequeen and thus was not present when War-wick met defeat and death at the Battle ofBARNET on 14 April 1471 (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF). When Queen Margaretand her son EDWARD OF LANCASTER,Prince of Wales, landed late on the day of Bar-net, Devon encouraged them to continue thefight and persuaded them to withdraw intothe West Country, where Devon used his fam-ily’s influence to raise substantial forces for theLancastrian army. The queen’s decision to fol-low the earl’s advice led on 4 May to the Bat-tle of TEWKESBURY, where Devon was slain.

See also all entries under CourtenayFurther Reading: Cherry, Martin,“The Strugglefor Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire,”in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown andthe Provinces in Later Medieval England (AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp.123–144; Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven,CT:Yale University Press, 1998); Storey, R. L., TheEnd of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Courtenay, Peter, Bishop ofWinchester (1432–1492)Although part of the Yorkist branch of hisprominent West Country family, Peter Courte-nay, bishop of Winchester, was an active mem-ber of the political opposition to RICHARD

III during the dynastic struggles of the 1480s.Educated at Oxford and at the University

of Padua in Italy, Courtenay rose steadilythrough the church hierarchy, becomingarchdeacon (i.e., a diocesan official under thebishop) of Exeter in 1453 and of Wiltshire in1464; dean (i.e., head of a community ofclergy resident at a cathedral) of Windsor in1476 and of Exeter in 1477, and bishop of Ex-eter in 1478. A member of the Courtenays ofPowderham, cousins of the Lancastrian earls ofDevon and clients of George PLANTAGENET,duke of Clarence, Courtenay was secretary toClarence and, during the READEPTION in

1470–1471, to HENRY VI. After 1471, thePowderham Courtenays returned with Clar-ence to their Yorkist allegiance, which theycontinued after the duke’s execution in 1478(see CLARENCE, EXECUTION OF). In July1483, Bishop Peter Courtenay followed his fa-ther and brothers in supporting Richard III’susurpation of his nephew’s throne. However,in the autumn of 1483, for reasons that remainobscure, Courtenay abandoned the house ofYORK, joined the uprising led by HenrySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, and assistedvarious of his Courtenay kinsmen in encour-aging opposition to Richard across the WestCountry.

After the failure of BUCKINGHAM’S RE-BELLION, Courtenay was attainted and fled toBRITTANY to join the growing group of ex-iles surrounding Henry Tudor, earl of Rich-mond. The bishop returned to England in1485, after Richmond won the Crown at theBattle of BOSWORTH FIELD on 22 August.Courtenay acted as seneschal at Richmond’scoronation as HENRY VII in October 1485,and the bishop’s ATTAINDER was reversed inthe first PARLIAMENT of the reign. Ap-pointed keeper of the privy seal in 1485,Courtenay was elevated to the wealthy bish-opric of Winchester in 1487. Until his deathin September 1492, Courtenay continued toserve Henry VII in various capacities.

See also all entries under CourtenayFurther Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Gill, Louise, Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1999); Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981).

Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon(1414–1458)Through his long and violent feud withWilliam BONVILLE, Lord Bonville, ThomasCourtenay, fifth earl of Devon, contributedsignificantly to the rising disorder in the shiresthat helped initiate civil war in the 1450s.

Courtenay became the premier noblemanin the West Country when he succeeded his

68 COURTENAY, PETER, BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

father as earl of Devon in 1422. In 1441,Devon was appointed to the lucrative steward-ship of the Duchy of Cornwall, an officeHENRY VI had already conferred on SirWilliam Bonville in 1437. Bonville was a WestCountry gentleman whose growing influenceat COURT threatened Courtenay dominancein the region. In 1442, after violence had re-peatedly erupted in the West Country be-tween the Courtenay and Bonville affinities(see AFFINITY), the COUNCIL intervened,stripping both men of the stewardship andputting both under large bonds to ensuregood behavior.

With Bonville serving in FRANCE be-tween 1443 and 1447, and Devon restored tothe Cornwall stewardship in 1444, theCOURTENAY-BONVILLE FEUD lapsed until1450, when Bonville, now raised to the PEER-AGE as Lord Bonville, strengthened his stand-ing at court by attaching himself to JamesBUTLER, earl of Wiltshire, a royal favoritewho was also seeking to enhance his westerninfluence at Devon’s expense. To compensatefor his own lack of influence at court, Devonallied himself with Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, the leading opponent of thecourt party. In 1452, Devon instigated pro-York riots and assemblies across the WestCountry and was one of the few noblemen toside with York against the court at DART-FORD, an armed confrontation at which theduke and his allies were forced to submit toHenry VI.

Imprisoned and stripped of his offices afterDartford, Devon was released by York in late1453, when the king’s illness restored theduke’s political position (see HENRY VI, ILL-NESS OF). During York’s FIRST PROTEC-TORATE in 1454, Devon resumed his attackson Bonville, forcing the council to again inter-vene with warnings and bonds. During 1455,Devon’s alliance with York dissolved. In May,Devon was with the royal army at the Battle ofST. ALBANS, where York and his new allies,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, andRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, destroyedtheir enemies and took custody of the king.Having watched York achieve his goals

through direct action, Devon threw the WestCountry into an uproar in October 1455 byleading a force of several thousand in attackson Bonville’s property and servants and by in-stigating the murder of Nicholas RADFORD.On 1 November, Devon seized Exeter, hold-ing the city for six weeks.Although compelledto surrender by York and imprisoned in theTOWER OF LONDON for murder and riot,Devon was released in 1456 and pardoned in1457 by a government now controlled byQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU, who lookedupon Devon as an enemy of York and thus afriend of hers. Devon died shortly thereafter inFebruary 1458, leaving his sons as committedsupporters of the house of LANCASTER.

See also all entries under CourtenayFurther Reading: Cherry, Martin,“The Strugglefor Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire,”in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown andthe Provinces in Later Medieval England (AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp.123–144; Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of KingHenry VI (Berkeley: University of California Press,1981); Storey, R. L., The End of the House ofLancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon(1432–1461)A firm adherent of the house of LAN-CASTER, Thomas Courtenay, sixth earl ofDevon, was, like his father,Thomas COURTE-NAY, fifth earl of Devon, a violent man whosevigorous pursuit of the COURTENAY-BONVILLE FEUD helped shape the politicalalignments that fueled the civil war.

In October 1455, Courtenay led the partyof 100 men that invaded the Devonshirehome of Nicholas RADFORD, a formerCourtenay associate who had fallen afoul ofthe family for his recent support of WilliamBONVILLE, Lord Bonville, the Courtenays’chief rival for dominance in the West Coun-try. The subsequent despoliation and murderof Radford were part of a regionwide cam-paign of violence conducted by the earl ofDevon and his sons against the friends, ser-vants, and property of Bonville. Indicted with

COURTENAY, THOMAS, EARL OF DEVON 69

his father and brothers for these crimes,Courtenay was pardoned, along with his fam-ily, in 1457, after control of the governmenthad passed from Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, to Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU, who sought to lure the fifth earl, aformer supporter of York, to the Lancastriancause.

Upon succeeding his father as earl ofDevon in 1458, Courtenay continued thefamily’s recent support of HENRY VI, receiv-ing two sizable annuities as rewards. Whenpassage of the Act of ACCORD in October1460 disinherited the queen’s son, EDWARD

OF LANCASTER, Prince of Wales, Devonraised a force in the West Country and joinedvarious other Lancastrian lords at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD, where York was defeated andslain. In February 1461, Devon fought at theBattle of ST.ALBANS, where he had the satis-faction of seeing his enemy, Lord Bonville, be-headed after the Lancastrian victory. Six weekslater, Devon received the same summary jus-tice, when he was executed by order of ED-WARD IV after the Yorkist triumph at theBattle of TOWTON.

See also all entries under CourtenayFurther Reading: Cherry, Martin,“The Strugglefor Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire,”in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown andthe Provinces in Later Medieval England (AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp.123–144; Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of KingHenry VI (Berkeley: University of California Press,1981); Storey, R. L., The End of the House ofLancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Courtenay-Bonville Feud (1450s)The feud between Thomas COURTENAY,fifth earl of Devon, and William BONVILLE,Lord Bonville, spread violence and disorderacross the West Country in the 1450s andhelped create the political alignments thatmade civil war possible.

Although the quarrel may have originatedin a land dispute arising out of the marriage ofBonville to Devon’s aunt, Elizabeth Courte-nay, its underlying cause was the growth of

Bonville’s influence at COURT, which en-hanced his political position in the WestCountry and made him a threat to the tradi-tional Courtenay dominance in the region.The two sides had already clashed by 1441,when HENRY VI aggravated the dispute bygranting Devon the stewardship of the Duchyof Cornwall, a lucrative office that the kinghad already given to Bonville in 1437. To endthe resulting tumults, the COUNCIL deprivedboth men of the appointment and placed bothunder large bonds to prevent further disorder.

Because Bonville was in FRANCE between1443 and 1447, and Devon reacquired theCornwall stewardship in 1444, the WestCountry remained quiet until 1450, whenDevon, seeking to nullify his rival’s influenceat court, allied himself with Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, a powerful opponent ofthe court party. Devon’s actions causedBonville to associate himself with anothercourt favorite with ambitions in the WestCountry, James BUTLER, earl of Wiltshire. InAugust 1451, Devon, provoked by Wiltshire’sinvolvement in the quarrel, raised a sizableforce and besieged Bonville in Taunton Castle.To save his ally from imprisonment, York in-tervened to end the siege. Devon then sup-ported York at his armed confrontation withthe king at DARTFORD in 1452. The failureof this effort led to Devon’s confinement andBonville’s unchallenged dominance in theWest Country. However, the king’s illness re-stored York’s political position, and the dukearranged Devon’s release in November 1453(see HENRY VI, ILLNESS OF). Devon imme-diately began harassing Bonville’s followersand attacking his property, although a furtherintervention by the council restored order fora time.

By 1455, York’s alliance with the NEVILLE

FAMILY again isolated Devon, and he accom-panied the king’s army in May, when HenryVI was defeated and taken into custody byYork at the Battle of ST.ALBANS. Encouragedto take direct action by the example of York’ssuccess at St. Albans, Devon and his sonslaunched a series of assaults on Bonville’s WestCountry servants and property in October

70 COURTENAY-BONVILLE FEUD

1455. The most notorious episode in thiscampaign of violence was the murder on 23October of Nicholas RADFORD, a formerCourtenay associate who had earned Devon’shatred with his recent support of Bonville. On1 November, Devon seized Exeter and held itfor six weeks, his men garrisoning the wallsand questioning the allegiance of anyone whosought to leave or enter the town. After a vic-torious confrontation with Bonville’s forces atClyst on 15 December, Devon withdrew fromExeter and soon after surrendered himself toYork, who committed him to the TOWER OF

LONDON.Indicted for the murder of Radford and the

occupation of Exeter, Devon and his sonswere saved from trial by the end of York’sSECOND PROTECTORATE in February1456. Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU, whonow dominated the royal government, sawDevon as a valuable ally against York, andarranged the earl’s release and pardon. TheCourtenay-Bonville feud now merged fullyinto the national political struggle. In the civilwar that began in 1459, Devon’s sons—theearl having died in 1458—became firm sup-porters of the house of LANCASTER, whileBonville fought and eventually died for thehouse of YORK.

See also all entries under CourtenayFurther Reading: Cherry, Martin,“The Strugglefor Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire,”in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown andthe Provinces in Later Medieval England (AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp.123–144; Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of KingHenry VI (Berkeley: University of California Press,1981); Storey, R. L., The End of the House ofLancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Coventry Parliament (1459)The PARLIAMENT that opened in the royaliststronghold of Coventry on 20 November1459 was a staunchly Lancastrian body, whichgave statutory expression to Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU’s desire for the politicaland economic destruction of Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, and his allies, the

men who had dared to exclude her from theexercise of royal power.

With elections to the Coventry Parliamentcalled for and controlled by the queen and hersupporters, the 260 members of the Com-mons were almost to a man Lancastrian intheir sympathies. The central business of thesession was consideration and passage of a billof ATTAINDER against York; his eldest sons,Edward, earl of March (see EDWARD IV), andEdmund PLANTAGENET, earl of Rutland; hischief noble allies, Richard NEVILLE, earl ofSalisbury, and his son Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick; and certain other knights andgentlemen who had conspicuously supportedYork’s cause.

Passed without difficulty, the act of attain-der proclaimed the named parties rebels andtraitors, declared them legally dead, and placedtheir vast estates and incomes in the hands ofthe king.York, his sons, and the Nevilles werein overseas exile, having fled the country forIRELAND and CALAIS after their defeat at theBattle of LUDFORD BRIDGE in October. Be-cause the Yorkists were beyond the govern-ment’s control and could not be brought totrial, the Lancastrians decided to proceedagainst them through Parliament—extinguish-ing their power and position, and the threatthey presented, through legislative action. Byhanding most of the confiscated lands to royalofficers appointed for life, the Crown indi-cated its intention that the extinction of rightsbe permanent, and not merely a temporarymeasure to be reversed should the Yorkistssubmit and seek pardon. The duke and hissupporters were thus left with few options butcontinuing the fight.

On 11 December, the lords assembled inParliament swore a solemn oath in the royalpresence to support HENRY VI and the even-tual succession of his son, Prince EDWARD

OF LANCASTER, and to preserve and honorthe queen. Having achieved Margaret’s maingoals, the Coventry Parliament ended on 20December. In October 1460, with Warwickin control of the king and the governmentafter his victory in July at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON, a Yorkist-dominated as-

COVENTRY PARLIAMENT 71

sembly at Westminster reversed the decisionsof the Coventry Parliament and restored theduke and the Nevilles to control of theirlands. The Coventry Parliament, which be-came known as the Parliament of Devils forthe severity with which it treated the Yorkists,had clearly shown how the party in powercould use the national assembly to crush itsdefeated enemies.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Crowland Chronicle. See CroylandChronicle

Croyland ChronicleFor the period 1459 to 1485, the two accountsknown as the First and Second Continuationsof the Croyland Chronicle are valuable sourcesof information. While the First Continuationsupplies details for events in the 1460s, theSecond Continuation is the single most im-portant source for the period of Yorkist rule.

The Benedictine abbey of Crowland (orCroyland) in Lincolnshire produced a medievalchronicle for which the two fifteenth-centuryworks were contemporary continuations. TheFirst Continuation, written by an anonymousprior of Crowland, concludes in January 1470and pertains mainly to the history of the abbey.Its relevance to the struggle between the housesof LANCASTER and YORK is therefore lim-ited, although the author adopted a more na-tional perspective when writing about the1460s.The chronicler detested northerners, andhe particularly castigated their behavior duringQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU’s MARCH

ON LONDON in 1461. This prejudice resur-faces in the description of the ROBIN OF RE-DESDALE REBELLION and other northern up-risings in 1469, a year when EDWARD IV’scapture in Lincolnshire by Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, brought national events to thevicinity of Crowland. Although the tone of theFirst Continuation is moderately Yorkist, the

author was critical of the influence exercised onthe king by Queen ELIZABETH WOODVILLE

and the WOODVILLE FAMILY.The Second Continuation was, according

to its author, written at Crowland in April1486. It is the only continuous, contemporarypolitical narrative of the Yorkist years, overlap-ping the First Continuation by covering theperiod from October 1459 to 1485. It is alsonot Yorkist PROPAGANDA, but a sophisticatedhistorical narrative that was intended to be anaccurate and objective account of events. Theauthor described himself as a doctor of canonlaw, a member of Edward IV’s COUNCIL, andan ambassador to BURGUNDY in 1471. Hewas clearly familiar with the workings of En-glish government, personally acquainted withEdward IV and RICHARD III, and an eyewit-ness to many of the events described. Al-though generally friendly to Edward IV, thewriter was critical of the king’s financial exac-tions; of his destruction of his brother, GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence; and of hisaggressive policy toward SCOTLAND in the1480s.

The writer was far more critical of RichardIII, disapproving of the USURPATION OF

1483; of the execution of William HASTINGS,Lord Hastings; and of the king’s behavior afterthe death of his wife, Anne NEVILLE, espe-cially in regard to his niece, ELIZABETH OF

YORK. The author also applauded the victoryof HENRY VII at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD in 1485. Given what the writer revealsabout himself, a possible (but by no means theonly) candidate for authorship of the SecondContinuation is John RUSSELL, bishop of Lin-coln, who was keeper of the privy seal for Ed-ward IV and chancellor under Richard III.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Pronay, Nicholas, and JohnCox, eds., The Crowland Chronicle Continuations:1459–1486 (London: Richard III and YorkistHistory Trust, 1986); the text of the SecondContinuation of the Croyland Chronicle is availableon the Richard III Society Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy1.html>.

72 CROWLAND CHRONICLE

Dartford Uprising (1452)The unsuccessful armed uprising that culmi-nated at Dartford in Kent in March 1452 wasthe first attempt by Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, to use force to achieve his polit-ical ends.

In January 1452, York, seeking to securerecognition of himself as heir to the childlessHENRY VI and eager to increase his influencein the royal government, issued a public decla-ration of allegiance to the king and a state-ment of regret that Henry did not currentlylook upon him with favor. In February, theduke issued a condemnation of EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, who wasYork’s rival both for political power and forthe succession, the BEAUFORT FAMILY hav-ing as compelling a claim to the throne as thehouse of YORK. The duke charged Somersetwith responsibility for the recent English mili-tary collapse in FRANCE and with plottingthe destruction of York and his family. Backedby Thomas COURTENAY, earl of Devon,who was seeking allies against his courtierrival, William BONVILLE, Lord Bonville, andrelying on public support born of anger overSomerset’s perceived failures in France, Yorkbegan raising an armed force to march onLONDON and compel the king to dismissSomerset. When several deputations from theking failed to deflect York from his purpose,Henry ordered the London authorities to re-fuse York admittance to the city, which theydid in late February, forcing the duke to marchinto Kent to his property at Dartford.

Because Kent had been the heart of JACK

CADE’S REBELLION in 1450, York hoped toincrease his support by tapping into any lin-gering antigovernment sentiment. On 1

March, Henry entered Kent at the head of alarge army. Although York’s own forces weresizable, and he had several ships in the Thamesloaded with ARTILLERY, the English PEER-AGE, with the exception of Devon and LordCobham, backed the king. As the two armiesadvanced toward each other, a team of media-tors led by the bishops William WAINFLEET

and Thomas BOURCHIER, and includingRichard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and hisson, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,moved back and forth between the king andthe duke. According to some sources, anagreement was concluded on 2 Marchwhereby York would lay down his arms in re-turn for being allowed to present his petitionagainst Somerset to the king. Somerset wasthen to be imprisoned in the TOWER OF

LONDON pending an investigation into York’scharges against him. However, when Yorkcame before Henry, he found Somerset at theking’s side and himself in custody. Othersources simply say that York came and kneltbefore the king, presented his petition, andthen returned to London with Henry.

Finding the commons of Kent hesitant tofollow him, and lacking any significant sup-port from other peers, York probably realizedthe futility of his position and submitted.Nonetheless, the same nobles who refused tosupport his armed rising were also unwillingto see him too severely punished.York was de-tained at his London residence, compelled tomake a public oath of loyalty to Henry at St.Paul’s Cathedral, and then released. He wasalso forced to submit to an arbitration of hisdispute with Somerset, which was conductedby a panel dominated by friends of Somerset.Although a pardon was issued to encourage

73

D

York’s supporters to disperse, the king soughtto warn the duke’s RETAINERS against futurearmed demonstrations by leading a series ofjudicial commissions into areas of Yorkist in-fluence. The king’s liberal imposition of finesand imprisonments impressed York’s support-ers with royal authority and left the dukepowerless and politically isolated.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Johnson, P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

De Facto Act (1495)Passed by PARLIAMENT in October 1495, theDe Facto Act sought to heal the lingering di-visions of the WARS OF THE ROSES by en-couraging former adherents of RICHARD IIIand the house of YORK to support HENRY

VII against any current and future Yorkist at-tempts to retake the throne. The act was de-signed to reassure those fighting for the kingagainst his rivals that they would suffer no lossof property as a result of their military service.

Entitled “An Act that No Person Goingwith the King to the Wars Shall be Attaintedof Treason,” the statute declared that it wouldbe unreasonable and illegal to deprive anysubject of his property for serving the personwho was “for the time being” king of En-gland. Although service to Richard III hadbeen treated as treason since the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485—Henry hadeven dated his reign from the day beforeBosworth to more clearly extend the penaltiesof treason to those who had fought forRichard—the De Facto Act reassured formerYorkists that they would not henceforth sufferforfeiture or ATTAINDER for treason for theirpast allegiance. The act prohibited loyal mili-tary servants of the king from losing life, lands,income, or possessions on account of such ser-vice. It did not absolve anyone from providingmilitary service to Henry VII, since he was,“for the time being,” king. However, it didsafeguard anyone who served Henry in any ofhis wars, foreign and domestic, from beingconvicted of treason should Henry himself be

overthrown by a Yorkist pretender, such asPerkin WARBECK, who was threatening thesecurity of the house of TUDOR in 1495. Al-though the act sought to invalidate any futurestatutes that might punish a subject for mili-tary service to the king, it was generally un-derstood that no Parliament could limit theactions of a future Parliament. The De FactoAct was thus not a proclamation of constitu-tional principle, but a practical expedient de-signed to pacify any remaining hostility fromthe late civil wars and to unite the countryaround the king who had emerged from thosewars.

See also Yorkist Heirs (after 1485)Further Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999).

Derby, Countess of. See Beaufort,Margaret, Countess of Richmond andDerby

Derby, Earl of. See Stanley, Thomas,Earl of Derby

Desmond, Earl of. See Fitzgerald,Thomas, Earl of Desmond

Devereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers ofChartley (1432–1485)Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers of Chartley,was a loyal adherent of the house of YORK

and one of EDWARD IV’s chief lieutenants inWALES.

Born into a Herefordshire GENTRY family,Devereux was a councilor of Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, and served as stewardof many of the duke’s Welsh lordships in the1450s. When war erupted in 1459, Devereuxtook up arms for York and was with the duke’sforces at the Battle of LUDFORD BRIDGE.After York’s flight to IRELAND, Devereux wasincluded in the bills of ATTAINDER passedagainst leading Yorkists in the COVENTRY

PARLIAMENT, but he saved his life by submit-

74 DE FACTO ACT

ting to HENRY VI. He resumed his Yorkist al-legiance in 1460 and fought with York’s son,Edward, earl of March, at the Battle of MOR-TIMER’S CROSS in February 1461. He wasalso present at the LONDON assembly thatproclaimed March king as Edward IV. Dev-ereux fought for Edward at the Battle ofTOWTON in late March, being knighted onthe field, and was one of the commanders ofthe Yorkist forces at the Battle of TWT HILL

in October. In 1462, Devereux was elevated tothe PEERAGE as Lord Ferrers of Chartley, atitle that he held by right of his wife. With hishome at Weobley in Herefordshire, Ferrershad interests in the Welsh marches (i.e., bor-derlands). Edward strengthened these connec-tions in the 1460s by naming Ferrers to nu-merous Welsh commissions, granting himlands in the marches and in Berkshire, and ap-pointing him captain of Aberystwyth Castle.

In the spring of 1470, Ferrers assisted theking in suppressing the rebellion raised byRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and his ally,George PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, theking’s brother. As a prominent Yorkist, Ferrerswas dismissed from all county commissions ofthe peace by the READEPTION government ofHenry VI. When Edward IV returned fromexile in March 1471, Ferrers fought for him atthe Battles of BARNET and TEWKESBURY.Healso helped drive Jasper TUDOR, earl of Pem-broke, and his nephew, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, into exile in BRITTANY, therebyrestoring Yorkist authority in Wales. In 1473,Edward appointed Ferrers to the COUNCIL,and in 1475, Ferrers raised a troop of MEN-AT-ARMS and ARCHERS to accompany the kingon his French expedition.

Although a long-time Yorkist who mighthave been expected to support EDWARD V,Ferrers acquiesced in RICHARD III’s usurpa-tion of the throne in 1483 (see USURPATION

OF 1483). Richard rewarded Ferrers’s loyaltywith a grant of lands and an annuity of £146per year. Ferrers died fighting for Richard atthe Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD in August1485. He was attainted in the first PARLIA-MENT of HENRY VII, and his estates wereconfiscated by the Crown.

Further Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Evans, H. T., Wales and the Wars of the Roses(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan SuttonPublishing, 1995); Ross, Charles, Edward IV (NewHaven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998).

Devon, Earl of. See entries underCourtenay; Stafford, Humphrey, Earl ofDevon

Dinham, John, Lord Dinham (d. 1501)A capable administrator and military com-mander, John Dinham (or Dynham), LordDinham, was a loyal adherent of the house ofYORK and a trusted servant of the house ofTUDOR.

Born into a Devonshire GENTRY family,Dinham rendered vital service to the Yorkistcause in October 1459, when, after guidingthem from the Battle of LUDFORD BRIDGE,he sheltered Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick; Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury; andEdward, earl of March (see EDWARD IV) inthe Dinham family home at Newton Abbot.Dinham also hired a vessel to carry himself andthe Yorkist lords to safety at CALAIS. In theearly morning of 15 January 1460, Dinhamraided Sandwich, capturing a Lancastrian fleetbeing readied there for an attack on Calais andcarrying off its commander, Richard WOOD-VILLE, Earl Rivers, as well as Rivers’s wife,JACQUETTA OF LUXEMBOURG, and his son,Anthony WOODVILLE. In early June, Dinham,accompanied by William NEVILLE, Lord Fau-conberg, and John WENLOCK, again de-scended on Sandwich, defeating a Lancastrianforce of ARCHERS and MEN-AT-ARMS andseizing the town as a Yorkist bridgehead.

Named to the royal COUNCIL in 1462 andraised to the PEERAGE in 1467, Dinham be-came the chief Yorkist peer in the West Coun-try after the death of Humphrey STAFFORD,earl of Devon, in 1469. Loyal to Edward IV,Dinham was one of only seven nobles not

DINHAM, JOHN, LORD DINHAM 75

summoned to the READEPTION session ofPARLIAMENT in 1470. After Edward’srestoration in 1471, Dinham became deputy atCalais to William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings.In May 1473, Dinham helped repel the land-ing in Essex of John de VERE, the Lancastrianearl of Oxford, and in 1475 he commanded afleet charged with holding the Channel whileEdward IV’s army sailed to FRANCE.

After the USURPATION OF 1483, Dinhamsupported RICHARD III, who rewarded himwith the stewardship of the royal Duchy ofCornwall. Dinham also received extensiveland grants in the autumn after remainingloyal to Richard during BUCKINGHAM’SREBELLION. In December 1484, Dinham re-captured the Calais fortress of Hammes fromits turncoat garrison, which had defected toHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY

VII). Perhaps because he allowed the Hammesgarrison to march away, Dinham was super-seded in the Calais command in 1485 by Johnof Gloucester, the king’s bastard son. BecauseDinham remained in Calais as one ofGloucester’s deputies, he was not present atthe Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD in August1485. Dinham was almost immediately fa-vored by Henry VII, who appointed himtreasurer of England, an influential office thatDinham held until his death in January 1501.One of Henry’s most active councilors, Din-ham served on many royal commissions andreceived numerous rewards, including electionto the prestigious Order of the Garter.

Further Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Dorset, Marquis of. See Grey, Thomas,Marquis of Dorset

Dunstanburgh Castle (1461–1464)Along with the other Northumberlandfortresses of ALNWICK and BAMBURGH,

Dunstanburgh Castle demonstrated the inse-curity of EDWARD IV’s throne by falling sev-eral times into Lancastrian hands between1461 and 1464.

After the Yorkist victory at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461, Dunstanburgh wasone of several northern strongholds controlledby RETAINERS loyal to the Lancastrian Percyfamily (see entries under PERCY). Beginningin August, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,campaigned to reduce Lancastrian outpostsacross the north, with Sir Ralph Percy surren-dering the coastal fortress of Dunstanburgh inOctober. Edward IV ordered Warwick to leavePercy in command of the castle, a decision thatproved disastrous in the following monthwhen Percy yielded Dunstanburgh to a Lan-castrian force from SCOTLAND under SirWilliam TAILBOYS.

In October 1462, when MARGARET OF

ANJOU recaptured Bamburgh and Alnwickwith a troop of French MERCENARIES com-manded by Pierre de BRÉZÉ, Percy was stillholding Dunstanburgh for the house of LAN-CASTER. But the Lancastrian royal family andde Brézé withdrew to Scotland in November,leaving the Northumberland garrisons to faceWarwick’s approaching army.Throughout De-cember, Warwick coordinated siege opera-tions, placing the effort at Dunstanburghunder the command of Lords Scrope,Greystoke, and Powis. When the castle surren-dered on 28 December, the king’s desire toreconcile the rival parties led him to againshow an unwise generosity to Percy, who,upon swearing allegiance to Edward, wasgiven custody of Dunstanburgh and Bam-burgh. Percy’s Yorkist loyalty evaporated a sec-ond time in March 1463, when he handedboth fortresses to Margaret upon her return toEngland at the head of a Lancastrian-Scottishforce.

In June 1463, a Scottish army accompaniedby JAMES III and his mother MARY OF

GUELDRES, as well as by the Lancastrian royalfamily, crossed the border and laid siege toNorham Castle.Warwick and his brother, JohnNEVILLE, Lord Montagu, hurried north andsurprised the Scots in July, driving the pan-

76 DORSET, MARQUIS OF

icked invaders out of the kingdom and damp-ening Scottish enthusiasm for the Lancastriancause. Edward IV concluded a ten-monthtruce with the Scottish government in De-cember, and in early 1464, the Yorkists pre-pared to suppress Lancastrian activity inNorthumberland once and for all. In April,Percy left Dunstanburgh to fight with HenryBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, against Mon-tagu at the Battle of HEDGELEY MOOR.Percy’s death there and Somerset’s defeat andcapture at the Battle of HEXHAM in Maycleared all Northumberland outside the three

castles of Lancastrian resistance. On 25 June,the Dunstanburgh garrison surrendered toWarwick on terms that granted all its mem-bers pardons. With the fall of Bamburgh a fewweeks later, the war in Northumberlandended.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Pollard, A. J., North-Eastern England during the Warsof the Roses (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).

DUNSTANBURGH CASTLE 77

Economy. See English Economy and theWars of the Roses

Edgecote, Battle of (1469)Fought on 26 July 1469 near Banbury in Ox-fordshire, the Battle of Edgecote allowedRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, to seizetemporary control of EDWARD IV andthereby initiate a new phase of the WARS OF

THE ROSES.In the spring of 1469, Warwick, angered

by the growing wealth and political influenceof Edward IV’s in-laws, the WOODVILLE

FAMILY, and certain of the king’s favorites,such as William HERBERT, earl of Pem-broke, forged an alliance with George PLAN-TAGENET, duke of Clarence, Edward’sequally disgruntled younger brother. Thepact, which was sealed on 11 July withClarence’s unauthorized marriage to War-wick’s daughter, Isabel NEVILLE, aimed atseparating the offending courtiers from theking and making Warwick and Clarence thepremier peers of the realm. The allies issued amanifesto calling for loyal Englishmen tosupport them in reforming Edward’s corruptgovernment and expressed support for an on-going northern rebellion led by someonecalling himself Robin of Redesdale, who hadissued a similar call for reform in mid-June.In reality, the ROBIN OF REDESDALE RE-BELLION was directed by Warwick, andprobably led by Sir William Conyers, aNeville retainer. By drawing Edward into thenorth, the Redesdale uprising sought to giveWarwick time to secure LONDON and raisean army (see NORTH OF ENGLAND AND

THE WARS OF THE ROSES).

When Edward marched north in June toconfront the Redesdale rebels, he was unawareof their connection to Warwick and Clarence.By mid-July, he was in Nottingham awaitingthe arrival of forces from WALES under thecommand of Pembroke and HumphreySTAFFORD, earl of Devon. Although he wasby this time probably aware of Warwick’s ac-tivities, the king made no move, and the Re-desdale rebels bypassed Nottingham to hastentheir meeting with Warwick, who was march-ing north from London. On the evening of 25July, Pembroke and Devon argued over billet-ing arrangements. As a result of the quarrel,Devon withdrew toward Banbury with theARCHERS, leaving Herbert with only theWelsh footmen. Shortly afterward, Pembrokeencountered the Redesdale rebels, who at-tacked him vigorously the next morning. Al-though Pembroke’s men offered fierce resis-tance, they were hampered by lack of archersand forced to retreat with heavy losses. Whenadvance elements of Warwick’s army arrivedlater in the day, a second rebel attack brokePembroke’s force before Devon could engagehis men.

With Conyers and many others dead on thefield, Pembroke and his brother were takenprisoner and executed the next day atNorthampton in Warwick’s presence. Devonwas killed some weeks later in Somerset andRichard WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers, and his sonSir John Woodville, whom the king had sentaway from him for their safety, were capturedand executed at Coventry in August on War-wick’s orders. Hearing of the disaster at Edge-cote, Edward, now deserted by most of his RE-TAINERS, was on the road to Northamptonwhen he was taken into Warwick’s “protec-

79

E

tion” by the earl’s brother, Archbishop GeorgeNEVILLE. For the moment, the king and theroyal government were in the hands of War-wick and Clarence. Although Edward soon re-gained his freedom, he lacked the politicalstrength to proceed against the earl and theduke, who extorted a royal pardon and re-mained free to resume their rebellion in 1470.

See also Robin of Holderness RebellionFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

Edmund, Earl of Rutland. SeePlantagenet, Edmund, Earl of Rutland

Edward IV, King of England(1442–1483)Edward IV, first king of the house of YORK,was a central figure in the WARS OF THE

ROSES. Only eighteen when he overthrewHENRY VI and the house of LANCASTER,Edward, despite personal flaws and politicalmisjudgments that briefly cost him theCrown, was a strong and successful monarchwho reduced disorder and lawlessness and re-versed the deterioration of royal authority.

The eldest son of Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, and his wife, CecilyNEVILLE, Edward was born on 28 April 1442at Rouen in English-held Normandy, wherehis father was then serving as lord lieutenant.By 1454, twelve-year-old Edward had beencreated earl of March, a title formerly belong-ing to the Mortimers, the family of Edward’spaternal grandmother, from whom the houseof York derived its claim to the throne. In1459, when civil war erupted between thesupporters of York and the king, Edward, nowseventeen, was with his father at the Battle ofLUDFORD BRIDGE, where the defection ofAndrew TROLLOPE and his men forced theduke and his adherents to flee the country.York sailed for IRELAND, while Edward madefor CALAIS with his father’s chief allies,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and hisson, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick.

Although separated from his father, Edwardbegan in 1460 to emerge as an important po-litical figure in his own right as he acted inconcert with the vigorous Warwick to ad-vance his family’s cause. Having frustrated allLancastrian attempts to dislodge them fromCalais, the three Yorkist earls invaded Englandin June 1460. After securing LONDON, theearls marched north and, on 10 July, capturedHenry VI at the Battle of NORTHAMPTON.In October, York returned to lay claim to theCrown. PARLIAMENT, being unwilling to de-pose Henry, fashioned the compromise Act ofACCORD, which disinherited Henry’s son,Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER, and vestedsuccession to the Crown in York and his sons.In December, when York marched north tosuppress Lancastrian uprisings against the newregime, Edward set out to raise troops on theWelsh border. At Gloucester, in early January1461, Edward learned of the death of his fa-ther at the Battle of WAKEFIELD.

Now leader of the Yorkist cause and, for thefirst time, in independent command of a mili-tary force, Edward confronted the army of

80 EDMUND, EARL OF RUTLAND

Edward IV, the first king of the house of York. (NationalPortrait Gallery: NPG 3542)

Jasper TUDOR, earl of Pembroke, who wasadvancing against him from WALES. Edwardcrushed Pembroke at the Battle of MOR-TIMER’S CROSS on 2 February, but twoweeks later Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

defeated Warwick and took custody of Henryat the Battle of ST. ALBANS. Aided by south-ern fears of the northerners in Margaret’sarmy (see MARCH ON LONDON), whoseacts of plunder had been magnified by War-wick’s PROPAGANDA efforts, Edward boldlyentered London in late February. Handsomeand confident, the very antithesis of Henry VI,Edward, though only eighteen, looked andacted like a king and was therefore hailed as adeliverer by the frightened Londoners. Pro-claimed king on 4 March, Edward began im-mediately to gather an army. On 29 March,Edward secured his throne by winning thebloody, daylong Battle of TOWTON, his per-sonal leadership helping to steady his troops atseveral crucial junctures during the fighting(see GENERALSHIP). Although the Lancas-trian royal family fled into SCOTLAND, fromwhere their supporters raided the north forthe next three years, Edward was firmly inpower by 1465, when Henry VI was in theTOWER OF LONDON and Queen Margaretand her son were in exile in FRANCE.

During the 1460s, Edward’s political inex-perience led him to pardon opponents tooeasily, to reward supporters too richly, and todelegate authority too freely, especially toWarwick and the NEVILLE FAMILY.Althoughhe never abdicated ultimate control, and neverallowed his mistresses political power, Edwardwas also pleasure loving and much given tosexual dalliance. In 1464, he created enormouspolitical problems for himself and his heirs bysecretly marrying a subject, Elizabeth WOOD-VILLE, who brought to COURT a host of am-bitious relatives. Although the WOODVILLE

FAMILY eventually formed a powerful politi-cal connection in support of the Yorkistthrone, their avid pursuit of wealth and poweralienated Warwick and the king’s brother,George PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,who in 1469 launched a coup that brieflyplaced Edward in their custody. When a sec-

ond coup failed in the spring of 1470, War-wick and Clarence fled to France, where theearl, through the self-interested mediation ofLOUIS XI, concluded the ANGERS AGREE-MENT with Margaret of Anjou. Realizing thatEdward had grown too independent and po-litically astute to allow him to continue todominate the government, Warwick agreed torestore the weak-minded Henry VI, whocould never be more than a figurehead. Givento indolence and self-indulgence, Edward hadbeen caught unprepared in 1469, and wasagain in 1470, when the Neville defection toLancaster found him in the north without suf-ficient forces to make a stand. On 2 October,Edward fled to BURGUNDY with his brotherRichard, duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD

III), and a small band of supporters (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).

Over the winter of 1470–1471, Edwardconvinced the previously hostile HANSEATIC

LEAGUE to supply him with ships, while War-wick’s alliance with France persuaded DukeCHARLES of Burgundy to allow Edward torecruit men and raise money. Landing in En-gland in March 1471, Edward began a boldand energetic two-month campaign that per-mitted him to retake London, defeat and killWarwick at the Battle of BARNET, and defeatand kill Prince Edward of Lancaster at theBattle of TEWKESBURY.When Henry VI wasmurdered in the Tower on 21 May, undoubt-edly on Edward’s orders, the house of Yorkwas secure and the Wars of the Roses wereover (see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF).

In the 1470s, Edward began the process,which was continued and extended byHENRY VII, of restoring royal authority, ofmaking the king once more the powerful andrespected arbiter of noble disputes, rather thanmerely the leader of one faction of the PEER-AGE.As the power of the Crown grew in rela-tion to that of the nobility, noblemen foundthemselves no longer able to conduct privatefeuds or disrupt local courts, although, as thePASTON LETTERS indicate, the Crown stillrequired the military and political support ofgreat magnates (see BASTARD FEUDALISM)and Edward was occasionally willing to over-

EDWARD IV, KING OF ENGLAND 81

look their transgressions to retain their coop-eration. Edward also reorganized Crown fi-nances, becoming one of the few medievalEnglish kings to die solvent, and developed aloyal and capable body of councilors andhousehold servants, often drawn from formeropponents, who worked to improve royal ad-ministration and implement royal policy (seeCOUNCIL, ROYAL). However, Edward wasalso willing to allow his closest supporters tobuild regional political interests that had seri-ous consequences in the reign of his son. Hisbrother Gloucester governed the north as heirto Warwick, while William HASTINGS, LordHastings, dominated the Midlands, and theWoodville family developed powerful supportin the south and Wales, where AnthonyWOODVILLE, Earl Rivers, supervised thehousehold of Prince Edward.

In 1475, Edward invaded France in concertwith the duke of Burgundy, who had been aformal ally of the house of York since his mar-riage to Edward’s sister, MARGARET OF

YORK, in 1468. However, no fighting oc-curred, for, after a personal meeting withLouis XI, Edward agreed to the Treaty of Pic-quigny, whereby he withdrew his army in re-turn for an annual pension and a promise ofmarriage between Louis’s heir and Edward’sdaughter, ELIZABETH OF YORK. In 1478,Edward preferred a bill of ATTAINDER

against his brother Clarence, whose long his-tory of treasonous and provocative behavior,perhaps magnified in the king’s mind byWoodville hostility, determined Edward to de-stroy him (see CLARENCE, EXECUTION

OF). In the late 1470s, Edward revived claimsto English hegemony over Scotland, an ill-ad-vised policy that achieved the recapture ofBERWICK but otherwise led only to costlyand futile campaigns by Gloucester.

By 1483, Edward’s power was unques-tioned, and his dynasty was recognized acrossEurope and unchallenged in England, al-though many of his subjects were beginningto see him as increasingly arbitrary and avari-cious. Edward died unexpectedly on 9 April1483, just short of his forty-first birthday;given to corpulence in later years, the king

was said to be the victim of a life given to ex-cess and self-indulgence. He was succeeded byhis son EDWARDV, who within three monthsof his father’s death had lost his Crown to hisuncle and disappeared into the Tower.

Further Reading: Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998).

Edward IV, Overthrow of (1470)Outmaneuvered by his former ally RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, EDWARD IV wascompelled to flee the realm in October 1470.Besides allowing the restoration of HENRY

VI, Edward’s overthrow and flight demon-strated the depth of support commanded bythe NEVILLE FAMILY and the house of LAN-CASTER, exposed the unpopularity of theYorkist government, and ensured the continu-ation of the WARS OF THE ROSES.

With the failure of his second coup attemptin April 1470, Warwick fled to FRANCE withhis family and his chief ally, Edward IV’sbrother, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence. Having failed either to control Ed-ward or to replace him with Clarence, War-wick sought to restore a king whom he couldcontrol—Henry VI. In July, the earl, with assis-tance from LOUIS XI of France, convinced ahostile MARGARET OF ANJOU to accept theANGERS AGREEMENT, a pact whereby War-wick undertook to overthrow Edward and re-store Henry in return for the marriage of hisdaughter, Anne NEVILLE, to Henry’s son,Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER. In earlyAugust, after the prince and Anne weresolemnly betrothed in Angers Cathedral, War-wick began fulfilling his part of the bargain bydirecting supporters in northern England toinitiate a series of uprisings. Just as he had usedthe ROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION todraw Edward away from LONDON in 1469,so Warwick hoped to again use a northern up-rising to draw Edward’s attention (and perhapshis person) away from the English Channel(see NORTH OF ENGLAND AND THE WARS

OF THE ROSES).Although unaware of Warwick’s Lancas-

trian alliance, Edward spent the early summer

82 EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF

preparing to repel an invasion. He ordered theEnglish NAVY to blockade the French portswhere Warwick’s fleet lay at anchor. In theLancastrian north, Henry PERCY, earl ofNorthumberland, newly restored to his title byEdward, guarded the coasts along with JohnNEVILLE, marquis of Montagu, Warwick’sbrother. Although compelled to surrender theearldom of Northumberland to Percy, Mon-tagu appeared content with his elevation to amarquisate. However, when Warwick’s upris-ings erupted in August, neither Northumber-land nor the usually capable Montagu seemedable to handle the situation. With his fleet stillholding the Channel, Edward made the riskydecision to march north himself to crush therebellions. By 16 August, Edward was in York-shire, where the mysterious rebels dispersed asquickly as they had gathered. The king thenmade what proved to be a serious blunder;rather than return to London, he remainedwith his army in the north.

In early September, a storm swept theChannel and scattered the English fleet, break-ing the blockade and allowing Warwick to putto sea. Accompanied by Clarence and suchlongtime Lancastrians as Edmund BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset; Jasper TUDOR, earlof Pembroke; and John de VERE, earl of Ox-ford, Warwick landed in the West Country inmid-September. Immediately proclaiming forHenry VI, Warwick attracted wide support,and a large force had rallied to him by thetime he reached Coventry. Edward started tomarch south, but halted at Doncaster when hereceived word that Montagu, who was ex-pected to join the king, had declared forHenry VI and was moving to trap Edward be-tween his force and Warwick’s army. Withpublic opinion running in Warwick’s favor,Edward’s support melted away, leaving himunable to face Montagu and with few optionsbut flight. Edward rode southeast to King’sLynn, which he reached only after almostdrowning in the Wash. Accompanied by hisbrother Richard, duke of Gloucester (seeRICHARD III); William HASTINGS, LordHastings; Anthony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers;and several other lords and their RETAINERS,

a party of some 500 persons, the king pro-cured three ships and set sail for BURGUNDY

on 2 October. Having no money, Edward wasforced to pay for his passage with a fur-linedgown.

In England, the Yorkist government col-lapsed on the flight of the king. Queen Eliza-beth WOODVILLE, only weeks away fromgiving birth to Edward’s first son (see ED-WARDV), fled into SANCTUARY at Westmin-ster. On 6 October, Warwick entered London,where, after removing Henry VI from theTOWER OF LONDON, he began organizingthe Lancastrian READEPTION governmentand taking steps to prevent the return of thehouse of YORK. To the surprise of almosteveryone, it had taken only three weeks tooverthrow Edward IV and restore Henry VI tothe throne.

See also Edward IV, Restoration ofFurther Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, The Wars ofthe Roses (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Edward IV, Restoration of (1471)In the spring of 1471, only six months afterbeing driven from the throne, EDWARD IVreturned to England, overthrew the READEP-TION government of HENRY VI, defeatedand killed Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,and destroyed the male line of the house ofLANCASTER.

Funded by his brother-in-law, DukeCHARLES of BURGUNDY, Edward IV de-parted the Dutch port of Flushing on 11March 1471. Leading a fleet of 36 ships and1,200 men, both Englishmen and Burgundi-ans, Edward sought first to land in East Anglia,where he hoped for assistance from JohnMOWBRAY, duke of Norfolk, and John de laPOLE, duke of Suffolk. However, when agentssent ashore learned that the dukes were in cus-tody and John de VERE, earl of Oxford, waskeeping close watch on the coast, Edwardturned north to land at Ravenspur. As he

EDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF 83

marched through a hostile Yorkshire that pro-vided few recruits, Edward was menaced byJohn NEVILLE, marquis of Montagu, and un-supported by Henry PERCY, the sympatheticearl of Northumberland, who could not per-suade his Lancastrian followers to join theking who had slain so many of their relativesten years earlier at the Battle of TOWTON.Still, Northumberland did good service bykeeping his men from taking an active part inresisting Edward and by preventing an uncer-tain Montagu from attacking the Yorkist forcewhile it was still small and vulnerable.

Denied entry to several towns, Edward an-nounced that he had come not to reclaim thethrone but merely to secure his inheritance asduke of York. At York, he gained admission tothe city only by agreeing to leave his armyoutside the walls. Nonetheless, Montagu’s fail-ure to attack allowed Edward to survive,which increased his chances of gaining sup-port. As Edward marched south into the Mid-lands, men loyal to such Yorkist lords asWilliam HASTINGS, Lord Hastings, joined hisforce, which now grew to sufficient size toconvince Warwick to withdraw before it intoCoventry. Rejoined by his wayward brother,George PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,and unable to coax Warwick to give battle,Edward left Coventry and marched on LON-DON, which he entered unopposed on 11April. After taking custody of Henry VI andreleasing Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE andhis newborn son (see EDWARD V) fromSANCTUARY at Westminster, Edward led hisrapidly growing army northward. On 14April, he slew both Warwick and Montagu atthe Battle of BARNET.

On the same day as Barnet, Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU and her son Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER landed in southernEngland. Greeted by Edmund BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset, and other staunch Lancas-trians, the queen marched into the WestCountry, where she raised a large force. Ed-ward followed quickly and on 4 May defeatedthe Lancastrians at the Battle of TEWKES-BURY, where Prince Edward was slain andSomerset was captured and executed. With a

captive Queen Margaret in tow, Edward re-turned to London, where Anthony WOOD-VILLE, Earl Rivers, and other Yorkist lords hadbeaten back an assault on the city by ThomasNEVILLE, the Bastard of Fauconberg. With allsignificant resistance crushed, Edward enteredLondon on 21 May. That night, Henry VI wasmurdered in the TOWER OF LONDON, thusending the Lancastrian cause and completingthe restoration of the house of YORK.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow ofFurther Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, The Wars ofthe Roses (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Edward V, King of England(1470–c. 1483)The eldest son of EDWARD IV and secondmonarch of the house of YORK, Edward Vwas the uncrowned king of England fromApril to June 1483, when he was dethronedby his uncle RICHARD III in an act ofusurpation that reignited the WARS OF THE

ROSES (see USURPATION OF 1483).At Edward’s birth in November 1470, his

family’s cause was in disarray. In the previousmonth, his father had been overthrown andforced into exile in BURGUNDY by a formerally, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, whorestored HENRY VI to the throne (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF; READEP-TION). Edward was born at Westminster,where his mother, Queen Elizabeth WOOD-VILLE, had taken SANCTUARY after her hus-band’s flight. However, by May 1471, Edwardwas heir to a Yorkist throne made secure by hisfather’s destruction of the rival house of LAN-CASTER and by his own birth (see EDWARD

IV, RESTORATION OF).In 1473, the three-year-old prince was

given his own household at Ludlow, a Yorkiststronghold in Shropshire. Supervised by hismaternal uncle Anthony WOODVILLE, EarlRivers, the household included twenty-five

84 EDWARD V, KING OF ENGLAND

councilors, a large staff of servants, and numer-ous schoolfellows and playmates drawn fromthe sons of English noblemen. Directed byBishop John Alcock of Worcester, the prince’sformal educational program involved trainingin Latin, music, religion, and archery and otherphysical recreations.The prince was eventuallymade the nominal head of a Council of Wales,which included Rivers, Alcock, and other ex-perienced royal administrators, and which wascharged with maintaining order on the chron-ically disordered Welsh border.

After his father’s death on 9 April 1483, theprince, now recognized as Edward V, was es-corted to LONDON by Rivers. In late April,Richard, duke of Gloucester, Edward’s pater-nal uncle, intercepted the royal party at StonyStratford, arrested Rivers, and took custody ofthe king. Over the next two months, Glouces-ter, fearing the young king was dominated byhis mother’s family and unsure of his own fu-ture in a Woodville-controlled monarchy, hadEdward V declared illegitimate and engi-neered his own usurpation of the throne,

which was completed with his coronation asRichard III on 6 July. Edward V and hisyounger brother Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, were lodged together in theTOWER OF LONDON, where they disap-peared from view by late summer. By the au-tumn of 1483, the country was awash with ru-mors that Richard III had murdered theprinces.

Although the exact fate of Edward V andhis brother has never been resolved, and therole of Richard III in their disappearance isstill vigorously debated, by September 1483most people believed the princes were dead,and Richard’s responsibility for their fate wassufficiently accepted to undermine support forhis regime. In the autumn of 1483, manyYorkists transferred their allegiance to EdwardV’s elder sister, ELIZABETH OF YORK. WhenHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY

VII), the Lancastrian pretender to the throne,agreed to take Elizabeth as his queen, theYorkist and Woodville interests supportedBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION as the firststep in an eventually successful effort to winthe Crown for Richmond. Thus, Edward V’sremoval from the throne reopened the dynas-tic wars and ultimately destroyed the house ofYork.

See also Princes in the Tower; Woodville FamilyFurther Reading: Fields, Bertram, Royal Blood:Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes (New York:Regan Books, 1998); Jenkins, Elizabeth, The Princesin the Tower (New York: Coward, McCann andGeoghegan, 1978); More, Sir Thomas, The Historyof King Richard III, edited by Richard S. Sylvester(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1976);Pollard, A. J., Richard III and the Princes in the Tower(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991); Ross, Charles,Richard III (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981); Weir, Alison, The Princes in the Tower(New York: Ballantine Books, 1992); Williamson,Audrey, The Mystery of the Princes (Chicago:Academy Chicago Publishers, 1986); the text ofMore’s History of King Richard III is also availableon the Richard III Society Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/moretext.html>.

Edward, Earl of Warwick. SeePlantagenet, Edward, Earl of Warwick

EDWARD, EARL OF WARWICK 85

Edward V, the eldest son of Edward IV, was deposed andlikely murdered by his uncle Richard III. (National PortraitGallery: NPG 4980[11])

Edward of Lancaster, Prince ofWales (1453–1471)The birth of Edward of Lancaster, the onlychild of HENRY VI and MARGARET OF

ANJOU, enormously complicated the politicalcrisis of the 1450s. Occurring on 13 October1453, during Henry VI’s first period of mentalincapacity, Edward’s birth removed RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, from his posi-tion as heir apparent to the throne and thrustthe queen into leadership of an anti-Yorkcourt party on her son’s behalf. With the birthof the prince, the easiest political solution tothe problems of Henry’s inability to rule andYork’s dissatisfaction with his lack of influ-ence—that is, the naming of York as the king’sheir—could no longer be undertaken withoutrisking war and political upheaval.

In March 1454,York and the queen maneu-vered against one another for the right to exer-cise royal authority during the king’s illness (seeHENRY VI, ILLNESS OF). The lords in PAR-LIAMENT named the infant Prince of Walesand heir to the throne, but appointed York pro-tector of the realm during the king’s pleasure oruntil the prince came of age. Edward’s earlyyears were marked by his father’s continuingmental illness and by the increasingly violentstruggle for power between his mother’s partyand the Yorkists. Having spent the first years ofhis life largely in his mother’s company, theprince by 1459 was closely identified with herstruggle against York and became the subject ofYorkist rumors questioning his paternity.

The Yorkist victory at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON in July 1460 resulted in thecapture of the king and the flight of the princeand his mother to HARLECH CASTLE inWALES. In October, York claimed the throneby right of hereditary succession. A compro-mise Act of ACCORD allowed Henry to retainthe Crown but disinherited the prince in favorof York and his heirs. To win support for theircause, Margaret and the prince took ship forSCOTLAND, where the queen agreed in Janu-ary 1461 to give BERWICK to the Scots in re-turn for military assistance and a marriage be-tween the prince and a sister of JAMES III.The death of York at the Battle of WAKE-

FIELD in December 1460 and the queen’s vic-tory over a Yorkist army under RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, at the Battle of ST.ALBANS in February 1461 restored Lancas-trian fortunes. Reunited with his wife and sonon the battlefield, Henry VI knighted theprince, who in turn knighted ANDREW

TROLLOPE. At his mother’s instigation, theseven-year-old prince then pronounced adeath sentence upon several captured Yorkistsand witnessed their executions.

After EDWARD IV’s victory at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461, the prince fledwith his parents to Scotland. In 1462, he waswith the Lancastrian force with which hismother recaptured BAMBURGH and DUN-STANBURGH castles in Northumberland. Atthe approach of a Yorkist army, the prince andhis mother escaped, but were shipwrecked andwandered for weeks along the coast; the twowere eventually captured by robbers and es-caped only with the help of one of their cap-tors. From 1463, the prince and his motherlived in FRANCE at the castle of St. Michel-en-Barrois. Under the tutelage of Sir JohnFORTESCUE and the strong influence of hismother, Edward grew into a handsome andintelligent young man with a warlike turn ofmind. A 1467 letter to the duke of Milan de-scribed the thirteen-year-old as talking of“nothing but cutting off heads or makingwar” (Seward, p. 129). Fortescue himself de-scribed how fiercely the prince applied him-self to feats of arms.

In 1470, after his estrangement from Ed-ward IV, Warwick agreed to restore Henry VIin return for a marriage between the princeand the earl’s younger daughter, AnneNEVILLE (see ANGERS AGREEMENT). Al-though the two sixteen-year-olds were be-trothed at Angers in July, the queen refused toallow her son to go to England until Warwickhad secured the kingdom for the house ofLANCASTER. The queen’s decision weakenedWarwick’s regime and cost the earl vital Lan-castrian support. The prince finally landed inEngland with his mother on 14 April 1471,within hours of the death of Warwick at theBattle of BARNET. The queen and prince

86 EDWARD OF LANCASTER, PRINCE OF WALES

then based themselves in the friendly westerncounties, where they came to ruin at the Bat-tle of TEWKESBURY on 4 May. The seven-teen-year-old prince, in nominal command ofthe Lancastrian army, was slain while fleeingthe field. The prince’s death sealed the fate ofHenry VI, who was murdered in the TOWER

OF LONDON on 21 May 1471, thus endingthe direct male line of Lancaster (see HENRY

VI, MURDER OF).

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Seward, Desmond, TheWars of the Roses (New York:Viking, 1995);Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Egremont, Lord. See Percy, Thomas,Lord Egremont

Elizabeth of York, Queen ofEngland (1465–1503)Through her marriage to HENRY VII, Eliza-beth of York, eldest daughter of EDWARD IV,sealed a union of the houses of LANCASTER

and YORK that came to symbolize the end ofthe WARS OF THE ROSES and the legitimacyof the house of TUDOR.

In 1469, four-year-old Elizabeth was be-trothed to George Neville, son of JohnNEVILLE, marquis of Montagu, and nephewof Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick. Thematch evaporated in 1470, when the Nevillesoverthrew Edward IV, and forced Elizabeth toaccompany her mother, Queen ElizabethWOODVILLE, into SANCTUARY at Westmin-ster Abbey until Edward’s return in April 1471(see NEVILLE FAMILY). In 1475, the king be-trothed Elizabeth to the son of LOUIS XI ofFRANCE as part of the Treaty of Picquigny,but the French king broke off that match inthe early 1480s (see CHARLESVIII).

After Edward IV’s death in April 1483, thequeen, fearing her brother-in-law, Richard,duke of Gloucester, again fled into SANCTU-ARY at Westminster, taking her five daughtersand her younger son, Richard PLANTA-

GENET, duke of York, with her. Gloucester se-cured custody of the duke in June, and by theautumn of 1483 York and his elder brother,EDWARDV, were commonly believed to havebeen murdered by Gloucester, who had takenthe throne as RICHARD III in July. Now Ed-ward IV’s heir, Elizabeth became an importantelement in BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION, anuprising planned in part by her mother and inpart by Margaret BEAUFORT, Countess ofRichmond, and involving Henry STAFFORD,duke of Buckingham, heretofore an ally ofRichard III. The rebels intended to enthroneMargaret Beaufort’s son, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, the surviving Lancastrian claimantto the Crown, and to marry him to Elizabeth.

After the failure of the rebellion, Elizabethremained in sanctuary with her mother andsisters until March 1484, when Richard III, inan effort to divorce the ex-queen from Rich-mond’s cause, agreed to find his nieces goodmarriages and to provide for them financially.Even though the PARLIAMENT of 1484 hadbastardized the children of Edward IV, Eliza-

ELIZABETH OF YORK, QUEEN OF ENGLAND 87

Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Edward IV, married HenryVII, first king of the House of Tudor, in 1486. (NationalPortrait Gallery: NPG 311)

beth was so warmly welcomed at COURT thatrumors soon claimed Richard was planning toreplace his ailing queen, Anne NEVILLE, withhis nineteen-year-old niece. The rumors in-tensified at Christmas 1484, when the queenand Elizabeth wore similar gowns at the courtfestivities, and in March 1485, when QueenAnne died. These reports were so persistentand so damaging to the king’s reputation thathis chief advisors successfully urged him totake the unprecedented step of publicly repu-diating the union.Although some later writershave claimed that Elizabeth was eager tomarry Richard, the contemporary ballad, THE

SONG OF LADY BESSY, described herloathing for her uncle, whom she blamed forher brothers’ deaths. Nothing can now be saidwith certainty about Elizabeth’s opinion ofher uncle, who underscored his disavowal ofthe match by sending her to Sheriff Hutton.

She was still at this Yorkshire castle in lateAugust 1485, when Richmond defeatedRichard at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD

and took the throne as Henry VII. Because hewas unwilling to have it appear he owed hisCrown to his wife, Henry delayed his mar-riage to Elizabeth until January 1486, afterParliament had recognized his right to thethrone. Elizabeth bore seven children, four ofwhom survived infancy. The eldest, PrinceArthur, preceded Elizabeth in death in 1502,but her second son became king as Henry VIIIin 1509. Elizabeth died in February 1503 atthe age of thirty-eight.

Further Reading: Harvey, Nancy Lenz, Elizabethof York (New York: Macmillan, 1973).

Elizabeth, Queen of England. SeeWoodville, Elizabeth, Queen of England

Embracery. See Livery and Maintenance

English Church and the Wars of the RosesBecause of a lack of political talent among itsleaders, the English Church took little part in

the WARS OF THE ROSES, and few bishopswere strong or consistent advocates for eitherthe house of LANCASTER or the house ofYORK. Thus, the various changes in dynastybrought the church neither great harm norgreat benefit. Also, the brief and intermittentnature of civil war campaigns caused thechurch to suffer little material damage duringthe conflict (see MILITARY CAMPAIGNS,DURATION OF).

Because HENRY VI made bishops of thepious and scholarly men who served him asconfessors and spiritual advisors, the outbreakof civil war in 1459 found his governmentdeficient in the practical, politically experi-enced bishops who had formed the core ofprevious royal administrations. ThomasBOURCHIER, the archbishop of Canterbury,had been appointed during the FIRST PRO-TECTORATE of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, and supported the Yorkists in1460 after having accommodated both sidesduring the 1450s. William Booth, archbishopof York, and his brother Lawrence BOOTH,bishop of Durham, were Lancastrians, butneither gave sufficient support to Henry’scause to suffer any consequences when ED-WARD IV won the throne in 1461, althoughLawrence was suspended briefly from officein 1462 for his Lancastrian sympathies. Themost vigorous ecclesiastical involvement inthe conflict in 1459–1461 was by a foreignbishop, Francesco Coppini, bishop of Terni(see COPPINI MISSION), who used his posi-tion as papal legate to actively promote theYorkist cause. Although some historians haveargued that the church demanded redress ofits grievances in return for sanctioning theYorkist usurpation in 1461, the bishops madefew complaints, Edward IV granted few con-cessions, and the house of York based its claimto the Crown on hereditary right, thus avoid-ing any need for the church to legitimize thefamily’s position.

In 1470–1471, the most political bishopwas George NEVILLE, archbishop of York,who abandoned Edward IV (whom he hadserved as chancellor) to actively support hisbrother, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,

88 ELIZABETH, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

the head of the Lancastrian READEPTION

government. After Warwick’s death and theYorkist restoration, Edward IV imprisoned thearchbishop in the TOWER OF LONDON. In1472, after being pardoned and released,Neville was re-arrested and confined atCALAIS until 1475. Besides Neville, no otherbishops were so harshly treated, and politicallytalented Lancastrian clerics, such as JohnMORTON, the future archbishop of Canter-bury, were pardoned and admitted to Edward’sCOUNCIL. Unlike those of Henry VI, most ofEdward’s ecclesiastical appointees tended to bemen of humble origins who displayed a talentfor secular government, such as ThomasROTHERHAM as archbishop of York, JohnRUSSELL as bishop of Lincoln, and Morton asbishop of Ely.

In 1483, Morton was one of the few bish-ops to oppose RICHARD III’s usurpation ofthe throne. Arrested at the infamous COUN-CIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483, Mortonlater participated in BUCKINGHAM’S RE-BELLION and, after the failure of that upris-ing, fled to BURGUNDY to support HenryTudor, earl of Richmond, the future HENRY

VII. Meanwhile, Richard III employed variousecclesiastical servants to successfully completehis seizure of the throne (see USURPATION

OF 1483). He sent aging Archbishop Bour-chier to persuade Queen Elizabeth WOOD-VILLE, then in SANCTUARY at Westminster,to surrender her younger son, Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, into Richard’s cus-tody. To justify his usurpation, Richard com-missioned the respected preacher Ralph Shawto deliver a sermon extolling Richard’s meritsas king to the citizens of LONDON (seeSHAW’S SERMON). Richard also used BishopRobert STILLINGTON’s revelation of theBUTLER PRECONTRACT to declare ED-WARDV illegitimate and unfit for the Crown.While the English Church largely acquiescedin Richard’s reign, both the papacy and theEnglish bishops readily accepted Henry VIIand the house of TUDOR after the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485. The new dy-nasty, like its Lancastrian and Yorkist predeces-sors, faced few demands from the bishops and

in return largely left the English Church as itfound it.

Further Reading: Davies, Richard G.,“TheChurch and the Wars of the Roses,” in A. J.Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1995), pp. 143–161; Dunning,Robert W.,“Patronage and Promotion in theLate-Medieval Church,” in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed.,Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces in LaterMedieval England (Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Humanities Press, 1981); Harvey, Margaret,England, Rome and the Papacy, 1417–1464(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993).

English Economy and the Wars of the RosesAlthough the WARS OF THE ROSES causedpolitical instability and, at least among thegoverning classes, some social disruption, theconflict had little direct effect on the Englisheconomy. Military campaigns were brief, andincidents of plunder and deliberate destruc-tion of property were few and localized (seeMILITARY CAMPAIGNS, DURATION OF).Except for members of the PEERAGE andGENTRY whose involvement in the wars ledto confiscation of their estates through acts ofATTAINDER, the livelihoods of most Englishpeople were unaffected by the civil wars.

Because it reduced the overall wealth of thekingdom and alienated the people the con-tending houses of LANCASTER and YORK

sought to rule, military action that damaged ordestroyed the resources or economic well-being of any area of the country was rarely inthe best interest of either party. Most such de-struction occurred during the first phase ofthe civil wars, during the years 1460 and 1461.In the north in 1460, supporters of the familyof Henry PERCY, third earl of Northumber-land, looted estates owned by the rivalNEVILLE FAMILY and by the Nevilles’ ally,Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York (seeNEVILLE-PERCY FEUD). In the first weeksof 1461, the army of Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU, marching southward after the Battleof WAKEFIELD (see MARCH ON LONDON),plundered property and towns belonging to orassociated with York or his ally Richard

ENGLISH ECONOMY AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES 89

NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury. Although fear andYorkist PROPAGANDA likely exaggerated thedestructiveness of the advancing Lancastriansin the minds of southern residents and LON-DON citizens, such unrestrained pillaging wasrarely seen again during the conflict. Evenareas that saw numerous campaigns and bat-tles, such as northeastern England in the early1460s, suffered little material damage. Despitefrequent Lancastrian incursions from SCOT-LAND; sustained campaigning around ALN-WICK, BAMBURGH, and DUNSTANBURGH

castles; and the pitched battles of HEDGELEY

MOOR and HEXHAM, surviving monasticand estate accounts for northeastern Englandbetween 1461 and 1464 indicate little eco-nomic disruption and give only slight evi-dence that the area was an ongoing war zone(see NORTH OF ENGLAND AND THE WARS

OF THE ROSES).One cause of economic distress during the

Wars of the Roses was the lingering demo-graphic effect of epidemic disease, both thedevastating depopulation caused by visitationsof the Black Death in the fourteenth centuryand the more localized depopulations causedby smaller disease outbreaks in the fifteenthcentury. The resulting labor shortages under-mined the unfree status of rural peasants(villeins), who by manorial custom were to re-main on the land on which they were born,paying customary dues in labor or produce totheir customary landlords. Competition forscare labor often meant better terms for peas-ants but declining rents for landlords. Anothercause of economic hardship arose from fluctu-ations in foreign trade. Many English peoplewere involved in some aspect of the wool andcloth trades—noble or gentle landownersraised sheep and town or peasant families pro-duced woolen cloth, either for the domesticmarket or for export to the cloth-makingtowns of BURGUNDY. Foreign wars; trade

embargoes, such as those undertaken by theHANSEATIC LEAGUE; shrinking demand inforeign markets; or the restrictive or retaliatorytrade policies of the English or Burgundiangovernments could affect the health of theEnglish export trade in wool, cloth, or grain,the three major English exports.A recession incontinental markets in the early 1460s spreadto England by 1465, forcing EDWARD IV todevalue the coinage and causing more eco-nomic distress in the country than was evercaused by the civil wars themselves. By the1480s, improvement in European marketshelped the English market rebound, eventhough RICHARD III’s 1483 usurpation of hisnephew’s throne revived the Wars of theRoses at about the same time (see USURPA-TION OF 1483).

Further Reading: Bolton, J. L., The MedievalEnglish Economy, 1150–1500 (London: J. M. Dentand Sons, 1980); Britnell, R. H.,“The EconomicContext,” in A. J. Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), pp. 41–64;Hatcher, John, Plague, Population and the EnglishEconomy, 1348–1530 (London: Macmillan, 1994);Munro, J. H., Wool, Cloth and Gold (Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1972).

English History (Vergil). See AnglicaHistoria (Vergil)

Essex, Earl of. See Bourchier, Henry,Earl of Essex

Execution of George Plantagenet,Duke of Clarence. See Clarence,Execution of

Exeter, Duke of. See Holland, Henry,Duke of Exeter

90 ENGLISH HISTORY

Fabyan, Robert. See LondonChronicles

Fauconberg, Lord. See Neville, William,Lord Fauconberg and Earl of Kent

Fauconberg, Thomas, Bastard ofFauconberg. See Neville, Thomas,Bastard of Fauconberg

Ferrers of Chartley, Lord. SeeDevereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers ofChartley

Ferrybridge, Battle of (1461)Occurring on 27 and 28 March 1461, the en-counters at the Ferrybridge crossing of theRiver Aire in Yorkshire were the final movesin the campaign that culminated in the Battleof TOWTON, the largest and bloodiest battleof the WARS OF THE ROSES.

On 27 March, while still south of the Aire,EDWARD IV learned that a large Lancastrianarmy commanded by Henry BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset, had deployed on a plateaunorth of the river between the villages ofTowton and Saxton. Later in the day, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, commanding theYorkist vanguard, reached the river at Ferry-bridge only to find the bridge destroyed and asmall Lancastrian force on the other side readyto dispute any crossing. By bridging the gapsin the damaged span with planks, Warwick’stroops crossed the river, drove off the Lancas-trians, and secured a bridgehead on the north

bank, although not without losing many menon the bridge to enemy ARCHERS. Byevening, Warwick had repaired the bridge andpositioned a small force across the river tohold the crossing until the rest of the armycould arrive next day.

At dawn, an enemy force under John CLIF-FORD, Lord Clifford, and John NEVILLE,Lord Neville, one of Warwick’s Lancastriancousins from the Westmorland branch of theNEVILLE FAMILY, surprised the Yorkist campon the north bank and drove its occupantsacross the river in confusion. When the sur-vivors of Warwick’s force reached the mainYorkist army, their panic caused Edward’s mento fear that a Lancastrian horde was uponthem. To restore morale, Warwick, who hadbeen wounded in the leg by an arrow duringthe morning’s fight at the bridge, cried out,“Flee if you want but I will tarry with he whowill tarry with me” (Haigh, pp. 58–59), andthen dramatized his resolve by killing his ownhorse. Although Warwick did not know it atthe time, Clifford and Neville were content tohold the crossing and never came south of theriver.

By noon, the Yorkist army reached Ferry-bridge to find the bridge again destroyed and aLancastrian force again holding the northbank. To avoid the casualties of the previousday, Warwick sent his uncle, WilliamNEVILLE, Lord Fauconberg, to ford the riverthree miles upstream with a band of mountedarchers. This force fell upon the Lancastriansas they were retreating toward Somerset’s posi-tion. The Yorkist archers killed both Cliffordand Neville, and Edward IV brought his armysafely across the river by nightfall. Encampedless than a mile from each other, the two

91

F

armies waited in the cold for morning, whenthe Battle of Towton began.

Further Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheBattle of Towton (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1996); Haigh, Philip A., TheMilitary Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

First Protectorate (1454–1455)Lasting from March 1454 until February1455, the first protectorate was an attempt tosolve the constitutional crisis created by themental illness of HENRY VI (see HENRY VI,ILLNESS OF). Realizing that the king was un-able to govern for the foreseeable future, andbeing unwilling to name Queen MARGARET

OF ANJOU regent, the English PEERAGE, act-ing through PARLIAMENT, vested limitedroyal authority in the king’s cousin, RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York. Named pro-tector of the realm and chief councilor, York,supported by a COUNCIL of nobles, assumedtemporary control of the royal administrationon the same terms granted to Henry’s unclesduring his minority in the 1420s and 1430s.Although York’s appointment restored his po-litical position, which had been damaged bythe failure of the DARTFORD UPRISING in1452, it also saddled him with the undying en-mity of Queen Margaret, whose efforts toprotect the future of her infant son promotedthe political factionalization that helped fuelthe WARS OF THE ROSES.

In November 1453, after three months ofroyal incapacity, the king’s COUNCIL sum-moned a great council of nobles to meet atWestminster. Acting for York, John MOW-BRAY, duke of Norfolk, accused EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, Henry’s chiefminister and York’s chief rival, of treasonouslymishandling the war in FRANCE. With noking to protect him, Somerset was arrestedand imprisoned in the TOWER OF LON-DON, although no attempt was made to tryhim. Hoping that the king would improve, orthat York and the queen would come to someaccommodation, the Lords postponed Parlia-ment for three months. However, by March,

Henry was no better and the appointment of aroyal stand-in could no longer be delayed. Todiscourage the view that his new office im-plied any challenge to the house of LAN-CASTER, York demanded that the parliamen-tary act creating the protectorate clearlydeclare that he assumed the position only atthe request and on the authority of the Lords.The act also specified that York served at theking’s pleasure or until Prince EDWARD OF

LANCASTER came of age, a clause that pro-tected the prince’s position as heir.

York tried to rule with the support of abroad-based coalition of magnates; however,his position as leader of a faction of nobleswho had opposed the former regime was in-compatible with his new responsibility tomaintain order throughout the kingdom.When he intervened in local disputes, hecould not avoid charges of being biased infavor of his own supporters. Thus, when theduke involved himself in the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD, he appeared to back theNEVILLE FAMILY, while intervention in theCOURTENAY-BONVILLE FEUD made himseem a partisan of William BONVILLE, LordBonville. Feeling aggrieved, the Percies andthe Courtenays approached the queen, whobegan forming her own faction around York’spersonal and political foes.York also made en-emies by using his powers of patronage to ap-point his ally, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salis-bury, lord chancellor, and to take for himselfthe important captaincy of CALAIS, an officethat had belonged to Somerset and that gaveYork control of England’s only standing mili-tary force.

Henry’s sudden recovery at Christmas 1454led to York’s formal resignation of his protec-torship in February 1455. The king’s resump-tion of power gave the queen and York’s ene-mies their chance to retaliate. Somerset wasreleased from the Tower, and York’s chargesagainst him were rejected, while new appoint-ments filled the council with the queen’sfriends. Feeling themselves threatened, York,Salisbury, and Salisbury’s son, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, who had alsoquarreled with Somerset, armed themselves,

92 FIRST PROTECTORATE

an action that raised political tensions and ledin May to the first military encounter of thecivil wars, the Battle of ST.ALBANS.

See also Second ProtectorateFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Johnson, P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

Fitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of Kildare (1456–1513)The dominant political figure in IRELAND

during the last phase of the Wars of the Roses,Gerald Fitzgerald, eighth earl of Kildare, con-tinued his family’s Yorkist allegiance andmaintained Ireland as a haven for Yorkist polit-ical activity.

The son of Thomas FITZGERALD, seventhearl of Kildare, the eighth earl served as lorddeputy of Ireland from 1478 to 1492 andagain from 1496 until his death in 1513. Aslord deputy to Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, EDWARD IV’S younger son, Kildareenjoyed great power and influence in the early1480s. After 1483, RICHARD III, seeking tomaintain Yorkist dominance in Ireland, ap-pointed his son, Prince Edward, lord lieu-tenant, but left the government of Ireland inKildare’s hands as the young Prince’s deputy.

In 1485, after the death of Richard III andthe accession of HENRYVII, Kildare remainedloyal to the house of YORK. He welcomedLambert SIMNEL to Ireland in 1487, accept-ing the young man’s claim to be EdwardPLANTAGENET, earl of Warwick, the surviv-ing Yorkist claimant to the English throne. InMay 1487, Kildare allowed John de la POLE,earl of Lincoln and nephew to Richard III, toland in Dublin with 2,000 men provided byLincoln’s aunt, MARGARET OF YORK,duchess of BURGUNDY. On 24 May, Kildareattended the Dublin coronation of Simnel as“Edward VI,” and governed Ireland in “KingEdward’s” name in defiance of Henry VII.However, in 1488, a year after Simnel and Lin-coln invaded England from Ireland and cameto ruin at the Battle of STOKE, Kildare sub-mitted to Henry VII and was pardoned. He

lost the deputyship and again fell out of favorin the mid-1490s when he was suspected ofsupporting Perkin WARBECK, a Yorkist pre-tender who claimed to be the duke of York,the younger son of Edward IV.

Attainted by the Irish PARLIAMENT of1494, Kildare spent two years in the TOWER

OF LONDON before being restored as lorddeputy in 1496. To prevent Ireland from againbecoming a launchpad for Yorkist invasions,Henry VII made a concerted effort to winKildare’s support. To enhance his positionwith the English landowners resident in Ire-land, Kildare was given many marks of royalfavor, including being allowed to marry theking’s kinswoman, Elizabeth St. John. In 1504,the king rewarded Kildare with a Garterknighthood (i.e., membership in a prestigiouschivalric order) for his victory over Irish rebelsat the Battle of Knockdoe. Having made hispeace with the house of TUDOR, Kildare re-mained lord deputy into Henry VIII’s reign,dying in September 1513.

See also Yorkist Heirs (after 1485)Further Reading: Bryan, Donough, GeraldFitzgerald, the Great Earl of Kildare, 1456–1513(Dublin: Talbot Press, 1933); Cosgrove, Art, LateMedieval Ireland, 1370–1541 (Dublin: Helicon,1981); Lydon, James, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages(Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973); Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland (NewYork: Barnes and Noble Books, 1980).

Fitzgerald, Thomas, Earl ofDesmond (c. 1426–1468)An adherent of the house of YORK, ThomasFitzgerald, the eighth earl of Desmond, servedas EDWARD IV’s lord deputy of IRELAND inthe mid-1460s.

With the execution of James BUTLER, thestaunchly Lancastrian earl of Ormond, in May1461, political dominance in Ireland passed tothe Fitzgerald family, whose leaders had at-tached themselves in the 1450s to the cause ofRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York. Suc-ceeding his father as earl of Desmond in 1462,the eighth earl maintained his family’s Yorkistallegiance by crushing a Lancastrian invasionof Ireland led by Ormond’s brothers, John and

FITZGERALD, THOMAS, EARL OF DESMOND 93

Thomas Butler, both of whom had been at-tainted by Edward IV’s first PARLIAMENT. In1463, the king rewarded Desmond by ap-pointing him lord deputy. Governing in closeassociation with his kinsman, Thomas FITZ-GERALD, earl of Kildare, Desmond, like ear-lier Anglo-Irish deputies, used the authorityand financial resources attached to his officialposition to advance his own and his family’sinterests.

Desmond’s quarrels with other Anglo-Irishnobles, his friendliness with native Irish lead-ers, and his attempts to impose new exactionson the landowners in the Pale (i.e., the mostAnglicized region of Ireland around Dublin)led to uprisings and complaints that cost himthe favor of the king. By 1468, Edward had re-placed him as lord deputy with JohnTIPTOFT, the English earl of Worcester. In theIrish Parliament of that year, Worcester se-cured a bill of ATTAINDER against bothDesmond and Kildare, although only the for-mer suffered execution. His effectiveness de-stroyed by his actions against his predecessors,Worcester was recalled in 1470. The attaindersof Desmond and Kildare were reversed, andthe latter assumed the deputyship. AlthoughDesmond’s heir was allowed to succeed to hisfather’s lands and title, relations between theEnglish Crown and the Desmond Fitzgeraldswere strained for decades.

See also Fitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of KildareFurther Reading: Cosgrove, Art, Late MedievalIreland, 1370–1541 (Dublin: Helicon, 1981);Lydon, James, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages(Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973); Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland (NewYork: Barnes and Noble Books, 1980).

Fitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of Kildare (d. 1478)The dominant political figure in IRELAND

from the mid-1450s until his death, ThomasFitzgerald, seventh earl of Kildare, closely al-lied himself and his family with the house ofYORK and made Ireland a Yorkist stronghold.

Between 1455 and 1459, Kildare served aslord deputy of Ireland for the English lord

lieutenant, Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork. When York fled England after the Battleof LUDFORD BRIDGE in October 1459, hewithdrew to Ireland, where he was warmlywelcomed by Kildare. Although the govern-ment of HENRY VI strove over the next yearto weaken Kildare’s Yorkist connection, theearl remained loyal to York. In 1461, he washandsomely rewarded by EDWARD IV, whogranted Kildare various long-lost family landsand named the earl lord deputy (to Edward’sbrother George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence).

Kildare served as lord deputy or as chancel-lor of Ireland for most of the 1460s and 1470s,but in 1468, Kildare and his cousin, ThomasFITZGERALD, earl of Desmond, lost favorwith the new English lord deputy, JohnTIPTOFT, earl of Worcester. When landown-ers in the Pale (i.e., the most Anglicized regionof Ireland around Dublin) complained of theexactions imposed upon them by the earls forthe maintenance of their troops, Worcesterhad both men attainted, and had Desmondexecuted. However, because Edward IV soonfound Ireland difficult to govern withoutFitzgerald support, Kildare’s ATTAINDER wasreversed and he was restored as lord deputy in1470. The earl was thereafter secure in theroyal favor and governed Ireland for EdwardIV until 1475. Kildare died in March 1478.

See also Fitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of KildareFurther Reading: Cosgrove, Art, Late MedievalIreland, 1370–1541 (Dublin: Helicon, 1981);Lydon, James, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages(Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973); Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland (NewYork: Barnes and Noble Books, 1980).

Fortescue, Sir John (c. 1394–1476)A loyal adherent of the house of LAN-CASTER, Sir John Fortescue was also chiefjustice of the Court of King’s Bench and thepreeminent constitutional and legal theorist ofmedieval England.

The second son of a Devonshire gentle-man, Fortescue was educated at Oxford andtrained in the common law at Lincoln’s Inn.

94 FITZGERALD, THOMAS, EARL OF KILDARE

He became serjeant-at-law (i.e., a senior attor-ney who specialized in pleading cases in com-mon law courts) in 1430, and was appointedchief justice of King’s Bench in 1442. Fortes-cue fought for HENRY VI at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461, and afterward fledinto SCOTLAND with the Lancastrian royalfamily. Over the next two years of Scottishexile, Fortescue wrote several treatises defend-ing the Lancastrian title to the throne and re-futing the claim of the house of YORK. Thebest known of these works, De Natura LegisNaturae (On the Nature of Law), dismisses theYorkist claim because of its descent through thefemale line. In 1463, Fortescue followed QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU and her son PrinceEDWARD OF LANCASTER to FRANCE. Atthe queen’s court in exile at St. Michel-en-Barrois, Fortescue tutored the prince andprobably also acted as the Lancastrian chancel-lor. Exile gave Fortescue time to write his DeLaudibus Legum Angliae (In Praise of the Laws ofEngland), which may have been intended, inpart, to familiarize the prince with his futurekingdom. De Laudibus compares English andFrench law by way of explaining that England,unlike France, was a mixed monarchy inwhich the Crown (i.e., the king in PARLIA-MENT) governed with the consent of thepeople.

In 1470, Fortescue supported the ANGERS

AGREEMENT, the alliance that Queen Mar-garet concluded with Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick. After the Lancastrian restoration,while waiting to return to England, Fortescuedrafted a series of proposals to advise HenryVI’s READEPTION government on how toavoid the errors that had caused Henry’s ear-lier downfall. Fortescue landed in Englandwith Margaret and the prince on 14 April1471, the day of Warwick’s death at the Battleof BARNET. Captured in May after the Battleof TEWKESBURY, Fortescue acknowledgedLancastrian defeat and submitted to EDWARD

IV, who pardoned him and restored his estateson condition that he refute his own earlier ar-guments in favor of the Lancastrian claim.Achieving this in his Declaration upon CertainWritings Sent Out of Scotland, Fortescue suc-

cessfully petitioned for reversal of his ATTAIN-DER. Fortescue’s last work, On the Governanceof the Kingdom of England, summarized por-tions of De Laudibus and was the first work ofconstitutional theory in English and the firstbook of English law written specifically forlaypersons. Appointed to the COUNCIL in the1470s, Fortescue served until his death in1476.

Further Reading: Fortescue, Sir John, DeLaudibus Legum Angliae, edited and translated byS. B. Chrimes (Holmes Beach, FL: William W.Gaunt and Sons, 1986); Fortescue, Sir John, SirJohn Fortescue: On the Laws and Governance ofEngland, edited by Shelley Lockwood(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997);Gross, Anthony, The Dissolution of the LancastrianKingship: Sir John Fortescue and the Crisis ofMonarchy in Fifteenth-Century England (Stamford,UK: Paul Watkins, 1996).

FranceAlthough the HUNDRED YEARS WAR hadmade France the traditional enemy of En-gland, the French monarchy became the chiefpotential source of foreign assistance for bothsides during the WARS OF THE ROSES.French kings viewed perpetuation of civil warin England as a means for preventing furtherEnglish military intervention in France andfor weakening English support for the inde-pendent principalities of BURGUNDY andBRITTANY, the incorporation of which intoFrance was a cornerstone of French royalpolicy throughout the fifteenth century.

CHARLES VII, who was king of Francewhen the English civil war erupted in 1459,tended to favor the house of LANCASTER,even though he had spent most of his reignreconquering the Lancastrian-controlledareas of France. Not only was Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU Charles’s niece, but theYorkist tendency to emphasize the militaryinadequacies of the Lancastrian regime by re-calling the lost glories of England’s Frenchempire convinced Charles that the house ofYORK, once in power, would launch new in-vasions of France. However, Charles cau-tiously avoided involvement in English affairs

FRANCE 95

until EDWARD IV overthrew the house ofLancaster at the Battle of TOWTON inMarch 1461. In the four months between thebattle and his death in July, Charles providedthe Lancastrian cause with substantial assis-tance, including financing a successful attackon the English Channel Islands.

Although he had been estranged from hisfather, the new French king, LOUIS XI, seek-ing both to weaken England and enlargeFrance, continued Charles’s pro-Lancastrianpolicies. In the 1462 CHINON AGREEMENT,Louis agreed to provide Margaret of Anjouwith French MERCENARIES commanded byPierre de BRÉZÉ in return for her surrenderof CALAIS, the last remaining English posses-sion in France. When Burgundian interven-tion prevented a French attack on Calais, andmilitary defeats seemed to doom the Lancas-trian cause in England, Louis sought instead tonegotiate a marriage alliance with Edward IV.However, Edward’s preference for a Burgun-dian alliance, which was sealed in 1468 by themarriage of Edward’s sister, MARGARET OF

YORK, to Duke CHARLES of Burgundy,turned Louis against the Yorkist regime.

An opportunity to strike at Edward IV arosein 1470 when Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, fled to France after the failure of his sec-ond coup attempt. Arranging for Warwick tomeet Margaret of Anjou, Louis guided the twoformer enemies through the difficult negotia-tions that resulted in the ANGERS AGREE-MENT, whereby Margaret agreed to marry herson Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER toWarwick’s daughter Anne NEVILLE in returnfor Warwick’s promise to restore HENRYVI tothe throne. For his part, Louis pledged financialand military assistance to Warwick, whose pro-French stance had been partially responsiblefor his break with Edward, in return for War-wick’s agreement to bring England into warwith Burgundy as France’s ally.

Warwick toppled Edward in October 1470,but his declaration of war on Burgundy inJanuary 1471 convinced Duke Charles to sup-port Edward’s attempt to regain the Crown,and in April Warwick’s short-lived READEP-TION government collapsed when the earl

was slain at the Battle of BARNET. With War-wick dead and the house of Lancaster de-stroyed, the English civil wars and French op-portunities to exploit them were over. In theearly 1470s, Louis, like Duke Charles, paid En-glish courtiers to use their influence on his be-half with their king, but in 1475 Edwardlaunched the long-threatened Yorkist invasionof France. However, Edward’s willingness towithdraw his army in return for a large Frenchpension convinced Louis that he had little tofear from England and led him to aggressivelyreabsorb large parts of the Burgundian stateafter 1477, when the death of Duke Charlesgave the rule of the duchy to the duke’sdaughter Mary.

The deaths of both Louis XI and EdwardIV in 1483 left both countries with unstableregimes. In England, RICHARD III soughtsupport for his usurpation of EDWARD V’sCrown, while in France the regency govern-ment of thirteen-year-old CHARLES VIIIfaced a coalition of disaffected nobles. To pre-vent Richard from supporting its own rebelsand in pursuit of the traditional policy ofweakening England, the French governmentprovided men and ships for an invasion of En-gland launched in 1485 by Henry Tudor, earlof Richmond, the remaining heir to the Lan-castrian claim. Leading an army composedlargely of French and Scottish veterans pro-vided by the king of France, Richmond(thereafter HENRY VII) defeated and killedRichard III at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD in August.Henry VII fell at odds with his former

benefactor in 1491, when Charles’s marriageto Duchess Anne of Brittany signaled theeventual incorporation of that duchy intoFrance, an event that threatened English eco-nomic and security interests. Henry’s opposi-tion to French designs on Brittany led Charlesto invite the Yorkist pretender Perkin WAR-BECK to France. Because Warbeck claimed tobe Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, theyounger son of Edward IV who had disap-peared in the TOWER OF LONDON in 1483,Charles publicly acknowledged him as“Richard IV,” granting him a large pension

96 FRANCE

and comfortable lodgings at the French court.In 1492, Henry led an invasion force acrossthe Channel, but neither side wanted war withthe other—France was now too powerful forEngland to face alone, and Charles was moreinterested in Italy than in northwestern Eu-rope. As a result, Henry and Charles agreed tothe Treaty of Etaples in November. In returnfor payment of English campaign costs and thearrears of Edward IV’s 1475 pension, and for apromise to expel Warbeck and all other York-ist conspirators from France, Henry agreed towithdraw his army and tacitly accept theFrench takeover of Brittany. By 1500, astronger, larger, more unified France, havingrecognized the legitimacy of the house ofTUDOR, was no longer fearful of English in-vasion and increasingly interested in achievingpolitical and military dominance in Europe.

Further Reading: Davies, C. S. L.,“The Wars ofthe Roses in European Context,” in A. J. Pollard,ed., The Wars of the Roses (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1995), pp. 162–185; Kendall, Paul Murray,Louis XI (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971); Potter,David, A History of France, 1460–1560:TheEmergence of a Nation State (London: Macmillan,1995); Tyrrell, Joseph M., Louis XI (Boston:Twayne, 1980);Vale, M. G. A., Charles VII(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974).

Francis II, Duke of Brittany (d. 1488)After 1471, Francis II, ruler of the FrenchDuchy of BRITTANY, held custody of HenryTudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY VII),the surviving Lancastrian claimant to the En-glish throne.

Becoming duke of Brittany in 1458, Fran-cis’s goal was to maintain Breton indepen-dence, which was threatened by the growingpower of his feudal overlord, the king ofFRANCE. To achieve this end, Francis, a weakand irresolute man, conducted a complex for-eign policy that sought to preserve the friend-ship of England and BURGUNDY withoutunduly alienating France. Personally favorableto the house of LANCASTER, Francis allowedJasper TUDOR, earl of Pembroke, to hire Bre-ton men and ships for an invasion of WALES

in 1464. However, the expedition never sailed,in part because Francis withdrew his supportwhen LOUIS XI of France became lessfriendly to the Lancastrian cause. Nonetheless,Francis remained cool to diplomatic overturesfrom Yorkist England until 1468, when thegrowing threat of French invasion and Brit-tany’s thriving English trade forced the duketo conclude formal treaties of commerce andalliance with EDWARD IV.

After 1471, Francis had custody of Pem-broke and his nephew Richmond, who hadbeen driven ashore in Brittany after therestoration of the house of YORK forced themto flee Wales (see EDWARD IV, RESTORA-TION OF). Francis used his possession ofRichmond, the remaining Lancastrian heir, topressure Edward IV into supporting Brittanyagainst France. In 1472, a force of 1,000 En-glish ARCHERS under Anthony WOOD-VILLE, Earl Rivers, helped the Bretons repel aFrench invasion. In 1476, after persistent lob-bying by Bishop Robert STILLINGTON, theEnglish envoy, and by the pro-English factionat his own COURT, Francis agreed to surren-der Richmond to Edward. However, beforethe English could sail, Richmond’s friendsamong the duke’s advisors persuaded Francisto change his mind, and Richmond eventuallyreturned safely to the Breton court.

In 1480, Francis betrothed his only child,Anne, to Edward IV’s heir, the future ED-WARD V. When RICHARD III usurped thethrone in 1483, he ended the marriage and sodamaged the duke’s hopes for the future inde-pendence of Brittany. After failing in an at-tempt to use his continued possession ofRichmond to extort military assistance fromRichard, Francis supplied Richmond withships and men and allowed him to participatein BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION in October1483. After the failure of that uprising, agrowing band of English exiles formedaround Richmond in Brittany. In 1484,Richard, working through Francis’s treasurer,Pierre LANDAIS, who had temporary direc-tion of the Breton government while theduke was ill, secured an agreement to handRichmond over to the king’s agents. Warned

FRANCIS II, DUKE OF BRITTANY 97

of the plot by Bishop John MORTON, Rich-mond fled to France. Francis died in 1488,three years before his daughter’s marriage toCHARLES VIII of France effectively endedBreton independence.

98 FRANCIS II, DUKE OF BRITTANY

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., andRoger S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985); Jones,Michael, The Creation of Brittany:A Late MedievalState (London: Hambledon, 1988).

GeneralshipBecause most civil war armies comprised thesame types of troops, wielding the same typesof WEAPONRY and wearing similar ARMOR,the battles of the WARS OF THE ROSES

rarely offered much opportunity for the exer-cise of creative or resourceful generalship byarmy commanders. However, the personalbravery, martial prowess, and military reputa-tion of a commander, whether a king, prince,or nobleman, could give an army a decidededge in the hand-to-hand combat that charac-terized most civil war encounters (see BAT-TLES, NATURE OF).

Because fifteenth-century commanderswere expected to personally lead their meninto battle and to inspire them with deeds ofvalor, the house of YORK enjoyed a distinctleadership advantage early in the war, for itpossessed the two most vigorous and inspiringleaders of the conflict—EDWARD IV andRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick. Youngand strong, Edward, as his 1471 campaignshowed (see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION

OF), was capable of speed and decision, andpossessed boldness, self-confidence, and anability to inspire men. Never defeated in bat-tle, Edward was also blessed with good luck, areputation for which could itself greatly boostmorale among such a commander’s troops. In1471, for instance, Edward was fortunate thatQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU and her sonPrince EDWARD OF LANCASTER did notarrive in England until after Warwick hadbeen defeated and killed at the Battle ofBARNET.

Although not the battlefield commanderthat Edward IV was, being more conservativeand defensively minded, Warwick knew how

to inspire men and possessed a great reputa-tion for military success. His elaborate defen-sive preparations before the Battle of ST. AL-BANS in 1461 proved useless, but hispolitical/factional leadership was largely re-sponsible for the Yorkist successes of 1460 andfor the Lancastrian restoration a decade later(see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). UntilWarwick joined them, the Lancastrians’ mostvigorous leader was Queen Margaret, whocould inspire men but who could not, as awoman, lead them into combat. HENRY VIwas present on numerous battlefields, butnever as a commander. Captured no less thanthree times (NORTHAMPTON and the twobattles at St. Albans) and held captive on afourth occasion (Barnet), Henry apparentlylacked the wit to flee a losing field. With hisson too young to command, Henry left theleadership of his armies to prominent Lancas-trian noblemen like the Dukes of Somersetand Humphrey STAFFORD, duke of Bucking-ham. By the Battle of HEXHAM in 1464, theLancastrians no longer brought Henry to thefield, but deposited him some miles away atBywell Castle from which he could be quicklyspirited away.

Because commanders themselves engagedin combat, many were killed in battle or takenand executed later. Three Dukes of Somerset(see under BEAUFORT), two earls of North-umberland (see under PERCY), two earls ofDevon (see under COURTENAY), a Lancas-trian Prince of Wales, and a king of England(see RICHARD III) all died in battle or on theblock afterward. Between 1459 and 1487,combat and execution claimed the lives offorty-two noblemen, excluding Richard IIIand Edward of Lancaster. Many battles ended

99

G

when the commander of an army was slain.Henry VI’s men laid down their arms uponthe death of Edmund BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, at the 1455 Battle of ST. ALBANS,while royal troops quickly scattered or surren-dered upon Richard III’s death at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD. Although civil war com-manders usually had little scope for imagina-tive generalship, their presence and conducton the field were of great importance to theoutcome of battles.

See also Armies, Supplying of; MilitaryCampaigns, Duration ofFurther Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981);Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (London:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

GentryOther than the PEERAGE, no social class infifteenth-century England was more activelyinvolved in the WARS OF THE ROSES thanthe gentry.

The English gentry consisted of nontitledlandholders who exercised extensive politicaland social influence in their localities. Al-though they stood below the peerage in termsof political power, social position, and eco-nomic resources, they formed the backbone ofthe military forces that titled peers led intobattle. The gentry were subdivided intoknights, esquires, and mere gentry—categoriesbased roughly on income and social status. Asknights of the shire, and increasingly as repre-sentatives for the towns, the gentry comprisedthe greater part of the House of Commons.Asthe century progressed, the gentry servedmore frequently on the royal COUNCIL andin important COURT and household offices.By the late fifteenth century, the total numberof gentlemen of all subclasses probably stoodat 2,000 to 3,000 persons.

As the natural leaders in their counties, thegentry usually could not avoid participation inthe civil wars. Almost all gentlemen werelinked by family ties or long traditions of ser-vice to the king or a local nobleman. Many

gentlemen holding offices in the household ofHENRY VI, or in the households of QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU or Prince EDWARD

OF LANCASTER, fought for the house ofLANCASTER, while many members of fami-lies that had long served the house of YORK,like William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings,fought for Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, and his sons. Gentlemen who were paidRETAINERS of a particular nobleman (seeBASTARD FEUDALISM), or who hailed froma region where a particular noble or familywas dominant, as the NEVILLE FAMILY was inparts of the north, risked losing their income,or worse, by refusing their lord’s call to arms.

However, self-interest and ambition ledsome gentlemen to ignore ties of kinship orservice and switch sides or refuse to fight. Theretainers of George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, grew increasingly reluctant to followthe duke through his frequent changes of coat,and otherwise loyal Percy retainers ignoredthe summons of Henry PERCY, fourth earl ofNorthumberland, to fight for EDWARD IV in1471—too many of their male relatives haddied fighting against Edward at the Battle ofTOWTON in 1461. The severe penalties thataccompanied defeat also persuaded gentlemento refuse, delay, or limit participation. Almost200 Welsh gentlemen fell at the Battle ofEDGECOTE in 1469, and the Yorkists exe-cuted ten gentlemen after the Battle of MOR-TIMER’S CROSS in 1461 and almost thirtyafter the Battle of HEXHAM in 1464. Besidesdeath in battle or execution afterward, gentle-men also risked confiscation of their estates.Under Edward IV, PARLIAMENT passed billsof ATTAINDER against ninety-three gentle-men, and under RICHARD III seventy gentle-men were attainted for involvement in BUCK-INGHAM’S REBELLION in 1483. The warsinflicted heavy losses on the gentry, especiallyamong wealthier members of the class.

Further Reading: Carpenter, Christine, Localityand Polity:A Study of Warwickshire Landed Society,1401–1499 (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1992); Pollard, A. J.,“The RichmondshireCommunity of Gentry during the Wars of theRoses,” in Charles Ross, ed., Patronage, Pedigree and

100 GENTRY

Power in Later Medieval England (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1979), pp.37–59; Pugh, T. B.,“The Magnates, Knights andGentry” in S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and RalphA. Griffiths, eds., Fifteenth-Century England,1399–1509, 2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1995), pp. 86–128; Ross, Charles, TheWars of the Roses (London: Thames and Hudson,1987).

George, Duke of Clarence. SeePlantagenet, George, Duke of Clarence

Gloucester, Duke of. See Richard III

The Great Chronicle of London. SeeLondon Chronicles

Gregory’s Chronicle. See LondonChronicles

Grey, Edmund, Earl of Kent(c. 1420–1489)In the summer of 1460, Edmund Grey, futureearl of Kent, helped alter the course of theWARS OF THE ROSES and revitalize theYorkist cause by switching sides at the Battleof NORTHAMPTON.

Grey served in FRANCE in the late 1430sand was knighted in October 1440, only twoweeks after succeeding his grandfather asfourth Lord Grey of Ruthyn. He generallysupported HENRY VI during the 1450s, anddeclared himself the king’s man at the 1459COVENTRY PARLIAMENT that attaintedRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, andhis Neville allies. In July 1460, Grey com-manded the right flank of the royal army at theBattle of Northampton; but when the Yorkisttroops approached his part of the line, Grey or-dered his men to lay down their arms andallow the Yorkists to enter the king’s camp.This betrayal of Henry VI was apparently pre-planned, for Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, the Yorkist commander, had told his men

to spare anyone wearing Grey’s BADGE, theblack ragged staff. Thanks to Grey’s treachery,the Yorkists overwhelmed the royal army, slewsuch important Lancastrian lords as HumphreySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, andThomas PERCY, Lord Egremont, and seizedcontrol of the king and the government.

After he won the Crown in 1461, ED-WARD IV rewarded Grey for his services tothe house of YORK by naming him lord trea-surer in 1463 and creating him earl of Kent inMay 1466. In the mid-1460s, Grey’s son mar-ried a sister of Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE.After about 1469, Kent seems to have with-drawn from politics and to have played littlepart either in the READEPTION of Henry VIin 1470 or the restoration of Edward IV in1471 (see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF).In 1483, Kent participated in the coronationof RICHARD III and in 1484 won confirma-tion of his titles from the new king. However,Kent received no other rewards from Richard,who perhaps considered the support of theaging and long inactive earl not worth buying.In 1487, two years after HENRYVII had over-thrown Richard III, Kent again had his titlesconfirmed. The earl died in 1489.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Grey, Thomas, Marquis of Dorset (1451–1501)A half brother of EDWARD V, Thomas Grey,marquis of Dorset, participated in the finalphase of the civil wars by supporting efforts tooverthrow RICHARD III.

The eldest son of John Grey and ElizabethWOODVILLE, Grey became the stepson ofEDWARD IV when his widowed mother mar-ried the king in 1464. Although his father haddied fighting for HENRY VI in 1461, Greyfought for his Yorkist stepfather at the Battleof TEWKESBURY in May 1471, and wasraised to the PEERAGE as earl of Huntingdonthree months later. In 1475, only weeks before

GREY, THOMAS, MARQUIS OF DORSET 101

accompanying the king to FRANCE, he wascreated marquis of Dorset.Although acquiringa reputation as a licentious courtier, Dorset, bythe 1480s, was also a royal councilor and anemerging political figure. His feud withWilliam HASTINGS, Lord Hastings, disturbedthe peace of the COURT during the lastmonths of Edward IV.

On Edward V’s accession in April 1483,Dorset became constable of the TOWER OF

LONDON and sought to secure the royalNAVY for the Woodville interest. WhenRichard, duke of Gloucester, Edward V’s pa-ternal uncle, seized custody of the young king,and arrested Lord Richard Grey, Dorset’sbrother and one of the king’s governors, themarquis fled into SANCTUARY at Westmin-ster with his mother. He escaped from sanctu-ary in June, only weeks before Gloucestertook the Crown as Richard III. In October1483, with a price on his head, and with ru-mors claiming that Edward V and his brotherwere dead, Dorset joined BUCKINGHAM’SREBELLION. When that uprising on behalf ofHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond, failed, Dorsetjoined Richmond in exile in BRITTANY. Inearly 1484, Richard III reconciled withQueen Elizabeth Woodville, who left sanctu-ary and convinced her son by letter to aban-don Richmond and submit to the king.Dorset quit Paris secretly, but Richmond senttwo of his men to retrieve the marquis, whowas privy to all Richmond’s plans. Overtakennear Compiègne, Dorset was either persuadedor compelled to return to Paris, where a mis-trustful Richmond left him when he em-barked for England in August.

After his victory at the Battle of BOS-WORTH FIELD, Richmond, now HENRY

VII, recalled Dorset to England and confirmedhim in his titles and offices. However, in 1487,the king committed Dorset to the Tower.Henry’s reasons for this action are uncertain.Perhaps he still distrusted Dorset for hisattempted defection in 1485, but more likelyhe believed Dorset was somehow involvedwith Lambert SIMNEL or with some otherconspiracy that claimed the sons of Edward IVwere still alive. In any event, Dorset was re-

leased and restored to favor shortly after Sim-nel’s uprising collapsed at the Battle of STOKE

in June 1487. The marquis died in September1501.

Further Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Gruthuyse, Louis de, Seigneur de laGruthuyse, Earl of Winchester (c. 1427–1492)In late 1470, the Burgundian nobleman, Louisde Gruthuyse, Lord of Gruthuyse, providedthe newly exiled EDWARD IV with vital ma-terial and political support.

Louis succeeded his father as Lord ofGruthuyse in 1438, and became cupbearer toDuke PHILIP of BURGUNDY by 1449. Theduke appointed him captain of Bruges in 1452and knighted him at the Battle of Gavre inJuly 1453. By 1461, Gruthuyse was the duke’schamberlain and a member of his COUNCIL.As Burgundian ambassador to both SCOT-LAND and England in 1460, Gruthuyse dis-played his friendship for the house of YORK

by persuading the Scottish regent, QueenMARY OF GUELDRES, to refrain from aidingQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU until afterthe death of Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, at the Battle of WAKEFIELD in Decem-ber. In 1466–1467, while again serving as am-bassador to England, Gruthuyse became famil-iar with the Yorkist COURT and personallyknown to Edward IV.

On 2 October 1470, after being isolatedand outmaneuvered by Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick, Edward and a small band of fol-lowers fled England and landed on the Dutchcoast (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).As governor of Holland since 1463, Gruthuysewelcomed the weary and destitute exiles toBurgundy. After escorting the Englishmen tohis house in The Hague, Gruthuyse suppliedthem with food, clothes, and money, andworked to secure Edward an interview withDuke CHARLES, whose Lancastrian inclina-tions made him unwilling to receive the ex-

102 GRUTHUYSE, LOUIS DE, SEIGNEUR DE LA GRUTHUYSE, EARL OF WINCHESTER

king. Edward had to rely on the unfailing hos-pitality of Gruthuyse until January, when thefriendship that HENRY VI’s READEPTION

government displayed for FRANCE forced theduke to meet with Edward and begin quietlyassisting him. As a consequence, Edward sailedfor England in March, defeated and killedWarwick at the Battle of BARNET in April,and secured his Crown after the Battle ofTEWKESBURY in May (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF).

In October 1472, Duke Charles sentGruthuyse to England to discuss an Anglo-Bur-gundian alliance.To express his gratitude for theambassador’s assistance in 1470, Edward gaveGruthuyse a lavish welcome to the Englishcourt, creating him earl of Winchester, grantinghim an annuity of £200, and presenting him

with such gifts as a bejeweled cup, a fine cross-bow, and one of the royal horses. Edward alsoemployed Winchester as a negotiator for En-gland with the HANSEATIC LEAGUE, a power-ful association of German merchants, andgranted the earl special trading rights in Englishports. Winchester spent most of the rest of hislife in service to the dukes of Burgundy,dying atBruges in November 1492.A noted bibliophile,with one of the largest private libraries in Eu-rope, Winchester is often credited by historianswith encouraging Edward IV to begin collect-ing manuscripts, a pursuit that the king beganonly after his return from Burgundy in 1471.

Further Reading: Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Vaughan, Richard, Valois Burgundy (Hamden, CT:Archon Books, 1975).

