Richard of York: The Early Years

After 1450, Richard Duke of York emerged as the focal point of political opposition to England’s Lancastrian regime. Eventually, of course, Richard would openly rebel against the crown and claim the throne for himself. The Wars of the Roses that followed spanned three decades. It saw most of the primary protagonists, including Richard himself, die before Henry Tudor finally emerged triumphant.

But how and why did it come to this? What drove Richard into conflict with the Lancastrian court and ultimately rebel?

Was he, as he claimed, driven by a desire to root out corruption and restore good government? Or was he driven by raw ambition and a thirst for power? Or was it, in fact, a mix of both?

The Plantagenet Legacy

By 1450 England had been ruled by Lancastrian kings for half a century. The incumbent Lancastrian king, Henry VI, was the third in his line and Richard of York’s cousin.

Richard and Henry represented two powerful branches of the same Plantagenet family. Each descended from a son of Edward III. Henry VI was king, but arguably had a weaker claim to the throne. Richard, by contrast, may have had a slightly stronger claim but did not hold power.

This situation had a potential for conflict that had been brewing for decades. However, by 1450 the matter had long been settled in House Lancaster’s favour.

It would be a mistake to think the Wars of the Roses were triggered by these rival dynastic claims alone. No one had seriously challenged the legitimacy of Lancastrian rule since early in Henry’s father’s reign, in 1414. The real catalyst for war was the crisis that engulfed the late Lancastrian regime during the 1440s. A crisis that prompted many to eventually look for an alternative to Henry VI. And it just so happened that the most obvious viable alternative was Richard Duke of York.

Youth

Richard’s father was the son of Edmund, Duke of York, one of Edward III’s sons. His male lineage therefore had a weaker claim to the throne than the Lancastrian kings who descended from Edmund’s older brother, John of Gaunt.

However, Richard’s mother was Anne Mortimer who was descended from Lionel of Antwerp, the elder brother of both Edmund and John. This meant Richard inherited the Mortimer claim to the throne from the senior surviving Plantagenet line on his mother’s side.

Richard’s mother, Anne, died soon after giving birth. His father became embroiled in a botched attempt to overthrow Henry V and was executed for treason in 1415. This left Richard an orphan at the tender age of 4.

Fortunately for Richard, Henry V saw no reason to punish the son for the sins of the father. He was made ward to the powerful Neville family and, in time, permitted to inherit the Duchy of York and the extensive Mortimer estates.

Since a Lancastrian king had executed his father, Richard had some cause to dislike the regime from an early age. However, the regime generally treated him well during his youth and there is no evidence to show Richard held a strong grudge at this time.

France

The regime trusted Richard enough to offer him an important office of state in May 1436, when he was appointed to command the English forces in France. At the time, the English and French were still locked in conflict in the latter stages of the Hundred Years’ War.

It was a prestigious appointment and demonstrates, at least at this stage, that Richard was on good terms with the regime. Initially his appointment was a stop-gap measure but since Richard proved to be effective, he was re-appointed to the position with greater powers in 1440.

Richard owed his appointment, in part, to the patronage of Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, Henry VI’s uncle. It thereby marked him out as a potential ally of Gloucester’s and, by default, a potential enemy of Gloucester’s chief political rival, Cardinal Henry Beaufort.

During his time in France, York enjoyed reasonable success in stemming the tide of French victories. However, the limited resources available to him became an increasingly serious problem. Richard even found himself having to finance Normandy’s defences out of his own pocket to a substantial degree. The truth was that England’s war coffers were empty.

England Under Pressure

As the early 1440s wore on, the English territories in France came under increasing pressure from French attack. Gascony was threatened in the south and in Normandy, it was all Richard could do to hold the line.

A relief force was finally raised in 1443. However, to Richard’s annoyance, the command was given to John Beaufort, the Duke of Somerset. Richard, supposedly commander in France, had been sidelined in favour of one of the king’s Beaufort cousins.

The decision proved to be a disaster. Beaufort was an inexperienced commander and the ensuing campaign achieved nothing aside from antagonising Brittany, England’s key ally.

