The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King

by Mortimer, Ian

  3. PROME, 1394 January, item 20. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 153, states that Talbot was captured prior to this interrogation, which took place some time before the January 1394 parliament, but he was still at large at the time of the parliament, as Richard gave orders for him to be apprehended. See Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 172, n. 46, for John of Gaunt’s whereabouts. A detailed note of proceedings against Talbot appears in Tuck, p. 167, n. 3.

  4. John was at Beverley in Yorkshire on 28 August; Henry was at Peterborough on 2 September. See Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 172, n. 46; DL 28/1/5 fol. 16v. He was at Peterborough again on 12 December (CPR 1396–99, p. 501), and probably had simply stayed with Mary there during the intervening period.

  5. DL 28/1/4 fol. 14v–15r. For Thomas Beaufort being equipped at Henry’s expense, see ibid., fol. 14v. The date of the Hertford tournament is given on fol. 16v.

  6. DL 28/1/4 fol. 20v.

  7. DL 28/1/4 fol. 18v.

  8. He was still there on 12 January: CPR 1396–99, p. 469.

  9. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 153, quoting DL 28/1/4.

  10. DL 28/1/4 fol. 19v.

  11. For this argument, see SAC, p. 957; PROME, 1394 January, introduction and item 11. Also see Froissart, ii, p. 495, where the disagreement between Gloucester and Arundel against John over France is mentioned, although it needs to be remembered that Gloucester was one of John’s negotiators in 1393, and so can hardly have been as firmly against the peace deal as Froissart suggests.

  12. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 153; Tuck, p. 169.

  13. This had been the case in Edward III’s reign even when that meant appointing an infant, as had happened in 1338 (when the keeper, Edward of Woodstock, was only eight), and in 1345 (when Lionel of Antwerp was only six), and in 1359 (when Thomas of Woodstock was only four).

  14. CCR 1392–96, p. 325; LK, p. 40.

  15. LC, p. 156. Henry gave the collar after his return in 1393; it is shown on Gower’s tomb effigy.

  16. It is not certain that Henry returned to Hertford; however as that is where his wife was and where his father returned to (Armitage-Smith, p. 448), it is likely.

  17. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 154; Armitage-Smith, p. 429.

  18. Armitage-Smith, p. 449; Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 155.

  19. There is considerable doubt about the date of Mary’s death, and all we can say for certain is that she died in June or very early July 1394. ODNB states (under ‘Henry IV’) that Mary died ‘perhaps on 4 July, the date her anniversary was celebrated in 1406’. This is supported by WC, p. 521, which states that ‘about the beginning of July the countess of Derby died in childbed and was buried at Leicester’. However, Knighton (KC, p. 551) records that she was buried on Monday 6 July, the Monday being supported by Walsingham (SAC, p. 961), and this is surely too soon after the 4th for her to have died that day. Although the Westminster chronicler states that Anne died on 7 June and was buried on the 9th – dates followed by Goodman in his John of Gaunt (p. 155) – Anne was actually buried on 3 August, as noted by the editors of the WC, p. 520, n. 3. HBC states that Mary died on ‘? 4 June’, but does not explain why this date has been chosen. It may be that the editors guessed that the 4 July date was an error for 4 June, which would allow enough time for the funeral preparations. If so, this would explain why Walsingham mentions Mary’s death after Constanza’s and before Anne’s.

  20. It is tempting to say that his naming his first daughter after the mother he had never known says much for his regard for her, despite the tragedy of her death. However, it is impossible to be certain about this. The English royal family, like several medieval families, continued naming traditions in which a lord’s eldest daughter was named after his mother and his second daughter after one of his grandmothers. John had done this in naming his eldest daughter Philippa and his second daughter Elizabeth; Henry followed the same pattern.

  21. ODNB, under ‘Henry IV’.

  22. See Issues, p. 321, for the likeness commissioned by Henry V. Richard’s commission to the coppersmiths was dated on 24 April 1395. He had shortly before contracted (on 1 April) the masons Henry Yevele and Stephen Lote to make the tomb at Westminster for his wife Anne (Syllabus, ii, p. 527). Payment to Yevele and Lote was made on 14 July 1397 (Issues, p. 264).

  23. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 155.

  24. This might have been a coincidence, but in a letter in which John protested his honesty and loyalty to the king in connection with the royal estate, and coming so soon after John requested that Henry be recognised as the heir, it may well be that the succession was the key matter discussed.

  25. By this time the earls of March were so far behind in the order of succession – habitually given an inferior status to Henry – that they hardly featured on the magnates’ map of the succession. Every potential beneficiary of Edward III’s entail was given precedence over the Mortimers. See ‘Succession’, p. 330.

