Category: February

St Scholastica’s Day riot.

9/2/2018

On the 10th February 1355 an argument over the quality of the beer in an Oxford tavern would descend into violence resulting in a two day street battle that cost the lives of over one hundred people.

John de Bereford, the landlord of the Swyndlestock Tavern and also Oxford's mayor, complained that three men (two students, Walter Spryngeheuse and Roger de Chesterfield and a priest) used “stubborn and saucy language” when voicing their complaint. The angry student threw a 'quart pot' at the landlord's head resulting in the three being evicted.

This altercation would be known as the St Scholastica’s Day riot.

Eventually there was quiet on Oxford's streets and following Edward III's investigation the case was settled in favour of the University. The rioters were punished, John de Bereford was made to walk bareheaded through the streets, attend a Mass for the souls of the dead and swear a oath once a year to 'observe the University's privileges' this included an annual fine of 63 pence.

What happened to the student's and the priest there is no mention.

Every mayor of Oxford for the following 470 years was forced to face this humiliating punishment until 1825, when the mayor refused to take part. And quite right too!

A bank now stands on the site of the tavern.

0 Comments

Marriage of Edmund Crouchback

3/2/2018

0 Comments

The 3rd February in 1276 is the reported date of the marriage of Edmund Crouchback to his second wife Blanche of Artois.

In the July of 1274, Blanche had been widowed when her husband Henry I of Navarre died following the death of the couples baby son the year before. That same year Edmund too had suffered the loss of his wife the fifteen-year-old wife Aveline de Forz, had died in November.

On Edmund and Blanche's marriage, Edmund became step-father to Blanche's one-year-old daughter Joan, whose daughter Isabella would become the wife of Edward II and lover of Roger Mortimer. Their marriage, it is said, was arranged but was thought to have been a happy one and resulted in three children, Thomas of Lancaster - executed on the order of the aforementioned Edward II. Henry, nicknamed Wryneck due to a condition we know now of as Torticollis, where the muscles of the neck cause the head to twist to one side, and John, who died in France in 1317.

The couples twenty-year marriage ended with Edmund's death in 1296 during the siege of Bordeaux and Blanche died in Paris in 1302.

0 Comments

Death of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester

22/2/2017

0 Comments

In the BBC's series The Hollow Crown: Henry VI Part One, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester was sympathetically played by Hugh Bonneville, a very good choice I think, his portrayal gives us a glimpse of the real man.

It was this day in February 1447 that Humphrey died from a stroke, although there were suggestions that he was poisoned.

"Humphrey" writes author Matthew Lewis "was a well-liked figure who was popular with the common man and retained sympathy for the House of Lancaster as the government of his nephew became increasingly unpopular and out of touch with the country. The policy of eliminating those closest to the throne thrust Richard, Duke of York to prominence as Humphrey’s natural successor, caused those who had looked to Humphrey for a lead to turn their focus from the House of Lancaster and made York, not unreasonably, frightened of meeting the same fate simply by reason of his position. Perhaps paranoia was a part of the makeup of Henry VI’s mental issues even at this early stage, perhaps the Beauforts were manipulating him to improve their own prospects or perhaps it was a little of both. Whatever the reason, it backfired on Henry and the Beauforts, dragging England into a bitter and prolonged civil war."

You can read more about the Duke of Gloucester in Matthew's blog here

mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-fall-of-humphrey-duke-of-gloucester/

0 Comments

February 12th, 2017

12/2/2017

0 Comments

On the 15th February 1382, the Earldom of Suffolk fell into abeyance on the death of William Ufford when he collapsed and died whilst climbing the stairs into Parliament.

Ufford was highly regarded, he carried the royal sceptre at the coronation of ten year old Richard II and was a councilor during the king's minority and was one of Richard's men who put down the Peasants' Revolt in 1381.

Three years after Ufford's death, part of the family estate and the Earldom of Suffolk passed to Michael de la Pole, William's cousin via sisters Catherine and Margaret Norwich, mother's to Pole and Ufford respectively. However, the vast majority of the Suffolk estate passed in accordance to Ufford's will to his sister Cecily, the wife of John Willoughby of Eresby in Lincolnshire.

