Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:06:18.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“A Wrong Whom Conscience and Kindred Bid Me to Right:” A Reassessment of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, and the Usurpation of Henry IV*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Douglas Biggs
Get access

Extract

Edmund of Langley, Earl of Cambridge, Duke of York. Just the mention of the name for most historians conjures the image of an historical figure with all the moral fortitude and intelligence of Rowan Atkinson's Black Adder. The fourth surviving son of Edward III, born too late to join in the glorious campaigns of his father, young Edmund became a pawn in the futile games of Plantagenet martial diplomacy. After his father's death, all of Edmund's incursions into the political arena resulted in total failure. Abroad, Earl Edmund's “monumental stupidity” in Portugal tore asunder John of Gaunt's grand strategy to acquire the throne of Castile. At home, Edmund of Langley's “lazy and indifferent” support of Richard II during the appeal of treason against the Duke of Ireland and a number of the young king's other favorites ensured the success of Thomas of Woodstock and the appellants. Though Edmund served as custodian of the realm during Richard's Irish campaign of 1394 and presided over Parliament the following year, such high office overmatched the Duke of York's abilities. Duke Edmund's “fatuous” vacillation in the face of Henry of Lancaster throughout the summer of 1399 cost Richard his throne. As the noted historian and natural philosopher David Hume observed, “The Duke of York was left as guardian of the realm; a place to which his birth entitled him, but which both his slender abilities, and his natural connections with the Duke of Lancaster, rendered him utterly incapable of filling in such a dangerous emergency.” Edmund of Langley's choice to “remain as neuter” in response to Henry of Bolingbroke, along with his treacherous submission to Duke Henry, allowed him and his family to survive the usurpation unscathed. But the new king could find no use for a man who possessed such titanic infidelity, and Henry quickly cast the loathsome York from council and government. Though York lived on until 1402 he remained on the periphery of the Lancastrian establishment. Even Duke Edmund's death attracted little notice, being, as-it-were, only a footnote to his colorless, uninspiring existence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , Summer 1994 , pp. 253 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A version of this paper was delivered at the 27th International Congress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo, Michigan. I am grateful for the comments of the participants, especially those of Nigel Saul, Chris Given-Wilson, Colin Richmond, W. M. Ormrod, James Gillespie, and Joel Rosenthal.

References

1 Palmer, J. J. N., “England, France, the Papacy and the Flemish Succession, 1361–9,” Journal of Medieval History 2 (December 1976): 339–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Russell, Peter E., English Intervention in Spain and Portugal in the Time of Edward III and Richard II (Oxford, 1955)Google Scholar, Russell's perception of York is generally unfavorable throughout his fourteenth chapter, but see especially, p. 313. For a more sympathetic view of the difficulties facing Edmund of Langley in Portugal in 1381 see, Goodman, Anthony, John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe (London, 1992), p. 114Google Scholar.

3 Tout, Thomas Fredrick, Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, 6 vols. (Manchester, 1920–1933), 3: 409Google Scholar.

4 Ibid, 4: 57.

5 Hume, David, The History of England, 8 vols. (Boston, 1860), 2: 256–57Google Scholar.

6 Shakespeare, William, The Tragedy of King Richard II, Act II, sc. ii, lines 114–15, in Riverside Shakespeare (Boston, 1974), p. 820Google Scholar.

7 Brown, Alfred, “The Reign of Henry IV,” in England in the Fifteenth Century, ed. Chrimes, S. B. and Ross, C. D. (Manchester, 1972), p. 7Google Scholar.

8 For his will see, A Collection of All the Wills Known to be Extant of the Kings and Queens of England, ed. Nichols, John (London, 1780), p. 187–90Google Scholar.

9 For examples see, Green, J. R., History of the English People, 4 vols. (New York, 1876), 1: 35Google Scholar; Linguard, John, The History of England, 10 vols. (Dublin, 1888), 3: 518Google Scholar.

10 Goodman, Anthony, The Loyal Conspiracy (Miami, 1971), p. 4Google Scholar; Tuck, Richard, Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973), p. 8Google Scholar; Hutchison, H. F., The Hollow Crown (New York, 1961), p. 211Google Scholar.

