The Last Will of Lionel, Duke of Clarence (1338-1368)

Illustrated from the tomb of Edward III

First duke of Clarence, second surviving son of Edward III.  Rumored to have been poisoned, it is more likely that Lionel died as a result of too much good living, eating and drinking: "His great riot and wynes delicacie, His Ghoste exilled from his corse doubtless" [Notes and queries, 7th series, vol. 9; London: Jan-June 1890, p. 482].

Abstract of will:

Lionel Duke of Clarence, in the house of the Duke of Milan, in the city of Alba, the 3d of October 1368.  My body to buried in the Church of the Friars Augustines at Clare, in the County of Suffolk; to Violenta, my wife, my vestments with gold coronets; to John de Bromwich, Knt. my courser called Gerfacon; to  Richard Musard, Knt. a girdle of gold and a courser called Maugeneleyn; to John de Capell, my chaplain, a girdle of gold, to make a chalice in memory of my soul; and to the said John my best portiforium (1) with musical notes; to Master Nicholas de Haddeley a small portiforium, without notes; to John Wayte, my chaplain, a portiforium, with notes; to Thomas Waleys a circle of gold, with which my brother and Lord was created Prince (2); to Edmund Mone the circle with which I was created Duke; to Nicholas Bekennesfeld x marks a year out of the manor of Bremsfeld.  And I appoint Violenta, my wife; Bartholomew Pigot, and John de Capell, my chaplain; and Sir John de Bromwich, Knight, my executors.  In the presence of Nicholas de Bekennesfeld, Robert Bradway, John Bray, and others.  Proved before William Archbishop of Canterbury 6 ides of June 1369, at Lambeth [Testamenta Vetusta, 1:70-71].
-----------------------------------------
(1) A book of the prayers, hymns, psalms, and readings for the canonical hours; a breviary
(2) Edward the Black Prince

****

Final resting place of Lionel, duke of Clarence, at the ruins of Clare Priory, Suffolk.  Buried on his right side is Lionel's 1st wife, Elizabeth de Burgh [Findagrave]:

The Reburial of Richard III

By now, many of you are undoubtedly aware that human remains found buried underneath a car park last September in the city of Leicester, England have been confirmed this week to be the body of King Richard III.  Here is an image of the mostly intact skeleton of the last of the Plantagenet kings.  The severity of his lateral scoliosis (curved spine) is easily observed. 

Leicester took charge of the remains, and in the end, he was buried there.

Richard should have been given a respectful and honored reburial in York Cathedral.  It is what he would have wanted: Richard endowed a chantry at York and visited many times, stating his intention for burial there.

Richard's rule and person was systematically maligned by the Tudor dynasty (the victor always gets to write the history); Shakespeare picked up the mantle and embellished the myths of the monstrosity of Richard.  Now, perhaps, history will re-examine Richard's reign and produce a more balanced view.  

Read here for how Richard died: 
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2013-02-05/leeds-expert-pieces-together-how-richard-iii-died/

The penalty of poaching the King’s deer

or

The Fine of the White Hart

King Henry III coming to hunt in a forest (since called White Hart) in Dorsetshire, took several deer.  Finding a most beautiful and goodly white hart there he spared it: but afterwards a gentleman of the County called Thomas de Lynd, with others in his company, took and killed this white hart.   For which the King put a fine on him and the whole County, called the White Hart Silver.  [Henry Curzon, The universal library or compleat summary of science (1712), 1:352]

The fine was still being paid into the Exchequer at the time of Elizabeth I. 

BLACKMOOR-VALE, the valley of the Cale river, on the mutual border of Somerset and Dorset; south south-eastward from Wincanton toward Sturminster. It is flanked by hill ranges, often 4 miles asunder; and has a rich, tenacious, marshy soil, notable as pasture land, and for the vigorous growth of oaks. It was originally called White Hart forest, from an incident in a hunt by Henry III.   Source: A vision of Britain through time; online at: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/place_page.jsp?p_id=25968

Last decade of the 14th century (ca. 1395-1399) England or France

The Wilton Diptych reverse - the White Hart

London, National Gallery

The Last Days of Queen Isabella (c1295-1358)

Isabella returns to England from France

The following account of the final days of Isabella is taken from John Timbs, “Nooks and corners of English life, past and present,” Second edition, London (1867): Griffith and Farran, pp.148-53--* (punctuation modernized)

THE PRIVATE LIFE OF A QUEEN OF ENGLAND

ONE of the most interesting records of the domestic life of our ancestors is a series of “Notices of the Last Days of Isabella, Queen of Edward II, drawn from an Account of the Expenses of her Household,” and communicated to the Society of Antiquaries, by Mr. E. A. Bond, of the British Museum. Nothing can exceed the minuteness of this memorial of the domestic manners of the middle of the fourteenth century—no court circular ever chronicled the movements of royalty more circumstantially than does this household account.

After the deposition and murder of Edward II, we hear little of the story of the chief mover of these events.  Having mentioned the execution of Mortimer, Froissart tells us that the King ordered his mother to be confined in a goodly castle and gave her plenty of ladies to wait and attend on her, as well as knights and esquires of honour. He made her a handsome allowance to keep and maintain the state she had been used to, but forbade that she should ever go out or drive herself abroad, except at certain times, when any shows were exhibited in the court of the castle.  The King visited her twice or thrice a year. Castle Rising was the place of her confinement. Here the Queen took up her abode in 1330; after the first two years, the strictness of her seclusion was relaxed. She died at Hertford, August 22, 1358, and was buried in the church of the Grey Friars, within Newgate, now the site of Christ's Hospital.

The account of the Queen's expenses is one of the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum.  It embraces, in distinct divisions, the Queen's general daily expenses; sums given in alms; miscellaneous necessary expenses; disbursements for dress; purchases of plate and jewellery; gifts; payments to messengers; and imprests for various services.  In the margin of the general daily expenses are entered the names of the visitors during the day, together with the movements of the household from place to place. From these notices, in addition to the light they throw upon the domestic life of the period, we gain some insight into the degree of personal freedom enjoyed by the Queen and her connections, the consideration she obtained at the Court of Edward III her son, and even into her personal disposition and occupations. These particulars relate to her last days.

It appears that, at the beginning of October 1357, the Queen was residing at her castle of Hertford, having not very long before been at Rising. The first visitor mentioned, and who sups with her, was Joan her niece.  Joan visited the Queen constantly and nursed her in her last illness.

About the middle of October, Queen Isabella set out from Hertford on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. She rested at Tottenham, London, Eltham, Dartford and Rochester.  In going or returning [she] visited Leeds Castle, and was again at Hertford in the beginning of November. She gave alms to the nuns—Minoresses without Aldgate; to the rector of St. Edmund's in London, in whose parish her hostel was situated (Lombard Street); and to the prisoners in Newgate. On the 26th of October she entertained the King and Prince of Wales, in her own house in Lombard Street; and we have recorded a gift of thirteen shillings and fourpence to four minstrels who played in their presence.

