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

by Mortimer, Ian

  5. Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II, Edward II’, p. 563. It is not clear when Henry told John of the conversation with Mowbray. On 19 November, Henry had spent a day with the king at Woodstock; on 12 December he was at Peterborough (DL 28/1/10 fol. 9r; CPR 1396–99, p. 501). It is most likely that he met Mowbray and had this conversation when returning to London in early December. His accounts mention a two-day trip from London to Windsor in December, and such a journey would have taken him through Brentford. He had met his father by Christmas at the latest, for both men were at Leicester on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day (CPR 1396–99, pp. 535, 513; Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 161).

  6. This was probably at Christmas. Henry and his father were at Leicester, Richard at Coventry, just fourteen miles away. See CPR 1396–99, pp. 535, 513; Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 161; Saul, p. 473.

  7. Annales, p. 219.

  8. Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II, Edward II’, p. 559. This is also mentioned in Adam Usk, p. 49.

  9. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 163. Bagot received a livery collar and other gifts from Henry in 1387. See TNA DL 28/1/2 fol. 4v, 5r, 14v, 15r.

  10. Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 163; Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II, Edward II’, p. 559.

  11. CPR 1396–99, p. 280. This was dated 25 January 1398. It is noticeable that this was granted before the session of parliament. It therefore was not covered by the same special protection against revocation which Richard afforded all the Acts of the forthcoming parliament. At the time of granting this pardon Richard may already have been planning to revoke it.

  12. PROME, 1397 September, item 44.

  13. PROME, 1397 September, item 54.

  14. Traïson, p. 142.

  15. CCR 1396–99, p. 249.

  16. Those standing bail are named in Traïson, p. 142.

  17. Adam Usk, pp. 39–41.

  18. DL 28/1/6 fol. 40r. Wool was bought for Henry’s close-stool at Worcester in March (Richard was there on 3 March). Cotton and urinals, bought for him at Bristol, appear in an entry directly after this one, which probably relates to his being there with the king on 27 March (CPR 1396–99, p. 361). Cotton was bought for his close-stool in London on 20 April. For Richard’s itinerary, see Revolution, p. 128.

  19. Traïson, p. 147. Henry had prefaced his bill on 30 January with the words ‘making protestation to enlarge or reduce it at all times, and as often as I please or as need may be, saving always the substance of my libel’ (PROME, 1397 September, item 53). Given that he did ‘enlarge’ his accusation at Windsor, it seems likely that he already knew in January what he would later say: that Mowbray was responsible for bringing about the death of his uncle, Thomas, duke of Gloucester.

  20. Froissart, ii, p. 661.

  21. CR, pp. 103–4. The date originally set was a Monday in August. This was later changed to Monday 16 September.

  22. DL 28/1/6 fol. 40r–v. The first instance is spelled Astirlabr’ de laton and the second Astirlabl’ de laton. For Richard’s astronomical quadrants, see Revolution, p. 140.

  23. DL 28/1/6 fol. 40v.

  24. DL 28/1/6 fol. 41r.

  25. DL 28/1/6 fol. 42r.

  26. DL 28/1/6 fol. 41r.

  27. Brian Robinson, Silver Pennies and Linen Towels (1992), p. 28.

  28. Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II, Edward II’, p. 565.

  29. Froissart, ii, p. 663.

  30. DL 28/1/6 fol. 43r.

  31. Froissart, ii, p. 664.

  32. Revolution, p. 125; CPR 1396–99, p. 499.

  33. DL 28/1/10 fol. 20r; DL 28/1/6 fol. 40v (4 & 9 July, London). John was at Rothwell on 17 July (Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 165). Henry’s house in Bishopsgate Street appears regularly in his accounts. On this folio there is a payment for a key for the keeper of the close-stools of the lord in this house. He also had a house in Holborn. His wardrobe office was based at Barnard Castle at this time; previously it had been in Coleman Street. For his other houses, see Wylie, iv, p. 140.

  34. CCR 1396–99, p. 324. Mowbray’s gaoler at Windsor was ordered at the same time to release him for the purpose of meeting the king. Mowbray had previously been transferred from Windsor to the office of the king’s wardrobe in London, which is probably why Froissart states he was a prisoner in the Tower. He was taken back to Windsor for the Garter ceremonies by Richard, and probably remained there afterwards, until July. See Revolution, p. 125.

  35. Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II, Edward II’, p. 566.

