Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Margaret of Anjou: Tradition and Revision A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University B.M. Cron 1999 CONTENTS Acknowledgements Abbreviations Introduction The Sources England's Queen, 1445-1450 An Angevin Bride An Expensive Marriage Margaret's Household and Finances The Ceding of Maine and the Loss of Normandy Margaret and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester Margaret and the Duke of Suffolk Domestic Politics, 1450-1455 Jack Cade's Rebellion Margaret and the Duke of Somerset Margaret and the Duke of York Prelude to the Wars of the Roses, 1456-1458 Margaret and Lancastrian Government Margaret and the Loveday Margaret and the Earl of Warwick The Wars of the Roses, 1459-1461 Conflict The Parliament at Coventry Lancaster, York and Warwick The Loss of the Throne Epilogue, 1461-1482 Exile and Return Conclusion Bibliography page II 1 - 18 19-24 25-28 29-36 36-44 44-46 47-54 55-57 57-67 67-83 84-97 98-105 106-118 119-128 128-132 133-146 147-159 160-165 166-168 169-180 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should like to express my thanks to my supervisor, Peter Lineham, for his patience and encouragement. To Kerry Howe for some pithy advice. To Glynnis Cropp for sending me an article on Margaret of Anjou and for her continuing interest in my work. To Anne Austin for proof-reading and witty comments. To Noelene White and Annette Holm of Massey University Library, who obtained obscure material for me from overseas when I despaired of ever seeing it. To Felicity Rashbrooke of the Parliamentary Library for a steady stream of photocopies. And most importantly, as always, to Alison Hanham. As consultant for this paper she has spent many hours discussing with me, by letter and telephone, the correspondence of the period. Her expertise has guided me to a better understanding of what everyone, from the Duchess of York to Friar Brackley, meant, and what their recipients understood them to mean, by their ' tidings.' I can only describe her, once again, as 'mentor and friend,' and rely on her for help in the future as I have in the past. ABBREVIATIONS Annales Arrival! BHIR BJRL CCR CFR CPR Crow/and DNB EHL Flenley/Bale Flenley/Gough Flenley/Rawlinson Wilhelmi Wyrcester Annales Rerum Anglicarum, in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the Roses, vol. 2, pt. 2, J. Stevenson (ed.) The History of the Arrival! of King Edward IV A .D. 1471 in Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV, K. Dockray (ed.) Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Calendar of Close Rolls Calendar of Fine Rolls Calendar of Patent Rolls Crow/and Chronicle Continuations, N. Pronay, (ed.) Ingulph 's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croy/and, H. Riley (ed.) Dictionary of National Biography English Historical Literature, C.L. Kingsford (ed.) Six Town Chronicles of England, R. Flenley (ed.) Gregory 's Chronicle Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, J. Gairdner (ed.) HMC Historical Manuscripts Commission John Vale's Book The Politics of Fifteenth Century England, M.L. Kekewich (ed .) JMH Journal of Medieval History London Chronicle The Chronicles of London, C.L. Kingsford (ed.) Milanese Papers Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts existing in the PL, Davis PL, Gairdner PPC PRO RP Stevenson Archives and Collections of Milan, A.B. Hinds (ed.) Paston Letters, Norman Davis (ed.) Paston Letters, James Gairdner (ed .) Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council H. Nicolas (ed.) Public Record Office Rotuli Parliamentorum Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France, J. Stevenson (ed.) Three Chronicles/Brief Latin Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, J.Gairdner (ed.) Three Chronicles/Brief Notes Three Chronicles/Short English Warkworth A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of the Reign of Edward IV by John Warkworth, J.O. Halliwell, (ed .) .. IJ Introduction: The Sources A broad consensus on the political activities of Margaret of Anjou exists in the scholarship of the late twentieth century; unfortunately it continues to be influenced by the traditional view of a virago who interfered in politics and encouraged faction in Lancastrian England. There are a number of reasons for this , not least that there is no detailed scholarly study of the queen 1 because she has been of peripheral interest to historians of Henry VI and the Wars of the Roses, although it is generally agreed that her participation was important, perhaps crucial ; that she dominated her weak and compliant husband, Henry VI, and attempted to rule England herself, preferring factional government and civil war to reconciliation and rule by a representative council of lords under the king. Margaret of Anjou is not a sympathetic character, although she is sometimes portrayed as a tragic one. She has been savaged by Shakespeare from whom there is no appeal. 2 She was on the losing side of a struggle in which her Yorkist opponents were masters of the art of propaganda. The portrait of Margaret in the Yorkist chronicles has, in the main, been accepted 1 A complete list of biographies of Margaret of Anjou is given in the bibliography. cf. T.F. Tout, 'Margaret of Anjou,' for a pithy and accurate commentary on Margaret's early biographers. Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 12, London: Oxford University Press, I 917. Originally published 1893. 2 Henry VI Part 3, Act I, Scene 4: The Duke of York to Margaret of Anjou: ' She-wolf of France, but worse than wolves of France, Whose tongue more poisons than the adder ' s tooth! ' 'O tiger's heart wrapp' d in a woman's hide! ' 'But you are more inhuman, more inexorable - 0, ten times more - than tigers of Hyrcania.' Margaret then stabs York and orders that his head be cut off. I by English authorities. 3 French writers are a little kinder, since Margaret was a French princess and more to be pitied than blamed for becoming the wife of Henry VI. The Burgundians are less tolerant as they were allies of Edward IV and their chronicles reflect an Anglo-Burgundian (Yorkist) rather than an Anglo-French (Lancastrian) perspective; but they display the same Yorkist gloss that colours their English counterparts. History is not kind to failure. English historians, assessing the fifteenth century from a moral and patriotic viewpoint, had no difficulty in accepting the verdict of their Tudor predecessors that Margaret was a foreign French woman who interfered in the affairs of a country she neither valued nor understood . The tradition that Margaret dominated English politics from the time of her marriage is discredited, but her part in the political clash that culminated in the Wars of the Roses is still open to debate. Was she responsible for the demise of the Lancastrian dynasty or was she a victim of circumstance as the wife of an ineffectual king, the mother of a child heir and the leader by default of those who opposed Richard of York 's bid for the throne? One of the difficulties in constructing a coherent picture of Queen Margaret is the fragmentary nature of contemporary sources. Because they are so sparse they have been taken at face value without their bias, which is of crucial importance, being examined for prejudice or political constraint. An 3 Patricia-Ann Lee, 'Reflections of Power: Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship,' Renaissance Quarterly, 39, (Surmner 1986), for a concise, but not always accurate, surmnary of the views of English historians. 2 example of such a source is The Paston Letters. 4 Unique and invaluable, their scattered references to Margaret have been accepted without question. 5 The most famous, 'The Quene is a grete and strong labourid woman for she spareth noo peyne to sue hire thinges to an intent and conclusion to hir power' 6 is invariably misread to fit the traditional picture of the queen. A similar misunderstanding of an entry in the Coventry Leet Book, taken out of context, appears to demonstrate her arrogance. An examination of the full text does not sustain this conclusion. No Lancastrian chronicles for the years 1445 to 1461 have survived, if any existed. The extant English Chronicles are, inevitably, hostile to the queen. Their detail and animosity varies, so they are quoted as if they were independent sources and as if their multiplicity verified their accuracy, whereas in fact they are inter-dependent. 7 All are variations on a Yorkist theme, a record of Henry VI's reign written in the first ten years of Edward IV. Margaret disappears from these chronicles in the years following her marriage (except for Prince Edward 's birth in 1453) until the court moved from London to Coventry in 1456. After the Battle of Blore Heath, for which she is held responsible, she is portrayed as the principal antagonist of the Duke of York until his death at Wakefield, then of the Earl ofWarwick, and finally of Edward IV. 4 The Poston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, Norman Davis (ed.), 2 parts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971-1976; The Poston Letters, James Gairdner. (ed.), 6 vols, London: Chatto, 1904. 5 The exception is Anthony Gross, The Dissolution of the Lancastrian Kingship, Stamford : Paul Watkins, 1996, p. 47: 'This is dubious testimony to Margaret's dominance.' 6 PL 3, Gairdner, pp. 74 - 76. 7 Alison Hanharn, Richard Ill and his Early Historians 1483-1535, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1975, p. 103 , for the fallacy of quoting sources as independent rather than derivative. 3 Robert Bale's Chronicle, whose hero is the Earl of Warwick, ends abruptly in 1460 before Warwick's defeat at the Second Battle of St Albans. 8 There is no hostility to Margaret until the encounter at Blore Heath when Bale states that it was the queen ' s men who attacked the Earl of Salisbury with the deliberate intention of taking his life.9 Bale reflects the propaganda of the Yorkist lords: they portrayed themselves as loyal subjects of the king whose only aim was to restore good government to the country. William Gregory 's Chronicle continues to 146910 but the portion after 1451 was written by a London based continuator with military interests. 11 He records that the Yorkist lords tried to entice Margaret to London after they captured the king in 1460 because she was the power behind the throne. 12 John Benet 's Chronicle resembles Bale and Gregory. It dates the queen 's hostility to York from the death of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset at the Battle of St Albans in 1455 and makes the earliest reference to allegations that Prince Edward was 8 Six Town Chronicles of England, Ralph Flenley (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, l 911 , containing Bale's Chronicle, MS Gough London JO and MS. Rawlinson B. 355. References will be to Flenley/Bale, Flenley/Gough, Flenley/Rawlinson. See Introduction, p. 67, for the authorship of Bale 's Chronicle, and pp. 70-72 for it as a ' eulogy' of the Earl of Warwick. 9 Flenley/Bale, p. 148. ' 0 The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, James Gairdner (ed.), London: Camden Society, 1876. References will be to Gregory's Chronicle. 11 Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 191 l , pp. 96-98 for the authorship of Gregory 's Chronicle. See Keith Dockray and Richard Knowles, 'The Battle of Wakefield,' The Ricardian, vol. 9, number 117 (June 1992), p. 4, for the interesting, if novel, suggestion that the continuator may have been a London clergyman. 12 Gregory 's Chronicle, pp. 209 and 210. 'for they knewe welle that alle the warkyngys that were done growe by hyr, for she was more wyttyer than the kynge,' and the chronicler refers to the Lancastrian lords as ' the quenys party.' 4 not Henry VI's son . 13 A Short English Chronicle is consistently hostile to Margaret: 14 the Yorkist lords were loyal to King Henry but his queen did her best to thwart them at every tum. She was responsible for Blore Heath and she raised the northemmen to march on London in 1461 allowing her forces to plunder countryside. However the Londoners stood firm and did not allow her to enter the capital. Even more hostile is An English Chronicle from 1377 to 1461. 