11 In addition to the above twentieth-century historians, Sidney Armitage-Smith in his 1904 biography John of Gaunt found Edmund to be, “a colorless character with neither energy nor ambition” (John of Gaunt [London, 1904], p. 25Google ScholarPubMed); May McKisack in The Fourteenth Century claimed Edmund of Langley was generally “a man of no ability,” and in opposing Henry of Bolingbroke's landing in 1399, “[t]he Duke or York, as always, was pitifully ineffective” (Oxford, 1959), p. 384), Alfred Brown found York to be a “weak vessel” and given “little responsibility,” by Henry IV, (“The Reign of Henry IV,” p. 12), Bruce McFarlane noted “it is unnecessary to waste any time over Edmund, Duke of York…” (Lancastrian King's and Lollard Knights, ed. Highfield, J. R. L. and Harriss, G. L. [Oxford, 1972], p. 70Google Scholar). The most recent view of York appears in Goodman's biography of John of Gaunt. York “was the mild one of a forceful brood, lacking in political weight, preferring private pleasures. As a ruler of Flanders (a task which taxed the able Count Louis) he promised to be a disaster (John of Gaunt, p. 44).

12 Hicks, W. C. R., “The Tomb of Edmund of Langley and Isabel of Castile,” in The Parish Church of All Saints' King's Langley (King's Langley, 1976), pp. 15–22Google Scholar.

13 Rosenthal, Joel expresses this view in, “The Estates and Finances of Richard Duke of York (1411–60),” in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History (Lincoln, 1965), p. 117Google Scholar.

14 Bertram Wolffe provides the extent of York's estates prior to 1399 in his The Royal Demense in English History (London, 1971), pp. 242–43Google Scholar. For a brief discussion of the Arundel's income from their estates see, Given-Wilson, Chris, “Wealth Credit, Public and Private: The Earls of Arundel 1306–1397,” English Historical Review 106 (April, 1991), pp. 17–21Google Scholar (hereafter cited as EHR).

15 Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1391–99, pp. 294, 296, 303; SirSomerville, Robert, History of the Duchy of Lancaster (London, 1953), pp. 135–36Google Scholar.

16 For York's appointment to the office of Steward on 20 March 1399, see, Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1396–99, (hereafter cited as C.P.R.), p. 490. York's pardon from debt, C.P.R., 1396–99, p. 543, duplicate of same grant, p. 549.

17 The value of the lands which Richard gave his uncle were deducted from his 500 mark annuity at the Exchequer in the following way, 100 marks for the honor and castle of Rising in Norfolk, £20 from the honor and manor of Hadeford Hall in Norfolk, and 50 marks from the honor and manors of Millingham and Beston in Norfolk (Public Record Office (hereafter cited as P.R.O.), E 403/561).

18 For Edmund of Langley's problems with annuities and their payment, see Johnson, P. A., Richard Duke of York, 1411–1460 (Oxford, 1988), p. 6Google Scholar.

19 Saul, Nigel, Scenes from Provincial Life: Knightly Families in Sussex, 1280–1400 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 69–70Google Scholar.

20 R. H. Jones claimed York “clearly failed to perform his duties as regent,” (The Royal Policy of Richard II: Absolutism in the Later Middle Ages [New York, 1968], p. 102Google Scholar). For a full discussion of York's military preparations see, Tuck, J. A., Richard II and the English Nobility, pp. 140–42Google Scholar.

21 £2,209 4s. 8d. went for soldiers' wages, £1,296 12s. 4d. for the supplementary defense of Wallingford where Queen Isabel resided, and £1,133 6s. 8d. for the defense of Bristol (PRO., E 403/562). As Chris Given-Wilson suggests, Tuck's claim that York's army amounted to about 3,000 men is high, though even Given-Wilson's figure of about 2,000 may be overgenerous (see Tuck, , Richard II and the English Nobility, pp. 140–42Google Scholar, and Given-Wilson, Chris, The Royal Household and the King's Affinity (New Haven, 1986), p. 225Google Scholar.

22 Barron, Caroline, “The Deposition of Richard II,” in Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England,” ed. Taylor, John and Childs, Wendy (London, 1990), pp. 140–43Google Scholar.

23 The sheriffs of the city of York were exempted from sending troops to Ware on 10 July 1399 in order that they watch the Scots (Calendar of Close Rolls, 1391–99, p. 518 [hereafter cited as C.C.R.]).

