murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the category “law”

People just keep marrying in secret

After this case, this one, this one and this one , here is another secret marriage. The groom was the conductor Andre’ Previn KBE and the bride was the violinist Anne-Sophie Mutter, both of whom were born in Germany.
Here is an obituary for Mr. Previn, or Preview if you prefer.

Things are looking dark for those in denial about Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Talbot

PS Even Albert Roux is at it

Advertisements

‘Our Poor Subject’ – The Story of Katherine Bassingbourne

Researching my new novel, Distant Echoes, I found out about a court case that Richard was involved with concerning a woman called Katherine Bassingbourne. She brought a complaint before Richard’s Council because she couldn’t afford a lawyer and Richard seems to have taken her side, despite it being of no benefit to him to do so. She wasn’t powerful, influential or rich – he helped her simply because he believed in justice. So, what was her story?

 

She was the daughter of a York dyer, Thomas Worcester, who made a ‘nuncuperative’ will on his deathbed.  A nuncuperative will is a verbal will, usually made when the person involved was too ill or weak to write a normal one and required two witnesses. Richard writes to the mayor of York, Thomas Wrangwysh, in September 1484, ordering him to adjudicate impartially on the case, which was between Katherine and a Henry Faucet. He enclosed a petition from Katherine, whom he referred to as ‘our poor subject’ setting out a ‘grievous complaint’ against Henry. He tells Wrangwish to dispense justice in accordance with ‘our laws and good conscience’.

 

The case was deferred for a month so two witnesses could provide statements, confirming that Katherine’s father had made this nuncuperative will in 1452 (over thirty years before). He had bequeathed his house in York to his wife, Ellyn, until her own death, when he wanted it to revert to Katherine and any heirs she might have by then. It seems that Ellyn was probably Katherine’s stepmother.

 

We next hear about the case in March of 1485. It seems that Katherine had not yet received the house due to her, despite the testimony of the witness statements and had again petitioned King Richard to help her. He was then amidst a personal turmoil of his own, as his wife, Anne, was dying, but he still intervened again for Katherine and appointed John Lewes, ‘sergeant at arms unto the king’s highness’, to represent Katherine at the second hearing.

Medieval merchant's house

A mediaeval merchant’s house

We find out that after her father’s death his wife, Ellyn, had married Henry Faucet. Henry had also died by now and Ellyn was trying to bequeath the property to the surviving family of Henry after her own death, thus cutting Katherine off with nothing. This was Katherine’s complaint – a breach of the terms of her father’s will.

Annoyingly, the result of this hearing was also adjourned and there is no surviving record of the final verdict. I like to think that Katherine succeeded in her suit and that she was ‘relieved and helped’ by Richard, just as we know he helped ‘many a poor man’ gain justice.

 

With thanks to David Johnson, who steered me to his article in The Ricardian Bulletin of June 2017, where you can read all that is known of the story summarised here.

 

 

 

Image credit: By Jwkuyser [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, from Wikimedia Commons

 

After The White Princess and the White Queen, now we’re to have The Spanish Princess….

The American TV network Starz is at it again. After The White Princess and The White Queen, now we’re to have a dose of Catherine of Aragon, The Spanish Princess. See here …

It is to be aired in Spring 2019, so batten down the hatches, folks, we’re in for another bumpy dose of hokum. There are some familiar actors from previous series, plus the wonderful Harriet Walter as Margaret Beaufort. I think Dame Harriet will have a whale of a time.

There’s just one thing. These Starz series are renowned for prettying up the proceedings (I mean, they made Henry VII into a handsome, desirable stud!) So what, I wonder will they do with Katherine, who has always been portrayed as hard-done-by. But was she?

Recent research has proved that both Prince Arthur and Prince Henry (future Henry VIII) did their utmost to wriggle free of her. Why? Because she was too fanatically religious for them! It was believed that some of her astonishingly strict procedures were leading to an inability to produce children, which is hardly what is wanted of a Queen of England. She wouldn’t give up what she was doing, so the Tudors believed she was deliberately thwarting their chances of a continuing succession.

