Henry VI

by Bertram Wolffe

  After eight days of festivities she was conducted two leagues from Nancy by Charles VII himself, where she bade him a tearful farewell, escorted by her father as far as Bar-le-Duc and then by her brother and her cousin the duke of Alençon to Paris, where the canons of Notre-Dame accorded her the honours of a queen regnant, by order of Charles VII. Received by the duke of York at Pontoise, she proceeded by river to Rouen and then again down river to Harfleur, where she embarked on the Cock John of Cherbourg, landing at Porchester on 9 April. For the next seven days she lay sick at Southampton ‘of the labour and indisposition of the sea by occasion of which the pocks be broken out upon her’. Henry, impatiently awaiting her at Southwick, consequently had to arrange for deputies to hold the Garter feast of Saint George at Windsor on his behalf.39 They were finally married by his confessor, William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury, in the Premonstratensian abbey of Titchfield on Thursday 22 April, the vigil of St George. She made her state entry into London from Blackheath on 28 May, and was crowned in Westminster Abbey on Sunday 30 May.40

  Margaret of Anjou came dowerless to England but, in the words of St Bridget, the hope was ‘Fiat pax per matrimonium’.41 John Stafford, archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor, took for his text at the opening of parliament on 25 February 1445 ‘Righteousness and peace have kissed each other’.42 Marriage and truce had been made by Henry in trust to that prime end, although he also believed, according to the instructions given to his commissioners soliciting loans to pay for it, that the whole kingdom would have cause to thank God for the provision of this queen ‘of a high and noble birth, greatly endowed with gifts of grace and nature’.43 Peace and Plenty was also the message of the pageant which greeted her on London Bridge and Henry’s biographer Capgrave reiterated the theme: everyone considered these nuptials pleasing to the church and state ‘pro eo quod pax et abundan tia frugum cum ipsis adven tarent’. Against this a more realistic commentator added the succinct marginal comment: ‘compilator adulavit’.44

  The new queen, although she was only fifteen at the time of her marriage, was soon to be a powerful influence in her new country. Charles VII had hoped that the marriage would bring him a pleasing advocate at the court of his nephew and he must have been very well satisfied with his protégée. It is not surprising that she soon established herself in the heart of Henry VI, who had little family to absorb his affections. He had already shown himself very easily influenced by those closest to him and Margaret obviously sustained his resolve to continue with his unpopular and disastrous French policy. Her association with this policy led to her marriage being regarded as the beginning of Henry’s failures. The English always showed a dislike of foreign queens who meddled in politics. The last one to have done so before Margaret was Isabella, queen of Edward II, and the next, another French princess, Henrietta Maria, Charles I’s queen. One should not pursue a comparison too far, but it cannot be entirely coincidence that those three queens each saw civil war in England and the violent death of her husband.

  Back in Nancy Charles VII had taken a muster of all the French troops who had been summoned to Germany and before Metz. The best of them, 1,500 lances and 4,500 archers, were formed into companies under fifteen captains and lodged in different areas of the kingdom to provide for their support, with each man-at-arms drawing quarterly pay of 30 francs a month. A special taille des gens d’armes was instituted to pay their wages; the rest were sent home with pardons. Thus in the conditions of peace brought about by the truce of Tours the permanent French army, vainly foreshadowed in the great Ordinance of 1439,45 could now be founded. By contrast, in spite of Suffolk’s assurances to parliament, the English garrisons were allowed to fall into a state of demoralization and penury and no field force was maintained. The widely different treatment of their armies is a practical expression of the fundamentally different approach of Charles and Henry to the truce. To Charles it was merely a short truce of which he intended to take full diplomatic and military advantage, whereas Henry believed it was the first stage towards a permanent peace and began to act as though that peace was already achieved. His failure to maintain his forces on a war footing, like his unilateral diplomatic concessions, further weakened his future negotiating position and handed the initiative to his adversary.

  1 Beaucourt, op. cit., III, 262.

  2 Richard Vaughan, op. cit., 113–18.

  3 Beaucourt, op. cit., III, 260.

  4 Foedera, XI, 13.

  5 Beaucourt, op. cit., III, 260, 265.

  6 Ibid., 265.

  7 P.P.C., V, 210–3. It was decided to press for a truce in default of a peace, both Cardinal Beaufort and Gloucester agreeing. The next day, with Gloucester absent, it was advised to accept a short truce if a long one could not be got (7 & 8 October 1442).

