#thomas percy earl of worcester

[une-sanz-pluis]

So, we know Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester was at Shrewsbury with the 16-year-old Hal (Prince Henry, the future Henry V etc.), whose guardian and governor he was. We know that some point before the 20th, Worcester slipped away from Shrewsbury to join with Henry "Hotspur" Percy in the lead up to his rebellion, bringing with him "a significant proportion of the garrison" and according to Walsingham, perhaps having stolen money and treasures from the Prince.

I sometimes wonder if Worcester had hoped to or tried to abduct Hal to serve as a hostage against Henry - or perhaps hoped to get him to defect to their side.

And can you imagine this poor 16-year-old kid discovering his guardian just abandoned him to join a rebellion against his father and the city's about to be under siege and his dad's nowhere in sight and a lot of the garrison's troops are gone? And he's in charge?

[heartofstanding]

So I've going through the Calendar of Patent Letters for Henry IV's reign and have made a few "discoveries".

I was looking mainly at the second volume which covers 1402-1405 - in other words, the Shrewsbury years. Most entries relating to Hal post-Shrewsbury that were more or less the same as those I already posted about so I won't rehash them: the direction for others to govern the marches of Wales because the prince cannot attend to it, an order for Hal to punish all rebels etc. Once again, the silence on Hal's face hole is quite striking and there's little direct evidence about Hal and his face hole.

But this was interesting:

[transcript: 1403 Sept 1. Westminster. Licence for the king's son Thomas de Lancastre, steward of England, the king's lieutenant in Ireland, to appoint a sufficient deputy to do everything pertaining to the office of lieutenant in Ireland in his absence, according to the tenour of certain indentures between him and the king. By K. & C.]

So 1 September 1403, Henry sends Thomas permission to appoint a deputy to cover for him during his absence. I previously wondered if Thomas's return to England in November 1403 was related, at least in part, to Hal's wound but also doubted this was the case since it came four months after Hal's wounding. But this indicates that, less than two months after the battle, there was a move to recall Thomas. It's possible that this was no more than a coincidence but it's still very interesting. Preparations for his return to Ireland didn't really get underway until October next year though he didn't return to Ireland until 1408.

(Another thing: Thomas is almost uniformly referred to as “Thomas de Lancastre [titles]” whereas Hal is “Henry, Prince of Wales [etc.]” and John and Humphrey are just John and Humphrey and their titles, if they have them.)

This is also interesting in the context of this entry, 9 days later:

[transcript: [1403. Sept 10. Worcester. Grant, during pleasure, to the king's son John of the office of the constableship of England with the fees, wages, liberties, franchises, profits, amoluments and commodities belonging to it [Foedera.] By K.]

The office of Constable of England had been held by the Earl of Northumberland and he had been stripped of it in the wake of the Percy rebellion so it’s unlikely this appointment was directly impacted by Hal’s wound. Instead, it’s more likely John was appointed because he, at 14, was considered old enough to begin to take on new responsibilities and with Henry’s two eldest sons were already (nominally, if not in practice) in charge of Wales and Ireland, John was the obvious choice.  It is tempting, though, to read it as Henry granting John new responsibilities and duties in case he was needed to step up in the event of Hal's death.

It seems Hal had begun to be more active by November 1403, as witnessed by these two entries:

[transcript: [1403] Nov. 8. Cirencester. Pardon, at the supplication of the king's son Henry, prince of Wales and earl of Chester, and for a fine of 8,000 marks to be paid by them at Chester within three years after Christmas next, to all the king's lieges of the county of Chester, except the mayor and commonality of the city of Chester, for all treasons, insurrections, rebellions, and felonies committed by them with Henry Percy 'le filz,', now deceased, and other rebels ; and pardon to them of all forfeitures of their lands and goods, except offices, fees and annuities held for life and goods acquired since the beginning of the rebellion ; and grant that the heirs and executors of such persons deceased shall likewise have all their lands and goods which have not been granted to others by the king. By K.]

So by early November, Hal was recovered enough to petition his father. It's not clear whether Hal was physically present at this moment or whether Henry responded to a letter and/or representatives from his son. It might be that like the earlier orders for Hal to pursue rebels (discussed in the other post), that this petition and pardon was done in Hal's name to maintain the fiction that all was well with the Prince of Wales. But in November, Hal may well have recuperated enough that he could respond to requests for his intervention and petition his father, particularly if he was doing so via a representative or letter.

