Bastard Prince

by Beverley A. Murphy

The setting up of the household had been an expensive business. As well as repairs to the buildings, there had been the huge outlay on fixtures and fittings, elaborate furnishings, twenty-six horses and their equipment, as well as travelling expenses. All this before the basic expenses of diet, fees, rewards and wages had been addressed. In addition to his household expenses, the duke’s council were also called upon to defray official costs in their role as the king’s Council in the North. In October 1527 they paid for a band of sixty soldiers, both horse and foot, to be stationed at Felton, a lordship of Sir William Lisle, in an attempt to capture the outlaws. The plan was to arrest Lisle and his men when they came for supplies, but at 4d per person, per day, over two months, the policy was expensive. The council apologetically explained that this was not their fault, but that ‘horsemeat and all other victuals be very scarce and extreme dear in those parts’.

  The council were also expected to discharge the various fees of local officers of the crown. Yet they quickly found themselves short of ready cash. In September 1526 the Earl of Westmorland complained to Wolsey that he had not received his fee as Vice-Warden of the East and Middle Marches. Wolsey referred him to Richmond’s council and they referred him to the king. As they apologetically explained, they had had some difficulties collecting the duke’s rent and fees, in fact they admitted they ‘could not obtain any part of the revenues’. So far they had only received £400 from Richmond’s estates. In the spring of 1527 Magnus was nudging Wolsey to think of his godson’s expenses when re-distributing the lands of the Lord of St John’s, even as the poor man languished on his deathbed. More than once the duke’s council applied to Wolsey, hoping that he would ‘remit, pardon and forgive’ the £500 borrowed from the Abbot of St Mary’s.

  The magnificent style of a ducal household made no concession to Richmond’s tender age. On an ordinary day the entire household would sit down to two main meals consisting of ten different sorts of meat, including such delicacies as half a lamb or a kid, veal, rabbits, chickens and geese, as well as bread, pies, custards and fruits, all washed down with ale or beer. On fish days salmon (both salted and fresh) cod, pikes, shrimps, turbot, sturgeon, eels, whelks, crayfish and other sea and freshwater fish graced his table. Each of his principal officers had a special menu costing 6s 5d a day and were also allowed bread, beer, wine and beef in their chambers for breakfast and supper. Candles to see by and kindling to keep them warm were another perk, with others of Richmond’s servants, such as gentlemen waiters, chaplains and grooms, enjoying similar privileges on a sliding scale, according to their rank.

  In such an establishment it was perhaps inevitable that there would be some below stairs pilfering. Wolsey’s instructions had ordered that access to the wine and beer should be strictly regulated. Despite this, the opportunity for self-enrichment proved too much for some. In April 1526 the council advised Wolsey that Simon Prior, a yeoman purveyor (appointed by the cardinal) had obtained 230 beasts worth £60 from a widow named Agnes Clerc ‘surmising then untruly that they should be for the use and expenses of my said lord of Richmond’s household’. In fact none of them found their way to the duke’s table. Hearing that Prior, who they belatedly declared was a rogue, had been arrested at Tottenham on some other charge, they asked that Mistress Clerc should be recompensed out of his confiscated goods. Human nature being as it is, the occasional incident of this kind was no doubt an occupational hazard in even the most well-ordered of households. Unfortunately, Sheriff Hutton was far from being the most well-ordered of households.

  Matters were not helped by the fact that a ‘clerk of the green cloth’, the officer responsible for the accounts, was not appointed until August 1526. Once he arrived he and Thomas Magnus drew up a programme to assess and review the household expenses. What they found was a history of poor accounting where books and inventories were not regularly kept. They realised Richmond’s household was living far beyond its means. In February 1527 it was decided that only drastic measures would suffice and eighteen members of the household were discharged, some as being superfluous to requirements and a few for their (unspecified) misconduct.