William's father Robert, was granted the Earldom of Suffolk in its second creation in March 1337 and they take their name from their manor in Ufford in Suffolk, being descended through the family of Peyton. The Ufford name died along with William in 1382, their bloodline however continued through three daughters.

The descendants of the de la Pole and the Willoughby families play important parts in history. Michael de la Pole's grandson William was blamed for the loss of French territories Maine and Anjou, a scapegoat who was exiled and murdered in 1450. The Willoughby's, in the form of Robert Well's, fought against Edward IV at Losecoat field in 1470 and fourteen year old Catherine Willoughbly would marry Charles Brandon.

William Ufford was buried at Campsey Priory, in Campsea Ashe, Suffolk.

0 Comments

Battle of Brunanburh

8/2/2017

0 Comments

In 1603, Scotland and England became one nation. The Union of the Crowns, saw James VI of Scotland become King of England as heir to Elizabeth I. The story of this troubled union continues into our own time, with the unsuccessful referendum on independence in 2014 and recently with the difference of opinion on the Brexit referendum.

With this in mind have you ever wondered when the identities of England and Scotland became first became separate? A battle that took place on the 1st of August 937 was the defining point in the history of our two countries identities, it marked the time when a separate English identity was born.

It was this day that Athelstan, King Alfred’s grandson, won a decisive victory against an alliance between the Scots and the Vikings at the Battle of Brunanburh. Having successfully taken the last remaining Viking kingdom, Athelstan looked to the north to extend his authority. The allied forces under Olaf Guthfrithson arrived in England at the Humber estuary but were held at bay.
With the joint forces of three major countries against him Athelstan was certainly ganged up on, but as historian Michael Woods wrote the Athels 'held his nerve, took the offensive and won a crushing victory.' and the battle, according to the Annals of Ulster was “immense, lamentable and horrible, savagely fought.”

King Athelstan, says the Anglo-Saxon chronicles was the "the lord of warriors and patron of heroes" and by the time of his death two years later he had secured England’s borders and introduced new laws.

Statue of King Athelstan at Ripon Cathedral

The jury is still out regarding the precise location of Athelstan's victory. According to the Egils Saga, it was fought on a moor called Vin-heath, but where exactly this is is unknown. Yorkshire, Northamptonshire and my home county of Lincolnshire, have all been put forward, but it is Bromborough in the Wirral, in north-west England that most historians agree the battle took place.

The story of Athelstan's heroic fight can be found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and can be listened to here.

youtu.be/MeTG2eDmTzs

0 Comments

Mary Queen of Scot's Death Warrant

1/2/2017

0 Comments

A warrant ordering her death of Mary Queen of Scots was signed by Elizabeth I on the 1st February 1587.

Sandor Liezen-Mayer's depicts Elizabeth 's hatred quite brilliantly.

Mary would be executed a week later and despite her famous reaction on finding out her cousin was dead, it is clear from the warrant what Elizabeth's wishes were:

“repaire to our Castle of Fotheringhaye where the said Queene of Scottes is in custodie of our right trustie servant and Counsellor Sir Amyas Poulet Knight, and then taking her into your charge to cause by your commandment execution to be done upon her person”.

Mary, on hearing of her fate, wrote to Henry III of France, the younger brother of her first husband Frances II stating

"Tonight, after dinner, I have been advised of my sentence: I am to be executed like a criminal at eight in the morning. I have not had time to give you a full account of everything that has happened, but if you will listen to my doctor and my other unfortunate servants, you will learn the truth, and how, thanks be to God, I scorn death and vow.... "

Mary Queen of Scots is one of a number of persons in history that I am known to dither about, do I like her or not? My gut feeling however is yes I do.

Below is a copy of the original warrant that disappeared following Mary execution.