24 The Sheriff of Nottingham received an order to hold the castle of Nottingham against any save the king on 7 July (C.C.R., 1391–99, p. 507). Peter Courtenay, Constable of Windsor, received a letter close ordering him to distrain all those who ought to defend the castle in time of war on 12 July (C.C.R., 1391–99, p. 507).

25 C.C.R, 1391–99, p. 511. Date of the letter close is 18 July.

26 The Westminster Chronicle, ed. Hector, L. C. and Harvey, B. F., (Oxford, 1982), pp. 166–77Google Scholar.

27 Richard declared, “Ac omnes alios in dicta commissione insertos pronunciavit fideles, legates, et eciam prodicione immunes, et specialiter Alexandrum Nevyll, nuper archiepiscopum Eboracensem. Et tunc dominus Edmundus Langley, dux Eboracensis, avunculus, regis, et dominus Wyllelmus Wykham, episcopus Wyntoniensis, in dicta commissione inserti, lacrimantes, proni in terram cediderunt, regi tanto beneficio regraciando” (Chronicon Adae de Usk; A.D. 1377–1404, ed. Thompson, Edward M. (London, 1876), pp. 12, 118Google Scholar).

28 For their meeting see Historia Vitae et Regni Richardi Secundi, ed. Stowe, George B. (Philadelphia, 1977), p. 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Smyth, John, The Lives of the Berkeleys, ed. Maclean, John, 3 vols. (Gloucester, 1883–1885), 2: 9Google Scholar.

29 Benjamin Williams's suggestion that the French knight Sir Peter Craon was the contact between Henry and York cannot be given much credence. Williams claimed that though Richard II gave Craon an annuity worth £50 and called him a vassal, Craon treacherously went to Brittany in 1399 to meet with Henry. Using Bertrand d'Argentre's Historie de Bretaigne, Williams claimed Henry put Craon in charge of his expedition to England after he secretly visited Brittany (Argentre, , Historie de Bretaigne (Paris, 1618), pp. 600–01)Google Scholar. Williams further suggests that Edmund of Langley's donation of the manor of Havering-at-Bore for life in Essex on 9 June 1399 (C.P.R., 1396–1399, p. 576; Chronicle de la Traison et Mort de Ricardt Deux Roi Dengleterre (hereafter cited as Traison et Mort), ed. Williams, B. [London, 1846], p. 290)Google Scholar coming at “such a delicate time appears calculated to compromise the Duke's character” (Traison et Mort, p. 290). This confusing rationale is difficult to follow. It seems highly unlikely that Henry would have trusted a French knight with no Lancastrian connections to plan and lead such an uncertain expedition. Second, Craon's patent for the Essex manor was a royal patent not a ducal one, and most likely had been tied up in chancery since before Richard II's departure for Ireland. Finally, on two separate occasions in the spring of 1399 Craon nominated attorneys in England for the period of one year since he was going with Richard II (C.P.R., 1396–1399, pp. 553, 572. The two are dated 22 and 26 May 1399). J. J. N. Palmer shows Craon was exiled from France on 7 June 1399 by the Duke of Orleans and suggests he was already with Richard in Ireland (England France and Christendom [Chapel Hill, 1972], pp. 224–25Google Scholar). For a commentary on William's work see Clarke, M. V. and Galbraith, V. H., “The Deposition of Richard II,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930), pp. 125–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar (hereafter cited as BJRL).

30 P.R.O., DL 42/15 f. 70 v.

31 Dunstanburgh castle was held by Robert Swynhoe from 1 July (P.R.O., DL 29/11987), Kenilworth was held from 2 June by Robert Harbortel who purchased food and artillery for its defense (P.R.O., DL 42/15 f. 73).

32 For Henry's movements see, Clarke, M. V. and Denholm-Young, N., “The Kirkstall Chronicle, 1355–1400,” BJRL 15 (1931): 132Google Scholar; Traison et Mort, p. 286.

33 For the road net in the north see, Gough Map, Oxford Bodlian Library, MS. Gough Gert. Top. 16.

34 Walsingham, Thomas, Annales Ricardi Secundi et Henrici Quarti, ed. Riley, Henry Thomas (London: Rolls Series, 1866)Google Scholar: “Ipse vero Dux Eboraci protestabatur publice Ducem injuriose exhaeredatum; neque velle se molestare qui in justa cause venerat, ad repentendure daereditatem debitam sibi jure” (p. 244).