  26. Tuck, p. 166; Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 155.

  27. Royal Household, p. 392.

  28. PROME, 1394 January, item 20; Tuck, p. 167, n. 3, which details his arrest and escape.

  29. LC, p. 155.

  30. LK, p. 40.

  31. ODNB, under ‘Henry IV’.

  32. PROME, 1395 January, introduction.

  33. Cronin, ‘Twelve Conclusions’, pp. 292–304; PC, p. 59.

  34. He was still in London at the beginning of April. C 53/165 nos 4–5 (dated 30 March and 1 April respectively).

  35. DL 28/1/5 fol. 8r. Those who had accompanied him on his crusade who were still with him were John Brother, Robert Crakyll, William Bingley and Master John Nakerer (Expeditions, pp. 112, 133, 137, 141–2). The new musicians were John Alayn, piper, John Aleyn, trumpeter, and Gilbert Waferer.

  36. DL 28/1/5 fol. 3r (robe); 26v (gift).

  37. F. J. Furnivall (ed.), The Babees Boke (1868), p. 180.

  38. DL 28/1/5 fol. 28v; see also Appendix One. He gave alms and clothes to twenty-nine paupers on this occasion.

  39. The date Henry sent the messenger was 18 March. See DL 28/1/5 fol. 27r.

  40. DL 28/1/5 fol. 9r, 22r–v, 27v, 29r. This suggests she was in her twenty-fourth year at the time of her death, as Henry’s donation to twenty-nine paupers on Maundy Thursday suggests this accountant (or Henry) calculated age as of next birthday.

  41. DL 28/1/5 fol. 29r. The curtains are mentioned on fol. 12r. They were taken to Leicester, as shown by a reference on fol. 27v.

  42. DL 28/1/5 fol. 29r. The earliest entry in the OED to a close-stool is 1410.

  43. King’s Council, p. 504; for the barge, see DL 28/1/5 fol. 28r.

  44. King’s Council, pp. 135–7, 504–5 Froissart, ii, pp. 572–7.

  45. C 53/165 nos 3 and 10.

  46. CCR 1392–99, p. 448.

  47. DL 28/1/5 fol. 27v. The journey took him three weeks. Henry’s saddle was repaired while at Plympton. See ibid., fol. 22v.

  48. CPR 1396–99, p. 542.

  49. For his presence in Exeter, see DL 28/1/5 fol. 27v. The messenger was on the road for thirteen days and left London on 24 October. Henry was probably in London from 28 November to 23 December, during which time he was paying his London bargemen (fol. 28r). Cotton and a urinal were bought for him in London on 4 December (fol. 30r.).

  50. Henry ordered new lances to be bought for the joust at Christmas at Hertford. DL 28/1/5 fol. 22v. There are fewer payments than usual in this account.

  51. HA, ii, p. 219. Although Walsingham mentions that Richard held Christmas at Langley, and that this was where he met John, it was not necessarily at Christmas that the meeting took place. Richard stayed at King’s Langley until 7 January. See Saul, p. 473.

  52. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 156.

  53. See the articles on ODNB (under ‘John of Gaunt’, ‘Swynford, Katherine’), and Goodman, Katherine Swynford.

  54. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 156.

  55. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 157.

  56. C 53/166 nos 4 & 5.

  57. As stated in Froissart, i
i, p. 610.

  58. This was when he witnessed a royal charter at Westminster. C 53/166 no. 6.

  59. Wylie, quoting Michael Ducas, Historia Byzantina (1649), states that Henry was present at Nicopolis, in command of 1,000 archers. There is no corroboration of this, however. Froissart does not mention Henry’s participation on the Nicopolis Crusade, and nor is there any reference in his accounts. In addition, he could not have fought on 25 September at Nicopolis (in modern Bulgaria, about seventy-five miles from Bucharest) and been at Calais in early October. His accounts mention the purchase of medicines for him early in 1396, which might more correctly explain his absence from court. See Wylie, i, pp. 6, 157; iv, p. 171.

  60. Fier-a-Bras de Vertain was given a grant for life of forty marks a year on 7 July 1396. Presuming that this precedes his visiting Henry, it is reasonable to connect Henry’s appearance at court on the 25th with the king’s refusal (at the request of John of Gaunt) to allow Henry to depart. See Froissart, ii, p. 610; CPR 1396–99, p. 12.