15 It is a detailed apologia for the Yorkist lords and tends to be as much pro-Warwick as pro-York. John Stowe possessed a copy and quoted it, without attribution, in his Annales of England. 16 It contains the well known sentence, 'The quene with such as were of her affynyte rewled the reame as her lyked , gaderyng ryches innumerable .' But her wicked attempt to persuade the king to abdicate in favour of her (bastard) son came to nought, ' she coude nat bryng her purpos aboute.' 17 It is obvious from a comparison of the most influential of the chronicles, The Brut, Continuation G, with its predecessor, Continuation F, that substantial alterations took place after 1461 . 18 Continuation F records 13 John Benet 's Chronicle for the Years 1400-1462, G.L. and M.A Harriss (eds), London• Camden Miscellany, vol. 24, 1972. Introduction, p. 162, for the author, and p. 169 for Margaret' s hostility to York. Benet's Chronicle, p. 216 for Edward' s bastardy. 14 Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles, James Gairdner (ed.), containing the Short English Chronicle, Brief Notes and Brief Latin Chronicle, London• Camden Society, 1880. 15 An English Chronicle from 1377-1461, J.S . Davies (ed.), London• Camden Society, 1856 . 16 John Stowe, Annales, or a General Chronicle of England, E. Howes (ed.), London, 1631. J.S . Davies relied heavily on Stowe for his notes to An English Chronicle. 17 English Chronicle, pp. 79-80. 18 The Brut, or the Chronicles of England, F .W.D. Brie (ed.), London• Early English Text Society, 1908. 5 that Margaret's marriage formed part of the Earl of Suffolk's peace negotiations with France. It does not gloss the costs of bringing the queen to England 19 but neither does it criticise the marriage nor condemn Suffolk' s peace policy. Continuation F breaks off with the statement that a French embassy visited England after Margaret' s coronation. It is a contemporary version of events and the light in which they were viewed at the time. 20 Perhaps nothing further was added, but it is possible that a portion of it was destroyed after the recension in Continuation G became the official version for 1445-1461. Continuation G, compiled between 1464 and 1470,21 repeats the account in Continuation Ffrom an entirely different perspective. Its emphasis is on the cost of a disastrous marriage and a peace policy that brought only shame to England. It laments that proposals for Henry VI to marry a daughter of the Earl of Armagnac were negated by the Earl of S uffolk22 If Henry VI had married the Armagnac lady her dowry would have enriched England and gained a valuable ally 23 Instead, the price of the Angevin marriage was a promise to cede Anjou and Maine to Margaret ' s father, which led to the loss of English Normandy. From the time of his marriage good fortune deserted 19 'Brut, Continuation F, p. 486: ' all maner of stuff of ordynaunce was made and doon for the Quene ' s comyng into England ' 2° C.L. Kingsford dates its composition to 1446, EHL, p. 119, but as it covers an event he dates to October of that year it may have continued for some years thereafter. Six Town Chronicles, p. 119 n. I , where Flenley notes 'Mr Kingsford tells me the real date was Oct. 4, 1446.' 21 Kingsford, EHL, p. 119. 22 It should be noted that The Brut, Continuation F, Bale's Chronicle, Gregory 's Chronicle and Benet 's Chronicle do not consider the Armagnac alliance worthy of mention. 23 Brut, Continuation G, p. 5 I I: ' for there shuld haue hen delyuered so many castels & townes in Gwyhen; And so moche god shold haue bene yiffen with hir that al Englond shold haue bene enryched ther-by.' 6 Henry VI and faction in England led to civil war. 24 Continuation G was printed by William Caxton as The Chronicles of England and so influenced Tudor historiography. The Great Chronicle and the London Chronicle, [Vitellius A n1,]25 are based on a lost source which C.L. Kingsford called The Main City Chronicle. 26 At times they are identically worded and cannot be read as independent authorities. Their account of the failure of the Armagnac marriage and the cost of the Angevin is substantially the same as The Brut. 27 The Brief Latin Chronicle goes one better, claiming that immediately after Margaret's marriage all English possessions in France were lost (even Paris which had fallen to the French in 1436).28 A theological work interspersed with political criticism by Thomas Gascoigne29 documents the rumours that were rife in England in the uneasy 1450s. A strait-laced cleric, Gascoigne railed against laxity in the English church; courtier bishops served Henry VJ for their own profit, and the king did nothing to stem the abuses. Ralph Griffiths dubbed Gascoigne 'the arch 24 Brut, Continuation G, pp. 509-511. 25 The Great Chronicle of London, A.H. Thomas and I.D. Thornley (eds), London, 1938. The Chronicles of London, C.L. Kingsford (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1905. References are to London Chronicle. 26 Kingsford, EHL, p. 99. 27 Great Chronicle, p. 176, condemns Margaret as ' a woman of excellent byrth [but] chargeable to this land,' whose marriage occasioned 'much hevynesse & sorwe ' to England 28 Three Chronicles/Brief Latin, p. 166. 29 Thomas Gascoigne, Loci e Libra Veritatum, James Thorold Rogers (ed.), Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1881. 7 rumour-monger ' and he is as outspoken as he is prejudiced.30 His condemnation of Margaret is unequivocal and bears an uncanny resemblance to the Y orkist chronicles. It is based on the popular belief that the Duke of Suffolk' s disastrous handling ofrelations with France resulted in the loss of Normandy, the origins of which Gascoigne traced to Suffolk ' s negotiations for Margaret's marriage. Gascoigne's work is demonstrably erroneous, but it reflects what was being said in England at the time. He did not invent the rumours and his views were undoubtedly common currency in some circles. Gascoigne' s reaction to Margaret' s political involvement in 1456 was that God alone knew what would happen next. 3 1 He died in 1458 so he did not live to see the outcome. In 1461 the Lancastrians won the Battle of Wakefield and the Second Battle of St Albans but lost the Battle of Towton. Victory and defeat alike were fatal to the queen 's reputation, for Edward IV ' s seizure of the crown had to be justified. John Whethamstede, Abbot of St Albans, added the years 1459-1461 to his Register to gloss the defeat and death of the Duke of York at Wakefield, and to justify Edward IV ' s usurpation of the throne.32 The good abbot's torturous Latin is so wonderfully obscure that his Yorkist bias is often overlooked, and his falsifications, such as his account of the Battle of 30 Ralph A Griffiths, The Reign of King Henry VI, London: Benn, 1981 p. 487. cf. Kingsford, EHL, p. 166 'Gascoigne was a bitter partisan who indulged freely in scandalous gossip.' 31 Gascoigne, pp. 204-205 and 21 9-221. 8 Wakefield, have been allowed to go unchallenged. He leaves one with the impression that the Lancastrian army sacked his abbey (it did not) and he imputes responsibility to the queen for the devastation that Yorkist propaganda claimed the army had inflicted on the countryside. Margaret is said to have encouraged plunder south of the Trent. 33 Full coverage of the Lancastrian victory at the Second Battle of St Albans is missing from the Annales Rerum Anglicarum.34 The births of the Duke of York' s children are recorded but not that of Prince Edward of Lancaster. 35 KB. Macfarlane established that the Annales were not by William Worcester, secretary to Sir John Fastolf, a friend of the Pastons, and therefore a contemporary witness. They are ' a miscellaneous collection ' put together by Thomas Hearne who ascribed them to Worcester. 'The interesting stretch from November 1459 to May 1463 ' was composed in 1491. 36 Despite their late compilation their bias is Yorkist not Lancastrian. The chronicle which James Gairdner calls Brief Notes is a medley of rumours compiled by the monks of Ely. It features the Lancastrian march on London of 1461 and the wild stories circulating after Edward IV 's accession of a huge foreign army, to be led by Henry, ' late Kyng of Inglond, 32 John Whethamstede, Registrum Abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede , H.T. Riley (ed. ), 2 vols, London: Rolls Series, 1872-1873 . See Riley's Introduction for the addition of the years 1459- 1 46 I . Whethamstede I , p. xvii . 33 Whethamstede, I , p. 394. 34 Annales Re rum Anglicarum in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France, Joseph Stevenson (ed.) , 3 vols in 2, London: Rolls Series, 1861-64, vol. 2, part 2, pp. 743-793. References will be to Annales. 35 Annales, pp. 763-765 and p. 771. The notice of Richard' s birth in 1452 is followed immediately by the only entry for 1453, the lapse into mental illness of Henry VI. 36 K.B. Mcfarlane, ' William Worcester: a preliminary survey,' in Studies Presented to Sir Hilary Jenkinson,' J. Conway Davies (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957, pp. 206- 207. 9 in dede but not in ryth, and sche that was queyn,'that will shortly invade England37 It is all very exciting if somewhat hysterical. Presumably the monks believed it, an indication of just how rumour- ridden England was in the early days of Edward IV. After the Battle of Tewkesbury where Prince Edward of Lancaster was killed, an account of Edward IV ' s recovery of the throne was circulated to reassure his Burgundian allies that they had been wise to support the Yorkist cause. The Historie of the Arrival! of Edward IV, A.D. 147 J3 8 is balanced, apparently objective, and typical of Edward IV,39 a dispassionate statement of what he had accomplished with the help of Divine Providence. 4° From it we learn that Queen Margaret' s long-anticipated arrival in England was delayed by natural causes. Adverse weather prevented her crossing from France to England . This is perfectly plausible, and may even be true. If the reader wishes to interpret it as a sign of God ' s special favour to the king he is free to 37 Three Chronicles/Brief Notes, pp. 154-155 and p. 158. They will land at Sandwich with a company of English and foreign nobility (including the Duke of Burgundy) to be followed by the kings of France, Denmark., Navarre, Portugal and Sicily (Margaret's father. ) each with a large army. 38 The Historie of the Arrivall of King Edward IV, A.D. 1471, in Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV, Keith Dockray ( ed), Gloucester: Sutton, 1988. 39 Charles Ross, 'Rumour, Propaganda and Popular Opinion in the Wars of the Roses,' in Ralph A Griffiths (ed.), Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces, Gloucester: Sutton, 1981, p. 24 . 4° For analyses of The Arrivall see J.A.F. Thomson, 'The Arrival of Edward N ' Speculum , 46, (I 971 ), pp. 84-93; Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England 2, c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century, London: Routledge, 1982, Appendix B, pp. 481-489. For a corrective to these see the informative and persuasive article by Livia Visser-Fuchs, 'Edward N ' s "Memoir on Paper" to Charles, Duke of Burgundy: the so-called "Short Version of the Arrivall"' in Nottingham Medieval Studies, 36, (1992), pp 167-227. 10 do so. 41 The impression created is of Edward the Invincible, the chosen of God whose enemies have been put to rout through divine intervention. A continuator of The Crow/and Chronicle contradicts The Arrivall by recording that Margaret made a direct sea passage and was not delayed by contrary winds. She raised the West Country because the men there were loyal to Lancaster. 42 As he was writing after the death of Richard III this version may be described as 'Lancastrian' (or possibly Tudor.)43 It may also be true. The French and Burgundian chroniclers are more easily identified than their English counterparts. 