GRUTHUYSE, LOUIS DE, SEIGNEUR DE LA GRUTHUYSE, EARL OF WINCHESTER 103

Hanseatic LeagueEstablished to control the activities and pro-tect the privileges of German merchants trad-ing in northern Europe, the Hanseatic League(or Hansa) was by the late fourteenth centurya loose association of almost one hundrednorth German and Baltic towns. By the fif-teenth century, Hansa merchants (known asEasterlings) enjoyed extensive trading privi-leges in England and operated trading posts invarious English ports, including LONDON. Apower at sea capable of organizing economicblockades and naval campaigns to support itsmembers’ interests, the league, through its hos-tility toward the commercial policies of ED-WARD IV, affected the course of the WARS

OF THE ROSES in 1470–1471.By the 1460s, Hansa traders had largely

frozen English merchants out of direct partici-pation in trade with North Germany, theBaltic, Scandinavia, and Iceland. Meanwhile,league merchants had achieved a privilegedposition in England—their headquarters inLondon (known as the Steelyard) enjoyed ex-traterritorial status, and they were exemptfrom the poundage customs duty that all En-glish merchants were required to pay. Theseprivileges made the league highly unpopularin England, and especially in London, and ex-plain the great national reputation won byRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, when hepreyed upon Hansa shipping from his CALAIS

base in 1460.In 1468, league involvement in the seizure

of four English vessels led Edward IV and hisCOUNCIL to authorize the arrest and impris-onment of all Hansa merchants in London.This action, which was condemned even byEnglish traders as arbitrary and counterpro-

ductive, initiated a damaging commercial andnaval war that virtually halted English tradewith Germany and the Baltic. In 1470, afterWarwick concluded the ANGERS AGREE-MENT with MARGARET OF ANJOU, Han-seatic naval attacks forced Edward IV to divertthe English fleet from keeping watch for theearl’s return from FRANCE. In October, whenWarwick’s landing forced Edward to flee therealm, a Hanseatic vessel pursued and almostcaught Edward’s ship as it made for BUR-GUNDY. Although Warwick had been in-vested in the captured English ships, and hadthus been a strong advocate of the 1468 deci-sion to retaliate against the league, the earl, onhis return to England in 1470, reaped the ben-efits of the unpopularity that decision hadearned for Edward IV among the Englishmerchant community (see EDWARD IV,OVERTHROW OF).

In early 1471, Edward obtained Hanseaticvessels to convey him to England in exchangefor a promise to restore all the league’s tradingprivileges when he regained the throne (seeEDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF). However,once in power, the king reneged on the agree-ment, and the Hansa resumed the naval war.Edward’s attitude changed when he realizedthat peace with the league was necessary if hewas to secure the English Channel in prepara-tion for his intended invasion of France.Anglo-Hanseatic negotiations collapsed in1472 when England rejected the league’s de-mands for full compensation for all ships andgoods seized in 1468 and for completerestoration of all trading privileges formerlyheld in England. In 1474, Edward, anxious tobegin the French campaign, put political in-terests before commercial ones and agreed to

105

H

all the league’s terms in the Treaty of Utrecht.The agreement was a complete surrender onEdward’s part; aside from an end to the navalwar, he achieved no improvement in the statusof English merchants trading in Hanseatic ter-ritories, where the tax exemptions extendedto Easterlings in England were not recipro-cated. As a result of the treaty, English tradewith Germany and the Baltic declined drasti-cally, while Hansa trade with England reachedrecord levels by the 1480s.

See also English Economy and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Lloyd, T. H., England and theGerman Hanse, 1157–1611 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1991).

HarbingersHarbingers were a special corps of men whorode before an army on the march andarranged for the billeting, or lodging, of thetroops.

Harbingers generally came under the com-mand of the army’s marshal, the officer re-sponsible for keeping the troops well fed andsupplied. Because the WARS OF THE ROSES

were civil wars, harbingers usually had tomaintain friendly relations with the local peo-ple on whom troops were billeted while alsoproviding suitable accommodations for themen. Uncomfortable sleeping quarters coulddamage army morale, and quarrels over whogot choice billets could destroy an army’s co-hesion and seriously divide its leadership. TheYorkists lost the Battle of EDGECOTE in 1469largely because EDWARD IV’s commanders,William HERBERT, earl of Pembroke, andHumphrey STAFFORD, earl of Devon, arguedover lodging the night before. When Devonled most of the ARCHERS to distant billets,Pembroke had mainly footmen when he wasconfronted next day by the ROBIN OF RE-DESDALE insurgents.

Harbingers could also act as foragers andinformation gatherers, since they often madefirst contact with the enemy force by clashingwith its harbingers. Because encountering op-posing harbingers could reveal a foe’s location

and direction, commanders sometimes or-dered their own harbingers to ride away fromthe army’s line of march, thereby deceivingthe enemy as to the army’s position and thecommander’s intentions. Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, used this tactic during hiscoup attempt in 1470, as did Edmund BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset, the Lancastriancommander during the western campaign in1471. In an effort to reach the Severn fordsbefore Edward IV, Somerset sent harbingerssoutheast from Bristol when the army movednorth. Although Edward eventually caughtand defeated his enemies at the Battle ofTEWKESBURY, the ploy almost delayed theking sufficiently to allow MARGARET OF

ANJOU’s army to reach WALES.

See also Armies, Supplying ofFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Gillingham, John, The Wars of the Roses (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981).

Hardyng, John. See Hardyng’s Chronicle

Hardyng’s ChronicleWritten by John Hardyng (1378–c. 1465), asoldier and antiquarian, Hardyng’s Chronicle isan English verse account of the history of En-gland from its beginnings to 1461. AlthoughHardyng’s Chronicle is of value for the reign ofHENRY VI, historians of the WARS OF THE

ROSES use the work cautiously because it ex-ists in different versions and was rewritten ateach change of regime to reflect the interestsof the party in power.

A northerner, Hardyng spent part of hisyouth in service to the Percy family (seeNORTH OF ENGLAND AND THE WARS OF

THE ROSES). He fought against the Scots in1402 and in FRANCE at the Battle of Agin-court in 1415. From 1418 to 1421, he traveledthrough SCOTLAND collecting evidence toprove that the Scots owed homage to England.The death of Henry V in 1422 ended theproject, until Hardyng resumed his search for

106 HARBINGERS

Henry VI in 1439. Hardyng eventually re-ceived grants totaling £30 per year for his ser-vices, even though the six documents relatingto the matter that Hardyng gave to the Crownin 1457 were proven in the nineteenth cen-tury to be forgeries. The documents wereprobably created by Hardyng, whose antiquar-ian knowledge would have allowed him toproduce convincing fakes.

Hardyng’s Chronicle consists of seven-lineverse stanzas rhyming according to thescheme ababbcc. In 1457, Hardyng, in an un-successful attempt to obtain a royal grant,dedicated his Chronicle to Henry VI; to theking’s wife, Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU; and to the king’s son, Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER. Although favorableto the house of LANCASTER, this initial ver-sion obliquely criticizes Henry VI by in-forming the king of instances of civil unrestand local injustice. A second version, suitablyrevised to win the favor of the house ofYORK, was dedicated to Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, some time between1458 and 1460. While the first version con-tains no judgment on the abilities of HenryVI, the second questions the king’s wits andmoral reasoning.

He could little within his breast conceive,The good from evil he could not perceive.

(Ellis, p. 394)

Shortly before his death in about 1465, Har-dyng presented yet another version of hischronicle to EDWARD IV. Although this ver-sion ends with the flight of the Lancastrianroyal family into Scotland after the Battle ofTOWTON in 1461, mention of Queen Eliza-beth WOODVILLE dates completion of themanuscript to 1464, the year of Elizabeth’smarriage to the king. The best-known editionof Hardyng’s Chronicle was printed in 1543 bythe Tudor chronicler Richard Grafton, whoupdated the work to his own time. Althoughhis poetry is poor and his partisan purposes areclear, Hardyng is still a useful source for eventsof the 1450s that led up to the Wars of theRoses.

See also Rous, JohnFurther Reading: Ellis, Henry, ed., The Chronicleof John Hardyng Together with the Continuation ofRichard Grafton (London, 1812); Hardyng, John,The Chronicle of John Hardyng, reprint ed. (NewYork: AMS Press, 1974); see the online CatholicEncyclopedia at <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07136a.htm> for a brief biography ofJohn Hardyng.

Harlech Castle (1461–1468)By holding out for most of the 1460s, theLancastrian garrison in the Welsh castle atHarlech prevented the establishment of effec-tive Yorkist government in WALES and en-couraged Lancastrian resistance throughoutEngland.

Harlech Castle was one of the massivefortresses built by Edward I in the late thir-teenth century to overawe the newly subduedWelsh. Like Edward’s other Welsh strongholds,Harlech was designed and built to be suppliedby sea. After EDWARD IV’s victory at the Bat-tle of TOWTON in March 1461, HENRY VI’shalf brother, Jasper TUDOR, earl of Pembroke,placed Lancastrian garrisons in Harlech andvarious other Welsh fortresses in an effort tohold Wales against the Yorkists. Sir WilliamHERBERT, the leading Yorkist in Wales, de-feated Pembroke at the Battle of TWT HILL

in October 1461, forcing the earl to flee toIRELAND. By the end of 1462, Herbert hadcaptured all the Lancastrian strongholds inWales except Harlech Castle, which remainedin the hands of a garrison commanded by theWelshman David ap Eynon and includingsuch prominent English Lancastrians as SirRichard TUNSTALL.

Far from LONDON on the remote coast ofnorthwest Wales, Harlech remained largelyunmolested for seven years. The garrison keptNorth Wales in disorder for the whole time,periodically sallying forth to seize cattle,wheat, and other supplies and loudly pro-claiming their allegiance to Henry VI and thehouse of LANCASTER. Harlech became a safepoint of entry and exit for Lancastrian agentsand a link to Ireland and SCOTLAND. Thefortress also became a center of Lancastrian in-

HARLECH CASTLE 107

trigue. In early 1462, the garrison helped fo-ment a conspiracy to bring Pembroke back toWales to coordinate Lancastrian attacks thereand in England. The Yorkists discovered theplot and executed two Englishmen implicatedin it, John de Vere, earl of Oxford, and his eld-est son Aubrey, thereby making John deVERE, the earl’s second son, an implacable foeof the house of YORK (see OXFORD CON-SPIRACY). In 1461, Edward IV promised apardon to the garrison leaders if they surren-dered and an ATTAINDER if they did not.Thegarrison ignored the offer. In 1464, PARLIA-MENT called upon the garrison to submit, andEdward issued a proclamation giving the gar-rison until 1 January 1465 to surrender.Harlech’s defenders again ignored the king.

In June 1468, Pembroke returned toHarlech. After attracting large numbers ofWelsh Lancastrians to his banner, the earllaunched a campaign of destruction acrosscentral Wales, eventually seizing and plunder-ing the town of Denbigh.These new disordersconvinced Edward IV that Harlech had to betaken, and he issued COMMISSIONS OF

ARRAY to Herbert to raise an army in theEnglish border counties. Dividing his force of9,000 into two parts, Herbert sent his brother,Richard Herbert, to devastate the coast northof the castle while he advanced on Harlechfrom the south. After the northern force de-feated and scattered Pembroke’s men, the twowings of the army reunited and forced thesurrender of Harlech on 14 August 1468. Al-though David ap Eynon was pardoned, SirRichard Tunstall and the other Englishmen inthe garrison were conveyed to the TOWER

OF LONDON, where some were eventuallyexecuted. The king pardoned the rest of thegarrison in December. Pembroke once againescaped Wales, but his earldom was awarded toHerbert in September. With the fall ofHarlech, all England and Wales were for thefirst time under Yorkist control.

Further Reading: Davies, John, A History ofWales (London: The Penguin Group, 1993); Evans,H. T., Wales and the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Griffiths, Ralph A.,“Wales and the Marches,” in

S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and Ralph A. Griffiths,eds., Fifteenth-Century England, 1399–1509, 2d ed.(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1995);Williams, Glanmor, Renewal and Reformation:Wales,c. 1415–1642 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993).

Harness. See Armor

Hastings, William, Lord Hastings(c. 1430–1483)William Hastings, Lord Hastings, was a per-sonal friend and loyal supporter of EDWARD

IV, and, as the most important supporter ofEDWARD V in 1483, was summarily executedby Richard, duke of Gloucester (seeRICHARD III).

Born into a Leicestershire GENTRY familythat had long served the house of YORK,Hastings, like his father, was a RETAINER ofRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York. Hewas with the Yorkist army at the Battle ofLUDFORD BRIDGE in 1459 and joined theforces of York’s son, Edward, earl of March,after the earl’s victory at the Battle of MOR-TIMER’S CROSS in 1461. Present in LON-DON when March was proclaimed king asEdward IV, Hastings was several weeks laterknighted by Edward on the field of TOW-TON. Quickly rewarded with lands and of-fices, Hastings was soon known to be high inthe king’s confidence, a personal friend of un-shakable loyalty who shared Edward’s tastes.He was a member of the COUNCIL by April1461 and a member of the PEERAGE by thefollowing June. In the same year, he was ap-pointed master of the mint and lord chamber-lain. The latter office was highly lucrative, forit allowed Hastings to control access to theking. Many important people, including bothElizabeth WOODVILLE, on her first appear-ance at COURT, and Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick, paid him to exercise his influencewith Edward on their behalf. By the 1470s,Hastings was receiving handsome pensionsfrom both LOUIS XI of FRANCE and DukeCHARLES of BURGUNDY. The king alsogranted Hastings extensive estates in the Mid-

108 HARNESS

lands, a traditionally Lancastrian region thatEdward was anxious to pacify. Thanks largelyto the position of trust that he enjoyed atcourt, Hastings soon became so influential inthe Midlands that he could retain men simplyon the promise of “good lordship” withoutthe usual monetary payment (see BASTARD

FEUDALISM).In 1470, Hastings fled with Edward to Bur-

gundy. On their return to England in 1471,Hastings quickly raised 3,000 men on hisMidland estates, the first significant body ofreinforcements to join Edward. Hastings com-manded the Yorkist left at the Battle of BAR-NET and the right wing at the Battle ofTEWKESBURY. After Edward’s restoration,

Hastings served on various diplomatic mis-sions, becoming well known at foreign courts,especially Burgundy, where he had helped ne-gotiate the duke’s 1468 marriage to Edward’ssister, MARGARET OF YORK. He accompa-nied Edward on the French expedition of1475 and was named governor of CALAIS in1471, an appointment that angered the queen,who wanted that important post for herbrother, Anthony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers.The queen also disliked Hastings because hewas, in the words of Dominic MANCINI,“theaccomplice and partner of [the king’s] privypleasures” (Ross, Edward IV, p. 74). AlthoughHastings seems, for one of his position, to havehad few enemies—in his HISTORY OF KING

HASTINGS, WILLIAM, LORD HASTINGS 109

The lion badge of William Hastings, Lord Hastings, the loyal Yorkist executed by Richard III in 1483. (Add. MS 40742 f.11, British Library)

RICHARD III, Sir Thomas More called him“an honourable man, a good knight and . . .passing well-beloved” (Ross, Edward IV, p.73)—his rivalry with the WOODVILLE FAM-ILY, and especially with the queen’s son,Thomas GREY, marquis of Dorset, so intensi-fied in the early 1480s that Edward IV tried toreconcile the two on his deathbed.

After the king’s death in April 1483, Hast-ings’s antipathy toward the Woodvilles madehim an early ally of Richard, duke of Glouces-ter, Edward’s brother. However, Hastings’s loy-alty to Edward V, his late master’s son, wasdeep, and when Gloucester realized that theinfluential peer would not countenance Ed-ward’s removal from the throne, the dukestruck Hastings down. At the famous COUN-CIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483 in theTOWER OF LONDON, Gloucester accusedHastings of plotting treason with the queenand Jane SHORE, a former mistress of EdwardIV with whom Hastings may have recentlybegun a relationship. Seized by ThomasHOWARD who led armed men into thecouncil chamber on Gloucester’s command,Hastings was summarily executed on TowerHill without trial. Although no evidence ofany Hastings-Woodville conspiracy exists be-yond Gloucester’s accusation, such a plot is notimpossible given Hastings’s well-known loy-alty to Edward IV and his sons.

See also Usurpation of 1483Further Reading: Hicks, Michael,“LordHastings’ Indentured Retainers?” in Richard III andHis Rivals: Magnates and Their Motives in the Wars ofthe Roses (London: Hambledon Press, 1991); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981);Seward, Desmond, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork:Viking, 1995);“William Lord Hastings,” inMichael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.345–346.

Hedgeley Moor, Battle of (1464)The Battle of Hedgeley Moor, fought inNorthumberland on 25 April 1464, checkedthe growth of Lancastrian insurgency in the

far north and allowed the continuation ofpeace talks between SCOTLAND, a formerLancastrian refuge, and the Yorkist govern-ment of EDWARD IV.

Early in 1464, Henry BEAUFORT, the Lan-castrian duke of Somerset, whom Edward IVhad pardoned in the previous year, left his postin WALES and fled into the Lancastrian north,where he declared openly for HENRY VI.After a failed attempt to seize the Yorkist sup-ply base at Newcastle, Somerset appeared atthe Northumbrian castle of BAMBURGH,then in Lancastrian hands. Joining forces withSir Ralph Percy and other recently pardonedLancastrians, Somerset launched a two-monthcampaign that by late March had turnednortheastern England into a Lancastrian en-clave. With Norham Castle and the towns ofBywell, Hexham, Langley, and Prudhoe all inSomerset’s hands, the Anglo-Scottish talks thatwere set to resume in Newcastle on 6 Marchhad to be rescheduled for late April in York.To safely escort the Scottish commissionersfrom the border to York, Edward IV dis-patched John NEVILLE, Lord Montagu, intoNorthumbria.

Collecting strength as he moved north,Montagu evaded a Lancastrian ambush andcame safely to Newcastle. Resuming his marchto the Scottish border, Montagu encountered aforce under Somerset about nine miles north-west of ALNWICK on Hedgeley Moor. Al-though accounts of the battle are sketchy, fight-ing seems to have begun with the usualexchange of ARCHER fire. But before the twoarmies could engage, the left wing of Somer-set’s force suddenly broke and ran, perhaps be-cause of poor morale. Montagu shifted his posi-tion to attack the remaining Lancastrians, whowere quickly overwhelmed by the larger York-ist army. At some point during the fighting,Somerset and most of the Lancastrian army dis-engaged and scattered, leaving Sir Ralph Percyand his household RETAINERS on the field tobe slaughtered. After the battle, Montagu re-formed his army and continued his march tothe border, where he met the Scottish envoysand conducted them safely to York to resumetheir talks with Edward IV’s commissioners.

110 HEDGELEY MOOR, BATTLE OF

See also Dunstanburgh Castle; Hexham, Battleof; North of England and the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

Henry VI, King of England(1421–1471)Through his favoritism and inability to func-tion effectively as king, Henry VI, thirdmonarch of the house of LANCASTER, be-came a chief cause of the WARS OF THE

ROSES.Born at Windsor in December 1421, the

only child of Henry V (r. 1413–1422) andCatherine of Valois (d. 1437), Henry was lessthan a year old when he succeeded his fatheras king of England and his maternal grandfa-ther, Charles VI (r. 1380–1422), as king ofFRANCE. Having reopened the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR, Henry V had conquered largeareas of northern France and had won officialrecognition as heir to the French throne.However, Henry VI’s maternal uncle,CHARLES VII, rejected this settlement, andmaintenance of England’s French possessionsrequired a continuous military effort. Henry’seldest paternal uncle, John, duke of Bedford(1389–1435), directed the English adminis-tration in France, while the king’s youngeruncle, Humphrey, duke of Gloucester (1390–1447), presided in England over a minorityCOUNCIL composed of experienced nobleand ecclesiastical councilors. Acting in thechild king’s name, though unable to makeany permanent decisions affecting hisCrowns, the minority administration pre-served the French domain and provided gen-erally effective government.

Crowned at Westminster in 1429 and atParis in 1431, Henry was declared of full agein 1437. He was eager to exercise his officeand to have his will in matters that interestedhim, such as the royal foundations of EtonCollege and King’s College, Cambridge,which the king planned in minute detail andto which he diverted funds that were urgentlyneeded elsewhere. However, he had little un-

derstanding of the workings of government,and was easily persuaded by self-interestedcourtiers to grant titles, lands, offices, pardons,and monetary rewards without any thought tothe merits or the consequences of the request.An exceptionally pious man, Henry had nointerest in leading armies and in the 1440s al-lowed England’s military position in France todeteriorate. He actively if ineffectively pursueda peace policy that led in 1445 to a truce withCharles VII and to his marriage with Charles’skinswoman, MARGARET OF ANJOU. Pressedby his wife, and anxious to achieve a final set-tlement in France, Henry fulfilled a rashpromise to surrender Maine, thereby buyingmuch ill will in England for his chief minister,William de la POLE, duke of Suffolk. Whenthe French overwhelmed a poorly defendedNormandy in 1449–1450, public dissatisfac-tion with government policy fell upon Suf-folk, who was driven from office. Suffolk’s fallwas followed by JACK CADE’S REBELLION,

HENRY VI, KING OF ENGLAND 111

Henry VI, third and last king of the house of Lancaster,was overthrown by Edward IV of the house of York in1461, and murdered, probably on Edward’s order, in theTower of London in 1471. (National Portrait Gallery:NPG 2457)

which protested military failure in France andthe breakdown of royal justice in England, andwhich gave voice to the frustration of noble-men who felt themselves excluded from royalpatronage by a clique of favored courtiers.

Chief among these disaffected magnateswas Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York,who was heir presumptive to the childlessking. The duke’s anger grew when Henry re-placed Suffolk with Edmund BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset, who had his own claim tothe throne. York made several abortive at-tempts to force his way into the royal counsels(see DARTFORD UPRISING) but did not suc-ceed until 1453, when Henry suffered a seri-ous mental breakdown that left him com-pletely incapacitated (see HENRY VI, ILLNESS

OF). With Henry unable to communicate, andeven unaware of the birth of his son, PrinceEDWARD OF LANCASTER, PARLIAMENT

appointed York protector, and the duke com-mitted Somerset to the TOWER OF LON-DON. Henry’s recovery in early 1455 endedthe FIRST PROTECTORATE and effectedSomerset’s release. Meanwhile, lack of an ef-fective king had allowed noble quarrels, suchas the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD, to flourish,and these feuds began to merge into thegrowing national rivalry between York andSomerset. With Henry unable to play the tra-ditional royal role of arbiter, factions devel-oped around York and around Somerset andthe queen, who entered the political fray outof fear that York’s ambition might threaten herson. Violence erupted in May 1455, whenYork, fearing arrest, took up arms against theCOURT with his new allies, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and his sonRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick.

At the Battle of ST.ALBANS, Somerset diedand York used custody of the king to establishhis short-lived SECOND PROTECTORATE.Soon after, Henry suffered a relapse fromwhich he never fully recovered. For the rest ofhis life, Henry was a symbol of monarchyrather than a functioning monarch; politicalfactions fought to control his person, seekingto use custody of the king to legitimize theircontrol of the king’s government. In 1459,

after the failure of Henry’s LOVE-DAY peaceeffort, the queen drove York and the Nevillesfrom England. Warwick returned in 1460 andcaptured Henry at the Battle of NORTHAMP-TON, thereby allowing York to lay his claim tothe Crown before Parliament, an act thattransformed a political dispute into a dynasticwar between the houses of Lancaster andYORK. Henry made no protest, and his depo-sition was prevented only by the unwillingnessof Parliament, which imposed a settlement—the Act of ACCORD—that disinheritedPrince Edward in favor of York. Henry pas-sively accepted this agreement, although thequeen continued the war. Lancastrian victoriesat the Battles of WAKEFIELD in December1460 and ST.ALBANS in February 1461 led toYork’s death and Henry’s reunion with hiswife and son.

Having lost control of Henry, the Yorkistsneeded a king of their own, and in March1461 they elevated York’s son to the throne asEDWARD IV. After the Battle of TOWTON

on 29 March, Henry fled into SCOTLAND

with his family. He spent the next four yearsthere or, after his family left for France, in hid-ing in northern England, where he was cap-tured in 1465. He remained in the TOWER

OF LONDON until October 1470, when War-wick’s defection to Lancaster restored Henryto the throne (see EDWARD IV, OVER-THROW OF). The READEPTION govern-ment was directed by Warwick, and Henryserved merely as a means for rallying Lancas-trians to the new regime. When Edward IVreentered LONDON in April 1471, he re-turned Henry to the Tower (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF). Warwick’s death at theBattle of BARNET in April and Prince Ed-ward’s death at the Battle of TEWKESBURY inMay ended any need to keep Henry alive, andthe ex-king was murdered in the Tower on 21May 1471 (see HENRYVI, MURDER OF).

See also “Compilation of the Meekness andGood Life of Henry VI” (Blacman)Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Storey, R. L., The End ofthe House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,

112 HENRY VI, KING OF ENGLAND

Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999);Watts, John, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996);Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Henry VI, Illness ofHENRY VI’s inability to function as an effec-tive monarch, which became total in 1453with the onset of chronic mental illness, was amain cause of the WARS OF THE ROSES.

In early August 1453, while staying at theroyal hunting lodge at Clarendon, Henry fellsuddenly into a stupor that rendered him un-able to communicate. Because we have noeyewitness accounts of the start of Henry’s ill-ness, the exact cause and nature of his ailmentremain mysterious. One contemporary chron-icler claimed that it commenced when theking suffered a sudden shock, a suggestion thathas led modern historians to speculate thatHenry fell ill when he received the devastatingnews of the destruction in July of an Englisharmy at the Battle of CASTILLON, a defeatthat ended the English presence in FRANCE.Although rumors that the king was childish orsimple had been whispered about the king-dom before 1453, Henry showed no signs ofmental illness until that date. However, he mayhave inherited a genetic predisposition to suchillness from his maternal grandfather, CharlesVI of France, who suffered recurring bouts ofviolent madness.

In March 1454, a deputation from PARLIA-MENT visited the king at Windsor. Instructedto ascertain Henry’s wishes as to the filling ofseveral important offices that had fallen vacantin recent months, the deputation could get noresponse from Henry, who seemed unaware oftheir presence. He could not stand or walk andrequired round-the-clock care from hisgrooms and chamber servants. He displayednone of the frenzy that had characterized hisgrandfather’s illness but neither recognizednor understood anyone or anything. When hefinally recovered around Christmas 1454,Henry remembered nothing of the previousseventeen months, including the birth of his

son, Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER.Henry was again unwell after the Battle of ST.ALBANS in May 1455, when the unaccus-tomed shock of combat may have triggeredanother episode.

From 1456, the few surviving accounts ofHenry’s condition show him as weak-minded,requiring inordinate amounts of sleep, andgiven almost entirely to a routine of religiousdevotions. After 1457, the king found seclu-sion attractive, and his wife, Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU, often housed him inmonasteries, away from any but loyalcourtiers. Although the king had periods oflucid activity, such as his personal direction ofthe LOVE-DAY peace effort in 1458, he waslargely a cipher during the last fifteen years ofhis life; the political factions that coalescedaround the queen and Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, fought to control hisperson and thereby his government. Becausehis illness rendered him unable to function asan arbiter of noble disputes, and because thequeen’s partisanship made him the figureheadfor one political faction, Henry’s mental inca-pacity was instrumental in overthrowing royalauthority and bringing about the dynastic warbetween the houses of LANCASTER andYORK.

See also “Compilation of the Meekness andGood Life of Henry VI” (Blacman); Henry VI,Murder ofFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI(London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

Henry VI, Murder of (1471)The death of HENRY VI, which occurredunder mysterious circumstances in the TOWER

OF LONDON in May 1471, ended the directmale line of the house of LANCASTER andthrust the family’s claim to the Crown uponHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond, the survivingmale heir of Henry’s cousins, the BEAUFORT

FAMILY.Confined to the Tower after his capture in

July 1465, Henry remained there until Octo-

HENRY VI, MURDER OF 113

ber 1470, when Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, restored him to the throne (seeEDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). Warwick’sREADEPTION government, in which thebefuddled Henry (see HENRY VI, ILLNESS

OF) took no active part, collapsed in April1471, when EDWARD IV returned fromBURGUNDY to reclaim his Crown. As Ed-ward neared LONDON, Warwick’s brother,George NEVILLE, archbishop of York, pa-raded Henry through the streets in an un-successful attempt to generate enthusiasm forthe Lancastrian regime. Entering London on11 April, Edward immediately secured pos-session of Henry, who embraced his rival andsaid:“Cousin of York, you are very welcome.I hold my life to be in no danger in yourhands” (Wolffe, p. 345). Edward then hadHenry travel under guard with the Yorkistarmy to the Battle of BARNET, where War-wick was killed on 14 April. After the battle,Edward returned Henry to the Tower andthen marched west, where he defeatedHenry’s wife, MARGARET OF ANJOU, andkilled Henry’s son, Prince EDWARD OF

LANCASTER, at the Battle of TEWKES-BURY on 4 May (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF).

Edward returned to London on 21 May,and some time during that night, Henry diedin the Tower. The HISTORY OF THE AR-RIVAL OF EDWARD IV, a pro-Yorkist ac-count, claims that Henry died of “pure dis-pleasure and melancholy” (Three Chronicles, p.184) at the news of Tewkesbury. WARK-WORTH’S CHRONICLE, written in the1480s, suggests that Richard, duke of Glouces-ter, Edward’s brother, was at the Tower thatnight and was responsible for murderingHenry. Gloucester’s involvement cannot beproven, but the widespread contemporary be-lief that murder had occurred was confirmedin 1910 when an exhumation of Henry’s bodyindicated violence to the skull. With the deathof Prince Edward, a living Henry could serveonly as a symbol to rally surviving Lancastrianmalcontents. To prevent this, Edward almostsurely ordered Henry’s death. The ex-king’sbody was publicly displayed at St. Paul’s in

London and then buried at Chertsey Abbey,where Henry’s reputation for saintliness led topilgrimages to his tomb and claims of miraclesworked in his name. Edward IV discouragedsuch devotions, but RICHARD III sought tobenefit from them by removing Henry’s re-mains to St. George’s Chapel at Windsor,where Henry lay across the altar from EdwardIV. HENRY VII, first king of the house ofTUDOR, who based his claim to the Crownon his relationship to Henry VI, went evenfurther, appealing unsuccessfully to three dif-ferent popes for Henry’s canonization.

See also “Compilation of the Meekness andGood Life of Henry VI” (Blacman)Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Three Chronicles of theReign of Edward IV, introduction by Keith Dockray(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan SuttonPublishing, 1988); Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI(London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

Henry VI, Part 1 (Shakespeare)Written probably in early 1590, Henry VI,Part 1, is the first work in William Shake-speare’s tetralogy (i.e., series of four plays) de-picting the people and events of the WARS

OF THE ROSES. The play is probably Shake-speare’s first attempt at historical drama, andit is considered by most Shakespeare scholarsto be one of the playwright’s least successfulefforts.

The play covers the period from the deathof Henry V in 1422 until the marriage of hisson HENRY VI in 1445, although, becauseShakespeare alters actual chronology for dra-matic effect, some events that occurred after1445 are included. Henry VI, Part 1, is con-cerned with the end of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR in FRANCE and with the begin-nings of the Wars of the Roses in England.Theplay portrays a series of major disputes amongnobles, thus painting a picture of mounting in-ternal disorder that presages the outbreak ofactual civil war in the following plays. Whilemost of these disputes were historical, Shake-speare intensifies the political conflict and itslikely consequences by compressing decades

114 HENRY VI, PART 1

into a quick succession of scenes and by alter-ing the order of events to build tension.

For example, the struggle betweenHumphrey, duke of Gloucester, and CardinalHenry Beaufort over the conduct of theFrench war, which extended from the 1420sto the 1440s, is immediately followed by thequarrel between Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, and Edmund BEAUFORT, dukeof Somerset, rivals for command in France andinfluence in England, whose real feud ex-tended from the late 1440s to 1455. By com-pressing and intensifying these disputes,

Shakespeare reinforces the main theme under-lying all his fifteenth-century history plays,namely, that the deposition of Richard II bythe house of LANCASTER in 1399 disruptedthe divinely ordained order and cost Englanddecades of war and suffering.

The most famous scene in the play occursin act 2, when Richard Plantagenet (who inthe play has not yet been recognized as dukeof York) and Somerset argue in the Templegarden. Plantagenet plucks a white rose andcalls upon all who favor his cause to do thesame. Somerset picks a red rose and invites his

HENRY VI, PART 1 115

Painting by Henry A. Payne (1868–1939) depicting the most famous scene in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 1, the choosingof the red and white roses. (Birmingham Art Gallery)

supporters to do likewise. Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, takes up a white rose, whileWilliam de la POLE, earl of Suffolk, claims ared one. Because a majority of the remainingcharacters choose white flowers, Somerset re-neges on an agreement to let the dispute besettled by a vote of the roses. When the partybreaks up with mutual threats, the coming ofcivil war is assured. Although the plucking ofrose emblems is a visually powerful image thatplayed an important role in the developmentof the term “Wars of the Roses” to describethe fifteenth-century civil wars, the scene isentirely fictional.

See also Henry VI, Part 2; Henry VI, Part 3;Richard II, Deposition of; Richard III; Shakespeareand the Wars of the Roses;The Union of the TwoNoble and Illustrious Families of Lancaster and York(Hall)Further Reading: Norwich, John Julius,Shakespeare’s Kings (New York: Scribner, 1999);Saccio, Peter, Shakespeare’s English Kings, 2d ed.(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); the textof Henry VI, Part 1 can be found on-line at<http://shakespeare.about.com/arts/shakespeare/library/bl1kh6scenes.htm>.

Henry VI, Part 2 (Shakespeare)Henry VI, Part 2, is the second play in WilliamShakespeare’s tetralogy (i.e., four-play series)depicting the characters and events of theWARS OF THE ROSES.

If the traditional belief that the four playswere written in chronological order is correct,Henry VI, Part 2, may be dated to late 1590.Extending from the 1440s to the Battle of ST.ALBANS in 1455, Henry VI, Part 2, reinforcesthe main theme of the tetralogy, which is theinexorable tragedy that England must sufferbecause of the Lancastrian usurpation of 1399,an act that disrupted the divine order of things(see RICHARD II, DEPOSITION OF). Bycompressing and rearranging the actualchronology of events in the 1440s and 1450s,Shakespeare portrays the ambitious house ofYORK as the agency by which retribution isvisited upon the house of LANCASTER.

As he does in HENRY VI, PART 1, Shake-speare in this play distorts and omits actual his-

torical events to serve his dramatic purposes.Shakespeare’s greatest misrepresentation is hisdepiction of Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, as plotting deliberately to seize thethrone of his Lancastrian cousin, HENRY VI.Although the real York claimed the Crown in1460, he did so only after years of seeking togovern as Henry’s chief minister and only afterthe sustained opposition of Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU (whom Shakespeare de-picts as a strong-willed villain) effectivelyblocked all other paths to power. In the play,York is portrayed as instigating JACK CADE’SREBELLION, although the involvement of thereal duke in that 1450 uprising is highly ques-tionable. In his sharply drawn depiction ofYork’s ambition, Shakespeare ignores HenryVI’s mental breakdowns in the 1450s (seeHENRY VI, ILLNESS OF); the king is por-trayed as well-meaning but weak and ineffec-tual. The playwright is also silent about York’stwo periods of relatively effective rule duringHenry’s bouts of illness in 1454 (see FIRST

PROTECTORATE) and 1455 (see SECOND

PROTECTORATE).The play is also notable as the first appear-

ance of York’s sons Edward (see EDWARD IV)and Richard (see RICHARD III). The latter,who will become the central character of thelast play in the tetralogy (see RICHARD III)and one of the great villains in the Shake-spearean canon, is depicted in Henry VI, Part 2,as ruthlessly slaying Edmund BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset, at the Battle of St. Albans,which was fought when the real Richard wasonly two. Although he is only a minor charac-ter in this play, the ready wit and enthusiasticevil that Shakespeare’s Richard will display inthe two remaining plays of the series are fore-shadowed by the words he speaks over thedead Somerset.

Sword, hold thy temper; heart, be wrathfulstill:

Priests pray for enemies, but princes kill.(5.2.70–71)

See also Henry VI, Part3; Shakespeare and theWars of the Roses; The Union of the Two Noble andIllustrious Families of Lancaster and York (Hall)

116 HENRY VI, PART 2

Further Reading: Norwich, John Julius,Shakespeare’s Kings (New York: Scribner, 1999);Saccio, Peter, Shakespeare’s English Kings, 2d ed.(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); the textof Henry VI, Part 2 can be found online at<http://shakespeare.about.com/arts/shakespeare/library/bl2kh6scenes.htm>.

Henry VI, Part 3 (Shakespeare)Probably written early in 1591, Henry VI, Part3 is the third work in William Shakespeare’stetralogy (or four-play cycle) depicting theWARS OF THE ROSES.

Like the other plays in the series (HENRY

VI, PART 1; HENRY VI, PART 2; andRICHARD III), this play is based largely onEdward Hall’s chronicle,THE UNION OF THE

TWO NOBLE AND ILLUSTRIOUS FAMILIES

OF LANCASTER ANDYORK. The play beginsand ends with the house of YORK tri-umphant; it runs from the Battle of ST. AL-BANS in May 1455, which briefly put RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, in power, tothe Battle of TEWKESBURY and the murderof HENRY VI in May 1471, which destroyedthe direct male line of the house of LAN-CASTER (see FIRST PROTECTORATE;HENRYVI, MURDER OF).

The main themes of the play—the dissolu-tion of the state and the degradation of its po-litical leadership—tie into the main theme ofthe tetralogy, which is that the accession of thehouse of TUDOR in 1485 rescued Englandfrom the suffering and chaos that arose fromthe various usurpations of the throne carriedout by ambitious Lancastrians and Yorkists be-tween 1399 and 1483. To serve these themes,Shakespeare compresses what were actuallybrief periods of active warfare separated bylong periods of relative peace into a few weeksof horrific fighting that split both state and so-ciety (see MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, DURA-TION OF).

In the play, the disruption of families, bothroyal and common, illustrates the general dis-solution of the realm. Under pressure fromYork, Henry VI disinherits his son, Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER, an act that drivesQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU to declare

herself divorced from Henry. On the Yorkistside, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, abandons his brother EDWARD IV,while Edward’s own lust and indolence alien-ate his kinsman Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, who allies with Margaret and re-opens the wars. In a foreshadowing of thecrimes he will commit in Richard III, Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III), plotsagainst both his brothers and against anyoneelse who stands between him and the Crown.

Meanwhile, in act 2, Henry VI, seeking toescape the carnage at the Battle of TOWTON,witnesses the unspeakable grief of two char-acters known simply as the “son that hathkilled his father” and the “father that hathkilled his son.” Each carries the body of a slainenemy from the field for purposes of plunder,only to discover that his victim is his son/fa-ther. Until modern historical research showedthat Wars of the Roses campaigns were briefand had relatively little effect on the vast ma-jority of English people below the PEERAGE

and GENTRY, this Shakespearean image ofwidespread political, social, and economicdevastation largely shaped popular views ofthe conflict.

See also Shakespeare and the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Norwich, John Julius,Shakespeare’s Kings (New York: Scribner, 1999);Saccio, Peter, Shakespeare’s English Kings, 2d ed.(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); the textof Henry VI, Part 3 can be found at<http://shakespeare.about.com/arts/shakespeare/library/bl3kh6scenes.htm>.

Henry VII, King of England(1457–1509)First king of the house of TUDOR, HenryVII, the surviving heir of the house of LAN-CASTER, won the Crown from RICHARD IIIand the house of YORK at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in August 1485.

The son of Edmund TUDOR, earl ofRichmond, a maternal half brother ofHENRY VI, and Margaret BEAUFORT, acousin of Henry VI, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, was born three months after hisfather’s death and a few months short of his

HENRY VII, KING OF ENGLAND 117

mother’s fourteenth birthday. Richmondspent his early years in WALES under the pro-tection of his paternal uncle, Jasper TUDOR,earl of Pembroke. In September 1461, asYorkist forces secured Wales for EDWARD IV,Pembroke fled, and four-year-old Richmondfell into the hands of William HERBERT, Ed-ward’s chief lieutenant in Wales. Herbert keptthe boy at Raglan Castle, where he was raisedand educated with Herbert’s children. Afterpaying the king £1,000 for Richmond’swardship and marriage, Herbert planned towed the earl to one of his daughters. Thisscheme miscarried in 1469, when Herbertwas executed by Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, after the Battle of EDGECOTE.When Warwick restored Henry VI to thethrone in the autumn of 1470, Pembroke,who had returned to England with Warwick,again took charge of his nephew (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).

Also briefly reunited with his mother,whom he had seen occasionally during the

1460s, Richmond returned to Wales with hisuncle, who secured the country for theREADEPTION government. Pembroke thentook his nephew to LONDON for an audiencewith Henry VI, who, upon seeing the four-teen-year-old boy, supposedly exclaimed:“[T]ruly, this is he unto whom we and our ad-versaries must yield and give over the domin-ion” (Griffiths and Thomas, p. 71). BecauseHenry’s own son, Prince EDWARD OF LAN-CASTER, was then alive, as were Richmond’scousin Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somer-set, and other Lancastrian heirs, such a declara-tion is most unlikely, although some acknowl-edgment of kinship by the king is possible. Inany event, Richmond made good PROPA-GANDA use of the story after he won theCrown.

Because Edward IV’s restoration in 1471resulted in the deaths of Somerset, Prince Ed-ward, and Henry VI himself (see HENRY VI,MURDER OF), the direct male line of Lan-caster was extinguished, and the dynasty’sclaim to the Crown passed to the BEAUFORT

FAMILY, a branch of the house of Lancaster.Asthe son of Margaret Beaufort, and with all hisother male Beaufort cousins slain in the wars,Richmond was now the leading Lancastrianclaimant. To escape imprisonment or death,Pembroke and his nephew fled from Wales inSeptember 1471. Intending to go to FRANCE,the Tudors were driven by storms to BRIT-TANY, where Duke FRANCIS welcomedthem. Seeking to maintain Brittany’s indepen-dence from France, and anxious for Englishassistance, Francis used the Tudors as pawns innegotiations with both countries. In 1472,when Edward IV sent a force under AnthonyWOODVILLE, Earl Rivers, to aid the Bretons,Francis agreed to restrict the Tudors’ move-ments and to keep them under close surveil-lance. In 1476, an English embassy underBishop Robert STILLINGTON convincedFrancis to surrender Richmond. Carried to St.Malo, where a ship awaited, Richmond suf-fered or pretended illness; the delay allowed achange of heart by Francis, who sent his treas-urer, Pierre LANDAIS, to retrieve the earl.Slipping away to SANCTUARY in a local

118 HENRY VII, KING OF ENGLAND

Henry VII, first king of the house of Tudor, overthrewRichard III and the house of York at the Battle of BosworthField in August 1485. (National Portrait Gallery: NPG416)

church, Richmond eventually returned safelyto the Breton COURT. Although Edward IVand LOUIS XI continued their efforts to ob-tain Richmond, both failed, and the earl re-mained in honorable confinement in Brittanyuntil Edward’s death in 1483.

By late summer 1483, Richard III’s usurpa-tion of the English Crown and the growingbelief that he had murdered his nephews madeRichmond a more attractive candidate for thethrone (see USURPATION OF 1483). WhileRichmond’s mother plotted with Queen Eliz-abeth WOODVILLE to put the earl on thethrone and marry him to ELIZABETH OF

YORK, daughter of Edward IV, HenrySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, desertedRichard and hatched his own plot. In the au-tumn, the two conspiracies merged intoBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION, an unsuccess-ful uprising that Richmond himself supportedwith an abortive descent on the English coast.Although Richard’s soldiers tried to draw theearl ashore by posing as friends, Richmondlearned of Buckingham’s failure and returnedsafely to Brittany. In 1484, as a growing bodyof English exiles collected around him, Rich-mond fled into France, foiling a plot by PierreLandais to turn him over to Richard’s agents.

With French assistance, Richmond and hisuncle landed in Wales in August 1485. Leadinga force of over 2,000 French and Scottishmercenaries and some 600 English supporters,Richmond crossed Wales and entered En-gland, collecting support along the way fromboth old Lancastrians and disaffected Yorkists.However, his army was still smaller than theking’s when he met Richard in battle near thevillage of Market Bosworth on 22 August. De-feated by disloyalty in his ranks and by the in-tervention on Richmond’s side of Sir WilliamSTANLEY, brother of Thomas STANLEY, LordStanley (Richmond’s stepfather), Richard waskilled on the field, and Richmond was pro-claimed king as Henry VII.

As heir of Lancaster, Henry sought to sym-bolically end the WARS OF THE ROSES bymarrying Elizabeth, the heiress of York, in Jan-uary 1486. Nonetheless, Henry spent much ofhis reign combating Yorkist attempts to regain

the throne. In June 1487, he defeated the par-tisans of Lambert SIMNEL at the Battle ofSTOKE. Simnel claimed to be Edward PLAN-TAGENET, earl of Warwick, the nephew ofEdward IV and the last Yorkist claimant in thedirect male line.A prisoner in the TOWER OF

LONDON since 1485, Warwick was executedin 1499 after being implicated in an escapeplot with Perkin WARBECK, another Yorkistpretender who had troubled Henry through-out the 1490s by claiming to be RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, the youngerson of Edward IV, who had probably died inthe Tower with his brother EDWARD V in1483. Despite these and other Yorkist threatsto his dynasty, Henry VII, at his death on 21April 1509, peacefully passed a stable andstrengthened Crown to his son Henry VIII.

See also Princes in the Tower;Yorkist Heirs (after1485)Further Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Griffiths, Ralph A., and Roger S. Thomas, TheMaking of the Tudor Dynasty (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1985).

Herbert, William, Earl of Pembroke (d. 1469)Entrusted with the government of WALES byEDWARD IV, William Herbert, earl of Pem-broke, was one of the few fifteenth-centuryWelshmen to achieve an English PEERAGE

and success in English politics.Born into a GENTRY family that had held

land in Wales since the twelfth century, Her-bert was knighted by HENRY VI in 1449 andserved in FRANCE in the 1450s. An early ad-herent of Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, Herbert, along with his father-in-law,Walter DEVEREUX, Lord Ferrers of Chartley,seized Carmarthen and Aberystwyth castlesfor the duke in 1456. Although they also im-prisoned the king’s half brother, EdmundTUDOR, earl of Richmond, the Lancastrianregime treated Herbert leniently, seeking un-successfully to win his support.

Herbert fought with Edward, earl of March(the future Edward IV) at the Battle of MOR-

HERBERT, WILLIAM, EARL OF PEMBROKE 119

TIMER’S CROSS in February 1461; defeatedJasper TUDOR, earl of Pembroke, at the Battleof TWT HILL in October; forced Tudor outof Wales in 1462; and captured the Lancastri-ans’ last Welsh stronghold at HARLECH CAS-TLE in 1468. In return for this loyal service,

Edward IV raised Herbert to the peerage asLord Herbert in 1461 and gave him the at-tainted Jasper Tudor’s earldom of Pembroke in1468. Edward also gave Herbert custody ofPembroke’s nephew, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, the future HENRY VII. Herbert

120 HERBERT, WILLIAM, EARL OF PEMBROKE

William Herbert, earl of Pembroke, and his wife kneel before the enthroned Edward IV. (Royal MS 18 D f. 6, BritishLibrary)

eventually became a royal councilor, chief jus-tice of North and South Wales, constable ofmost Welsh royal castles, and the holder of nu-merous other Welsh offices. He also vastly im-proved his financial position by securing sig-nificant grants of Welsh lands and lordships.By 1468, Herbert was virtually viceroy ofWales.

Herbert’s ambition and success broughthim into conflict with Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, who envied Herbert’s un-precedented position in Wales and who cov-eted for himself some of Herbert’s Welshlands and offices. After 1466, Herbert soughtto make further gains at Warwick’s expenseby working to widen the growing breach be-tween the earl and the king. When Warwickfomented the ROBIN OF REDESDALE RE-BELLION in the north in 1469, Pembroke leda Welsh force into the field against the rebels.At the Battle of EDGECOTE on 26 July1469, the rebels overwhelmed Pembroke’sforce, taking the earl and his brother, SirRichard Herbert, prisoners. Two days laterboth brothers were beheaded without trial atNorthampton, by Warwick’s orders and inWarwick’s presence.

Further Reading: Evans, H. T., Wales and theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995); Ross, Charles,Edward IV (New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress, 1998);“William Herbert,” in Michael Hicks,Who’s Who in Late Medieval England (London:Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 317–318; Williams,Glanmor, Renewal and Reformation:Wales,c. 1415–1642 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993).

Heworth, Battle of (1453)The skirmish at Heworth on 24 August 1453aggravated the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD andhelped create the political alignments thatmade possible the war between the houses ofLANCASTER and YORK.

After the marriage of his son Sir ThomasNEVILLE to Maud Stanhope, Lady Willough-by, the niece of Ralph Cromwell, LordCromwell, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salis-bury, led a wedding party across Heworth

Moor toward his castle at Sheriff Hutton. Be-sides the bride and groom and a substantialnumber of RETAINERS, the party includedSalisbury’s wife and his son John NEVILLE.On the northeast edge of York, ThomasPERCY, Lord Egremont, son of HenryPERCY, second earl of Northumberland, in-tercepted the Nevilles while leading a forcethat may have numbered almost 5,000. Egre-mont’s party included his brother, RichardPercy, and John CLIFFORD, the future LordClifford.

What occurred next is uncertain. Bothsides threatened violence, but neither of-fered much. Although some participantswere injured, no blood was shed. TheNevilles came safely to their destination, butEgremont continued to harass his rivals’lands and tenants. Egremont’s actions mayhave been precipitated by his anger over thepossibility that former Percy lands held byCromwell might, through the marriage, passeventually to the Nevilles. More likely,Egremont was simply seeking to escalate thequarrel he had already begun with JohnNeville, and the wedding party, includingboth John and his father, admirably servedhis purpose. Because the Neville-Percy feudeventually arrayed the two powerful north-ern families on opposite sides in the grow-ing political struggle between RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, and EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, the incidentat Heworth was seen by a later chronicler as“the beginning of the greatest sorrow inEngland” (Hicks, p. 87).

See also Neville Family; North of England andthe Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“LocalRivalries and National Politics: The Percies, theNevilles and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–1455,” inRalph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country: Englandand Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London:Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 321–364; Griffiths,Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Hicks,Michael, Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford:Blackwell Publishers, 1998); Storey, R. L., The Endof the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

HEWORTH, BATTLE OF 121

Hexham, Battle of (1464)Fought on 15 May 1464, only three weeksafter the Yorkist victory at the Battle ofHEDGELEY MOOR, the Battle of Hexhamended the Lancastrian resurgence inNorthumbria and ushered in five years of rela-tively stable Yorkist government.

After regrouping at ALNWICK CASTLE,Henry BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, and theother Lancastrian survivors of HedgeleyMoor, learned that EDWARD IV was collect-ing a large army at Leicester with the inten-tion of coming north to destroy Lancastrianinsurgency in the region once and for all.Fearing that the Anglo-Scottish talks thenunder way in York would close SCOTLAND

to them, and desperate to boost morale with aquick victory before the arrival of Edward’sarmy, Somerset placed HENRY VI at the headof his force and marched south into the TyneValley. Hearing of Somerset’s advance, JohnNEVILLE, Lord Montagu, the victor ofHedgeley Moor, left Newcastle and marchedwest to intercept the Lancastrians. On theevening of 14 May, Somerset encamped in ameadow along the Tyne two miles south ofthe town of Hexham and near Bywell Castle,where the duke installed Henry VI. Early thenext morning, Montagu passed the castle as hefell unexpectedly on Somerset’s camp.

With no time to maneuver for position,Somerset formed his men on low groundwith their backs to the river. Montagu chargeddownhill and smashed into the Lancastrianline, driving the center back toward the water,where many men drowned in their ARMOR

or were slain as they tried to cling to the bank.Somerset tried to rally his flanks, but his menwere panicked and overmatched, and the Lan-castrian line shattered, leaving Somerset a pris-oner. The duke was beheaded next day, whileThomas ROOS, Lord Roos, and RobertHUNGERFORD, Lord Hungerford, the otherLancastrian commanders, were captured andexecuted two days later at Newcastle. By July,Montagu and his brother, Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, had completed the pacifica-tion of the northeast by capturing the Lancas-trian castles at Alnwick, DUNSTANBURGH,

and BAMBURGH. With the capture of HenryVI in Lancashire in 1465, the Lancastriannorth gave up rebellion and accepted the ruleof Edward IV.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

The History of King Richard III(More)As the basis for most sixteenth-century chron-icle accounts of RICHARD III, and, throughthem, the source for William Shakespeare’spowerful depiction of the king, Sir ThomasMore’s History of King Richard III has becomethe most influential and controversial sourcefor the deeds and personality of the last Yorkistmonarch.

Sir Thomas More, the famous Tudorstatesman who was executed in 1535 for hisopposition to the religious proceedings ofHenry VIII, wrote the History in about 1513,almost thirty years after Richard III’s death.More wrote two separate versions of the His-tory, one in English and the other (the HistoriaRichardi Tertius) in Latin for a learned interna-tional audience. Neither version was com-pleted, and neither was published in More’slifetime. Although manuscript copies of thework were in circulation in the 1530s, it didnot appear in print until its incorporationinto the 1543 edition of Richard Grafton’sThe Chronicle of John Harding (see HAR-DYNG’S CHRONICLE). However, Grafton’sversion and the versions that appeared inother chronicles in the 1540s and 1550s wereseverely garbled in many details. In 1557,More’s nephew, William Rastell, correctedthese errors by publishing an English versiondrawn from one of More’s manuscripts.Rastell’s text became the basis for most Eliza-bethan printings of the History, including theversion published in Raphael Holinshed’sChronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, thesource most likely used by William Shake-speare to write his play RICHARD III.

122 HEXHAM, BATTLE OF

Although less dramatically presented, all thedeceit, ambition, and crimes, as well as thephysical deformity, imputed to Richard byShakespeare are found in More’s History. TheHistory also contains a detailed account of themurder of EDWARD V and his brotherRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, themost damning crime attributed to Richard.Modern historians have thrown doubt onRichard’s commission of many of the crimesascribed to him by More, such as the murderof HENRYVI, and on the severity or even ex-istence of the physical defects alleged byMore, but no historian believes that Moresimply invented these tales. Most of these sto-ries were current in the COURT of HENRY

VII and came to More from men who hadlived through Richard’s reign. Cardinal JohnMORTON, who witnessed many key eventsand in whose household the young Moreserved, is the most likely source for many ofMore’s details.

More’s reasons for writing the History andfor leaving it unfinished have been much de-bated. It has been suggested that the History isa satire, and not meant to be an accurate ac-count of events. The work certainly has amoral purpose, intending to illustrate the evilthat could befall a kingdom when wise gov-ernment was replaced by tyranny. Nonethe-less, the work is not a piece of anti-YorkistPROPAGANDA designed to reinforce the le-gitimacy of the house of TUDOR. Richard isnot condemned for being a Yorkist but forbeing a tyrant. As his later opposition toHenry VIII made clear, More did not believethat tyranny was solely confined to the houseof YORK. Rather than allow the History tobe read as a pro-Tudor propaganda tract,More may have chosen to abandon it, or, andprobably more likely, More may simply havelost interest in the work (he left many proj-ects unfinished) or may have grown too busywith government service and other writingsto complete such a closely detailed accountof a two-year period. In any event, the con-ventional view of Richard III as it camedown to the twentieth century was largelyMore’s creation.

See also Princes in the Tower; Shakespeare andthe Wars of the Roses; Usurpation of 1483Further Reading: Hanham, Alison, Richard IIIand His Early Historians 1483–1555 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1975); More, Sir Thomas, TheHistory of King Richard III, edited by Richard S.Sylvester (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press,1976); the text of More’s History of King Richard IIIis also available on the Richard III Society Website at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/moretext.html>.

History of the Arrival of Edward IVThe anonymous work entitled, in full, Historyof the Arrival of Edward IV in England and theFinal Recovery of His Kingdoms from Henry VI isthe most important narrative source for theevents that occurred during EDWARD IV’scampaign to regain the English Crown in thespring of 1471 (see EDWARD IV, RESTORA-TION OF).

The Arrival covers a period of roughlythree months, extending from 2 March to 26May 1471, that is, from the time Edward IVsailed from BURGUNDY to a few days afterhis supporters defeated the attack on LON-DON by Thomas NEVILLE, the Bastard ofFauconberg. Completed, shortly after theevents it recounts, by an unknown writer whodescribed himself as a servant of Edward IVand a witness of “a great part of his exploits”(Three Chronicles, p. 147), the Arrival was writ-ten for or adopted by Edward IV as an officialYorkist account of his restoration to thethrone. A short French version of the Arrivalwas completed by the end of May and wasdistributed on the continent as a newsletterdesigned to set Edward’s version of events be-fore foreign courts. Although it is thereforeclearly a piece of Yorkist PROPAGANDA, ex-pressing a point of view favorable to the houseof YORK, the Arrival’s immediacy and eyewit-ness perspective make it a valuable historicalsource for the end of the second phase of theWARS OF THE ROSES.

Although concerned to record the courseof Edward’s campaign and to explain the rea-sons for the king’s actions, the narrator, whowrote in a detailed and powerful prose style,

HISTORY OF THE ARRIVAL OF EDWARD IV 123

was candid about Edward’s problems. For in-stance, the writer recorded that Edward at-tracted little support on his landing, was re-fused admission by the town of Hull, and wasfortunate in not being vigorously pursued byJohn NEVILLE, marquis of Montagu, thebrother of Edward’s chief opponent, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick. The Arrival alsocontains the most detailed extant account ofthe Battle of BARNET, of the campaign thatled to the Battle of TEWKESBURY, and of theBastard of Fauconberg’s assault on London.The writer’s Yorkist sympathies are mostclearly illustrated by his description of thedeath in the TOWER OF LONDON ofHENRY VI, which is most unconvincingly at-tributed to “pure displeasure and melancholy”(Three Chronicles, p. 184).

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Henry VI,Murder ofFurther Reading: Three Chronicles of the Reign ofEdward IV, introduction by Keith Dockray(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan SuttonPublishing, 1988); the text of the History of theArrival of Edward IV is also available on theRichard III Society Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/arrival1.html>.

Holland, Henry, Duke of Exeter(1430–1475)By his intervention in the NEVILLE-PERCY

FEUD in the mid-1450s, Henry Holland (orHoland), fourth duke of Exeter, helped createthe political alignments that destabilized royaland local government and brought about theWARS OF THE ROSES.

The son of John Holland, duke of Exeter,and a cousin of HENRY VI, Holland marriedAnne, daughter of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, in 1447. He became duke of Ex-eter on his father’s death in 1447 but, being aminor, was not put in possession of his father’sestates until 1450. In 1453–1454, Exeter, whoclaimed certain estates that had fallen by mar-riage to the NEVILLE FAMILY, sided with thePercies in the series of violent encounters thaterupted between the two families across north-ern England. In an effort to reduce this disorder,York, during his FIRST PROTECTORATE in

1454, traveled north to restrain Exeter, who, be-sides supporting the disruptive activities ofThomas PERCY, Lord Egremont, was alsoclaiming the he, rather than York, should beprotector of the realm during Henry VI’s illness.In July, after the failure of an attempt to ambushYork, Exeter fled to LONDON, where he wasarrested and confined in Pontefract Castle.

In March 1455, after his recovery, Henry VIreleased Exeter and restored him to favor atCOURT. However, in June, after his victory atthe Battle of ST. ALBANS had initiated hisSECOND PROTECTORATE, York again im-prisoned Exeter, this time in Wallingford Cas-tle. Released again upon the king’s resumptionof power, Exeter became a staunch supporterof the house of LANCASTER, swearing anoath of allegiance to Henry VI at theCOVENTRY PARLIAMENT of November1459. He fought for Lancaster at the Battle ofBLORE HEATH in 1459, the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON in 1460, and the Battles ofST. ALBANS and TOWTON in 1461. AfterTowton, the duke fled into SCOTLAND withthe Lancastrian royal family but by Octoberwas in WALES, where he fought alongsideJasper TUDOR, earl of Pembroke, at the Battleof TWT HILL. Forced to flee the country afterthat defeat, Exeter was attainted in November1461 by EDWARD IV’s first PARLIAMENT,which placed the duke’s lands in the custodyof his wife, Edward IV’s sister.

In February 1471, after spending most of the1460s in exile in BURGUNDY, Exeter returnedto England to support the READEPTION gov-ernment of Henry VI. Severely wounded andleft for dead on the field at the Battle of BAR-NET, Exeter was carried to London and im-prisoned until May 1475, when he was releasedto accompany Edward IV on his French expe-dition. The duke was drowned in Septemberwhile returning to England from CALAIS.

See also Henry VI, Illness of; North of Englandand the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Storey, R. L., The End ofthe House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

124 HOLLAND, HENRY, DUKE OF EXETER

Howard, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1485)A staunch Yorkist, John Howard was one ofthe few servants of EDWARD IV to remainloyal to the house of YORK in the 1480s afterthe usurpation of RICHARD III dethronedEdward’s son and reopened the civil wars.

Born into a Suffolk GENTRY family,Howard was a maternal cousin of the Mow-bray dukes of Norfolk. He served in FRANCE

in the early 1450s, and was knighted by Ed-ward IV after the Battle of TOWTON in 1461.Howard became the first Yorkist sheriff ofNorfolk in 1461, served in the northern cam-paigns of the early 1460s, and was treasurer ofthe royal household from 1467. In 1470,Howard commanded a fleet against RichardNEVILLE, the rebel earl of Warwick, and wasraised to the PEERAGE as Lord Howard.

Remaining quiet during the READEP-TION of HENRY VI in 1470–1471, Howardproclaimed for Edward IV in Suffolk immedi-ately upon Edward’s landing in England inMarch 1471. He joined Edward in LONDON

in April and fought for the Yorkists at the Bat-tles of BARNET and TEWKESBURY. In theearly 1470s, he was deputy at CALAIS forWilliam HASTINGS, Lord Hastings, and in1475 was one of the chief English negotiatorswith LOUIS XI during Edward IV’s Frenchcampaign. He remained briefly in France as ahostage to secure the settlement and took partin several later diplomatic embassies to theFrench COURT. In 1482, he participated inthe campaign against SCOTLAND, command-ing a fleet that ravaged the Firth of Forth.

In 1481, on the death of his nine-year-olddaughter-in-law, Anne Mowbray, daughter ofJohn MOWBRAY, late duke of Norfolk, Ed-ward IV, being unwilling to allow the exten-sive Mowbray inheritance to leave the royalfamily, denied Howard his rightful share of theNorfolk estates. On the king’s initiative, PAR-LIAMENT passed a statute vesting the Norfolklands in eight-year-old Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, the king’s second sonand Anne Mowbray’s husband.

On Edward’s death in 1483, Howard sup-ported the duke of Gloucester’s usurpation of

the throne, being rewarded with elevation tothe dukedom of Norfolk and appointment asmarshal of England in June, even beforeGloucester’s coronation as Richard III (seeUSURPATION OF 1483). Named admiral ofEngland in July 1483, Norfolk was also madesteward of the royal Duchy of Lancaster. In theautumn of 1483, Norfolk was active in sup-pressing BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION andin 1484 he was part of a diplomatic embassysent to Scotland to arrange a truce. While ac-quisition of the Norfolk title was undoubtedlya strong incentive to back Gloucester, theduke seems to have been recognized as one ofRichard III’s most committed supporters.

On the morning of the Battle of BOS-WORTH FIELD in August 1485, a placard ap-peared on Norfolk’s tent that read: “Jock ofNorfolk be not too bold / For Dickon thymaster is bought and sold.” Killed only hourslater while leading the van of the royal army,Norfolk was attainted by the first Parliamentof HENRY VII. The duke’s son, ThomasHOWARD, earl of Surrey, who was impris-oned after Bosworth Field, was eventually ableto reverse the ATTAINDER and regain his fa-ther’s lands and titles through loyal service tothe house of TUDOR.

See also all entries under MowbrayFurther Reading: Crawford, Anne,“The PrivateLife of John Howard: A Study of a Yorkist Lord,His Family and Household,” in P. W. Hammond,ed., Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Law (London:Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1986);“John Howard,” in Michael Hicks, Who’s Who inLate Medieval England (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 337–339; Ross, Charles,Richard III (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981).

Howard, Thomas, Earl of Surreyand Duke of Norfolk (1443–1524)A prominent supporter of RICHARD III,Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, later revivedthe Howard family fortunes through loyal ser-vice to the house of TUDOR.

Like his father, John HOWARD, Thomaswas a loyal adherent of the house of YORK. In1466, Howard became a henchman (i.e., a

HOWARD, THOMAS, EARL OF SURREY AND DUKE OF NORFOLK 125

squire or page) to EDWARD IV, and foughtfor Edward at the Battles of BARNET andTEWKESBURY in 1471. He accompanied theking on the expedition to FRANCE in 1475and was knighted in January 1478. In 1483,Howard and his father supported Richard III’susurpation of his nephew’s throne (see ED-WARD V; USURPATION OF 1483). At theCOUNCIL meeting held in the TOWER OF

LONDON on 13 June, it was Thomas Howardwho, upon Richard’s signal, burst into thechamber with armed men to arrest WilliamHASTINGS, Lord Hastings (see COUNCIL

MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483). To reward theHowards’ loyalty, Richard created JohnHoward duke of Norfolk and ThomasHoward earl of Surrey. At Richard’s corona-tion in July, Surrey carried the sword of statebefore the king, and was soon after appointedsteward of the royal household and a memberof the royal council. In the autumn, duringBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION, Surrey ledthe royal forces that recaptured Bodiam Castlefrom the rebels.

In August 1485, Surrey fought for Richardat the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD, whereboth the king and Norfolk were slain. Im-prisoned in the Tower by HENRY VII, Surreywas stripped of his lands and title by a bill ofATTAINDER passed in the first PARLIA-MENT of the new reign. Although pardonedin March 1486, Surrey remained in confine-ment until January 1489, when the king re-stored his title. The earl did not, however, re-cover his estates until 1501, having by thenearned them through loyal service againstrebels in Yorkshire and against the Yorkistpretender Perkin WARBECK. After helpingto negotiate the marriage of Prince Arthur toCatherine of Aragon in 1501, and the mar-riage of Princess Margaret to JAMES IV ofSCOTLAND in 1502, Surrey finally regainedhis father’s dukedom in 1513 by defeating theScots and slaying King James at the Battle ofFlodden. By his death in 1524, ThomasHoward, the second Howard duke of Nor-folk, had effectively erased his Yorkist pastand firmly tied his family’s future to thehouse of Tudor.

Further Reading: Head, David, The Ebbs andFlows of Fortune:The Life of Thomas Howard,ThirdDuke of Norfolk (Athens: University of GeorgiaPress, 1995); Tucker, Melvin J., The Life of ThomasHoward, Earl of Surrey and Second Duke of Norfolk,1443–1524 (The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton,1964).

Hundred Years War (1337–1453)The “Hundred Years War” is a nineteenth-century term conventionally applied to an in-termittent series of Anglo-French wars foughtbetween 1337 and 1453. Spanning the reignsof five monarchs in each country, the Hun-dred Years War evolved from a conflict overthe status of the English Crown’s possessionsin FRANCE to a struggle for possession of theFrench Crown itself. By undermining thepopularity and credibility of HENRYVI’s gov-ernment, and by initiating the rivalry of thedukes of York and Somerset, the last phase ofthe Hundred Years War, which culminated in1453 with the final ejection of the Englishfrom all their French territories exceptCALAIS, was an important contributing causeof the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The first phase of the Hundred Years War,stretching from 1337 to 1360, witnessed majorEnglish victories at Sluys (1340), Crécy(1346), and Poitiers (1356). In 1340, EdwardIII, whose mother was a French princess,claimed the French throne as the rightful pos-session of the English royal house of PLANTA-GENET. However, when the Treaty ofBrétigny promised him full sovereignty overhis French lands, Edward agreed to renouncehis claim to the French Crown. Because thispromise of sovereignty was never fulfilled, Ed-ward never made his renunciation, and war re-sumed in 1369.

The second phase of the war, extendingfrom 1369 to the 1420s, saw a French resur-gence under Charles V, which culminated in1396 in the conclusion of a twenty-eight-yeartruce between England’s Richard II andFrance’s Charles VI. In the opening decade ofthe fifteenth century, Charles VI’s insanityplunged France into political turmoil, as theBurgundian and Armagnac factions fought

126 HUNDRED YEARS WAR

for control of the government. In 1415,Henry V, second king of the house of LAN-CASTER, exploited this internal disorder byinvading France and renewing the Planta-genet claim to the French Crown. After hisvictory at Agincourt in 1415, Henry con-quered Normandy, and by 1420 was in a posi-tion to dictate the Treaty of Troyes, whichmade Henry heir to the French Crown andarranged his marriage to Charles VI’s daugh-ter, Catherine of Valois. Thus, on the deaths ofboth Henry and Charles in 1422, the Crownsof both England and France passed to the in-fant Henry VI.

During the final phase of the war,CHARLES VII, who had been disinherited bythe Treaty of Troyes, secured the FrenchCrown and gradually expelled the Englishfrom France. Lacking resources and effectiveleadership, the government of Henry VI nego-tiated a truce and the king’s marriage to theFrench princess, MARGARET OF ANJOU, in1444, and in the next year surrendered theprovince of Maine. In 1450, the French over-ran Normandy, and in 1453, at the Battle ofCASTILLON, they captured the longtime En-glish province of Gascony.

While not a direct cause of the Wars of theRoses, the English collapse at the end of theHundred Years War weakened public supportfor Henry VI and his government and initiatedthe feud between Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, and Edmund BEAUFORT, dukeof Somerset, a rivalry that became an impor-tant factor in the eventual rise of civil war. Asking’s lieutenant in France when Normandywas lost, Somerset was much blamed for En-glish military failure, especially by York, whomSomerset had replaced in the French com-mand and who lost extensive French estatesthrough what he believed was Somerset’s in-competence. In the 1450s, the bad blood cre-ated between the two dukes by the outcome ofthe Hundred Years War was intensified by theroyal favor shown to Somerset and denied toYork and by the rival claims of each duke to beHenry’s heir and the chief minister in his gov-ernment. Out of this feud arose eventually thecontending parties in the civil wars.

Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher, TheHundred Years War (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1988); Curry, Anne, The HundredYears War (New York: Macmillan, 1993); Perroy,Edouard, The Hundred Years War (New York:Capricorn Books, 1965); Seward, Desmond, TheHundred Years War (New York: Atheneum, 1978).

Hungerford, Robert, LordHungerford (1431–1464)A loyal partisan of the house of LANCASTER,Robert Hungerford, third Lord Hungerford,commanded Lancastrian forces during thefighting in Northumberland in the early1460s.

Hungerford married the daughter ofWilliam Moleyns in 1441 and was recognizedas Lord Moleyns in right of his wife from1445. In the early 1450s, Moleyns engaged ina violent quarrel with John Paston over theNorfolk manor of Gresham, which, after anunsuccessful arbitration by William WAIN-FLEET, bishop of Winchester, Moleyns even-tually surrendered to Paston. In 1452, Moleynsaccompanied John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury,to FRANCE and was captured and held forransom by the French after the Battle ofCASTILLON in 1453. His family sold andmortgaged property to effect his release in1459, the year he succeeded his father as LordHungerford.

In 1460, Hungerford was commander, withThomas SCALES, Lord Scales, of the Lancas-trian garrison holding LONDON. In July,Hungerford and Scales withdrew into theTOWER OF LONDON when the city author-ities opened the gates to the Yorkist lordsnewly landed from CALAIS. While RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and Edward, earlof March (see EDWARD IV), the son ofRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York,marched north to confront HENRY VI, War-wick’s father, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salis-bury, besieged the Lancastrians in the Tower.Warwick’s victory at the Battle of NORTH-AMPTON on 10 July forced Hungerford andScales to surrender the Tower shortly there-after to the new Yorkist regime, although bothwere allowed to depart safely.

HUNGERFORD, ROBERT, LORD HUNGERFORD 127

Hungerford fought for Lancaster at theBattle of TOWTON in March 1461, and after-ward fled into SCOTLAND with the Lancas-trian royal family. Attainted by PARLIAMENT

in November 1461 (see ATTAINDER, ACT

OF), Hungerford traveled to France in 1462to seek aid for the Lancastrian cause. By theend of that year, he was commander of theLancastrian garrison in ALNWICK Castle. Be-sieged by Warwick, he was saved by the ar-rival in January 1463 of a relieving army outof Scotland jointly commanded by the Lan-castrian Pierre de BRÉZÉ and the Scottishearl of Angus. Hungerford retook Alnwick inthe spring of 1463 when the Yorkist com-mander, Sir Ralph Grey, defected and surren-dered the fortress to him. In early 1464,Hungerford assisted Henry BEAUFORT, dukeof Somerset, in the Lancastrian campaign thatcaptured much of Northumberland. Alongwith Thomas ROOS, Lord Roos, he com-manded a wing of the Lancastrian force at theBattle of HEDGELEY MOOR in April andagain at the Battle of HEXHAM in May.Hungerford was captured after Hexham andexecuted at Newcastle.

See also all entries under HungerfordFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Hicks, Michael,“Piety and Lineage in the Wars ofthe Roses: The Hungerford Experience,” in RalphA. Griffiths and James Sherborne, eds., Kings andNobles in the Later Middle Ages (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1986), pp. 90–108; Ross, Charles,Edward IV (New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress, 1998).

Hungerford, Sir Thomas (d. 1469)As the son and heir of Robert HUNGER-FORD, Lord Hungerford, an attainted and ex-ecuted Lancastrian, Sir Thomas Hungerfordfell under suspicion of plotting the overthrowof EDWARD IV in 1468.

Although the ATTAINDER passed againsthis father in the Yorkist PARLIAMENT of No-vember 1461 deprived Hungerford of thefamily lands, he was pardoned and knighted byEdward IV in 1462 and shortly thereafter re-

stored to a portion of his father’s estates. Fi-nancial provision was also made for his motherand younger siblings. In November 1468, fol-lowing the discovery of the CORNELIUS

PLOT and other alleged Lancastrian conspira-cies, Hungerford was arrested in Wiltshirealong with the heir to another Lancastrianfamily, Henry COURTENAY, de jure seventhearl of Devon. Although several other sus-pected Lancastrian plotters were also appre-hended, including John de VERE, earl of Ox-ford, only Hungerford and Courtenay werebrought to trial.

In January 1469, both men appeared in Sal-isbury before Richard, duke of Gloucester (seeRICHARD III), who sat as head of a specialcommission of oyer and terminer (i.e., “tohear and determine,” a judicial commission es-pecially useful for quick action in cases of trea-son and rebellion). Hungerford and Courtenaywere charged with meeting agents of MAR-GARET OF ANJOU on 21 May 1468 for thepurpose of plotting the “death and final de-struction . . . of the Most Christian Prince,Edward IV” (Ross, p. 123). A jury of sixteenconvicted them of treason in the presence ofthe king himself, and the two men werehanged, drawn, and quartered, an execution ofunusual severity for persons of their rank.

Whether or not Hungerford had actuallycommitted the treason of which he was ac-cused is now uncertain. Rumor claimed thatboth men were victims of HumphreySTAFFORD, a royal favorite who sought tobecome the leading peer in the West Countryand who did become earl of Devon shortlyafter the trial in May 1469. However, Edward’spresence at the trial indicates how serious heconsidered the case to be. In any event,Hungerford’s fate illustrates how dangerouslife could be during the WARS OF THE

ROSES for anyone identified by past family al-legiance with the party out of power.

See also Hungerford, Sir WalterFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael,“Piety andLineage in the Wars of the Roses: TheHungerford Experience,” in Ralph A. Griffithsand James Sherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in theLater Middle Ages (New York: St. Martin’s Press,

128 HUNGERFORD, SIR THOMAS

1986), pp. 90–108; Ross, Charles, Edward IV (NewHaven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998).

Hungerford, Sir Walter (d. 1516)A member of a Lancastrian family, WalterHungerford loyally served EDWARD IV in the1470s but abandoned RICHARD III and thehouse of YORK after 1483.

The son of Robert HUNGERFORD, LordHungerford, who was beheaded by the York-ists after the Battle of HEXHAM in 1464, andthe brother of Sir Thomas HUNGERFORD,who was executed by Edward IV for suppos-edly plotting with Lancastrian agents in 1469,Walter Hungerford took no sides during the1469–1471 phase of the WARS OF THE

ROSES. In the 1470s, he entered the service ofEdward IV, becoming lieutenant of DoverCastle and sheriff of Wiltshire in 1478–1479.He also became one of the king’s esquires ofthe body (i.e., a personal royal servant), ac-companied the king on the French expeditionof 1475, and recovered a portion of his family’sinfluence in the West Country, serving as M.P.(i.e., Member of PARLIAMENT) for Wiltshirein 1478 and 1483.

However, after Richard III usurped thethrone of his nephew, EDWARD V, in 1483(see USURPATION OF 1483), Hungerford, al-though courted with gifts by the new king,maintained his allegiance to the sons of Ed-ward IV and joined Lionel WOODVILLE,Giles Daubeney, and others in leading the

southwestern phase of BUCKINGHAM’S RE-BELLION. Hungerford was pardoned after thefailure of the uprising, but his West Countryestates were granted to some of Richard’s loyalnorthern supporters (see RICHARD III,NORTHERN AFFINITY OF).

In 1485, Hungerford and Sir ThomasBourchier were summoned to join the royalarmy at Nottingham, where Richard awaitedthe invasion of Henry Tudor, earl of Rich-mond. Suspicious of their loyalty, Richard sup-posedly ordered Sir Robert BRACKENBURY

to escort both men to his camp. Somewherealong the way, Hungerford and Bourchier es-caped from Brackenbury and joined Rich-mond, with whom they fought at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD on 22 August. Knightedon the field by HENRY VII, Hungerford wasrestored to his family estates and admitted tothe royal COUNCIL. He served the new kingon several diplomatic and military missionsand assisted in the defeat of the Yorkist pre-tender, Perkin WARBECK, in 1497. Hunger-ford died in 1516, after years of loyal service tothe house of TUDOR.

Further Reading: Gill, Louise, Richard III andBuckingham’s Rebellion (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999); Hicks, Michael,“Piety and Lineage in the Wars of the Roses: TheHungerford Experience,” in Ralph A. Griffithsand James Sherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in theLater Middle Ages (New York: St. Martin’s Press,1986), pp. 90–108; Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

HUNGERFORD, SIR WALTER 129

IrelandAs a source of ready manpower and a safe butnearby base for launching invasions of En-gland, Ireland played an important role in theWARS OF THE ROSES.

Fifteenth-century Ireland was divided be-tween the English Lordship, which was cen-tered on Dublin and controlled by Anglo-Irishnobles loyal to the English Crown, and the areascontrolled by native Irish clan chiefs, who werelargely independent of English rule. In the1450s, the ancient rivalry between the leadingAnglo-Irish families of Ireland, the Fitzgeraldsand the Butlers, was subsumed into the conflictdeveloping in England between the houses ofLANCASTER and YORK. Thomas FITZGER-ALD, eighth earl of Desmond, and his kinsman,Thomas FITZGERALD, seventh earl of Kildare,were RETAINERS of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York,while James BUTLER,fifth earl ofOrmond, was a supporter of HENRYVI. Thus,as the English civil wars evolved, both sides, butparticularly York,who had extensive Irish lands,used their Irish connections to draw small butsteady streams of troops from Ireland, mainlyARCHERS, axmen, or the light-armed nativeinfantry known as kerns.

Although York held appointment as lordlieutenant of Ireland in the late 1450s, he waslargely absent pursuing his political interests inEngland, a situation that left Kildare, as York’sdeputy, in charge of the Irish government.With Ormond in England at the LancastrianCOURT, the political leadership of Ireland wasthus strongly Yorkist, and the duke found safehaven in Dublin when he fled England afterthe Battle of LUDFORD BRIDGE in October1459. Although the Lancastrian governmentsought to undermine Kildare’s authority, espe-

cially after the death of York at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in December 1460, the Fitzger-ald earls remained loyal to York and wererichly rewarded with lands and offices afterEDWARD IV’s victory at the Battle of TOW-TON in March 1461. When Ormond was ex-ecuted shortly after Towton, the Lancastrianposition in Ireland was further weakened.

In 1468, the Fitzgerald earls fell briefly outof favor with Edward IV. Acting on the com-plaints of Anglo-Irish landowners against thefinancial exactions imposed by the Fitzgeraldsfor maintenance of their troops, JohnTIPTOFT, earl of Worcester, the new Englishlord deputy, attainted both earls and executedDesmond, thus permanently muting the York-ist sympathies of the Desmond branch of thefamily. Because the king soon realized that heneeded Fitzgerald support to govern Ireland,especially in view of the continuing Lancas-trian threat to England, Edward reversed Kil-dare’s ATTAINDER and reappointed him lorddeputy in 1470.

After Kildare’s death in 1478, his son, Ger-ald FITZGERALD, eighth earl of Kildare,maintained his family’s Yorkist allegiance, gov-erning Ireland as deputy for RICHARD III’sson, Prince Edward, and, after Richard’s deathin 1485, allowing the island to become a baseof operations for Yorkist opponents ofHENRY VII. In 1487, he welcomed LambertSIMNEL to Ireland and accepted Simnel’sclaim to be Edward PLANTAGENET, earl ofWarwick, a Yorkist claimant to the throne. Kil-dare also allowed John de la POLE, earl of Lin-coln, another nephew of Edward IV, to land atDublin with 2,000 troops supplied by his aunt,MARGARET OF YORK, duchess of BUR-GUNDY. After permitting Simnel’s coronation

131

I

in Dublin as “Edward VI,” Kildare governedIreland in “King Edward’s” name, and allowedLincoln to recruit Irish troops for an invasionof England, which ended in failure at the Bat-tle of STOKE in June 1487. Although par-doned by Henry VII, Kildare again fell out offavor in the 1490s when he was suspected ofsupporting Perkin WARBECK, another Yorkistpretender. Warbeck invaded Ireland in 1495and 1497 but failed both times to establish

himself in the island. Restored as lord deputyin 1496, Kildare gradually abandoned hisYorkist sympathies, and Ireland gradually ac-cepted TUDOR rule.

Further Reading: Cosgrove, Art, Late MedievalIreland, 1370–1541 (Dublin: Helicon, 1981);Lydon, James, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages(Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1973); Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland (NewYork: Barnes and Noble Books, 1980).

132 IRELAND

Jack Cade’s Rebellion (1450)Distressed by high taxes, corrupt local officials,and the recent loss of Normandy, the com-mons of Kent, led by a man named Jack (orJohn) Cade, rose in rebellion in the summer of1450. Because HENRYVI and his advisors sus-pected that Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, had instigated the uprising, and becauseYork later incorporated many of the rebels’complaints into his criticism of the govern-ment, Jack Cade’s Rebellion is often seen as aprelude to the WARS OF THE ROSES.

In late May 1450, only weeks after the mur-der of the king’s unpopular chief minister,William de la POLE, duke of Suffolk, a largebody of men from the towns and villages ofKent gathered at Blackheath, across theThames from LONDON, to demand redress ofvarious grievances. Composed of rural peas-ants, artisans, and tradesmen from the towns,and a small group of clergy and landowningGENTRY, the Kentish rebels were, at least ini-tially, well organized and disciplined. Theirelected leader was the mysterious Jack Cade,who also went by the names John Mortimerand John Amendalle. Although he was proba-bly seeking only to attract the duke’s support-ers to his cause, Cade’s use of the name Mor-timer—the family name of York’s mother—ledthe government to seriously consider the pos-sibility that York was somehow involved in therebellion. The rebels denied any connectionwith York, but their demand that the king ridhimself of all advisors linked to the late Suffolkand turn instead to princes of the blood likeYork only heightened the government’s suspi-cions. The idea that York was behind the Cadeuprising, although generally rejected today, be-came a commonplace of Tudor PROPAGANDA

and was even suggested by William Shake-speare in his HENRY VI, PART 2 (see SHAKE-SPEARE AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES).

Thanks to the obscurity of Cade’s back-ground, and perhaps to government attemptsto discredit Cade, rumors soon circulated thatthe rebel leader was an Irishman related toYork, that he was a black magician, and that hehad once fled the realm after murdering apregnant woman. Whatever Cade’s history, hismanner impressed the royal councilors whomet him, and the rebel manifesto craftedunder his leadership—the “Complaint of theCommons of Kent”—displayed his skill as apropagandist. Comprising fifteen articles, the“Complaint” focused on the corrupt practicesof the king’s officials in Kent, who werecharged with extortion, perversion of justice,and election fraud. The commons also calledfor an inquiry into the loss of Normandy andinto the misappropriation of royal funds by theking’s household servants.

In early June, after submitting their “Com-plaint” to the COUNCIL, the rebels obeyed anorder to withdraw from Blackheath. However,when an advance party of the royal army fol-lowed them into Kent, the rebels ambushedand destroyed their pursuers. At news of thisrepulse, a nervous council committed LordSaye, the hated former sheriff of Kent, andWilliam Cromer, the equally unpopular cur-rent sheriff, to the TOWER OF LONDON.Theking then withdrew from the capital. On 4July, the Londoners, who were sympathetic tomany of the rebels’ grievances, allowed Cadeand his followers to enter the city, where theyimmediately seized and executed Saye andCromer. On the night of 5 July, as the rebelsgrew more disorderly, the citizens, assisted by

133

J

the Tower garrison under Thomas SCALES,Lord Scales, drove the insurgents from the cityand recaptured London Bridge. This action al-lowed the council to issue a free pardon on 8July, and most of the rebels returned home.After invalidating his pardon by attempting toseize Queenborough Castle, Cade was killedon 12 July while resisting arrest. Although therebellion was over, Cade’s name continued tospark unrest in Kent for almost a decade, andthe rebels’ grievances lived on as the basis ofYork’s opposition to a royal government fromwhich he felt himself excluded.

See also Dartford UprisingFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Harvey, I. M. W., JackCade’s Rebellion of 1450 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1991); Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of Bedford (c. 1416–1472)Jacquetta of Luxembourg, duchess of Bedford,was the mother of Queen Elizabeth WOOD-

134 JACQUETTA OF LUXEMBOURG, DUCHESS OF BEDFORD

Some of the leaders of Jack Cade’s Rebellion are hanged to frighten their followers into obedience. (British Library)

VILLE and the matriarch of the WOODVILLE

FAMILY.The daughter of Pierre, Count of St. Pol, a

French nobleman who traced his family toCharlemagne, Jacquetta married John, duke ofBedford, the uncle of HENRY VI, in April1433. After her husband’s death in 1435, theduchess shocked her royal nephew by marry-ing Richard WOODVILLE, a Northampton-shire gentleman whose father had been Bed-ford’s chamberlain. Because Woodville hadnothing but looks to recommend him as ahusband for the duchess, the governmentfined the couple £1,000 for their misalliance.Besides social rank and a connection to thehouse of LANCASTER, Jacquetta brought herhusband land and wealth, and bore him at leastfourteen children.

On the outbreak of civil war, the duchessaccompanied her husband, now Lord Rivers,to Sandwich, where Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU had ordered him to assemble a fleet.In January 1460, Jacquetta, Rivers, and theireldest son, Anthony WOODVILLE, were cap-tured by Yorkist raiders and carried toCALAIS. Although the duchess was shortly re-leased, her husband and son remained in York-ist custody. A year later, after the Battle of ST.ALBANS, the LONDON authorities sentJacquetta to Queen Margaret as part of a dep-utation seeking the queen’s assurance that herarmy would not plunder the city (seeMARCH ON LONDON).

In May 1464, after the Woodvilles hadmade their peace with the house of YORK,Jacquetta witnessed the secret union of ED-WARD IV and her eldest daughter Elizabeth, amatch that constituted an even greater misal-liance than the duchess’s own marriage. Ed-ward spent the next three days with theWoodvilles, and each night Jacquetta broughther daughter secretly to the king. By 1468,Jacquetta and her family were influentialenough to be accused of ruining Sir ThomasCOOK, a wealthy London merchant whoowned a rich tapestry supposedly coveted bythe duchess. The traditional account is thatCook refused Jacquetta’s demand that he sellher the tapestry at far less than its worth, and

that she then accused him of being a Lancas-trian sympathizer. Because Cook’s name hadsurfaced during the recent investigation of theCORNELIUS PLOT, Edward allowed Rivers,as constable of England, to proceed against themerchant. Although Cook had refused a Lan-castrian request for money, he had not re-vealed the contact and was convicted of mis-prision of treason. A fine of £8,000 ruinedCook, and the duchess obtained her tapestrywhen Woodville servants ransacked the mer-chant’s house. Much of this story has beencalled into question by modern historianswho suggest that the involvement of theduchess and her family in the Cook case wasgreatly exaggerated by the anticourt propa-ganda of Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,and that Cook may indeed have been an activeLancastrian.

In August 1469, Warwick, angered, in part,by the rise of the Woodvilles, rebelled andseized temporary control of the king.After ex-ecuting Rivers, Warwick arrested Jacquetta oncharges of witchcraft; although the basis forthese charges is uncertain, Warwick may haveaccused Jacquetta of using black magic to be-witch Edward into contracting marriage withher daughter. The duchess wrote to the mayorof London, who, remembering her efforts toprotect the city from the Lancastrian army in1461, interceded on her behalf with theCOUNCIL. Further investigation revealed thatthe witnesses against her had been bribed, andthe case fell apart. Jacquetta was released andformally exonerated by Edward in February1470, although the charge of witchcraft resur-faced in 1483 when RICHARD III included itin TITULUS REGIUS as one of his justifica-tions for taking the throne from Jacquetta’sgrandson, EDWARD V. The duchess died inApril 1472.

Further Reading: Hicks, Michael,“TheChanging Role of the Wydevilles in YorkistPolitics to 1483,” in Charles Ross, ed., Patronage,Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1979);MacGibbon, David, Elizabeth Woodville: Her Lifeand Times (London: A. Barker, 1938); Weir, Alison,The Wars of the Roses (New York: BallantineBooks, 1995).

JACQUETTA OF LUXEMBOURG, DUCHESS OF BEDFORD 135

James II, King of Scotland(1430–1460)As king of SCOTLAND during the early stagesof political and dynastic conflict in fifteenth-century England, James II tried to take advan-tage of those internal dissensions to achieveterritorial gains for Scotland at England’s ex-pense.

James became king in 1437 on the assassi-nation of his father James I. Although hismother was Joan Beaufort, a younger sister ofEdmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, theleading rival in the 1450s of Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, James showed nomarked partiality for the Lancastrian cause,perhaps because his mother died in 1445, fouryears before the young king assumed controlof the Scottish government. James spent theearly years of his majority waging war againstthe Douglases, one of Scotland’s most power-ful magnate families. HENRY VI strained rela-tions with James by giving the Douglases asy-lum in England. In 1455, James sought torecover the border town of BERWICK by ex-ploiting the political upheaval surrounding theBattle of ST. ALBANS. He urged CHARLES

VII of FRANCE to coordinate a French attackon CALAIS with a Scottish descent onBerwick. Although Charles refused to cooper-ate, the hostility of the Yorkist regimes in themid-1450s led James to launch a series of raidsinto England in 1456. However, the continuedunwillingness of Charles VII to provide assis-tance forced James to postpone his ambitionsconcerning Berwick and to conclude a two-year truce with England in June 1457.

Although raids continued along the border,the truce was extended until 1463, and Jamesnegotiated with both parties in the Englishcivil war, seeking by any means to find an op-portunity to regain Berwick and other borderstrongholds. With the defeat and capture ofHenry VI at the Battle of NORTHAMPTON

in July 1460, James seized his chance and laidsiege to the castle of Roxburgh, intending,perhaps, to move on to Berwick after thefortress fell. Roxburgh, being on Scottish soil,was to the Scots a provocative symbol of En-glish occupation. However, on 3 August 1460,

in the midst of the siege, one of the royal AR-TILLERY pieces exploded, with a fragmenthitting and killing the king, who stood nearby.Despite this tragedy, the continuing politicalturmoil in England was too good an opportu-nity to be missed, and Queen MARY OF

GUELDRES is said to have exhorted the armyto redouble its efforts. The siege thereforecontinued, and Roxburgh fell on 8 August,with the nearby border castle of Wark capitu-lating to the Scots shortly thereafter. The re-covery of Berwick remained to be accom-plished by the minority government of thenew king, JAMES III.

Further Reading: McGladdery, Christine, JamesII (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 1990).

James III, King of Scotland(1451–1488)Early in the reign of James III, Scottish policytoward England revolved around exploitationof the political turmoil caused by the WARS

OF THE ROSES to recover the border town ofBERWICK. Later in the reign, James weakenedhis hold on the Scottish Crown by pursuingan unusual policy of accommodation towardEngland.

James succeeded to the throne in August1460, when his father, JAMES II, was killed byan ARTILLERY explosion while besieging theEnglish-held castle of Roxburgh. Directed byMARY OF GUELDRES, the Queen Mother,and by Bishop James KENNEDY of St. An-drews, the regency government of the nine-year-old king continued his father’s policy ofexploiting the English civil war to make Scot-tish territorial gains. Between December1460, when Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

arrived in SCOTLAND seeking assistance forthe Lancastrian cause, and December 1463,when Scottish support for the house of LAN-CASTER ceased, the minority government ofJames III balanced the Lancastrian need formilitary assistance against the Yorkist need forsecurity to extract concessions from both par-ties. When the Lancastrian royal family fledinto Scotland after the Battle of TOWTON inMarch 1461, Queen Margaret agreed to cede

136 JAMES II, KING OF SCOTLAND

English border towns in return for Scottishhelp against EDWARD IV. Although the citi-zens of Carlisle refused to obey Margaret’sorder to admit the Scots, Berwick surrenderedto James III in April.

With Berwick achieved and Yorkist pres-sure increasing, notably through the 1462Treaty of WESTMINSTER-ARDTORNISH,whereby Edward IV threatened an alliancewith rebellious Scottish magnates, enthusiasmfor the Lancastrian cause waned. By early1464, Queen Margaret and Prince EDWARD

OF LANCASTER had sailed to FRANCE,HENRYVI had been returned to England, anda truce had been concluded with Edward IV.Although James assumed personal control ofthe government in 1469, he was intent onconsolidating his authority in Scotland anddid not intervene when the English conflictrevived between 1469 and 1471. In the 1470s,James attempted to improve relations with En-gland by proposing a series of marriages be-tween members of his family, including hisson, the future JAMES IV, and members of thehouse of YORK, including Edward’s brother,George PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,and his sister MARGARET OF YORK, thewidowed duchess of BURGUNDY. None ofthese unions occurred, mainly for lack of En-glish interest.

Anglo-Scottish relations deteriorated in thelate 1470s, when Edward sought to retakeBerwick by exploiting internal dissension inScotland. In 1482, Edward concluded theTreaty of Fotheringhay with James’s brother,Alexander, duke of Albany. The agreementcalled for Albany to surrender Berwick to En-gland in return for assistance in overthrowingJames. Richard, duke of Gloucester, recapturedBerwick in August 1482, but the attempt tocrown Albany failed. In 1484, James, acceptingthe loss of Berwick, concluded a truce withRICHARD III. Although a Scottish contin-gent fought for him at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in August 1485, HENRY

VII showed no willingness to yield Berwick,and James was defeated and killed by Scottishrebels in 1488, in part for his failure to pursuea more aggressive policy toward England.

Further Reading: Macdougall, Norman, JamesIII:A Political Study (Edinburgh: J. Donald, 1982).

James IV, King of Scotland(1473–1513)By supporting Yorkist attempts to overthrowHENRY VII and the house of TUDOR, JamesIV contributed to the continuation of Englishdynastic strife in the 1490s.

James became king in June 1488, when hisfather, JAMES III, was defeated and killed atSauchieburn by a coalition of rebel magnates.Although he had associated himself with theopposition, James was shocked by his father’smurder. Nonetheless, he was neither willingnor able to pursue the policy of accommoda-tion with England that had in part led to hisfather’s downfall. By 1489, James was alreadyinvolved in conspiracies to restore the houseof YORK. He received English agents sentfrom BURGUNDY by MARGARET OF

YORK, the sister of EDWARD IV, and mes-sengers from IRELAND, where Yorkist plotswere common in the late 1480s. In 1491,James allowed his father’s truce with Englandto lapse but renewed a treaty with FRANCE

that pledged him to attack England if HenryVII attacked France.

In 1492, the Yorkist pretender Perkin WAR-BECK, who claimed to be Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, the younger son of Ed-ward IV, wrote to James seeking aid. By 1495,Warbeck was in SCOTLAND, where Jamespublicly acknowledged him as duke of York.The king even permitted his kinswoman,Katherine Gordon, to marry Warbeck, an indi-cation that James may actually have believedWarbeck’s claims. If true, this belief did not lastlong, for by 1496 James was negotiating withthe English. Unable to obtain satisfactory termsfrom Henry VII, who likely balked at any de-mand for the return of BERWICK, James in-vaded England on Warbeck’s behalf in Septem-ber 1496. But Warbeck, who had agreed torestore Berwick and, if successful, to reimburseJames for the cost of the campaign, could gen-erate no support in England, and the Scottishinvasion ended in failure.

JAMES IV, KING OF SCOTLAND 137

Disillusioned with Warbeck and now awareof the difficulty of displacing Henry VII, Jamessent the pretender from Scotland in July 1497.The king then opened a series of negotiationswith Henry, which led to a seven-year truce inSeptember 1497 and a formal treaty of peace(the first with England since 1328) in January1502. The Treaty of Ayton committed Jamesto marry Henry VII’s daughter, Princess Mar-garet, who became queen of Scotland in Au-gust 1503. It was as a result of this marriagethat James VI of Scotland, the great-grandson

of James IV and the great-great-grandson ofHenry VII, became king of England in 1603.Although the Treaty of Ayton reduced thelikelihood of Scotland again becoming ahaven for Yorkist pretenders, it did not erasehundreds of years of Anglo-Scottish enmity. In1513, James invaded England while hisbrother-in-law, Henry VIII, was on campaignin France. Brought to battle at Flodden on 9September, James IV was slain on the field.

Further Reading: Macdougall, Norman, JamesIV (East Lothian: Tuckwell Press, 1997).

138 JAMES IV, KING OF SCOTLAND

Kennedy, James, Bishop of St. Andrews (c. 1406–1465)In the early 1460s, as a leading member ofJAMES III’s regency council, James Kennedy,bishop of St. Andrews, was instrumental in se-curing asylum in SCOTLAND for the Lancas-trian royal family.

The youngest son of a Scottish GENTRY

family, and a member, through his mother, ofthe Scottish royal family, Kennedy was sent tothe continent to study theology and canonlaw. Named bishop of Dunkeld in 1437,Kennedy vigorously pursued ecclesiastical re-form, even proposing a reform program to thepope while attending the Council of Florencein 1440. A leading figure in the minority gov-ernment of JAMES II, Kennedy was appointedbishop of St. Andrews in 1440 and servedbriefly as chancellor in 1444.

On the unexpected death of James II in1460, Kennedy became a member of the re-gency COUNCIL chosen to govern during theminority of James III. Headed by QueenMARY OF GUELDRES, the council was soonconfronted by a request for military assistancefrom Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU, who,since the capture of HENRYVI at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON, was an exile in Scotlandwith her son Prince EDWARD OF LAN-CASTER. Although victory at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in December 1460 allowed Mar-garet and the house of LANCASTER to tem-porarily regain the ascendancy, EDWARD IV’striumph at the Battle of TOWTON in March1461 forced the entire Lancastrian royal familyto flee again into Scotland. Caught betweenMargaret’s pleas for help and Edward IV’s de-mands for the expulsion of her family, the re-gency council split, with Kennedy leading the

pro-Lancastrian faction known as the “OldLords.” Although the “Young Lords,” led byQueen Mary, were willing to talk to the York-ists, Kennedy frustrated all attempts at negotia-tion, including a personal visit to the Scottishcourt in 1462 by Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick. As a result of Kennedy’s influenceand Margaret’s willingness to surrenderBERWICK, Scotland remained a safe havenand a source of military assistance for the Lan-castrians until 1463.

In August 1463, after the failure of a Scot-tish-Lancastrian invasion of northern England,Margaret and her son left for France, whileHenry VI remained in Scotland underKennedy’s protection. In October, LOUIS XIof FRANCE abandoned Scotland and theseemingly hopeless cause of Henry VI by con-cluding a truce with Edward IV; the agree-ment called upon both signatories to refuse as-sistance to the other’s enemies. In December,with Queen Mary dead, Kennedy suppressedhis Lancastrian sympathies and negotiated aten-month truce with the Yorkists. Edwardagreed to cease supporting the rebel earl ofDouglas and Kennedy agreed to give no moreaid to the Lancastrians and to begin talks inMarch 1464 for a more permanent settlement.Although Kennedy at first violated the agree-ment by taking Henry VI deeper into Scot-land for safety, in January 1464 he sent the ex-king into England to the Lancastrian-heldcastle of BAMBURGH. By Kennedy’s death inMay 1465, Scotland had achieved a stable ifuneasy peace with the Yorkist regime.

See also Westminster-Ardtornish, Treaty ofFurther Reading: Dunlop, Annie, The Life andTimes of James Kennedy, Bishop of St.Andrews(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1950); Macdougall,

139

K

Norman, James III (Edinburgh: J. Donald, 1982);McGladdery, Christine, James II (Edinburgh: JohnDonald Publishers, 1990).

Kent, Earl of. See Grey, Edmund, Earl ofKent; Neville, William, Lord Fauconbergand Earl of Kent

Kildare, Earl of. See entries underFitzgerald

Kingmaker. See Neville, Richard, Earl ofWarwick

King’s Council. See Council, Royal

140 KENT, EARL OF

Lancaster, House of (1399–1461,1470–1471)A branch of the royal family of PLANTA-GENET, which had ruled England since 1154,the house of Lancaster and its partisans com-prised one of the parties contending for thethrone during the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The family of Lancaster descended fromJohn of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster (1340–1399), the third son of Edward III (r. 1327–1377).The Lancastrians became the ruling dy-nasty in 1399 when Henry of Bolingbroke,Gaunt’s son, deposed his childless cousinRichard II (r. 1377–1399) and assumed theCrown as Henry IV (see RICHARD II, DE-POSITION OF). Because Henry’s usurpationbroke the normal line of succession, he spentmuch of his reign (1399–1413) quelling upris-ings launched on behalf of the legal heirs, theMortimers, who descended from Gaunt’solder brother, Lionel, duke of Clarence(1338–1368). However, Henry IV survivedand in 1413 was peacefully succeeded by hisson Henry V (r. 1413–1422), who secured thedynasty on the throne by reviving the HUN-DRED YEARS WAR and uniting Englandagainst its ancient enemy, FRANCE. Henry’svictory at Agincourt in 1415 and his conquestof much of northern France intensified En-glish pride in the king and his dynasty.

On Henry V’s death in 1422, the Crownpassed to a nine-month-old infant, HENRY

VI, whose mother was Catherine of Valois,the daughter of Charles VI of France. By the1420 Treaty of Troyes, Henry V was recog-nized as heir to the French Crown. Thus,upon Charles VI’s death in October 1422,Henry VI was proclaimed king of both En-gland and France while still less than a year

old. While the king’s eldest uncle, John, dukeof Bedford (1389–1435), governed Franceand conducted the ongoing war as hisnephew’s regent, a council of nobles underthe nominal leadership of the king’s youngeruncle, Humphrey, duke of Gloucester(1390–1447), governed England. In the1450s, Henry VI, who was politically ineptand easily led by favorites, fell victim to on-going mental illness and proved himself unfitto rule (see HENRY VI, ILLNESS OF). Royalweakness revived the long dormant claim ofthe Mortimers, now embodied in RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, whosemother had been a Mortimer. York was heirpresumptive to the throne until the birth ofHenry’s son, Prince EDWARD OF LAN-CASTER, in 1453. In the mid-1450s, York,believing himself excluded from the politicalpower that was his right by birth, sought togovern on behalf of the stricken king.

The Wars of the Roses erupted as nobles,seeking either to retain the influence theyexercised as royal favorites, or, like York, toforce their way into the circle of royal favor,formed factions around the king and theduke. Long-standing local feuds intensifiedthe struggle, as rivals merged their quarrelsinto the national conflict. In 1460, Yorkclaimed the Crown outright, and in 1461, hisson, EDWARD IV, overthrew Henry VI andset the house of YORK on the throne. Al-though Henry VI was briefly restored in1470–1471, the death of his son at the Battleof TEWKESBURY led to the ex-king’s mur-der and the extinction of the direct male lineof Lancaster in May 1471.

Nevertheless, the Lancastrian claim to theCrown survived. Although Henry VI had no

141

L

full siblings, and his uncles were childless, thedynasty had a collateral branch that figuredprominently in the Wars of the Roses. In1396, John of Gaunt had married his long-time mistress, Katherine Swynford (d. 1403).Richard II had then legitimated Gaunt’schildren by Swynford under the name ofBeaufort, although Henry IV later barred hishalf siblings from the succession. DuringHenry VI’s minority, the leading member ofthe BEAUFORT FAMILY was Henry Beau-fort, cardinal-bishop of Winchester (c. 1376–1447). During the Wars of the Roses, Ed-mund Beaufort and his sons Henry and Ed-mund, all successively dukes of Somerset (seeentries for all under BEAUFORT), were lead-ers of the Lancastrian party. Although allthree dukes of Somerset died in the civilwars, ending the male line of Beaufort in

1471, their cousin, Margaret BEAUFORT,survived and eventually transmitted the Lan-castrian claim to the throne to the house ofTUDOR.

HENRY VII, Margaret Beaufort’s son andthe first Tudor monarch, was the grandson ofan obscure Welshman, Owen TUDOR, whoin the late 1420s secretly married QueenCatherine, Henry VI’s widowed mother. Thechildren of this union, Edmund TUDOR, earlof Richmond, and Jasper TUDOR, earl ofPembroke, were thus half siblings of Henry VI.The Tudors’ claim to the English Crown de-rived from Richmond’s 1455 marriage toMargaret Beaufort, and it was this claim thatMargaret’s son realized in 1485, when, as thelast male descendent of the Lancastrian andBeaufort lines, he defeated RICHARD III andoverthrew the house of York. Henry then

142 LANCASTER, HOUSE OF

Richard II (left) surrenders his crown to Henry of Bolingbroke, who thereby becomes Henry IV, first king of the house ofLancaster in 1399. (Royal MS 18 E II. f. 401, British Library)

symbolically ended the Wars of the Roses bymarrying ELIZABETH OFYORK, Edward IV’sheir; their son, Henry VIII, a descendent ofboth Lancaster and York, peacefully succeededto the throne in 1509.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration of; Appendix 1,“Genealogies”Further Reading: Allmand, Christopher, HenryV (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992);Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981);Griffiths, Ralph A.,“The Sense of Dynasty in theReign of Henry VI,” in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed.,King and Country: England and Wales in the FifteenthCentury (London: Hambledon Press, 1991), pp.83–101; Kirby, John Lavan, Henry IV of England(London: Constable, 1970); Storey, R. L., The Endof the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999);Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Landais, Pierre (d. 1485)Pierre Landais, treasurer of BRITTANY underDuke FRANCIS II, several times played a keyrole in Yorkist efforts to obtain custody ofHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY

VII), the surviving Lancastrian heir.The first episode occurred in November

1476, five years after EDWARD IV’s restora-tion had sent Richmond and his uncle, JasperTUDOR, earl of Pembroke, into exile inBrittany (see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION

OF). The duke surrendered Richmond to adelegation of English envoys, who had con-vinced Francis that the king intended to treatRichmond honorably and to marry the earlto his eldest daughter, ELIZABETH OF

YORK. Escorted to St. Malo, where a shipwaited to carry him to England, Richmondbecame or pretended to be ill, thereby delay-ing the ship’s departure. In the meantime,Francis, remembering his pledge to keep theTudors safe, and pressured by advisors sympa-thetic to Richmond, who told him that theearl’s reception in England was likely to bemuch different than represented, dispatchedLandais to St. Malo, where he argued withthe ambassadors while Richmond slippedinto SANCTUARY in a local church. The

townsmen, horrified by the English willing-ness to violate sanctuary, prevented Rich-mond from being seized and he was soonable to return safely to the Breton COURT

with Landais.In 1483, Landais’s assistance made possible

Richmond’s descent on England in support ofBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION. Landais per-suaded Francis to give Richmond ships, men,and money. He also convinced CHARLES

VIII of FRANCE, who was seeking to make afriend of the powerful treasurer, to allowHenry to return safely to Brittany throughNormandy after the failure of the enterprise.

