Joan of Kent: The First Princess of Wales

by Penny Lawne

  The duration of the rising had been barely more than two weeks, with the rebels having control of London for two full days, but it had been the most dramatic and dangerous threat to the Crown since Edward II was deposed, far exceeding the repeated fears of French invasion, and its consequences were politically and socially far-reaching. On a purely personal level, it changed Joan’s attitude towards Richard. Hitherto she had been protective and intervened whenever she felt she needed to, and had relied on the support of her brother-in-law. The events of those two weeks in June showed her that Richard could take care of himself. It was notable that the revolt had been directed against government and royal officials and had not been against Richard or his family other than Gaunt. Despite the criticism and violence meted out to his ministers and Gaunt’s property and retainers, none had been directed towards Richard himself. Richard had undoubtedly benefited from his parents’ popularity and the esteem and affection with which his mother was regarded – Joan had, after all, encountered the rebels on two separate occasions and on neither occasion had there been any suggestion she might come to harm – but in addition Richard had shown that he was more than equal to defending himself. Surrounded by advisers who failed to agree among themselves and were unable to provide clear direction, with his powerful uncle Gaunt absent, Richard had shown he was his father’s son with his display of leadership and bravery at Smithfield, and survived the crisis. Joan had been there to guide and support him but at the end of the day he had proved that he had the strength of character and maturity to deal with the situation. Proud of her son, Joan would have been reassured that Richard was well able to take care of himself.

  The rebels who had poured into London had come from Kent and Essex and, inevitably, these counties received the most attention in the immediate aftermath. For two weeks after the dispersal of the rebels from London there was continued active resistance in Essex, quashed by forces commanded by Thomas of Woodstock and Sir Thomas Percy. Subsequently a commission headed by the new chief justice, Robert Tresilian, meted out severe punishment. Richard was in Chelmsford in Essex and then at Havering for much of this time, probably as a deliberate policy to make a show of royal force and restore his authority; according to Froissart he then moved to Kent. Richard entrusted the restoration of order in Kent to his older half-brother, Thomas, and on 17 June the Earl of Kent was duly dispatched with a commission to enforce the peace and hear indictments in Maidstone and Rochester, reaching Canterbury by 8 July, generally re-establishing royal authority.97 On 2 July all the charters granted by Richard were formally rescinded and cancelled. In the immediate aftermath of the revolt a newly constituted council was formed under the leadership of William Courtenay, Bishop of London, who became chancellor in August. In view of the chaos wreaked by the rebellion it was hardly surprising that the restoration of order brought in its wake repressive policies aimed at subjugating those who had dared to flout authority, but there were also those who realised that a more conciliatory long-term approach was needed. On 30 August Richard declared an end to all the arrests and executions. By the time Parliament was called in November at Westminster, the uprising and its repercussions were superficially well and truly over, though the focus of attention for all those attending was inevitably centred on the revolt and the response to it.

  Joan’s whereabouts in the weeks following the revolt are not known. There was no ostensible reason why she should have accompanied Richard as he travelled first to Essex, then to Kent, and then on to St Albans, where the abbey had survived remarkably unscathed from the local populace’s fury due largely to the calm competence of the abbot, Thomas de la Mare. With admirable sangfroid de la Mare had talked to the local townsfolk, offering them bread and ale and agreeing to their demands, and so successfully stalled for time peaceably until order was restored. It would not have been surprising if Joan had chosen to retire to Kennington to recover from the harrowing and turbulent two weeks. Nevertheless it seems more likely that she chose to stay at Richard’s side, as she had done throughout the revolt. Although Richard had handled himself well during the crisis it had still been a terrifying episode and there could be no assurance initially that his safety was secure. Having sent so many of the nobility, including his uncle Thomas of Woodstock and his half-brother Thomas, around the country with royal commissions to restore order, Richard had a depleted entourage. He may well have been comforted by his mother’s presence, though if Joan was with her son, it is most unlikely that she would have witnessed the gruesome punishment meted out to John Ball on 15 July in St Albans where he was hanged, drawn and quartered in the king’s presence. By August Richard and Joan were in London, attending the funeral of his old tutor Guichard d’Angle, Earl of Huntingdon, and Gaunt had returned from Scotland.98 Joan’s strong friendship with her brother-in-law was behind Richard’s resilient defence of his unpopular uncle in July 1381 when Richard issued a writ denying defamatory reports against Gaunt ‘whom the king declares to be most zealous in his cause’.99 But despite Joan’s affection for her brother-in-law the revolt showed her a different side to Gaunt. She had known for years that he was unpopular, but it can never have been more strikingly evident than in the venom and anger directed towards him by the rebels, symbolised by their burning of the Savoy palace. Far from providing Richard with protection, his very name and their close association had endangered the king. His own family had been imperilled. His wife, Duchess Constance, had fled to Pontefract Castle where the keeper refused to admit her, forcing her to continue on to Knaresborough Castle. Katherine Swynford vanished and on his return Gaunt publicly repented of his adultery with her. For the duration of the rebellion Gaunt had been in Scotland, initially agreeing and concluding his official business in negotiating a truce with the Scots. When news of the rebellion reached him he had left, intending to return south, but when the Earl of Northumberland refused to allow the duke to stay in his territory (presumably for fear of reprisals for harbouring such an unpopular noble), he was forced to seek protection back in Scotland and did not leave until summoned by his nephew, indicating it was safe for him to do so.

