As a result of his earlier service to her late husband, and his recent action on behalf of her stepson-in-law, Martin Schwartz’s name and capabilities must already have been well known to Margaret and her advisers. Thus, in the spring of 1487, following her consultations with her nephew the Earl of Lincoln, with Francis Lovell, and others, Margaret sent for Martin and agreed a new military contract with him. Under the terms of this agreement Schwartz was to supply an army of 2,000 troops, under his own command, for the eventual invasion and conquest of England.4 Obviously the decision was also taken that the forthcoming campaign would be centred initially on Ireland. After all, this was one part of the new king’s realm which was accessible to them without any need for battle.
Once the decision had been made that ‘Edward VI’ would begin his reign in Ireland, it probably followed logically that a coronation for him should be celebrated there. In that way his kingship could be both ceremonially authenticated and divinely blessed, without any need for access to Westminster Abbey. But no previous coronation had ever taken place at Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin. How, then, would this Irish cathedral manage to carry out the planned ceremony, where would it obtain the necessary equipment, and what plans for the coronation needed to be made in Mechelen before the departure for Ireland?
Obviously the first requirement would have been an appropriate order of service. Although it seems highly unlikely that Dublin’s medieval cathedral library would have held copies of the liturgy for a coronation, in itself this would not really have presented a problem. Of course an appropriate book could probably have been obtained by Margaret and dispatched by her from Mechelen. However, even this would not really have been necessary. The point is that the ritual of coronation is, and has always been, based upon the ceremony of consecration, or ordination, of a Catholic bishop – a church service with which the cathedral clergy would undoubtedly have been very familiar, and for which they would certainly have had copies of the Church’s liturgy.5
Both the episcopal ordination ceremony and the royal coronation ceremony are set within the context of a celebration of high mass. The rite of ordination or consecration for a bishop begins after the first parts of a normal mass (the penitential rite and the liturgy of the word). Following the gospel reading, the consecration begins with the singing of the hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus. The bishop-elect is then presented to the congregation and makes his promises. Following the singing of the Litany of the Saints, the bishop is then anointed with chrism (holy oil). After this he is invested with a ring, his head is crowned with a mitre, and he is given his crozier, or pastoral staff. He is then formally seated on his bishop’s chair or throne (cathedra). The normal rite of mass then resumes, but after the communion and the concluding prayers the solemn hymn of thanksgiving, Te Deum laudamus, is sung, before the liturgy concludes with a solemn blessing.6
The basic format of the coronation ceremony is identical with that of an episcopal ordination. The king is first presented to the congregation and takes his royal oath. He is then anointed with holy oil, receives a royal ring, the crown and a sceptre, and is finally enthroned. Actually, the usual coronation ceremonial in England and France had, by the fifteenth century, become somewhat more elaborate. After his anointing, the king was first given spurs and a sword. After receiving his crown he was given not just one sceptre, but two. In England he also then received an orb, though at French royal coronations, no orb was presented. But in Dublin, of course, none of the usual royal coronation equipment of England would have been available. So what ceremonial items would be used at the Dublin King’s coronation?
While the English term ‘coronation’ focuses attention on the placing of a crown upon the sovereign’s head, the French term for this ceremony is sacre, which focuses primarily on the act of anointing. Both aspects are essential parts of the ceremony, and require special equipment. The anointing comes first. Coronations at Westminster or Rheims used special containers (ampullae) of royal holy oil for the anointing ceremony of an English or French king. However, this special royal oil was not used undiluted. One drop of it was extracted from the ampulla and mixed with the church’s own holy oil (chrism), which was consecrated annually by the local ordinary on the Wednesday of Holy Week (the Wednesday before Easter). In Dublin, of course, no royal ampulla would be on hand to provide a drop of special royal oil for the consecration ceremony. Nevertheless, there would be no problem about accessing Christ Church Cathedral’s own store of chrism for the year in question. Therefore the Dublin King could simply be anointed using the cathedral’s supply of holy oil.