More information about this is available on Lambeth Palace website.

www.lambethpalacelibrary.org/content/executionwarrant

0 Comments

Death of Mary Queen of Scots

1/2/2017

0 Comments

Mary, Queen of Scots was executed on the 8th February 1587.

Seven day earlier, William Davison, Elizabeth I's secretary, was asked by the queen to bring Mary's death warrant in order that she could sign it. Elizabeth handed it back to Davison for safe keeping. However, contrary to her order the warrant found its way into the hands of William Cecil. Cecil was quick to act upon Elizabeth's wishes stated within the warrant....

“repaire to our Castle of Fotheringhaye where the said Queene of Scottes is in custodie of our right trustie servant and Counsellor Sir Amyas Poulet Knight, and then taking her into your charge to cause by your commandment execution to be done upon her person”.

It is clear that Elizabeth certainly had some doubts about Mary's execution. Although there is no evidence, it is probable that William Cecil and Francis Walsingham used their positions to influence the Privy Council to convince the queen Mary's death was necessary, and her Parliament to get the warrant approved.

By the 7th February, Elizabeth's representatives had arrived at Fotheringhay Castle, and in the presence of Poulet, Mary was informed that they would proceed with her execution the next morning before eight o'clock.

According to French nobleman Pierre de Bourdeille, who had been with Mary during her imprisonment, the Scottish queen welcomed the news of her demise, stating that she 'longed for an end to her miseries, and had been prepared for death ever since she had been sent as a prisoner to England.' She asked for time to prepare herself, but this was not granted, Mary was told in no uncertain terms

'No, no, Madam you must die, you must die! Be ready between seven and eight in the morning. It cannot be delayed a moment beyond that time.'

Later that evening Mary would write to Henry III of France, the younger brother of her first husband Frances II stating

Tonight, after dinner, I have been advised of my sentence: I am to be executed like a criminal at eight in the morning. I have not had time to give you a full account of everything that has happened, but if you will listen to my doctor and my other unfortunate servants, you will learn the truth, and how, thanks be to God, I scorn death and vow."

As arranged, Mary arrived at the scaffold the next morning accompanied by her ladies in waiting. Mary rejected the offer of a Protestant minister to pray for her soul, but asked that Elizabeth spare her companions. Those who gathered around the scaffold gave an audible gasp as Mary removed her black dress to reveal a red petticoat that symbolised Catholic martyrdom. Mary was dying for her faith, and in doing so she kissed her crucifix and stated

Even as Thy arms, O Jesus, were spread here upon the cross, so receive me into Thy arms of mercy and forgive me all my sins.'

Mary knelt, and as a cloth was tied across her eyes she felt for the block and laying her head down she repeated

‘In manus tuas, Domine’ - ‘Into thy hands, Lord’

With more than one stroke of the axe Elizabeth's nemesis was dead.

Mary's executioner is said to have picked up her severed head and, showing it to those present shouted

"God save Queen Elizabeth! May all the enemies of the true Evangel thus perish!'

Despite her famous reaction on finding out her cousin was dead, it is clear from the death warrant what Elizabeth's wishes were. Cecil, Walsingham and Davison, all staunch Protestants, had their reasons to rid of the country of the Catholic heir to the English throne. They knew that Elizabeth's hesitation could prove problematic, and they acted fast. However, Cecil and Walsingham would not feel the wrath of a distraught and guilt racked queen, but Davison would.

Mary was buried in a Protestant service at Peterborough Cathedral, her body would later be exhumed and reinterred in Westminster Abbey. Her crucifix and cover of her prayer book were quickly taken from the scene, no doubt by her loyal ladies for safe keeping, but you can see in the above image that most of Mary's belongings were burnt to prevent them becoming Catholic icons.

0 Comments

Empress Matilda

9/9/2016

7 Comments

Born on the 7th February in 1102, Matilda was the eldest child of Henry I and Matilda of Scotland, the death of her younger brother William Adelin, on the 25th November 1120 caused a succession crisis, known to us today as The Anarchy.