Plus it may have been a distraction for him, giving him something to do other than healing and dealing with any pain (as I said in the other post, we don’t know when Bradmore operated or when he first came to see Hal.)

But he also did this:

[transcript: 1403. Nov. 12. Westminster. Inspeximus and confirmation to the stannary men of the country of Devon, at the request of the king's son Henry, prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, of letters patent dated 12 November, 17 Edward III, being an exemplification of a charter dated at Stanhope, 6 August, 1 Edward III [Charter Roll, 1, Edward III, No. 26], inspecting and confirming a charter dated at York, 14 August, 4 Edward II [Charter Roll, 4, Edward II, No. 551], inspecting and confirming a charter dated at Westminster, 10 April 33 Edward I. [Charter Roll, 33 Edward I, No. 40.] By K.]

So Hal is asking for the examination of letters patent and various charter rolls. And we do find out what Hal was looking for. In 1404 we have more entries, citing letters patent (they're not the same letters patent as cited but I'm not sure if that's the error of their 1905 transcriber/translator, the clerk who recorded the above entry in 1403 or whether Hal (/his attorney) had the wrong reference.

It seems Hal started this as a way to get more money/lands from his estates:

[transcript: July 15. Westminster. Revocation of divers letters patent of Richard II granting to his knight Lewis de Clifford the manor of Meere for life; as at the suit of the king's firstborn son, Henry, prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, claiming that the manor was annexed to the duchy of Cornwall by pretext of a charter dated 17 March, 11 Edward III, the king directed the sheriff of Wilts to summon the said Lewis to appear before him in Chancery at a certain date now past to show cause why the letters should not be revoked, and the sheriff returned that he summoned him by John Davy and Walter Forde but he did not appear and judgement was given against him.]

[transcript: Dec. 21. Westminster. Revocation of letters patent of Richard II granting for life to John Chancy the fee-farm of the town of Grauntpount, co. Cornwall, extended at 12l. 11s. 4d. yearly; as on the petition of the king's firstborn son Henry, Prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, alleging that the said fee-farm pertained to the manor of Tybeste, co. Cornwall, annexed to the duchy of Cornwall by a charter dated 17 March, 11 Edward III, the king directed the sheriff of Cornwall to summon the said John to appear before him in Chancery at a certain date now past to show cause why the letters should not be revoked and the fee-farm delivered to the prince, and the sheriff returned that he summoned him by John Bartha and John Godman, but he did not appear and judgement was given against him.]

[transcript: Dec. 21. Westminster. Revocation of letters patent (see Vol. I, p. 68) granting for life to Philip de Courtenay and Anne his wife the manor of Dertemore with all profits of the forest of Dertemore and the herbage of the forest and the borough and manor of Bradenassh; as on the petition of the king's firstborn son Henry, Prince of Wales and duke of Cornwall, alleging that the premises pertained the duchy of Cornwall by pretext of charter dated 17 March, 11 Edward III, the king directed the sheriff [of Devon] to summon the said Philip and Anne to appear before him in Chancery at a certain date now past to show cause why the letters should not be revoked and the premises delivered to the prince, and the sheriff returned that he summoned them by John Wele, John Basset, John Rok and John Crewele, and they appeared by William by William Halle, their attorney and the prince by John Mapilton, his attorney, and judgement was given against them.]

Damn. Boy really said, “I’ve survived being shot in the face and painful surgery to get the arrowhead out, I know what will make me feel better: money.”

It’s kind of weird to imagine this being his main priority after his injury but I suppose the business of running a medieval household and paying for it doesn’t stop and this, at least, would probably be easier to deal with while convalescing than chasing down rebels or whatever.

I don’t think this has been discussed before (Anne Curry’s study of his finances in Henry V: New Interpretations stops at 1400) and I don’t have the skill set to check things out so I don’t know if he was (technically) correct in pursuing this or if the judgements rightly favoured him or not. I am suspicious, though, since it was found in his favour and in the first two cases, they didn’t appear to fight (which might suggest they knew the case had a foregone conclusion or they had been prevented from showing up so they couldn’t fight). Certainly, these were all people with lesser resources than him so whether he was technically in the right, he... was a dick in pursuing them anyway. On the other hand, the financial situation in Wales was dire and he was most likely fully aware of this so maybe this was pursued for more understandable reasons. Having said that, I doubt this would have garnered him a sizeable amount of cash - comparatively, half a drop in the ocean. It is interesting to wonder if this is a forerunner to him going after Joan of Navarre's money though that might be a more complex issue than generally suspected (Elena Woodacre talked about this in her biography of Joan and points out that there seems to have been a rise of suspicion and xenophobia linked to Joan’s Breton household; I suspect there were probably multiple reasons rather that one, nice simple explanation.)

