The Duchess of Bedford

1433 was a momentous year for John, duke of Bedford, third and oldest surviving son of Henry IV. On January 8th he attended the funeral of his first wife of ten years, Anne of Burgundy at the church of the Célestines in Paris. She had died at 2 am on 14th November 1432 during childbirth, and the infant died also. She was only 29. It seems that the couple were devoted to each other and Anne was pivotal to holding the alliance between England and Burgundy together against Charles, the Dauphin.
Political manoeuvres started almost immediately to find a new wife for the widowed duke. These may not have been initiated by the duke himself but by those around him who sought some advantage from the situation. Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, a close friend and confidante of the duke of Bedford, arranged for him to meet his niece Jacquetta. She was the daughter of the Count of St. Pol, and at the age of only 17 she was undoubtedly very attractive. Contemporary reports describe her as pretty and lively and there is no reason to doubt this description. While no contemporary image of her was made, or survives, it seems reasonable to infer that she was very presentable.

The Count of St Pol, not well known in English history, was a figure of some importance on the continent. The counts in the fifteenth century were from the House of Luxembourg and could claim descent from Charlemagne. They were considered to be one of the great noble houses of northern Europe and at times in the 14th century the Luxembourg family controlled Bohemia, Brandenburg and other territories in what is now eastern Germany, as well as Luxembourg and Brabant in the west. By the 15th century the family had declined from its earlier power, but was still important in the north eastern part of France. The centre of the county was Saint Pol sur Ternoise, which today is a small town of about 15,000. The county was one of several in North Eastern France, along with Picardy, Artois and Flanders, that were vital to England’s strategic interests.

Jacquetta’s great great grandfather had married a niece of Edward I. Her great uncle Valerian had married Maud Holland, a daughter of Joan (later mother to Richard II) by her first marriage. Bedford therefore would have found nothing to object to in her lineage, appearance or personality. He may even have been smitten, but considerations of state ruled. The alliance with the duke of Burgundy against France was becoming less dependable, and with the death of Anne of Burgundy, had an uncertain future.  A new alliance with the Luxembourg family would therefore help to shore up the English position in France. Against this was the knowledge that the Duke of Burgundy would be offended, but since relations were already strained to breaking point Bedford may have taken this factor into consideration when creating this new alliance.

Jacquetta had no say in the matter, nor would have expected to. Like almost all women of her status and upbringing an arranged political marriage was always going to be her destiny. Whether or not she accepted it with a good grace or not it is impossible to divine.

Accordingly the ceremony was performed at the Archbishop’s palace at Thérouanne on 29 April 1433, with the archbishop himself officiating. Bedford presented two bells to the Cathedral to celebrate the event.

As anticipated, the Duke of Burgundy was outraged, and added this latest affront to a list of supposed grievances. Luxembourg was a vassal state and should have sought permission. Bedford had openly disregarded the memory of his recently deceased wife, the duke’s sister. He was reminded that another woman from a vassal house, Jacqueline of Hainault, had married Bedford’s brother Humphrey, again without his consent. Efforts were made to mediate between the two dukes but without avail and the rift between them remained to the end of Bedford’s life.
On 18 June the couple sailed for England and reached London on 23 June, where they proceeded in state through the streets. It was a lukewarm reception; the triumphant progresses of his elder brother Henry V and Bedford himself during the previous decade were now tempered by a general war weariness. This latest round of the conflict with France had now extended almost 20 years. To compound this problem there was a political struggle for power between duke Humphrey of Gloucester, his youngest brother, and his uncle Cardinal Beaufort. Neither was winning this struggle and some economic mismanagement had left the Treasury empty.
Bedford made the maintenance of the French kingdom, the legacy of his brother Henry V to his infant son Henry VI, his life’s work. Henry VI was, according to a treaty agreed between Henry V and the French king Charles VI, the heir to the throne of France as well as England. Charles VI’s son, known as the Dauphin but in reality Charles VII of France had been disinherited, although he and his supporters never did accept his mad father’s capitulation. From 1422 the English position was unsustainable in the long term, and so it proved, and but for the competent leadership of the duke of Bedford, Regent in France, English rule may have crumbled a lot earlier. As it was, these last years were difficult for Bedford; hostility to English rule was rising in France and support from the home country could only be described as tepid. His journey to England in 1433 was designed to build support for the French enterprise but the political situation in England required him to take charge of the government and it was not until July 1434 that the worsening situation in France compelled him to return.