King Henry I’s only son and heir had perished when the ship in which he was travelling sank in the English Channel.
Following this tragedy, Henry made his daughter Matilda his heir when she married Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou.
In support of Matilda, Henry made the leading barons of the realm, including his nephew Stephen of Blois, swear an oath to accept Matilda as his rightful heir, these oaths were taken in 1127, 1128 and 1131. The Kings decision was not popular for
two reasons, firstly, Matilda was a woman and secondly, Anjou was the sworn enemy of the Normandy. When Henry I died
in 1135 disregarding the oaths previously taken, Stephen travelled from Boulogne to England’s capital and was crowned king, in justification of this Stephen stated that Henry, on his deathbed, had had a change of heart and named him as his successor, the fact that he was not present at his uncle's demise did not deter him.

To support his claim Stephen called one Hugh Bigod, who stated that he was witness to Henry’s change of mind, not surprisingly Stephen did not summon those men who actually attended the king on his death, an archbishop, a bishop and four earls. Ulger, Bishop of Angers who supported Geoffrey Plantagenet and subsequently Matilda too, was highly suspicious and later put it to another who also claimed to be at the king's death.

‘As for your statement that the King changed his mind, it is proved false by those who were present at the Kings death, neither you nor Hugh could possibly know his last request, because neither of you were there”

R. H. C. Davis in his book ‘King Stephen’ suggests that Bigod and others were present when the King was dying but not present at his death and therefore not witness to a 'last minute change of heart' as they had left to inform Stephen of the news. At this time Matilda was in Anjou with her husband, on hearing that Stephen had usurped the throne she left there for Normandy and in 1139 she set out, with her half-brother, Robert of Gloucester, for England.

Henry I making Matilda his heir in 1120, proved to be nothing but trouble, a woman ruler was unprecedented and also her marriage, as previously stated, was unpopular.

12th-century depiction of Matilda and Henry.

Following the Battle of Lincoln in 1141, Stephen was captured and imprisoned and Matilda made her play for the crown, but
her advantage lasted only a few months, she marched on London under the title of Lady of the English and the city was ready with their support. However, she refused the people’s request to have their taxes halved and on arrival in London she found the gates shut, the civil war reignited on 24 June 1141. Helen Castor writes

"Matilda did not ‘fit’ the crown she claimed" and she was seen by chroniclers as having "intolerable pride and wilfulness”,

By November, Stephen was free, having been exchanged for the captured Robert of Gloucester. A year after Stephen
regained his throne the tables were turned and Matilda was captured, she eventually escaped from her guards at Devizes
by disguising herself as a corpse and being carried out for burial. The year 1142 saw Matilda based at Oxford Castle but by Christmas, it was surrounded by Stephen's men, it was at this time that Matilda made her most famous daring escape. She
is said to have lowered herself down the castle wall in the dead of night, dressed only in white as camouflage against the snow. Matilda then crossed an icy river, past the royal army to safety.

This is a lovely story, but its highly unlikely that Matilda would have left the castle out of the highest window, it is more
than likely that she used was is known as a Postern Gate, a door that is hidden from view which allows people to come
and go without being seen.

Stephen later recognised Matilda's son Henry as his heir, following this Matilda spent the rest of her life in Normandy where she died on the 10th September 1167.

Part of the epitaph on Matilda's tomb at Bec Abbey in France, reads

"Great by birth, greater by marriage, greatest in her offspring: here lies Matilda, the daughter, wife, and mother of Henry",

Matilda's tomb was damaged by fire ninety-six years after her death, and twice in the following decades her remains were disturbed and lost, eventually they were found and she was finally laid to rest in 1846 in Rouen Cathedral.

7 Comments

The Duke of Northumberland and the Devise for the Succession

21/6/2016

0 Comments

In June 1553, Edward VI's Devise for the Succession was signed by one hundred and two members of the royal council, in it he named his cousin Lady Jane Grey as his heir, and disinherited his half sisters Mary and Elizabeth.

In the chaos following Mary being proclaimed queen, the signatories stated that they were forced to sign the document by
John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland.