  36. The description of the duel is taken from Traïson, pp. 142–62.

  37. Froissart, ii, p. 663.

  38. Froissart notes the superior arms of Henry over Mowbray. See Froissart, ii, p. 663.

  39. Adam Usk, p. 51; Traïson, p. 151.

  40. This quotation is a composite of the two versions, one in Traïson, pp. 156–8, and the other in PROME, 1397 January, part 2, item 11. The latter is written in retrospect and had been slightly modified here for the sake of consistency.

  41. There was a precedent for Richard’s actions. The first Duke Henry had claimed that Otto, duke of Brunswick, had tried to ambush him while on crusade in 1351–2, and had challenged him to a duel at Cologne. The French king, John II, had tried to reconcile both parties, just as Richard had Henry and Mowbray, but had failed. The duel had then gone ahead, in Paris. But at the last moment, when both Henry and Otto were mounted and about to charge, John decided that the quarrel was of insufficient importance to justify bloodshed, and took the matter into his own hands. Richard had now employed the same strategy to discredit both Henry and Mowbray.

  42. Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, p. 83, quoting Hardyng.

  43. CPR 1396–99, p-514; Traïson, pp. 158–9. They were at Nuneaton with Richard on the 20th.

  44. Kirby, p. 49, Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 165, and Revolution, p. 135, all agree with Shakespeare on this point. They might be right, but I have yet to find any evidence of such a commutation. Henry’s charges against Richard in 1400 only mention the ten-year period.

  45. DL 28/1/6 fol. 36r. Mary had had her Latin primer repaired when in London in 1387 just before Thomas was born.

  46. DL 28/1/6 fol. 24r. Henry’s present to Richard in this year was a gold tablet with an image of St John the Baptist. St John was one of Richard’s favourite saints. See Revolution, p. 130.

  47. CPR 1396–99, p. 425.

  48. Syllabus, ii, p. 533; CPR 1396–99, pp. 469–70, 499, 537.

  49. Froissart, p. 667.

  50. Revolution, pp. 123–4.

  51. Revolution, p. 130; CR, p. 31.

  52. LK, p. 47; Revolution, p. 185.

  53. Kirby, pp. 49–50.

  54. Kirby, p. 49; Syllabus, ii, p. 533.

  55. Froissart, ii, p. 674.

  56. Froissart, pp. 668–9.

  57. Wylie, iv, p. 138.

  58. CR, p. 106.

  59. Froissart notes that she was twice widowed but states that she was not more than twenty-three; she was born in 1367, the same year as Henry.

  60. The date of this address is difficult. Revolution, p. 137, suggests it might have been an added task of Salisbury’s mission at the end of October. Creton gives the date as Christmas. See Creton, p. 171.

  61. Froissart, ii, p. 680.

  62. Although Froissart states that the marriage proposal postdates the death of John of Gaunt, the earl of Salisbury’s authority to go to Paris dates from late October (Revolution, p. 137; Syllabus, ii, p. 533). It also makes sense chronologically if Henry made plans to leave France after his marriage plans had collapsed; it would be strange if he was planning to leave France before concluding the arrangements.

  63. Froissart states the letter was carried by one ‘chevalier Dinorth’ (Froissart, ii, p. 675). This was probably John [de] Norbury. His name sometimes appears in contemporary records as ‘Northbury’.

  64. PROME, 1399 October, appendix; Revolution, p. 139.

  65. About twenty years later, the Scottish chronicler Andrew Wyntoun wrote an account of the final meeting between Richard and John. He described the king speaking
courteously to the dying duke, and, having comforted him, left on his bed some private letters (Goodman, John of Gaunt, p. 166). Given the fact that John was dying, either they must have related to his own past – perhaps some treasonable activity which Richard had discovered – or they must have been connected to his last hopes: his sons’ futures, and in particular his lifelong hope that Henry would inherit the crown. We can only speculate now as to what the letters contained, but the most likely candidates from our knowledge are (1) a document relating to John’s birth, which in 1376 was said to be doubtful (see PK, p. 184). If Richard believed such a document, he might have felt an obligation to remove Henry from the line of succession as Henry was not sufficiently royal. (2) The original of Edward III’s entail, by the terms of which Henry would be Richard’s heir. (3) Edward I’s settlement of the throne made at Amesbury in 1290 (see Appendix Two), by the terms of which Edmund Mortimer would arguably have been the heir.

