The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King (80 page)

69
.
CR,
p. 166.

70
. One might add the unspoken right of conquest to make the tripartite claim to which Chaucer and Gower allude and of which Wylie made much. Wylie, i, addendum (facing xvi).

71
.
Creton,
p. 201. York and his sons were Richard’s designated heirs, so this may have represented an attempt to circumvent Richard’s settlement of the throne on the house of York.

72
.
Revolution,
p, 183.

73
.
CR,
p. 190–91. As Given-Wilson notes, the outburst is doubtful. Although Carlisle was present, and soon after fell into disfavour, his supposed speech implies that Henry had assumed the throne before Richard had been judged. However, all references to opposition speeches have been removed from the ‘Record and Process’.

10: High Sparks of Honour

  
1
.
CR,
p. 185;
PROME,
1399 October, item 53.

  
2
.
Adam Usk,
p. 73.

  
3
. Although the number of knights created is not known for certain, at least one well-informed source gives the number as fifty. It is possible that this was a direct reference to the jubilee of the foundation of the Order of the Garter. See Wylie, i, p. 43;
Adam Usk,
p. 71;
Annales,
p. 291;
PK,
pp. 427–9 (for 1349 as the date of the foundation of the Order of the Garter).

  
4
.
PK,
p. 21.

  
5
. Strohm,
Hochon’s Arrow,
pp. 84–5.

  
6
.
Adam Usk,
p. 73. Creton has Westmorland holding the sceptre. See
Creton,
p. 207.

  
7
.
Creton,
pp. 208–9;
Adam Usk,
p, 73.

  
8
.
PROME,
1399 October, part 1, item 2.

  
9
.
CR,
p. 113.

10
. For example,
RHL,
i, p. 23 (a letter to Albert, count of Hainault, dated 1400).

11
. For Kingston, see
RHL,
i, p. 158. For his sons, Henry and John regularly wrote to him with the same salutation, for example: Henry in January 1405 and John several times in 1407 (
RHL,
ii, pp. 20, 223, 227, 231, 235). It is likely that Henry V picked up his own devotion to the Trinity at least partly as a result of his father’s influence. The younger Henry’s regard for the Trinity is already apparent in his letter of 11 March 1405 (
PC,
i, p. 249). For Joan, who wrote praying that the Holy Spirit would keep him in February 1400, (see
RHL,
i, p. 20). Other examples are the letter to Henry from the earl of March in 1404 (
ibid.,
p. 434) and the letter from the officers of the staple at Calais (
RHL,
ii, p. 283). A systematic search would no doubt reveal many more such references.

12
. For example,
PROME,
1404 January, item 17; 1406 March, part 1, item 38.

13
. Henry certainly used the prince’s feathers in his own seals at this time. Nicolas, ‘Badge and Mottoes’, pp. 365–6.

14
. On Edward’s reputation at this time as the greatest king who had ever ruled England see Morgan, ‘Apotheosis’, especially p. 868.

15
.
Revolution,
p. 185.

16
.
Adam Usk,
p. 73. This may have been a misquotation of the second coronation oath, ‘to cause impartial and honest justice and discretion, with mercy and truth, to be done in all your judgements, according to your power’.
PROME,
1399 October, part 1, item 17.

17
. The letter was dated 2 November, at Linlithgow (
RHL,
i, p. 10), but Henry’s declaration on 10 November suggests that that was when it was received.

18
. When the lords expressed support for his intended expedition, he ‘most graciously thanked the said lords in his own words, and said to them that he would never refrain from committing his body and his blood to this expedition, or to any other for the salvation of his realm, if God gave him life’. See
PROME,
1399 October, part 1, item 80. For a full account of the Scottish expedition of 1400, see Brown, ‘English campaign in Scotland’, pp. 40–54.

19
.
Waurin,
pp. 42–3.

20
.
Revolution,
p. 195.

21
. For Bucton’s role, see Johnstone, ‘Richard II’s departure from Ireland’, p. 799.

22
.
CR,
p. 202.

23
.
CR,
p. 203.

24
.
CR,
p. 212.

25
.
CR,
pp. 204–5.