35 Traison et Mort, p. 186.

36 Johan Spicer et Walter Salesbury, vallets missis ad explorand de statum et proposite Henry Ducas Lancaster in denar eius libertas per manus proper pro vadris et expono suis eumodo et redemdo an exproloracoe praedicta. xxvi s. viii d.” (P.R.O., E 403/563 m. 15).

37 For a discussion of this Lancastrian propaganda see Strohm, Paul, “Saving the Appearances: Chaucer's Purse and the Fabrication of the Lancastrian Claim,” in Chaucer's England: Literature in Historical Context, ed. Hanawalt, B. A. (Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 21–40Google Scholar.

38 Traison et Mort, p. 230. The Burgundian chronicler Jean Brandon relates much the same story in his Chronicle, “Chronique de Jean Brandon,” in Chroniques Relatives a L'historie de la Belgique sous la Domination des Dues de Bourgogne, ed. de Lettenhove, Kervyn (Brussles, 1870), 1: 67Google Scholar.

39 Hayward, John, The Life and Raigne of King Henry IIII, ed. Manning, John (London: Camden Society, 4th sen vol. 42, 1991), p. 131Google Scholar.

40 Edward Hall proposed somewhat the same view of York's role, claiming that after Henry's entry into London he turned to York “whose help he much used” (Chronicle; Containing the History of England [London, 1809], p. 12Google Scholar). Rapin de Thoyras espoused much the same view as Hayward in the late seventeenth century (The History of England Written in French, trans. Tindal, N., 15 vols. [London, 1725–1731], 1: 472Google Scholar).

41 Strangely stubbs and Ramsay accepted this view of events and Edmund of Langley's role within them. Stubbs, William, Constitutional History of England, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1880) 2: 548Google Scholar; SirRamsay, James Henry, Genesis of Lancaster, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1913) 2: 353Google Scholar.

42 Gransden, Antonia, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols. (London, 1982), 2: 223Google Scholar.

43 In 1877 Queen Victoria paid to build a memorial chapel at the parish church of King's Langley to house the tomb of Edmund of Langley. During this process the tomb was opened and the contents examined. Five of Edmund's lower dorsal vertebrae were fused together as were two cervical vertebrae. The intense pain associated with such advanced arthritis would have left York unable even to move from his bed for weeks and perhaps months as a time. Even today with drug treatments, surgery, and physical therapy it takes tremendous will power and effort for people with this condition to go about their restricted daily lives, let alone ride a horse and remain active in political affairs (Evans, John, “Edmund of Langley and His Tomb,” Archaeologia 46 (1878): 297–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3: 426–27Google Scholar (hereafter cited as R.P.). Also see Reports from the Lords Committees Touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm, 5 vols. (London, 1820–1829), 4: 765–72Google Scholar.

45 Et ensi luy fist prince de Gales, duc de Comewaille, et cont de Cestre, et sur ceo luy fist amesner ensi arraiez par le due Deverwyk, uncle at nostre dit seignur le roi, a la see a luy ordeigne et assigne en parlement a cause de la principalte suisdit” (R.P., 3: 426); Wylie, James Hamilton, History of England under Henry IV, 4 vols. (London, 1884–1898), 1: 65Google Scholar.

46 Archbishop Roger supposedly levied “les pluseurs griefs & damages, wastes & destructions” upon the temporalities of his see (R.P., 3: 427).

47 R.P., 3: 459. For a text of the final judgment and a testament to York's presence at Shrewsbury when the announcement was made on 15 October 1400, see C.P.R., 1401–1405, p. 49.

48 York's attendance at Council on 4 and 9 December 1399 see, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, 7 vols., ed. SirNicholas, N. Harris (London, 1834–1837), 2: 100, 101Google Scholar. It is difficult to accept J. L. Kirby's assertion regarding York's withdrawal from government by using only lack of Council attendance (Henry IV of England [London, 1970], p. 92Google Scholar). Though the first meetings of Henry's Council were unusually large and distinguished, attracting an average of fifteen men per meeting and counting among their number Edmund, Duke of York, and seven earls, such distinguished men soon abandoned the council and its work to those whose attention to governmental detail and administrative procedure exceeded their own. Few bishops and great peers attended after this except when Council took up matters which directly affected their interests. Brown, Alfred, “King's Councillors in Fifteenth-Century England,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th ser., 19 (1969): 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Though various versions of this story exist (see Creton, John, A Translation of the French Metrical History of the Deposition of Richard II, ed. Webb, J. [London, 1823], pp. 210–12Google Scholar; Walsingham, , Annals, p. 188Google Scholar; Traison et Mort, pp. 233–34; Brandon, , “Chronique,” pp. 68–69Google Scholar), they all agree that York uncovered the plot.

