On 2nd May 1450 the Duke of Suffolk was fleeing England when his ship was intercepted by a vessel called the Nicholas of the Tower. Within a day he was dead; beheaded by a common sailor following a sham vigilante trial.
Suffolk’s death was an ignominious end to a man who had, up until 1449, dominated the government of England. A man who’d enjoyed the king’s favour and who’d been at the forefront of government policy for almost a decade. But his fall from power, when it finally came, was meteorite and absolute.
By the time of his death, Suffolk had many enemies. The fact that people wanted him dead is not surprising. But there remains, to this day, considerable uncertainty around who, exactly, was responsible for his death. It’s unclear who owned or captained the Nicholas of the Tower at the time. It’s also unknown as to whether the Nicholas acted alone or under the orders of one of Suffolk’s many enemies.
We know the name of the common sailor who beheaded Suffolk, but at whose command did he strike the blow? This question remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of the Middle Ages.
Power Behind the Throne
William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk became the principal Lancastrian minster during the 1440s. His rise to power made him many enemies but the patronage of the king ensured his continued dominance.
Central to his policies was the Treaty of Tours of 1444, which appeared to offer a roadmap to peace with France after a century of war. However, there was a problem. The French demanded the surrender of the province of Maine as a condition of the truce. Once this became widely known, Suffolk’s policy met with vociferous criticism in the English parliament. However, with the king’s backing, such objections were brushed aside and the treaty implemented.
Despite all the regime’s efforts, negotiations stalled over the subject of Normandy. The French wanted it back. The English refused to surrender it.
Then, in 1449, the English hatched a hare-brained scheme to force Brittany into an alliance with England by seizing the stronghold of Fougères. It was a foolhardy venture that backfired. Brittany responded by forging an alliance with the French king. Although Suffolk was blamed for the fiasco, it is likely that Henry VI himself was the prime architect of the plan. Worst of all, Fougères broke the truce with France, provoking renewed hostilities.
Disaster in Normandy
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, Duke of Somerset, the current commander in Normandy, now faced a desperate fight to stave off defeat. Several months before the onslaught (in February 1449) he had pleaded with parliament for more resources. His pleas, like those of his predecessor, Richard of York, fell on deaf ears. When the storm finally broke, his defences were easily overwhelmed by a larger and better equipped French army.
Rouen, the centre of English power in Normandy, fell in October 1449. Harfleur in December, Honfleur and Fresnoy in January. As disaster followed disaster, the search for answers, explanations and ultimately scapegoats followed. The impact on English society should not be underestimated; the country was rocked to its core.
Financial Woes
Suffolk’s government had no choice but to desperately plead with parliament for the finances needed to raise a relief force. However, in November 1449, Suffolk was forced to reveal that Royal debts now stood at a staggering £372,000.
In truth, the fiscal crisis was a problem that had been undermining the Lancastrian regime for some time. Even before Henry VI had been old enough to assume the reins of power, the previous regency government had accrued debts of £165,000 by 1433.
The debt was in no small part due to the ongoing costs of the war during the 1430s and early 1440s (and in servicing war debts). The situation had been made worse by a long-term decline in royal revenues from wool trade duties (which had fallen by 35% since Henry V’s death). In addition, Henry VI’s ability to manage his estates and the cost of his household had proven lax. And by the late 1440s, a Europe-wide economic slump was damaging finances even further.
Parliament was furious at the woeful state of the king’s finances and the unfolding disaster in Normandy. However, rather than blame the king himself, the regime’s detractors focused their ire on Suffolk and other leading courtiers.
Murder of a Bishop
By January 1450 the situation was unravelling at an accelerated rate. The regime finally scraped together the funds and political will to muster a relief force at Portsmouth. However, the soldiers and sailors assembling at the port were becoming increasingly disgruntled and unruly due to delayed embarkation and unpaid wages.