  If the council were pleased with their decisive handling of the situation, the king was not. Not only did Henry tell them to re-admit several of the dismissed officers, but also to pay them greater wages than before. Declaring themselves to be ‘much perplexed’, Sir William Bulmer, steward of the household and Sir Thomas Tempest, the comptroller, defended their actions, protesting that these new instructions made ‘all our orders and directions to be of little regard; and we and all other officers and Councilors here be lightly esteemed among my Lords servants’. They claimed the books were now in order and there was no wastage. However, since expenditure had not been sufficiently reduced they had taken the only possible action. Now there was the further worry that all of those who had been dismissed would be encouraged to return, hoping for better terms than before.

  In the same letter, Bulmer and Tempest confidently asserted that the improved accounting and ‘many other good and politic devises daily practiced’ had brought the household into much better order. They assured Wolsey that the high costs were not due to ‘great waste or unreasonable expense’. They could not have been more mistaken. Only six days later Magnus made his own calculations and broke the bad news to Wolsey. The clerk of the green cloth had estimated that, not including wages and liveries, the household’s weekly expenditure did not exceed £25. In fact, they were spending over £50 a week. The clerk of the green cloth ‘some deal confused’ declared he would look at his figures again. Before he could do so he caught cold and promptly died.

  Magnus had no hesitation in attributing his demise to the stress of the financial situation. He advised Wolsey that in future he thought it was best if he handled the finances himself. With careful management and regular accounts he hoped to make some headway before Easter, but things remained tight. Somewhat ironically, he advised Wolsey not to be too hasty in sending up a new clerk of the green cloth. Not only had the last one been more a hindrance than help, but also the duke could not afford to pay any more wages.

  The council certainly seemed to believe that over-manning was the root cause of their financial difficulties. The following October Magnus was successfully able to discharge several of Richmond’s servants, this time reminding Wolsey that if they were re-admitted the king would have to bear any charges that could not be met. However, Richard Croke laid the blame for the spiralling costs firmly on the shoulders of Sir William Parr and George Cotton, who, along with Cotton’s brother Richard, who served as comptroller of the household, were openly accused by the tutor of embezzlement. According to Croke all manner of goods had been siphoned off from Richmond’s kitchens for their personal use, only a fraction of which ever appeared in the formal accounts. He also alleged that Parr was often absent and on the few occasions when he was present, he spent more time hunting or hawking than attending to business.

  In view of their conflict over control of Richmond, Croke may have hoped to engineer his enemies’ dismissal. Procuring the odd cut of meat or spare haunch of venison was one thing, but making sufficient provision for the needs of one’s entire family was quite another. Croke’s willingness to defend his claims in front of the council certainly suggests he was sincere, and the fact that these men remained in Richmond’s service is not necessarily proof of their innocence. The charges, which Croke was confident could be substantiated by the clerks of the kitchen, never seem to have been formally investigated. Since by Croke’s own admission the fraud did not appear in the accounts, it was probably difficult to judge the extent of the abuse, although the possibility exists that some of those dismissed for misconduct paid the price for their superiors’ misdeeds.

  Even allowing for a certain amount of bias, Croke’s charges appear to be borne out by the disordered state of the household. No one seemed to be quite sure what proportion of the rich velvets and expensive fabrics that were Richmond’s cast-off wardrobe should be re
-used, which should be given in lieu of fees or which should be granted to Hugh Johns, the yeoman of the wardrobe of robes. Certainly, when Wolsey sent up a new set of articles intended to curb overspending the measures included firmer controls over the procurement of food stuffs and stricter rules over what were legitimate perks of the job, such as the droppings from the roast meat, and those things that were not, like table cloths.

  Slowly, things did improve. A year later in October 1528, Magnus was still reporting on his progress, sending, of all people, Sir William Parr to Wolsey with the details. To be fair they were not alone in their difficulties. At this time Sir John Neville, Sheriff of Yorkshire, also complained to Wolsey that recent shortages in the north had substantially added to his expenses. Richmond’s council were obviously at fault for their shoddy accounting and dubious management. But they were hampered by Wolsey’s failure to ensure good practice or to appoint a clerk of the green cloth. In addition, the king’s use of Richmond’s household as a source of patronage as well as a political statement resulted in a greater number on the payroll than the revenues could support. While the question of financial irregularities did not arise again, things were not completely resolved. In April 1529, the duke’s council was still trying to avoid repayment of the £500 borrowed from the Abbot of St Mary’s in 1526.