The next requirements were spurs and a sword. These could perhaps have been prepared in Mechelen, on Margaret of York’s orders. However, such items would also have been very easy to find in fifteenth-century Dublin. The spurs and swords used at modern English coronations are valuable specimens of the jeweller’s art, but this was by no means an essential requirement. Ordinary spurs and an ordinary sword would have served the purpose equally well.
The anointing of a medieval boy-king in preparation for his crowning.
The required coronation ring would also have been relatively easy to supply. In Mechelen, before the group set off for Ireland, and at the expense of Margaret of York, such a ring could easily have been ordered to fit the young royal hand. Alternatively a Dublin jeweller may have been asked to make the ring after the chosen king arrived there. As for the other items of regalia, finding a sceptre would not present too many difficulties. Metal staffs were used for various functions in medieval churches. The staff of a processional cross, or the ceremonial staff of a verger, could therefore be adapted for this purpose. Indeed, in 1804, when Napoleon I was planning his coronation as Emperor of the French, he found that much of the pre-Revolutionary regalia had been damaged or destroyed. He therefore used the staff of the Precentor of St Denis as the basis of one of his sceptres.7
The crown might present more of a problem. Both English and French coronation ritual usually required two crowns: a solemn holy crown for the act of coronation itself, together with a lesser (though often more heavily bejewelled and costly) ‘state crown’ to be worn during the celebrations after the church ceremony. In England the coronation crown was attributed to the canonised pre-Conquest king, Edward the Confessor. In France, no fewer than three sacred coronation crowns were available at this period. One was attributed to the canonised emperor Charlemagne, while two had belonged to King Louis IX (St Louis).8
Of course, Margaret of York could easily have found jewellers in Mechelen to produce a small state crown for the Dublin King-elect. This need not have been overly expensive, and she may well have commissioned such an artefact for him. However, surviving reports of the actual coronation ceremony tell us that the Dublin King was formally crowned with an open gold circlet borrowed from the votive statue of the Blessed Virgin which stood in the Church of Sainte Marie de la Dam (or Sainte Marie del Dame).9 The earliest surviving source for this information about the crown used at the ceremony reports that:
the crown that was used, they borrowed from the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, preserved in the church dedicated to her memory, near the gate of the city which is commonly called Dame-gate.10
In 1487 this church stood on Cork Hill, a short distance to the east of Christ Church Cathedral, and just outside Dublin Castle. Little survives today of medieval Dublin, and the gold crown, the image of the Blessed Virgin, and the Church of Our Lady of Dame-gate, have all long since been lost. The site of the church was reused in 1761 by the merchants of Dublin for the building of their Royal Exchange building, which was constructed between 1769 and 1779. In the 1850s the Royal Exchange was taken over for civic administration and became Dublin’s City Hall. However, even today, the main road to the north of the City Hall is called Dame Street.
Why should the coronation crown of the Dublin King have been borrowed from the head of a cult image of the Blessed Virgin? Why not use a new crown made for him at his aunt’s expense in Mechele
n? This arrangement has tended to be interpreted by previous writers as a sign that the Dublin coronation was a very muddled affair, hastily concocted without proper planning, and without any of the proper resources. As we have already seen, however, no coronation ceremony would have been possible without some prior planning. Thus the true explanation is probably quite different. Those who planned, and later organised, the Dublin ritual must have been very well aware of the fact that they would not have access to the traditional English coronation crown – the crown of St Edward the Confessor. This holy crown had reputedly been removed from the saint’s head when his remains were moved into his shrine, in order that it could be used for all future English coronations. Faced with the absence of this – or indeed any other – saint’s crown, what more suitable head could the organisers have chosen, from which to borrow a suitable holy crown for the Dublin King’s coronation, than the head of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Finally, of course, a throne would be needed. Once again that would probably have presented no problem. The word ‘cathedral’ is derived from the Latin term cathedra, meaning the formal chair or throne of a bishop. All cathedrals would have contained such a throne. Therefore it is probable that the ceremonial episcopal chair in Christ Church Cathedral was used for the Dublin King’s enthronement. But in any case, even at a period when chairs were much less common items of furniture than they are today, both the cathedral and its clergy would undoubtedly have had access to such things.