On a different note, Philip and Anne de Courtenay were Richard Courtenay's parents! It’s not clear when Richard Courtenay and Hal first met and when they became friends but they do seem to have known each other by the end of 1403 (Richard Ullerston wrote De officio militari for Hal in either 1402 or by advent 1403; it’s been suggested that they both met in the court of Richard II however so their association might have been longer still). So he was possibly fleecing his BFF’s parents (which would have impacted Courtenay since he would have presumably inherited his parents’ properties afterwards). Or maybe Courtenay was supportive of Hal's attempt to fleece his parents (I have complicated thoughts about Courtenay's relationship with his father for which there is no real evidence for).

One final entry that gives me Feels is from November 1404:

[transcript: Nov. 23. Westminster. Commission to Richard Arunddell, 'chivaler,' and Richard Redeman 'chivaler,' to take muster of all men at arms, armed men and archers going in the company of the king's sons Henry, prince of Wales, and Thomas on the king's service to Wales for the rescue of the lord [of] Cotyf (Coety Castle in Glamorgan), besieged by the rebels, and to certify thereon to the king.]

So I'm pretty sure I knew about this in the recesses of my mind somewhere but also putting it in the context of Thomas's horrible, no good, very bad time in Ireland and a year on from Hal's face-hole makes my monkey brain desire a story about this campaign and how they're trying to deal with their trauma (I should probably post the letter Thomas sent to their father back in 1402 because it's the epitome of "dad come pick me up, I'm scared") and also having to get back to "normal life" (military campaigns) for them both.

I also would be very interested in a study of the Welsh wars because mainly it's treated as background for Henry IV and Henry V's lives and reigns but not really given in detail or it's focused entirely on Owain Glyn Dwr and doesn't really talk about the English responses in detail (which, you know, is good! It’s just not particularly useful for me to flesh out Hal’s time in Wales).

There is, surprisingly, a bit about Mary de Bohun with some very exciting (!!!) finds. Most of what’s there is just orders for her anniversary to be celebrated but one of them actually gives the date of her anniversary.

[transcript: [1401. March 10. Westminster. Inspeximus and confirmation to William, the abbot, and the monks of St. Mary Graces by the Tower of London of letters patent dated 13 March 1 Henry IV ; and grant to them of the possesions there mentioned in frank almoin from the day of forfeiture of John de Holand, earl of Huntyngton, notwithstanding that they are worth more than 200 marks yearly and that no mention is made to other grants to them, and grant that if they are expelled from the same they shall have 110 marks yearly at the Exchequer. In return the abbot and convent have  granted certain chantries, anniversaries and obits, as appears by their writing dated at their chapter house, Christmas 2 Henry IV as follows:- They will celebrate the anniversary of Dame Mary, late countess of Derby and consort of the king, and her name shall be written in their martyrology and every year preceding the anniversary, viz. on 1 July, her name shall be read in the chapter and her soul absolved by the abbot or president with psalms and collects for the dead and ringing of bells as is customary in the order for founders and abbots and the office of the dead, viz. placebo and dirige with music and all other solemnity, shall be sung in the choir by the abbot and convent with chaplains and four singers in the more noble vestments of the monastery, and on the day of the anniversary a mass of the Virgin with music and other solemn requiem mass shall be celebrated by the abbot, prior or president at the high altar with candles lit and the altar prepared as at Christmas. They will also celebrate the anniversary of John, late duke of Lancaster, father of the king, on 3 February every year as above, and requiem mass with a special collect, vis.:- omnipotens Domine pro tua peitate miserere anime famule tue etc. shall be celebrated daily by a monk at the altar of St. Katharine in the church of the abbey for the soul of the said Mary, and in every mass said by any monk there shall be memory with certain collects for the good estate of the king while he is alive and for his soul after death the special collect Inclina Domine aurem tuam ut animam famuli tui regis Henrici etc. shall be said, and on the day of his death his anniversary shall be celebrated as above.]