  7: By Envy’s Hand and Murder’s Bloody Axe

  1. Froissart, ii, p. 618. For Henry’s expenses in Calais, see DL 28/1/9 fol. 4r–8v.

  2. Saul, p. 229. There is a detailed description of the meeting in Annales, pp. 188–94.

  3. Froissart, ii, p. 618; DL 28/1/9 fol. 4r (for Henry at Saint-Omer).

  4. He was at Dover Castle on 15 November. CCR 1396–99, p. 73.

  5. DL 28/1/9 fol. 5r (hay bought for his horses at Dartford, 19 November).

  6. DL 28/1/9 fol. 13v.

  7. DL 28/1/9 fol. 7v.

  8. For example, the gifts of velvet from the count of Virtue in DL 28/1/5 fol. 9r–v (for the year 1395–6).

  9. Hinds (ed.), State Papers … Milan, i, p. 2. This relates to Henry before his exile. Negotiations probably began in late 1397, as the marriage was a rumour circulating in Siena in early March 1398. See Bueno de Mesquita, ‘Foreign Policy’, pp. 634–5.

  10. Froissart, ii, pp. 604–7.

  11. On 2 January 1397, Thomas Mowbray and Thomas Holland were preparing a force of 150 lances and 500 archers to help the French; the earl of Huntingdon was also preparing to go. Bueno de Mesquita, ‘Foreign Policy’, pp. 628–9.

  12. PROME, January 1397, item 10.

  13. For Richard’s mental state, see Saul, especially chapter 17 (and pp. 459–60 for the identification of his ‘narcissism’), and Steel, Richard II. Alison McHardy comments on both of these views in her ‘Personal Portrait’, and adds further very interesting observations. For a view on how the idea of Richard’s insanity arose, see Stow, ‘Stubbs, Steel and Richard II’.

  14. Bueno de Mesquita, ‘Foreign Policy’, pp. 630–32; Annales, p. 199.

  15. The Evesham chronicler, in CR, p. 54.

  16. The earliest reference yet noticed of Edward being described as ‘the king’s brother’ appears in his commission to negotiate with France dated 27 February 1397 (Syllabus, p. 530). Thereafter he is usually so described in official documents, including patent letters and royal charters. He is described as ‘our very dear brother’ in C 53/167 nos 5–10 (23 April, 1 May and 9 May 1399), 16–17 (13 and 24 April 1398). This is also the way he is named in Richard’s will. See Royal Wills, pp. 196, 199.

  17. For adoptive brotherhood in medieval England, see Pierre Chaplais, Piers Gaveston: Edward II’s Adoptive Brother (Oxford, 1994), pp. 6–22.

  18. For instance Alison McHardy states that it is ‘notable’ that Robert de Vere ‘had no successor’ as Richard’s favourite, ignoring this adoption of Rutland. See McHardy, ‘Personal Portrait’, p. 30. The adoption is also ignored by the author of the ODNB article on Edward and the second edition of CP, and by most other writers on the subject of Richard II’s life.

  19. DL 28/1/9 fol. 8r, DL 28/1/9 fol. 21v (Leicester, March 1397); DL 28/1/6 fol. 25v, DL 28/1/9 fol. 12r, 16r (Tutbury April 1397). The foregoing are tentative, based on payments for household expenses which indicate his presence, such as large amounts of expensive fish being delivered to Tutbury between 30 March and 14 April (DL 28/1/9 fol. 21v). He was at Leicester on 1 May 1397 (CPR 1396–99, p. 122). He was still in London on 7 March (DL 28/1/6 fol. 30v).

  20. The commission to negotiate a marriage between Henry and Navarre was dated 28 February 1397. Syllabus, p. 530.

  21. DL 28/1/9 fol. 15r.

  22. The story given in Traïson – that Gloucester and Arundel were arrested following a plot staged with Henry, Warwick and Mowbray, Thomas Arundel, the abbot of St Albans (Thomas of Woodstock’s godfather) and the prior of Westminster – is a muddled version of the events of 1387 rehashed in order to explain why Richard took action against these lords in 1397. Richard’s accusations in 1397 specifically refer to the events of 1387–8. In addition, by 1397, the abbot of St Albans was dead. In addition to a sound debunking of this story in Tuck, pp. 184–6, it is worth noting that the plot is supposed to have been concocted at Arundel, and Henry is said to have been present. It is difficult to find a space in his itinerary to attend a meeting at Arundel. Following the parliament of January 1397 he travelled north and remained in the Midlands until June, when he was at Hertford, and two weeks later he was with Richard at Westminster. He remained with the king for a month and travelled back again to the Midlands until the time of parliament. He could at some point have made a dash to Arundel but there are no signs of such a journey in his accounts, nor of messengers being sent to Arundel.

