John D. Milner, “The Battle of Baugé, March 1421: Impact and Memory”, History, Vol. 91, No. 4, October 2006

John D. Milner, “The Battle of Baugé, March 1421: Impact and Memory”, History, Vol. 91, No. 4, October 2006

Are there any biographies for Henry V that you would recommend? :)

Anne Curry's Henry V: From Playboy Prince to Warrior King is my go-to rec if you're looking for a good, solid overview of and introduction to Henry V's life and reign. My main issue with it is the length - since this is part of the Penguin Monarchs series, it's only 176 pages long, including index, notes and further reading. I would love Curry to write a full-length biography of Henry one day. If you want a more Agincourt-focused introduction to Henry, it's worth picking up Juliet Barker's Agincourt: The King, The Campaign, The Battle - it's pop history but a fairly solid one.

The standard biography of Henry is by Christopher Allmand. It's structured as half-biography, half-thematic analysis of Henry's kingship so it's definitely on the more academic side of things and the coverage of Henry's life is pretty brisk. It's very much worth reading but I don't think it's a good introduction to Henry.

My absolute favourite book on Henry, hands down, is Malcolm Vale's Henry V: The Conscience of a King, which is all about exploring Henry's kingship outside of the warrior king stuff. I would love Vale to write a more complete biography on Henry too.

I hope these recs are helpful. I've answered this question a couple of times so if you want more detail, you can check out the following posts. On this post, I've got a rundown of my favourite books on Henry V and my least favourites, while in this post, I give another rundown with more detail alongside recs for Henry's father and grandfather (Henry IV and John of Gaunt respectively).

I found a source for this in John D. Milner's article on the Battle of Bauge. It comes from an account written over half-century later by Thomas Basin (1412–1491), a French bishop and chronicler, who was building on the tradition of viewing Thomas, Duke of Clarence as rash and the sole source of blame for the English defeat at Bauge. Per Milner:

Basin also engaged in a little fantasy and classical allusion which served the dependence of the English on Henry V himself, and, implicitly, the failure even of his own brother to observe the king’s requirements. For, Basin says, on being told of the disaster, Henry V remarked that, had he lived, Clarence would have been punished by death for his temerity, since he had given battle without his command and contrary to his instruction. So had Manlius Torquatus killed his own son, even for a successful attack on the enemy, for he had launched the attack against his will. Such a classical allusion doubtless strengthened the case against Clarence in the mind of the chronicler and his audience.

So there is one source that claims Henry V did say that about Thomas in the aftermath of the Battle of Bauge, but it's building on an established tradition that depicted Henry as justifiably angry at Thomas's foolish behaviour (not, as Seward would have it, acting like a sociopath) and was a classical allusion and written long after the event. Possibly, Basin was also recycling Chastellain's claim that Henry V had rebuked Thomas along very similar lines after Thomas's intercession for Bertrand de Chaumont.

Possibly, too, Chastellain's account of the Chaumont incident is another a case of a chronicler throwing in a moralising classical allusion rather than an accurate reporting of what was actually said. Chastellain claimed in his chronicle that he was too young to remember the events of 1430 personally. If true, the events of a decade earlier must have relied on the work of other chroniclers and hearsay. In short: it's impossible to know whether Henry V really did say that but I would say it's unlikely, based on the surviving accounts (or if he did, it was as rhetoric, not an actual threat). However, Basin's account - the only account of the Battle of Bauge that claims Henry would've executed Thomas for giving battle - is far more likely not to be true.

So I was checking Desmond Seward's biography of Henry V which is not recommended, nope, and he says this:

Henry V did not fucking say that.

What Seward seems to be referring to one account of the execution of Bertrand de Chaumont. Chaumont was suspected of helping Armagnac prisoners escape and both the Dukes of Burgundy and Clarence interceded for him to no avail. In one account, which no one cites correctly*, Clarence intercedes and Henry responds:

Par saint georges, beau frère, si vous mesmes l'aviez fait et nous vous tinnsions, nous en fenrions le cas semblable; ear, à nostre pouvoir, nous ne voulons ny n'aurons, si Deiu plaist, nuls traistres emprès nous. [By St George, fair brother, had it been you yourself we should have done the same. We neither want nor will have, if God pleases, any traitors around us.**]