  8 Stevenson, Wars, I, 119, 243–4 (in July 1445 and again on the eve of the final declaration of war in 1449).

  9 T. Basin, op. cit., I, 154–6.

  10 A. Lecoy de la Marche, Le Roi René, 2 vols (Paris 1875), I, 231.

  11 Isabella to Edward II and Catherine to Henry V. Jeanne was betrothed in 1446 to Jean count of Claremont, heir to the duke of Bourbon, as a matter of internal politics.

  12 Charles VII’s only other niece, Jeanne, daughter of his sister Isabella and of Charles of Orleans, had long since been married to the count of Alençon.

  13 ‘Procuration donnée a Guillaume Cousinot et à Jean Harvart pour négocier la paix avec leroi d’Angleterre’, printed by A. Lecoy de la Marche, op. cit., II, ‘Pièces justificatives,’ 258–9, dated at the castle of Angers, 17 October 1445.

  14 Beaucourt, op. cit., IV, 284–5, citing MS français 18442, f. 173; Chronique de Mathieu D’Escouchy (ed. Beaucourt), III, 194.

  15 P.P.C., VI, 32–5, wrongly dated there 1445.

  16 Foedera, XI, 53 and 59–67, for the diplomatic history of the truce, and Bodleian Library MS Digby, 196, fols 155V, 156r, a Latin narration of the English embassy.

  17 See John Ferguson, English Diplomacy, 1422–14.br (O.U.P., 1972), 48, 51, 53–4, 223–5.

  18 Correspondence of Bekynton, I, 175.

  19 Stevenson, Wars, I, 67–76.

  20 Ibid., 131–3, 157.

  21 Beaucourt, op. cit., III, 276–7, quoting from an early-sixteenth-century copy in the B.N. of the lost original, MS Latin 10151.

  22 Thomas Basin says ‘filiam specie et formam praestantem, quae tunc “maturo viro foret et plenis nubilis annis”’.

  23 René of Anjou appeared as king of Sicily and Jerusalem, after the king of Castile and before the king of Scotland.

  24 Foedera, X, 385; Morice, Preuves, II, cols 1200–2, 1204–5, 1 329–42 (11 July and 18 October 1440).

  25 Foedera, IX, 48; P.P.C., IV, 128, 151, 181.

  26 Morice, Preuves, II, col. 1371.

  27 P.P.C., VI, 3–23, Stevenson, Wars, I, 439, 440–1.

  28 Morice, Preuves, II, col. 1362.

  29 See above pp. 167–8.

  30 A. Bourdeaut, ‘Gilles de Bretagne entre la France et l’Angleterre’, Mémoires de la société d’histoire et d’archéologie de Bretagne, I (1920), 68.

  31 Stevenson, Wars, 1, 443–60. Commissioners to solicit loans for the expenses of conducting her to England and her coronation. P.P.C., VI, 322–5.

  32 Beaucourt, op. cit., IV, 18, 144, citing contemporary references to this agreement; C. de Beaurepaire, Les Etats de Normandie sous la Domination Anglaise (Evreux 1859), 86.

  33 Foedera, XI, 203–4. For appatis in general see A. Lecoy de la Marche, op. cit., I, 521–2; Stevenson Wars, II, 550; Philippe Contamine, op. cit., 248–50.

  34 Beaucourt, op. cit., IV, 144.

  35 Loci Libro Veritatis, ed. J. E. Thorold Rogers (Oxford 1881), 190, 204, 219, elaborated by Ramsay, Lancaster and York, II, 62–3.

  36 R.P., V, 118–20.

  37 Journal (ed. Tuetey), 375.

  38 Berry herald, 425, 426, Beaucourt, op. cit., IV, 57, Stevenson, Wars, I, 119.

  39 P.P.C., VI, xvi.

  40 Ramsay
, Lancaster and York., II, 64, chronicle references there given and Benet’s Chronicle, 190–1, Davies’s Chronicle, 61–2, Bale (ed. Flenley), 119–20, Stow, Annales, 384–5, Gregory’s Chronicle, 185–6 (Stow and Gregory for processions and pageants).