In this period the young Jacquetta was more or less invisible.  It is assumed, but by no means certain that she accompanied her husband as he shuttled back and forth between London and his seat at Fullbrook in Warwickshire, but there is no mention of her.  There really are no clues that we can draw upon to assess the state of the marriage. They married. She was widowed after two years and five months. There were no children.

Given Jacquetta's later fecundity this is surely worth comment. John did have two illegitimate children, a boy, Richard, who was alive in 1434, and a daughter Mary. She married Peter de Montferrand and died after 1458. John was unable to successfully father children by his first wife, Anne of Burgundy. He married her in 1423 and she died during childbirth on 14 November 1432. It is quite probable that other unsuccessful pregnancies preceded this, but none were recorded.  Jacquetta was young and strong and without doubt capable of bearing children. Yet there was no pregnancy of record during the more than two years of their marriage, and this is a puzzle. The duke was certainly in poor health at this time but in the previous year (1433) he was still notionally potent. The couple were separated in age by 27 years; he was old enough to be her father, although this was not a barrier to sexual union. It is possible that he had reached a stage in his life when he was no longer interested in the sexual act. That, together with his manifold responsibilities may have kept him and Jacquetta from enjoying a proper union. It is also possible that she had no appetite for him and they may have mutually agreed to not sharing the same bed, both content to maintain the outward show of the marriage for the diplomatic purposes behind the union, and since his brother’s son was already king there were no dynastic pressures on him to produce an heir.

When she and Bedford returned to France in July 1434, he was already in decline and, a year later, on 14 September 1435, he died.

John, duke of Bedford was buried in Rouen Cathedral, the spiritual home of his Norman ancestors, beside the tomb of Henry II's eldest son, Henry 'the young king’. The tomb was a lavish one and even after the French had taken control of Rouen in 1436, the tomb was respected by successive monarchs. In 1562 the effigy on the tomb was smashed by Calvinists, but a plaque, with Bedford's arms, survived until the 18th century. The grave was dug up in 1860 to expose a large framed skeleton, which fits contemporary reports of Bedford's physique.

His will provided an estate of La Haye du Puits for his illegitimate son Richard but nothing for his natural daughter Mary. Perhaps he assumed that her marriage to Peter de Montferrand took care of everything. The rest of his vast estates were bequeathed to his widow, Jacquetta, for life. She was also gifted the value of 12000 livres in moveable goods.

This made her a wealthy woman. Her dower income (one third of her former husband’s estates) amounted to £1133 even though she did not get everything her former husband had left. She was allowed to enter her estates in 6 February 1436 provided that she seek the king’s permission before she married. This was a sensible precaution; a widow wth her lands was almost certain to be the target of another wealthy magnate who might significantly enlarge his wealth and power and present a threat to the security of the realm. She harboured other ideas and no doubt felt entitled to please herself the second time around and accordingly she did. She married for love.

The administration of his will proved more difficult in practice. The king's council granted Harcourt, one of the duchess's estates to Edmund, duke of Somerset. Some other estates were contested by Humphrey, duke of Gloucester. She was not, in any case, entitled to everything under English law. As a dowager she was entitled to one third of the estates, the other two-thirds normally going to the heir. In this case there was no heir and the duke's brother and cousins spotted this and stepped in to fill that breach. She fought hard to retain her estates but in 1437 the duke of Somerset was able to secure Harcourt.

Her time during this period, between the duke's death in September 1435 and her secret liaison with Sir Richard Woodville, was almost certainly occupied with securing her estates. It is recorded that she sold some woods on the Harcourt estate and ordered the repair of mills at La Rivière Thibouville. She also held extensive estates in England.

The Grafton Portrait

There was an Elizabethan portrait of a young man floating around Grafton for some years. It is believed that it was moved from the old royal manor house for safe keeping in 1643, prior to the manor coming under attack from Parliamentary forces, first to a house on the site of the present village hall, and later to another house near the White Hart. After a fire at that house in 1908 the portrait was again moved for safety and sent to a house at Winston-on-Tees in County Durham. It was here that the portrait came to the attention of a man called Thomas Kay, who wrote a book about it published in 1914.