One: this incident is found in only one account so whether it really happened can be doubted. Second: there's a big difference in emotion to Henry saying that to a living Clarence about a hypothetical scenario and Henry saying that about a dead Clarence for the reason he was dead. Third: if he did say that after Clarence's death (a claim for which Seward provides no evidence for and omits from his own discussion of Clarence's death) perhaps it might have been the grief speaking? Clarence's death at the Battle of Baugé was and is frequently described as the result of his rashness, his foolishness, etc, etc. Henry could be forgiven for having the very human reaction of "if he wasn't dead, I'd kill him for being such an idiot". Four: we have no way of knowing if Henry would have actually had Clarence executed in either scenario (betrayal or surviving the Battle of Baugé). It is entirely possible that Henry's claim that he would execute Clarence if he turned traitor was pure rhetoric, presenting himself as a king beholden to the ideals of justice and law, willing to even execute his brother should his brother violate those codes.

I would probably be more inclined to take these revisionist, "Henry V was a monster!" historians more seriously if they didn't continually misrepresent the historical record like this. Perhaps this isn't quite as bad as Ian Mortimer inventing a French translation of The Iliad to get mad about, though.

* Seward who does refer to this incident in its correct context earlier in the book, ends with citing Jean Juvénal, who does not seem to discuss Clarence's intercession. John Matusiak cites Monstrelet, who does not include Henry's reply. Both presumably borrowed the quote from James Wylie, who cites several chronicles for his account of the event. The source that does record it is in Chastellain's Oeuvres. Chastellain claims he was too young to remember the events of 1430 so one might wonder how reliable his account is of an event occurring in 1420 was.

** The first half of the translation is Wylie's (used also by Matusiak), the second half is my own rough translation.

I am looking at Elizabeth Woodville's family ledger... The author concludes by describing that Margaret Anjou's high income and luxury were in line with the chaotic finances of the late Lancaster dynasty, while Elizabeth Woodville's simplicity represented the order of the York dynasty... Well, I think the author may have overlooked Elizabeth Woodville's identity, making it impossible for her to have the expenses that a normal queen should have at the beginning. And Anjou's Margaret did need to be generous in reaching out to the nobility when her husband was unable to rule in the later years (what do you think?)

I'm not that familiar with Elizabeth Woodville's life and tenure as queen, the intricacies of Wars of the Roses discourse nor Margaret of Anjou's finances. But I would agree with the idea that Elizabeth Woodville got smaller dower because of her lack of status compared to Margaret of Anjou and the fact that by marrying her, Edward IV circumvented the political marriage negotiations.

What we do know, however, is that Margaret received 10,000 marks p.a. for her dower and this is the same dower that her predecessors, Joan of Navarre and Catherine de Valois, received and the same dower Isabelle de Valois would have received had she reached her majority before Richard II was deposed and killed.

Historians looking at Joan of Navarre's dower have noted it was a large strain on the country's finances, particularly given the costs of the Crown was accruing in effort to suppress the various rebellions. These historians have also noted the bind this put on future marriage negotiations for future kings and heirs (by which I mean negotiations with royal and aristocratic European courts): the same dower would have to be provided for each queen or else it would be deemed insulting, suggesting their daughter/sister was less worthy than their predecessor(s), and the negotiations would be unlikely to succeed.* It's generally suspected that the treason accusations Joan faced were primarily in reaction to Henry V's upcoming marriage to Catherine de Valois - Henry didn't think the already-stretched finances of the country could stretch to finding another 10,000 marks and the easiest solution was to deprive Joan of her income and her liberty.**

What that means is that when it came time for Henry VI to marry, it would be expected by both the English and the French that Margaret would receive 10,000 marks p.a. in dower. It was not a sign of the "chaotic finances of the late Lancaster dynasty", it was entirely in keeping with the marriages that the previous Lancastrian kings and last Plantagenet king had made. It might be tempting to conclude that given the struggles with paying that dower, the English should have considered marrying Henry to an English noblewoman with the intention of providing her with a smaller dower. But that overlooks the purpose of Henry's marriage. Marriages - especially the marriage of a king - played large, important roles in medieval diplomacy. The chief priority at the time was to gain some advantage in the war with France. The financial benefits would also limited - the reduction between Margaret's dower (10,000 marks or around £6,667, iirc) to Elizabeth's (£4500) might seem like a lot to modern and medieval eyes but comparatively it was a drop in the ocean of the broader financial problems England and Henry were facing.