In the meantime, of course, Starz will portray her as the shy, beautiful, desirable, ill-treated bride who became the victim of the vile, adulterous urges of the contents of a certain Tudor codpiece.

Let’s face it, if she was too religious for the Tudors, she must have been quite something!

 

So if Edward IV ….

… is either Mr. Rochester or Captain Mainwaring and other characters have been identified, is Henry VII represented in popular culture, other than here?

You may recall that he promised to marry Elizabeth of York, OR one of her sisters if she was already taken, which is more about becoming Edward IV’s posthumous son-in-law than is romantic inclination. Had Bosworth been fought a month later, she may well have been Duchess of Beja and future Queen of Portugal. It also seems unlikely that “Tudor” sought permission from Elizabeth or her mother, whatever his subsequent propaganda says.

Here is an American ballad from the 1880s and a cartoon character who regularly sang it. Note the line in the final verse, after Clementine drowns in an accident : “… ’til I kissed her little sister …” – the song’s narrator wasn’t that selective either. Then there is this satirical version

This would explain a lot

Next month, David Starkey will be talking about Henry VIII on television again (1). However, in this Telegraph interview, he is compared to Henry in several ways, even suggesting that he

is that King’s reincarnation.
Sadly, the interviewer seems not to understand which of Henry’s marriage ceremonies were valid, or the difference between divorce and annulment, differences which were fully explained in a certain book a few years ago (2).

(1) Channel Four, Monday 6 April, 21:00.
(2) Royal Marriage Secrets, Ashdown-Hill, Chapter 10, pp. 95-113

Why I dislike John of Gaunt….

Wycliffe on Trial, by Ford Madox Brown

As Ricardians, we know very well now, history can be twisted to suit. The matter of those strawberries and what happened next, for instance. I mean, the different versions are legion, even to the point of whether or not Thomas, Lord Stanley was ever present at all, let alone injured in a scrap and obliged to hide under a table. So delightful and worthy an image.

Anyway, while researching an earlier event (1377) I have come upon another did-he?/didn’t-he? scenario, this time involving the Duke of Lancaster/King of Castile, John of Gaunt. He from whom the Beauforts, the House of Lancaster and the Tudors are descended. I have never been very fond of him, not even after reading Anya Seton’s Katherine.

To me, at this 1377 point in history, he was a scheming heap of double standards, arrogance, blatant dishonesty and unworthiness. (Don’t hold back viscountessw, tell it how it is!) He was bungling, a lousy military commander, and quite determined to prevent the bloodline of the sole female offspring of his older brother, Lionel, from getting anywhere near the throne. Oh, no, dear John of Gaunt wasn’t having any of that! A right to the throne through a woman? Heaven forfend. Besides, Johnny-boy wanted the throne for himself and his own descendants, even though he was lower in the pecking order than Lionel had been. What a hypocrite! He himself was claiming the throne of Castile through his second wife! And he was even Duke of Lancaster in right of his first wife. Yet, suddenly, the throne of England had to be different. No female intrusions, pul-eeze!

Edward III was no better, because he claimed the throne of France through his mother, but he developed a very convenient memory when he was persuaded by Gaunt to sign an entail that excluded women from the succession. Mind you, I do wonder if Edward would have signed any such thing if he had not been put under extreme pressure by Gaunt. Edward was elderly at the time, perhaps in his dotage, and very, very tired. He was a mere shadow of the great king he had once been, and still bereft from the loss of his beloved queen, Philippa of Hainault. He was now becoming doddery, and was reliant for comfort on his disliked mistress, Alice Perrers, whom it suited Gaunt to support because she gave him more access to his father. Some might say Edward III was a sitting duck when it came to Gaunt’s overweening ambition.

