Similar processions, horses and all, preceded the second course with its nineteen dishes, and the third with a mere fifteen. The Queen’s brother, Anthony, Lord Scales, had the pleasure of serving as official cupbearer and dispensing hippocras (spiced wine). Music played throughout the banquet. Between courses, the King’s minstrels, as well as the minstrels of other lords, played and piped ‘their instruments great and small before the Queen full melodiously and in the most solemn wise’. As a final treat, ‘the knights of Bath new made brought the spice plates unto the cupboard’. Sir John Say delivered a spice plate to Sir William Bourchier, who served the Queen. Clarence ‘delivered the assay of the spice plate’ while the Mayor of London held ‘the cup with wine of void’, the last drink before departing from the banquet.
The ritual concluded as the Queen’s almoner and chaplain ‘folded up the Table Cloth unto the middle of the Table and before her reverently took it up and bore from the Table’. At the ‘washing after dinner’ the Queen was attended by Sir John Howard, who placed a napkin before her while the Duke of Norfolk, Marshall of England, ‘went before and commanded’. The Earl of Oxford carried in the basin for washing, and Clarence, Steward of England, again held it and tested the water before the Queen touched it. In departing to her chamber, the Queen walked between the bishops of Durham and Salisbury with the sceptres of St Edward and of England carried before her by the Duke of Suffolk and the Earl of Essex.
The traditional tournament on the following day Monday, 27 May, was anticlimactic for participants in the coronation ceremonies. But the jousting and games held on the green next to Westminster Abbey permitted the common citizens of London to share in the nation’s celebration. Viewers rented space in the belfry at Westminster Abbey to watch the action on the field below, where Lord Stanley won the honours and received the tournament prize of a ring set with rubies.8
Not mentioned in the contemporary manuscript describing the coronation are the King, Lord Rivers, Earl Warwick and the Duchess of York. The King traditionally would not have attended, since his presence would have distracted from the honours paid to the Queen. Lord Rivers’s presence might have been so ordinary that the unknown contemporary observer made no notes. Warwick was in Burgundy on a diplomatic mission. The absence of the Duchess of York, however, has led to speculation that she deliberately stayed away to express her disapproval of Elizabeth as Edward’s wife. The prominent participation of Edward’s sisters, however, indicates that some members of the York family, at least, had accepted the King’s decision.
The coronation ceremonies reflected Edward IV’s ongoing efforts to include former Lancastrians in his reign. The Bishop of Durham, who escorted the Queen on her right, had been suspended from his office for supporting Henry VI, but by 1464 this long-time Lancastrian had been restored to his position and assumed the Bishop’s traditional role in crowning the Queen.
Whatever the sentiments of others, Elizabeth Wydeville was now Queen of England. As her next responsibility, she needed to establish her royal household and assume her duties as Queen Consort.
CHAPTER SIX
Setting Up Housekeeping
As Queen, Elizabeth moved to Ormond Place, a great stone house in Knightriders’ Street in the parish of St Trinity, Smithfield.1 A former town house of the Lancastrian Earls of Ormond, the property was given by Edward to his new Queen, along with a grant of his manor of ‘Plesaunce, alias Greenwich’ in 1465.2 He transferred his manor at Sheen (now Richmond) to the Queen in 1466.3 The Queen also spent time at the royal residence at Eltham near Greenwich, and at the palaces of Windsor and Westminster.
The medieval household was an elaborate business, in which a flotilla of attendants served the needs of a few principal residents who moved frequently among their various estates. From gentry to royalty, status depended on display, extravagance, magnificence and hospitality offered to others. Nobles, in particular, employed enormous retinues to operate and maintain their numerous residences, including a kitchen staff to prepare food and drink for the household (where eating consumed one-third of each day), attendants to supervise wardrobes, clerks to keep records and conduct ceremonies, auditors to track expenses and income, grooms to tend horses, and stewards to manage the entire operation. In the fourteenth century, the royal household employed between 400 and 700 servants, 4 and although the Black Death had diminished the size of such establishments, they still remained huge in the fifteenth century.