On the 16th of November, after her return to Hertford Castle, she was visited by the Gascon warrior, Captal de Buche, cousin of the Comte de Foix. He had recently come over to England with the Prince of Wales, having fought with the English at Poitiers.  Subsequent entries record the visits of several noble captives taken in that battle.

On the following day is recorded a visit, at dinner, of the "Comes de la March," considered to be Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, the grandson of her favourite. He was high in Edward the Third's confidence and appears to have been in England at the present time: under the head of donations is notice of a sum paid to four minstrels of the Earl of March. His visit was subsequently twice repeated, and then in company with the King (by whom, as Froissart tells us, "he was much loved") and the Prince of Wales.  “And thus," says Mr. Bond, "we have an indication that time has scarcely weakened Isabella's fidelity to a criminal attachment [my emphasis]; although [Mortimer] had been torn from her, she still cherished his memory and sought her friends among those most nearly allied to him."

On the 28th of November and the two following days, the Queen entertained the Earl of Tancarville, one of the captives at Poitiers.  With him [was] the Earl of Salisbury, who was connected with the Mortimers, being brother-in-law to the existing Earl of March.  His father had personally acted a principal part in arresting Isabella's paramour in Nottingham Castle. On the 15th of December, the Queen was visited by the Countess of Pembroke, one of Isabella's closest friends. And, again, what can we infer but a clinging on her part to the memory of Mortimer, when we find that this lady was his daughter? and thus visits were received by Isabella from a daughter, the grandson, and grandson's brother-in-law, of her favourite, within the space of one month.

On the 10th of February messengers arrive from the King of Navarre, to announce, as it appears elsewhere, his escape from captivity: an indication that Isabella was still busy in the stirring events in her native country. On the 20th of March the King comes to supper. On each day of the first half of the month of May, during the Queen's stay in London, the entries show her guests at dinner and her visitors after dinner and at supper, as formally as a court circular of our own time.

Of the several entries we select a few of the more interesting. On three occasions in March guests came to supper with the Queen: Lionel, Earl of Ulster; the King; and the Earl of Richmond. The supper of that period was given, probably, at five o'clock, three hours earlier than the royal dinner of our time.

In April we find reference to the Queen's journey to Windsor, upon which Mr. Bond remarks: "There is no room for doubt, therefore (though the chroniclers make no mention of the circumstance), that the object of Isabella's journey was to be present at the festivities held at Windsor by Edward III in celebration of St. George's Day, the 23d of April—festivities set forth with unwonted magnificence, in honour of the many crowned heads and noble foreigners then in England, and to which strangers from all countries were offered safe letters of conduct." From an entry in May, we find a donation of the considerable sum of six pounds thirteen shillings to a messenger from Windsor, certifying her of the conclusion of terms of a peace between Edward III and his captive, John of France.  The same sum is given by Isabella, the same day, to a courier bearing a letter from Queen Philippa, conveying the same intelligence.

On May 14, Isabella left London, resting at Tottenham, on her way to Hertford.  A payment is recorded of a gift of six shillings and eightpence to the nuns of Cheshunt, who met the Queen at the cross in the high road in front of their house.

On the 4th of June, Isabella set out on a pilgrimage to Canterbury and a visit to Leeds Castle. At Canterbury, on the 10th and llth, she entertained the Abbot of St. Augustine's.  Under "Alms" are recorded the Queen's oblations at the tomb of St. Thomas and her payment to minstrels playing "in volta;" as also her oblations in the church of St. Augustine and her donations to various hospitals and religious houses in Canterbury.

Respecting Isabella's death, she is stated by chroniclers to have sunk, in the course of a single day, under the effect of a too powerful medicine--administered at her own desire.  In this account, however, she appears to have been in a state requiring medical treatment for some time previous to her decease. She expired on August 22; however, as early as February 15, a payment had been made to a messenger going on three several occasions to London for divers medicines for the Queen, and for the hire of a horse for Master Lawrence, the physician; and again for another journey by night to London. On the same day a second payment was made to the same messenger for two other journeys by night to London, and two to St. Albans, to procure medicines for the Queen. On the 1st of August, payment was made to Nicholas Thomasyer, apothecary, of London, for divers spices and ointment supplied for the Queen's use. Among the other entries is a payment to Master Lawrence of forty shillings, for attendance on the Queen and the Queen of Scotland, at Hertford, for an entire month.

It is evident that the body of the Queen remained in the chapel of the castle until November 23, as a payment is made to fourteen poor persons for watching the Queen's corpse there, day and night, from Saturday, the 25th of August, to the above date, each of them receiving twopence daily, besides his food. "While the body lay at Hertford, a solemn mass was performed in the chapel, when the daily expenditure rose from the average of six pounds to fifteen and twenty-five pounds. The Queen's funeral took place on the 27th: she was interred in the choir of the church of the Grey Friars, the Archbishop of Canterbury officiating, and the King himself being present at the ceremony. Just twenty-eight years before, on nearly the same day, the body of her paramour Mortimer was consigned to its grave in the same building [ed. note: Roger was actually buried in Austin Priory, Wigmore].

The Alms amount to the considerable sum of 298l. They consist of chapel offerings; donations to religious houses; to clergymen preaching in the Queen's presence; to special applicants for charity; and to paupers. The most interesting entry, perhaps, is that of a donation of forty shillings to the abbess and minoresses without Aldgate, in London, to purchase for themselves two pittances on the anniversaries of Edward, late King of England, and Sir John, of Eltham (the Queen's son), given on the 20th of November. This is the sole instance of any mention in the account of the unhappy Edward II.

Among these items is a payment to the nuns of Cheshunt for meeting the Queen in the high road in front of their house: and this is repeated on every occasion of the Queen's passing the priory in going to or from Hertford. There is more than one entry of alms given to poor scholars of Oxford, who had come to ask it of the Queen. A distribution is made amongst a hundred or fifty poor persons on the principal festivals of the year, amongst which that of Queen Katharine is included. Doles also are made among paupers daily and weekly throughout the year, amounting in one year and a month to 102l. On the 12th of September, after the Queen's death, a payment of twenty shillings is made to William Ladde, of Shene (Richmond), on account of the burning of his house by an accident while the Queen was staying at Shene.

Under the head of  "Necessaries," we find a payment of fifty shillings to carpenters, plasterers, and tilers, for works in the Queen's chamber, for making a staircase from the chamber to the chapel, &c. Afterwards we find half-yearly payments of twenty-five shillings and twopence to the Prioress of St. Helen's, in London, as rent for the Queen's house in Lombard Street; a purchase of two small "catastse," or cages, for birds, in the Queen's chamber; and of hemp-seed for the same birds. From an entry under "Gifts," it appears that two small birds were given to Isabella by the King on the 26th of November. Next are payments for binding the black carpet in the Queen's chamber; for repairs of the castle; lining the Queen's chariot with coloured cloth; repairs of the Queen's bath, and gathering of herbs for it. Also, payments to William Taterford, for six skins of vellum for writing the Queen's books; and for writing a book of divers matters for the Queen, fourteen shillings, including cost of parchment; to Richard Painter, for azure for illuminating the Queen's books; the repayment of the sum of 200l  borrowed of Richard Earl of Arundel; the purchase of an embroidered saddle, with gold fittings, and a black palfrey, given to the Queen of Scotland; a payment to Louis de Posan, merchant, of the Society of Mallebaill, in London, for two mules bought by him at Avignon for the Queen, 28l 13s. The mules arrived after the Queen's death, and were given over to the King.

