The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King (78 page)

32
.
PROME,
1397 September, item 1;
Vita,
p. 138. The biblical quotation is from Ezekiel, chapter 37, verse 22.

33
. Tuck, p. 190.

34
.
CR,
p. 56.

35
. The order of events followed here is that from the monk of Evesham’s chronicle. This contradicts the order of the parliament rolls, but makes better sense. See
CR,
p. 57;
PROME,
1397 September: introduction.

36
. That this was choreographed in advance is made very likely by the fact that Bussy had been with the king throughout that summer, and had been one of the knights present at the arrest of Thomas of Woodstock.

37
. The parliament rolls note only four, but the impeachment of Mortimer and Cobham followed.

38
.
PROME,
1399 September: appendix, quoting A. H. Thomas & I. D. Thornley (eds),
The Great Chronicle of London
(1938), pp. 76–7.

39
.
CR,
pp. 54–60.

40
.
PROME,
1397 September, appendix. This was probably a private vendetta, but Hawkeston was pardoned by Richard in October 1398 and continued to serve and be protected by Richard, regardless of this act of murder.

8: The Breath of Kings

  
1
. DL 28/1/6 fol. 22v.

  
2
. I am very grateful to Dr Margaret Pelling for the information about bezoar stones.

  
3
.
PROME,
1397 September, item 53.

  
4
. This plot has been seen as doubtful by some historians, partly because of the creation of Henry as duke of Hereford has inclined them to believe that Henry was in favour in 1397 (Tuck, pp. 184–5), and partly because of the unlikelihood that Thomas Holland, duke of Surrey, should seek to encompass the destruction of his uncle John Holland, duke of Exeter, or that William Scrope should try to plot against his erstwhile friend, John of Gaunt (Goodman,
John of Gaunt,
p. 162). As has been shown in the main text, even the award of a dukedom is not good evidence of favour under the dissembling Richard. With regard to the other objections, the disinheritance of the Lancastrians through the reversal of the pardon against Thomas of Lancaster goes some way to bolster Henry’s claim. Wiltshire and Salisbury (two of the antagonists) were not of Lancastrian descent
but most of the victims were. John Holland’s wife was, being Henry’s sister. So too was Thomas Mowbray. John Beaufort was inclined to support the Lancastrians, being Henry’s half-brother. William Scrope – newly raised to an earldom – simply, gratefully and sycophantically did what he thought the king wanted him to do, regardless of his earlier friendship with John. So did Surrey. Richard’s cousin and adopted brother, Edward, duke of Aumale, is the one whose position is not clear. He was not of Lancastrian descent, and in 1399 Bagot claimed at his trial that Edward had expressed a wish for Henry’s destruction. His inclusion amongst the intended victims is as yet unexplained.

  
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.