The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King (75 page)

49
. Favent’s claim is supported by the exchange of cloth of gold brocade mentioned in Henry’s accounts in relation to this parliament. See DL 28/1/2 fol. 5v. Interestingly, the divorced wife of Robert de Vere (a granddaughter of Edward III) was also mentioned as having this livery. Thomas of Woodstock had been particularly upset by de Vere setting his royal bride (Thomas’s niece) aside.

50
.
IH,
p. 103.

51
. It was perhaps inspired by the story of St Edward the Confessor’s appeal of treason against Earl Godwin as related in the popular
Brut
chronicle. See
Brut,
i, p. 129.

52
. Such language seems to have been chosen specifically to play upon Richard’s liking for Edward II, using terms which were reminiscent of the man who forced Edward II to abdicate, Roger Mortimer.

53
.
PROME,
1388 February, introduction. All four were sentenced to hang. Berners and Beauchamp were spared the rope on account of their noble birth, Burley on account of his service to the Black Prince.

54
.
WC,
p. 329.

55
. DL 28/1/2 fol. 4r.

56
. A pardon was granted at Henry’s request on 15 June at Westminster (
CPR 1386–89,
p. 461). Although this does not prove his presence, his accounts indicate he was still at Westminster on the 9th.

57
. DL 28/1/2 fol. 13v. At the end of a section in his accounts dealing with his armour, there is an entry: ‘for ten lances bought on account of the lord’s crossing over into Scotland, each 20d, [
total
] 16s 8d’. This directly follows a payment ‘for twelve lances bought at the time of riding against the duke of Ireland 18s’. See also DL 28/1/2 fol. 15v: ‘for carriage of the lord’s harness, jugs, tents, lances and other diverse harness from London to Leicester by a cart bought when the lord crossed over towards Scotland 14s 5d’.

58
.
Syllabus,
ii, p. 515; DL 28/1/2 fol. 5r.

59
.
Froissart,
ii, p. 571.

60
. Following on from the earlier tentative reconstruction of Henry’s itinerary in 1387–8, it is probable that his journey north to fight the Scots began before he knew about the summons to the Cambridge parliament, which was issued on 28 July. Therefore he had probably left London by the time of Richard’s order on 13 August to the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster to order the people of the duchy to meet the king to ride against the Scots. Henry seems to have travelled from London to Leicester (fol. 15v) and got as far as Lenton in Nottinghamshire, where he bought two horses (fol. 17v), but there is no evidence that he travelled any further. He probably returned via Leicester and Coventry (fol. 8v) to Kenilworth (fol. 6v, 17r) prior to going to the Cambridge parliament which started on 9 September and which he seems to have attended in part at least (
CPR 1385–89,
p. 510; C 53/162 no. 15).

61
. See previous note (for Kenilworth) and Wylie, iv, p. 159 (for Melton). See also Appendix Six.

62
. Tuck, ‘Cambridge Parliament’, esp. p. 233.

63
. DL 28/1/3 fol. 14v. Henry’s accounts have many references to the Lancastrian ‘esses’ collar, including some very particular descriptions which demonstrate that Henry was using the livery collar during Richard’s reign. See Appendix Seven.

64
. 12 Richard II, cap. 13.

65
. The parliament started on 9 September and lasted until 17 October. If Henry was there for the duration, it raises the question of when his son John was conceived, considering he was born on 20 June 1389 (implying conception around 27 September 1388). Henry was probably at Cambridge on 28 September, as that day a man was pardoned at his request (
CPR 1385–89,
p. 510). He may have turned up late as a result of his illness that summer. Mary was at Kenilworth on 16 September (DL 28/1/2 fol. 29r), about seventy-five miles or three days ride from Cambridge. She seems not to have travelled to Cambridge with Henry, for she gave a servant of William Bagot 6s 8d for bringing her news of the parliament. Thus if Henry did not arrive until the 23rd, he could have been at Kenilworth until the 20th, and his son be only a week overdue. Such tardiness would not have been very unusual: Bishop Fordham was still on his way to parliament on the 27th (Tuck, ‘Cambridge Parliament’, p. 232). However, this suggestion does not entirely solve the problem of when Henry attended, for he supposedly witnessed a charter at Cambridge on 16 October (C 53/162 no. 15) and yet granted two charters of his own at Kenilworth on 17 and 18 October (
CPR 1396–99,
pp. 122, 547). Taking this problem in conjunction with the conception problem, it is more likely that the baby was premature, and that the charter was actually witnessed by Henry sometime earlier in the Cambridge parliament and not enrolled until 16 October, by which time he had returned to Kenilworth.