What excited Thomas Kay was that the portrait was executed in 1588 and was of a 24 year old young man. These dates are painted on the portrait. He quickly associated 1564 with the year of Shakespeare’s birth and claimed that this could be an early portrait. The portrait is now on display in the John Ryland’s Library in Manchester.

It can be asserted with certainty that this painting is a genuine 16th century portrait. The association with William Shakespeare is an act of faith with no supporting evidence. Many young men were born in 1564 and the portrait could be of anyone born in that year. The arguments against the attribution are principally that in 1588 Shakespeare was an unknown actor who was possibly learning his craft as a writer. He was nowhere near prosperous enough at that date to afford the luxury of n expensive portrait, and in any case, the subject of the painting is quite expensively dressed, a further indication of a person of means. Many different families occupied the Grafton manor during the 17th century, but the most likely subject would be a member of the Crane family who were occupying the manor at the time of the civil war.

Were the Yorkists really Plantagenets?

On August 1st Edmund Mortimer, Earl of march, rode to Porchester castle to inform Henry V that there was a plot afoot to unseat him from the throne. Mortimer himself was one of the protagonists and indeed the objective of the plotters to place him on the throne due to his lineage from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, which in the minds of some trumped Henry’s own descent from John of Gaunt, a younger son of Edward III.

The plot itself was poorly conceived and poorly planned and it may have been an awareness of its poor potential that brought about Mortimer’s last minute attack of cold feet. The men he betrayed, Richard, Earl of Cambridge, Henry, Lord Scrope of Masham and Sir Thomas Gray of Heton were quickly arrested, tried and executed at Southampton. Henry acted ruthlessly. This was on the eve of the expedition to France and he had no time to waste. It is possible that in a more tranquil moment that the plotters would have been treated more leniently. Earlier plots, including two involving Edward, Duke of York and Constance, Lady Despenser,  were potentially more dangerous than this poor excuse for a plot, but in both instances the protagonists were let off relatively lightly. But in 1415, on the eve of an important invasion, three of the plotters chose the wrong time and the wrong place. The Earl of March, who does not appear to have inherited many of the characteristics of his illustrious predecessors was allowed to live out his natural life. He died in 1425.

The leader of this little cabal was Richard, Earl of Cambridge. He was the second and youngest son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, another younger son of Edward III. Richard was born in 1385 and had spent most of his life as a rather forgotten man in the political life of the time. He was only elevated to the status of Earl in 1413 when he was granted the redundant title of Earl of Cambridge, originally held by Edmund of Langley. Unfortunately for Richard, the title came without land or income and as T B Pugh has observed, he became the first man in English history to hold a courtesy title. Nevertheless he was still required to  live up to the status of an earl. He was, for example, required to raise as many troops for the invasion as his father-in-law, the very wealthy Earl of March. He may have had good reason to feel ill disposed towards Henry.

After his execution by beheading, Henry agreed that the body could be interred at the Chapel of St. Julien at God’s House Hospital. The head was not put on public display as was the case with the other two executed conspirators. There are no contemporary reports of a burial anywhere else and Edward IV’s benefaction to God’s House in 1462 in memory of his grandfather would tend to reinforce the notion that the body would stay there permanently and not be removed to another resting place, Fotheringhay for example.

In the succeeding centuries very little attention was paid to Richard, Earl of Cambridge. The only thing of note that he attempted in his 30 years was his final act, and this was of little political consequence, and in any case was completely overshadowed by the sensational victory at Agincourt in October of that year. He only claim to any subsequent attention was that he was the grandfather of two kings and in that sense he had the same status as Owen Tudor, who has received only marginally more attention from historians.

In 1863 the chapel of St Julien on Winkle Street was much in need of repair and renovation and the chapel was temporarily closed while this work was undertaken. There seems to have been some awareness that one of more of the conspirators was buried there and some efforts to discover the bodies. Unfortunately, as far as I can discover, no contemporary reports were made and all we know of this comes from writing in the 1890s, almost a generation later. There are three accounts, and with slight variations, are consistent with each other. This may be due to each of them relying on a single source, which may have been verbal, so there may be no way of corroborating this evidence.

Let us first examine what is written.