44 Thomas Basin, Bishop ofLiseux when Normandy was still English, welcomed its reconquest by Charles VII, but went into exile under Louis XI and wrote a history of the two kings. Basin may have had a fellow feeling for Margaret;45 he saw her as a tragic figure, overwhelmed by a malevolent fate. His description of her at the time of her marriage is not 41 The Great Chronicle, p. 214, enlarges on the theme. The queen had been trying to cross the sea since November but was constantly prevented, and people were ' sayyng that It was agayn the wyll of God, that she shuld come any more In England that had cawsid soo much sorw wt yn It beffore tymys, and othir which bare to hyr good wyll that It was doon by soom sorcery or wycchcrafft of oon namyd at that dayes Bungay or such othir.' 42 The Crow/and Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486, Nicholas Pronay and John Cox (eds), London: Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1986. 43 Daniel Williams, 'The Crowland Chronicle, 616-1500,' in England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxton Symposium, Daniel Williams ( ed.), London: Boydell Press, 1987. 44 Denys Hay, 'History and Historians in France and England during the Fifteenth Century,' Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 35, (November 1962), pp. 111-127, for a comparison of their differences. 45 Thomas Basin, Histoire de Charles VII, 2 vols, C. Samaran (ed.), Paris: Societe d 'Editions Les Belles Lettres, 1934, 1944; and Histoire de Louis XI, 3 vols, C. Samaran (ed.), Paris: Societe d'Editions Les Belles Lettres, 1963-1973. 11 particularly illuminating as he adapted it from Vergjl's Aeneid. .46 Margaret was accused by the influential Philippe de Commynes, who began life in the service of the Duke of Burgundy and ended it as a confidant of Louis XI, of encouraging faction in England, not by her animosity towards the Duke of York, of whom he seems scarcely aware, but because she favoured the Duke of Somerset over the Earl of Warwick. Commynes equates faction caused by royal favouritism with civil war and blames the queen for promoting it. 47 The accusation stands unchallenged to this day. Basin and Commynes wrote after 1471 so an element of hindsight must be allowed for, but they reflected with reasonable accuracy opinions on the conflict in England which were current in Europe. Mathieu d'Escouchy, the French patriot with a love of pageantry, wrote his Chronique in the late 1460s;48 his account of Margaret ' s reception in Rauen in 1445 reads like that of an eye-witness. He collected snippets of information about the queen and demonstrates a positive genius for getting them scrambled. Escouchy alone transforms the rumours of the bastardy of Prince Edward of Lancaster into English rumours that Margaret herself was a bastard, and not the child of Rene of Anjou, and that this turned the people · h 49 agamst er. 46 Basin 1, Charles VII, p. 292. Fili am specie et form a prestantern que turn rnatura viro Jaret et plenis nubilias annis. 47 Philippe de Commynes, Memoirs: the Reign of Louis X I 1461-1483, translated with an introduction by Michael Jones, Hannondsworth: Penguin, 1972, p. 413 . cf. The Memoirs of Philippe de Cornrnynes, Samuel Kinser (ed.), trans. Isabelle Cazeaux, 2 vols, Colombia: University of South Carolina Press, 1969-1 973 . 48 Mathieu d 'Escouchy, Chronique, 3 vols, G. du Fresne de Beaucourt (ed.), Paris: Renouard, 1863-64. Beaucourt believed Escouchy began his work in 1465, Introduction, p. xxxix. 49 Escouchy 1, pp. 85-88 and pp. 303 -304. 12 The Burgundian chroniclers reflect the Yorkist-Burgundian alliance and George Chastellain is an important source for Margaret's life.50 He was the official historian to Philip of Burgundy and may be the only chronicler who ' knew' Margaret personally. He was at the French court in the early 1440s and at the Burgundian court when she visited it in 1463. 51 Chastellain admired the queen's courage but linked it to her pride. He emphasised her poverty to highlight the generosity of Philip of Burgundy in receiving her and bestowing costly presents on her and her pitifully few servants. The duke entre toutes autres gens se monstroit seigneurieuse pour homme whilst Margaret, at the age of thirty three, se monstra pour femme un des beaux personnages du monde representant dame. He tells us that everyone knew she had been an enemy to the Duke of Burgundy, but he does not tell us why.52 The portion of 'Monstrelet's Chronicle ' relevant to Margaret is by an unknown continuator. 53 He repeated Chastellain ' s charge that Margaret was no friend to Burgundy and from its context it appears that Chastellain was his source. 54 He claimed Margaret was at the Battle of Wakefield, as was the Earl of Warwick, when she was in Scotland and the earl was in London. Even more 50 Graeme Small, George Chastellain and the Shaping of Valois Burgundy, London : Boydell Press, 1997. 51 Georges Chastellain, Oeuvres, 8 vols, Kervyn de Lettenhove (ed. ) 1863-1866. Reprint Geneva: Slatkine, 8 vols in 4, 1971. Tome 8, p. 95 n. 2 for Chastellain ' s claim to have known Margaret of Anjou. cf. Small, pp. 13-14. 52 Chastellain 4, p. 294 and p. 279 : Tout le rnonde estoit cognu et s9u qu 'elle avoit este rnortelle enernie au due du temps de sa prosperite. 53 Monstrelet, The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet , translated by Thomas Johnes, 2 vols, London: Routledge, 1877. Introduction, p. xxxii. ~ Monstrelet 2, p. 290. 13 preposterous is his story that Rene of Anjou ceded the County of Provence to Louis XI in order to persuade the latter to ransom Margaret from Edward IV after Tewkesbury. 55 Jehan de Waurin ' s chronicle is romantic and unreliable;56 its hero is the Earl of Warwick. Waurin served three Dukes of Burgundy as a soldier and a diplomat, but was a novelist at heart. He was happy to enhance a bald narrative to make a good story. He was familiar with the London Chronicles, but his work becomes fuller after 1459 and is derived, or so it is claimed, from his own researches. 57 He had access to the unofficial propaganda of Warwick the Kingmaker and the official propaganda of Edward IV.58 When Margaret opposed the former at the Second Battle of St Albans she was la royne Marguerite, qui estoit soubtille et mallicieuse. Surprisingly, it is not Henry, Duke of Somerset who is the queen 's mignon but James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire, whom elle amoit grandement. 59 But then, Wiltshire was known to be handsome although he tended to run from the battlefield, 60 so he was obviously a fitting mignon for Margaret. 55 Monstrelet 2, pp. 271 and 425. 56 Jehan de Waurin, Recueil des croniques de anchienne istores de la Grande Bregtaigne, a present nomme E ngleterre, William and Edward L.C.P. Hardy (eds), 5 vols, London: Rolls Series, I 864-1891 . 57 Gransden, Historical Writing, pp. 288-293 , where she somewhat naively accepts Waurin at his own valuation. 58 P. W. Hammond, The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, Gloucester: Sutton, I 990, p. 122. 59 Waurin 5, pp. 327-328. 60 R.L. Storey, The End of Lancaster, London: Barrie & Rockcliffe, 1966. Reprint Gloucester: Sutton, 1986, p. 91: ' Wiltshire was to distinguish himself in the Wars of the Roses by running away from every battle in which he took part.' 14 The correspondence of those inveterate gossips the Milanese Ambassadors at the courts of France and Burgundy is a rich source for speculation. 61 Their information is second hand and usually garbled but they make delightful reading. They reported scandal and immediately disclaimed any belief in it. Among the rumours they gathered with such evident enjoyment was that after the Battle of Towton Margaret had poisoned King Henry (having first persuaded him to abdicate) and intended to ' unite ' with the Duke of Somerset. That the king thought Prince Edward of Lancaster must have been conceived by the Holy Ghost and that the prince was so bloodthirsty, at the age of thirteen, that he talked of ' nothing but cutting off heads or making war. ' 62 Far less exciting is the chance survival of some of Margaret' s letters from the early years of her reign that illustrate her concept of ' good ladyship. ' 63 There are also a number ofletters from the young queen to Charles VII and although they shed little light on Anglo-French negotiations they establish that she maintained a regular correspondence with the French king, at least until 1449. 64 The traditional view of Margaret is based on the Tudor historians, Polydore Vergil, Edward Hall , Raphael Holinshed and John Stowe who credit 61 Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan, A.B. Hinds (ed.), vol. 1, London: His Majesty' s Stationery Office, 1912. 62 Milanese Papers, pp. 58 and 117. 63 Letters of Margaret of Anjou, Cecil Monro (ed.), London: Camden Society, 1863 . 64 Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France., Joseph Stevenson (ed.), 3 vols in 2, London: Rolls Series, 1861-64, vol. I , pp. 164 and 183. References will be to Stevenson. Escouchy 3, Pieces Justificatives, pp. 150, 156, 162, 170. cf. Bertram Wolffe, Henry VI, London: Methuen, 1 981 , pp. 184-185 . 15 her with far greater political participation than is to be found in the contemporary chronicles. Robert Fabyan' s New Chronicles of England and France was published in 1516, 65 but as he is believed to be responsible for The Great Chronicle he may more properly belong with the fifteenth century chroniclers. 66 His narrative from 1440 is derived from the lostMain City Chronicle, although he consulted others as well. 67 As Fabyan alone has a good word to say for the queen one can only regret that he did not elaborate on what may have been first-hand knowledge. He describes her as ' that noble and moost bounteuous pryncesse quene Margarete, of whom many and vntrue surrnyse was imagened and tolde. ' 68 Here, if anywhere, we have a fitting epitaph for Margaret of Anjou. Fabyan and Caxton' s The Chronicles of England were sources for Polydore Vergil , who developed the theme of civil war as the worst evil that can befall a kingdom. 69 His Anglica Historia inaugurated the tradition that Margaret involved herself in politics on her arrival in England to oust the Duke of Gloucester from ruling the realm. He contrasts her with that ' ho lye creature ' Henry VI as 'a woman of sufficient forecast, very desirous of 65 May McKisak, M edieval History in the Tudor Age, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971 , p 95 . 66 Great Chronicle, Introduction, pp. lxv-lx.ix. cf. Anne F . Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs, 'The Provenance of the Manuscript,' in M.L. Kekewich and others, The Politics of Fifteenth­ Century England: John Vale's Book, Gloucester: Sutton, 1995, pp. 73-126. References will be to John Vale's Book. 67 Kingsford, EHL, pp. I 03-105 . 68 Robert Fabyan, New Chronicles of England and France, Henry Ellis (ed.), London: Rolls Series, 1811 , p. 640. 69 Denys Hay, Polydore Vergil, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1952. 16 renowne, full of policie, councell, comely behaviour and all manly qualities, in whom appeared great witt, great diligence, great heede and carefulness. ' The sting is in the tail: ' but she was of the kinde of other women, who commonly are much geven and verie readie to mutabilitie and chaunge. ' 70 Margaret thus combined ' manly' attributes with the inconstancy of woman, and England got the worst of both worlds. By far the most influential of the Tudors was Edward Hall. 71 His principal source is Polydore Vergil but the interpretation of events is uniquely his own.72 If any single source may be said to have damned Margaret and invested her reputation with its sinister overtones, it is that of Hall. Running like a thread through his account is the theme that from the time of her arrival the queen ruled England and nothing was done without her cognisance. 73 Through the prism of Hall 's multi-coloured prose the Wars of the Roses was refracted to Raphael Holinshed74 and transformed by Shakespeare. John Stowe had a wide acquaintance with the fifteenth century 70 Polydorc Vergi l, Three Books of Polydore Vergil 's English History Comprising 1he Reigns of H enry VJ, Edward IV and Richard lll, trans. by Henry E llis, London : Camden Society, 1844, p, 7 1. 71 Edward Hall , Hall 's Chronicle, Henry Ellis, (ed.), London, 1809. 