  Richmond remained at Sheriff Hutton until 16 June 1529, when he was almost ten years old. If his return was linked to Henry’s ‘great matter’ and a corresponding decline in his fortunes, it is hard to see why he was not recalled with Mary. Nor does it seem that the council’s ability to govern was the deciding factor. The complaint that the council should be removed on the grounds that these clerics were ‘sore moved against all temporal men’ suggests their intervention was effective enough to be resented.

  The council had made strenuous attempts to bring the north to good order. They did not sit complacently in Yorkshire: officers were sent out to assess the less hospitable regions and assizes were held at Newcastle and Carlisle. Richmond’s councillors also sat on Commissions of the Peace for Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland, as well as Yorkshire. They were even prepared to intervene in disputes within the palatine of Durham, despite its privileged status. Their actions produced clear improvements. In August 1527 Magnus reported that the York assizes had been very quiet with ‘but little business and so few things to be done as have not been seen afore’. In November 1527 they held the largest and most well-attended assize that Newcastle had ever seen.

  Not every aspect of the experiment was a resounding success. It had originally been hoped to extend the council’s jurisdiction right across the northern counties, using deputy wardens to oversee the West, Middle and East Marches. Instead, in December 1527, responsibility for the East and Middle Marches was ceded to the Earl of Northumberland and Lord William Dacre became Warden of the West March. Technically, this was a failure for Richmond’s council, but the plan had never been implemented before and came with no guarantee of success. They had repeatedly advised Wolsey of their own misgivings about the arrangement and it is perhaps unfair to blame the council for the shortcomings of others.

  The policy had not begun well. The cardinal took several months to appoint the three wardens. Once they were in place, the Earl of Cumberland apparently tried to rule the West March from his castle at Skipton in Yorkshire. Lord Eure openly admitted that he lacked the support of the local gentry and could not ensure order and the Earl of Westmorland’s sole interest in his position seems to have been his fee of £1,000.14 That the fault did not lie entirely with the council is demonstrated by the fact that a number of Richmond’s officers were seconded to assist Northumberland and Dacre in carrying out their new responsibilities as wardens.

  Nevertheless, the council did have its limitations. Thomas, Lord Dacre, despite his prominent role at Richmond’s elevation, refused to surrender the town and castle of Carlisle to the duke’s council without confirmation from the king or Wolsey. After his death in October 1525, a dispute between his heir, William, Lord Dacre, and the Earl of Cumberland got so out of hand that the council was forced to refer the matter to Wolsey. Such events highlight the difficulty these new men of the cardinal’s faced in getting their social superiors to toe the line, although it has to be said that even the king’s personal intervention did not effect any immediate improvement in Dacre’s conduct. The council’s decrees could be ignored, defendants might fail to appear and at least one man from Tynedale, who was placed in Richmond’s household as a pledge of good behaviour, absconded.

  Yet no sixteenth-century court, not even the king’s courts in Chancery or Star Chamber in London, was immune to such disobedience. The chief problem faced by Richmond’s council was a handicap shared by Mary’s council in the Marches of Wales. Any party dissatisfied by their order could and did decide to try their luck in London. When Nicholas Rudd discovered that the judgment of Richmond’s council ‘should weigh and pass against him’ he obtained a subpoena in the Court of Chancery. When Wolsey recommitted the suit to the north, Rudd failed to appear. Having been told that Rudd was again intending to try his case in the king’s courts, Richmond’s council were clearly anxious that Wolsey should not allow the duke’s authority to be openly flouted:

  may it therefore please your Grace if he shall come before the same to put him in some further order so that it shall not appear in the county of Westmoreland that my lord of Richmond’s precepts and commandments or other decrees be contempted and disobeyed.15

  Although this did affect the council’s ability to act as the fount of all justice and power in the north, it was a general weakness of sixteenth-century government, rather than a direct reflection on the personal standing of Richmond himself.