As your ask implies, Margaret's income from her dower was not just about making her rich. Gift-giving was an important part of the medieval court culture and individuals of status were expected to exchange luxurious gifts and they served as a symbol of the relationship between individuals.

What often does seem frivolous to modern eyes was the display of splendour. Richard Barber connects the display of kingly magnificence to the visible proof of the monarch and their special status. This meant the king's personal appearance (wearing splendid jewels and garments), the presence and appearance of his queen and their children, his ceremonies, feasts, and public appearances, the appearance of his surrounds, the courtiers, musicians, artists etc he employed and who were present at his court, the display of his belongings and more. This was also true for queens. The display of splendour enforced Margaret's status as queen and her wealth allowed her to maintain this display, from the rebuilding of La Pleasaunce to her personal dress to the gifts she gave and the ceremonies that centred her. It also underlined Henry's status as king, since Margaret's queenship was an extension of his kingship. This was particularly important as Henry's reign entered the crisis years and his authority became threatened.

On the use of jewels in particular, Tracy Adams succinctly summarises Nicola Tallis's work on the jewels of the late medieval and Tudor queens like so: "the gems worn by these queens mirrored their status and rendered visual their authority". We can be sure, too, that if a queen failed to live up to the expectations of the display of queenly splendour, she would be faced with a barrage of criticism - probably from the same commentators criticising her for spending too much money.

And yes, Margaret's income gave her the wealth and independence to maintain or court loyalties during the crisis years of Henry VI's reign, especially when Henry was in York's custody.

* Possibly, this is what happened with Joan. Because 10,000 marks had been promised for Isabelle's dower, it is possible the same had to be promised to Joan but where Isabelle had a large dowry to offset the costs of her future, Joan had no dowry.

** The situation was a lot more complicated and murky but Joan's not the subject of this ask. so I'm keeping it short and simple.

If Edward III had died as expected in autumn 1376 then the marriage between Mary Percy and John de Southeray [bastard son of Edward III and Alice Perrers] would probably have never taken place. When John of Gaunt took control of government in the months following the Good Parliament, Percy was his most active and vigorous supporter. In return for his loyalty he was appointed Lord Marshal, and Gaunt presumably promised Percy other forms of patronage, including the wardship of his half-sister. As it was, there was little that Percy or Gaunt could do until Edward III died in June the following year. Percy was far from being permanently back in the royal fold, however, and when his subsequent actions are viewed as a whole they are highly revealing about his attitude towards royal authority. In 1381 he opposed Gaunt during the Peasants’ Revolt and in 1399 he turned against Richard II in a crucial change of sides, which paved the way for his removal from the throne. This was followed by high-profile rebellions against Richard’s replacement, Henry IV, in 1403 and 1405. Percy clearly did not have a high opinion of, or any sense of loyalty to, anyone – magnate or king – who acted against his interests. It is not surprising then that he reacted so strongly against Alice, and the episode might have helped shape his later actions against the crown.

Laura Tompkins, "Mary Percy and John de Southeray: Wardship, Marriage and Divorce in Fourteenth-Century England", Fourteenth Century X (Boydell and Brewer, 2018)

Henry Percy was twenty-six years older than Mary, and at the time of her birth was already married with children of his half-sister’s age. In 1340, parliament (echoing a reform made by Henry I in 1100) enacted that, if requested, wardships should be granted to the nearest ‘friends’ of the heir who were not themselves in line to inherit. Since Percy had no hereditary claim to the Orreby lands, he could therefore have reasonably expected to be entrusted as Mary’s guardian. He must have been furious when her wardship was not only granted to somebody else, but to the king’s low-born mistress [Alice Perrers]. It is clear from Mary’s will that there was great affection between brother and sister and the Percy family more widely, and the grant of the keeping of the estate to Percy as first earl of Northumberland immediately following Alice’s forfeiture in 1377 indicates his long-term desire to obtain it.