26
. Disembowelling alive, with the victim’s entrails being burned, had been the sentence meted out by Hugh Despenser on Llewelyn Bren in 1317 and (probably in revenge) by Roger Mortimer on Hugh Despenser in 1326. It was carried out again on Sir Thomas Blount in January 1400, with a particularly graphic description being included in
Waurin,
pp. 39–40.

27
.
PROME,
1399 October, introduction.

28
.
PROME,
1399 October, part 1, item 73.

29
. Wylie, i, p. 111. For Knaresborough Castle see Taylor (ed.),
Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles,
p. 82. Morgan, ‘Shadow of Richard II’, pp. 1–2, gives a selection of the other places mentioned in various chronicles for Richard’s location; given the secrecy surrounding his custody, it is difficult to be certain as to his whereabouts.

30
. C 53/167 no. 1. For earlier witnessings, see Given-Wilson, ‘Royal Charter Witness Lists’, esp. tables 7 and 13. For later witnessings, see Biggs, ‘Royal Charter Witness Lists’, pp. 407–23, esp. pp. 417–19.

31
.
Traïson,
pp. 229.

32
.
Traïson,
pp. 233–4.

33
.
CR,
p. 236.

34
.
PC,
i, p. 107.

35
.
Brut,
ii, p. 360;
CR,
p. 224, n. 1.

36
. McNiven, ‘Cheshire rising’, pp. 387–8.

37
. Brown, ‘Reign of Henry IV’, pp. 5–6.

38
.
Waurin,
p. 41.

11: A Deed Chronicled in Hell

  
1
.
Waurin,
pp. 39–43; Wylie, i, p. 107.

  
2
.
PC,
i, pp. 102–3.

  
3
.
Foedera,
viii, p. 124.

  
4
.
PC,
i, p. 3.

  
5
. Wylie, i, p. 115.

  
6
. The early February council minutes would have mentioned the escape if this was the specific reason for their doubt as to the king’s death. Henry made a payment of 100 marks on 17 February for bringing Richard’s corpse to London (
Issues,
p. 275). The face was clearly exhibited in St Paul’s Cathedral (for two days), and in the main thoroughfare, Cheapside, for two hours, and later at Westminster Abbey, as stated by a number of chroniclers, including the well-informed Walsingham, who states that the cerecloth was removed from his forehead to his neck (
Annales,
p. 331) and a contemporary London chronicler who seems to have been a witness (
EC,
p. 21). A very great number of individuals in London saw the corpse (McNiven, ‘Rebellion, sedition’, p. 95). Significantly, the earl of Northumberland and the archbishop of York later issued manifestos attesting to the death. The earl was one of Henry’s most trusted confidants in February 1400 and both he and the archbishop were present at the council meeting when Richard’s death was discussed. They therefore had direct access to information about the physical cause and date of the ex-king’s death. Finally, Jean Creton, one of the few chroniclers who believed that Richard had not died, went to see the supposedly living king in Scotland in 1402 and discovered him to be an imposter (
CR,
pp. 240–41; Dillon, ‘Remarks’, pp. 78–83). To this we might add the circumstantial detail that, had the imposter really been Richard, it would be out of character for him to exist quietly and modestly in Scotland for so many years.

  
7
. Respectively, these are the views of Given-Wilson in
PROME,
1399 October, introduction; Saul, p. 425;
Revolution,
p. 192.

  
8
. For example, see Palmer, ‘French chronicles, 2’, pp. 399–400.

  
9
. Amyot, ‘Inquiry’, pp. 425–8.

10
. Jean Creton returned from Scotland to France in 1402 with a story about Richard’s violent death. See Dillon, ‘Remarks’, p. 78; Palmer, ‘French chronicles, 1’, p, 162.

11
.
Traïson,
pp. 233–4.

12
.
CR,
p. 241. The date has probably been drawn from Walsingham.

13
.
Brut,
ii, p. 360.

14
.
CR,
p. 244.

15
.
EC,
p. 21; ‘Deposition’, p. 174.

16
.
Adam Usk,
p. 91. Usk names the keeper as ‘Sir N. Swynford’.

