by S B Chrimes
In short, he had freely come and freely gone. But subsequently an arrest had been made, at the suit of the party, in prejudice of whose rights common law and statute the king’s grant could not take effect unless the circumstances were covered by statutory exception, which was not so in the case. Owen could not have the advantages of the safe-conduct twice. The council, therefore, advised the king that the arrest was lawful, and Gloucester asked for and was granted a declaration under the Great Seal to that effect.
The second document takes us a little further, but not much. At the time when Owen returned to Wales, neither the king nor Gloucester, it is asserted, were aware of the malicious purpose and imagination of Owen that subsequently came to light. He was now ‘in ward’, and the lords would have much to answer for ‘if they now advised the king to release him, and any rebellion, murmur, or inconvenience should arise’. Further, the ‘disposition of Wales’ should be declared to the king.
For what reason, then, Owen was arrested shortly before 15 July 1437, is not revealed. There is no clear evidence that his arrest was directly connected with his marriage to Queen Catherine, although knowledge of that event must have made him a marked man, and obviously had made the council very sensitive and nervous about his treatment. The only positive information we are given is that the arrest made was ‘at the suit of the party’. This assertion strongly suggests that Owen was involved in private litigation, which would help to explain why it was that he was committed to Newgate. But who the ‘party’ was remains a mystery at present. If we knew the source of the £89 found on the priest captured with Owen after the escape from Newgate, we might obtain more light on the point. Doubtless Henry VI had summoned Owen into his presence because he wished to see his deceased mother’s husband, whom he had most probably never met, but there is no evidence at all that the subsequent arrest was made because of the mere fact of the marriage. Nor is it hard to understand why the documents are evasive in referring specifically to any offence committed, and display such caution. Even the council would have been wary of recording allegations against the king’s step-father.
Appendix B
HENRY OF RICHMOND’S COMPANIONS IN EXILE 1483–5
It does not appear to be possible to identify any of Henry’s companions in exile before the autumn rising of 1483, except his uncle Jasper. After the rising, however, Polydore Vergil (op. cit. 200) specifically states that the following reached Brittany:
*Peter Courtenay, bishop of Exeter
Edward Courtenay, earl of Devon
*Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, and Thomas his son, a child
*John Bourchier
John Wells
*Edward Woodville
Robert Willoughby
Giles Daubeney
Thomas Arundel
John Cheyney and his two brothers (including *Humphrey)
William Barclay
William Brandon and his brother *Thomas
Richard Edgecombe
Evan Morgan (Camb. Reg., 96)
Some of those who fled to Flanders at this time may well have reached Brittany in due course. Among these was John Morton, bishop of Ely (who apparently did not do so), and Christopher Urswick (who did do so, at least for a time).
*Those names marked with an asterisk are specifically mentioned as having been with Henry in Brittany or France, 1484–5, and in addition the following are mentioned:
Edward Poynings
John de Vere, earl of Oxford
James Blunt
Sir John Fortescue
Richard Fox
Appendix C
THE ATTAINDERS OF JANUARY TO FEBRUARY 1484
The four acts of attainder passed in Richard III’s parliament of January to February 1484 taken together attainted 104 named persons, convicted them of high treason, and forfeited their estates, including estates held by others to their use. The total included one duke, one marquis, two ‘so-called’ earls, one countess, three bishops, one baron, eighteen knights, twenty-six esquires, fifteen gentlemen, two merchants, one necromancer, six yeomen of the Crown, fourteen yeomen, and three persons not specifically designated, but apparently of the esquire or gentleman class. Of the 104 names one is repeated exactly and may be merely a repetitionary mistake, in which case the total is 103.
The first of the acts attainted all but five of the total; the second dealt with the three bishops; the third with Margaret Beaufort, countess of Richmond; the fourth with Walter Roberd.
The lists of names, of their places of habitation, and other descriptions, and the identification of the region with which their treason was associated, are of considerable interest and may be studied in more detail as follows: –
1The first act (R.P., VI, c. 3, 244–9)
(a)The Rising at Brecon, 18 October. Six persons, including Henry, late duke of Buckingham, Henry, calling himself earl of Richmond, and Jasper, calling himself earl of Pembroke.
(b)The Rising in Kent and Surrey, at Maidstone,1 18 October, Rochester, 20 October, Gravesend, 22 October, Guildford, 25 October, and elsewhere. Twenty-eight persons.
(c)The Rising at Newbury, Berks., and elsewhere, 18 October. Fourteen persons.
(d)The Rising at Salisbury and elsewhere, 18 October. Thirty-three persons.