In 1484, Francis fell ill, and Landais hadvirtual charge of the Breton government.Embroiled in a bitter political struggle with arival faction of the Breton nobility, and facedwith a growing French desire to absorb Brit-tany, Landais believed that his survival andthat of the duchy depended on the friendshipof England. He therefore concluded an agree-ment with William CATESBY, RICHARD

III’s representative, to surrender Richmond inreturn for an assurance of Richard’s protec-tion. The plan miscarried when Bishop JohnMORTON learned of it from Breton agents inLONDON and dispatched Christopher UR-SWICK to warn Richmond, who promptlyfled into France with his uncle Pembroke anda small band of supporters. Hearing of Rich-mond’s flight, Landais sent men to recapturethe earl, who crossed the frontier less than anhour before his pursuers reached it. Landais’sactions so angered Duke Francis that he gen-erously allowed the more than 400 Englishexiles left behind by Richmond to rejoin theearl in France. Because Landais had cost Brit-tany its most valuable device for ensuring En-glish aid against France, the treasurer lost thesupport of the duke and fell from power in1485. Having made many political enemies,Landais was hung from the walls of Nantes on19 July.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., andRoger S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985); Jones,Michael, The Creation of Brittany:A Late MedievalState (London: Hambledon, 1988).

LANDAIS, PIERRE 143

Langstrother, Sir John, Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (1416–1471)Sir John Langstrother, prior of the Hospital ofSt. John of Jerusalem, strongly supported therestoration of the house of LANCASTER in1470–1471.

The son of Thomas Langstrother ofCrosthwaite, Sir John, like his elder brotherWilliam, joined the Knights of the Hospitalof St. John of Jerusalem (also known as “theHospitallers”), a military religious order es-tablished in the eleventh century to providehospital care and military protection to pil-grims in Jerusalem during the Crusades.Ruled by a grand master, who by the fif-teenth century was headquartered on the is-land of Rhodes, the order’s various nationalprovinces were headed by grand commandersor priors. In 1467, after spending most of hisearly years in the eastern Mediterraneanserving as castellan of Rhodes and grandcommander of Cyprus, Langstrother wonelection as prior of the order in England, aposition that had been held by RobertBotyll, a noted Yorkist. Because Lang-strother’s Lancastrian sympathies were wellknown, EDWARD IV, in an unprecedentedact, refused to sanction the Knights’ selectionand suggested that they accept RichardWoodville as prior instead. A brother ofQueen ELIZABETH WOODVILLE, Richardwas only a youth and not a member of theHospitallers. The grand master and council ofthe order rejected this suggestion and the of-fice remained vacant for two years.

When, after the Battle of EDGECOTE inJuly 1469, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,won temporary custody of the king and thegovernment, he appointed Langstrother treas-urer of England. Upon regaining his freedomin October, Edward dismissed Langstrotherfrom office and committed him briefly to theTOWER OF LONDON but eventually ac-cepted him as prior of the English Hospi-tallers. However, in March 1470, Langstrotherinvolved himself in Warwick’s second coup at-tempt by meeting secretly in LONDON withWarwick’s allies, including George PLANTA-

GENET, duke of Clarence. After the failure ofthe coup, Langstrother probably fled to thecontinent with Warwick, for he returned toEngland with the earl in September (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). Entering Lon-don on 5 October in the company of GeorgeNEVILLE, archbishop of York, Langstrothertook command of the Tower for the newly es-tablished READEPTION government ofHENRY VI. Within days, the prior was reap-pointed treasurer and also named warden ofthe mint.

In February 1471, Langstrother was amember of a high-ranking diplomatic missionthat signed a ten-year truce and a commercialtreaty with LOUIS XI. At the end of February,Warwick sent Langstrother to FRANCE toconvey MARGARET OF ANJOU and her sonPrince EDWARD OF LANCASTER to En-gland. Delayed by weather, the prior and hisparty did not land until 14 April, the day ofWarwick’s death at the Battle of BARNET. Anexperienced soldier, Langstrother accompa-nied Queen Margaret on her campaign intothe West Country, and, with John WENLOCK,Lord Wenlock, led the Lancastrian center,under the nominal command of the prince, atthe Battle of TEWKESBURY on 4 May. Afterthe battle, Langstrother; Edmund BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset; and other Lancastrian sur-vivors took refuge in Tewkesbury Abbey. Twodays later, they were removed from SANCTU-ARY on Edward IV’s order and condemned todeath for treason. Langstrother and his com-rades were executed in the marketplace atTewkesbury.

Further Reading: P. W. Hammond, The Battles ofBarnet and Tewkesbury (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1990).

Leadership in Battle. See Generalship

Lincoln, Bishop of. See Russell, John

Lincoln, Earl of. See Pole, John de la,Earl of Lincoln

144 LANGSTROTHER, SIR JOHN, PRIOR OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM

Lincolnshire Rebellion (1470). SeeWelles Uprising (1470)

Livery and MaintenanceDeriving from the French word livrée, “deliv-ered,” livery referred to the uniform, in dis-tinctive colors, that a nobleman gave to hisRETAINERS, often together with his BADGE

or emblem, to denote their membership in hisAFFINITY of sworn followers. Maintenancereferred to the lord’s duty to “maintain” orsupport his retainers, by word or action, in anylawsuit in which they were involved. The twoconcepts became linked because liveried re-tainers were both the recipients and the agentsof acts of maintenance. Although accepted as-pects of the social system known as BASTARD

FEUDALISM, both livery and maintenancewere seen by contemporaries as abuses of thesystem and both were the subjects of largelyineffective action by PARLIAMENT.

In a broader sense, livery also described thebestowing of payment, whether in money,clothing, food and drink, or other forms, by alord on his retainers for their political and mil-itary service, an exchange that was at the heartof bastard feudalism. By the fifteenth century,maintenance, although long forbidden bystatute, had become one of the recognizedbenefits of “good lordship” that a retainercould expect from the magnate to whom hehad sworn allegiance. During the 1440s and1450s, as the influence and authority of theCrown declined under the ineffectual leader-ship of HENRY VI, maintenance, which hadfor some time been growing more violent inits application, came increasingly to mean thebribing, intimidating, or even kidnapping ofjudges, jurors, witnesses, or opposing coun-selors. For instance, in the 1440s, Sir ThomasTuddenham, a retainer of William de la POLE,duke of Suffolk and chief minister of HenryVI, severely disrupted the dispensing of justicein Norfolk by committing frequent acts ofembracery (i.e., the bribing of jurors) and bythreatening people with loss of life or propertyif they did not comply with the duke’s wishesin a lawsuit. Tuddenham and his allies also

controlled the appointment of sheriffs andcourt officials and brought fictitious lawsuitsagainst wealthy individuals to extort money.

To correct abuses of this kind and to restoreorder to the royal judicial system, the Parlia-ments of both EDWARD IV and HENRY VIIpassed acts against retaining (see RETAINING,ACTS AGAINST). Although reduced some-what by these acts and by the strengthening ofroyal authority after 1471, livery and mainte-nance continued to exist until bastard feudal-ism itself disappeared in the late sixteenth andseventeenth centuries.

Further Reading: Hicks, Michael, BastardFeudalism (London: Longman, 1995).

LondonBecause London was the political and eco-nomic heart of the kingdom, the city’s friend-ship and support were vital to both sides dur-ing a civil conflict like the WARS OF THE

ROSES. Concerned with prosperity, stability,and their own rights and privileges, Londonersgenerally sought to remain neutral or, failingthat, favored the party that seemed most capa-ble of protecting the city’s interests, which,after 1460, was usually the house of YORK.

In 1485, London had a population of over60,000, making it by far the largest city in therealm. Although smaller than Paris, Londonwas more demographically and economicallydominant in England than its French counter-part was in FRANCE. The city was the centerof English trade, the site of English govern-ment (Westminster was one mile from Lon-don), and the source of financial resources thatwere vital to any regime. In the late 1450s,economic recession, aggravated by the gov-ernment’s haphazard commercial policies andby the official favor shown to foreign mer-chants (see HANSEATIC LEAGUE), causedmuch civic dissatisfaction with the Lancastrianadministration. After 1456, Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU, seeking to isolate theweak-willed king from outside influences, re-moved HENRYVI and the royal COURT fromWestminster to the Midlands, a transferal ofpatronage and prestige that further damaged

LONDON 145

relations between the city and the house ofLANCASTER.

Meanwhile, the city’s interest in a Yorkistadministration was strengthened by the activi-ties of Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,who, as captain of CALAIS since 1456, con-trolled the continental entrepôt for London’swool trade. Many city merchants investedheavily in the maintenance of Warwick’s gar-rison, while the earl’s piratical attacks on for-eign shipping, launched in 1459 after the gov-ernment cut off funding, won the Yorkistsmuch popularity in the city by allowing War-wick to appear more interested in protectingtrade than did the distant Lancastrian regime.

On 2 July 1460, the municipal authorities,after some hesitation, allowed Warwick toenter the city. This decision effectively endedLondon’s neutrality; the city could henceforthexpect only harsh treatment from the queen.

After serving as capital of the Yorkist regimeinstituted by Warwick after the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON, the city fell into a panic inJanuary 1461 when the queen’s victoriousarmy turned south after the Battle of WAKE-FIELD. Marked by the plunder of Yorkisttowns and castles, the Lancastrian MARCH

ON LONDON, when exaggerated by YorkistPROPAGANDA, persuaded city leaders todeny Margaret entrance after her defeat ofWarwick at the Battle of ST. ALBANS on 17February. Instead, Londoners admitted War-wick and Edward, earl of March, and enthusi-astically endorsed March’s elevation to thethrone as EDWARD IV. The queen’s failure totake London allowed the Yorkists to survivedefeat, crown a king, and use the resources ofthe city to raise an army that defeated theLancastrians at the Battle of TOWTON on 29March.

146 LONDON

A late-fifteenth-century depiction of London as a group of knights and their ladies parade through the city on their way to atournament. (Harley MS 4379 f. 99, British Library)

In 1470, with Edward isolated in the northand popular sentiment swinging to Warwick,the city welcomed the earl and provided will-ing though moderate financial support for theREADEPTION government of Henry VI. InApril 1471, with Warwick at Coventry andEdward IV approaching rapidly, the Londonauthorities, influenced by Yorkist lords then inthe city and by hopes that a restored Edwardwould repay his many outstanding loans, al-lowed the Yorkists to enter the capital. In May,while Edward was in the west winning theBattle of TEWKESBURY, London became theonly English town to stand siege during theWars of the Roses. Warwick’s kinsman,Thomas NEVILLE, Bastard of Fauconberg, as-saulted the city with a large force of Calaistroops and Kentish rebels. As his troops at-tacked London Bridge and the eastern gates,Fauconberg’s ships bombarded the city fromthe Thames. Fear of plunder as much as loyaltyto Edward IV inspired Londoners to a fierceresistance that repelled the attack.

For the rest of Edward’s reign, stable gov-ernment, low taxes, and growing trade ensuredthe city’s loyalty. However, after the king’sdeath in 1483, Londoners reluctantly acqui-esced in RICHARD III’s deposition of hisnephew EDWARD V (see USURPATION OF

1483). Because London had little taste for ruleby the WOODVILLE FAMILY, the city ap-proved Richard’s protectorship, but severalsources, including Sir Thomas More in hisHISTORY OF KING RICHARD III, describethe lack of enthusiasm with which Richard’sclaim to the throne was greeted in the city(see SHAW’S SERMON).After Richard’s coro-nation, support for the regime declined as ru-mors spread that Edward IV’s sons had beenmurdered in the TOWER OF LONDON. As aresult, HENRY VII was readily welcomed bythe city after his victory at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration of; English Economy and the Wars ofthe Roses; London Chronicles; Towns and theWars of the RosesFurther Reading: Baker, Timothy, MedievalLondon (New York, Praeger, 1970); Porter, Roy,

London:A Social History (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1994); Sheppard, Francis, London:A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998).

London ChroniclesAlthough of uneven quality and concentratingon events in the capital and of interest to itscitizens, the London chronicles, a series of nar-rative histories produced in the city in the fif-teenth century, provide valuable informationon the WARS OF THE ROSES, especially inregard to public opinion in LONDON. Mostof these chronicles were the part-time projectsof London merchants and were thus compiledfor a merchant readership. Although portionsof more than thirty London chronicles survivefor the civil war period, the most useful areGregory’s Chronicle and two narratives byRobert Fabyan (or Fabian)—The Great Chron-icle of London and The New Chronicles of En-gland and France.

Robert Fabyan, who died in 1513, was aLondon cloth merchant and city aldermanwho wrote during the later years of HENRY

VII. Published in 1516, The New Chronicles(also known as Fabyan’s Chronicle) cover eventsin both FRANCE and England but are less de-tailed than Fabyan’s Great Chronicle. Bothworks make rather uncritical use of a wide va-riety of sources, including other chroniclesand Fabyan’s own experiences (e.g., he was anapprentice to Sir Thomas COOK when thatmerchant was implicated in the CORNELIUS

PLOT in 1468). Aside from the Cook episode,the Great Chronicle provides detailed accountsof EDWARD IV’s secret marriage to ElizabethWOODVILLE in 1464 and of the great tourna-ment at Smithfield in 1467. The latter, involv-ing the king’s brother-in-law, AnthonyWOODVILLE, Lord Scales, and Anthony, thenatural son of Duke PHILIP of BURGUNDY,was no doubt an event of particular impor-tance to Londoners. Although writing inHenry VII’s reign, and thus obliged to writefavorably of the house of TUDOR and criti-cally of RICHARD III, Fabyan is reasonablybalanced in his portrayal of Edward IV and

LONDON CHRONICLES 147

more than just a purveyor of Tudor PROPA-GANDA concerning Richard. Although theGreat Chronicle’s coverage of Richard’s reigncontains numerous errors, Fabyan recordedsome valuable firsthand observations of moodsand opinions in London during the period.

Gregory’s Chronicle takes its name fromWilliam Gregory, a London skinner wholikely wrote the portion of the narrative cov-ering the 1440s. The rest of the chronicle, re-lating events between 1450 and 1469, wascontinued by an anonymous, perhaps clericalauthor, who probably wrote in the 1470s. Al-though containing the usual focus on London,with particularly detailed accounts of JACK

CADE’S REBELLION in 1450 and the unpop-ularity in London of Edward IV’s 1465 de-basement of the coinage, Gregory’s Chronicleoffers rare personal perspectives and a some-what broader discussion of national events inthe 1460s.

Further Reading: Fabyan, Robert, The GreatChronicle of London, edited by A. H. Thomas andI. D. Thornley (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton, 1983); Fabyan, Robert, The New Chroniclesof England and France, edited by Henry Ellis(London: Printed for F. C. and J. Rivington, 1811);The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London inthe Fifteenth Century [Gregory’s Chronicle], edited byJames Gairdner (New York: Johnson ReprintCorporation, 1965).

London, March on. See March onLondon

Losecote Field, Battle of (1470)Fought on 12 March 1470, the Battle ofLosecote Field forced Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick, to abandon the house of YORK

and seek a reconciliation with the house ofLANCASTER.

After the failure of their 1469 attempt tocontrol EDWARD IV, Warwick and his allyGeorge PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,the king’s brother, awaited an opportunity tooverthrow Edward and enthrone Clarence.Their chance came in early March 1470,when a feud erupted in Lincolnshire between

Richard Welles, Lord Welles, and Sir ThomasBurgh, Edward’s Master of Horse. WhenWelles, his son Sir Robert, and his brother-in-law Sir Thomas Dymmock attacked Burgh’smanor house, driving him and his family fromthe shire, Edward intervened on his servant’sbehalf. Summoned to LONDON, Welles andDymmock were placed in custody, but SirRobert remained in the field with the secretencouragement of Warwick, his distant kins-man. Clarence, meanwhile, met Edward inLondon and delayed the king’s departure forLincolnshire by two days, thereby giving SirRobert time to raise the commons of the shirewith rumors that the king planned to executethe Lincolnshire men who had joined theROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION of theprevious summer.

At Royston on 8 March, the day Edwardlearned that Sir Robert had assembled a largeforce of rebels, he also received letters fromWarwick and Clarence stating that they wouldsoon arrive to assist in crushing the WELLES

UPRISING. Still unaware of their involvement,Edward issued COMMISSIONS OF ARRAY thatincluded Warwick, thereby allowing the earl toraise troops with royal approval. The king thenforced Welles to write to his son telling SirRobert to submit or his father and Dymmockwould die. On 11 March, Edward learned thatthe rebels and the troops of Warwick andClarence were both heading for Leicester, newsthat raised royal suspicions as to the latter’s in-tentions.Welles’s letter prevented a conjunctionof the two forces by convincing Sir Robert toretreat to Stamford in an effort to save his fa-ther’s life. Edward followed and caught therebels next day near Empingham. The battleopened with the executions of Welles andDymmock in full view of both armies. Therebels then confirmed Edward’s suspicions byadvancing with cries of “a Warwick” and “aClarence.” After a barrage of ARTILLERY, themore experienced royal army charged thelarger rebel force and scattered it, turning thebattle into a rout. Rebels wearing the livery ofWarwick and Clarence stripped off their jacketsand cast them aside in their flight, giving thebattle its name—“Losecote Field.”

148 LONDON, MARCH ON

Sir Robert Welles was captured, as was aservant of Clarence’s, who possessed lettersfrom the duke proving his and Warwick’s in-volvement in the uprising. Edward orderedthem to disband their forces and come to hispresence, but they declined without a safe-conduct, which Edward refused to grant. Theking executed Sir Robert on 19 March afterhe confessed that the objective of the revoltwas to place Clarence on the throne. Edwardthen issued a proclamation denouncing War-wick and Clarence as traitors if they did notsurrender by 28 March. Fleeing to Clarence’slordship at Dartmouth near Exeter, the earl,the duke, and their families took ship forFRANCE, where Warwick, abandoning his at-tempts to find a pliant Yorkist king, began ne-gotiations with MARGARET OF ANJOU forthe Lancastrian alliance that allowed the earlto overthrow Edward IV in the following au-tumn.

See also Angers Agreement; Edward IV,Overthrow of; Chronicle of the Rebellion inLincolnshireFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

Louis XI, King of France(1423–1483)King of France during most of the civil warperiod, Louis XI tried to use the WARS OF

THE ROSES to prevent English intervention inFRANCE and to weaken English support forBRITTANY and BURGUNDY, two indepen-dent French provinces that Louis sought toreincorporate into the French Crown. Al-though physically ugly and eccentric in behav-ior and dress, Louis used war and diplomacy tocontinue the centralizing policies of his father,reabsorbing much of the Burgundian state intoFrance and passing a greatly strengthenedCrown onto his son, CHARLESVIII.

The eldest son of CHARLES VII, Louis hada poor relationship with his father, againstwhom he rebelled in 1440. Pardoned for hisactions, Louis retired to the Dauphiné, theFrench province usually entrusted to the heir

to the throne. In 1456, Louis fled to Burgundyafter another clash with his father. Upon be-coming king in July 1461, Louis dismissed hisfather’s ministers but continued Charles’s ef-forts to increase the authority of the FrenchCrown by reducing the power and indepen-dence of the great French feudatories, espe-cially the duke of Burgundy. Because the Bur-gundian alliance with Henry V had helpedmake possible the extensive English conquestsin France early in the century, Louis saw per-petuation of the Wars of the Roses as an excel-lent means for diverting English attention fromfurther French adventures. Accordingly, in theearly 1460s, Louis provided diplomatic, finan-cial, and military assistance to the house ofLANCASTER in an effort to focus EDWARD

IV’s attention on securing his shaky throne. In1462, Louis concluded the CHINON AGREE-MENT with MARGARET OF ANJOU, whosecretly agreed to surrender CALAIS in returnfor French money and men. When Burgun-dian intervention prevented the French seizureof Calais, and Yorkist successes in northern En-

LOUIS XI, KING OF FRANCE 149

Louis XI, king of France from 1461 to 1483, intervenedfrequently in English affairs during the Wars of the Roses.(Brooklyn Museum)

gland forced Queen Margaret and her Frenchcommander, Pierre de BRÉZÉ, to leave SCOT-LAND for the continent, Louis began negotia-tions with Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,for a marriage alliance with Edward IV and thehouse of YORK.

The 1464 announcement of Edward’s se-cret marriage to Elizabeth WOODVILLE

ended these talks, and the importance ofAnglo-Burgundian trade to both states led in1467 to a commercial treaty and in 1468 to analliance sealed by the marriage of DukeCHARLES of Burgundy with MARGARET

OF YORK, sister of Edward IV. The pro-Bur-gundian policies of the house of York inclinedLouis to support Warwick, who fled to Franceafter the failure of his second coup in April1470. In June, Louis arranged an interview forWarwick with Margaret of Anjou; thoughstormy, the negotiations between the twolongtime enemies were skillfully brokered byLouis. As a party to the resulting ANGERS

AGREEMENT, Louis promised to provideWarwick with money and ships to restoreHENRY VI in return for the earl’s agreementto take England into war with Burgundy asFrance’s ally. Having lost the Somme towns ofAmiens, Abbeville, and their adjacent territo-ries to Burgundy in the War of the PublicWeal in 1465, Louis was anxious to reversethat defeat. Although Warwick overthrew Ed-ward IV in October 1470, the earl’s fulfillmentof his promise to declare war on Burgundyconvinced a reluctant Duke Charles to pro-vide Edward with the ships and men he re-quired to regain the Crown. By May 1471,Warwick was dead and the house of York wasagain in power; Louis never received the En-glish assistance he had sought.

The seeming end of the Wars of the Rosesin 1471 robbed Louis of opportunities toweaken England by supporting one contend-ing party against the other. Both Louis andCharles of Burgundy paid pensions to Englishcourtiers to obtain their good offices with theEnglish king. In 1475, Edward IV launchedthe long-threatened Yorkist invasion ofFrance. Perhaps disappointed by the lukewarmsupport of his allies, Charles of Burgundy and

FRANCIS II of Brittany, or perhaps seeking afinancial settlement from the start, Edwardmet Louis at Picquigny and accepted an an-nual French pension of £10,000 in return forwithdrawing his army.

In 1477, the death of Charles of Burgundyturned Louis’s attention toward dismantlingthe Burgundian state, which was now ruled byCharles’s daughter Mary. Louis successfullyseized the Duchy of Burgundy, the Sommetowns, and territory in northern France, al-though Mary retained the Netherlands. Whenhe died in August 1483, four months after Ed-ward IV, Louis had almost completed the ter-ritorial unification of modern France, and hadso strengthened the French state as to largelyremove the threat of a successful future inva-sion from England.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration ofFurther Reading: Kendall, Paul Murray, LouisXI (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971); Tyrrell,Joseph M., Louis XI (Boston: Twayne, 1980).

Louis de Gruthuyse. See Gruthuyse,Louis de, Seigneur de la Gruthuyse, Earlof Winchester

Love-Day of 1458The date 24 March 1458 became known as a“love-day” because it witnessed the apparentlysuccessful culmination of HENRY VI’s per-sonal attempt to prevent civil war and to re-store harmony to a bitterly divided Englishnobility. On that day, in a symbolic act of rec-onciliation, the sons and heirs of the noble-men who had been killed at the Battle of ST.ALBANS in 1455 walked arm in arm with themen responsible for their fathers’ deaths in asolemn procession led by the king to St. Paul’sCathedral in LONDON.

After their fathers were slain at St. Albansby the forces of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, and his allies Richard NEVILLE,earl of Salisbury, and Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, the sons, Henry BEAUFORT, dukeof Somerset, Henry PERCY, earl of North-

150 LOUIS DE GRUTHUYSE

umberland, and John CLIFFORD, Lord Clif-ford, clamored for revenge against the Yorkistlords. The country and its political systemwere thrown into disorder as noblemen ofboth parties recruited large retinues of armedfollowers to protect themselves and menacetheir enemies (see AFFINITY; BASTARD FEU-DALISM). To end this turmoil, Henry VI sum-moned the English PEERAGE to London for agreat council to be held in January 1458.Yorkarrived with 400 followers and Salisbury andWarwick with 500 and 600, respectively; Som-erset came accompanied by 800 men, andNorthumberland; his brother, ThomasPERCY, Lord Egremont; and Clifford broughtalmost 1,500 between them. To prevent anoutbreak of hostilities, tense city officialslodged the Yorkists within the city walls andthe Lancastrian lords without, while maintain-ing a constant armed watch. Despite theseprecautions, Northumberland, Clifford, andEgremont tried unsuccessfully to ambush Yorkand Salisbury as they rode from London tonearby Westminster.

The settlement eventually accepted by allparties, after long and acrimonious discussionsmediated by the king, called for York to paySomerset 5,000 marks, for Warwick to payClifford 1,000 marks, and for Salisbury toforgo fines previously levied on Northumber-land and Egremont for hostile actions againstthe Nevilles during the course of theNEVILLE-PERCY FEUD. The Yorkists werealso to endow the abbey at St. Albans with£45 per year for masses to be sung in perpe-tuity for the souls of the battle dead. The onlyreciprocal undertaking by a Lancastrian wasEgremont’s acceptance of a 4,000-mark bondto keep peace with the NEVILLE FAMILY forten years. Announced on 24 March, andsealed later that day with a procession thatsaw Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU on thearm of York and Salisbury and Somersetwalking side-by-side behind the king, thelove-day reconciliation proved only a tempo-rary triumph, for it failed to resolve the keypolitical issue of the day—the exclusion ofYork and the Nevilles from the exercise ofroyal power, which was being increasingly

monopolized by Queen Margaret and hersupporters. By the spring of 1459, the love-day had been forgotten, and both sides werepreparing for civil war.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Storey, R. L., The End ofthe House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Lovell, Francis, Viscount Lovell (c. 1456–c. 1487)A friend and loyal adherent of RICHARD III,Francis Lovell,Viscount Lovell, was a commit-ted opponent of HENRY VII and a leader ofYorkist efforts to continue the dynastic strug-gle after 1485.

The son of a Yorkshire nobleman whoabandoned his Lancastrian allegiance afterEDWARD IV’s victory in 1461, Lovell becamea ward of the NEVILLE FAMILY at his father’sdeath in 1465. Knighted by the duke ofGloucester while on campaign in SCOTLAND

in 1480, Lovell was ennobled as ViscountLovell by Edward IV in January 1483. Withina month of Edward’s death in April 1483,Gloucester granted Lovell the estates of exe-cuted or exiled Woodville supporters in Ox-fordshire and Berkshire, counties where theLovell family already held lands. Lovell took aprominent part in Gloucester’s coronation asRichard III in July 1483, and was soon there-after appointed lord chamberlain in successionto the late William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings.

An influential figure at Richard’s COURT,Lovell was the frequent recipient of gifts frompersons anxious to gain access to the king.Richard attempted to create a power base forLovell around his family estates in the ThamesValley, giving Lovell various regional lands andoffices, including the important constableshipof Wallingford Castle.The effort was only par-tially successful. Because of his northern asso-ciations, Lovell was still considered an outsiderby local landholders in 1485, and the viscountfocused his own activities during the reign onthe court and his close association with theking (see RICHARD III, NORTHERN

LOVELL, FRANCIS, VISCOUNT LOVELL 151

AFFINITY OF). Along with WilliamCATESBY and Sir Richard RATCLIFFE,Lovell became widely known as a member ofRichard’s inner circle of advisors. A popularsatirical couplet of the time declared,“The cat[Catesby], the rat [Ratcliffe], and Lovell ourdog [Lovell’s emblem] / rule all Englandunder a hog [referring to Richard III’s whiteboar emblem].”

In August 1485, Lovell fought for RichardIII at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD, escap-ing to Yorkshire after the king was killed. Heremained in hiding until the spring of 1486,when he emerged to lead an unsuccessful at-tempt to capture Henry VII during a visit toYork (see LOVELL-STAFFORD UPRISING).Fleeing to BURGUNDY, Lovell was wel-comed by Duchess MARGARET OF YORK,sister of Richard III; the duchess dispatchedLovell to IRELAND to assist in the effort toreplace Henry VII with Lambert SIMNEL,who was claiming to be Edward PLANTA-GENET, earl of Warwick, Margaret’s nephew.Landing in England with Simnel’s force inMay 1487, Lovell was probably killed at theBattle of STOKE on 16 June 1487. Althoughhis body was not found on the field after theYorkist defeat, there is no further record ofhim after the battle.

See also Usurpation of 1483; Woodville Family;Yorkist Heirs (after 1485)Further Reading: Bennett, Michael J., LambertSimnel and the Battle of Stoke (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1987); Horrox, Rosemary, RichardIII:A Study in Service (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Lovell-Stafford Uprising (1486)The Lovell-Stafford uprising of 1486 was thefirst significant Yorkist rebellion against thenew regime of HENRY VII and the house ofTUDOR.

In April 1486, eight months after the de-feat and death of RICHARD III at the Battleof BOSWORTH FIELD, three Yorkist sur-vivors of the battle, Francis LOVELL,ViscountLovell, and the brothers Sir Thomas and Sir

Humphrey Stafford, left SANCTUARY atColchester Abbey and began inciting rebel-lion against Richard’s supplanter. Lovell fo-cused his efforts on the area of Yorkshirearound Middleham Castle, a former strong-hold of Richard III, while the Staffords basedthemselves in Worcestershire. Henry VII re-ceived news of the uprisings in Lincoln, whiletraveling north with a large retinue on thefirst royal progress of his reign. Fearing thatLovell would inspire a strong response in tra-ditionally Yorkist areas, Henry hurried north-ward to deal with the Yorkshire phase of therebellion, reaching the city of York by 23April. However, the rebels, lacking any mem-ber of the house of YORK around whom torally, had difficulty recruiting supporters. Theking sent his uncle, Jasper TUDOR, duke ofBedford, into Yorkshire to offer pardons toeveryone but Lovell, an action that effectivelyended the northern part of the uprising andforced Lovell into hiding.

In Worcestershire, the Staffords, having nobetter success than Lovell, tried to keep theiradherents together with rumors that Lovellhad captured Henry VII. When these taleswere replaced with definite news of Lovell’sflight and the king’s imminent arrival with anarmed retinue, the uprising collapsed, and theStaffords fled again to sanctuary at CulhamAbbey. Henry had the Staffords dragged fromthe abbey and tried for treason before theCourt of King’s Bench, the justices finallyconcluding that sanctuary was unavailable incases of treason. Although both brothers wereconvicted, only Sir Humphrey was executed.

After finding temporary refuge with severalYorkist gentlemen in the north, Lovell fled toBURGUNDY and the court of Duchess MAR-GARET OF YORK, the sister of EDWARD IV.In the following year, he involved himself inthe LAMBERT SIMNEL plot, a larger and bet-ter-organized Yorkist attempt to overthrowHenry VII. Inspired by the Lovell-Stafford up-rising, several smaller Yorkist rebellions brokeout in England in 1486. Although these wereall quickly suppressed, many centered on theformer lands and followers of the NEVILLE

FAMILY and thereby confirmed for Henry the

152 LOVELL-STAFFORD UPRISING

wisdom of his decision to imprison EdwardPLANTAGENET, earl of Warwick, the grand-son of Richard NEVILLE, the late earl of War-wick, and the last direct male descendent ofthe house of York.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; Pole, John de la, Earl of Lincoln;YorkistHeirs (after 1485)Further Reading: Bennett, Michael J., LambertSimnel and the Battle of Stoke (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1987).

Ludford Bridge, Battle of (1459)Because it resulted in the Yorkist leaders’ deci-sion to abandon their troops and flee thecountry, the military encounter at LudfordBridge on 12–13 October 1459 seemed a finaland ignominious end to the attempt by

Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, tocontrol HENRYVI and the royal government.

After his victory over a Lancastrian force atthe Battle of BLORE HEATH in September1459, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury,evaded two other royal armies and joinedforces with York at the duke’s lordship of Lud-low in southern Shropshire. Also at Ludlowwas Salisbury’s son, Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, with a portion of the CALAIS garri-son, the only standing military force of anysignificance in fifteenth-century England.From Ludlow, York and the Nevilles sent theking a letter setting forth their reasons for tak-ing up arms. Henry responded with a promiseof pardon for York and all his adherents, if theywould lay down their arms and surrender tothe royal forces. Excepted from this offer werethose responsible for the Battle of Blore Heath

LUDFORD BRIDGE, BATTLE OF 153

This depiction of the aftermath of the Battle of Ludford Bridge shows Henry VI enthroned in triumph while the Yorkist lords(the Neville Earls of Salisbury and Warwick and the future Edward IV) flee to Calais. (Harleian MS 7353, British Library)

and the death there of the Lancastrian com-mander, James TOUCHET, Lord Audley. Be-cause this exception certainly covered Salis-bury and could probably be stretched to coverYork and Warwick as well, the Yorkists de-clined to respond to the king’s message. Thus,on 12 October, a royal army reached LudfordBridge and made contact with an entrenchedYorkist force that was probably only one-thirdits size. Beyond the Nevilles, York had at-tracted little noble support to his cause, whilethe royal army comprised the followings of agreat number of English peers (see PEER-AGE). When the soldiers of the Calais garri-son, perhaps remembering their sworn oath tothe king, accepted the royal pardon and aban-doned York, the Lancastrian advantage innumbers became even greater.

With the defection of the Calais garrison,York lost both his best troops and his mostexperienced commander, Andrew TROL-LOPE, who took with him to the royal camphis knowledge of York’s plans and disposi-

tions. As evening approached, York orderedan ARTILLERY barrage to cover the with-drawal of himself, his two eldest sons, andSalisbury and Warwick to Ludlow Castle forthe night. However, upon reaching thefortress, the Yorkist leaders collected theirpersonal belongings and scattered in flight,York and his son Edmund PLANTAGENET,earl of Rutland, to IRELAND and Warwick,Salisbury, and York’s son Edward, earl ofMarch (see EDWARD IV), to Calais. Aban-doned by its commanders, the Yorkist armyquickly dispersed the following morning,leaving the Lancastrians to plunder the townof Ludlow and Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU and her supporters in uncontestedcontrol of the government.

See also Coventry Parliament; Neville FamilyFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Hodges, Geoffrey, Ludford Bridge and Mortimer’sCross (Herefordshire: Long Aston Press, 1989).

154 LUDFORD BRIDGE, BATTLE OF

Maintenance. See Livery andMaintenance

Malory, Sir Thomas (c. 1416–1471)The life and career of Sir Thomas Malory, theauthor of Le Morte d’Arthur (The Death ofArthur), one of the greatest literary works ofmedieval England, illustrates how the quarrelbetween the houses of LANCASTER andYORK forced even politically insignificantmembers of the English GENTRY to choosesides.

Because little is known about the writer ofLe Morte d’Arthur, historians have debatedwhich of several fifteenth-century ThomasMalorys was the author. The most likely can-didate is Sir Thomas Malory of NewboldRevel, a Warwickshire knight whose sketchilypreserved life best fits the few facts definitelyknown about the Arthurian writer. In theconcluding paragraphs of Le Morte d’Arthur,the author stated that the book was com-pleted in the ninth year of EDWARD IV by“Sir Thomas Malory, knight,” and also re-quested his readers to pray “that God willsend me good deliverance” (Malory, p. 750).The writer was thus an imprisoned knightwho finished his work between 4 March1469 and 3 March 1470.

Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel wasknighted about 1441, and served in PARLIA-MENT in 1445 and again in 1449. Malory’slife in the 1440s was unexceptional, but hespent most of the 1450s in various LONDON

jails. His imprisonment was the result of acrime spree that began in January 1450 whenMalory reportedly lay in ambush, with armedmen, to murder Humphrey STAFFORD, duke

of Buckingham. In May and again in August,Malory was charged with rape and extortion.In June 1451, Malory and a band of accom-plices were accused of stealing livestock, and,in July, Malory and his confederates threateneda house of Warwickshire monks, an action thatled to the issuance of orders for his arrest. On20 July, while Buckingham and a party of sixtymen searched for him, Malory and his accom-plices vandalized the duke’s deer park atCaludon.

Because such violent crimes conflict withthe chivalric values enunciated in Le Morted’Arthur, the authorship of the NewboldRevel Malory has been disputed. However,the charges against him may have had more todo with local political rivalries than with out-right criminality. Malory’s transgressions,which probably originated in a private quarrelwith Buckingham, soon entangled Malory inthe national political struggle. After Malory’scapture in July 1451, the Lancastrian govern-ment imprisoned him without trial throughthe mid-1450s. Because the Lancastriansseemed intent on keeping him confined, andbecause he had shown himself capable of rais-ing and leading large numbers of men, Maloryprobably attracted the attention of the York-ists, who in the late 1450s were seeking anypossible supporters. In 1457, after being tem-porarily released on bail through the good of-fices of the Yorkist lord, William NEVILLE,Lord Fauconberg, Malory likely became anadherent of Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, Fauconberg’s nephew and Buckingham’schief rival in Warwickshire. In early 1462,Malory used Edward IV’s general pardon towin his release and wipe out all charges againsthim. In late 1462, Malory participated in Ed-

155

M

ward’s campaign against the Lancastrian-heldcastles in northern England (see entries forALNWICK, BAMBURGH, and DUNSTAN-BURGH Castles).

Although no legal records confirm thestatement in Le Morte d’Arthur that he wrotewhile a prisoner, Malory was one of only fif-teen people excluded by name from a generalpardon issued by Edward IV in July 1468.Thisexclusion raises the likelihood that Malory wasarrested by the Yorkist government some timein 1468 and remained in confinement untilthe restoration of HENRY VI in October1470, over six months after the stated comple-tion of Le Morte d’Arthur. Although the rea-sons for Malory’s imprisonment are unclear,the probability is that he was somehow in-volved in a shadowy Lancastrian conspiracyknown as the CORNELIUS PLOT, whichcame to light in June 1468 (see also COOK,SIR THOMAS). Many of the men excludedfrom the pardon with Malory were Lancastri-ans implicated in the plot. According to histombstone in Greyfriars Church in London,Malory died on 14 March 1471, only a monthbefore the restoration of Edward IV wouldlikely have again jeopardized his freedom.

Further Reading: Field, P. J. C., The Life andTimes of Sir Thomas Malory (Cambridge: D. S.Brewer, 1993); Malory, Sir Thomas, Le Morted’Arthur, edited by R. M. Lumiansky (London:Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1982).

Mancini, Dominic. See The Usurpationof Richard III (Mancini)

Manner and Guiding of the Earl ofWarwick at Angers (1470)Written probably at the direction of RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, the Manner andGuiding of the Earl of Warwick at Angers was acontemporary newsletter that was intended togive the earl’s friends and allies news of his ac-tivities in France in July and August 1470.

Designed to show Warwick’s actions in thebest light, the Manner and Guiding describesthe negotiation of and reasons for theANGERS AGREEMENT, a pact brokered by

LOUIS XI of FRANCE to create an anti-York-ist alliance between Warwick and QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU, the exiled wife ofHENRY VI. The newsletter depicts Warwickas the initiator of the agreement and empha-sizes Margaret’s reluctance to accept the al-liance, thus showing the earl’s skill and pa-tience in bringing the unreasonable queen toagreement and portraying him as calm and de-liberate, not as a desperate man grasping at hislast political option. To reassure his EnglishRETAINERS, whose support was vital to hiscoming enterprise, Warwick needed to projectsuch an image.

Although obviously a piece of pro-War-wick PROPAGANDA, and contradicting someof the dates and events given in other contem-porary accounts, the Manner and Guiding isnonetheless an important source of informa-tion for the events of the summer of 1470. Itwas written by someone (or perhaps by severalpersons) who were eyewitnesses to the discus-sions at Angers, and it was produced immedi-ately after the conclusion of those discussions,between 4 August 1470, the date given forWarwick’s departure from Angers, and 9 Sep-tember, the date Warwick’s invasion fleet sailedfor England. The newsletter was probably dis-tributed in England either during the weeksbefore the invasion, to prepare Warwick’s sup-porters for his landing, or during the invasionitself in mid-September, to reassure the mem-bers of Warwick’s AFFINITY that the earl wasacting with the blessing and support of theFrench king and the Lancastrian queen. Ifmodern historians must use the Manner andGuiding with care, the document seems tohave admirably achieved its original purpose,for Warwick received a large and enthusiasticresponse when he disembarked in the WestCountry on 13 September.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow ofFurther Reading: Hammond, P. W., The Battlesof Barnet and Tewkesbury (New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1990); Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998).

March, Earl of. See Edward IV

156 MANCINI, DOMINIC

March on London (1461)By systematically plundering Yorkist townsand properties as it marched south towardLONDON in the winter of 1461, the army ofQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU created greatfear in the capital and across southern En-gland. This fear, and the unpopularity it wonfor HENRY VI and the house of LAN-CASTER, allowed the Yorkist leaders to holdLondon and, with the city’s support, proclaima rival king of the house of YORK.

By mid-January 1461, the army that weeksearlier had defeated and killed Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD, was joined at York by QueenMargaret and the troops she had obtained inSCOTLAND.Although a large part of the Lan-castrian force consisted of ill-disciplinednortherners,Welshmen, and Margaret’s Frenchand Scottish MERCENARIES, it also containedthe retinues of Henry BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset; Henry PERCY, earl of Northum-berland; and John CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford,the sons of men killed by the Yorkists at theBattle of ST. ALBANS in 1455. As the armymarched south, the queen and her command-ers, believing that they were at last in a posi-tion to destroy their enemies, encouragedtheir troops to pillage any lands or towns be-longing or connected to York. As a result,Grantham, Stamford, Peterborough, Hunting-don, Royston, and other Yorkist sites on thearmy’s line of march suffered severely. News ofthe destruction spread panic across the south,and especially in London, where shops wereclosed, valuables hidden, and streets deserted.Always fearful of Scots and northerners,whom they considered wild and uncivilized,large numbers of southerners flocked to Lon-don unbidden, seeking to join RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, the one Yorkistleader who seemed capable of protecting thesouth from Lancastrian pillage (see NORTH

OF ENGLAND AND THE WARS OF THE

ROSES).On 12 February, Warwick left London ac-

companied by Henry VI, who had been inYorkist custody since July. Besides the men re-cruited by fear of Lancastrian vengeance, the

Yorkist army included RETAINERS of theNEVILLE FAMILY; the retinues of JohnMOWBRAY, duke of Norfolk, and John de laPOLE, earl of Suffolk; and even a troop ofhandgunners sent by Duke PHILIP of BUR-GUNDY. On 17 February, Queen Margaret’sarmy defeated Warwick at the Battle of ST.ALBANS.To make matters worse for the York-ists, the Lancastrians secured the person ofHenry VI, who was reunited with his wife andhis son, Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER.

Without a king, the Yorkist regime wasended; with Warwick in flight and a Lancas-trian army approaching London, the Yorkistcause also seemed at an end. What saved it wasthe quick action of York’s son, Edward, earl ofMarch, who hurried east from WALES to joinWarwick, and London’s fear of the Lancastrianarmy, which skillful Yorkist PROPAGANDA

exploited by exaggerating the destruction thearmy had caused on its march south. Demand-ing supplies, money, and the city’s submission,Queen Margaret got the first two but not thelast. After sending a deputation of noble ladiesto the queen to beg her not to plunder Lon-don (see JACQUETTA OF LUXEMBOURG),city authorities agreed to admit a small Lan-castrian contingent. But sentiment in the capi-tal was strongly pro-Yorkist, and the citizensshut the gates against even this force.

On 27 February, March and Warwick en-tered London to a joyous welcome. Young,vigorous, and handsome, March alreadyseemed more regal to the Londoners thanHenry VI ever had. Meanwhile, Margaret, un-willing to launch an assault on the city, with-drew her army into the Lancastrian north. On3 March, the earl of March was proclaimedking as EDWARD IV, and the next day he washastily crowned at St. Paul’s Cathedral. Thanksin part to the terror generated in the south bythe Lancastrian march on London, the houseof York held the capital and had a king whowas ready to fight to secure his throne.

See also Towton, Battle ofFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Haigh, Philip A., TheMilitary Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,

MARCH ON LONDON 157

Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (New York:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England (1430–1482)Queen Margaret of Anjou, wife of HENRY

VI, was the effective leader of the house ofLANCASTER from the mid-1450s to 1471.

The daughter of René, duke of Anjou, aFrench nobleman with unrealized claims tovarious European Crowns, Margaret was be-

trothed to Henry VI in 1444. Her marriagesealed an Anglo-French truce negotiated withher uncle, CHARLES VII, by Henry’s ambassa-dor, William de la POLE, earl of Suffolk. Mar-ried to the king on 23 April 1445, Margaretwas crowned in Westminster Abbey on 30May. Intelligent and energetic, the youngqueen at first took little part in politics, al-though she soon associated herself with Suf-folk and the COURT faction, which heldparamount influence with Henry in the late1440s. She also became a strong advocate forthe peace policy that had made her queen, and

158 MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

The earl of Shrewsbury presents a book of romances to Queen Margaret of Anjou in about 1445. (Royal MS 15 E VI f. 2,British Library)

she helped ensure the implementation ofHenry’s promise to surrender the county ofMaine to the French in 1448.

In 1450, the loss of Normandy swept Suf-folk from power. Embarrassed by financialweakness and shackled by a king who wasunfit to rule, Suffolk’s unpopular governmentcollapsed amid charges of treason leveled bysuch opponents as Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, the childless king’s probableheir. As an increasingly bitter rivalry devel-oped between York and Edmund BEAUFORT,duke of Somerset, Suffolk’s successor as chiefminister, the queen, who viewed York as athreat to the throne, identified herself closelywith Somerset. In August 1453, Henry VI fellinto an uncommunicative state that renderedhim incapable of ruling (see HENRY VI, ILL-NESS OF); in October, Margaret gave birth toa son, Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER,who displaced York as heir. To safeguard therights of her child, Margaret sought the re-gency, but her claim was rejected in favor ofYork, who was named protector by PARLIA-MENT in March 1454.

Henry’s recovery ended the FIRST PRO-TECTORATE in 1455, but the continuing ef-forts of Margaret and Somerset to destroy Yorkled the duke and his new allies, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and his son,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, to take uparms. At the Battle of ST. ALBANS in May1455, the Yorkists killed Somerset and seizedthe still ailing king, thereby instituting theSECOND PROTECTORATE. In 1456, Henryrecovered sufficiently to dismiss York as protec-tor but remained too weak-minded to governeffectively. Over the next three years, Margaretassumed leadership of the anti-York faction.Although she participated in Henry’s LOVE-DAY reconciliation of 1458, the queen largelywithdrew her husband from LONDON andkept him under her influence in the Midlands.

With the outbreak of war in 1459, Mar-garet outmaneuvered her enemies at the Battleof LUDFORD BRIDGE in October, and Yorkand the Nevilles fled the country. In Novem-ber, the queen used the COVENTRY PARLIA-MENT to strip her opponents of their lands

and offices through the passage of bills of AT-TAINDER. However, in the summer of 1460,Warwick captured the king at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON, allowing York to returnfrom IRELAND to lay formal claim to theCrown. When Parliament passed the compro-mise Act of ACCORD, which left Henry kingbut made York his heir, Margaret, who was inWALES with her son, rejected the disinheri-tance of the prince and gathered forces to op-pose the Yorkist regime. These armies slewYork and Salisbury at the Battle of WAKE-FIELD in December 1460 and then defeatedWarwick and recovered the king at the Battleof ST.ALBANS in February 1461. Because herunruly northern army had caused much de-struction on its march south (see MARCH ON

LONDON), London was wary of admittingthe queen’s men, and Margaret eventually re-treated, allowing Edward, earl of March,York’sson, to enter the capital and be proclaimedking as EDWARD IV. On 29 March, Edwarddefeated the Lancastrians at the Battle ofTOWTON, forcing Margaret to flee intoSCOTLAND with her son, husband, and chiefsupporters.

The regency government of JAMES III gavethe Lancastrians refuge in return for the sur-render of BERWICK. In 1462, Margaret trav-eled to FRANCE and convinced LOUIS XI togive her a small force, with which she invadedNorthumberland and captured the castles ofBAMBURGH, DUNSTANBURGH, and AL-NWICK. In the next year, the three fortresseswere lost, recaptured, and lost again; Margaretand her son were reduced to poverty and sev-eral times forced to wander lost and alonealong the northern coasts. In August 1463,Margaret and the prince crossed to France,where they remained until 1471.Although thequeen engaged in continuous plotting againstthe Yorkist regime, the Lancastrian cause wasdead until revived in 1470 by Warwick, who,having lost influence with Edward IV, soughtto reclaim his political dominance by restoringHenry VI. Having formerly accused the queenof many vile things, and having questioned thelegitimacy of the prince, Warwick was cor-dially hated by Margaret, who only consented

MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND 159

to talk with him after he made humble sub-mission on his knees. Encouraged by LouisXI, Margaret finally accepted Warwick as anally and agreed to marry her son to his daugh-ter, Anne NEVILLE (see ANGERS AGREE-MENT).

In October 1470, Warwick restored HenryVI, who had been a prisoner in the TOWER

OF LONDON since 1465. Margaret and herson landed in England on 14 April 1471, theday of Warwick’s death at the Battle of BAR-NET. Persuaded by supporters to continue thefight, Margaret was defeated and her son waskilled at the Battle of TEWKESBURY in May.Captured three days later, she was carried toLondon, where her husband was murdered on21 May, ending the house of LANCASTER.Margaret remained in captivity until 1475,when Louis XI ransomed her as part of theTreaty of Picquigny. Forced by the treaty torenounce all claims to the English throne, shewas required by Louis to surrender all rights toher French possessions in return for a pension.Margaret died in poverty in August 1482.

Further Reading: Dunn, Diana,“Margaret ofAnjou, Queen Consort of Henry VI: AReassessment of Her Role, 1445–53,” in RowenaE. Archer, ed., Crown, Government and People in theFifteenth Century (New York: St. Martin’s Press,1995), pp. 107–144; Erlanger, Philippe, Margaret ofAnjou: Queen of England (London: Elek Books,1970); Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of King HenryVI (Berkeley: University of California Press,1981).

Margaret of York, Duchess ofBurgundy (1446–1503)After 1485, Margaret of York, sister of ED-WARD IV and RICHARD III, used her wealthand influence as duchess of BURGUNDY tosupport plots to overthrow HENRY VII andrestore the house of YORK.

The daughter of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, and his wife, Cecily NEVILLE,Margaret was fourteen when her eldestbrother assumed the throne as Edward IV. InMarch 1466, the king commissioned RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and WilliamHASTINGS, Lord Hastings, to negotiate Mar-

garet’s marriage with CHARLES, Count ofCharolais, son of Duke PHILIP of Burgundy.Because the marriage was to be part of a polit-ical and commercial alliance between Englandand Burgundy, LOUIS XI of FRANCE stalledthe negotiations with counter proposals untilafter Philip’s death in 1467. Charles, nowduke, reopened talks and concluded an agree-ment in September. Announced to PARLIA-MENT in May 1468, two months before Mar-garet’s wedding in Burgundy, the Anglo-Burgundian agreement convinced Louis XI tofacilitate the reconciliation of Warwick andMARGARET OF ANJOU, an alliance that en-abled the earl to overthrow Edward IV and re-store HENRY VI in the autumn of 1470 (seeANGERS AGREEMENT; EDWARD IV,OVERTHROW OF). Edward IV immediatelyfled to his sister and brother-in-law in Bur-gundy, where Warwick’s agreement with Louisto make war on Charles convinced the duketo assist his brother-in-law in regaining theEnglish throne. Margaret was instrumental indetaching George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, her favorite brother, from his al-liance with Warwick; when Edward IV re-turned to England in March 1471, Clarencerejoined his brother with a large body ofmuch needed troops.

As duchess of Burgundy, Margaret was anoted patron of the arts and of the Church. By1471, the English merchant William CAX-TON had entered her service, probably as a fi-nancial advisor. Caxton showed the duchesshis half finished English translation of RaoulLefevre’s Recueil des Histoires de Troie, a retellingof the legends of Troy. Margaret correctedCaxton’s English and encouraged him tocomplete the work. By late 1471, Caxton wason the duchess’s service in Cologne, where helearned the use of the new movable-typeprinting press. The duchess was thus partiallyresponsible for the first book ever printed inEnglish, Caxton’s 1476 edition of The Historyof Troy.

After the death of Richard III and theoverthrow of the house of York at the Battleof BOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, Margaret,whose husband had died in 1477, became a

160 MARGARET OF YORK, DUCHESS OF BURGUNDY

persistent supporter of efforts to overthrowHenry VII. Her COURT became a haven forYorkists exiles, many of whom joined LambertSIMNEL in IRELAND in 1487. Margaret sup-ported Simnel, who claimed to be her nephewEdward PLANTAGENET, earl of Warwick,with men and money. She provided similarsupport to Perkin WARBECK, who claimed tobe Edward IV’s son Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York. In 1492, Margaret met and pub-licly recognized Warbeck as York, whom shehad last seen in 1480, three years before hedisappeared in the TOWER OF LONDON (seePRINCES IN THE TOWER). Whether her ac-ceptance of Warbeck rested more on hopethan belief is now difficult to gauge; however,she wrote letters to the courts of Europe af-firming her belief and helped sustain Warbeckfor six years as a significant threat to HenryVII and the house of TUDOR.Although War-beck’s eventual capture and confession of hisimposture forced Margaret to ask Henry topardon her, she remained a partisan of Yorkuntil her death in November 1503.

Further Reading: Weightman, Christine,Margaret of York (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton, 1993).

Mary of Gueldres, Queen of Scotland (d. 1463)Hoping to make territorial gains at England’sexpense, Queen Mary of Gueldres involvedSCOTLAND in the WARS OF THE ROSES inthe early 1460s.

The daughter of the duke of Gueldres anda kinswoman of Duke PHILIP of BUR-GUNDY, Mary of Gueldres married JAMES IIof Scotland in July 1449. She became regentfor her eight-year-old-son JAMES III in Au-gust 1460, when her husband was killed by theexplosion of one of his own ARTILLERY

pieces at the siege of Roxburgh Castle, a bor-der fortress that James was attempting to seizewhile the English were distracted by civil war.Mary successfully completed the siege, andthen, in December, welcomed Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU to Scotland. WithHENRY VI in Yorkist custody since the Battle

of NORTHAMPTON in July, and Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER disinherited by theAct of ACCORD in October, Margaret re-quired military assistance, and Mary was eagerto turn that need to Scotland’s advantage. Forseveral days over the New Year, the Scottishand Lancastrian queens and their sons met atLincluden Abbey to conclude a treatywhereby Mary agreed to supply Margaretwith Scottish troops in return for the surren-der of BERWICK. The queens sealed the pactby arranging a future marriage betweenPrince Edward and one of James III’s sisters.Thus, when Margaret departed for England inJanuary 1461, she was accompanied by a largeforce of Scottish MERCENARIES.

After EDWARD IV’s victory at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461, the Lancastrianroyal family fled into Scotland. Although theYorkists held the throne, the house of LAN-CASTER retained sufficient authority in thenorth to effect the surrender of Berwick to theScots on 25 April. Mary and the regencycouncil allowed the Lancastrians to use thetown as a base for raids into England.These in-cursions compelled Edward IV to sendRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, to Scot-land to convince Mary to abandon the Lancas-trian cause. Pressed to support the Lancastriansby a COUNCIL faction under Bishop JamesKENNEDY of St. Andrews and pressured tofavor the Yorkists by her uncle the duke ofBurgundy, Mary gave Warwick an evasive an-swer but readily agreed to Queen Margaret’srequest for money to travel to FRANCE.

With Margaret’s influence removed, andwith Edward IV threatening to stir up troublein northern Scotland by concluding the Treatyof WESTMINSTER-ARDTORNISH with therebellious Lord of the Isles, Mary and thecouncil agreed to a three-month truce withthe Yorkist government in the summer of1462. However, Margaret’s return to Scotlandin the autumn with a body of French merce-naries revived Mary’s hopes of using the En-glish conflict to achieve Scottish expansion. In1463, several Scottish armies invaded Englandin concert with Lancastrian forces, includingone in June that was accompanied by both

MARY OF GUELDRES, QUEEN OF SCOTLAND 161

Mary and James III. When Warwick routedthis army in July, queen and council lost allenthusiasm for the Lancastrian cause. ByMary’s death in the following November,Margaret and her son had sailed for France,and a Scottish envoy was preparing for peacetalks with Edward IV.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Macdougall, Norman, JamesIII (Edinburgh: J. Donald, 1982); McGladdery,Christine, James II (Edinburgh: John DonaldPublishers, 1990).

Memoirs (Commines)Although particularly useful as a source for fif-teenth-century French and Burgundian his-tory, the Memoirs of Philippe de Commines(or Commynes), a Burgundian nobleman, arealso an important source for English politicsand Anglo-French relations in the 1470s.

In 1464, Commines (1447–1511) enteredthe service of CHARLES, Count of Charolais,who, upon becoming duke of BURGUNDY in1467, made Commines his chamberlain. In1472, Commines defected to the service ofLOUIS XI of FRANCE, becoming one of theking’s most trusted advisors. His influence atCOURT diminished after 1477 and vanishedcompletely after Louis’s death in 1483, whenCommines lost the lands and offices he hadacquired. He was imprisoned for two yearsuntil 1489, when, in an effort to justify his ca-reer, he began writing his Memoirs. Runningeventually to eight books, the Memoirs werecompleted in 1498.

An eyewitness to many important Englishinteractions with both Burgundy and Francein the 1460s and 1470s, Commines was per-sonally acquainted with EDWARD IV, whomhe met in 1470 and 1475, and with manyleading figures at the Yorkist court. While atCALAIS in 1470, he had contact with RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and he was presentin 1475 at the meeting of Edward IV andLouis XI at Picquigny, where he helped nego-tiate the Anglo-French treaty. Besides theFrench campaign of 1475 and the general

course of contemporary diplomacy in north-western Europe, Commines is particularlyuseful for Warwick’s activities in France in1470 and Edward IV’s Burgundian exile in1470–1471 (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). Although an eyewitness to many of theevents he describes, Commines also wrotewith a moral purpose, seeking to presentevents as lessons on the proper conduct ofgovernment. He wanted government to be-come more rational and diplomacy to sup-plant military strength as the chief tool of for-eign relations.

Because Commines sometimes alteredevents to suit his moral purpose, modern his-torians use the Memoirs with caution. Suchcare is particularly warranted for English af-fairs, about which Commines often had nofirsthand knowledge and for which he wasforced to rely upon informants’ accounts andon rumors circulating in the French court.Commines wrote in an engaging style and hada gift for detail and psychological analysis, buthis reliance on secondhand information andon his own memory, often at twenty years’ re-move from events, significantly diminishes theaccuracy of the Memoirs at many points. ForEnglish history, an example of this problem isCommines’s condemnation of RICHARD III,for whose reign he had to rely solely uponEnglish informants encountered at the Frenchcourt, which meant that most of his informa-tion came from exiled followers of HenryTudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY VII),and perhaps even from the earl himself.

Further Reading: Commines, Philippe de, TheMemoirs of Philippe de Commynes, edited by SamuelKinser, translated by Isabelle Cazeaux. 2 vols.(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,1969–1973); the text of Commines’s Memoirs isalso available on the Richard III Society Web siteat <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/de_commynes/decom_1.html>.

Men-at-ArmsExpected to practice the use of arms from anearly age, male members of the landowningPEERAGE and GENTRY families of Englandcomprised the ranks of the men-at-arms, a

162 MEMOIRS

general term for those soldiers in civil wararmies who had the greatest training, experi-ence, and equipage for war. Most battles dur-ing the WARS OF THE ROSES were decidedby the outcome of hand-to-hand combat be-tween dismounted men-at-arms.

Men-at-arms and their RETAINERS—theonly component of most armies that could beconsidered professional—were almost alwaysonly a small portion of any civil war force,which might also contain ARTILLERY unitsand troops of ARCHERS, foreign MERCE-NARIES, town and county militias, and tenantsof landed noblemen (see ARMIES, RECRUIT-MENT OF). Men-at-arms fought in contin-gents led by the nobleman or knight who hadretained them—William HASTINGS, LordHastings, recruited forty men-at-arms for ED-WARD IV’s invasion of FRANCE in 1475—oras part of the corps of knights or householdservants of the king. In his grand cavalrycharge at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD in1485, RICHARD III was accompanied intocombat by his loyal retinue of men-at-arms.

By the Wars of the Roses, English men-at-arms usually fought on foot, both to improvemorale by standing with their men and tomake themselves smaller targets for archers(see GENERALSHIP). Because they were gen-erally encased in full ARMOR and their horseswere tethered far to the rear, men-at-armswere often less able to escape a lost battle thanother soldiers. Especially among the wealthiernobility and gentry, many men-at-arms in richharness, such as Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, at the Battle of BARNET in 1471,were slain and plundered by common soldierswho caught them as they fled the field.

To the extent allowed by their financialmeans, men-at-arms entered combat wearingplate armor and wielding the heavy maces,battle-axes, and other WEAPONRY designedto crush the newer, stronger type of armor.Often deployed in lines behind ranks ofarchers, whose volleys usually opened a fight,contingents of men-at-arms, supported byother more lightly armored foot soldiers, en-gaged in close combat that usually decided thebattle (see BATTLES, NATURE OF). Because

men-at-arms formed the seasoned core ofmost civil war armies, a preponderance of suchexperienced troops could overcome an overallinferiority of numbers. For instance, EdwardIV’s victories at the Battle of MORTIMER’SCROSS in 1461 and the Battle of TEWKES-BURY in 1471 are in part ascribed to his supe-riority on both fields in trained men-at-arms.

Further Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Gillingham, John, The Wars of the Roses (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981);Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, The Warsof the Roses (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

MercenariesMost English armies during the WARS OF

THE ROSES contained at least a small contin-gent of paid troops recruited outside England,or a company of soldiers supplied by a foreignally. Besides offering an alternative source ofmanpower when armies had to be raisedquickly, such mercenary forces also providedcommanders with specialists in particular mili-tary skills, such as the use of handguns orcrossbows, which were more highly developedon the continent than in England.

Foreign mercenaries fought on many En-glish battlefields. The Lancastrian army at theBattle of MORTIMER’S CROSS in 1461 con-tained Breton, Welsh, and Irish troops.Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, probablyhad a troop of Burgundian handgunners at theBattle of ST.ALBANS in February 1461, as didEDWARD IV at the Battle of TOWTON amonth later. Scottish troops accompanied thearmy of Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU onits MARCH ON LONDON in early 1461, andfought for the Lancastrian queen, along withFrench and Welsh mercenaries, at the subse-quent Battles of St. Albans and Towton. Be-tween 1461 and 1464, the Lancastrian leader-ship, then in exile in SCOTLAND, employedScottish troops on numerous raids into north-ern England. Through the 1462 CHINON

AGREEMENT with LOUIS XI, Queen Mar-garet obtained the services of Pierre de

MERCENARIES 163

BRÉZÉ and a troop of French mercenaries,while Edward IV returned to England in 1471leading a Burgundian force supplied by DukeCHARLES. The army that Henry Tudor, earlof Richmond (see HENRY VII), led at theBattle of BOSWORTH FIELD in 1485 con-tained French, Scottish, and Welsh contin-gents, while the army of Yorkist rebels thatHenry faced two years later at the Battle ofSTOKE included many German and Irishmercenaries (see SIMNEL, LAMBERT).

The use and size of foreign mercenaryforces increased as the wars progressed and En-glish enthusiasm for the struggle declined.Also,defeat in England and the subsequent need tosurvive in and return from a foreign country, asituation faced by the Lancastrians in 1461 andthe Yorkists in 1470 and 1485, gave new ur-gency to the need for raising foreign merce-naries. However, during a civil war, when aking or claimant to the throne required goodrelations with the people he sought to rule, theuse of mercenaries was problematic. Becausethey were foreigners, thought to be more in-terested in opportunities for plunder than inthe political success of their employers, merce-naries often inspired fear among the populace.The Lancastrian cause suffered from the panicthat Queen Margaret’s Scottish (and northernEnglish) troops caused in LONDON andsouthern England in February 1461. Margaret’slater willingness to surrender BERWICK andCALAIS for Scottish and French troops provedto be a great PROPAGANDA boon for theYorkists, almost canceling out the benefits thequeen derived from obtaining the mercenaries.In his MEMOIRS, Philippe de Commines de-scribed the French troops who accompaniedRichmond to England in 1485 as “the loosestand most profligate persons . . . that could befound” (Boardman, p. 90), and the earl threat-ened harsh penalties for any soldier who com-mitted theft or violence. Although importantin battle, foreign mercenaries, if unruly or un-controlled, were a serious detriment on themarch.

The employment of foreign mercenariesalso turned the Wars of the Roses into exten-sions of non-English conflicts. In 1471, French

assistance for the house of LANCASTER dur-ing the READEPTION of HENRY VI elicitedBurgundian aid for the house of YORK fromthe personally Lancastrian duke of BUR-GUNDY. The age-old alliance betweenFRANCE and Scotland, combined with thegenerally anti-French stance of the Yorkists,meant that Scottish assistance went more oftento the Lancastrians, while the generally pro-Yorkist feeling in IRELAND brought manyIrish troops into Yorkist armies. However,mercenary forces of many nationalities foughton both sides during the civil wars.

See also Armies, Recruitment ofFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Gillingham, John, The Wars of the Roses (BatonRouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981);Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981); Ross, Charles, The Warsof the Roses (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Military Campaigns, Duration ofAlthough warfare between Englishmen forcontrol of the government or possession of theCrown occurred from the 1450s to the 1490s,fighting was not continuous throughout theperiod. The military campaigns of the WARS

OF THE ROSES were few, intermittent, andbrief.

From the first Battle of ST.ALBANS in May1455 to the Battle of STOKE in June 1487, ad-herents of the houses of LANCASTER andYORK engaged in thirteen major battles, suchas those at TOWTON, BARNET, andBOSWORTH FIELD; several smaller encoun-ters, such as the Battles of TWT HILL andHEXHAM; and numerous raids, rebellions, andassaults on castles. However, most of this fight-ing across a span of more than thirty years wascompressed into a few active phases of two tothree years, within which large armed forceswere actually in the field for only a matter ofweeks. The main periods of active campaign-ing occurred between the autumn of 1459and the spring of 1461, the summer of 1469and the spring of 1471, and in the autumn of1483 and the summers of 1485 and 1487.

164 MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, DURATION OF

Being an island kingdom, England had notexperienced the nearly continuous warfarethat the HUNDRED YEARS WAR and otherconflicts and rebellions had brought in theprevious century to FRANCE, BURGUNDY,and other continental states. As a result, En-gland lacked the standing armies (and the arbi-trary taxation that supported them) that haddeveloped in France under CHARLES VII andin Burgundy under Dukes PHILIP andCHARLES. The only ongoing military estab-lishments in fifteenth-century England were aroyal bodyguard of 200 archers created in1468, the 1,000-man CALAIS garrison, andthe forces raised at Crown expense by thewardens of the marches to defend the borderswith SCOTLAND. The important role that el-ements of the Calais garrison had in the out-come of several battles, such as LUDFORD

BRIDGE in 1459, illustrated how nonmilita-rized England was.

This lack of military experience meantthat England lagged behind the continent inthe use of ARTILLERY and handguns and inthe development of military fortification.Whereas an avoidance of pitched battle and ahighly developed siegecraft characterized

continental warfare, the Wars of the Roseswitnessed almost no sieges, no sacks of majortowns, little pillage or destruction of thecountryside, and a series of brief campaignsand pitched battles, the winner of which usu-ally gained immediate control of the govern-ment. In his MEMOIRS, the Burgundianchronicler Philippe de Commines observedthat the English “were the most inclined togive battle” and that when fighting erupted inEngland “one or the other of the rivals is mas-ter within ten days or less” (Gillingham, p.28). With sieges largely unnecessary and theproblem of supply making it difficult to keeplarge armies in the field for long periods, ac-tive campaigning, as shown in the followingtable, occupied less than a year and a half ofthe more than thirty-year period encompass-ing the Wars of the Roses.

See also Armies, Recruitment of; Armies,Supplying ofFurther Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981);Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (London:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, DURATION OF 165

Table 2 Duration of Major Campaigns, 1455–1487*

Campaign Battles Duration

1455: 18–22 May St. Albans 5 days1459: mid-September to mid-October Blore Heath, Ludford Bridge 30 days1460: 26 June–19 July; 9–30 December Northampton, Wakefield 46 days1461: 2–26 February; 13 March–1 May Mortimer’s Cross, St. Albans, Towton 75 days1462–1463: 25 October–6 January Lancastrian seizures and Yorkist recaptures 74 days

of the Northumbrian castles of Alnwick,Bamburgh, and Dunstanburgh

1464: 24 April–15 May Hedgeley Moor, Hexham 22 days1469: 5–26 July Edgecote 22 days1470: 6 March–14 April; 13 September– Losecote Field; Overthrow of Edward IV 64 days

6 October1471: 14 March–27 May Barnet, Tewkesbury; repulse of the Bastard 75 days

of Fauconberg’s assault on London1483: 18 October–8 November Buckingham’s Rebellion 22 days1485: 7–22 August Bosworth Field 16 days1487: 4–16 June Stoke 13 daysTotal 464 days or

66.3 weeks

*Adapted from Anthony Goodman, The Wars of the Roses, New York: Dorset Press, 1981, pp. 227–228.

Montagu, Marquis of. See Neville,John, Earl of Northumberland andMarquis of Montagu

More, Sir Thomas. See The History ofKing Richard III (More)

Mortimer Claim to the Throne. SeeRichard II, Deposition of

Mortimer’s Cross, Battle of (1461)The Yorkist victory at the Battle of Mortimer’sCross on 2 February 1461 boosted the confi-dence of Edward, earl of March (see EDWARD

IV), then conducting his first independentcommand, and brightened the future of theYorkist cause, then reeling from the recentdeath of Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, at the Battle of WAKEFIELD.

In January 1461, while campaigning alongthe Welsh border, the eighteen-year-old earlof March heard of his father’s death. Anxiousto return to LONDON and join forces withhis chief ally, Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, March was preparing to leave Glouces-ter when he learned of a Lancastrian armymarching out of WALES from the northwest.This force, commanded by Jasper TUDOR,earl of Pembroke, half brother of HENRY VI,and James BUTLER, earl of Wiltshire, con-sisted of Pembroke’s Welsh tenants and a bandof French and Irish MERCENARIES. Turningnorth, March encountered the Lancastrianforce about seventeen miles northwest ofHereford near a place called Mortimer’s Cross.

After several hours of maneuvering for po-sition, the two armies clashed at midday on 2February. Wiltshire, leading the experiencedmercenaries, overpowered the Yorkist rightwing and drove it from the field. OwenTUDOR, Pembroke’s father, tried to outflankthe Yorkist left under Sir William HERBERT,but Tudor was himself outflanked in theprocess, and his force disintegrated. In the cen-ter, March eventually overcame stiff resistancefrom Pembroke’s men and swept the field of

Lancastrians. After re-forming, Wiltshire’smercenaries supposedly sat down, awaiting theoutcome of the battle. When Pembroke’s linebroke, the mercenaries marched off in searchof an employer who could pay them.

Pembroke and Wiltshire both escaped thefield, but Owen Tudor was taken and executedin the marketplace at Hereford. After the bat-tle, March revealed that at dawn on 2 Februaryhe had seen three suns rise, a miraculous sightthat he had taken as an omen of victory in thecoming battle. March was so affected by thissign that he later adopted the sunburst as hisemblem (see SUN IN SPLENDOR/SUN-BURST BADGE). Filled with confidence afterhis victory, March returned to London, whereone month later he was acclaimed as King Ed-ward IV.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Hodges, Geoffrey, Ludford Bridge and Mortimer’sCross (Herefordshire: Long Aston Press, 1989).

Morton, John, Cardinal Archbishopof Canterbury (c. 1420–1500)A longtime Lancastrian, John Morton was aleader of the opposition to RICHARD IIIduring the last phase of the WARS OF THE

ROSES and a likely source for Sir ThomasMore’s later history of Richard’s reign.

Morton studied law at Oxford and by thelate 1440s became a noted ecclesiastical lawyerin the Court of Arches, the chief court of thearchdiocese of Canterbury. Through the pa-tronage of Thomas BOURCHIER, archbishopof Canterbury, Morton won appointment tothe COUNCIL of HENRYVI and acquired nu-merous offices in both church and statethroughout the 1450s. During the militarycampaigns of 1461, Morton accompanied thearmy of Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU,being present at the Battle of ST. ALBANS inFebruary. After EDWARD IV’s victory at theBattle of TOWTON in March, Morton fled toSCOTLAND with the Lancastrian royal familyand shared the hardships experienced over thenext two years by Margaret and her son,

166 MONTAGU, MARQUIS OF

Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER. In 1463,he accompanied the queen into exile inFRANCE, and in 1470 helped arrange the al-liance between Margaret and her formerenemy, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick(see ANGERS AGREEMENT).

Returning to England in September 1470,Morton became an important figure in theREADEPTION government of Henry VI.After the death of Warwick at the Battle ofBARNET in April 1471, Morton rejoinedMargaret and her son, who were newly landedfrom France. When the Lancastrian causecame to ruin with the prince’s death at theBattle of TEWKESBURY in May 1471, Mor-ton submitted to Edward IV and was rapidlytaken into royal service. He served on variousdiplomatic missions and helped negotiate theTreaty of Picquigny with LOUIS XI in 1475.By the king’s death in 1483, Morton was aroyal councilor and bishop of Ely. BecauseMorton was loyal to EDWARD V and thus anobstacle to the duke of Gloucester’s assump-tion of the throne, Gloucester arrested Mor-ton at the infamous COUNCIL MEETING OF

13 JUNE 1483 (see USURPATION OF 1483).After his coronation as Richard III,Glouces-

ter placed Morton in the custody of his chiefally, Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham.Morton encouraged Buckingham’s growingdissatisfaction with Richard III and helped putthe duke in communication with MargaretBEAUFORT and Queen Elizabeth WOOD-VILLE, the two principals in a developing plotto place their children, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, and ELIZABETH OFYORK, on theEnglish throne. With the failure of BUCKING-HAM’S REBELLION in the autumn of 1483,Morton joined Richmond in France.

After the death of Richard III at the Battleof BOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, Richmondbecame king as HENRY VII, and Morton be-came one of the new monarch’s most trustedcouncilors. Morton was named archbishop ofCanterbury in October 1486 and chancellor inMarch 1487. In 1493, Pope Alexander VI madeMorton a cardinal at the king’s request. Mor-ton died in September 1500. Although somehistorians assigned the writing of More’s HIS-

TORY OF KING RICHARD III to Morton, re-cent scholarship has clearly established More’sauthorship. However, Morton, in whosehousehold More served in the late 1490s, islikely to have been at least one of the sourcesfor the anecdotes that comprise More’s work.

Further Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Seward, Desmond, TheWars of the Roses (New York:Viking, 1995).

Mountjoy, Lord. See Blount, Walter,Lord Mountjoy

Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk(1415–1461)Although intermittent in his adherence to thehouse of YORK in the 1450s, John Mowbray,third duke of Norfolk, gave vital support toEDWARD IV at the Battle of TOWTON in1461. The duke is also a prominent figure inthe PASTON LETTERS, the famous fifteenth-century collection of correspondence belong-ing to the Paston family of Norfolk.

Knighted by HENRY VI in 1426, Norfolk,who succeeded his father in the dukedom in1432, served on various military and diplomaticmissions in FRANCE during the 1430s and1440s. In 1446, Norfolk went on pilgrimage toRome, returning in 1447 to serve on an Englishembassy charged with negotiating the surrenderof the French county of Maine. In the early1450s, Norfolk supported Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, in his rivalry with Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset. Norfolkand York had several familial ties, York beingmarried to Norfolk’s aunt,Cecily NEVILLE, andNorfolk being married to the sister of HenryBOURCHIER, York’s brother-in-law. However,by 1454, Norfolk’s influence with York wasovershadowed by that of Richard NEVILLE, earlof Salisbury, and his son Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick, and Norfolk held no office duringYork’s FIRST PROTECTORATE.

By the late 1450s, Norfolk appeared to sup-port the house of LANCASTER, having taken

MOWBRAY, JOHN, DUKE OF NORFOLK 167

the oath to Henry VI administered at the 1459COVENTRY PARLIAMENT, which attaintedboth York and the Nevilles (see ATTAINDER,ACT OF). But after Warwick won control ofthe king and the government at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON in July 1460, Norfolkopenly and firmly adhered to the Yorkist cause.After York’s death at the Battle of WAKEFIELD

in December 1460, Norfolk, who had re-mained in LONDON, fought with Warwick atthe Battle of ST.ALBANS in February 1461 andwas one of the lords present at the 3 Marchmeeting in London at which it was decidedthat York’s eldest son should claim the throne asEdward IV. Norfolk immediately set about rais-ing support for the new king.The duke’s arrivalwith these forces at a critical moment duringthe Battle of Towton on 29 March 1461 helpedturn the tide in Edward’s favor. The king re-warded Norfolk with several important offices,including constable of Scarborough Castle, butrefused to sanction his seizure of Caister Castle,which the duke was forced to restore to JohnPaston (see CAISTER CASTLE, SIEGE OF).Norfolk died a few months later in November1461. His title passed to his son, John MOW-BRAY, fourth duke of Norfolk.

Further Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheBattle of Towton (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1996); Griffiths, Ralph A., TheReign of King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Johnson, P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk(1444–1476)An important adherent of the house ofYORK, John Mowbray, fourth duke of Nor-folk, used EDWARD IV’s ongoing need fornoble support against the partisans of thehouse of LANCASTER to ignore the law andseize Caister Castle from the Paston family in1469 (see CAISTER CASTLE, SIEGE OF).

Norfolk succeeded to his father’s title andYorkist allegiance in 1461. In 1464, Edward IVsent Norfolk into WALES to suppress Lancas-trian uprisings. In August 1469, only weeksafter the king was taken prisoner by Richard

NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, Norfolk used theking’s confinement and the political turmoilthat ensued to lay siege to Caister Castle,which Edward had forced the duke’s father torestore to Sir John Paston in 1461.After a five-week siege, during which Norfolk rejected allattempts at compromise, Caister fell to theduke on 26 September. Unable to act at thetime because of his confinement and unwill-ing to alienate the support of Norfolk there-after, Edward IV ignored Paston’s requests forassistance, and Caister remained in the duke’shands until his death. Denied his rights by Ed-ward IV, Sir John Paston supported therestoration of HENRY VI in 1470 and foughtfor Warwick at BARNET in 1471.

When Warwick forced Edward to flee inOctober 1470, the READEPTION govern-ment of Henry VI arrested Norfolk, but soonreleased him and summoned him to PARLIA-MENT (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).However, the duke’s continuing Yorkist sym-pathies caused his re-arrest in the spring of1471, when Edward sought to land in EastAnglia in hopes of support from Norfolk.After Edward’s victory at the Battle ofTEWKESBURY in May 1471, Norfolk pre-sided as marshal of England at the trial of Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, and theother Lancastrians taken from SANCTUARY

after the battle. Norfolk rode with Edwardduring the king’s triumphal reentry intoLONDON on 21 May 1471, but he seems oth-erwise to have received few rewards and tohave lacked the king’s confidence. He was notprominent at COURT in the 1470s and wasnever admitted to the royal COUNCIL. Nor-folk died in January 1476, leaving a three-year-old daughter, Anne, whom Edward IVmarried to his son, Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, in 1478. Two years after Anne’sdeath in 1481, Edward pushed through Parlia-ment a bill disinheriting John HOWARD,Norfolk’s next heir, and vesting the Norfolkdukedom and estates in the royal family.

See also Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d.1461); Paston LettersFurther Reading: Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998).

168 MOWBRAY, JOHN, DUKE OF NORFOLK

NavyDuring the WARS OF THE ROSES, Englandhad no standing fleet, and naval needs weremet by indenting (contracting) with merchantsand nobles to supply ships and crews to per-form a specified service for a specified time.Not meant for voyaging in the open sea, civilwar naval forces operated mainly in the Nar-row Seas (i.e., the English Channel), wherethey undertook to intercept invaders, ward offcoastal raiders, transport English armies, protectEnglish traders, and maintain communicationand supply lines with CALAIS.

After Henry V’s death in 1422, the power-ful but expensive fleet that he had built to sup-port military operations in FRANCE was dis-banded. Because Henry’s conquest of theNorman coast denied the French access toChannel ports, the need for a large Englishnavy seemed to disappear, and the minoritygovernment of HENRY VI sold off ships anddischarged experienced ship’s masters. By thelate 1450s, with Normandy lost and civil warlooming, Henry VI had no fleet and nomoney to build one. As a result, control of theChannel fell to the house of YORK after1456, thanks mainly to the piratical activitiesof Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick.As cap-tain of Calais, Warwick appropriated woolrevenues to build a fleet that plundered mer-chant vessels of various nationalities. WhileWarwick’s piracy embroiled the Lancastriangovernment with outraged foreign powers, itwon the earl and the Yorkist cause much pop-ularity, especially in LONDON, where War-wick was seen as a bold commander striking amuch needed blow for English national pride.Warwick’s naval success was also a PROPA-GANDA windfall for the Yorkists, because it

could be profitably contrasted with Lancas-trian ineffectiveness, especially in August 1457when the government failed to prevent aFrench squadron under Pierre de BRÉZÉ

from sacking Sandwich. In 1460, Warwick de-feated the royal fleet under Henry HOLLAND,duke of Exeter, and also attacked Sandwich,where he destroyed a squadron then underconstruction and captured the Lancastriancommander, Richard WOODVILLE, LordRivers, in his bed. Unopposed in the Channel,Warwick crossed to England in June; his pop-ularity as a naval commander convinced Lon-don authorities to admit the Yorkists and al-lowed Warwick to gather the army withwhich he defeated and captured the king atthe Battle of NORTHAMPTON in July.

In the spring of 1470, after the failure of hissecond coup attempt against EDWARD IV,Warwick put to sea in the naval squadron hehad maintained during the 1460s. Deniedentry to Calais, Warwick resumed indiscrimi-nate piracy in the Channel before landing inFrance, where he concluded the ANGERS

AGREEMENT with Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU. Now acting in the Lancastrian inter-est, Warwick eluded the small royal fleet andlanded in England, where in October he re-stored the house of LANCASTER and forcedEdward IV to flee to BURGUNDY (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). However, Ed-ward, thanks in part to anger generated byWarwick’s piracy, was by March 1471 able toobtain shipping to England from the HAN-SEATIC LEAGUE, a German merchant alliancewith which his government had previouslybeen at war.

After defeating Warwick and regaining thethrone (see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION

169

N

OF), Edward began rebuilding the royal fleetby constructing ships and gathering a newcadre of experienced ship’s masters. In the1460s, he had built the first English royal car-avel, the Edward, and, after 1471, he con-structed fleets to support his invasions ofFrance (1475) and SCOTLAND (early 1480s).Although still meant to carry land troops to

fight battles at sea, caravels were smaller, fastervessels than Henry V’s high, bulky carracks,and they foreshadowed the quick, agile vesselswith which Elizabethan England later defiedthe might of Spain. Despite these achieve-ments, Edward still desired a small, inexpensivenavy, and he maintained his fleet largely toprotect trade and intercept invaders, a task that

170 NAVY

Longbowmen and crossbowmen take aim at one another in this depiction of a fifteenth-century naval battle. (Cotton Jul. E VIArt. 6 f. 18, British Library)

RICHARD III’s flotilla of watching vesselsfailed to accomplish in August 1485 whenHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond, set sail forWALES.

After defeating and killing Richard at theBattle of BOSWORTH FIELD, Richmond,now HENRY VII, continued the naval policyof Edward IV, building new ships and estab-lishing a naval base at Southampton. However,he still indented for vessels when he took anarmy to defend BRITTANY in 1492, and he,like his predecessor, lacked the naval strengthto intercept the invasion forces of such Yorkistpretenders as Lambert SIMNEL and PerkinWARBECK, who both had to be defeated inland battles (see STOKE, BATTLE OF) aftertheir arrival in England.

See also English Economy and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Rodger, N. A. M., TheSafeguard of the Sea:A Naval History of Britain (NewYork: W. W. Norton, 1998).

Neville, Anne, Queen of England (c. 1453–1485)Anne Neville was the younger daughter ofRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and thewife and queen of RICHARD III. In 1470, herfather married her to Prince EDWARD OF

LANCASTER to seal an alliance with thehouse of LANCASTER and continue the civilwars; after about 1472, her second husband,Richard, duke of Gloucester, used her nameand estates to build a position of politicaldominance in the north of England.

In July 1470, Anne was with her father inFRANCE, where she was betrothed to Edward,Prince of Wales.The union finalized Warwick’sagreement with MARGARET OF ANJOU, theprince’s mother, to abandon EDWARD IV andsupport the restoration to the throne ofHENRY VI, the prince’s father (see ANGERS

AGREEMENT; READEPTION). Warwick leftfor England in September, but Anne stayed inFrance with her new husband and mother-in-law until April 1471. After her father’s death atthe Battle of BARNET on 14 April, and herhusband’s death three weeks later at the Battle

of TEWKESBURY, Anne came into the cus-tody of her elder sister, Isabel NEVILLE, andher sister’s husband, George PLANTAGENET,duke of Clarence, the brother of Edward IV.

By the end of 1471, Anne was at the centerof a bitter quarrel between Clarence and hisyounger brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester.The NEVILLE INHERITANCE DISPUTE in-volved Gloucester’s desire to marry Anne andlay claim to her half of Warwick’s vast land-holdings as well as to the extensive influencetraditionally exercised by the NEVILLE FAM-ILY in northern England (see NORTH OF EN-GLAND AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES).

NEVILLE, ANNE, QUEEN OF ENGLAND 171

A drawing depicting Anne Neville, the daughter of RichardNeville, earl of Warwick, and the wife of Richard III. Thebear at her feet is the Neville emblem. (British Library)

Unwilling to surrender any of the Nevillelands, Clarence supposedly disguised Anne as aLONDON serving girl and hid her in the city.Gloucester discovered her whereabouts and,likely with Anne’s connivance, carried her offto SANCTUARY in a London church. Despitethe claims of later writers that a long-standingromantic attachment existed between thecouple, Gloucester’s primary interest in Annealmost certainly involved control of her es-tates, while Anne’s interest in Gloucester prob-ably centered mainly on the protection hecould afford her against Clarence. Althoughthe exact date of their marriage is uncertain—some time in 1472 is likely—it was conductedwith some haste, since the couple did not evenwait for the papal dispensation that was re-quired for cousins to marry (besides the rela-tionship created by their siblings’ marriage,Gloucester’s mother, Cecily NEVILLE, wasAnne’s great-aunt).

Anne spent most of the next decade in thenorth, where Gloucester, thanks in large part tohis marriage, became heir to Warwick’s landsand political influence (see RICHARD III,NORTHERN AFFINITY OF). Living mainly atMiddleham Castle, the Neville stronghold inYorkshire where her son Edward was bornabout 1476, Anne took little part in politicsuntil her husband became king as Richard IIIin 1483. She was crowned with her husband atWestminster on 6 July, but little is knownabout her life as queen. Deeply affected by thedeath of her son in April 1484, Anne fell illherself early in 1485. The likely outcome ofher illness must soon have been clear, becauserumors of her husband’s desire to marry hiseldest niece, ELIZABETH OFYORK, began cir-culating weeks before the queen’s death on 16March 1485. Afterward, rumor claimed thatRichard had murdered his wife to make wayfor his niece, whose intended replacement ofAnne was supposedly signaled by the twowomen wearing identical gowns at theCOURT Christmas festivities. Although laterTudor writers proclaimed Richard’s murder ofhis wife as a fact—William Shakespeare cer-tainly implied it in RICHARD III—no real evi-dence exists to support the charge.

See also all other entries under NevilleFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Neville, Cecily, Duchess of York(1415–1495)Cecily Neville, duchess of York, was the ma-triarch of the house of YORK and its link withits most important wartime allies, theNEVILLE FAMILY.

Cecily was the last of twenty-three childrenborn to Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland.Through her mother, the earl’s second wife,Cecily was related to the BEAUFORT

FAMILY, a junior branch of the house of LAN-CASTER. In 1429, Cecily married RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York. Between 1439and 1455, she bore eleven children, six ofwhom survived infancy. In the early 1440s,Cecily accompanied her husband to FRANCE,where he served as lord lieutenant for HENRY

VI. Her eldest surviving son, Edward (see ED-WARD IV), was born in Normandy in 1442,with his brother, Edmund PLANTAGENET,earl of Rutland, following in 1443. WhenYork was appointed lord lieutenant of IRE-LAND in 1449, Cecily accompanied him toDublin, where her next son, George PLANTA-GENET, duke of Clarence, was born in Octo-ber. Her last surviving son, Richard (seeRICHARD III), was born in England in Octo-ber 1452.

In the 1450s, York, feeling excluded fromthe position of leadership that was his due bybirth, forged a political alliance with Cecily’seldest full brother, Richard NEVILLE, earl ofSalisbury, and with Salisbury’s eldest son,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick. Nevillesupport allowed York to challenge theCOURT party for power and to eventually viefor the throne. In November 1459, a monthafter the Battle of LUDFORD BRIDGE forcedthem to flee the country, York and theNevilles were attainted by the COVENTRY

PARLIAMENT and their estates were confis-cated. Left behind, Cecily was placed in thecustody of her sister, whose husband,

172 NEVILLE, CECILY, DUCHESS OF YORK

Humphrey STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham,was charged with supporting the duchess andher children with revenues from the forfeitedlands. After York’s death at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in December 1460, Cecily senther youngest sons, George and Richard, toBURGUNDY, from where they were recalledin 1461 by their brother, who was now king asEdward IV.

During her son’s reign, Cecily lived mainlyat Berkhamstead in Hertfordshire and at Bay-nard’s Castle, her LONDON residence. Shetook little part in politics, but she was an im-portant figure at family events and, accordingto Dominic Mancini’s USURPATION OF

RICHARD III, unsuccessfully opposed herson’s marriage to Elizabeth WOODVILLE in1464. During Edward IV’s brief exile in1470–1471, Cecily helped convince her sonClarence to abandon his alliance with War-wick, who had restored Henry VI, and to rec-oncile with his brother (see EDWARD IV,OVERTHROW OF; READEPTION). In the1480s, the duchess became increasinglyknown for her piety and her devotion to thewritings of such female mystics as St. Cather-ine of Siena and St. Bridget of Sweden. In herlater years, Cecily followed a daily routine thatincluded attendance at nine worship services.Although her religious exercises were privateand orthodox, they affected public affairsthrough the influence they exerted on herdaughter MARGARET OF YORK, duchess ofBurgundy, and her son Richard III, both ofwhom had the works of the mystics in theirpersonal libraries.

In 1483, as part of his justification forusurping the throne (see USURPATION OF

1483), Richard allowed the spreading of ru-mors that Edward IV was not York’s son buthad been fathered on Cecily by another man.This claim, which had been employed byWarwick in 1469 and perhaps raised byClarence in the 1470s, was, according to Poly-dore Vergil’s ANGLICA HISTORIA, indig-nantly refuted by the duchess (see also TITU-LUS REGIUS). After her son’s death at theBattle of BOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, Cecilywas honorably treated by HENRYVII. Having

outlived all her sons, the duchess died in 1495at age eighty.

See also all other entries under NevilleFurther Reading: “Cecily Neville,” in MichaelHicks, Who’s Who in Late Medieval England(London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 339–341;Johnson, P. A., Duke Richard of York (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1988); Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Neville FamilyOne of the most important magnate familiesin fifteenth-century England, the Nevillessupplied Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, with the political and military resourcesthat allowed him to contend for the EnglishCrown.

The family’s preeminent position in thelocal government and society of northern En-gland was established by Ralph Neville, earl ofWestmorland (1354–1425). A series of fortu-nate family marriages in the fourteenth cen-tury brought Neville an extensive landed inheritance, including castles at Raby, Brance-peth, Middleham, and Sheriff Hutton. A RE-TAINER of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster(1340–1399), Neville was created earl of West-morland in 1397 after marrying Joan Beaufort(d. 1440), Gaunt’s legitimated daughter, as hissecond wife. In 1399, Westmorland tied hisfamily’s fortunes to the house of LANCASTER

by supporting Joan’s half brother, Henry ofBolingbroke, when he assumed the throne asHenry IV (r. 1399–1413) (see RICHARD II,DEPOSITION OF). Westmorland backedHenry throughout all the rebellions of hisreign, including those raised by the Percy fam-ily, the Nevilles’ main rivals for political pre-dominance in northern England.

As a favored councilor of both Henry IVand Henry V (r. 1413–1422), Westmorland es-tablished a family claim to the wardenship ofthe West March (i.e., border) with SCOT-LAND. He also acquired a lifetime grant asmarshal of England, the wealthy lordship ofRichmond, and a series of wardships that al-lowed him to make prominent and profitable

NEVILLE FAMILY 173

marriages for many of his twenty-three chil-dren. Of his thirteen children by Joan Beau-fort, the eldest son, Richard NEVILLE, becameearl of Salisbury through his marriage, whilesecond son William NEVILLE became LordFauconberg through his. Three daughters be-came duchesses, including the youngest, Ce-cily NEVILLE, who became duchess of Yorkand mother of two kings of England. By the1450s, the Nevilles were related to most of thenoble families of the kingdom. At his death in1425,Westmorland left the bulk of his lands toSalisbury, Joan’s eldest son, thereby initiating aviolent feud between the earls of Westmor-land, the descendants of his first marriage, andthe sons of his second marriage. This quarrelwas later absorbed by the WARS OF THE

ROSES, with the Westmorland branch of thefamily remaining loyal Lancastrians while theircousins became prominent Yorkists.

In the mid-1450s, Salisbury, his brothers, andhis sons supported York in his quarrel with Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, the fa-vorite of HENRY VI. Although related to bothYork and Somerset, the Nevilles backed the for-mer because he was in the best position to sup-port them in their escalating feud with thePercy family (see NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD).Thus, even though the Nevilles rose to nationalprominence through loyalty to the house ofLancaster, Neville support was vital in allowingthe house of YORK to seize the throne in 1461.

Although Salisbury was killed with York atthe Battle of WAKEFIELD in 1460, the earl’seldest son, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,became the chief support of York’s son ED-WARD IV until 1469, when Edward’s favoringof the WOODVILLE FAMILY, his wife’s rela-tives, alienated Warwick and caused him toplace the extensive Neville AFFINITY in theservice of Henry VI. In 1470, Warwick earnedhis appellation of kingmaker by overthrowingthe house of York and restoring the house ofLancaster (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). After Warwick’s death at the Battle ofBARNET in 1471, the Neville estates andaffinity were absorbed into the house of Yorkthough the marriages of Warwick’s daughtersto the brothers of Edward IV.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all entries under Neville and Percy;Appendix 1,“Genealogies”Further Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998);Kendall, Paul Murray, Warwick the Kingmaker (NewYork: W. W. Norton, 1987);Young, Charles R.,The Making of the Neville Family in England,1166–1400 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydelland Brewer, 1997).

Neville, George, Archbishop of York(1432–1476)A younger brother of Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick, George Neville, archbishop ofYork, supported his brother’s various attemptsto overthrow EDWARD IV.

The fourth son of Richard NEVILLE, earlof Salisbury, George was early marked outfor a clerical career. Because he was a mem-ber of the powerful NEVILLE FAMILY and anephew of Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, Neville received his first ecclesiasti-cal office in 1446, when he was only aboutthirteen. He acquired a succession ofChurch offices in 1454, when his fatherserved as chancellor during York’s FIRST

PROTECTORATE. In 1455, with the York-ists again briefly in power during the duke’sSECOND PROTECTORATE, Neville re-ceived the bishopric of Exeter in fulfillmentof a promise that Salisbury had extractedfrom the Yorkist leaders.

When his father and brother fled the realmin 1459 after the Battle of LUDFORD

BRIDGE, Neville submitted to HENRY VI, buthe reverted to his Yorkist allegiance in June1460, when he led an armed force to LON-DON to support the return of Salisbury andWarwick from CALAIS. He accompanied War-wick to the Battle of NORTHAMPTON on 10July, and on 25 July, Henry VI, now in War-wick’s custody, appointed Neville chancellor ofEngland. On 4 March 1461, the day of EdwardIV’s elevation to the throne, Neville preached apublic sermon in London at Paul’s Cross (i.e.,the pulpit in St. Paul’s churchyard) defendingEdward’s right to the Crown. On 10 March,Edward confirmed Neville’s appointment as

174 NEVILLE, GEORGE, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

chancellor. During the 1460s, the bishop servedon various diplomatic missions and participatedin some of Warwick’s campaigns against Lan-castrian incursions from SCOTLAND. In 1465,Neville followed his installation as archbishopof York with an extravagant feast that was inpart a celebration of his family’s political pre-eminence. However, in the late 1460s, the riseof the WOODVILLE FAMILY and of other royalfavorites created a rift between the king andWarwick, and the archbishop was stripped ofthe chancellorship in 1467.

In July 1469, Neville presided in Calais atthe unauthorized marriage of Warwick’sdaughter, Isabel NEVILLE, to George PLAN-TAGENET, duke of Clarence, the king’sbrother. The ceremony initiated a coup at-tempt by Warwick and Clarence, who issued amanifesto, signed by the archbishop, con-demning Edward’s government. After hisbrother’s victory at the Battle of EDGECOTE

in July, the archbishop took Edward IV intocustody and brought him to Warwick at Mid-dleham Castle. Compelled by lack of supportto release the king, Warwick fled to FRANCE

in the spring of 1470 after staging another un-successful rebellion. Suspicious of the arch-bishop, Edward forced him to take a solemnoath of loyalty.

In October 1470, Warwick overthrew Ed-ward and restored the house of LANCASTER

(see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). Thearchbishop became chancellor in the READ-EPTION government, but on 11 April 1471,after parading Henry VI through the streets ofLondon in a vain attempt to arouse support,Neville surrendered himself and Henry to Ed-ward. After a brief imprisonment in theTOWER OF LONDON, Neville was pardonedand released. However, in April 1472, he wasre-arrested and transported to Calais, where heremained in confinement until 1475. Hishealth broken by his long imprisonment,Archbishop Neville died in June 1476.

See also Edward IV, Restoration of; EnglishChurch and the Wars of the Roses; all otherentries under NevilleFurther Reading: “George Neville,” in MichaelHicks, Who’s Who in Late Medieval England (London:

Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 315–316; Hicks,Michael, Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford: BlackwellPublishers, 1998); Kendall, Paul Murray, Warwick theKingmaker (New York:W.W. Norton, 1987).

Neville, Sir Humphrey (c. 1439–1469)A cousin of Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, and a leader of the Lancastrian branch ofthe NEVILLE FAMILY, Sir Humphrey Nevilleraised a rebellion in 1469 that forced Warwickto end his own uprising, release EDWARD IVfrom custody, and return temporarily to hisYorkist allegiance.

Neville was a great-grandson of RalphNeville, first earl of Westmorland, throughWestmorland’s first wife, while Warwick was agrandson of Westmorland through Westmor-land’s second wife, a member of the BEAU-FORT FAMILY. Being on bad terms with theirhalf siblings, the descendants of Westmorland’sfirst family were loyal Lancastrians. Threemonths after Edward IV’s victory at the Battleof TOWTON in March 1461, HumphreyNeville and several other Lancastrians raidedinto Durham from SCOTLAND, where theyhad followed HENRY VI into exile. Nevillewas captured, attainted by PARLIAMENT, andimprisoned in the TOWER OF LONDON. Inabout 1463, he escaped and returned tonorthern England, where he again agitated forthe Lancastrian cause. However, perhapsthrough the influence of his Yorkist cousins,Neville soon submitted to Edward IV, whogranted him pardon and a knighthood.

By April 1464, Neville reverted to his for-mer allegiance, joining the Lancastrian garri-son at BAMBURGH CASTLE and setting anunsuccessful ambush for his cousin JohnNEVILLE, Lord Montagu, Warwick’s youngerbrother. Neville fought with Henry BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset, at the Battle ofHEXHAM in May 1464 and, after that defeat,fled into the borderlands between Durhamand Northumberland, where he maintainedhimself against the Yorkist authorities until1469. Neville probably assisted the northernuprisings of the summer of 1469, wherebyWarwick and his new son-in-law, George

NEVILLE, SIR HUMPHREY 175

PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, EdwardIV’s disaffected brother, were able to capturethe king and seize control of the government.Apparently dissatisfied that Warwick was con-tent to rule through Edward IV rather than re-store Henry VI, Neville launched an uprisingin northern England. Because few nobleswould support him against the rebels while heheld the king, Warwick was forced to releaseEdward, from whom he first extracted a par-don for himself and Clarence. Within weeks,Warwick crushed the uprising and capturedNeville, who was executed at York in the pres-ence of the king on 29 September.

See also Attainder, Act of; North of England andthe Wars of the Roses; Robin of RedesdaleRebellion; all other entries under NevilleFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Neville Inheritance Dispute(1471–1475)The Neville inheritance dispute, a quarrel be-tween EDWARD IV’s brothers over possessionof the vast landholdings and regional influenceof the late Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,weakened the house of YORK and con-tributed to the eventual downfall of GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence.

After Edward IV regained the throne in1471, he rewarded his loyal younger brother,Richard, duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD

III), with numerous lands and offices, includ-ing many that had belonged to Warwick andthe NEVILLE FAMILY. The royal generosity toGloucester enraged Clarence, the king’s otherbrother, who had supported Warwick and theREADEPTION of HENRY VI and was onlyrecently reconciled with Edward IV. As thehusband of Isabel NEVILLE, Warwick’s eldestdaughter, Clarence was further angered byGloucester’s determination to marry Clar-ence’s seventeen-year-old sister-in-law, AnneNEVILLE, a match that would allow Glouces-ter to claim a portion of the Neville estates.Although some later writers have romanti-

cized the relationship between Gloucester andAnne Neville, the couple probably had morepractical reasons for wanting the union. Theduke was undoubtedly attracted by the politi-cal and economic advantages of marrying aNeville heiress, and Anne, the widow of ED-WARD OF LANCASTER, the late LancastrianPrince of Wales, likely saw Gloucester as theonly husband who could enforce her rightsagainst Clarence.

Over the winter of 1471–1472, the twodukes quarreled openly and bitterly, withClarence even attempting to prevent the mar-riage by disguising Anne as a kitchen maidand hiding her in LONDON. Gloucester dis-covered the girl and rushed to marry her. Theceremony, which probably occurred sometime in 1472, did not even wait for the neces-sary papal dispensation allowing a marriagebetween cousins (besides the relationship cre-ated by their siblings’ marriage, Gloucester’smother, Cecily NEVILLE, was Anne’s great-aunt). After pleading unsuccessfully withClarence on Gloucester’s behalf, Edward IVintervened and imposed a settlement. In re-turn for surrendering a share of the Warwickestates to Gloucester, Clarence was given theNeville earldoms of Warwick and Salisburyand promised recompense from the kingshould PARLIAMENT take from him or an-other heir recover from him any of the Nevilleor other estates granted to him. In addition,Gloucester, who had shown the greater will-ingness to compromise, resigned to Clarencethe office of Great Chamberlain of England.

To implement this family compact, the kingand his brothers circumvented the English in-heritance laws. Some of Warwick’s lands hadcome to him from his wife; by law, these estatesshould have passed to the still-living Countessof Warwick. Others of Warwick’s estates, hav-ing come to him from his father, should by lawhave passed to his nearest living male relative,George Neville, duke of Bedford, son of hislate brother John NEVILLE, Marquis of Mon-tagu.A statute of May 1474 formally vested theNeville lands in Clarence and Gloucester andextinguished the claims of the Countess ofWarwick by regarding her as legally dead; an

176 NEVILLE INHERITANCE DISPUTE

act of February 1475 likewise suppressed Bed-ford’s rights. Ironically, the king had refrainedfrom attainting Warwick in 1471 so that hisbrothers could acquire the Neville lands byright of inheritance through their wives, thusobtaining for them the protection of the inher-itance laws these statutes overruled (see AT-TAINDER,ACT OF).

Rather than display the gratitude and co-operation that might be expected of a man re-cently pardoned for treason, Clarence provedparticularly stubborn during the dispute andthus further aroused the king’s mistrust. WhenClarence continued to involve himself inquestionable undertakings, Edward’s patiencefinally ran out, and Clarence was attainted andexecuted in February 1478, an act by whichEdward unwittingly eased Gloucester’s path tothe throne in 1483 (see CLARENCE, EXECU-TION OF).

See also Edward IV, Restoration of; all entriesunder Neville

Further Reading: Hicks, Michael, False, Fleeting,Perjur’d Clarence: George, Duke of Clarence, 1449–78(Bangor, UK: Headstart History, 1992); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Neville, Isabel, Duchess of Clarence (1451–1476)When she married George PLANTAGENET,duke of Clarence, brother and heir presump-tive of EDWARD IV, Isabel Neville, eldestdaughter of Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, sealed an alliance between her father andher husband that reignited the civil wars andtemporarily overthrew the house of YORK.

Born at Warwick in September 1451, Isabelwas suggested by her father as a possible bridefor Clarence in the mid-1460s. Unwilling toallow Warwick to tie the Nevilles to the suc-cession, the king forbade the match. In 1467,Warwick began negotiating secretly at Romefor a papal dispensation to allow the cousins tomarry (Clarence’s mother, Cecily NEVILLE,was Isabel’s great-aunt). Persuaded that theNeville alliance could increase his influence,

and aware that it at least promised him even-tual possession of the extensive Neville estates,Clarence supported the scheme, and Isabelmarried the duke in CALAIS on 11 July 1469.

Immediately after the ceremony, Warwickand Clarence issued a manifesto listing the fail-ings of Edward IV’s government and declaringtheir intention to remedy those evils by forceof arms. Although the 1469 rebellion ended instalemate, a second unsuccessful uprising inApril 1470 compelled a pregnant Isabel to takeship at Exeter with her fleeing husband and fa-ther. Forced to give birth aboard ship offCalais, Isabel survived, but the child died andwas buried at sea. After spending the next ninemonths in FRANCE with her mother andyounger sister, Anne NEVILLE, the duchess re-

NEVILLE, ISABEL, DUCHESS OF CLARENCE 177

A drawing depicting Isabel Neville, duchess of Clarence,wife of George Plantagenet, duke of Clarence. (BritishLibrary)

turned to England in late 1470 following War-wick’s successful restoration of HENRYVI. Shewas in the West Country in April 1471, whenher father died at the Battle of BARNET andher husband reconciled with his brother.

In the early 1470s, Isabel and her sister wereat the center of the NEVILLE INHERITANCE

DISPUTE, a bitter quarrel between her hus-band and his brother, Richard, duke ofGloucester (see RICHARD III), over posses-sion of the properties the two sisters inheritedfrom their late father. By marrying Anne(probably some time in 1472), Gloucester laidclaim to half the Neville estates and to a shareof the political influence traditionally exercisedby the NEVILLE FAMILY in northern England.