  Nor does it seem that Richmond’s recall was linked with Wolsey’s increasingly precarious position. As the cardinal failed to secure the much-desired annulment of the king’s marriage, his enemies began to circle. However, none of the changes in the composition of the government of the north seem designed to root out those who had connections with Wolsey. Several of Richmond’s officers, including Thomas Magnus, remained attached to the Council of the North.16 However, if there was an intention to make it specifically less clerical in character then Bishop Tunstall was a curious choice to head the new body. In fact Tunstall’s appointment signified yet another experiment in northern government. This time all pretence at the traditional style of a nobleman’s council was dropped. Tunstall was known as the President of the Council and he answered directly to the crown.

  Richmond’s tenure as the king’s lieutenant in the north has sometimes been dismissed as a little more than a farce, incapable of bringing the area under proper control. His council did experience a number of difficulties. At various times they complained of a lack of goods and provisions. They suffered from poverty, severe weather conditions and areas so sparsely populated that they had trouble finding sufficient numbers of people to undertake the commissions with which they had been entrusted. Such conditions could not fail to hamper the effective implementation of justice. Yet the records kept and the precedents established under their authority continued to be used.

  By 1532 Tunstall was also recalled and Richmond surrendered his role as Lord Lieutenant to Dacre. That this admirably bureaucratic solution would also falter tends to support the idea that the feudal and isolated character of the north of England made it particularly difficult to govern, rather than the argument that Richmond’s council was especially flawed. When the question of the government of the north was again addressed in 1536, the example of Richmond’s council provided the solution. This time the Duke of Norfolk was to be dispatched as the king’s lieutenant ‘and shall have a Council joined with him, as was appointed to the Duke of Richmond at his lying in those parts’. Perhaps, at least in comparison to other models, the council was rather more successful at a difficult task than has generally been acknowledged.

  4

  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

 
Richmond’s return to the court in June 1529 passed entirely unnoticed. All attention was focused on the legatine court being held in the parliament chamber at Blackfriars to determine the validity of Henry and Katherine’s marriage. By now the king was utterly convinced that his union with his dead brother’s wife was against God’s law and that no pope had the power to effectively allow him to live in sin with his sister. Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, who had recently arrived as an envoy from the pope, admitted that he thought ‘an angel descending from heaven would be unable to persuade him otherwise’. For her part, Katherine had believed in 1509 that God had rescued her from seven years of dismal widowhood because it was His divine will that she should marry Henry. She had stood firm then and she saw no reason to change now. It is doubtful that Richmond was even aware that his father had also considered a rather more unorthodox means of securing the succession, one which would have ensured that his bastard son could ascend the throne of England, with a royal princess as his bride.

  Privately, Wolsey now admitted to Campeggio that they had thought of marrying Richmond to his half-sister Mary and thus uniting the two claims. In theory the policy had much to recommend it. It offset the danger of domination by a foreign power by marrying Mary to an undeniably English lord. It also reduced the danger of civil war. Although it was incestuous, canon law actually allowed that sexual intercourse between a brother and sister using the missionary position was less sinful than intercourse with an unrelated partner, using any other position.1 If Henry was prepared to forgo all this talk of divorce and more importantly the associated questions of papal jurisdiction, Clement VII may well have been persuaded to accede to such a request.

  Certainly, Campeggio, rather than protesting at such a sinful and unnatural solution, agreed that he had also thought of this at first. However, having seen Henry he could not believe that even this drastic step ‘would suffice to satisfy the king’s desires’. Ironically, Richmond himself may well have contributed to Henry’s unshakable belief that his second, or in his eyes his first, canonically correct marriage would give him a legitimate male heir. After all, he was evidence of Henry’s virility and if God would grant him a son in a supposedly sinful union, yet withhold that blessing in an apparently lawful marriage, the implication was clear. The marriage was not lawful.