So. This is exciting because there’s some confusion about when Mary did die - the best indicator has been that she was buried on 6 July 1394. The ODNB says that her anniversary was celebrated on 4 July in 1406 but it has been considered that this is unlikely because there wouldn’t be enough time between her death and her burial. Some historians give her death as 4 June, probably because they believe July was written down in mistaken from June (which may or may not be supported by the fact that Walsingham lists her death as occurring between Constanza of Castile (24 March 1394) and Anne of Bohemia (7 June 1394). But the Letters Patent gives it as 1 July. Of course without a second source to back it up (and may have been written down incorrectly or transcribed incorrectly), it’s just an alternative to the 4 June/July date. I’ve never really liked 4 June or 4 July date so I’m happy going forward with the 1 July date.

As an added bonus, while we don’t know whether Mary giving birth or afterwards from complications in childbirth, this might well be Philippa’s birthday.

[mea-gloria-fides]

Arms of The Right Honourable Thomas Percy, 1st Earl of Worcester, sometime Admiral of the Northern Seas and Admiral of the Kings Fleet in Ireland

[miniaturetoyknights]

Ping

Sir Henry Percy, by the late Freddie Ping. Britains model number #1663 used as the basis for the conversion.

Sir Henry Percy (1364-1403), commonly known as Sir Harry Hotspur, or simply Hotspur, was a late-medieval English nobleman and featured prominently in the Anglo-Scottish wars. Born the eldest son of Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, and Margaret Neville, daughter of Ralph de Neville, 2nd Lord Neville of Raby.

Knighted by King Edward III in 1377.As tribute to his speed in advance and readiness to attack on the Scottish borders, the Scots bestowed on him the name ‘ Haatspore’. Made Knight of the Garter in 1388. His service to the crown brought him substantial marks of royal favour in the form of grants and appointments, but despite this the Percy family decided to support Henry Bolinbroke, the future King Henry IV, in his rebellion against Richard II.

Despite many favours shown to the Percy’s by King Henry IV, they became increasingly discontent with him and finally rebelled in the summer of 1403 and took up arms against the King. Joined by his uncle, Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester. The ensuing Battle of Shrewsbury brought both sides together in battle. Hotspur was killed, legend has it by the Prince of Wales. Subsequently declared a traitor his lands were forfeited.

Percy arms.

[cynthiabryanuk]

10 Top-Rated Riverside Holidays In The UK

If you could do with a relaxing stay in a beautiful setting, a riverside holiday could be just what you’re looking for. The British Isles are criss-crossed with rivers and waterways, meandering their way through idyllic countryside and charming market towns. We’ve searched the length and breadth of the UK to find the 10 most highly-rated riverside locations for a holiday.

The UK’s best river holidays

And there’s no better way to take in all this natural beauty than from a rural holiday home. Spend your days enjoying all the scenery and riverside activities the water has to offer and your evenings relaxing in your rental. From cosy cottages to expansive manor houses, you’ll find so much choice on Holiday Lettings, with reviews from fellow travellers to rely on. Take a look at our top 10 riverside holidays and start planning your own escape.

#10 Newton Stewart

This small market town on the banks of the River Cree was named after its founder, William Stewart, son of the Earl of Galloway. Famous for its fantastic salmon and trout fishing, the town is ideal if you’re looking for a relaxing fishing break. It’s also a firm favourite for hill-walkers and mountain-bikers, as the nearby Galloway Forest Park has some of the most stunning scenery in the south of Scotland.

If you love wildlife, you’re in the right place! Red deer, red squirrels, woodpeckers, stoats and wild goats are just some of the amazing animals to encounter in Newton Stewart. Be sure to pack a camera as you won’t want to forget a moment of your riverside holiday in this scenic area.

View rentals in Newton Stewart

#9 Ipswich

This elegant waterfront town boasts fantastic cultural events, arts festivals, live music and food and drink, all surrounded by beautiful Suffolk countryside. Take a romantic stroll along the water’s edge before enjoying an evening meal with a view of the harbour. Board one of Ipswich’s sailing barges and drift along the River Orwell or take in a show at the New Wolsey Theatre.

If you’re interested in Ipswich’s maritime history, spend the day at The Old Custom House and the Window Museum. Or if art gets your pulse racing, admire the finest collection of Thomas Gainsborough and John Constable paintings outside of London at Christchurch Mansion.

Browse holiday rentals in Ipswich

#8 Llandovery

Not only is this charming Welsh town a great base for enjoying the Brecon Beacons, it’s also fantastic if you’re looking for a riverside stay near romantic restaurants, quaint cafes and independent shops. The area is known for its outdoor activities, including mountain biking, fishing and walking. If you love wildlife, spend the day at the nearby Dinas RSPB Nature Reserve with its peaceful woodland, river area and boardwalk.