(e)The Rising at Exeter and elsewhere, 18 October. Eighteen persons.
2The second act (ibid. c. 5, 250). Attainder of John Morton, bishop of Ely, Lionel Woodville, bishop of Salisbury, and Peter Courtenay, bishop of Exeter. Penalty restricted to forfeiture of all possessions temporal and feudal as from 18 October.
3The third act (ibid. c. 6, 150–1). Margaret, countess of Richmond.
Margaret, countess of Richmond, mother to the king’s great rebel and traitor, Henry, earl of Richmond, has conspired and committed high treason, especially by sending messages, writings and tokens to Henry, stirring him to come into the realm to make war; and has made chevisancez of great sums of money in the City of London and elsewhere to be employed in treason; and has conspired and imagined the destruction of the king and was asserting and assisting Henry, duke of Buckingham, in treason.
But the king, of his especial grace, remembering the good and faithful services that Thomas, Lord Stanley has done and intends to do to him, and for the good love and trust that the king has in him, and for his sake, remits and forbears the great punishment of attainder of the said countess that she deserves.
It is ordained and enacted that she shall be disabled in the law from having or inheriting any lands or name of estate or dignity, and shall forfeit all estates whatsoever, which shall be to Thomas Lord Stanley for the term of his life and thereafter to the king and his heirs. Any estates she has or are held to her use, of the inheritance of Thomas Lord Stanley, shall be void.
4The fourth act (ibid. c. 7, 251).
Walter Roberd of Cranbrooke, Kent, having levied war at Maidstone, 18 October, and having harboured Sir John Guildford and other traitors on 10 February.
1Agnes Conway, ‘The Maidstone sector of Buckingham’s rebellion’, Arch. Cantiana, XXXVII (1925), 97–119, gives some particulars of these risings and of the men attainted.
Appendix D
THE PAPAL DISPENSATION FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HENRY VII AND ELIZABETH 1486
The publication of the Calendar of entries in the papal registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland, XIV, 1484–92 (1960) has made accessible documents of considerable interest. The papal bull of dispensation from Innocent VIII, dated 2 March 1486 addressed to Henry and Elizabeth, rehearsed their recent petition, read before him and the cardinals in consistory, which had stated that, in order to end the dissensions which had prevailed between their ancestors of their respective houses and families of Lancaster and York, they desired to contract marriage, and have been entreated by the prelates, nobles, magnates, and people of the realm to do so, but inasmuch as they were related in the fourth and fifth degrees of kindred, and perhaps also in the fourth degree of affinity, they cannot do so without apostolic dispensatio
n which was now granted.
On 27 March, a further bull was issued, confirming the dispensation for the marriage to be contracted or already contracted in virtue of any other dispensation obtained from the apostolic see or legates having the requisite faculty, confirming the legitimacy of any children of the marriage, and also the declaration of parliament concerning the king’s title and of his heirs. Further, the pope now inhibited all the inhabitants of the realm from stirring up fresh disturbances in the matter of the right of succession, under pain of ipso facto excommunication and the greater anathema. In addition, it was decreed that should Elizabeth predecease the king without offspring by him surviving, then his offspring by any other lawful wife should succeed (loc. cit. 1–2).
On 23 July 1486 a decree was issued setting out, at King Henry’s and Queen Elizabeth’s petition, a notarial copy of the process before James, bishop of Imola, apostolic nuncio with power of a legate de latere, in regard to the dispensation granted. The lengthy instructions included in this exemplification disclose that on 16 January Robert Morton, archdeacon of Winchester, keeper of the Rolls of Chancery, later bishop of Worcester, and John de Giglis, doctor of both laws, appeared before Bishop James, as proctors for King Henry, and Richard Hill, dean of the Chapel Royal, and David William, doctor of decrees, for Elizabeth, who laid before the bishop the petition of the parties.
The bishop-legate having received the petition, judicially sitting, at once committed to John, bishop of Worcester, and Thomas, bishop of London, power to examine the witnesses specified by the petitioners, which was done in the presence of the notaries public, who published their depositions and gave copies to the parties. Each of the witnesses was required to state his age, how long he had known either of the parties, what he knew of their intentions to marry, and to outline their respective pedigrees, so far as they were acquainted with them. The witnesses chosen and some of their testimony offer points of interest. The witnesses were Thomas, earl of Derby, William, earl of Nottingham, John Weston, prior of St John of Jerusalem, Sir Richard Croft, Christopher Urswick, archdeacon of North Wiltshire, Sir Richard Edgecombe, Sir William Knyvet, and Sir William Tyler.