66
. The earls of Arundel and Warwick both witnessed a charter granted at Westminster on 18 November (C 53/162 no. 25). Six days later a pardon for manslaughter was granted at Henry’s request to his clerk, William Loveney (
CPR 1385–89,
p. 531). The latter request could have been communicated by letter, but it also might indicate his presence. Normally such grants were made when Henry was present.

67
. Tuck, pp. 136–7.

68
.
CCR 1385–89,
p. 571.

69
.
LC
, p. 52.

70
. Saul, p. 203.

71
.
CCR 1385–8,
p. 676; Saul, p. 203;
LC,
p. 52. It met in the Marcolf Chamber.

72
. Henry did not witness the charter of 28 May at Westminster (C 53/162 no. 17). He was back at Kenilworth by 12 June (
CPR 1396–99,
p. 518).

73
.
PROME,
1397 September, part 1, item 53 shows Richard never forgave Henry for Radcot Bridge. Henry’s response in the Record and Process acknowledged this lack of reconciliation.

4: Iron Wars

  
1
. Henry was still at Kenilworth on 1 July (
CPR 1396–99,
p. 122). He was at Clarendon on 13 September for a council meeting (
PC,
p. 11) and at Westminster on
14 November (C 53/162 nos 3, 10 & 11). There is no direct evidence that Henry rode to join John but it would have been usual and respectful.

  
2
. Goodman,
John of Gaunt,
p. 144.

  
3
. Both Henry and his father attended the meeting of the privy council at Reading on 10 December 1389. See
PC,
p. 17.

  
4
. Richard’s request to Jagiello of Poland to grant Henry safe-conduct was dated January 1390. See du Boulay ‘Expeditions to Prussia’, p. 155.

  
5
. Jean le Maingre (1366–1421) was the second to bear this nickname. His father – also Jean le Maingre – had borne it at the time of Edward III’s 1355 campaign. See
PK,
p. 315.

  
6
.
Foedera,
vii, pp. 665–6.

  
7
. This is the description in Moranville (ed.),
Chronographia,
pp. 97–100. Froissart, who describes each set of strokes, or courses, in minute detail, states that each of the three champions had his own war target, but Froissart is mistaken as to dates and many other events in relation to this tournament.

  
8
. From his poetic description of the jousts taking place in May – not March – it is clear that Froissart was not there himself, but was using a source which had mistakenly copied
Martii
for
Maii
.

  
9
. Froissart gives the same names for the first day’s joust, on Monday 21 March, only differing in that his source mistakenly names Peter Shirbourne, not Thomas Swinburn. Swinburn was shortly afterwards given custody of Guines Castle (E 101/69/1/282).

10
. Froissart and the Saint-Denis chronicler differ on the number and names of the participants. They have six in common: Thomas Messendon, Thomas Balquet, John Lancaster, Thomas Talbot, Thomas Clifton and Nicholas Cliston/Clinton [
recte:
Clifton] (although Froissart mistakenly has John Talbot instead of Thomas and William Clifton instead of Thomas). In addition, Saint-Denis names Thomas Querry, Nicholas Saton [
recte:
St John?], William Heron [
recte:
Gerard Heron?] and William Stadon. Froissart names instead William Seimort [Seymour], Godfrey de Seca, John Bolton and two squires, ‘Navarton’ and ‘Sequaqueton’.

11
. The Saint-Denis chronicler names thirteen; Froissart names eight of these and adds three others.

12
. The Saint-Denis chronicler names seven; Froissart names three of these and adds six others.

13
. The anonymous poem ‘The Jousts of St Inglevert’, printed in Lettenhove’s edition of Froissart’s chronicles, agrees that Henry’s joust was towards the end of the tournament but states that it took place on Wednesday 16 April (Tuck, ‘Henry IV and chivalry’, p. 57). However, in 1390, 16 April fell on a Saturday, so this chronology was probably drawn up in a different year, with poetic effect in mind, and is not reliable. The date here is inferred from the Saint-Denis chronicle.