The division of the account relating to her jewels affords an insight into the personal character of Isabella, showing that the events of her life and her increasing years had not overcome her natural passion for personal display. The total amount expended on jewels was no less than 1,399l; and, says Mr. Bond, "after ample allowance for the acknowledged general habit of indulgence in personal ornaments belonging to the period, we cannot but consider Isabella's outlay on her trinkets as exorbitant, and as betraying a more than common weakness for those vain luxuries." The more costly were purchased of Italian merchants. Her principal English jewellers appear to have been John de Louthe and William de Berking, goldsmiths, of London. In a general entry of 421l paid for divers articles of jewellery to Pardo Pardi, and Bernardo Donati, Italian merchants, are items of a chaplet of gold, set with "bulays" (rubies), sapphires, emeralds, diamonds, and pearls, price 105l; divers pearls, 87l; a crown of gold set with sapphires, rubies of Alexandria, and pearls, price 80l. The payment was not made till the 8th of August; but there can be little doubt that these royal ornaments were ordered for the occasion of Isabella's visit to Windsor, at the celebration of St. George's Day. Among other entries, is a payment of 32l for several articles: namely, for a girdle of silk studded with silver, 20s, three hundred doublets (rubies) at twentypence the hundred; 1,800 pearls at twopence each; and a circlet of gold of the price of 16l,  bought for the marriage of Katharine Brouart; another of a pair of tablets of gold, enamelled with divers histories, of the price of 9l.

The division of “Dona,” besides entries of simple presents and gratuities, contains notes of gifts to messengers from acquaintances; and others, giving us further insight into the connexions maintained by the Queen. Notices of messengers bringing letters from the Countesses of Warren and Pembroke are very frequent. Under the head of "Prestita," moreover, is an entry of a sum of 230l given to Sir Thomas de la March, in money, paid to him by the hands of Henry Pikard, citizen of London (doubtless the magnificent Lord Mayor of that name, who so royally entertained King John of France, the King of Cyprus, and the Prince of Wales, at this period) as a loan from Queen Isabella, on the obligatory letter of the same Sir Thomas: he is known as the victor in a duel, fought at Windsor, in presence of Edward III, with Sir John Viscomte, in 1350. To the origin of Isabella's interest in him we find no clue.

Several payments to couriers refer to the liberation of Charles, King of Navarre, proving that the Queen was not indifferent to the events passing in her native country.  Charles of Navarre [was] perhaps the most unprincipled sovereign of his age, known in his country's annals under the designation of "the Wicked."

Among the remaining notices of messengers and letters, we have mention of the King's butler coming to the Queen at Hertford, with letters of the King, and a present of three pipes of wine; a messenger from the King, with three casks of Gascon wine; another messenger from the King, with a present of small birds; John of Paris, coming from the King of France to the Queen at Hertford and returning with two volumes of Lancelot and the Sang Real, sent to the same King by Isabella; a messenger bringing a boar's head and breast from the Duke of Lancaster, Henry Plantagenet; William Orloger, Monk of St. Albans, bringing to the Queen several quadrants of copper; a messenger bringing a present of a falcon from the King; a present of a wild boar from the King and of a cask of Gascon wine; a messenger, bringing a present of twenty-four bream from the Countess of Clare; and payments to messengers bringing new year's gifts from the King, Queen Philippa, the Countess of Pembroke, and Lady Wake.

Frequent payments to minstrels playing in the Queen's presence occur, sufficient to show that Isabella greatly delighted in this entertainment; and these are generally minstrels of the King, the Prince, or of noblemen, such as the Earl of March, the Earl of Salisbury, and others. And we find a curious entry of a payment of thirteen shillings and fourpence to Walter Hert, one of the Queen's "vigiles" (viol-players), going to London, staying there in order to learn minstrelsy at Lent time; and again, of a further sum to the same on his return from London, "de scola menstralcie."

Of special presents by the Queen, we have mention of new year's gifts to the ladies of her chamber, eight in number, of one hundred shillings to each, and twenty shillings each to thirty-three clerks and squires; a girdle to Edward de Ketilbergh, the Queen's ward; a donation of forty shillings to Master Lawrence, the surgeon, for attendance on the Queen; a present of fur to the Countess of Warren; a small gift to Isabella Spicer, her god-daughter; and a present of sixty-six pounds to Isabella de St. Pol, lady of the Queen's bed-chamber, on occasion of her marriage with Edward Brouart. Large rewards, amounting together to 540l, were given after Isabella's death, by the King's order, to her several servants, for their good service to the Queen in her lifetime.

The division of Messengers contains payments for the carriage of letters to the Queen's officers and acquaintances. Among them we find mention of a letter to the Prior of Westminster, "for a certain falcon of the Count of Tancarville lost, and found by the said Prior."

The period of the account is from the 1st of October 1357 to the 5th of December in the following year, the same being continued "beyond the date of the Queen's death.”  The totals of the several divisions of the account are (in pounds, shillings and pence):


The Household Expenses amount to      

4,014   2   11 ½

Alms

298   18   7 ½

Necessaries

1,395   6   11

Great wardrobe

542   10   4 ½

Jewels

1,399   0   4

Gifts

1,248   5   2 ½

Messengers

14   12   10

Imprests

313   4   3 ½

Making a general total of more than  9,000 pounds

*Review of an article by E. A. Bond, “Notices of the Last Days of Isabella, Queen of Edward II, drawn from an Account of the Expenses of her Household," published in Archaeologia 35 (1854): 453-69.

A Letter to Their Father, from the Sons of Richard, Duke of York

Ludlow Castle in Shropshire.  Residence of the family of Richard, Duke of York [1411-1460].  The stairs in the foreground lead to the Great Hall.

Edward the Fourth when Earl of Marche, and his brother the Earl of Rutland, to their father, Richard, Duke of York, about the year 1454.  Edward would then have been in his 12th year, and Edmund in his 11th [ms. Cotton. Vksp. F. in. fol 9. Orig.]:

Ryght hiegh and ryght myghty Prince, oure ful redouted and ryght noble lorde and ffadur, as lowely with all oure herts as we youre trewe and naturell sonnes can or may, we recomaunde us un to your noble grace, humbly besechyng your nobley & worthy ffaderhode daily to yeve us your hertely blessyng: thrugh whiche we trust muche the rather to encrees and growe to vertu, and to spede the bettur in all matiers and things that we schall use, occupie, and exercise. Ryght high and ryght myghty Prince, our ful redouted lorde and ffadur, we thanke our blessed Lorde not oonly of your honourable conduite and good spede in all your matiers and besynesse, and of your gracious preuaile ayenst the ntent & malice of your evilwillers, but also of the knowelage that hit pleased your nobley to lete us nowe late have of the same by relacion of Syr Watier Deureux knyght, and John Milewatier squier, and John at Nokes yemon of your honorable chambur. 