50 York received appointments for the counties of Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk, Northampton, and Wiltshire, as well as Lincoln for the parts of Holand and Kesteven (C.P.R., 1399–1401, pp. 556–67); C.P.R., 1401–1405, p. 515–520.

51 Wylie, , Henry IV, 1: 84Google Scholar.

52 C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 381.

53 Rymer, Thomas, Foedera, 10 vols. (The Hague, 1739–1745), 8: 240Google Scholar.

54 Given-Wilson, Chris, “Royal Charter Witness Lists,” Medieval Prosopography 12 (Autumn 1991): 44Google Scholar.

55 The list of witnesses for Henry IV's Charters are compiled from the Charter Rolls (P.R.O., C 53/168–173).

56 The close relationship between York and Henry may have existed from long before the summer of 1399. Even in the midst of the political upheaval in 1387–88, Henry found himself losing 26s. 8d. “ad pilam manualem” (hand ball) to two of York's retainers (Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 120 vols. [London, 1840–1958], 30: 35Google Scholar). York also stood by Henry as his bail after his imprisonment and before his rendezvous with Mowbray at the lists of Coventry (Traison et Mort, p. 142). Goodman suggests relations between York and Gaunt were equally as cordial because of their proximity in age and other factors (John of Gaunt, pp. 247–48).

57 The original grant of the office was 10 October 1399 (C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 31). Sir Baldwin Bereford, a Ricardian knight, held the office before York (C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 16; C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 127). The man appointed tender, Thomas Gyssyng, was most likely one of York's esquires.

58 C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 31. Edmund of Langley's passion for the hunt is best displayed in the often quoted passage from John Hardying's Chronicle: “When all [the] lordes to Councell and Parlyament [went,] / He woulde to hunt and also to hawkeyng” (The Chronicle of John Hardyng [London, 1812], p. 340–41Google Scholar).

59 Without exception York is referred to in all Henry IV's official documents from Exchequer and Chancery warrants for issue, to patents, to charter witness lists, and even entries on the issue and receipt rolls as “annuclo clarissimio nostro.”

60 P.R.O., C 53/167.

61 P.R.O., C 53/166; P.R.O., E 403/561.

62 Even at Michaelmas term 22 Richard II (1398–99) York's 500 mark annuity was 100 marks in arrears (P.R.O., E 403/561). For Henry's payment of arrears owed York see, P.R.O., E 403/564, 569. On 24 November 1399 Henry ordered the sheriff of Cambridge to pay his uncle £20 per annum for life and all arrears from the time of Edward III (C.C.R., 1399–1405, p. 15.

63 C.P.R, 1385–1389, p. 198; Roskell, J. S., The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole Earl of Suffolk in 1386 in the Context of the Reign of Richard II (Manchester, 1984), pp. 145–46Google Scholar.

64 C.P.R., 1389–1392, p. 147.

65 For the Percies' complaints about lack of money, see Bean, J. M. W., “Henry IV and the Percies,” History 44 (October 1959): 222–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the methods and amounts of payment for the Wardens of the March in this period, see Storey, R. L., “The Wardens of the Marches of England towards Scotland, 1377–1489,” EHR 72 (October 1957): 600–04Google Scholar.

66 “Aurum non habeo, aurum non habebis,” according to the author of the Continuario Eulogii Historiarum, was Henry's response to Henry Percy's demand of money for the defense of the northern March, (Eulogium Historiarum, 3 vols., ed. Haydon, R. L. [London: Rolls Series, 9, 1863], 3: 396)Google Scholar.

67 This total is based on the Exchequer of Receipt, Receipt Rolls (E 401/617–623) and Issue Rolls (E 403/562–573), and the relevant Exchequer Warrants for Issue (E 404/15–17).

68 For this see, Harriss, G. L., “Fictitious Loans,” Economic History Review 2nd ser., 8 (December 1955): 187–99Google Scholar; Steel, A., “Receipt Roll Totals under Henry IV and Henry V,” EHR 47 (April 1932): 207–08Google Scholar.