  Joan must have been taken aback to find that Gaunt’s main concern on his arrival back in London was his quarrel with Percy (the Earl of Northumberland). Furious and humiliated by his treatment, as soon as Gaunt presented himself to his nephew he complained about his treatment by Percy, and alleged that the earl had spread rumours that Gaunt was in league with the Scots. The argument between the two men continued all summer, and when the royal council convened at Berkhamsted in October Gaunt repeated his allegations. The problem had not been resolved by the time Parliament met in November, with Gaunt demanding an apology from Northumberland and insisting that his nephew force the earl to comply. The acrimonious dispute between the two men dominated the first few days of the parliament until, on the fifth day of the session, an accommodation was achieved through Richard’s intervention, with Percy apologising to Gaunt on bended knee, and there was a public reconciliation with the two exchanging a kiss of peace. Although Joan had probably guided her son’s mediatory efforts, even she must have been exasperated that her brother-in-law had not been able to resolve this personal quarrel privately. Yet again Gaunt’s pride and obstinacy had brought a personal quarrel to the forefront of public affairs, creating a problem for his nephew without providing a solution. It is symptomatic of Joan’s newfound respect for her son’s abilities that on this occasion she chose not to intervene personally and instead relied on her son, with her support, to mediate. It must therefore have been demoralising for her to find that when Parliament turned its attention to the aftermath of the revolt, although Richard’s revocation of the charters was supported, considerable criticism was levelled at the royal household and its conduct of affairs, many of them individuals whose appointment Joan had helped to secure. Parliament insisted on the appointment of a commission, headed by Gaunt and the Archbishop of Canterbury, to investigate and appoint ‘good and worthy men’ to be around the king.
Even Joan may have found Gaunt’s appointment, in the light of his recent behaviour, galling, and it is unlikely that this endeared him to his nephew.

  Life slowly returned to normal for Joan. The impact of the events of those two weeks was obviously tremendous on all concerned but unfortunately there is little evidence to indicate how Joan was affected by it. In August she secured a royal commission, led by her brother-in-law Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham, to investigate offences committed on her estates.100 Other than some damage to her Essex properties her estates had been largely untouched by the rebels, possibly because the main areas of the disturbance – London, Kent, Essex, St Albans, Norfolk and Suffolk – were areas in which she had virtually no interests. However, the way in which Joan was treated by the rebels suggests that they regarded her with affection and esteem and it is therefore unlikely that they would have targeted her estates. Nevertheless, clearly, on a personal level, she cannot have been unaffected by what had happened. Throughout she had been with Richard and at the heart of it, she had encountered and been in danger from the rebels on more than one occasion in person, and she had heard and witnessed some of the most frightening and horrifying acts of violence. In July and August, in the immediate aftermath, as order was restored and individual ring leaders arrested and tried or held for trial, Joan could have had little if any direct involvement other than remaining with Richard and supporting the actions he took. It seems unlikely that Joan had any sympathy for the rebels or for the complaints they had made, and this is borne out by the fact that when a series of general pardons were issued to individual rebels after the trials and executions of the most notorious leaders in the November parliament there are few supplications made by Joan, and her intervention seems to have been restricted to men from her own estates.101