Also we thonke your noblesse and good ffadurhod of our grene gownes nowe late sende unto us to our grete comfort; beseching your good lordeschip to remembre our porteux, and that we myght have summe fyne bonetts sende un to us by the next seure messig, for necessite so requireth. Overe this, ryght noble lord and ffadur, please hit your highnesse to witte that we have charged your servant William Smyth berer of thees for to declare un to your nobley certayne things on our behalf, namely coicernyng and touching the odieux reule and demenyng of Richard Crofte and of his brother. Wherefore we beseche your graciouse lordeschip and full noble ffadurhood to here him in exposicion of the same, and to his relacion to yeve ful feith and credence. Ryght hiegh and ryght myghty Prince, our ful redoubted and ryght noble lorde and ffadur, we beseche almyghty Jhu yeve yowe as good lyfe and long with as muche contenual perfite prosperite as your princely hert con best desir. Writen at your Castill of Lodelowe on Setursday in the Astur Woke.

Your humble sonnes

E. Marche and E. Rutlonde

Sir Henry Ellis: Original Letters, Illustrative of English History [London: 1824], 1:9-10.  

The Lady and the Unicorn

"The Lady and the Unicorn" (French: La Dame à la licorne), also called the Tapestry Cycle, is the title of a series of six Flemish tapestries depicting the senses. They are estimated to have been woven in the late 15th century in the style of mille-fleurs.

The lady depicted in the tapestry called Taste, is conjectured to have been Blanche of Lancaster (1345-1369), 1st wife of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. Blanche was the daughter of Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster and his wife, Isabel de Beaumont. Her paternal great-great-grandfather was Henry III of England. Dying of the plague in 1369, Blanche was said to have had blue eyes, fair hair and skin, and a calm and serene demeanor. She was living in Bolingbroke Castle at the time of her death, while her husband was away. Her funeral at St. Paul's Cathedral in London was preceded with a magnificent cortege attended by most of the nobility and clergy. John of Gaunt held annual commemorations of her death for some years thereafter.

Though some scholars disagree, it is widely held that Gaunt's grief over the death of his duchess was immortalized by Chaucer in his work, The Booke of the Duchess.  See:  http://omacl.org/Duchess/

In the tapestry, the lion and the unicorn frame the Lady who, eyes turned towards a parrot in her right hand, is taking a sweet from the candy dish offered to her by her servant. Her little dog follows her every move; at her feet a leering monkey, eating a berry or a candy, highlights the significance of the scene.

Blanche's daughter, Elizabeth (wife of John Holand, 1st Duke of Exeter), is an ancestor of my "gateway" forebear, Capt. Philip Nelson of Rowley, Massachusetts.

Source: Musee de Nationale de Moyen Age,

http://www.musee moyenage.fr/ang/pages/page_id18314_u1l2.htm

Richard II, Dining with the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Ireland. Circa 1386

Clockwise:

Edmund of Langley, uncle of the King, created 1st Duke of York in 1385

Thomas of Woodstock, another uncle of the King, created Duke of Gloucester about that same time

Richard II

Robert de Vere, court favorite of Richard and hugely unpopular with the nobles, created Duke of Ireland in 1386.

The Body of a Prince: Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, 1341-1402

By his will, dated 25th November 1400, Edmund of Langley directed his interment in the Church of the Friary of Langley, near the remains of Isabel, his first consort, who had died in 1392.  The tomb of alabaster and black marble, richly sculptured and adorned with shields of arms, was, at the dissolution of the Friary, removed into the north-east corner of the chancel of the parish church of Langley, where it is still extant.

Personality

"Shakespeare found Edmund in the chronicles in the shape of a man who loved hunting and good cheer and avoided the council chamber--just the kind of person, in fact, to provide a contrast in temperament with Richard II and in ability with Bolingbroke. York has no refinement of understanding and no political ambition. He is a sturdy, honest, well-meaning man, prompt with sensible advice but easily flustered, shrewd enough to see what's coming but not clever or resolute enough to prevent it. Normally he makes the best of a bad business--which is usually not so bad after all, either for himself or for the nation." -- J. L. Palmer, Political Characters of Shakespeare (1945), p. 552.

Edmund's Wife

Isabel of Castile-Leon (1355-1392), was a Spanish princess, the daughter of Pedro I ("the Cruel," or "el Justiciero," depending on whose side you are on) and his mistress, Maria Diaz de Padilla.

Isabel lies entombed with her husband in King's Langley. By the terms of her will, dated December 6, 1392, she asked that a hundred trentals and a hundred sauters were to be said for her soul, and four priests, or one at least, were to sing for her by the space of four years. Upon the day of her burial her best horse was to be delivered for her mortuary. She bequeathed to the King her heart of pearls; to the Duke of Lancaster, a tablet of jasper, given her by the King of Armenia; to her son Edward, her crown, to remain to his heirs; to Constance le Despencer, her daughter, a fret of pearls; to the Duchess of Gloucester, her tablet of gold with images, and also her sauter with the arms of Northampton; and to the King the residue of her goods, in trust that he should allow his godson Richard, her younger son, an annuity of 500 marks for life, a trust which the King, out of the great respect he bore to her, accepted. -- Dugdale, Baronage (1676), 2:155.

The Couple Exhumed, With a Surprise Guest

Originally interred in the Church of the Friary at Langley, the remains of the Duke and his wife were brought to All Saint's, King's Langley, about the year 1574.

The couple were destined for a second exhumation. On November 22, 1877, Professor George Rolleston, M.D., examined *three* skeletons removed from the Duke of York's tomb at All Saint's.

"I examined three skeletons at King's Langley. Of these one was the skeleton of a powerful man, considerably past the middle period of life; a second was the skeleton of a woman, as far as I could judge, between thirty-five and forty years of age; the third had belonged to a younger woman, whose age, however, could not have been very far from thirty. The bones of the first two had got somewhat intermingled; those of the third had been kept safely apart from intermixture in a leaden coffin.

"The skull belonging to the male skeleton had a sloping forehead. The chin and lower jaw were powerfully developed. The front teeth were small in size and crammed together, and many of the back teeth lost. Still the retention of the front teeth and the good development of the lower jaw and chin, coupled with the length and breadth of the facial region, must have given a commanding expression to the old man who owned this skull.

"The age was somewhere between fifty-eight and sixty-five. The crippled condition of his later years must have formed a touching contrast to the strength and vigor which he certainly possessed. In the lower jaw, three molars had been lost during life, two on one side and one on the other, and one pre-molar was carious. In the upper jaw the molars had been lost during life, and two pre-molars were carious. A piece of coarse textile fabric, with some hair of a greyish-red color adhering to it, was found with the skull. He was from 5' 5" to 5' 7" in height.

