21. CB, p. 2.
22. Gower, quoted in Grady, ‘Lancastrian Gower’, p. 560.
23. Wylie, iv, p. 138.
24. LK, p. 23; Kirby, p. 203.
25. IH, p. 116.
26. Creton, p. 61.
27. Trowell, ‘Recorder-Player’, pp. 83–4.
28. DL 28/1/2 fol. 9v (cover for his harp [cither]); fol. 25v (strings [cordarum]). Although his wife paid for the strings, she bought a total of forty-eight, first a set of eight, then three dozen and four.
29. DL 28/1/5 fol. 27r.
30. Although musicologists differ in their opinions on whether Henry or his son wrote this piece, it is nevertheless a striking example of what a king was capable of, despite all the other commitments on his time. Wilkins, ‘Music and poetry’, p. 188, states that it seems likely that ‘Roy Henry’ was Henry IV. The authors of Henry’s entry in ODNB agree. On the other hand, some writers (such as the author of the entry in Gothic, p. 157) link the compilation of the manuscript with a musician who may be later associated with Henry’s son, Thomas, and thus supposes that the ‘Roy Henry’ authorship indicates that the two pieces were written after 1413 by Henry V. However, this argument rests on the assumption that the compiler of the manuscript himself knew which King Henry had written it. If the compiler was – as may be reasonably presumed – working from a copy which was simply marked ‘by King Henry’, unless he had first-hand information as to which king had written it he could have done little more than copy his source. Thomas died in 1421; it is thus more likely that someone working for him had picked up a piece of music written by Thomas’s much-loved father and not Henry V, with whom Thomas had a difficult relationship before 1413. In addition, when two kings were likely to be confused, the practice was for ‘King Henry’ to relate to the father and for the author to be more specific when describing the son, e.g. ‘King Henry the son of King Henry’. For these reasons, it is more likely that the composer was Henry IV than his son.
31. DL 28/1/2 fol. 15v.
32. DL 28/1/2 fol. 25v The entry, which follows a payment for harp strings, reads ‘Et pro 1 ferr’ empt’ pro d’na’ pro cantic’ regul’ xd’. See also Wylie, iv, p. 159.
33. Saul, pp. 16, 249–50; idem, ‘Kingship’, p. 45.
34. Reitemeier, ‘Born to be a tyrant?’, p. 147.
35. Saul, ‘Kingship’, p. 48.
36. Saul, p. 76.
37. Tuck, p. 88.
38. This was on 11 July 1382. See Dunn, ‘Mortimer inheritance’, esp. pp. 160–61.
39. Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II and his Grandfather’s Will’, p. 327; Tuck, pp. 72–3.
40. Goodman, ‘Richard II’s councils’, p. 63. Archbishop Stratford had cited the case of Rehoboam in countering the libellus famosas in his argument with Edward III in 1341.
41. Walsingham describes Richard rummaging in the Tower for relics of his ancestors. See Ormrod, ‘Richard II’s Sense of English History’, p. 100.
42. Perroy (ed.), Diplomatic Correspondence, no. 95.
43. PROME, 1383 February, item 18.
44. WC, pp. 44–5. This was attended only by the king and queen, the new chancellor, the treasurer, the keeper of the privy seal, Henry’s uncle, Edmund, and John of Gaunt, but as Henry was in the household of the latter, it is likely that they met.
45. WC, p. 54.
46. Tuck, p. 88; Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II and the Higher Nobility’, p. 121.
47. Henry returned with his father in February 1384, as shown by the king granting on 19 February that Edmund Loveney – presumably a relation of Henry’s clerk, William Loveney – should be relieved of his duties in respect of his age (over sixty years) in response to a request from Henry. See CPR 1381–85, p. 374. John had returned at the start of February. See Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 99.
48. ODNB, under ‘Henry IV’.
49. If the confirmation of the grant from John to Henry of the manor of Soham can be taken as evidence of Henry being with John, then it would appear that Henry did travel north in March 1384. See LC, p. 153. John of Gaunt arrived at Newcastle upon Tyne on 24 March. See WC, p. 59.
50. WC, p. 67.
51. WC, p. 69.
52. SAC, p. 727.
53. WC, pp. 69–81.
54. WC, p. 85.
55. WC, p. 93.
56. Henry may have been with him but, if so, he was there in an unofficial capacity as Richard had not named him on the commission to treat with the French.