The Hampshire Independent reported on October 15th 1890 on a meeting of the Hampshire Field Club touring Old Southampton, and reported Mr T W Shore as telling the group:

Mr. Critchlow had made a search for the remains of the Earl of Cambridge (a direct ancestor of the Queen) who was buried here in 1415 after his execution outside the north gate or Bar Gate of the town for conspiracy to murder King Henry V as he was preparing to sail for the war with France. But, though he had dug to a depth of four feet, he had been unsuccessful, except that he had found some bones of a tall man; whether they were the bones of the unfortunate Earl it was impossible to say. 

In his own book, History of Hampshire, published two years later, Mr. Shore wrote:

The earl, who was buried within the chapel of God’s House, was the fifteenth ancestor of our present queen in the Yorkist line. During the work of restoring the chapel about thirty years ago, a skeleton was found in the chancel, with the skull lying near the bones of the legs. These remains were reinterred, and are believed to have been those of the unfortunate earl. 

Another two years later, in 1894, the Reverend James Aston Whitlock published a rather breezy account of Gods House and made the following reference:

As a confirmation of the story and the inscription, a gigantic skeleton was found, lying full length,  under the chancel floor of St. Julian’s. His head  was not in the place where the human head usually  grows, but had been carefully placed between his  knees. Evidently, these were the remains of one  of the conspirators — which, we cannot with certainty affirm — but probably of the Earl of Cambridge.

It seems likely that Shore, a leading and pioneering local historian at the time, was the single source of this information. He was however a scholarly man and a Fellow of the Geographical Society and was probably assiduous in gleaning this intelligence. He does note that the architect who oversaw the work at St Julien’s was non-committal about the skeleton but there is a consistency about it all.

From the 15th century reports we would expect to find a skeleton there. The heads of Cambridge’s co-conspirators were dispatched to York and Newcastle for public display and it is unknown what happened to the bodies. Neither of them were likely to have been found at God’s House. Shore’s conclusion may be the right one. The careful burial of the head with the body would suggest that this was a man of some importance.

This conclusion comes with caveats. The year 1863 was many years before the era of professional and scientific archaeologists. Mr Crutwell was an architect  and in any case many of the techniques now available to archeologists would have been unknown at that date. He may not even have made a written report and simply made his verbal observations to interested parties.

At the moment then we have some evidence but no corroboration, in other words no absolute proof. However, on the basis of what we do know we should be able to make some reasonable assumptions:

1. that Richard, Earl of Cambridge was buried in God’s House Chapel in 1415.

2. that the skeleton discovered in 1863, was most likely that of Richard, Earl of Cambridge.

3. that the skeleton was that of a tall man.

At this point we might be content to leave it at that. There would, on the face of it, be no good reason to disinter the bones (even supposing we knew exactly where to look) to confirm what we already know to be reliable fact.

Except that things may have changed, perhaps sensationally.

In 2012 a successful excavation in a car park in Leicester revealed the skeleton of king Richard III, one of the grandsons of Richard, Earl of Cambridge. The skeleton was subjected to DNA testing and the results compared to those of present day descendants. These DNA tests confirmed that the skeleton was indeed that of Richard III.

But there have been further developments. 

A by-product of this study, published in 2014. revealed something more surprising. The analysts discovered the possibility of a false paternity break in the y chromosome at some point between Edward III and Richard III. In other words Richard III may not have carried the y chromosome of his supposed ancestor Edward III. Since the y chromosome is uniquely passed down through the male line this is one certain way to indicate paternity. Richard, if there were no other male intervention would have carried this chromosome from Edward III. Actually, the evidence is less definitive than one would wish since the comparison was made with the DNA of a Beaufort descendant, raising other potential issues. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether there might have been another male amongst Richard III’s ancestors.

There have for a long time been doubts about the paternity of Richard, Earl of Cambridge. Edmund of Langley married Isabella of Castille at his father’s request in 1372. The following year she gave birth to a son, Edward, who was to succeed his father as Duke of York. A daughter, Constance was born circa 1374. She later married Thomas, Lord Despenser

Isabella’s third recorded pregnancy came ten years after the birth of Contance. She gave birth to a son, Richard, at Consisborough Castle and he was probably baptized there around 20th July 1385. It should be said that there is no record of either his birth or baptism but since Richard II was staying at York at the time, and acted as his godfather, this date is inferred.  His birth date has been misreported elsewhere. The Victorian historian G R Cockayne gave Richard’s birth as 1375. He does not give reasons for this but he may have assumed that the 1385 date was a mistake, and chose to believe that the second son followed soon after the first. Possibly he inferred from a grant by Richard II of 500 marks a year to Richard of Conisborough that he had reached his majority around that time. Others repeat this date. 