John Dudly Duke of Northumberland

According to Jehan de Scheyfye, imperial ambassador, Edward feared John Dudley, and with his uncle Edward Seymour,
a gentler, less imposing character dead and in the ground for over a year, the young king was right to do so.

Northumberland, as Jane's father in law and Jane's parents, Francis and Henry Grey, were the epitome of grasping, self serving nobles who were not afraid to use and abuse their offspring if it meant getting what they desired.
In Northumberland's case his intention was to be chief puppeteer, with a wish to make England dance to his tune, and no
better way to start than organising marriages, to the benefit of himself, to high ranking nobles within the royal court.

Guildford, Catherine and Katherine were all married on the same day, the 25th May 1553.

With Edward's illness beginning in the February and three dynastic marriages taking place less than a
month before the king became ill, it's difficult to believe that Dudley's only concern was king and country. As the court
watched the king's life slipping away, Northumberland was quick to realise that the plans for his families rise to greatness
was heading for the grave along with his sickly king. It most certainly had not slipped Dudley's mind, that on Edward's
death, the Grey family members were at the top of Edwards list of heirs. It was still possible that Francis Grey could give Suffolk a son, and that would be disastrous for Dudley, he knew that whoever was at England's helm it would be Henry Grey who would be pulling the strings.

All Northumberland needed to do was to whisper in the kings ear that it was in 'countries' interest that he declare
Jane Grey his heir and then sit back and watch as the plans for his new 'dynasty', plans that had been in the making
since at least 1525, come to fruition.

The question has to be asked if Northumberland was a schemer, it has been said he was 'morally bankrupt'
and 'the subtlest intriguer in English history.' However, there are those who would argue that Dudley was the Tudor
dynasty's saviour in a time of in fighting, religious upheaval and rebellion, and if this was the case then perhaps the
Duke of Northumberland was the right man for the job, however Dudley had much to gain and for me, this counteracts everything else.

It has been suggested that the change to the succession was Edward's own idea and his own doing, and that this boy
wasn't a pawn in the machinations of his protectors at all, but an intelligent, if somewhat sober, young man. However, at this point in time he was weak and vulnerable, would a boy so sick, whose body was swollen and covered in ulcers, who was suffering from a high fever and in great pain from bedsores, be able think about such a change? After all he had already made his decision and drafted it to his satisfaction, excluding his sister on the grounds of religion and illegitimacy, important
reasons to him. No, Northumberland saw an opportunity and he took it.

Edward made the changes to the succession, altering 'L Janes heires masles' to L Jane AND her heires masles' as you can see in the text below.

On the 21st June, the Devise for the Succession of King Edward VI was signed, and on Edward's death on the 6th July,
Jane Grey became queen. Never crowned, she 'reigned' for just nine days.

Jane's story is a tragic one, she along with her husband, Guildford Dudley were tried for treason in November 1553 and executed on the 12th of February 1554. Henry Grey was executed ten days later.

In August, just two weeks following Mary's triumphant ride through the streets of London, John Dudley was one of the
first to climb the steps of the scaffold.

What doe's that tell you?

0 Comments

The Burial of George Duke of Clarence: A Sad End to a Sorry Tale

31/5/2015

2 Comments

Three of the four sons of Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville died a gruesome death. Two died at the hands of their enemies, one tucked up in his bed and one, George, by the hand of an executioner.

The Duke of Clarence did not make life easy for anyone, least of all himself, he was self centered, treacherous, a turncoat and eventually a groveler when he realised that his previous actions were going to cost him his life. Clarence's execution took place in private, on the 18th February 1478. It is commonly thought that he went to a death of his own choosing, probably beheading, but those who believe that remains of a body, with the head intact, that lies at Tewkesbury Abbey is Clarence would disagree on that point I think. The most famous tale of his death, however, is by drowning in a barrel of red wine.

Illustration by kind permission of Alice Povey from The Children's Book of Richard III by Rosalind Adam

Just like the deaths of the sons of York, their burials to have caused a bit of a stir. We know that Edmund's remains lie in the family vault at Fotheringhay, Edward is buried at St George's Chapel, Windsor and Richard is newly interred at the Cathedral Church of St Martin's in Leicester, but what of George's mortal remains?