"The second skeleton, which was more or less mixed up with the first, belonged to a woman from 4 feet 6 inches to 4 feet 8 inches in stature, and between thirty-five and forty-five years of age. The wisdom teeth were all present; of those in the upper jaw, the one on the right side was apparently only just through the socket; whilst that on the other (left) side had a large cavity. The two lower jaw wisdom teeth were little worn. The right lower jaw canine presented the rare anomaly of a bifid root.

"In a leaden coffin was the skeleton of a woman about thirty years of age, a little over, probably, rather than under that age, with some auburn hair still remaining, though detached from the skull. The wisdom tooth was absent in the lower jaw on the left, and one pre-molar was absent on the right side. She was between 5 foot 3 and 5 foot 5 in height.

Concerning the identity of these bones, John Evans says that the powerful male is most certainly the Duke Edmund; the female intermixed with his bones is probably that of his first wife, Isabel of Castile-Leon.

And who is the young woman who was buried in the Duke and Duchess' tomb, alone in the leaden coffin? "In the tomb at Langley it is still uncertain who was the lady whose body was thus protected."

"It has struck me as possible that these remains may be those of Anne Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, first wife of Richard of Coningsburgh. This is, however, mere conjecture." -- John Evans, "Edmund of Langley and His Tomb," Archaelogia, v. 46 pt. 2 (1878), pp. 319-25; Society of Antiquaries of London.

Contemporary historians and genealogists agree with Evans' view that the skeleton in the leaden coffin is Anne Mortimer's. She was the heir general in her issue of the Crown of England, and transmitted the right to the Crown to her grandson, Edward IV.

Richard of York Anticipates a Crown, 1460

Richard Plantagenet (1411-1460), duke of York and regal hopeful, son of the disgraced Richard of Conisbrough and grandson of Edmund of Langley, was also a lineal descendant of Lionel of Clarence through his mother, Anne Mortimer. He was the first to use "Plantaginet" as a surname.

Richard's multiple descents from Edward III guaranteed that no one, not even Henry VI, had a stronger claim to the throne. Despite Parliament's acknowledgement in November 1460 naming Richard as heir of Henry VI, the latter's Queen, Margaret (who could never agree to the disinheritance of her son, Edward), raised a rebellion that resulted in York's death outside his castle at Wakefield--only a few short weeks after his future kingship had been declared.

Few men have come as close to the throne as Richard of York, and yet he died not knowing that his son, Edward, would soon become king. Even to his contemporaries, his motives were the subject of debate: had he always sought the throne, or did Henry VI's poor judgment force his hand? All questions that are destined to remain unanswered. Neither his enemies, or his friends, left a memoir of Richard.

The Murder of Thomas of Woodstock, 1397

Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester:

“Orgueilleux & presompteux de maniere” *

*Proud and presumptuous of manner [J. Froissart, Chronicles]


Beginnings

Thomas, 1st Duke of Gloucester, was born 7 Jan. 1354/5 at Woodstock Manor in Oxfordshire, seventh son (fifth surviving) of Edward III and his queen, Philippa of Hainault. Sometime before 24 Aug. 1376, he married his child-bride, Eleanor de Bohun, elder daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Essex and Northampton. Thomas de Hatfield, Bishop of Durham, was one of Thomas’ godfathers, as was John de la Moote, Abbot of St. Albans [1].

Typical of most offspring of the medieval royalty and nobility, little is known of the youth of Thomas. In his sixth year, he was deemed sufficiently important enough in his princely person to have marshals appointed for the management of his own household [2].

Though perhaps not as well-known to history as his older brothers, Edward the Black Prince and John of Gaunt, Thomas’ role in the governance of England had far-reaching effects on the life and reign of his nephew, Richard II. Political events first set in motion by Thomas, in fact, produced a chain reaction of regal depositions and fractious family in-fighting that culminated in the “Wars of the Roses:” that bloody family feud that leaves most historians, and family genealogists, slightly dazed from trying to follow the various thrashings the Yorkists and the Lancastrians meted out to each other.

Chivalrous Author

Thomas’ first adult honor was his appointment as Constable of England in June 1376. He was knighted by his aged father on 23 Apr. 1377; among other gifts received on the day of his knighting, the old king presented Thomas with ten ells of scarlet cloth [3]. As expected of a royal prince, Thomas suited up his armor and soon attempted a bit of military conquest. He captured eight Spanish ships off Brest in 1378, but beyond this act of military daring, Thomas’ military career could best be described as lackluster. In July 1380, assisting the Duke of Brittany, Thomas moved his forces across France but was unable to coax the French into fighting. The Duke of Brittany refusing to join in the action, Thomas led an unsuccessful siege against Nantes, returning home “in disgust” in April 1381 [4]. Turning his attentions to home, Thomas dispersed the peasant insurgents in Essex later that year and led an English force of 1,000 lances and 2,000 arches against the Scots, who refused to do battle—surrendering instead [5].

An undated letter from Thomas, Duke of Gloucester to his nephew, Richard II, contains the text of a treatise written by Gloucester “On the manner of conducting judicial duels” [6]. The letter sets out, in intimate detail, the rules of the duel and the role of the constable as overseer of these bloody conflicts. The king having picked the field, at the appointed time the monarch, constable and marshal are seated upon a scaffold, the king’s seat being raised. Both the appellant (accuser) and the defendant had their arms and weapons assigned to him by the court, “that is to say, a long sword, short sword, and dagger.” The parties to a duel swear on oath that they will not bring any “magical power” to the duel “by which thou trusteth the better to overcome thine adversary…Nor that thou trusteth in any other thing, but only in God and thy body and on thy rightfull quarrel, help thee God and these saints.” The aforementioned forbidden magical powers included so-called “stones of virtue” and “herbs of virtue” (e.g., charms) [7].

Lords Appellant

The chain of events that resulted in Thomas’ death and attainder commenced with the baron’s hatred of the King’s favorites. Thomas was possessed of a headstrong temper, demonstrated in his heated defense of his brother, the Duke of Lancaster, against charges of treason (“he burst into the King’s presence and challenged all who might venture to support the charge”) [8]. Thomas led the opposition to Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, and was chiefly responsible for Suffolk’s condemnation and murder. Richard was furious, but he could do nothing to avenge his friend as the “Lords Appellant” (Thomas of Woodstock, Richard de Arundel, Thomas Beauchamp, Henry Bolingbroke, and Thomas Mowbray) had seized control of the government. At Radcot Bridge, near Oxford, the Lords Appellants won a civil war in December 1387 against an army led by the king’s favorite, Robert de Vere, duke of Ireland. These political and military actions resulted in the “Merciless Parliament” of 1388. At this parliament, the powers of the king were severely limited, reducing Richard to a figurehead. The king was humiliated, but would wait out his time...