After consideration of the testimonies, and rehearsal of the powers vested in him, Bishop James of Imola duly pronounced a decree of dispensation, which was later confirmed by Innocent VIII as above mentioned.
How much credence is to be attached to some of these testimonies as to length of acquaintance with the parties is a matter for speculation. Why did Thomas, earl of Derby, and Prior Weston state precisely that they had known Henry VII only since 24 August (citra … in the case of Lord Derby, a &hellip in the case of Weston, Vicesimum quartum diem Augusti), a date two days after the battle of Bosworth? Not sufficient is known of Prior Weston’s movements to be able to judge of the accuracy of his assertion, but Lord Derby’s assertion is remarkable, and caused the late K. B. McFarlane (E.H.R., LXXVIII (1963), 771–2) to raise doubts about Stanley’s part in the events of 20–2 August. But it is impossible to believe, on this evidence, that Stanley’s part at Atherstone and Bosworth was any different from that ascribed to him by Polydore Vergil and other chroniclers. He must certainly have met Henry VII on 22 August, and almost certainly two days earlier. He could therefore have testified to an earlier date. He may, it is true, have thought it prudent not to have revealed a date earlier than 22 August, but everyone concerned must have known that he met Henry on 22 August. In his testimony, therefore, he either deliberately chose a date two days later, or as the editor of the Papal Register surmises, a scribal error was made in the record, and ‘quartum’ written instead of ‘secundum’ (ibid. 17, fn.).
The other periods of alleged acquaintance with Henry VII, if not also with Elizabeth, can hardly be taken with precision, and cannot be used as exact calculations. One can hardly, for example, argue, as K. B. McFarlane suggested (ibid.), that because Sir Richard Edgecombe in January 1486 said he had known Henry for three years, therefore he visited Henry in Brittany before he fled there in November 1483. It seems reasonably clear that the witnesses were thinking (as after all they were bound to do) in terms, not of exact numbers of years, but of whether they knew him before the Readeption (1470–1), during the Readeption, and before his flight to Brittany, perhaps, whether in Brittany or France, and testified in general terms accordingly.
An English version of the dispensation was printed and published at an early date, perhaps by Caxton, and later by Walter de Machlinea; further editions were printed in 1494, 1495 and 1497, and its propaganda value was considerable. A text is edited by J. Payne Collier, in Camden Misc., I (1847). See A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, Short-title catalogue of books printed in England 1475–1640 (1926) ; cf. Anglo, loc. cit. 10.
Appendix E
HENRY VII’S BOOKS OF PAYMENTS
Five original books of payments drawn up by John Heron, treasurer of the Chamber, survive. The accounting years run from 1 October.
11495–7, P.R.O. E 101/414/6, fos 1–91
21497–9, P.R.O. E 101/414/16, fos 1–78
31499–1502, P.R.O. E 101/415/3, fos 1–104
41499–1505, B.M. Add. MS. 21480, fos 2–32
51505–9, P.R.O. E 36/214, fos 7–351
All the books contain very large numbers of detailed items of expenditure, in great variety, totalled week by week, and usually quarterly, annually, and biennially. Each of these totals was initialled by Henry VII himself, except for the years 1505 to 1509, when none were so initialled. The reason why no such initialling occurs in the last book can only be conjectured, but obviously the omission may well have been connected with the king’s decline in health.
Each volume contains several hundred folios, a number of which were left blank. But each, after the statements of payments, contains lists of landed revenues, recognizances, obligations, often an index of personal names, lists of acquittances, debts, the king’s wards, liveries of lands, and miscellaneous memoranda. Many items in these lists were deleted or cancelled, and it seems that they were compiled for the king’s personal information.
Craven Ord (1756–1832), the antiquary and at one time in the office of the king’s remembrancer of the Exchequer, made extensive extracts from all these books, and others dating from 1491, not now known to exist. His extracts, very neatly and carefully done, showing all sums in Arabic numerals, are most valuable, and are now in B.M. Add. MS. 7099, wherein the payments occupy fos 1–96. The only substantial printing of these extracts from these accounts are mentioned in p. 306, fn. 1 above. Detailed investigation and analysis of the original books of payments, and more publication of the materials, are desirable objectives.
It is noticeable that in the only surviving book of payments of Henry VII’s queen (P.R.O. E 36/210, now displayed in the P.R.O. museum), for the years 1502 to 1503, she habitually signed each page with her name ‘Elizabeth’ in full.