17
.
Annales,
p. 331.

18
.
PC,
i, xxxi and p. 111. The minute refers to pardons for crimes committed ‘before the feast of the Purification of our lady last past’ (2 February 1400). Although Wylie states that the council minute dates from 8 February at the latest, the
CPR
text of the letters to the sheriffs by which he derived this
terminus ante quem
gives their date as 24 February 1400, as Nicolas states, not 8 February as Wylie claims on the basis of
Foedera
(Wylie, i, p. 115;
Foedera,
viii, p. 125). As the minute includes so many provisions for the security of the kingdom, it is
likely to be connected with the 9 February minutes, which mention Faryngton, the French king’s letter and the likelihood of war. However, Henry was clearly present at the meeting on 9 February, whereas he was not present at the meeting which discussed the eventuality of the king’s death. It is likely therefore that Wylie is right to date this council meeting to 3–8 February, although not for the reasons stated.

19
. ‘En primes si R. nadgairs Roy soit uncore vivant a ce que len suppose quil est ordenez soit quil soit bien et seurement gardez pur sauvacion de lestat du Roi et de son Roiaume.’ This appears printed in
PC,
i, p. 107. The text was checked against the original in the British Library: Cotton, Cleopatra F iii, fol. 14a. It also appears in Strohm,
England’s Empty Throne,
p. 104. As Nicolas noted at the time of editing this document, it suggests that Henry and the council were bystanders to the death, not the instigators of it. His thoughts on the subject have largely been ignored subsequently, probably because he did not fully explain them. In recent years this document has been construed as tacit advice from the king’s council to terminate Richard’s life (e.g. Burden, ‘How do you bury a deposed king?’, p. 39; Strohm,
Empty Throne,
p. 104).

20
. ‘Quant a le primer article il semble au Conseil expedient de parler au Roi qen cas que R. nadgairs Roy &c soit uncore vivant quil soit mys en seuretee aggreable a les seigneurs du roiaume & sil soit alez de vie a trespassement qadonques soit il monstrez overtement au people au fin quils ent puissent avoir conissance.’
PC,
i, pp. 111–12. A similar but briefer entry appears in British Library, Cotton Cleopatra F iii, fol. 14b: this is damaged but seems to say ‘Sur le primer article soit ple au Roi qen cas que R. vivant &c quil soit mys en seurete … [
edge of page
] les seignurs Et que sil soit mort qadonqes il soit monstrer overtement au poeples quils en puissent avoir conissance.’ The fuller version suggests the matter was deliberated without the king being present.

21
. This was usual for council meetings at this period. Harriss,
Shaping the Nation
, p. 77.

22
. If a report of the public execution of the lookalike Maudeleyn had triggered the French king’s belief in the death, Charles would have accused Henry of killing Richard directly. There is no such accusation; rather there is a quiet and sombre reflection on Richard’s death.

23
. Bucton took Richard to Knaresborough after the parliament (which ended on 19 November). This seems to be based on first-hand information, as Knaresborough is only eighteen miles away from Kirkstall, and the chronicler adds that he does not know where Richard was taken afterwards, proving he was not reliant on the official version of the death. See Taylor (ed.),
Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles,
p. 82.

24
.
Traïson,
p. 248.

25
. For the nationality of the author, see Palmer, ‘French Chronicles, 1’, pp. 163–4. Palmer suggests he was in the service of the duke of Burgundy, as his dialect is West Flanders, Picard or Walloon. He was based in London as he gives descriptions of places in terms of their distance from the city. He or his source seems to have been with Henry and the militia army on the common outside London on 6 January, as he gives details about the times of people coming and going, the earls of Arundel and Warwick among them. See
Traïson,
pp. 235–6, 248, 253–4.

26
.
Issues,
p. 276. One man to go to Pontefract from London was reimbursed 6s 8d
in this same account. The payment to Loveney – £3 6s 8d – indicates that he may have had as many as eight or nine men with him, if they were reimbursed for their expenses at the same rate. This visit must have been after 4 January when Loveney was with the king in London (
CCR 1399–1402
, p. 34).