Forfeiture

Richard chose as his second wife a child bride princess of France, Isabel, whom he married in 1396 when Isabella was six years of age. A calculated political marriage, Richard nonetheless treated the tiny Isabella with respect. The advantages of this marriage allowed the king to build a continental power base and with French support he quickly regained full regal powers. Thomas, bold, emotive, and indiscrete, complained about this new order of things to one of his knights, John Lackinghay:

“I am the youngest of King Edward’s sons, but if I was listened to I would be the first to renew the wars [with France] and put a stop to the encroachments we have suffered and are still suffering every day, thanks to our simplicity and slackness. I mean particularly the slackness of our leader the King, who has just allied himself by marriage with his principal enemy. That’s hardly a sign that he wants to fight him. No, he’s too fat in the arse and only interested in eating and drinking. That’s no life for a fighting man, who ought to be hard and lean and bent on glory. I know he spends plenty, but it’s on silly and futile things, and his people have to pay the bill. There will soon be serious trouble in this country. The people are beginning to grumble and say that they won’t stand it much longer.” [9]

Heedless of the danger to his life, the Duke’s blind hatred of his nephew the King leading him on, rumors soon spread that Gloucester had approached his great-nephew, Roger Mortimer, earl of March (grandson of Lionel of Clarence, Thomas’ older brother) with a plot to place March on the throne and imprison Richard and Isabella. Shocked by the boldness of his uncle’s plans, Mortimer responds that he needs time to think it over, swears to secrecy, and departs for Ireland [10].

In July 1397, the jittery King having gotten wind of his uncle’s supposed plot, Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick are arrested and subsequently condemned as traitors in the September Parliament. Arundel was executed on the same day of his arrest, on Tower Hill. Warwick’s life was spared, but he and his wife were exiled to the Isle of Man. Bolingbroke and Mowbray (now the dukes of Hereford and Norfolk) escape Richard’s wrath until the following year, when they were exiled.

Rumor Mill

The fate of Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, hung in the balance. The king arrived unannounced at his uncle’s manor at Pleshy, Essex about five o’clock in the afternoon on a very hot day. The duke, his wife, and their children greeted the king in the customary regal manner. Richard dined cordially with his uncle. On a pretext of Gloucester being required at a meeting of the nobles in London the next day, the King convinced Thomas to accompany him, the duke bringing with him three of his esquires and four yeomen; the king and Gloucester chatted as they rode together when, suddenly galloping ahead, the King had Woodstock arrested near Stratford. The Earl Marshal, with his band, came galloping after, and overtaking the Duke, said “I arrest you in the King’s name.” [11] Richard rode fast to the Tower of London, ignoring the duke’s calls to him in the distance [12].

After ten years of waiting for the right moment to strike, the king had his revenge.

Gloucester’s arrest was accomplished “about ten or eleven of the clock in the night: whence he was forthwith carried into a barge, and so into a ship, which lay in the Thames, wherein they conveyed him next day to Calais. Being thus brought thither, he askt [sic] the Earl Marshal the cause thereof; saying, ‘Methinks you hold me here as a prisoner: let me go abroad, and see the fortress,’ but the Earl Marshal refused” [13].

Gloucester’s death appears to have been widely circulated in August. It seems odd that the king would send William Rickhill to Calais (where the duke was housed in prison) to obtain Gloucester’s confession—unless his plans to triumph over Gloucester included an elaborate ruse of concealment. Why should Richard have allowed Gloucester to survive the announcement of his death? And granting that he did, why, in the name of common sense, should he have left the taking of the confession at so late a date (8 Sept.; see below). Rickhill’s commission was dated 17 August and was received in his hands on 5 September [14]. However, it is clear that the parliamentary rolls were tampered with after Richard II’s deposition, in an effort to discredit the previous regime by making it appear that Richard was directly responsible for his uncle’s murder [15, 16]. The new regime probably needn't have gone to all that trouble to show what must have been obvious. Rickhill went to great pains to convince the new regime that he was unaware of the exact nature of his commission prior to his departure to Calais. There is no reason to expect that Rickhill was stretching the point to save his neck; the public announcement of the duke’s death having been made, no contingencies were planned in the event that a confession could not be speedily obtained from Gloucester. The duke was a strong-willed man and it's not likely that he was immediately defeated by the pressure to obtain a forced confession. In the matter of the timing of events, Richard's plans had to be amended...

Confession

At last, seeing that his situation was desperate, at the castle of Calais and in the presence of John Lancaster and John Lovetot, the duke dictate his "confession." Once the document was in royal hands, the king tampered with the confession in order to justify Gloucester’s supposed guilt. This tampered version, read in the September Parliament, is familiar to most historians. However, the duke’s actual confession (in reality not a confession at all), along with two complete copies of the same, was found in the papers of Richard’s eleventh regnal year (the king’s obvious intent was to bury both the Duke and the truth) [17]. Italics in the abstract below indicate portions of the duke’s “confession” that were expunged by Richard:

“I, Thomas of Woodestoke, the viii day of September, the year of my lord the Kyng the on and twentie, be the vertu of a Commission of my lord the Kyng the same yeer directed to William Rykhyll Justice, the which is comprehended more pleynly in the forseid Commission, knowleche that I was on wyth steryng of other men to assente to the makyng of a Commission. In the which Commission I amonges others restreyned my lord of hys freedom, and took upon me amange other power real (i.e., royal), trewly naught knowing ne wyting that tyme that I dede ayens his estate ne his realtie, as I dede after and do now. And forasmuch as I knew afterward that I hadd do wrong, and taken upon me more than I owght to do, I submettede me to my lord and cryed hym mercy and grace, and yet do als lowlych and as mekely as any man may, and putte me heygh and lowe in his mercy and in his grace, as he that hath always been ful of mercy and grace to all other.

“Also, in that tyme that I came armed into my lordes presence and into his Palais, howsoever that I dede it for drede of my lyf, I knowleche for certain that I dede evyll and ayeyns his regalie and his estate: wherefor I submett me lowly and mekely into his mercy and to his grace.

“Also, in that, that I took my lordes lettres of his messagers and opened hem ayeyns his leve, I knowleche that I ded evyll: wherfor I putt me lowly in his grace.

“Also, in that, I sclaundred my loorde, I knowleche that I dede evyll and wykkedly, in that, that I spake it unto hym in sclaunderous wyse in audience of other folk. But, by the wey that my sowle schall to, I mente none evyll therein. Nevertheless I wrote and I knowleche that I dede evyll and unkunnyngelych: wherefor I submett me heygh and lowe in his grace.

“Also, in that, that I among other communed for feer of my lyf to yive up myn hommage to my lord, I knowleche wel that for certain that I among other communed and asked of certain clercs, whethir that we myght yive up our hommage for drede of our lyves or non; and whethir that we assentyd thereto for to do it, trewlych and by my trowth I ne have now none full mynde thereof, bot I trowe rather ye than nay: wherefor I submit me heygh and lowe evermore in his grace.