What we do know of Richard of Conisborough’s life should lead us to prefer 1385. It seems less plausible that Richard of Bordeaux, as he was in 1375, and whose grandfather and father were still alive, would have been considered as a godparent at that time. It also strains credulity to believe that he assumed the role of godparent when Richard of Conisbrough was 10 years old. A 1375 date would point to a very late marriage and we might also ask why, when he was in favour, Richard II did not make use of him if he was a grown man in 1395. 1385 is a far better fit with the known facts of the earl’s life. 

Long gaps between the birth of children are not unknown and it is possible that there were other pregnancies that may have ended in miscarriages or infant deaths that were not recorded but suspicions must remain, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, that Richard was not the son of Edmund.

Neither his father, nor his brother provided for him in their lifetimes nor was he mentioned in their wills. That fact alone ought to raise a flag and leave us with the suspicion that whatever the outward claims were for his parentage, both men knew different. That he had anything at all was entirely due to his mother’s effort when she was close to death. Her will of 1392 made King Richard II the heir to all her worldly goods, and in the same document she requested that Richard make provision for her younger son, Richard of Conisborough, by granting him a life annuity of 500 marks. That Richard complied soon after her death in December 1392 suggests that this arrangement had been agreed prior to the drawing up of her will. Presumably Isabella believed (and in 1392 would have no reason not to) that the annuity would be more safely administered by Richard II than by her husband and eldest son. Richard II confirmed this in 1395. It is probable that if Richard II had continued on the throne Richard of Conisborough would have enjoyed a grant of lands and income. However, he was one of the losers from the deposition of Richard II and he was bereft of income.

Isabella was reported to have had an affair with John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon. The source of this is a note left by John Shirley while transcribing Chaucer’s poem, the Complaint of Mars, that the poem was based on the real life contemporary affair between John Holland and Isabella. Shirley seems to have lived a full 90 years and spent some years in the 15th century in the service of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick who had married Isabel Despenser, a grand daughter of Isabella. It is thought that Shirley may have learned the story from this source. John Holland was the second son of Thomas, Earl of Kent and his wife Joan, the “Fair Maid of Kent” who subsequently married the Black Prince. He was therefore a half brother to Richard II, to whom he remained close. Holland was born in 1352 and cut quite a figure in the court of Richard II and was himself not short of achievement. 

It is quite plausible that the high spirited Isabella should be attracted to him. Whether or not Richard of Conisborough was a product of this liaison we simply do not know. Chaucer’s Complaint of Mars has been dated to 1385 or perhaps a few years later. If so, then the dates do fit the story, true or not.

Isabella certainly acquired a reputation and the chronicler Thomas Walsingham sniffily describes her as “domina carnalis et delicata, mundialis et venerea” - a lady ruled by the pleasures of the flesh and worldly things.

While it is difficult to authenticate any of these stories, taken as a whole, they do help us to form a plausible picture of a wife who was bored with her husband and he in turn disinterested in her. While we have no other evidence for Richard of Conisborough’s parentage we should be prepared to assume that he was not the son of Edmund of York.

With this knowledge the skeleton of Richard, Earl of Cambridge takes on more significance than might ordinarily be the case. If it were possible to examine the bones and subject them to DNA analysis some answers to these intriguing questions could be found. If male DNA matched that of his supposed grandson Richard III that would be as expected. If, however, the DNA confirmed the finding of the previous researchers that there was a paternity break in the chain, then that would cause some considerable revision.

It would mean that the House of York, conventionally presented by historians as separate from the House of Lancaster, was in fact an entirely new dynasty, short lived as it was. It would also mean that the Tudor genetic inheritance was some distance from a Plantagenet male. Henry VII was the son of Margaret Beaufort, the great grand daughter of John of Gaunt, and his wife. His wife, Elizabeth of York was the great great grand daughter of Lionel, Duke of Clarence. In sum the Tudor claim was even more tenuous than we presently believe.

Not that this changes historical fact of the succession to the throne but it does add some interesting colour and would effectively make Henry VI the last Plantagenet king.