The aging courtier, Bishop Adam Moleyns, was despatched to Portsmouth to deliver their overdue pay. It was an unfortunate choice. Moleyns had been intimately involved in negotiating the now hated Treaty of Tours. And now he was tasked with placating angry, underpaid, soldiers and sailors.
On 9th January, not long after he’d arrived, he was delivering a service in the garrison church when a violent mob burst in. Moleyns was accused of misappropriating funds, resulting in their wages being both late and less than expected. Moleyns, they believed, had been living a high life on ill-gotten gains whilst the common soldiers and sailors suffered in poverty.
After forcing a confession of sorts from Moleyns, the mob dragged him outside the chapel and murdered him.
Moleyns had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. For the underpaid garrison, angry at the disastrous course of the war in Normandy, he made an ideal scapegoat.
Moleyns would not be the only one. Chief amongst those increasingly blamed for the unfolding crisis was, of course, Suffolk himself.
The Fall of Suffolk
Not long after Moleyns’ murder parliament convened, baying for Suffolk’s blood. His actions, according to his detractors, amounted to nothing short of treason. On 26th January, the Commons asked why it was that Suffolk had not been arrested and brought to trial given all the rumours of treason circulating about him.
Initially, the demand for his arrest was rejected on the basis that popular rumour did not constitute a specific charge. This objection was swiftly overcome as his enemies in parliament drew up the necessary charges.
Rather than attack Suffolk for incompetence, they chose to bow to popular sentiment and charge him with treason. Suffolk, they alleged, had been plotting to sell Normandy to the French all along. Worse still, he’d even been planning to overthrow the king and usurp the throne for himself. They demanded he be charged with treason, attained and executed as a traitor. Eventually, even the House of Lords agreed that Suffolk should at least face trial. Mass hysteria had truly taken hold.
There was no saving Suffolk now. However, Henry was loath to see his faithful minister killed based on such paranoid polemic. Instead, he decided that Suffolk should simply be removed from office and exiled.
Suffolk’s Murder
News that Suffolk had evaded a traitor’s death met with popular outrage. On 21st March a Vintner’s merchant, John Frammesley, was arrested and executed for treason after declaring the king should lose his crown for sparing Suffolk.
On 15th 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 probably sealed Suffolk’s fate.
At the end of April, Suffolk fled for the relative safety of exile on the continent. Not long after setting sail, Suffolk’s ship was intercepted by a much larger vessel, the Nicholas of the Tower. The master of the Nicholas had Suffolk brought aboard, where he greeted Suffolk with the words “Welcome traitor!” Suffolk showed the master his letter of safe conduct from the king, but it did him no good. The letter was torn up before him.
Following a hasty mock trial, Suffolk was condemned as a traitor and summarily beheaded. On 2nd May 1450, Suffolk’s stripped body was dumped on a nearby beach and his head display impaled upon a pole.
But who were the vigilante crew of the Nicholas of the Tower? Were they acting alone or on the orders of a third party? The answers to these questions remain frustratingly obscure to this day.
The Nicholas of the Tower
Unfortunately, we know surprisingly little about the Nicholas. It is not even entirely clear who owned or captained it. Contemporary accounts provide little to no information on the identity of the crew or who, if anyone, they served. For contemporary English chroniclers, it was enough to attribute the deed to the general atmosphere of outrage and hostility directed against Suffolk.
One continental writer speculated that perhaps the Duke of Somerset might have been behind it. Another suggested the crew were pirates, after Suffolk’s ‘treasure’. Both suggestions have their problems.
Somerset, by this time, was almost as unpopular with common sailors on ships like the Nicholas as Suffolk himself. In addition to which Somerset actively attempted to hunt down and prosecute the crew of the Nicholas in the early 1450s. In a general pardon issued to rebels in 1451, the Somerset-dominated government specifically excluded those responsible for Suffolk’s murder. If Somerset had really been behind it, why go to such lengths to facilitate bringing those responsible to justice?