Appendix F
PORTRAITURE OF HENRY VII AND QUEEN ELIZABETH
HENRY VII
The only portrait known to exist of Henry VII painted in his lifetime is the one now in the National Portrait Gallery, London. This was painted in oil on panel in 1505 by Master Michel Sittow, by order of Herman Rinck, the agent of Maximilian I, to be sent to Margaret of Savoy (Plate 13a).1
At least one other portrait of Henry VII was, it seems certain, painted in his lifetime, c. 1500. The original of this, presumably the one listed in the inventory of Henry VIII, is not now known, but it was copied a number of times during the sixteenth century, and these showed the head turned either to the right or the left.2 Holbein followed the former type in his 1537 Privy Chamber fresco.3
The only other full representation of Henry VII from the life is the polychrome bust of him made by Torrigiano, c. 1508–9,4 now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (frontispiece). There can be little doubt that this bust is, in fact, the best depicture that now exists of Henry VII as he was towards the end of his life. It has a realism about it that seems to bring us as near as we shall
ever get to Henry’s appearance. The head of the tomb effigy in Westminster Abbey, also by Torrigiano, was not done until between 1512 and 1519, and resembles the bust but in a more glorified and less realistic style. (Plate 16c.)
Three other depictures of Henry VII are known to have been made during his lifetime. One is contained in a votive altar piece at Windsor showing Henry VII and Queen Elizabeth and their children adoring St George, made c. 1505–9, but too formalized to be of value as a portrait.5 The second is contained in the painted glass transept window in Great Malvern Priory Church (Plate 14a). This remarkable window deserves careful study, but the depicture of the king therein appears to be too conventional to be regarded as portraiture.6
There is less doubt about the image of Henry VII which appeared on the silver testoon and groat included in his new coinage. The image of the king’s profile to the right (Plate 10d) is clearly an attempt at genuine portraiture, and bears a marked resemblance to the Torrigiano representations. These profile types belong to the period 1500–9, but who was responsible for the portrayal of the king’s profile is not known.1
Another representation of Henry VII, not made from the life, but of great interest both for its provenance and for its depicture of Henry VII at a markedly younger age than any of the above is the sketch by Jacques Leboucq de Valenciennes, Hainault Herald, now in the Library of Arras (Plate 5). This impressive sketch is believed to have been done in 1559–60, but from what source is unknown. We cannot therefore draw any conclusions as to its evidential value.2
Apart from depictures of the king from the life, the next nearest representation of his features one might have hoped to get is the death mask made of his head very shortly after his death. Unfortunately the well known wax death mask3 attached to his funeral effigy in Westminster Abbey cannot, as it now is, be regarded as a true likeness (Plate 16a). Of the ten or more royal effigies in the Abbey collection, only two, those of Edward III and Henry VII, in fact have actual wax death masks instead of carved wooden heads, and but for the ravages of the centuries we should doubtless have had a fine and accurate presentation of Henry VII’s head and face. The head that survives, apart from the crude plaster ears, is clearly a masterly piece of work by a craftsman of high calibre. But, most regrettably, the nose of the mask has been missing for a very long time and there is no record of what it looked like. It was not, as has sometimes been said, lost during the disastrous flooding of the Abbey Undercroft during an air raid in May 1941. It was certainly missing long before, as is obvious from the photograph of it published in 1907.4 When it was lost no one can say, but when after the war the late R. P. Howgrave-Graham, then the assistant keeper of the Muniments, undertook with remarkable success the most formidable task of restoring the saturated, partly disintegrated effigies, he was confronted with the problem of what was to be done about supplying the mask of Henry VII with a nasal organ. Mr Howgrave-Graham himself has told us in detail5 the technical difficulties he encountered and the meticulous care with which he sought to reproduce as nearly as possible the noses of Torrigiano’s bust and tomb effigy of Henry. These two noses do indeed differ somewhat. The tomb bronze one is rather longer and slenderer than the bust. For technical reasons Mr Howgrave-Graham could not exactly reproduce either example. But it is clear that the nose he was able to make is markedly different in character from that shown either in Sittow’s portrait, or the pictures derived from the presumed original portrait, or the bust and tomb effigy, or the profile of the silver coinage. All these (except the tomb effigy) were done in Henry’s lifetime, and all are markedly similar. We are bound to conclude that in fact Henry VII’s nose was rather long and slender, not broad at the base nor rather bulbous and slightly snub as in the restored death mask. Whether or not the restoration of it resulted in a ‘Welsh’ face is entirely beside the point, for there is no reason at all why Henry VII should have ‘looked like a Welshman’. His genetics were too variegated to justify any such assumption, even if one could be sure what a ‘Welsh face’ looks like.1