  66. Revolution, p. 141. This is unlikely to be a mistake, due to the positioning of the entry in the account roll.

  67. Bennett suggests that John’s request was due to a fear of being buried alive. However, it follows a similar request by Henry, duke of Lancaster, in 1361, who asked that his body not be buried or embalmed for three weeks (Royal Wills, p. 83). Both men were members of the royal family, but both were mindful of fake death announcements concerning members of the royal family. Duke Henry had learnt from the untrustworthy announcement of Edward II’s death in 1327, and John had the additional example of the false announcement of the death of his brother in 1397. Hence John’s request is more likely a consequence of his heir, Henry, being so far away. John probably wanted him to have the chance to confirm that he was actually dead, not simply announced as such.

  68. E 361/5. This date is two days after that announced by Richard in January, to accommodate his request for a period of forty days between death and burial.

  69. Bagot’s message to Henry in France was sent after a conversation with Richard at Langley in March 1399. Richard was there on 9–10 March (Saul, p. 474) and left soon after for London, where he was on the 15th for the funeral. If Bagot sent his message to Henry in France on or about 10 March, and Henry received it in France, as he later acknowledged, he was not in London on the 15th. Vita, pp. 150–51, confirms that, at the time of the death, Henry remained overseas. The French chronicles do not indicate that he returned for the funeral, rather that he departed only when he returned to England in July.

  70. PROME, 1399 October, appendix.

  71. Froissart, p. 676.

  72. CR, p. 105.

  73. Annales, p. 233 (‘vehementer odire’). Walsingham himself had hated John of Gaunt, and so this explanation of Richard’s treatment of John’s son should be given weight accordingly.

  74. For Richard’s demand to be addressed as your majesty, and the novelty of this, see Saul, ‘Vocabulary’; McHardy, ‘Personal Portrait’, pp. 20, 23. For his references to Aumale as his ‘brother’ see ‘Succession’, pp. 333–4.

  9: The Virtue of Necessity

  1. ‘Succession’, pp. 333–4.

  2. See the remarks at the end of Appendix Two.

  3. Manning (ed.), John Hayward’s The Life and Raigne, pp. 1–5.

  4. Vita, p. 150; Revolution, p. 148; CR, p. 31.

  5. This order was made the day after Henry’s pardons were revoked, 19 March 1399. CCR 1396–99, pp. 488–9.

  6. Obviously he would not have known the date of the death until some time later. Nevertheless he may well have claimed he had seen this vision when he saw Henry.

  7. CR, p. 106.

  8. Monstrelet, i, pp. 18–19. This is inaccurately dated 17 June 1396.

  9. CR, p. 112.

  10. See Monstrelet, i, p. 21: ‘the principal cause of your seeking our friendship, and requesting this alliance to be made, was your dislike of your uncle of Burgundy, which we can prove … ’. This was in Henry’s second letter to the duke, of April 1403. In 1407 Louis was murdered by the duke of Burgundy’s son.

  11. See Froissart, pp. 686–8; CR, pp. 32, 111.

  12. CR, p. 111.

  13. Robert Bruce had been the last man to defeat the king, but, by his own definition, he was a Scot and owed no allegiance to Edward II. Simon de Montfort had been the last Englishman to do so, at the battle of Lewes, in 1264.

  14. The date is open to debate, but 4 July is the most likely, especially as York’s letters of 28 June presumed that Henry was still in France, and these were probably issued very shortly after the intelligence was received. See CR, pp. 33, 118; Revolution, p. 154; Saul, p. 408; Kirby, p. 54.

  15. CR, p. 32. Edmund believed Henry was in Picardy at the time, and about to attack Calais first.

  16. Biggs, ‘Edmund Langley, duke of York’, p. 258.

  17. For Walsingham’s estimate of no more than fifteen ‘fighting men’, including the knights of his own household, see CR, p. 117. He adds that there were no more than ten or twelve ships. Adam Usk estimates that he had no more than three hundred men with him in all. For the estimate of ‘perhaps no more than a hundred or so’, see Revolution, p. 154. The Evesham chronicler notes that Henry had sixty followers, but he includes men who were already in England; the Kirkstall chronicler states one hundred. Ten ships does suggest more than a hundred men, but of course Walsingham might have been mistaken in the number of ships.

  18. Ravenspur is directly across the estuary from Grimsby. If the message that Henry had landed travelled from Grimsby, it would have taken more than two days to cover the 161 miles to London. Urgent messages normally travelled about sixty miles per day. The fastest on record – news of the death of Edward I – travelled at over eighty miles per day, but this was a royal messenger who would have been able to benefit from changes of horses at a number of places. If the weather was good and there was a local official who wished to send the news at high speed to London, the message would have taken between two and three days to reach Edmund. On 7 July Edmund ordered the defence of Nottingham Castle. This might relate to Edmund’s receipt of the news of Henry’s landing.