  23. C 53/167 no. 25 (5 July). John Bernard and Philip Young were paid wages by Henry when they were with him in the king’s household from 6 July to 1 August. At 3d per day each, the payment of 13s 6d suggests they were in constant attendance at that time. Similarly Thomas Young and John Aderstone were with Henry in the king’s household (at wages of 4d per day between them) for twenty-seven days (as they received 9s). Thomas Ferro was with Henry in the king’s household from 14 July to 10 August; John Waurin from 6 July to 1 August. See DL 28/1/9 fol. 16r.

  24. Saul, p. 367.

  25. Sharpe, City of London, Letter-Book H, p. 437.

  26. DL 28/1/9 fol. 20v. Richard was at Nottingham on 5 July (Saul, p. 473), having probably just arrived there. He was at Lutterworth on 14 August. For the assembly see Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 159.

  27. CPR 1396–99, p. 191.

  28. CPR 1396–99, p. 192.

  29. There were 312 royal archers in Richard’s personal bodyguard, according to Tuck, p. 187, quoting E 159/175 r. 9 and E 101/42/10. For his raising of two thousand archers in Cheshire, see ibid., p. 186. For chroniclers’ accounts of the presence of two thousand archers see CR, p. 57. The combined forces of the king, John, Edmund and Henry might account for Usk’s statement that there were four thousand archers present.

  30. For the date of the announcement, see Tait, ‘Did Richard II Murder the Duke of Gloucester?’, pp. 208–10; Wright, ‘Death of the Duke of Gloucester’, p. 277. Gregory’s Chronicle – a London chronicle – placing the date of death ‘around Bartholomewtide’ (25 August) is an indication of when the news was circulated in London.

  31. The duke’s death was certainly announced while he was still alive. This is evident in the confession of a witness to his murder, John Hall, and it is supported by the fact that Richard sent writs to enquire into the estates of the late duke of Gloucester on 7 September, but his confession was made in Calais on 8 September. See PROME, 1399 September, item 92 (8 September); CPR 1391–99, p. 224 (7 September); Wright, ‘Richard II and the death of the duke of Gloucester’, pp. 276–7.

  32. PROME, 1397 September, item 1; Vita, p. 138. The biblical quotation is from Ezekiel, chapter 37, verse 22.

  33. Tuck, p. 190.

  34. CR, p. 56.

  35. The order of events followed here is that from the monk of Evesham’s chronicle. This contradicts the order of the parliament rolls, but makes better sense. See CR, p. 57; PROME, 1397 September: introduction.

  36. That this was choreographed in advance is made very likely by the fact that Bussy had been with the king throughout that summer,
and had been one of the knights present at the arrest of Thomas of Woodstock.

  37. The parliament rolls note only four, but the impeachment of Mortimer and Cobham followed.

  38. PROME, 1399 September: appendix, quoting A. H. Thomas & I. D. Thornley (eds), The Great Chronicle of London (1938), pp. 76–7.

  39. CR, pp. 54–60.

  40. PROME, 1397 September, appendix. This was probably a private vendetta, but Hawkeston was pardoned by Richard in October 1398 and continued to serve and be protected by Richard, regardless of this act of murder.

  8: The Breath of Kings

  1. DL 28/1/6 fol. 22v.

  2. I am very grateful to Dr Margaret Pelling for the information about bezoar stones.

  3. PROME, 1397 September, item 53.

  4. This plot has been seen as doubtful by some historians, partly because of the creation of Henry as duke of Hereford has inclined them to believe that Henry was in favour in 1397 (Tuck, pp. 184–5), and partly because of the unlikelihood that Thomas Holland, duke of Surrey, should seek to encompass the destruction of his uncle John Holland, duke of Exeter, or that William Scrope should try to plot against his erstwhile friend, John of Gaunt (Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 162). As has been shown in the main text, even the award of a dukedom is not good evidence of favour under the dissembling Richard. With regard to the other objections, the disinheritance of the Lancastrians through the reversal of the pardon against Thomas of Lancaster goes some way to bolster Henry’s claim. Wiltshire and Salisbury (two of the antagonists) were not of Lancastrian descent but most of the victims were. John Holland’s wife was, being Henry’s sister. So too was Thomas Mowbray. John Beaufort was inclined to support the Lancastrians, being Henry’s half-brother. William Scrope – newly raised to an earldom – simply, gratefully and sycophantically did what he thought the king wanted him to do, regardless of his earlier friendship with John. So did Surrey. Richard’s cousin and adopted brother, Edward, duke of Aumale, is the one whose position is not clear. He was not of Lancastrian descent, and in 1399 Bagot claimed at his trial that Edward had expressed a wish for Henry’s destruction. His inclusion amongst the intended victims is as yet unexplained.