Edward III, tomb effigy

In early 1377, Gaunt was strongly suspected of wanting the throne for himself, and old rumours were resurrected (presumably by his supporters) that called into question the legitimacy of Joan of Kent’s marriage to the Black Prince. And therefore also questioning the legitimacy of her son by the prince, the future Richard II. The Black Prince was not known by that name then, of course, he was Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales (or, as I’ve recently seen him identified, the Prince of England). Joan had a chequered history, it’s true, but she was lawfully married to the Black Prince.

Joan of Kent and her son, Richard II
Tomb of the Black Prince, Canterbury Cathedral

 

Well, the Pope said Joan was the Black Prince’s wife, so she had to be, right? I won’t go into the whys and wherefores of her story, just that legally, at this point in time, she was the wife/widow of the Black Prince, and her little son by him, Prince Richard, was trueborn. Anyway, two-faced Gaunt was prepared to secretly sponsor attacks her reputation one day…and the next rush off to seek her protection when a mob was (justifiably) out for his blood. If I’d been her, I’d have thrown him to the wolves!

I believe it was with all pips squeaking that Gaunt swore to protect his nephew, the boy who would become Richard II. Protect the child? Hmm. Back in those days the lives of youngsters were notoriously delicate and at risk, and I do not doubt that Gaunt’s fingers were crossed behind his back as he made his vow. With Richard out of the way, or childless—although waiting for such to prove the case was an unknown risk, and could mean a long period of impatient thumb-twiddling and foot-shuffling for Gaunt and his family—and Lionel’s Mortimer descendants forbidden the crown, there would be no argument when a Lancastrian backside was plonked upon the throne. Which, of course, happened in due course when Gaunt’s eldest son stole Richard II’s crown and probably murdered him.

Old St Paul’s Cathedral

Where is all this invective leading? Well, simply to a scene at St Paul’s, at the trial of Gaunt’s friend and protégé. Wycliffe/Wyclif (and other spellings) who was believed by many to be a heretic. Or verging on it. There was a confrontation between Gaunt and the man who had hauled Wycliffe before a Church trial, William Courtenay, Bishop of London, who was also a son of the Earl of Devon.

John of Gaunt and the Bishop of London arguing at St Paul’s.

The Church had been provoked by some of Gaunt’s activities, and did not like the rumours, so another rumour (or an old one resurrected) began to circulate, that Gaunt was a changeling. It was claimed that his mother, Philippa of Hainault, had confessed as much to William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester, telling him to only let the truth be known if it seemed Gaunt was about to become King of England. Gaunt, needless to say, was livid, and deprived Wykeham of all manner of things. Mind you, in Gaunt’s place, I’d have been livid, too, but handsome is as handsome does, and (to use the language of the school playground) he started it! Courtenay and the bishops were intent upon getting at Gaunt through Wycliffe—punishing the duke himself being out of the question.

Wycliffe was escorted to the trial by Gaunt and the Earl Marshal, Henry Percy, who was a man capable of putting force before common sense. He angered the onlookers outside St Paul’s by clearing the way through them with much more strength than necessary. The trial opened with Courtenay telling Wycliffe to stand throughout the proceedings, and Gaunt declaring Wycliffe should be allowed to sit. Gaunt and Courtenay couldn’t bear the sight of each other, and the disagreement got out of hand. When Gaunt was heard to mutter something about dragging the bishop out by his hair, there was uproar that would to lead to the riots from which Gaunt had the brass neck to expect Joan of Kent to save him.

The above is the gist of the ‘facts’ as I have always understood them, but now, in a book entitled Lady of the Sun (a biography of Alice Perrers, by F George Kay) I find a much more colourful account of the flashpoint in St Paul’s:-

“…Gaunt lost his temper, knocked off the Bishop of London’s cap and started to drag him out of the way by his hair…”

Um, that’s slightly different from a mere heated exchange of words and a sotto voce threat. So, which is the right version? Something muttered? Or a violent laying-on of ducal hands?