72 Hanham, p. 146, 'Hal l (whose excessive length is due to his detennination n ever to use one word where two wi 11 do) reproduces Vergil 's phrasing very closely at times, but at others freely interpolates his own corrunents.' 73 111e phrase ' the quene which bore the rule,' or something similar, follows almost every reference to Margaret, pp. 213; 220; 232; 235; 236, etc., and p. 209: 'And although she joyned her husbande with hir in name, for a countenaunce, yet she did all, she saied all , and she bare the whole swynge, as the strong oxe doth whe(n) he is yoked to the plough with a pore silly asse. ' 74 Raphael Holinshed, Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, Henry E llis (ed.), 6 vols, London, 1808. All references are to vol. 3. 17 chronicles, he collected and used them meticulously, 75 but when they failed him Stowe fell back on Hall. 76 The Tudor tradition is perpetuated not only by Shakespeare but also in the poetry of the sixteenth century, in the works of Michael Drayton77 and in The Mirror for Magistrates. 78 The contemporary sources for Margaret of Anjou cannot be given equal value and juxtaposed in an indiscriminate fashion . The Tudor historians are often inaccurate but they embody the traditional account of late Lancastrian England. Out of a welter of gossip and propaganda, the verdict of the victor emerges. Margaret appears as a dominant and implacable figure and it is often forgotten that she wielded power because sections of the nobility were prepared to support her, but only in the name of the king or the prince, never in her own. The motivation of the men surrounding her, her friends as well as her enemies, must be examined if a coherent picture of the queen's part in the Wars of the Roses is to be achieved. 75 John Stow, A Survey of London, Charles Lethbridge Kingsford (ed.), 2 vols, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1908. See Kingsford ' s Introduction for a life of Stowe and an account of his collection of manuscripts. 76 Stowe, Annales, p.385 : 'This woman excelled all other, as well in beautie and fauour, as in wit and pollicie, and was of stomachke and courage not inferiour to any: her badge was the daisie flower. ' The description is Hall; the daisy flower is Stowe. 11 The Works of Michael Drayton, J. William Hebel (ed .), 5 vols, Oxford: Blackwell , 1961 , vol. 2, pp. 230-246, for Suffolk to Queen Margaret and she to him; vol. 3, pp. 73-124, 'The Miseries of Queene Margaret. ' 18 The Mirror for Magistrates, Lily B. Campbell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938. Although Margaret is not accorded a 'biography' herself she features in those of Suffolk; Warwick; Herny VI ; Somerset; and Gloucester. 18 Chapter 1: England's Queen, 1445-1450 An Angevi,i Bride Margaret of Anjou was the younger daughter of Rene, Duke of Anjou, titular King of Sicily, Naples and Jerusalem and Isabelle, Duchess of Lorraine. Rene's sister Marie married Charles VII of France, so Margaret was a niece of the French king. Her lineage is the basis for the traditional view of Margaret as a foreign queen whose family ties made her more sympathetic to France than to England and who looked to the French for support against her English opponents in the Wars of the Roses. Margaret marri ed Henry VI by proxy at Tours in May 1444, when she was fifteen and he was twenty-two. 1 France and England had been at war since the Treaty of Troyes of 1420 when the then French king, Charl es VI, recognised Henry V of England, victor at Agincourt, as heir to the French throne. This disinherited the Dauphin Charles, who rejected the treaty. Henry V' s ally was Philip, Duke of Burgundy, the most magnificent of the French princes, a king in a ll but name. Burgundy returned to his French allegiance in 1435, whilst Henry VI was still a minor, and English possessions in France came under increasing pressure thereafter. By 1444 a truce was essential if England was to stave off further defeat. An English embassy, led by William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, was sent to France to negotiate peace. He 1 A. Lecoy de la Marche, Le Roi Rene, 2 vols, Paris, 1875. Reprint: Geneva: Slatkine, 1969, vol. 2, pp. 254-257, 'Proces-Verbal de La Celebration des F ian9ailles de Henri VI, Roi d'Angleterre, et de Marguerite d'Anjou.' 19 concluded a truce for twenty-two months and the marriage of Margaret of Anj ou to Hemy VI sealed the agreement. Who selected Margaret as a bride for the English king : the Duke of Orleans, 2 Herny VI and the English Council, Cardinal Henry Beaufort or the Earl of Suffolk?. French chroniclers assume that the suggestion came from the English.3 English chronicles, except for the three that name Suffolk, give the impression that the embassy was sent by Henry VI in response to French overtures. 4 The king and his council favoured a French marriage as it offered a chance to end the war, England needed an heir and Henry VI wanted a French bride. 5 The feud between Cardinal Beaufort and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester dominated English politics throughout the minority of Henry VI and is the basis for a later tradition that a ' peace party ' headed by Beaufort, supported by Suffolk and favoured by the king, was formed to counter Gloucester's influence. That the ageing Cardinal, realising his great nephew was loo ineffectual to rule unaided, selected Margaret as the perfect foil for 2 Tout, ' Margaret of Anj ou' in DNB, nominates the Duke of Orleans. He is followed by Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, Prejudice and Promise in Fifteenth Century England, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925, p. 154. Neither offers a reason or a source for their postulation. 3 Berry Herald, Les Chroniques du roi Charles VII par Gilles Le Bouvier dit Le Heraut Berry, Henri Courteault et Leonce Celier (eds.), Societe de l 'Histoire de France, Paris: Klincksieck, 1979, p. 267. References will be to Berry Herald. Jean Chartier , Chronique de Charles VII, A Vallet de Viriville (ed.), 3 vols, Paris: P. Jannett, I 858, vol. 2, p. 45; Monstrelet, 2, p. 139. 4 Brut, Continuation F, p. 485; English Chronicle, p. 61; Three Chronicles I Short English, p. 64. 5 Desultory negotiations for a Scottish, Spanish, Imperial or Portuguese match had come to nothing, partly because they took place whilst Heruy was a minor, but when he achieved his majority there were no further initiatives for any but a French alliance. For these negotiations see John Ferguson, English Diplomacy, 1422-1461, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972, pp. 48, 53-54 and 114-1 S. For Scotland, Ranald Nicholson, Scotland: the Later Middle Ages, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1974, pp 291-92. 20 Herny VI. 6 Tudor historians followed the Yorkist chronicle tradition that Suffolk thwarted a marriage between Herny VI and a daughter of the Earl of Armagnac and promoted the Angevin match for his own nefarious purposes 7 but was opposed by the Duke of Gloucester who favoured Armagnac. 8 Fabyan elaborated the story: Suffolk ' s interference in Gloucester's plans led to a feud between them that ended in Gloucester's death and Suffolk' s murder. 9 Polydore Vergil added the assertion that Gloucester urged a repudiation of the truce. 10 In fact Gloucester congratulated Suffolk on the Treaty of Tours in parliament just after Margaret's arrival in England.11 The Armagnac proposal came to nothing because Charles VII intervened militarily. Humphrey of Gloucester could hardly have wished his nephew to pursue the project when it was known that French forces had captured the Armagnac family . The whole 6 Agnes Strick.land, 'Margaret of Anjou,' in Lives of the Queens of England, 8 vols, revised ed. , London: Colburn, 1851 , pp. 172-174 (with many romantic embellislunents.) cf. Mary Ann Hookharn, The Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England and France and of her father Rene 'the Good, ' with Memoirs of the House of Anjou, 2 vols, London: Tinsley, I 872, vol. I, p. 232 (equally romantic and less discriminating.) Unfortunately Beaufort had never seen Margaret and was probably unaware of her existence. G.L. Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, p. 301 , confirms that the Cardinal's last visit to Europe was for the conference at Oye in 1439 when Margaret was only nine years old. 7 Brut, Continuation G, p. 509-510; Great Chronicle, p. 176; London Chronicle, p. 155. [All from the same main source.) 8 Hall, pp. 203-204. Hall is followed virtually verbatim by Holinshed and Stowe. Holinshed 3, p. 206 ; Stowe, pp. 383 -384. cf. Fabyan, p. 616. James Gairdner in his introduction to The Paston Letters states that Margaret ' s marriage was Suffolk's work and that Henry VI accepted it as the best way to achieve peace. PL I , Gairdner, p. 45 cf. James Gairdner, The Houses of Lancaster and York, 8th ed. London: Longman, 1881, p. 141. 9 Fabyan, p. 616. ' whiche kyndelyd a newe brand ofbumyng enuy atwene the Jorde protectour & hym, and take fyre in suche wyse, that it left nat tyll both parties ..... were consumyd and slayne' Hall, p. 203 repeats Fabyan. The Brut, Continuation G, p. 512 traces Engalnd's woes to the breaking off of the Armagnac marriage, but it does not mention Duke Humphrey. 10 Vergil, p. 69. 11 Rotuli Parliamentorum, 6 vols, J. Strachey (ed.), London, 1767-1777, vol. 5, pp. 73-74. 21 illusory fabric is not backed by any contemporary evidence. 11 One fantasy led to another, namely Gloucester ' s alleged antipathy to Margaret of Anjou. James Ramsay asserted that when proposals for the Angevin marriage were discussed in council Gloucester 'sat there in sullen silence; he had not forgiven the rupture of the Armagnac marriage nor was he prepared to accept Margaret. ' 13 Gloucester's biographer goes further, claiming that the Angevin match was unpopular in England from its inception because it was opposed by Duke Humphrey. 14 Margaret was Charles VII's choice as queen and she married Henry VI on French terms because, although it was never acknowledged at the time or subsequently, England was the suppliant. Charles VII wished to prevent Henry VI from contracting an alliance that might aid English military efforts in France but he was not prepared to offer one of his daughters even though Jeanne de Valois was unbetrothed. 15 The French king would not risk another 12 Samuel E. Dicks, 'Henry VI and the Daughters of Armagnac,' Medieval and Renaissance Studies, vol. 15, number 4, Emporia Stale Research Papers, 1967. Gerald Harriss believes it was Suffolk, not Gloucester, who initially supported lhe Armagnac marriage in accordance with Henry VI's wishes. Harriss, Beaufort, p. 320, n. 37. cf. Letters of Margaret of Anjou, pp. 77-79. 13 James Ramsay, Lancaster and York, 2 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1892, vol. 2, p. 59. 14 K.H. Vickers, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, London: Constable, 1907, p. 283 . A biography in lhe best Victorian moralist style. A modem study of Humphrey of Gloucester is badly needed. Ramsay and Vickers quote lhe Tudor historians and misinterpret Stevenson I, p. 123 . Suffolk was belittling Gloucester in front of the French ambassadors, it had nothing to do with lhe Armagnac or the Angevin marriage. 15 Basin I , Charles Vll, p. 292, claims lhere were many daughters from which to choose, in fact Jeanne was lhe only one of marriageable age. But Basin is essentially correct, lhere was to be no Valois bride for Henry VI. 22 son of a Valois princess claiming the Valois throne. 16 Charles VII wanted a French marriage and a limited truce, to enable him to organise his domestic and military arrangements to curb the ambitions of the Duke of Burgundy, and prepare for the final defeat of the English in Normandy. 17 He got what he wanted. It is probable the English, given a choice, would have preferred a daughter of Charles Vil. Bertram Wolffe concluded that as Henry VI authorised his embassy to treat for a marriage the identity of the bride was known. 18 John Watts believes that the English Council anticipated advantages from the Angevin alliance as Rene of Anjou and his brother Charles of Maine were favourites at court. 