This was the first time Richard found himself playing second fiddle to the Beaufort family because of Henry’s favouritism. But it wouldn’t be the last. However, since John Beaufort died early in 1444, there was little time for any personal grudges to fester.

After the disastrous 1443 campaign it was obvious to virtually everyone that victory in France was beyond England’s capabilities. Henry VI’s court, led by the charismatic Duke of Suffolk, focused all their efforts on negotiating a permanent peace.

The sole voice of opposition to this policy was the hawkish Duke of Gloucester. However, given England’s parlous financial position, prosecuting an expensive war was hardly practical.

The Treaty of Tours

Suffolk’s efforts appeared to reap rewards. In 1444, the Treaty of Tours offered a roadmap to peace. A temporary truce came into effect and Henry VI was betrothed to a French Princess, Margaret of Anjou, to seal the deal. However, there was a problem. The French demanded the surrender the province of Maine as a condition of the truce. And negotiations for a permanent treaty were stalling over the future of Normandy.

The decision to cede Maine to the French met with vociferous opposition from Gloucester, who condemned the deal out of hand. However, the primary roadblock to implementing the treaty was not Gloucester but John Beaufort’s brother Edmund, the Earl of Dorset (later the Duke of Somerset). For Edmund was the governor of Maine, a lucrative arrangement that suited him well.

The Beauforts were, by noble standards, not an especially wealthy family. The fact was that Edmund’s wealth was more dependent on his interests in France than in England.

Suffolk realised that speeding Edmund’s departure from Maine would require compensation. So, Edmund was offered financial compensation along with Richard of York’s job as commander in Normandy in the hope that this would placate him.

The Seeds of Future Conflict

Richard probably expected to be re-appointed to his position in Normandy, so being deprived of the office came as a blow to his prestige. In the autumn of 1446 accusations of financial irregularities during York’s tenure in Normandy began to circulate. York suspected Adam Moleyns, one of Suffolk’s allies at court, was behind it. Moleyns denied starting any rumours, claiming that they were already in common circulation in France. An investigation was launched but it came to nothing.

It is hard to say whether the allegations were true. We can’t discount the possibility that there may have been genuine financial irregularities from Richard’s time at Rouen. On the other hand, Moleyns or others at court could have been spreading political propaganda to pave the way for Richard’s replacement. Either way its seems that the investigation was killed, either because there was no evidence of wrongdoing or to avoid an unnecessary political row.

Whatever the truth, the damage to Richard’s reputation was done. And, in December 1446, Edmund Beaufort was formally appointed to the position. To placate Richard, the King decided to compensate him with the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland – an important but less prestigious role.

Richard accepted the inevitable but the whole affair rankled. It sowed the seeds of what would later fester into a poisonous rivalry between Richard and Edmund.

The Demise of Duke Humphrey

Politically, the aging Duke Humphrey remained the primary voice of opposition to peace. Humphrey was adamant that the legacy of his brother, Henry V, should be preserved at all costs. Instead of accepting a poor peace deal, Humphrey argued England should prosecute the war more vigorously, even if that meant taking on more debt. Whatever the shortcomings of the treaty, Humphrey’s alternative was completely impractical.

The King finally lost patience. Humphrey was arrested in 1447 much to the outrage of the more hawkish elements in Parliament. However, he died before he could be brought to trial. His sudden demise prompted rumours of foul play, although it is more likely that his failing health was to blame.

By 1447, Humphrey had few supporters amongst the nobility. Many had been uneasy about the treaty terms, but few believed that continuing an expensive, unwinnable, war was the answer.

Richard of York may have been regarded as one of Gloucester’s protégés, but he did nothing to support Gloucester’s position at the time. Indeed, after Gloucester’s death, Richard was happy to accept a gift of some of the old Duke’s former estates from the king.

Richard, in the late 1440s, like most of the English nobility, was perfectly happy to go along with Suffolk’s peace initiative.

Fiasco

Despite the regime’s efforts to reach a settlement in France, it was doomed to end in disaster. Peace negotiations stalled mainly over Normandy. The French wanted it back. The English refused to surrender it.