  41 Stevenson, Wars, I, 139.

  42 R.P., V, 66.

  43 P.P.C., VI, 323.

  44 Johannis Capgrave, Liber de Illustribus Henricis, ed. F. C. Hingeston (R. S., 1858), 135.

  45 Berry herald, 427; Beaucourt, op. cit., III, 402–16.

  Chapter 11

  SURRENDER AND DEFEAT, 1445–1450

  At Tours the English conditions for a final peace were possession of Normandy and Gascony in complete sovereignty in return for the abandonment of the title to the French throne. These were spurned by Charles VII1 who had other ideas; as he himself declared,2 he personally employed himself with all his heart to further the Angevin marriage by which Henry was absorbed into the Valois family. This was to be the means by which peace would be achieved and it should be followed by a short truce to allow time for the achievement. Consequently, as the members of the French embassy which came to England in July 1445 were instructed to make clear, they came as the king’s own kinsmen and most intimate councillors and from now on all diplomatic exchanges between the two kings were to be conducted in a close family context, with Charles affirming that in cordial love and affection his nephew Henry was next in his heart to the dauphin,3 and Henry reciprocating that his uncle Charles was the person in the world whom he loved best, after his wife.4 These were no mere pious formalities. Behind the official, diplomatic exchanges, which were themselves couched in such intimate terms, there also began a further direct, personal correspondence between Henry and Margaret and their uncle Charles, written from England by the French secretaries Jean Rinel, Gervase le Vulre and Michael de Paris.5 Several examples of these from the French archives chart the vital, decisive influence of these personal exchanges at the highest level. On 17 December 1445, at Sheen, Margaret acknowledged a personal communication from her uncle, brought by the master of requests of his household, Guillaume Cousinot, and his carver Jean Harvart. She sent oral messages by them in return, but also affirmed in writing her intention to do what he had asked, to work on Henry for the delivery to Charles of the county of Maine.6 On 20 May 1446, at Windsor, Michael de Paris wrote on her behalf in answer to other requests from Charles, affirming that she would also make every effort to be present in person at Henry’s projected face-to-face meeting with his uncle.7 The most vital communication of all was a personal letter under the signet and sign manual, which Henry himself sent to Charles from Windsor on 22 December 1445, firmly undertaking, on the word of a king, all excuses and hindrances laid aside, to accede to his request for the complete surrender of Le Mans and the county of Maine, as his most dear and well-beloved companion the queen had repeatedly requested him to do. His only reason for this was that his uncle of France had informed him that this would be one of the best and aptest means of arriving at a final peace!8

  The proceedings of the first and greatest French embassy of July 1445, arising from the truce of Tours, were recorded in full detail by more than one of its members.9 There had been nothing like it since 1415. It was led by Charles VII’s close kinsman Louis prince of Bourbon, count of Vendôme and Chartres, sovereign master of the household, Jacques Jouvenel des Ursins, archbishop of Rheims, president of the chambre des comptes, and Bertrand de Beauvau, lord of Précigny, king’s chamberlain and councillor. These three were the principal negotiators. Other members were the count of Laval, introduced as the French king’s cousin and Henry’s cousin german, Guillaume Cousinot, master of requests, and Etienne Chevalier, king’s secretary. In addition there were supporting embassies from the king of Castile, René of Anjou and John duke of Alençon. The ambassadors of the duke of Burgundy failed to arrive in time because of difficulties over a safe-conduct. Over 300 horses were needed to move them all to London. They were shepherded in batches across the Channel from Calais by Garter and reached London in easy stages, with suitable escorts, via Canterbury, Rochester and Maidstone, for an impressive civic welcome to the city on Wednesday 14 July. They met Henry at Westminster three times. On the Thursday he received them, richly clad and in impressive formal state. Later in this audience he moved about among them, doffing his cap to them, conversing in French and even patting them on the back, striving hard to generate an atmosphere of the utmost friendliness. He reproved his chancellor in English for a polished latin oration which was not friendly enough for his liking. Suffolk was the councillor most familiar to the Frenchmen and his words were later repeatedly recalled to show his extreme good will towards their master. Gloucester, by contrast, was something of a bugbear, and they professed to have seen Henry openly express his pleasure at seeing his uncle’s discomfiture at the turn of events.

  3 English Gascony

  On the 16th, Friday, they assembled in the king’s great chamber, prior to being received in his privy chamber. Here Suffolk, in the eyes of the French, both before and during the audience, dominated the scene. This audience was designed to generate further intimacy and confidence between the two sides and to dispel any fears that the French might have about disunity in Henry’s councils. Suffolk, they reported, specifically denied rumours that Gloucester had tried to prevent a successful outcome of the Tours conference, but affirmed that even if he had wished to do so he had no power. Again, when he gave them audience, Henry talked familiarly to the ambassadors and finally deputed the cardinal of York, Suffolk and Ralph Butler, the treasurer, to conduct negotiations with them. The king then retired to Windsor for the weekend and more permanent lodgings were provided for the ambassadors, who were given a sight-seeing tour of the city on the Sunday.