19 If this was the case then the English were woefully blind to the character of Charles VII. 20 The Angevins would be of no help to Henry VI in any struggle, diplomatic or mjlitary, between France and England as their influence was predicated upon their usefulness to Charles VII. rt was the Angevins who stood to gain from the truce. Cessation of hostilities with England would free French forces for involvement elsewhere and Rene hoped to recover the 16 Edward Il's queen, Isabella, had borne Edward JU of England who started the Hundred Years War, and in 1422 Charles VII's sister Katherine had produced Henry VI who now claimed to be King of France. 17 Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 483; Wolffe, Henry VI, p. 170. 18 Wolffe, Henry VI, p. 174. 19 John Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p 222, n . 70: ' there was no reason for the English to assume that the French king was much more in control of affairs - most notably the great princes - than his father had been.' Unfortunately the English had been given several demonstrations that the French King was very much in control of affairs in France, not least the fai lure of the Annagnac marriage. 20 As was the Milanese Ambassador who laid great stress on Rene's influence. M.G.A. Vale, Charles VII, London: Methuen, 1974. p. 97. 23 Kingdom of Naples and Sicily from Alphonso V of Aragon with military aid from Charles VIl. 21 J.J. Bagley follows the tradition that Suffolk 'accepted Margaret' only after meeting her at Tours, ' confident that Margaret would make Henry a useful wife and England a spirited queen. ' 22 But Suffolk did not go to ask for Margaret, he went to accept her, or whichever candidate the French chose to offer.23 Margaret had been contracted to marry the Count of Nevers, Burgundy' s kinsman, an alliance promoted by Duke Philip as part of his continuing efforts to detach the Angevins from their allegiance to Charles VII. 24 According to Chastellain, who was in the service of Pierre de Breze between 1441 and 1444, the match was broken off by Breze,25 This life-Jong servant of the Angevins was in high favour at court and ideally placed to please Charles Vil by thwarting Burgundian ambitions. It was typical of his ferti le mind to suggest that the best way of avoiding any offer of a Valois bride was to substitute an Angevin princess. 21 Vale, Charles VII, p. I 04. 22 J.J. Bagley, Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England, London: Herbert Jenkins, 1948, p 36 23 This is Basin's opinion. Basin I , Charles VII, p 292. Escouchy I , p. 84 says the marriage was par le consentement de Charles, Roy de France. His editor, Beaucourt, notes that Margaret' s name was left blank in Escouchy's MS, and filled in by his first editor, Denys Godefroy. Fabyan quotes Robert Gaguin and says that he too left the name of the bride blank, Fabyan p. 617. This does not prove that Suffolk accepted Margaret only after he reached Tours, as tradition has it, but it does establish the possibility. 24 C .A.J. Armstrong, 'La Politique Matrimoniale des dues de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois,' in England, France and Burgundy in the Fifteenth Century, London: Hambledon, 1983, pp. 248-249. 25 Chastellain 3, p. 452-453. cf. Small, Chastelain, p. 13. 24 A1t Expensive Marriage It is still generally believed that the English accepted Margaret without an adequate dowry because they wanted to seal the truce and Rene was too poor to endow his daughter as befitted her new estate.26 This deduction is based partly on tradition27 and partly on Rene's earlier career. He was captured by Burgundian forces at the Battle of Bulgneville in 1431 and, in return for his freedom, Philip of Burgundy tried to entice him to endow Margaret with the Duchy of Bar and marry her to Burgundy' s only son the Count of Charolais (or so Rene claimed) but the offer was refused.28 Whilst still a captive the deaths of his elder brother Louis, Duke of Anjou, and Queen Joanna II of Naples left Rene heir to the duchy and the kingdom, but he remained a prisoner unti l 1437 when he undertook to purchase his release for 400,000 gold crowns. 29 It was a staggering sum, but it was never paid.30 Rene left for Italy without settling his debt, and after his defeat by Alphonso of Aragon in 1442 he returned to Anjou still complaining of the atrocious 26 Bagley, pp. 36-37; Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 490. 27 The fifteenth century chronicles comment adversely on Margaret' s lack of dowry but none of them attribute it to Rene' s poverty . Nor does Fabyan. The story appears to have originated with Edward Hall and was repeated by Holinshed. Hall, p. 205 ' for kyng Reyner her father, for all his long stile, had to short a purse to sende his doughter honourably to the kyng her spouse. ' cf. Holinshed 3, p. 204. 28 Lecoy l , pp. 116-118. This claim is found only in Lecoy, who bases it on a letter from the Milanese Ambassador, Candido Decembrio, dated October 1435, which he quotes in full in a French translation. 29 Lecoy 1, p. 126; Richard Vaughan, Philip the Good, London: Longmans, 1970, p. 118. 30 After Agincourt Henry V set the Duke of Bourbon's ransom at 100,000 crowns and that of Charles of Orleans, the premier peer of France, at 260,000 crowns. 25 rapacity of the Duke of Burgundy31 (which did not prevent him from contracting a marriage for Margaret with Burgundy's kinsman the Count of Nevers.) Rene was no more impoverished than many other peers of France, notably the Duke of Orleans who failed to pay his ransom to the English. Yet there has never been any suggestion that Orleans was so crippled by debt that he was penurious ever afterwards. Had it been necessary Rene, or King Charles, would have provided Margaret with a suitable dowry. Rene offered a token sum of 20,000 francs and the islands of Majorca and Minorca, although the English would have to conquer them as they were in the possession of Alphonso of Aragon. Margaret, as Queen of England, renounced any claim to her father's possessions, a stipulation to be confirmed after the consummation of the marriage.32 Henry V had married Katherine of Valois without dowry at the time of the Treaty of Troyes33 and Margaret was accepted on the same terms, but with no compensation in territory. No agreement on territorial concessions or the question of sovereignty had been reached as Charles VU refused to recognise English rights over Normandy, but this was ignored in the general feeling ofrelief that peace had been achieved, albeit temporarily, and Suffolk returned to England amidst general rejoicing. 31 G. du Fresne de Beaucourt, Histoire de Charles VII, 6 vols, Paris: Librairie de la Societe Bibliographique, 1881- 1875, vol. 4, p. 11 6; Escouchy I , p. 44. 32 Beaucourt 3, pp. 276-77. 33 J.H. Wylie, The Reign of Henry the Fifth, 3 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914-1929, vol. 3, p 198. 26 A refurbishing of royal palaces was put in hand and aids on the occasion of the king' s marriage were solicited.34 An account was opened at the Exchequer to provide for Margaret's entourage, which, apart from the daily wages for a sizeable retinue, included the cost of horses and shipping. 35 Estimates allowed a total of three months for the journey to Rouen and back, the pageants in London for Margaret's coronation, and the setting up of a permanent establishment once the household in transit was disbanded. 36 The account opened in July 1444 and did not close until October 1445 with a considerable cost overrun37 that did not include the jewels given to the queen for her coronation or gifts to the Angevins who accompanied her. 38 Suffolk set off for Rouen anticipating that the new queen would be conveyed to Pontoise 34 Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, Harris Nicolas (ed.), vol. 6, London : Record Commisiion, 1837, pp. 31-32. It was typical of Henry Vl 's insolvency that the clerk of the works had to petition for payment (one thousand pounds) to reimburse his workmen and to purchase materials. His letter is dated 31 January 1445 n.s. PPC 6, pp. 322-324. The soliciting of loans was turned into a propaganda exercise. The writs stated that the king expected great benefits from his marriage and that a permanent peace would result. 35 Stevenson 1, pp. 443-460. cf. his commentary on it, Preface, p. xxxix. fifty-six ships were hired for two months at a cost of over a thousand poW1ds, which seems excessive, but horses and carriages had to be transported as well as personnel. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1 vols, London: His Majesty 's Stationery Office, 191 0-1 91, CPR 1441-1446, p. 292. BL, Add. MS 23, 938. 36 Griffiths, Henry VJ, pp. 315-16. cf. Anne Crawford 'The King 's Burden - the Consequences of Royal Marriage in Fifteenth-Century England,' in Patronage, Griffiths (ed.), p. 38, where she mis-reads Stevenson. Suffolk did not leave for Rouen until November. Had he gone in July, when the account was opened, the cost over-run would have been far worse. 37 The account closed with a total expenditure of L5,573 . 17s. 5d. Just over 300 pounds more than had been collected. 38 Foedera, Conventiones, Literae . . . . , Thomas Rymer (ed.), 20 vols, London: J. Tonson, 1704-1735, vol. 11 , pp. 82-84. Issue Rolls of the Exchequer Henry III to Henry VI, Frederick Devon (ed.), London: Murray, 1837, p. 452. Benet 's Chronicle, p. 190, makes the disdainful comment that it was as well King Henry sent a large English escort as Margaret's few French servants made but a poor showing. 27 in accordance with Charles VII's promise.39 And so she was - eventually. In 1445 Margaret left Anjou for Nancy where Rene was entertaining the royal family and the French nobility40 and not until March did she begin her journey to England. Suffolk was kept waiting, with a large and expensive retinue, for three months.4 1 Margaret was welcomed to London by the mayor, aldermen and guilds, all splendidly arrayed, and was hailed as the symbol of peace in elaborate, if laboured, verse, a theme taken up by the many (and costly) pageants staged all along her route.42 The coronation on 30 May was followed by three days of jousting and feasting .43 It was an enormously expensive propaganda exercise to boost English morale at home and English prestige abroad. 39 Literae Cantuarienses: The Letter Book of Christ Church, Canterbury, J. Brigstockc Sheppard ( ed.), vol. 3, London 1889. Reprint New York: Kraus, I 966 pp. 177-182, for a letter from Charles Vil to Henry VI. Misdated by the editor to 1443, the date is 29 October 1444. 40 Beaucourt 4, p. 91, n.4. 41 For Margaret's reception in Rouen see Brut, Continuation F, p. 488; Escouchy I, pp. 86-89. 42 Gordon Kipling, ' The London Pageants for Margaret of Anjou: a Medieval Script Restored,' Medieval English Theatre, 4, (1982), pp. 5-27; Carleton Brown, ' Lydgate's Verses on Queen Margaret's Entry into London,' Modern Language Review, 7, (1912), pp. 225-234; Robert Withington, ' Queen Margaret's Entry into London, 1445,' Modern Philology, (May 1915), pp. 53-57. 43 Brut, Continuation F, pp. 486 and 489; Brut, Continuation G, pp. 510-511 . [The only one to state that Suffolk had asked parliament for a subsidy to defray the costs.] English Chronicle, p . 61; Flenley/Bale, p. 118-120; Three Chronicles/Short English, pp. 64-65; Gregory 's Chronicle, pp. 185-86; London Chronicle, pp. 155-156; and Great Chronicle, pp. 177-I 78. cf. Fabyan, pp. 616-618, who repeats the claim that Suffolk asked parliament to cover the costs. But he has doubts about the reputation imputed to the queen, for ' many a wronge & false reporte [was] made of her, which were to longe to reherse.' 28 Margaret's Householtl and Finances The expense of the Angevin marriage exceeded not only what had been budgeted, but also what the Lancastrian government could afford and it contributed to the financial crisis of 1446-49.44 Parliament granted the queen a dowry of 10,000 marks, the sum enjoyed by the Lancastrian queens Joan of Navarre and Katherine of Valois. Much has been made of this, without allowing for the nature of fifteenth century protocol. 