Other highlights include exploring the hilltop ruins of Llandovery Castle, taking a stroll along the River Bran, and joining in with the fun at the Llandovery Sheep Festival. This brilliantly baa-rmy event is held every September and you might even see sheep racing in the street!

Take a look at Llandovery holiday homes

#7 Fordingbridge

This small country town on the banks of the River Avon was once a centre for commerce and industry boasting many trades such as brickmaking, pottery and textiles. It was also noted for its smuggling and the infamous Captain Diamond, the `Smuggler King’, spent much of his time here. Today, Fordingbridge is known for its beautiful scenery and excellent walking and cycling routes.

There’s a raft of things to do here on a riverside holiday. Visit the Fordingbridge Museum to discover more about the history of the town, spend a leisurely day fishing at Riverside Park or enjoy a family day out at one of the many children’s play areas, secluded gardens and parks. At the end of a busy day, head back to your private rental where you can tuck into a relaxed family supper.

Find your perfect stay in Fordingbridge

#6 Worcester

The city is famous for its fine porcelain and spicy sauce, but there’s much more to Worcester that’s just waiting to be uncovered. The last battle of the English Civil War took place here, and you can find out more about the Cavaliers and the Roundheads at Worcester Civil War Museum. For more history, head to Worcester’s oldest street where you’ll find the Tudor House Museum – a 16th-century building where you can discover how the people of Worcester lived in days of yore.

Visit the Diglis Basin for a picturesque waterside walk, with its swans, ducks and other wildlife.  And, of course, Worcester’s medieval Cathedral is a must-see. So, if you’re looking for a riverside stay in a charming cathedral city, Worcester is sure to float your boat.

Whisk yourself away to Worcester

#5 Huddersfield

If you’re planning on taking the train to reach your riverside rental in Huddersfield, you’re in for a treat. The station is a Grade I listed building and it was described by John Betjeman as, “the most splendid station façade in England”, and the state-of-the-art station at St George’s Square won the Europa Nostra award for European architecture. This is the theme for the rest of this town’s architecture: beautiful Victorian buildings sit happily alongside award-winning modern structures.

When you’re not simply strolling around and admiring the view, you’ll find plenty to keep you entertained in Huddersfield. Hire a bike and cycle along riverside paths in the Calder Valley, board the Kirklees Light Railway for a scenic trip through the south Pennine foothills, admire some art at Yorkshire Sculpture Park and much, much more.

View all Huddersfield holiday homes

#4 Bridgnorth

The charming riverside town of Bridgnorth is split into Low Town, on the edge of the River Severn, and High Town, which is overlooked by the remains of Bridgnorth Castle. Both areas are connected by the Bridgnorth Cliff Railway (one of England’s oldest and steepest funiculars) which makes exploring easy and fun. Also in High Town you’ll find the beautiful Mary Magdalene church, the 17th-century Bridgnorth Town Hall and many other historic buildings, such as Bishop Percy’s House – all are well worth a visit!

Board a raft-cruise for a unique way to see Bridgnorth from the river, or pack up a picnic and take a walk through picturesque countryside to see Daniels Mill, the largest working water mill in England. After a stay in Bridgnorth, you’ll be looking for more river holidays as soon as you get home!

Book a riverside break in Bridgnorth

#3 Omagh

Omagh in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland, is a great choice if you’re looking for a river holiday in the Emerald Isle. Why not begin by finding out more about the history of the area? Visit Ulster Folk Park where you can learn how the journey for some of Ireland’s emigrants began and how their pioneering spirit led them to many parts of the world. Step aboard a full size sailing ship to discover how they travelled to the American frontier.  

If you want to explore the great outdoors, Gortin Glen Forest Park has a wealth of flora and fauna to admire. And of course, a visit to Omagh wouldn’t be complete without a romantic stroll along the banks of the River Drumragh.

Plan a visit to Omagh

#2 Tiverton

There’s a rich history to discover when you visit this Devonshire town. Visit the beautiful Tiverton Castle and the 11th-century Bickleigh Castle with moated gardens, explore the medieval interiors at the Gothic Revival house, Knightshayes Court, or spend the day at the award-winning Tiverton Museum of Mid Devon Life, with its 14 galleries of exhibits.

For a relaxing day out by the river, take a picnic to the banks of the Exe where you can spot wildlife, such as dragonflies, mallards and moorhens. If you enjoy canal boat holidays, the Grand Western Canal with its 24 bridges along an 11-mile stretch is just on the outskirts of the town.