The truth was that the English, drunk on past glories, were deluding themselves as to the true strength of their position. Times had changed. The French, disunited and weak in 1415, were strong and united by the late 1440s. Burgundy, a key ally of Henry V in 1415, was now allied to the French king. England was overmatched and, worse still, overburdened with crippling debts.

Then, in 1449, the English court hatched a hair-brained scheme to force Brittany into the English camp by using mercenaries to take the stronghold of Fougères. It was a foolhardy venture that succeeded only in forcing Brittany into an alliance with the French king.

Suffolk and the court faction would end up getting the lion’s share of the blame. York himself would later blame Somerset. However, the primary architect of the Fougères fiasco was almost certainly Henry VI himself.

Worst of all, Fougères gave the French the excuse they were looking for to renew the war. And, by 1449, it was a war France had been preparing for, for a very long time.

War

Early one morning in mid-May 1449 the French stormed Pont-de-l’Arche, overwhelmed the English garrison, and seized control of the town. It was the beginning of the end for England’s possessions in Normandy.

Edmund Beaufort, now Duke of Somerset, attempted to stave off defeat. Several months before the onslaught he had, like York before him, pleaded with Parliament for more resources. His pleas, like York’s before him, fell on deaf ears. When the storm finally broke, his defences were easily overwhelmed by a larger and much better equipped French army.

Rouen, the centre of English power in Normandy, fell in October 1449. Harfleur in December, Honfleur and Fresnoy in January 1450. As disaster followed disaster, the search for answers, explanations and ultimately scapegoats followed. The impact on England should not be underestimated; the country was rocked to its core.

By January 1450 the situation was unravelling fast. The aging Adam Moleyns was despatched to Portsmouth to deliver wages owed to soldiers and sailors stationed there. There he encountered an angry mob. Moleyns, in the wrong places at the wrong time, was attacked and murdered as a convenient available scapegoat for the nation’s ills.

Moleyns would not be the only one. Chief amongst those blamed for the unfolding disaster was, of course, Suffolk himself.

The Fall of Suffolk

Not long after Moleyns murder, Parliament convened, baying for Suffolk’s blood. It was not enough to remove him for incompetence. His actions, according to his detractors, amounted to nothing short of treason. The commons even accused him of plotting to sell England to France. Mass hysteria had truly taken hold.

Illustration of the death of Suffolk — *Suffolk was summarily executed by Richard Lenard on 2^nd May 1450*

In the end Henry VI refused to bow to pressure and execute his principal minister. Instead, he exiled Suffolk, hoping that this would placate his enemies. It did not.

On 15^th April 1450, an English relief force, sent to stabilise the situation in Normandy was comprehensively defeated at the battle of Formigny. News of this latest disaster from the continent probably sealed Suffolk’s fate.

At the end of April, Suffolk finally fled for the relative safety of exile on the continent by sea. But he never made it. His ship was intercepted by another, the Nicholas of the Tower. The crew of the Nicholas accused him of treason and, taking the law into their own hands, summarily executed him.

But who were the crew of the Nicholas of the Tower? Were they acting alone or on the orders of a third party? Some historians have even suggested that, perhaps, Richard of York was involved. However, we have no real evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.

The Nicholas of the Tower

Unfortunately, we know surprisingly little about the Nicholas. One of the few things we do know, was that it had been an active privateer since at least 1436. Aside from that, we don’t really know who owned or captained it. Various theories have been proposed over the years. That the ship was commanded by a certain Robert Wennington, owned by Dartmouth merchants, was in royal service or the Duke of Exeter’s service. All these theories have been shown to be unlikely at best or baseless at worst.

Two crew members (Richard Lenard and Thomas Smith) were later charged with Suffolk’s murder. The most revealing information in their inditements claim that when they were shown Suffolk’s letter of safe conduct from the king, they scornfully replied that…

“…they did not know the said king, but they well knew the crown of England, saying that the aforesaid crown was the community of the said realm and that the community of the realm was the crown of that realm “

[Ancient Indictments of the Kings Bench 29 Henry VI: K.B. 9/47, no. 13.]