Isabel gave birth to a daughter, MargaretPlantagenet, future Countess of Salisbury, in1473, and to a son, Edward PLANTAGENET,earl of Warwick, in 1475. Complications aris-ing from the birth of a second son, Richard, inOctober 1476, led to Isabel’s death at agetwenty-five on the following 22 December.Deeply affected by the death of his wife, andby the death of her newborn son shortlythereafter, Clarence began his downfall inApril 1477 by engineering the seizure, trial,and summary execution of Ankarette Twynho,a servant of Isabel’s, whom the duke accused,on slender evidence, of poisoning his wife.Charged with perverting the judicial process,Clarence was arrested in June 1477 and exe-cuted in the following February.

See also Clarence, Execution of; North ofEngland and the Wars of the Roses; all otherentries under NevilleFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, False, Fleeting,Perjur’d Clarence: George, Duke of Clarence, 1449–78(Bangor, UK: Headstart History, 1992); Hicks,Michael, Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford:Blackwell Publishers, 1998).

Neville, John, Earl ofNorthumberland and Marquis of Montagu (c. 1430–1471)John Neville, marquis of Montagu, theyounger brother of Richard Neville, earl of

Warwick, was a leading political and militaryfigure in northern England during the WARS

OF THE ROSES.The third son of Richard NEVILLE, earl of

Salisbury, John took a leading part in theNEVILLE-PERCY FEUD during the 1450s. In1454, he and his brother Sir ThomasNEVILLE led the Neville forces at the Battleof STAMFORD BRIDGE. He fought along-side his father at the Battle of BLORE

HEATH, in September 1459, and so recklesslypursued the fleeing Lancastrians that he wascaptured. John was released in July 1460 whenhis brother Warwick won control of HENRY

VI and the royal government at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON; the new regime shortlythereafter ennobled John as Lord Montagu. InFebruary 1461, the Lancastrians recapturedMontagu at the Battle of ST. ALBANS, send-ing him into confinement at York. His lifepreserved the life of Edmund BEAUFORT,the future fourth duke of Somerset, who wasWarwick’s prisoner. EDWARD IV releasedMontagu in late March 1461, when the kingpassed through York after his victory at theBattle of TOWTON.

Montagu spent the early 1460s servingwith his brother in the north against repeatedLancastrian incursions from SCOTLAND. Herelieved Naworth Castle in July 1462 and as-sisted Warwick in repelling a Scottish invasionin July 1463. In 1464, Montagu was appointedwarden of the East March (i.e., Scottish bor-der) and served with his brother on a peacecommission to Scotland. He defeated oneLancastrian force at the Battle of HEDGELEY

MOOR in April and another at the Battle ofHEXHAM in May, and then assisted at the finalcapture of the castles of ALNWICK, BAM-BURGH, and DUNSTANBURGH, thus endingLancastrian resistance in Northumberland. Hisreward for these services was the Percy earl-dom of Northumberland, a grant that madehim the chief magnate in the north.

Although less affected by the rise of theWOODVILLE FAMILY than was Warwick,Northumberland lost a chance to marry hisson to the wealthy daughter of Henry HOL-LAND, duke of Exeter, when the heiress wed

178 NEVILLE, JOHN, EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND MARQUIS OF MONTAGU

Thomas GREY, Queen Elizabeth WOOD-VILLE’s son, in 1466. How deeply Northum-berland was involved in Warwick’s coup at-tempt of 1469 is unclear, for he cooperated inthe suppression of the Warwick-inspiredROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION. Heavoided involvement in his brother’s abortiveuprising in the spring of 1470, but he alsomade no effort to assist Edward against War-wick. As a member of the NEVILLE FAMILY,Northumberland aroused the king’s suspi-cions, but as a powerful nobleman whom Ed-ward liked personally, Northumberland stillcommanded the king’s favor. In March 1470,Edward restored the earldom of Northumber-land to Henry PERCY, but he sought tomaintain John Neville’s loyalty by creatinghim marquis of Montagu and in December1469 promising his daughter, ELIZABETH OF

YORK, as a wife for Montagu’s son.However, when Warwick landed from exile

in FRANCE in September 1470, Montagu de-clared for Henry VI and moved with a largeforce to intercept Edward at Doncaster. Mon-tagu’s defection forced the king to flee thecountry and left Warwick in charge of theLancastrian READEPTION government (seeEDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). When Ed-ward returned in March 1471, Montagu, whohad been entrusted with the defense of thenorth, allowed the Yorkists to land unopposedin Yorkshire. Whatever the reason for this fail-ure to act, it was likely not a betrayal of hisbrother, for Montagu hurried south to fightand die with Warwick at the Battle of BAR-NET in April.

See also Edward IV, Restoration of; North ofEngland and the Wars of the Roses; all otherentries under NevilleFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998);Kendall, Paul Murray, Warwick the Kingmaker (NewYork: W. W. Norton, 1987).

Neville, John, Lord Neville (d. 1461)A member of the Westmorland branch of theNEVILLE FAMILY and a partisan of the house

of LANCASTER, John Neville, Lord Neville,played a prominent part in the Battles ofWAKEFIELD and FERRYBRIDGE.

Neville was a son of John Neville, the eld-est son of Ralph Neville (1354–1425), firstearl of Westmorland, by the earl’s first mar-riage. John Neville was thus a nephew ofRichard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, Westmor-land’s eldest son by his second marriage. In the1440s, when the sons and grandsons of West-morland’s two families fell to squabbling overthe old earl’s extensive northern estates, JohnNeville played a prominent part in the strug-gle. When his uncle Salisbury and his cousinRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, alliedthemselves with Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, in the 1450s, Neville supportedHENRY VI, thus merging the family feud intothe WARS OF THE ROSES. In 1459, JohnNeville was raised to the PEERAGE as LordNeville and attended the COVENTRY PAR-LIAMENT, which passed bills of ATTAINDER

dispossessing his Yorkist cousins.Neville apparently cooperated with the

Yorkist regime established by Warwick in July1460 when the earl captured the king at theBattle of NORTHAMPTON.On his return fromIRELAND in the autumn, York issued a COM-MISSION OF ARRAY to Neville, authorizinghim to raise troops for the government. WhenYork and Salisbury marched north in Decemberto suppress Lancastrian insurgents, they ex-pected to be reinforced by Neville and his men.However, unbeknownst to the duke, Nevillebrought the troops he raised under Yorkist au-thority into the Lancastrian camp. One theoryas to why York left the safety of Sandal Castle on30 December to engage the Lancastrians inopen battle is that he mistook a force that ap-peared behind a body of enemy skirmishers asNeville’s promised reinforcements. Mistakenlythinking he had a body of Lancastrians trappedbetween two Yorkist armies,York sallied forth tohis death at the Battle of WAKEFIELD. Salisburywas captured and executed shortly thereafter,apparently without any protest from his Lancas-trian nephew.

Although Neville’s exact role at Wakefieldis unclear and known mostly from Yorkist

NEVILLE, JOHN, LORD NEVILLE 179

sources, it was sufficiently pro-Lancastrian forHenry VI to reward him with custody of Sal-isbury’s Yorkshire castles. Neville likely foughtwith MARGARET OF ANJOU’s army at theBattle of ST. ALBANS in February 1461, andhe was definitely with the Lancastrian armyin the following month, when he was killed atthe Battle of FERRYBRIDGE by a body ofmounted ARCHERS led by his uncle (andSalisbury’s brother), William NEVILLE, LordFauconberg.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all other entries under NevilleFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

Neville, Lord. See Neville, John, LordNeville

Neville, Richard, Earl of Salisbury (c. 1400–1460)In the mid-fifteenth century, Richard Neville,earl of Salisbury, was one of the wealthiest andmost politically influential nobles in England.By bringing the extensive Neville interest intoalliance with Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, Salisbury and his eldest son RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, turned York’sheretofore ineffective opposition to HENRYVIinto a serious threat to the Lancastrian COURT

and made possible the eventual seizure of thethrone by York’s son, EDWARD IV.

The eldest son of Ralph Neville (1354–1425), earl of Westmorland, and the earl’s sec-ond wife, Joan Beaufort, Neville acquired hisfather-in-law’s wealthy earldom of Salisbury in1428. After his mother’s death in 1440, Salis-bury also inherited many of his late father’s es-tates, making him one of the greatest magnatesof the north and one of the wealthiest earls inEngland. During Henry VI’s mental illness inthe 1450s, the political rivalry between Yorkand Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset,put Salisbury in a difficult position (see HENRY

VI, ILLNESS OF). Related through his Beaufortblood to Somerset, Salisbury was also con-

nected by marriage to York, whose wife wasSalisbury’s sister Cecily NEVILLE (see BEAU-FORT FAMILY). When York, demanding thearrest of Somerset, took up arms against theking in 1452, Salisbury and Warwick worked toreconcile the parties (see DARTFORD UPRIS-ING). Unwilling to see York too severely pun-ished, the Nevilles were also unwilling to forfeittheir court connections.

In 1453, several events caused Salisbury andhis son to abandon their moderate positionand ally with York. In WALES, Somerset andWarwick disputed possession of various es-tates, while in the north, a variety of disputeswith the sons and RETAINERS of HenryPERCY, second earl of Northumberland, ledto several violent encounters between the twofamilies and ignited a bitter NEVILLE-PERCY

FEUD (see HEWORTH, BATTLE OF; STAM-FORD BRIDGE, BATTLE OF). Because thesequarrels coincided with the onset of the king’smental illness, the Nevilles expected little helpfrom a court dominated by Somerset andfriendly to Northumberland. Because York,himself a substantial northern landowner, wasa natural Neville ally against the Percies, Salis-bury and his son supported York’s appoint-ment as lord protector in March 1454. Theduke rewarded Salisbury by naming him lordchancellor.

Henry VI’s recovery in January 1455 endedYork’s protectorship and led to Salisbury’s dis-missal from office and Northumberland’s ap-pointment to the COUNCIL. When the kingrestored Somerset to favor,York took up armswith the support of Salisbury and Warwick. InMay 1455, York and the Nevilles defeated aroyal army at the Battle of ST.ALBANS, wherethey won custody of the king and achievedthe deaths of Somerset and Northumberland.In February 1456, when Henry dismissedYork again, Salisbury retired to the north.When open warfare erupted between Yorkand the court in 1459, Salisbury led a force of5,000 to join York at Ludlow in the marchesof WALES. On the way, he successfully foughtoff a Lancastrian force at the Battle of BLORE

HEATH on 23 September; however, the arrivalof a large royal army at the Battle of LUD-

180 NEVILLE, LORD

FORD BRIDGE forced York to flee to IRE-LAND and Salisbury, Warwick, and York’s sonEdward, earl of March, to sail to CALAIS.

Salisbury, Warwick, and March returned toEngland in June 1460, entering LONDON un-opposed. In July, Warwick’s victory atNORTHAMPTON—while Salisbury laid siegeto the TOWER OF LONDON—put king andgovernment in Warwick’s hands; Salisbury wasmade great chamberlain, but otherwise left thedirection of affairs to his son. In October1460, Salisbury was reluctant to endorse York’sclaim to the Crown and supported the Act ofACCORD, which kept Henry VI on thethrone but made York his heir in place of ED-WARD OF LANCASTER, Prince of Wales. On9 December, when York led a force northwardagainst the growing Lancastrian resistance tothe settlement, Salisbury accompanied him.York fell at the Battle of WAKEFIELD in York-shire on 30 December 1460; Salisbury escapedthe battle, but he was captured and executednext day. His head was placed beside theduke’s on the Micklegate at York.

See also First Protectorate; Neville Family; Northof England and the Wars of the Roses; SecondProtectorate; all other entries under NevilleFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A, The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Johnson, P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988);“Richard Neville,” in Michael Hicks, Who’s Whoin Late Medieval England (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 289–290.

Neville, Richard, Earl of Warwick(1428–1471)Known as “the kingmaker,” Richard Neville,earl of Warwick, was a central figure in thecoming and continuation of the WARS OF

THE ROSES. Warwick’s support for the houseof YORK allowed Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, to claim the Crown in 1460 andpermitted EDWARD IV,York’s son, to win theCrown in 1461. By switching sides in 1470,Warwick also made possible the restoration ofHENRYVI and the house of LANCASTER.

The eldest son of Richard NEVILLE, earl ofSalisbury, head of a powerful northern family,

young Richard married Anne Beauchamp,daughter of the wealthy earl of Warwick, in1436. In 1449, Anne inherited the bulk of herfather’s vast estates, and Neville became earl ofWarwick by right of his wife. In the early1450s, Warwick, like his father, took no side inthe feud between York and Edmund BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset. The NEVILLE FAM-ILY had connections with both dukes, Yorkbeing married to Warwick’s aunt, CecilyNEVILLE, and Somerset being related by bloodthrough Warwick’s paternal grandmother. In1452, when York tried unsuccessfully atDARTFORD to compel the king to arrestSomerset, Warwick and Salisbury sought firstto mediate the quarrel and then to limit thepunishment inflicted on York. However, by1453, Warwick’s quarrel with his brother-in-law Somerset over division of the Beauchampinheritance, and the rising influence at court ofSalisbury’s northern rival, Henry PERCY, earlof Northumberland, drove Warwick and his fa-ther into closer alliance with York. When Yorkbecame protector for the mentally incapaci-tated Henry VI in 1454 (see HENRY VI, ILL-NESS OF), Warwick was admitted to theCOUNCIL and associated with his father in thelucrative wardenship of the West March (i.e.,western border with SCOTLAND). WhenHenry’s recovery ended York’s FIRST PRO-

NEVILLE, RICHARD, EARL OF WARWICK 181

The bear badge of Richard Neville, earl of Warwick. (Add.MS 40742 f. 10, British Library)

TECTORATE in early 1455, the return to favorof the Somerset-Northumberland faction ab-sorbed the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD into thenational rivalry between York and Somerset,with Northumberland’s standing at court tyingthe Nevilles more firmly to York.

In May 1455, the Nevilles and York, seek-ing to remove their opponents from power, re-sorted to arms; on 22 May, their forces slewSomerset and Northumberland at the Battleof ST. ALBANS, a fight that gave Warwick anot entirely deserved reputation as a successfulmilitary leader. The battle and a royal relapsegave York and his allies control of the govern-ment until February 1456, when Henry re-covered and ended the duke’s SECOND PRO-TECTORATE. An increasing influence ingovernment, Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

was anxious to prevent York’s ambition fromjeopardizing the future of her son, Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER; by late 1456, shehad largely excluded York and the Nevillesfrom power. Named captain of CALAIS in1455, Warwick spent much of the next fouryears fighting the French and Spanish in theChannel and winning a great reputation as anaval commander. The earl also transformedCalais into a base for Yorkist intrigues. Withthe outbreak of civil war in 1459, York sum-moned Warwick and part of the Calais garri-son to England, but, after the Yorkist defeat atthe Battle of LUDFORD BRIDGE in October,the earl returned to Calais with his father andYork’s son, Edward, earl of March. Afterspending the next eight months gatheringstrength and raiding the English coast, theYorkist earls entered LONDON in June 1460,and the following month Warwick defeatedand captured the king at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON.

With the government now in Warwick’shands, York returned from exile in IRELAND

and laid claim to the Crown. Whether or notWarwick initially supported this decision, hebacked off when it became apparent that thePEERAGE opposed a change of dynasty. Theearl was instrumental in crafting the compro-mise Act of ACCORD, which left Henry onthe throne but disinherited Prince Edward in

favor of York and his heirs. The Act of Accordgalvanized Lancastrian opposition, and War-wick was left in charge in London when Yorkand Salisbury were killed at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in December 1460. After losingcontrol of the king at the Battle of ST. AL-BANS in February 1461, Warwick acceptedwhat he had rejected the previous autumn—the proclamation of a Yorkist monarch. As Ed-ward IV, York’s son secured the Crown inMarch at the Battle of TOWTON, largely withthe support of Warwick and the NevilleAFFINITY.

Having been vital to Edward’s success,War-wick sought, as the new king’s chief advisor, torecreate the wide-ranging influence in gov-ernment that he had enjoyed while holdingcustody of Henry VI. But Edward, thoughyoung, was far more vigorous than his Lancas-trian predecessor, and Warwick, though wellrewarded, soon found his influence dilutedand his interests threatened by other royal fa-vorites, such as William HERBERT, earl ofPembroke. In 1464, the king’s secret marriageto Elizabeth WOODVILLE introduced thelarge and ambitious WOODVILLE FAMILY toCOURT and further reduced Warwick’s influ-ence. Differences over foreign policy, with Ed-ward leaning toward BURGUNDY and War-wick favoring alliance with FRANCE, alsostrained relations between the earl and theking, as did Edward’s refusal to sanction themarriages of Warwick’s two daughters to hisbrothers. In 1469, Warwick, seeking to againplace the king under his tutelage, formed analliance with George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, Edward’s disaffected brother. By in-stigating the ROBIN OF REDESDALE RE-BELLION in northern England, and by defeat-ing royal forces at the Battle of EDGECOTE,Warwick won brief custody of the king. How-ever, finding himself unable to govern withoutEdward’s cooperation, Warwick soon releasedthe king. Too strong for Edward to strikedown, Warwick launched another coup inearly 1470.

With the failure of the 1470 uprising at theBattle of LOSECOTE FIELD, Warwick andClarence fled to France. Having failed to find

182 NEVILLE, RICHARD, EARL OF WARWICK

a suitable Yorkist monarch through whom togovern, Warwick, with the cooperation ofLOUIS XI, negotiated the ANGERS AGREE-MENT with his old enemy, Queen Margaret.In return for restoring Henry VI, Warwickwon Margaret’s acceptance of the marriage ofher son to Anne NEVILLE, the earl’s youngerdaughter. In return for Louis’s financial assis-tance, Warwick agreed to bring England intoactive alliance with France against Burgundy.Returning to England in September 1470,Warwick forced Edward to flee to the conti-nent. Supported by the earl’s brothers—JohnNEVILLE, marquis of Montagu, and GeorgeNEVILLE, archbishop of York—by the exten-sive Neville affinity, and (somewhat luke-warmly) by the Lancastrians, the Warwick-ledREADEPTION government of Henry VIlasted until April 1471, when Edward IV de-feated and killed Warwick at the Battle ofBARNET. To secure the north, Edward al-lowed his brother, Richard, duke of Glouces-ter (see RICHARD III), to marry Warwick’sdaughter Anne in about 1472. This uniontransferred most of Warwick’s northern estatesand influence to the house of York.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration of; North of England and the Wars ofthe Roses; Richard III, Northern Affinity of; allother entries under NevilleFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998);Kendall, Paul Murray, Warwick the Kingmaker (NewYork: W. W. Norton, 1987).

Neville, Sir Thomas (c. 1429–1460)Sir Thomas Neville, the second son ofRichard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and theyounger brother of Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, played a prominent role in theNEVILLE-PERCY FEUD of the 1450s.

HENRY VI knighted Thomas and hisyounger brother John NEVILLE, the futureLord Montagu, in January 1453. In August, SirThomas married Maude Stanhope, the nieceof Ralph, Lord Cromwell. Because it en-hanced the NEVILLE FAMILY’s influence inthe north and made possible the future

Neville acquisition of former Percy estates inCromwell’s possession, the marriage aggra-vated a feud that had broken out earlier in theyear between Sir John Neville and ThomasPERCY, Lord Egremont, a younger son ofHenry PERCY, earl of Northumberland.Leading a large armed force, Egremont inter-cepted Sir Thomas Neville’s wedding party asit passed northeast of York on 24 August. Be-sides his new wife, Sir Thomas was accompa-nied by his parents, his brother John, and a for-midable escort of armed RETAINERS. Theencounter erupted into the so-called Battle ofHEWORTH, a skirmish that resulted in nobloodshed but nonetheless aggravated the feudand drew Sir Thomas into more active partici-pation on his family’s behalf. After various in-cidents and provocations on both sides, SirThomas and his brother John defeated andcaptured Egremont at the Battle of STAM-FORD BRIDGE in October 1454.

By 1459, the Neville-Percy feud hadmerged into the national rivalry between thehouses of YORK and LANCASTER, and theNevilles had become the chief allies ofRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York. InSeptember, Sir Thomas fought with his fatherat the Battle of BLORE HEATH, where he andhis brother John were captured after pursuingthe defeated Lancastrians too aggressively. Likehis father and brothers, Sir Thomas was in-cluded in the bills of ATTAINDER passedagainst the Yorkist leaders at the COVENTRY

PARLIAMENT of November 1459. In July1460, Sir Thomas and his brother won releasefrom confinement through Warwick’s captureof the king at the Battle of NORTHAMPTON.Named to various offices by the new Yorkistgovernment, Sir Thomas became Warwick’slieutenant as warden of the West March (i.e.,the Scottish border) and had responsibility forupholding the regime’s tenuous authority inthe lands of the Crown Duchy of Lancaster. InOctober, when York laid his claim to thethrone before PARLIAMENT, Sir Thomas ac-companied Warwick to Westminster to tell theduke that neither the PEERAGE nor the peo-ple were willing to accept the deposition ofHenry VI. In December, after the compromise

NEVILLE, SIR THOMAS 183

Act of ACCORD provoked Lancastrian resis-tance across England, Sir Thomas joined thearmy that his father and York led north fromLONDON. He died with them at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD on 30 December, and his headwas afterwards displayed with those of theduke and Salisbury on the town gates of York.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all other entries under NevilleFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998);Storey, R. L., The End of the House of Lancaster. 2ded. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1999).

Neville, Thomas, Bastard ofFauconberg (d. 1471)Thomas Neville, a cousin and supporter ofRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, led thelast serious act of resistance against EDWARD

IV in 1471.Known as the Bastard of Fauconberg,

Thomas Neville was an illegitimate son ofWilliam NEVILLE, Lord Fauconberg and earlof Kent. In April 1470, Neville commanded asquadron in the royal NAVY, but he defectedwith it to Warwick when his cousin fled En-gland after an unsuccessful rebellion againstEdward IV. When Warwick returned andforced Edward to flee the country in October1470, the earl placed Neville in command ofthe fleet (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). Although he spent weeks patrolling theEnglish Channel in early 1471, Neville wasdistracted by Breton and Burgundian naval ac-tivity and failed to intercept Edward when hecrossed to England in March (see EDWARD

IV, RESTORATION OF).In early May, Neville was reinforced by 300

men from the CALAIS garrison. Unaware ofthe defeat and death of Warwick at the Battleof BARNET on 14 April, Neville landed inKent and recruited a large army of Lancastri-ans, economic and social malcontents, andtroublemakers interested more in looting thanin politics. On 12 May, with his fleet at anchorin the Thames and his army at the gates,Neville demanded entry into LONDON. Ed-

ward was on campaign in the west, but thecity authorities refused Neville’s demand andbeat off an attack across London Bridge. Thenext day, the citizens also frustrated Neville’sattempt to cross the river farther west to attackWestminster. On 14 May, Neville bombardedLondon from his ships and launched furtherunsuccessful assaults on London Bridge andthe city’s eastern approaches. AnthonyWOODVILLE, Earl Rivers, one of the Yorkistlords in the city, then scattered Neville’s forcewith a sudden attack out of the TOWER OF

LONDON.Neville withdrew to Blackheath, but he did

not abandon his enterprise until advance ele-ments of the royal army, fresh from their vic-tory at the Battle of TEWKESBURY, enteredLondon with news of the king’s imminent ar-rival. When Edward entered the city in tri-umph on 21 May, Neville was in Sandwich,where he dismissed his Calais troops. On 27May, finally aware that Lancastrian resistancehad collapsed across the country, Neville sur-rendered himself and his fleet to Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III). Par-doned by the king, Neville went into thenorth to serve under Gloucester, but he wasexecuted, for uncertain reasons, at MiddlehamCastle in September, his head being set onLondon Bridge facing Kent.

See also all other entries under NevilleFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A. The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Neville, William, Lord Fauconbergand Earl of Kent (d. 1463)Brother of Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salis-bury, and uncle of Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, William Neville, Lord Fauconberg,was a key Yorkist leader during the first phaseof the WARS OF THE ROSES.

Knighted by HENRY VI in 1426, Nevillehad become Lord Fauconberg two years ear-lier by right of his wife. From 1436, Faucon-berg served on various military and diplomatic

184 NEVILLE, THOMAS, BASTARD OF FAUCONBERG

missions in FRANCE, including the 1439 siegeof Meaux and the 1442 peace negotiationsconducted by Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York. In 1449, Fauconberg was taken pris-oner by the French and not released until thefollowing year, when he served on an embassyto CHARLESVII.

His association with York began during theduke’s FIRST PROTECTORATE in 1454,when Fauconberg was a member of theCOUNCIL. He was with the royal army at theBattle of ST. ALBANS in May 1455, stayingwith Henry VI in the town square. He seemsto have taken a minor role in the battle and to

NEVILLE, WILLIAM, LORD FAUCONBERG AND EARL OF KENT 185

Shown here is the assault on London launched by Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, in May 1471. This was theonly attack made on a walled town during the Wars of the Roses. (MS 236, University of Ghent)

have quietly walked away after the Yorkistleaders, including his brother and nephew, hadtaken custody of the king.After 1457, Faucon-berg served as Warwick’s deputy at CALAIS,holding the town in 1459 when the earl re-turned to England with part of the garrison tosupport the Yorkist uprising. When the Yorkistcause collapsed at the Battle of LUDFORD

BRIDGE in October, Warwick, Salisbury, andEdward, earl of March (see EDWARD IV),were able to retreat to Calais, where Faucon-berg readily admitted them.

In June 1460, Fauconberg, accompanied byJohn DINHAM and John WENLOCK, seizedSandwich, giving the Yorkists a landing placefor their invasion of England; in July, he foughtwith Warwick at NORTHAMPTON, whereHenry VI fell again into Yorkist hands. On 28March 1461, Fauconberg was instrumental inseizing the river crossing at the Battle of FER-RYBRIDGE, and next day his expert handlingof the Yorkist ARCHERS helped draw theLancastrians out of their advantageous posi-tion at the start of the Battle of TOWTON.Fauconberg remained in the north after thebattle, assisting Warwick in suppressing all re-maining Lancastrian resistance. Fauconbergwas soon after rewarded by elevation to theearldom of Kent. He was appointed admiral ofEngland in 1462 and raided the French coastin an effort to disrupt Lancastrian invasionplans. Kent died in January 1463.

See also Neville Family; all other entries underNevilleFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheBattle of Towton (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1996); Griffiths, Ralph A., TheReign of King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Johnson P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Neville-Percy Feud (1450s)In the mid-1450s, a violent feud erupted be-tween the sons and RETAINERS of RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and HenryPERCY, second earl of Northumberland, lead-ers of the two most powerful noble families in

northern England. This quarrel not onlythrew the north into turmoil and contributedto the disorder plaguing the reign of HENRY

VI, it also forged the political alignments thatgave the houses of LANCASTER and YORK

the political and military strength they neededto fight the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The Percy family had long dominatednortheastern England, while the NEVILLE

FAMILY had in the last century acquired simi-lar influence in the northwest. Each familyheld one of the wardenships of the Scottishmarches, highly salaried royal offices that madetheir holders military guardians of the borderwith SCOTLAND and influential political fig-ures. The Percies had traditionally held thewardenship of the East March, while theNevilles had usually held the wardenship ofthe West March after Henry V granted the of-fice to Salisbury in 1420.The two families firstfell at odds in the late 1440s, when their jointefforts at repelling Scottish incursions left hardfeelings among the restless younger sons ofboth earls. In the early 1450s, Northumber-land’s second son, Thomas PERCY, LordEgremont, began recruiting armed retainers inareas of Neville influence. Whether motivatedby lingering resentments over the Scottishwar, by disputes over land, or by his own quar-relsome nature, Egremont began harassingNeville tenants and damaging Neville prop-erty, and his provocations soon led JohnNEVILLE, one of Salisbury’s younger sons, toreply in kind.

The feud escalated in August 1453, whenEgremont and his brother Richard Percy, lead-ing a large band of armed retainers, inter-cepted the wedding party of ThomasNEVILLE, Salisbury’s second son, as it passednear York. Although this encounter, known asthe Battle of HEWORTH, ended with littlemore than harsh words, it extended the feudto other northern families, for the Percieswere accompanied by John CLIFFORD, eldestson of Thomas CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford.During the two months following theHeworth incident, most of the principalmembers of both families were drawn into thequarrel, while partisans of each side attacked

186 NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD

the property and tenants of the other. JohnNeville vandalized Northumberland’s house atCatton, Richard Percy terrorized Neville ten-ants at Gargrave, and the mayor of York metwith Salisbury, Egremont, and Lord Poynings,Northumberland’s eldest son, in an effort tomediate the dispute. By October 1453, thetwo families, despite having been ordered tokeep the peace by the royal COUNCIL, had as-sembled large bodies of armed retainers. Forthree days, the Neville and Percy forces laywithin dangerous proximity of one another.Although both earls finally disbanded theirarmies without a fight, no reconciliation waseffected, and tensions remained high.

In 1454, the feud began to merge into na-tional politics. When Salisbury’s eldest son,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, quarreledwith Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset,a royal favorite and chief rival of RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, the Nevillesdrew closer to York, forming an associationthat gave them a political advantage over thePercies when York became lord protector forthe incapacitated Henry VI (see HENRY VI,ILLNESS OF). Northumberland countered byaligning more closely with Somerset and withQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU, who wasbecoming leader of the opposition to York.During the summer of 1454, renewedNeville-Percy violence in the north hardenedthese alliances. Egremont joined Henry HOL-LAND, duke of Exeter, in an uprising intendedto disrupt York’s FIRST PROTECTORATE.Al-though York’s intervention led to Exeter’s cap-ture, Egremont continued to attack Nevillesupporters. In late October, Thomas and JohnNeville defeated and captured Egremont andhis brother Richard Percy at the Battle ofSTAMFORD BRIDGE in Yorkshire. By obtain-ing a huge monetary judgment against Egre-mont from a royal commission, the Nevilleswere able to imprison him for debt in LON-DON, where he stayed until his escape in1456.

Meanwhile, the national political struggleturned violent in May 1455, when the forcesof York and the Nevilles slew Somerset,Northumberland, and Clifford at the Battle of

ST. ALBANS. Northumberland’s sons, consid-ering their father’s death to be murder perpe-trated by the Nevilles, became staunch adher-ents of the house of Lancaster, while the battleirrevocably committed Salisbury and Warwickto the house of York.Although Henry VI triedto reconcile the Nevilles and Percies as part ofhis LOVE-DAY peace initiative in 1458, vio-lence continued in the north, and the twofamilies quickly mobilized for battle on theoutbreak of civil war in 1459. In July 1460, aYorkist army led by Warwick slew Egremontat the Battle of NORTHAMPTON, whileHenry PERCY, third earl of Northumberland(the former Poynings), was a leader of theLancastrian force that slew Salisbury,York, andThomas Neville at the Battle of WAKEFIELD

five months later. In March 1461, Northum-berland was himself killed fighting York’s son,EDWARD IV, at the Battle of TOWTON. Bydriving each family to opposite sides in thenational struggle, the Neville-Percy feudplayed a key role in the coming of the civilwars.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all entries under Neville and PercyFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“LocalRivalries and National Politics: The Percies, theNevilles and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–1455,” inRalph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country: Englandand Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London:Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 321–364; Storey,R. L., The End of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed.(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1999).

The New Chronicles of England andFrance. See London Chronicles

Nibley Green, Battle of (1470)Fought on 20 March 1470 near the Glouces-tershire village of the same name, the Battle ofNibley Green was the culmination of an in-heritance dispute between Thomas Talbot,Viscount Lisle (1451–1470), and WilliamBerkeley, Lord Berkeley (1426–1492). Occur-ring while EDWARD IV was on campaign inthe north against the rebel forces of Richard

NIBLEY GREEN, BATTLE OF 187

NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, the battleis a prime example of the local disorder thatwas common in mid-fifteenth-century En-gland during periods of weak or distractedroyal government.

William Berkeley was the son and heir ofJames, Lord Berkeley, but his possession of theBerkeley title and estates was disputed byMargaret, countess of Shrewsbury. The count-ess was the granddaughter and coheiress ofThomas, Lord Berkeley, whose estates hadpassed, not without challenge, to his nephewJames, and then, on James’s death in 1463, toWilliam, who was thus Lord Thomas’s great-nephew. In pursuit of her claims, the countesshad arrested and imprisoned Lord William’smother, Isabel Berkeley, when she hadattempted to appeal on her husband’s behalf tothe COUNCIL of HENRY VI in 1452. LadyBerkeley died while still in confinement inGloucester in September 1452.

On the death of Countess Margaret inJune 1468, her claim was taken up by hereighteen-year-old grandson, Lord Lisle. WhenWarwick’s attempts to control the Crown re-vived political instability in 1469–1470, theBerkeley-Talbot feud, like such other long-running disputes as the Harrington-Stanleyfeud in Lancashire and the Harcourt-Staffordfeud in the Midlands, turned violent duringthe ensuing period of royal weakness. As inthe worst days of Henry VI, aggrieved noblestook up arms to settle their differences. Theencounter at Nibley Green arose from a chal-lenge, apparently issued by Berkeley, to settlethe matter by combat. With the time andplace arranged by the Berkeley and Talbotheralds (i.e., each magnate’s official messengerand officer of arms), the battle occurred onlyeight days after Edward IV defeated War-wick’s rebels at the Battle of LOSECOTE

FIELD. A bloody fight that was rememberedin Gloucestershire well into the seventeenthcentury, the Battle of Nibley Green resultedin the deaths of Lisle and some 150 others(probably more than died at the Battle of ST.ALBANS in 1455), and in the sack of Lisle’smanor at Wotton.

Because his support was deemed vital forthe house of YORK, Berkeley apparently suf-fered little or no punishment for his involve-ment in the fray. He was made a viscount byEdward IV in 1481 and created earl of Not-tingham by RICHARD III in 1483. Berkeleywas also favored by the house of TUDOR;HENRY VII named him Earl Marshal of En-gland in 1486 and created him marquis ofBerkeley in 1489. He died at Westminster inFebruary 1492.

Further Reading: Goodman, Anthony, The Warsof the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Nobility. See Peerage

Norfolk, Duke of. See entries underHoward and Mowbray

Normandy, Seneschal of. See Brézé,Pierre de, Seneschal of Normandy

North of England and the Wars of the RosesAlthough far from LONDON and subject tothe raids and disorders that were endemic onthe Scottish border, the northern counties ofEngland played a larger role in the WARS OF

THE ROSES than the region’s relative lack ofwealth and population seemed to warrant.During the conflict, the region witnessed fourbattles, including various Lancastrian and Scot-tish incursions in the early 1460s; supportedseveral important uprisings, such as the ROBIN

OF REDESDALE REBELLION in 1469; andprovided numerous recruits to armies of bothsides, but especially to the forces of the houseof LANCASTER. The north was also the sceneof the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD, a violentquarrel between the region’s two most influen-tial families, which created the political align-ments that provided the houses of Lancasterand YORK with vital military resources.

188 NOBILITY

Although occupying a quarter of the totalland area of fifteenth-century England, the sixnorthern counties of Cumberland, Durham,Lancashire, Northumberland, Westmorland,and Yorkshire held only about 15 percent ofthe country’s population, with about two-thirds of that number resident in Yorkshire.Since the start of the century, political and so-cial dominance in the region had been sharedby two noble families—the Nevilles and thePercies. Both families were charged by theCrown with the defense of the northern bor-der, with the Nevilles usually holding the war-denship of the West March and the Percies thewardenship of the East March. In the early1450s, the NEVILLE FAMILY was headed byRichard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and hiseldest son, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,while the Percies were headed by HenryPERCY, second earl of Northumberland. Theoutbreak of a feud between the RETAINERS

and younger sons and brothers of these menthrew the region into disorder, as each side ha-rassed the tenants and vandalized the propertyof the other. A dangerous encounter atHEWORTH in 1453 and a pitched battle atSTAMFORD BRIDGE in 1454 caused the twofamilies to arrange themselves on oppositesides in the national political rivalry then de-veloping between Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, and Edmund BEAUFORT, dukeof Somerset. When the forces of York and theNevilles slew Somerset and Northumberlandat the Battle of ST. ALBANS in 1455, the Per-cies became firm adherents of the house ofLancaster, while the Nevilles committedthemselves to the house of York.

Besides the Percy influence, support forLancaster was strong in the region because theDuchy of Lancaster lands, which had belongedto the dynasty before it took the throne, werecentered in Lancashire. Even the senior branchof the Neville family, headed by RalphNeville, earl of Westmorland, was stronglyLancastrian. Upon publication of the Act ofACCORD in 1460, most of the northernPEERAGE declared for HENRY VI. Thisnorthern discontent drew York and Salisburyinto the region, where a northern army jointly

commanded by Henry PERCY, third earl ofNorthumberland, slew them at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in December. Returning fromSCOTLAND, Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

joined this force and led it toward London,where traditional southern fears of wild anduncouth northerners combined with YorkistPROPAGANDA to exaggerate tales of plunderby northern soldiers and assist York’s son, ED-WARD IV, in securing the capital in March1461 (see MARCH ON LONDON). BesidesNorthumberland, so many northern Lancas-trians were slain in Yorkshire at the subsequentBattle of TOWTON that ten years later Ed-ward IV could still raise little support in theregion.

Between 1461 and 1464, the northeasterncounties of Durham and Northumberland re-mained an ongoing war zone. During the pe-riod, the Yorkist government mounted severalcampaigns into the region—to resist Lancas-trian incursions from Scotland; to meetFrench MERCENARIES hired by Margaret ofAnjou; to besiege Lancastrian garrisons hold-ing the castles of ALNWICK, BAMBURGH,and DUNSTANBURGH; and to stem a Scot-tish invasion. In early 1464, after a Lancastriancampaign had overrun most of Northumber-land, John NEVILLE, Lord Montagu, defeatedthe forces of Henry BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, at the Battles of HEDGELEY

MOOR and HEXHAM, thereby ending thewar in the north and bringing the regionunder Yorkist control. In the mid-1460s,Henry VI, having been expelled from Scot-land, wandered the region under the protec-tion of Lancastrian GENTRY until his capturein 1465.

In 1469, Warwick used his family’s regionalinfluence to stir up several northern rebellionsagainst Edward IV. In 1470, Warwick com-bined the extensive Neville AFFINTY withlingering regional allegiance to the house ofLancaster to unite the north behind the over-throw of Edward IV and the READEPTION

of Henry VI (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). However,Warwick’s death at the Battle ofBARNET in 1471 created a power vacuum inthe north. After the Yorkist restoration (see

NORTH OF ENGLAND AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES 189

EDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF), EdwardIV filled that vacuum by handing oversight ofthe region to his brother, Richard, duke ofGloucester, the husband of Warwick’s daugh-ter, Anne NEVILLE. As Warwick’s heir,Gloucester tried to win the loyalty of tradi-tional Neville retainers for the house of York.Governing from Middleham Castle in York-shire, Gloucester gradually built up his ownnorthern affinity, which in 1483 providedmany of the chief supporters for his usurpa-tion of the throne as RICHARD III. TheCOUNCIL that had helped Gloucester governthe north was, after his accession, reconstitutedas a formal organ of northern governmentknown as the Council of the North. Thisbody was later adopted and modified byHENRY VII, who used it and his Lancastrianblood to win the allegiance of the north to thehouse of TUDOR.

See also Richard III, Northern Affinity of;Usurpation of 1483Further Reading: Dockray, Keith,“The PoliticalLegacy of Richard III in Northern England,” inRalph A. Griffiths and James Sherborne, eds.,Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1986), pp. 205–227;Pollard, A. J., ed., The North of England in the Reignof Richard III (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995);Storey, R. L.,“The North of England,” in S. B.Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and Ralph A. Griffiths, eds.,Fifteenth Century England, 1399–1509 (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing,1995), pp. 129–144.

Northampton, Battle of (1460)Resulting in the capture of HENRY VI by theYorkists, and in the deaths of several key Lan-castrian noblemen, the Battle of Northamp-ton, fought outside the town of Northamptonon 10 July 1460, was a major turning point inthe Wars of the Roses. The battle between theroyal army and a Yorkist force under RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, the most impor-tant ally of Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, transformed the duke’s cause, which hadlanguished since his flight to IRELAND in theprevious autumn. The victory at Northamp-ton allowed the duke to return to England and

lay formal claim to the Crown, and brieflyhanded effective control of the government toWarwick.

In October 1459, the Yorkist leaders, facinga superior Lancastrian force at the Battle ofLUDFORD BRIDGE, abandoned their armyand fled the country. York and his second sonEdmund PLANTAGENET, earl of Rutland,took ship for Ireland; Warwick; his father,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury; and Ed-ward, earl of March,York’s eldest son (see ED-WARD IV), sailed for CALAIS. During theearly months of 1460, Warwick maintainedhimself in Calais against attacks by HenryBEAUFORT, the Lancastrian duke of Somer-set. Warwick twice surprised and destroyedLancastrian fleets under construction at Sand-wich, and spent most of April and May in Ire-land conferring with York.

In late June, Warwick, Salisbury, and Marchsailed for England.The Yorkist lords spent sev-eral days collecting support from the countiesof Kent, Sussex, and Surrey, and arrived beforeLONDON on 2 July with a sizable force. Be-cause Henry VI and Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU were northwest of London at Coven-try with the bulk of their army, the capitalcontained only a small Lancastrian force underThomas SCALES, Lord Scales, who withdrewto the TOWER OF LONDON when he real-ized that the municipal authorities did not in-tend to resist Warwick’s entry into the city. In-tending to intercept the royal army as itmarched southeast from Coventry, Warwickand March left London by 5 July; Salisbury re-mained behind to lay siege to the Tower andconfine Scales.

Upon reaching Northampton, the royalarmy took up a defensive position outside thecity walls with its back to the River Nene andits front protected by a water-filled ditch andsharpened stakes. As he approached the Lan-castrian position on the rainy morning of 10July, Warwick dispatched several delegations tonegotiate with the king. Each delegation wasrefused access to Henry by HumphreySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, the com-mander of the Lancastrian army. At midafter-noon, Warwick ordered an assault on the Lan-

190 NORTHAMPTON, BATTLE OF

castrian position. The continuing rain put theLancastrian ARTILLERY out of action, but italso slowed the Yorkist advance, which stalledunder a hail of arrows (see ARCHERS). War-wick and March now concentrated their at-tack on the Lancastrian right flank, which wascommanded by Edmund GREY, Lord Grey ofRuthyn. Grey ordered his men to lay downtheir arms and allow the Yorkists to enter thecamp. This defection, which was apparentlypreplanned, for Warwick’s men had been toldto spare the life of anyone wearing Grey’s liv-ery (see LIVERY AND MAINTENANCE), gavethe day to the Yorkists, who quickly rolled upthe Lancastrian line.

Northampton was a disaster for the Lancas-trians. The king fell into Yorkist hands, andsuch prominent Lancastrian lords as Bucking-

ham; John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; andThomas PERCY, Lord Egremont, were slaindefending the royal person. The brief en-counter resulted in relatively few other CASU-ALTIES, but it completely transformed theYorkist position, which had seemed so bleakafter the Battle of Ludford Bridge. AlthoughQueen Margaret and her son Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER were still at large inWALES, Warwick now controlled both theking and the kingdom, and York was able toreturn from Ireland in September to claim thethrone.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (New York:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

NORTHAMPTON, BATTLE OF 191

Henry VI is taken prisoner after the Battle of Northampton; behind the king are piled the dead bodies of those slain in hisdefense. (Harley MS, 7353 f. 8, British Library)

Northern Affinity of Richard III. SeeRichard III, Northern Affinity of

Northumberland Campaigns,1461–1464. See Alnwick Castle;Bamburgh Castle; Dunstanburgh Castle;

Hedgeley Moor, Battle of; Hexham,Battle of

Northumberland, Earl of. See Neville,John, Earl of Northumberland andMarquis of Montagu; entries under Percy

192 NORTHERN AFFINITY OF RICHARD III

Ormond, Earl of. See Butler, James, Earlof Wiltshire and Ormond

Oxford Conspiracy (1462)Uncovered in February 1462, the OxfordConspiracy was a vague Lancastrian plot thatcentered on John de Vere, twelfth earl ofOxford (c. 1408–1462), and his eldest son,Sir Aubrey de Vere. Because the failed plotled to the executions of both de Veres, theOxford Conspiracy not only contributed tothe political instability that marked the early1460s, it also transformed the earl’s survivingson, John de VERE, thirteenth earl of Ox-ford, into an implacable foe of the house ofYORK.

During the winter of 1461–1462, rumorsof Lancastrian intrigues swept England. JasperTUDOR, earl of Pembroke, was said to beplanning a descent on WALES; Henry BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset, was thought to bepreparing an invasion of East Anglia; and alarge army of Spaniards and Frenchmen wasbelieved to be poised for a landing in Kent.Another persistent rumor claimed that theearl of Oxford, a powerful Essex magnate anda staunch supporter of HENRY VI and thehouse of LANCASTER, was behind a series ofattacks launched against English coasts byLancastrian raiders operating out ofFRANCE. Thus, when Yorkist agents inter-cepted letters passing between Oxford andQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU, the discov-ery only confirmed Yorkist suspicions aboutthe earl’s activities.

Arrested on 12 February 1462, Oxford andhis son Aubrey were confined to the TOWER

OF LONDON. The Yorkist regime, fearful of

both internal rebellion and external invasion,dealt quickly and harshly with the de Veres.Tried for treason before John TIPTOFT, earlof Worcester and constable of England, bothmen were condemned, along with several ac-complices who were likely members of Ox-ford’s AFFINITY. The exact nature of Oxford’splotting is unclear. He appears to have beencharged with organizing some type of Lancas-trian invasion and also possibly with conspir-ing to lead a party of armed RETAINERS, os-tensibly raised on the king’s behalf, tointercept and kill EDWARD IV as he rodenorth to meet Lancastrian incursions fromSCOTLAND. One source claims that Aubreyde Vere informed on his father, accusing theearl of planning a Lancastrian landing on theEssex coast. However, such a betrayal, given SirAubrey’s own condemnation and what isknown of his character, seems unlikely.

Sir Aubrey died first, suffering the full hor-ror of execution for treason—hanging, draw-ing, and quartering—at Westminster on 20February. Being a member of the PEERAGE,Oxford had his sentence commuted to be-heading, which he suffered on 26 February.Because no ATTAINDER was passed againsthis father, John de Vere, the second son, was al-lowed to assume his father’s title and estatesuntil he was himself arrested for Lancastrianplotting in 1468. Although soon released, thethirteenth earl of Oxford was thereafter a con-stant opponent of every Yorkist regime.

Further Reading: Seward, Desmond, The Wars ofthe Roses (New York:Viking, 1995).

Oxford, Earl of. See Vere, John de, Earlof Oxford

193

O

ParliamentAs the highest court of the realm, and the na-tional forum for discussion of important pub-lic issues, Parliament became during theWARS OF THE ROSES the instrumentwhereby major political changes were legit-imized and new royal regimes recognized.

Fifteenth-century Parliaments consisted ofan upper chamber (the Lords) and a lowerchamber (the Commons). The membership ofthe Lords included both laymen—titled noblessummoned by individual writ (see PEER-AGE)—and churchmen—twenty-one bishopsand some abbots of large monasteries. TheCommons, whose membership by 1485 totaled296, included two knights from each shire andburgesses who represented LONDON andother incorporated towns.The shire representa-tives—by law county landholders who wereknights or who possessed sufficient land to sup-port a knight’s estate—were elected by maleresidents of the county who held lands worth atleast forty shillings per year.Voting for burgesseswas more idiosyncratic, the electorate being de-fined by a town’s charter, which, in some cases,restricted voting to a small group (see TOWNS

AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES).Fifteenth-century Parliaments were royal

instruments of government, summoned anddismissed by the king. The speaker of theCommons, the officer who directed debateand managed business, was almost always aroyal councilor and was paid by the Crownafter 1461. During the Wars of the Roses,royal governments used their control to ensurethat Parliaments confirmed royal titles, such asoccurred in 1461 to legitimize the house ofYORK, in 1483 to approve RICHARD III’susurpation (see USURPATION OF 1483), and

in 1485 to confirm the right of the house ofTUDOR. Victorious regimes also used Parlia-ment to pass bills of ATTAINDER against de-feated opponents and to reverse attainders pre-viously passed against supporters. Thus,although the Lancastrians attainted leadingYorkists at the COVENTRY PARLIAMENT in1459, the first Parliament of EDWARD IV in1461 reversed many of these attainders andpassed new bills against prominent Lancastri-ans. With each change of political fortunecame a new series of attainders and reversals.

To obtain a cooperative Parliament, royaladministrations often manipulated borough(i.e., town) elections. Because borough seatscomprised almost two-thirds of the Com-mons, and because town electorates wereoften small and easily influenced, kings couldreadily secure the election of royal servantsand household officials, even though by lawburgesses were to be citizens of the town theyrepresented. For example, in 1478, Edward IVobtained a Parliament that was willing to con-demn his brother, George PLANTAGENET,duke of Clarence. Besides some loss of inde-pendence, the Wars of the Roses also causedthe Commons to lose some legislative initia-tive. Prior to the 1450s, most bills were initi-ated by petitions from the Commons, whosemain functions were the granting of taxationand the consideration of petitions. Civil warParliaments saw more bills drafted by the kingand his COUNCIL, more attention to royal in-terests, and greater royal management of busi-ness. In general, the wars led to an increase ofroyal control over Parliament.

Further Reading: Butt, Ronald, A History ofParliament:The Middle Ages (London: Constable,1989).

195

P

Parliament of Devils. See CoventryParliament

Paston LettersThe letters and papers of the Pastons, a politi-cally active East Anglian GENTRY family,comprise the largest and best known archiveof private correspondence to survive from thefifteenth century. Because the family’s land-holdings were constantly threatened by pow-erful local magnates, the Pastons’ political atti-tudes were shaped by their ongoing need forroyal favor and for powerful patrons atCOURT who could help secure such favor.Thus, for the earlier phases of the WARS OF

THE ROSES, the Paston letters offer valuableinsights into the interaction of local and na-tional politics and the nature of political alle-giance.

The Paston archive contains over one thou-sand documents—mainly letters to and fromthe family—that cover the period from 1418to 1506, although the most numerous and in-teresting items relating to national politics datebetween the late 1450s and 1471. In 1459,

John Paston I (1421–1466) inherited the ex-tensive Norfolk and Suffolk estates of Sir JohnFastolf, with whom Paston had formed a closeconnection over the previous decade. Becauseboth John MOWBRAY, third duke of Norfolk,and John de la POLE, duke of Suffolk, disputedPaston’s claim to the Fastolf lands, and espe-cially to the magnificent new manor house atCaister, Paston spent the rest of his life defend-ing his inheritance against lawsuits and at-tempts at forcible seizure. Much of the Pastoncorrespondence in the 1460s concerns thefamily’s attempts to win the favor of EDWARD

IV and of influential members of his familyand court. Paston’s eldest son, John Paston II(1442–1479), became a member of the royalhousehold, and his younger son, John PastonIII (1444–1504), was attached to the householdof John MOWBRAY, fourth duke of Norfolk.Despite these connections, and approaches toRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, membersof the WOODVILLE FAMILY, and otherprominent courtiers, the Pastons’ hold on theFastolf estates continued to be tenuous.

In August 1469, after Warwick rebelled andtook the king into custody, Norfolk used the

196 PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS

One of the Paston Letters, the richest and best-known surviving collection of letters from fifteenth-century England. (BritishLibrary)

temporary eclipse of the Crown to attackCaister, which fell to the duke after a five-week siege (see CAISTER CASTLE, SIEGE

OF). Even after Edward regained his freedom,continuing tension with Warwick made Nor-folk’s support vital to the king and denied thePastons any hope of royal support. Accord-ingly, in 1470, the family welcomed theREADEPTION of HENRY VI and the houseof LANCASTER. The new regime restoredCaister to the Pastons, who in April 1471fought with Warwick against the house ofYORK at the Battle of BARNET. However,the subsequent Yorkist restoration (see ED-WARD IV, RESTORATION OF) allowed Nor-folk to repossess the manor house and forcedthe Pastons to seek pardon from Edward IV.Norfolk held Caister until his death (withoutmale heirs) in 1476, when the Pastons finallyrecovered the house, perhaps through thegood offices of Anthony WOODVILLE, EarlRivers, and William HASTINGS, Lord Hast-ings, influential Yorkist courtiers whom thePastons had carefully cultivated during the1470s.

Because the volume and political contentof the family’s correspondence declinessharply after the death of John Paston II in1479, the letters are much less useful for thereign of RICHARD III and the final stage ofthe Wars of the Roses. Although the Pastons’inheritance problems and the intense politicalactivity they generated may have been atypicalfor a gentry family of the period, the Pastonletters, like the correspondence preserved inthe contemporary CELY, PLUMPTON, andSTONOR archives, are also valuable sourcesfor the social history of the fifteenth century.

Further Reading: Bennett, H. S., The Pastons andTheir England: Studies in an Age of Transition, 2d ed.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990);Davis, Norman, ed., The Paston Letters:A Selectionin Modern Spelling (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999); Davis, Norman, ed. Paston Letters andPapers of the Fifteenth Century, 2 vols. (OxfordUniversity Press, 1971, 1976); Gies, Frances, andJoseph Gies, A Medieval Family: The Pastons ofFifteenth-Century England (New York:HarperCollins, 1998); Richmond, Colin, ThePaston Family in the Fifteenth Century:The First

Phase (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990); Richmond, Colin,The Paston Family in theFifteenth Century: Fastolf’s Will (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996);Virgoe, Roger,ed., Private Life in the Fifteenth Century: IllustratedLetters of the Paston Family (New York: Weidenfeldand Nicolson, 1989).

PeerageThe peerage or titled nobility of England wasmore heavily involved in the WARS OF THE

ROSES than any other contemporary socialgroup.

The lay peers of England and WALES werelandholders characterized by their hereditarytitles of nobility and their hereditary right tobe summoned personally to PARLIAMENT bythe monarch. With the bishops and the abbotsof important monastic houses, the peers com-prised the House of Lords. In descendingorder of rank, the five titles of nobility wereduke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron. At thestart of the civil war in 1459, England hadabout sixty-eight titled nobles; by 1500, thatnumber declined to about fifty, but only par-tially as a result of wartime CASUALTIES. Be-fore the Battle of ST. ALBANS in 1455, thehigher peerage consisted of six dukes andtwelve earls. Although most of these peerswere loyal to HENRY VI before 1461, manysubmitted afterward to EDWARD IV, who,unlike his Tudor successor HENRY VII, cre-ated a large number of new peers. After theBattle of BOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, thehigher peerage, thanks to the Yorkist creations,comprised three dukes, one marquis, and six-teen earls, although only two families—theFitzalan earls of Arundel and the Neville earlsof Westmorland—had taken little part in theconflict and had consequently suffered nodeaths or loss of property because of the Warsof the Roses.

Because of their political leadership and so-cial dominance, the peerage could not remainneutral in any struggle for control of the gov-ernment or the Crown. Because the noblefamilies of England controlled the military re-sources of the realm (see BASTARD FEUDAL-ISM), almost every magnate family was com-

PEERAGE 197

pelled to commit itself to one side or theother at some time during the conflict. Therewards of being on the winning side could besubstantial—lands, offices, and local and na-tional influence; however, the penalties for los-ing could be equally harsh—execution for thehead of the family and disinheritance throughATTAINDER for heirs. Some families sufferedseverely. No less than three Courtenay earls ofDevon, three Beaufort dukes of Somerset, andtwo Percy earls of Northumberland were exe-cuted or slain in battle during the Wars of theRoses. The war also extinguished the malelines of the houses of LANCASTER andYORK, the male line of the BEAUFORT FAM-ILY, and most of the male descendants of theNEVILLE FAMILY, thereby transmitting thewealth and influence of all four to Henry VII,an inheritance that greatly strengthened theposition of the house of TUDOR.

Nonetheless, as modern research hasshown, the rate of extinction of noble familiesduring the civil war generations was no higherthan it had been through the natural failure ofheirs in previous generations. This outcomewas in part because many nobles submitted toEdward IV after the Battle of TOWTON in1461 and especially after the Battles of BAR-NET and TEWKESBURY in 1471; the wastageof war was relatively brief and contained. Ed-ward often extended favor to even his most ar-dent opponents, and many Lancastrians of the1460s became loyal Yorkists in the 1470s. Al-most two-thirds of the 397 acts of attainderpassed in the last half of the fifteenth centurywere eventually reversed. Also, some peers,such as Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley, exer-cised a vital regional influence that allowedthem to never become more than marginallycommitted to either side.

During the war, peers participated in thefighting for various reasons. Bitter local feuds,such as the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD in thenorth, drove rival families to join oppositesides in the civil war. For instance, the Percyfamily’s association with the court of HenryVI disposed the Nevilles to align with RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York. Once thefighting began, vengeance also became a

strong motivator; all the sons of the noblemenkilled by the Yorkists at the Battle of St.Albansin 1455, such as John CLIFFORD, Lord Clif-ford, became unshakable Lancastrians. Manyfamilies were drawn into war by ties of kinshipand marriage, joining the Yorkists, for exam-ple, because they were relatives or longtime al-lies of the Nevilles, or the Lancastrians becausethey were closely tied to the Beauforts. In theearly stages of the war, many peers participatedout of personal loyalty to Henry VI or toYork; almost 80 percent of the peerage partici-pated in the Towton campaign in 1461. Nolater battle was as large or as bloody. By 1485,peerage participation dropped sharply. Thirtyyears of intermittent strife, during which al-most every family had suffered some loss, en-couraged most peers to adopt a wait-and-seeattitude toward RICHARD III and HenryTudor, earl of Richmond.

See also Commons (Common People) and theWars of the Roses; Gentry; entries under Beaufort,Courtenay, and Percy; Appendix 3,“Table ofDynastic Affiliations”; Appendix 4,“Involvementof the Higher Peerage in the Wars of the Roses”Further Reading: McFarlane, K. B., The Nobilityof Later Medieval England (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1973); Pugh, T. B.,“The Magnates, Knightsand Gentry,” in S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross, andRalph A. Griffiths, eds., Fifteenth-Century England1399–1509, 2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1995), pp. 86–128; Ross, Charles, TheWars of the Roses (London: Thames and Hudson,1987); Woolgar, C. M., The Great Household in LateMedieval England (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1999).

Pembroke, Earl of. See Herbert,William, Earl of Pembroke; Tudor, Jasper,Earl of Pembroke and Duke of Bedford

Percy, Henry, Earl ofNorthumberland (1394–1455)Through his feud with the NEVILLE FAMILY

for dominance in northern England, HenryPercy, second earl of Northumberland, helpedcement a series of alliances that allowedRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, to se-riously contend for control of the royal gov-

198 PEMBROKE, EARL OF

ernment and so bring on the Wars of theRoses.

Percy spent his youth seeking to regain thelands and offices lost by his father and grandfa-ther through their rebellion against Henry IV.After his father, Sir Henry Percy (known asHotspur), died in battle at Shrewsbury in1403, Percy fled to SCOTLAND with hisgrandfather, the first earl, who died in rebel-lion against the king at Bramham Moor in1408. Held prisoner in Scotland until 1415,Percy was restored to his earldom and to mostof his family’s lands in March 1416. The newearl saw some service in FRANCE, but spentmost of Henry V’s reign defending the Scot-tish border, where the king had appointed himwarden of the East March and captain ofBERWICK.

Named to HENRY VI’s regency COUN-CIL in 1422, Northumberland also served onvarious diplomatic missions, especially toScotland. In 1436, he received a grant of£100 for life for successfully repelling aScottish invasion, and in 1437 he was reap-pointed to the royal council when Henry at-tained his majority. However, by the 1450s,with the earl no longer active in the council,Northumberland and his sons found them-selves unable to compete for royal favor withthe Nevilles, the other great magnate familyof the north. Rivals for lands and offices, thePercies and Nevilles came to the brink ofopen war in 1453. In August, Northumber-land’s second son, Thomas PERCY, LordEgremont, menaced a Neville wedding partyat the Battle of HEWORTH outside York. InOctober, Northumberland and his sons gath-ered a large following that for three tensedays faced a similar force collected byRichard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, leader ofthe Neville family, and by his son, RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick. Although on thisoccasion the parties declined to fight and dis-banded their armies, continued provocationsand acts of violence by members of bothfamilies kept the north in turmoil through-out 1454.

By 1455, the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD

began to shape national politics, as Northum-

berland aligned himself and his family withEdmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, a fa-vorite of Henry VI and York’s chief rival forcontrol of the king and government. Because aland dispute between Warwick and Somersethad caused the Nevilles to ally with York,Northumberland associated himself withSomerset to nullify the advantage his rivalsdrew from their association with York (seeFIRST PROTECTORATE). While strengthen-ing Somerset’s resolve to oppose York,Northumberland’s decision also strengthenedthe Nevilles’ determination to support York.These political arrangements created the ten-sions that exploded in violence at the Battle ofST.ALBANS in May 1455, where York and theNevilles seized the king and killed bothNorthumberland and Somerset. Because hissons considered it murder, Northumberland’sdeath merged the Neville-Percy feud into thecoming war between the houses of LAN-CASTER and YORK, and transformed thePercies into staunch Lancastrians.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all entries under PercyFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“LocalRivalries and National Politics: The Percies, theNevilles and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–1455,” inRalph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country: Englandand Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London:Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 321–364; Griffiths,Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Storey, R. L.,The End of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Percy, Henry, Earl ofNorthumberland (1421–1461)By maintaining his family’s feud with theNEVILLE FAMILY, Henry Percy, third earl ofNorthumberland, contributed to the local dis-order and political instability that made possi-ble the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The eldest son of Henry PERCY, secondearl of Northumberland, Percy acquired hisfamily’s traditional Scottish border offices ofwarden of the East March and captain ofBERWICK. In 1446, he became Lord Poyningsafter his marriage to the daughter of the last

PERCY, HENRY, EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND 199

holder of the title. Several times in the late1440s and 1450s, he led raids into and repelledinvasions out of SCOTLAND. In 1448, Poyn-ings was captured and briefly imprisoned bythe Scots; in 1451, HENRY VI appointedPoynings to a commission for negotiating atruce with the representatives of JAMES II.Occupied by his duties on the border, Poyn-ings had only a limited involvement in theNEVILLE-PERCY FEUD of the 1450s, whichhis family conducted mainly under the leader-ship of his younger brother, Thomas PERCY,Lord Egremont.

After the death of his father at the Battle ofST.ALBANS in May 1455, Poynings succeededto the earldom of Northumberland and con-tinued his family’s rivalry with the Nevilles,whom the earl considered responsible for hisfather’s murder. In early 1458, Northumber-land led a large force to LONDON to attend agreat COUNCIL summoned by the king tocompose the differences between leading no-bles. Joined by Henry BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, and the sons of other peers killed atSt. Albans, Northumberland demanded rec-ompense for those deaths from RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, and his allies,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, andRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick. He par-ticipated in the LOVE-DAY reconciliation me-diated by Henry VI in March 1458, but inNovember 1459 he supported the ATTAIN-DER of York and the Nevilles in the COVEN-TRY PARLIAMENT, and in December 1460he was a leader of the Lancastrian army thatdefeated and killed York and Salisbury at theBattle of WAKEFIELD. He marched southwith Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU in early1461 and fought at the Battle of ST. ALBANS

on 17 February (see MARCH ON LONDON).He was killed commanding the van of theLancastrian army at the Battle of TOWTON inlate March. The earl was posthumously at-tainted by the first PARLIAMENT of ED-WARD IV, who confined Northumberland’sson, Henry PERCY, future fourth earl ofNorthumberland, for most of the 1460s.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all entries under Percy

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“LocalRivalries and National Politics: The Percies, theNevilles and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–1455,” inRalph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country: Englandand Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London:Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 321–364; Griffiths,Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Storey, R. L.,The End of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Percy, Henry, Earl ofNorthumberland (1446–1489)By refraining from opposing EDWARD IV in1471 and from supporting RICHARD III in1485, Henry Percy, fourth earl of Northum-berland, twice affected the course of theWARS OF THE ROSES.

The only son of Henry PERCY, third earlof Northumberland, who died fighting forHENRY VI at the Battle of TOWTON inMarch 1461, Percy was confined after his fa-ther’s estates were forfeited to the Crown byact of ATTAINDER. In 1464, Edward IVgranted the earldom of Northumberland toJohn NEVILLE, Lord Montagu, as a reward forMontagu’s victories over Lancastrian rebels atthe Battles of HEDGELEY MOOR and HEX-HAM. However, in October 1469, after freeinghimself from the control of Montagu’s elderbrother, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,Edward IV released Percy from confinement.In March 1470, after driving Warwick fromEngland, the king stripped Montagu of theearldom of Northumberland and conferredthe title on Percy, who also resumed his fam-ily’s traditional office of warden of the EastMarch (i.e., the eastern border with SCOT-LAND). After Edward IV was overthrown inOctober 1470 (see EDWARD IV, OVER-THROW OF), Northumberland ignored hisfamily’s Lancastrian past and did not activelysupport the READEPTION government ofHenry VI, which was controlled by the Per-cies’ ancient rivals, the NEVILLE FAMILY.

When Edward IV landed in northern En-gland in March 1471, Northumberland re-mained quiet, a neutrality that allowed theYorkist king time to build support (see ED-

200 PERCY, HENRY, EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND

WARD IV, RESTORATION OF). Edward re-warded Northumberland by restoring him tothe Scottish wardenship, which Warwick hadwithdrawn, and by naming him to several ad-ditional offices, including the constableship ofBAMBURGH CASTLE. Northumberland wasappointed chief commissioner to Scotland in1472 and accompanied the king on the Frenchexpedition of 1475. In 1482, the earl partici-pated in the duke of Gloucester’s Scottish cam-paign, and was named captain of the newly re-covered town of BERWICK. Gloucester, aftertaking the throne as Richard III in June 1483,was careful to cultivate Northumberland’s sup-port. The earl was confirmed in all his officesand was named great chamberlain of Englandafter Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham,forfeited the office for his involvement inBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION in the autumnof 1483. Richard also granted Northumber-land some of Buckingham’s estates, and in1484 PARLIAMENT returned to him all thePercy lands that had been lost to the familysince their rebellion against Henry IV in 1403.

Despite these many rewards, Northumber-land’s support for Richard III was only luke-warm. In August 1485, when Henry Tudor,earl of Richmond, invaded England,Northumberland obeyed Richard’s summonsand was present in the royal army at the Battleof BOSWORTH FIELD. Nonetheless, he tookno part in the battle, and later writers claimedthat he would have defected to Richmondhad not a suspicious Richard III kept himunder close watch. It is also possible that thefighting drew so rapidly to its conclusion thatthe earl never had an opportunity to engage;after the battle, Richmond, now HENRY VII,thought Northumberland sufficiently associ-ated with the late king to order the earl’s im-prisonment. He was, however, soon released,admitted to favor, and restored to all his of-fices. Northumberland was killed in April1489 by Yorkshire rebels protesting a recenttax assessment.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all entries under PercyFurther Reading: “Henry Percy,” in MichaelHicks, Who’s Who in Late Medieval England

(London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 343–344;Hicks, Michael,“Dynastic Change and NorthernSociety: The Career of the Fourth Earl ofNorthumberland, 1470–89,” in Richard III and HisRivals: Magnates and Their Motives in the Wars of theRoses (London: Hambledon Press, 1991); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Percy, Thomas, Lord Egremont(1422–1460)By his ruthless pursuit of the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD in the mid-1450s, ThomasPercy, Lord Egremont, contributed signifi-cantly to the creation of the political factionsthat fueled the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The second son of Henry PERCY, secondearl of Northumberland, Percy showed anearly aptitude for troublemaking; in 1447, heand a band of confederates were thrown intoYork jail for disorderly conduct. The nextyear, during the war with SCOTLAND, Percydefended the family’s estates in Cumberland.In 1449, after being created Lord Egremont,Percy began raising a band of armed RETAIN-ERS in Yorkshire and northwestern England,areas dominated by the NEVILLE FAMILY.Motivated perhaps by a dispute over the con-duct of the Scottish war, or by a dispute overland, Egremont began to threaten Neville ten-ants and property. In June 1453, HENRY VIsummoned Egremont to COURT, intendingto commission him for service in FRANCE, aproposal probably initiated by RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, as a way to removeEgremont from northern England. WhenEgremont ignored the royal command, JohnNEVILLE, one of Salisbury’s younger sons, setout in pursuit of Egremont, an action that in-stigated a series of violent clashes across north-ern England between the sons and followersof Salisbury and Northumberland.

In August 1453, at the so-called Battle ofHEWORTH, Egremont and a large followingattacked a Neville wedding party led by Salis-bury himself. In 1454, during the FIRST PRO-TECTORATE of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, Egremont, working in concert

PERCY, THOMAS, LORD EGREMONT 201

with Henry HOLLAND, duke of Exeter,caused great disorder in Yorkshire, forcingYork to intervene. Exeter was captured andimprisoned in July, but Egremont remainedfree until October, when he was defeated andcaptured by Salisbury’s sons at the Battle ofSTAMFORD BRIDGE. During Egremont’ssubsequent two-year imprisonment in LON-DON, his father was slain by York and theNevilles at the Battle of ST. ALBANS and hiselder brother, Henry PERCY, now third earlof Northumberland, closely allied the Percieswith the house of LANCASTER.

Upon his escape from prison in November1456, Egremont resumed his harassment ofthe Nevilles. In March 1458, he became partof the king’s LOVE-DAY reconciliation, beingrequired by the settlement to give bonds tokeep the peace for ten years. However, on theoutbreak of civil war in 1459, Egremont tookup arms for Henry VI and died defending theking at the Battle of NORTHAMPTON in July1460. Because he was one of an unusuallyhigh number of Lancastrian lords to be slain atNorthampton, it is probable that, like his fa-ther at St. Albans, he was specifically targetedfor death by the Yorkist leaders.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; all entries under PercyFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“LocalRivalries and National Politics: The Percies, theNevilles and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–1455,” inRalph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country: Englandand Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London:Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 321–364; Griffiths,Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Storey, R. L.,The End of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Percy-Neville Feud. See Neville-PercyFeud

Philip, Duke of Burgundy(1396–1467)As ruler of one of the wealthiest states in fif-teenth-century Europe, and as the chief rivalof the kings of FRANCE, Philip “the Good,”

duke of BURGUNDY, was an important po-tential source of foreign support for both En-glish factions during the WARS OF THE

ROSES.Philip became duke in 1419 upon the as-

sassination of his father, Duke John the Fear-less, who was killed by followers of theDauphin Charles, the son and heir of CharlesVI of France. To avenge his father’s murder,Philip recognized Henry V of England as heirto the French Crown, thereby creating anAnglo-Burgundian alliance that allowedHenry to overrun much of northern France.Upon the deaths of both Henry V and CharlesVI in 1422, Philip accepted HENRYVI as kingof France, while the Dauphin, now CHARLES

VII, strove to secure the French Crown forhimself. In 1429, disputes with the English ledPhilip to negotiate with Charles, but the dukereturned to his English alliance when Henry’sgovernment ceded to him the French countyof Champagne. However, in 1435, Philipabandoned Henry VI and concluded theTreaty of Arras with Charles VII, who pur-chased the duke’s alliance by ceding to him aseries of strategic towns along the Franco-Burgundian border. Left to fight alone, theEnglish were finally driven out of France in1453 (see HUNDREDYEARS WAR).

By the late 1450s, the expulsion of the En-glish allowed the French Crown to focus onreducing the power of Burgundy; Charles VIIsought to eventually reabsorb French Bur-gundy into the French state. This policy andCharles’s support for the house of LAN-CASTER—Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

was his niece and the Yorkists advocatedreestablishing the French empire lost byHenry VI—led Philip to cautiously favor thehouse of YORK. Although angered by thepiracy of Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,who held CALAIS for the Yorkists, Philip in1460 advised his kinswoman, MARY OF

GUELDRES, queen-regent of SCOTLAND, todeny aid to Queen Margaret. In 1461, theduke supplied a troop of handgunners to fightfor EDWARD IV at the Battle of TOWTON,and in 1462, Philip largely nullified the CHI-NON AGREEMENT between LOUIS XI and

202 PERCY-NEVILLE FEUD

Queen Margaret by refusing to allow Frenchtroops to cross Burgundian soil to attackCalais. Philip also continued to provide theYorkist government with diplomatic assistancein Scotland and elsewhere.

Although Philip declined a marriage con-nection with the still insecure house of Yorkin 1461, and Anglo-Burgundian relations werestrained by a commercial dispute in 1464, mu-tual suspicion of France and the ties of a lucra-tive and long-standing trade relationshipbrought the two states closer together after1465. By Philip’s death in 1467, Burgundy andYorkist England were on the verge of a formalalliance, which was concluded in 1468 byPhilip’s son and heir, Duke CHARLES.

Further Reading: Vaughan, Richard, Philip theGood:The Apogee of Burgundy (New York: Barnesand Noble, 1970).

Plantagenet, Cecily, Duchess ofYork. See Neville, Cecily, Duchess ofYork

Plantagenet, Edmund, Earl ofRutland (1443–1460)Edmund Plantagenet, earl of Rutland, the sec-ond son of Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, was slain with his father at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in 1460. The manner of hisdeath further embittered relations between thecontending families in the WARS OF THE

ROSES.Born in Normandy in May 1443 while his

father was serving in FRANCE as lord lieu-tenant, Rutland was named heir to York’s var-ious Norman lands, an attempt by the duke topreserve his vast English inheritance intact forhis eldest son, Edward, earl of March (see ED-WARD IV). The loss of Normandy to theFrench in 1450 put an end to this scheme,and no further provision was made for Rut-land (see HUNDREDYEARS WAR). In Octo-ber 1459, the sixteen-year-old earl was pres-ent with his father and elder brother at theBattle of LUDFORD BRIDGE. When the de-fection of his troops forced the duke to flee

the field, Rutland accompanied York to IRE-LAND, while March withdrew to CALAIS

with his father’s allies, Richard NEVILLE, earlof Salisbury, and Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick.

Rutland returned to England with his fa-ther in September 1460, two months afterWarwick’s victory at the Battle of NORTH-AMPTON put HENRY VI and the royal gov-ernment under Yorkist control. The Act ofACCORD of October 1460 placed Rutland inthe succession to the Crown behind his fatherand elder brother, and the accompanying fi-nancial settlement gave Rutland 1,000 marksper year out of the former revenues of the dis-inherited Lancastrian heir, EDWARD OF

LANCASTER, Prince of Wales. On 2 Decem-ber, Rutland was part of the armed force thathis father and Salisbury led out of LONDON

to quell Lancastrian unrest in the north (seeNORTH OF ENGLAND AND THE WARS OF

THE ROSES).Only seventeen, Rutland died on 30 De-

cember at the Battle of Wakefield, where hewas killed on or near Wakefield Bridge byJohn CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford, whose father,Thomas CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford, had beenslain by York’s forces at the Battle of ST. AL-BANS in 1455. Although the slaying of Rut-land at such a young age was later much ro-manticized, especially by the Tudor chroniclerEdward Hall, who had Clifford refuse Rut-land’s plea for mercy with the words, “ByGod’s blood, thy father slew mine, and so Iwill do thee and all thy kin” (Haigh, p. 75), theexact circumstances of Rutland’s death are un-certain. After the battle, the earl’s head wasplaced next to his father’s on the walls of York.Rutland was hastily interred with the duke atSt. Richard’s Priory in Pontefract, where bothremained until 1476, when Edward IV re-moved his brother and father to a splendidtomb at the house of YORK’s family home atFotheringhay.

See also The Union of the Two Noble and IllustriousFamilies of Lancaster and York (Hall); other entriesunder PlantagenetFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The Battle ofWakefield 1460 (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:

PLANTAGENET, EDMUND, EARL OF RUTLAND 203

Sutton Publishing, 1996); Johnson, P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

Plantagenet, Edward, Earl ofWarwick (1475–1499)After the death of RICHARD III in 1485, Ed-ward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, the son ofGeorge PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,and thus a nephew of EDWARD IV and agrandson of Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, became the last Yorkist claimant to thethrone in the direct male line and a naturalfocus for conspiracies against the house ofTUDOR.

Born in February 1475, Warwick lost hismother, Isabel NEVILLE, when he was not yettwo, and his father when he was three (seeCLARENCE, EXECUTION OF). Little isknown of his upbringing, though he seems tohave come for a time under the care of hisaunt, Anne NEVILLE, Richard III’s queen. In1483, Richard III, seeking to remove all thechildren of his older brothers from his path tothe throne, declared Warwick barred from thesuccession because of his father’s ATTAINDER

for treason in 1478. Although he knightedWarwick later in the year and briefly consid-ered naming the earl his heir on his own son’sdeath in 1484, Richard confined Warwick inthe northern castle of Sheriff Hutton.

In August 1485, only days after he won theCrown at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD,HENRY VII had the ten-year-old Warwickconveyed from Sheriff Hutton to the TOWER

OF LONDON. Almost immediately, rumorsbegan to surface that Warwick had escaped,and the earl, although still confined, became akey component in various plots to restore thehouse of YORK to the throne. In February1487, Warwick was paraded through thestreets of LONDON in an effort to discreditLambert SIMNEL, whose impersonation ofWarwick instigated a Yorkist invasion thatHenry defeated at the Battle of STOKE in thefollowing June. In 1489, several men werehanged for participation in a conspiracy tofree Warwick, and in 1499, Ralph Wilford, yetanother Warwick impersonator, was executed.

By the end of the 1490s, continual Yorkistplotting and the urgings of Ferdinand and Is-abella of Spain to secure the succession beforethey married their daughter into the house ofTudor convinced Henry VII to eliminate War-wick. The earl, who had been left ill-educatedand naive by the circumstances of his life, wasinduced by a fellow prisoner, Perkin WAR-BECK, who had himself impersonated one ofthe sons of Edward IV, to agree to a plan of es-cape (see PLANTAGENET, RICHARD, DUKE

OF YORK [c. 1483]). The scheme, which mayhave been laid by royal agents to trap Warbeckand Warwick, came to light, and both menwere condemned and executed in November1499. Several weeks later, in January 1500, theSpanish ambassador informed Ferdinand andIsabella that “not a doubtful drop of royalblood remains in this kingdom” (Chrimes, p.284, n. 8).

See also other entries under PlantagenetFurther Reading: Arthurson, Ian, The PerkinWarbeck Conspiracy, 1491–1499 (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1997);Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1999); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Plantagenet, Elizabeth, Queen ofEngland. See Elizabeth of York, Queenof England

Plantagenet, George, Duke ofClarence (1449–1478)By his alliance with Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, George Plantagenet, duke ofClarence, younger brother of EDWARD IV,divided the house of YORK and helped revivethe WARS OF THE ROSES in 1469.

Born in IRELAND during the governor-ship of his father, Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, George and his younger brotherRichard were taken for safety to BURGUNDY

after their father’s death at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in December 1460. After the ac-cession of their elder brother as Edward IV inMarch 1461, the boys returned to England,

204 PLANTAGENET, EDWARD, EARL OF WARWICK

where George was created duke of Clarence.As heir to the throne, Clarence was given nu-merous lands and offices, including the lordlieutenancy of Ireland in 1462. Edward IV’ssecret marriage to Elizabeth WOODVILLE in1464 introduced the queen’s large and ambi-tious family to COURT and threatened thepolitical positions and economic prospects ofboth Warwick and Clarence (see WOOD-VILLE FAMILY). In July 1469, Clarence defiedhis brother and married Warwick’s daughter,Isabel NEVILLE, at CALAIS. After the cere-mony, Clarence and Warwick issued a mani-festo calling upon true Englishmen to takearms with them against the king’s corrupt ad-ministration. Although Edward briefly becametheir prisoner after the Battle of EDGECOTE

(see ROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION),Clarence and Warwick, while strong enoughto force the king to pardon them, were unableto generate the political support necessary torule the kingdom in his name.

In the spring of 1470, while Clarencesought to assure Edward of their loyalty, War-wick instigated a second series of rebellions innorthern England (see WELLES UPRISING).Only when he heard the rebels at LOSECOTE

FIELD advance into battle with cries of “aClarence” did Edward know that his brotherhad again betrayed him. Compelled to flee toFRANCE with Warwick, Clarence returned inSeptember when Warwick overthrew EdwardIV and restored HENRY VI to the throne (seeEDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). The Lan-castrian restoration left Clarence in an uncom-fortable position, with little role in the READ-EPTION government and less chance of theCrown. Although Warwick tried to buyClarence’s support by giving him his father’sentire estate, the duke heeded the urgings ofhis mother, Cecily NEVILLE, and his sistersand reconciled with Edward IV when hisbrother returned to England in the spring of1471. After fighting with Edward at the Bat-tles of BARNET and TEWKESBURY, Clarencewas restored to most of his lands and offices(see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF).

In the early 1470s, Clarence became in-volved in the bitter NEVILLE INHERITANCE

DISPUTE with his younger brother, Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III). Toavoid sharing his wife’s vast inheritance,Clarence sought first to thwart Gloucester’smarriage to his sister-in-law, Anne NEVILLE,and then, after the marriage occurred in about1472, to prevent Gloucester from enforcing hisnew wife’s right to a portion of the Nevilleproperties. The king finally intervened and,through PARLIAMENT, imposed a settlementthat met many of Clarence’s demands but gavethe bulk of Warwick’s northern estates toGloucester. Although Clarence accompaniedhis brothers on the French expedition of 1475,the death of Duchess Isabel in December 1476again strained relations with the king, who re-fused to countenance several proposed mar-riages for Clarence, including a match withMary, only child of CHARLES, duke of Bur-gundy. Two trials in 1477 further estranged

PLANTAGENET, GEORGE, DUKE OF CLARENCE 205

A drawing depicting George Plantagenet, duke of Clarence,brother of Edward IV. (British Library)

Clarence from his brother. In the trial ofThomas Burdett, a gentleman with close ties toClarence was convicted and condemned, withhis associates, for plotting the death of the kingand his sons through sorcery, a scheme that, ifsuccessful, would have brought Clarence to thethrone. In the trial of Ankarette Twynho,Clarence had a former household servant,whom he accused of poisoning his wife, seized,tried, and executed in a single day.

The first trial may have aroused Edward’ssuspicion of his brother’s intentions. The sec-ond, because it involved several former ser-vants, may have been Clarence’s way of takingrevenge on people whom he suspected weresupplying the queen’s family with informationthey used to undermine his relationship withthe king. Because of Clarence’s past record andthe evidence of the Burdett trial, the queenlikely considered him a threat to her son’s ac-cession. Edward IV arrested his brother inJune 1477 and in the following January per-sonally charged Clarence in Parliament withactions tending to treason. The duke was con-demned by act of ATTAINDER and executedprivately in the TOWER OF LONDON inFebruary 1478. Although later rumor claimedthe duke was drowned in a butt of malmseywine, the exact method of his execution is un-certain. In 1483, Clarence’s execution, whichhis brother Gloucester was said to have op-posed, eased Gloucester’s usurpation of ED-WARD V’s throne, for it both removed theduke from the succession and provided an ex-cuse to also bar his son, Edward PLANTA-GENET, earl of Warwick (see USURPATION

OF 1483).

See also other entries under PlantagenetFurther Reading: “George, Duke of Clarence,”in Michael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.331–333; Hicks, Michael, False, Fleeting, Perjur’dClarence: George, Duke of Clarence, 1449–78(Bangor, UK: Headstart History, 1992).

Plantagenet, George, Duke ofClarence, Execution of. See Clarence,Execution of

Plantagenet, House of (1154–1485)The name “Plantagenet” has been used by his-torians since the seventeenth century to referto the English royal family that descendedfrom Henry II (r. 1154–1189) and that in thefifteenth century split into the contendingroyal houses of LANCASTER and YORK.

The word originated as a nickname forHenry II’s father, Geoffrey le Bel, Count ofAnjou. Although the exact meaning of thename is unknown, it was suggested in thenineteenth century that it derived from Geof-frey’s habit of wearing a sprig of broom (Plantagenista) in his helm or cap. Other less widelyaccepted explanations claim that Geoffrey hada fondness for hunting among the broom orthat Geoffrey planted broom as cover to im-prove his hunting. The name Plantagenet wasnever used by Henry II or his successors orapplied to them by contemporaries; it was firstadopted as a surname in the late 1440s byRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, headof the Yorkist branch of the royal family. Thenheir presumptive to a childless HENRY VI,third king of the Lancastrian branch of thefamily, York probably assumed the name toemphasize his direct descent from Henry IIand so illustrate the superiority of his claim tothe Crown over that of his political rival, Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset. Theduke was head of the BEAUFORT FAMILY, ajunior branch of the Lancastrian line.

From 1189, succession in the line of HenryII had occurred with little difficulty, theCrown passing smoothly from father to son orbrother to brother. However, in 1399, the dep-osition of Richard II (r. 1377–1399) and hisreplacement by his cousin Henry IV (r.1399–1413), formerly duke of Lancaster, by-passed the legal line of succession.The Lancas-trian usurpation disinherited Richard II’s heir,Edmund Mortimer, the eight-year-old earl ofMarch (1391–1425), the great-grandson ofRichard’s eldest uncle, Lionel, duke ofClarence (1338–1368). Henry IV was the sonof a younger uncle, John of Gaunt, duke ofLancaster (1340–1399). In the 1440s, Yorkcould claim descent from two uncles of

206 PLANTAGENET, GEORGE, DUKE OF CLARENCE, EXECUTION OF

Richard II—through his Mortimer motherfrom Clarence and through his (Plantagenet)father from Edmund, duke of York(1341–1402). While York’s direct descent inthe paternal line was clearly inferior to theLancastrian claim because it derived from ayounger uncle, the superiority of his Mor-timer claim from an elder uncle was open toquestion because it descended to him througha woman. In 1460, when the dangerous possi-bilities of civil war persuaded York to press hisclaim, he used his Mortimer ancestry to peti-tion for the Crown by right of succession.With this act, he transformed the politicalstruggles of the 1450s into the WARS OF THE

ROSES, a dynastic civil war between twobranches of the house of Plantagenet.

See also Richard II, Deposition of; other entriesunder PlantagenetFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“TheCrown and the Royal Family in Later MedievalEngland,” in Ralph A. Griffiths and JamesSherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in the LaterMiddle Ages (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986),pp. 15–26; Harvey, John, The Plantagenets, 3d ed.(London: Severn House, 1976); Weir, Alison, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Ballantine Books,1995).

Plantagenet, Margaret, Duchess ofBurgundy. See Margaret of York,Duchess of Burgundy

Plantagenet, Richard, Duke ofGloucester. See Richard III

Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York(1411–1460)By laying claim to the Crown of England,Richard Plantagenet, duke of York, trans-formed a factional struggle for control of theroyal government into a dynastic civil war, pit-ting his family, the house of YORK, against thereigning royal house of LANCASTER.

The son of Richard, earl of Cambridge (c.1375–1415), and Anne Mortimer (1390–1411),York was descended from Edward III (r.

1327–1377) through both parents. Althoughhis paternal grandfather, Edmund, duke ofYork (1341–1402), was Edward’s fourth son,York’s claim to the Crown rested on his de-scent from his maternal great-great grandfa-ther, Lionel, duke of Clarence (1338–1368),Edward’s second son. Despite deriving fromthe maternal line, York’s claim throughClarence rivaled that of his kinsman, HENRY

VI, because the king was a great-grandson ofEdward III’s third son, John, duke of Lancaster(1340–1399).

In 1425, upon the death of his uncle, Ed-mund Mortimer, earl of March,York inheritedboth the Mortimer claim to the throne andthe family’s vast estates, which, with his pater-nal inheritance, made York the wealthiestmember of the English PEERAGE. Knightedby Henry VI in 1426, York accompanied theking to FRANCE in 1430. In 1429,York mar-ried Cecily NEVILLE, daughter of RalphNeville, earl of Westmorland (c. 1364–1425).Appointed king’s lieutenant in France in 1436,and reappointed in 1440,York was given gen-erous French land grants. In 1445, the govern-ment recalled York, who became heir apparentto the childless Henry VI in 1447. Althoughhe held extensive estates in WALES and IRE-LAND,York considered his 1447 appointmentas king’s lieutenant in Ireland to be banish-ment and did not travel to Dublin until 1449.

PLANTAGENET, RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK 207

This eagle badge was one of the devices used by RichardPlantagenet, duke of York. (Add MS 40742 f. 5, BritishLibrary)

Angered by the government’s failure torepay debts incurred while in the royal serviceabroad, as well as by what he viewed as his ex-clusion from the political position that wasdue him by birth,York returned to England in1450, only months after dissatisfaction withHenry VI’s government led to the outbreak ofJACK CADE’S REBELLION. Suspected by theCOURT of fomenting the uprising,York quar-reled with Edmund BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, whom York (and others) held re-sponsible for the recent loss of Normandy.However, Somerset remained in high favor atcourt, and York, fearing that the duke was en-deavoring to destroy him, took up arms in1452 to compel the king to arrest Somerset.Although Henry initially agreed to York’s de-mands, the duke’s uprising collapsed at DART-FORD when few nobles supported him, andthe king reneged on his promise to abandonSomerset. Although forced only to swear loy-alty to Henry,York was politically isolated andexcluded from government.

This situation was transformed in 1453 bythe onset of the king’s mental illness and bythe birth of the king’s son, Prince EDWARD

OF LANCASTER (see HENRY VI, ILLNESS

OF). The first event led to Somerset’s arrestand York’s appointment as protector of therealm in March 1454, and the second made animplacable opponent of Queen MARGARET

OF ANJOU, who was concerned for her son’sfuture and suspicious of York’s ambition. InFebruary 1455, Henry’s recovery ended York’sFIRST PROTECTORATE. However, the king,now increasingly under the queen’s influence,restored Somerset to favor, and the renewedquarrel between the two dukes soon absorbedvarious local feuds, including the NEVILLE-PERCY FEUD in northern England. As HenryPERCY, earl of Northumberland, drew closerto the court,York formed an alliance with theearl’s rivals, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salis-bury, who was the duke’s brother-in-law, andSalisbury’s son, Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick. Backed by the extensive political andmilitary resources of the NEVILLE FAMILY,York again sought to force the king to aban-don Somerset. At the Battle of ST.ALBANS in

May 1455,York and the Nevilles slew Somer-set and Northumberland and took control ofHenry and the royal government.

In November, after Henry suffered a re-lapse, PARLIAMENT reappointed York as pro-tector, but the SECOND PROTECTORATE

ended with the king’s recovery in February1456. Despite Henry’s abortive LOVE-DAY, anattempt in 1458 to reconcile York and theNevilles with the queen and the heirs of thenobles who had been slain at St. Albans, fac-tions formed around both parties after 1456,and civil war erupted in 1459. After the Battleof LUDFORD BRIDGE in October, York fledto Ireland, where he was popular, and theNevilles withdrew to CALAIS, where Warwickwas captain. In June 1460, the Nevilles, ac-companied by York’s son, Edward, returned toLONDON; in July, Warwick captured the kingat the Battle of NORTHAMPTON, thereby al-lowing York to return from Ireland in Sep-tember. On 16 October, the duke made for-mal claim to the Crown by right ofinheritance, but Parliament received the peti-tion with little enthusiasm. By the end of themonth, Parliament, with the acquiescence ofboth the king and the duke, passed the Act ofACCORD, a settlement that left Henry on thethrone but disinherited Prince Edward infavor of York and his heirs.

Immediately rejected by the queen and hersupporters, the Act of Accord drove Lancastri-ans across England to rise against the Yorkistregime. With northern England in rebellion,York and Salisbury marched out of London inearly December (see NORTH OF ENGLAND

AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES).After somedifficulty, the duke reached his Yorkshire castleof Sandal just before Christmas. On 30 De-cember, York left Sandal to attack the Lancas-trian forces converging on the castle. Com-manded by Henry BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, John CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford, andother sons of nobles slain at St. Albans, theLancastrian army surrounded and killed theduke at the Battle of WAKEFIELD. York’sdeath passed his claim to the throne to his son,who, within weeks, fulfilled his father’sthwarted ambition by being proclaimed king

208 PLANTAGENET, RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

as EDWARD IV. After Wakefield, the victori-ous Lancastrians adorned York’s head with apaper crown and set it, along with those ofSalisbury and the duke’s son, Edmund PLAN-TAGENET, earl of Rutland, on the gates ofYork.

See also other entries under PlantagenetFurther Reading: Johnson, P. A., Duke Richard ofYork (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); Pugh, T. B.,“Richard Plantagenet (1411–60), Duke of York, asthe King’s Lieutenant in France and Ireland,” inJ. G. Rowe, ed., Aspects of Late MedievalGovernment and Society (Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1986).

Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York(1473–c. 1483)The second son of EDWARD IV, RichardPlantagenet, duke of York, disappeared in theTOWER OF LONDON in 1483, thus castingsuspicion for his murder and that of hisbrother on his uncle RICHARD III and serv-ing as motivation for further political unrestthroughout the 1480s and 1490s.

Born in August 1473, Richard was givenhis grandfather’s title, duke of York, in May1474. Soon after the death of John MOW-BRAY, duke of Norfolk, in January 1476, Ed-ward IV, in an effort to bring the extensiveMowbray estates into the royal family, be-trothed York to Norfolk’s heir, four-year-oldAnne Mowbray. York received the Mowbraytitles of earl of Nottingham and duke of Nor-folk by February 1477, but did not marry theMowbray heiress until January 1478, when hewas four and she was five. Upon his daughter-in-law’s death in 1481, the king had PARLIA-MENT vest York with his wife’s estates, an actthat disinherited John HOWARD, LordHoward, a royal RETAINER who was nextheir at law to the Mowbray lands.

When his father died in April 1483, Yorkwas in LONDON with his mother, QueenElizabeth WOODVILLE. York’s elder brother,EDWARD V, was at Ludlow in the keeping ofhis maternal uncle Anthony WOODVILLE,Earl Rivers. Three weeks later, when wordreached London that Richard, duke ofGloucester, the king’s paternal uncle, had ar-

rested Woodville and taken custody of EdwardV, the queen fled to SANCTUARY at West-minster with York and his sisters. On 16 June,Gloucester, arguing that Edward V could notbe crowned in the absence of his brother andheir, surrounded Westminster with troops andthreatened to forcibly remove the duke fromsanctuary. Thomas BOURCHIER, archbishopof Canterbury, apparently acting in good faith,convinced the queen to surrender her son,promising that York would be returned to herafter the coronation. The duke was immedi-ately lodged in the Tower with his brother,whose personal servants were shortly there-after withdrawn. Declared illegitimate andbarred from the succession, the princes werethen moved to the inner apartments of thefortress (see BUTLER PRECONTRACT; TIT-ULUS REGIUS). Although York and hisbrother were seen occasionally in the Towergarden after Gloucester’s 6 July coronation asRichard III, by late summer, they were seenno more (see USURPATION OF 1483). Ru-mors in England and abroad whispered thatthe princes were dead by the king’s order, anunproven claim that is still hotly debated.

The unexplained disappearance of Yorkand his brother undermined support forRichard III and revived dynastic warfare; inthe autumn of 1483, former Yorkists joinedBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION, an uprisingled by Henry STAFFORD, duke of Bucking-ham, to replace Richard III with the remain-ing Lancastrian claimant, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond. After Richmond won the throneas HENRY VII in 1485, York remained thefocus of civil unrest; rumors that he was alivefueled Yorkist attempts to overthrow thehouse of TUDOR. In the 1490s, as part of anultimately unsuccessful effort to dethroneHenry VII, a young Fleming named PERKIN

WARBECK mobilized widespread support forhis cause by claiming to be Richard, duke ofYork.

See also Princes in the Tower; other entriesunder PlantagenetFurther Reading: Fields, Bertram, Royal Blood:Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes (New York:Regan Books, 1998); Jenkins, Elizabeth, The Princes

PLANTAGENET, RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK 209

in the Tower (New York: Coward, McCann andGeoghegan, 1978); More, Sir Thomas, The Historyof King Richard III, edited by Richard S. Sylvester(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1976);Pollard, A. J., Richard III and the Princes in the Tower(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991); Ross, Charles,Richard III (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981); Weir, Alison, The Princes in the Tower(New York: Ballantine Books, 1992); Williamson,Audrey, The Mystery of the Princes (Chicago:Academy Chicago Publishers, 1986); the text ofMore’s History of King Richard III is also availableon the Richard III Society Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/moretext.html>.

Plumpton Letters and PapersThe surviving letters and papers of thePlumptons of Yorkshire are a valuable sourceof information on the lives and concerns of anorthern GENTRY family during the WARS

OF THE ROSES.The Plumpton archive contains about 250

letters and almost 1,000 estate and other fam-ily documents. The correspondence datesfrom 1461 to the mid-sixteenth century, withmost of the letters written during the reigns ofHENRY VII and Henry VIII, when the familywas headed by Sir Robert Plumpton(1453–1525) and his son William Plumpton(d. 1547). For the civil wars, the most relevantletters are the earlier ones relating to ED-WARD IV’s reign; this correspondence con-cerns Sir Robert’s father, Sir William Plump-ton (1404–1480), who was a long-standingRETAINER of the Percy earls of Northumber-land. As rivals of the NEVILLE FAMILY (seeNEVILLE-PERCY FEUD), the Percies werepartisans of the house of LANCASTER, and SirWilliam followed his lord, Henry PERCY,third earl of Northumberland, into the serviceof HENRYVI. Sir William fought at the Battleof TOWTON in 1461 and spent some monthsfollowing the battle in confinement in theTOWER OF LONDON, but he somehow es-caped ATTAINDER by the Yorkist PARLIA-MENT.

In the 1460s, Sir William lived uneasilyunder the northern dominance of RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, but won greaterfavor with the house of YORK after 1470,

when Edward IV released the Percy heir fromconfinement and recognized him as HenryPERCY, fourth earl of Northumberland.Through the patronage of the new earl, SirWilliam held a number of local offices, as didhis son Sir Robert, who fought underNorthumberland in the duke of Gloucester’scampaigns in SCOTLAND in the early 1480s.Although the letters for RICHARD III’s reignare few, those from the previous decade shedlight on Richard’s exercise of power in thenorth as duke of Gloucester.

The letters for the reign of Henry VII arefuller and more numerous, describing suchevents as the coronation of Henry’s queen,ELIZABETH OF YORK; the suppression of thenorthern rebellion of 1489, which began withthe murder of Northumberland; and the trialsin 1499 of Perkin WARBECK, the Yorkist pre-tender, and Edward PLANTAGENET, earl ofWarwick, the remaining male heir of thehouse of York. Besides illuminating key eventsin the north, the letters from the years before1500 provide a limited but useful view of thepolitical activities of a gentry family duringthe Yorkist and early Tudor periods.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Kirby, Joan, ed., The PlumptonLetters and Papers (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1996); Stapleton, Thomas, ed.,The Plumpton Correspondence (London: CamdenSociety, 1839; reprint, Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Alan Sutton, 1990).

Pole, John de la, Duke of Suffolk (1442–1491)Because of the influence he exercised in EastAnglia, John de la Pole, second duke of Suf-folk, was courted by all sides in the civil wars,even though he seems to have been a man oflittle political ability.

His father, William de la POLE, first dukeof Suffolk, was chief minister to HENRY VIuntil the duke was driven from power andmurdered during the political upheavals of1450. Henry VI confirmed de la Pole in his fa-ther’s title in 1455, but, by 1458, Suffolk hadmarried Elizabeth, daughter of Richard

210 PLUMPTON LETTERS AND PAPERS

PLANTAGENET, duke of York, a connectionthat cost the duke demotion to earl of Suffolkwhen Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU heldpower in 1459. Suffolk thereafter aligned him-self with the house of YORK, fighting withRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, at theBattle of ST. ALBANS in February 1461. AfterEDWARD IV won the throne at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461, Suffolk receivedsurprisingly few rewards from his brother-in-law; he was not even re-created duke of Suf-folk until 1463.

This lack of favor may have stemmed frompersonal dislike, or from the king’s low opin-ion of Suffolk’s abilities; it did not, however,blind Edward to his need for the duke’s sup-port in the conflict with the house of LAN-CASTER, as the Paston family discovered in1469 when the king refused to help themagainst the duke, even when he was shown theruins of a Paston manor destroyed by Suffolk’smen (see Paston Letters). This stance paid offfor Edward when Suffolk sided with himagainst the Warwick-inspired uprisings of1469–1470. When Warwick drove Edwardfrom England in October 1470, the duke qui-etly withdrew to his estates, emerging again inthe spring to support Edward’s restoration tothe throne (see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION

OF). Suffolk was thereafter more consistentlyfavored than he had been in the 1460s, but henever achieved a position of trust or influencewith the king. He accompanied Edward onthe French expedition of 1475 and was ap-pointed lord lieutenant of IRELAND in 1478,although he never assumed the office.

Upon Edward IV’s death in 1483, Suffolkacquiesced in the usurpation of RICHARD

III. Although Suffolk’s eldest son, John de laPOLE, earl of Lincoln, was looked upon asRichard’s heir after the death of the king’s sonin 1484, the duke himself no more enjoyedthe confidence of Richard III than he had thatof Richard’s brother. After Richard’s death atthe Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD in August1485, Suffolk readily submitted to HENRY

VII, receiving as reward the constableship ofWallingford Castle. The duke thereafter re-tained Henry’s trust, even after Lincoln died

fighting for the Yorkist pretender LambertSIMNEL at the Battle of STOKE in June 1487.Suffolk died in 1491.

Further Reading: Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Pole, John de la, Earl of Lincoln (c. 1464–1487)A nephew of EDWARD IV and RICHARD

III, John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, was aleader of Lambert SIMNEL’s 1487 attempt toreopen the civil wars and restore the house ofYORK to the throne.

The eldest son of John de la POLE, secondduke of Suffolk, and Elizabeth Plantagenet, sis-ter of Edward IV, de la Pole was created earl ofLincoln by his uncle in 1467. Upon EdwardIV’s death in 1483, Lincoln became a firm ad-herent of Richard III, who appointed the earlpresident of the Council of the North, an ad-ministrative body established to maintainorder on the distant Scottish border. WhenPrince Edward, the king’s son, died in April1484, Richard appointed Lincoln lord lieu-tenant of IRELAND in his son’s place, al-though the actual government of Ireland re-mained in the hands of a deputy, GeraldFITZGERALD, earl of Kildare.

Although never publicly proclaimed heir tothe throne, Lincoln was, following the death ofthe prince, the nearest adult after the king inthe Yorkist line of succession. Lincoln’s cousin,Edward PLANTAGENET, earl of Warwick, theson of Richard III’s late brother, GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, had a su-perior claim to the throne because it de-scended from the direct male line, but the earlwas only nine in 1484 and was barred fromthe succession, according to the statute TITU-LUS REGIUS, by his father’s ATTAINDER.Richard therefore signaled his acceptance ofLincoln as heir by granting the earl landsworth over £300 per year and a pension of£176 per year drawn from the Duchy ofCornwall, which was usually given to the heirto the throne.

POLE, JOHN DE LA, EARL OF LINCOLN 211

Lincoln was present when Richard was de-feated and killed at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD in August 1485. Hoping to win thesupport of the earl and his family, HENRY VIIonly required Lincoln to swear an oath of loy-alty. But the earl was apparently unwilling torenounce his own claim to the Crown, and inearly 1487 he fled to BURGUNDY, where hisaunt, MARGARET OFYORK, duchess of Bur-gundy, gave him troops with which to supportLambert Simnel, a Yorkist pretender who wasgathering an army in Ireland by impersonatingWarwick. Upon his arrival in Dublin, Lincolnopenly accepted Simnel’s claim, though, inprivate, he probably saw his own accession asthe ultimate goal of the enterprise. Crossing toEngland with Simnel’s army, Lincoln waskilled at the Battle of STOKE in June 1487.His younger brothers, Edmund and Richardde la Pole, continued to oppose the TUDOR

regime.

See also Yorkist Heirs (after 1485)Further Reading: Bennett, Michael, LambertSimnel and the Battle of Stoke (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1987); Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Pole, William de la, Duke of Suffolk(1396–1450)As first minister of HENRY VI, William de laPole, duke of Suffolk, so monopolized royalfavor that Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, believed himself unjustly excluded fromhis rightful place in government and under-took efforts to force the king to take him intooffice.

After becoming earl on his brother’s deathat the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, Suffolkserved in FRANCE throughout the 1420s (seeHUNDRED YEARS WAR). He was in com-mand at the siege of Orleans when the citywas relieved by Joan of Arc in May 1429. InJune, he surrendered to the French at Jargeau,and he purchased his freedom only by sellinghis lands in Normandy. Suffolk was admittedto the royal COUNCIL in 1431, and thereafter

he gradually associated himself with the politi-cal faction led by Cardinal Henry Beaufort (c.1376–1447) and with the peace policy Beau-fort advocated. This association threw Suffolkinto increasing rivalry with the king’s uncle,Humphrey, duke of Gloucester (1390–1447), who favored more vigorous prosecu-tion of the war.

By the early 1440s, Suffolk was a personalfavorite of Henry VI, who also supportedpeace with France and who granted the earla succession of important and lucrative of-fices. In 1444, Suffolk negotiated the king’smarriage to MARGARET OF ANJOU, a kins-woman of CHARLESVII of France. AlthoughHenry hoped the marriage would be part ofa general peace agreement, Suffolk wasforced to settle for a two-year truce. The earlstood proxy for Henry during the formal be-trothal ceremony in France, but then he wasnot allowed to escort the bride to Englanduntil Henry VI had agreed to surrender thecounty of Maine. Although belonging to theking, responsibility for this unpopular deci-sion, which was implemented in 1448, waslater imputed to Suffolk by the people.Trusted by both the king and the queen, Suf-folk became the effective head of govern-ment in 1447 after the deaths of Gloucesterand Beaufort. Secure in royal favor, Suffolkremoved York, who was heir to the throne,from command in France and sent him intopractical exile as king’s lieutenant in IRE-LAND. York’s replacement in France was Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, a sup-porter of Suffolk’s who also had a claim tothe Crown. These actions intensified York’salienation from the court and sharpened hisrivalry with Somerset.

Raised to a dukedom in 1448 and grantedvarious other rewards and offices, Suffolk usedhis position to enrich himself and his support-ers. Although the king’s grants were freelygiven and most of Suffolk’s actions were com-mon practice, the extreme poverty of Henry’sgovernment made Suffolk’s monopoly of royalpatronage highly unpopular, both with unfa-vored nobles like York and with the commons(see COMMONS [COMMON PEOPLE] AND

212 POLE, WILLIAM DE LA, DUKE OF SUFFOLK

THE WARS OF THE ROSES). When theFrench overran Normandy in 1449, in partthrough the incompetence of Somerset, popu-lar hatred of Suffolk, already fueled by the sur-render of Maine, exploded. The duke was ar-rested in January 1450, when PARLIAMENT

charged him with various offenses, includingcorruption and mishandling the French war.Although the king was loath to proceedagainst his minister, the House of Commonswas adamant, and Henry compromised bybanishing Suffolk from England for five years.On 2 May, the ship bearing Suffolk to thecontinent was intercepted by a royal vessel, thecrew of which seized and murdered the duke.Although nothing can now be proven, themysterious circumstances surrounding Suf-folk’s death suggest the involvement of York oranother of the duke’s noble opponents.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph, The Reign ofKing Henry VI (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981);“William de la Pole,” in MichaelHicks, Who’s Who in Late Medieval England(London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 272–274;Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Precontract. See Butler Precontract

PrerogativeThe royal prerogative comprised all the pow-ers and privileges that English law reserved forthe Crown to enable it to effectively governthe realm. Although its full extent was vaguelydefined and depended in part on the personal-ity of the monarch, the prerogative includedsuch rights and duties as summoning and dis-missing PARLIAMENT, issuing proclamations,appointing and dismissing ministers andjudges, conducting foreign policy, and ensur-ing the maintenance of public order and theadministration of impartial justice. The WARS

OF THE ROSES, because they both arose fromand contributed to a breakdown of law, order,and good government, led to a general in-crease in the prerogative and personal powerof the monarch.