57. Tuck, p. 79.
58. WC, p. 113.
59. ODNB, under ‘Joan of Kent’, presumably using SAC, pp. 751.
60. SAC, pp. 755–7.
61. Regarding this summons, see Saul, p. 144, and the articles by Palmer and Lewis there cited.
62. Saul, p. 143.
63. SAC, pp. 763.
64. WC, pp. 127–9; Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 104.
65. SAC, pp. 763.
66. Saul, p. 116.
67. SAC, p. 759.
68. Royal Wills, p. 78.
69. This is the usual interpretation of the thirteen kings (see Cherry & Stratford, Westminster Kings, p. 68). Richard was making oblations to the saint-king Edward the Confessor before this, as shown by his offerings at the shrine on his return from Scotland in 1385 (WC, pp. 133). But this ignores Harold II. Unless Harold was included and Richard II not, thirteen is one king too few. On this point, there were in addition two extra large figures (according to HKW, i, p. 528) which might have been St Edmund and St Edward, the two English saint-kings. Both of these kings appear as saints on the Wilton Diptych, and had significance for Richard’s vision of kingship. This explanation would suggest how Richard II and Harold II might have been incorporated into the design: Edward the Confessor appeared as a large figure elsewhere. However, the Issues for this same term (Michaelmas 1385) note that there was an image in the likeness of Richard at the end of Westminster Hall, over which a tabernacle was placed, and also ‘two images in the likeness of the king and “Houell”, these being placed at the end of the king’s great hall within the Palace of Westminster’. See Issues, pp. 228–9. It is likely that the two extra large figures were Richard and the mysterious Houell (Hywel?), and these were separate to the thirteen which would have included Edward the Confessor to Edward III. This is more in keeping with Richard’s character: to present himself separately to his royal ancestors, rather than placing himself simply and humbly at the end of a long line of kings.
70. Palmer, ‘Parliament of 1385’, pp. 481–2.
71. This compromise is known as ‘the Bill’; the original list of demands is known as ‘the Advice’. See PROME, 1385 October, appendix; Palmer, ‘Parliament of 1385’, pp. 483–4.
72. This is different from the commission of nine who had negotiated the compromise, known as the Bill. See Palmer, ‘Parliament of 1385’, p. 485.
73. WC, p. 141. As for the unsuccessful earldoms, Palmer points out that normally all peers were created on the same day. De Vere’s elevation three weeks after the others, together with the lack of financial award, suggests that parliament tried to stop his elevation. See Palmer, ‘Parliament of 1385’, pp. 478–9. He achieved the dukedom of Ireland the following year.
74. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 106.
75. CB, p. 1.
76. CCR 1385–9, p. 56.
77. The date of John’s departure is given as 9 July in WC, p. 165, and 8 July in KC, p. 341.
3: The Summons of the Appellant’s Trumpet
1. For example, in November 1386, Richard invited the Lords Appellant to drink wine with him in a private chamber at the height of the crisis (LC, p. 27). He dined twice with John of Gaunt in the parliament of 1385, despite trying to have him murdered earlier in the year and accusing him of treason on the Scottish campaign. He also dined with the Lords Appellant after they had executed his friends in the Merciless Parliament.
2. According to Allmand, p. 7, Henry and Mary were both at Monmouth in the summer of 1386.
3. The official responsibilities of Wate
rton and Bache at this time are stated explicitly in DL 28/1/2 fol. 28, dated 24 September 1387.
4. The names of those who were with Henry are based on those who appear in the accounts of 1387–8 and who had been in his service from an earlier date. See Appendix Three for date of birth of Henry V.
5. DL 28/1/2 fol. 28.
6. PROME, 1386 October, item 6.
7. PK, p. 158.
8. This response, it should be emphasised, is a statement of Gloucester’s position. There is no record of what he actually said at this time.
9. The Eulogium continuator states that it was at Michael de la Pole’s request that Richard dissolved parliament. Since we know that Richard left and went to Eltham, it seems reasonable to assume that the two events – de la Pole’s advice and the king’s departure – were connected. See Eulogium, iii, p. 359.
10. He was not only a son of Edward III, he had formerly been a keeper of the realm, albeit in name alone, at the age of five in 1360, when he was the only one of Edward III’s sons left in England.
11. This date is established by taking Knighton’s ‘three days’ between the meeting and Richard’s appearance in parliament, and working back from 24 October, the date he replaced the chancellor and treasurer. See KC, p. 361.
12. KC, p. 359.
13. KC, p. 361.
14. ‘Succession’. See also Appendix Two.
15. Contrast this view, in the wake of Richard declaring that the Mortimers were his heirs, not Henry, with McFarlane’s view that we do not know why Henry sided with the opposition in 1387, in LK, pp. 28–9.