Merry Widows

In the middle ages, and indeed stretching well beyond that time, marriage was an economic contract. At the top end of society it was also political and very often the political considerations greatly outweighed all other factors. Needless to add the young couple had no say in the matter and for the most part would have accepted their fate without protest as they were schooled from an early age to this fate. It had even become a practice in the 15th century to betroth and marry children when they were too innocent to have any idea at all of the implications of marriage.

In those uncertain times women were often widowed at an early age and had a second chance at marriage and there is good evidence to show that once they were free from parental and political pressure they chose to marry for love. I want to look at two of those women, both high born, who chose love over other considerations once they had the opportunity. They are Catherine of France and Jacquetta of Luxembourg. They both married sons of Henry IV for their first marriages and both married for love once they became widows. What is more interesting is that the offspring of these second marriages had considerable impact on the destiny of England - indeed, the grandchildren of both women married in 1485 to found the Tudor dynasty.

Henry V was a very clear-headed and focussed man. When he succeeded his father in 1413 he resolved to claim what he believed was his French inheritance and to reinforce this claim he set his sights on marrying the daughter of the king of France. The invasion of 1415 which culminated in the improbable victory at Agincourt on October 25th actually achieved little more than to give the English a toehold in France. It was the campaigns in succeeding years that achieved the reconquest of Normandy and several of the other territories that were once part of the Angevin Empire and, in 1420, the French king, Charles VI, worn down by years of struggle and presiding over a weakened, riven kingdom, signed a treaty with Henry V. His daughter Catherine was to marry Henry and a key clause in the treaty acknowledged Henry as his heir. On the death of Charles, Henry would become king of France as well as king of England. The issue raised by Edward III in 1340 would at last be settled.

Marriage of Henry V and Catherine de Valois

Inconveniently, Charles also had a son, also Charles, who was dispossessed by the treaty. Even more inconveniently, Henry died six weeks before the ageing king Charles VI in 1422, leaving an infant son as his heir who became king of England and, nominally, king of France. Although the French might have been persuaded to accept Henry V in his prime, they had less reason to accept an unknown infant. Charles the Dauphin, later Charles VII, was a full-grown man and by right of birth, if not by treaty, the king of France. The English had a strongly led regency under Henry’s younger brother John, duke of Bedford and the English were able to control northern France for about 15 years before it began to erode and eventually collapse.

Funeral effigy of Catherine of Valois

Catherine de Valois, wife of Henry V and mother of Henry VI, was born 27 October 1401 in Paris. Her mother Isabeau of Bavaria had married Charles in 1387 and bore at least 12 children and Catherine was the youngest daughter. She had two older sisters who survived childhood. One of them, Jeanne, married the duke of Brittany and another,  became a nun. The sons fared less well. Only one, Catherine’s younger brother Charles, survived to become king of France. Several older brother died before the age of 21 and one was poisoned. When she was married to Henry V 4 June 1420 he was 14 years her senior. She gave birth to their one child on 6 December 1421 at Windsor castle. Her husband died of dysentery at Vincennes, a few miles away from Paris where she was staying at the time. She apparently made no attempt to visit him during his last hours which may tell us a lot about their relationship.

Back in England she was the queen dowager, and at first glance in a powerful position. The council were certainly mindful of that and in 1425, the three year old Henry was moved to a separate household to be brought up and educated under the care of ? (Wolfe says she had care of him until he was 7 years old) There is no evidence that Catherine raised any serious objections and it may be that she was not particularly interested in the boy. She herself had been brought up in a dysfunctional household. Her father had a strain of madness that had violent outbreaks at times and her mother was a politically ambitious woman who, despite her large brood, showed little maternal affection for them.

Catherine was rather constrained as a widow. Her remarriage held all sorts of political ramifications for the ruling council and they wanted to retain control of her. She soon fell in love with Edmund Beaufort, earl of Somerset. Like the Lancastrian kings, Beaufort was descended from Joh of Gaunt by his mistress and third wife Katherine Swynford and this liaison was regarded as politically dangerous. When Humphrey, duke of Gloucester learned of the affair and her intention to marry he intervened and the council enacted a law that no-one should marry Catherine without the consent of council. The act of 1428 stated that if the queen dowager was to marry without the king’s consent then her husband would forfeit all lands and possessions. This was sufficient to deter Edmund Beaufort.