See all stays in Tiverton

#1 Ross-on-Wye

With so much to do on and around the river, it’s no surprise that the pretty market town of Ross-on-Wye has come out on top. From canoeing and kayaking to raft-building and caving, messing about on the river has never been this much fun!

There’s no shortage of things to do on dry land, either. Immerse yourself in history at Goodrich Castle, try some craft beers at Hillside Brewery or, if you’re feeling competitive, challenge the family to a few rounds at Wye Valley Miniature Golf. With so much to see and do, Ross-on-Wye is likely to become a firm favourite for a riverside holiday.

Discover charming rentals in Ross-on-Wye

The post 10 Top-Rated Riverside Holidays In The UK appeared first on Holiday Lettings Blog.

from News And Tips For Traveling https://blog.holidaylettings.co.uk/top-rated-uk-riverside-holidays/

[une-sanz-pluis]

The 1403 rebellion bears the hallmarks of a rash and reckless act on the part of Hotspur. Before the rebellion itself, Percy's dream of establishing his Anglo-Scottish lordship was for the first time a real possibility and it is difficult to imagine that the old campaigner would abandon that for which he had consistently worked over several decades, to suddenly attack his king. Yes, he had helped remove Richard II from the throne, but the situations were radically different. In 1399, Percy had been part of a broadly based coalition moving with great force and purpose against a massively unpopular monarch who was no great friend of the Percy family. In 1403 however, the forces that met Henry at Shrewsbury were a hastily cobbled together,`ramshackle' army drawn almost exclusively from one county, and whose allegiance was based upon the lie that Richard II was about to return. The rebellion was the brainchild of Hotspur. It is difficult to imagine Percy planning, or even approving of, such a scheme. In the summer of 1403, he had far too much to lose. Hotspur did as well, but he seemed not to have recognised that fact. That the 1403 rebellion was Hotspur's scheme also accounted for the frankly bizarre timing of Percy's movement south. If he had stayed in the north as part of the plan for the rebellion, in order to guard the marches, as has been suggested, then why wander down into Yorkshire some days after the battle had taken place? If the campaign had been well planned, one would expect that Percy would have either stayed in the north to guard the march, or moved south at the same time as Hotspur in order to support his forces, and not simply get caught in between. Hotspur's movement south was reminiscent in its recklessness of his actions at Otterburn, and the late movement south by Percy suggested that he, as well as the king, had been taken by surprise by his own son's actions.

Kris Towson, "Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland: ambition, conflict and cooperation in late mediaeval England" (PhD thesis, 2005)

[une-sanz-pluis]

Hotspur and Worcester dead, the earl humiliated and isolated, the disaster was complete for Percy and his family. In just a few years they had fallen from the very heights of power to the depths of dishonour and disgrace, and all for no good reason. Henry was not trying to supplant the Percies with the Nevilles, or for that matter with anyone else. Nor was the king deliberately withholding payment from Percy and Hotspur. On the contrary, he was at times quite anxious that they be paid as soon as possible. By the spring of 1403 Henry was ready to make substantial concessions to the Percies, in the form of the grant of the Douglas lands and a relaxation of his claims to the Homildon prisoners, in an attempt to in back the trust of his most important northern magnates. Yet this still was not enough to placate the Percies.

Kris Towson, "Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland: ambition, conflict and cooperation in late mediaeval England" (PhD thesis, 2005)

[une-sanz-pluis]

Why then did Thomas [Percy, Earl of Worcester] rebel in 1403? As has been shown above, there is no obvious reason to suspect that he was at odds with the king prior to the rebellion. However, it cannot be ignored that Walsingham condemned Thomas and asserted that it was through his `perversion' of negotiations that the battle of Shrewsbury occurred at all. As mentioned above, Thomas did not hold a significant portion of the Percy inheritance, a fact that led him to pursue a career of royal service that was not largely concerned with his family's landed interests. While this may have made him less likely than his brother or nephew to support Bolingbroke in 1399, it conversely may have also made him more likely to rebel in 1403. He had no heirs and therefore had less to lose through rebellion than either Hotspur or Percy. By rebelling, Hotspur risked not only his own life, but also his family's legacy and the future of his son. The very same considerations that led him to support the revolution of 1399 may well have acted as restraints in 1403. Could fears over his son's future have made Hotspur more amenable to negotiation with the king at Shrewsbury? This would certainly fit in with Walsingham's account of events before the battle. Having joined his nephew in rebellion, Thomas came to the same realization that his brother had in 1399: to raise arms against the king allowed for no half-measures. Having taken the decision to rebel, he did what he could to ensure that a final showdown with Henry took place. But that is not to say that Hotspur was not the original driving force behind the rebellion. It was he who had been fiercely at odds with the king, and it was he who stirred discord and raised support in Cheshire, recruited Douglas to his cause, and ultimately led the charge on the day of the battle.