The idea that the Nicholas was a pirate ship after Suffolk’s wealth has more merit. However, there is no evidence that Suffolk’s ship was transporting any significant amount of treasure. This doesn’t rule out a random act of piracy, but casts doubt on piracy as a motive for pre-meditated interception.
Robert Wennington of Dartmouth
One popular theory that has sprung up since the C15th, names the ship’s captain as Robert Wennington.
However, this idea is problematic. The original connection with Wennington was made by the historian JH Ramsay. Ramsay noted that the name ‘Robert’ was associated with the incident in the Worcester Annuls. From this scant fragment he speculated that this might have been a reference to Robert Wennington.
Unfortunately, there is no contemporary evidence to suggest any connection between Robert Wennington and the Nicholas. In addition, Wennington was known to have been affiliated with the court faction and, therefore, had no obvious motive to kill Suffolk.
Some have suggested a Dartmouth connection since Robert Wennington had been the mayor of Dartmouth. The connection is further reinforced by the fact that a balinger built by Henry V of the same name was sold to Dartmouth merchants in 1423.
However, the association of the Nicholas with Wennington is tenuous and the balinger sold in 1423 was a different ship of the same name.
A Royal Ship
The association with Wennington coupled with the ship’s name has also been used to suggest the ship was a royal ship. Wennington did indeed command ships in royal service at around this time.
Some have further suggested that the name ‘of the Tower’ suggests a royal connection (as in Tower of London). Royal ships of the period often used the appellation ‘of the Tower’, rather like modern royal navy ships use the pre-fix HMS. However, just because this naming convention was used does not necessarily mean that the Nicholas was a royal ship. Other ships, not in royal service also used this name. Furthermore, the Nicholas does not appear in the list of any known royal ships of the period (although such lists are not comprehensive).
However, we also need to consider what we mean by ‘royal’. This was not so easy to define in 1449. Do we mean a ship owned by the crown? Do we mean a privately owned ship in the temporary or semi-permanent employment of the crown? The term ‘royal’ might encompass a multitude of sins.
The Duke of Exeter
A theory espoused by the Tudor historian Edward Hall was that the ship was in the service of the Duke of Exeter, the son-in-law of the Duke of York. The problem with this theory is that the Duke of Exeter was still young and did not come into his inheritance until July that year. He therefore had no control over the Nicholas in the spring of 1450, even if it had been part of his inheritance. In addition, although related to York by marriage, Exeter remained loyal to the Lancastrian cause during the Wars of the Roses.
The other problem with this theory is that Edward Hall was writing decades after the fact, in Tudor times. No earlier writer mentions this connection and Hall is regarded as a somewhat unreliable source for C15th history in any case.
In the end, links to Exeter, like the tales of Wennington and the Dartmouth connection, amount to nothing more than problematic speculation.
What We Know
We know only a few tangible facts about the Nicholas, beyond its involvement with Suffolk’s murder:
- In 1435/6 it was owned by Bristol merchants and actively engaged as a privateer.
- In 1442 it was among several ships appointed to ‘keep the sea’. In other words, it was a semi-official privateer employed to harry French shipping in the latter stages of the Hundred Years’ War.
- On 3rd April 1450, Gervase Clifton, lieutenant of Dover was instructed to seize the ship for the king’s service. Since Clifton was one of the keepers of the sea, it looks like an attempt was made to re-engage its services as a semi-official privateer.
- Later in 1450, it is recorded as actively engaged in straight up piracy, beyond the control of royal authority.
- On 30th June 1451 two of its crew members were caught and charged with involvement in Suffolk’s murder.
- The Earl of Shrewsbury’s last will and testament reveals that he owned a one-third share in the Nicholas at the time of his death in 1453.
- The ship appears in the historic record for the last time in 1455. Once again, it is recorded as engaged in piracy.
And this is all we know for sure concerning the Nicholas.
The Indictment of Lenard and Smith
Two crew members from the Nicholas (Richard Lenard and Thomas Smith) were eventually charged with Suffolk’s murder. Lenard was indicted as the man who beheaded Suffolk. Both are listed as common shipman. Lenard is recorded as hailing from Sussex, Smith from Calais.