  On Monday morning at 8 a.m. serious negotiations began in the new refectory at Blackfriars. Suffolk and the archbishop in turn recapitulated the position as it had been left at Tours where, it now appeared, Charles VII’s maximum offer had been Guienne,10 Quercy, Périgord, Calais and Guînes with full homage, that is, what the French said the English had claimed before they claimed the crown as well. Cardinal Kemp said that historically what they claimed before the crown included Poitou and Normandy, but Suffolk cut short the ensuing wrangle over history with a plea for thorough frankness, before suggesting dinner. A further meeting next day made no progress, but the following day’s parley extracted the addition of Limousin. Suffolk’s reputed rapport, which he claimed to have established with Charles VII at Tours, had clearly made Henry’s deputies certain that the French still had something up their sleeves. They had, but it was only Saintonge, and at the end of the day on Wednesday 21 July they finally convinced the thoroughly disillusioned English negotiators that they had reached the very limit of their instructions. They had been expected to offer more than ever before, but they had offered less; the cardinal now admitted that no more could be done by them; Henry, at Windsor, would have to be consulted. This turned out to be the cue for which the Frenchmen were waiting. Précigny exclaimed: ‘Would to God that they [the two kings] would meet, and would see each other’, to which all chorused ‘Amen’. Suffolk left for Windsor after dinner to brief Henry.

  On Friday 30 July Henry received both delegations in audience at Fulham Palace. The upshot of this final meeting was that Henry now gave a firm undertaking to meet his uncle Charles VII in France, in spite of all the formidable problems involved in such a journey. The Frenchmen then suggested a six-month prolongation of the truce to All Saints Day 1446, to allow for it. A request from the English delegates for a longer extension revealed that the Frenchmen had had instructions all the time covering precisely what they had now suggested, but now absolutely no more latitude whatsoever. They could only suggest taking back English envoys to make this request for a longer truce to Charles himself. If that was all, the French still had had a most pleasant and successful embassy but there was more: Précigny, who had first suggested the personal meeting, subsequently revealed that Henr
y also gave him an oral undertaking that he would surrender Maine before 1 October 1445.11

  It fell to the lot of Adam Moleyns, former clerk of the council, now keeper of the privy seal, and about to be made bishop of Chichester, to return with the ambassadors to France to secure the further prolongation of the truce. The French subsequently alleged that on this visit to France in the autumn of 1445 he was charged to implement the surrender of Maine.12 At all events, the further prolongation of the truce, which he requested, was made the official occasion for an immediate new French embassy, led by Guillaume Cousinot, master of requests of the household, and Jean Harvart the king’s carver. With them went King René’s personal representatives Auvergnas Chaperon and Charles de Castillon. Rene gave separate powers of attorney to each pair at Angers on 17 October,13 but only to Charles’s representatives did he give power to negotiate over the surrender of Maine in return for an alliance for life between the Angevins and Henry and a twenty-year truce between them. Chaperon’s and Castillon’s instructions were somewhat cryptically minuted by Pierre de Breze, seneschal of Poitou, Charles’s chamberlain and principal and intimate adviser,14 as being subordinate to the other, only to be used to avoid a breakdown of negotiations over the delivery of Maine. The House of Anjou would thus be allowed to recover Maine only through the licence and agency of the French king, their sovereign lord. This was undoubtedly the real purpose of the new mission. On 12 November Henry appointed Suffolk, Moleyns, John Viscount Beaumont and his chamberlain and treasurer, Sudeley, to treat with them. York, who still considered himself Henry’s lieutenant of France, was now back in England, but he was given no part in these negotiations. The official agreements which emerged were for a second prolongation of the truce to 1 April 1447 and an undertaking that Henry would go to France to meet his uncle before 1 November 1446.15 The real product of this second French embassy was the secret undertaking given by Henry, in the letter under the signet and sign manual to his uncle Charles on 22 December, that he would surrender Maine by 30 April 1446.16 So secret was this pledge that Henry sent a quite separate letter under the sign manual on the same day to the French king which made no mention of Maine. This acknowledged his personal communications via Moleyns, Cousinot and Harvart, and assured him that delay over their proposed personal meeting and the concomitant extension of the truce were necessary only because of his current great preoccupation with the affairs of parliament.17 Thus it is probable that in 1444 and 1445 Suffolk was aware of the French soundings for the surrender of Maine and certain that Moleyns was involved in them prior to his elevation to the episcopate.18 But none of Henry’s negotiators could or did give the vital, explicit commitment to surrender, which lay hidden behind the public documents. This was the undertaking Henry gave personally and secretly in the letter written by his French secretary to his uncle on 22 December 1445. From that moment Charles VII quite legitimately took this unilateral concession in the cause of peace to be legally binding and cleverly made its implementation the condition for any further extension of the truce.