Kris Towson, "Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland: ambition, conflict and cooperation in late mediaeval England" (PhD thesis, 2005)

[une-sanz-pluis]

These two traditions of service - with the crown and with the house of Lancaster - placed Thomas [Percy, Earl of Worcester] in the most awkward of situations in 1399. Faced with a choice between remaining loyal to his king in the face of wholesale desertions, and supporting the son of his old comrade Gaunt, Thomas acquitted himself well, remaining loyal to the king until Richard himself fled, leaving his army leaderless near Carmarthen. Although criticised by some for abandoning his duty by disbanding the royal army, Walsingham's account was much kinder and probably more fair to Thomas. He presented an image of a downcast Thomas reluctantly disbanding the army while thanking them for their service, then breaking his steward's rod, `weeping bitterly, for he had never wished to perform such an unwelcome task.' It is not difficult to accept this as an accurate account of Thomas' actions. First, as a long-time loyal servant to the crown who owed so very much to Richard, he must have been deeply saddened by recent events, and as one who had built his reputation and his career on the loyal fulfilment of duty, he would only have abandoned his responsibilities under duress. Secondly, he must have been genuinely concerned at his own prospects should Richard lose power to Henry. He had, after all been less than vocal in opposition to Richard's revenge against the appellants in 1397, and the simple fact of his elevation to an earldom so soon after Richard's coup tainted him in the eyes of many of Richard's enemies as being guilty by association with Richard and his favourites.

Kris Towson, "Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland: ambition, conflict and cooperation in late mediaeval England" (PhD thesis, 2005)

[une-sanz-pluis]

Despite the quarrels, there is no evidence that Henry IV was actively hostile; and their disagreements with him had not inflicted any real damage on their family fortunes. There are clear indications that their rebellion, when it broke out, took the King by surprise. Indeed, one of the King’s actions, within four months of the rebellion, suggests that he was still keen to retain the Percies' friendship and still ready to increase their power. On 2 March 1403 he granted to the Earl of Northumberland and his heirs a great tract of territory, covering the greater part of southern Scotland which had just been annexed to the English Crown. It is true that these lands still had to be conquered; but the grant gave the Percies claims which had been their leading territorial ambition throughout the previous century and made them supreme in the north, even over the house of Neville. The fact that the Percies received this grant suggests that their earlier personal quarrels with Henry IV cannot adequately explain their rebellion.

J. M. W. Bean, "Henry IV and the Percies", History, Vol. 44, No. 152 (1959)

[une-sanz-pluis]

Historians who have attempted to explain the Percies’ motives in this rebellion have stressed several reasons for their hostility to Henry IV - delays in the payment of March revenues, jealousy of the growing power of the house of Neville, Henry IV’s refusal to allow them to ransom the Scottish prisoners captured at Humbledon Hill and their kinsman Sir Edmund Mortimer who was the prisoner of Owen Glendower. The fact that the Percies were the wholehearted supporters of Henry IV in 1399 and gained considerably from his accession makes it essential that we re-examine the motives which lay behind their rebellion in 1403. Each of the grievances we have mentioned deserves careful attention, but none of them can in itself be regarded as a cause of the breach between Henry IV and the Percies: rather, they form a history of deteriorating personal relationships which was one of several factors in deciding the Percies to rebel

J. M. W. Bean, "Henry IV and the Percies", History, Vol. 44, No. 152 (1959)

[une-sanz-pluis]

J. M. W. Bean, "Henry IV and the Percies", History, Vol. 44, No. 152 (1959)

[une-sanz-pluis]