45 Although there were recurrent calls by parliament for Henry VI to curb his household expenses, no one cavilled at the queen' s dowry. It was customary and therefore expected; to reduce it would lower English prestige. Margaret had considerable patronage at her disposal, her dowry made her a rich and influential, woman, in theory at least.46 In practice she never disposed of anything like 10,000 marks in the early years of her 44 G.L. Harriss, 'Mannaduke Lumley and the Exchequer Crisis of 1446-9,' in Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society, J.G. Rowe (ed.), Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1986, p. 148, where he estimates that the overall costs of bringing Margaret to England amounted to approximately seven thousand pounds, pp. 143-1 52. Duchy of Lancaster revenues were diverted from the Exchequer, where they had largely funded the Great Wardrobe account. A large sum went towards Margaret's dowry, three thousand pounds per annum in estates and monetary income. But a point of interest is that at the same time an even larger sum, nearly four thousand pounds per annum, was diverted to Henry VI's foundations at Eton and Cambridge. Was it the queen or Henry VI who was really ' the king's (or the country ' s) burden'? 45 Crawford, 'King's Burden,' pp. 44-45. 46 Robert Somerville, The History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1265-1603, London: Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1953, pp. 208-209. Her dowry was settled on her by Parliament in April 1446. RP 5, pp. 118-120. It amounted to 10,000 marks or L6,666. 13s. 4d. It was made up of three thousand pounds from the Duchy of Lancaster, two thousand pounds in land and one thousand in cash. One thousand pounds from the customs at Southampton, LI ,008. 15s. 5d from the Duchy of Cornwall, and LI ,657. 17s. 11 d from the Exchequer. 29 marriage. In his study of crown lands Bertram Wolffe established that it was not until the parliamentary resumptions of 1450 and 1451 that sufficient land resources became available for the queen to recei ve an adequate settlement and even then she lost in other ways as first claim on the customs was allocated to the Calais garrison, so she did not receive one thousand pounds from the customs in 1451 and 1452.47 Her household was extensive, in addition to personal attendants and domestic servants she maintained her own council and a staff of professionals to administrate her estates and revenues. Experienced officials exerted themselves to protect her interests at the Exchequer, for she was no more successful than others at collecting what was due to her from the over­ stretched revenues of the crown. 48 Margaret took her responsibilities seriously and was more generous and clement than the traditional picture allows. Far from being 'poor and greedy'49 she was as liberal as King Henry in her gift giving. A queen was expected to exercise her powers in a positive way, it was 47 B.P. Wolffe, The Royal Demesne in English History, London: Allen and Unwin, 1971 , pp. 56, I 07 and 136 n. 40. cf. PRO, Miscellaneous Rolls, E.407/5-9. 48 Somerville, p. 399. William Cotton, Margaret's receiver general was the crown' s receiver general for Duchy of Lancaster estates. He was MP for Cambridgeshire. He remained in the service of the royal couple until he was killed fighting for King Henry at the First Battle of St Albans in 1455. Josiah Wedgwood, History of Parliament: Biographies of the Members of the Commons House , 1439-1509, London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1936, pp. 123-24. Sir Thomas Browne became an Exchequer official in 1447. There is a letter from Margaret to him that the editor of the letters dates to 1447 but is more likely to be 1449. The queen thanks him for looking after her interests, ' in especial, now late, in our assignment in the customs of Southampton. ' Letters of Margaret of Anjou, p.148. In April 1449 Margaret surrendered tall ies at the Exchequer for the sum ofL3,657. 17s. I Id in exchange for claims on the Southampton customs. CPR 1446-1452, p. 267. In 1448 she had been granted the right to appoint one of the two customs collectors at Southampton. CPR, 1446-1452, p. I 72. Browne was MP for Kent. In 1460 he was a defender of the Tower against the Yorkist lords, for which he was hanged, drawn and quartered. 49 Tout, 'Margaret of Anjou,' in DNB. 30 part of her 'good ladyship. ' 50 There is ample evidence in her surviving letters, which are only a fraction of what she must have written, that Margaret used her influence, albeit not always successfully, on behalf of her servants. 51 The letters provide insights into Margaret's personality and the role of a queen in medieval society. They are not ' officious and interfering,'52 but part of her routine correspondence as a dispenser of patronage and protection in the exercise of 'good lordship,' a practice that was universal.53 Margaret's letters show her as willing to espouse the cause of the unfortunate or the destitute, usually at the behest of a relative in her service. 54 50 Lois L. Huneycutt, ' Intercession and the High-Medieval Queen,' in Power of the Weak, Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (eds), Chicago: University of Illinoi s Press, I 995. p. I 38: 'The queen who had no income of her own and no influence over her husband could have no allies at court and thus little control over her own fa te. ' cf. Lois L. Huneycutt. ' Medieval Queenship,' llistory Today, 39, ( 1989), pp. 16-22. 51 Letters of Margaret of Anjou. Of the seventy-four letters from the queen, fifty-one relate to Margaret' s intervention on behalfofher tenants or servants, with an additional six concerning marriage. A few others are to be found elsewhere: Historical Manuscripts Commission, 8th Report, pp. 414-15, a letter of May 1449 to Lord Ferrers of Groby that he pay I 00 marks to her Leicester tenant William Newby. [Lord Ferrers seems to have given Margaret trouble on another occasion, as she writes to him, Letters p. 146, that his bailiff of Stebbings is oppressing her tenants there and will he please put a stop to it.] PRO, S.C. 1/44/13, is a letter to John Stafford, Archbishop of Canterbury about an outstanding debt to a York merchant. 52 Ramsay 2, p. 141. Bagley. pp. 56-57 agrees with Ramsay and says the letters are of no political importance. This was also Tout's opinion, 'Margaret of Anjou' in DNB. cf. Watts, p. 68 n . 289, who finds her terminology ' threatening' at times. 53 Diana Dunn, 'Margaret of Anjou, Queen Consort of Herny VI: a reassessment of her role 1445-1453,' in Rowena Archer (ed.), Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century, Gloucester: Sutton, 1995, for an excellent and detailed analysis of the value of these letters. Speaking ofRan1Say, Tout and Bagley she says, ' This view fail s to appreciate the customary practice of queenship which gave to a queen extensive powers of patronage to dispense as she chose.' p. 11 7. cf. Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 257-61. 54 Dunn, pp. I 19-120. 31 Margaret's 'Household ' and ' Jewels' Accounts reinforce the picture gained from her letters. 55 Neither the king nor the queen seemed to understand that the Lancastrian exchequer could not bear the strain of their largesse. Margaret has been blamed for political decisions that were in fact King Henry's, and it seems safe to infer that just as she accepted her husband' s policies so she emulated his generosity. 56 There is no reason to assume that she was seeking to buy goodwill, she enjoyed being generous and believed, mistakenly, that as queen of England she had the resources to do so. Margaret was not, however, as fiscally irresponsible as the king. Anne Crawford, using the lists of personnel allotted for a queen's household in an ordinance of 1445 57 arrives at a total of sixty-six personal servants and goes on to say that when ordinances for the reduction of the royal household were issued during York ' s first protectorate, the queen' s household was reduced to 120, or almost double what had been set out in the previous ordinance. This is to compare app les with pears as the 1445 ordinance was theoretical (there was no queen in England between 1437 and 1445) and never implemented. A.R. Myers states that the 1454 ordinances were for officials and servants, not just servants. In Margaret's account for 1452-1453, 151 persons were paid wages. Anne 55 Only one of Margaret' s household accounts has survived. AR. Myers, (ed.), 'The Household of Queen Margaret of Anjou, 1452-1453 ,' Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 40, (1957-1958), pp. 70-113 and 391-43 I . AR. Myers (ed.), ' The Jewels of Queen Margaret of Anjou,'BJRL, 42, (I 959), pp. I I 3-131. In addition to the jewels account for 1452-1453, four other jewel accounts for Queen Margaret are extant. Myers, ' Jewels,' p. 113. 56 Dunn, pp. 128-29, who also points out that ' it was Henry Vl's failure to manage his finances and control expenditure, not an over-indulgent queen, which was the real cause of this weakness of the Lancastrian crown. ' 57 A.R. Myers, ' Some Household Ordinances of Henry VI,' in Crown Household and Parliament in the Fifteenth Century, London: Hambledon, I 985, pp. 231-249. First published BJRL 36 and 37 (1954). 32 Crawford deducts 20 from this figure, for officials who were outside what was technically the household, leaving a total of 131 people. A suggested reduction from 131 to 120 persons for the queen's household, the magnificent number of eleven, hardly indicates that Margaret was vastly exceeding what the Council considered acceptable, nor does it make it 'quite clear that Margaret either would not or could not keep her household down to anywhere near the desired level. ' 58 Margaret, as was customary, also paid a share of the king 's household expenses when the two households were combined, as they were for lengthy periods from 1445 to 1454. 59 After Gloucester's death in 144 7, parliament granted his estates to a number of people, among them the queen. Margaret received Gloucester's annuity of 500 marks from the Duchy of Lancaster, bringing her theoretical annual income to 7,000 pounds.60 She also received some of his other fees, estates and holdings,61and this has been taken as evidence of her eagerness to share in the windfall resulting from his death. But as she was not receiving her full dowry in 1447, the king and parliament may have seen these grants as 58 Crawford, p. 49. 59 Wolffe, Royal Demesne, p. 137, n. 49: 'The accounts of the keeper of the wardrobe for the household show that Queen Margaret's receiver, Wlder her obligation to pay seven pounds a day to the expenses of the king' s household, contributed nearly 12,000 pounds in the eight years Michaelmas 1446 to Easter 1454.' Quoting E . l O I /409/20. 60 RP5, p. 133. 61 Foedera 11, p. I 55 . Of the estates granted in 1447, Margaret still held the Manor of Milton and Marden (Kent), Marlborough with Savemake Forest and Devizes with the forests of Melksharn, Pewsham and Chippenham (Wiltshire) at the time of the resumptions in 1450. Wolffe Royal Demesne p. 107 n 34. She was also given Humphrey's manor at Greenwich which was not included in the official parliamentary grant. 33 compensation, although they were in addition to, not in lieu of, her dowry.62 The accusation that Margaret was indecently hasty in grabbing all she could ignores customary practice by the crown. When the Duke of Warwick (one of King Henry 's few personal friends) died on 12 June 1446, the first grant on his estate was made on 13 June to Henry's foundation of Eton, yet there is no suggestion that the king showed undue greed in disposing of the Beauchamp inheritance. Two days later Queen Margaret was granted the wardship of Warwick 's heiress. When John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset died on 27 May 1444 the wardship of his daughter Margaret was granted to Suffolk on 31 May. In both cases grants went to those close to the king but Humphrey's death occurred in suspicious circumstances and the events surrounding it are far better known, causing nineteenth century historians to point accusatory fingers at the queen.63 Another accusation is that of exporting wool free of customs duties. Ramsay claims Margaret ' had obtained unlimited leave to export wool whithersoever she pleased ' which he stigmatises as 'jobbery' and inevitably damaging to her reputation.64 In 1448 Margaret received the right to ex port wool in exchange for having surrendered tallies on the Exchequer to the amount of 1500 pounds, until the customs and subsidies ' reach the said sum .. . until she .. . be fully paid. ' 65 Mercantile interests in parliament naturally 62 Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 260-261. His succinct analysis emphasises what the queen should have received, and shows how substantial it was. There is less emphasis on what she actually received. He points out that the parliament of 1447 also re-affirmed that Margaret's cash grant:. should be converted into land whenever suitable properties became available, giving her first call on any such, and as a result she acquired Berkhamsted in 1448. 