F George Kay goes on to say that:-

“…The onlookers surged to the rescue of the Bishop. Gaunt and Percy [Earl Marshal and Gaunt’s sidekick, whose heavy-handedness had started the proceedings on the wrong foot] fled for their lives…and went by boat to Kennington. [Where Joan of Kent was residing with the little prince.]…)

Even with the missing words, this account implies that Gaunt and Percy fled from the scene of the trial, across the Thames and into Joan’s protection in one fell swoop. They knew she was popular with the people, and respected. The presence of the little prince was an added plus. One fell swoop? Not quite true. After the scene involving the Bishop of London’s hair, Gaunt and Percy went on their way in their own time, taking Wycliffe with them. The onlookers in the streets were shocked and angered by the quarrel, but were not, as yet, a rampaging mob.

It was the next day that things escalated and the rioting began, when London was informed that Percy had high-handedly imprisoned a man at the Marshalsea prison in Southwark for (apparently) no good reason. This imprisonment was the touch-paper.

When the mob went into action, Gaunt and Percy were sitting down to dine at the inn of a friend, a rich merchant named Sir John d’Ypres.

Small medieval dinner

The hors d’oevres had just been served (neat touch in the account of the eternally spiteful Walsingham) when a frightened messenger arrived to tell them the Marshalsea had been attacked and prisoners (or the prisoner) freed, Next, Percy’s house in Aldersgate had been ransacked as the mob looked for him (presumably with some dire punishment in mind). From Percy’s abode, the dissatisfied, frustrated, even angrier mob marched upon Gaunt’s fortress-like palace, the Savoy, broke in, and began another ransacking. Had either Gaunt or Percy been found, would they have been killed there and then? I don’t know, but it seems likely. What a difference to English history Gaunt’s early demise would have made!

Marshalsea Prison, Southwark, newly built in 1373
The house of Henry Percy, Earl Marshal, was somewhere near here.
The Savoy, Gaunt’s palace on the Thames

Anyway, on learning the awful news, Gaunt and Percy took to their highborn heels, bolted from d’Ypres’ house for the Thames, and then took a boat across the river to Kennington to throw themselves on her mercy. Joan was clearly nobler than them, because she took them in and defended them! Eventually—and no doubt very smugly—it was William Courtenay, Bishop of London, who calmed the mob and dispersed them. And he still had his hair!

Kennington Palace, but later than 14th century

So, here is another famous occasion for which the accounts are mixed. Maybe February 1377 isn’t of as much interest to Ricardians as anything that went on between 1483 and 1485, but I find it fascinating that such different slants can be extracted from brief accounts. Historians then adopt their preferred version, and claim it as the truth.

Oh, and F George Kay doesn’t say Gaunt allowed the rumours about Joan’s marriage to be spread, he says that Gaunt stood up in Parliament and suggested the succession should be discussed! Parliament was shocked. What was there to discuss? Until then they’d all been satisfied that the succession would go to Prince Richard. Gaunt was clearly reminding them all about the doubts concerning the Black Prince’s marriage. Did Gaunt really make such a suggestion? Would he do it? Would he stand there and publicly dig up doubts and questions about the marriage of the heir to the throne, and the legitimacy of the next king? He was already very unpopular, and widely suspected of having designs on the throne. Well, I am perhaps not the best person to ask. I’m not exactly unbiased! But then, nor was Gaunt. And Parliament’s response was to invite the prince to come before them, so they could acknowledge him and see that all his father’s estates, etc. were bestowed upon him forthwith. This was, perhaps, not what Gaunt had planned. Certainly it was a very public a rejection of any designs and ambitions he nurtured for himself.