Laura Tompkins, "Mary Percy and John de Southeray: Wardship, Marriage and Divorce in Fourteenth-Century England", Fourteenth Century X (Boydell and Brewer, 2018)

Mary eventually died childless on 25 August 1394 aged just twenty-six, with the majority of the Orreby lands ultimately absorbed into the Percy estate. Mary’s will paints a picture of a woman with a great affection for her family and her home in the north of England. She requested that her body be buried at Rievaulx Abbey in the choir next to the body of her husband, and left 100s. ‘to make a marble stone for my tomb like the one that lies over Lady Margaret de Orreby my grandmother in the church of St Botolph’ in Boston, Lincolnshire, in a display of strong affiliation to her Orreby roots. In her opening bequest, Mary left one gilt cup to ‘my dearest brother, the lord earl of Northumberland’, which offers an indication of the warmth of the relationship between the half-siblings. She also left a pair of gold rosaries to Henry’s wife, Lady Percy (Maud Lucy), two gilt spoons and a diamond ring to her mother-in-law Lady Roos (Beatrice Stafford), and a gilt goblet to Elizabeth, Lady Clifford, her late husband’s sister. To her nephews Henry ‘Hotspur’ Percy and Sir Ralph Percy, she bequeathed a tablet of gold and ‘my best pair of rosaries of gold and one gold ornament’ respectively. Finally, to her half-sister Isabella Percy she left the most historically impressive gift of twenty marks, a fur-lined mantle and gown of scarlet, the ‘French book of the duke of Lancaster’, and ‘my green primer which once belonged to my lord and father, to pray for my soul’. The ‘French book’ almost certainly refers to Le Livre de Seyntz Medicines written by Henry Grosmont, first duke of Lancaster, which would have been extremely rare.

Laura Tompkins, "Mary Percy and John de Southeray: Wardship, Marriage and Divorce in Fourteenth-Century England", Fourteenth Century X (Boydell and Brewer, 2018)

We have a cover!

The first full-length study of Richard II's favourite, Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford and Duke of Ireland, is coming out this July!

And it's by a reputable scholar (James Ross) and published by an academic press so it won't be the usual crapshoot pushed out by Amberley/Pen & Sword/The History Press.

@heartofstanding and I are trying to gauge interest in the running the Shakespeare Histories yearly fic exchange.

The king [Edward I] does not send for his son [the future Edward II] to assault him, in either representation of the scene. The prince is brought to his father’s presence in order that the king might answer the flagrantly inappropriate request in person—and in public. In a world whose symbol-laden power structures were a network of personal relationships, public emotionality was central to the negotiation and demonstration of political interaction. The love between a lord and his vassal was not a private and personal feeling. It was a social fact, confirmed and demonstrated by quasi-ritualized public demonstration—as was the love (even more carefully performed) between princes of different states.The opposite of that love, the souring of that carefully maintained relationship, was not hatred but anger—or rather, one particular kind of anger. This anger is synonymous (not analogous) with terms that we would usually consider sociopolitical, but which are in this worldview intensely and personally emotional: that is, with war(if between opposing states),or vengeance and justice (if against an erring vassal). In fact, the outbreak of war is frequently stated in chronicles as an eruption of anger between leading individuals: ‘when he heard this he was full sore annoyed at X’,‘in that year anger arose between the King of Y and Z’, just as reconciliation is expressed as renewing or extending love or favour. Both shifts are usually accompanied by a public performance: that from anger to love with embraces and kisses and a formal loveday, that from love to anger with displays of affronted rage.

Hannah Kilpatrick, "Edward I's Temper: Anger and Its Misrepresentations in the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough and the Fineshade Chronicle", The Medieval Chronicle, Vol. 12, 2019.

All but one of the shields with [Margaret Holland, Duchess of Clarence's] husbands' heraldic arms are positioned next to images of death and resurrection: the arms of Beaufort impaling Holland are juxtaposed with an image of the Last Judgement at the beginning of the seven penitential Psalms; Clarence's arms are placed next to a funeral scene at the start of the Office of the Dead; and at the Commendation of Souls the arms of Beaufort are placed next to a miniature showing angels carrying three souls upwards to the Trinity. The only apparent exception to this pattern is the arms of Clarence impaling Holland at the Prime of the Office of the Virgin, juxtaposed with an image of the Arrest of Christ. Perhaps Margaret saw this image of armed violence, featuring a crowd of guards in armour reminiscent of fifteenth-century fashions, as an oblique reference to Clarence's bloody death on the battlefield. It is certainly one of the miniatures that attracted the most attention: the face of Christ, grasped simultaneously by Judas and an armoured knight, is smeared from rubbing or kissing. Interestingly, the other area on this folio similarly blurred is the escutcheon of Clarence and Margaret's arms directly below the scene: the only heraldic shield in the Clarence Hours to bear the traces of such tactile ministrations. Just as the miniature of the Presentation to the Temple sets up a correspondence between the Virgin's dedication to God and Margaret's own religious commitment, so the duchess may have seen the violence of Clarence's demise as an echo of Christ's suffering.

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

1405: "[Constance of York] was brought before a great council at Westminster, where she denounced her brother Edward, duke of York, as instigator of the plot. When the duke denied his involvement she called for a champion, and an esquire, William Maidstone, challenged the duke to combat. York accepted, but at that point Thomas of Lancaster intervened and brother and sister were imprisoned."

1478: "...Then was to be witnessed a sad strife carried on between these two brethren [Edward IV and George of Clarence] of such high estate. For not a single person uttered a word against the duke, except the king ; not one individual made answer to the king except the duke."

the siblings are fightinggggg

Letter from John of Lancaster, warden of the East March of Scotland, warning the king and council of his plight, 1406

May it please my very honoured and redoubted lord the prince and other very honourable and very wise lords of the king’s council…to consider the articles under written touching the state and governance of the Lord John, the king’s son, and of the East March towards Scotland committed to him in ward, and to ordain for him by your wise discretions good, speedy, and convenient remedy; or otherwise if any peril, grief, or harm should result in default of such governance, which God forbid, that the warden should be held excused and fully discharged of responsibility for it.

First, may it please you to consider the distress which both the soldiers and the burgesses and inhabitants in the town of Berwick have suffered by the burning and destruction which have lately happened there, as is well known to your high discretions; nevertheless the same soldiers are in arrears with their pay, and have not received a penny since last Easter, so that their arrears amount to the sum of £4,430 17s 9d, and now victuals are becoming scarce and begin to be dear in these parts, so that they cannot have any provision for their sustenance without payment. Thus they experience distress on distress, which they cannot in any way endure without being furnished with good and ready payment in this situation. Also, a great part of the walls as well of the town as of the castle are ruined and fallen to the ground, some from feebleness, some by force of the destruction by the king’s guns at the time when the castle was held against him by way of rebellion, and more sections in various parts became in a short time decayed, in so much that no soldiers, burgesses, or others of any estate dare or wish to stay there for fear of the enemy, unless speedy repairs are undertaken. Also, may it please you to consider how the truce recently made on these marches will endure only until the feast of Easter next coming, and that the warden must have notice in time how and under what security these marches shall be governed after that, whether under truce or war, so that the lieges of the king in these parts can be put in security of their governance without loss or damage by the enemies of Scotland…. And moreover if war must come at that time, may sufficient ordinance be made by your wise discretions in time for the honour of the king our sovereign lord father and of his realm and for the safeguard and surety of the marches. Also from the feast of Easter next following until the feast of Michaelmas after that, for the truce—£2,415 8s 10½d. Sum total—£7,246 6s 7½d.

Source: A. R. Myers, ed. English Historical Documents: 1327-1485 (Routledge 1969), translated from S.B.Chrimes, "Some Letters of John of Lancaster as Warden of the East Marches towards Scotland", Speculum, vol 14, no. 1 (1939)

is it true that Henry and Margaret had a special token between them during the war to communicate? I think I read it in Helen Maurer's book but I can't recollect

Hi!

Gregory's Chronicle does mention something like that! Apparently, the Yorkists had tried to lure Margaret to London after the Battle of Northampton in 1460 by sending her “conterfete tokyns” that were supposedly coming from the king, but her servants “bade hyr bewared of the tokyns, that she gave noo credens there too”.

Of course, we don't know if this actually happened (imo, it seems more likely than not), and it's not exactly the same thing as having a special token solely between them to communicate, but it's still very interesting and one of my favourite minor details in this phase of the war <3

was Elizabeth Wydeville one of Margaret of Anjou's ladies in waiting?

Hi! No, she wasn't.

"The popular tradition that Elizabeth Woodville herself was one of [Margaret of Anjou's] ladies seems to have been pure invention. As long ago as 1935 Smith observed that the earliest reference to this was made in Thomas More's History of Richard III, and that attempts to identify her with the 'Isabelle Domine Grey' of Margaret's accounts are misguided given that this married lady was among those accompanying Margaret from France and thus could not be the 8-year-old Elizabeth Woodville. Moreover, the Elizabeth Grey 'daily attendant on the queen's person' was recorded in June 1445 as the widow of Sir Ralph Grey, and their son, a minor, was in the king's household." (X)

God I hate Lauren Johnson’s “Henry VI had a sex coach" thing.