Even before the onset of his mental illnessin 1453, HENRY VI had shown himself inca-pable of exercising royal authority in a vigor-ous and evenhanded manner (see HENRY VI,ILLNESS OF). During his personal rule, theCrown ceased to be an arbiter of noble feuds,a guarantor of justice and order, or a promoterof prosperity. To regain the political and eco-nomic benefits of peace and the rule of law,most citizens of late fifteenth-century Englandwere willing to countenance the strengthen-ing of the royal prerogative, even if such an in-crease in royal power meant more arbitrarygovernment. The destruction of the house ofLANCASTER in 1471 allowed EDWARD IVto rule thereafter with greater authority andfirmness. Although he occasionally bent oroverrode law or custom to secure his throneor benefit the house of YORK, and althoughredress at law was difficult to obtain againstany of the great nobles upon whom he reliedfor military support (see PEERAGE), EdwardIV won much popularity by reducing the levelof violence and improving the quality of jus-tice throughout the kingdom.

Edward won further praise, especially inLONDON, for avoiding foreign wars and forencouraging English trade (see ENGLISH

ECONOMY AND THE WARS OF THE

ROSES). Because Parliament was associatedwith the granting of taxation rather than withoversight of the Crown, the infrequency ofsessions after 1471 only enhanced Edward’sstanding with the people, who became morewilling to accept an expanded prerogative inreturn for domestic peace and low taxes. Al-though HENRY VII never enjoyed the per-sonal popularity of Edward IV, he achieved thesame level of popular acceptance for his in-creasingly repressive rule by following many ofEdward’s policies. The house of TUDOR ben-efited from the deep respect for authority en-grained in the English people by their mem-ory of the disorder and dissension caused bythe Wars of the Roses.

See also Bastard Feudalism; Courtenay-BonvilleFeud; Neville-Percy FeudFurther Reading: Carpenter, Christine, The Warsof the Roses (Cambridge: Cambridge University

PREROGATIVE 213

Press, 1997); Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses(London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Princes in the TowerThe term “Princes in the Tower” refers to thesons of EDWARD IV and their mysterious dis-appearance while lodged in the TOWER OF

LONDON in 1483. Because their guardian atthe time, their uncle RICHARD III, seized thethrone of his eldest nephew, five centuries ofdebate have swirled around the question ofwhether or not Richard was responsible forthe boys’ presumed murder. The princes’ dis-appearance, by creating an alliance of dissidentYorkists and former Lancastrians to supportthe claim to the throne of Henry Tudor, earlof Richmond (see HENRY VII), initiated thedestruction of the house of YORK and the lastphase of the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The only detailed written account of themurders of EDWARD V and his youngerbrother Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, is contained in Sir Thomas More’s HIS-TORY OF KING RICHARD III, which waswritten about 1513. More claimed that his in-formation was based on a confession to thecrime given in 1502 by Sir James TYRELL, aformer servant of Richard III then facing exe-cution for treason. Because this confession hasnever been found, it has been dismissed bysome writers as an invention of More’s. Ac-cording to More, Richard, after his coronationon 6 July, sent a trusted servant named JohnGreen to Sir Robert BRACKENBURY, con-stable of the Tower, with a written order toput the princes to death in any manner Brack-enbury chose to employ. Brackenbury refused,saying that he would never do such a thingeven if he died for his disobedience. Dejected,Richard wondered aloud to an unnamed ser-vant whether he could trust anyone to carryout his wishes. The servant replied that therewas one who waited without the chamber forwhom “the thing were right hard that hewould refuse” the king (More, p. 86). This am-bitious servant was Tyrell, whom Richard thenordered to arrange the princes’ deaths.To assistTyrell, Richard withdrew all the princes’ fa-

miliar servants from the Tower and had theboys placed in the keeping of a man “calledBlack Will or Will Slaughter” (p. 87).

To carry out the actual murder, Tyrell re-cruited Miles Forest,“a fellow fleshed in mur-der before time” and one of the four personsthen responsible (presumably with Slaughter)for the boys’ keeping in the Tower, and JohnDighton, “a big, broad, square, strong knave”who was Tyrell’s horsekeeper (p. 88). Aboutmidnight, while the princes were sleeping,Forest and Dighton stole into their chamber,“bewrapped . . . and entangled them” in theirbedclothes, and so smothered them to death.The murderers then laid the bodies naked onthe bed and fetched Tyrell to view them be-fore burying the princes at the foot of a Towerstair “under a great heap of stones” (p. 88).Richard, upon being informed of the murdersby Tyrell, was well pleased, but ordered thatthe bodies be reinterred in a more fittingmanner, whereupon a priest of Brackenbury’ssecretly reburied them in a location unknownto More.

Whether a literary creation of More’s basedon tales current during his youth or an accu-rate account of the murder of the princes,More’s story became the inspiration forWilliam Shakespeare’s RICHARD III and wasprobably also known to More’s contemporaryPolydore Vergil, whose ANGLICA HISTORIA

ascribes the murders to an unwilling Tyrell,but otherwise gives no details. Over the cen-turies, four main theories (among many otherlesser ones) have been devised to explain thedisappearance of the princes. The most likelyand most accepted is that Richard III, whetherin the manner described by More or other-wise, was responsible for the boys’ deaths.However, Richard’s many defenders, who havegrown steadily in number since the seven-teenth century, have made plausible cases thatthe princes were killed by Henry STAFFORD,duke of Buckingham, who as Richard’s chiefally had access to the Tower in 1483; by HenryVII, whose ability to hold the Crown wouldhave been considerably weakened had hefound the boys alive when he took power in1485; or by disease, the plague or something

214 PRINCES IN THE TOWER

else the princes may have contracted in theTower during their confinement. Becausenone of these theories can now be definitivelyproved or eliminated, the debate over the fateof the princes and the guilt or innocence ofRichard III remains the most passionately ar-gued in English history.

See also Bones of 1674Further Reading: Fields, Bertram, Royal Blood:Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes (NewYork: Regan Books, 1998); Jenkins, Elizabeth, ThePrinces in the Tower (New York: Coward, McCannand Geoghegan, 1978); More, Sir Thomas, TheHistory of King Richard III, edited by Richard S.Sylvester (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press,1976); Pollard, A. J., Richard III and the Princes in theTower (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991); Weir,Alison, The Princes in the Tower (New York:Ballantine Books, 1992); Williamson, Audrey, TheMystery of the Princes (Chicago: Academy ChicagoPublishers, 1986); the text of More’s History ofKing Richard III is also available on the Richard IIISociety Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/moretext.html>.

Prior of the Hospital of St. John ofJerusalem. See Langstrother, Sir John,Prior of the Hospital of St. John ofJerusalem

PropagandaThroughout the WARS OF THE ROSES, thecontending factions issued newsletters, mani-festos, and other declarations to justify them-selves and vilify their opponents—propagandaefforts aimed at winning support both in En-gland and overseas.

From the start of the political struggle inthe 1450s, the Yorkists strove to present theircause to the public in the best possible light.To deflect charges of rebellion, the Yorkists is-sued proclamations stressing their loyalty toHENRY VI and explaining their actions asmerely a desire to petition the king for redressof grievances. They justified their rather un-orthodox method of petitioning under armsby claiming that it was a regrettable necessity.They maintained that the royal councilors re-sponsible for their grievances were seeking to

deny them a fair hearing and even to destroythem. After the Battle of ST. ALBANS in May1455, the Yorkists worked to eradicate thetreasonable impression left by their violence.They treated the king with great deference,escorted him to LONDON with full royalhonors, swore loyalty to him at an impressivecrown-wearing ceremony, and obtained par-dons from him that were duly ratified in PAR-LIAMENT. The pardons blamed the battle onEdmund BEAUFORT, the slain duke of Som-erset, and on several other obscure royal offi-cials, and new proclamations emphasized howthese culprits had foiled exhaustive Yorkist at-tempts to avoid combat through negotiation.

After 1461, EDWARD IV continued theYorkist use of propaganda. By exaggeratingthe horrors perpetrated by Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU’s army as it plunderedYorkist lands and towns during its MARCH

ON LONDON in 1461, the Yorkists height-ened fears of Lancastrian pillage in the capitaland disposed London to admit Edward IV andaccept him as king. In 1471, Edward commis-sioned the HISTORY OF THE ARRIVAL OF

EDWARD IV, a newsletter that quickly dissem-inated Edward’s version of his restorationamong foreign courts (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF). Perhaps because theyconsidered the house of LANCASTER the le-gitimate holder of the Crown, Lancastrianleaders were less inclined to use propagandaand more interested in obtaining foreign assis-tance. These latter efforts provided Edwardwith excellent propaganda opportunities; forinstance, he made great use of Margaret’s sur-render of BERWICK to SCOTLAND in 1461.To avoid similar damaging attacks in 1462when she concluded the CHINON AGREE-MENT with LOUIS XI of FRANCE, Margaretinsisted that her willingness to surrenderCALAIS remain secret.

Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, provedparticularly adept at the use of propaganda.His landing in England in June 1460 was ac-companied by the issuance of a manifesto de-tailing the oppressions perpetrated by HenryVI’s evil councilors and justifying Warwick’sactions as an attempt to right those wrongs.

PROPAGANDA 215

In this Yorkist propaganda piece from 1461, Edward IV is shown at the top of the wheel of fortune; Edward’s brothers, thedukes of Clarence and Gloucester, are shown on the rise, while Henry VI falls and is crushed. (Harley MS 7353 f. 2, BritishLibrary)

Warwick used the same technique against Ed-ward IV in 1469, when the earl and GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, issued amanifesto from Calais that denounced the fail-ings of Edward’s government and declared thecorrection of those evils their reason for tak-ing arms against the king. In 1470, when hereturned to England to overthrow Edward IV,Warwick distributed a propaganda tract enti-tled the MANNER AND GUIDING OF THE

EARL OF WARWICK AT ANGERS, which de-scribed and justified the earl’s conclusion ofthe ANGERS AGREEMENT with Margaret ofAnjou, thereby reassuring both Warwick’s sup-porters and longtime Lancastrians (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).

RICHARD III carefully staged the USUR-PATION OF 1483, using the BUTLER PRE-CONTRACT and Dr. SHAW’S SERMON tojustify to the people his seizure of EDWARD

V’s throne. In 1485, he issued proclamationsclaiming that Henry Tudor, earl of Rich-mond, was plotting to allow foreigners to in-vade and despoil the realm. After 1485, whenYorkists like John de la POLE, earl of Lincoln,led foreign MERCENARIES against HENRY

VII, they had to justify their actions against

Henry’s own antiforeign propaganda. Henryhighlighted the blessings of Tudor rule byusing various agents and media to blackenthe reputation of Richard III, a propagandaeffort that continues to affect Richard’simage to this day. Henry also fostered theubiquitous roses motif, that is, the blendingof the red and white roses, as a symbol of thepeace and unity conferred on England by thehouse of TUDOR, an image that eventuallylent itself to the naming of the fifteenth-cen-tury civil wars.

Further Reading: Allan, Alison,“YorkistPropaganda: Pedigree, Prophecy and the ‘BritishHistory’ in the Reign of Edward IV,” in CharlesRoss, ed., Patronage, Pedigree and Power n LaterMedieval England (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1979), pp. 171–192; Ross, Charles,“Rumour, Propaganda and Popular Opinionduring the Wars of the Roses,” in Ralph A.Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown and the Provincesin Later Medieval England (Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Humanities Press, 1981), pp. 15–32.

Protectorates of the Duke of York.See First Protectorate; SecondProtectorate

PROTECTORATES OF THE DUKE OF YORK 217

Radford, Nicholas (d. 1455)The murder of Nicholas Radford, a respectedDevonshire attorney, was the most notoriousepisode in the violent COURTENAY-BON-VILLE FEUD, which convulsed the West Coun-try in the 1450s and helped create the politicalalliances that initiated the WARS OF THE

ROSES.Although a councilor of William BON-

VILLE, Lord Bonville, the chief West Countryrival of Thomas COURTENAY, fifth earl ofDevon, Radford also had a long and appar-ently harmonious association with the Court-enay family. In 1423, when Devon was aminor, Radford was appointed surveyor andsteward of the earl’s lands. His oversight of theearldom must have been satisfactory, for Rad-ford stood as godfather to Devon’s son HenryCOURTENAY in about 1440, and served as afeoffee (i.e., trustee) with Devon for the landsof various Devonshire gentlemen, includingseveral Courtenay relatives.

In October 1455, Devon and his sonslaunched a series of attacks across the WestCountry against the supporters and propertiesof Bonville. Around midnight on 23 October,Thomas COURTENAY, the earl’s heir, led alarge body of men to Radford’s house. SettingRadford’s gate afire, the men called upon theattorney to come down. Learning that the in-truders were led by a Courtenay, from whomhe expected no harm, the elderly Radford ad-mitted the men, who then proceeded to ran-sack the house while Courtney engaged Rad-ford in conversation. So thorough was thesacking that Courtenay’s men did not neglectthe sheets upon the bed, which were obtainedby dumping Radford’s invalid wife onto thefloor. Courtenay then demanded that Radford

accompany him to his father at Tiverton,about six miles away. Radford agreed to come,but he was told he must walk the entire dis-tance, for Courtenay’s men had already drivenoff his horses.When the party had gone only ashort distance from the house, Courtenay de-parted, and six of his men set upon Radford,stabbing him and cutting his throat.

Days later, as Radford’s body was beingprepared for burial, a party led by HenryCourtenay, Radford’s godson, broke into thechamber and held a mock inquest over thecorpse, finding that the unfortunate Radfordhad died a suicide. They then dumped thenaked body into the grave and pelted it withstones until it was unrecognizable and there-fore useless for a proper inquest. The reasonsfor the Courtenays’ murderous hatred ofRadford are unclear, but they may have beenrelated to Radford’s recent successful repre-sentation of Bonville in a lawsuit againstDevon. The obviously premeditated murderand its outrageous aftermath shocked con-temporaries and won the Courtenays an evilreputation. In 1461, when Thomas Courte-nay, the sixth earl and leader of the Radfordmurder party, was executed after the Battle ofTOWTON, a correspondent of John Pastonwrote:“The Earl of Devonshire is dead justly”(Davis, 2, p. 230).

Further Reading: Cherry, Martin,“The Strugglefor Power in Mid-Fifteenth-Century Devonshire”in Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown andthe Provinces in Later Medieval England (AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp.123–144; Davis, Norman, ed., The Paston Lettersand Papers of the Fifteenth Century, 2 vols. (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1971, 1976); Storey, R. L.,The End of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999); for

219

R

a contemporary description of Radford’s death, seeWarrington, John, ed., The Paston Letters, vol. 1(New York: E. P. Dutton, 1956), pp. 110–111.

Ratcliffe, Sir Richard (d. 1485)In 1483, when RICHARD III usurped hisnephew’s throne and thereby reopened thecivil wars, Sir Richard Ratcliffe (or Radcliffe)became one of the new king’s most trustedadvisors.

Born into a Lancashire GENTRY family ofYorkist allegiance, Ratcliffe fought at the Bat-tle of TEWKESBURY in 1471 and wasknighted on the field by EDWARD IV. Sometime during the 1470s, Ratcliffe entered theservice of the king’s brother, Richard, duke ofGloucester, whom he accompanied on theScottish campaign of 1482. In June 1483,Gloucester sent Ratcliffe into the north toraise forces to support the duke’s forthcomingseizure of EDWARD V’s Crown. Having col-lected almost 5,000 men from Gloucester’sloyal northern following, Ratcliffe stopped atPontefract Castle, where, on about 25 June, hecarried out the duke’s orders to execute An-thony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers, and SirRichard Grey, the brother and son, respec-tively, of Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE. Forthis service, Gloucester, now king as RichardIII, made Ratcliffe a Knight of the Garter (aprestigious order of chivalry), a knight of thebody (a close personal servant), and sheriff ofWestmorland for life. Ratcliffe also receivedseveral other lucrative offices and lands worth£650 a year, a sum exceeded only by the landgrants made to John HOWARD, duke of Nor-folk; Henry PERCY, fourth earl of Northum-berland; and Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley,all noblemen whose support was vital to thenew regime.

Along with William CATESBY and FrancisLOVELL, Lord Lovell, Ratcliffe became widelyknown as a member of Richard’s inner circleof advisors. A popular satirical couplet of thetime declared that “The cat [Catesby], the rat[Ratcliffe], and Lovell our dog [Lovell’s em-blem], / Rule all England under a hog [refer-ring to Richard III’s white boar emblem].” In

March 1485, after the death of Queen AnneNEVILLE, Ratcliffe and Catesby told the kingthat he must publicly disavow any intention ofmarrying ELIZABETH OFYORK, Edward IV’seldest daughter.They argued that the marriagewould alienate even the king’s loyal northern-ers and would give substance to the rumorthat he had murdered his wife to have hisniece. Ratcliffe died the following Augustfighting for Richard III at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD. Ratcliffe’s lands wereconfiscated by HENRY VII, although the actof ATTAINDER passed against him in the firstPARLIAMENT of the new reign was reversedin 1495 at his son’s request.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRoses; Richard III, Northern Affinity of;Usurpation of 1483Further Reading: Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Readeption (1470–1471)Upon HENRY VI’s restoration to the throne,all letters, writs, and official records beganstyling the king’s regnal year as “the 49th yearof the reign of Henry VI and the first of hisreadeption to royal power” (Weir, p. 177). Be-cause of this formula, historians refer simply to“the Readeption” when describing the periodof restored Lancastrian government betweenOctober 1470 and April 1471.

In August 1470, the conclusion of theANGERS AGREEMENT between QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU and RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, created an alliancebetween the house of LANCASTER and sup-porters of the NEVILLE FAMILY that droveEDWARD IV and the house of YORK fromthe throne in October (see EDWARD IV,OVERTHROW OF). Upon entering LON-DON, Warwick and his ally, Edward IV’sbrother, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, removed Henry VI from captivity inthe TOWER OF LONDON and installed himwith great ceremony in the bishop’s palace,where he remained for the next six months asthe inert figurehead of a government con-trolled by Warwick. Taking the offices of

220 RATCLIFFE, SIR RICHARD

king’s lieutenant, chamberlain of England, andcaptain of CALAIS, Warwick appointed orreappointed all royal officials in Henry’s nameand issued summonses for a PARLIAMENT,which met in November.

The composition and acts of the Readep-tion Parliament are largely unknown becauseits records were destroyed by the Yorkists upontheir return to power. However, the assemblyattainted Edward IV and his brother, Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III), andreversed ATTAINDERS of Lancastrians passedunder Edward. Parliament also authorized thenegotiation of peace with FRANCE, and War-wick, in accordance with his compact withLOUIS XI, raised forces to support Louisagainst Duke CHARLES of BURGUNDY, ac-tions that convinced the duke to support Ed-ward, who had fled to Burgundy in October1470.

Distrusted by many Lancastrians, Warwickwas hampered by the failure of Queen Mar-garet and her son to leave France. Young andvigorous, Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER

might have given the Lancastrian cause greaterenergy and purpose. The Readeption govern-ment was also weakened by the anomalous po-sition of Clarence. Although the duke was ap-pointed lord lieutenant of IRELAND,Clarence’sloyalty to Warwick was effectively underminedby his mother, Cecily NEVILLE, duchess ofYork, and his sisters. When Edward returned inMarch, Clarence abandoned the earl.

The Readeption collapsed when EdwardIV defeated and killed Warwick at the Battleof BARNET on 14 April 1471, the very dayQueen Margaret and the prince landed in En-gland. Raising an army in the West Country,Margaret was defeated and her son was slain atthe Battle of TEWKESBURY on 4 May (seeEDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF). With theprince dead, Edward had Henry VI quietlymurdered in the Tower on 21 May, thus extin-guishing the male line of Lancaster (seeHENRY VI, MURDER OF). Queen Margaretremained a prisoner until 1475, when she wasransomed and returned to France by Louis XI.

Further Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981);Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981);Hicks, Michael, Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford:Blackwell Publishers, 1998); Ross, Charles, EdwardIV (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Weir, Alison, The Wars of the Roses (New York:Ballantine Books, 1995); Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI(London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

Rebellion of 1483. See Buckingham’sRebellion

Recruitment of Armies. See Armies,Recruitment of

Recueil des Croniques et AnchiennesIstories de la Grant Bretaigne, apresent nomme Engleterre (Waurin)Jean de Waurin’s Recueil des Croniques et Anchi-ennes Istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a presentnomme Engleterre (A Collection of the Chroniclesand Ancient Histories of Great Britain, NowCalled England) is a useful, if difficult, sourcefor the early stages of the WARS OF THE

ROSES and the first reign of EDWARD IV.Jean de Waurin (or Wavrin) (1395–1475)

was the natural son of a Burgundian nobleman,who, after being officially legitimized in 1437,entered the service of both Dukes PHILIP andCHARLES of BURGUNDY. Pro-English in hisoutlook, he visited England in 1467 to attendthe royal tournament fought at Smithfield byAnthony, Bastard of Burgundy (the natural sonof Duke Philip), and Edward IV’s brother-in-law, Anthony WOODVILLE, Lord Scales, Hewas also in CALAIS with Duke Charles in 1469for a meeting with Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick. Because Waurin’s chronicle of En-gland, Burgundy, and northwestern FRANCE

in the period 1461–1471 was likely writtenbetween 1465 and Waurin’s death in 1475, theRecueil is a nearly contemporary account of theevents it describes.

However, modern historians have seriouslyquestioned Waurin’s reliability. Although the

RECUEIL DES CRONIQUES ET ANCHIENNES ISTORIES DE LA GRANT BRETAIGNE 221

Recueil contains some unique informationabout English affairs, Waurin is often unclearas to the sources of his information. Like othercontinental writers about events in England,Waurin seems to have had access to some ofthe newsletters and other PROPAGANDA

pieces issued by the two sides in the Englishcivil war, such as Warwick’s MANNER AND

GUIDING OF THE EARL OF WARWICK AT

ANGERS, which described and justified the

earl’s conclusion of the ANGERS AGREE-MENT with Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

in 1470, and the Yorkist HISTORY OF THE

ARRIVAL OF EDWARD IV, which offeredEdward’s version of his successful campaign toregain the throne in 1471 (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF). Waurin’s uncritical re-liance on such obviously partisan sources, aswell as his often confused chronology, his ten-dency to create fictional speeches for his char-

222 RECUEIL DES CRONIQUES ET ANCHIENNES ISTORIES DE LA GRANT BRETAIGNE

Jean de Waurin presents a copy of his chronicles to Edward IV. The man wearing the garter in the right foreground is thoughtto be the king’s brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester (later Richard III). (Royal MS 15 E IV f. 14, British Library)

acters, and his imaginative reconstructions ofevents based on what he felt must have oc-curred, have led some scholars to dismiss theRecueil as worthless. However, other historiansmaintain that, when used with care, the Recueilis a useful source for many events in the 1460s.

Further Reading: Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Waurin, Jean, Recueil des Croniques et AnchiennesIstories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nommeEngleterre, 5 vols., edited and translated by SirWilliam Hardy (London: Longman, Green, andRoberts, 1864–1891).

RetainersIn the social system known as BASTARD FEU-DALISM, members of the PEERAGE and GEN-TRY recruited sworn followers known as re-tainers to provide a particular type of servicein return for monetary fees or the exercise ofthe lord’s influence on their behalf.

Retainers often bound themselves to a lordby a written contact known as an indenture ofretainer, which normally specified the type ofservice to be provided and the amount of thefees or wages to be paid. The indenture was sonamed because it was cut along an indentedline to allow a matching portion to be givento each party to the contract. Although retain-ers summoned to arms as part of a great mag-nate’s AFFINITY formed the core of manycivil war armies, most retainers supplied non-military service, functioning as domestic ser-vants, household officers, legal advisors, andestate agents. Although most retainers were li-able for military service in times of need, asoccurred frequently during the WARS OF

THE ROSES, large numbers of exclusivelymilitary retainers were often hastily recruitedwhen a campaign or battle was imminent (seeARMIES, RECRUITMENT OF). For suchemergencies, a magnate also usually had anumber of “well-willers,” men not under for-mal indenture but who had enjoyed the lord’sfavor and influence and who could be ap-proached for military service. To clearly pro-claim a retainer’s allegiance, especially in bat-tle, a nobleman often supplied his retainers

with a special livery (i.e., uniform) or with hispersonal or family BADGE. For instance, in thepoem, THE SONG OF LADY BESSY, the re-tainers of Sir William STANLEY are describedas wearing coats “as red as any blood” onwhich they displayed Stanley’s hart’s headbadge (Boardman, p. 66).

The king also retained men for varioustypes of service; Sir Thomas Montgomery wasgiven a livery of crimson cloth of gold to dis-tinguish him as one of EDWARD IV’s knightsof the body (a royal bodyguard). Wearing theking’s white boar badge, RICHARD III’s ret-inue of household knights charged with himinto the heart of the enemy force at the Battleof BOSWORTH FIELD. All indentures con-tained a provision that declared the retainer’sallegiance to the king superior to his alle-giance to the contracting lord. However, theWars of the Roses, being a civil conflict,forced many retainers to make difficult choicesbetween serving their lord, whose family mayhave long held the allegiance of the retainer’sfamily, and serving the king the lord op-posed—a dilemma that faced many retainersof Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York,when the duke openly challenged HENRY VIin 1460. A man could also be retained by twolords, a circumstance that created further diffi-culties when one lord supported the house ofLANCASTER and the other the house ofYORK.

Throughout the fifteenth century, PARLIA-MENT enacted numerous anti-retaining stat-utes in an effort to curb the abusive use ofarmed retainers to conduct local feuds, attackpolitical rivals, intimidate judges and juries (apractice known as embracery), and generallycause disorder and mayhem. Edward IV’sstatute of 1468 tried to define who could beretained and for what purposes, and HENRY

VII’s law of 1504 prohibited retaining withoutroyal license. Neither statute was entirely suc-cessful because kings continued to rely ontheir own and their nobles’ retainers to formthe armies they required to fight foreign warsand suppress internal rebellions.As a result, thepractice of retaining remained in use well intothe sixteenth century.

RETAINERS 223

See also Livery and Maintenance; Retaining, ActsAgainstFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);Hicks, Michael, Bastard Feudalism (London:Longman, 1995); Hicks, Michael,“Lord Hastings’Indentured Retainers?” in Richard III and HisRivals: Magnates and Their Motives in the Wars of theRoses (London: Hambledon Press, 1991); Rowney,I.,“Resources and Retaining in Yorkist England:William, Lord Hastings, and the Honour ofTutbury,” in A. J. Pollard, ed., Property and Politics:Essays in Later Medieval English History (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1984).

Retaining, Acts againstThe heart of the social system known as BAS-TARD FEUDALISM was the creation by mem-bers of the PEERAGE and GENTRY of anAFFINITY of sworn RETAINERS who in-dented (contracted) for life to support theirlord in war and peace in return for money andthe exercise of the lord’s influence in their be-half. This system not only enabled powerfulmagnates to summon bands of armed support-ers for WARS OF THE ROSES armies, it alsoallowed them to feud with their rivals and todisrupt the order and administration of theirlocalities. Concerned by what they perceivedto be a high level of violence and disorderarising from the unchecked recruitment of re-tainers, fifteenth-century kings and PARLIA-MENTS enacted various statutes to control thepractice.

Because they relied on the system to raiselarge portions of their own military forces,neither EDWARD IV nor HENRY VIIwanted to abolish retaining. They soughtonly to secure the benefits of the system tothemselves, while repressing their subjects’ability to use the system for private purposesthat disrupted public order and corruptedroyal justice. Because kings sought both tocontinue retaining themselves and to curb re-taining by their nobles, anti-retaining statutestended to be vague and difficult to enforce,leaving the manner of their application to thediscretion of the monarch and the circum-stances of particular cases.

Attempts to limit retaining had been under-taken long before the outbreak of the Wars ofthe Roses. A statute passed in 1390 during thereign of Richard II prohibited retaining by any-one other than a nobleman, although enforce-ment of the act was virtually nonexistent by themid-fifteenth century. In 1467, the House ofCommons asked Edward IV to take strong ac-tion to combat the rise in murders, riots, andother disorders that seemed to be occurringthroughout the kingdom. The resulting statute,enacted by Parliament in 1468, limited retainersto menial servants, household officers, and legaladvisors. However, the act’s definitions of whatconstituted legal retaining were vague, and con-tinuing outrages moved the Parliament of 1472to request the king to tighten enforcement ofthe statute and issue a proclamation reiteratingthe penalties prescribed under it for illegal re-taining and abuses of LIVERY AND MAINTE-NANCE. In the last session of Edward’s reign in1483, Parliament again asked for more vigorousenforcement of the 1468 act.

In 1486, after the Crown passed from thehouse of YORK to the house of TUDOR, thenew monarch, Henry VII, persuaded the lordsand commons in Parliament to take an oath torefrain from illegally retaining or being re-tained. Henry also used acts of ATTAINDER

and an unprecedentedly extensive system ofbonds and recognizances to bring magnatesunder royal control. (Recognizances weresums of money pledged as security for loyalservice or for performance of a certain act;disloyalty or failure to perform brought thesum due and left the nobleman indebted tothe Crown.) De Retentionibus Illicitis (1504),the major anti-retaining statute enacted underHenry VII, prohibited retaining without aroyal license, but it lapsed at the king’s death in1509. Under Henry VIII, the regulation of re-taining again followed the provisions of the1468 act, with the Crown forbidding or li-censing retaining on a case-by-case basis.

Further Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Hicks, Michael, Bastard Feudalism (London:Longman, 1995); Ross, Charles, Edward IV (NewHaven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998).

224 RETAINING, ACTS AGAINST

Rhys ap Thomas (1449–1525)The leader of an influential Welsh family,Rhys ap Thomas provided vital support toHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY

VII), during his campaign to overthrowRICHARD III in 1485.

The son of THOMAS AP GRUFFYDD, aloyal adherent of the house of LANCASTER,Rhys spent the late 1460s in exile in BUR-GUNDY with his father. After the deaths of hisfather and elder brothers in the early 1470s,Rhys became head of his family. Althoughshorn of the influence his grandfather hadonce exercised across southwestern WALES,Rhys made peace with EDWARD IV and re-mained an important figure in Welsh affairsthroughout the 1470s. After Edward’s death in1483, Richard III placed the government ofWales in the hands of his ally, HenrySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, an impor-tant landowner in Wales and the marches (i.e.,the Welsh borderlands). When Buckinghambetrayed Richard that autumn, Rhys declinedto join BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION, proba-bly because he saw the duke’s unprecedentedauthority as a threat to his family’s position.

Because Richmond, the remaining Lancas-trian heir, was of Welsh blood, Richard begancultivating support in Wales in 1484. Unableto find many loyal Yorkists in southwesternWales, Richard courted former Lancastrians,such as Rhys, who received an annuity fromthe king in February 1484. The grant was thefirst important mark of favor bestowed onRhys’s family by the house of YORK in overtwo decades. To ensure Rhys’s loyalty, Richarddemanded that he swear an oath of fidelityand hand over his only son as a hostage. Rhysdeclared himself willing to take the oath, buthe begged the king to reconsider the hostagedemand. The boy seems never to have beensurrendered, but the threat to his heir probablyweakened Rhys’s attachment to Richard. By1485, Rhys was being recruited by Rich-mond’s agents. Although Rhys replied favor-ably to Richmond’s request, he did not jointhe earl when he landed in Wales in August,and rumors swept Richmond’s army thatRhys was hostile. In fact, Rhys did nothing,

shadowing Richmond’s force but neitherhelping nor hindering his march across Wales.Although Rhys’s apparent indecision causedRichmond some anxious moments, it wasprobably a scheme to convince the king thatRhys intended to attack the invaders beforethey reached England. If this was his plan, itworked, for Richard, hearing of the landingon 11 August, did not march until 15 August,when he fell into a rage upon learning thatRichmond had crossed Wales unopposed.

About 13 August, Rhys openly joinedRichmond, who promised to appoint Rhyslieutenant in Wales. According to THE SONG

OF LADY BESSY, Rhys brought “eight thou-sand spears” into Richmond’s camp, whileTHE ROSE OF ENGLAND says that Rhysdrew “Wales with him” (Evans, p. 132). Al-though both claims are likely exaggerated,Rhys clearly brought a welcome and consid-erable addition to Richmond’s strength. Rhysdistinguished himself in Richmond’s service atthe Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD on 22 Au-gust and is one of several men who were latersaid to have struck the blow that killed theking. Although this claim cannot be substanti-ated, a Welsh poem states that Rhys “killed theboar [Richard’s badge], destroyed his head,”and the Burgundian writer Jean Molinet de-clared that a Welshman struck the fatal blow(Griffiths, p. 43).

Knighted three days after Bosworth, SirRhys was well rewarded for his service. Underthe king’s uncle, Jasper TUDOR, duke of Bed-ford, Sir Rhys served as king’s deputy in SouthWales, and became justiciar of the region afterBedford’s death in 1495. He helped suppressthe Yorkist uprisings in 1486 and foughtagainst the Lambert SIMNEL rebels at the Battle of STOKE in 1487 (see LOVELL-STAFFORD UPRISING). A royal councilorand a member of the king’s household, SirRhys fought against the Cornish rebels atBlackheath in 1497 and later that year againstPerkin WARBECK in the West Country. Apersonal friend of the king’s, Sir Rhys was en-trusted with building a new tomb in Wales forHenry’s father, Edmund TUDOR, earl ofRichmond. In 1505, Sir Rhys was elected a

RHYS AP THOMAS 225

Knight of the Garter. After Henry’s death in1509, Sir Rhys continued to serve the houseof TUDOR until his death in 1525.

Further Reading: Evans, H. T., Wales and theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995); Griffiths, Ralph A.,Sir Rhys ap Thomas and His Family (Cardiff, UK:University of Wales Press, 1993).

Richard, Duke of York. SeePlantagenet, Richard, Duke of York(1411–1460); Plantagenet, Richard, Dukeof York (1473–c. 1483)

Richard II, Deposition of (1399)In the sixteenth century, William SHAKE-SPEARE and his contemporaries, concernedwith the uncertain succession of the house ofTUDOR, viewed the deposition of Richard IIin 1399 as the cause and starting point of theWARS OF THE ROSES.

In late June 1399, Henry of Bolingbroke,duke of Lancaster, returned to England fromcontinental exile to claim his late father’s ex-tensive estates, an inheritance of which he hadbeen deprived by his cousin Richard II (r.1377–1399). Nervous about the king’s will-ingness to abrogate the property rights of asubject, and angered by a series of high-handed and arbitrary royal actions, the Englishruling classes quickly abandoned the childlessking in favor of his Lancastrian kinsman. On29 September, Richard II, a prisoner in theTOWER OF LONDON, reluctantly bowed topressure and resigned his Crown to his cousin.When this action was confirmed next day byPARLIAMENT, Richard ceased to be king, andthe throne passed to Henry IV (r. 1399–1413),first king of the house of LANCASTER.

The Lancastrian usurpation, although ap-proved at the time by the political elite of therealm, bypassed the line of legal succession. In1399, Richard II’s heir was Edmund Mor-timer, the eight-year-old earl of March(1391–1425), the grandson of his cousinPhilippa (1355–1381), only child of Lionel,duke of Clarence (1338–1368), second son of

Edward III (r. 1327–1377). Henry IV, the newking, was the eldest son of John of Gaunt,duke of Lancaster (1340–1399), third son ofEdward III. Within months of Henry’s acces-sion, disgruntled former supporters were dis-puting his right to the throne. Chief amongthese opponents were Sir Henry Percy(known as Hotspur, 1361–1403), who wasmarried to March’s aunt, and Sir EdmundMortimer (1376–1409), March’s uncle. HenryIV survived a series of pro-Mortimer uprisingsin the early years of his reign and successfullypassed his Crown to his son, Henry V (r.1413–1422). The second Lancastrian king se-cured the dynasty by reopening the HUN-DRED YEARS WAR, crushing the French atthe Battle of Agincourt in 1415, and conquer-ing much of northern FRANCE, actions thatmade the king and his family a focus of na-tional pride. When March died childless in1425, his family’s claim to the throne, whichpassed to his sister’s fourteen-year-old son,Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, wasvirtually forgotten.

It only revived in 1460, when York, afterstriving unsuccessfully for years to control thegovernment of the incompetent HENRY VI,the third Lancastrian monarch, laid the houseof YORK’s claim to the Crown before Parlia-ment. York’s action, which led in 1461 to hisson’s coronation as EDWARD IV, turned thepolitical rivalries of the 1450s into the inter-mittent dynastic wars of the following threedecades. When HENRY VII established theTudor dynasty on the throne in 1485, his pro-pagandists stressed the horrors of the dynasticwarfare from which the new king had rescuedEngland (see PROPAGANDA). Sixteenth-cen-tury Englishmen, most notably represented byShakespeare in his history plays, traced theroot of these horrors to the 1399 disruption inthe natural line of succession. Although mostmodern historians reject this view, finding theorigins of the wars in Henry VI’s inability tofunction effectively as king and in the localfeuds and national ambitions of wealthy andmilitarily powerful noblemen, the depositionof Richard II is still sometimes taken as thestart of the Wars of the Roses.

226 RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

Prior to his formal deposition, Richard II is confined in the Tower of London by his cousin Henry of Bolingbroke, the futureHenry IV. (Harley MS 4380 f. 181, British Library)

Further Reading: Bennett, Michael, Richard IIand the Revolution of 1399 (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999);Saul, Nigel, Richard II (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1997); Strohm, Paul, England’sEmpty Throne: Usurpation and the Language ofLegitimation, 1399–1422 (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); the text of WilliamShakespeare’s play Richard II can be found onlineat <http://shakespeare.about.com/arts/shakespeare/library/blrichardiiscenes.htm>.

Richard III, King of England(1452–1485)Richard III, the last king of the houses ofYORK and PLANTAGENET, is the most con-troversial monarch in English history. By de-posing and then perhaps murdering hisnephew, Richard revived the WARS OF THE

ROSES, thereby destroying himself and his dy-nasty and making possible the rule of thehouse of TUDOR.

Born on 2 October 1452, Richard was theyoungest son of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, and his wife, Cecily NEVILLE.In October 1459, following his father’s flightfrom the field of LUDFORD BRIDGE, seven-year-old Richard, along with his mother andelder brother, George PLANTAGENET, fellinto the custody of HENRYVI, who entrustedthem to the duchess’s sister. They regainedtheir freedom in July 1460 after the king wascaptured by the Yorkists at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON. In September, the duchessbrought the boys to LONDON, where PAR-LIAMENT answered York’s demand for theCrown by enacting the compromise Act ofACCORD, which made the duke heir toHenry VI. Following York’s death at the Battleof WAKEFIELD in December and the Yorkistdefeat at the Battle of ST.ALBANS in February1461, Cecily sent Richard and George tosafety in BURGUNDY. However, both wererecalled to England in April, only weeks aftertheir eldest brother won the Battle of TOW-TON and thereby secured the throne as ED-WARD IV.

At Edward’s coronation in June 1461,Richard was created duke of Gloucester and

his brother George duke of Clarence. Al-though only nine, Gloucester was given liberalgrants of land and office, including appoint-ment as lord admiral. In 1469, when RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, convincedClarence to join a coup against Edward,Gloucester remained loyal to his brother andwas rewarded with a lifetime appointment asconstable of England. In August 1470, after thefailure of a second rebellion drove Warwickand Clarence from the realm, Gloucester’scontinued loyalty earned him further rewards,including offices traditionally held by theNEVILLE FAMILY. When the rebel magnatesreturned in October and forced the king toflee, Gloucester was one of a handful of sup-porters who accompanied Edward to exile inBurgundy (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). Returning to England with Edward inMarch 1471, Gloucester, now eighteen, com-manded the van of the Yorkist army at theBattle of BARNET, where Warwick was slain,and at the Battle of TEWKESBURY, wherePrince EDWARD OF LANCASTER died (seeEDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF). Althoughvarious reports claimed that Gloucester helpedkill the prince and later murdered Henry VI inthe TOWER OF LONDON, the former seemsto have fallen during the fighting, and the lat-ter was almost certainly slain on the orders ofEdward IV (see HENRY VI, MURDER OF).Gloucester’s direct involvement in eitherdeath, though possible, cannot now be proven.

In the 1470s, Gloucester continued to ren-der loyal service to his brother, who continuedto reward the duke with lands and offices, es-pecially in the north. Marriage to AnneNEVILLE,Warwick’s younger daughter, entan-gled Gloucester in a bitter dispute withClarence, who was married to Isabel NE-VILLE, the elder sister, over division of the lateearl’s lands (see NEVILLE INHERITANCE

DISPUTE). Settlement of the quarrel requiredroyal intervention, but it left Gloucester heirto the Neville influence in the north, wherethe duke resided after 1475 (see NORTH OF

ENGLAND AND THE WARS OF THE

ROSES). By 1480, thanks to his Neville con-nections, his brother’s support, and his own

228 RICHARD III, KING OF ENGLAND

abilities, Gloucester had constructed a loyaland extensive AFFINITY in the north, whichhe governed on Edward’s behalf.This networkof northern RETAINERS proved both a bless-ing and curse after Gloucester became king in1483 (see RICHARD III, NORTHERN

AFFINITY OF).In 1475, Gloucester participated in Ed-

ward’s invasion of FRANCE. Disapproving ofhis brother’s decision to eschew military gloryin favor of a French pension, Gloucester ab-sented himself from the signing of the Treatyof Picquigny. In the early 1480s, Gloucesterimplemented Edward’s militant policy towardSCOTLAND. The duke’s several campaignsagainst the Scots recovered BERWICK, butotherwise they achieved little and cost much,and have led later writers to question his abil-ity as a military commander. He was also sus-pected of encouraging the king to eliminatethe troublesome Clarence, although no evi-dence exists to link Gloucester directly to theduke’s ATTAINDER and execution in 1478.

The king was likely the driving force behindClarence’s destruction, and Gloucester’s acqui-escence—whether eager or reluctant—cameonly at Edward’s bidding (see CLARENCE,EXECUTION OF).

When Edward IV died on 9 April 1483,Gloucester was in the north. Although he im-mediately swore allegiance to his nephew, ED-WARDV, the duke was suspicious of his sister-in-law, Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE, and ofthe ambitious WOODVILLE FAMILY, aroundwhom an extensive political interest hadformed in the 1470s. Supported by WilliamHASTINGS, Lord Hastings, and other royalservants who feared that the Woodvilles meantto use their influence with Edward to controlthe government, Gloucester seized the king,arrested Anthony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers,and frightened the queen into taking SANC-TUARY at Westminster. In June, when Hast-ings and others began to mistrust Gloucester’sintentions, the duke, who had been namedlord protector, executed Hastings and securedcustody of the king’s brother, Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York (see COUNCIL

MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483). Having atsome point concluded that his best interestsrequired him to take the throne, Gloucester,assisted by Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buck-ingham, launched a PROPAGANDA campaignto discredit his nephews’ right to the Crownand to advance his own claim (see BUTLER

PRECONTRACT; SHAW’S SERMON; TITU-LUS REGIUS; USURPATION OF 1483). Al-though Gloucester won enough support inLondon to have himself crowned king asRichard III on 6 July, the usurpation, whichwas almost immediately followed by rumorsthat Edward V and York had been murdered inthe Tower, drove many Yorkists to join formerLancastrians in seeking to overthrow Richardin favor of Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond(see HENRY VII), the last heir of the house ofLANCASTER.

Never able to overcome the oppositiongenerated by the usurpation, Richard’s regimewas always narrowly based and threatened bybetrayal and indifference among the PEERAGE

and GENTRY. After the failure of BUCKING-

RICHARD III, KING OF ENGLAND 229

Richard III, brother of Edward IV, deposed his nephewEdward V in June 1483. (National Portrait Gallery: NPG148)

HAM’S REBELLION—so-called because ofthe involvement in it of Richard’s former allyBuckingham—many southern gentlemen ei-ther fled to Richmond in BRITTANY or be-came too untrustworthy for further employ-ment. Forced to intrude his northernsupporters into the leadership of southerncounties, Richard reaped further ill will,which only intensified the condemnation andmistrust arising from his silence regarding thedisappearance of the PRINCES IN THE

TOWER. The death of his son in 1484 and ofhis queen in 1485 further weakened the king’sposition and led to damaging rumors, whichRichard had to personally disavow, that he in-tended to marry his niece, ELIZABETH OF

YORK. Accused of tyranny and suspected ofmurder, the king confronted Richmond atBOSWORTH FIELD on 22 August 1485. Al-though Richard commanded the larger force,the defection of Thomas STANLEY, LordStanley, and his brother Sir William STANLEY,combined with the lukewarm adherence ofother lords, such as Henry PERCY, earl ofNorthumberland, led to the king’s defeat anddeath.

After Bosworth, the continuing mystery sur-rounding the fate of the princes, as well as thenew dynasty’s need to justify itself through themisdeeds of its predecessors, fostered the writingof a series of works that progressively blackenedthe reputation of Richard III (see ANGLICA

HISTORIA; HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III;UNION OFTHETWO NOBLE AND ILLUSTRI-OUS FAMILIES OF LANCASTER AND YORK).Culminating in William Shakespeare’s brilliantplay, RICHARD III, and answered later by manypassionate defenses of Richard and his actions,these writings created a controversy that contin-ues unabated to this day.

See also: Richard III, Historical Views ofFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Richard III:The Man behind the Myth (London: Collins andBrown, 1991); Horrox, Rosemary, Richard III:AStudy in Service (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991); Kendall, Paul Murray,Richard the Third (New York: W. W. Norton, 1956);Potter, Jeremy, Good King Richard? An Account ofRichard III and His Reputation (London: Constable,1994); Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1981); see also theRichard III Society Web site at <http://www.r3.org> for a variety of sources and materialsrelating to Richard III and his reign.

Richard III, Historical Views ofRICHARD III is the most controversial rulerin English history. In the five centuries sincehis death, he has been condemned as a tyrantand murderer and praised as a good and strongking. Few of the many studies of Richard thathave appeared since 1485 take a moderate po-sition on his character and actions. For morethan a century after the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD, the last king of the house of PLANTA-GENET was vilified by historians and chroni-clers writing under the rule of HENRY VIIand his descendants. In the 1590s, this vilifica-tion was given its most memorable form byWilliam Shakespeare, whose play RICHARD

III turned the king into one of the great vil-lains of English literature. However, after theend of the house of TUDOR in 1603, a seriesof increasingly vigorous defenses of Richardwere published, and in the twentieth century,growing numbers of defenders and detractorspresented their views of Richard in a varietyof print and nonprint formats.

The only strictly contemporary account ofRichard is Dominic Mancini’s USURPATION

OF RICHARD III, a critical description of theUSURPATION OF 1483 written before theend of that year by an Italian visitor to En-gland. A near-contemporary account ofRichard’s entire reign is the so-called secondcontinuation of the CROYLAND CHRONI-CLE, which was probably completed in 1486.Although generally hostile to Richard, whomhe viewed as a deceitful tyrant, the anonymouschronicler was particularly outraged byRichard’s intrusion of northern men into theadministration of southern counties (seeRICHARD III, NORTHERN AFFINITY OF).

The raw material for the classic Shake-spearean portrait of a physically deformedking who murdered his way to the throne wasdeveloped in the sixteenth century by a seriesof writers and chroniclers. Although neither

230 RICHARD III, HISTORICAL VIEWS OF

Henry VII nor Henry VIII formally encour-aged the writing of anti-Richard PROPA-GANDA, both fostered the view that the acces-sion of the house of Tudor rescued Englandfrom the disorder of the WARS OF THE

ROSES and the tyranny of Richard III. Ac-cepting this official view of the recent past,and drawing upon the memories of old oppo-nents of Richard at the Tudor COURT, writ-ers like Polydore Vergil in his ANGLICA HIS-TORIA and Sir Thomas More in his HISTORY

OF KING RICHARD III proclaimed Richard’sambition and ruthlessness, described his physi-cal deformities, and listed his many victims.The antiquary John ROUS, writing in the1490s, contributed some of the coarser ele-ments of the portrait, claiming that Richardwas two years in his mother’s womb andemerged at birth with teeth and shoulder-length hair. In his UNION OF THE TWO

NOBLE AND ILLUSTRIOUS FAMILIES OF

LANCASTER AND YORK, the chronicler Ed-ward Hall based his depiction of Richard onVergil and More, but he so blackened theirportrayals as to create a king who foreshad-owed Shakespeare’s evil monster.

When the later Tudor chroniclers RichardGrafton and Raphael Holinshed incorporatedHall’s Richard into their works, they transmit-ted the accounts of Vergil and More to Shake-speare, who used their chronicles as sources forhis enormously influential play, Richard III (seeSHAKESPEARE AND THE WARS OF THE

ROSES). However, even in the Elizabethan pe-riod, historians like William Camden and JohnStow quietly suggested that Richard’s role inthe deaths of EDWARDV and Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, was uncertain. Thefirst full-scale defense of Richard was writtenin 1619 by Sir George Buck, Master of Revelsto James I. In his History of King Richard theThird, Buck praised the king for his courageand justice, declared all charges against him tobe unproven, and condemned the Tudor his-torical tradition for maligning an innocentman. Although the seventeenth and eigh-teenth centuries saw other writers take upRichard’s cause, the Tudor/Shakespeareanimage of the king continued to dominate. In

1768, however, Horace Walpole published hisHistoric Doubts on the Life and Reign of RichardIII, in which he convincingly exposed manyof the weaknesses and inconsistencies of thetraditional depiction, argued that many ofRichard’s supposed crimes were contrary tohis own best interests, and attempted (ratherless convincingly) to shift blame to Henry VII.

The nineteenth century witnessed roman-tic portrayals of Richard, such as CarolineHalsted’s Richard III as Duke of Gloucester andKing of England, which absolves the king ofvirtually all crimes and borders on hagiogra-phy, and the scholarship of prominent Victo-rian historians such as John Richard Green,William Stubbs, and James Gairdner, wholargely accepted the Tudor portrait. In thetwentieth century, the debate assumed a vari-ety of new forms. In the 1920s (Britain) and1930s (United States), the forerunners of theRichard III Society, organizations dedicated toresearching and reassessing Richard’s role inEnglish history, were organized. In 1984, Lon-don Weekend Television staged a mock trial inwhich a jury found Richard not guilty ofmurdering his nephews. Since the 1960s,many fictional works sympathetic to Richard,such as Sharon Kay Penman’s The Sunne inSplendour (1982), have been published. On theother side, historian A. L. Rowse in hisBosworth Field (1966) compared Richard toAdolf Hitler, while Desmond Seward in hisRichard III: England’s Black Legend (1984) pro-claimed the Tudor view of the villainous kingto be entirely credible. Although many of themore spectacular elements of the Tudor tradi-tion have been largely refuted, and the pro-Richard position has won much popular sym-pathy, many historians still find Richardresponsible for the deaths of the PRINCES IN

THE TOWER.

Further Reading: Buck, Sir George, The Historyof King Richard III, edited by A. N. Kincaid (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1982);Dockray, Keith, Richard III:A Source Book (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1997);Gairdner, James, History of the Life and Reign ofRichard the Third, 2d ed. (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1898); Green, J. R., A Short Historyof the English People (London, 1874); Halsted,

RICHARD III, HISTORICAL VIEWS OF 231

Caroline A., Richard III as Duke of Gloucester andKing of England, 2 vols. (London, 1844; reprintedStroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1977); Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Rowse,A. L.,Bosworth Field: From Medieval to Tudor England(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966); Seward,Desmond, Richard III: England’s Black Legend (NewYork: Franklin Watts, 1984); Stubbs,William, TheConstitutional History of England, 3 vols. (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1878);Walpole, Horace,Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III,edited by P.W. Hammond (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1987); see also the RichardIII Society Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts> for excerpts of many of thepublications mentioned in this entry.

Richard III, Northern Affinity ofIn the autumn of 1483, many gentlemen ofthe southern and western shires joinedBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION, an ultimatelyunsuccessful effort to overthrow RICHARD

III in favor of Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond(see HENRYVII). Because most of these rebelseither joined Richmond in exile in BRIT-TANY or were henceforth denied public em-ployment by Richard, the king had few politi-cally reliable men to whom he could entrustimportant military and administrative posts insouthern and southwestern England. This lackof southern support left Richard heavily de-pendent on his northern RETAINERS and ser-vants, men who had helped him govern thenorth in the 1470s when he was duke ofGloucester. By intruding members of hisnorthern AFFINITY into positions of powerand influence in the south, Richard may havefurther alienated the southern GENTRY andthereby increased the political instability thatfostered renewal of the WARS OF THE

ROSES.The PARLIAMENT of January 1484 passed

bills of ATTAINDER against 104 persons whohad been implicated in the recent uprising.Al-though one-third of these men were eventu-ally pardoned and restored to their estates, thecontinuing threat of an invasion by Richmondmeant most of them could no longer betrusted to hold official positions in their coun-

ties. Within weeks of the end of the rebellion,northerners entered the southern counties ascommissioners charged with arresting rebelsand seizing their lands and property. Beforethe end of November, Richard signaled hisunwillingness to trust the southern gentry byappointing numerous northerners to offices inthe southern shires, such as Edward Redmanof Yorkshire, who became sheriff of Somersetand Devon; John Musgrave of Cumberland,who became sheriff of Wiltshire; and RobertBRACKENBURY of Durham, who becamesheriff of Kent. When the redistribution offorfeited lands began after the parliamentarysession, northerners reaped rich rewards, espe-cially in the southwestern counties. SirRichard RATCLIFFE, one of the king’s mostloyal northern supporters, as well as twoprominent members of the northern PEER-AGE, Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley, andHenry PERCY, fourth earl of Northumber-land, received extensive estates in Somerset,Wiltshire, Devon, and Cornwall. Other north-ern men were named to southern commis-sions of the peace and to other local offices,thus giving them administrative control ofareas in which they and their families wereotherwise unknown.

These appointments intruded outsidersinto tight-knit shire communities that con-sisted of long-established gentry families whowere linked by blood, marriage, history, and aset of shared interests. Strongly parochial andresentful of outside interference, southern andsouthwestern gentry families looked upon thenortherners suddenly thrust into authorityover them almost as foreign occupiers whohad seized the offices and influence that theybelieved were theirs by right. As the writer ofthe CROYLAND CHRONICLE lamented,Richard III distributed southern lands and of-fices “among his northern adherents, whomhe planted . . . throughout his dominions, tothe disgrace and loudly expressed sorrow of allthe people of the south, who daily longed . . .for the . . . return of their ancient rulers, ratherthan the present tyranny of these people”(Ross, p. 123). Although the Croyland chroni-cler was notoriously distrustful of northerners

232 RICHARD III, NORTHERN AFFINITY OF

and may therefore have exaggerated the extentof northern intrusion into the south, the ap-pointments clearly hurt Richard’s standing insouthern England, especially when combinedwith the growing rumors that he had orderedthe deaths of his nephews, EDWARD V andRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York.At theBattle of BOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, manyleaders of the southern gentry fought forRichmond, and almost none for Richard III.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Dockray, Keith,“The PoliticalLegacy of Richard III in Northern England,” inRalph A. Griffiths and James Sherborne, eds.,Kings and Nobles in the Later Middle Ages (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1986), pp. 205–227;Horrox, Rosemary, Richard III:A Study in Service(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Richard III (Shakespeare)Written probably in late 1591, Richard III isthe final component in William Shakespeare’stetralogy (i.e., four-play cycle) depicting theWARS OF THE ROSES. Because of its power-fully drawn central character, Richard III isamong the most popular of Shakespeare’splays, and this popularity has allowed the play-wright’s striking depiction of the villainousking to become the dominant popular imageof the historical RICHARD III.

Based largely upon Edward Hall’s chronicle,THE UNION OF THE TWO NOBLE AND IL-LUSTRIOUS FAMILIES OF LANCASTER AND

YORK, the play ultimately relies upon Hall’schief source, Sir Thomas More’s HISTORY OF

KING RICHARD III, for much of its portrayalof the last king of the houses of YORK andPLANTAGENET. Concluding with Richard’sdefeat and death at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD, the play completes the main theme ofthe tetralogy, which is that the suffering andcivil war brought upon England by the houseof LANCASTER’s usurpation of the throne in1399 and intensified by Richard III’s murder-ous seizure of the Crown in 1483 were happilyended by the accession of the house of

TUDOR (see RICHARD II, DEPOSITION

OF). By magnifying Richard’s capacity for evil,and by giving the king a witty enthusiasm forthe commission of crime, Shakespeare makesRichard the perfect contrast to his virtuousTudor successor, HENRY VII. Although hiswicked king is based on an image of RichardIII created a century earlier by Tudor PROPA-GANDA, Shakespeare sharpens the villainy hefound in More and other sources to serve thedramatic purposes of his work.

To illustrate the king’s evil nature, Shake-speare gives Richard a hunched back, a detailtaken from More. Shakespeare also makesRichard responsible for a host of deaths, in-cluding, in the earlier plays of the cycle, thoseof Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset;HENRY VI; and (with his brothers) EDWARD

OF LANCASTER, Prince of Wales. In RichardIII, Shakespeare has Richard arrange the mur-ders of his brother, George PLANTAGENET,duke of Clarence; his wife, Anne NEVILLE

(whose killing by Richard is implied); and hisnephews, EDWARD V and Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York. Clearly innocent ofSomerset’s death, which occurred in 1455 atthe Battle of ST. ALBANS when Richard wasonly two, the king has also been absolved ofeach of the other deaths by at least some mod-ern scholars, and his physical deformity hasbeen rejected by many. While most historiansnow accept that Richard ordered the murdersof his nephews, the fate of EDWARD IV’s sonsremains highly controversial, and many otherpossible culprits have been suggested. How-ever, wherever they stand on the question ofthe PRINCES IN THE TOWER, almost allmodern writers accept that Shakespeare’sRichard III is a highly distorted and inaccurateview of the historical monarch.

See also Henry VI, Part 1; Henry VI, Part 2; HenryVI, Part 3; Richard III, Historical Views of;Shakespeare and the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Norwich, John Julius,Shakespeare’s Kings (New York: Scribner, 1999);Saccio, Peter, Shakespeare’s English Kings, 2d ed.(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); the textof Richard III can be found online at<http://shakespeare.about.com/arts/shakespeare/library/blrichardiiiscenes.htm>.

RICHARD III 233

Richmond, Countess of. See Beaufort,Margaret, Countess of Richmond andDerby

Richmond, Earl of. See Henry VII;Tudor, Edmund, Earl of Richmond

Rivers, Earl. See entries underWoodville

Robin of Holderness Rebellion (1469)Occurring in Yorkshire in May 1569, in thesame county and at about the same time as theROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION, theRobin of Holderness uprising contributed tothe disorder that allowed Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, to launch his first coupagainst EDWARD IV.

According to Polydore Vergil’s ANGLICA

HISTORIA, the Robin of Holderness Rebel-lion was an armed protest against a tax leviedon the landholders of northern England by theHospital of St. Leonard in York. The hospitalclaimed a thrave (i.e., twenty-four sheaves ofgrain) each year. By 1469, the tax was nearly acentury old, and it had been causing discontentamong the taxpayers for almost as long. Follow-ing the lead of Sir William Conyers, who hadjust raised a rebellion under the name of Robinof Redesdale, and perhaps timing his uprisingto coincide with the Redesdale movement,Robert Hillyard, a tenant of the LancastrianPercy family, took the name Robin of Holder-ness and led the tax protesters toward York. Be-fore reaching their destination, the Holdernessrebels were dispersed by John NEVILLE, earl ofNorthumberland, who seized Robin and exe-cuted him before the gates of York. Thus, al-though some Holderness rebels may have laterjoined the Redesdale rebellion, the former wasapparently unrelated to the latter and not, likethe Redesdale rebellion, part of Warwick’s planto seize control of the government.

The only contemporary account of theHolderness uprising does not mention the tax

but claims instead that the rebels sought to re-store Henry PERCY, then in the TOWER OF

LONDON, to his family’s earldom ofNorthumberland This goal explains why JohnNeville, who currently held the Percy earl-dom, so effectively suppressed the rebellion.What is confusing about the episode is the ap-pearance of a living Robert Hillyard in docu-ments dating to the decade after his apparentexecution in 1469. Although there may havebeen two Hillyards, a modern historian (seeHaigh, p. 192) suggests a more likely explana-tion. The entire Robin of Holderness Rebel-lion was fabricated by Warwick or his brotherNorthumberland to convince Edward IV thatthe latter was a loyal subject even while theformer was engaged in treason. Robert Hill-yard is recorded as submitting himself to theking at York in March 1470 after the failure ofWarwick’s second rebellion. Four days later,Edward granted Percy the earldom ofNorthumberland and created John Nevillemarquis of Montagu, a technically higher titlethat carried far less land. Hillyard’s appearanceat York in 1470 may have revealed the truthabout the Holderness uprising of the previousyear, and the consequences of those revelationsmay have led in part to Montagu’s abandon-ment of Edward IV in the autumn of 1470,when Warwick finally succeeded in over-throwing the house of YORK.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Robin of Redesdale Rebellion (1469)The Robin of Redesdale Rebellion, an upris-ing in Yorkshire in the spring of 1469, was se-cretly directed by Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, as part of his plan to wrest control ofthe kingdom from EDWARD IV.

Although the Redesdale rebellion, alongwith several other nearly simultaneous upris-ings, such as the ROBIN OF HOLDERNESS

REBELLION, opened the second phase of the

234 RICHMOND, COUNTESS OF

WARS OF THE ROSES, in which Edward IVwas eventually to lose and regain his throne,little is known for certain about the nature andcourse of these movements. The contempo-rary evidence for the northern disorders of1469 is slight and contradictory, and modernhistorians have proposed several accounts ofevents. In late April 1469, a large body of trou-blemakers under a mysterious captain callinghimself Robin of Redesdale (or RobinMend-All) was scattered by John NEVILLE,earl of Northumberland, Warwick’s brother.Whether these first disorders were unrelatedto Warwick, or whether Robin had simplytaken the field before the earl was ready tosupport him, is unclear. Northumberland’s roleis also uncertain; the earl may have been un-aware of his brother’s plans, or he may haveacted only to make the king think so. In anyevent, Northumberland moved with sufficientslowness to allow Robin to escape.

In late May or early June, Robin of Redes-dale, who was possibly Sir William Conyers, akinsman of Warwick’s, incited a new uprisingand issued a manifesto denouncing Edward’sgovernment. The rebels demanded that Ed-ward remove his wicked advisors, namely theWOODVILLE FAMILY and such other rivals ofWarwick as William HERBERT, earl of Pem-broke. Although Robin called his pronounce-ment a “popular petition” (Haigh, p. 99), it wasprobably drafted by Warwick, for it ominouslycompared Edward’s regime to those of Ed-ward II, Richard II, and HENRY VI, all mon-archs who had been deposed. As the kingmoved north to suppress the rebellion, War-wick cemented his alliance with Edward’sbrother, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, by arranging the duke’s marriage tohis eldest daughter, Isabel NEVILLE. By mid-July, Warwick and Clarence had openly de-clared their support for the aims of the Redes-dale manifesto, while the rebel leader hadraised sufficient support to outnumber theking’s forces and threaten Edward’s position atNottingham. On 26 July, Robin, who wasmarching south to join Warwick and to cutthe road to LONDON, clashed with a royalistarmy under Pembroke at the Battle of EDGE-

COTE. Pembroke was defeated, captured, andexecuted, but Robin of Redesdale and manyof his rebels also died in the battle. Hemmedin by superior forces, Edward surrenderedhimself to Warwick’s custody on 29 July.

Finding themselves unable to govern effec-tively without Edward’s cooperation, War-wick and Clarence extracted a pardon fromthe king and released him before the end ofthe year. With the failure of their 1469 coupattempt, Warwick and Clarence raised an-other rebellion in the following spring. Robinof Redesdale resurfaced in March 1470, ap-parently in the person of Sir John Conyers,Sir William’s brother, who assumed the guiseof Robin to briefly involve himself in thenew uprising. He submitted to the king atYork in late March, having done little to sup-port Warwick but much to confuse later his-torians as to the identity of the originalRobin of Redesdale.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Roos, Thomas, Lord Roos(1427–1464)A loyal partisan of the house of LANCASTER,Thomas Roos, Lord Roos, played a large rolein the Lancastrian victory at the Battle ofWAKEFIELD in 1460 and in the Lancastriancampaigns in Northumberland in 1464.

Succeeding to the important northernlordship of Roos in 1446, Roos fought inNormandy in 1449–1450, being one of thehostages given to the French on the surrenderof Rouen. In 1452, he was given ships andcharged with guarding the eastern coasts fromFrench invasion. In 1453, at the height of theNEVILLE-PERCY FEUD, Roos was an activeally of the Percy family. He fought for HENRY

VI at the Battle of ST. ALBANS in May 1455and served on various Lancastrian commis-sions in the north between 1457 and 1460, re-

ROOS, THOMAS, LORD ROOS 235

ceiving an annuity in the latter year for his ser-vices against Yorkist rebels. He was at CALAIS

with Henry BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, in1460, when the duke tried unsuccessfully towrest the town from Yorkist control. In theautumn of 1460, Roos helped rouse the northagainst the Act of ACCORD, which disinher-ited Prince EDWARD OF LANCASTER; hewas also a leader of the Lancastrian army at theBattle of Wakefield in December, being thefirst to attack the forces of Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, when the duke issuedforth from Sandal Castle.

After marching south from Wakefield withQueen MARGARET OF ANJOU’s army, Roosfought for Lancaster at the Battle of ST. AL-BANS in February 1461 and again at the Battleof TOWTON in March. After that defeat, hefled into SCOTLAND with the Lancastrianroyal family. He resumed his opposition to thehouse of YORK in the following June, whenhe carried Henry VI with him on a raid intoDurham. Roos raised the king’s banner atBrancepeth Castle, but little support material-ized, and Roos and his men quickly withdrewto Scotland before the local levies could bemobilized against them. Roos was included inthe ATTAINDERS passed in EDWARD IV’sfirst PARLIAMENT in November 1461, andmost of Roos’s property was granted to Ed-ward’s ally William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings,in 1462. Roos was part of the Lancastrian gar-rison that surrendered BAMBURGH CASTLE

in December 1462 and was actively involvedin Somerset’s campaign in Northumberland inearly 1464. Along with Robert HUNGER-FORD, Lord Hungerford, Roos commanded awing of the Lancastrian force at the Battle ofHEDGELEY MOOR in April 1464 and againat the Battle of HEXHAM in May. He was cap-tured after Hexham and executed two dayslater at Newcastle.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

The Rose of EnglandDescribing one of the last campaigns of theWars of the Roses, The Rose of England is theearliest of the ballads inspired by the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD.

Although the ballad was likely written inlate 1485 only months after the battle, the ear-liest extant copy dates from the mid-seven-teenth century. The prominence in the storyof Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley, and hisbrother Sir William STANLEY, indicates thatThe Rose of England, like another laterBosworth ballad, THE SONG OF LADY

BESSY, was composed by someone in theStanley family circle.

The poem is an extended allegory, castingEngland as a garden wherein grew a rose bush(the house of LANCASTER) that was de-stroyed by a White Boar (RICHARD III).Driven into exile, the last sprig of rose (HenryTudor, earl of Richmond, the future HENRY

VII) returns to England with the Blue Boar(John de VERE, earl of Oxford) and summonsto his assistance the Old Eagle (Lord Stanley).Winning the support of Rhys ap THOMAS

and other Welshmen (see WALES), Richmondmarches to Shrewsbury, where he is deniedadmittance until Sir William Stanley instructsthe town bailiff to open the gates. This possi-bly authentic detail is the only indication wehave that it was the Stanleys who delivered thetown to Richmond. When Richmond meetsthe Stanleys at Atherstone, the ballad adds an-other possibly authentic detail to its descrip-tion of the earl’s greeting: “How earl Rich-mond took his hat in hand / And said,‘Cheshire and Lancashire, welcome to me!’”(Rowse, p. 252).

The battle description consists mainly ofpraise for the skill and valor displayed byRichmond’s chief captains, Oxford (“He wasboth wary and wise of wit”) and the Stanleys(“How they laid about them lustily”). LikeThe Song of Lady Bessy, this ballad recounts thenear beheading of Stanley’s son, Lord Strange,who was preserved to “come to his nest again”when the start of the battle caused Richard todelay Strange’s execution (Bennett, p. 170).The defiant bravery of the king, depicted in

236 THE ROSE OF ENGLAND

both THE BALLAD OF BOSWORTH FIELD

and The Song of Lady Bessy, is here passed overfor a simple declaration of Richard’s death.

But now is the fierce field foughten andended,

And the White Boar there lieth slain.(Bennett, p. 170)

The poem ends with a joyous exclamationthat the red rose (Henry VII) flourishes againand with a prayer that God may confound theking’s foes and love him “night and day.”Thus,except for some small details of the Stanleysand their forces (e.g., they wore coats of“white and red”), the ballad is of slight use as asource for the battle itself, and may be, as somemodern historians have suggested of all theBosworth ballads, purely fiction.

Further Reading: Bennett, Michael, The Battle ofBosworth (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985);Rowse, A. L., Bosworth Field: From Medieval to TudorEngland (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966).

Rotherham, Thomas, Archbishop of York (1423–1500)Chancellor of England under EDWARD IV,and a political client of Queen ElizabethWOODVILLE, Thomas Rotherham, arch-bishop of York, supported the house of YORK

until he fell into disfavor with RICHARD IIIin 1483.

Born into a Yorkshire gentry family and ed-ucated at a local grammar school, Rotherhamwas elected a fellow of King’s College, Cam-bridge, in 1444. He held various ecclesiasticallivings in the 1450s and 1460s and took a de-gree at Oxford in 1463. In the late 1450s, hebecame chaplain to John de VERE, the futureLancastrian earl of Oxford, who may have in-troduced Rotherham to the COURT ofHENRY VI. Here he may have met ElizabethWoodville, then the wife of Sir John Grey and alady-in-waiting to Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU. After her marriage to Edward IV in1464, Elizabeth became Rotherham’s patron,and she was likely responsible for his appoint-ment as keeper of the royal privy seal in 1467.

Rapidly gaining the king’s confidence, Rother-ham was named to diplomatic missions toFRANCE and BURGUNDY and becamebishop of Rochester in 1468. He did not sup-port the READEPTION government of HenryVI, and in the spring of 1471 warned EdwardIV, who was then returning from exile to re-claim his Crown, not to attempt a landing onthe closely watched coast of East Anglia (seeEDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF).

In March 1472, Edward promoted Rother-ham to the bishopric of Lincoln, and in 1474the king appointed him chancellor of En-gland. Like many of Edward IV’s bishops,Rotherham was a man of humble origins whowas promoted to high church office becauseof his loyalty to the king and his usefulness insecular government. Rotherham accompaniedEdward on the French expedition of 1475 andwas one of the English lords who received alarge pension from LOUIS XI of France. Saidto be skilled in managing PARLIAMENT,Rotherham opened the tense 1478 sessionthat condemned the king’s brother, GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence. In 1480,Rotherham became archbishop of York.

On Edward’s death in April 1483, Rother-ham’s connections with the queen made himsuspect in the eyes of Richard, duke ofGloucester, the late king’s only survivingbrother, who believed the WOODVILLE FAM-ILY was seeking to deprive him of the regency.Rotherham intensified the duke’s mistrust bysurrendering the Great Seal of England, theseal entrusted to the chancellor for the au-thentication of official documents, to thequeen after fear of Gloucester drove her toSANCATUARY at Westminster in early May1483. Thinking better of this act, Rotherhamquickly recovered the Great Seal, but on 10May Gloucester, now acting as protector forEDWARD V, replaced the archbishop as chan-cellor with Bishop John RUSSELL. On 13June, Gloucester arrested Rotherham, alongwith William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings, andother likely opponents, at a COUNCIL meet-ing held in the TOWER OF LONDON (seeCOUNCIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483). Al-though released shortly thereafter through an

ROTHERHAM, THOMAS, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK 237

appeal from Cambridge University, which heserved as chancellor, Rotherham took littlefurther part in government, either duringRichard III’s reign or during the reign ofHENRYVII. Noted in later life as a prominentbenefactor of the English universities, Rother-ham died in 1500.

See also Usurpation of 1483Further Reading: Ross Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Rous, John (c. 1411–1491)Although the accuracy and value of his histor-ical writings and judgments have been ques-tioned, John Rous of Warwickshire, a chantrypriest with antiquarian interests, is recognizedas an important source for contemporary per-ceptions and attitudes during the WARS OF

THE ROSES.Born at Warwick and educated at Oxford,

Rous was in 1445 appointed a chaplain of thechantry chapel at Guy’s Cliff in Warwickshire.His office, which he retained for the rest of hislife, required him to celebrate daily Mass forthe chantry’s late founder, Richard Beau-champ, earl of Warwick. His duties allowedhim time to indulge his interest in antiquarianstudies, that is, to collect manuscripts and arti-facts relating to the history of his locality, toconduct historical research, and to write uphis findings. He undertook periodic trips—once to WALES and once to LONDON—tostudy local historical records and to borrow orbuy research materials. In 1459, he attendedthe COVENTRY PARLIAMENT, where theLancastrian government, busy passing AT-TAINDERS against leading Yorkists, ignoredhis petition asking that the PEERAGE be pre-vented from oppressing country towns (seeTOWNS AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES).

Rous’s most important writings are thetwo versions of the Rous Rolls, elaborately il-lustrated histories of the earls of Warwickwritten on rolls of parchment, and the “His-toria Regum Angliae” (“History of the Kings

of England”), which, in its national scope, de-parts from Rous’s usual interest in local his-tory. The earlier English version of the RousRolls, written before 1485, is highly favorableto the house of YORK and flattering toRICHARD III. The later Latin version, con-taining fulsome praise for the houses of LAN-CASTER and TUDOR, was clearly intendedto curry favor with HENRY VII. The “Histo-ria,” which carried the history of England tothe birth of Prince Arthur in 1486, roundlycondemns Richard III as ruling “in the wayAntichrist is to reign,” and includes some ofthe more shocking elements of the anti-Ricardian PROPAGANDA that developedafter 1485. For instance, Rous claimed thatRichard was two years in his mother’s womb,finally emerging “with teeth and hair to hisshoulders.” Nonetheless, even Rous admittedthat Richard “bore himself like a gallantknight [and] honourably defended himself tohis last breath” at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD in 1485 (all quotes Dockray, p. xxi).As an old man whose clerical living de-

pended on royal favor, Rous’s bias toward theparty in power is understandable; no onecould praise Richard III under the Tudors anymore that one could praise HENRY VI underthe Yorkists. Rous also did much for the studyof local history, and his writings are useful as areflection of the opinions and interests of edu-cated country people during the late fifteenthcentury. However, his indiscriminate handlingof sources, his ready acceptance of myths andmiraculous tales, and his factual inaccuracieshave led modern historians to make only lim-ited and cautious use of Rous as a source forthe civil wars.

Further Reading: Dockray, Keith. Richard III:ASource Book (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1997);“John Rous,” in Michael Hicks,Who’s Who in Late Medieval England (London:Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 345–349; Rous,John,“The History of the Kings of England,” inAlison Hanham, Richard III and His EarlyHistorians, 1483–1535 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1975), pp. 118–124; Rous, John. The Rous Roll,reprint ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton, 1980).

238 ROUS, JOHN

Royal Council. See Council, Royal

Royal Court. See Court, Royal

Russell, John, Bishop of Lincoln (d. 1494)Bishop John Russell of Lincoln was an impor-tant clerical servant of EDWARD IV and chan-cellor of England under RICHARD III.

Born in Winchester, Russell was educatedat Oxford, where he taught until about 1462.In the mid-1460s, he entered the service ofEdward IV, who employed Russell on variousdiplomatic missions, including the negotia-tions surrounding the marriage of the king’ssister, MARGARET OF YORK, to DukeCHARLES of BURGUNDY in 1468. In Febru-ary 1471, Russell also acted as a diplomat forthe READEPTION government of HENRY

VI, but he was readily taken back into Yorkistservice after Edward IV’s restoration in April.In 1472, Edward again sent Russell to Bur-gundy, and in 1474, the king appointed himkeeper of the privy seal and dispatched him toSCOTLAND to negotiate a marriage betweenEdward’s daughter Cecily and the son ofJAMES III. Russell became bishop ofRochester in 1476 and bishop of Lincoln in1480. One of the executors of Edward IV’swill, Russell helped officiate at the king’s fu-neral in April 1483.

On 10 May 1483, Richard, duke ofGloucester, having assumed the protectorshipof his nephew EDWARD V, dismissed Arch-bishop Thomas ROTHERHAM of York fromthe chancellorship, replacing him with Russell.According to some sources, the bishop, whowas experienced and learned and a naturalchoice for the post, accepted office with reluc-

tance. Although Russell served Gloucester loy-ally when he became king as Richard III, thereseems to have been no close bond betweenRichard and his chancellor, who may have feltbetrayed when Richard took his nephew’scrown in June 1483 (see USURPATION OF

1483). In any event, as chancellor, Russell han-dled negotiations with both Scotland andBRITTANY, and he may have assisted Arch-bishop Thomas BOURCHIER in persuadingQueen Elizabeth WOODVILLE to release heryounger son, Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, into Gloucester’s custody. Having per-haps grown uncertain of his chancellor’s loy-alty, Richard dismissed Russell from office on29 July 1485, less than a month before the Bat-tle of BOSWORTH FIELD. After Richard’sdeath, Russell was taken readily into favor byHENRYVII, who, like his Yorkist predecessors,employed the bishop as a diplomat. Afterspending his last years mainly in his diocese,Russell died in December 1494.

Because Russell closely fit the author pro-file that emerges from the work itself—an ed-ucated cleric who was familiar with the work-ings of Richard’s government and who was aneyewitness to at least some of the events beingdescribed—some modern historians identifiedRussell as the author of the CROYLAND

CHRONICLE, a useful source for the lastdecade of Edward IV and for the reign ofRichard III. However, most scholars today dis-miss that claim, arguing that the Chronicle ismuch different in style from any of Russell’sknown writings.

Further Reading: Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Rutland, Earl of. See Plantagenet,Edmund, Earl of Rutland

RUTLAND, EARL OF 239

St. Albans, Abbot of. SeeWhethamstede, John, Abbot of St. Albans

St. Albans, Battle of (1455)As the first armed encounter between the mil-itary forces of HENRY VI and those ofRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, thebattle fought at St. Albans in the southeasterncounty of Hertfordshire on 22 May 1455 isoften considered the starting point of the Warsof the Roses.

When Henry VI recovered his health inJanuary 1455,York’s FIRST PROTECTORATE

ceased, and the king released York’s rival, Ed-mund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, fromthe TOWER OF LONDON. York’s allies,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, and hisson, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, alsofound their chief enemies, Henry PERCY, earlof Northumberland, and his sons, back in royalfavor. Without taking leave of the king, Yorkand the Nevilles left LONDON for their es-tates in the north. In April, the king and hisadvisors summoned the three peers to a greatcouncil to be held at Leicester on 21 May. Be-lieving the council was an attempt to forcethem into an oath of submission, if not some-thing worse, the disaffected lords gatheredforces to intercept Henry on his way to thecouncil, seeking thereby to restore their con-trol of the royal government by seizing controlof the royal person.

Hearing of York’s southward march, Henrysent the duke a letter ordering him to disarmor be branded a traitor. York’s reply, that onlythe arrest of Somerset would appease him,reached Henry on 21 May shortly after he hadleft London, accompanied by Somerset,

Northumberland, and various other peers.The royal army, command of which Henryhad only hours before transferred from Som-erset to Humphrey STAFFORD, duke ofBuckingham, reached St. Albans at about 9A.M. on 22 May. The king set up his standardin the town square, while York and theNevilles deployed on a ridge east of town.After an hour of fruitless negotiation, hostili-ties commenced around 10 A.M., with theYorkists storming the town gates. Fighting insuch close quarters nullified the Yorkist advan-tage in numbers, and the Lancastrians stoodfirm until Warwick led a small force throughthe gardens and lanes of the town, burstinginto the square to cut the royal army in two.

Warwick’s attack, which won him a mightyreputation, caused many of the royal troops toflee and allowed the entire Yorkist army toflood the square and overwhelm the remnantof men guarding the king. Henry and Buck-ingham were both wounded by arrows duringthe fighting in the square. Within minutes,Yorkist troops killed Somerset, Northumber-land, and Thomas CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford.Under cover of battle, York and the Nevilleshad eliminated their chief rivals at one stroke.Now under York’s “protection,” Henry madepeace with the victors, who had him removedto the safety of the abbey. Next day, the king,riding between York and Salisbury, returned toLondon, where York formally began his parlia-ment-sanctioned SECOND PROTECTORATE

in November 1455. Besides placing the kingand the government in York’s hands, the Battleof St. Albans turned the sons of the slain peersinto bitter enemies of York and ensured thathis period of power would be troubled andbrief and that civil strife would continue.

241

S

See also Council, Royal; Love-Day of 1458Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (New York:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

St. Albans, Battle of (1461)Fought on 17 February 1461, the second Bat-tle of St. Albans was a Lancastrian victory thatreunited HENRY VI with his family andthreatened the destruction of the Yorkistcause.

After the death of Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, at the Battle of WAKE-FIELD in December 1460, the Lancastrianforces that had defeated him joined at Yorkwith Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU and theScots and French MERCENARIES that shehad gathered in SCOTLAND. PlunderingYorkist towns as it marched south, the queen’sarmy panicked LONDON, where RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, the custodian ofHenry VI, was seen as the only man able todefend southern England from Margaret’shorde of Scots and northerners (see MARCH

ON LONDON), a viewpoint encouraged byWarwick’s PROPAGANDA efforts. Warwickand the king led a large army out of Londonon 12 February and reached St. Albans thenext day. Unsure of the Lancastrians’ where-abouts,Warwick deployed his army on a broadfront extending through and north of St. Al-bans. On the evening of 16 February, Warwickreceived reports that the Lancastrians werenearby at Dunstable, where they were said tohave overwhelmed a small Yorkist outpost. Be-lieving the Lancastrians were much furtheraway, the earl dismissed the report.

However, the Dunstable information wastrue, and Margaret’s army reached St. Albansearly the next morning. Andrew TROLLOPE

led a Lancastrian force into the town, wherethey surprised a body of Yorkist ARCHERS.The Yorkists repulsed Trollope’s initial assault,but Warwick’s brother, John NEVILLE, LordMontagu, in command of the Yorkist left, hadto quickly reposition his troops. Deployed tomeet an attack from the west, they now

needed to face south to meet the Lancastriansadvancing on them from the town. When hisscouts informed him of an unguarded laneinto St. Albans, Henry BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, the Lancastrian commander, re-peated Warwick’s maneuver from the first Bat-tle of ST. ALBANS in 1455 and sent a forcestreaming into the square to drive out theYorkists and capture the town. After a briefrest, the Lancastrians renewed their attackaround noon, their entire army falling uponthe Yorkist left under Montagu. Hindered bythe hedgerows and lanes that had so strength-ened the initial Yorkist position, Montagu’smessengers had difficulty finding Warwick,who commanded the Yorkist center, and War-wick had equal trouble bringing his troopsinto position to aid Montagu. The defectionof part of his force caused Montagu’s line tocollapse, and Warwick arrived in late after-noon to find Montagu a prisoner and histroops in flight. Panicked by rumors and thesight of fleeing comrades, Warwick’s menbegan to desert; the earl rallied what forces hecould and withdrew from the field.

That evening, Lancastrian troops discoveredHenry VI sitting under a tree, deserted by allexcept William BONVILLE, Lord Bonville,and Sir Thomas Kyrill, who had stayed withHenry on his personal assurance that theywould not be harmed. Henry was reunitedwith his wife and son, Prince EDWARD OF

LANCASTER, who knighted Trollope and, onhis mother’s instructions, ordered the execu-tions of Bonville and Kyrill. Because Somer-set’s brother was a prisoner of Warwick, Mon-tagu was spared and sent to York. Having lostcontrol of Henry VI, the Yorkist regime thathad governed England since July 1460 wasover. Warwick joined with Edward, earl ofMarch, York’s son, on 22 February, and theYorkists entered London four days later, Mar-garet’s army having moved north after beingdenied entry to the capital by its terrified in-habitants. Playing on southern fears of theLancastrian host, the Yorkists proclaimedMarch king as EDWARD IV on 4 March, andthe stage was set for a great battle betweenrival monarchs.

242 ST. ALBANS, BATTLE OF

See also Towton, Battle ofFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

St. Andrews, Bishop of. See Kennedy,James

Salisbury, Bishop of. See Woodville,Lionel

Salisbury, Earl of. See Neville,Richard, Earl of Salisbury

SanctuarySanctuary was a right of the English Churchwhereby cathedrals, abbeys, churches, andchurchyards could serve as places of refuge forcriminals, debtors, victims of abuse, and politi-cal refugees.

In theory, a person claiming sanctuarycould remain unmolested in the sanctuaryprecincts for forty days, after which time theperson had to either stand trial for his offenseor confess and swear to abjure (i.e., leave) therealm. If the latter, the offender was escortedfrom sanctuary to the nearest port by a localconstable. If no ship was immediately available,the person had to daily wade into the sea upto his knees and cry out for passage until avessel could be found to transport him. Dur-ing the Middle Ages, certain English liberties(i.e., jurisdictions exempt from royal author-ity) and certain sanctuaries possessing papal orroyal charters were accepted as permanentplaces of refuge. Although the right of sanctu-ary was found throughout Christian Europe, itwas nowhere so widely used or so highly for-malized as in England.

During the WARS OF THE ROSES, theconcept of sanctuary for political offendersand political refugees was both widely appliedand widely violated. Queen ElizabethWOODVILLE fled twice into sanctuary atWestminster. From October 1470 to April

1471, during the READEPTION of HENRY

VI, the queen remained unmolested at theabbey, even giving birth there to her son, thefuture EDWARD V. Elizabeth’s second periodin sanctuary, from May 1483 to March 1484,was occasioned by the death of her husband,EDWARD IV, and the ensuing political coupof her brother-in-law, Richard, duke ofGloucester, who seized custody of Edward Vto prevent the establishment of a governmentdominated by the WOODVILLE FAMILY. InJune 1483, Gloucester either pressured orcompelled Elizabeth to send her son RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, out of sanctu-ary and into the duke’s custody (see USURPA-TION OF 1483). The queen herself remainedat Westminster until finally coaxed from sanc-tuary by a promise of support for her daugh-ters, who had shared her confinement.

Several times during the wars, victors on thebattlefield violated sanctuary to seize and exe-cute losers. Edward IV had Edmund BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset, and other Lancastriansurvivors of the Battle of TEWKESBURY

forcibly removed from Tewkesbury Abbey.Twodays after the battle, Somerset and most of hissanctuary companions were condemned andthen beheaded in Tewkesbury marketplace. InApril 1486, Francis LOVELL, Lord Lovell, andthe brothers Sir Thomas and Sir HumphreyStafford, adherents of RICHARD III who hadbeen in sanctuary since the Battle of BOS-WORTH FIELD in the previous August,emerged from their refuge to incite rebellionagainst HENRY VII (see LOVELL-STAFFORD

UPRISING). When the Staffords returned tosanctuary in May after the rebellion collapsed,Henry ordered them seized and brought outfor trial, an action that resulted in the condem-nation of both and the execution of SirHumphrey. The Stafford case led to the firstlegal limitations on the right of sanctuary; aftermuch debate, the Stafford judges ruled thatsanctuary did not apply in cases of treason orfor second offenses.

Further Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981);

SANCTUARY 243

Kendall, Paul Murray,The Yorkist Age (New York:W. W. Norton, 1962); Ross, Charles, The Wars ofthe Roses (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Scales, Thomas, Lord Scales(1399–1460)A principal advisor of Queen MARGARET

OF ANJOU, Thomas Scales, seventh LordScales, held the TOWER OF LONDON againstthe Yorkists in 1460.

Succeeding his brother in the family PEER-AGE in 1420, Scales led a company of men toFRANCE in 1422. He spent most of the nextdecade in the service of the king’s uncle, John,duke of Bedford (1389–1435), and by 1429was sufficiently prominent in the English com-mand to be mentioned in a letter by Joan ofArc. During the early 1430s, he was seneschalof Normandy and captain of numerous En-glish-held fortresses. In the 1440s, he fought inNormandy during the lieutenancies of bothRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, andEdmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, andprobably remained militarily active in theprovince until its fall to the French in 1450.

Upon the eruption of JACK CADE’S RE-BELLION in 1450, Scales held the Tower forthe government and commanded the loyalLondoners who defended London Bridgeagainst the rebels on the night of 5–6 July.After the suppression of Cade’s uprising, Scaleswas appointed to a commission charged withlooking into abuses committed in his nativeNorfolk by local followers of the late Williamde la POLE, duke of Suffolk, the former chiefminister of HENRY VI. Himself a Suffolk sup-porter, Scales protected many of the menunder investigation. In 1453, when the king’sillness and the birth of her son, Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER, drew her into poli-tics, Queen Margaret turned to Scales for po-litical advice (see HENRY VI, ILLNESS OF).On the outbreak of civil war in 1459, Scalesbecame a prominent Lancastrian, suppressingYorkist activity in Norfolk and sharing re-sponsibility for the defense of Sandwich withRichard WOODVILLE, Lord Rivers, and hisson, Anthony WOODVILLE.

To stiffen LONDON’s resistance to an inva-sion from Yorkist-held CALAIS, the Lancas-trian government placed Scales and RobertHUNGERFORD, Lord Hungerford, in com-mand of the Tower in 1460, despite the Lon-doners’ protests that they could defend them-selves. In July 1460, Scales and his colleaguesfailed to prevent the entry into London ofYorkist forces under Richard NEVILLE, earl ofSalisbury, and his son Richard NEVILLE, earlof Warwick. Forced to withdraw into theTower, Scales began a bombardment of thecity that caused much damage and somedeaths among citizens. When, after the Battleof NORTHAMPTON, Warwick returned tothe city with the captive king, the Londonersjoined with the Yorkists in besieging Scalesand Hungerford in the Tower. On 19 July,while in the midst of negotiations to surrenderthe fortress, Scales was allowed to flee upriverto take SANCTUARY at Westminster; althoughthe Yorkists were willing to spare his life, thecitizens of London were less forgiving. Rec-ognized by London boatmen, Scales was pur-sued and murdered, and his naked body wascast upon the Southwark shore.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Johnson, P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

ScotlandSince Edward I’s intervention in Scottish affairsin the late thirteenth century, Scotland hadgenerally acted in alliance with FRANCE

against English interests. During the WARS OF

THE ROSES, the Scots intervened in Englandto achieve territorial gains at England’s ex-pense. In the early 1460s, Scottish involvementin English affairs prolonged military activity innorthern England and prevented the house ofYORK from fully securing the English Crown;in the mid-1490s, Scottish intervention simi-larly threatened the house of TUDOR.

News of the Battle of ST.ALBANS in 1455led JAMES II of Scotland to propose thatCHARLES VII of France assault CALAIS whilethe Scots besieged BERWICK. When Charles

244 SCALES, THOMAS, LORD SCALES

declined, James launched a series of borderraids, but in 1457 concluded a two-year trucewith England that was eventually extended to1463. However, the capture of HENRY VI atthe Battle of NORTHAMPTON in July 1460prompted James to besiege the English-heldborder castle of Roxburgh. Although Jameswas killed in early August by the explosion ofone of his own ARTILLERY pieces, Roxburghand the nearby castle of Wark fell to the Scotsshortly thereafter.

Because JAMES III was only nine, a regencyCOUNCIL headed by Queen MARY OF

GUELDRES and influenced by its most experi-enced member, James KENNEDY, bishop of St.Andrews, assumed the government. In late1460, the flight into Scotland of Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU and her son Prince ED-WARD OF LANCASTER offered the Scots op-portunities for further gains.Although pressuredby her kinsman, Duke PHILIP of BURGUNDY,to resist Margaret’s appeals for assistance, QueenMary, in early January 1461, concluded anagreement with Margaret that called for the sur-render of Berwick and the marriage of PrinceEdward to a sister of James III in return forScottish military aid. Later in the month, whenMargaret reentered England to assume com-mand of the Lancastrian army that had slainRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, at theBattle of WAKEFIELD on 30 December, Scot-tish troops accompanied her. During Margaret’ssubsequent MARCH ON LONDON, the pres-ence of these Scottish MERCENARIES was onecause of the panic that gripped the capital andsouthern counties at the queen’s approach, pro-viding the Yorkists with both a PROPAGANDA

boon and an opportunity to enter LONDON

and proclaim York’s son king as EDWARD IV.Defeat at the Battle of TOWTON in March

1461 forced the entire Lancastrian royal familyto flee into Scotland. Torn between Lancas-trian pleas for assistance and Yorkist demandsfor the return of the exiles, the Scottish re-gency council split. The so-called Old Lords,led by Kennedy, supported the house of LAN-CASTER, while the Young Lords, led byQueen Mary, were more willing to accommo-date the house of York. However, Queen Mar-

garet’s willingness to hand over Berwick,which surrendered to James III in April, tippedthe balance toward the Lancastrians, who werethus able to use Scotland as a base for militaryoperations against northern England. WithScottish support, the Lancastrians several timesinvaded England and seized the castles of AL-NWICK, BAMBURGH, and DUNSTAN-BURGH. Edward IV countered by concludingthe Treaty of WESTMINSTER-ARDTORNISH

with disaffected magnates in northern Scot-land. By 1463, such internal threats, combinedwith the achievement of Berwick and militarydefeats in northern England, destroyed Scottishenthusiasm for the Lancastrian cause. Margaretsailed to France in August, and Kennedy, underthe terms of the truce, reluctantly sent HenryVI into England in January 1464. By 1465,Scotland and Yorkist England were at peace.

When the Wars of the Roses resumed in1469, James III was engaged in consolidatinghis authority in Scotland and did not inter-vene in the English conflict. In the 1470s,James altered the traditional anti-English toneof Scottish foreign policy by proposing a seriesof marriages between the houses of York andStuart (the Scottish royal family). These at-tempts at improved Anglo-Scottish relationsfoundered on the English desire to regainBerwick. In 1482, Edward concluded theTreaty of Fotheringhay with Alexander, dukeof Albany, James’s dissident brother, whoagreed to restore the town to the English inreturn for assistance in overthrowing James.Richard, duke of Gloucester, invaded Scotlandand captured Berwick in August, but James re-mained king and in 1484 concluded a trucewith RICHARD III (the former Gloucester),who, having recently displaced his nephewEDWARD V, sat uneasily on his throne andwanted no trouble with Scotland. However,neither Richard, nor his successor, HENRY

VII, who had a Scottish contingent in hisarmy when he won the Crown at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, were willing tosurrender Berwick.

In 1488, a coalition of Scottish magnates,angered in part by their king’s failure to pursuea more anti-English policy, defeated and slew

SCOTLAND 245

James III at the Battle of Sauchieburn. Al-though horrified by his father’s murder, thenew king, JAMES IV, had associated himselfwith the rebels and was determined to be moreassertive in his relations with the English.

In 1491, James ended his father’s truce withEngland and renewed the traditional Frenchalliance, agreeing to attack England shouldHenry VII invade France. Involving himself inYorkist conspiracies against the house ofTudor, James invited Perkin WARBECK toScotland. In 1495, the Scottish king publiclyacknowledged Warbeck as Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, the younger son of Ed-ward IV who had disappeared in the TOWER

OF LONDON in 1483. When his support ofWarbeck failed to persuade Henry VII to re-store Berwick, James invaded England onWarbeck’s behalf in 1496, the pretender hav-ing agreed to surrender Berwick when hewon the Crown. When northern England dis-played no enthusiasm for Warbeck, the inva-sion collapsed. James expelled the pretenderfrom Scotland in 1497 and soon after openedtalks that led to a formal peace treaty in 1502.Unlike the other Scottish gains derived fromthe Wars of the Roses, the Treaty of Ayton hadimportant long-term effects. By arranging the1503 marriage of James IV and MargaretTudor, the daughter of Henry VII, the treatymade possible the 1603 union of the Crownsof Scotland and England in the person ofJames’s great-grandson, James VI.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Macdougall, Norman, JamesIII:A Political Study (Edinburgh: J. Donald, 1982);McGladdery, Christine, James II (Edinburgh: JohnDonald Publishers, 1990); Macdougall, Norman,James IV (East Lothian, UK: Tuckwell Press, 1997);Nicholson, Ranald, Scotland:The Later Middle Ages,vol. 2 of The Edinburgh History of Scotland (NewYork: Barnes and Noble, 1974); Wormald, Jenny,Court, Kirk, and Community: Scotland, 1470–1625(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981).

Second Protectorate (1455–1456)Although officially in existence only fromNovember 1455 to February 1456, the second

protectorate of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, actually began in May 1455,when York captured HENRY VI at the Battleof ST. ALBANS. Unlike the FIRST PROTEC-TORATE of 1454, whereby PARLIAMENT re-sponded to the king’s mental incapacity byvesting certain powers of the Crown in Yorkas protector (see HENRYVI, ILLNESS OF), thesecond protectorate gave formal parliamentaryrecognition to the dominant political positionthe duke had won at St. Albans. Because of itsopenly partisan nature, the second protec-torate accelerated the formation of factionsaround York and Queen MARGARET OF

ANJOU and thereby created the political in-stability that fostered the WARS OF THE

ROSES.Besides giving them custody of the king,

St. Albans allowed York and his Neville al-lies—Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, andhis son Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick—to eliminate their three main rivals—EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset; HenryPERCY, earl of Northumberland; and ThomasCLIFFORD, Lord Clifford. Showing Henrygreat deference, the victors escorted him toLONDON, where they summoned a Parlia-ment to sanction their control of the govern-ment and to legitimize Yorkist PROPAGANDA

by affixing blame for the recent violence onSomerset. The late duke’s offices were dividedamong the Yorkist leaders, with York becom-ing Lord Constable and Warwick obtainingthe vitally important captaincy of CALAIS.Parliament also granted anyone in the Yorkistarmy formal pardon for anything done at St.Albans.York next sought to win popular favorand to weaken the queen and her faction byproposing to limit expenditure in the royalhousehold and administration.

When Parliament reconvened in Novem-ber, Henry VI was too ill to attend, and Yorkused the king’s indisposition and the eruptionof various disorders around the country toconvince a reluctant assembly to authorize hissecond term as lord protector. In December,York used his new authority to quell the vio-lent COURTENAY-BONVILLE FEUD by im-prisoning Thomas COURTENAY, earl of

246 SECOND PROTECTORATE

Devon, in the TOWER OF LONDON. Al-though York thereby pacified the West Coun-try, he also ensured the future adherence of theCourtenays to the house of LANCASTER. De-spite York’s efforts to broaden his supportamong the PEERAGE, such interventions inlocal disputes only further divided the nobilityinto partisans of one side or the other. On 25February 1456, a seemingly healthy king cameto Parliament and formally ended the secondprotectorate. To promote concord, Henry re-tained York as his chief minister, while theNevilles remained influential members of theroyal COUNCIL. The queen, however, was de-termined to prevent a third protectorate; dur-ing the next three years, she used her influenceover Henry to undermine York’s position andto gradually take control of the government, asituation that led to civil war in 1459.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof Henry VI (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981); Johnson, P. A., Duke Richard of York(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

Shakespeare and the Wars of the RosesIn the early 1590s, the Elizabethan playwrightWilliam Shakespeare wrote a series of fourplays based on the people and events of theWARS OF THE ROSES. Because Shakespeareis today considered one of the greatest writersin the English language, his four plays, al-though never intended as objective works ofhistory, have heavily influenced modern per-ceptions of the course, nature, and personali-ties of the civil wars.

The plays, HENRY VI, PART 1, HENRY VI,PART 2, HENRY VI, PART 3, and RICHARD

III, cover the period from the funeral ofHenry V in 1422 to the death of RICHARD

III at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD in1485. For the events of the period, Shake-speare’s chief sources were the best-knownEnglish histories of his day, the 1587 edition ofRaphael Holinshed’s The Chronicles of England,Scotland, and Ireland, the 1550 edition of Ed-ward Hall’s THE UNION OF THE TWO

NOBLE AND ILLUSTRIOUS FAMILIES OF

LANCASTER AND YORK, and RobertFabyan’s 1516 edition of The New Chronicles ofEngland and France (see LONDON CHRONI-CLES). Shakespeare also consulted the 1587edition of A Mirror for Magistrates, a sixteenth-century series of verse biographies of figuresfrom English history; because the Mirror had amoral purpose—warning readers of the evilends of wicked rulers—it particularly influ-enced Shakespeare’s depiction of villains, espe-cially his Richard III.

Because Shakespeare wrote during thereign of HENRYVII’s granddaughter and aftera century of rule by the house of TUDOR, thesources he used, while generally accurate as tochronology, were often biased in favor of theruling dynasty.They portrayed Henry VII’s ac-cession as rescuing England from a long, darkperiod of political chaos and social disorder,and they depicted Henry’s predecessors fromthe house of YORK, especially Richard III, asflawed and selfish men whose political ambi-tions ruined England. Shakespeare reproducesthis bias in his plays, and, being interested ingood drama rather than accurate history, exag-gerates it for effect.

Throughout the plays, Shakespeare jumblesand compresses the chronology of events,making the conflict appear to be a long, un-ending series of terrible battles that had a dev-astating effect on England. This practice basi-cally ignores the long periods of relative peaceand stability that marked most of EDWARD

IV’s reign, drastically overstates the sufferingand disruption cased by the conflict, and heav-ily overemphasizes the benefits brought by theTudor victory. Although brief and concen-trated in the years 1459–1461, 1469–1471, and1483–1487, the military campaigns of theWars of the Roses appear in Shakespeare’splays to be extremely bloody, highly destruc-tive, and virtually continuous across a thirty-year period.

Shakespeare also exaggerates the greed andambition of leading Yorkists. He portraysRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York (d.1460), as scheming for years to seize thethrone. Although the real York was at thecenter of the political turmoil of the 1450s,

SHAKESPEARE AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES 247

he sought to control the government asHENRY VI’s chief minister. York did notclaim the Crown until 1460, when all otherpolitical options had been exhausted and tak-ing the throne seemed the only way to savehis career and possibly his life. In Shake-

speare’s portrayal of York’s son, Richard III,the selfish ambition the playwright imputedto the duke is spectacularly magnified.Richard is one of the great Shakespeareanvillains. Although Tudor historians readilycondemned Richard, especially for the mur-

248 SHAKESPEARE AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES

This Yorkist genealogy illustrates one of the main themes running through the Henry VI plays. Henry IV (with sword) cuts offthe line of Richard II, while a prophet (to the right) foretells the doom that will descend on the house of Lancaster for thisusurpation. (Harley MS 7353 f. 11, British Library)

der of his nephews, EDWARD V and RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York (d. c. 1483),Shakespeare moved well beyond his sourcesto show Richard plotting to seize the Crownat a time when the real Richard was only achild; Shakespeare also made Richard respon-sible for the deaths of many other major fig-ures of the Wars of the Roses, includingHenry VI and Prince EDWARD of Lancaster,and even for the deaths of his own brotherand wife, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence, and Anne NEVILLE.

Despite a lack of evidence that the histori-cal Richard had anything to do with these lat-ter deaths, Shakespeare makes his Richard IIIthe horrifying culmination of the grandtheme that infuses the entire cycle of historyplays (i.e., from Richard II through 1 and 2Henry IV and Henry V to the four plays of theWars of the Roses series). That theme, whichis broadly based on fifteenth-century Englishhistory, is that the deposition of Richard II in1399 overthrew the divine order and plungedEngland into decades of war and suffering.The ambition of Henry IV, Richard’s sup-planter and first king of the house of LAN-CASTER, was punished through the weaknessand incapacity of his grandson, Henry VI,which in turn encouraged the ambition ofYork and his heirs and thereby ushered in thedevastating Wars of the Roses. The house ofLancaster was overthrown, and the house ofYork ruled for a time, but it destroyed itselfthrough the villainy of Richard III, whoseoverthrow by Henry VII allowed for a returnto prosperity and order under the divinelysanctioned house of Tudor. To play out thistheme, Shakespeare alters and exaggerates thepeople and events of the Wars of the Roses,doing so in such magnificent fashion that hisfictional depictions often became acceptedhistory.

See also Campaigns, Duration of; The History ofKing Richard III (More); Richard II, DepositionofFurther Reading: Norwich, John Julius,Shakespeare’s Kings (New York: Scribner, 1999);Saccio, Peter, Shakespeare’s English Kings, 2d ed.(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Shakespeare, William. See Henry VI,Part 1; Henry VI, Part 2; Henry VI, Part 3;Richard III; Shakespeare and the Wars ofthe Roses

Shaw, Dr. Ralph. See Shaw’s Sermon

Shaw’s Sermon (1483)The sermon delivered by Dr. Ralph Shaw (orSha) from the open-air pulpit at Paul’s Crossin LONDON on Sunday 22 June 1483 was thefirst public exposition of the duke of Glouces-ter’s claim to the throne.After weeks of uncer-tainty as to the duke’s intentions, Shaw’s ser-mon signaled Gloucester’s decision to deposehis nephew EDWARD V and take the thronehimself as RICHARD III (see USURPATION

OF 1483).Standing near the cross in the churchyard

of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, the Paul’sCross pulpit was the recognized forum for of-ficial announcements and explanations of gov-ernment policy. Dr. Ralph Shaw, a Cambridgedoctor of divinity and a prominent preacher,was the brother of the mayor of London, Ed-mund Shaw. Commissioned by Gloucester, orperhaps by Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buck-ingham, the duke’s ally, Shaw preached on thetext “bastard slips shall not take deep root.” Al-though the specifics of Shaw’s sermon are un-certain, the preacher seems to have announcedthe existence of the BUTLER PRECON-TRACT, EDWARD IV’s betrothal to LadyEleanor Butler, which, if genuine, invalidatedthe king’s later marriage to ElizabethWOODVILLE and thereby rendered his chil-dren illegitimate and clouded their right to in-herit the Crown. The existence of this pre-contract was later said to have been confirmedby Bishop Robert STILLINGTON, beforewhom Edward and Lady Eleanor had pledgedtheir betrothal.

According to Sir Thomas More’s HISTORY

OF KING RICHARD III and Polydore Vergil’sANGLICA HISTORIA, Shaw also questionedthe legitimacy of Gloucester’s brothers, Ed-ward IV and George PLANTAGENET, duke of

SHAW’S SERMON 249

Clarence, an allegation that amounted to anaccusation of adultery against Gloucester’smother, Cecily NEVILLE, duchess of York.The preacher supported this assertion by pro-claiming Gloucester’s resemblance to his fa-ther, Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, alikeness supposedly shared by neither Clarencenor the late king. In his account, Moreclaimed that Gloucester had planned to appearbefore Shaw’s audience at the very momentthat the preacher declared the duke’s face tobe “the very print of his [father’s] visage” (Se-ward, p. 105), hoping thereby to inspire thecrowd to a spontaneous acclamation of king-ship. However, Shaw spoke too fast, Glouces-ter came too late, and the preacher had toawkwardly repeat his earlier remarks to astunned and silent audience.

Although Buckingham took up Shaw’stheme in an eloquent speech two days later atthe Guildhall and Gloucester was crowned asplanned on 6 July, most sources agree thatShaw’s sermon was ill received. In hisUSURPATION OF RICHARD III, DominicMancini characterized the speech as contrary“to all decency and religion” (Mancini, p. 95),and various LONDON CHRONICLES claimthe sermon destroyed Shaw’s reputation and soburdened him with remorse and public odiumthat he died of shame the following year.

See also Titulus RegiusFurther Reading: Mancini, Dominic, TheUsurpation of Richard III, edited and translated byC. A. J. Armstrong (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1989); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981);Seward, Desmond, Richard III: England’s BlackLegend (New York: Franklin Watts, 1984).