In addition to the equipment needed in order to carry out his coronation, one other item would have been an obvious essential requirement for the use of the Dublin King and his government after the boy had been crowned. They would need a royal seal. It is certain that a royal seal of ‘King Edward VI’ was created – and was used. Indeed, one impression of the seal survives, and was recently rediscovered in the Irish National Library. It is attached to a letter issued in the name of ‘Edward VI’ by the Earl of Kildare.
A bishop’s chair such as the one in this picture may have provided a suitable throne for the Dublin King’s use at his coronation.
Sadly, the seal impression is damaged and has not survived intact. Thus, for example, the royal inscription which it originally bore, and which would have confirmed that the Dublin King bore the royal name of ‘Edward VI’, is now broken. As a result the royal name and numeral are lost. However, the obverse of the seal impression does preserve for posterity a unique image of the boy-king himself, seated on his throne. As usual on such items, the reverse displays his royal arms (see plates 26 and 28).
Two interesting points emerge from these images. The crown worn by ‘Edward VI’ on the obverse, and the crown which surmounts his royal arms on the reverse of the seal, are both open crowns (i.e. without arches). This in itself is not remarkable. While it is true that arched crowns were coming into fashion in England in the fifteenth century – and are depicted, for example, on the royal seals of Edward IV and Richard III, and on coins of Henry VII – open crowns were also still very much in use.
However, one feature of the crowns depicted on the seal of the Dublin King is unusual. Both images comprise a circle surmounted by fleurs-de-lis. This was not the usual design for a fifteenth-century English king’s crown. The usual design was similar to that found on the circle of the modern royal crown. That is to say, the ornaments comprise alternating crosses pattée and fleurs-de-lis. It is true that contemporary English coins bore a representation of a king’s head showing a crown with fleurs-de-lis, but that image had been introduced by Edward I in 1279, and had remained unchanged ever since. It did not represent contemporary reality. Moreover, representations of royal crowns on the great seals of fifteenth-century English kings certainly did not show crowns adorned just with fleurs-de-lis. But while fifteenth-century English crowns were not of this design, the royal crown of France – together with the coronets used by French princes of the blood royal – did bear only fleurs-de-lis.
Of course the dukes of Burgundy had been French princes of the blood, and they had used such coronets. Indeed, as the widow of the last duke, Margaret of York was still entitled to a French royal crown of this design in 1486 and 1487. Perhaps, therefore, the royal seal of ‘King Edward VI’ was made in Mechelen during the summer of 1486, on the instructions of Margaret of York. If so, the Mechelen metalworker who fashioned it would almost certainly never have seen an actual English king’s crown. However, he might well have seen the crowns depicted on English coins, and he was probably accustomed to the design of French-style crowns, as worn by the former dukes of Burgundy. Thus he depicted both the Dublin King and his royal coat of arms with just such a French-style crown. In other words, the surviving impression of the royal seal of ‘Edward VI’ constitutes one possible indication that preparations for the reign of the Dublin King were made in Mechelen, prior to his return to Ireland – presumably commissioned and paid for by the boy-king’s self-acknowledged aunt, Margaret of York.
Notes
Abbreviations
CPR
Calendar of Patent Rolls
ODNB
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
PROME
Parliament Rolls of Medieval England
1. Sutton, Anglica Historia. See Chapter 4.
2. ‘the boy … crossed over to Ireland. … In those days such was the ignorance of even prominent men, such was their blindness (not to mention pride and malice), that the Earl of Lincoln … had no hesitation in believing. And, inasmuch as he was thought to be a scion of Edward’s stock, the Lady Margaret, formerly the consort of Charles, the most recent Duke of Burgundy, wrote him a letter of summons. By stealth he quickly made his way to her, with only a few men party to such a great act of treason. To explain the thing briefly with a few words, the Irish and the northern Englishmen were provoked to this uprising by the aid and advice of the aforementioned woman. Therefore, having assembled an expedition of both Germans and Irishmen, always aided by the said Lady, they soon crossed over to England, and landed on its northern shore.’ Sutton, De Vita atque Gestis Henrici Septimi Historia, pp. 33–4.