It is a particular set of remains that lie in the vault of Tewkesbury Abbey that are said to belong to George and his wife Isabel Neville. The Duke of Clarence received the manor of Tewkesbury when he married Isabel. In 1439 it had passed down through the Beauchamp family and then had passed to the Nevilles from Anne, Countess of Warwick. On George's death, it passed to his son, but eventually, it was returned to the countess and partially held by her until her death in 1490 when it was made over to the crown.

The vault, which lies behind the high altar within Gloucestershire's Tewkesbury Abbey, has been opened at least eight times since 1478. The vault into which Clarence was placed was first opened in 1477 for the burial of Isabel and then again for the burial of Clarence the following year. Records show that it was opened again three times between 1709 and 1753 to place the remains of Alderman Hawling and his family, after which it was said to have remained closed for over seventy years. At the beginning of the new century, the vault was entered once more and two skulls and assorted bones were found. An article written about this opening states:

"between the burial of George of Clarence and Alderman Hawling there had been the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Henry VIII had every intention of stripping the Abbey of everything of value and then leaving it to fall into decay. This was averted when the townspeople bought the abbey from the crown. However, before the purchase Henry's henchmen would have stripped out anything of value and the vault had been ransacked. It was at this point that the coffins of George and Isabel, especially if the were decorated with gold or silver plates or handles, could have been opened and the bodies removed."

In 1829 the vault was opened again, this time to remove the bodies of the Hawlings family to a new place of burial. The bones, assumed to be those of George and Isabel, were then deposited in a stone coffin. Thirty years later Tewkesbury suffered a flood and parts of the abbey were damaged, this maybe the reason, when the stone coffin was opened, it was full of water. In 1830 records show that a glass case was made, but there is no mention of the remains of Clarence ever being placed in it.

Poor "false, fleeting, perjur'd Clarence's" remains would lie undisturbed for the next one hundred and fifty years. At some point, the bones, taken to be that of Clarence and Isabel, were removed for examination and 'cleaning.' What was found were:

'Two separate partial skeletons in poor condition. The male skeleton consisted of most of the leg and hip bone, the upper left arm, left shoulder and upper part of the skull. The man had what amounted to mild arthritic changes and a degree of cranial closure consistent with the late middle age 40 - 60 years. His height was approximately 5ft 3ins. The female remains consisted of almost the entire legs minus the feet, hips, upper and half of the lower right arm and the upper skull. Examination found advanced localised osteoarthritis and a degree of suture obliteration of the skull which suggests an age between 50 - 70 years. The height was approximately 5ft 4ins.'

The examined remains were replaced with the glass case.

Photograph + two above by Karen Ladniuk

The glass case, as you can see is attached to the wall, presenting unidentified remains like this just adds weight to a false claim and reminds me of the old advertising slogan "It does exactly what it says on the tin" which is basically saying look no further. The case of the so-called remains of Princes in the Tower is a very good example of this. Look how magnificent that engraved container is, we've been insisting they are the remains of the sons of Edward IV since 1674.

All human remains within the vault are known to have been thrown about by Henry VIII's lackeys probably in an effort to destroy any Plantagenet relics or they were unceremoniously scattered when the vault was searched for anything of value.

We know that Clarence held the manor of Tewkesbury on his death, so there is little doubt that both his and Isabel's remains both lie in the Abbey, but I would say that the remains you see in the glass box are not those of George Duke of Clarence and Isabel Neville. The chances of correctly collecting two whole skeletons are slim, to say the least. If the boxed dis-articulated remains are not of the Duke of Clarence then perhaps the remains that were exhumed from the Tower of London and taken to lie in Tewkesbury Abbey might be, but that's just speculation, it has never been proved that either set of remains belongs the Clarence.

What is left of George Duke of Clarence is destined to spend eternity as his brother King Richard III had one done, lost to us.

It is a sad end to a sorry affair