In 1458, the Duke of York’s household in London alone included 400 followers and 140 horses, while Warwick’s housed 600 men, who required six oxen roasted daily just for breakfast. When travelling, retinues diminished somewhat, but Salisbury’s arrival in London with eighty knights and squires required 400 horses for transport of people and supplies.5 Even Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, retained a household in 1459 that averaged sixty-eight persons in daily residence, including pages, grooms, cooks, valets, butlers, stewards and marshals. His small stable of sixty horses provided transportation for ecclesiastical journeys, where every man needed a horse to ride and several packhorses for luggage.6
Queens traditionally maintained households separate from the King, to serve the needs of the family while the King travelled through the realm dispensing justice, establishing authority and fighting wars. Often, of course, they lived and travelled together, but the Queen’s household was financed and managed separately from the King’s. When Henry VI suffered his first bout of insanity in 1454, his council had tried to control household expenses by reducing his staff of officials and servants to 424, Queen Margaret’s to 120, and Prince Edward’s to thirty-eight. In 1453, Margaret had paid wages to 151 servants.7
The Black Book, compiled between June 1471 and September 1472, describes the awesome organisation of Edward IV’s household with its list of employee positions and job descriptions.8 Chamberlain, chancellor, secretary, chaplain, surveyor, squires of the body, wardrobers, yeomen of the crown, yeomen of the chamber, grooms, pages, jewel-house clerks, physician, surgeons, apothecary, barber, henchmen, heralds, pursuivants, sergeants at arms, minstrels, clerks, stewards, household treasurer, clerks of the greencloth (accountants), bakers, pantry staff, butlers, wine purveyors, cellar staff, ale servers, wine butlers, spicery staff, confectioners, chandlers, ewers (providers of basins and dishes), nappery staff (tablecloth staff) and laundry workers begin the incomplete list, which breaks off before the compiler moves outside the palace to the gardens and stables.
The Queen’s household replicated the King’s on a smaller scale. To cover expenses, queens traditionally received dower grants of lands and income from rents, fees and patents. When Henry V married Katharine of Valois, he wrote to his Viscounts: ‘The said Katherine shall take and have dower in our realm of England, as queens of England hitherward (hitherto) were wont to take and have. That is to say, to the sum of forty thousand crowns, by the year of the which twain algates [always] shall be worth a noble, English money’.9 Joan of Navarre received a dowry of 10,000 marks when marrying Henry IV in 1403, but that amount was a pittance when compared to the £13,000 income of Queen Isabella in 1327. Eleanor of Castile regularly collected ‘Queen’s gold’, a 10% surcharge added to every voluntary fine paid to the King, and in 1289–90 this assessment produced £1, 564, more than Eleanor received from her lands.10
Most of Queen Elizabeth’s income derived from dower lands and fees provided in successive grants from Edward IV. On 16 March 1465, for instance, she received a ‘Grant for life’ of fourteen manors, several towns and castles, and many parks and forests, all of which paid annual fees to her receivergeneral. Cash assessments added a diversified, if minor, source of income:
102£. 15s. 6d. yearly from the farm of the town of Bristol, 20£. yearly from the fee farm of the town of Norwich,… 10£. yearly from the chancellor of the University of Cambridge from the custody of the assize of bread and ale there,… 9£. 16s. 9d. yearly from the heirs male of Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk.11
While some o
f Elizabeth’s dower lands came from the King’s estates, many were manors seized from the Duchy of Lancaster after the Yorkist victory. In some cases, Elizabeth shared the income with other grantees: from Swallowfield, for instance, she received two-thirds of the income, since the other third went to her mother, who held dowry rights as Duchess of Bedford.12 To manage the Lancastrian lands, Elizabeth retained many of the same officials who had served Henry VI, a transition smoothed by the long association of the Wydevilles with the Lancastrian court. A careful and meticulous businesswoman, the Queen set up offices at Westminster in the New Tower, next to the King’s exchequer, where her officials could consult with the King’s treasurer in conducting business.13
A.R. Myers’s study of Elizabeth’s household accounts refutes all claims that she was ‘extravagant’. Indeed, Myers proved that Elizabeth was relatively parsimonious and thrifty, especially when compared to her predecessors Isabella, Philippa and Margaret (Queen Consorts to Edward II, Edward III, and Henry VI). Whereas Queen Philippa paid her general attorney £6 13s 4d in 1337 and Margaret paid hers £10 in 1452–3, Elizabeth paid £5 in 1466–7.14 Elizabeth dramatically changed the lax policies and extravagances of Queen Margaret, who was infamously profligate in spending money and equally dilatory in paying debts. Perhaps Elizabeth observed the disastrous consequences of fiscal disarray while attending Margaret’s court. Or perhaps her life in the large family at Grafton had taught her careful management of limited resources. In any case, Elizabeth was a perfect match for her husband, imposing the same frugality on her household that Edward IV brought to the nation after the dangerously insolvent reign of Henry VI.