16. See Appendix Three. Mary gave birth to their second son, Thomas, in the autumn of 1387.
17. Henry made a grant to his chamberlain, Hugh Waterton, there on 26 June. See CPR 1396–99, p. 70.
18. Although evidence for Henry’s whereabouts is slight (prior to Michaelmas, when his 1387–8 account book starts), he does not appear on the charter witness lists for 1387, nor does he appear in any other context at court.
19. Richard attended this ceremony on this day, according to Saul, p. 171.
20. KC, p. 395. The questions appear in full in the twenty-fifth article against the king’s friends, in the Merciless Parliament. See PROME, February 1388, part 2, item 25.
21. WC, p. 191.
22. WC, p. 207. But see also Saul, p. 175, where it is pointed out that the judges claimed that it had been the earl of Kent who revealed the strategy to the opposition lords.
23. LC, p. 23.
24. WC, p. 209.
25. SAC, p. 831.
26. WC, pp. 211–13.
27. On 18 November 1387 one John Stapeldon received a pardon for murder at his request. See CPR 1385–89, p. 368.
28. See Appendix Three. Mary left London on 25 November. See DL 28/1/2 fol. 25v.
29. See DL 28/1/2 fol. 15v. ‘Medicines brought for the lord [Henry] on two occasions from Master John Middleton when the lord was ill with the pox, 11s 4d’. The account also has ‘to the same master for medicines bought for the lord’s use at the same time, 27s 8d’ and adds payments for medicines for two of Henry’s servants who were ill as well. There is also a payment to a London woman ‘for making a long double-thickness shirt for the lord in the time he was sick of the pox’ (fol. 15r). The two other men in his household ‘gravely ill’ suggests that the form of pox was a viral infection, like chickenpox. As to the question why Mowbray also did not join the Appellants at this point if illness was the reason Henry delayed, it is possible that he was waiting to see what Henry would do. The twenty-one-year-old Mowbray would have looked a very odd fourth Appellant if Henry had not also joined.
30. The longer sections in Henry’s 1387–8 account book (DL 28/1/2), such as those for saddles and repair of saddles, indicate that the entries are mainly chronological. On this basis, although they are mostly undated, we may use the relative positions of entries to develop an approximate itinerary. In almost every case (with one exception) the first item under the section heading was bought in London. It would appear likely therefore that Henry was at London or Westminster for the whole period between the start of the accounts (29 September) and 18 November (CPR 1385–89, p. 368). Leaving London in late November or early December (his wife left on the 25 November), he seems to have passed through Hertford (fol. 16r), on his way to Huntingdon, where he met the other Appellant Lords (12 December). According to the order of his wife’s letters to him from Kenilworth (fol. 26r), he went next to Northampton and then Daventry. His route then seems to have been through Banbury (from which a horse of his was later returned to him), Woodstock (where he paid for an expensive ‘woodknife’), to Radcot Bridge (20 December). Following the encounter with de Vere, he and his fellow Appellants went via Oxford to Notley Abbey, according to Mary’s letters (fol. 26r), and his own nearby manor of Henton (fol. 27r), on the way to St Albans (24–25 December). The Appellants then returned to London on 27 December (SAC, p. 847).
31. LC, p. 29; WC, p. 219.
32. DL 28/1/2 fol. 26r.
33. The best account of the campaign is in J. N. L. Myres, ‘The Campaign of Radcot Bridge, 1387’, EHR, xlii (1927), pp. 20–33.
34. The expense of despatching the letter is noted in DL 28/1/2 fol. 26r.
35. KC, p. 421.
36. KC, pp. 421–5.
37. Mortimer was the earl’s steward and had fought in his retinue earlier that same year. He is not mentioned in Henry’s accounts. The WC indicates that he was sent ahead by Arundel. See J. L. Gillespie, ‘Thomas Mortimer and Thomas Molyneux: Radcot Bridge and the Appeal of 1397’, Albion, 7 (1975), pp. 162–3; WC, p. 223.
38. SAC, p. 839; KC, p. 423.
39. Knighton notes one other man and a boy were killed. KC, p. 425.
40. SAC, p. 843; WC, p. 223.
41. DL/28/1/2 fol. 27v. The total cost of these animals and carts was £81 6s 11d. This is described as replacement of dead animals and wine bought for the lord’s work on fol. 29v.
42. DL 28/1/2 fol. 14r.
43. KC, p. 427.
44. ‘Deposition’, p. 157. See also Gloucester’s confession in PROME, 1397 September, part 2, item 7.
45. WC, p. 229.
46. SAC, p. 847; KC, p. 427. Mowbray was asked to remain at the Tower too.
47. DL 28/1/2 fol. 16v (for the presents). See Note 73 for Richard never forgiving Henry for 1386–8.
48. See for example DL 28/1/2 fol. 4v, 5r, 14v, 15r, amongst other appearances. Bagot also supplied Mary with information about the Cambridge parliament (fol. 29v).
