The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King (79 page)

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).

52
.
PROME,
1399 September, part 1, item 53. In addition, two chronicles note Henry’s claim through descent from Henry III, see
CR,
p. 166;
Adam Usk,
p. 71.

53
. One of these chronicles, the continuator of the
Eulogium,
mentions this claim in relation to John of Gaunt’s request for Henry to be recognised as heir to the throne in 1394. However, this is hardly likely to have been voiced at this time as it would imply that Richard himself was not the legitimate king in 1394. Rather it should be regarded as an interpolation by the continuator’s successor, added to the first-state chronicle in or after 1400, by a writer who presumed that the Crouchback legend underlay John’s claim that Henry should be given preference to the earl of March, and that this was why Henry had claimed the throne by inheritance from Henry III in 1399. See
Eulogium,
iii, pp. 369–70; ‘Succession’.

54
.
Adam Usk,
pp. 65–7.

55
.
Royal Wills,
p. 16.

56
. Philip Vache, who had served Richard II, was possibly a surviving witness. He (or a man of the same name) entered Henry’s service in 1403. Given-Wilson,
Royal Household,
p. 290. One of the men with Henry, John d’Aubridgecourt, was the son of one of the witnesses of Edward III’s entail.

57
.
Foedera,
ii, p. 497.

58
.
SAC,
pp. 39–41.

59
. See Appendix Two.

60
. One account specifically states that Henry claimed the throne as ‘the nearest male heir and worthiest blood-descendant of Henry III’,
CR,
p. 166. John’s claim in 1199 had prevailed not only over Arthur but also Arthur’s sister, Eleanor, daughter of Geoffrey, John’s older brother. Eleanor died in 1241. Thus, if this can be considered to reflect practice before 1290, Henry III’s throne was inheritable only by and through males.

61
. Henry himself used parliament to recognise his settlements of the throne in 1406, contrary to earlier examples. It is also interesting that the Record and Process states that Richard had asked that Henry succeed him.

62
.
CR,
p. 187.

63
. This meeting is described in
Traïson,
pp. 216–18.

64
. The council met on or before 28 September.
CR,
pp. 162–3.

65
.
Revolution,
p. 175. On this day official documents ceased to bear the regnal year.

66
. Rumours of Richard’s illegitimacy were in circulation at this time. See
Creton,
p. 179;
Revolution,
p. 176.

67
.
PROME,
1399 October, introduction.

68
.
CR,
p. 165. The Record and Process suggests a more reserved and considered response but this was probably written up some while later, and refracted through the lens of justifying the proceedings.