3. In a very complicated episode of history, ‘False Dimitry II’ claimed (falsely) to be the youngest son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. He was then accepted as her husband by the surviving wife of an earlier claimant, known as ‘False Dimitry I’. By her, ‘False Dimitry II’ then had a son, Ivan, who was briefly recognised as the heir to the Russian throne.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Schwartz_(mercenary), accessed December 2013.
5. J. Goy, Le Sacre des Rois de France, [Reims(?) no date of publication].
6. http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/
ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorship
Texts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm, accessed September 2013.
7. Lord Twining, European Regalia, London 1967, p. 187.
8. Twining, European Regalia, p. 127, n. 1.
9. Hayden, ‘Lambert Simnel’, p. 628
10. ‘Coronum quae usus est, a statua B. Mariae Virginis, in Ecclesia illius memoriae dicata, prope portam urbis, quam Dames-gate vulgo appellamus, asservata; mutuatam serunt.’ J. Ware, Rerum Hibernicarum Annales regnatibus Henrico VII, Henrico VIII, Edwardo VI & Maria, ab anno scil MCCCCLXXXV ad annum MDLVIII, p. 9.
12
The Reign of the Dublin King
The Dublin King and his supporters probably remained in Mechelen with Margaret of York until after the celebration of the feast of Easter, which, in 1487, fell on Sunday, 15 April. Meanwhile Henry VII had ridden from Bury St Edmunds to Norfolk, where he celebrated Easter in Norwich, staying at the bishop’s palace. It was in the hall of the episcopal palace that he fulfilled his royal obligation of feet washing on Maundy Thursday (12 April). He took the Earl of Lincoln’s father, the Duke of Suffolk, with him to Norwich; probably he thought it wise to have the duke where he could see him – just in case. On Easter Monday, following the Sunday celebrat
ions, the king briefly travelled north, towards the Norfolk coast, making a rapid pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham.1
It seems that Henry was uncertain at this stage what his opponents in Flanders were planning to do. He knew that they ‘then wer in Selande and Flawndres to the see warde and, as was reportede, [were] to lande in this realme, [but] in what parte it was no certeynte’.2 But of course, the king was well aware that the Earl of Lincoln’s homeland was in the eastern counties, and that this part of the country had also, until quite recently, been the Yorkist power-base of the late John Howard, Duke of Norfolk. Thus the king made arrangements to assemble a fleet at the port of Harwich, while on 7 April he had ordered the repair and manning of beacons along the coast. It therefore seems that he was at least half expecting that his enemies would take the shortest sea route from the ports of Flanders and land somewhere in Norfolk, Suffolk or Essex.
However, he also took a wider perspective. Having made due provision for the defence of the East Anglian coast, he then rode via Cambridge, Huntingdon and Northampton to Coventry. The Duke of Suffolk remained with him for the first part of the journey, but then the king sent the duke to Windsor, to act as his deputy at the annual Garter Feast of St George (Monday, 23 April). The king himself spent St George’s Day in Coventry. It was some time in the course of about the next two weeks (from the end of April to the beginning of May) that Henry VII received the news that his enemies had sailed from the Low Countries and had crossed the Channel, to land in Ireland.3
Henry VII had also been in contact with the city of York. He wrote to the city from Huntingdon on Friday, 20 April. Two days later, on Sunday, 22 April 1487, the following royal letter was read to William Todd, the mayor, and to members of the city council:
The Dublin King: The True Story of Lambert Simnel and the Princes in the Tower Page 18