14
. Sarcasm seems to have been a common form of wit in the fourteenth century. Edward II as a young man had written letters to his French relations relating how he would give them a pack of slow hounds ‘who can well catch a hare if they find it asleep, for we know that you take delight in lazy hounds’. Similarly, Roger Mortimer had made a sarcastic joke to the earl of Lancaster in 1328: when accused of impoverishing the realm he had replied that if Lancaster knew how to enrich them, he would be welcome at court. See Mortimer,
Greatest Traitor,
p. 214.

15
.
Expeditions,
p. 34. As for the Lord de Saimpy taking no further part, this is implied by the two other knights alone taking on challengers after Henry’s company met them.

16
. Saint-Denis is the source for this compliment. The date adopted here contradicts most writers on the subject. The jousting did not begin on 1 March, as some chronicles state, but on 21 March. Obviously it went on beyond the end of the month. If the tournament actually lasted ‘thirty days’, however, the first day was the first of three days of ceremonies and feasts, i.e. 18 March (according to Saint-Denis). Wednesday 13 April was the twenty-seventh day. Froissart (although his source left after the first four days) states that the English departed from Calais on a Saturday. The Saturday after the 13th would have indeed been the thirtieth day of the tournament. Henry would have had an obligation to be at Windsor for the Order of the Garter feast on 23 April, and so probably did not leave any later than this. The Saint-Denis chronicler notes Ralph Rochford, Thomas Toty and John Dalyngrigge – all esquires in Henry’s service in 1390 – jousted on the last day of the tournament, and so Henry probably remained for the duration.

17
. Moranville (ed.),
Chronographia,
pp. 97–100.

18
.
Expeditions,
p. 1. His accounts and other documents at this time normally only name him as earl of Derby. The writ ordering their auditing (
ibid.,
p. 2) also has all four titles, so it was probably in regular use by 1390.

19
. Du Boulay, ‘Expeditions to Prussia’, p. 162. Richard had certainly tried to restrict some of those taking part in the St Inglevert jousts from going on crusade. See
Foedera,
vii, pp. 665–6.

20
. The situation was a complicated one, and never static. For a background on the shifting alliances see du Boulay, ‘Expeditions to Prussia’, pp. 156–60, especially p. 158, where the question of whether this was really a crusade is discussed.

21
. Details of the participants in the Prussian crusades have been drawn from Keen, ‘Chaucer’s Knight’, pp. 50–56;
LC,
p. 2.

22
. C 53/162 no. 2. The date conflicts with
Expeditions,
xxxv and xlii, but the charter witness list in this case is a more reliable guide than Toulmin Smith’s estimate.

23
.
Expeditions,
p. 19.

24
.
Expeditions,
pp. 21–2.

25
.
PK,
p. 346.

26
. For example, in August 1403 his cousin the duke of York gave him a present of pike, bream and tench; that same year he gave him another present of ‘6 fresh salmon and 12 bream’. Wylie, iv, p. 206.

27
.
Expeditions,
pp. 19–20.

28
. There is no indication that his family came ‘to see him off’. But he and Mary did give alms together at Lincoln, and the amounts they gave were large for oblations: 10s and 6s 8d. Furthermore these payments appear just after those for getting the ship ready. See
Expeditions,
p. 27.

29
. The three hundred men is often quoted and disputed. It is probably not an overestimate, if one takes into consideration menial servants and also the number of sailors on the boat.

30
. According to the Saint-Denis chronicler, Thomas Swynford fought with Henry in his party; Peter Bucton and Richard Dancaster took part on the next day of jousting, and Thomas Toty, John Dalyngrigge and Robert Rochford took part on
the last day. It seems likely that John Clifton and Roger Langford had also taken part in the jousts, as suggested by the chronicler’s references to John Claquefort (which appears as ‘Cliston’ in Froissart) and Roger Long.

31
. Henry had his chess board brought to him on the
reyse.
See
Expeditions,
p. 49. For his gambling with dice, see
ibid.,
pp. 28, 31, 35, 107, 109, 110, 115. For his backgammon see pp. 113, 178, 264. For
jeu de paume,
see
ibid.,
p. 263.