Shore, Elizabeth (Jane) (d. 1527)Through sexual liaisons with EDWARD IVand several prominent courtiers, ElizabethShore, better known as Jane Shore, becameentangled in the political intrigues that led tothe usurpation of RICHARD III and the re-vival of civil war in the 1480s.

One of Edward IV’s many mistresses, Shorewas, according to Sir Thomas More’s HIS-

TORY OF KING RICHARD III, the king’s fa-vorite—less for her beauty than for her engag-ing personality. “Proper she was and fair. . . .Yet delighted not men so much in her beauty,as in her pleasant behaviour. For a proper withad she, and could both read well and write,merry of company, ready and quick of answer,neither mute nor full of babble, sometimestaunting without displeasure and not withoutdisport” (Ross, Richard III, p. 137).

The daughter of a LONDON merchant andthe wife of William Shore, a London gold-smith, Jane Shore may have become the king’smistress in about 1470. Although Edwardnever allowed his lovers to become politicalfigures, Shore, again according to More, exer-cised a benign influence over the king, tendingto mollify him when he was angry or dis-pleased with anyone.

Upon Edward’s death in April 1483, Shoremay have become the lover of Thomas GREY,marquis of Dorset, and then of his rival,William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings. If this sec-ond relationship occurred, it may have in-volved her in politics, for on 13 June 1483, at acouncil meeting in the TOWER OF LON-DON, Richard, duke of Gloucester, chargedShore and Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE

with trying, on Hastings’s urging, to destroyhim through sorcery (see COUNCIL MEET-ING OF 13 JUNE 1483). The accusation led toHastings’s summary execution and to Shore’sarrest. Forced soon after to do public penanceas a harlot by walking through London dressedonly in her kirtle (underskirt or gown) andcarrying a lighted taper, Shore was afterwardimprisoned in Ludgate. Although it is possiblethat Shore participated, perhaps as a go-be-tween, in anti-Gloucester plots involving ei-ther Hastings or Dorset, her active coopera-tion with her late lover’s wife in sorcery ismost unlikely. Both contemporary writers, likeMore and Polydore Vergil in his ANGLICA

HISTORIA, and many modern historians be-lieve that Gloucester’s charges were largely in-vented to destroy Hastings, who was loyal toEDWARD V and thus a serious obstacle to theduke’s plan to take the throne (see USURPA-TION OF 1483).

250 SHORE, ELIZABETH

While in prison, Shore charmed the king’ssolicitor, Thomas Lynom, who sought permis-sion to marry her, Shore’s husband having pre-sumably died. Richard III (the former duke ofGloucester) told his chancellor, John RUS-SELL, bishop of Lincoln, to dissuade Lynomfrom such a foolish action, but he gave per-mission for the match should the solicitor beadamant. Whether or not the marriage oc-curred is unclear, for beside the fact that shewas still living in London in poverty in HenryVIII’s reign, almost nothing is known ofShore’s life after 1484.

Further Reading: Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Seward, Desmond, TheWars of the Roses (New York:Viking, 1995).

Simnel, Lambert (c. 1475–c. 1525)Lambert Simnel, a boy of obscure origins, im-personated Edward PLANTAGENET, earl ofWarwick, as part of the first major effort tooverthrow HENRY VII and restore the houseof YORK.

Little is known of Simnel, whose veryname may have been an invention.The officialaccount of Simnel’s background, as given laterby Polydore Vergil in his ANGLICA HISTO-RIA, claimed that he was the son of ThomasSimnel of Oxford, who was variously de-scribed as a baker, joiner, or shoemaker. About1486, a priest named Richard (or William) Si-monds conceived a plan to pass off Simnel,who was apparently an attractive and intelli-gent youth, as one of the sons of EDWARD

IV, who had disappeared in the TOWER OF

LONDON in 1483. However, upon hearing arumor that Warwick had escaped from captiv-ity, Simonds took Simnel to IRELAND, whichwas strongly Yorkist, and declared him to bethe earl and rightful king of England. GeraldFITZGERALD, earl of Kildare, the Irish lorddeputy, allowed himself to be persuaded thatSimnel was Warwick, while Yorkists in En-gland and abroad also accepted the imposture.MARGARET OF YORK, duchess of BUR-GUNDY and sister of Edward IV, formally rec-

ognized Simnel as her nephew and dispatchedto Ireland a body of German MERCENARIES.Francis LOVELL, Lord Lovell, a former confi-dant of RICHARD III, traveled to Irelandfrom Burgundy, and John de la POLE, earl ofLincoln, another nephew of Margaret’s andheir apparent to Richard III, slipped across theIrish Sea to Dublin. Because all were probablyaware that Simnel was an impostor, the Yorkistleaders likely planned to use the movementthat had formed around him to eventually putLincoln on the throne.

To meet the growing threat, Henry VII hadthe real Warwick paraded through the streets ofLONDON. The king also banished his mother-in-law, ELIZABETH WOODVILLE, wife of Ed-ward IV, to a nunnery, perhaps because he hadlearned of her involvement in the Simnel en-terprise. On 24 May 1487, Simnel was crownedin Dublin as “Edward VI”; the Irish govern-ment accepted his authority, and coins andproclamations were issued in his name. On 4June, Simnel crossed to England accompaniedby Simonds, his chief Yorkist supporters, and hisforce of German and Irish mercenaries. En-larged by the retinues of various Yorkist gentle-man, Simnel’s army encountered the king’sforces on 16 June. After a stiff three-hour fight,the Battle of STOKE ended in the deaths ofLincoln and Lovell and the captures of Simondsand Simnel. While the former was imprisonedfor life, the latter was pardoned. To emphasizeSimnel’s unimportance and low birth, Henrysupposedly sent the boy to serve in the royalkitchens. Little is known of the remainder ofSimnel’s life; he appears to have been employedfor a time as a royal falconer and to have latertransferred out of royal service. He probablydied about 1525, although some accounts havehim living into the early 1530s.

See also Warbeck, Perkin;Yorkist Heirs (after1485)Further Reading: Bennett, Michael J., LambertSimnel and the Battle of Stoke (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1987).

Skeletons in the Tower. See Bones of1674

SKELETONS IN THE TOWER 251

Social Classes. See Commons(Common People) and the Wars of theRoses; Gentry; Peerage

Somerset, Duke of. See entries underBeaufort

The Song of Lady BessyThe Song of Lady Bessy is one of several balladsinspired by the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD.

The poem was written by someone associ-ated with the Stanley family, for ThomasSTANLEY, Lord Stanley, and his brother SirWilliam STANLEY are central characters. Apossible author is Humphrey Brereton, whohailed from the Stanley-dominated county ofCheshire and who also figures prominently inthe story. Although the earliest extant text ofthe ballad dates from about 1600, and many ofthe poem’s more romantic touches seem Eliz-abethan in origin, The Song of Lady Bessy wasprobably written during the reign of HENRY

VII (1485–1509), for it ends by praying Godto “save and keep our comely Queen,” HenryVII’s wife ELIZABETH OF YORK, the “LadyBessy” of the title.

The ballad begins with Elizabeth appealingto Lord Stanley to help her resist the marriageproposal of her uncle RICHARD III. Ratherthan marry her brothers’ murderer, Elizabeth isready to kill herself. Stanley enlists the aid ofhis brother, his sons, and other former servantsof EDWARD IV, Elizabeth’s late father. Theconspirators meet secretly in LONDON on 3May 1485 and agree to support the cause ofHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond, who hassworn to marry Elizabeth upon coming to thethrone. Elizabeth and the Stanleys dispatch Brereton with money and messages for Rich-mond, who is found at “Bigeram” abbey.Richmond agrees to come to England byMichaelmas, and Stanley withdraws from Lon-don, leaving his son Lord Strange in the king’shands. On Richmond’s arrival, Sir WilliamStanley openly defies the king’s summons, andLord Stanley meets with the earl and promisesto help him win the throne and Lady Bessy.

At Bosworth, Richard orders Lord Strange’sexecution when he sees Stanley’s men waitingin the distance. Sir William Harrington pleadsfor Strange’s life, which is spared when thesudden onset of battle distracts the king. Thepoem next describes the death of JohnHOWARD, duke of Norfolk, and the flight ofother lords in Richard’s army during the noiseand confusion of combat. When Harringtonurges Richard to flee, the king responds:

Give me my battle-axe in my hand,And set my crown on my head so high!For by Him that made both sun and moon,King of England this day I will die!

(Bennett, p. 175)

Richard is slain and his mangled body is car-ried to Leicester, where Lady Bessy rebukes itfor the murder of her brothers—“How likeyou the killing of my brethren dear? Welcome,gentle uncle, home” (Rowse, p. 255). Thepoem appears to contain several memories ofactual events; for instance, the ballad states that“The shots of guns were so fierce” (Rowse, p.254), a detail confirmed by the later findingon the field of ARTILLERY balls, perhaps fromthe serpentines Richmond was known to pos-sess. The poem is also the only description wehave of the plotting conducted in Englandagainst Richard in the months before the Bat-tle of Bosworth Field. Nonetheless, becausemuch of what the poem relates cannot be ver-ified or is demonstrably untrue, it has onlylimited use as a source for the battle, and it is,like the other Bosworth ballads, consideredpure fiction by some modern historians.

See also The Ballad of Bosworth Field; Princes inthe Tower; The Rose of England; Usurpation of1483Further Reading: Bennett, Michael, The Battle ofBosworth (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985);Rowse, A. L., Bosworth Field: From Medieval to TudorEngland (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966).

Stafford, Henry, Duke ofBuckingham (c. 1454–1483)Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, was in-strumental in ensuring the success of

252 SOCIAL CLASSES

RICHARD III’s usurpation of the throne in1483, an act that revived the WARS OF THE

ROSES.A grandson of both Humphrey STAF-

FORD, duke of Buckingham, and EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, Stafford be-came duke of Buckingham in 1460 on hisgrandfather’s death at the Battle of NORTH-AMPTON. In 1466, EDWARD IV married thewealthy young duke to his sister-in-law,Katherine Woodville, daughter of RichardWOODVILLE, Earl Rivers. Although willingto tie the duke’s estates and following to thegrowing Woodville interest, Edward otherwisegave Buckingham little employment, and theduke remained a rather obscure figure forsomeone of his wealth and royal blood.

However, Buckingham came into immedi-ate prominence on Edward’s death in April1483, when he joined forces with Richard,duke of Gloucester, to help him seize custodyof EDWARD V from Anthony WOODVILLE,Earl Rivers, the young king’s uncle and gover-nor. Aware of his need for Buckingham’s sup-port, Gloucester made the duke all-powerfulin WALES, appointing him to the most impor-tant Welsh offices and giving him the keepingof all royal castles in the principality. In return,Buckingham presided at a 25 June assembly ofnotables in LONDON that devised a petitionasking Gloucester to take the throne, and nextday he led a deputation to Baynard’s Castle topersonally present the petition to Richard.Buckingham was also the most conspicuouspeer at Richard III’s coronation on 6 July, offi-ciating as high steward and carrying the royaltrain.

Although rewarded with more offices andestates, Buckingham rose in rebellion in Octo-ber against the king he had helped crown (seeBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION). The reasonsfor his surprising action remain uncertain.Thetraditional reason, used by William Shake-speare in his play RICHARD III, is the king’sfailure to keep a promise to return to the dukecertain lands to which he had a claim, but thistheory is dismissed by most modern historiansbecause Richard restored the lands in questionin July 1483. The duke may have been dis-

turbed by Richard’s murder of Edward V andhis brother, although a modern case has beenmade that Buckingham was himself responsi-ble for their deaths. A descendent of EdwardIII, he may have sought the Crown for him-self, being encouraged in this ambition, as SirThomas More claimed in his HISTORY OF

KING RICHARD III, by Bishop John MOR-TON, a prisoner entrusted to Buckingham’skeeping by Richard III. He may have fearedhis fate should a conspiracy rapidly beingformed by Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE andMargaret BEAUFORT, Countess of Rich-mond, put Margaret’s son, Henry Tudor, earlof Richmond (see HENRYVII), on the thronewithout his help. In any event, Morton putBuckingham in touch with the Tudor con-spirators, and the duke rose in concert withthem in October.

Declared the “most untrue creature living”by Richard on 11 October (Ross, p. 116),Buckingham was captured by royal forces atthe end of the month after severe flooding onthe Severn and Wye rivers prevented his forcefrom moving east while royal forces cut off hisretreat to the west. Betrayed by a RETAINER

for the £1,000 reward placed on his head bythe king, Buckingham was carried to Salisburyand executed in the marketplace on 2 No-vember without trial or royal audience.

See also Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York(1473–c. 1483); Princes in the Tower; Usurpationof 1483; other entries under StaffordFurther Reading: Gill, Louise, Richard III andBuckingham’s Rebellion (Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999);“Henry Stafford,” inMichael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.363–364; Rawcliffe, Carole, The Staffords: Earls ofStafford and Dukes of Buckingham, 1394–1521(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978);Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981).

Stafford, Humphrey, Duke ofBuckingham (1402–1460)Humphrey Stafford, duke of Buckingham, wasone of the wealthiest magnates and largestlandowners in fifteenth-century England, as

STAFFORD, HUMPHREY, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM 253

well as a force for political moderation in theearly stages of the WARS OF THE ROSES.

Stafford was only a year old when his fa-ther’s death at the Battle of Shrewsbury madehim earl of Stafford. From his mother, a grand-daughter of Edward III, Stafford inheritedroyal blood and extensive estates. In 1421,Henry V knighted Stafford for his military ser-vice in FRANCE, and, by 1424, the young earlwas a prominent member of HENRY VI’s re-gency COUNCIL. Traveling abroad with theking in 1430, Stafford was appointed constableof France and governor of Paris. He partici-pated in several French campaigns in the1430s and was named captain of CALAIS in1442. Created duke of Buckingham in 1444,he took a lead role over the next two years inthe peace negotiations with France.

Although related to both Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, and Edmund BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset, and married to a sis-ter of Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury,Buckingham associated himself with neitherthe Lancastrian nor the Yorkist faction in the1450s. He disliked York’s ambition but op-posed the imposition of a severe punishmenton York after his submission following theDARTFORD UPRISING in 1452, and he co-operated with the duke during his FIRST

PROTECTORATE in 1454. In 1455, Bucking-ham commanded the royal army at the Battleof ST.ALBANS, where he refused to surrenderSomerset to York and negotiated unsuccess-fully for a peaceful settlement. He stayed withthe king during the ensuing battle and waswounded in the face by an arrow.

Buckingham again worked with York inthe years after St. Albans, but his fundamentalloyalty was to Henry VI, and he stood withthe king when hostilities broke out in 1459.Buckingham was with the royal army at theBattle of LUDFORD BRIDGE and attendedthe COVENTRY PARLIAMENT at whichYork and his Neville allies were attainted oftreason (see ATTAINDER, ACT OF). In July1460, the duke commanded the royal army atNORTHAMPTON, and repeatedly turnedaway messengers from Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, who were seeking to

arrange an audience for Warwick with theking. When the Yorkists overwhelmed theLancastrian line, Buckingham was one of thepeers who were slain defending the royalperson. He had probably been marked fordestruction by the Yorkists, as Somerset hadbeen at the Battle of St. Albans; by 1460, theworsening civil conflict had moved beyondthe policy of moderation and reconciliationthat Buckingham represented.

See also other entries under StaffordFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981);“Humphrey Stafford,” inMichael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.287–289; Rawcliffe, Carole, The Staffords: Earls ofStafford and Dukes of Buckingham, 1394–1521(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

Stafford, Humphrey, Earl of Devon (1439–1469)A loyal Yorkist, Humphrey Stafford was one ofthe men EDWARD IV raised to local politicalprominence in the 1460s, in an effort to buildsupport for the Yorkist regime and to defendagainst Lancastrian insurgency.

A member of a southwestern GENTRY

family distantly related to the dukes of Buck-ingham, Stafford was an early adherent to theYorkist cause. He fought at the Battle ofMORTIMER’S CROSS in February 1461, wasknighted by Edward IV after the Battle ofTOWTON in late March, and was raised to thePEERAGE as Lord Stafford of Southwick inJuly. By 1463, Edward began positioningStafford as the chief royal agent in the south-west, a region notoriously Lancastrian in itssympathies. The king appointed him to nu-merous local offices, granted him many for-feited southwestern estates, and gave himmany local wardships. Stafford also served onvarious political and administrative commis-sions across the region.

In 1469, Stafford was admitted to the royalCOUNCIL and served on the commission thattried Henry COURTENAY, earl of Devon, forplotting treason with agents of Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU. Perhaps because Stafford

254 STAFFORD, HUMPHREY, EARL OF DEVON

was given Devon’s lands and title in May1469, he was later accused of having engi-neered Devon’s trial and execution. AlthoughStafford was ambitious, the keen personal in-terest that the king took in the trial indicateshow seriously he took the charges and makesit more likely that Stafford was merely thebeneficiary rather than the instigator ofDevon’s downfall.

Within weeks of his promotion, the newearl was identified in a rebel manifesto in-spired by Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick,as one of a crowd of grasping courtiers whowere impoverishing the kingdom for theirown gain. Blaming the shrinking of his politi-cal influence on the rise of royal favorites likeDevon and the WOODVILLE FAMILY, War-wick tried to overawe the king by instigatingthe ROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION inthe summer of 1469. Ordered to raise troopsto quell the uprising, Devon joined forceswith William HERBERT, earl of Pembroke.Near Banbury on 25 July, the two earls quar-reled over billeting arrangements and woundup in separate encampments, Devon takingmost of the ARCHERS with him. When Pem-broke was attacked by the rebels next morningat EDGECOTE, the lack of archers contributedto his defeat. Devon marched to the field ofbattle, but either came too late to affect theoutcome or was unable to engage his forces.The earl fled into the West Country, but wasseized and executed on 17 August by thecommon people of Bridgwater, who may havebeen acting either in Warwick’s or theCourtenays’ interest.

See also other entries under StaffordFurther Reading: Ross, Charles, Edward IV(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998).

Stamford Bridge, Battle of (1454)Fought on or about 31 October 1454, theBattle of Stamford Bridge was one of the mostviolent episodes of the NEVILLE-PERCY

FEUD and an important factor in cementingthe political alignments that led to civil war.

In June 1454, after more than a year of ha-rassing and destroying the partisans and prop-

erty of the rival NEVILLE FAMILY, ThomasPERCY, Lord Egremont, second son of HenryPERCY, second earl of Northumberland,joined with Henry HOLLAND, duke of Ex-eter, in an uprising aimed at disrupting theFIRST PROTECTORATE of Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York. Exeter claimed thathe had more right to be protector of the realmduring HENRY VI’s illness than had York, andEgremont saw the duke’s rebellion as an op-portunity to escalate his attacks on York’s al-lies, the Nevilles, with whom Egremont’s fam-ily was vying for political dominance innorthern England. When York marched northto quell the uprising, Exeter fled to LONDON,where he was hauled from SANCTUARY andimprisoned in July. Egremont remained atlarge, recruiting followers from among thePercy tenantry.

In late October, while leading a band ofmore than 200 Percy RETAINERS, Egremontand his younger brother Richard Percy en-countered a force led by Thomas and JohnNEVILLE, younger sons of Richard NEVILLE,earl of Salisbury. The two forces collided eastof York on the Neville manor of StamfordBridge, near the site of the like-named battlewhere King Harold defeated Scandinavian in-vaders in 1066. Because most of their menseem to have fled before battle was fully en-gaged, Egremont and his brother fell into thehands of the Nevilles, who carried them toMiddleham Castle. A Neville-convened com-mission in York found Egremont liable to Sal-isbury for over £11,000 in damages, a stagger-ing sum well beyond the prisoner’s means.The judgment allowed the Nevilles to commitEgremont and his brother to prison in Lon-don as debtors, a confinement that lasted untilthe Percies’ escape in November 1456.

In the late 1450s, the mutual hostility thatmanifested itself at Stamford Bridge drove theNevilles to ally themselves with York for sup-port against the Percies, while the Percies feltobliged to ally themselves with the COURT

faction of Henry VI for support against theNevilles. Although Henry VI tried to recon-cile the parties with his LOVE-DAY of March1458, a settlement that required Egremont to

STAMFORD BRIDGE, BATTLE OF 255

give bonds to keep the peace and Salisbury todrop the monetary judgment against Egre-mont, the Neville and Percy alliances enduredand gave the houses of LANCASTER andYORK the strength and confidence theyneeded to proceed to open war with one an-other in 1459.

See also Henry VI, Illness of; North of Englandand the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A.,“LocalRivalries and National Politics: The Percies, theNevilles and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–1455” inRalph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country: Englandand Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London:Hambledon Press, 1991), pp. 321–364; Griffiths,Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Storey, R. L.,The End of the House of Lancaster, 2d ed. (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999).

Stanley, Thomas, Earl of Derby (c. 1435–1504)A powerful nobleman in northwestern En-gland, Thomas Stanley, second Lord Stanley,survived the WARS OF THE ROSES by notadhering strongly to any party and by repeat-edly demonstrating a remarkable ability toswitch sides at the most favorable moment.

In 1459, Stanley raised a large force on thecommand of Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU

but simultaneously gave a conditional promiseof support to her Yorkist opponent RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, who was Stanley’sfather-in-law. However, when Salisbury en-gaged the Lancastrians at the Battle of BLORE

HEATH, Stanley, who was only a few milesaway, kept his troops out of the fight.AlthoughStanley was accused of treason by the Lancas-trian-controlled COVENTRY PARLIAMENT,the queen chose to overlook his dealings withSalisbury, and Stanley fought for HENRYVI atthe Battle of NORTHAMPTON in 1460.

Stanley’s Lancastrian allegiance fell away in1461 when EDWARD IV won the throne andconferred upon him various lands and offices.In the spring of 1470, Stanley refused to assistthe ultimately unsuccessful revolt launched byhis brother-in-law, Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, but when Warwick returned in Oc-

tober and drove Edward from the kingdom,Stanley supported the READEPTION govern-ment of Henry VI (see EDWARD IV, OVER-THROW OF). When Edward returned inMarch 1471, Stanley remained carefully aloofand was rewarded by the victorious Yorkistswith appointments as lord steward and royalcouncilor (see EDWARD IV, RESTORATION

OF). In 1475, Stanley accompanied Edward IVon his French campaign, and in 1482, Stanleyheld a command in the duke of Gloucester’sScottish campaign.

After the death of Edward IV, Gloucester,fearing that Stanley might oppose his bid forthe throne, arrested Stanley at the infamousCOUNCIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483.However, by July, Stanley was free and suffi-ciently in favor to carry the mace at Glouces-ter’s coronation as RICHARD III (see USUR-PATION OF 1483). Married to MARGARET

BEAUFORT since 1472, Stanley carefully dis-tanced himself from her involvement in plotson behalf of her son, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, in the autumn of 1483. After thefailure of BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION,Margaret was placed in her husband’s keepingand all her lands were transferred to his cus-tody. Stanley retained Richard’s favor until thesummer of 1485, when Stanley’s extended ab-sence from COURT aroused the king’s suspi-cion. Refusing Richard’s summons to return,he sent his son Lord Strange, who found him-self a prisoner under threat of death whenRichmond landed in August in WALES andmarched unimpeded through Stanley terri-tory. Although he met with Richmond, andhis brother Sir William STANLEY gave theearl active assistance, Stanley remained cau-tiously neutral at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD on 22 August, ignoring both the pleasof Richmond and the orders of Richard. Thebattle was decided in Richmond’s favor by theintervention of Sir William Stanley. LordStrange survived the battle when Richard’sorder for his execution went unheeded.

As stepfather to the new king, HENRY VII,Stanley was in high favor, being created earl ofDerby in October 1485. He was also con-firmed in all his offices and granted the estates

256 STANLEY, THOMAS, EARL OF DERBY

of attainted Yorkists. Derby stood as godfatherto Prince Arthur in 1486 and survived hisbrother’s execution for treason in 1495 byagain remaining carefully neutral. He died inLancashire in July 1504.

Further Reading: Bagley, John J., The Earls ofDerby, 1485–1985 (London: Sidgwick andJackson, 1985); Coward, Barry, The Stanleys, LordsStanley, and Earls of Derby, 1385–1672(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983).

Stanley, Sir William (d. 1495)By his timely intervention during the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, Sir WilliamStanley ensured the overthrow of RICHARD

III and the accession to the English throne ofHENRYVII and the house of TUDOR.

In September 1459, Stanley eschewed thecareful neutrality of his elder brother ThomasSTANLEY, Lord Stanley, and declared himselfan open partisan of the house of YORK byfighting with Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salis-bury, against the Lancastrian forces at the Bat-tle of BLORE HEATH. Although attainted bythe COVENTRY PARLIAMENT in late 1459,Stanley survived, perhaps by fleeing abroad, tofight for EDWARD IV at the Battle of TOW-TON in March 1461. Well rewarded withlands and offices, especially in the Stanley-dominated counties of Chester and Lan-cashire, Stanley won further favor after theBattle of HEXHAM in 1464, receiving thelands of the late Lancastrian nobleman, JohnCLIFFORD, Lord Clifford.

Upon Edward IV’s return from exile in thespring of 1471, Stanley was among the firstgentlemen to rally to the Yorkist cause, joiningEdward at Nottingham with 300 men (seeEDWARD IV, RESTORATION OF). In the au-tumn of 1483, after the suppression of BUCK-INGHAM’S REBELLION, Richard III soughtto win Stanley’s support by granting him nu-merous lands and offices in WALES, includingsome formerly held by Henry STAFFORD, thelate duke of Buckingham. Despite these re-wards, Stanley disappointed the king in August1485 by failing to contest the entry into En-gland of Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond. On

17 August, Stanley met with Richmond inStafford, but did not join forces with the earl,even though Stanley had already been pro-claimed a traitor by the king on the strengthof a confession extracted from Stanley’snephew, Lord Strange. At Bosworth Field, theStanleys took up a position between the royaland rebel armies, leaving both sides unclear asto their intentions. Perhaps fearing for his lifeshould Richard win, Sir William Stanley ledhis troops into battle when the king chargedunexpectedly into Richmond’s lines. Byblunting the royal charge and killing Richard,Stanley’s attack ensured Richmond’s victory.

Now enthroned as Henry VII, Richmondrewarded Stanley with appointment as lordchamberlain and confirmation of Richard III’sWelsh land grants. However, in late 1494,Henry arrested Stanley on suspicion of in-volvement in Perkin WARBECK’s attempt toseize the throne by claiming to be one of thesons of Edward IV. Tried and convicted oftreason, Stanley was beheaded at the TOWER

OF LONDON in February 1495.

Further Reading: Bagley, John J., The Earls ofDerby, 1485–1985 (London: Sidgwick andJackson, 1985); Coward, Barry, The Stanleys, LordsStanley, and Earls of Derby, 1385–1672(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983).

Stillington, Robert, Bishop of Bath and Wells (d. 1491)In 1483, Robert Stillington, bishop of Bathand Wells, supposedly supplied Richard, dukeof Gloucester, with the information the dukeused to depose his nephew and thereby reani-mate the Wars of the Roses.

Born in Yorkshire, Stillington graduatedfrom Oxford in about 1442 and thereafter rosesteadily through the ecclesiastical hierarchy.He attached himself to the Yorkist cause in thelate 1450s, and in July 1460 was appointedkeeper of the privy seal by Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, who was then, as a conse-quence of his recent victory at the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON, in control of HENRY VIand the royal government. In 1465, Stillingtonwas elected bishop of Bath and Wells, and in

STILLINGTON, ROBERT, BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS 257

June 1467, EDWARD IV appointed the bishopchancellor of England. He was deprived of thechancellorship by Warwick when the earloverthrew Edward IV in the autumn of 1470,but restored to office by Edward upon his re-turn to the throne in the spring of 1471. Still-ington resigned the chancellorship in 1475and was then employed by Edward IV on anultimately unsuccessful effort to induceFRANCIS II, duke of BRITTANY, to surren-der Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond (seeHENRY VII), the surviving Lancastrianclaimant to the throne.

At the accession of EDWARD V in 1483,Stillington informed Richard, duke ofGloucester, the king’s paternal uncle, that Ed-ward IV had contracted marriage with oneEleanor Butler prior to his marriage to Eliza-beth WOODVILLE; Gloucester accepted theBUTLER PRECONTRACT as grounds for de-posing Edward V, holding that the Butler be-trothal illegitimized the king and his siblings asoffspring of an invalid marriage. As incorpo-rated in the 1484 statute TITULUS REGIUS,Stillington’s claims became the basis ofGloucester’s formal justification for taking theCrown. Many contemporary commentatorsand most modern historians have dismissedStillington’s supposed revelations as an inven-tion by Gloucester to legitimize his usurpa-tion. They point out that the story was un-known before 1483, and that the timing of itsappearance was too convenient for Glouces-ter’s ambition to be credible. The duke’s sup-porters argue that Stillington’s mysterious im-prisonment in 1478 for uttering wordsprejudicial to the king was the bishop’s pun-ishment for divulging the precontract story toEdward IV’s brother, George PLANTAGENET,duke of Clarence. The truth of Stillington’srevelations cannot now be determined.

In July 1483, Stillington officiated atGloucester’s coronation as RICHARD III, andthereafter became a favored member ofRichard’s COUNCIL. Shortly after his victoryat the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD in August1485, Henry VII, Richard’s supplanter, orderedStillington’s arrest, but pardoned the bishop

three months later. Henry had his first PAR-LIAMENT repeal Titulus Regius, but took noaction against the supposed author of thestatute’s contents. In 1487, Stillington involvedhimself in the uprising instigated by LambertSIMNEL, who claimed to be the Yorkist heir,Edward PLANTAGENET, earl of Warwick.After the collapse of Simnel’s enterprise at theBattle of STOKE in June 1487, the king im-prisoned Stillington at Windsor, where thebishop died in May 1491.

See also Edward IV, Overthrow of; Edward IV,Restoration of; Shaw’s Sermon; Usurpation of1483Further Reading: Kendall, Paul Murray, Richardthe Third (New York: W. W. Norton, 1956); Levine,Mortimer, Tudor Dynastic Problems, 1460–1571(London: George Allen and Unwin, 1973); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Stoke, Battle of (1487)Considered the last major battle of the WARS

OF THE ROSES, the Battle of Stoke, fought on16 June 1487, ended the first significant at-tempt to overthrow HENRY VII and restorethe house of YORK.

The failure of the 1486 LOVELL-STAF-FORD UPRISING resulted in large part fromthe lack of a Yorkist candidate for the throneto rally support. This deficiency was remediedin 1487, when a priest named Richard (orWilliam) Simonds arrived in IRELAND with aboy Simonds claimed was Edward PLANTA-GENET, earl of Warwick, the nephew of ED-WARD IV. Although the child was in realityLambert SIMNEL, the son of an Oxfordtradesman, he was apparently attractive and in-telligent and well coached by Simonds to playthe part of a Yorkist prince. Gerald FITZGER-ALD, earl of Kildare, the Irish lord deputy, im-mediately accepted Simnel as Warwick, not,probably, out of genuine belief, but in thehope that a Yorkist regime restored with Irishassistance would grant Ireland greater auton-omy. Having won a base in Ireland, the Simnelimposture gained further support in BUR-

258 STOKE, BATTLE OF

GUNDY, where Duchess MARGARET OF

YORK, the real Warwick’s aunt, and suchprominent Yorkist exiles as Francis LOVELL,Lord Lovell, and John de la POLE, earl of Lin-coln, another nephew of Edward IV, joinedthe movement. Lincoln and Lovell came toDublin for the 24 May coronation of Simnelas “Edward VI,” bringing with them men andmoney supplied by Margaret.Although the ul-timate intent of the Yorkist leaders was proba-bly to enthrone Lincoln, they were willing touse Simnel as a figurehead to generate supportfor a Yorkist restoration.

In LONDON, Henry VII took the realWarwick from the TOWER OF LONDON andparaded him through the streets. On 4 June1487, the Yorkists landed on the Lancashirecoast. As the rebels crossed Yorkshire, theygathered significant gentry support and en-larged their numbers to almost 9,000 men, al-though the city of York denied them entryand such prominent northern lords as HenryPERCY, earl of Northumberland, and ThomasSTANLEY, earl of Derby, mobilized for theking. On the morning of 16 June, the Yorkistarmy, which comprised strong contingents ofGerman and Irish MERCENARIES as well asthe English forces picked up on the march,formed a line of battle on a hill southwest ofthe Nottinghamshire village of East Stoke.The king and his commanders were unawareof how close the rebel forces were, and theyadvanced in columns, unprepared for battle.John de VERE, earl of Oxford, commander ofthe royal vanguard, was the first to encounterthe Yorkists. To stay in the open awaiting theking and the rest of the army was to invite de-struction; to retreat was to risk disintegrationthrough panic and low morale. Oxford there-fore decided to attack the larger force, sendingmessengers to advise Henry to advance withall speed.

At about 9 A.M., Oxford’s ARCHERS

opened the battle, doing particular executionamong the lightly armored Irish, who thencharged downhill taking the rest of the Yorkistarmy with them.Although Oxford’s men wereexperienced fighters, they were hard-pressed

by the larger Yorkist force, and only the timelyarrival of the rest of the royal army under theking and his uncle, Jasper TUDOR, earl ofBedford, saved Oxford from defeat. Unable tostand against fresh troops, the Yorkist linebroke, and many rebels were killed as they fleddown a steep ravine. Lincoln died on the field,as did Lovell, although his body was neverfound. Simnel was captured, pardoned, and setto work in the royal kitchens. Henry VII hadsurvived the first Yorkist attempt on histhrone.

See also Warbeck, Perkin;Yorkist Heirs (after1485)Further Reading: Bennett, Michael J., LambertSimnel and the Battle of Stoke (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1987).

Stonor Letters and PapersThe letters and papers of the Stonors, membersof an established Oxfordshire GENTRY family,are one of the most important surviving familyarchives from the fifteenth century.The Stonordocuments are particularly valuable becausethey provide a view of gentry life during theWARS OF THE ROSES that is in distinct con-trast to the view offered by the PASTON LET-TERS, the most famous surviving collection offifteenth-century correspondence.

Although the Stonor archive contains doc-uments ranging in date from 1290 to 1483,the bulk of the material dates to the late fif-teenth century and relates to Thomas Stonor(1424–1474) and to his son Sir WilliamStonor (1449–1494). Thomas married a natu-ral daughter of HENRY VI’s chief minister,William de la POLE, duke of Suffolk, but thisconnection to the house of LANCASTER didnot induce Thomas to support Henry. Theelder Stonor avoided serious commitment toeither side during the first two phases of theWars of the Roses. After 1474, William Stonorimproved the family’s financial position by en-gaging in the wool trade and by marrying aseries of wealthy wives, including the widowof a prosperous LONDON merchant and thedaughter of the late John NEVILLE, marquis of

STONOR LETTERS AND PAPERS 259

Montagu, the younger brother of RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick.

William also advanced through service tothe house of YORK. He represented Oxford-shire in the PARLIAMENT of 1478, which ac-quiesced in EDWARD IV’s attainder of hisbrother George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence. Knighted during the 1478 celebra-tions surrounding the marriage of Edward’syounger son, Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, Stonor, by 1479, also held appoint-ment as knight of the body, a privileged posi-tion of personal service to the monarch.Stonor also attached himself to ThomasGREY, marquis of Dorset, and to theWOODVILLE FAMILY interest. Sir William’sloyalty to EDWARD V led him to undertakethe family’s one serious involvement in thecivil wars. In October 1483, he joined BUCK-INGHAM’S REBELLION against RICHARD

III. Upon the collapse of the uprising, SirWilliam, who may have fled with Dorset toBRITTANY, lost his estates through ATTAIN-DER, although all were restored by HENRY

VII in 1485.The Stonor archive, which includes over

300 letters, household accounts, wills, andother documents, owes its preservation eitherto being confiscated in 1483 (when the col-lection ends) or to being gathered as evidencefor an inheritance dispute case in 1500. Thedocuments shed little light on political ormilitary affairs, but therein lies their impor-tance. Unlike the Paston letters, which are fullof the political turmoil that afflicted East An-glia during the period, the Stonor papersshow how peaceful life was for the Midlandsgentry, many of whom seem to have avoidedinvolvement in the civil conflict. The Stonordocuments support what most historians nowbelieve—for many people the Wars of theRoses caused only minimal disruption oftheir lives.

See also Cely Letters and Papers; MilitaryCampaigns, Duration of; Plumpton Letters andPapersFurther Reading: Carpenter, Christine, ed.,Kingsford’s Stonor Letters and Papers, 1290–1483

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996).

Suffolk, Duke of. See entries under Pole

Sun in Splendor/Sunburst BadgeAlthough history has closely identified thehouse of YORK with the white rose emblem,the favorite personal badge of EDWARD IVwas the Sun in Splendor or the bright goldensunburst.

The badge apparently derived from a mete-orological phenomenon that appeared in thesky to Edward, then earl of March, before theBattle of MORTIMER’S CROSS in February1461. On the morning of the battle, which wasfought only a month after the death of his fa-ther, Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York,Edward saw three suns shining “in the firma-ment . . . full clear” (Ross, p. 53). Taking thissight to be an omen of victory, Edward wenton to win the first battle fought under his lead-ership. Edward’s sunburst badge was soonclosely associated with the king and his family.It appeared frequently on buildings con-structed or refurbished by Edward, such as St.George’s Chapel at Windsor and TewkesburyAbbey near the site of the 1471 Yorkist victoryat the Battle of TEWKESBURY. The emblemalso found its way into manuscripts writtenunder Yorkist auspices and onto tapestries orapparel created for the Yorkist COURT.

The streaming sunburst badge also playedan important role in the Battle of BARNET inApril 1471. As the positions of the two strug-gling armies shifted on the fog-shrouded field,the men of John de VERE, earl of Oxford, oneof the Lancastrian commanders, came up un-expectedly behind some of their own men asthey tried to reengage after driving part of theYorkist army from the fight. Because theywere wearing Oxford’s badge of a star withstreams, they were mistaken in the mist forYorkist troops wearing the well-known sun-burst badge, the sun with streams, of EdwardIV. When Lancastrian ARCHERS opened fire

260 SUFFOLK, DUKE OF

on them, Oxford’s surprised and confusedmen thought themselves betrayed and fled thefield crying “treason!” The incident severelydemoralized the Lancastrian line, which soonafter broke, allowing Edward’s men to surgeforward, killing the fleeing Richard NEVILLE,earl of Warwick, and winning the battle.

See also Badges; Bastard FeudalismFurther Reading: Ross, Charles, The Wars of theRoses (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Surrey, Earl of. See Howard, Thomas,Earl of Surrey and Duke of Norfolk

SURREY, EARL OF 261

Tailboys, Sir William (c. 1416–1464)Although responsible for numerous crimes inhis county and therefore a prime example ofthe local corruption and disorder that madeHENRY VI’s government so ineffective andunpopular, Sir William Tailboys (or Talboys)was a staunch partisan of the house of LAN-CASTER after the outbreak of the WARS OF

THE ROSES.Born into a Lincolnshire GENTRY family

that descended from a Norman follower ofWilliam the Conqueror, Tailboys entered theking’s household in 1441 and married thedaughter of a prominent courtier, WilliamBONVILLE, Lord Bonville, in 1446. Possessedof a fierce temper and an aggressive nature,Tailboys deeply involved himself in the mag-nate feuds that disturbed Lincolnshire in the1440s. In November 1449, perhaps in pursuitof these local quarrels,Tailboys assaulted RalphCromwell, Lord Cromwell, at Westminster, anact that Cromwell and others attributed toTailboys’s political patron, William de la POLE,duke of Suffolk.Tailboys’s violence helped pre-cipitate Suffolk’s impeachment by PARLIA-MENT in early 1450. The duke’s protection ofTailboys for the Westminster assault and forearlier disorders was used as evidence of Suf-folk’s corruption and abuse of power.

After Suffolk’s fall, Tailboys was fined andbriefly imprisoned, but he continued to con-spire against his Lincolnshire enemies, and in1452 he attempted to falsely implicateCromwell in the unsuccessful DARTFORD

UPRISING undertaken by Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York.When civil war eruptedin 1459, Tailboys was a firm Lancastrian. Hefought for Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU at

the Battle of ST. ALBANS in February 1461and was knighted after the battle by Henry VI.After the Battle of TOWTON in March 1461,he fled into SCOTLAND with the Lancastrianroyal family. EDWARD IV seized Tailboys’s es-tates in May, and the first Yorkist Parliamentincluded him in a bill of ATTAINDER in No-vember.

In the same month, Tailboys led a forceinto England and recaptured ALNWICK CAS-TLE for Henry VI. He then marched to DUN-STANBURGH CASTLE, where Sir RalphPercy, whom Edward had retained in com-mand when the Yorkists took the fortress, sur-rendered the castle to him. Tailboys himselfsurrendered Alnwick in July 1462 to a forceunder William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings, andSir John HOWARD, who allowed him towithdraw into Scotland. In April 1464, Tail-boys fought under Henry BEAUFORT, dukeof Somerset, at the Battle of HEDGELEY

MOOR. One month later, he fought againwith Somerset at the Battle of HEXHAM.Shortly after the battle, soldiers of JohnNEVILLE, Lord Montagu, the victor of Hex-ham, captured Tailboys as he hid in a coal pit.A large sum of money, apparently Lancastrianwar funds, was found on his person. Tailboyswas then taken to Newcastle and executed.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Tewkesbury, Battle of (1471)The Battle of Tewkesbury, fought on 4 May1471, completed EDWARD IV’s restoration

263

T

to the throne and destroyed the Lancastriancause.

On 14 April 1471, the day RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, was defeated andslain at the Battle of BARNET, Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU and her son EDWARD OF

LANCASTER, Prince of Wales, landed in En-

gland. Met by Edmund BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, and other loyal Lancastrians, thequeen, although grieved to hear of HENRY

VI’s reimprisonment in the TOWER OF

LONDON, was persuaded to continue the warby marching into the West Country, wheresupport for her cause was strong. On 19 April,

264 TEWKESBURY, BATTLE OF

Edward IV (crowned at center right) leads his army against the Lancastrians at the Battle of Tewkesbury in May 1471. (MS236, University of Ghent)

Edward IV left LONDON and marched slowlywestward through the Thames Valley collect-ing reinforcements to make good his losses atthe Battle of Barnet. His aim was to preventMargaret, who was gathering substantial forcesin the West Country, from turning north andcrossing the Severn River into WALES, whereshe could join with the troops of JasperTUDOR, earl of Pembroke.

Entering Bristol in late April, the Lancastri-ans acquired much needed provisions beforecontinuing their march toward the Severn.Drawn southward away from the river by aLancastrian feint toward Sodbury, Edwardmade up the lost time with the help of SirRichard Beauchamp, who held the river cross-ing at Gloucester against the queen’s army andso compelled it to move upriver to the ford atTewkesbury. After a forced march of overthirty miles, the Yorkist army arrived atTewkesbury on the evening of 3 May. Al-though the Lancastrians held a strong position,they had not been able to cross the river.

Early the next morning, before battle com-menced, Edward sent a small force of spear-men to reconnoitre a nearby wooded areafrom which he feared the Lancastrians mightlaunch the kind of surprise flank attack theyhad employed at the Battle of TOWTON in1461. Finding the woods unoccupied, thespearmen waited there for the fighting tobegin. Meanwhile, Somerset, the Lancastriancommander, used a small hill to his right tohide a flanking move with which he hoped tosurprise and roll up the Yorkist line, much asthe Yorkists had done to win the Battle ofNORTHAMPTON in 1460. After openingbarrages by the ARCHERS and ARTILLERY,the armies advanced upon one another. Som-erset’s flank attack surprised the Yorkist vanunder Edward’s brother, Richard, duke ofGloucester (see RICHARD III), but the ex-pected supporting attack by the rest of theLancastrian army under John WENLOCK,Lord Wenlock, failed to materialize. Instead ofcatching the Yorkists between two wings ofhis army, Somerset now found himself heavilyengaged by Gloucester in his front and assailedby the hidden Yorkist spearmen from the rear.

Under this double assault, Somerset’s troopsbroke and fled toward the river, pursued byGloucester’s men.

Edward IV drove the rest of his army for-ward and quickly overwhelmed the remain-der of the Lancastrian force. Enraged at Wen-lock’s failure to support him, Somerset issupposed to have slain Wenlock with a battle-ax, thus depriving the Lancastrian army ofleadership at a crucial moment. Somerset sur-vived the battle, but he was executed atTewkesbury several days later after beingdragged out of SANCTUARY at the localabbey. At some point in the final rout, thePrince of Wales, who was nominally in com-mand of Wenlock’s force, was killed on thefield. Various unreliable accounts claim thathe was slain by Gloucester; died crying outfor aid from his brother-in-law, GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence; or wascaptured and slain in the king’s presence. In alllikelihood, he was killed while fleeing thebattle, slain by Yorkist soldiers seeking a richlord to plunder. Queen Margaret was cap-tured two days later and imprisoned in theTower, where, on 21 May, Edward IV com-pleted the destruction of the house of LAN-CASTER by ordering the murder of Henry VI(see HENRY VI, MURDER OF).

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Hammond, P. W., The Battles of Barnet andTewkesbury (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990).

Thomas ap Gruffydd (d. 1473)During the 1460s, Thomas ap Gruffydd ledone of the most influential Lancastrian fami-lies in South WALES.

The son of Gruffydd ap Nicholas, Thomashelped his father establish their family’s ascen-dancy throughout southwest Wales in the1440s and 1450s. This dominance was oftenachieved by force and in defiance of the lawand the will of a weak and distant king. Thefamily’s position was threatened after 1455,when the struggle between the English housesof LANCASTER and YORK spilled into

THOMAS AP GRUFFYDD 265

Wales, forcing many Welsh families to choosesides. In 1456, HENRYVI sent his half brother,Edmund TUDOR, earl of Richmond, to Walesto reestablish royal authority. Within months,Richmond was at war with William HER-BERT and Walter DEVEREUX, the chiefWelsh lieutenants of Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York. By joining with Rich-mond, Thomas and his father earned a royalpardon for all past offences in October 1456.Although the earl died in November, the deci-sion was, at least initially, a wise one, for Rich-mond’s brother, Jasper TUDOR, earl of Pem-broke, restored Lancastrian control to much ofWales over the next three years.

After his father’s death in 1460, Thomasand his brothers maintained their Lancastrianallegiance, fighting alongside Pembroke at theBattle of MORTIMER’S CROSS in February1461, and holding the castle of Carreg Cen-nen against a Yorkist siege until May 1462.Compelled at last to surrender the castle,Thomas negotiated an agreement that guaran-teed his freedom. Thereafter, Thomas and hisbrothers led the continuing resistance to York-ist rule in southern and western Wales. Afteran unsuccessful uprising in 1464, Thomas andhis younger son RHYS AP THOMAS fled toBURGUNDY, where they entered the serviceof Duke PHILIP and, after his death in 1467,the service of his son Duke CHARLES.

In Wales, Thomas’s brothers and older sonsso vexed the Yorkist regime that EDWARD IVspecifically excluded them from a pardon of-fered to the Lancastrian defenders of HAR-LECH CASTLE in July 1468. After RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, restored Henry VIto the throne in October 1470, the Lancas-trian READEPTION government offered thefamily a full pardon, and Pembroke’s return toWales restored the family’s local authority (seeEDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). Thomasand his son returned from the continent in1471, only to find that Edward IV had re-gained the throne (see EDWARD IV,RESTORATION OF). Although some of hisrelatives submitted, Thomas continued at oddswith the Herberts, the chief Yorkist family ofWales. He was killed in about 1473 in an en-

counter with Herbert forces in southernWales. Although at peace with Edward IV,Thomas’s family was superseded in its local in-fluence in the 1470s by the COUNCIL thatruled Wales in the name of Prince Edward(see EDWARDV).

Further Reading: Evans, H. T., Wales and theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995); Griffiths, Ralph A.,Sir Rhys ap Thomas and His Family (Cardiff, UK:University of Wales Press, 1993).

Tiptoft, John, Earl of Worcester (c. 1427–1470)John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, was noted bothfor his humanist scholarship and for the cru-elty with which he exercised the office ofconstable of England.

Created earl of Worcester in 1449, he wasappointed treasurer in 1452, royal councilor in1453, and lord deputy of IRELAND in 1456.Sent on embassy to Italy about 1458, he stud-ied Latin at Padua, explored the antiquities ofVenice and Florence, and even visited Pales-tine. While staying at the papal court inRome, he supposedly impressed Pius II withhis Latin, and he is said to have depleted the li-braries of Italy with the quantity of his bookpurchases.

Having missed the political upheavals of1459–1460, Worcester returned to England in1461 and was received with immediate favorby the new Yorkist regime. EDWARD IV ap-pointed the earl chief justice of NorthWALES, constable of the TOWER OF LON-DON, and constable of England. In February1462, he tried and condemned various ac-cused traitors in his constable’s court; amongthose suffering were John de Vere, twelfth earlof Oxford; his son Aubrey; and Sir ThomasTuddenham (see OXFORD CONSPIRACY).In 1464, he condemned Sir Ralph Grey andnumerous other recently captured Lancastrianrebels. In 1467, he was again appointed lorddeputy of Ireland, where he added to hisgrowing reputation for cruelty by executinghis predecessor in office, Thomas FITZGER-ALD, earl of Desmond.

266 TIPTOFT, JOHN, EARL OF WORCESTER

Worcester rode with the king in the springof 1470 in the campaign against the Lin-colnshire rebellion instigated by RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and by Edward’sbrother, George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence. Reappointed constable, Worcestercondemned numerous rebels to be hanged,drawn, and quartered. He won for himself thesobriquet “butcher of England” by impaling,apparently without the king’s consent, theheads and bodies of the condemned traitors,an innovation in the traditional mode of exe-cution that many English people found partic-ularly distasteful. When Warwick forced Ed-ward IV to flee the country in October 1470,Worcester went into hiding but was quicklycaptured (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). Accused of indulging his Italian tastes byintroducing the tyrannical “law of Padua” intoEngland, Worcester was tried and condemnedin a constable’s court presided over by John deVERE, thirteenth earl of Oxford, whose fatherand brother Worcester had condemned in1462. At his execution on 18 October 1470,Worcester supposedly asked the headsman tostrike three blows in honor of the trinity. In1481, William CAXTON printed several ofWorcester’s English translations of Latinworks.

Further Reading: “John Tiptoft,” in MichaelHicks, Who’s Who in Late Medieval England(London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 320–321;Mitchell, R. J., John Tiptoft (London: Longmans,

Green, 1938); Weiss, Roberto, Humanism inEngland during the Fifteenth Century (Oxford:Blackwell, 1967).

Titulus RegiusTitulus Regius (“royal title”) is the documentthat formally declares RICHARD III’s title tothe throne. Incorporated into an act of PAR-LIAMENT in 1484, the document is there de-scribed as a “roll of parchment” or petitionpresented by “the three estates of this realm” toRichard, duke of Gloucester, requesting him totake the Crown.The petition, which was likelycompiled at Richard’s direction, justifies his ac-cession by explaining why the children of hisolder brothers were barred from the succes-sion. Because it was presented to Richard be-fore he took the throne, probably at a meetingin LONDON on 26 June 1483, Titulus Regius isthe first and clearest statement of Richard’sreasons for replacing his nephew as king.

The petition, which Richard had widelypublished after its presentation, invalidates themarriage of EDWARD IV and ElizabethWOODVILLE by stating, without giving anysources, that Edward was not free to marryElizabeth because he was already betrothed toEleanor Butler. The BUTLER PRECON-TRACT meant that king and queen were liv-ing “together sinfully and damnably in adul-tery,” and that all their children, includingEDWARD V and his brother Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, were “bastards . . .unable to inherit or to claim anything by in-heritance.” Titulus Regius also condemns theWoodville marriage as having been contrivedby witchcraft, worked upon the king by thebride and her mother, JACQUETTA OF LUX-EMBOURG, duchess of Bedford, and as havingbeen made in secret, “without reading ofbanns” and contrary to “the laudable customsof the Church of England.” Because GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, Richard’sother brother, was “convicted and attainted ofhigh treason” in 1478, his son Edward PLAN-TAGENET, earl of Warwick, was likewise “dis-abled . . . of all right and claim . . . to thecrown and dignity royal.” With all Richard’s

TITULUS REGIUS 267

The dragon badge of John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester. (Add.MS 40742 f. 10, British Library)

nephews and nieces thus barred from the suc-cession, Titulus Regius declares Richard to bethe only “person living . . . that by right mayclaim the said crown and dignity royal by wayof inheritance.”

The document also argues that RichardIII’s accession is necessary for the restoration

of good government, which suffered underEdward IV due to his acceptance of the“counsel of persons, insolent, vicious, and ofinordinate avarice,” meaning, the queen’s fam-ily, the Woodvilles. Edward is characterized as“delighting in adulation and flattery, and ledby sensuality and concupiscence,” while

268 TITULUS REGIUS

The opening of the statute Titulus Regius showing (halfway down) the text of the petition that was presented to Richard,duke of Gloucester, in June 1483 to urge him to take the throne. (Public Record Office: PRO C 65/114)

Richard is praised for his “great wit, prudence,justice, princely courage, and memorable andlaudable acts in diverse battles.”The documentalso hints at the rumored illegitimacy of Ed-ward IV and Clarence, who were born abroadin Rouen and Dublin, respectively, by statingthat Richard was “born within this land,”whereby the estates might have “more certainknowledge of your birth and filiation.” TitulusRegius also declares Richard “the undoubtedson and heir of Richard, late Duke of York,”thereby implying Richard’s acceptance ofdoubts as to his brothers’ paternity and as tohis mother’s fidelity.

Although serving as the justification forRichard III’s usurpation, the declarations ofTitulus Regius were apparently not universallyaccepted, especially after the disappearance ofEdward IV’s sons in the TOWER OF LON-DON in the late summer of 1483. In 1484,Richard’s first and only Parliament gave thepetition statutory authority, explaining thatsuch enactment was necessary to settle the“doubts, questions, and ambiguities” that hadarisen since 1483 “in the minds of diverse per-sons.” Because Titulus Regius questioned the le-gitimacy of his soon-to-be queen, ELIZABETH

OFYORK, HENRYVII had the act repealed byhis first Parliament in 1485 and sought to de-stroy all existing copies of the document.

See also Neville, Cecily, Duchess of York;Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York (d. 1460);Princes in the Tower; Usurpation of 1483;Woodville FamilyFurther Reading: Hicks, Michael, Richard III:The Man behind the Myth (London: Collins andBrown, 1991); the text of Titulus Regius is availableon the Richard III Society Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts/tit_reg.html>.

Touchet, James, Lord Audley (c. 1398–1459)James Touchet (or Tuchet), fifth Lord Audley,was commander of the Lancastrian forces atthe Battle of BLORE HEATH in September1459.

Although over sixty at the time,Audley hadmilitary experience, having been coleader ofan English army sent to FRANCE in 1431 and

one of the nobles who helped suppress JACK

CADE’S REBELLION in 1450. Audley alsoserved as justiciar of South WALES from 1423to 1438, and as chamberlain of that regionfrom 1439 until his death. An important land-holder in Staffordshire, Shropshire, andCheshire, and a strong supporter of HENRY

VI, Audley was a natural choice for leadershipof the Lancastrian forces ordered by QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU to intercept RichardNEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, as he crossedStaffordshire with his army in the autumn of1459.

Many of the men in Audley’s force were hisown tenants, whom he had raised quickly onthe queen’s summons. Audley’s support of theLancastrian cause may have rested in part on along-standing grievance involving his wife’sfruitless attempt to lay claim, as an illegitimatedaughter, to her father’s estates, which hadpassed to Salisbury and to Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York. At Blore Heath on 23September, Audley led several assaults againstSalisbury’s smaller force. In the midst of battle,Sir Roger Kynaston of Hordley, a RETAINER

of York’s, slew Audley, whose army was even-tually defeated and scattered.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reignof King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); Haigh, Philip A., TheMilitary Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Swynnerton, Brian, and William Swinnerton, TheBattle of Blore Heath, 1459 (Nuneaton: PaddyGriffith Associates, 1995).

Tours, Treaty of. See ChinonAgreement

Tower of LondonAlthough also a fortress, armory, and royal res-idence, the Tower of London was the principalEnglish state prison, and as such it was theplace of imprisonment and execution formany prominent figures during the WARS OF

THE ROSES.In 1077, William the Conqueror began

building a large stone castle along the Thames

TOWER OF LONDON 269

at the southeast corner of the old Roman wallsurrounding LONDON. Known as the WhiteTower because it was originally whitewashed,William’s fortress had by the fifteenth centurybecome the center of a large complex of de-fensive walls and towers constructed by vari-ous medieval monarchs. The Tower first be-came a factor in the civil wars in July 1460.

After the city authorities allowed RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and the otherYorkist earls from CALAIS to enter London,the city’s Lancastrian garrison withdrew to theTower, where it held out for weeks under thecommand of Thomas SCALES, Lord Scales.After his capitulation, Scales was released bythe Yorkists, but murdered by Londoners en-

270 TOWER OF LONDON

A late-fifteenth-century depiction of the Tower of London, much as it appeared when Edward V and his brother were lodgedthere in 1483. (Royal MS 16 F II f. 73, British Library)

raged at the death and destruction his Towerguns had rained on the city.

After his accession, EDWARD IV enlargedthe Tower fortifications and built the first per-manent scaffold on Tower Hill. To pacify thecity authorities, who had previously enjoyedthe financial benefits deriving from the crowdsthat attended public executions, Edward al-lowed the city to supervise all Tower Hill exe-cutions. The most prominent Tower prisonerduring the wars was HENRY VI, who, exceptfor the months of his READEPTION in1470–1471, was confined in the WakefieldTower from 1465 to 1471. Although Lancas-trian writers complained that Henry was ill-treated during his imprisonment, contempo-rary Tower accounts indicate that he had agenerous allowance for food and clothing, wasallowed to hear Mass, and had occasional visi-tors. Henry was murdered in the Tower on thenight of 21 May 1471, shortly before his wife,Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU, was alsoconfined there. Another mysterious death oc-curred in the Tower in February 1478, whenGeorge PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,Edward IV’s brother, was executed privately inthe fortress by unknown means, although leg-end claims the duke was drowned in a butt ofmalmsey wine.

The Tower was the site of several momen-tous events in 1483, including the dramaticCOUNCIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE, duringwhich William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings,was arrested and summarily executed onTower Hill, ostensibly for plotting againstRichard, duke of Gloucester. During the fol-lowing months, after Gloucester had seizedthe throne as RICHARD III, his deposednephew EDWARD V and Edward’s brother,Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, disap-peared in the Tower, where they were proba-bly murdered on Richard’s order. Later ac-counts of the princes’ deaths claimed theywere buried secretly in the Tower, a claim thatgained credence in 1674 when two sets ofbones belonging to boys their age were un-covered during Tower renovations.

See also Bones of 1674; Clarence, Executions of;Princes in the Tower

Further Reading: Mears, Kenneth J., The Towerof London: 900 Years of English History (Oxford:Phaidon, 1988); Wilson, Derek A., The Tower ofLondon:A Thousand Years (London: Allison andBusby, 1998).

Towns and the Wars of the RosesBecause the English had little experience orexpertise in siege warfare, the WARS OF THE

ROSES witnessed only one assault on a walledcity (LONDON in 1471) and saw little battledamage inflicted on English towns. Becausemost towns sought to avoid the politicalpenalties and financial burdens of taking sides,few made strong commitments to either party.

Although most towns contained partisans ofboth the house of LANCASTER and the houseof YORK, municipal governments tried toavoid all but the most token involvement in thecivil wars. Small boroughs located in an areadominated by a powerful magnate often hadlittle option but to follow his political lead;however, larger towns, being independent cor-porations, sought to remain neutral or to avoidassociation with the losing side. But neutralitywas often difficult to achieve. For instance, in1470, the town of Salisbury received both a de-mand for men from Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, and an order from EDWARD IV todeny the earl troops. When Warwick’s repre-sentative refused an offer of money instead ofmen, the town sent the requested troops, largelybecause Warwick was nearby while the kingwas far away in the north. In 1471, Salisburyfirst promised men to the READEPTION gov-ernment of HENRYVI, then offered the troopsto Edward IV after his victory at the Battle ofBARNET, and finally reneged on that promisewhen MARGARET OF ANJOU landed nearby.In the end, only fourteen men from Salisburyfought at the Battle of TEWKESBURY, havingjoined the Yorkist army as Edward IV passednear the town on his westward march.

Although London denied Queen Margaretentry in 1461 and repelled the attack ofThomas NEVILLE, the Bastard of Fauconberg,in 1471, both decisions were based largely onthe fear of being plundered; in most cases, a

TOWNS AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES 271

town willingly opened its gates to a victoriousarmy operating in its neighborhood. However,such decisions could have serious conse-quences should the fortunes of war change.Bristol paid heavy fines for admitting the Lan-castrian army during the Tewkesbury cam-paign of 1471, and Canterbury suffered finesand loss of privileges for too ardently support-ing Fauconberg’s enterprise. The desire toavoid disfavor, combined with an equallystrong desire to avoid the expense of equippingtroops, explains why towns supplied relativelyfew men to civil war armies. For example, thelarge city of Norwich tardily raised only 120men for the Battle of TOWTON in 1461, butfour years earlier had easily raised over 600 todefend the town itself from a threatenedFrench attack. In 1485, the city of York, whichclaimed a special relationship with RICHARD

III, provided only eighty men to fight for theking at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD. Ingeneral, the high political and financial costs ofcommitment kept most towns from active in-volvement in the Wars of the Roses.

See also English Economy and the Wars of theRoses; March on LondonFurther Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); Goodman, Anthony, TheWars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press, 1981);Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (London:Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Towton, Battle of (1461)Fought on 29 March 1461, Towton was thelargest and bloodiest battle of the Wars of theRoses. Although the Yorkist victory left ED-WARD IV in possession of the Crown,HENRY VI and his family fled to SCOTLAND

after the battle, leaving England with two liv-ing, anointed monarchs and ensuring that dy-nastic conflict and political turmoil wouldcontinue for the next decade.

After the death of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, at the Battle of WAKEFIELD inDecember 1460, Edward, earl of March, theduke’s eldest son, assumed leadership of theYorkist cause. March joined forces withRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, on 22 Feb-

ruary 1461, five days after Queen MARGARET

OF ANJOU had defeated Warwick at the Battleof ST.ALBANS and reunited herself and her sonwith Henry VI. While the queen’s army with-drew into the north, March entered LONDON,where he was crowned as Edward IV on 4March. Leaving the capital on 13 March, Ed-ward moved slowly northward to give his prin-cipal lieutenants time to raise troops. He unitedwith two of them, Warwick and WilliamNEVILLE, Lord Fauconberg, on the road toYork, but the third, John MOWBRAY, duke ofNorfolk, had not yet arrived when the Yorkistarmy reached Pontefract on 27 March. Receiv-ing a message that Norfolk was close, Edwardadvanced against the Lancastrian army, whichhad taken up a position about fifteen milessouthwest of York, near the village of Towton.

After two engagements at FERRYBRIDGE

on 27 and 28 March, the armies met next day,a cold and snowy Palm Sunday. Henry BEAU-FORT, duke of Somerset (Henry VI stayed inYork with his family), led a Lancastrianarmy—probably the largest of the war—thatcontained most of the nobility of England.Commanded personally by Edward, thesmaller Yorkist force included few nobles. Forhours, the two armies struggled in the bitterweather. When a concealed Lancastrian forcefell on the Yorkist left in the early afternoon,Edward’s line, which had been slowly givingground, almost collapsed, but the young king’spresence helped to steady the men (see GEN-ERALSHIP). In midafternoon, Norfolk arrivedand attacked the Lancastrian left. Confrontedby these fresh troops, the Lancastrian linebroke, turning the battle into a rout and leav-ing several important Lancastrians dead on thefield, including Henry PERCY, earl ofNorthumberland, and Sir Andrew TROL-LOPE. Somerset escaped with Henry VI andhis family, and several other prominent Lan-castrians were captured and executed after-wards. Although likely exaggerated, the con-temporary estimates of 28,000 dead on thefield suggest that Towton was the largest,longest, and bloodiest battle of the war.

See also Battles, Nature of; Casualties; Edward ofLancaster, Prince of Wales

272 TOWTON, BATTLE OF

Further Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheBattle of Towton (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1996); Haigh, Philip A., TheMilitary Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

Trollope, Sir Andrew (d. 1461)Having acquired a reputation for courage andskill in the French wars, Sir Andrew Trollopewas perhaps the most famous professional sol-dier in England at the start of the WARS OF

THE ROSES.Although Jean de Waurin claimed Trollope

was of lower class origins, little is known of hisearly life. Trollope fought with distinction inNormandy in the 1440s, returning to Englandin 1450 after the surrender of Falaise. By 1453,he was in CALAIS, holding an appointment assergeant-porter of the garrison. WhenRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, who hadbeen captain of Calais since 1456, broughtpart of the garrison to England to supportRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, in1459, Trollope came with him.

On the night of 12 October 1459 at theBattle of LUDFORD BRIDGE, Trollope ac-cepted HENRY VI’s offer of pardon andswitched sides, bringing the Calais garrisonwith him into the Lancastrian camp. BecauseTrollope was privy to all York’s plans, theduke’s position became untenable, and theYorkist leaders fled the field during the night.In November, Trollope accompanied HenryBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, to Calais,where the duke tried unsuccessfully to wrestthe town from Warwick. After receiving newsof Warwick’s capture of Henry VI at the Battleof NORTHAMPTON in July 1460, Somersetand Trollope surrendered their stronghold atGuisnes and withdrew into FRANCE. Trol-lope was in northern England by December,when he and Somerset led the Lancastrianforce that defeated and killed York at the Bat-tle of WAKEFIELD.

Trollope was also one of the leaders of theunruly Lancastrian force that surged southfrom Wakefield to defeat Warwick at the Bat-tle of ST. ALBANS on 17 February 1461 (see

MARCH ON LONDON). After the battle,which reunited Henry VI with his family, theking knighted his son Prince EDWARD OF

LANCASTER, who in turn knighted Trollope.Sir Andrew supposedly joked that he did notdeserve the honor, having killed only fifteenmen due to a foot injury inflicted by a caltrop(i.e., a pointed, metal, anticavalry device).Afterthe Battle of St. Albans, Trollope withdrewwith the Lancastrian army into Yorkshire,where he died six weeks later at the Battle ofTOWTON.

See also Recueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istoriesde la Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre(Waurin)Further Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheBattle of Towton (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1996); Haigh, Philip A., TheMilitary Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995).

Tuchet, James, Lord Audley. SeeTouchet, James, Lord Audley

Tudor, Edmund, Earl of Richmond (c. 1430–1456)As a half brother of HENRY VI and a memberof an ancient Welsh family, Edmund Tudor,earl of Richmond, was charged with securingWALES for the house of LANCASTER in themid-1450s. Through his marriage to MargaretBEAUFORT, a kinswoman of Henry VI,Tudorsecured a place in the succession for hisposthumous son, Henry Tudor, who, as the lastheir of Lancaster, established the Welsh houseof TUDOR on the English throne in 1485.

Edmund Tudor was the eldest son of a se-cret marriage between Catherine of Valois, thewidowed mother of Henry VI, and one of herhousehold servants, a Welshman named OwenTUDOR. After his mother’s death in 1437,Edmund and his younger brother, JasperTUDOR, were put in the custody of theabbess of Barking until 1440, when Henry VImade provision for their education as Englishgentlemen. Although the Tudors lacked En-glish royal blood and had no claim to thethrone, the king acknowledged them as half

TUDOR, EDMUND, EARL OF RICHMOND 273

brothers and knighted Edmund in December1449. In 1452, Henry VI, who had no full sib-lings nor (at the time) children, sought to ex-pand the royal family by raising the Tudors tothe PEERAGE—Edmund as earl of Richmondand Jasper as earl of Pembroke. To support thedignity of these new titles, the king grantedboth brothers extensive estates.

In 1454, when Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, became protector for the men-tally incapacitated king (see HENRY VI, ILL-NESS OF), Richmond and Pembroke main-tained good relations with the duke.Althoughloyal to Henry, neither Tudor was closelyidentified with York’s rivals, and both sup-ported reforms to the royal COURT andhousehold proposed by York. In 1455, a re-covered Henry VI arranged Richmond’s mar-riage to twelve-year-old Margaret Beaufort, awealthy heiress and royal cousin. This mar-riage tied Richmond more firmly to the Lan-castrian dynasty and promised his children adistant place in the succession.

Because of his Welsh name and blood,Richmond was sent to Wales in 1455 as theking’s representative. The appointment mayhave been made by York, who was a largeWelsh landowner and again in charge of thegovernment following the Battle of ST. AL-BANS in May 1455. In Wales, where local ri-valries were already aligning with the housesof Lancaster or YORK, Richmond workedto reduce disorder, a task that required himto take arms against Welsh rebels. By August1456, he had greatly restored royal authority,an achievement that threatened York, whowas no longer in control of the royal govern-ment. To recover York’s position in Wales,the duke’s chief Welsh lieutenants, SirWilliam HERBERT and Sir Walter DEV-EREUX, captured and imprisoned Rich-mond. Although shortly released from con-finement, Richmond died at Carmarthen on1 November 1456 at the age of twenty-six.His death was probably due to illness, butfoul play is possible, given his age and the in-creasing political turmoil in which he wasembroiled. Almost three months after Rich-mond’s death, on 28 January 1457, the earl’s

widow gave birth to a son who in 1485 be-came king as HENRY VII.

See also all other entries under TudorFurther Reading: Evans, H. T., Wales and theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995); Griffiths, RalphA., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981); Griffiths,Ralph A., and Roger S. Thomas, The Making ofthe Tudor Dynasty (New York: St. Martin’s Press,1985).

Tudor, House of (1485–1603)As a result of the WARS OF THE ROSES, theWelsh house of Tudor succeeded to the En-glish throne in 1485.

The family originated in northwest Wales,where it had held property since at least thethirteenth century. The Tudors traced theirancestry to Ednyfed Fychan (d. 1246), stewardto the Welsh prince Llywelyn the Great.About 1420, Owain ap Maredudd (Owain sonof Maredudd), a descendent of Ednyfed Fy-chan, came to England and anglicized hisname to Owen TUDOR (from Tudur, hisgrandfather’s name), perhaps to avoid the civildisabilities placed on Welshmen by Englishlaw. He obtained a position in the householdof Catherine of Valois, the widowed queen ofHenry V (r. 1413–1422), and mother ofHENRY VI. Catherine soon fell in love withher servant, and the two were married secretlybecause the COUNCIL that governed for theyoung king would never have sanctioned amarriage between the Queen Mother and anobscure Welshman. The union produced sev-eral children, who remained in their mother’scare until her death in 1437.

Although half siblings of Henry VI, theTudor children had no English royal blood andno place in the English succession. In 1452,Henry VI, who had no full siblings and wasthen childless, brought his half brothers Ed-mund and Jasper (see entries for both underTUDOR) to court, endowed them with prop-erty, and raised them to the English PEERAGE

as earl of Richmond (Edmund) and earl ofPembroke (Jasper). To tie the Tudors moreclosely to the royal family, Henry married his

274 TUDOR, HOUSE OF

cousin Margaret BEAUFORT to Richmond in1455. Besides having a distant claim to thethrone through the BEAUFORT FAMILY’sconnection with the house of LANCASTER,Margaret was also a wealthy heiress. In January1457, three months after Richmond’s death,Margaret gave birth to a son, who was namedHenry in honor of the king. In 1471, PrinceEDWARD OF LANCASTER and EdmundBEAUFORT, fourth duke of Somerset, died atthe Battle of TEWKESBURY, and Henry VI,his life no longer protected by his son’s, wasmurdered in the TOWER OF LONDON (seeHENRY VI, MURDER OF). These deathsended the direct male lines of Lancaster andBeaufort and made Henry Tudor, earl of Rich-mond, the surviving male heir of both families.

From 1471 to 1483, Richmond, accompa-nied by his uncle Pembroke, lived in exile inBRITTANY; with the house of YORK firmlyestablished on the throne, his prospects of be-coming king were slight. However, RICHARD

III’s usurpation of the Crown, followed by hisprobable murder of EDWARD V and hisbrother, forged an alliance of Lancastrians anddisaffected Yorkists that plotted to enthroneRichmond (see PRINCES IN THE TOWER;USURPATION OF 1483). Despite the failureof the autumn 1483 uprising known asBUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION, a growingnumber of English exiles joined Richmond inFRANCE, from where he launched a new in-vasion in 1485. On 22 August, Richmondwon the Crown at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD, becoming HENRYVII, first king of thehouse of Tudor. By marrying ELIZABETH OF

YORK, daughter of EDWARD IV, Henry en-sured that his children would be descendantsof both Lancaster and York. The Tudor dy-nasty ruled England for 118 years, until 1603.Henry VII was succeeded by his son, HenryVIII (r. 1509–1547), and by three grand-children—Edward VI (r. 1547–1553), Mary I(r. 1553–1558), and Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603).

TUDOR, HOUSE OF 275

The standard of Henry VII, first king of the house of Tudor, along with various Tudor emblems and devices, including a thornbush, various roses, and the Beaufort family portcullis (the drawbridge with chains). (Harley MS 4632 f. 237, British Library)

See also: Appendix 1,“Genealogies”Further Reading: Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1999);Griffiths, Ralph A., and Roger S. Thomas, TheMaking of the Tudor Dynasty (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1985).

Tudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of Bedford (c. 1431–1495)As a half brother of HENRY VI and a memberof an ancient Welsh family, Jasper Tudor, earlof Pembroke, rallied WALES for the house ofLANCASTER during the WARS OF THE

ROSES. As uncle of Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, the future HENRY VII, Pembrokeprotected his nephew from Yorkist intrigues,shared his long Breton exile, and served as hismost trusted advisor.

Jasper Tudor was the second son of the clan-destine marriage between Catherine of Valois,daughter of Charles VI of France and widow ofHenry V of England, and Owen TUDOR, aWelsh gentleman of Catherine’s household. In1452, Henry VI formally recognized the Tudorsas his uterine brothers, ennobling Jasper as earlof Pembroke and Edmund as earl of Richmond.Having no English royal blood, the brothers hadno claim to the throne, but their new positionsexpanded the family of a king who lacked bothsiblings and (at the time) children. Pembrokewas present with the king at the Battle of ST.ALBANS in May 1455. After Richmond’s deathin November 1456, Pembroke succeeded hisbrother as Henry VI’s chief lieutenant in Wales.Pembroke also sheltered his thirteen-year-oldsister-in-law, Margaret BEAUFORT, countess ofRichmond, who gave birth to a son, HenryTudor, in January 1457.

After the eruption of open warfare in 1459,Pembroke led the Lancastrian cause in Wales,capturing Denbigh Castle from the Yorkists inMay 1460, and giving refuge to MARGARET

OF ANJOU and her son EDWARD OF LAN-CASTER, Prince of Wales, after the disastrousBattle of NORTHAMPTON in July. In Febru-ary 1461, Edward, earl of March, the futureEDWARD IV, defeated Pembroke at MOR-

TIMER’S CROSS in Wales. After the Lancas-trian defeat at the Battle of TOWTON inMarch, Pembroke held Wales for Henry VIuntil October, when Edward IV’s lieutenant inWales, William HERBERT, Lord Herbert, de-feated Pembroke at the Battle of TWT HILL,forcing him to sail for BRITTANY. In 1462,Pembroke briefly held BAMBURGH CASTLE

for Henry VI, but fled to SCOTLAND whenEdward IV refused him suitable terms of sur-render. After spending most of the 1460s shut-tling among Scotland, England, and FRANCE

on diplomatic missions for Queen Margaret,Pembroke landed in Wales in 1468; he burnedDenbigh and harassed Welsh Yorkists untilforced by Herbert to return to Brittany.

In 1470, Pembroke accompanied RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, to England, whenWarwick launched his attempt to restoreHenry VI (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). Pembroke took charge of securing Walesfor Lancaster. The death of Prince Edward atTEWKESBURY in May 1471 and the subse-quent murder of Henry VI in the TOWER OF

LONDON left Henry Tudor as the remainingLancastrian claimant to the throne (seeHENRY VI, MURDER OF). To protect hisnephew, Pembroke fled with the boy forFrance in September 1471. Blown off courseto Brittany, uncle and nephew spent the nexttwelve years in the increasingly rigorous cus-tody of FRANCIS, duke of Brittany, who usedthem to extract diplomatic advantage fromboth England and France.

The usurpation of RICHARD III in 1483greatly enhanced Henry Tudor’s political po-sition, and in the autumn the Tudors becamepart of an unsuccessful uprising that includedHenry STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham,heretofore one of Richard’s closest support-ers (see BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION). InNovember, news of Buckingham’s defeat andexecution caused the Tudors to abort aplanned landing in England. Returning toBrittany, Pembroke became leader of the ex-iles who gathered around his nephew. In Au-gust 1485, in an attempt to win the throne,the Tudors landed in Wales, hoping to exploitPembroke’s influence in the region. Pem-

276 TUDOR, JASPER, EARL OF PEMBROKE AND DUKE OF BEDFORD

broke was present at BOSWORTH FIELD on22 August 1485, when his nephew won theCrown.

One of the new king’s most trusted sup-porters, Pembroke became duke of Bedfordand a privy councilor in 1485. He was also ap-pointed lieutenant of CALAIS, lord lieutenantof IRELAND, and marshal of England. Bedfordalso took an active role in suppressing theLambert SIMNEL uprising, fighting for theking at the Battle of STOKE in 1487. Al-though married to the widow of Buckinghamin 1485, Bedford died without issue in De-cember 1495.

See also Tudor, Edmund, Earl of Richmond;Usurpation of 1483; other entries under TudorFurther Reading: Evans, H. T., Wales and theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995); Griffiths, Ralph A.,and Roger S. Thomas, The Making of the TudorDynasty (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985);“Jasper Tudor,” in Michael Hicks, Who’s Who inLate Medieval England (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 305–307.

Tudor, Owen (d. 1461)Through his marriage to the widow ofHENRY V, Owen Tudor, the grandfather ofHENRY VII, established the Welsh house ofTUDOR as part of the English nobility.

Owain ap Maredudd (Owain son of Mare-dudd), son of an ancient Welsh landholdingfamily, came to England around 1420. Angli-cizing his name to Owen Tudor (from Tudur,his grandfather’s name), he obtained a positionin the household of Catherine of Valois, thewife of Henry V. He began a sexual relation-ship with the widowed queen some time inthe late 1420s. Because a statute of 1428 hadmade it unlawful to marry the dowager queenwithout the king’s consent, something the re-gency COUNCIL then ruling for HENRY VIwas unlikely to give to an obscure Welshman,the couple’s marriage, which occurred about1430, was kept secret. The truth came outwhen Catherine became pregnant, givingbirth to at least four children in the 1430s.

As long as Catherine lived, the couple wasnot molested, and Tudor was granted the

rights of an Englishman by PARLIAMENT in1432. On the queen’s death in 1437, theTudor children were placed in the care of theabbess of Barking, and Owen Tudor was sum-moned to the king’s presence. Fearful of prose-cution under the statute of 1428, Tudor de-manded a safe-conduct and immediately tookSANCTUARY at Westminster upon arriving inLONDON. Finally persuaded by friends to ap-pear before the council, he acquitted himselfof any changes related to the marriage and wasreleased. However, on his way to WALES, hewas arrested and committed to Newgateprison, and all his possessions were confis-cated. He remained in confinement until July1439. In November, the king pardoned Tudorfor all offenses and graciously took him intothe royal household.

Henry VI also treated his Tudor half broth-ers with kindness, paying for their educationand raising the two eldest to the EnglishPEERAGE in 1452—Edmund TUDOR as earlof Richmond and Jasper TUDOR as earl ofPembroke. After 1439, Owen Tudor lived qui-etly as an English gentleman, having received apension and several minor offices from HenryVI. When civil war erupted in 1459, Tudor, asa loyal Lancastrian, acquired some of the es-tates stripped from the exiled Yorkist leadersby the COVENTRY PARLIAMENT. A mem-ber of the Lancastrian force that fought underhis son Pembroke at the Battle of MOR-TIMER’S CROSS in February 1461, Tudorwas captured and executed by order of Ed-ward, earl of March (see EDWARD IV).

See also all other entries under TudorFurther Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., andRoger S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985).

Tunstall, Sir Richard (d. 1492)Sir Richard Tunstall is an example of themany committed Lancastrians who submittedto EDWARD IV after the final defeat of thehouse of LANCASTER at the Battle ofTEWKESBURY in 1471.

Born into a Lancashire GENTRY family,Tunstall was knighted by HENRY VI in about

TUNSTALL, SIR RICHARD 277

1452. A member of the royal household, Tun-stall was a staunch Lancastrian, who fought forHenry VI at the Battle of WAKEFIELD in1460 and the Battles of ST. ALBANS andTOWTON in 1461. After the latter defeat,Tunstall fled into SCOTLAND with the Lan-castrian royal family. Attainted by the firstYorkist PARLIAMENT in 1461, Tunstall wassoon deeply involved in the Lancastrian cam-paigns in Northumberland, being capturedwith the garrison at the fall of BAMBURGH

CASTLE in July 1462 but escaping to servewith Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU’s gar-risons in both DUNSTANBURGH and AL-NWICK Castles. In 1463, Tunstall appeared inWALES as a member of the Lancastrian garri-son holding HARLECH CASTLE. By early1464, he was back in Northumberland, wherehe fought with Henry BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset, at the Battles of HEDGELEY

MOOR and HEXHAM. After the collapse ofLancastrian resistance in Northumberland,Tunstall escorted Henry VI into Lancashire,where the king was hidden by friendly gentle-men for over a year. Tunstall returned toHarlech, and he finally fell into Yorkist handswhen the castle fell in August 1468.

Conveyed to the TOWER OF LONDON

with other Englishmen in the Harlech garri-son, Tunstall was pardoned by Edward IV inDecember but reverted to his Lancastrian alle-giance in the autumn of 1470, when RichardNEVILLE, earl of Warwick, restored Henry VIto the throne (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW

OF). Tunstall joined the READEPTION gov-ernment as Henry VI’s chamberlain, but he wasonce again attainted after the death of Warwickand the collapse of the regime in 1471 (see ED-WARD IV, RESTORATION OF). By 1473,Tunstall had submitted to Edward IV andachieved reversal of his ATTAINDER. He wasthereafter highly favored by both Edward IVand RICHARD III, each of whom employedhim as a diplomat. Although Richard rewardedhim for his services to the house of YORK withmembership in the Order of the Garter (a pres-tigious English order of chivalry), Tunstall mayhave turned against the king in 1485. Accord-ing to the BALLAD OF BOSWORTH FIELD,

Tunstall was one of four knights who joinedthe army of Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond,when the earl invaded England in August toclaim the Crown. Tunstall’s abandonment ofRichard and his presence at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD are uncertain; in August1485, he may have been in CALAIS, where heheld a diplomatic post. In any event, Tunstallprospered in the reign of HENRYVII, receivingnumerous rewards and being admitted to theroyal COUNCIL. He died a loyal servant of thehouse of TUDOR in 1492.

Further Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998).

Tuthill, Battle of. See Twt Hill,Battle of

Twt Hill, Battle of (1461)Although a relatively small skirmish, the Battleof Twt Hill (or Tuthill), fought on 16 October1461, ended open warfare in WALES, andbrought all Wales, except HARLECH CASTLE,under the new regime of EDWARD IV.

After the Yorkist victory at the Battle ofTOWTON in March 1461, Jasper TUDOR,earl of Pembroke, continued to hold the Welshfortresses of Pembroke, Denbigh, and Harlechfor his half brother, HENRY VI. To quell Lan-castrian resistance in Wales, Edward accompa-nied his army to Hereford in September, butleft the actual campaigning to his chief Welshlieutenants, Sir William HERBERT; HenryBOURCHIER, earl of Essex; and Walter DEV-EREUX, Lord Ferrers. After a short stay atLudlow, the king returned to LONDON forthe opening of his first PARLIAMENT on 4November.

Meanwhile, the Yorkist commanders cap-tured Pembroke Castle on 30 September, afterwhich Herbert led the bulk of the royal armyinto North Wales to pursue the earl of Pem-broke, who was thought to be hiding in themountain fastnesses of Snowdon with HenryHOLLAND, duke of Exeter. The duke, whohad fought at the Battle of Towton, may have

278 TUTHILL, BATTLE OF

brought reinforcements to Pembroke by sea,for the Lancastrian leaders were able to put aforce in the field and meet Herbert in battle atTwt Hill outside the walls of Carnarvon innorthwest Wales.

Although almost nothing is known of thecourse of the battle, the result was a completevictory for Herbert, who destroyed the lastLancastrian field force in Wales. Exeter andPembroke escaped the battle and fled thecountry, with Pembroke sailing for IRELAND.The defeat isolated the remaining Lancastriancastles; Denbigh surrendered in January 1462,and the western fortress of Carreg Cennen ca-pitulated in May. Although most Welsh Lan-castrians had ended active resistance by mid-1462, Harlech Castle, which could beresupplied by sea and thus required a costlyand difficult effort to reduce, continued inLancastrian hands until 1468, while all Walesremained vulnerable to seaborne invasion andto the ongoing intrigues of Pembroke.

Further Reading: Evans, H. T., Wales and theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995); Haigh, Philip A.,The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1995).

Tyrell, Sir James (1445–1502)Sir James Tyrell (or Tyrrell) was reputed to beRICHARD III’s agent in carrying out the mur-ders of EDWARD V and his younger brother,Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York.

The eldest son of a Suffolk GENTRY fam-ily, Tyrell fought for EDWARD IV at the Battleof TEWKESBURY in May 1471 and wasknighted after the battle. By 1472, Tyrell was atrusted RETAINER of Richard, duke ofGloucester, the king’s brother. The duke madeTyrell his chief agent in WALES by appointinghim sheriff of Glamorgan and constable ofCardiff. In 1482, Tyrell served in Gloucester’sScottish campaign, being made a knight-ban-neret by the duke.

Tyrell greatly benefited from Gloucester’susurpation of the throne in July 1483 (seeUSURPATION OF 1483). The new king

showed his confidence in Tyrell’s loyalty andabilities by strengthening Tyrell’s control of theroyal lands in Wales through the grant of vari-ous additional stewardships and castle consta-bleships. Tyrell’s appointments as a knight ofthe body (i.e., one of the king’s closest per-sonal servants), as Master of Horse, and aschamberlain of the Exchequer all indicatedthe position of trust he held with Richard III.In 1485, although retaining Tyrell in his Welshcommands, Richard III sent him to CALAIS totake charge of the key fortress of Guisnes afterthe previous commander’s defection to HenryTudor, earl of Richmond. Because of his post-ing to Guisnes, Tyrell was not in England inAugust 1485 and was thus unable to opposeRichmond’s landing in Wales or to fight forthe king at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD.

After Richard’s defeat and death, Tyrell wasone of the few supporters of the late king toalso become a trusted servant of HENRY VII.Although he lost some offices and lands,Tyrell remained a knight of the body andsheriff of Glamorgan. He also took a promi-nent part in the ceremonies surrounding thesigning of the Treaty of Etaples in 1492, thecreation of Prince Henry as duke of York in1494, and the reception of Catherine ofAragon in 1501. In August 1501, Tyrell wasimplicated in a plot led by Edmund de laPole, earl of Suffolk, the Yorkist claimant tothe throne (see YORKIST HEIRS [AFTER

1485]).The conspiracy involved the surrenderof Guisnes, then in Tyrell’s charge, and it ledto Tyrell’s arrest and eventual execution fortreason in May 1502.

According to the later accounts of SirThomas More and Polydore Vergil, neither ofwhom were eyewitnesses, Tyrell, while lyingunder sentence of death in the TOWER OF

LONDON, confessed to having murdered thesons of Edward IV there at the direction ofRichard III in the summer of 1483. This al-leged confession, the text of which has notsurvived, forms the basis of the murder story aswe know it today. Although likely enough, thestory as supposedly related by Tyrell cannot beconclusively proven and must remain only onepossible explanation of the fate of the princes.

TYRELL, SIR JAMES 279

See also Anglica Historia (Vergil); The History ofKing Richard III (More); Princes in the TowerFurther Reading: Horrox, Rosemary, RichardIII:A Study in Service (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991);“James Tyrell,” in MichaelHicks, Who’s Who in Late Medieval England

(London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 364–366;More, Sir Thomas, History of King Richard III, inPaul Murray Kendall, ed., Richard III:The GreatDebate (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), pp.31–143; Ross, Charles, Richard III (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981).

280 TYRELL, SIR JAMES

The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious Families of Lancaster and York (Hall)The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious Fami-lies of Lancaster and York, a chronicle written bythe Tudor historian Edward Hall (1498–1547), was a major source for William Shake-speare’s four-play cycle depicting the WARS

OF THE ROSES. As its title indicates, Hall’schronicle was also one of the earliest andfullest expositions of the influential historicaltradition that viewed the house of TUDOR asrescuing England from the political chaos andeconomic destruction caused by the fifteenth-century civil wars.

Reformist in religion, Edward Hall was aCambridge-educated lawyer and a frequentM.P. (member of PARLIAMENT). His chroni-cle, which was published in 1548, covers theperiod from the deposition of Richard II in1399 to the death of Henry VIII in 1547. Hallhimself carried the narrative to 1532, with fel-low chronicler Richard Grafton using Hall’snotes to complete the work. Like most Tudorhistorians, Hall saw history as an instrumentfor teaching moral lessons, for presenting bothedifying and cautionary examples of the pastbehavior of princes. Beset by religious strifeand dynastic uncertainty, sixteenth-centuryEngland tended to project its fears onto thehistory of the fifteenth century, which, asHall’s writing illustrates, was seen as a horribletime of civil strife:“What misery, what murderand what execrable plagues this famous regionhath suffered by the division and dissension ofthe renowned houses of Lancaster and York,my wit cannot comprehend nor my tonguedeclare, neither yet my pen fully set forth”(Ross, p. 7).

Drawing upon Sir Thomas More’s HIS-TORY OF KING RICHARD III and PolydoreVergil’s ANGLICA HISTORIA, Hall fully de-veloped the idea that the Lancastrian usurpa-tion of 1399 was the root cause of civil strifein the fifteenth century. God punished thehouse of LANCASTER for its usurpation byrendering HENRY VI incapable of ruling andby allowing the usurpation of the house ofYORK, which was itself punished for its ambi-tion and for the dreadful tyranny ofRICHARD III by the ultimate victory ofHENRY VII and the house of Tudor. In the1460s,Yorkist PROPAGANDA had initiated theidea that EDWARD IV’s accession set right thedisruption in the divine order caused by theLancastrians in 1399. Hall, writing under theTudors when stories of Richard III’s crimeswere current, extended this notion by black-ening the already negative portrayal ofRichard that he had received from More andVergil and by bequeathing it to RaphaelHolinshed and later Tudor chroniclers, who, inturn, became sources for Shakespeare’s shock-ing villain in the play RICHARD III. In thisway, Hall’s Union shaped later popular views ofboth Richard and the Wars of the Roses.

See also Richard II, Deposition of; Shakespeareand the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Ellis, Henry, ed., Hall’sChronicle (reprint ed., New York: AMS Press,1965); Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses(London: Thames and Hudson, 1987).

Urswick, Christopher (1448–1521)Between 1483 and 1485, during the last phaseof the WARS OF THE ROSES, the priestChristopher Urswick served both Margaret

281

U

BEAUFORT and her son Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, as a trusted agent in their effortsto wrest the Crown from RICHARD III andthe house of YORK.

Urswick, who may have belonged to aLancashire GENTRY family long associatedwith the Stanleys, was brought to the atten-tion of Margaret Beaufort, then wife ofThomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley, by Mar-garet’s trusted Welsh physician, Lewis Caer-leon. Because she sought to overthrowRichard III in favor of her exiled son, Mar-garet needed able and discreet servants; ac-cordingly, she took Urswick into her house-hold as her confessor. In 1483, Dr. Caerleon,who was also personal physician to QueenElizabeth WOODVILLE, then in SANCTU-ARY at Westminster, acted as go-between forMargaret and the former queen, who con-cocted between them a plan whereby Rich-mond agreed to marry ELIZABETH OF

YORK, EDWARD IV’s daughter, in return forthe support of the WOODVILLE FAMILY andother dissident Yorkists. Margaret proposedsending Urswick to BRITTANY to informRichmond of the queen’s involvement andthe marriage plan, but news that HenrySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, was will-ing to abandon Richard and join the conspir-acy caused Margaret to cancel Urswick’s mis-sion and send another deputation instead.

After the failure of BUCKINGHAM’S RE-BELLION in the autumn of 1483, Urswickfled to BURGUNDY with Bishop John MOR-TON. In 1484, when Morton discovered thatRichard III was secretly negotiating with theBreton treasurer, Pierre LANDAIS, to haveRichmond surrendered into English custody,the bishop dispatched Urswick to Brittany towarn Richmond, who, in turn, sent Urswickto CHARLES VIII to request asylum inFRANCE. After obtaining the king’s approval,Urswick returned to Richmond, who shortlythereafter fled to the French COURT. Havinghelped save the earl’s life, Urswick becameRichmond’s confessor, advisor, and confiden-tial agent. In 1485, fearing that Richard IIImight marry Elizabeth of York to someoneelse, Richmond considered sending Urswick

into northern England to persuade HenryPERCY, earl of Northumberland, to arrange amarriage for Richmond with one ofNorthumberland’s sisters-in-law, the daughtersof the late Welsh Yorkist, William HERBERT,earl of Pembroke. Although he probably neverreached Northumberland, the importance ofthe mission indicated Urswick’s standing withRichmond.

Urswick accompanied Richmond’s army toWALES in August 1485 and was likely presentat the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD, although,as a cleric, he did not fight. Richmond, nowHENRY VII, rewarded Urswick with numer-ous appointments—king’s almoner, dean ofYork, and, in 1495, dean of Windsor. A loyalsupporter of the house of TUDOR until hisdeath in 1521, Urswick was also a friend of thehistorian Polydore Vergil and thus a likelysource for Vergil’s ANGLICA HISTORIA,which is particularly reliable for Richmond’sactivities between 1483 and 1485.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph S., and RogerS. Thomas. The Making of the Tudor Dynasty (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1985).

Usurpation of 1483In June 1483, when Richard, duke ofGloucester (see RICHARD III), usurped hisnephew’s throne, he alienated many loyal fol-lowers of the house of YORK, revived theclaim of the surviving heir of the house ofLANCASTER, and reopened the WARS OF

THE ROSES.On 9 April 1483, EDWARD IV died at

Westminster at age forty, leaving his Crown tohis twelve-year-old son. Prince Edward, nowEDWARDV, was at Ludlow on the Welsh bor-der, under the supervision of his maternaluncle, Anthony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers.Gloucester, Edward’s only surviving paternaluncle, was in the north. Although word of theking’s death reached neither of them untilabout 14 April, the royal COUNCIL in LON-DON, following precedents established duringprevious royal minorities, assumed control ofthe government and set the new king’s coro-nation for 4 May. Having been named protec-

282 USURPATION OF 1483

tor by Edward IV, Gloucester started south on23 April, one day before his nephew left Lud-low. Although Gloucester was the logicalchoice for protector, the WOODVILLE FAM-ILY, Edward V’s maternal relatives, were in agood position to dominate the regency gov-ernment. Rivers had custody of and influenceover the king; Queen Elizabeth WOODVILLE

and her son Thomas GREY, marquis ofDorset, controlled the TOWER OF LONDON

and the royal treasury; and the queen’s brother,Sir Edward Woodville, controlled the fleet.

The prospect of a Woodville ascendancydismayed many, including William HAS-TINGS, Lord Hastings, a friend of Edward IVand a rival of both Rivers and Dorset. Fearfulthat Rivers would bring an army to Londonto impose Woodville rule, Hastings con-vinced the council to limit the royal escort to2,000 men. On 29 April, Gloucester, accom-panied by Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buck-ingham, met Rivers at Northampton, wherethe three men apparently spent a convivialevening. However, at dawn the next morn-ing, Rivers; the king’s half brother, RichardGrey; and the king’s chamberlain, ThomasVAUGHAN, were denounced as traitors andarrested. Hustled off to Gloucester’s northernstrongholds, all three were executed in lateJune. Gloucester and Buckingham rode toStony Stratford and took custody of Edward,who vigorously but unsuccessfully protestedRivers’s detention. Fearing for his politicalfuture, and perhaps even for his life, Glouces-ter had decided to strike the Woodvilles be-fore they struck at him.

About 1 May, when word of Rivers’s arrestreached London, the queen took SANCTU-ARY at Westminster with her daughters andher younger son, Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York. Hastings, meanwhile, persuadeda nervous council that Gloucester’s actionswere justified. Entering the capital on 4 May,the king was briefly housed in the bishop ofLondon’s palace, before being transferred tothe Tower. On 8 May, the council formally ap-pointed Gloucester protector, summonedPARLIAMENT for late June, and rescheduledEdward’s coronation for 22 June.

Matters stood thus until 13 June, whenGloucester launched a second series of unex-pected arrests, seizing Hastings, ArchbishopThomas ROTHERHAM, Bishop John MOR-TON, and Thomas STANLEY, Lord Stanley,during a council meeting in the Tower (seeCOUNCIL MEETING OF 13 JUNE 1483).Accused of plotting against the protector,Hastings was summarily executed. Althoughhis support had helped Gloucester forestall aWoodville coup, Hastings, who was firmlycommitted to Edward V, had apparently grownsuspicious of the duke’s intentions, and he mayeven have plotted against Gloucester with theWoodvilles. Three days later, Cardinal ThomasBOURCHIER, speaking on Gloucester’s be-half, persuaded the queen to surrender York,who joined his brother in the Tower. On 17June, both Parliament and the coronation weredelayed until November. Apparently, at somepoint in late May or early June Gloucester haddecided that his best interests required him toseize the throne for himself

On 22 June, the popular preacher RalphShaw, speaking at Paul’s Cross in London, pro-claimed the bastardy of Edward IV’s childrenand declared Gloucester the true heir of York.To support his claims, Shaw alleged the exis-tence, recently revealed by Bishop RobertSTILLINGTON, of the BUTLER PRECON-TRACT, a marriage agreement entered into byEdward IV before his union with Queen Eliz-abeth (see SHAW’S SERMON). If genuine, thisprecontract invalidated the Woodville mar-riage and made the princes illegitimate andthus unable to inherit the throne. On 24 June,Buckingham addressed the London authori-ties at the Guildhall, where he again set forthGloucester’s right to the Crown and urged thecitizens to call upon the duke to take thethrone. He repeated this call next day at ameeting of the lords assembled in London,who drafted a petition requesting Gloucesterto assume the Crown (see TITULUS REGIUS).

On 26 June, Buckingham led this assemblyand a deputation of London citizens to Bay-nard’s Castle, where they prevailed upon thebriefly reluctant duke to accede to their re-quest. Gloucester then rode to Westminster,

USURPATION OF 1483 283

seated himself upon the throne, and set hiscoronation for 6 July. The usurpation wascomplete—the reign of Edward V had endedand that of Richard III had begun. Oppositionto the usurpation, along with revulsion arisingfrom the belief that the princes were subse-quently murdered by Richard, created a coali-tion of dissident Yorkists and former Lancas-trians that revived the civil wars by supportingthe efforts of Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond(see HENRY VII), the Lancastrian heir, tooverthrow Richard.

See also Bosworth Field, Battle ofFurther Reading: Kendall, Paul Murray, Richardthe Third (New York:W.W. Norton, 1956);Mancini, Dominic, The Usurpation of Richard III,edited and translated by C.A. J.Armstrong (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1989); Ross,Charles, Richard III (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981); see also the Richard IIISociety Web site at <http://www.r3.org> forvarious materials relating to the usurpation of 1483.

The Usurpation of Richard III(Mancini)Dominic Mancini’s Latin work De OccupationeRegni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium (usually trans-lated as The Usurpation of Richard III) is the onlycontemporary account of the events surround-ing RICHARD III’s seizure of the Englishthrone in 1483 (see USURPATION OF 1483).

At the behest of his patron, Angelo Cato,archbishop of Vienne, the Italian cleric Do-minic Mancini (c. 1434–c. 1514) came to En-gland in 1482 as part of a French diplomaticmission. Recalled to FRANCE by Cato in July1483, Mancini thus spent the critical monthsof April to July 1483, the period from ED-WARD IV’s death to Richard III’s coronation,in LONDON. Upon Mancini’s return, Catoasked him to write an account of Richard’sseizure of the throne of his nephew EDWARD

V; the result was the Usurpation, which, ac-cording to Mancini, was completed on 1 De-cember 1483, about six months after theevents it describes. Mancini’s manuscript thendisappeared until 1934, when it was discoveredin the municipal library at Lille, France. Writ-ten before the accession of HENRY VII and

thus unaffected by the anti-Richard PROPA-GANDA emanating from the Tudor COURT

after the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD in1485, the Usurpation was immediately recog-nized as an extremely valuable source for acontroversial period of English history.

Mancini was highly critical of Richard III,portraying him as deceitful, ambitious, andruthless, motivated by an “insane lust forpower” (Dockray, p. xvii) that drove him toeliminate anyone who stood between himselfand the Crown. Coming from someone whoappeared to be an independent observer and aneyewitness to at least some of the events de-scribed, this was a powerful indictment of theking. However, modern scholars have ques-tioned the accuracy of the Usurpation. Unfamil-iar with England and its politics, Mancini prob-ably spoke little English, never left London, andmay have been influenced by a desire to write adramatic story for his patron. Although vagueabout his sources, Mancini probably got muchof his information from fellow Italians residentin London, who interpreted for him currentrumors and Richard’s own propaganda declara-tions. In the Usurpation, Mancini himselfwarned Cato not to expect “the names of indi-vidual men and places or that this account shallbe complete in all details” (Dockray, p. xvi).

Mancini gets wrong the date of EdwardIV’s death and incorrectly places the surrenderof Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, be-fore the execution of William HASTINGS,Lord Hastings. The only informant named byMancini is Dr. John Argentine, personal physi-cian to Edward V and one of the last personsto see him and his brother alive in theTOWER OF LONDON. Mention of Argen-tine may indicate that much of Mancini’s in-formation ultimately derived from supportersof Edward V, a fact that would explain theUsurpation’s hostile depiction of Richard III.

See also Princes in the TowerFurther Reading: Dockray, Keith, Richard III:ASource Book (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1997); Mancini, Dominic, TheUsurpation of Richard III, edited and translated byC. A. J. Armstrong (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1989).

284 THE USURPATION OF RICHARD III

Vaughan, Sir Thomas (d. 1483)Sir Thomas Vaughan was one of the chiefWelsh adherents of the house of YORK.

A supporter of Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, Vaughan was included amongthe acts of ATTAINDER passed against leadingYorkists in the COVENTRY PARLIAMENT of1459. He probably fought for the Yorkists atthe Battle of MORTIMER’S CROSS in Febru-ary 1461 and at the Battle of TOWTON amonth later. EDWARD IV rewarded him withnumerous offices, including the treasurershipof the royal chamber, which Vaughan acquiredin 1465. In 1470, Vaughan was one of thecommissioners sent to BURGUNDY to conferthe Garter (symbol of a prestigious order ofchivalry) on Duke CHARLES. A political allyof the WOODVILLE FAMILY, Vaughan wasalso a member of Edward IV’s inner circle ofhousehold servants. In 1473, while retaininghis position in the royal chamber,Vaughan wasalso appointed treasurer of Prince Edward’schamber, an office of great trust that madeVaughan an influential member of the prince’sCOUNCIL in WALES. The king knightedVaughan in 1475.

On Edward IV’s death in April 1483,Vaughan was with the prince (now EDWARD

V) at Ludlow on the Welsh marches (i.e., bor-der). Along with Anthony WOODVILLE, EarlRivers, the new king’s uncle and the governorof his household, Vaughan set out with theroyal party for LONDON. On 29 April,Vaughan remained with Edward at StonyStratford while Rivers returned to Northamp-ton to meet the king’s paternal uncle, Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III), whowas riding south with Henry STAFFORD,duke of Buckingham. Next day, upon their ar-

rival in Stony Stratford, Gloucester and Buck-ingham arrested Vaughan and the king’s halfbrother Richard Grey and sent them north tojoin Rivers in confinement in one ofGloucester’s Yorkshire strongholds.

Told that Vaughan and the others had has-tened Edward IV’s death by encouraging hisinvolvement in their debaucheries and thatthey had plotted to deprive Gloucester of hisrightful office as regent, Edward V vigorouslyif vainly protested their innocence. Because ofVaughan’s connections with the Woodvillesand his well-known loyalty to Edward IV,Gloucester probably considered him a likelyopponent of any attempt to seize Edward V’sthrone. Acting on Gloucester’s orders, andprobably without granting any form of trial,Sir Richard RATCLIFFE oversaw the execu-tion of Vaughan, Rivers, and Grey at Ponte-fract on 25 June 1483.

See also Usurpation of 1483Further Reading: Evans, H. T., Wales and theWars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995); Ross, Charles,Richard III (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981).

Vere, John de, Earl of Oxford(1443–1513)A staunch partisan of the house of LAN-CASTER, John de Vere, thirteenth earl of Ox-ford, helped overthrow the house of YORK inboth 1470 and 1485.

The second son of the twelfth earl, Oxfordsucceeded to the family title in 1462, whenEDWARD IV executed his father and elderbrother for allegedly plotting a Lancastrian in-vasion (see OXFORD CONSPIRACY). In 1468,

285

V

Oxford also fell under suspicion of Lancastriandealings and spent some months in theTOWER OF LONDON. In the spring of 1470,he fled England for the continent with hisbrother-in-law, Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick,who was then in rebellion against EdwardIV. When Warwick restored HENRY VI in thefollowing autumn, Oxford became constable ofEngland and used his position to pronouncesentence of death on John TIPTOFT, earl ofWorcester, the Yorkist constable who had con-demned his father and brother (see EDWARD

IV, OVERTHROW OF). Oxford commandedthe Lancastrian van at the Battle of BARNET inApril 1471 and fled to FRANCE after EdwardIV’s restoration (see EDWARD IV, RESTORA-TION OF). In September 1473, the earl landedin Cornwall and seized St. Michael’s Mount,which he held for two months until forced bysiege to surrender. PARLIAMENT attaintedOxford in 1475, and Edward IV imprisonedhim at the CALAIS fortress of Hammes, fromwhich he escaped with the help of the gover-nor, Sir James Blount, in 1484.

Upon gaining his freedom, the earl, likeBlount, joined Henry Tudor, earl of Rich-mond, in France. Oxford returned to Hammeslater in the year and obtained leave for thefortress’s pro-Richmond garrison to departunmolested. Landing in England with Rich-mond in 1485, Oxford served as captain-

general of the earl’s army and commanded itsright wing at the Battle of BOSWORTH

FIELD on 22 August. The success of Oxford’sinitial assault upon the royal army likely con-vinced RICHARD III to launch his chargeagainst Richmond’s position, which in turncaused Sir William STANLEY to abandon hisneutrality and intervene decisively on Rich-mond’s behalf.

Now king as HENRY VII, Richmond re-warded Oxford with numerous offices, includ-ing chamberlain of England, constable of theTower, and lord admiral. The earl commandedthe van of the royal army against Yorkist rebelsat the Battle of STOKE in 1487 and helpedcrush the Cornish uprising of 1497 (see SIM-NEL, LAMBERT). In 1499, as steward of En-gland, he condemned to death Edward PLAN-TAGENET, earl of Warwick, the last direct maleheir of the house of York. Oxford outlivedHenry VII by four years, dying in March 1513.

Further Reading: “John Vere,” in MichaelHicks, Who’s Who in Late Medieval England(London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 335–337;Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981);Seward, Desmond, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork:Viking, 1995).

Vergil, Polydore. See Anglica Historia

286 VERGIL, POLYDORE

Wainfleet, William, Bishop ofWinchester (c. 1395–1486)William Wainfleet (or Waynfleet) was chancel-lor under HENRY VI in the late 1450s andbishop of Winchester throughout the WARS

OF THE ROSES.The son of a Lincolnshire gentleman,

Wainfleet was ordained in 1426. Through thepatronage of Henry Beaufort, bishop of Win-chester (see BEAUFORT FAMILY), Wainfleetacquired various Church offices and was pre-sented at court in 1440. In 1447, Henry VInominated Wainfleet to be Beaufort’s succes-sor in the wealthy bishopric of Winchester. Asthe king came to rely increasingly on his ad-vice, Wainfleet negotiated for the governmentwith Jack Cade (see JACK CADE’S REBEL-LION) in 1450 and with Richard PLANTA-GENET, duke of York, during the duke’sDARTFORD UPRISING in 1452. In March1454, the bishop led a parliamentary delega-tion to Windsor that tried unsuccessfully tocommunicate with the stricken king (seeHENRY VI, ILLNESS OF). During York’sFIRST PROTECTORATE in 1454, Wainfleetfrequently attended the COUNCIL to safe-guard the interests of the king against York andhis colleagues. After his recovery in early1455, Henry dismissed York, but the duke andhis allies, Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury,and his son Richard NEVILLE, earl of War-wick, took up arms and regained power at theBattle of ST.ALBANS in May. Wainfleet there-after was a moderate Lancastrian, supportingthe king but showing a willingness to workwith York.

In October 1456, after the end of York’sSECOND PROTECTORATE, Henry ap-pointed Wainfleet chancellor. In 1457, the

bishop became one of Prince EDWARD OF

LANCASTER’s tutors and obtained license tofound a new college at Oxford named Mag-dalen. With the start of civil war in 1459,Wainfleet became a staunch Lancastrian, pre-siding over the COVENTRY PARLIAMENT

and the passage there of bills of ATTAINDER

against York and the Nevilles. After EDWARD

IV won the throne in 1461, Wainfleet wentbriefly into hiding, but submitted to the newking by the end of the year. When Warwickrestored Henry VI in 1470, Wainfleet revertedto his Lancastrian allegiance and personally es-corted the king from the TOWER OF LON-DON (see EDWARD IV, OVERTHROW OF).

Edward IV’s restoration in 1471, which wasaccompanied by the death of Prince Edwardin battle and the murder of Henry VI in theTower, forced the bishop to again seek pardonfrom the Yorkist monarch (see HENRY VI,MURDER OF). Wainfleet spent the 1470sserving at COURT and completing the con-struction of Magdalen College and Henry VI’sfoundation at Eton. The aging bishop acqui-esced in RICHARD III’s usurpation in 1483and in July 1485 even gave the king a loan(probably under compulsion) to help repel theexpected invasion of Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, the inheritor of the Lancastrianclaim (see USURPATION OF 1483). Wainfleetdied, near age ninety, in April 1486, eightmonths after Richmond won the throne asHENRYVII.

See also Edward IV, Restoration of; EnglishChurch and the Wars of the Roses; ReadeptionFurther Reading: Davis,V.,“William Waynfleteand the Educational Revolution of the FifteenthCentury,” in J. T. Rosenthal and C. F. Richmond,eds., People, Politics and Community in the Later

287

W

Middle Ages (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton, 1987), pp. 40–59; Griffiths, Ralph A., TheReign of King Henry VI (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981);“William Waynflete,” inMichael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.274–276; Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Wakefield, Battle of (1460)The chief consequence of the Lancastrianvictory at the Battle of Wakefield on 30 De-cember 1460 was the death in battle ofRichard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, andthe transferal thereby of the duke’s claim tothe throne to his son Edward, earl of March,the future EDWARD IV. The battle revivedLancastrian fortunes, which had seemed sobleak after HENRY VI’s defeat and capture atthe Battle of NORTHAMPTON the previousJuly, and also led to the deaths of York’s allyRichard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, andYork’s second son Edmund PLANTAGENET,earl of Rutland.

In September 1460, two months after theBattle of Northampton, York returned to En-gland from exile in IRELAND. In October,York laid his claim to the throne before PAR-LIAMENT. The assembled lords forced the

duke to accept the Act of ACCORD, which al-lowed Henry to remain king but settled thesuccession on York and his heirs. In WALES,Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU refused toaccept the disinheritance of her son EDWARD

OF LANCASTER, Prince of Wales, and Lancas-trian nobles throughout England took up armsagainst the Yorkist regime. In the north, HenryBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, joined forceswith John CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford, HenryPERCY, earl of Northumberland, and otherlords to create a sizable Lancastrian army.

Forced to respond to this threat, York andSalisbury left LONDON on 9 December witha force of about 6,000. They hoped to ren-dezvous with John NEVILLE, Lord Neville,Salisbury’s kinsman, and bring the Lancastriansto battle. Although attacked en route by Som-erset’s men, York safely reached Sandal Castlesouth of Wakefield in Yorkshire on 21 Decem-ber 1460. York found the castle poorly pre-pared to receive his army, and the presence inthe vicinity of Lancastrian forces preventedcollection of sufficient provisions for theduke’s men. Assuming various positionsaround the castle, the Lancastrian lords, whohad no siege ARTILLERY, sought to drawYork outside by sending insulting messagesand cutting off his foraging parties.

288 WAKEFIELD, BATTLE OF

This drawing depicts Sandal Castle, from which Richard Plantagenet, duke of York, rode to his death at the Battle ofWakefield in December 1460. (Public Record Office: PRO MPC 97)

On 30 December, Yorkist foragers cameunder attack north of the castle within sight ofthe walls. For reasons that are now unclear,York chose to leave the safety of the castle andsallied forth with the bulk of his force. Sur-rounded by enemies and unable to flee, Yorkwas slain in the field. Rutland was killed byClifford as the earl attempted to flee after thebattle, and Salisbury was captured and exe-cuted the next day. All three had their headsstuck on Micklegate Bar in York, the duke’stopped with a mocking paper crown.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The Battle ofWakefield 1460 (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 1996); Johnson, P. A., DukeRichard of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

WalesBecause many key civil war figures inheritedWelsh blood, owned Welsh estates, and re-cruited Welsh RETAINERS, Wales played acentral role in the WARS OF THE ROSES.

Wales in the fifteenth century was dividedinto two distinct administrative entities: thePrincipality of Wales, governed by the monarchor by the heir to the throne as Prince of Wales,and the lordships of the marches, governed in-dependently by various noblemen. The princi-pality was divided into shires centered on thetowns of Carmarthen in the south and Carnar-von in the north. Each group of shires was gov-erned by a justiciar and a chamberlain appointedby the Crown. Within the marcher lordships,neither royal writs nor royal officials had any au-thority. Each lord had complete responsibilityfor government within his own lordship; hecould impose his own taxes, appoint his own of-ficials, and operate his own law courts.

The house of LANCASTER enjoyed ablood connection to Wales through HENRY

VI’s Welsh half brothers, Edmund TUDOR,earl of Richmond, and Jasper TUDOR, earl ofPembroke. The house of YORK inheritedWelsh blood from the Mortimers, the mater-nal relatives of Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, and members of the most powerful

marcher family of the fourteenth century. Be-cause he was heir to the Mortimer earldom ofMarch, EDWARD IV incorporated over halfthe Welsh marcher lordships into the Crownwhen he became king in 1461. These lord-ships and that of Glamorgan, which was heldby Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, werethe Welsh centers of Yorkist support before1470, while Lancastrian sentiment wasstrongest in the principality and in JasperTudor’s lordship of Pembroke.

During the 1450s, local Welsh feuds, likesimilar English feuds, were subsumed in thestruggle between Lancaster and York. In 1455,after his victory at the Battle of ST. ALBANS,York had PARLIAMENT appoint a committeeof marcher lords and royal officials to deviseeffective government for Wales. However,within a year, Edmund Tudor, Henry VI’s lieu-tenant in Wales, was at war with leading WelshYorkists; after Tudor’s death in 1456, hisbrother, Jasper, consolidated Welsh support forthe king. In 1461, two battles—MORTIMER’SCROSS in February and TWT HILL in Octo-ber—broke Pembroke’s hold on Wales andinitiated a period of Yorkist government underWilliam HERBERT (later earl of Pembroke).By 1468, Herbert was lord, custodian, or chiefofficial of almost all Welsh shires and lordships,a dominance that clashed with Warwick’sWelsh ambitions. In 1469, when his rebelscaptured Herbert at the Battle of EDGECOTE,Warwick ordered Herbert’s execution, therebydepriving Edward IV of a valuable servant.

In the 1470s, Edward filled this vacuum bycreating his son (see EDWARD V) Prince ofWales and by appointing a COUNCIL to gov-ern Wales in his name. Operating from Lud-low in the marches, the council, which washeaded by Anthony WOODVILLE, EarlRivers, eventually exercised full authority inthe principality and royal lordships and super-visory jurisdiction in the private lordships andadjoining English shires. This conciliararrangement collapsed in May 1483, whenRichard, duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD

III), now lord protector for his nephew Ed-ward V, arrested Rivers and vested the govern-ment of all royal lands in Wales in his ally,

WALES 289

Henry STAFFORD, duke of Buckingham,who already was a marcher lord. Although hisgrant was for life, the duke did not hold itlong; he was executed for treason in Novem-ber after the failure of BUCKINGHAM’S RE-BELLION. The subsequent weakness ofRichard III in Wales, combined with the lin-gering influence there of Jasper Tudor, allowedthe latter’s nephew, Henry Tudor, earl ofRichmond, to successfully land in and marchthrough Wales in August 1485.

After winning the Crown at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD, Richmond, nowHENRY VII, used the house of TUDOR’sWelsh ancestry to win Welsh support for thenew dynasty. First, Jasper Tudor was createdduke of Bedford and given extensive authorityin the principality; next, following the exam-ple of Edward IV, a council nominally underthe direction of Prince Arthur (whose veryname was an appeal to the Welsh) was grantedoversight of royal lordships. Thereafter, Walesfell increasingly under royal control untilHenry VIII, through statutes passed in 1536and 1543, achieved Welsh union with Englandby abolishing the marcher lordships and divid-ing Wales into shires governed in the samemanner as English counties.

See also Rhys ap Thomas; Thomas ap GruffyddFurther Reading: Davies, John, A History ofWales (London: The Penguin Group, 1993); Evans,H. T., Wales and the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing,1995); Griffiths, Ralph A.,“Wales and theMarches,” in S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and RalphA. Griffiths, Fifteenth-Century England, 1399–1509,2d ed. (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton,1995); Williams, Glanmor, Renewal andReformation:Wales, c. 1415–1642 (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993).

War in the North. See Alnwick Castle;Bamburgh Castle; Dunstanburgh Castle;Hedgeley Moor, Battle of; Hexham,Battle of

Warbeck, Perkin (1475–1499)By impersonating a son of EDWARD IV,Perkin Warbeck became the center of a York-

ist conspiracy to overthrow HENRY VII andthe house of TUDOR.

Born in the Netherlands, Warbeck tookservice with a Breton cloth merchant, whoused the handsome youth to model his finery.In 1491, the young man accompanied hismaster to IRELAND, where Warbeck’s aristo-cratic manner attracted the attention of York-ist sympathizers who encouraged the beliefthat Warbeck was of royal blood. In Novem-ber, Warbeck paraded through Dublin claim-ing to be Edward IV’s younger son, RichardPLANTAGENET, duke of York, who had dis-appeared in the TOWER OF LONDON in1483. Warbeck also began calling himself“Richard IV,” the rightful king of England. ByDecember, Henry VII feared that Warbeckwould win control of Ireland, just as LAM-BERT SIMNEL, an earlier Yorkist pretender,had done in 1487. The king dispatched anarmy to Ireland that dispersed Warbeck’s sup-porters and forced the pretender to accept aninvitation from CHARLES VIII to come toFRANCE.

290 WAR IN THE NORTH

Claiming to be Richard, duke of York, the younger son ofEdward IV, Perkin Warbeck spent much of the 1490sseeking to overthrow Henry VII and the house of Tudor.(Bibliotheque Municipale d’Arras)

Anxious to make trouble for Henry, whowas opposing French attempts to absorbBRITTANY, Charles treated Warbeck as anhonored guest until November 1492, whenthe conclusion of the Treaty of Etaples withEngland forced Charles to expel Warbeck.The pretender then withdrew to the Nether-lands, where he was welcomed by MAR-GARET OF YORK, the dowager duchess ofBURGUNDY; the sister of Edward IV andRICHARD III and a longtime foe of HenryVII, Margaret formally recognized Warbeck asher nephew. Backed by the duchess and byDuke Philip of Burgundy, Warbeck invadedEngland with fourteen ships in June 1495.However, when a rebel landing party wasquickly overwhelmed in Kent, Warbeck de-cided to return to Ireland. When an Irishlanding was also repulsed, Warbeck sailed forSCOTLAND, where JAMES IV, hoping to reac-quire BERWICK, was also eager to make diffi-culties for Henry. James recognized Warbeckas “Richard IV” and allowed him to marry aroyal kinswoman, Lady Katherine Gordon. InSeptember 1496, James invaded northern En-gland, ostensibly on Warbeck’s behalf (seeNORTH OF ENGLAND AND THE WARS OF

THE ROSES). The enterprise aroused no sup-port for a Yorkist restoration, and the Scottisharmy soon withdrew. By the spring of 1497,James was listening to offers of alliance fromLONDON, and Warbeck once again foundhimself forced to depart.

After another abortive attempt on Ireland,Warbeck and a small band of supporterslanded in Cornwall in September 1497. Hop-ing to revive a recently quelled Cornish upris-ing, Warbeck attracted thousands of recruits,but was unable to capture Exeter and was soonforced to surrender. After making a full con-fession of his imposture to the king, Warbeckwas confined at Westminster, and his wife wasallowed to become lady-in-waiting to QueenELIZABETH OF YORK. In June 1498, War-beck fled, but he was recaptured and impris-oned in the Tower. When Ferdinand and Is-abella of Spain expressed reservations aboutmarrying their daughter to Henry’s son solong as any royal pretender remained in En-

gland, the king had Warbeck tried for treasonalong with his fellow prisoner, Edward PLAN-TAGENET, earl of Warwick, the last directmale descendent of the house of YORK. War-beck and Warwick were convicted and exe-cuted in November 1499.

See also Yorkist Heirs (after 1485)Further Reading: Arthurson, Ian, The PerkinWarbeck Conspiracy, 1491–1499 (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1997).

Warkworth’s ChronicleA Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of the Reignof King Edward the Fourth, popularly known asWarkworth’s Chronicle, after its probable authorJohn Warkworth, is an important source of in-formation for events in England between1461 and 1474, and especially for the secondphase of the WARS OF THE ROSES between1469 and 1471.

John Warkworth is a rather obscure figure.Believed to be a northerner, born perhapsnear the village of Warkworth in Northum-berland, he studied at Oxford and becamechaplain to Bishop William Grey of Ely inthe 1450s. In 1473, he became master of St.Peter’s College, Cambridge, a position heheld until his death in 1500. In 1483, Wark-worth presented his college with a handwrit-ten copy of the Brut chronicle to which wasappended, as a continuation, the only surviv-ing copy of what became known as Wark-worth’s Chronicle. Whether Warkworth actu-ally wrote the chronicle, or simply caused itto be written for his use, is uncertain.

Although covering the reign of EDWARD

IV, Warkworth’s Chronicle has a distinct Lancas-trian bias. The chronicle is sympathetic toHENRY VI, whose restoration in 1470 is de-scribed as giving great joy to “the more part ofthe people” (Three Chronicles, p. 33), and it iscritical of Edward IV, who is particularly con-demned for his financial exactions. Thechronicle also mentions the dissatisfaction ofRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, with Ed-ward’s 1464 marriage to Elizabeth WOOD-VILLE and roundly condemns John TIPTOFT,the Yorkist earl of Worcester, who for his exe-

WARKWORTH’S CHRONICLE 291

cution of Lancastrian sympathizers is said tohave been “greatly behated among the peo-ple” (Three Chronicles, p. 31). The chronicleralso hinted that Richard, duke of Gloucester(see RICHARD III), Edward’s brother, hadsome responsibility for Henry VI’s death in theTOWER OF LONDON in 1471 (see HENRY

VI, MURDER OF).Warkworth’s Chronicle also displays an un-

usual and therefore valuable northern perspec-tive. It provides information on the Lancas-trian resistance that centered on the northerncastles of ALNWICK, BAMBURGH, andDUNSTANBURGH between 1461 and 1464,and it is a major source for northern rebel-lions, such as the ROBIN OF REDESDALE

REBELLION in 1469 and the WELLES UP-RISING in Lincolnshire in 1470. The chroni-cle also describes the Battles of BARNET andTEWKESBURY; the 1471 assault on LON-DON by Thomas NEVILLE, the Bastard ofFauconberg; and the 1473 seizure of St.Michael’s Mount in Cornwall by John deVERE, the die-hard Lancastrian earl of Ox-ford. Although frequently confusing and oftenincorrect in details, Warkworth’s Chronicle is auseful source for the earlier years of EdwardIV’s reign.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Three Chronicles of the Reign ofEdward IV, Introduction by Keith Dockray(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan SuttonPublishing, 1988); the text of Warkworth’s Chronicleis also available on the Richard III Society Website at <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/warkwort/worthi.html>.

Wars of the Roses, Causes ofCivil war erupted in fifteenth-century En-gland for many interrelated reasons. WhileTudor and Elizabethan commentators foundthe chief cause of the conflict in the 1399deposition of Richard II and its attendantbreak in the legal line of succession, historiansworking in the twentieth century proposednumerous other causes, including BASTARD

FEUDALISM, economic weakness, royal in-competence, and military defeat in FRANCE.

Although all these ideas have been closely ex-amined and many have been discredited ormodified, debate continues, both on questionsof how and why the WARS OF THE ROSES

began and on questions of how best to relateand evaluate the various causation theoriesbeing proposed.

The oldest theory of causation is the dynas-tic, which states that the wars were disputesover title to the throne. The Lancastrianusurpation of 1399 led to civil strife because itvested the Crown in a branch of the royalfamily whose right to it was inferior to that ofother members of the family. As originallyenunciated by Tudor writers, and especially byWilliam Shakespeare, this theory also had a su-pernatural component—the deposition of ananointed king, being a violation of divine law,led inexorably to the divine punishment ofcivil war. Although this view has today fallenout of fashion, some modern historians havepartially revived it by arguing that HENRY VIand MARGARET OF ANJOU were muchconcerned for the future of the house ofLANCASTER in the 1450s, and that many oftheir attitudes and actions were shaped by fearof the dynastic ambitions of Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York.

In the late nineteenth century, CharlesPlummer and William Denton advocated thetheory that bastard feudalism was the chiefcause of the Wars of the Roses. They arguedthat a corrupt offshoot of the feudal social sys-tem (which Plummer termed bastard feudal-ism) allowed a small group of wealthy noblesto raise large bodies of armed RETAINERS

with which they conducted private quarrelsand defied the authority of the Crown. Devel-oping in the fourteenth century during thereign of Edward III (r. 1327–1377), bastardfeudalism disrupted English political society inthe fifteenth century. Civil war resulted from acollapse of central authority brought on by“overmighty subjects” who used the Crownand the royal government for their own ends.

After 1940, K. B. McFarlane and his stu-dents largely demolished the notion that acorrupted form of feudalism caused the Warsof the Roses. They argued that bastard feudal-

292 WARS OF THE ROSES, CAUSES OF

ism was the basis of political society from thethirteenth through the sixteenth centuries,and that only the weakness of the Crownunder the inept Henry VI allowed the systemto be corrupted in the fifteenth century. AsMcFarlane wrote,“only an undermighty rulerhad anything to fear from overmighty sub-jects” (McFarlane, p. 238). In the last thirtyyears, the debate has shifted from the beliefthat the wars arose mainly from the weak-nesses of Henry VI to discussion of a generalshift in the balance of power between theCrown and its most powerful subjects. Thisidea salvages some of the Plummer/Dentontheory by holding Edward III responsible foraltering the king’s relationship with his nobles.Instead of standing clearly above and apartfrom leading noblemen, as Edward I had done,kings after Edward III stood more as firstamong equals, a consequence that made effec-tive kingship more dependent on the person-ality of individual monarchs. When a truly in-effective monarch came to power in 1437,royal government ceased to function as itshould, and powerful nobles had more scopefor making trouble, with bastard feudalismserving as only one of the means by whichthey did so.

In the 1930s, M. M. Postan suggested thatthe “political gangsterism” (Postan, p. 48) ofthe fifteenth century arose from the financialdistress of a nobility experiencing decliningincomes. In the 1950s, Charles Ross and T. B.Pugh expanded this idea and tied it into thetheory of bastard feudalism by arguing that fi-nancially strapped nobles became increasinglydependent on Crown patronage and thereforefought each other not because they had thewherewithal to raise private armies but be-cause they needed royal largess to pay the ret-inues they already had. This theory of nobleinsolvency as a cause of civil war also em-braced the increasing financial woes of theCrown under Henry VI. In the 1390s, RichardII enjoyed an annual revenue of £120,000,while in the 1450s Henry VI’s annual incomehad shrunk to about £40,000. Besides experi-encing the same decline in rents that affectedthe PEERAGE, the Crown also suffered from a

European-wide depression that reduced cus-toms revenues and from the king’s free-spend-ing tendencies, a point that also reinforces theidea that Henry VI’s incompetence was aprime cause of the wars. Although the generalfinancial position of the nobility in the fif-teenth century has been much debated, thebankruptcy of the Crown is not in doubt;what is in question is how much of a role royalinsolvency played in the coming of the civilwars.

Certainly the Crown’s poverty was a factorin the English loss of Normandy in 1450, andthe loss of that important province, which wasboth a psychological blow to England’s prideand a financial blow to the incomes of numer-ous noblemen, helped initiate the quarrel be-tween York and Edmund BEAUFORT, duke ofSomerset. This quarrel over standing atCOURT and access to patronage is generallyaccepted as an important immediate cause ofthe wars. Another immediate cause was theentry into politics of Margaret of Anjou, whoworked on behalf of her son, Prince EDWARD

OF LANCASTER, to thwart the political am-bitions of York. What is less accepted is the ef-fect, if any, of the ending of the HUNDRED

YEARS WAR on the coming of the Wars ofthe Roses. The notion that the internal disor-der of the 1450s was the result of returninghordes of unruly soldiers (and magnates), whohad earlier directed their aggression towardthe French, has been largely abandoned, butthe idea that dissatisfaction with the Lancas-trian regime’s handling of the French warmade possible Yorkist opposition to the gov-ernment is still much debated.

Recently, scholars have pointed out that thetheories discussed above apply only to the civilwars before 1471. For the revival of the con-flict in the 1480s, a general consensus finds themain cause in the actions of one man—RICHARD III. Some historians suggest thatEDWARD IV, by basing his regime too nar-rowly on a small number of supporters, such asWilliam HASTINGS, Lord Hastings, and theWOODVILLE FAMILY, was responsible forcreating conditions that allowed Richard toeasily topple his nephew, EDWARD V. Al-

WARS OF THE ROSES, CAUSES OF 293

though this may be true, the fact remains thatonly Richard’s usurpation, undertaken in 1483for any number of reasons, allowed HenryTudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY VII), tobecome a serious contender for the throneand transformed the defunct struggle betweenthe houses of Lancaster and YORK into astruggle between the latter and the house ofTUDOR.

See also Richard II, Deposition of; Shakespeareand the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Dockray, Keith,“The Originsof the Wars of the Roses,” in A. J. Pollard, ed., TheWars of the Roses (New York: St. Martin’s Press,1995), pp. 65–88; McFarlane, K. B.,“The Wars ofthe Roses,” in England in the Fifteenth Century:Collected Essays (London: Hambledon Press, 1981);Pollard, A. J., The Wars of the Roses (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1988); Postan, M. M.,“TheFifteenth Century,” in Essays in Medieval Agricultureand Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1973); Pugh, T. B., and Charles Ross,“TheEnglish Baronage and the Income Tax of 1436,”Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 20(1952): 1–22.

Wars of the Roses, Naming of“Wars of the Roses” is a modern term used todescribe the intermittent civil conflicts thatoccurred in fifteenth-century England be-tween partisans of the houses of LANCASTER

and YORK. Sir Walter Scott is usually creditedwith coining the term in his 1829 novel Anne

of Geierstein, although Sir John Oglander hadpublished a 1646 pamphlet entitled The Quar-rel of the Warring Roses and David Hume hadwritten in his 1762 History of England about“the Wars of the Two Roses.” Although thephrase “Wars of the Roses” was unknown tocontemporaries, who referred occasionally to“Cousins’ Wars,” the idea of a civil conflictsymbolized by two competing rose emblemsoriginated in the late fifteenth century.

During the civil war, the white rose wasone of the chief BADGES of EDWARD IV andthe house of York, but use of the red rose as asymbol for Lancaster or of the idea of compet-ing rose emblems is hard to find before 1485.But after that year, the red rose as a symbol forthe TUDOR FAMILY and, by extension, fortheir Lancastrian relatives, is found scatteredthroughout English literature, art, and archi-tecture, usually intertwined with the whiterose as a representation of the union of Lan-caster and York brought about by HENRY

VII’s 1486 marriage to ELIZABETH OF

YORK, daughter of Edward IV. The conceptof a union of warring roses became such acommonplace of Tudor PROPAGANDA thatthe 1509 coronation of Henry VIII, the off-spring of this union, was greeted with numer-ous verses that, like the following lines fromJohn Skelton, extolled the peaceful blendingof the two formerly hostile emblems:

294 WARS OF THE ROSES, NAMING OF

Although the term “Wars of the Roses” originated in the nineteenth century, the use of roses to represent the feuding houses ofLancaster and York goes back to the reign of Henry VII, who combined the red and white roses to symbolize the union of thetwo houses achieved by his marriage to the daughter of Edward IV. Shown here is an unusual reversed Tudor rose, with thewhite petals outside the red. (Royal MS 20 E III f. 30v, British Library)

The rose both white and redIn one rose now doth grow. (Ross, p. 15)

Some eighty years later, William Shake-speare, following these early Tudor leads,wrote the memorable, if entirely fictionalscene that prompted the later coining of theterm “Wars of the Roses.” In act 2, scene iv ofHENRY VI, PART 1, Shakespeare has the rivaldukes of Somerset and York meet in the Tem-ple gardens, where their followers pick red orwhite roses as symbols of allegiance to theirrespective causes. Thus, although less than twocenturies old, the term “Wars of the Roses”has today become the widely accepted desig-nation for an English civil conflict fought overfive hundred years ago.

See also Henry VI, Part 2; Henry VI, Part 3;Shakespeare and the Wars of the RosesFurther Reading: Gillingham, John, The Wars ofthe Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity Press, 1981); McFarlane, K. B.,“TheWars of the Roses,” in England in the FifteenthCentury: Collected Essays (London: HambledonPress, 1981); Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses(London: Thames and Hudson, 1987); Weir,Alison, The Wars of the Roses (New York: BallantineBooks, 1995).

Warwick, Earl of. See Neville, Richard,Earl of Warwick; Plantagenet, Edward,Earl of Warwick

Warwick the Kingmaker. See Neville,Richard, Earl of Warwick

Waurin, Jean de. See Recueil desCroniques et Anchiennes Istories de la GrantBretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre(Waurin)

WeaponryDuring the WARS OF THE ROSES, EnglishMEN-AT-ARMS carried various types ofweapons into battle, including thrusting andstabbing implements, such as swords and dag-

gers, and powerful battering weapons, such asmaces and poleaxes.

For close-quarter combat, the fifteenth-cen-tury knight usually carried a sword that couldbe used for both cutting and thrusting. Suchweapons varied greatly in length and width,from a broad, single-handed sword that wasabout two and a half feet in length to a nar-rower, two-handed version that was almostthree and a half feet long. Swords meant solelyfor thrusting tended to have longer, narrowerblades and longer hilts. When not in use, asword fit into a scabbard that hung from a hipbelt in such a way as to position the point a lit-tle to the rear where it could not trip its owner.From the other hip usually hung a rondel dag-ger, which was used to exploit gaps in an oppo-nent’s ARMOR or to pry open the visor of adowned enemy, who was then dispatched by athrust to the eye or throat. The rondel wascharacterized by a disk- or cone-shaped guardbetween hilt and blade and a similarly shapedpommel at the other end of the hilt. Because itwas used for stabbing, the rondel had a straight,slender blade that was triangular in shape andup to fifteen inches in length to allow for max-imum penetration of an enemy’s body.

Because the stronger, fluted armor used inthe fifteenth century could deflect sword andspear thrusts, many knights began carryingnew types of heavy weapons, often with hooksor spikes, which were designed to crush orpuncture plate armor. Perhaps the most deadlyof these weapons was the poleax, which con-sisted of a wooden shaft, four to six feet long,topped by a long spike that was flanked onone side by an ax head and on the other by aspiked hammer or fluke (a curved, beaklikeextension for hooking an opponent to theground). The spike could puncture plate ordamage armored joints and rob a man of mo-bility. The ax and hammer could crush botharmor and the flesh it covered. Against unar-mored opponents, a skillfully wielded poleaxwas devastating.

While the poleax was used only for combaton foot, such other battering weapons as thebattle-ax, the mace, and the war hammer werecarried primarily by horsemen, who swung

WEAPONRY 295

their weapon with one hand and held theirreins with the other. RICHARD III suppos-edly led his famous cavalry charge at the Battleof Bosworth Field while wielding a battle-ax.Weighing from two to five pounds, the warhammer was serrated and usually carried afluke opposite the hammerhead. Of a similarweight, the mace had a head composed of sixinterlocking serrated edges or some similarlyformidable configuration of spikes and points.Like the poleax, these weapons were used todeliver crushing blows to armored opponents.

Besides the more formally trained andheavily armored men-at-arms, most civil wararmies contained sizable contingents of bill-men, foot soldiers who carried any of a widevariety of shafted weapons that could be usedto drag enemies to the ground, to cut armorstraps, and to frighten horses. Such weaponsderived from the billhook, a common agricul-tural implement used for cutting and pruningthat consisted of a blade with a hooked pointattached to a long wooden shaft. Character-ized by some type of blade, hook, or spiketopping a pole that ranged in length from sixto ten feet, a bill weapon could be raked,stabbed, or swung at an enemy. Depending onthe type of head they employed, such weaponswere known by various names, such as thehalberd, which carried a spiked ax head andhad to be swung at an opponent to be usedmost effectively. Because they required littletraining to use and, unlike bows, were easy tomaintain, various forms of bills were theweapons usually carried by common soldiersand most often found in rural cottages andhouses for protection against intruders.

See also Archers; Artillery; Battles, Nature ofFurther Reading: Boardman, Andrew W., TheMedieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998);DeVries, Kelly, Medieval Military Technology(Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1992);Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (NewYork: Dorset Press, 1981).

Welles Uprising (1470)Occurring in Lincolnshire in the spring of1470, the Welles uprising provided Richard

NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, with a second op-portunity to overthrow EDWARD IV.

Richard Welles (1431–1470), seventh LordWelles, was a prominent Lincolnshire noble-man and a former Lancastrian. His father, Li-onel, the sixth Lord Welles, had been killedfighting for the house of LANCASTER at theBattle of TOWTON in March 1461. AlthoughWelles was attainted by the first PARLIA-MENT of Edward IV, his son Richard, whohad himself fought for HENRY VI at the Bat-tle of ST. ALBANS in 1461, submitted to thenew king and regained his father’s lands. Per-haps because he was related to the NEVILLE

FAMILY, Welles was also allowed to assume hisfather’s title in 1468.

Early in 1470, Welles, his son Sir RobertWelles, and his brothers-in-law Sir ThomasDymmock and Sir Thomas de la Lande at-tacked the manor house of Sir Thomas Burgh,a Lincolnshire gentleman who was EdwardIV’s Master of Horse. The attackers destroyedBurgh’s house, carried off his goods, andforced him to flee the county. Later official ac-counts of the incident claimed that Welles wasacting on behalf of his kinsman Warwick; theearl was seeking another opportunity to drawthe king into the north, where he could besurprised, defeated, and dethroned in favor ofGeorge PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,who was Edward’s brother but Warwick’s ally.Some modern historians have dismissed thisclaim as Yorkist PROPAGANDA and have ar-gued that Welles’s attack on Burgh arose fromsome private feud, a common occurrence inthe fifteenth century, and that Warwick simplymade use of the incident when the king de-cided to intervene to support his servant.

Edward summoned Welles and Dymmockto LONDON, but the two men initially re-fused to comply, pleading illness. Changingtheir minds, both took SANCTUARY at West-minster, which they were induced to leave bypromise of a pardon. Meanwhile, Sir RobertWelles, now likely acting in concert with War-wick and Clarence, issued proclamationsthroughout Lincolnshire in early March formen to join him in resisting the king, who, itwas claimed, was coming north to punish the

296 WELLES UPRISING

men of the shire for their support of theROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION in1469. Already marching north when helearned of Sir Robert’s defiance, Edward or-dered that Lord Welles and Dymmock bebrought up from London. Forced to write tohis son, Lord Welles declared that he andDymmock would die if Sir Robert did notsubmit. Upon receiving this letter, Sir Robert,who had been maneuvering to trap the kingbetween his rebels and the oncoming forces ofWarwick and Clarence, retreated, allowing theroyal army to intercept him on 12 March.After summarily executing Lord Welles andDymmock, the king attacked and destroyedthe rebel force at the Battle of LOSECOTE

FIELD, where both Sir Robert and documen-tary evidence of Warwick and Clarence’scomplicity were captured.

On 14 March, Sir Robert Welles con-fessed to the king that Warwick and Clarencewere the “partners and chief provokers”(Ross, p. 141) of his treason, and that the pur-pose of the entire enterprise was to makeClarence king. On 19 March, as he preparedto pursue the earl and the duke, Edward hadWelles executed before the army. With theWelles uprising crushed and their plans inruins, Warwick and Clarence fled into theWest Country where they took ship forFRANCE. In 1475, a bill of ATTAINDER

(later reversed under HENRY VII) was passedagainst Lord Welles and his son, and theWelles estates were granted to WilliamHASTINGS, Lord Hastings.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The MilitaryCampaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Wenlock, John, Lord Wenlock (d. 1471)Although an early adherent of the house ofYORK, and a prominent diplomat under ED-WARD IV, John Wenlock, Lord Wenlock, sup-ported the restoration of the house of LAN-CASTER in 1470.

Born into a Bedfordshire GENTRY family,Wenlock entered the service of Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU in the 1440s, becomingher chamberlain by 1450. In 1455, he foughtfor HENRY VI at the Battle of ST. ALBANS,but shortly thereafter joined the Yorkists. In1459, after the Yorkist debacle at the Battle ofLUDFORD BRIDGE,Wenlock fled to CALAIS

with Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury, andhis son Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick.Wenlock returned to England with theNevilles in June 1460 and participated in thesuccessful Yorkist siege of the TOWER OF

LONDON. In March 1461, he fought for Ed-ward IV at the Battles of FERRYBRIDGE andTOWTON, and was rewarded later in the yearwith elevation to the PEERAGE. In 1462,Wenlock took part in Warwick’s siege ofDUNSTANBURGH CASTLE.

During the 1460s Wenlock served on nu-merous diplomatic missions with Warwick, in-cluding efforts to find a foreign queen for Ed-ward IV. He and Warwick concluded a truce atsea with FRANCE in 1464, and in the follow-ing year they were joined by William HAST-INGS, Lord Hastings, in a wide-ranging peacemission to various European courts. Althoughhe was implicated in the CORNELIUS PLOT,a shadowy Lancastrian conspiracy uncoveredin 1468, Wenlock suffered no serious conse-quences because he was engaged at the time inconducting the king’s sister, MARGARET OF

YORK, to BURGUNDY for her marriage toDuke CHARLES. In April 1470, when War-wick fled England after the failure of his sec-ond coup attempt, he sailed to Calais, whereWenlock was in command as Warwick’sdeputy. Although sympathetic, Wenlock knewthe garrison was loyal to Edward; he refusedadmittance to Warwick and his party but pri-vately advised the earl to seek refuge inFrance. For this action, Edward rewardedWenlock with the governorship of the town,but he then grew suspicious of Wenlock’s loy-alty and dismissed him from the post in favorof Anthony WOODVILLE, Earl Rivers.

When Warwick forged his alliance withMargaret of Anjou in the summer of 1470 (seeANGERS AGREEMENT), Wenlock was one of

WENLOCK, JOHN, LORD WENLOCK 297

the few Yorkist peers to follow the earl intothe Lancastrian camp. Although his exact rea-sons for this defection are unclear, he mayhave shared Warwick’s dislike for Edward’sBurgundian alliance and for the rise of theWOODVILLE FAMILY. Wenlock landed inEngland with Queen Margaret and PrinceEDWARD OF LANCASTER in April 1471 andwas a leader of the Lancastrian army at theBattle of TEWKESBURY on 4 May. Accordingto one account,Wenlock was slain by EdmundBEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, the Lancas-trian commander, who was enraged at whathe considered to be Wenlock’s failure to sup-port his attack. However, other sources say thatWenlock was simply killed in battle.

Further Reading: Hicks, Michael, Warwick theKingmaker (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Westminster-Ardtornish, Treaty of (1462)By making EDWARD IV the ally of dissidentScottish noblemen, the 1462 Treaty of West-minster-Ardtornish sought to compel theScottish government to abandon its supportfor the house of LANCASTER.

After their defeat at the Battle of TOWTON

in March 1461, HENRY VI, Queen MAR-GARET OF ANJOU, and their chief noble sup-porters fled into SCOTLAND, where theywere given protection by Queen MARY OF

GUELDRES, who led the Scottish governmentas regent for her nine-year-old son, JAMES III.Allowed to use Scotland as a base for raids intoEngland, the Lancastrians kept the northerncounties in turmoil. To force the Scots toabandon his opponents, Edward IV alliedhimself with the Scottish king’s opponents. Bythe Treaty of Westminster-Ardtornish, John,the semi-independent Lord of the Isles, sev-ered his links to the Scottish Crown and de-clared his allegiance to Edward IV. In return,Edward agreed to pay the Lord of the Isles apension and to grant him northern Scotland,most of which was already under his influ-ence, when the country was conquered by the

English. The rest of Scotland was pledged tothe treaty’s other signatory, James Douglas,ninth earl of Douglas, a Scottish rebel whohad been resident in England as a pensioner ofthe Crown since 1455.

No attempt was made to put the treaty intoeffect, for the agreement was probably meantonly to highlight the Scottish Crown’s vulner-ability in northern Scotland and to convincethe Scottish government to come to termswith Edward IV and expel the Lancastrian ex-iles. A truce was concluded in 1463, and Scot-land thereafter ceased to be a safe haven forLancastrian adventures. However, Edward IVremembered the ploy and resumed negotia-tions with the Lord of the Isles in 1479 whenhe was again at odds with the Scottish king.

See also North of England and the Wars of theRosesFurther Reading: Mackie, J. D., A History ofScotland, 2d ed. (New York: Dorset Press, 1985);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Whethamstede, John, Abbot of St. Albans (c. 1390–1465)The Registers of John Whethamstede (orWheathampstead), abbot of the importantBenedictine monastery at St. Albans, are im-portant sources for the personality and reignof HENRY VI and for the first phase of theWARS OF THE ROSES.

Born in Hertfordshire and educated at Ox-ford, Whethamstede entered the monastery ofSt. Albans, where he was elected abbot in1420. Because St. Albans was an old andwealthy foundation, Whethamstede was fre-quently involved in litigation to protect themonastery’s privileges and properties. Al-though a shy man in public, Whethamstedetenaciously defended the abbey’s interests bycultivating persons of influence. Henry VI vis-ited St. Albans in 1428 and in 1459, and theking’s younger uncle, Humphrey, duke ofGloucester, became the abbot’s close friendand patron.Whethamstede resigned his abbacyin 1440, ostensibly for ill health, but was re-elected to the office in 1451.

298 WESTMINSTER-ARDTORNISH, TREATY OF

Although influenced by Renaissance ideas,Whethamstede was not a humanist. His Latinworks of history and classical mythology dis-play much learning, but they were written inthe flowery and verbose medieval style.Whethamstede was important in opening En-gland to humanist scholarship, but he was nothimself part of the humanist movement.Nonetheless, his Registers are important sourcesfor the last years of Henry VI, especially sincetheir author witnessed several key events first-hand. After the Battle of ST.ALBANS in 1455,Whethamstede asked leave of Richard PLAN-TAGENET, duke of York, to bury the bodies ofEdmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset;Henry PERCY, earl of Northumberland; andThomas CLIFFORD, Lord Clifford. During thesecond Battle of ST. ALBANS in 1461, theabbey was so heavily damaged that Whetham-stede and his monks had to disperse to tempo-rary quarters elsewhere.

In about 1457, Whethamstede wrote in hisRegister that Henry VI was “simplex etprobus,” which, in the context of the passage,would have been translated as “honest and up-right.” Some later historians used the com-ment to support the laudatory view of Henryput forward by John Blacman in his “COMPI-LATION OF THE MEEKNESS AND GOOD

LIFE OF KING HENRY VI.” However, afterthe Yorkist triumph in 1461, Whethamstededescribed Henry as “his mother’s stupid off-spring, not his father’s, a son greatly degener-ated from the father, who did not cultivate theart of war . . . a mild-spoken, pious king, buthalf-witted in affairs of state” (Wolffe, p. 19).Because of this seemingly radical change ofheart, Whethamstede was accused by histori-ans of transforming overnight from a staunchpartisan of the house of LANCASTER to anardent supporter of the house of YORK. Butthe abbott’s earlier use of “simplex” may actu-ally have hinted at his Yorkist sympathies; itmay have been a veiled allusion to Henry’schildish simplicity.

Although too anxious to please the party inpower and too ready to accept myth and anec-dote—e.g., he attributes the 1461 St.Albans de-feat of Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, to

the ill effects of too much sun on the blood andresolution of southerners—Whethamstede pro-vided useful accounts of such events as HenryVI’s initial illness, the Battle of NORTHAMP-TON, and York’s attempt to claim the Crown(see HENRY VI, ILLNESS OF). Whethamstededied at St.Albans in January 1465.

Further Reading: Weiss, Roberto, Humanism inEngland during the Fifteenth Century (Oxford:Blackwell, 1967);“John Whetehamstede,” inMichael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.264–265; Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: EyreMethuen, 1981).

Wiltshire, Earl of. See Butler, James,Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond

Winchester, Bishop of. See Courtenay,Peter; Wainfleet, William

Winchester, Earl of. See Gruthuyse,Louis de, Seigneur de la Gruthuyse, Earlof Winchester

Woodville, Anthony, Earl Rivers (c. 1442–1483)Through his control of the person of ED-WARD V and his leadership of the politicallypowerful WOODVILLE FAMILY, AnthonyWoodville (or Wydeville), Earl Rivers, mayhave unwittingly helped convince Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III), that itwas in his best interest to seize the Crownfrom his nephew in 1483.

The eldest son of Richard WOODVILLE,Earl Rivers, and of JACQUETTA OF LUXEM-BOURG, duchess of Bedford, Woodville, likehis father, supported HENRY VI on the out-break of war in 1459. In January 1460,Woodville and his father were captured atSandwich by Yorkist raiders, who carried thetwo men to CALAIS, where they were soundlyberated as social upstarts by the Yorkist leaders,Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, and his

WOODVILLE, ANTHONY, EARL RIVERS 299

father Richard NEVILLE, earl of Salisbury.Freed shortly thereafter, Woodville marriedthe daughter of the Lancastrian peer, ThomasSCALES, Lord Scales. After fighting for theLancastrians at the Battle of TOWTON inMarch 1461, Woodville transferred his alle-giance to EDWARD IV and was recognized asLord Scales in right of his wife in 1462.

In 1464, the king’s marriage to Scales’selder sister, Elizabeth WOODVILLE, led, muchto the chagrin of Warwick, to the rapid ad-vancement at COURT of Scales and his nu-merous siblings. In June 1467, Scales, who wasan accomplished knight, fought Anthony, theBastard of BURGUNDY, the natural son ofDuke PHILIP, in a tournament at Smithfield.Scales distinguished himself in the contest,which had been arranged in part to emphasizethe Woodville connections, through DuchessJacquetta, with the highest European nobility.Part of the embassy that negotiated the mar-riage of Edward’s sister, MARGARET OF

YORK, to Duke CHARLES of Burgundy,Scales accompanied the princess to her wed-ding in 1468. When Warwick launched hisfirst coup attempt in July 1469, Edward sentthe Woodvilles from his presence, both to pro-tect them and to allay discontent. In August,after the defeat of the king’s forces at the Bat-tle of EDGECOTE, Scales’s father and brotherwere executed by Warwick, though Scales—now Earl Rivers—escaped to rejoin the kingafter the collapse of Warwick’s uprising. InApril 1470, Rivers foiled Warwick’s attempt toretrieve his ship Trinity from Southamptonharbor and later in the summer defeated War-wick’s fleet in the Seine.

When Warwick, now allied with QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU, forced Edward IVto flee the kingdom in October 1470, Riverswas one of the peers who shared the king’sexile in Burgundy (see EDWARD IV, OVER-THROW OF).After spending the winter nego-tiating for shipping, Rivers returned to En-gland with Edward in March 1471. He foughtat the Battle of BARNET in April and was in-strumental in driving Thomas NEVILLE, theBastard of Fauconberg, from LONDON inMay. In July, Rivers angered the king by asking

leave to go abroad; although Edward grantedthe request, he replaced Rivers as lieutenant ofCalais with William HASTINGS, Lord Hast-ings, an action that later caused ill feelings be-tween Rivers and his successor. Rivers traveledwidely during the 1470s. After returning fromPortugal in 1472, he undertook pilgrimages toCompostella in Spain in 1473 and to Rome in1475. In November 1473, Edward appointedRivers governor of the young Prince of Wales,an important and powerful position that madeits holder a political force in WALES and, po-tentially, in the next reign.

Upon the death of Edward IV in April1483, Rivers was at Ludlow (on the Welshborder) with Edward V. Ordered by theCOUNCIL in London to limit the size of theroyal retinue, Rivers and the king left Ludlowon 24 April accompanied by 2,000 men. On29 April at Stony Stratford, Rivers and his halfnephew Richard Grey returned to North-ampton to meet the king’s uncle, Richard,duke of Gloucester, who was coming southwith Henry STAFFORD, duke of Bucking-ham. Cordially received by the two dukes,Rivers and Grey were next day arrested andsent north in custody. Gloucester’s apparentfears that the Woodvilles intended to controlthe minority government seemed confirmedwhen large quantities of arms were found inRivers’s baggage and Queen Elizabeth, uponhearing the news of Rivers’s arrest, fled withher other children into SANCTUARY. On 25June, Gloucester’s servant Sir Richard RAT-CLIFFE executed Rivers, Grey, and ThomasVAUGHAN at Pontefract, likely without bene-fit of trial.

Rivers was the most cultured and popularmember of his family. He was an early patronof the printer William CAXTON, whose firstproductions from his English press wereRivers’s translations of The Dictes and Sayings ofthe Philosophers (1477) and the Moral Proverbsof Christine de Pisan (1478). DominicMANCINI, the Italian observer who was pres-ent in London in 1483, was critical of theWoodvilles, but described Rivers as “a kind,serious and just man. . . . [who] had injurednobody, though benefiting many” (Ross, p.

300 WOODVILLE, ANTHONY, EARL RIVERS

98). Although a political realist who safe-guarded his family’s interests, Rivers was alsosomething of an ascetic, as evidenced by hismany pilgrimages and the hair shirt he woreunder his garments. Nonetheless, his influenceover Edward V and the political and militaryresources he wielded as head of the extensiveWoodville AFFINITY threatened Gloucester’sfuture and persuaded the duke to strike downRivers and seize the throne, actions that re-opened the WARS OF THE ROSES in 1483.

See also all other entries under WoodvilleFurther Reading: “Anthony Woodville,” inMichael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.346–348; MacGibbon, David, Elizabeth Woodville:Her Life and Times (London: A. Barker, 1938);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Woodville, Elizabeth, Queen ofEngland (c. 1437–1492)Through her secret marriage to EDWARD IV,Elizabeth Woodville (or Wydeville), a shrewdand strong-willed woman, brought her largeand ambitious family sufficient political powerto alienate both Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, and Richard, duke of Gloucester,and thereby helped to bring about the laterphases of the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The daughter of Richard WOODVILLE,Lord Rivers, and JACQUETTA OF LUXEM-BOURG, duchess of Bedford, Elizabeth mar-ried Sir John Grey in about 1450. After Greydied fighting for HENRY VI at the Battle ofST.ALBANS in 1461, Elizabeth was denied herportion of the Grey estates by her mother-in-law and was forced to make suit to Edward IVfor redress.The king was smitten by the attrac-tive widow, but his sexual advances were re-buffed, and he could only attain his desire bymarrying Elizabeth secretly on May Day1464. When revealed later in the year, themarriage, which was the first royal match withan Englishwoman since the thirteenth cen-tury, was immediately unpopular; it broughtEngland no diplomatic advantages and saddledEdward with numerous in-laws seeking politi-cal influence and economic preferment.

Besides her parents, Elizabeth had fivebrothers, seven sisters, and two sons by her firsthusband. Because the king felt bound to findtitles, lands, or marriages for these relatives, theWoodvilles soon claimed the bulk of royal pa-tronage. Feeling shut out from the king’sbounty, and opposed to the pro-BURGUNDY

foreign policy espoused by the queen’s fatherand brothers, Warwick and the king’s brother,George PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence,launched a rebellion in 1469 and eventuallyoverthrew Edward with French and Lancas-trian assistance in the autumn of 1470 (seeANGERS AGREEMENT; EDWARD IV,OVERTHROW OF). The queen, who eventu-ally bore Edward three sons and eight daugh-ters, was delivered of her first son, the futureEDWARD V, while in SANCTUARY at West-minster in November. After Edward IV’srestoration in 1471, the WOODVILLE FAMILY

became the center of an increasingly powerfulpolitical faction, which was led by Elizabethand her eldest brother, Anthony WOOD-VILLE, who had succeeded his father as EarlRivers when the older man was executed byWarwick in 1469 (see EDWARD IV, RES-TORATION OF). The Woodvilles probablypressed for the destruction of Clarence in1478 and, through Rivers’s guardianship of theprince, positioned themselves to exercise astrong influence over the future king (seeCLARENCE, EXECUTION OF).

On Edward IV’s death in April 1483, Eliza-beth, with the assistance of her eldest son,Thomas GREY, marquis of Dorset, tookcharge in LONDON while Rivers conveyedEdward V to the capital from Ludlow. Seekingto establish immediate Woodville dominance,the queen attempted to have the twelve-year-old king declared of sufficient age to rule.Thisdevice aroused strong opposition and gaveRichard, duke of Gloucester, the king’s surviv-ing paternal uncle, the initial support heneeded to establish a protectorate and eventu-ally usurp the throne (see USURPATION OF

1483). Gloucester seized custody of the king;executed Rivers and the queen’s son RichardGrey; and forced Elizabeth to seek sanctuary atWestminster with her remaining children. Al-

WOODVILLE, ELIZABETH, QUEEN OF ENGLAND 301

though convinced (or compelled) to yield heryounger son, Richard PLANTAGENET, dukeof York, to Gloucester’s custody in June 1483,Elizabeth was soon persuaded that Gloucester(now ruling as RICHARD III) had slain bothher sons, for in the following autumn shehelped plan BUCKINGHAM’S REBELLION,which aimed at replacing Richard with HenryTudor, earl of Richmond. Elizabeth joined theuprising on the understanding that Richmondwould marry her eldest daughter, ELIZABETH

OFYORK, once he had secured the Crown.In March 1484, several months after the re-

bellion failed, Elizabeth accepted a pensionand her daughters’ reception at COURT as theprice for leaving sanctuary and abandoningRichmond. Although Richmond (thenHENRYVII) married Elizabeth of York in Jan-uary 1486, five months after winning theCrown at the Battle of BOSWORTH FIELD,he showed little favor to his mother-in-law. In1487, the ex-queen fell under suspicion ofsupporting the Yorkist plot then formingaround Lambert SIMNEL. Henry deprivedElizabeth of her property and dispatched herto Bermondsey Abbey, where she remaineduntil her death in June 1492.

See also all other entries under WoodvilleFurther Reading: “Elizabeth Woodville,” inMichael Hicks, Who’s Who in Late MedievalEngland (London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp.325–327; MacGibbon, David, Elizabeth Woodville:Her Life and Times (London: A. Barker, 1938);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Woodville FamilyBetween 1464 and 1483, the Woodvilles, thefamily of EDWARD IV’s queen, comprised themost favored and resented political groupingin England. Jealousy over their rapid rise topower at the Yorkist COURT, coupled withhatred caused by their greed, ambition, and ar-rogance, made the Woodvilles a disruptive po-litical influence that was partially responsiblefor the USURPATION OF 1483 and the even-tual fall of the house of YORK.

The Woodvilles’ social rise was based ontwo spectacular mésalliances. The first, in

1436, was the secret marriage of RichardWOODVILLE, a Northamptonshire gentle-man, to JACQUETTA OF LUXEMBOURG, thewidowed duchess of Bedford and a descen-dent of European nobility. The second, in1464, was the secret marriage of their eldestdaughter, Elizabeth WOODVILLE, to EdwardIV. Prior to 1461, Woodville, then LordRivers, had been a Lancastrian; he and his eld-est son Anthony WOODVILLE, Lord Scales,had fought for HENRY VI at the Battle ofTOWTON, while Elizabeth’s first husband, SirJohn Grey of Groby, died fighting for thehouse of LANCASTER at the Battle of ST.AL-BANS in 1461. After Towton, Rivers submit-ted, and by 1463 he was a member of EdwardIV’s COUNCIL. However, the family’s politicaland social advancement became unprece-dented in speed and scope after the king’smarriage to Elizabeth.

Other than her beauty, the new queenbrought her husband no political advantagesand a host of problems, not the least of whichwas providing for her large family, which, be-sides her parents, included five brothers, sevensisters, and two sons by Grey. Between 1464and 1466, Edward and the queen obtained nu-merous highborn spouses for unmarriedWoodvilles. Several of these marriages angeredRichard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, the king’schief advisor. For instance, in 1464, MargaretWoodville married Warwick’s nephew, the sonof the earl of Arundel. In 1465, the court wasshocked by the marriage of twenty-year-oldJohn Woodville to Warwick’s kinswoman,Katherine Neville, the sixty-five-year-olddowager duchess of Norfolk. The marriages ofAnne Woodville to the son of HenryBOURCHIER, earl of Essex; of EleanorWoodville to the son of Edmund GREY, earlof Kent; and of Katherine Woodville to HenrySTAFFORD, duke of Buckingham, deprivedWarwick’s daughters, Isabel and AnneNEVILLE, of prospective husbands. The mar-riage of the queen’s son,Thomas GREY, to thedaughter of Henry HOLLAND, duke of Exeter,claimed the bride who had been promised tothe son of Warwick’s brother, John NEVILLE,Lord Montagu. Nor was Warwick happy with

302 WOODVILLE FAMILY

the marriage of Mary Woodville to the son ofWilliam HERBERT, the earl’s rival for landsand influence in WALES.

Although Warwick ascribed his declininginfluence with the king to the Woodvilles,most of the English nobility accepted the fam-ily and sought to exploit their favor at court.Nonetheless, the Woodvilles were highly un-popular. With the exception of Scales, whobecame head of the family as Earl Rivers afterWarwick executed his father in 1469, contem-porary observers characterized the Woodvillesas greedy, ambitious, overbearing, and a maligninfluence on the king. For instance, in 1468,the family’s ill-treatment of Sir ThomasCOOK was said to have cost that LONDON

merchant his fortune and turned him into aconvinced Lancastrian, and in the 1480s, theGrey brothers and Edward Woodville werecondemned for encouraging the king’s drink-ing and womanizing. Although Warwick’s de-sertion of the house of York in 1470 was a re-sult of the king’s independence and the earl’sambition, Warwick’s hatred for the Woodvilleswas a contributing factor. In the 1470s,Woodville influence seemed even more sinis-ter as it increased while the competition disap-peared—the NEVILLE FAMILY was destroyedin 1471; the king’s one brother, GeorgePLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, was exe-cuted in 1478; and his other brother, Richard,duke of Gloucester (see RICHARD III), with-drew from court to govern the north.

At Edward IV’s death in 1483, the reign ofEDWARD V seemed likely to open with aWoodville-dominated regency, a prospect thatfrightened many noblemen, including Glou-cester and William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings,a close friend of the late king and a rival ofboth Rivers and of the queen’s son, ThomasGrey, marquis of Dorset. As governor of theprince after 1473, Rivers controlled the per-son of the new king and exercised great powerin Wales, where he could quickly recruit largenumbers of men. In London, the queen andDorset controlled the TOWER OF LONDON,the royal treasure, and the young king’sbrother, Richard PLANTAGENET, duke ofYork, while Sir Edward Woodville controlled

the fleet. Gloucester probably had good causeto fear for his future in a Woodville-domi-nated government. By playing on the family’sunpopularity, Gloucester was able to mask hisown ambitions and to convince men likeHastings to support his initial moves to con-trol the regency. Unable to generate muchsupport from other nobles, the Woodville in-fluence was in ruins by the end of 1483.Rivers and Sir Richard Grey were executed,Dorset and Bishop Lionel WOODVILLE werein exile, the queen was in SANCTUARY, andGloucester was king as Richard III. Theusurpation of Edward V’s throne and the sub-sequent disappearance and probable murder ofthe young king and his brother were in somepart made possible by the actions and unpopu-larity of the Woodville family (see PRINCES

IN THE TOWER; USURPATION OF 1483).

See also: Appendix 1,“Genealogies”Further Reading: Hicks, Michael,“TheChanging Role of the Wydevilles in YorkistPolitics to 1483,” in Charles Ross, ed., Patronage,Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1979),pp. 60–86; MacGibbon, David, Elizabeth Woodville:Her Life and Times (London: A. Barker, 1938);Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998).

Woodville, Lionel, Bishop ofSalisbury (c. 1446–1484)The third son of Richard WOODVILLE, EarlRivers, and the brother of ElizabethWOODVILLE, wife of EDWARD IV, LionelWoodville (or Wydeville), bishop of Salisbury,involved himself in the political turmoil of1483 by helping to plan BUCKINGHAM’SREBELLION against RICHARD III.

Educated at Oxford in canon (i.e., church)law, Woodville began his ecclesiastical careerin 1478 when he was appointed dean of Ex-eter (i.e., head of a community of clergy resid-ing at Exeter Cathedral). A year later, he wasmade chancellor of Oxford University, and in1480 he acquired a prebendary (i.e., an en-dowment for the support of clerical services)at St. Paul’s Cathedral in LONDON. In 1482,he received the wealthy bishopric of Salisbury.

WOODVILLE, LIONEL, BISHOP OF SALISBURY 303

Woodville was in London when EdwardIV died in April 1483; the bishop fled intoSANCTUARY at Westminster with his sisterthe queen when they learned of the arrest oftheir brother Anthony WOODVILLE, earlRivers, by Richard, duke of Gloucester, asRivers was escorting his nephew, EDWARD V,to the capital. By June, Woodville had leftsanctuary, but in the autumn, after Richard IIIhad usurped the throne and, according torumor, had ordered the murders of Edward Vand his brother, Woodville helped organize arebellion of Woodville supporters and formerservants of Edward IV that aimed at placingHenry Tudor, earl of Richmond (see HENRY

VII), on the throne. When the uprising failed,Woodville fled the country to join Richmondin BRITTANY, where the bishop died in June1484.

See also Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York(d. c. 1483); Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham;all other entries under WoodvilleFurther Reading: MacGibbon, David, ElizabethWoodville: Her Life and Times (London: A. Barker,1938); Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, RichardIII (Berkeley: University of California Press,1981).

Woodville, Richard, Earl Rivers (c. 1410–1469)Richard Woodville (or Wydeville), EarlRivers, was the father-in-law of EDWARD IVand the head of a large and ambitious familywhose advancement by the king in the 1460shelped provoke Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, to rebel against the house of YORK.

Born into a minor GENTRY family inNorthamptonshire, Woodville was knightedby HENRYVI in 1426 and served in FRANCE

in the 1430s. His surreptitious marriage in1436 to JACQUETTA OF LUXEMBOURG,the young widow of John, duke of Bedford,Henry VI’s uncle, transformed Woodville’s for-tunes and social standing. Although thisshocking (for the time) mésalliance cost thebride a £1,000 fine and forced the groom toobtain a royal pardon, it also allowed

Woodville to advance himself by drawingupon his wife’s family connections with thehighest nobility of Europe. The match alsohelped Woodville rise into the PEERAGE asLord Rivers, in 1448, and produced fourteenor fifteen children, a brood that later allowedthe Woodvilles to marry into the leading fam-ilies of England.

In the 1450s, Rivers helped suppress JACK

CADE’S REBELLION and served in CALAIS

as a lieutenant of Edmund BEAUFORT, dukeof Somerset. A partisan of the house of LAN-CASTER, Rivers was entrusted in 1459 withguarding Sandwich against an invasion fromCalais by Warwick. When a Yorkist forceswept down on the town in January 1460, itsurprised Rivers in his bed and carried himand his eldest son, Anthony WOODVILLE, toCalais, where Warwick castigated them as trai-tors and parvenus. Having gained his freedomby unknown means, Rivers fought for Lan-caster at the Battle of TOWTON in March1461, but by August had abandoned Henry VIand submitted to Edward IV.

In 1464, a second mésalliance, the secretmarriage of his widowed daughter ElizabethWOODVILLE to Edward IV, once again re-vived River’s fortunes. The king appointedRivers treasurer, advanced him to an earldom,and married his children into the oldest andwealthiest noble families. The ambition andavarice of Rivers and his large family earnedthe Woodvilles great unpopularity and the en-mity of Warwick, whose own political ambi-tions were threatened by the growingWoodville influence. When Warwick brokeopenly with Edward IV in 1469, he gave theking’s close association with lowborn coun-selors like Rivers as a primary reason for hisactions. In July 1469, when the king becameWarwick’s prisoner after the Battle of EDGE-COTE, Rivers and his son Sir John Woodvillewere dragged from hiding and carried toCoventry, where both were executed by War-wick’s order on 12 August.

See also all other entries under WoodvilleFurther Reading: MacGibbon, David, ElizabethWoodville: Her Life and Times (London: A. Barker,

304 WOODVILLE, RICHARD, EARL RIVERS

1938);“Richard Woodville,” in Michael Hicks,Who’s Who in Late Medieval England (London:Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991), pp. 328–329; Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Weir, Alison,The Wars ofthe Roses (New York: Ballantine Books, 1995).

Worcester, Earl of. See Tiptoft, John,Earl of Worcester

Wydeville. See all entries underWoodville

WYDEVILLE 305

York, Archbishop of. See Booth,Lawrence; Neville, George; Rotherham,Thomas

York, Duchess of. See Neville, Cecily,Duchess of York

York, Duke of. See two entries underPlantagenet, Richard, Duke of York

York, House of (1461–1470,1471–1485)A branch of the royal family of Plantagenet,which had ruled England since 1154, thehouse of York and its partisans comprised one

of the parties contending for the throne dur-ing the WARS OF THE ROSES.

The family of York descended from Ed-mund, first duke of York (1341–1402), thefourth son of Edward III (r. 1327–1377). Be-cause Richard II (r. 1377–1399), Edward III’sgrandson and heir, was childless, the legal suc-cession to the throne came to rest with theMortimer family, descendants of Richard II’seldest uncle (and Edward III’s second son), Li-onel, duke of Clarence (1338–1368). How-ever, in 1399, Henry of Bolingbroke, son ofJohn of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster (1340–1399), third son of Edward III, deposed hiscousin Richard II and assumed the throne asHenry IV (r. 1399–1413), first king of theLancastrian branch of the royal family (seeRICHARD II, DEPOSITION OF).

307

Y

The white rose, shown here decorating the border of a fifteenth-century manuscript, was the best-known badge of the house ofYork. (Royal MS 14 E II f. 77, British Library)

Because the Lancastrian usurpation of 1399bypassed the proper heirs, several people had aclaim to the Crown that was technically supe-rior to that of the ruling dynasty. When thelast direct Mortimer heir died in 1425, thefamily’s claim passed to their Yorkist cousins inthe person of Richard PLANTAGENET, thirdduke of York, the son of Anne Mortimer(1390–1411). By the 1440s, York was infor-mally recognized as heir presumptive to the(then) childless HENRY VI, third king of thehouse of LANCASTER. Although York madeno claim to the throne, he did revive the royalfamily’s ancient surname of Plantagenet, per-haps to emphasize his right to a special posi-tion in his Lancastrian cousin’s government(see PLANTAGENET, HOUSE OF). The Warsof the Roses emerged in the 1450s from thedesire of York to rule on behalf of an incom-petent Henry VI, an ambition that wasthwarted for much of the decade by QueenMARGARET OF ANJOU and the clique ofroyal favorites who supported her.

In 1460, when York finally made formalclaim to the Crown, the queen’s faction coa-lesced around Henry VI as the core of theLancastrian party, while the local rivals of Lan-castrian courtiers and other nobles who feltexcluded from power formed around York asthe core of the Yorkist party. Although Yorkfailed to achieve his ambition, dying at theBattle of WAKEFIELD in December 1460, hiseldest son, proclaimed as EDWARD IV, se-cured the throne at the Battle of TOWTON inMarch 1461. The civil wars revived in 1470when an uneasy alliance between the Lancas-trians and the NEVILLE FAMILY, formerYorkist allies led by Richard NEVILLE, earl ofWarwick, briefly restored Henry VI (see ED-WARD IV, OVERTHROW OF). In the springof 1471, Edward IV regained the throne at theBattles of BARNET and TEWKESBURY; thedeath at Tewkesbury of EDWARD OF LAN-CASTER, Prince of Wales, freed Edward IV toliquidate the direct male line of Lancaster byordering the murder of the imprisoned HenryVI in May (see HENRYVI, MURDER OF).

After 1471, the Wars of the Roses appearedfinished and the house of York seemed secure;

however, the conflict reignited in 1483, andthe dynasty fell from power in 1485. Thedownfall of York flowed from the death of Ed-ward IV at age forty, in 1483, and the subse-quent supersession and likely murder of histwelve-year-old son, EDWARD V, by the boy’spaternal uncle, who assumed the throne asRICHARD III (see PRINCES IN THE

TOWER; USURPATION OF 1483). Thisusurpation created a coalition of former Lan-castrians and dissident Yorkists around HenryTudor, earl of Richmond, who, through hismother, Margaret BEAUFORT, inherited theLancastrian claim to the Crown (see BEAU-FORT FAMILY). Richard III’s death at the Bat-tle of BOSWORTH FIELD in 1485 endedYorkist rule and enthroned Richmond asHENRY VII, first monarch of the house ofTUDOR.

Although Henry sought to unite the royallines of Lancaster and York by marrying ELIZ-ABETH OFYORK, daughter of Edward IV, theTudor dynasty was actively menaced for over adecade by plots and invasions aimed at restor-ing the house of York. Centering on pre-tenders impersonating either a son of EdwardIV or Edward PLANTAGENET, earl of War-wick, the last Yorkist claimant in the directmale line, these attempts were all unsuccessful(see SIMNEL, LAMBERT; WARBECK, PER-KIN). Hopes for a Yorkist restoration faded inthe sixteenth century as Henry VIII, the sec-ond Tudor monarch and a grandson of Ed-ward IV, gradually eliminated the children ofEdward IV’s sisters and daughters (see YORK-IST HEIRS [AFTER 1485]).

See also: Appendix 1,“Genealogies”Further Reading: Johnson, P. A., Duke Richard ofYork (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); Ross,Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1998); Ross, Charles, Richard III(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

Yorkist Heirs (after 1485)When HENRY VII overthrew RICHARD IIIand the house of YORK at the Battle ofBOSWORTH FIELD in 1485, many descen-dants of Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of

308 YORKIST HEIRS

York, remained alive to challenge the house ofTUDOR and its possession of the throne.

With continuance of their dynasty threat-ened by their own failure to produce healthymale heirs, Henry VII and his sole survivingson and successor Henry VIII executed manypersons of Yorkist blood to eliminate any pos-sibility of a Yorkist restoration. The most dan-gerous plots during Henry VII’s reign centeredon impostors, such as Lambert SIMNEL andPerkin WARBECK, who claimed to be, but infact were not, members of the house of York.The uncertainty over the fate of EDWARD Vand his brother Richard PLANTAGENET,duke of York, the sons of EDWARD IV whodisappeared in the TOWER OF LONDON in1483, made such impostures particularly effec-tive. After 1485, York’s last direct descendentin the male line was the duke’s grandson, Ed-ward PLANTAGENET, earl of Warwick, theson of George PLANTAGENET, duke ofClarence. One of Henry VII’s first acts as kingwas to secure the person of Warwick and con-fine him in the Tower, where he remaineduntil his execution for treason in 1499.

With Warwick imprisoned, the leadingYorkist heirs were the sons of Edward IV’s sis-ter, Elizabeth, and her husband, John de laPOLE, duke of Suffolk. The eldest, John de laPOLE, earl of Lincoln, involved himself in theSimnel conspiracy and died at the Battle ofSTOKE in 1487. In 1499, Lincoln’s youngerbrother, Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk,fled to CALAIS, where he remained for a timewith Sir James TYRELL, the governor of oneof the Calais fortresses. Suffolk returned toEngland shortly thereafter and was taken backinto favor until 1501, when he and his brotherRichard fled to the court of Maximilian I andtried to convince the emperor to fund an at-tempt on the English throne. Henry arrested athird de la Pole brother, William, and impris-oned him in the Tower, where he stayed untilhis death in 1539. In 1502, the king also tookadvantage of Suffolk’s connection with Tyrellto make the rise of any future Yorkist impos-tors more difficult. Tyrell was an ideal instru-

ment for this purpose; a former servant ofRichard III now awaiting execution for his in-volvement with Suffolk, Tyrell confessed tohaving murdered the sons of Edward IV in1483 on Richard’s orders. With his own eldestson, Prince Arthur, having recently died,Henry VII wanted it made clear that thePRINCES IN THE TOWER were dead. Al-though the confession could be genuine, thecircumstances and timing of Tyrell’s revelationcast doubt on the truth of its claims.

Suffolk, meanwhile, was unable to interest acontinental monarch in his enterprise and re-mained safely in the Netherlands until 1506,when Duke Philip of BURGUNDY concludeda treaty with Henry VII that required the duketo cease supporting Henry’s enemies. Suffolkwas duly surrendered to the English at Calaisand remained in the Tower until 1513 whenhis brother was recognized as “Richard IV” byLouis XII of FRANCE, an act that promptedHenry VIII to execute Suffolk. Richard de laPole later served as a soldier in Hungary andin France, and died in 1525 fighting for Fran-cis I at the Battle of Pavia.

In the late 1530s, after the birth of his longawaited male heir, Henry VIII resumed thedestruction of the house of York with a seriesof judicial murders. In 1538, he executedHenry Courtenay, marquis of Exeter, the sonof Edward IV’s daughter Katherine, and, in1541, he eliminated Warwick’s sixty-eight-year-old sister, Margaret Pole, Countess of Sal-isbury. The Countess’s eldest son, Henry Pole,Lord Montague, had also gone to the block in1538. By his death in 1547, Henry VIII, him-self a grandson of Edward IV, had almost ful-filled his openly avowed intention of extin-guishing his Yorkist relatives.

Further Reading: Arthurson, Ian, The PerkinWarbeck Conspiracy, 1491–1499 (Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1997);Bennett, Michael J., Lambert Simnel and the Battle ofStoke (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987);Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII (New Haven, CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1999); Chrimes, S. B.,Lancastrians,Yorkists and Henry VII, 2d ed. (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1966).

YORKIST HEIRS 309

311

Appendix 1Genealogies

312 APPENDIX 1: GENEALOGIES

APPENDIX 1: GENEALOGIES 313

314 APPENDIX 1: GENEALOGIES

APPENDIX 1: GENEALOGIES 315

317

Appendix 2Map of Wars of the Roses Battle Sites

319

Appendix 3Table of Dynastic Affiliations

Name 1455 1459–1461 1469–1471 1483–1485 1485–1499

Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset (d. 1455) L*

Beaufort, Edmund, Duke of Somerset (d. 1471) L L*

Beaufort, Henry, Duke of Somerset L L L*

Beaufort, Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby L T T

Beaumont, William, Lord Beaumont L

Blount, Walter, Lord Mountjoy Y Y

Bonville, William, Lord Bonville L Y*

Booth, Lawrence, Archbishop of York L

Bourchier, Henry, Earl of Essex Y Y

Bourchier, Thomas, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury Y Y

Brackenbury, Sir Robert R*

Bray, Sir Reginald T T

Brézé, Pierre de, Seneschal of Normandy L (1462–1463)

Butler, James, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond L L*

Catesby, William R*

Clifford, John, Lord Clifford L L*

Clifford, Thomas, Lord Clifford L*

Cook, Sir Thomas L

Courtenay, Henry, Earl of Devon L*

Courtenay, John, Earl of Devon L L*

Courtenay, Peter, Bishop of Winchester W T

Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon (d. 1458) L

Courtenay, Thomas, Earl of Devon (d. 1461) L*

Devereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers of Chartley Y Y R*

Dinham, John, Lord Dinham Y Y R T

Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales L*

Fitzgerald, Gerald, Earl of Kildare R Y

Fitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of Desmond Y

Fitzgerald, Thomas, Earl of Kildare Y Y

Fortescue, Sir John L L

Grey, Edmund, Earl of Kent L/Y Y R

Grey, Thomas, Marquis of Dorset T T

Hastings, William, Lord Hastings Y Y E*

Herbert, William, Earl of Pembroke Y Y*

Holland, Henry, Duke of Exeter L L L

(continues)

Name 1455 1459–1461 1469–1471 1483–1485 1485–1499

Howard, John, Duke of Norfolk Y Y R*

Howard, Thomas, Earl of Surrey and Duke of Norfolk Y R T

Hungerford, Robert, Lord Hungerford L*

Hungerford, Sir Thomas L*

Hungerford, Sir Walter E/T T

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Duchess of Bedford L Y

Kennedy, James, Bishop of St. Andrews L

Langstrother, Sir John, Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem W/L*

Lovell, Francis,Viscount Lovell R*

Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England L L L

Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy Y R Y

Mary of Gueldres, Queen of Scotland L

Morton, John, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury L L E/T T

Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1461) Y

Mowbray, John, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1476) Y

Neville, George, Archbishop of York Y W/L

Neville, Sir Humphrey L W/L*

Neville, John, Earl of Northumberland and Marquis of Montagu Y W/L*

Neville, John, Lord Neville L*

Neville, Richard, Earl of Salisbury Y Y*

Neville, Richard, Earl of Warwick Y Y W/L*

Neville, Sir Thomas Y Y*

Neville, Thomas, Bastard of Fauconberg W/L*

Neville, William, Lord Fauconberg and Earl of Kent Y

Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland (d. 1455) L*

Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland (d. 1461) L*

Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland (d. 1489) Y R T

Percy, Thomas, Lord Egremont L*

Plantagenet, Edmund, Earl of Rutland Y*

Plantagenet, George, Duke of Clarence W/Y

Plantagenet, Richard, Duke of York (d. 1460) Y Y*

Pole, John de la, Duke of Suffolk Y Y R T

Pole, John de la, Earl of Lincoln R Y*

Ratcliffe, Sir Richard R*

Rhys ap Thomas T T

Roos, Thomas, Lord Roos L*

Rotherham, Thomas, Archbishop of York Y E

Russell, John, Bishop of Lincoln R T

Scales, Thomas, Lord Scales L*

Stafford, Henry, Duke of Buckingham R/T*

Stafford, Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham L L*

Stafford, Humphrey, Earl of Devon Y Y*

Stanley, Thomas, Earl of Derby L/Y Y T T

(continues)

320 APPENDIX 3: TABLE OF DYNASTIC AFFILIATIONS

Name 1455 1459–1461 1469–1471 1483–1485 1485–1499

Stanley, Sir William Y Y T Y*

Stillington, Robert, Bishop of Bath and Wells Y Y R

Tailboys, Sir William L*

Thomas ap Gruffydd L L*

Tiptoft, John, Earl of Worster Y*

Touchet, James, Lord Audley L*

Trollope, Sir Andrew L*

Tudor, Edmund, Earl of Richmond L

Tudor, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke and Duke of Bedford L L L T T

Tudor, Owen L*

Tunstall, Sir Richard L L ? T

Tyrell, Sir James Y R T

Urswick, Christopher T T

Vaughan, Sir Thomas Y Y E*

Vere, John de, Earl of Oxford L T T

Wainfleet, William, Bishop of Winchester L L

Warbeck, Perkin Y*

Wenlock, John, Lord Wenlock Y W/L*

Woodville, Anthony, Earl Rivers L Y E*

Woodville, Elizabeth, Queen of England Y E

Woodville, Lionel, Bishop of Salisbury Y E/T

Woodville, Richard, Earl Rivers L Y*

L= Lancastrian;Y = Yorkist; T = Tudor; W = Warwick/Clarence, 1469–1471; R = Richard III, 1483–1485; E = Edward V,1483; *killed in battle or executed afterward

APPENDIX 3: TABLE OF DYNASTIC AFFILIATIONS 321

323

Appendix 4Involvement of the Higher Peerage

in the Wars of the Roses

Title/Duke Outcome of Involvement

Dukes of BedfordGeorge Neville Deprived of title in 1478; died 1483Jasper Tudor Fought for houses of Lancaster and Tudor; died 1495

Dukes of BuckinghamHumphrey Stafford Slain at the Battle of Northampton in 1460Henry Stafford Executed in 1483

Duke of ClarenceGeorge Plantagenet Executed in 1478

Duke of ExeterHenry Holland Fought for house of Lancaster; died 1475

Duke of GloucesterRichard Plantagenet (became Richard III in 1483) Slain at Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485

Dukes of NorfolkJohn Mowbray, 3d duke Fought for house of York; died 1461John Mowbray, 4th duke Supported house of York; died 1476Richard Plantagenet Disappeared in the Tower of London in 1483John Howard Slain at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485

Dukes of SomersetEdmund Beaufort, 2d duke Slain at the Battle of St. Albans in 1455Henry Beaufort, 3d duke Executed in 1464Edmund Beaufort, 4th duke Executed after the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471

Dukes of SuffolkJohn de la Pole Supported house of York; died 1491Edmund de la Pole (surrendered title of duke and

became earl of Suffolk in 1493) Executed in 1513

Dukes of YorkRichard Plantagenet, 3d duke Slain at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460Edward Plantagenet (became Edward IV in 1461) Died 1483Richard Plantagenet, 5th duke Disappeared in the Tower of London in 1483

Title/Marquis Outcome of Involvement

Marquis of DorsetThomas Grey Opposed Richard III; died 1501

Marquis of MontaguJohn Neville Slain at the Battle of Barnet in 1471

(continues)

Title/Earl Outcome of Involvement

Earl of ArundelWilliam Fitzalan Little involvement in the wars; died 1487

Earl of DerbyThomas Stanley Avoided firm commitments, although opposed

Richard III; died 1504

Earls of DevonThomas Courtenay, 5th earl Supported York, then Henry VI; died 1458Thomas Courtenay, 6th earl Executed after the Battle of Towton in 1461Henry Courtenay (Lancastrian 7th earl) Executed in 1469Humphrey Stafford (Yorkist earl) Executed in 1469John Courtenay (Lancastrian 8th earl) Slain at the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471

Earl of EssexHenry Bourchier Supported house of York; died 1483

Earls of HuntingdonThomas Grey (also marquis of Dorset) Opposed Richard III; died 1501William Herbert (formerly earl of Pembroke) Supported house of York; died 1490

Earl of KentEdmund Grey Supported house of York; died 1489

Earl of LincolnJohn de la Pole Slain at the Battle of Stoke in 1487

Earls of NorthumberlandHenry Percy, 2d earl Slain at the Battle of St. Albans in 1455Henry Percy, 3d earl Slain at the Battle of Towton in 1461John Neville (Yorkist earl) Forced by Edward IV to surrender title in 1470;

slain at the Battle of Barnet in 1471Henry Percy, 4th earl Supported house of York; slain by rebels in 1489

Earl of NottinghamWilliam Berkeley (later Marquis Berkeley) Supported house of York; died 1492

Earls of OxfordJohn de Vere, 12th earl Executed in 1462John de Vere, 13th earl Supported houses of Lancaster and Tudor; died 1513

Earls of PembrokeJasper Tudor (Lancastrian earl) Supported houses of Lancaster and Tudor; died 1495William Herbert (Yorkist earl) Executed after the Battle of Edgecote in 1469William Herbert (2d Yorkist earl; later earl of

Huntingdon) Forced by Edward IV to surrender title in 1479; died 1490

Earls of RichmondEdmund Tudor Supported house of Lancaster; died 1456Henry Tudor (became Henry VII in 1485) Died in 1509

Earls of RiversRichard Woodville Executed in 1469Anthony Woodville Executed in 1483

Earls of SalisburyRichard Neville Executed after the Battle of Wakefield in 1460Richard Neville (also earl of Warwick) Slain at the Battle of Barnet in 1471Edward Plantagenet (son of Richard III and Prince

of Wales) Died in 1484

(continues)

324 APPENDIX 4: INVOLVEMENT OF THE HIGHER PEERAGE IN THE WARS OF THE ROSES

Title/Earl Outcome of Involvement

Earls of ShrewsburyJohn Talbot, 5th earl Slain at the Battle of Northampton in 1460John Talbot, 6th earl Little involvement in the wars; died 1473George Talbot Little involvement in the wars; died 1538

Earl of SurreyThomas Howard (later duke of Norfolk) Attainted after Battle of Bosworth Field for

supporting Richard III; restored to lands and titles by Henry VII and Henry VIII; died 1524

Earls of WarwickRichard Neville Slain at the Battle of Barnet in 1471Edward Plantagenet Executed in 1499

Earl of WestmorlandRalph Neville Little involvement in the wars; died 1484

Earls of WiltshireJames Butler (Lancastrian earl) Executed in 1461John Stafford (Yorkist earl) Supported house of York; died 1473

Earl of WinchesterLouis de Gruthuyse, seigneur de la Gruthuyse Burgundian nobleman given title by Edward IV in

gratitude for his help during Edward’s exile in 1470; died 1492

Earl of WorcesterJohn Tiptoft Executed in 1470

Title/Viscount Outcome of Involvement

Viscount BerkeleyWilliam Berkeley (later earl of Nottingham and

Marquis Berkeley) Supported house of York; died 1492

Viscount LovellFrancis Lovell Slain at the Battle of Stoke in 1487

APPENDIX 4: INVOLVEMENT OF THE HIGHER PEERAGE IN THE WARS OF THE ROSES 325

327

Appendix 5European Rulers in the Fifteenth Century

English Monarchs

House of PlantagenetEdward III (1327–1377)Richard II (1377–1399)

House of LancasterHenry IV (1399–1413)Henry V (1413–1422)Henry VI (1422–1461)

House of YorkEdward IV (1461–1470)

House of LancasterHenry VI (1470–1471)

House of YorkEdward IV (1471–1483)Edward V (1483)Richard III (1483–1485)

House of TudorHenry VII (1485–1509)

French Monarchs

House of ValoisCharles VI (1380–1422)Charles VII (1422–1461)Louis XI (1461–1483)Charles VIII (1483–1498)Louis XII (1498–1515)

Scottish Monarchs

House of StuartRobert III (1390–1406)James I (1406–1437)James II (1437–1460)James III (1460–1488)James IV (1488–1513)

Burgundian Rulers

House of ValoisJohn the Fearless

(1404–1419)Philip the Good

(1419–1467)Charles the Bold

(1467–1477)Mary of Burgundy

(1477–1482)

House of HabsburgPhilip the Handsome

(1482–1506)*

*Archduke Maximilian of Austria (Holy Roman Emperor as Maximilian I after 1493) served as regent of Burgundy during theminority of his son Duke Philip the Handsome.

Archbishops of Canterbury Archbishops of York Popes

Henry Chichele (1414–1443) Henry Bower (1407–1423) Nicholas V (1447–1455)John Stafford (1443–1452) John Kempe (1426–1452) Calixtus III (1455–1458)John Kempe (1452–1454) William Booth (1452–1464) Pius II (1458–1464)Thomas Bourchier (1454–1486) George Neville (1465–1476) Paul II (1464–1471)John Morton (1486–1500) Lawrence Booth (1476–1480) Sixtus IV (1471–1484)

Thomas Rotherham (1480–1500) Innocent VIII (1484–1492)Alexander VI (1492–1503)

329

Appendix 6Popes and English Church Leaders

in the Fifteenth Century

For other works of fiction set in fifteenth-century En-gland, see Roxane C. Murph, The Wars of the Roses inFiction: An Annotated Bibliography, 1440–1994 (West-port, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995); Lynda G.Adamson,World Historical Fiction:An Annotated Guide to Novels forAdults and Young Adults (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press,1999); and Donald K. Hartman and Gregg Sapp, Histor-ical Figures in Fiction (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1994).

Abbey, Anne Merton. Katherine in the Court of the SixQueens. New York: Bantam Books, 1989.

Abbey, Margaret. The Warwick Heiress. London: RobertHale, 1970.

———. The Crowned Boar. London: Robert Hale,1971 [published in the United States in 1973 asSon of York by Pinnacle Books].

———. Brothers-in-Arms. London: Robert Hale, 1973.———. The Heart Is a Traitor. London: Robert Hale,

1978.———. Blood of the Boar. London: Robert Hale, 1979.Allison-Williams, Jean. Cry “God for Richard.” Lon-

don: Robert Hale, 1981.———. Mistress of the Tabard. London: Robert Hale,

1984.———. Simon of the Tabard. London: Robert Hale,

1984.Anand, Valerie. Crown of Roses. London: Headline

Book Publishing, 1989.———. Women of Ashdon. London: Headline Book

Publishing, 1993.Andrew, Prudence. A Question of Choice. New York:

G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1962.Appleyard, Susan. The King’s White Rose. Toronto: Pa-

perjacks, 1988.Barnes, Margaret Campbell. The Tudor Rose. London:

Macdonald, 1952 [published in the United Statesin 1953 by Macrae Smith Company].

———. The King’s Bed. London: Macdonald, 1961.Barringer, Leslie. The Rose in Splendour: A Story of the

Wars of Lancaster and York. London: Phoenix House,1952.

Belle, Pamela. The Lodestar. London: Bodley Head,1987 [published in the United States in 1987 bySt. Martin’s Press].

Bennetts, Pamela. Bright Son of York. London: RobertHale, 1971.

———. The Third Richard. London: Robert Hale,1972.

Bentley, Elizabeth. The York Quest. London: RobertHale, 1980.

Bentley, Pauline. Silk and Sword. Richmond, Surrey,UK: Mills and Boon, 1993.

Bentley, Phyllis. Sheep May Safely Graze. London:Vic-tor Gollancz, 1972.

Bibby, Violet. The Mirrored Shield. London: LongmanYoung Books, 1970.

Blake, Margaret Glaiser. A Sprig of Broom. London:Robert Hale, 1979.

Bowden, Susan. In the Shadow of the Crown. New York:Bantam Books, 1987.

Brandewyne, Rebecca. Rose of Rapture. New York:Warner Books, 1984.

Bridge, S. R. The Woodville. London: Robert Hale,1976.

Brooks, Janice Young. Forbidden Fires. New York: Play-boy Press Paperbacks, 1980.

Burgess, Mallory. Passion Rose. New York: AvonBooks, 1987.

Carr, Robyn. The Everlasting Covenant. Boston: Little,Brown, 1987.

Carsley, Anne. This Ravished Rose. New York: PocketBooks, 1980.

Clynes, Michael [P. C. Doherty]. The White Rose Mur-ders. London: Headline Book Publishing, 1991[published in the United States in 1993 by St.Martin’s Press].

Coates, Sheila. A Crown Usurped. London: RobertHale, 1972.

Cummins, Mary. The Glenorchan Ruby. London:Robert Hale, 1982.

———. Fingala, Maid of Rathay. London: RobertHale, 1983.

Daniell, David Scott. The Boy They Made King, a TrueStory. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950.

Darby, Catherine. A Dream of Fair Serpents. London:Robert Hale, 1979.

Davidson, Margaret. My Lords Richard. London: Cas-sell, 1979.

Davies, Iris. The Tudor Tapestry. London: Robert Hale,1974.

———. Bride of the Thirteenth Summer. London:Robert Hale, 1975.

331

Appendix 7Selected Historical Fiction with

Fifteenth-Century Characters and Settings

Dewar, Margaret. Philippa. London: Robert Hale,1982.

———.The Loyalty Game. London:Robert Hale, 1984.Dexter, Susan. The Wizard’s Shadow. New York: Del

Rey/Ballantine Books, 1993.Dodd, Christina. Outrageous: A Story of the Wars of the

Roses. New York: HarperCollins, 1998.———. Dove Amongst the Hawks. London: Robert

Hale, 1990 [see also Michael Clynes and C. L.Grace].

Doherty, P. C. The Fate of Princes. London: RobertHale, 1990 [published in the United States in 1991by St. Martin’s Press; see also Michael Clynes andC. L. Grace].

Drake, Shannon. Lie Down in Roses. New York: Berke-ley Publishing Group, Charter Books, 1988.

Durst, Paul. The Florentine Table. New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1980.

———. The Lord of Greenwich. London: DobsonBooks, 1980.

Dymoke, Juliet. The Sun in Splendour. London: DennisDobson Books, 1980.

Eckerson, Olive. The Golden Yoke:A Novel of the War ofthe Roses. New York: Coward-McCann, 1961.

———. Some Touch of Pity. New York: Doubleday,1976.

Edwards, Rhoda. Fortune’s Wheel. London: Hutchin-son, 1978.

Evans, Jean. The Divided Rose. London: Robert Hale,1972.

———. The Rose and Ragged Staff. London: RobertHale, 1974.

———. The White Rose of York. London: Robert Hale,1972.

Eyre, Katherine Wigmore. The Song of a Thrush. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1952.

Fairburn, Eleanor. The Rose in Spring. London: RobertHale, 1971.

———. White Rose, Dark Summer. London: RobertHale, 1972.

———. The Rose at Harvest End. London: RobertHale, 1974.

———. Winter’s Rose. London: Robert Hale, 1976.Farrington, Robert. The Killing of Richard the Third.

New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971.———. Tudor Agent. London: Chatto and Windus,

1974.———. The Traitors of Bosworth. London: Chatto and

Windus, 1978.Few, Mary Dodgen. Under the White Boar. Atlanta:

Droke House/Hallux, 1971.Ford, John M. The Dragon Waiting. New York: Simon

and Schuster, 1983.Frazer, Margaret. The Novice’s Tale. New York: Jove

Books, 1992.Garabet, Marilyn. Dearest of Princes. London: Robert

Hale, 1981.

Gaunt, William. The Lady in the Castle. London: W. H.Allen, 1956.

Gellis, Roberta. The Dragon and the Rose. Chicago:Playboy Press, 1977.

Gleason, Edwin Putnam. The Mystery of BoshinghamCastle:A Tale Concerning the Wicked King Richard IIIand the Princes in the Tower. New York: PageantPress, 1967.

Gower, Iris. Destiny’s Child. Thorndike, ME: G. K.Hall, 1999.

Grace, C. L. [P. C. Doherty]. A Shrine of Murders. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

———. The Eye of God. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1994.

———. The Merchant of Death. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1995.

Graham, Alice Walworth. The Summer Queen. NewYork: Doubleday, 1973.

Grey, Belinda. Proxy Wedding. London: Mills andBoon, 1982.

Griffith, Kathryn Meyer. The Heart of the Rose. NewYork: Leisure Books, Dorchester Publishing Com-pany, 1985.

Hamilton, Julia. Son of York:A Novel of Edward IV. Lon-don: Sphere Books, 1973.

Hammand, N. B. Samaritana. London: Robert Hale,1979.

Hammond, Jane. The Red Queen. London: RobertHale, 1976.

Hardwick, Mollie. I Remember Love. London: Mac-donald, 1982.

Harnett, Cynthia. The Load of Unicorn. London:Methuen Children’s Books, 1959 [published in theUnited States as Caxton’s Challenge by the WorldPublishing Company and in 1984 as the Cargo ofthe Madalena by Lerner Publications Company].

———. The Writing on the Hearth. London: Metheun’sChildren’s Books, 1971.

Harrod-Eagles, Cynthia. The Founding. London: Fu-tura Publications, 1980.

Harwood, Alice. Merchant of the Ruby. Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1950.

———. The Clandestine Queen. London: Robert Hale,1979.

———. The Uncrowned Queen. London: Robert Hale,1983.

Henley, Virginia. The Raven and the Rose. New York:Dell Publishing, 1987.

Higgins, Paul. Puzzlebone Wood. London: Bachmanand Turner, 1979.

Hill, Pamela. The King’s Vixen. New York: G. P. Put-nam’s Sons, 1954.

Hocking, Mary. He Who Plays the King. London:Chatto and Windus, 1980.

Honeyman, Brenda. Richard, by Grace of God. London:Robert Hale, 1968.

———. The Kingmaker. London: Robert Hale, 1969.

332 APPENDIX 7: SELECTED HISTORICAL FICTION

———. Richmond and Elizabeth. London: RobertHale, 1970.

———. Good Duke Humphrey. London: Robert Hale,1973.

Hood, Evelyn. The Kingmaker’s Daughter. London:Robert Hale, 1974.

Horter, Pamela Jean. Brief Candles. New York:VantagePress, 1983.

Hunt, Wray. Satan’s Daughter. London: Robert Hale,1970.

Irwin, Frances. My Lady of Wycherly. London: RobertHale, 1971.

———. The White Pawn. London: Robert Hale, 1972.———. The White Queen. London: Robert Hale,

1974.———. The Winter Killing. London: Robert Hale,

1977.Jarman, Rosemary Hawley. We Speak No Treason.

Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.———. The King’s Grey Mare. London: William

Collins Sons, 1973.———. Crown in Candlelight. Boston: Little, Brown,

1978.———. The Courts of Illusion. Boston: Little, Brown,

1983.Jefferis, Barbara. Beloved Lady. New York: W. Sloane

Associates, 1955 [published in Great Britain in1956 by J. M. Dent and Sons].

Jones, Cherry Calvert. Proud Cis. London: RobertHale, 1980.

Kettle, Jocelyn. Memorial to the Duchess. London: Her-bert Jenkins, 1968.

Kilbourne, Jamet. Garland of the Realm. London:Robert Hale, 1972.

———. Wither One Rose. London: Robert Hale,1973.

King, Betty. The Lady Margaret. London: HerbertJenkins, 1965.

———. The Lord Jasper. London: Herbert Jenkins,1967.

———. The King’s Mother. London: Robert Hale,1969.

———. The Beaufort Secretary. London: Robert Hale,1970.

———. The Rose Both Red and White. London:Robert Hale, 1970 [published in the United Statesin 1974 as The Rose, Red and White by PinnacleBooks].

———. Margaret of Anjou. London: Robert Hale,1974.

———. Owen Tudor. London: Robert Hale, 1977.Kramer, Kathryn. Desire’s Masquerade. New York: Dell

Publishing Company, 1987.Lamb, Hilda. The Willing Heart. London: Hodder and

Stoughton, 1958.Layton, Edith. The Crimson Crown. New York:

Onyx/New American Library, 1990.

Leary, Francis. The Swan and the Rose. New York:A.A.Wyn, 1953.

———. Fire and Morning. New York: G. P. Putnam’sSons, 1957.

Lewis, Hilda. Wife to Henry V. London: Jarrolds Pub-lishing, 1954.

Lide, Mary. Command of the King. London: GraftonBooks, 1990 [published in the United States in1991 by St. Martin’s Press].

Lindsay, Philip. The Merry Mistress. London: Hutchin-son, 1952 [published in the United States in 1953by Roy Publishing Company].

———. They Have Their Dreams. London: Hutchin-son, 1956 [published in the United States in 1971as A Princely Knave by Sphere Books].

Lofts, Nora. The Town House. New York: Doubleday,1959.

———. The Maude Reed Tale. New York: ThomasNelson, 1972.

———. Knight’s Acre. London: Hodder andStoughton, 1975.

———. The Homecoming. New York: Doubleday,1976.

———. The Lonely Furrow. New York: Doubleday,1976.

Long, Freda M. The Coveted Crown. London: RobertHale, 1966.

———. Requiem for Richard. London: Robert Hale,1975.

Maiden, Cecil. The Borrowed Crown. New York:Viking Press, 1968.

Makepeace, Joanna. Pawns of Power. London: Hurstand Blackett, 1972.

———. My Lord Enemy. London: Macdonald, 1984.———. Battlefield of Hearts. London: Mills and Boon,

1991.———. Reluctant Rebel. London: Mills and Boon,

1993.———. Crown Hostage. London: Mills and Boon, 1994.Malvern, Gladys. The Queen’s Lady. Philadelphia:

Macrae Smith Company, 1963.McDonald, Eva. Cry Treason Thrice. London: Robert

Hale, 1977.Miall, Wendy. John of Gloucester. London: Robert Hale,

1968.———. The Playing Card Queen. London: Robert

Hale, 1970.Morgan, Denise. Second Son. London: Robert Hale,

1980.———. Kingmaker’s Knight. London: Robert Hale,

1981.———. Sons and Roses. London: Robert Hale, 1981.Nickell, Leslie J. The White Queen. London: Bodley

Head, 1978 [published in the United States by St.Martin’s Press].

Nicolson, Joan. Cuckoo Summer. London: Hurst andBlackett, 1962.

APPENDIX 7: SELECTED HISTORICAL FICTION 333

Oldfield, Pamela. The Rich Earth. London: MacdonaldFutura Publishers, 1980 [Volume 1 of The HeronSaga].

Orford, Margaret. That Beloved Esquire. Swansea,Wales: Christopher Davies, 1980.

Palmer, Marian. The White Boar. New York: Double-day, 1968.

———. The Wrong Plantagenet. New York: Doubleday,1972.

Penman, Sharon Kay. The Sunne in Splendour. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982.

Perot, Ruth S. The Red Queen: Margaret of Anjou andthe Wars of the Roses. n.p.: FirstBooks Library, 2000.

Peters, Elizabeth. The Murders of Richard III. NewYork: Dodd, Mead, 1974.

Peters, Maureen. Elizabeth the Beloved. London:Robert Hale, 1965.

———. The Woodville Wench. London: Robert Hale,1972 [published in the United States as The QueenWho Never Was by Pinnacle Books].

———. Beggarmaid Queen. London: Robert Hale,1980.

Pierce, Glenn. King’s Ransom. Los Angeles: MedallionBooks, 1986.

Plaidy, Jean. The Goldsmith’s Wife. New York: Apple-ton, 1950 [published in Great Britain by RobertHale; also published in 1960 as The King’s Mistressby Pyramid Books].

———. Epitaph for Three Women. London: RobertHale, 1981 [published in the United States in 1983by G. P. Putnam’s Sons].

———. Red Rose of Anjou. London: Robert Hale,1982 [published in the United States in 1983 byG. P. Putnam’s Sons].

———. The Sun in Splendour. London: Robert Hale,1982 [published in the United States in 1983 byG. P. Putnam’s Sons].

———. Uneasy Lies the Head. London: Robert Hale,1982 [published in the United States in 1984 byG. P. Putnam’s Sons].

———. The Queen’s Secret. London: Severn House,1988 [published in the United States in 1990 byG. P. Putnam’s Sons].

———. The Reluctant Queen. London: Robert Hale,1990 [published in the United States in 1991 byG. P. Putnam’s Sons].

Potter, Jeremy. A Trail of Blood. London: Constable,1970 [published in the United States in 1971 byMcCall Publishing Company].

Powers, Anne. The Royal Consorts. Los Angeles: Pinna-cle Books, 1978 [published by Leisure Books in1978 as Queen’s Ransom].

Rabinowitz, Ann. Knight on Horseback. New York:Macmillan, 1987.

Ragosta, Millie J. Gerait’s Daughter. Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1981.

———. The Winter Rose. Garden City, NY: Double-day, 1982.

Reddicliffe, Sheila. The Cornish Serjeant. London:William Kimber, 1984.

Ridge, Antonia. The 13th Child. London: Faber andFaber, 1962.

Rosenthal, Evelyn B. Presumed Guilty. New York:Van-tage Press, 1982.

Ross, Barnaby. The Passionate Queen. New York:Pocket Books, 1966.

Ross Williamson, Hugh. The Butt of Malmsey. London:Michael Joseph, 1967.

———. The Marriage Made in Blood. London: MichaelJoseph, 1968.

Rowling, Marjorie. Shadow of the Dragon. London:Faber and Faber, 1965.

Rush, Philip. My Brother Lambert. London: PhoenixHouse, 1957.

St. James, Scotney. By Honor Bound. New York: AvonBooks, 1989.

Saunders, Susan. The Tower of London. New York: Ban-tam Books, 1984.

Schoonover, Lawrence. The Spider King:A BiographicalNovel of Louis XI of France. New York: Macmillan,1954.

Scott, Amanda. The Rose at Twilight. New York: DellPublishing, 1993.

Sedley, Kate. Death and the Chapman. London: Harper-Collins, 1991.

———. The Plymouth Cloak. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1992.

———. The Holy Innocents. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1995.

———. The Weaver’s Tale. New York: HarperPaper-backs, 1995.

———. The Eve of Saint Hyacinth. New York: St. Mar-tin’s Press, 1996.

———. The Wicked Winter. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1999.

Seibert, Elizabeth. White Rose and Ragged Staff. Indi-anapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968.

Seymour, Arabella. Maid of Destiny. London: RobertHale, 1971.

Simonds, Paula. Daughter of Violence. London: RobertHale, 1981.

Sisson, Rosemary Anne. The Queen and the Welshman.London: W. H. Allen, 1979.

Small, Beatrice. The Spitfire. New York: BallantineBooks, 1990.

Stanier, Hilda Brookman. The Kingmaker’s Daughter.London: Robert Hale, 1978.

———. Plantagenet Princess. London: Robert Hale,1981.

Stephens, Peter John. Battle for Destiny. New York:Atheneum, 1967.

Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Black Arrow. Pen-sacola, FL: A Beka Book, 1999 [first published in1888].

Stewart, A. J. Falcon: The Autobiography of His GraceJames the Fourth, King of the Scots. London: Peter

334 APPENDIX 7: SELECTED HISTORICAL FICTION

Davies, 1970 [published in the United States in1970 by Delacorte Press].

Stoker, M. Brooke. Prince Perkin. London: RobertHale, 1966.

Stubbs, Jean. An Unknown Welshman. New York: Steinand Day, 1972.

Sudworth, Gwynedd. Dragon’s Whelp. London: RobertHale, 1973.

———. The King of Destiny. London: Robert Hale,1973.

———. The Game of Power. London: Robert Hale,1975.

———. The Game of Kings. London: Robert Hale,1977.

Tey, Josephine. The Daughter of Time. New York:Macmillan, 1951.

Townsend, Guy M. To Prove a Villain. Menlo Park,CA: Perseverance Press, 1985.

Tranter, Nigel. Chain of Destiny. London: Hodder andStoughton, 1964.

Trevan, Ruth. Loyalty Binds Me. London: RobertHale, 1966.

Viney, Jayne. The White Rose Dying. London: RobertHale, 1973.

———. King Richard’s Friend. London: Robert Hale,1975.

Welch, Ronald. Sun of York. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1970.

Wensby-Scott, Carol. Lion of Alnwick. London:Michael Joseph, 1980.

———. Lion Dormant. London: Michael Joseph,1983.

———. Lion Invincible. London: Michael Joseph, 1984.Westcott. Jan. The Hepburn. New York: Crown Pub-

lishers, 1950.———. The White Rose. New York: G. P. Putnam’s

Sons, 1969.

———. Set Her on the Throne. Boston: Little, Brown,1972.

Whittle, Tyler. The Last Plantagenet:A Study of Richardthe Third, King of England, France and Ireland. Lon-don: William Heinemann, 1968.

Wiat, Philippa. The Master of Blandeston Hall. London:Robert Hale, 1973.

———. Prince of the White Rose. London: RobertHale, 1984.

———. The Kingmaker’s Daughter. London: RobertHale, 1989.

———. The Child Bride. London: Robert Hale, 1990.Willard, Barbara. The Lark and the Laurel. London:

Longman Group, 1970 [published in the UnitedStates in 1970 by Harcourt, Brace and World].

———. The Sprig of Broom. London: LongmanGroup, 1971.

Williams, Bert. Master of Ravenspur. London: ThomasNelson and Sons, 1970.

Williamson, Joanne S. To Dream upon a Crown. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967.

Willman, Marianne. Rose Red, Rose White. New York:Harlequin Books, 1989.

Wilson, Sandra. Less Fortunate than Fair. New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1973.

———. The Lady Cecily. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1974.

———. The Queen’s Sister. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1974.

———. Wife to the Kingmaker. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1974.

———. The Pentrich Dragon. London: Robert Hale,1977.

York, Elizabeth. The Heir of Berkwell. London: RobertHale, 1977.

Young, D. V. The White Boar. London: Robert Hale,1963.

APPENDIX 7: SELECTED HISTORICAL FICTION 335

The Internet offers a large and growing number ofsites relating to the Wars of the Roses and to the his-tory of the British Isles in the fifteenth century. Manyof these sites provide brief biographical informationon important civil war figures, brief narratives of thewars or of particular battles, and discussions of militaryand political aspects of the conflict. Besides sites thatprovide access to the latest scholarship on the periodor reproduce contemporary documents and sourcematerials, the Internet contains a host of sites devel-oped and maintained by interested individuals and byvarious Wars of the Roses reenactment groups. Al-though the quality of these latter sites can be uneven,many provide interesting or unusual information, il-lustrations, and links that are well worth the time andattention of any student or enthusiast of the Wars ofthe Roses or the fifteenth century. Many sites, besidesthe well-known Richard III Society and its manybranches (which are listed below in their own sec-tion), focus on the life and career of Richard III, whois clearly the most captivating Wars of the Roses fig-ure for modern students of the period. The sites de-scribed below are by no means an exhaustive listing ofWars of the Roses materials to be found on the Web;they are simply a selection of a few of the most usefuland best-designed sites currently available.

Scholarly Sites

The History of King Richard III by Sir Thomas More<http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/r3.html>This site by Renascence Editions supplies the full textof More’s narrative of Richard III.

The Labyrinth<http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/labyrinth-home.html>Located at Georgetown University in Washington,D.C., the Labyrinth is an evolving Web resource formedievalists that offers full texts in the original lan-guages of many works in the medieval canon, me-dieval Latin word lists, bibliographies, and extensivelinks to other online resources. Users can match topicsof special interest, such as “Armor” or “Art,” with par-ticular types of materials, such as bibliographies,

course materials, glossaries, or maps, to find the exactinformation they are seeking.

Medieval Academy of America<http://www.medievalacademy.org/>With approximately 4,000 members, the MedievalAcademy of America is the preeminent professionalassociation for medievalists in the United States. Lo-cated in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Academy wasfounded in 1925 for the promotion of research, publi-cation, and instruction in medieval records, art, ar-chaeology, history, law, literature, music, philosophy,science, social and economic institutions, and all otheraspects of the Middle Ages.The Web site offers listingsof conferences, publications, and prizes, as well as linksto related sites. The Academy publishes Speculum,which was founded in 1926 as the first scholarly jour-nal in North America devoted exclusively to the Mid-dle Ages. For the journal, the Web site contains anindex to articles published since 1975, submissionguidelines for authors, and subscriber information.

Medieval Institute<http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/>The Medieval Institute at Western Michigan Univer-sity was established in 1961 as a center for teachingand research in the history and culture of the MiddleAges. The Web site describes the offerings and activi-ties of the institute and provides listings of programs,publications, and conferences, as well as a bulletinboard and links to related sites.

ORB:The Online Reference Book forMedieval Studies<http://orb.rhodes.edu/>ORB is written and maintained by medieval scholarsfor the benefit of their fellow instructors and for seri-ous students of medieval history. This extensive siteoffers a reference shelf with excerpts and full texts ofprimary and secondary sources found on the ORBserver and elsewhere on the Web; resources for teach-ing, such as syllabi, study questions, writing guides, tipsfor test-takers, and subject-specific bibliographies; andfull-length textbooks written by experienced scholar-teachers and tested both in the classroom and on theInternet. The ORB Encyclopedia page contains

337

Appendix 8Selected Web Sites for

Fifteenth-Century Topics

chronological and geographical indexes of essays, bib-liographies, images, and documents, as well as links torelated sites and other online resources.

WWW Medieval Resources<http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/medieval/medieval.ebbs.html>This site provides links to a wide variety of medievalhistory Web pages. These resources include the textsof medieval literature (both English and continental);sites on medieval history, archaeology, architecture, andscience; archives of medieval art and manuscript fac-similes; links to libraries with significant medievalholdings; and links to miscellaneous resources, such asthe British Library site, the Louvre site, and a Grego-rian chant site.

Richard III Societies

Richard III Society<http://www.richardiii.net/>Founded in 1924 as the Fellowship of the WhiteBoar by Liverpool surgeon S. Saxon Barton, theRichard III Society acquired its present name in1959. The Society’s membership now exceeds 4,000,with national branches (see below) in Europe, theUnited States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,and local/regional groups in Australia, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States. The society’s goalsare to promote the study of fifteenth-century history,especially research pertaining to the life and reign ofRichard III. Believing that the traditional view ofRichard is not supported by the evidence, the societyseeks to secure a reassessment of Richard’s reputationand place in history through its encouragement ofscholarly activity.

The society publishes a newsletter and a well-re-garded scholarly journal (The Ricardian); organizeslectures, conferences, and seminars; collaborates in thepublication of relevant books and papers; maintains alibrary of materials on Richard III and his times;erects memorials to Richard at important sites; par-ticipates in the maintenance of such sites; and coop-erates with other organizations in the creation andpromotion of various programs relevant to the his-tory of the fifteenth century. In 1986, the society es-tablished an independent charity known as theRichard III and Yorkist History Trust, which aims tomaintain and broaden the Society’s publishing pro-gram, to raise funds, to support research, and to pro-mote cooperation between the Society and the aca-demic community.

The Society’s Web site offers a brief biography ofRichard III, a discussion of his reputation, a brief de-scription of the Wars of the Roses, a list of importantsites associated with Richard, discussions of Richard’salleged physical deformities and of the bones found inthe Tower of London in 1674, and information on

Society projects, publications, and activities in theUnited Kingdom. Providing links to the Web sites ofother branches, the parent society site is a good placeto start for the latest research on the life and times ofRichard III.

Richard III Society,American Branch<http://www.r3.org>This extremely useful Web site by the AmericanBranch of the Richard III Society is an excellent start-ing point for any online search for information on theWars of the Roses or fifteenth-century England. Al-though the site reflects the pro-Richard point of viewof the Society, it also offers a wide variety of usefulfeatures for the student of the civil wars. Besides anextensive online library providing the full or partialtexts of important source materials, such as the Croy-land Chronicle, Philippe de Commines’s Memoirs, andSir Thomas More’s History of King Richard III, the sitealso includes all or part of such works of modernscholarship as Sharon D. Michalove’s paper on “TheReinvention of Richard III” and Jeremy Potter’s chap-ter on the fate of the Princes in the Tower from his1983 book, Good King Richard? An Account of RichardIII and His Reputation.

The site also provides links to sites covering a vari-ety of dramatic renderings of Richard III’s life, fromthe text of William Shakespeare’s Richard III and a dis-cussion of Maxwell Anderson’s unpublished Richardand Anne to a radio interview of Laurence Olivier dis-cussing Richard III and a description of Al Pacino’srecent film, Looking for Richard. The site also offers avariety of aids for teaching and studying Richard IIIand the fifteenth century and an extensive series oflinks to a wide range of scholarly and popular Wars ofthe Roses and Richard III sites.

Richard III Society of Canada<http://www.cgocable.net/~tbryce/>The Canadian Branch of the Richard III Society wasformed in 1966. Subscribing to all the goals and ob-jectives of the parent society, the Branch’s membersmeet regularly in Toronto for conferences and discus-sions on Ricardian topics. The highlight of the year isthe Annual General Meeting and costumed MedievalBanquet, which are celebrated on or near Richard’sbirthday on 2 October.

Besides brief biographies of important Wars of theRoses figures, such as Edward IV, Henry VI, and Mar-garet of Anjou, this Web site also offers biographies oflesser-known people, such as Richard III’s two illegit-imate children, Katherine and John Plantagenet; hislegitimate son, Edward of Middleham; and EdwardIV’s mistress, Jane Shore. Also provided are a chronol-ogy of events in the life of Richard III, a narrative ofthe Battle of Bosworth Field, a debunking of severalcrimes ascribed to the king by the traditional view ofRichard III, and a discussion of the princes in the

338 APPENDIX 8: SELECTED WEB SITES

Tower and Richard’s possible role in their deaths. Thefull text is also given for various papers written bymembers, such as Tracy Bryce’s study of Sir JamesTyrell and L. Clement-Hobbs’s discussion of women,courtship, and marriage in late fifteenth-century En-gland. Links are provided to other branches of theRichard III Society, including local groups in Australiaand the United Kingdom, and to such other sites asthe Richard III Museum in York <http://www.richardiiimuseum.co.uk/>.

Web Addresses for Other Richard IIISociety Branches and Groups(Australian Branch) <http://home.vicnet.net.au/~richard3/welcome.htm>(New England Branch) <http://www.r3.org/chapter.html>(New Zealand Branch) <http://www.taheke.co.nz/>(Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Group)<http://www.geocities.com/richardiii_2000/>(Ohio Chapter) <http://www.r3.org/ohio1.html>(Queensland Branch) <http://www.riiiqld.org.au/>(Western Australia Branch) <http://members.iinet.net.au/~hardegen/>(Worcestershire Branch) <http://www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk>(Yorkshire Branch) <http://members.aol.com/R3Yorks/index.html>

Shakespeare Sites

Complete Works of William Shakespeare<http://tech-two.mit.edu/Shakespeare/>This site from MIT provides public domain texts,with a glossary, of each of William Shakespeare’s plays,including the entire cycle, from Richard II to RichardIII, that depicts the history of fifteenth-century En-gland. The site allows users to search the entire canonfor their favorite words or phrases.

Mr.William Shakespeare and theInternet<http://daphne.palomar.edu/shakespeare/>This site is a complete annotated guide to the schol-arly Shakespeare resources available on the Internet. Italso provides such additional features as a Shakespearetime line and genealogy, a biographical quiz on theplaywright, the prefatory material to the 1623 FirstFolio of Shakespeare’s works, and a list of the plays,giving their probable dates of composition and publi-cation. The site is an excellent first stop for an onlineShakespeare search.

Shakespeare Bookshelf<http://www.ipl.org/reading/shakespeare/shakespeare.html>This site from the Internet Public Library offers thefull text of all William Shakespeare’s plays, including

the fifteenth-century history cycles, as well as links tosites of Shakespeare criticism and Shakespeare Internetdiscussion groups.

Popular Sites by Groups,Individuals, or Battlefield Societies

The Battle of Blore Heath 1459<http://www.bloreheath.co.uk/battle.html>This site on the Battle of Blore Heath offers informa-tion about the battle, photos of the battlefield, a dis-cussion of fifteenth-century combat and tactics, andinformation on the annual reenactment of the battle.The page also provides links to related sites.

Continuing Battle of Bosworth Field<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/magor/images/bosworth2.htm>This site, which relates efforts to develop the site ofthe Battle of Bosworth Field for tourism, containssome excellent photos of the battlefield and some use-ful information on the battle itself. For a more de-tailed discussion of the Battle of Bosworth Field, seethe Bosworth page that is part of the Richard III So-ciety (American Branch) Web site at <http://www.r3.org/bosworth/>.

Maps of Medieval England<http://www1.pitt.edu/~medart/menuengl/mainmaps.html>Containing an interesting map entitled “Britain in1455–1494,” which depicts the major regions of Lan-castrian and Yorkist allegiance, this Web site also offerseleven other maps of Britain prior to 1500, with sub-jects ranging from the Roman province to the dioce-san boundaries of the medieval English Church.

Richard III: Historical Debate<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2918/>This Web page is dedicated to discussion and study ofthe Yorkist and early Tudor periods of English history,with a special emphasis on the reign of Richard III.Besides a useful family tree of the house of Planta-genet from Edward III to Henry VII, the site offers anonline discussion forum, a series of essays by studentsand enthusiasts of the period, and a useful bibliogra-phy that includes contemporary sources, modernworks, historical fiction, and recent films. Links to themain branches of the Richard III Society and to theonline resource library of the American Branch arealso provided.

Richard III Foundation, Inc.<http://www.richard111.com/>The Richard III Foundation, Inc., is a nonprofit edu-cational organization that seeks to authenticate the lifeand times of King Richard III, his contemporaries,

APPENDIX 8: SELECTED WEB SITES 339

and his era, and to expand information about the me-dieval period, especially the years from 1450 to 1485.Besides a description of the services and tours offeredby the foundation, the site includes a biography ofRichard III, descriptions of Wars of the Roses battles,a map of battle sites, and links to other medieval his-tory Web pages.

Tewkesbury Battlefield Society<http://www.tewkesbury.org.uk/battlefield/index.html>This Web page provides information on the Battle ofTewkesbury and on the society’s efforts to preservethe battle site, including a recent successful campaignto prevent the construction of housing on a portion ofthe battlefield.

Towton Battlefield Society<http://www.oldtykes.co.uk/TowBatSoc.htm>This site provides information on the Battle of Tow-ton and on the battlefield site, the preservation ofwhich is the main aim of the Society.

Warrwykk’s Wars of the Roses Page<http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/5123/index.html>This Web site includes brief biographical sketches ofimportant civil wars figures, such as Henry Stafford,duke of Buckingham (d. 1483), and Edmund Beau-fort, duke of Somerset (d. 1455), as well as all the rele-vant kings and queens. Also included are a map and adated listing of important battles and a page of basicbut helpful answers to Wars of the Roses FAQs. Onefun feature is a challenging multiple choice quiz onthe Wars of the Roses (I got twenty-three out oftwenty-three but had a few tense moments). War-rwykk’s page also offers a wide and varied selection oflinks to other Wars of the Roses sites.

Wars of the Roses<http://www.warsoftheroses.com/>This basic site provides a brief but useful time line, bi-ographies of key figures, descriptions of major battlesthat give casualty figures and lists of notable dead, andlinks to related sites.

The Wars of the Roses<http://www.northcoast.com/~ming/roses/roses.html>This site by Matthew Ingalls is useful for its detailedgenealogical charts of the house of Plantagenet and ofthe most important noble families involved in theWars of the Roses. It also includes the usual series ofbiographical sketches, battle accounts, and ratherbreezy discussions of the causes of the wars. Also pro-vided are useful links to Shakespearean and RichardIII Society sites.

The Wars of the Roses<http://www.fifteenthcentury.net>This site by Alison Orr offers a brief narrative of theWars of the Roses, short biographies of key figures in-volved in the wars, descriptions of major battles, anexamination of the debate surrounding Richard III,and general information on life in the fifteenth cen-tury. However, it is especially useful for providing de-tailed family trees of the families of Lancaster, York,Neville, Beaufort, Mortimer, Percy, Woodville, andTudor.

Wars of the Roses Fiction<http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~soon/histfiction/ricardianlist.html>This Web site lists authors and titles (but no publishersor dates) of twentieth-century historical fiction withWars of the Roses or fifteenth-century characters andsettings. Carol Mitchell of the Richard III Societycompiled the list, so Richard and his story are wellrepresented.

Reenactment Groups

The Company Ecorcheur MedievalSociety<http://www.ecorcheur.co.uk/>The Company Ecorcheur was formed in 1991 by agroup of experienced reenactors whose aim is to pro-vide an accurate and entertaining portrayal of militaryand civilian life in the second half of the fifteenth cen-tury. The company specializes in displays of medievalfoot combat that employ a wide range of periodweaponry, including pollarms and bows.Associated “liv-ing history” crafts demonstrated at company encamp-ments include medieval cookery, fletching, calligraphy,and tailoring; also demonstrated are period games, pas-times, dances, and songs. A member of both Livery andMaintenance and the Federation of the Wars of theRoses (see below), umbrella organizations that bringtogether reenactment groups across Britain to presentlarge-scale battles and sieges for a variety of customers,the Company Ecorcheur portrays the household troopsof Richard Plantagenet, duke of Gloucester (RichardIII), and also serves as the garrison for Warwick Castle,where it presents a variety of military and craft exhibi-tions throughout the year. Besides a list of upcomingevents and equipment suppliers, the Web site offers briefdescriptions of Wars of the Roses battles, a fifteenth-century songbook, and links to related groups.

Federation of the Wars of the Roses<http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~conseal/fedindex.htm>Because the federation is an umbrella organization forfifteenth-century reenactment groups, this site offerslinks to various groups, descriptions of upcomingreenactments, lists of suppliers of and traders in me-

340 APPENDIX 8: SELECTED WEB SITES

dieval equipage, photos of groups in action, articles byfederation members, and a brief narrative of the Warsof the Roses. This is a good place to start for informa-tion on fifteenth-century reenactment groups.

Listings for Medieval ReenactmentSocieties<http://www.medievalgarb.com/fav_links.html>This detailed and extensive listing of reenactmentgroups provides mailing addresses, phone numbers,brief descriptions, and Web site links. The site is an-other good starting point for anyone interested in par-ticipating in a Wars of the Roses reenactment group.

The Medieval Free Company<http://www.medievalfreeco.org.uk/>The Medieval Free Company is a nonprofit living his-tory group specializing in Wars of the Roses periodreenactments. The site’s most interesting features are alisting of books and music for the medieval enthusiast,links to suppliers of medieval equipage and reenact-ment support services (such as the Drunken MonkTavern people who man beer tents), and tips on train-ing with medieval arms and staging medieval combats.

Medieval Re-enactment Society<http://www.shef.ac.uk/~mr/>The society comprises enthusiasts of fifteenth-centuryhistory who reenact the battles of the Wars of the

Roses. Society members have taken part in reenact-ments at Richmond and Bodiam Castles and on thebattlefields at Tewkesbury and Bosworth. The sitemainly provides information about the society and itsactivities, but also includes an extensive set of links toother reenactment groups and organizations.

The Red Company<http://www.historicenterprises.com/redco/>This American reenactment group portrays a conti-nental military company in the service of Burgundyin the year 1471. During their annual encampments,the company’s members sleep in tents, cook mealsover a fire, shoot crossbows, fight with swords and pol-larms, drill with pikes, and ride horses in armor. Be-sides a history of the company and a listing of upcom-ing events, the Web site offers photos of the RedCompany encampments, a discussion of fifteenth-century military life, and links to other reenactmentsocieties.

Society for Creative Anachronism<http://www.sca.org./>Headquartered in California, the Society for CreativeAnachronism (SCA) is an international organizationdedicated to researching and recreating pre–seven-teenth-century European history. The Web site is anexcellent place to start for anyone interested in gettinginvolved in fifteenth-century reenactments in theUnited States.

APPENDIX 8: SELECTED WEB SITES 341

General Works

Carpenter, Christine. The Wars of the Roses: Politics andthe Constitution in England, c.1437–1509. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Chrimes, S. B. Lancastrians,Yorkists and Henry VII. 2ded. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966.

Cole, Hubert. The Wars of the Roses. London: Hart-Davis, McGibbon, 1973.

Cook, David R. Lancastrians and Yorkists:The Wars of theRoses. London: Longman, 1984.

Gillingham, John. The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Con-flict in Fifteenth-Century England. Baton Rouge:Louisiana State University Press, 1981.

Goodman, Anthony. The Wars of the Roses: Military Ac-tivity and English Society, 1452–97. New York:Dorset Press, 1981.

Hallam, Elizabeth, ed. The Wars of the Roses. New York:Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988.

Jacob, E. F. The Fifteenth Century, 1399–1485.Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1993.

Keen, M. H. England in the Later Middle Ages. London:Routledge, 1995.

Lander, J. R. The Wars of the Roses. New York: Capri-corn Books, 1965.

McFarlane, K. B. The Wars of the Roses. Annual RaleighLecture. London: British Academy, 1964.

McKisack, M. The Fourteenth Century, 1307–1399.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Neillands, Robin. The Wars of the Roses. London: Cas-sell, 1993.

Pollard, A. J. The Wars of the Roses. New York: St. Mar-tin’s Press, 1988.

Ross, Charles. The Wars of the Roses:A Concise History.New York: Thames and Hudson, 1987.

Seward, Desmond. The Wars of the Roses: Through theLives of Five Men and Women of the Fifteenth Century.New York:Viking, 1995.

Weir, Alison. The Wars of the Roses. New York: Ballan-tine Books, 1995.

Reference Works

Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z. New York: DellPublishing, 1990.

Connolly, S. J., ed. The Oxford Companion to Irish His-tory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Gardiner, Juliet, and Neil Wenborn, eds. The ColumbiaCompanion to British History. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1997.

Hicks, Michael. Who’s Who in Late Medieval England.London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991.

Keay, John, and Julia Keay, eds. Collins Encyclopaedia ofScotland. London: HarperCollins, 1994.

Kenyon, J. P., ed. A Dictionary of British History. NewYork: Stein and Day, 1983.

Murph, Roxane C., comp. The Wars of the Roses in Fic-tion: An Annotated Bibliography, 1440–1994. West-port, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Wedgwood, Josiah C. History of Parliament: Biographiesof the Members of the House of Commons, 1439–1509. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office,1936.

Collections of Essays and Articles

Archer, Rowena E., ed. Crown, Government and Peoplein the Fifteenth Century. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1995.

Britnell, R. H., and A. J. Pollard, eds. The McFarlaneLegacy: Studies in Late Medieval Politics and Soci-ety. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton,1995.

Chrimes, S. B., C. D. Ross, and R. A. Griffiths, eds. Fif-teenth-Century England, 1399–1509. 2d ed. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1995.

Clough, C. H., ed. Profession, Vocation and Culture inLater Medieval England. Liverpool: Liverpool Uni-versity Press, 1982.

Davis, R. H. C., and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, eds. TheWriting of History in the Middle Ages. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1981.

Dobson, R. B., ed. The Church, Politics and Patronage inthe Fifteenth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1984.

Gillingham, John, ed. Richard III: A Medieval Kingship.New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

Griffiths, Ralph A., ed. King and Country: England andWales in the Fifteenth Century. London: HambledonPress, 1991.

343

Bibliography

———, ed. Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces inLater Medieval England. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Humanities Press, 1981.

Griffiths, Ralph A., and James Sherborne, eds. Kingsand Nobles in the Later Middle Ages. New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1986.

Guy, J.A., and A. Fox, eds. Reassessing the Henrician Age.Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Hammond, P. W., ed. Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship andLaw. London: Richard III and Yorkist HistoryTrust, 1986.

Highfield, J. R. L., and R. A. Jeffs, eds. The Crown andLocal Communities in England and France in the Fif-teenth Century. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton, 1981.

Horrox, Rosemary, ed. Fifteenth-Century Attitudes: Per-ceptions of Society in Late Medieval England. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

McFarlane, K. B. England in the Fifteenth Century: Col-lected Essays. London: Hambledon Press, 1981.

Michalove, Sharon D., and A. Compton Reeves, eds.Estrangement, Enterprise and Education in Fifteenth-Century England. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sut-ton Publishing, 1998.

Pollard, A. J., ed. The North of England in the Reign ofRichard III. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

——, ed. Property and Politics: Essays in Later MedievalEnglish History. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton, 1984.

——, ed. The Wars of the Roses. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1995.

Rosenthal, J. T., and C. F. Richmond, eds. People, Poli-tics and Community in the Later Middle Ages. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1987.

Ross, Charles, ed. Patronage, Pedigree and Power in LaterMedieval England. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1979.

Rowe, J. G., ed. Aspects of Late Medieval Government andSociety. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.

Thompson, B., ed. The Reign of Henry VII. Stamford,1995.

Primary Sources

Bruce, John, ed. Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV inEngland and the Final Recouerye of His Kingdomesfrom Henry VI. In Three Chronicles of the Reign ofEdward IV. Introduction by Keith Dockray. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing,1988, pp. 131–193.

Carpenter, Christine, ed. Kingsford’s Stonor Letters andPapers, 1290–1483. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1996.

Commines, Philippe de. The Memoirs of Philippe deCommynes. Edited by Samuel Kinser. Translated byIsabelle Cazeaux. 2 vols. Columbia: University ofSouth Carolina Press, 1969–1973.

Davis, Norman, ed. The Paston Letters: A Selection inModern Spelling. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999.

——, ed. The Paston Letters and Papers of the FifteenthCentury. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1971, 1976.

Ellis, Henry, ed. The Chronicle of John Hardyng Togetherwith the Continuation of Richard Grafton. London,1812.

——, ed. Hall’s Chronicle. Reprint ed. New York:AMSPress, 1965.

——, ed. Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History,Comprising the Reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV, andRichard III. London: Camden Society, 1844.

Fabyan, Robert. The Great Chronicle of London. Editedby A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1983.

——. The New Chronicles of England and France. Editedby Henry Ellis. London: Printed for F. C. & J. Riv-ington, 1811.

Fortescue, Sir John. De Laudibus Legum Anglie. Editedand translated by S. B. Chrimes. Holmes Beach,FL: William W. Gaunt & Sons, 1986.

——. Sir John Fortescue: On the Laws and Governance ofEngland. Edited by Shelley Lockwood. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Gairdner, James, ed. The Historical Collections of a Citi-zen of London in the Fifteenth Century [Gregory’sChronicle]. New York: Johnson Reprint Corpora-tion, 1965.

——, ed. The Paston Letters, 1422–1509. 6 vols. Lon-don: Chatto & Windus, 1904; reprint, Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1984.

Halliwell, James Orchard, ed. A Chronicle of the FirstThirteen Years of the Reign of King Edward the Fourth,by John Warkworth. In Three Chronicles of the Reign ofEdward IV. Introduction by Keith Dockray. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing,1988, pp. 1–102.

Hanham, Alison, ed. The Cely Letters 1472–1488. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Hardyng, John. The Chronicle of John Hardyng. Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1974.

James, M. R., ed. Henry the Sixth: A Reprint of JohnBlacman’s Memoir. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1919.

Kendall, Paul Murray, ed. Richard III:The Great Debate.New York: W. W. Norton, 1992.

Kirby, Joan, ed. The Plumpton Letters and Papers. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Littleton, Taylor, and Robert R. Rea, eds. To Prove aVillain: The Case of King Richard III. New York:Macmillan, 1964.

Malory, Sir Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthur. Edited byKeith Baines. New York: Bramhall House, 1962.

——. Le Morte d’Arthur. Edited by R. M. Lumiansky.London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1982.

344 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mancini, Dominic. The Usurpation of Richard III.Edited and translated by C. A. J. Armstrong.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1989.

Matheson, Lister M., ed. Death and Dissent: Two Fif-teenth-Century Chronicles. Woodbridge, Suffolk:Boydell Press, 1999.

More, Sir Thomas. History of King Richard III. In PaulMurray Kendall, ed. Richard III:The Great Debate.New York: W. W. Norton, 1992, pp. 31–143.

——. The History of King Richard III and Selections fromthe English and Latin Poems. Edited by Richard S.Sylvester. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1976.

Myers, A. R., ed. The Household of Edward IV. Man-chester: Manchester University Press, 1959.

Nichols, John Gough, ed. Chronicle of the Rebellion inLincolnshire, 1470. In Three Chronicles of the Reign ofEdward IV. Introduction by Keith Dockray. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing,1988, pp. 103–131.

Pronay, Nicholas, and John Cox, eds. The CrowlandChronicle Continuations: 1459–1486. London:Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1986.

Rous, John.“The History of the Kings of England,” inAlison Hanham, Richard III and His Early Histori-ans, 1483–1535. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

——. The Rous Roll. Reprint ed. Stroud, Gloucester-shire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1980.

Stapleton, Thomas, ed. The Plumpton Correspondence.London: Camden Society, 1839; reprint ed.,Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1990.

Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV. Introductionby Keith Dockray. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton Publishing, 1988.

Vergil, Polydore. The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil.London: Royal Historical Society, 1950.

Virgoe, Roger, ed. Private Life in the Fifteenth Century:Illustrated Letters of the Paston Family. New York:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989.

Warrington, John, ed. The Paston Letters. 2 vols. Re-vised ed. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1956.

Waurin, Jean. Recueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istoriesde la Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre.Edited and translated by Sir William Hardy. 5 vols.London: Longman, Green, and Roberts,1864–1891.

Ireland, Scotland, and Wales

Brown, Jennifer M., ed. Scottish Society in the FifteenthCentury. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977.

Cosgrove, Art. Late Medieval Ireland, 1370–1541.Dublin: Helicon, 1981.

Davies, John. A History of Wales. London: The PenguinGroup, 1993.

Evans, H. T. Wales and the Wars of the Roses. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1995.

Lydon, James. Ireland in the Later Middle Ages. Dublin:Gill and Macmillan, 1973.

Mackie, J. D. A History of Scotland, 2d ed. New York:Dorset Press, 1985.

Nicholson, Ranald. Scotland:The Later Middle Ages. Vol.2 of The Edinburgh History of Scotland. New York:Barnes and Noble, 1974.

Otway-Ruthven, A. J. A History of Medieval Ireland.New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1980.

Reeves,Albert C. The Marcher Lords. Llandybie, Dyfed,UK: C. Davies, 1983.

Williams, Glanmor. Renewal and Reformation: Wales,c.1415–1642. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993.

Wormald, Jenny. Court, Kirk, and Community: Scotland,1470–1625. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,1981.

Brittany, Burgundy, France, and Europe

Armstrong, C. A. J. England, France and Burgundy in theFifteenth Century. London: Hambledon Press, 1983.

Calmette, Joseph. The Golden Age of Burgundy:The Mag-nificent Dukes and Their Courts. Translated by DoreenWeightman. New York:W.W. Norton, 1963.

Cope, Christopher. Phoenix Frustrated: The Lost King-dom of Burgundy. London: Constable, 1986.

Galliou, Patrick, and Michael Jones. The Bretons. Ox-ford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.

Harvey, Margaret. England, Rome and the Papacy, 1417–1464. Manchester: Manchester University Press,1993.

Jones, Michael. The Creation of Brittany: A Late Me-dieval State. London: Hambledon, 1988.

Lloyd, T. H., England and the German Hanse,1157–1611. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1991.

Potter, David. A History of France, 1460–1560: TheEmergence of a Nation State. London: Macmillan,1995.

Thompson, Guy Llewelyn. Paris and Its People underEnglish Rule: The Anglo-Burgundian Regime,1420–1436. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Vale, M. G. A. English Gascony, 1399–1453:A Study ofWar, Government and Politics during the Later Stages ofthe Hundred Years’War. London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1970.

Vaughan, Richard. Valois Burgundy. Hamden, CT: Ar-chon Books, 1975.

Political, Constitutional, and Legal History

Baldwin, James F. The King’s Council in England duringthe Middle Ages. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith, 1965.

Bean, J. M. W. From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Me-dieval England. Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 345

Bellamy, J. G. Bastard Feudalism and the Law. Portland,OR: Areopagitica Press, 1989.

——. Crime and Public Order in England in the LaterMiddle Ages. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,1973.

——. The Law of Treason in England in the Later MiddleAges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1970.

Blatcher, M. The Court of King’s Bench, 1450–1550:AStudy in Self-Help. London: Athlone Press, 1978.

Butt, Ronald. A History of Parliament:The Middle Ages.London: Constable, 1989.

Davies, R. G., and J. H. Denton, eds. The English Parlia-ment in the Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1981.

Ferguson, John. English Diplomacy, 1422–1461. Ox-ford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Harding, Alan. The Law Courts of Medieval England.London: Allen & Unwin, 1973.

Lander, J. R. Conflict and Stability in Fifteenth-CenturyEngland. 2d ed. London: Hutchinson UniversityLibrary, 1974.

——. Crown and Nobility, 1450–1509. Montreal:McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1976.

——. English Justices of the Peace, 1461–1509. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1989.

——. Government and Community, England, 1450–1509.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.

——. The Limitations of the English Monarchy in theLater Middle Ages. Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 1989.

Loades, D. M. Politics and the Nation, 1450–1660: Obe-dience, Resistance and Public Order. London: FontanaPress, 1986.

——. The Tudor Court. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and NobleBooks, 1987.

Reid, Rachel R. The King’s Council in the North. To-towa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1975.

Starkey, David, et al. The English Court: From the Wars ofthe Roses to the Civil War. London: Longman, 1987.

Social, Economic, and Cultural History

Acheson, Eric. A Gentry Community: Leicestershire in theFifteenth Century, c.1422-c.1485. New York: Cam-bridge University Press, 1992.

Baker, Timothy. Medieval London. New York, Praeger,1970.

Bolton, J. L. The Medieval English Economy,1150–1500. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1980.

Carpenter, Christine. Locality and Polity: A Study ofWarwickshire Landed Society, 1401–1499. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Coleman, D. C. The Economy of England, 1450–1750.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Cross, Claire. Church and People, 1450–1660. Glasgow,UK: Fontana/Collins, 1976.

Davies, C. S. L. Peace, Print and Protestantism, 1450–1558.London: Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, 1976.

Du Boulay, F. R. H. An Age of Ambition: English Societyin the Late Middle Ages. New York:Viking, 1970.

Given-Wilson, Chris. The English Nobility in the LaterMiddle Ages. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,1987.

Gransden,Antonia. Historical Writing in England. Vol. 2:c.1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press, 1982.

Harrison, Frank L. Music in Medieval Britain. 4th ed.Buren, Netherlands: F. Knuf, 1980.

Hatcher, John. Plague, Population and the English Econ-omy, 1348–1530. London: Macmillan, 1994.

Hicks, Michael. Bastard Feudalism. London: Longman,1995.

Hindley, Geoffrey. England in the Age of Caxton. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1979.

Keen, Maurice. English Society in the Later Middle Ages,1348–1500. London: Penguin Books, 1990.

McFarlane, K. B. The Nobility of Later Medieval En-gland. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

Mears, Kenneth J. The Tower of London: 900 Years of En-glish History. Oxford: Phaidon, 1988.

Mertes, Kate. The English Noble Household, 1250 to1600: Good Governance and Politic Rule. Oxford: B.Blackwell, 1988.

Munro, J. H. Wool, Cloth and Gold:The Struggle for Bul-lion in Anglo-Burgundian Trade, 1340–1478. Toro-nto: University of Toronto Press, 1972.

Norwich, John Julius. Shakespeare’s Kings. New York:Scribner, 1999.

Pollard, A. J. North-Eastern England during the Wars ofRoses: Lay Society,War, and Politics, 1450–1500. Ox-ford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

Porter, Roy. London:A Social History. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1994.

Postan, M. M. The Medieval Economy and Society: AnEconomic History of Britain, 1100–1500. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1972.

Rowse, A. L. The Tower of London in the History of theNation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972.

Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare’s English Kings, 2d ed. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Sheppard, Francis. London: A History. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1998.

Walker, S. The Lancastrian Affinity, 1361–1399. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Weiss, Roberto. Humanism in England during the Fif-teenth Century. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967.

Wilson, Derek A. The Tower of London: A ThousandYears. London: Allison & Busby, 1998.

Winston, J. E. English Towns in the Wars of the Roses.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1921.

Woolgar, C. M. The Great Household in Late MedievalEngland. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1999.

346 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Military Issues, Wars, and Battle Accounts

Allmand, Christopher. The Hundred Years War. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Bennett, Michael. The Battle of Bosworth. New York:St. Martin’s Press, 1985.

——. Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke. New York:St. Martin’s Press, 1987.

Boardman, Andrew W. The Battle of Towton. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1996.

——. The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1998.

Bradbury, Jim. The Medieval Archer. Woodbridge, Suf-folk, UK: Boydell Press, 1985.

Brooke, Richard. Visits to Fields of Battle in England ofthe Fifteenth Century. Dursley, UK: Alan Sutton,1975.

Burne, Alfred H. The Battlefields of England. London:Greenhill Books, 1996.

Curry, Anne. The Hundred Years War. Hampshire:Macmillan, 1993.

DeVries, Kelly. Medieval Military Technology. Peterbor-ough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1992.

Fairbairn, Neil. A Traveller’s Guide to the Battlefields ofBritain. London: Evans Brothers, 1983.

Foss, Peter J. The Field of Redemore: The Battle ofBosworth, 1485. 2d ed. Newtown Linford, UK:Kairos, 1998.

——. The Battle of Wakefield, 1460. Stroud, Glouces-tershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1996.

Haigh, Philip A. The Military Campaigns of the Wars ofthe Roses. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1995.

Hammond, P. W. The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury.New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

Hodges, Geoffrey. Ludford Bridge and Mortimer’s Cross.Herefordshire, UK: Long Aston Press, 1989.

Keen, Maurice, ed. Medieval Warfare. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1999.

Kinross, John. The Battlefields of Britain. London: Davidand Charles, 1979.

Norris, John. Artillery: An Illustrated History. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2000.

Oman, C. W. C.The Art of War in the Middle Ages. Rev.ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1953.

Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years War. New York:Capricorn Books, 1965.

Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the MiddleAges:The English Experience. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1996.

Rodger, N.A. M. The Safeguard of the Sea:A Naval His-tory of Britain. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.

Rogers, H. C. B. Artillery through the Ages. London:Seeley, 1971.

Rowse, A. L. Bosworth Field: From Medieval to Tudor En-gland. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.

Seward, Desmond. The Hundred Years War. New York:Atheneum, 1978.

Swynnerton, Brian, and William Swinnerton.The Bat-tle of Blore Heath, 1459. Nuneaton, UK: PaddyGriffith Associates, 1995.

Vale, M. G. A. War and Chivalry: Warfare and AristocraticCulture in England, France, and Burgundy at the Endof the Middle Ages. Athens: University of GeorgiaPress, 1981.

Williams, D. T. The Battle of Bosworth. Leicester:Leicester University Press, 1973.

Early Fifteenth Century, 1399–1437

Allmand, C. T. Lancastrian Normandy, 1415–1450:TheHistory of a Medieval Occupation. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1983.

Bennett, Michael. Richard II and the Revolution of 1399.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1999.

Harriss, G. L., ed. Henry V:The Practice of Kingship. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

McFarlane, K. B. Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

McNiven, Peter. Heresy and Politics in the Reign ofHenry IV: The Burning of John Badby. Wolfeboro,NH: Boydell Press, 1987.

Strohm, Paul. England’s Empty Throne: Usurpation andthe Language of Legitimation, 1399–1422. NewHaven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998.

Reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV,1437–1483

Dockray, Keith. Edward IV: A Source Book. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999.

——. Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou and the Wars of theRoses:A Source Book. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Sutton Publishing, 2000.

Griffiths, Ralph A. The Reign of King Henry VI: TheExercise of Royal Authority, 1422–61. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1981.

Gross, Anthony. The Dissolution of the Lancastrian King-ship: Sir John Fortescue and the Crisis of Monarchy inFifteenth-Century England. Stamford, UK: PaulWatkins, 1996.

Harvey, I. M. W. Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1991.

Kendall, Paul Murray. The Yorkist Age: Daily Life duringthe Wars of the Roses. New York: W. W. Norton,1962.

Storey, R. L. The End of the House of Lancaster. 2d ed.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1999.

Watts, John. Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 347

Wolffe, B. P. The Crown Lands, 1461–1536:An Aspect ofYorkist and Early Tudor Government. London: Allen& Unwin, 1970.

Reign of Richard III, 1483–1485

Buck, Sir George. The History of King Richard III.Edited by A. N. Kincaid. Stroud, Gloucestershire,UK: Sutton Publishing, 1982.

Dockray, Keith. Richard III: A Source Book. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1997.

Gairdner, James. History of the Life and Reign of Richardthe Third, 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1898.

Gill, Louise. Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing,1999.

Halsted, Caroline A. Richard III as Duke of Gloucesterand King of England, 2 vols. London, 1844; reprinted., Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publish-ing, 1977.

Hanham, Alison. Richard III and His Early Historians,1483–1535. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Hicks, Michael. Richard III and His Rivals: Magnates andTheir Motives in the Wars of the Roses. London:Hambledon Press, 1991.

Lamb,V. B. The Betrayal of Richard III:An Introduction tothe Controversy. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton Publishing, 1996.

Markham, Sir Clements R. Richard III: His Life andCharacter, Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research.New York: Russell & Russell, 1968.

St.Aubyn, Giles. The Year of the Three Kings, 1483. NewYork: Atheneum, 1983.

Tey, Josephine. The Daughter of Time. New York:Berkeley Medallion Books, 1975.

Walpole, Horace. Historic Doubts on the Life and Reignof Richard III. Edited by P. W. Hammond. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1987.

——. Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of KingRichard III. In Paul Murray Kendall, ed. RichardIII: The Great Debate. New York: W. W. Norton,1992.

Wood, Charles T. Joan of Arc and Richard III: Sex, Saintsand Government in the Middle Ages. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1988.

Princes in the Tower

Fields, Bertram. Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mysteryof the Princes. New York: Regan Books, 1998.

Jenkins, Elizabeth. The Princes in the Tower. New York:Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1978.

Pollard,A. J. Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. NewYork: St Martin’s Press, 1991.

Weir, Alison. The Princes in the Tower. New York: Bal-lantine Books, 1992.

Williamson, Audrey. The Mystery of the Princes: An In-vestigation into a Supposed Murder. Chicago: Acad-emy Chicago Publishers, 1986.

Reign of Henry VII, 1485–1509

Arthurson, Ian. The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy,1491–1499. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1997.

Elton, G. R. England under the Tudors. 3d ed. London:Routledge, 1991.

Griffiths, Ralph A., and Roger S. Thomas. The Makingof the Tudor Dynasty. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1985.

Gunn, S. Early Tudor Government, 1485–1558. Lon-don, 1995.

Levine, Mortimer. Tudor Dynastic Problems, 1460–1571. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973.

Mackie, J. D. The Earlier Tudors, 1485–1558. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1994.

Pugh, T. B. Henry VII: The Importance of His Reign inEnglish History. London, 1985.

Storey, R. L. The Reign of Henry VII. New York:Walker and Company, 1968.

Biography—Individuals

Allmand, Christopher. Henry V. Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 1992.

Bacon, Francis. The History of the Reign of King HenrySeventh. Edited by F. J. Levy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972.

Bagley, John J. Margaret of Anjou. London: Batsford,1948.

Blake, N. F. Caxton: England’s First Publisher. New York:Barnes and Noble, 1976.

——. William Caxton and English Literary Culture.London: Hambledon Press, 1991.

Bryan, Donough. Gerald Fitzgerald, the Great Earl ofKildare, 1456–1513. Dublin: Talbot Press, 1933.

Chrimes, S. B. Henry VII. New Haven, CT; Yale Uni-versity Press, 1999.

Cleugh, James. Chant Royal:The Life of King Louis XIof France (1423–1483). Garden City, NY: Double-day, 1970.

Clive, Mary. This Sun of York:A Biography of Edward IV.New York: Macmillan, 1973.

Deacon, Richard. A Biography of William Caxton: TheFirst English Editor, Printer, Merchant, and Translator.London: Muller, 1976.

Dunlop, Annie. The Life and Times of James Kennedy,Bishop of St.Andrews. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,1950.

Erlanger, Philippe. Margaret of Anjou: Queen of England.London: Elek Books, 1970.

Falkus, Gila. The Life and Times of Edward IV. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1981.

348 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Field, P. J. C. The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory.Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1993.

Griffiths, Ralph A. Sir Rhys ap Thomas and His Family:A Study in the Wars of the Roses and Early Tudor Poli-tics. Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press, 1993.

Hammond, P. W., and Anne F. Sutton. Richard III:TheRoad to Bosworth Field. London: Constable, 1985.

Harriss, G. L. Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of the Lancas-trian Ascendancy and Decline. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1988.

Harvey, Nancy Lenz. Elizabeth of York: Tudor Queen.New York: Macmillan, 1973.

Hay, Denys. Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian andMan of Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.

Head, David. The Ebbs and Flows of Fortune:The Life ofThomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk. Athens:University of Georgia Press, 1995.

Hicks, Michael. False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence: George,Duke of Clarence, 1449–78. Rev. ed. Bangor, UK:Headstart History, 1992.

——. Richard III:The Man Behind the Myth. London:Collins & Brown, 1991.

——. Warwick the Kingmaker. Oxford: Blackwell Pub-lishers, 1998.

Horrox, Rosemary. Richard III: A Study in Service.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Hutchison, Harold F. The Hollow Crown: The Life ofRichard II. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1961.

——. King Henry V: A Biography. New York: DorsetPress, 1967.

Johnson, P. A. Duke Richard of York, 1411–1460. Ox-ford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Jones, Michael K., and Malcolm G. Underwood. TheKing’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess ofRichmond and Derby. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1992.

Kendall, Paul Murray. Louis XI: The Universal Spider.New York: W. W. Norton, 1971.

——. Richard the Third. New York:W.W. Norton, 1956.——. Warwick the Kingmaker. New York: W. W. Nor-

ton, 1987.Kirby, John Lavan. Henry IV of England. London:

Constable, 1970.Labarge, Margaret Wade. Henry V: The Cautious Con-

queror. New York: Stein and Day, 1976.Macdougall, Norman. James III:A Political Study. Edin-

burgh: J. Donald, 1982.——. James IV. East Lothian, UK: Tuckwell Press,

1997.MacGibbon, David. Elizabeth Woodville: Her Life and

Times. London: A. Barker, 1938.McGladdery, Christine. James II. Edinburgh: John

Donald Publishers, 1990.Mitchell, R. J. John Tiptoft: An Italianate Englishman,

1427–1470. London: Longmans, Green, 1938.Painter, George D. William Caxton: A Biography. New

York: Putnam, 1977.

Pollard, A. J. John Talbot and the War in France,1427–1453. London: Royal Historical Society,1983.

Potter, Jeremy. Good King Richard? An Account ofRichard III and His Reputation. London: Constable,1994.

Rees, David. The Son of Prophecy: Henry Tudor’s Road toBosworth. 2d ed. Ruthin, UK: John Jones, 1997.

Roskell, John S. William Catesby, Counselor to RichardIII. Manchester: John Rylands Library, 1959[reprinted from the Bulletin of the John Rylands Li-brary, vol. 42, no. 1, September, 1959].

Ross, Charles. Edward IV. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press, 1998.

——. Richard III. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1981.

Saul, Nigel. Richard II. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-sity Press, 1997.

Seward, Desmond. Henry V:The Scourge of God. NewYork:Viking, 1988.

——. Richard III: England’s Black Legend. New York:Franklin Watts, 1984.

Simon, Linda. Of Virtue Rare: Margaret Beaufort, Matri-arch of the House of Tudor. Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany, 1982.

Tucker, Melvin J. The Life of Thomas Howard, Earl ofSurrey and Second Duke of Norfolk, 1443–1524. TheHague, Netherlands: Mouton, 1964.

Tyrrell, Joseph M. Louis XI. Boston: Twayne, 1980.Vale, M.G.A. Charles VII. Berkeley: University of Cali-

fornia Press, 1974.Vaughan, Richard. Charles the Bold: The Last Valois

Duke of Burgundy. London: Longman, 1973.——. John the Fearless:The Growth of Burgundian Power.

London: Longman, 1979.——. Philip the Bold: The Formation of the Burgundian

State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1962.

——. Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy. NewYork: Barnes and Noble, 1970.

Weightman, Christine. Margaret of York: Duchess of Bur-gundy, 1446–1503. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK:Alan Sutton, 1993.

Williams, E. C. My Lord of Bedford, 1389–1435. Lon-don: Longmans, 1963.

Wolffe, Bertram. Henry VI. London: Eyre Methuen,1981.

Biographies—Families

Bagley, John J. The Earls of Derby, 1485–1985. Lon-don: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1985.

Bennett, H. S. The Pastons and Their England: Studies inan Age of Transition. 2d ed. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1990.

Clifford, Hugh. The House of Clifford. London:Phillimore, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 349

Coward, Barry. The Stanleys, Lords Stanley, and Earls ofDerby, 1385–1672:The Origins,Wealth, and Power ofa Landowning Family. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press, 1983.

Gies, Frances, and Joseph Gies. A Medieval Family:ThePastons of Fifteenth-Century England. New York:HarperCollins, 1998.

Hanham, Alison. The Celys and Their World:An EnglishMerchant Family of the Fifteenth Century. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Harvey, John. The Plantagenets. 3d ed. London: SevernHouse, 1976.

Harwood, William R. “The Courtenay Family in thePolitics of Region and Nation in the Later Fif-teenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries.” Ph.D. dis-sertation, Cambridge University, 1978.

Rawcliffe, Carole. The Staffords, Earls of Stafford andDukes of Buckingham, 1394–1521. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Richmond, Colin. The Paston Family in the FifteenthCentury: The First Phase. Cambridge; CambridgeUniversity Press, 1990.

——. The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century: Fas-tolf’s Will. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996.

Young, Charles R. The Making of the Neville Family inEngland, 1166–1400. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK:Boydell & Brewer, 1997.

Articles and Essays

Allan,Alison.“Yorkist Propaganda: Pedigree, Prophecyand the ‘British History’ in the Reign of EdwardIV.” In Charles Ross, ed., Patronage, Pedigree andPower in Later Medieval England. Stroud, Glouces-tershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1979.

Antonovics, A.V.“Henry VII, King of England, by theGrace of Charles VIII of France.” In Ralph A.Griffiths and James Sherborne, eds., Kings and No-bles in the Later Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1986.

Ayton,Andrew.“Arms,Armour, and Horses.” In Mau-rice Keen, ed., Medieval Warfare. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1999.

Britnell, R. H.“The Economic Context.” In A. J. Pol-lard, ed.. The Wars of the Roses. New York: St. Mar-tin’s Press, 1995.

Cherry, Martin. “The Struggle for Power in Mid-Fif-teenth-Century Devonshire.” In Ralph A. Grif-fiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces inLater Medieval England. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Humanities Press, 1981.

Crawford, Anne.“The Private Life of John Howard: AStudy of a Yorkist Lord, His Family and House-hold.” In P. W. Hammond, ed., Richard III: Loyalty,Lordship and Law. London: Richard III and YorkistHistory Trust, 1986.

Davies, C. S. L. “The Wars of the Roses in EuropeanContext.” In A. J. Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses.New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Davies, Richard G.“The Church and the Wars of theRoses.” In A. J. Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses.New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Davis, V. “William Waynflete and the EducationalRevolution of the Fifteenth Century.” In J. T.Rosenthal and C. F. Richmond, eds., People, Politicsand Community in the Later Middle Ages. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1987.

Dockray, Keith. “The Origins of the Wars of theRoses.” In A. J. Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses.New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

——. “The Political Legacy of Richard III inNorthern England.” In Ralph A. Griffiths andJames Sherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in theLater Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1986.

Dunn, Diana.“Margaret of Anjou, Queen Consort ofHenry VI:A Reassessment of Her Role, 1445–53.”In Rowena E. Archer, ed., Crown, Government andPeople in the Fifteenth Century. New York: St. Mar-tin’s Press, 1995.

Dunning, Robert W. “Patronage and Promotion inthe Late-Medieval Church.” In Ralph A. Griffiths,ed., Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces in LaterMedieval England. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humani-ties Press, 1981.

Griffiths, Ralph A.“The Crown and the Royal Familyin Later Medieval England.” In Ralph A. Griffithsand James Sherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in theLater Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1986.

——. “The King’s Court during the Wars of theRoses.” In Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Coun-try: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century. Lon-don: Hambledon Press, 1991.

——.“Local Rivalries and National Politics: The Per-cies, the Nevilles and the Duke of Exeter,1452–1455.” In Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., King andCountry: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century.London: Hambledon Press, 1991.

——. “The Sense of Dynasty in the Reign of HenryVI.” In Ralph A. Griffiths, ed., King and Country:England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century. London:Hambledon Press, 1991.

——. “Wales and the Marches.” In S. B., Chrimes,C. D. Ross, and R. A. Griffiths, eds., Fifteenth-Cen-tury England, 1399–1509. 2d ed. Stroud, Glouces-tershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1995.

Guth, DeLloyd J. “Climbing the Civil-Service Poleduring the Civil War: Sir Reynald Bray.” In SharonD. Michalove and A. Compton Reeves, eds., Es-trangement, Enterprise and Education in Fifteenth-Cen-tury England. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: SuttonPublishing, 1998.

350 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Guy, John A.“The King’s Council and Political Partic-ipation.” In J. A. Guy and A. Fox, eds., Reassessingthe Henrician Age. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Harvey, I. M. W. “Was There Popular Politics in Fif-teenth-Century England?” In R. H. Britnell andA. J. Pollard, eds., The McFarlane Legacy: Studies inLate Medieval Politics and Society. Stroud, Glouces-tershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1995.

Hicks, Michael. “The Case of Sir Thomas Cook,1468.” In Michael Hicks, Richard III and His Rivals:Magnates and Their Motives in the Wars of the Roses.London: Hambledon Press, 1991.

——. “The Changing Role of the Wydevilles inYorkist Politics to 1483.” In Charles Ross, ed., Pa-tronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1979.

——. “Dynastic Change and Northern Society: TheCareer of the Fourth Earl of Northumberland,1470–89.” In Michael Hicks, Richard III and HisRivals: Magnates and Their Motives in the Wars of theRoses. London: Hambledon Press, 1991.

——. “Lord Hastings’ Indentured Retainers?” InMichael Hicks, Richard III and His Rivals: Magnatesand Their Motives in the Wars of the Roses. London:Hambledon Press, 1991.

——.“Piety and Lineage in the Wars of the Roses:TheHungerford Experience.” In Ralph A. Griffiths andJames Sherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles in the LaterMiddle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986.

Lander, J. R.“The Treason and Death of the Duke ofClarence.” In J. R. Lander, Crown and Nobility,1450–1509. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress, 1976.

——. “A Collector of Apocryphal Anecdotes: JohnBlacman Revisited.” In A. J. Pollard, ed., Propertyand Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History.Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1984.

Lovatt, R. “John Blacman: Biographer of Henry VI.”In R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, eds.,The Writing of History in the Middle Ages. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1981.

McFarlane, K. B.“Bastard Feudalism.” In K. B. McFar-lane, England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Es-says. London: Hambledon Press, 1981.

——. “The Wars of the Roses.” In K. B. McFarlane,England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays.London: Hambledon Press, 1981.

Pollard, A. J. “The Richmondshire Community ofGentry during the Wars of the Roses.” In CharlesRoss, ed., Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Me-dieval England. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: AlanSutton, 1979.

Postan, M. M. “The Fifteenth Century.” In M. M.Postan, Essays in Medieval Agriculture and Economy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Pugh, T. B. “The Magnates, Knights and Gentry.” InS. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and R. A. Griffiths,eds., Fifteenth-Century England, 1399–1509. 2ded. Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton,1995.

——.“Richard Plantagenet (1411–60), Duke of York,as the King’s Lieutenant in France and Ireland.” InJ. G. Rowe, ed., Aspects of Late Medieval Governmentand Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,1986.

Reeves, A. Compton. “Lawrence Booth: Bishop ofDurham (1457–76), Archbishop of York (1476–80).” In Sharon D. Michalove and A. ComptonReeves, eds., Estrangement, Enterprise and Educationin Fifteenth-Century England. Stroud, Gloucester-shire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998.

Richmond, Colin. “Bosworth Field and All That.” InP. W. Hammond, ed., Richard III: Loyalty, Lordshipand Law. London: Richard III and Yorkist HistoryTrust, 1986.

Ross, Charles. “Rumour, Propaganda and PopularOpinion during the Wars of the Roses.” In RalphA. Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown and theProvinces in Later Medieval England. Atlantic High-lands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981.

Rowney, I. “Resources and Retaining in Yorkist En-gland: William, Lord Hastings and the Honour ofTutbury.” In A. J. Pollard, ed., Property and Politics:Essays in Later Medieval English History. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1984.

Storey, R. L. “The North of England.” In S. B.Chrimes, C. D. Ross, and R. A. Griffiths, eds., Fif-teenth-Century England, 1399–1509. 2d ed. Stroud,Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1995.

Wood, Charles T. “Richard III, William, Lord Hast-ings, and Friday the Thirteenth.” In Ralph A. Grif-fiths and James Sherborne, eds., Kings and Nobles inthe Later Middle Ages. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 351

Boldface page references denote full entries. Theabbreviation (illus.) indicates a photograph, table, orother illustration.

Accord, Act of, 1, 36, 112, 203Affinity, 2, 15–16, 19–20, 145, 223, 232

See also Badges; Bastard feudalism; Livery andmaintenance; Retainers

Agincourt, Battle of, 5, 7, 21, 106, 127, 212, 226Albany, duke of. See Stuart, AlexanderAlcock, John, bishop of Worcester, 85Alexander VI (Pope), 167Alnwick Castle, 2–3, 110, 122, 128, 263

See also Bamburgh Castle; Dunstanburgh CastleAmendalle, John. See Cade, JackAngers Agreement, 3–4, 82, 95, 96, 150, 156, 167Anglica Historia (Vergil), xxx, 4–5, 40, 61, 65, 173,

214, 231, 249, 281Anjou, count of. See Geoffrey le BelAnjou, duke of. See René, duke of AnjouAnne, duchess of Brittany, 39, 53, 96, 97Anne of Beaujeau, 53Anne of Geierstein (Scott), 294Anne, queen of England. See Neville, AnneAnthony, bastard of Burgundy, 147, 221, 300Archers, 5–6, 163, 186, 255, 259Argentine, Dr. John, 284Armies, 163

noncombatant members of, 8recruitment of, 6–7, 22, 58–59, 223, 224size of, 7–8supplying of, 8–9

Armor, 5, 9–11, 10 (illus.), 21, 163, 295Arras, Treaty of, 202Artillery, 11–12, 12 (illus.), 48, 136, 163, 165, 252Arundel, earl of. See Fitzalan, WilliamAttainder, Act of, 13, 71–72, 89, 195, 198, 224Audley, Lord. See Touchet, JamesAyton, Treaty of, 138, 246

Badges, 15–16, 19, 145, 260–261, 294illustrations of, 15, 109, 181, 207, 267, 275

See also Affinity; Livery and maintenance;Retainers; Sun in Splendor/Sunburst Badge

The Ballad of Bosworth Field, 16, 237, 278See also The Rose of England;The Song of Lady

BessyBamburgh Castle, 16–17, 110, 175, 236

See also Alnwick Castle; Dunstanburgh CastleBarnard Castle, 33Barnet, Battle of, 8, 11, 17–19, 18 (illus.), 45, 84,

221, 260, 292Bastard Feudalism, xxxi, 2, 15–16, 19–20, 145, 223,

292See also Affinity; Badges; Livery and

maintenance; RetainersBastard of Fauconberg. See Neville, Thomas,

bastard of FauconbergBath and Wells, bishop of. See Stillington, RobertBattles

chronological listing of, 22map of battle sites, 317nature of, 20–22, 21 (illus.), 163See also names of individual battles

Baynard’s Castle, 173, 253Beauchamp, Anne, countess of Warwick, 181Beauchamp, Richard, earl of Warwick, 238Beauchamp, Sir Richard, 265Beaufort, Edmund, duke of Somerset (d. 1455),

22–23, 46, 73, 92, 115, 127, 208, 212, 241,293

Beaufort, Edmund, duke of Somerset (d. 1471),23–24, 24 (illus.), 25, 84, 264–265, 297

Beaufort, Henry, Cardinal bishop of Winchester,25, 115, 142, 212, 287

Beaufort, Henry, duke of Somerset, 23, 25–26, 46,49, 57, 110, 151, 175, 242, 288

Beaufort, Joan, countess of Westmorland, 173–174,180

Beaufort, Joan, queen of Scotland, 136Beaufort, John (d. 1471), 23Beaufort, John, duke of Somerset (d. 1444), 25,

26Beaufort, John, earl of Somerset (d. 1409), 22

353

Index

Beaufort, Margaret, countess of Richmond andDerby, 25, 26–27, 27 (illus.), 40, 117, 118,142, 256, 276, 282

Beaufort family, 15, 25, 142, 172, 206, 275genealogy of, 311

Beaumont, John, Lord Beaumont, 27Beaumont, William, Lord Beaumont, 27–28Bedford, duchess of. See Jacquetta of LuxembourgBedford, duke of. See John, duke of Bedford;

Neville, George; Tudor, JasperBerkeley, Isabel, Lady Berkeley, 188Berkeley, James, Lord Berkeley, 188Berkeley, Thomas, Lord Berkeley, 188Berkeley, William, Lord Berkeley, 187–188Berwick-on-Tweed, 28–29, 136, 137, 161, 229Black Death, 90“Black Will.” See Slaughter, WillBlacman, John, 60, 299Blore Heath, Battle of, 29, 178, 180, 256, 269Blount, Walter, Lord Mountjoy, 30Blount, William, 30Bones of 1674, 30–31, 271

See also Edward V; Plantagenet, Richard, dukeof York (d. c. 1483); Princes in the Tower

Bonville, William, Lord Bonville, 31–32, 68–69,70–71, 73, 219, 242

Bonville-Courtenay Feud. See Courtenay-BonvilleFeud

Booth, Lawrence, archbishop of York, 32–33, 88Booth, William, archbishop of York, 32, 88Bordeaux, 47–48Bosworth Field, Battle of, 16, 21, 33–34, 119, 125,

230, 236–237, 256, 257, 286See also The Ballad of Bosworth Field;The Rose of

England;The Song of Lady BessyBosworth Field (Rowse), 231Botyll, Robert, Prior of the Hospital of St. John of

Jerusalem, 144Bourchier, Henry, earl of Essex, 34–35, 51, 167,

278, 302Bourchier, Sir Thomas, 129Bourchier, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, 1,

35–36, 73, 88, 89, 209, 239, 283Brackenbury, Sir Robert, 16, 34, 36–37, 129, 214,

232Brandon, Sir William, 16, 34Bray, Sir Reginald, 37, 40Brereton, Humphrey, 252Brétigny, Treaty of, 126Brézé, Pierre de, Seneschal of Normandy, 3, 17,

37–38, 55, 76, 128, 163–164, 169Brittany, duke of. See Francis IIBrittany, 38–39, 97–98, 118, 119, 143, 276–277

Brut chronicle, 291Buck, Sir George, xxx, 231Buckingham, duchess of. See Stafford, Anne;

Woodville, KatherineBuckingham, duke of. See Stafford, Henry;

Stafford, HumphreyBuckingham’s Rebellion, 39–41, 119, 129, 225,

229, 232, 282, 290, 304Beaufort-Woodville conspiracy, 27, 37, 85, 87duke of Buckingham’s conspiracy, 167, 253

Burdett, Thomas, 56, 206Burgh, Sir Thomas, 55, 148, 296Burgundy, duchess of. See Margaret of YorkBurgundy, duke of. See Charles, duke of Burgundy;

Philip, duke of BurgundyBurgundy, 41–42, 90

under Charles the Bold, 54, 150fifteenth-century rulers of, 327Margaret of York, as duchess of, 160–161under Philip the Good, 202–203

Butler, Eleanor, 43–44, 249, 258Butler, James, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond, 32,

42–43, 70, 93, 166Butler, Sir Thomas, 43Butler Precontract, 43–44, 89, 217, 249, 258, 267,

283Bywell Castle, 122

Cade, Jack, 133–134, 287Cade’s Rebellion. See Jack Cade’s RebellionCaerleon, Lewis, 40, 282Caister Castle, siege of, 45, 60, 168, 197Calais, 3, 46–47, 75–76, 246, 273Cambridge, countess of. See Mortimer, AnneCambridge, earl of. See Richard, earl of CambridgeCamden, William, 231Camden Society, xxxiCampaigns, Duration of. See Military Campaigns,

Duration ofCanterbury, archbishop of. See Bourchier, Thomas;

Morton, JohnCanterbury Tales (Chaucer), 51Carlisle, 137Carpenter, Christine, xxxiiCarreg Cennen (fortress), 279Castillon, Battle of, 47–48, 113, 127Casualties, 48–49Catesby, William, 34, 49, 143, 152, 220Catherine of Aragon, 126, 279Catherine of Valois, 111, 127, 141, 273, 274, 276,

277Cato, Angelo, archbishop of Vienne, 284Caxton, William, 50–51 (illus.), 160, 267, 300

354 INDEX

Cecily of York, 33, 239Cely, Agnes, 51Cely, George, 51–52Cely, Richard (d. 1482), 51Cely, Richard (d. 1493), 51–52Cely, Robert, 51Cely Letters and Papers, 51–52, 197Charles II, King of England, 30Charles V, King of France, 126Charles VI, King of France, 41, 52, 111, 113, 126,

141, 202Charles VII, King of France, 37–38, 41, 48, 52–53,

95, 111, 127, 136, 158, 202Charles VIII, King of France, 33, 39, 53, 96, 143,

149, 282, 290–291Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, 42, 54, 83,

102–103, 150, 160, 162, 203, 221Charolais, count of. See Charles the Bold, duke of

BurgundyChaucer, Geoffrey, 51Chester, earldom of, 1Chinon Agreement, 38, 41, 47, 54–55, 149, 202Christine de Pisan, 50, 51, 300A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of King Edward

the Fourth. See Warkworth’s ChronicleChronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire, 55Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland

(Holinshed), xxx, 122, 247Church. See English ChurchClarence, duchess of. See Neville, IsabelClarence, duke of. See Lionel, duke of Clarence;

Plantagenet, GeorgeClifford, John, Lord Clifford, 57, 58, 91, 121, 151,

186, 203, 257, 289Clifford, Thomas, Lord Clifford, 58, 186, 203, 241Cloth Trade, 46, 51–52, 90Clyst, Battle of, 32, 71Commines, Philippe de, 162, 164, 165Commissions of Array, 7, 58–59, 179Commons (common people), 59–60, 100,

197–198See also Gentry; Peerage

Company of the Staple, 46“Compilation of the Meekness and Good Life of

King Henry VI” (Blacman), 60–61, 299“Complaint of the Commons of Kent,” 133Conway, Hugh, 40Conyers, Sir John, 235Conyers, Sir William, 79, 234, 235Cook, Sir Thomas, 61–62, 63, 135, 147, 303Coppini, Francesco, bishop of Terni, 62–63, 88Coppini Mission, 62–63Cornelius, John, 63

Cornelius Plot, 63, 128, 135, 147, 156, 297Council Meeting of 13 June 1483, 64–65, 110,

126, 167, 237, 250, 256, 271, 283Council of Florence, 139Council of the North, 190, 211Council of Wales, 85Court of Arches, 166Court of King’s Bench. See King’s Bench, Court ofCourtenay, Elizabeth, 70Courtenay, Henry, earl of Devon, 67, 128, 219,

254–255Courtenay, Henry, marquis of Exeter, 309Courtenay, John, earl of Devon, 67–68Courtenay, Katherine, countess of Devon, 309Courtenay, Peter, bishop of Winchester, 68Courtenay, Thomas, earl of Devon (d. 1458),

31–32, 68–69, 70–71, 73, 219, 246–247Courtenay, Thomas, earl of Devon (d. 1461), 30,

67, 69–70, 219Courtenay family, 67–71Courtenay-Bonville Feud, 31–32, 43, 69, 70–71,

219, 246Coventry, 71Coventry Parliament, 13, 71–72, 192, 287Crécy, Battle of, 5, 21, 126Cromer, William, 133Cromwell, Ralph, Lord Cromwell, 121, 183, 263Crowland Chronicle. See Croyland ChronicleCroyland Chronicle, 5, 44, 72, 230, 232, 239

Dartford Uprising, 69, 73–74, 92, 180, 208, 254,263, 287

Daubeney, Giles, 37, 129David ap Eynon, 107, 108De Facto Act, 74De Laudibus Legum Angliae (Fortescue), 95De Natura Legis Naturae (Fortescue), 95De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium

(Mancini). See The Usurpation of Richard III(Mancini)

De Retentionibus Illicitis, 224Declaration Upon Certain Writings Sent Out of

Scotland (Fortescue), 95Denton, William, xxix, 292Derby, countess of. See Beaufort, MargaretDerby, earl of. See Stanley, ThomasDevereux, Walter, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, 74–75,

119, 266, 274, 278Devon, countess of. See Courtenay, KatherineDevon, earl of. See Courtenay, Henry; Courtenay,

John; Courtenay, Thomas (d. 1458);Courtenay, Thomas (d. 1461); Stafford,Humphrey

INDEX 355

The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers, 50, 300Dighton, John, 214Dinham, John, Lord Dinham, 46, 75–76, 186Dorset, marquis of. See Grey, ThomasDouglas, James, earl of Douglas, 298Dudley, John, Lord Dudley, 29Dunstanburgh Castle, 76–77, 263

See also Alnwick Castle; Bamburgh CastleDymmock, Sir Thomas, 148, 296–297

Economy. See English EconomyEdgecote, Battle of, 49, 79–80, 121, 175, 235, 255Edmund, duke of York, 207, 307Ednyfed Fychan, 274Edward I, King of England, 58, 244, 293Edward II, King of England, 235Edward III, King of England, 25, 35, 126, 141, 207,

226, 254, 292, 307Edward IV, King of England, 80–82, 109, 119, 125,

128, 154, 168, 237, 293and act against retaining, 223, 224and attempts to regain Berwick, 28–29badges of, 15, 260–261battles of, 17–19, 148–149, 166, 263–265, 272bishops appointed by, 89and Brittany, 38–39brothers of, relationships with, 176–177, 205,

228–229and Burgundian alliance, 38–39, 54, 160,

202–203and Calais, 46–47and death of Henry VI, 114as depicted by Shakespeare, 117as depicted by Warkworth, 291as depicted by Vergil, 5as depicted in Croyland Chronicle, 72devalues coinage, 90exile of, in Burgundy, 102–103, 162, 282family of, 308fleet of, 170and France, 96, 150generalship of, 22, 99and Hanseatic League, 105–106illustrations of, 24, 80, 120, 153, 216, 222, 264invasion of France (1475), 6, 106and Ireland, 93–94, 131–132legitimacy of, 240, 269and Lincolnshire uprising (1470), 55and London, 147marriage of, 135, 173, 301mistresses of, 250and Paston family, 45, 196–197and persecution of Sir Thomas Cook, 61–62

overthrow of, 82–83, 156, 211, 220–221response to Cornelius Plot, 63restoration of, 42, 54, 83–84, 123–124,

200–201, 221royal council under, 63–64and Scotland, 137, 161, 298use of royal prerogative, 213and Wales, 108

Edward V, King of England, 30–31, 43, 84–85(illus.), 123, 214–215, 229–230, 249,282–284, 300, 309

Edward VI, King of England, 275Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales,84, 86–87,

221, 293and Act of Accord, 1, 203badge of, 15at Battle of St. Albans (1461), 242at Battle of Tewkesbury, 264–265birth of, 112, 113, 159council of, 32–33death of, 23, 265in exile, 95marriage of, 4, 82, 171, 176

Edward (ship), 170Egremont, Lord. See Percy, ThomasElizabeth I, queen of England, xxx, 275Elizabeth of York, queen of England, 49, 85, 87–88

(illus.), 119, 143, 220, 230, 252, 282, 302Ely, bishop of. See Grey, WilliamEmbracery, 20, 223Empingham, Battle of. See Losecote Field, Battle ofEnglish Church, 88–89, 243

fifteenth-century leaders of, 327English Economy, 89–90, 293English History (Vergil). See Anglica Historia (Vergil)Essex, earl of. See Bourchier, HenryEtaples, Treaty of, 39, 53, 97, 279, 291Eton College, 60, 111, 287Exeter, duke of. See Holland, HenryExeter, marquis of. See Courtenay, Henry

Fabyan, Robert, 147, 247Fabyan’s Chronicle. See The New Chronicles of

England and FranceFastolf, Sir John, 45, 196Fauconberg, Lord. See Neville, WilliamFauconberg, Thomas. See Neville, Thomas, bastard

of FauconbergFeats of Arms and Chivalry (Christine de Pisan), 51Ferdinand, King of Spain, 204, 291Ferrers of Chartley, Lord. See Devereux, WalterFerrybridge, Battle of, 91–92, 180, 186Fiennes, James, Lord Saye and Sele, 133

356 INDEX

First Protectorate, 92–93, 241, 254Fitzalan, William, earl of Arundel, 324Fitzgerald, Gerald, earl of Kildare, 93, 131–132,

211, 251, 258–259Fitzgerald, Thomas, earl of Desmond, 93–94, 131,

266Fitzgerald, Thomas, earl of Kildare, 93, 94, 131Flodden, Battle of, 126, 138Forest, Miles, 214Fortescue, Sir John, xxxi, 86, 94–95Fotheringhay, Treaty of, 137, 245France, 95–97

under Charles VII, 52–53under Charles VIII, 53fifteenth-century rulers of, 3271475 invasion of, 150, 162under Louis XI, 149–150

Francis I, King of France, 309Francis II, duke of Brittany, 55, 97–98, 118, 143,

150, 258, 276

Gairdner, James, 231Gavre, Battle of, 102Generalship, 99–100Gentry, 59–60, 89, 100, 162–163, 197–198

See also Commons (Common people); PeerageGeoffrey le Bel, count of Anjou, 206Gillingham, John, xxxi, xxxiiGloucester, duke of. See Humphrey, duke of

Gloucester; Richard IIIGodefroy of Bologne, 50Good Lordship, 20, 109, 145Goodman, Anthony, xxxiiGordon, Katherine, 137, 291Governance of England. See On the Governance of the

Kingdom of England (Fortescue)Grafton, Richard, 107, 122, 231, 281The Great Chronicle of London (Fabyan), 147Green, John, 214Green, John Richard, xxxi, 231Gregory, William, 148Gregory’s Chronicle, 7, 147, 148Grey, Edmund, earl of Kent, 101, 191, 302Grey of Ruthyn, Lord. See Grey, EdmundGrey, Richard, 220, 283, 285, 300, 301, 303Grey, Sir John, 101, 237, 301, 302Grey, Sir Ralph, 3, 17, 128, 266Grey, Thomas, marquis of Dorset, 101–102, 110,

179, 250, 260, 283, 301, 303Grey, William, bishop of Ely, 292Gruffydd ap Nicholas, 265Gruthuyse, Louis de, Seigneur de Gruthuyse, earl

of Winchester, 54, 102–103

Guildford, Richard, 37Guisnes (Calais fortress), 279

Hall, Edward, xxx, 57, 117, 231, 233, 247, 281Halsted, Caroline, xxx, 231Hammes (Calais fortress), 30, 76, 286Hanseatic League, 64, 81, 90, 103, 105–106, 169Harbingers, 106Hardyng, John, 106–107Hardyng’s Chronicle (Hardyng), 106–107, 122Harlech Castle, 86, 107–108, 120, 278Harness. See ArmorHarrington, Sir William, 252Hastings, William, Lord Hastings, 47, 49, 84, 102,

108–110 (illus.), 197, 250, 283, 303affinity of, 2, 3death of, 65, 126, 229, 271

Hawkins, John, 63Hedgeley Moor, Battle of, 26, 110, 122, 178, 236,

263Henry II, King of England, 206Henry IV, King of England, 25, 141, 173, 199, 206,

226, 307Henry V, King of England, 25, 52, 114, 127, 141,

149, 169, 173, 226, 254Henry VI, King of England, xxx, 25, 102,

111–112, 118, 122, 202and Act of Accord, 1badge of, 15at Battle of Northampton, 189–191at Battle of St. Albans (1455), 241at Battle of St. Albans (1461), 242bishops appointed by, 88, 287as a cause of the Wars of the Roses, 293court favorites of, 66and Courtenay-Bonville Feud, 70–71and Dartford Uprising, 73–74and De Facto Act, 74as depicted by Blacman, 60–61as depicted by Hardyng, 107as depicted by Shakespeare, 116as depicted by Warkworth, 291as depicted by Whethamstede, 299and Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset,

22–23failings of, as military leader, 99family of, 141–143fleet of, 169illness of, 48, 86, 92, 113illustrations of, 111, 153, 158, 191, 216imprisonment of, 271and Jack Cade’s Rebellion, 133and love-day of 1458, 150–151

INDEX 357

marriage of, 52, 127, 158murder of, 5, 113–114, 123, 308readeption of, 83, 220–221and Richard Plantagenet, duke of York,

207–209royal council under, 64use of the royal prerogative, 213wanderings of, 139, 189and William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk,

212–213Henry VI, Part 1 (Shakespeare), 114–116, 115

(illus.), 247–249, 295Henry VI, Part 2 (Shakespeare), 116, 133,

247–249Henry VI, Part 3 (Shakespeare), 117, 247–249Henry VII, King of England, xxx, 37, 53, 117–119,

118 (illus.), 120, 229–230and act against retaining, 223, 224, 302badges of, 15and Buckingham’s Rebellion, 40–41and the church, 89as depicted by Shakespeare, 233as depicted in Bosworth poems, 16, 236–237,

252exile of, in Brittany, 39, 97, 143, 167, 276–277family of, 274–275fleet of, 171and France, 96–97and Ireland, 93, 132and Lovell-Stafford Uprising, 152–153and Margaret of York, 152, 161marriage of, 88as member of Beaufort family, 25, 142, 308propaganda efforts of, 217and Richard III, 231royal council under, 64and Scotland, 137–138seeks canonization of Henry VI, 60, 114use of the royal prerogative, 213and Wales, 225, 289–290and Yorkist pretenders, 204, 212, 251, 290–291,

309See also Bosworth Field, Battle of

Henry VIII, King of England, xxx, 119, 123, 138,231, 275, 279, 290, 309

Henry of Bolingbroke. See Henry IVHerbert, Sir Richard, 79, 108, 121Herbert, William, earl of Pembroke, 64, 79,

107–108, 119–121 (illus.), 166, 235, 255,266, 274, 289

Heworth, Battle of, 6, 121, 183, 186, 199, 201Hexham, Battle of, 26, 122, 175, 178, 236, 263Hillyard, Robert, 234

“Historia Regum Angliae” (Rous), 238Historia Richardi Tertius (More), 122Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III

(Walpole), 231History of England (Hume), 294History of King Richard the Third (Buck), 231The History of King Richard III (More), xxx, 30, 40,

65, 109–110, 122–123, 147, 167, 214–215,231, 281

History of the Arrival of Edward IV, 8, 18 (illus.), 114,123–124, 215, 222

“History of the Kings of England.” See “HistoriaRegum Angliae” (Rous)

History of Troy, 50, 160Holinshed, Raphael, xxx,122, 231, 247Holland, Anne, duchess of Exeter, 124Holland, Henry, duke of Exeter, 124, 169, 178,

202, 255, 278, 302Holland, John, duke of Exeter, 124Hospital of St. Leonard,York, 234House of Commons. See ParliamentHouse of Lancaster. See Lancaster, house ofHouse of Lords. See ParliamentHouse of Tudor. See Tudor, house ofHouse of York. See York, house ofHoward, John, duke of Norfolk, 3, 16, 34, 59, 65,

125, 168, 209, 220, 252Howard, Thomas, earl of Surrey and duke of

Norfolk, 34, 65, 110, 125–126Humanism, xxxHume, David, 294Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, 25, 111, 115, 141,

212, 298Hundred Years War, 5, 20, 47–48, 59, 111, 114,

126–127, 165, 226, 293Hungerford, Robert, Lord Hungerford, 3, 49, 122,

127–128, 129, 236, 244Hungerford, Sir Thomas, 67, 128, 129Hungerford, Sir Walter, 129Huntington, earl of. See Grey, Thomas

Indenture, 6Ireland, 42, 93, 94, 131–132, 211–212, 251,

258–259, 266, 290–291Isabella, queen of Spain, 204, 291

Jack Cade’s Rebellion, 22, 73, 111, 116, 133–134,134 (illus.), 148, 208, 244

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, duchess of Bedford, 61,75, 134–135, 267, 302

James I, King of England. See James VI, King ofScotland

James I, King of Scotland, 136

358 INDEX

James II, King of Scotland, 11, 136, 139, 161,244–245

James III, King of Scotland, 17, 28–29, 33, 56, 76,136–137, 139, 161, 245, 298

James IV, King of Scotland, 33, 126, 137–138, 246,291

James VI, King of Scotland, 138, 231, 246James, M. R., 60Joan of Arc, 52, 212, 244John II, King of France, 41John, duke of Bedford, 111, 135, 141, 244, 304John, Lord of the Isles, 298John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, 22, 25, 141, 142,

173, 206, 207, 307John of Gloucester, 47, 76John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, 41, 52, 202Judde, John, 12

Kendall, Paul Murray, 31Kennedy, James, bishop of St. Andrews, 136, 139,

161, 245Kent, earl of. See Grey, Edmund; Neville, WilliamKildare, earl of. See Fitzgerald, Gerald; Fitzgerald,

Thomas“Kingmaker.” See Neville, Richard, earl of

WarwickKing’s Bench, Court of, xxxi, 94, 95, 152King’s College, 60, 111, 237King’s Council. See Royal council“King’s Men,” 64, 66Kingsford, C. L., xxxiKnights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem,

144Knockdoe, Battle of, 93Kynaston, Sir Roger, 269Kyrill, Sir Thomas, 242

“Lady Margaret” Chairs of Divinity, 27Lancaster, duke of. See John of GauntLancaster, house of, 131–132, 141–143, 142

(illus.), 206–207, 226, 289–290, 307–308genealogy of, 311See also Beaufort family

Landais, Pierre, 39, 97, 118, 119, 143, 282Lande, Sir Thomas de la, 296Lander, J. R., xxxiLangstrother, Sir John, Prior of the Hospital of St.

John of Jerusalem, 24 (illus.), 144Langstrother, Thomas, 144Langstrother, William, 144Le Morte d’Arthur (Malory), 51, 63, 155, 156League of the Public Weal, 39, 54, 150Lefevre, Raoul, 160

Life of Jason, 50Lincoln, bishop of. See Russell, JohnLincoln, earl of. See Pole, John de laLincolnshire Rebellion. See Welles UprisingLionel, duke of Clarence, 141, 206, 207, 226, 307Lisle, Lord. See Talbot ThomasLivery and maintenance, 2, 15–16, 19–20, 145,

223, 224Llywelyn the Great, Prince of Wales, 274London, 133, 145–147, 157, 184, 195, 244, 249

illustrations of, 146, 185, 227, 270London chronicles, 5, 147–148, 250London Weekend Television, trial of Richard III,

231Longbow. See ArchersLosecote Field, Battle of, 55, 148–149, 188, 205,

297Louis XI, King of France, 41–42, 96, 149–150, 149

(illus.), 162, 220–221and Angers Agreement, 3–4, 156and Brittany, 38, 97and Chinon Agreement, 54–55and conflict with Burgundy, 54, 160and George Plantagenet, duke of Clarence, 56

Louis XII, King of France, 309Louis de Bruges. See Gruthuyse, Louis deLove-Day of 1458, 26, 35, 112, 150–151, 159, 187,

200, 202, 208, 255Lovell, Francis,Viscount Lovell, 49, 151–152, 220,

243, 251, 259Lovell-Stafford Uprising, 152–153, 225, 243, 258Ludford Bridge, Battle of, 46, 75, 153–154, 154

(illus.), 208, 273Ludlow, 153Lynom, Thomas, 251

Magdalen College, 287Maine, County of, 52, 111Maintenance. See Livery and maintenanceMalory, Sir Thomas, 51, 63, 155–156Mancini, Dominic, 109, 173, 230, 250, 284, 300Manner and Guiding of the Earl of Warwick at Angers,

3, 156, 217, 222March, countess of. See Mortimer, PhilippaMarch, earl of. See Edward IV; Mortimer, EdmundMarch on London, 59–60, 89–90, 146, 157, 215,

242Margaret of Anjou, queen of England, 3, 17,

37–38, 68, 71, 84, 86, 158–160, 158 (illus.),221

and Act of Accord, 1and Angers Agreement, 3–4, 156badge of, 15

INDEX 359

and Battle of St. Albans (1461), 242capture of, 265and Chinon Agreement, 54–55and Coventry Parliament, 71–72as depicted by Shakespeare, 116and First Protectorate, 92and illness of Henry VI, 113leadership of court party, 66, 293and London, 145–146, 157and love-day of 1458, 151marriage of, 52, 111, 127, 212pregnancy of, 48response to Coppini Mission, 62and Richard Plantagenet, duke of York,

208–209in Scotland, 136–137, 139, 161and William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk,

212–213and Yorkist propaganda, 215, 217

Margaret of York, duchess of Burgundy, 42, 54, 93,137, 152, 160–161, 173, 212, 251, 291

Markham, John, 61Mary I, queen of England, 275Mary, duchess of Burgundy, 42, 56, 205Mary of Gueldres, queen of Scotland, 41, 76, 102,

136, 137, 139, 161–162, 202, 245, 298Master of Ordnance, 12Maximilian of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor,

42, 309McFarlane, K. B., xxxi, xxxii, 19–20, 292–293Memoirs (Commines), 162, 164, 165Men-at-Arms, 162–163, 295Mercenaries, 163–164, 166, 259Merchant Adventurers, 50Middleham Castle, 152, 173, 175, 190, 255Military Campaigns, Duration of, 59, 164–165,

165 (illus.)A Mirror for Magistrates, 247Moleyns, William, Lord Moleyns, 127Mons Meg, 11Montagu, marquis of. See Neville, JohnMontague, Lord. See Pole, HenryMontlhéry, Battle of, 38Moral Proverbs (Christine de Pisan), 50, 300More, Sir Thomas, xxx, 40, 65, 110, 122–123, 166,

214, 231, 250, 281Mortimer, Anne, countess of Cambridge, 207,

308Mortimer, Edmund, earl of March, 206, 226Mortimer, John. See Cade, JackMortimer, Philippa, countess of March, 226Mortimer, Sir Edmund, 226Mortimer family, 15, 133, 141, 207, 226, 289, 308

Mortimer’s Cross, Battle of, 43, 48, 120, 166, 254,260, 266, 277, 289

Morton, John, Cardinal archbishop of Canterbury,37, 40, 65, 89, 98, 123, 143, 166–167, 253,283

Mountjoy, Lord. See Blount, WalterMowbray, Anne, duchess of Norfolk, 125, 168, 209Mowbray, John, duke of Norfolk (d. 1461), 45, 92,

167–168, 196, 272Mowbray, John, duke of Norfolk (d. 1476), 45, 83,

125, 168, 209Musgrave, John, 232

Navy, 169–171, 170 (illus.), 184Neville, Anne, queen of England, 4, 82, 160,

171–172 (illus.), 176, 177, 204, 205, 220,228–230

Neville, Cecily, duchess of York, 80, 160, 167,172–173, 177, 205, 207, 221, 228, 250

Neville, George, archbishop of York, 80, 88–89,144, 174–175

Neville, George, duke of Bedford, 87, 176Neville, Isabel, duchess of Clarence, 56, 171, 176,

177–178, 177 (illus.), 204, 205, 235Neville, John, 179Neville, John, earl of Northumberland and marquis

of Montagu, 83–84, 110, 121, 175, 178–179,183, 200, 234, 242, 255, 263, 302

Neville, John, Lord Neville, 59, 91, 179–180, 288Neville, Katherine, duchess of Norfolk, 302Neville, Ralph, earl of Westmorland (d. 1425), 172,

173, 175, 179, 180Neville, Ralph, earl of Westmorland (d. 1484),

325Neville, Richard, earl of Salisbury, 29, 67, 92, 121,

153–154 (illus.), 172, 180–181, 208, 241,256, 269, 288

Neville, Richard, earl of Warwick, 57, 61, 92, 116,139, 151, 153 (illus.), 181–183, 181 (illus.),208

accusations against duchess of Bedford, 135attainted at Coventry Parliament, 71badge of, 15battles of, 17–19, 91, 153–154, 190–191, 241,

242, 254, 272in Calais, 46–47and coup attempt of 1469, 79, 175, 176, 205,

234–235and coup attempt of 1470, 148–149, 205,

296–297and creation of the Manner and Guiding, 156and Dartford Uprising, 73dealings with France, 95–96

360 INDEX

death of, 19, 84dispute with bishops of Durham, 33execution of opponents, 49exploits Coppini Mission, 62,N>63generalship of, 22, 99and Hanseatic League, 105and Lincolnshire uprising (1470), 55and London, 146naval exploits of, 169opposition to “King’s Men,” 64, 121, 255and overthrow of Edward IV, 82–83propaganda efforts of, 215, 217and restoration of Edward IV, 83–84and Readeption, 112and Second Protectorate, 246at siege of Alnwick, 3at siege of Bamburgh, 17and Wales, 289and the Woodville family, 302–303

Neville, Sir Humphrey, 175–176Neville, Sir Thomas, 121, 178, 183–184, 255Neville, Thomas, bastard of Fauconberg, 3, 47, 84,

124, 147, 184, 185 (illus.), 271, 292Neville, William, Lord Fauconberg and earl of

Kent, 3, 6, 75, 91, 155, 174, 180, 184–186Neville family, 2, 173–174, 208

genealogy of, 312Neville Inheritance Dispute, 171–172, 176–177,

178, 205Neville-Percy Feud, 89, 112, 121, 151, 174, 180,

186–187, 198, 201–202, 255The New Chronicles of England and France (Fabyan),

147, 247Nibley Green, Battle of, 60, 187–188Nobility. See PeerageNorfolk, duchess of. See Neville, KatherineNorfolk, duke of. See Howard, John; Howard,

Thomas; Mowbray, John (d. 1461);Mowbray, John (d. 1476)

Norham Castle, 3, 17, 38, 76, 110North of England, 188–190, 232–233, 292Northampton, Battle of, 48, 62, 101, 190–191, 191

(illus.), 202, 254Northern Affinity of Richard III. See Richard IIINorthumberland Campaigns, 1461-1464. See

Alnwick Castle; Bamburgh Castle;Dunstanburgh Castle; Hedgeley Moor,Battle of; Hexham, Battle of

Northumberland, earl of. See Neville, John; Percy,Henry (d. 1455); Percy, Henry (d. 1461);Percy, Henry (d. 1489)

Normandy, Seneschal of. See Brézé, Pierre deNottingham, earl of. See Berkeley, William

Oglander, Sir John, 294“Old Lords,” 139, 245On the Governance of the Kingdom of England

(Fortescue), xxxi, 95The Order of Chivalry, 50Ormond, earl of. See Butler, James“Overmighty Subjects,” 292–293Owain ap Maredudd. See Tudor, OwenOxford Conspiracy, 193, 266, 285

Parliament, 195, 213and Act of Accord, 1and acts against retaining, 223, 224and acts of attainder, 13Coventry Parliament, 71–72and De Facto Act, 74and deposition of Richard II, 226and impeachment of Suffolk, 212–213, 263Readeption Parliament, 221sends deputation to Henry VI, 113, 287and Yorkist protectorates, 92, 246

Parliament of Devils. See Coventry ParliamentPaston, John (d. 1466), 168, 196, 219Paston, John (d. 1504), 45, 196Paston, Sir John (d. 1479), 45, 168, 196Paston family, 45, 66, 211Paston Letters, xxxi, 45, 52, 66, 167, 196–197, 196

(illus.), 259Paul’s Cross, 174, 249, 283Pavia, Battle of, 309Payne, Henry A., 115 (illus.)Peerage, 89, 162–163, 197–198

consequences of involvement in civil wars,323–325

dynastic affiliations of, 319–321See also Commons (common people); Gentry

Pembroke, earl of. See Herbert, William; Tudor,Jasper

Penman, Sharon Kay, 231Percy, Henry, earl of Northumberland (d. 1455),

121, 186, 198–199, 201, 241Percy, Henry, earl of Northumberland (d. 1461),

57, 151, 187, 199–200, 202, 210, 272, 288Percy, Henry, earl of Northumberland (d. 1489),

34, 84, 179, 200–201, 210, 220, 230, 232,234, 259

Percy, Richard, 121, 186, 187, 255Percy, Sir Henry (Hotspur), 199, 226Percy, Sir Ralph, 17, 76, 110, 263Percy, Thomas, Lord Egremont, 121, 124, 151, 183,

186–187, 191, 199, 200, 201–202, 255Percy family, 3, 17, 76, 186, 198–202, 210, 235Percy-Neville Feud. See Neville-Percy Feud

INDEX 361

Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy, 41Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, 41–42, 54, 55,

160, 202–203, 221Philip the Handsome, duke of Burgundy, 309Picquigny, Treaty of, 87, 150, 160, 162, 167, 229Pierre, count of St. Pol, 135Pius II (Pope), 62, 266Plantagenet, Edmund, earl of Rutland, 57, 154,

203, 209, 289Plantagenet, Edward, earl of Warwick, 119, 153,

161, 178, 204, 211, 251, 286, 291, 309Plantagenet, Edward, Prince of Wales (d. 1484),

131, 211, 230Plantagenet, Elizabeth. See Elizabeth of York; Pole,

Elizabeth de laPlantagenet, George, duke of Clarence, 44, 137,

160, 204–206, 258and Angers Agreement, 3–4badge of, 15and coup attempt of 1469, 234–235and coup attempt of 1470, 148–149, 296–297brothers of, relationships with, 80–82, 171–172,

176–177, 228–229execution of, 5, 56illustrations of, 205, 216legitimacy of, 240, 269and Lincolnshire uprising (1470), 55marriage of, 177–178and Readeption, 221

Plantagenet, house of, 141–143, 206–207,307–308

Plantagenet, Margaret. See Margaret of York; Pole,Margaret

Plantagenet, Richard, duke of York (d. 1460), 86,113, 124, 127, 207–209, 207 (illus.), 228

and Act of Accord, 1adopts Plantagenet surname, 206alliance with Nevilles, 174, 180–181, 182attainted at Coventry Parliament, 71badge of, 15at Battle of St. Albans (1455), 241at Battle of Wakefield, 288–289and Calais, 46claim to throne of, 1, 206–207, 226and Courtenay-Bonville feud, 69, 70–71and Dartford Uprising, 73–74as depicted by Shakespeare, 115, 116, 247–248family of, 308First Protectorate of, 92–93and Ireland, 93–94, 131, 212and Jack Cade’s Rebellion, 133and love-day of 1458, 150–151marriage of, 172

and Neville-Percy feud, 255opposition to court, 66, 112, 141, 159possible involvement in Suffolk’s death, 213propaganda efforts of, 215Second Protectorate of, 246–247

Plantagenet, Richard, duke of York (d. c. 1483),30–31, 85, 137, 168, 209, 214–215,229–230, 283–284, 290–291, 309

Plummer, Charles, xxxi, 19, 292Plumpton, Sir Robert, 210Plumpton, Sir William (d. 1480), 210Plumpton, William (d. 1547), 210Plumpton Letters and Papers, 52, 197, 210Poitiers, Battle of, 5, 126Pole, Edmund de la, earl of Suffolk, 212, 279, 309Pole, Elizabeth de la, duchess of Suffolk, 210, 211,

309Pole, Henry, Lord Montegue, 309Pole, John de la, duke of Suffolk, 83, 196, 210–211,

309Pole, John de la, earl of Lincoln, 93, 131, 211–212,

217, 251, 259, 309Pole, Margaret, countess of Salisbury, 178, 309Pole, Richard de la, 212, 309Pole, William de la, duke of Suffolk, 23, 111, 116,

133, 158, 210, 212–213, 259, 263Pole, William de la, 309Popes. See Alexander VI; Pius IIPostan, M. M., 293Poynings, Lord. See Percy, Henry (d. 1461)Prerogative, 213Princes in the Tower, 85, 209, 214–215, 229–230,

231, 271, 279, 309Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. See

Langstrother, Sir JohnPropaganda, 51, 90, 123–124, 146, 157, 215–217,

216 (illus.), 226, 231, 246Protectorates of the duke of York. See First

Protectorate; Second ProtectoratePugh, T. B., 293

The Quarrel of the Warring Roses (Oglander), 294“Queen’s Gold,” 61

Radford, Nicholas, 32, 69, 70–71, 219Rastell, William, 122Ratcliffe, Sir Richard, 16, 34, 49, 152, 220, 232,

285, 300Readeption, 83–84, 95, 175, 220–221Rebellion of 1483. See Buckingham’s RebellionRecognizances, 224Recruitment of Armies. See Armies, Recruitment

of

362 INDEX

Recueil des Chroniques et Anchiennes Istories de laGrant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre(Waurin), 8, 221–223, 222 (illus.)

Recueil des Histoires de Troie (Lefevre), 160Redman, Edward, 232Registers (Whethamstede), 298–299René, duke of Anjou, 158Retainers, 60, 100, 145, 163, 223, 292

See also Affinity; Badges; Bastard feudalism;Livery and maintenance

Retaining, Acts against, 145, 223, 224Rhys ap Thomas, 225–226, 236, 266Richard II, King of England, 25, 115, 126, 206,

224, 226, 235, 307deposition of, 141, 142 (illus.), 226, 227 (illus.),

292Richard III, King of England,16, 33, 36, 102, 119,

125, 128, 167, 228–230, 293–294badge of, 15 (illus.)at Battle of Bosworth Field, 33–34, 256–258, 296at Battle of Tewkesbury, 265and Brittany, 39brothers of, relationships with, 80–82, 176–177,

205–206and Buckingham’s Rebellion, 39–41, 253and Butler Precontract, 43–44and Calais, 47chief advisors of, 49, 151–152, 220and the church, 89, 237and council meeting of 13 June 1483, 65, 110,

250death of, 225and death of Henry VI, 114, 292as depicted by Commines, 162as depicted by Hall, 281as depicted by Mancini, 284as depicted by More, 122–123as depicted by Rous, 238as depicted by Shakespeare, 116, 117, 233,

247–249as depicted by Vergil, 5as depicted in Bosworth poems, 16, 236–237,

252as depicted in Croyland Chronicle, 72and Elizabeth of York, 87–88and France, 96historical views of, 230–231illustrations of, 216, 222, 229and invasion of Scotland (1482), 8, 29and John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, 211–212and London, 147marriage of, 171–172and mother, 173, 269

motto of, 16northern affinity of, 172, 229, 232–233and princes in the Tower, 30–31, 84–85, 209,

214–215, 283–284propaganda efforts of, 217reputation of, 230resemblance to father, 250and Scotland, 137and usurpation of 1483, 267–269, 282–284,

300–301and Wales, 225, 289–290and Woodville family, 300, 301–304See also Bosworth Field, Battle of

Richard III as Duke of Gloucester and King of England(Halsted), 231

Richard III: England’s Black Legend (Seward), 231Richard III (Shakespeare), xxx, 40, 122, 172, 214,

230–231, 233, 247–249, 253, 281Richard III Society, 231Richard, earl of Cambridge, 207Richmond, countess of. See Beaufort, MargaretRichmond, earl of. See Henry VII; Tudor, EdmundRivers, Earl. See Woodville, Anthony; Woodville,

RichardRobin of Holderness, 234Robin of Holderness Rebellion, 234Robin of Redesdale (Robin Mend-All), 79,

234–235Robin of Redesdale Rebellion, 55, 79, 121, 179,

234–235, 255, 292, 297Rogers, Thorold, xxxiRoos, Thomas, Lord Roos, 33, 49, 122, 128,

235–236Rose Emblems, xxix, 15, 115–116, 294–295

illustrations of, 294, 307The Rose of England, 236–237Ross, Charles, xxxi, 293Rotherham, Thomas, archbishop of York, 65, 89,

237–238, 283Rous, John, 231, 238Rous Rolls, 238Rowse, A. L., 231Roxburgh Castle, 136, 161Royal council, 63–64, 100Royal court, 42, 66, 100, 196Russell, John, bishop of Lincoln, 65, 72, 89, 237,

239, 251Rutland, earl of. See Plantagenet, Edmund

St. Albans, Abbot of. See Whethamstede, JohnSt. Albans, Battle of (1455), 23, 25–26, 48, 58, 241,

246, 254, 299St. Albans, Battle of (1461), 32, 157, 242, 273

INDEX 363

St. John, Elizabeth, 93St. Michael’s Mount, attack on, 28, 286, 292St. Paul’s Cathedral, 73, 157, 174, 249, 303St. Pol, count of. See Pierre, count of St. PolSalisbury, bishop of. See Woodville, LionelSalisbury, countess of. See Plantagenet, MargaretSalisbury, earl of. See Neville, RichardSanctuary, 83, 84, 143, 144, 209, 229, 243, 265Sandal Castle, 236, 288 (illus.)Sauchieburn, Battle of, 137, 246Saye and Sele, Lord. See Fiennes, JamesScales, Lord. See Scales, Thomas; Woodville,

AnthonyScales,Thomas, Lord Scales, 127, 134, 244, 270, 300Scotland, 7–8, 106–107, 112, 136–138, 139,

161–162, 229, 244–246, 291, 298fifteenth-century rulers of, 327See also Berwick-on-Tweed

Scott, Sir Walter, 294Second Protectorate, 241, 246–247Seward, Desmond, 231Sforza, Francesco, duke of Milan, 7, 62Shakespeare, William, xxx, 40, 114–117, 133, 172,

214, 230–231, 247–249 (illus.), 281, 295Shaw, Edmund, 249Shaw, Dr. Ralph, 89, 249–250, 283Shaw’s Sermon, 217, 249–250, 283Sheriff Hutton, 88, 173, 204Shore, Elizabeth (Jane), 65, 110, 250–251Shore, William, 250Short History of the English People (Green), xxxiShrewsbury, Battle of, 199, 254Shrewsbury, countess of. See Talbot, MargaretShrewsbury, earl of. See Talbot, George; Talbot, JohnSimnel, Lambert, 42, 93, 119, 131, 152, 204, 225,

251, 258–259, 290Simnel, Thomas, 251Simonds, Richard, 251, 258Skelton, John, 294Slaughter, Will, 214Sluys, Battle of, 126Smith, Sir Thomas, xxxSocial Classes. See Commons (common people);

Gentry; PeerageSomerset, duke of. See Beaufort, Edmund (d.

1455); Beaufort, Edmund (d. 1471);Beaufort, Henry

The Song of Lady Bessy, 88, 223, 236, 252Stafford, Anne, duchess of Buckingham, 30Stafford, Henry, duke of Buckingham, 37, 62, 201,

214, 229, 249, 252–253, 285, 290, 302and Buckingham’s Rebellion, 39–41, 87, 119,

167, 209, 225, 283

Stafford, Humphrey, duke of Buckingham, 6, 26,35, 155, 173, 190, 191, 241, 253–254

Stafford, Humphrey, earl of Devon, 67, 75, 79, 128,254–255

Stafford, John, earl of Wiltshire, 325Stafford, Sir Henry, 26Stafford, Sir Humphrey, 152, 243Stafford, Sir Thomas, 152, 243Stamford Bridge, Battle of, 178, 183, 187, 202,

255–256Stanhope, Maud, Lady Willoughby, 121, 183Stanley, George, Lord Strange, 16, 34, 236, 252,

256, 257Stanley, Sir William, 16, 34, 119, 223, 230, 236,

252, 256, 257Stanley, Thomas, earl of Derby, 16, 33–34, 65, 119,

198, 220, 230, 252, 256–257, 283Star Chamber, 64Statute of Winchester, 58Steelyard, 105Stillington, Robert, bishop of Bath and Wells, 33,

43–44,89, 97, 118, 249, 257–258, 283Stoke, Battle of, 93, 119, 132, 152, 204, 225, 251,

258–259, 286, 309Stonor, Sir William, 259–260Stonor, Thomas, 259Stonor Letters and Papers, xxxi, 52, 197, 259–260Stow, John, 231Strange, Lord. See Stanley, GeorgeStuart, Alexander, duke of Albany, 29, 137, 245Stuart, house of. See also James II; James III; James

IV; Scotland; Stuart, AlexanderStubbs, William, xxxi, 231Suffolk, duchess of. See Pole, Elizabeth de laSuffolk, duke of. See Pole, John de la; Pole, William

de laSuffolk, earl of. See Pole, Edmund de laSun in Splendor/Sunburst Badge, 166, 260–261The Sunne in Splendour (Penman), 231Surrey, earl of. See Howard, ThomasSwynford, Katherine, 22, 25, 142

Tailboys, Sir William, 3, 263Talbot, George, earl of Shrewsbury, 325Talbot, John, earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1453), 43,

47–48, 127, 158 (illus.)Talbot, John, earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1460), 191Talbot, John, earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1473), 325Talbot, Margaret, countess of Shrewsbury, 188Talbot, Thomas, Lord Lisle, 187–188Tewkesbury, Battle of, 8, 11, 22, 23, 84, 221,

263–265, 264 (illus.), 292, 297Thomas ap Gruffydd, 225, 265–266

364 INDEX

Tiptoft, John, earl of Worcester, 3, 94, 131, 193,266–267, 267 (illus.), 286, 291–292

Titulus Regius, xxix, 43, 135, 211, 258, 267–269,268 (illus.), 283

Touchet, James, Lord Audley, 29, 154, 269Tours, Treaty of. See Chinon AgreementTower of London, 30, 56, 85, 110, 127, 204, 214,

226, 244, 269–271illustrations of, 227, 270

Towns, 238, 271–272Towton, Battle of, 6, 7, 21, 48, 91–92, 168, 186,

272Trinity (ship), 300Trollope, Sir Andrew, 46, 86, 154, 242, 272, 273Troyes, Treaty of, 52, 127, 141Tuddenham, Sir Thomas, 145, 266Tudor, Arthur, Prince of Wales, 126, 257, 290, 309Tudor, Edmund, earl of Richmond, 26, 117, 119,

142, 225, 266, 273–274, 276, 289Tudor, Henry, earl of Richmond. See Henry VIITudor, house of, 213, 274–275, 275 (illus.), 277,

289genealogy of, 313

Tudor, Jasper, earl of Pembroke and duke ofBedford, 26, 33, 97, 107–108, 118, 119, 152,166, 225, 259, 266, 274, 276–277, 289–290

Tudor, Margaret. See Beaufort, MargaretTudor, Margaret, queen of Scotland, 126, 138, 246Tudor, Owen, 142, 166, 273, 274, 276, 277Tully of Old Age, 50Tunstall, Sir Richard, 6, 60, 108, 277–278Tuthill Hill, Battle of. See Twt Hill, Battle ofTwt Hill, Battle of, 75, 107, 120, 124, 278–279,

289Twynho, Ankarette, 56, 178, 206Tyrell, Sir James, 37, 41, 47, 214, 279, 309

The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious Families ofLancaster and York (Hall), xxx, 57, 117, 231,233, 247, 281

Urswick, Christopher, 40, 143, 281–282Usurpation of 1483, 85, 209, 229–230, 249–250,

267–269, 282–284The Usurpation of Richard III (Mancini), 230, 250,

284Utrecht, Treaty of, 106

Vaughan, Sir Thomas, 64, 283, 285, 300Vere, John de, earl of Oxford (d. 1462), 108, 193,

266Vere, John de, earl of Oxford (d. 1513), 19, 34, 83,

108, 193, 237, 259, 267, 285–286, 292Vere, Sir Aubrey de, 108, 193, 266

Vergil, Polydore, xxx, 4–5, 40, 61, 173, 214, 231,249, 279, 281

Wainfleet, William, bishop of Winchester, 61, 73,287

Wakefield, Battle of, 57, 59, 157, 179, 181, 184,203, 208, 288–289, 288 (illus.)

Wales, 74–75, 107–108, 119–121, 166, 225,265–266, 273–279, 285, 289–290

Wales, Prince of. See Edward V; Edward ofLancaster; Llywelyn the Great; Plantagenet,Edward; Tudor, Arthur

Walpole, Horace, xxx, 231Warbeck, Perkin, 53, 93, 119, 132, 161, 204, 225,

246, 257, 290–291 (illus.)Wark Castle, 136Warkworth, John, 291–292Warkworth’s Chronicle, 114, 291–292Wars of the Roses

battles of, 20–22causes of, 226, 292–294chronology of, xxxiii–xxxviiiand the church, 88–89dating of, xxxii

economic impact of, 89–90historical fiction on, 331–335historiography of, xxix–xxxii

military campaigns of, 164–165naming of, 115–116, 294–295, 294 (illus.)

Warwick, earl of. See Beauchamp, Richard; Neville,Richard; Plantagenet, Edward

Waurin, Jean de, 221–223, 222 (illus.)Weaponry, 20–21, 163, 295–296Welles, Lionel, Lord Welles, 296Welles, Richard, Lord Welles, 55, 148, 296–297Welles, Sir Robert, 55, 148, 149, 296–297Welles Uprising, 55, 292, 296–297“Well-Willers,” 223Wenlock, John, Lord Wenlock, 23, 47, 63, 75, 144,

186, 265, 297–298West Country, 31–32, 221, 232, 264–265Westminster, 1, 145Westminster-Ardtornish, Treaty of, 137, 161, 245,

298Westmorland, countess of. See Beaufort, JoanWestmorland, earl of. See Neville, RalphWhethamstede, John, Abbot of St. Albans,

298–299White Boar Badge, 15 (illus.)White Tower. See Tower of LondonWilford, Ralph, 204William the Conqueror, King of England, 269Willoughby, Lady. See Stanhope, Maud

INDEX 365

Wiltshire, earl of. See Butler, James; Stafford, JohnWinchester, bishop of. See Beaufort, Henry;

Courtenay, Peter; Wainfleet, WilliamWinchester, earl of. See Gruthuyse, Louis deWindsor, 111Wode, John, 12Woodville, Anne, 302Woodville, Anthony, Earl Rivers, 3, 39, 61, 135,

147, 184, 197, 220, 253, 282–283, 299–301,302

Woodville, Eleanor, 302Woodville, Elizabeth, queen of England, 43–44, 65,

101–102, 135, 237, 243, 250, 251, 283,301–302

and George, duke of Clarence, 56in sanctuary, 83, 84, 229and Sir Thomas Cook, 61

Woodville, Katherine, duchess of Buckingham,253, 302

Woodville, Lionel, bishop of Salisbury, 129,303–304

Woodville, Margaret, 302Woodville, Mary, 303Woodville, Richard, 144

Woodville, Richard, Earl Rivers, 46, 75, 79, 135,169, 253, 302, 304

Woodville, Sir Edward, 283, 303Woodville, Sir John, 79, 302, 304Woodville family, 81, 135, 147, 229, 260, 283,

299–301, 302–303, 304–305genealogy of, 314

Worcester, bishop of. See Alcock, JohnWorcester, earl of. See Tiptoft, JohnWorde, Wynkyn de, 51Wren, Sir Christopher, 31

York, archbishop of. See Booth, Lawrence; Booth,William; Neville, George; Rotherham,Thomas

York, duchess of. See Neville, CecilyYork, duke of. See Edmund, duke of York;

Plantagenet, Richard (d. 1460); Plantagenet,Richard (d. c. 1483)

York, house of, 131–132, 141–143, 206–207, 208,209, 289–290, 307–308, 307 (illus.)

genealogy of, 315heirs of, after 1485, 308–309

“Young Lords,” 139, 245

366 INDEX

John A. Wagner has taught U.S. and British his-tory at Phoenix College and at Arizona StateUniversity. He is the author of The Devon Gentle-man: The Life of Sir Peter Carew (1998) and the

Historical Dictionary of the Elizabethan World(1999). He holds a B.A. from the University ofWisconsin–Oshkosh and an M.A. and Ph.D.from Arizona State University.

367

About the Author