Such a statement shows an astonishingly radical mindset. They asserted that sovereign power derived from the people rather than the king! It was certainly not a sentiment that any English nobleman, including Richard of York, would have approved of.

John Amend-all

Bad news continued to reach England in the early summer of 1450 as the French mopped up what remained of England’s Norman possessions.

Then, in early June, a mob assembled in Kent and marched on the capital. Many were common labourers and farmers, but some were wealthy yeoman, gentry and even a few knights. They were led by a previously unknown commander by the name of Jack Cade.

Cade was a charismatic figure who may have had some military experience. His followers gave him the nickname ‘John Amend-all’ but, more provocatively, Jack himself assumed the pseudonym of ‘John Mortimer’. This, coupled with a claimed Irish heritage, drew a direct association with Richard of York and his Mortimer lineage. This added credence to the view that perhaps Richard and/or his supporters may have played some role in inciting the rebels.

Cade and his followers issued a manifesto of grievances to present to the King, entitled The Complaint of the Poor Commons of Kent. Many of these grievances echoed later Yorkist complaints so, in some respects, it might be regarded as a nascent Yorkist manifesto.

The Complaint of the Poor Commons of Kent

What, then, were the rebel grievances? A close look at their manifesto reveals a mindset very similar (but not identical to) later Yorkist complaints. The rebels complained that the King was surrounded by false and treacherous councillors. These men had corrupted the government of England, brought about the disasters in Normandy, the impoverishment of the king and the destruction of the common folk.

Indeed, the manifesto claimed that corruption had gone so far that “the law serves of nought else in these days but for to do wrong.”

Perhaps most inflammatory of all were some of the demands made in the document, in particular:

“His true commons desire that he will remove from him all the false progeny and affinity of the Duke of Suffolk and to take about his noble person his true blood of his royal realm, that is to say, the high and mighty prince the Duke of York.”

The rebels went on to suggest the Dukes of Exeter, Buckingham and Norfolk should also be included within the King’s council. The rebels were, in effect, dictating to the King how he should run his government. From the court’s perspective it could hardly have failed to cast considerable suspicion on Richard’s personal role in all this.

London has Fallen

Thinking that Cade’s rabble could easily be dispersed, a royal force was sent to deal with them. However, they underestimated the rebels, some of whom were experienced former soldiers, veterans of the war in France. The King’s men were ambushed and routed at Sevenoaks on 18^th June.

*Jack Cade confronts the hated Lord Saye and Sele at the White Hart Inn*

The rebels entered London in early July. Cade set himself up at the White Hart Inn in Southwark whilst his followers entered the capital to ‘amend-all’.

Even before the rebels had arrived at Southwark, Henry VI fled to Kenilworth Castle in the Midlands. Instead of taking charge himself, it was left to Cardinal Kempe and Queen Margaret (who’d stubbornly stayed behind in London) to deal with the rebellion.

As it transpired, Margaret, just turned 20, had no qualms about taking charge in her husband’s absence. Contemporary accounts tell us she was actively engaged in ordering the incarceration of suspected troublemakers at the height of the crisis. It was the first occasion the young Queen had asserted herself in this way. Margaret, it seemed, was not one to run from a fight. It was a sign of things to come.

Chaos in the Capital

In the initial instance there was little Margaret, Kempe, or anyone else could do to restrain the rebels. It wasn’t long before Cade’s men had seized and summarily executed James Fiennes, the Baron of Saye and Sele, Henry VI’s Lord High Treasurer. William Cromer, the hated deputy-sheriff of Kent, soon shared Fiennes’ fate.

However, Cade struggled to control his men as they turned to looting. After a few days of chaos, the citizens of London turned against Cade and his mob, driving them out of the capital on 8^th July. It was the beginning of the end for the rebels.