The only household accounts extant from each reign record Margaret’s income and expenditures for 1452–3 and Elizabeth’s for 1466–7. These annual accounts reveal that Elizabeth imposed fairly dramatic economies to reduce Margaret’s lavish expenditures. Margaret’s income in 1452–3 amounted to £7, 563, while Elizabeth’s in 1466–7 was only £4, 541. Yet, in spite of the smaller income, Elizabeth ended the year with a balance of £200, while Margaret had a deficit of £24.15 Much of each Queen’s income covered the considerable expenses of maintaining and managing properties – from paying wages to footmen to repairing castle walls. Many of Elizabeth’s economies reduced wages for those accustomed to Margaret’s largesse, a decrease that must have caused distress – perhaps even anger – among the recipients. Margaret’s clerk in charge of the stables received £418 19s 3½d, for example, while Elizabeth’s received £208 6s 9d.16
In her personal life, too, Elizabeth lived more frugally than Margaret. In 1454, Margaret’s household staff included 120 individuals, while Elizabeth limited hers to 100.17 Where Margaret had ten ladies-in-waiting, Elizabeth had five. Margaret’s five apprentices-in-law compared with Elizabeth’s two. Margaret employed both a clerk of the signet (the writer of documents sealed with her signet) and a secretary. Elizabeth assigned both tasks to one John Aleyn. From total income, Margaret spent £1,719 on her chamber while Elizabeth spent £919.18
That is not to say that Elizabeth ignored pleasures and presents. Her 1466–7 accounts cite payments of £14 for sable furs, £54 to her goldsmith, and £1,200 for her wardrobe (a sum that would have paid seamstress wages, bought cloth and thread, and arranged for storage when she moved from one palace to another). In comparison, Margaret’s 1452–3 expenditures included £73 to a Venetian merchant for cloth, silk, and gold, £125 for jewels and goldsmith’s work, £733 to the keeper of her jewels, and £2,073 to the keeper of her wardrobe.19
In staffing her household, Elizabeth has been criticised for including relatives among her attendants. Yet that time-honoured practice (hardly unknown today) served her well. Her brother John Wydeville was Master of the Horse, and both her sister Anne and sister-in-law Lady Scales were among her ladies-in-waiting. In-laws of her sister Anne served as Elizabeth’s chamberlain and as one of her stewards. A cousin, James Haute, was her second steward. Since each position provided essential household needs, none entailed extraordinary expenditures, and all evidence points to loyal service, the accumulated criticism is difficult to comprehend.
The Queen’s two principal ladies-in-waiting – Anne, Lady Bourchier, and Elizabeth, Lady Scales – received £40 each, while Lady Alice Fogge, Lady Joanna Norreis and Lady Elizabeth Ovedale received £20 each. Among the other nine ladies who attended the Queen, income ranged from £10 to 56s.20 The annual salary reflects only part of the benefits provided by royal service, of course, since members of the household lived with the court and ate at its tables.
Other household employees included the Queen’s chamberlain, Lord Berners, and physician, Dominic de Serigo, each of whom earned £40 per year. Two stewards or carvers, Humphrey Bourchier and James Haute, earned 40 marks (about £26).21 The Queen’s confessor, Edward Story, Chancellor of Cambridge University, received £10. The Queen’s household also included a receiver-general (who collected income and paid bills), chancellor, attorney-general, solicitors, and many clerks. A host of yeomen and other servants worked in the stables and the larder.22 Three minstrels provided music, for £10 shared between them. (The King’s household had nineteen minstrels in 1466–7.) An apothecary was paid £18 17s 6d for various medicines.