It will by now be very clear that I have no time for John of Gaunt. Maybe he became a steadying influence in later years, but at the time of which I now write, he was a dangerously ambitious, scheming magnate who was prepared to do whatever it took to get his own way. He didn’t give a fig who he hurt, or about family loyalty—except when it suited, and especially when it came to sucking up to and manipulating his elderly, worn-out father, Edward III. He ‘persuaded’ Edward to disinherit his son Lionel of Clarence’s daughter, and her son (Roger Mortimer, the future Earl of March) from the succession, in order to insert himself in the nicely cleared slot. And he wasn’t above permitting his supporters to spread whispers about the Black Prince’s marriage and the legitimacy of the future Richard II.

If you wonder what did happen with the succession, read Appendix Two of Ian Mortimer’s The Fears of Henry IV, which explores and explains it all in great detail. Throughout Richard’s reign, Gaunt endeavoured to persuade him to name Gaunt’s son, Henry, as heir presumptive. Richard resisted, and seemed to regard the Earl of March’s son as heir. Richard made an entail of his own, superseding that of his grandfather, Edward III. In the end, of course, the entails were useless, because Gaunt’s son and heir usurped the crown and did away with Richard. Job done. Except that Gaunt never knew how successful his line finally became, because he died before Richard, and thus before Henry’s Lancastrian backside graced the throne.

I don’t just dislike Gaunt, I loathe him! His machinations were the root cause of the bloody Wars of the Roses. But I know that he has many supporters, and they will not agree with anything I’ve said. They will probably regard me as being guilty of the very things I’ve commented on: fake news and twisted facts!

Coming up soon …

Here is the front cover of the next book, about Edward IV’s chief mistress, from Britain’s busiest historian , to be published by Pen and Sword on 31 July. I wonder which surprises he will have for us this time?

A constitutionally important “Tudor” servant

Sir Richard Rich

We tend to have rather a negative view of Sir Richard Rich, or Baron Rich of Leez as he became in February 1547, nowadays. In this, we are somewhat influenced by Robert Bolt’s portrayal of him, as a “betrayer” of More, together with the history of Trevor-Roper. One Bolt line, memorably delivered by Paul Scofield as More, was “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world, but Wales?”, as Rich (John Hurt) becomes Attorney-General for Wales a few (film) minutes before More is executed. More is also quoted as saying that Parliament could make Rich King if it so wished.

Leez Priory

Rich, a lawyer, protege of Wolsey, Colchester MP, Speaker and Solicitor-General, was certainly involved in many of the events of the mid-“Tudor” period such as the prosecution of More and Fisher, accounting for Catherine of Aragon’s assets at Kimbolton Castle, supporting Cromwell in the Dissolution, quite possibly a personal hand in Anne Askew’s (unprecedented and illegal) torture, executor of Henry VIII’s will, the attempted prosecution of Bonner and Gardiner and the Seymour brothers’ fatal division. He then resurfaced under Mary I as an enthusiastic persecutor of heretics in Essex, before dying, nine years into the next reign, at Felsted where he donated money to the church and famous school in the village.

His descendants were granted the Earldom of Warwick and were heavily involved, on both sides, in the Civil War – one great-grandson, the Earl of Holland, fought for the Crown at the 1648 Battle of St. Neots and was beheaded the following March with the Duke of Hamilton (captured at Preston) and Lord Hadham (taken at Colchester).

Disastermind

On a previous occasion, we posted a case of a quiz show host who really should have known the details of the Wars of the Roses better. Now it has happened again.

The second contestant on this episode of Mastermind took Richard III as her specialist subject and did well in a close heat. One of the questions was “Which brother of the Mayor of London preached that Edward the FOURTH was illegitimate?” Obviously, the question meant “fifth” and the answer was Dr. Ralph Shaa. Are we being unfair to the quizmaster, as in the previous case, in that the specialist question setters are responsible for such a display of manifest ignorance?

Of course, nobody ever married in secret …

… except Louis XIV, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, John Lennon, the Earl of Kent and Edward IV (twice).

Anyway, here is another case, involving someone we have discussed before

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: