une-sanz-pluis - Tumblr blog

une-sanz-pluis · 5 days ago

Text

It's a day ending in Y so once again I am thinking about Richard Courtenay and the way that Henry V marked his death, specifically the fact of where Henry had Courtenay had buried and the fact that his deathbed tending of Courtenay is recorded in the Gesta Henrici Quinti.

Burial Amongst The Kings and Queens.

Richard Courtenay is buried in the chapel of St. Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey that effectively served as a royal mausoleum. With a few exceptions, every king from Edward I to Henry VI sought burial in this chapel for themselves and at least one of their queens (Edward II and Henry IV are the exceptions, though Edward may have chosen to be buried in St. Edward's chapel had he not been deposed). The few burials outside of this were, by the late medieval period, limited to the children of kings, such as Thomas of Woodstock (the youngest son of Edward III), Margaret of York and Elizabeth Tudor (the daughters of Edward IV and Henry VII respectively). Henry VI struggled to find space for his own tomb in the chapel - he was ultimately buried elsewhere due to his deposition - and he was the last king to choose burial there, with Edward IV opting for burial in St. George's Chapel at Windsor and Henry VII renovating the Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey to serve as a new royal mausoleum.

Courtenay was of noble birth - the grandson of the Earl of Devon, a great-great grandson of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile - and he could claim kinship with Henry V through their shared de Bohun ancestry. But he was far down the ladder from the royalty buried there, and had no close kin ties with the royals buried there.

The cathedrals at Exeter and Norwich would have been the most obvious options for Courtenay's burial. Courtenay, after all, belonged to a prominent Devon family and was the Bishop of Norwich. Burial in the other chapels of Westminster Abbey, while somewhat unusual, would also be appropriate. Instead, Henry V chose to bury Courtenay in St. Edward's chapel, where kings and queens and some of their children were buried. It is a rather extraordinary choice.

Henry's choice also looks all the more extraordinary considered in the context of the burial of John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury in the same chapel. This was done on the order of Richard II, apparently on his own whim. It was contrary to the wishes of Waltham, who wanted to be buried in Salisbury Cathedral, and contrary to the will of the monks at Westminster, who did not think it was appropriate for a man of Waltham's low birth and status to be buried in St. Edward's chapel. According to Walsingham, it was a scandal and Richard had to appease the anger of the monks by donating vestments and a large sum of money to the abbey. Therefore, Henry, would have had a clear idea of how burying Courtenay in St. Edward's chapel could anger the monks and cause a scandal. Yet he persisted in his choice. He wanted Courtenay buried there, regardless of the potential backlash.

There is the possibility that three factors made all the difference. The first is that Courtenay was of noble birth while Waltham was a commoner - though, as I said, he was of significantly lower stock than everyone else but Waltham buried in the chapel. The second is that Courtenay's grave apparently had no marker, while Waltham's was marked with a brass, making Courtenay's grave virtually invisible and unobtrusive in the chapel. The third factor is that the actions of Henry V and Richard II have been held to different standards due to their reputations and styles of kingship.

Henry may have made concessions in effort to avoid angering the monks and to avoid scandal - such as the lack of grave marker for Courtenay, making his burial unobtrusive - but he can't have known that these concessions would be apparently successful, or that his own reputation as king would be what it was. It isn't clear when Courtenay's body was sent from Harfleur for burial but was before the Battle of Agincourt and perhaps before Henry had won Harfleur. In other words, Henry had won no great victory when he made the decision.

(I say "apparently was successful" because while there is no evidence of a scandal, it is possible that it went unrecorded.)

All that being said, the fact that Henry chose to bury Courtenay in St Edward's chapel is astonishing. He wanted Courtenay buried there and he was prepared to risk scandal to see it done.

Why?

He wanted Courtenay's body to lie close to his own body. Pursued to the natural conclusion, he believed that when the Last Judgement came and the dead were raised from their graves, Courtenay would rise with him. He wanted Courtenay to be one of his companions in at the ending of the world. All of this suggests he not only held Courtenay in great esteem but regarded him with great affection.

n.b. Henry was unmarried at the time of Courtenay's death so he did not "choose" burial with Courtenay over burial with Catherine of Valois. At the time of his death, he made no instructions or plans for Catherine's burial. It's possible that he imagined in 1415 that whoever he married would be buried beside him (Courtenay's grave is the closest grave to Henry's own but they are not in the same tomb or side-by-side) and in 1422, believed that Catherine should choose her own burial place, or would have remarried and her widower would choose her burial place.

Corpse-touching.

The best record of Courtenay's death is found in the Gesta Henrici Quinti. This is what it says:

And after these operations and the anxieties occasioned by the enemy, a just and merciful God, wishing to test the patience of our king and His anointed, as well by the deaths of several other noble men in his army touched him deeply by the death of one of the most loving and dearest of his friends, namely, the lord Richard Courtenay, bishop of Norwich. He, a man of noble birth, imposing stature, and superior intelligence, distinguished no less for his gifts of great eloquence and learning than for other noble endowments of nature, was regarded as agreeable above all others to the members of the king’s retinue and councils. He fell ill with dysentery on Tuesday, 10 September, and on the following Sunday, in the presence of the king who, after extreme unction, with his own hands wiped his feet and closed his eyes, released his soul from its prison to the bitter and tearful grief of many. Out of a most tender love, our king at once had his body sent across to England to be buried with honour among the royal tombs of Westminster.

I can't recall any positive stories of kings handling the bodies of their dying or dead friends like this. There might be analogues in medieval literature but my knowledge isn't complete enough to find one. The closet parallel to other medieval kings is the story that Richard II touched the corpse of his favourite, Robert de Vere, upon its return to England.

Walsingham recorded that:

[Richard] looked long at the face [of de Vere] and touched it with his finger, publicly showing to Robert, when dead, the affection which he had shown him previously, when alive.

Given the narrative that Richard and de Vere shared an "obscene familiarity" and were possibly lovers, this raises the potential for queer and/or homoerotic readings of Henry's tending of Courtenay's corpse. At the very least, Walsingham's account allows us to attach meaning to Henry's corpse-touching: it is a gesture of affection that began in life and continues after death

I do not want to suggest that Henry, in wiping Courtenay's feet and closing his eyes, showed greater affection for Courtenay than Richard did for de Vere. We have to remember that Courtenay was had literally just died and that de Vere's corpse was several years old at this point.

Anna Duch cites Henry's handling of Courtenay's corpse to defend Richard against the charge his handling of de Vere's corpse was inappropriate and morbid. It's an imperfect comparison for various reasons - Walsingham did not write about Henry's corpse-touching, de Vere's corpse was a lot more corpse-y than Courtenay's - but the best there is. While Walsingham makes "special mention" of Courtenay's death and describes him as "a most loyal supporter" of Henry, he makes no reference to Henry attendance at Courtenay's deathbed or the location of Courtenay's burial. In fact, the only detailed account of Courtenay's death I've seen comes from the Gesta Henrici Quinti; most just reference Courtenay's death in passing.

The Gesta Henrici Quinti.

The Gesta Henrici Quinti was written sometime between 20 November 1416 and 30 July 1417. The work's author is unknown but from the text, we know he was an English priest connected to the court, most likely a royal chaplain. The Gesta is universally accepted as a work of propaganda.

It isn't clear exactly who the intended audience of the piece were. From the surviving manuscripts - which are copies of the original, lost holograph - it seems clear that the intended recipients weren't individuals of high rank. The work justifies Henry's policies in relation to diplomacy and war, especially in relation to his upcoming second campaign in France. It may have been intended to promote this campaign in England or at the Council of Constance, since it also promoted the Anglo-Imperial alliance, vindicating Emperor Sigismund's seemingly hasty alliance with Henry.