Edward IV had entrusted to Elizabeth the care of the young Henry, Duke of Buckingham and his brother Humphrey, who were wards of the King during their minority. In August 1465, he granted to the Queen 500 marks yearly from five of his estates in South Wales, for the care of the boys, who ‘have for some time been maintained at her expense’. A month later, another patent clarified that the grant was retroactive to the past Easter and would continue during the minority of the boys.23
Her household organised, Elizabeth turned to educational and charitable interests. The Queen’s College of St Margaret and St Bernard, established at Cambridge University twenty years earlier, had fallen on hard times along with its Lancastrian founders. Initially created by charter of Henry VI on 3 December 1446, the College of St Bernard aspired to educate ‘fit persons, who should shine like stars in their courses, and, by learning and example alike, instruct the people’. Queen Margaret had petitioned Henry VI to become the founder of the College and to rename it:
Beseecheth meekly Margaret Queen of England, your humble wife: Forasmuch as your most noble Grace hath newly ordained and established a college of Saint Bernard in the University of Cambridge… in the which University is no college founded by any Queen of England hitherto, please it therefore unto Your Highness to give and grant unto your said humble wife the foundation and determination of the said Collage to be called and named the Queen’s College of Saint Margaret and Saint Bernard, or else of Saint Margaret, Virgin and Martir, and Saint Bernard, Confessor, and thereupon for full evidence thereof to have license and power to lay the first stone in her own person or else by other deputy of her assignment.24
Margaret desired this Queen’s college ‘to laud and honour [the] sex feminine’, following the precedent set by the Countesses of Pembroke and of Clare who had founded Pembroke Hall and Clare Hall (now colleges of the University of Cambridge). King Henry VI granted his Queen’s petition by patent on 30 March 1448, creating ‘the Queen’s College of St. Margaret and St. Bernard’.25 Beginning with just four fellows, the College steadily grew through grants and gifts negotiated by its entrepreneurial president, Andrew Doket.
By 1465, four years of Yorkist rule had threatened the survival of Margaret’s college, and President Doket appealed to Elizabeth for continued support: ‘…Closely connected with queen Margaret, Elizabeth Wydeville was doubtless well acquainted both with Andrew Doket and Queens’ College’.26 Elizabeth had been eleven years old when Margaret prevailed on Henry VI to create ‘the Queen’s College’ – old enough to share in the excitement of Margaret’s dream. Now she took up where her predecessor left off. On 25 March 1465, the ‘College of St. Margaret and St. Bernard in the University of Cambridge’ received a licence to hold property worth £200, equivalent to that provi
ded by Henry VI. The institution continued under ‘the patronage of Elizabeth, Queen of England’.27 Cooper’s Memorials of Cambridge states that Elizabeth ‘set aside a portion of her income for the endowment of the college’.28 Searle adds that ‘in the early part of [1465] she appropriated a part of her income to completion of this college’.29 Unfortunately, President Doket’s papers have not survived to verify these claims, a woeful loss since records of that agile administrator who secured patronage from three successive queens – Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne (consort to Richard III) – could provide fascinating insights into medieval fundraising.
A contemporary Miscellany containing the host foundation of the college lists first among its benefactors ‘Edward IV Rex Anglie’ and ‘Elizabeth, Regia Anglie’, followed by other contributors from the York family, including Cecily, Duchess of York, George, Duke of Clarence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Anne, Duchess of Gloucester. A patent entry in 1477 recording the transfer of the manor of Fulmere to Andrew Doket identifies the institution as ‘the Queen’s college of St. Margaret and St. Bernard in the University of Cambridge, of the patronage of the King’s consort Elizabeth, Queen of England’.30 No details regarding specific contributions, however, have survived.
Eton College, too, benefited from Elizabeth’s intercession. During his first Parliament at Westminster in 1461, Edward IV had revoked all endowments made by Henry VI to Eton College31 and planned to merge it with St George’s Chapel across the river at Windsor Castle. In 1463, a bull from Pope Pius II authorised the abolition of Eton, and in 1465 its bells, jewels and furniture were ordered to be removed to Windsor. The King’s houses and buildings in the parish of Eton, opposite the College, were granted to the Bishop of Salisbury with ‘license to pull down and carry away the same’.32 In 1467, however, the King changed his mind, restored the College lands, and in 1469 petitioned Pope Paul II to revoke the bull merging Eton and Windsor.
Elizabeth Page 8