The most revealing information in their indictment claims 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.
The indictment goes on to allege that the sailors denounced Henry VI for his poor government and failure to punish traitors like Suffolk. They said they knew of “another person then outside the kingdom” who claimed he could rule better. They even went so far as to threaten to bring this person back to England to replace Henry. This was probably a reference to Richard of York (then in Ireland), although this was not explicitly stated.
Conspiracy
One important question we should consider is, if this was pre-planned, how did the Nicholas know when and where to intercept the duke’s ship?
A letter of William Lomnor to John Paston, sent on 5th May 1450, reports that Suffolk was travelling with two ships and a small spinner. The spinner was sent ahead with letters to Calais. Lomnor claims that “by them that were in the spinner, the master of the Nicholas had knowledge of the duke’s coming.” This explains how the Nicholas hunted Suffolk down, but not why it was in the general vicinity in the first place. It nevertheless shows that at least some of the seamen travelling with Suffolk were complicit in facilitating his interception.
Three years later, in 1453, several individuals were accused of plotting rebellion against the regime in the spring of 1450. Specific allegations included circulating anti-government poems, plotting to put Richard of York on the throne and planning Suffolk’s murder. Interestingly, the conspirators were based in Bury St. Edmunds, just 27 miles from Ipswich – the port from which Suffolk departed.
Of course, by 1453 the political struggle between Somerset and York had reached fever-pitch. As a result, we cannot discount the possibility that these accusations may have been fabricated, exaggerated or embellished for political reasons.
Plausible Scenarios
Given what little we know, it seems to me that there are, broadly speaking, only three scenarios that offer a plausible explanation as to what happened. Given the absence of any definitive proof, they can only ever be theories of course. They nevertheless represent, in my view, the best fit to the known evidence:
1: That Suffolk’s interception and murder was pre-planned by a group of conspirators sympathetic to Richard of York. In this scenario Richard of York himself may or may not have been aware of / involved with the conspiracy.
2: That it was a conspiracy organised by or involving the Earl of Shrewsbury.
3: That the crew and their accomplices in the spinner were acting alone and that they were, to quote the historian Roger Virgoe, “completely out of control, disgruntled and angry like the sailors who murdered Adam Moleyns earlier in the year.”
Yorkist Plot
Was Suffolk murdered at Richard of York’s behest? The only evidence we have to this effect is either circumstantial or from sources likely to be tainted with a later Lancastrian agenda. There is no direct evidence that York planned Suffolk’s murder. Indeed, York only began overtly criticising the regime and campaigning for reform the following autumn.
Nevertheless, the indictment of the Bury St. Edmunds plotters identifies them as York’s supporters and implicates them in Suffolk’s murder. We also have the accusation levelled against the crew of the Nicholas that they threatened to replace Henry with someone better fitted (almost certainly they meant York).
However, even if we accept all this as true, it does not mean to say that York himself was directly involved or even aware of their actions. The Cade rebellion that erupted later in the summer of 1450 also agitated for York to be brought into the government. However, this too appears to have been a common populist demand rather than one emanating from York himself.
Although it seems less likely that York was directly involved, some kind of conspiracy organised by those sympathetic to him is a likely scenario.
Earl’s Revenge
The only nobleman with a proven connection to the Nicholas was the Earl of Shrewsbury. It is a fact that he owned a significant share in the ship in 1453. Although we can’t be certain he owned shares in 1450, it seems very likely.
John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, was a veteran commander in Normandy. Now 63, he was widely considered to be England’s most experienced and skilful soldier. He’d led the soldiers who’d borne the brunt of the French onslaught in 1449/50. Although the government had been warned Normandy needed more resources in February 1449, the warning was ignored. Ever since May 1449 Talbot and Somerset had been fighting the French with no sign of any relief force for months. When help finally arrived it was catastrophically defeated.