  19. The letters are mentioned by the Saint-Denis chronicler. See CR, p. 110.

  20. CR, p. 34; Biggs, ‘Edmund Langley, duke of York’, p. 259; Castor, King, Crown and Duchy, p. 26.

  21. CR, p. 192.

  22. Taylor (ed.), Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles, p. 122.

  23. For numbers in Henry’s paid army, see CR, pp. 252–3.

  24. CR, p. 118, quoting Walsingham. The translation has been slightly modernised.

  25. CB, p. 11; Neville, ‘Scotland, the Percies and the law’, p. 82; Arvangian, ‘Northern Nobility and the Consolidation’, p. 123.

  26. CR, pp. 40, 192, quoting the Dieulacres chronicler. The ‘relics of Bridlington’ might refer to a portable reliquary, or even a bible taken from Bridlington Priory; it does not mean necessarily that he swore the oath at Bridlington.

  27. Revolution, p. 155; Sherborne, ‘Perjury’, p. 220.

  28. CR, p. 192; Creton, p. 180; Sherborne, ‘Perjury’, p. 218.

  29. CR, pp. 194–5; Sherborne, ‘Perjury’, p. 219.

  30. See Appendix Seven.

  31. CR, p. 166, quoting Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 59.

  32. Traïson, pp. 180–81.

  33. Biggs, ‘Edmund Langley duke of York’, p. 261, n. 43.

  34. CR, p. 35; Revolution, p. 159; Biggs, ‘Edmund Langley, duke of York’, p. 260; Annales, p. 244.

  35. Traïson, p. 186.

  36. Traïson, p. 186.

  37. Adam Usk, p. 139.

  38. Wylie, iv, p. 138.

  39. Wylie, iv, p. 145.

  40. CR, p. 156.

  41. There are four reasons underlying this suggestion for Edward of York and two for Thomas Percy. With regard to Edward: his father had already decided long before their meeting at Berkeley Castle to capitulate to Henry, and it is likely that he communicated his decision via a messenger to his son in Ireland. Second, in Ireland Edward had acted against Richard
, doing his best to impede Richard’s return (according to Creton, who was with Richard and Edward in Ireland; see Creton, p. 55). Third, even though Edward was his adoptive brother, Richard left him behind when he fled north. Fourth, he immediately joined Henry after Richard’s flight. With regard to Thomas Percy, not only had his brother and nephew already joined Henry, he too rushed to join them after Richard’s flight. So, in looking for the protagonists behind the plot in South Wales against Richard, these two men are the prime suspects.

  42. Sherborne, ‘Perjury’, p. 221. Henry’s role as steward is also mentioned by the Dieulacres chronicler shortly afterwards. See Revolution, p. 163.

  43. Nicolas, ‘Badge and Mottoes’, p. 365.

  44. Creton, p. 125. Adam Usk thought Archbishop Arundel was at Conway in person, but he might have simply been following the Record and Process, which was probably created to suggest this. It is very unlikely that Arundel was present. See CR, p. 38; Sherborne, ‘Perjury’, pp. 229–30.

  45. It is worth noting that, although historians have frequently claimed that Northumberland perjured himself by his promises to Richard, it is likely that he acted in good faith. He had been present at Doncaster when Henry had promised not to seize the throne, so he probably believed that the promises he made now to Richard would be fulfilled. And a parliament was summoned to take place at Westminster, so both elements of his promise were honestly made.

  46. CR, pp. 145–7.

  47. Creton, pp. 155–63. Traïson, pp. 202–6, supports this, and greatly amplifies Richard’s lament.

  48. Revolution, p. 173; Traïson, p. 212.

  49. Creton, p. 179; Traïson, p. 215.

  50. Creton, pp. 180–81; Traïson, p. 215.

  51. This point was made by David Starkey in his television history series Monarchy. However, Henry did not have to be king to ‘do what he could’. Similarly his appointment of Northumberland as warden of the Scottish Marches on 2 August is not proof of kingly intentions (as claimed in Boardman, Hotspur, p. 99), being a necessary expedient in view of the Scots’ threat, and in line with Henry’s ‘sovereign’ power (not necessarily the same as ‘royal’; see Appendix Seven).