63 Tout, ' Margaret of Anjou,' in DNB; Ramsay 2, p. 77 64 Ramsay 2, p. 90; followed by Tout, 'Margaret of Anjou' in DNB. 65 CPR 1446-1452, p. 171. Dated 28 July 1448. 34 resented this method of allowing the king to redeem obligations that should have been paid by more legitimate means. The Calais staplers campaigned against the practice throughout 1449, and the crown promised to curb these licences, only six exemptions being made. One of them was the queen, who had not, presumably, obtained full repayment. 66 It was not an unusual method of relieving the chronic indebtedness of the Lancastrian government. In 145 8 the Duke of York was allowed to ship 10,000 marks worth of wool free of duty (the value of the queen 's whole dowry) in lieu of wages still due to him.67 When lands were assigned to Margaret she ensured that they were properly administered. From 1451 returns from the queen's lands began to increase. Receipts from Leicester trebled, and estates in Essex, Hertfordshire and Middlesex became profitable. 68 Margaret was generous, but not profligate. She understood, as King Henry did not, the importance of not frittering away revenue through inefficient management or thoughtless patronage. In July 1453 the council granted her for life what amounted to complete autonomy over her estates and she was allotted larger quarters for her council ' s house at Westminster, an indication of the increasing business 66 Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 393 and p. 400, n. 94. The others were the Duke of Suffolk, Thomas Browne, Thomas Walsingham, John Penyngton (all of whom were household men) and the Prior of Bridlington. 67 P .A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 1411-1460, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, p. 184. 68 The information on the increase in the queen 's revenues is taken from Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 787-88 and p. 836 n. 105 and n. 106, where he quotes PRO, DL 29/212/3261-69 (1445-59); DL 58/1103-7 (1453-59) and PRO, SC6/l 093/11-13; DL 9/672/108 I 5, I 0818, 10820-22. He acknowledges his indebtedness for these references to JG. Reid. I have not seen them. 35 passing through her officials' hands.69 In 1457 the council ratified her possession of a ll lands granted to her by the parliament of 1447 which had agreed to replace the cash assignments of her dowry with land . This arrangement offered a more secure income than the chancy collection of cash · · 70 appropnat1ons. The Ceding of Maine and the Loss of Normandy After Margaret' s coronation a French embassy visited England to negotiate peace. 71 The sequence of events is re latively clear; the interpretation is tortuous. Despite the impressive rank of the delegates nothing was accomplished. The sticking point was the English claim to full sovereignty over Normandy and Gascony, which the French flatly refused to consider.72 They suggested that Henry VI should visit his ' uncle of France' and continue negotiating on a personal basis. The idea was accepted in principle, but the English had misgivings; they undertook to discuss it further and advise Charles VII of their (and the king's) decision.73 It is obvious from the pressure applied to Henry VI that Charles VII was eager for a personal meeting and towards the end of the year he sent a smaller delegation, with limited aims, 69 CPR 1452-1461 , pp. 114-1 16; and Calendar of the Fine Rolls 19, Henry VI, 1452-146/ , London: his Majesty's Stationery Office, 1940, p. 35. 1° CPR 1452-1461, pp. 340-341. 71 Stevenson I, pp. 87-148 for a j oumal of the embassy kept by the French. n Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 492. 73 Stevenson I , pp. 142-147. 36 that succeeded where the more broadly based embassy fai led. 74 The price for an extension of the truce was now a promise that a meeting would take place, and two public treaties to this effect were negotiated;75 the other part of the mission was not included in either treaty. Charles VII furnished his envoys with letters of procuration from Rene of Anjou,76 in which Rene expressed his firm hope that Henry VI would cede Maine to him. In return, Rene offered a twenty-year truce, with the Angevins - not with France. Maine had not been on the agenda of the first embassy. 77 The idea originated with the opportunistic Rene, who now claimed that Margaret's marriage was made in the expectation that it would facilitate the return of Maine, the rightful patrimony of the House of Anjou of which Henry VI was a member by marriage. The importance of close family ties had been a feature of the first embassy because the wily Charles VII wanted Henry VI to see himself as a Valois (as indeed he was) and an Angevin , making it impious to resume war against his own kin. The ambassadors carried a letter to Margaret from 74 Samuel E . Dicks, ' The Question of Peace: Anglo-French Diplomacy, 1439-1449,' PhD Thesis in Medieval History, University of Oklahoma, 1966, pp. 157-168. 15 Foedera, 11 , pp 111- 115. One extended the truce to April 1447, the other agreed to a meeting between the kings before November 1446. 76 Lecoy 2, pp. 259-260, prints the procuration and Rene ' s covering letter in full. 77 The claim that Henry VI made a verbal promise in July to surrender Maine by I October 1445 is based on an tmdated document printed in Beaucourt 4, pp. 284-5, n. I : Durant La une promessefutfaite, < de bouche, > au sire de Precigny < touchant La delivrance dessus dicte dedans Le premier jour d 'octobre L'an mil CCCC XLV. > The rest of the note makes it clear that it could apply (if true, which is doubtful) to 1446 but not to 1445. In Escouchy, 3, Pieces Justicatives, pp. 193-194, there is a document dating to 1448, when the French were thoroughly exasperated by English procrastination over Maine. It refers to Henry VI having made promises to cede Maine tant de bouche que par lettres signees, as indeed he had by 1448, but not in July 1445 at the time of the great embassy. From these sources Bertram Wolffe extrapolates that Henry VI made the promise in 1445, although Henry is not named in the footnote. Wolffe Henry VJ, pp. 172 and 188. cf. Bagley, p.48, who also refers to Henry VI's promise. 37 Charles VII, and in her reply the emphasis is on peace and kinship , not on Maine, although she undertook to urge Herny to do as Charles asked. 78 Her letter demonstrates her political ignorance, she was doing her duty as she saw it to foster friendship between her husband and her family. There can be no question that Margaret used her influence to further French demands for the ceding of Maine, and for a meeting between the kings, on the direct instructions of the King of France. In light of this letter, the tradition that Maine was secretly included in the Angevin marriage settlement was amended to make Margaret the direct, if unwitting, cause of her husband ' s rash promise to cede it unilaterally by April 1446.79 Henry' s letter gave as his reasons that he accepted Charles VII's assurance that this was the best way to achieve peace and because the queen had requested it. 80 Maine was not Normandy nor was it Anjou. It had been partially occupied by the English in 1424 so it was not one of Henry V' s conquests. Nor did it have the psychological importance attached to the Duchy of Normandy that Henry V claimed as his rightful inheritance irrespective of the French crown, and which was the symbol of English victories. English sources describe Anjou and Maine as one entity,81 but the English never 78 Stevenson I, pp. 163-167. Margaret's letter is dated 17 December 1445. 79 E.F. Jacob, The Fifteenth Centwy, 'The Oxford History of England,' Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1 961 , p. 479; Kingsford, Prejudice, p. 162; J.R. Lander, Government and Community, 1450-1509, London: Edward Arnold, 1980, pp. 182-83 ; C.T. Allmand, lancastrian Normandy, 1415-1450, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 46; Tout, 'Margaret of Anjou,' in DNB. 80 Stevenson 2, pp. 639-643. Henry's letter is dated 22 December 1445. 81 Brut, Continuation G, pp. 510 and 511 ; Great Chronicle, p. 177; London Chronicle, p. 155; Fabyan, p. 616; Hall, 204. 38 conquered Anjou, it remained in Duke Rene ' s hands;82an inconvenient fact the English chose to ignore. 83 Maine was part of the Angevin inheritance and by linking it with Anjou the calumny that Rene had no land to call his own came to be accepted as fact. 84 Margaret was raised in Anjou by the Duchess Yolande, whose life-long political aim was the expulsion of the English from French soil. 85 To Margaret it was axiomatic that Maine should return to her family, and she perceived no political pitfalls in encouraging Henry VI to restore it. As her letters show, she was performing the traditional role of a queen, that of peacemaker, the one with which she had been entrusted at the time of her marriage. If, as some historians claim, Suffolk promised at Tours that Maine would be ceded,86 Margaret's role was irrelevant, because the decision had been made. Suffolk might have sacrificed Maine had it been necessary but there is no evidence that this was required of him. Suffolk maintained at the 82 E. Carlton Williams, My Lord of Bedford, London: Longmans, 1963, p. 127, suggests that John Duke of Bedford took the title Duke of Anjou ' rather as a counterstroke aimed at Queen Yolande .. . than because the territories lay within his grasp. ' Yolande of Aragon, Duchess of Anjou, was Margaret's grandmother. 83 The Duke of York referred to Anjou and Maine as one when he demanded justice against the ' traitors' who were responsible for the loss of Normandy. John Vales Book, p. 187-188; PL I, Gairdner, p. 107. 84 John Lingard, The History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688. 10 vols, London: Nimmo & Bain, 1883, vol. 4, p. 78. This popular history is a typical example. cf. PL I , Gairdner, pp. 45-46. 85 Jehanne d 'Orliac, Yolande d 'Anjou: la reine des quatre royaumes, Paris: Pion, I 933. 86 Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 345-346; Ramsay 2, p. 63. John Watts goes further: during the visit of the great French embassy, the majority of the lords were aware of this intention and Henry' s letter was an expression of a collective policy, albeit one it was prudent to keep secret. Watts, p. 225 and n. 86. 39 time and ever afterwards that he gave no undertakings to the French and there is no reason to disbelieve him. 87 There is every reason to think that Suffolk hoped to negotiate for peace from_ a position of strength to secure Normandy, for it was on this that his credibility depended. 88 It is not true that all the sources agree that Suffolk promised to cede Maine before Margaret' s marriage. 89 It is found in only three London chronicles90 and in Thomas Gascoigne. With hindsight the French changed their position on the date when the promise was first made and their chroniclers followed suit. 91 From Gascoigne's contradictory account historians have inferred an elaborate explanation for the delay in bringing Margaret to England and for the ceding of Maine. According to Gascoigne Suffolk was forced to make the promise because Charles VII refused to allow Margaret to travel to England unless he received such assurances. It is generally assumed that this agreement was 87 Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 487. cf. K.B. MacFarlane, 'The Lancastrian Kings,' in Cambridge Medieval Histmy, vol. 8: The Close of the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936, p. 402-403. Macfarlane thinks Henry made his promise over Maine at Margaret' s request. 