49. Favent’s claim is supported by the exchange of cloth of gold brocade mentioned in Henry’s accounts in relation to this parliament. See DL 28/1/2 fol. 5v. Interestingly, the divorced wife of Robert de Vere (a granddaughter of Edward III) was also mentioned as having this livery. Thomas of Woodstock had been particularly upset by de Vere setting his royal bride (Thomas’s niece) aside.
50. IH, p. 103.
51. It was perhaps inspired by the story of St Edward the Confessor’s appeal of treason against Earl Godwin as related in the popular Brut chronicle. See Brut, i, p. 129.
52. Such language seems to have been chosen specifically to play upon Richard’s liking for Edward II, using terms which were reminiscent of the man who forced Edward II to abdicate, Roger Mortimer.
53. PROME, 1388 February, introduction. All four were sentenced to hang. Berners and Beauchamp were spared the rope on account of their noble birth, Burley on account of his service to the Black Prince.
54. WC, p. 329.
55. DL 28/1/2 fol. 4r.
56. A pardon was granted at Henry’s request on 15 June at Westminster (CPR 1386–89, p. 461). Although this does not prove his presence, his accounts indicate he was still at Westminster on the 9th.
57. DL 28/1/2 fol. 13v. At the end of a section in his accounts dealing with his armour, there is an entry: ‘for ten lances bought on account of the lord’s crossing over into Scotland, each 20d, [total] 16s 8d’. This directly follows a payment ‘for twelv
e lances bought at the time of riding against the duke of Ireland 18s’. See also DL 28/1/2 fol. 15v: ‘for carriage of the lord’s harness, jugs, tents, lances and other diverse harness from London to Leicester by a cart bought when the lord crossed over towards Scotland 14s 5d’.
58. Syllabus, ii, p. 515; DL 28/1/2 fol. 5r.
59. Froissart, ii, p. 571.
60. Following on from the earlier tentative reconstruction of Henry’s itinerary in 1387–8, it is probable that his journey north to fight the Scots began before he knew about the summons to the Cambridge parliament, which was issued on 28 July. Therefore he had probably left London by the time of Richard’s order on 13 August to the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster to order the people of the duchy to meet the king to ride against the Scots. Henry seems to have travelled from London to Leicester (fol. 15v) and got as far as Lenton in Nottinghamshire, where he bought two horses (fol. 17v), but there is no evidence that he travelled any further. He probably returned via Leicester and Coventry (fol. 8v) to Kenilworth (fol. 6v, 17r) prior to going to the Cambridge parliament which started on 9 September and which he seems to have attended in part at least (CPR 1385–89, p. 510; C 53/162 no. 15).
61. See previous note (for Kenilworth) and Wylie, iv, p. 159 (for Melton). See also Appendix Six.
62. Tuck, ‘Cambridge Parliament’, esp. p. 233.
63. DL 28/1/3 fol. 14v. Henry’s accounts have many references to the Lancastrian ‘esses’ collar, including some very particular descriptions which demonstrate that Henry was using the livery collar during Richard’s reign. See Appendix Seven.
64. 12 Richard II, cap. 13.
65. The parliament started on 9 September and lasted until 17 October. If Henry was there for the duration, it raises the question of when his son John was conceived, considering he was born on 20 June 1389 (implying conception around 27 September 1388). Henry was probably at Cambridge on 28 September, as that day a man was pardoned at his request (CPR 1385–89, p. 510). He may have turned up late as a result of his illness that summer. Mary was at Kenilworth on 16 September (DL 28/1/2 fol. 29r), about seventy-five miles or three days ride from Cambridge. She seems not to have travelled to Cambridge with Henry, for she gave a servant of William Bagot 6s 8d for bringing her news of the parliament. Thus if Henry did not arrive until the 23rd, he could have been at Kenilworth until the 20th, and his son be only a week overdue. Such tardiness would not have been very unusual: Bishop Fordham was still on his way to parliament on the 27th (Tuck, ‘Cambridge Parliament’, p. 232). However, this suggestion does not entirely solve the problem of when Henry attended, for he supposedly witnessed a charter at Cambridge on 16 October (C 53/162 no. 15) and yet granted two charters of his own at Kenilworth on 17 and 18 October (CPR 1396–99, pp. 122, 547). Taking this problem in conjunction with the conception problem, it is more likely that the baby was premature, and that the charter was actually witnessed by Henry sometime earlier in the Cambridge parliament and not enrolled until 16 October, by which time he had returned to Kenilworth.
The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King Page 53