“Also, in that, that I was in place ther it was communed and spoken in manere of deposyl of my liege loord, trewly I knowleche wel that we were assented thereto for two dayes or three, and than that we for to have done our homage and our oothes, and putt him as heyly in hys estate as ever he was. Bot forsothe there I knowlech that I dede untrewely and unkyndely as to hym that is my lyege loord and hath bene so gode and kynde loord to me. Wherefor I besech to hym naghtwythstondyng myn unkyndenesse, I beseche hym evermore of his mercy and of his grace as lowly as any creature may beseche it unto his liege loord.

“And as of any newe thyng or ordenaunce that ever I shuld have wyten or knowen , ordeyned or assentyd, pryve or apert, that schuld have bene ayeyns my loordys estate or his luste or ony that longeth abowte hym, syth that day that I swore unto him at Langeley on Goddys body; trewly and be that oothe that I ther made, I never knew of gaderyng ayeyns hym, ne none other that longeth unto hym.

“And as touchyng all this poyntes that I have made Confession of tofore William Rykhyll Justyce, in the which I wote wele that I have offendyd my loord unkyndely and untrewly as I have seyde befor how that I have in all this poyntes offendid hym and done ayeyns hym; trewly and as I wyll answere before Godd it was my menyng and my wenyng for to have do the best for his psone and for his estate. Nevertheles I wote wel and know wel nowe that my dedes and my werchynges were ayenys myn entente. Bot, be the wey that my sowle schall to, of this poyntes and of all othir the which that I have done of neclygence and of unkunnyng,it was nev’ myn entent ne my wyll ne my thoght for to do thynge that schuld have been distresse or harmyng ayeyns the salvation of my lyege loordys psone as I wyll answer tofor Godd at the day of Judgement.

“And therfor I beseche my lyege and souverayn loord the Kyng, that he wyll of his heygh grace and benyngnytee accepte me to his mercy and his grace, as that I putt my lyf, my body, and my goode holy at hys wyll as lowlych as mekelych as any creature kan do or may do to his lyege loord. Besechyng to hys heygh lordeschipp that he wyll, for the passion that God soffred for all mankynde and for the compassion that he hadde of hys moder on the cros and the pytee that he hadde of Mary Maudelyne, that he wyll vouchesauf for to have compassion and pytee; and to accepte me unto his mercy and to his grace, as he that hathe ever bene ful of mercy and of grace to all his lyeges and to all other that have naght bene so neygh unto him as I have bene, thogh I be unworthy” [18].

Princes Inn

Depending on which account you read, it is variously stated that Woodstock died a natural death in July or August, or was strangled with a cloth or suffocated under a mattress. The facts of his confession now being known, it is clear that Thomas was still alive on the 8th of September—two months after first being arrested. Later that night, Woodstock was dead.

An inquiry into the death of the Duke of Gloucester was held in the first year of the reign of Henry IV (1399); the accounts are of high interest as there is little evidence, in particular, to doubt the testimony given at that session of Parliament:

Sir John Baggot, then a prisoner in the Tower, was brought to the bar of the house, and there examined on the affair of that murder [Gloucester]; who there declared “That it was by the advice and instigation of the duke of Albemarle…that the duke of Gloucester was inhumanly murdered at Calais. That the duke of Norfolk did keep the duke of Gloucester alive 3 weeks against the king’s will; but, for fear of the king’s displeasure, the said duke and himself, with several of the king’s servants, went over to Calais, and saw him put to death.” The duke of Albemarle rose up and said, “That he utterly denied the charge to be true against him, and offered to justify his innocence by combat, in such a manner as should be thought requisite.” The king denied Albemarle’s application for judicial duel.

Baggot, in one of his examinations before Parliament, mentioned one John Hall, then a prisoner in Newgate, who could say much more than he, relating to the death of the duke of Gloucester. Which Hall, being sent for and examined, confessed the whole matter.

“John Hall, a servant of the duke of Norfolk, being examined by Sir Walter Clopton, chief justice, confessed upon his oath, that in the month of Sept. 21 Rd. II the duke of Norfolk charged the said John, among others, to murder the duke of Gloucester, there being present one John Colfox, an esq. of the said duke of Norfolk; and that they two then being at Calais, went together to Our Ladies church, where they found Wm. Hempsley, esq., ---Bradshaw, esq., Wm. Searle, of the chamber of the late king Rd., --- Fraunces, valet of the chamber of the duke of Albemarle, Wm. Rogers, Wm. Dennice, and --- Cockle, servants to the said duke of Norfolk; all whom were sworn upon the body of Christ, before one Sir William Chaplain, of St. George’s, in the church of our lady, that they should not disclose the said fact or murder. That after this oath made, they altogether went with the duke of Norfolk, towards the house called the Princes Inn, and when they were come, the said duke of Norfolk caused the persons aforesaid to enter into a lodging within the same house, and so departed. After which John Lovetofte, with sundry other esqrs. brought the duke of Gloucester, and delivered him to t he said Searl and Francis, in an inner parlour, and said, ‘There is Searl and Fraunces;’ whereupon the duke of Gloucester said, ‘Now I see I shall do well’ and so asked Searl how the king did? who said ‘well;’ and sent to him commendations, and so the said John Lovetofte departed. Whereupon the said Searl and Fraunces, took the said duke of Gloucester into an upper chamber, saying, That the king’s will was, that he should be slain;’ the duke answered thereto, ‘If it be so it is welcome;’ that Searl and Francis willed to the duke to take a chaplain, whom the duke there took, and was confessed. After which confession they caused the duke to lye upon a bed, upon whom so lying, the said Searl and Fraunces threw a feather-bed, the sides whereof the said Wm. Rogers, Dennice, and Cockle of the chamber, held; and Searl and Francis lay on the mouth of the said duke until he was dead; Colfox, Hempsley, and Bradshaw, sat that night by the duke on their knees, weeping, and praying for the soul of the said duke; and Hall, this examinant, kept the door until the duke was slain. After the death of which duke, the duke of Norfolk came in, and seeing him dead, said, ‘It were a great matter to have the said duke living again.’ By whose confession it seemed to the lords, that he the same Hall should be drawn from Tower Hill to Tyburn, his bowels to be burned before him, his body to be hanged, [be]headed, and quartered, and his head to be sent and set upon Calais, and his quarters to t he king’s pleasure; and the marshal the same day did execution accordingly” [19].

It’s a pity that Hall, having made his confession, was so soon hurried out of this world--avoiding any further cross-examination. In any case, I don’t think there is much reason to doubt the veracity of his statements to Parliament. Dugdale provides us a glimpse of the fate of some of the other assassins: Searle was arrested in Scotland in 1404 by the English, sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. The Earl Marshal (Norfolk) was sentenced early in the reign of Henry IV to perpetual banishment [20].

Unto Dust

His life tragically taken from him, Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, lies buried in the Chapel of St. Edmund, Westminster Abbey, under a marble slab. His widow, Eleanor de Bohun, joined him in death in October 1399, being buried beside her late husband. Soon after Gloucester’s murder, the king, in a magnanimous gesture, returned to Eleanor in Feb. 1398 all her own wearing apparel and two “chariots,” which had been seized by the Mayor of London. The total appraised value of these goods was given at nineteen pounds, four shillings and four pence [21].