  Joan must have been dismayed and disheartened by the inability of Richard’s advisers to both protect their young king and deal with the crisis. Thomas and John had also been with their brother throughout, but there is no indication that either of them had played a prominent role. Perhaps Joan was disappointed that neither had shown their father’s tough and aggressive leadership skills, although as their mother she must have known her sons’ capabilities and realised neither had inherited their father’s authoritative character. While her brother-in-law’s absence during the revolt had been unavoidable, if she had placed any reliance on his capabilities to assist in restoring order in the aftermath with firmness and tact, she would hardly have found Gaunt’s attitude and behaviour on his return reassuring. The only redeeming feature of the whole appalling experience was that Richard himself had shown exceptional bravery and leadership. Two years younger than his father had been at Crécy, his outstanding response to the revolt promised much for the future. He had truly shown himself to be a worthy heir to Edward III.

  There are two outstanding pieces of art associated with Richard which are thought to give a good likeness of the king as he would have appeared at this time. The first is the full-length panel portrait of Richard which now hangs in Westminster Abbey, and the second is the personal altarpiece known as the Wilton Diptych, housed in the National Gallery. Both show Richard as the boy king, aged about fourteen. They indicate that Richard was an extremely good-looking boy, with delicate, fair features and reddish-gold hair. It is not known if he took after his father or his mother, but it is probable that he bore at least some resemblance to Joan. Little is known about these works, the identity of the person who commissioned and paid for them, the artist or the reason for their being made. Experts have however concluded that both were almost certainly painted in the 1390s, long after Joan had died, and therefore she would not have seen either work.102 The consensus is that both were probably made on Richard’s orders, although one of the many suggestions made about the Wilton Diptych is that it was commissioned by Maud Courtenay as a present for her brother and a memorial to Joan, with Edward of Angoulême as the Christ child handing over his inheritance to Richard.103 Both works are striking images of kingship, although the Wilton Diptych is a more complicated piece, filled with hidden meaning. The Wilton Diptych is a portable altar containing a representation of Richard, attended by three saints (St Edmund, St Edward the Confessor and St John the Baptist) kneeling in front of the Virgin and Child, who are in turn backed by angels. Richard is depicted as a child of no more than fourteen or fifteen (there is no suggestion of a beard), his colouring and features bearing a marked resemblance to the portrait in Westminster Abbey. Richard is alone and there is no suggestion that he has a consort, making it improbable that the work was commissioned while he was married to Anne of Bohemia, as he would hardly have omitted all reference to her as queen. While there has never been any suggestion that the piece is directly related to Joan, there are nevertheless considerable coincidences and allusions within it which might indicate that, if indeed commissioned by Richard, his mother was never far from his thoughts. There is the prolific use of her personal emblem of the white hart, with the gold crown around its neck and the gold chain. Richard adopted the badge as his own but he rarely used it during his mother’s lifetime, although white hart brooches were made and given as gifts by Joan herself (she gave one to John of Gaunt), and in 1379 Richard had included two such brooches among the jewels pledged to the City as security for a loan, later requested on loan for use at his marriage to Anne.104 In the Wilton Diptych Richard’s cloak is patterned with gold harts, with a white hart badge attached to his breast above his heart, its antlers adorned with pearls, while a smaller version, without the pearls, is also worn by all the angels. The beautiful, serene Virgin, holding the Christ child in her arms, conjures up the image of Joan herself, perhaps with Richard’s older brother Edward in her arms. Is it just coincidence that St Edmund, the martyred king, bears the same name as Richard’s maternal grandfather, murdered for his loyalty to Edward II, and that John the Baptist, Richard’s patron saint, stands behind Richard presenting him to the Virgin, a reminder of the important support John of Gaunt played in his nephew’s succession and the close friendship between John and Joan? Gaunt himself had given Joan a gift of a piece representing St John, the Virgin and Child. The banner held aloft by the angel resembles the flag of St George, with its direct association with the prince. The careful composition of the piece and its allegories continue to challenge interpretation, and it is surely not unreasonable to assume that Richard would himself have noted, if not intended, the allusions to his mother.

  Following Sudbury’s murder the see of Canterbury had fallen vacant, and shortly afterwards William Courtenay, Bishop of London, was appointed his successor. Although there is no direct evidence to indicate Joan’s influence, it seems likely that she was at least partly responsible for the elevation in September of her kinsman, Robert Braybrooke, to the bishopric of London, a position Robert held until 1404. It was an appointment of great personal significance and joy for Joan, ensuring that Robert was now at hand to provide family support for Richard and Joan. Like Joan, Robert appears to have eschewed politics. Although he was appointed chancellor a year later, on 20 September 1382, unlike Sudbury and Courtenay Robert proved wary of becoming involved in politics, and his chancellorship was brief (he resigned 10 March 1383).105 In contrast to Courtenay he was on good terms with John of Gaunt. Both men shared a deep affection for Joan. The destruction of the Savoy left Gaunt without a London home, and when Gaunt returned to London, he was given hospitality by Robert many times in his Fulham residence, and Joan may well have joined them on these occasions.106 Thomas and John Holand were also duly rewarded for their part in the revolt. Even if neither had shown initiative or leadership during the crisis they had both been at their brother’s side throughout and more than demonstrated their loyalty. In the immediate aftermath Richard entrusted his eldest half-brother Thomas with the task of dealing with the rebels in Kent, and in recognition of his service granted him an annuity of £100, while John was also enlisted in the peacemaking process by being appointed a justice of the peace in Che
shire.107 A few months later, in the autumn, and no doubt after prior consultation with his mother, Richard granted Thomas his father’s title of Earl of Kent, and Joan vested in him the Kent holdings which had accompanied the title when her father received it in 1321: the manor at Wickhambreaux and the annual county farm fees of £30.108

  Of even more importance for Joan was the resumption of the arrangements for Richard’s marriage, interrupted by the rebellion. The negotiations were finalised, with Thomas Holand being part of the team sent to meet King Wenceslaus, receiving £133 6s 8d in expenses for going to Flanders.109 Anne left Bohemia in the autumn, travelling slowly across Europe, and in December 1381 Simon Burley, John Holand and John Montague, steward of the royal household, were entrusted with the delicate task of accompanying her to England.110 On 18 December Anne crossed from Calais to Dover, moved on to Canterbury and from there to Leeds Castle in Kent where she stayed for Christmas. She arrived in London on 18 January and was married to Richard two days later in Westminster Abbey with Robert Braybrooke officiating. The honour of conducting the ceremony should arguably have gone to the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Courtenay, but he had not yet been officially designated in post. Robert Braybrooke had been involved in the marriage negotiations at an earlier stage, and now, as Bishop of London and a close family friend, he was an obvious choice. Joan’s heart must have been full, watching her close friend and kinsman officiate at her son’s wedding. On 22 January Anne was crowned in Westminster Abbey, this time with Archbishop Courtenay officiating.111 This was followed by several days of celebrating, with a tournament and Parliament adjourned to allow its members to take part in the wedding festivities. Unfortunately the marriage was not popular and was greeted without enthusiasm, for the simple reason that Anne brought no dowry and no one could perceive any financial, and only limited diplomatic, benefit in the match.112 This did not matter to Joan. Anne was granted a fixed annual dower of £4,500, exactly the same sum as had been awarded to Queen Isabella when she married Edward II in 1308.113 Although there is no evidence to suggest that Joan was in any way involved in the financial arrangements of the marriage, she probably used her influence to encourage a suitable settlement for Anne, remembering the difficulties her own mother-in-law, Philippa, had suffered, when the parlous state of her finances had induced Edward III to take them over in 1363. At least one of Joan’s trusted knights, Richard Abberbury, was attached to the new queen’s household, Abberbury acting as an attorney for Anne within four months of the marriage and becoming her chamberlain.114 It was quickly apparent that Richard adored his new wife. This, more than anything else, would have recommended Anne to Joan, and Joan must have felt truly satisfied with her work. Her son’s throne was safe and he was now married, his future seemed secure. With the wedding and Anne’s coronation safely accomplished, she could now safely retire.