88 C.L. Kingsford , ' The Policy and Fall of Suffolk,' in Prejudice, pp. 146-176. 89 Watts, p. 223 n. 75: 'Most of the chroniclers were convinced that the promise to cede Maine was made as part of the marriage negotiations.' Three Chronicles/Brief Latin, p. 166 should not have been included, its reference is to the loss of Maine not to when it was ceded. Nor should Basin, Charles VII, I , p. 59. The chronicler correctly says that Charles VIl refused to prolong the truce (in 1448) unless the English lived up to the promise to surrender Maine. The ceding of Maine at Tours occurs in a footnote by Basin's editor, quoting Berry Herald - not the same thing at all. 90 Brut Continuation G, pp. 510 and 51 I ; Great Chronicle, p. 177; London Chronicle, p. 155. The other chronicles do not make this claim. Benet 's Chronicle, p. 190, even says that there were no results from the Tours meeting. 91 Berry Herald, p. 281 ; Escouchy I, p. 128. For a balanced account of the French position see Beaucourt 4, ' L' Occupation du Mans,' pp. 284-307. cf. A. Joubert 'Le Mariage de Henry VI et Marguerite d' Anjou,' Revue historique et archaeologique du Maine, 13 , (1883). A biased article, derived for the most part, and often verbatim, from A. Vallet de Virivellc, Histoire de Charles VII roi de France et de son epoque, 3 vols, Paris: Renouard, 1862- 1865. It recapitulates the traditional French version of events. 40 reached at Nancy (although neither Gascoigne nor the chronicles say so) because the explanation for the long delay in Margaret's arrival is that Suffolk had to travel to Nancy to fetch her, whereas in fact he awaited Margaret in Rouen. 92 Gascoigne also claimed that Margaret asked Henry to cede Maine at Suffolk' s behest as the earl had promised it to her father in return for Rene's undertaking to work for peace.93 Tortuous indeed! Margaret encouraged Henry VI to meet with Charles VII. She would naturally have been delighted to visit her home as queen of England, and a letter to Charles VII in 1446 confirms that she hoped to do so. 94 She also promised to further whatever peace proposals resulted from the meeting. She did not see the dangers, but the English Council did. John Watts ' opinion that the visit had the backing of the lords is difficult to accept as they declared in parliament that the decision was Henry's wish and not their advice.95 It is true that they were not protesting against peace, but they were protesting against the king' s idea of how to achieve it. The thought of their gullible, unworldly king, totally committed to peace, face to face with experienced French diplomats and flattered by his 'uncle of France' must have given them nightmares. If this is what Watts means by ' they did not wish to take 92 B .M. Cron, ' The Duke of Suffolk, the Angevin Marriage and the ceding of Maine, 1445,' Journal of Medieval History, 20, ( I 994), pp. 77-99. 93 Gascoigne, pp. 190 and 221. 94 Stevenson 1, pp. 183-186. 95 Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 252; RP 5, p. I 02. 41 responsibility for it'96 then he is right, and so were they. Margaret's influence did not counter the lords' objections to their sovereign 's visit, nor did it result in the ceding of Maine. Le Mans surrendered in March 1448 because French forces laid siege to it and within a year the two countries were once again at war. It took Charles VII less time to conquer Normandy than to recover Maine. In England there was neither the will nor the money to prosecute a war, and both lacks were, ultimately, the fault of Henry VI. Whatever else Henry was prepared to do he would never fight in France. Whether from Christian piety or from a psychological block he was constitutionally incapable of military action and without his personal involvement the loss of France was inevitable. The question of Maine raises the more far-reaching question of Margaret's influence on Henry VI. There is no doubt that the king looked forward to Margaret's arrival, and was pleased with his bride. How predisposed he was to ask, or to take, her advice, is a different matter. The interpretation of Henry's character is crucial to assessing their political relationship , and is impossible to verify.97 I would suggest that Margaret was either very lucky or very shrewd, in that she realised almost at once the best way to handle Henry VI. The king was accustomed to being told what to do, and seems not to have resented it, as it saved him from facing difficult 96 Watts, p. 224 and n . 78. 97 Ralph Griffiths depicts Henry as a well-meaning man of limited abilities for whom the burden of kingship proved too much. Bertram Wolffe's Henry is weak willed, stubborn and meddlesome, a liability to the government. To John Watts Henry is a non-entity, a sentient vegetable in whose name the lords strove in vain to rule. 42 decisions. As Ralph Griffiths points out, Henry was dominated from birth by Cardinal Beaufort or Humphrey of Gloucester and habituated to depending on others.98 But Henry objected strongly to those who tried to make him follow a course of action he did not wish to take. His favourite ministers, the dukes of Suffolk and Somerset, were dependent on the crown for the resources to maintain their dukedoms. They advised Henry (told him what to do) but always in the light of his known preferences, of which, it can be argued, they took full advantage. The Duke of Gloucester frequently and forcefully opposed Henry' s predilection for peace, and was consequently shunned by his nephew. Richard of York, too, as king 's lieutenant, was a tacit, if unintentional, reproach to the king. The military position being what it was, Henry VI should have been gone to France in person. From the start of Henry ' s personal rule York was not invited to join the English Council and was for many years kept at arm' s length from the court.99 Margaret alone urged Henry to make peace regardless of the consequences because she did not understand what those consequences would be. She may never have understood how disastrous this policy was, as the odium of Maine 's surrender and defeat in Normandy fell on Suffolk and Somerset. 100 We do not know what Margaret thought of the loss of Normandy. She was brought up to believe that the English had no right to it, and it is unlikely that becoming queen of England changed her mind. As Henry VI showed no inclination to 98 Griffiths, Henry VI, p, 231. 99 Wolffe, Henry VJ, p. 153. 100 Ramsay 2, p. 63, indulges in hindsight: 'as for the hapless young queen, il foredoomed her career lo absolute fai lure and singled her out from the first as a mark of national hatred.' 43 prosecute the war it seems improbable that Margaret would have urged him to more positive action. 101 In the first years of her marriage Margaret never exhorted Henry to pursue policies not in accordance with his wishes. She played the traditional role of the queen as dutiful wife, and the question yet to be examined is how far she departed from this role to assume a political stance forced on her by Henry's ineptitude. Margaret and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester The legend of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester is inextricably entwined with Margaret of Anjou. The manner and timing of his death created the image of ' the good duke,' depicting him as a defender of England's honour, one who would never have permitted the ceding of Maine or loss of Normandy. Gloucester favoured prosecuting the war as long as there was a chance that English arms could maintain what his brother had won. But did he continue to hold this belief after 1440 when he made his last public protest at the peace initiatives of Cardinal Beaufort? In 1441 his duchess was convicted of witchcraft and plotting the king's death and from then on Humphrey was a spent force. 102 Suffolk and the majority of the lords saw him as expendable. 103 The ceding of Maine has cast its long shadow over the 101 Beaucourt 4, pp. 456-57. The queen was still receiving correspondence from Charles VII in the summer of 1449 just before he formally declared war. But so was Herny VI. The letter to Margaret is the usual request that she will support Charles' position, but does not say what that position is. Two letters, both dated 3 June 1449, one to Herny VI the other to Margaret. 102 Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 322-23. cf. Ralph .A. Griffiths, ' The Trial of Eleanor Cobham: an episode in the fall of Duke Humphrey of Gloucester,' BJRL, 51, ( 1968-69), pp. 381-3 99. 103 Watts, p. 230. 44 political scene and been made the explanation for Gloucester' s arrest and death. It has been assumed that he was incapable of assessing political realities, hence the unsubstantiated claim that he opposed the Angevin marriage, the symbol of peace. The Brut records that Gloucester welcomed Margaret to London, which should be evidence that he approved of the new queen. Unfortunately it is unsubstantiated, and may be a later addition to enhance the Yorkist image of Humphrey as a loyal subject, who was chivalrously prepared to welcome Margaret despite his former opposition. 104 Parliament met at Bury St Edmunds in 1447. It opened on 10 February, Gloucester arrived on the 18th and on the 23rd he was dead. He had been arrested and confined to his lodging on a vague charge of treason and he died of a stroke or heart attack brought on by shock. His sudden death inevitably resulted in whispers of foul play, although no such accusations were made at the time. Suffolk had intended to accuse the duke of treason and so strip him of his considerable estates, 105 and it is indisputable that Henry VI knew what was to be done, even if the trne motivation was kept from him. 106 Gloucester was something of a political liability during Henry's minority but for all his faults he would never have countenanced rebellion. Had he lived the Duke of 104 Brut, Continuation G, p. 510. cf. Great Chronicle, p. 178; London Chronicle, p. 156. However Brut, Continuation F does not record Gloucester's presence, nor do the other chronicles which describe her reception. 105 In support of this argument, the Duchess of Gloucester, for whom Humphrey had made adequate provision, was refused all rights of inheritance during the last day of the parliament. Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 98-99, n. 6 and Griffiths Henry VI, p. 540, n. 97. 106 Whethamstede I , p 179. Henry's mind was poisoned against the innocent, loyal and popular Duke Humphrey by certain servants of Satan and supporters of iniquity: Sathanae satellites et iniquitatis comp/ices. 45 York would not have dared to claim the throne and Margaret would not have had to champion the House of Lancaster. It is a tribute to the Yorkist legend that Agnes Strickland could claim that Gloucester, to counter the queen's influence, showed ' an alarming inclination ' to form a political alliance with the Duke of York. 107 It became an article of Yorkist faith that Humphrey had been murdered, and the charge is included in the 1460 manifesto of the Yorkist lords, expanded to claim that ever since Gloucester's murder there had been a conspiracy to murder York as well. 108 Margaret was not implicated in the ' murder' until the sixteenth century. 109 Polydore Vergil perpetuated the Yorkist image of the 'good duke' and assumed that Gloucester was in control of the government when Margaret came to England. Vergil claims the queen was too proud to tolerate the duke's undermining of her husband's authority and she formed a faction to oust him. But Vergil, followed by Hall and Holinshed, stops short of saying she was part of the conspiracy to murder. 110 Historians who accept Margaret' s political influence acquit her, albeit reluctantly, of complicity in Gloucester' s death. 111 ' 07 Strickland, pp. 188-89. 108 English Chronicle, p. 88. 109 Margaret had given Gloucester a New Year' s gift, which may indicate her ignorance of Suffolk's intentions. This seems probable, but such gifts were customary practice, and she would have been expected to give an appropriate one to the king's uncle. PRO E. I 01/409/17 The gift was a gold cu