Worldly Goods

From the moment of Thomas of Woodstock’s arrest on the road to Stratford in July 1397, Richard II’s escheator for Essex, Clement Spice, began to take control of the liquidation of the duke’s estates—which included Pleshy, principal residence of Gloucester by inheritance of his wife, Eleanor de Bohun. Spice, having taken an exact inventory of all the duke’s moveables, proceeded to auction off these goods and by January 1398 over £1,500 in sales had passed through his hands. “Faced with the prospect of having her household stripped bare, Duchess Eleanor bought back large amounts of her late husband’s property. In 1398, she redeemed goods worth a total of £1,136. Her expenditure included £260 at an auction conducted in London by Richard Whittington, and she also spent £436 on buying back silverware from Clement Spice” [22].

Spice’s inventory, published in The Archaelogical Journal [23], makes interesting reading. Written in French, with occasional notations in English, the contents include cloths of arras, tapestries, beds of gold and silk, beds of worsted, vestments for the chapel, books for the chapel, plate for the chapel, the duke’s library, robes and vestments, and arms and armor.

Subjects of the 15 inventoried tapestries include the history of Charles the Great, Godfrey of Boulogne, the taking of Jerusalem, and the battle between Gawayn and Lancelot. Others are of a more miscellaneous character, such as the Story of St. George, an assault upon ladies in a castle, the story of a wodewose and a lion, and the Nativity of Our Lord. The tapestries vary in width from 2 ½ yards to 4 yards, and in length from 6 to 24 yards. The largest piece was valued at £1,000.

There were 16 beds of gold and silk. The word “bed” does not refer to the mattresses, but to the hangings, often the most splendid character with which the beds were furnished. The first on this list is described as “a great bed of gold, that is to say, a coverlet, a tester (canopy), and a cedure (or valance) of fine blue satin wrought with Garters of gold, and three curtains of tartaryn beaten to match. Also two long and four square pillows of the set of the bed.” Total valuation of this assemblage was £182. 3s. One great bed was of white satin embroidered in the midst in Cyprus gold with the arms and helm (i.e., crest) of the Duke of Gloucester. Another was of green double samite with a blue pale or stripe of chamlet embroidered with a gold pot of blossoming lilies worked in silver. Including the usual coverlet, tester and valence, with pillows, this set was valued at £20.

The beds of worsted (Lit de Worsted) were of lesser value, but appear to have been just as beautiful. One was a blue bed embroidered with a yellow stag; another of red with a crowned lion, two griffins, and chaplets and roses; another blue bed was embroidered with a white eagle. A red one was covered with falcons. There was a coverlet of red embroidered with a unicorn, a blue one with lions and roses, another red one with a white greyhound. A tester and coverlet of blue worsted embroidered with a white hart were probably ornamented out of compliment to Richard II.

The largest section, containing nearly one-third of the inventory, is that describing the vestments for the chapel (Vestimenta pro capella). Vestments included chasuble, amices, stoles and fanons, a corporal, a towel, a pillow or cushion for the mass-book, the front, counterfront and frontlet of the altar and the two curtains that hung at its ends. One cope appears to have been particularly beautiful and is described as “a fine cope of blue worked with divers beasts and birds with frets of pearls with Garters inscribed hony soit qi mal pense, with orphreys of cloth of gold of Cyprus embroidered with images, lined with satin.” The value of this piece was £60.

The duke’s library contained eighty-four volumes of romances; only three works appear to have been written in English: a Bible in two large volumes bound in red leather, a Book of the Gospels similarly bound, and “a new Book of the Gospels glossed in English.” The majority of the books were written in French and Latin. Among the historical and other romances in French were the Romance of the Rose, Hector of Troy, Merlin, Bevis of Hampton, Tancred, the Romance of Lancelot, and of Alexander, the Battle of Troy, Godfrey of Boulogne. Other French books included the Miracles of Our Lady, the Passions of divers Saints, and the Life of St. Thomas of Canterbury. The Latin works included the Chronicles of the Pope, two large books of Civil Law.

The duke’s wardrobe included eight gowns lined with miniver or other fur, a blue gown furred with miniver and wrought with Garters. A long gown of red velvet and a mantle of the same stuff furred with miniver, valued at £13.8s.8d., may have been the duke’s parliament robe.

Of the duke’s body armor, the five pairs of plates include some especially noted as for jousts of peace, others for jousts of war. One pair of the latter were gilt: the others were covered with velvet. Another pair are described as having formerly belonged to King Edward III, and these were covered with blue baudekyn, woven of silk with threads of gold. The four breastplates are not mentioned as covered with any material.

The weapons comprise several Bordeaux blades more or less richly mounted and scabbarded. There is a also a Scottish sword. There were several daggers, and an Irish short knife with a roebuck horn handle with silver gilt. A large lance head of Bordeaux steel is mentioned, along with one for boar hunting.

Among the miscellaneous items, a beaver hat is mentioned, as is a small lavender sachet.

References:
[1] G.E.C. Cockayne, Complete Peerage 5:719-20
[2] ibid, note (c)
[3] ibid, 5:720 note (j)
[4] ibid, 5:722 note (b)
[5] ibid note (e)
[6] Harold Arthur, Viscount Dillon, “On a MS collection of ordinances of chivalry of the fifteenth century, belonging to Lord Hastings,” Archaelogia, 57 (1902):62-66.
[7] ibid
[8] G.E.C. Cockayne, Complete Peerage 5:722 note (j)
[9] Geoffrey Brereton, ed., Froissart Chronicles. Penguin (1968), 422-29
[10] ibid
[11] William Dugdale, The baronage of England. London (1676), 2:171
[12] ibid
[13] ibid
[14] G. C. Macaulay, The complete works of John Gower. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1902), note 85ff.
[15] T. F. Tout, Chapters in the administrative history of mediaeval England. Manchester University Press (1937), 4:25 note (1)
[16] A. E. Stamp, Richard II and the death of the Duke of Gloucester. English Historical Review 39 (1924): 240-41.
[17] James Tait, Did Richard II murder the Duke of Gloucester? Historical essays first published in 1902 in commemoration of the jubilee of the Owens College, Manchester. Manchester University Press (1907), 193-216.
[18] ibid
[19] William Cobb, The Parliamentary history of England from the earliest period to the year 1803. T. C. Hansard, London (1806), 1: 284-286.
[20] William Dugdale, The baronage of England. London (1676), 2:171
[21] ibid, 2:172
[22] Michael A. Hicks, ed., Revolution and consumption in late medieval England. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press (2001), 31-32.
[23] Harold Arthur, Viscount Dillon, Inventory of the goods and chattels belonging to Thomas, duke of Gloucester, and seized in his castle at Pleshy, co. Essex, 21 Richard II (1397); with their values, as shown in the eascheator’s accounts. The Archaelogical Journal vol. LIV, second series vol. IV (1894), 275-308.