Talbot had more reason than most to feel abandoned and betrayed by Suffolk’s administration. He was popular with the common soldiers and sailors – men like the crew of the Nicholas. He also had the contacts in England needed to keep track of Suffolk’s movements. And, most significantly, he owned a one-third share in the Nicholas. He had motive, means, and opportunity – but this is not proof.
Pirates’ Wrath
There can be no doubt that, as 1450 wore on, popular dissatisfaction with the Lancastrian regime became increasingly vocal and violent. By the summer of that year the regime even faced a peasants’ revolt that threatened to overrun London. Critics of Suffolk’s tenure were present in large numbers amongst the common folk of England at the start of 1450. They required no incitement from any magnate, as the spontaneous murder of Moleyns showed. Raw, explosive, popular anger no doubt motivated men like the crew of the Nicholas.
One thing we know about the Nicholas is that it is often recorded as serving as a privateer in its history. Such ships could make a good living in the Channel, sometimes even (as the Nicholas did) receiving commissions to harry French shipping. Provided its crew reserved the worst of their depredations for England’s enemies, they could expect the authorities to turn a blind eye.
It could well be that it was sheer chance that the spinner in Suffolk’s escort encountered the Nicholas. It would only have taken one of the spinner’s crew, filled with outrage at Suffolk’s evasion of justice, to have colluded with the crew of the Nicholas. A chance encounter on the high seas or a hastily pre-arranged interception in an Ipswich tavern could easily have been all it took to seal Suffolk’s fate.
Rebels without Masters
Finally, the view expressed by the crew – that sovereignty rests with the community – displays a radicalism that verges on the treasonous. Few would have dared espouse such a view except, perhaps, pirates for whom flouting the law held little fear. One can hardly imagine York or Shrewsbury supporting such views.
We should not be so hasty as to assume that such rebellious attitudes required a powerful magnate to inspire them. Rather, we must allow for the possibility that such views originated amongst the commons of England. Rather than being incited by dissenting nobility, it was the other way around. Popular anger and dissent incited growing opposition to the regime amongst the nobility. After all, Moleyns and Suffolk were murdered and Jack Cade rebelled before York commenced his personal campaign of opposition to the court, not after.
And, as for the crew of the Nicholas, they may have been nothing more than privateers. Men who, as Virgoe put it, were “completely out of control, disgruntled and angry”.
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
The Reign of Henry VI
If you would like to read my other articles covering key events in the reign of Henry VI, explore the links below…
1 The Legacy of Henry V and the Infant King
4 Jackanapes – the Rise of the Duke of Suffolk
6 The Treaty of Tours – Peace in Our Time 1444
7 The Downfall of Good Duke Humphrey
8 The Late Lancastrian Debt Crisis
9 How England Lost the Hundred Years War
10 How France Won the Hundred Years War
11 The Bonville-Courtenay Feud
References and further reading
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou and the Wars of the Roses, Keith Dockray, (Fonthill Media, 2016)
Shadow King, The Life and Death of Henry VI, Lauren Johnson, (Head of Zeus, 2020)
The Death of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, Dr R Virgoe, (John Rylands Library, 1965)
The Paston Letters, N. Davis [Ed.] (Oxford World Classics, 2008)
Images
Murder of the Duke of Suffolk, by James WE Doyle, 1864 (via Wiki Commons)
Chart showing trends in royal income from indirect taxes – 1422-1449, analysis and chart by Paul Watts using data from Alex Bryson’s 2013 PhD paper – The fiscal constitution of late medieval England: the reign of Henry VI
Battle of Formigny, La Cronicque du temps de tres chrestien roy Charles, septisme de ce nom, roy de France, illustration c.1460-1480 (via Wiki Commons)
Photograph of a re-production C15th Carrack: Vila do Conde, 2018, by Joseolgon (via Wiki Commons)
Richard of York, Illustration taken from the Talbot Shrewsbury Book, c.1443-1445 (via Wiki Commons)