Cardinal Kempe, ever the diplomat, grabbed the opportunity to convince the rebels to disperse with conciliatory words and promises of pardons. The rebellion was effectively over. In the end Kempe’s promises were not kept by Henry’s government. During the weeks that followed the rebels were systematically hunted down and many were executed. Cade himself was cornered on his way to Lewes on 12^th July and killed in the ensuing skirmish.

Order was eventually restored to the capital, but no thanks to the King. He dared not return to London until 28^th July, long after the danger had passed. In the meantime, the restoration of order was left in the hands of Kempe and the Queen.

Normandy Falls

The immediate crisis was over but the bad news from Normandy kept coming. Following the disastrous defeat at Formigny, the English faced an increasingly desperate situation. On 5^th June, the French laid siege to the remnants of Somerset’s forces in Caen. At the start of July, just as Cade’s forces were closing in on London, Caen surrendered.

The last English stronghold in France was Cherbourg. The French laid siege to it on 6^th July. By 12^th August, it too had surrendered. The English were expelled from Normandy.

A defeated Somerset returned to England. Many blamed him for the rapidity of the defeat, pointing to the fact that he’d done very little to prepare for the French onslaught. This was despite his receiving generous financial compensation for surrendering his tenure in Maine.

However, the truth was that Somerset simply lacked the personal wealth of his predecessor. What funds he had were simply inadequate, given the scale of the French advantages. In Somerset’s favour, he had asked for more resources and been ignored. At the end of the day, England’s poorly manned and equipped garrisons had been forced to fight a one-sided war against a greatly superior enemy. But there was no getting away from the fact that Somerset had been the man in charge when the end came.

York in Ireland

Whilst all this drama was unfolding, Richard of York was in Ireland. No doubt he was kept fully appraised of events, but he remained peripheral to the unfolding chaos throughout.

York had plenty of reasons to be disgruntled. Somerset had replaced him in Normandy and presided over a disaster. Doubtless York thought he could have done better. York would have been particularly annoyed at the surrender of Caen, since he was still officially its Captain.

York must have watched the chaotic events of the Cade rebellion unfold with horror. The idea that he may have worked to directly inspire the rebellion in the form that it took seems unlikely. He, like all the English nobility, would have seen such an uprising as an existential threat to their way of life.

York may have taken encouragement from the fact that the rebels demanded he should be promoted to the King’s council. This showed that there was popular support for elevating him to the heart of government. However, this ‘endorsement’ was a doubled edged sword since it inevitably fuelled speculation that York himself had been complicit in the uprising. Cade’s insistence on associating himself with the Mortimer inheritance had only added fuel to the fire.

York Acts

York remained in Ireland over the turbulent summer of 1450, no doubt wondering whether and how he might best respond to the unfolding chaos. The demise of Suffolk had clearly left a power vacuum. But should York seek to fill it? Was he the right man to restore order to the kingdom? And, if so, how should he go about it?

Perhaps the final straw may have been the manner of Somerset’s eventual return to England. Despite the circumstances, Somerset was welcomed back to Henry’s court with open arms. In August Henry even seemed to be turning to him to fill the role left vacant by Suffolk’s demise. Henry had known Somerset since childhood after all and probably looked to him as someone he could trust. But it was far from a popular choice.

However, the likelihood is that Richard was already preparing to return to England by this time. On 7th September 1450, he abandoned his post as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and returned to England.

The Road to Confrontation

York’s stated intention at this time was to clear his name of any suspicion of involvement in the Cade rebellion and help restore order and good government. However, many in the court faction viewed his return with considerable alarm.

Why had Richard returned? What would he do and how far would he go? Did he want to take control of the government, as the Cade rebels had demanded? Did he even want the crown? Given the febrile atmosphere of the time, it would have been surprising if news of his return had not been greeted with some degree of paranoia.

It was the first time Richard had intervened so directly and forcefully in the political arena. And, as it turned out, it would be Richard’s first steps in an escalating political crisis that would culminate in the Wars of the Roses.

Keep up to date with our stories…

If you like reading our work and would like to keep up to date with the latest stories and news from our blog page, you can follow us on Facebook. We always announce any news and promote new stories as they are published here:

https://www.facebook.com/MedievalHistorian