69 P.R.O., E 401/617.

70 P.R.O., E 401/621, 622.

71 P.R.O., E 401/622.

72 The Exchequer promised repayment of the £100 by 9 August, 6 Henry IV (1406) (P.R.O., E 401/623). Perhaps part of the reason for Edmund of York's preference at the Exchequer was his constant attendance at court, which Gerald Harriss argues went a long way towards receiving prompt payment of annuities (Harriss, G. L., “Preference at the Medieval Exchequer,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 30 (May 1957): 17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 R.P., 3: 205–06.

74 C.P.R., 1385–1389, p. 62.

75 C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 501.

76 Order to customers in Kingston on Hull to pay £400 to the Duke of York dated 24 November 1399 (C.C.R., 1399–1405, pp. 15–16). Order to customers in St. Botolphus to pay 500 marks to the Duke of York on the same date (C.C.R., 1399–1405, p. 18).

77 Such problems in finding the money to support the dignity of Richard's first ducal creations were not restricted to York, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester suffered the same problems. For all of the troubles he encountered see, C.P.R., 1377–1381, p. 60, 372; C.P.R., 1385–1389, pp. 55, 147, 209, 224, 479; and R.P., 3: 206. For the Duke of Gloucester's problems in realizing his payments compare the views of Goodman, , The Loyal Conspiracy, pp. 90–92Google Scholar and Tuck, , Richard II and the English Nobility, pp. 101–02, 128Google Scholar.

78 C.P.R, 1399–1401, p. 501.

79 P.R.O., E 404/16/676.

80 Issue Rolls show York's payments at Michaelmas were fairly close to the yearly annuity promised for both 1 and 2 Henry IV (P.R.O., E 403/564. 565, 569, 570).

81 Though Henry did clear some of the arrears which the government owed Duke Edmund, the king could not clear them all, and the crown still owed the arrears of £239 6s. 8d. from the subsidies on wool which York received from the port of London at Duke Edward's death in 1415 (Johnson, , Richard Duke of York, p. 6Google Scholar).

82 C.P.R., 1401–1405, p. 93.

83 Grant of the lordship 10 October 1399, C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 31. Custody of the Mowbray estates within the lordship, 12 May 1400 (C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 280).

84 Grant made 28 November 1399, C.P.R., 1399–1401, pp. 144–45.

85 Grant made 4 December 1399, C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 151.

86 Grant made for Raleigh 30 April 1400, C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 262, for Hadleigh and Rochford-York, 17 July 1400, C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 354.

87 Richard II alienated the manors within the Duchy of Cornwall extensively, and for a number of years he retained only one manor, Penkneth, (Hatcher, John, Rural Economy and Society in the Duchy of Cornwall, 1300–1500, [Cambridge, 1970], pp. 137–39Google Scholar).

88 For a complete list of the charges against Richard, see, R.P., 3: 417–21Google Scholar.

89 The Prince's claim to Rising was in Chancery only shortly before 5 November 1402 (C.P.R., 1401–1405, p. 171).

90 C.P.R., 1401–1405, p. 209.

91 C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 79.

92 the only exceptions were two insignificant confirmations for Thomas, Earl of Kent, on 1 December 1399, giving the young earl 200 marks yearly and granting him six tuns of wine per annum at the port of Southampton. The price of these confirmations was a hefty 100 marks paid into the hanaper, which suggests Henry's largesse had to be purchased (C.P.R., 1399–1401, p. 163). Though both John and Thomas Holand attended Council on 4 and 9 December (P.O.P.C., 2: 100, 101), and witnessed two royal charters on 10 December 1399 (P.R.O., C. 33/168 m. 26), their subsequent rebellion suggests the familial bonds between the Holands and the king were not strong.

93 Percy received all of the military posts along the northern march, as well as the Isle of Man, and cash, assignments, and tallies from the exchequer averaging roughly £8,700 per annum from 1399–1402 (see Bean, , “Henry IV and the Percies,” p. 223Google Scholar). Neville, by contrast received the Honor of Richmond, which provided the Earl with roughly £1,418 per annum (Jones, M., Ducal Brittany, [Oxford, 1970], p. 181, and chapter 7 in generalGoogle Scholar).

94 McFarlane, K. B., The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), p. 281Google Scholar.