… a study of the other chronicles of the period tends to discredit the Percies’ story: they certainly yield no trace of support for it. It is contradicted by the narrative of Adam of Usk who tells how a commission, of which he himself was a member, was appointed to report on the best means of substituting Henry for Richard. According to the Chronicque de la Traison et Mort de Richart Deux - a good authority for events in London - it was Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, who stepped forward in parliament and cried ‘Long live Henry of Lancaster, King of England’. The same author states that the Earl of Northumberland was amongst the lords who urged Henry to put Richard to death when, a few months later, a rebellion in his favour occurred. Moreover, we have seen that we must accept the story, told by both Creton and the Dieulacres chronicler, that the Earl of Northumberland tricked Richard into giving himself up. It is difficult to believe that he undertook and executed the task of securing Richard’s person without ensuring that he knew Lancaster’s intentions. Nor can any evidence - apart from the manifesto and Hardyng - be discovered to support the idea that the Percies had in September 1399 pressed the claims of their kinsman, the young Earl of March. Certain facts, indeed, provide strong reasons for believing that this did not occur. On 17 November 1399 Henry IV granted to five persons, of whom the Earl of Northumberland and Hotspur were two, the farm of the greater part of the Mortimer estates during the minority of the Earl of March. On 1 October 1401 the farm was transferred to the Earl a10ne.de In November 1401, when some of Hotspur’s interests in North Wales were transferred to the Prince of Wales, the former was recompensed with grants of Mortimer estates. Had the Percies already espoused the claims of March, it is highly unlikely that Henry IV would have provided them with such opportunities to make contact with other sympathizers of the house of Mortimer.

J. M. W. Bean, "Henry IV and the Percies", History, Vol. 44, No. 152 (1959)

[une-sanz-pluis]

J. M. W. Bean, "Henry IV and the Percies", History, Vol. 44, No. 152 (1959)

[une-sanz-pluis]

In all of Thomas' actions following the revolution of 1399, and in all of Henry's actions towards the earl of Worcester, there was not the slightest hint of what was to come in the summer of 1403. Thomas had been entrusted with the most sensitive of negotiations with the French, he enjoyed several positions of responsibility - internationally, nationally and regionally as well as within the royal household itself - and he was even given the honour of escorting his king's new bride on her journey to England. If, as has been suggested in the past, Henry had grown suspicious of the Percies in general and of Thomas in particular, entrusting him with the safety of his wife and with the very upbringing of his son was a truly bizarre and misguided expression of that mistrust, as was his installation as lieutenant in the vital region of South Wales. As early as December 1401, Thomas had been involved in the region, being named at that time on a commission of oyer et terminer. His activities in Wales were widespread - commissions of oyer et terminer, and of array, and commissions to see to the repair and recovery of an abbey destroyed by rebels.

Kris Towson, "Henry Percy, first earl of Northumberland: ambition, conflict and cooperation in late mediaeval England" (PhD thesis, 2005)

[une-sanz-pluis]

For a more convincing assessment of the Percies’ motives we must turn to some of the contemporary chroniclers. It is significant that Adam of Usk states that, as a result of their victory at Humbledon Hill, the Percies became ‘too much puffed up’. The chronicler of Dieulacres in his description of the negotiations on the eve of Shrewsbury tells how Henry IV accused the Percies of themselves having ambitions on the Crown: once successful, they intended to get rid of the Mortimers, ‘and then crown Hotspur or his son, using the hereditary right which belonged to Hotspur’s wife. Even if we regard this suggestion as farfetched in the context of 1403, it nevertheless reveals a contemporary reaction to the Percies’ ambitions. According to the Annales Henrici Quarti, at a critical moment in the Battle of Shrewsbury Hotspur’s troops cried out ‘Henry Percy King’. The author of the chronicle printed by J. A. Giles states that Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, desired the King’s death ‘so that he might be better governed under his kinsman’. In all these accounts there is a common element: the Percies definitely desired to control the Crown and were suspected of seeking to secure it for themselves. On these grounds the Percies’ rebellion of 1403 is best explained as a further effort at kingmaking. It had now become clear to them that Henry IV was not the complaisant and easily dominated creature they had hoped for: their disagreements with him suggested that they could no longer rely on his friendship. Despite the considerable gains they had made in March 1403, they thought it necessary to secure a monarch who would readily allow them to keep the gains and power they already possessed and from whom they could expect still further rewards. The young Mortimer’s claim - if successful-would place the government in the hands of his relatives - his uncle by blood, Sir Edmund Mortimer, and the Percies, of whom Hotspur was an uncle by marriage. Where the Percies intended to proceed from there we cannot say ... The Percies' advocacy of Mortimer’s claims forced them to put forth a story of Henry IV’s accession which completely distorted the part they had played in it.

J. M. W. Bean, "Henry IV and the Percies", History, Vol. 44, No. 152 (1959)