This all raises the question of what, exactly, the intention was for including a fairly lengthy account of Courtenay's death. In some ways, it confirms the Gesta's overall image of Henry as both a honourable, considerate and humble Christian prince.

It depicts Courtenay's death as a trial for Henry, which Henry meets with not only resolve, for he does not falter in his plans for France, but with considerable care and affection for the ailing man. He, apparently, devotes himself to Courtenay's final moments. The individual actions Henry performs underscore his qualities. Henry witnesses in the sacrament of extreme unction, showing his piety. With his own hands, he wipes Courtenay's feet. This not only shows his humbleness but aligns him with Christ, who washed the feet of his disciples. His attendance of Courtenay's deathbed and tending to Courtenay's body shows him caring for and honouring a loyal and worthy friend. Courtenay's virtues are stressed in this scene, thus show the quality of the men who follow and love Henry. This is the only time Courtenay appears in the text - the embassies to France he led are mentioned in passing, but none of the ambassadors are named.

Yet I sometimes wonder about the purpose of including such a scene in the Gesta. As far as I know, this is the only text to give a lengthy treatment of Courtenay's death. It tells us how the king touched his friend's corpse, showing him the affection that had been the hallmark of their relationship when Courtenay was alive. It tells us that "out of a most tender love", Henry had his friend's corpse buried amongst the royal tombs at St. Edward's chapel. With their parallels to actions that had seen Richard II routinely criticised, it is worth wondering if they carried with them potentially subversive messages about Henry. If the friendship was one of excessive love and familiarity. Of course, the subversiveness is controlled: Courtenay is dead, the risk he posed as a favourite with the potential to make Henry's kingship sodomitical has never and will never materialise. Henry is safe to display his excessive love for his favourite, since the favourite is dying and then dead.

It is tempting to suggest that the elision of the deathbed scene in other sources suggests that it was an aspect of Courtenay and Henry's relationship that others found unspeakable, echoing the unspeakable sin of sodomy. But such a suggestion requires a great leap of supposition. Perhaps the other chroniclers did not know or that when it came time to write their version of events, Courtenay was long dead and comparatively unimportant to the messages they wanted to convey.

Yet knowing the text was a propagandistic one, likely written with Henry's knowledge, makes me wonder if the scene was included because Henry wanted it to be, regardless of the possible risks it carried. He wanted to remember his friend. He wanted the last moments he had with his friend to be captured forever. He wanted to be seen loving Courtenay.

Conclusion

Throughout this post, while I've raised the possibility that Henry and Courtenay were involved in a romantic and/or sexual relationship, it's only been as a possibility; I'm aware it's a flimsy possibility - the "evidence", such as it is, is nowhere as compelling as the evidence for Edward II and Piers Gaveston or Richard II and Robert de Vere, and the debate on whether these relationships were sexual and/or romantic is far from settled. We are not in the position to prove or disprove whether Henry and Courtenay ever did have sex - there's no evidence, but then, it would be surprising if there was. We are not in the position to know and label how, exactly, Henry loved Courtenay.

But what seems to me incontestable is the fact that Henry did love Courtenay. In my opinion, there is no other explanation for his actions.

References:

Gesta Henrici Quinti: The Deeds of Henry the Fifth trans. and eds. Frank Taylor and John S. Roskell (Oxford University Press 1975).

The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, trans. David Preest (The Boydell Press 2005)

Jessica Barker, Stone Fidelity: Marriage and Emotion in Medieval Tomb Sculpture (The Boydell Press 2020)

Anna M. Duch, The Royal Funerary and Burial Ceremonies of Medieval English Kings, 1216-1509 (PhD. thesis)

#happy pride <33 #tl:dr?#[slams fist on table] HENRY V JUST LOVED RICHARD COURTENAY SO DAMN MUCH #blog #henry v #richard courtenay bishop of norwich #gesta henrici quinti

7 notes · View notes