Once that liaison had been terminated Catherine turned her attention to Owen Tudor and in the next few years bore him five children. Tudor was a welshman and a knight who had done service in France. He appears to have been appointed master of the queen’s wardrobe while she was living at Windsor castle and this brought the two into contact with one another. The first child, Edmund, was born c 1430. The couple moved to the country far from the prying eyes of court and the facts of the liaison were undiscovered for some years. Owen Tudor was granted the rights of an Englishman by Parliament in 1432, so clearly most at court were ignorant of the liaison or the children. Some say that there was a secret marriage but this is unknown; however the children were later recognised as legitimate issue.

Eventually the couple were discovered. The duke of Gloucester had Owen Tudor committed to Newgate Prison and Catherine was sent to Bermondsey Abbey, pregnant with a fifth child. Her children were put under the care of Catherine de la Pole, the abbess of Barking and a sister of the Earl of Suffolk.  The child, a daughter, died soon after birth and Catherine was seriously ill afterwards and died at the age of 36 on 3 January 1437.

After Catherine’s death Owen was accused of breaking the law by marrying the queen. He was acquitted of this charge, which would suggest that he denied that they had married. On his return to Wales however, he was arrested and sent to Newgate. his possessions were seized, which may suggest that there were those who did not believe his denial. He tried to escape in 1438 but was re-arrested and placed in Windsor Castle.

His fortunes started to change in 1439. He was pardoned by the king and released on bail of £2000, which was cancelled in 1440. 1442

Henry VI, her first son was now 16 years old and in a position to make decisions. He chose to honour his mother with a state funeral and burial in Westminster Abbey. He was surprisingly generous to his half brothers and sister. Owen Tudor was given an annuity of £40 and the two elder sons, Edmund and Jasper, were created earls of Richmond and Pembroke respectively. The third brother Owen became a monk. Further, in 1453, possibly mindful that he had not produced an heir at that time, he declared his half brothers legitimate. Edmund was married to the heiress to the House of Somerset, Margaret Beaufort. Margaret was only about 10 years old at the time of her marriage and it was customary not to begin conjugal relations too early. Edmund Tudor was impatient and soon after her first period made her pregnant. He was subsequently captured by Yorkist forces and died on 1 November 1456 of the plague whilst in prison. After his death Margaret gave birth to Henry Tudor on 28 January 1457. It was a difficult birth for an immature body and we guess that Margaret was damaged from the experience as she was never able to conceive another child. Such are the tenuous threads that make up royal history; that child was to become Henry VII. 

Perhaps Humphrey of Gloucester was right to be worried after all.

The second widow is Jacquetta of Luxembourg, daughter of the Count of St Pol, perhaps not a grand as Catherine of Valois but with a lineage which could be traced back to Charlemagne. She came to attention after John, duke of Bedford, younger brother of Henry V, and regent of France lost his first wife, Anne of Burgundy. The English position in France was weakening at the time and relations with Burgundy were precarious, so the match was proposed by Jacquetta’s uncle, the Bishop of Thérouanne. The couple were married at the bishop’s palace on 29 April 1433. She was 17 years old and contemporary reports describe her as lively and attractive. Bedford however was her senior by 27 years. He was also in declining health. His struggle to maintain the English position in France after Henry V’s death with sometimes lukewarm support from home had worn the man down. His health eventually failed him and he died on 14 February 1435.

His young widow was well provided for but, while she was not as politically important as Catherine, the king’s council made provision that she not remarry without the kin’s permission when he was granted her dower rights 6 February 1436. 

It is very difficult to assess her first marriage at a distance of almost 600 years but it is notable that the marriage of almost two years produced no issue. Jacquetta accompanied her husband in both England and France and in view of her later fecundity the absence of children with the duke is worth comment.  John did have two illegitimate children, a boy, Richard, who was alive in 1434, and a daughter Mary. She married Peter de Montserrat and died after 1458. He was unable to successfully father children by his first wife, Anne of Burgundy. He married her in 1423 and she died during childbirth (as did the infant) on 14 November 1432. It is quite possible that other unsuccessful pregnancies preceded this, but none were recorded.  Jacquetta was young and strong and without doubt capable of bearing children. Yet there was no pregnancy of record during the more the two years of their marriage, and this is a puzzle. The duke was certainly in poor health at this time but in the previous year (1433) he was still notionally potent. The couple were separated in age by 27 years; he was old enough to be her father. However he was a man past his prime and as it turned out very near to the end of his life. He had been worn down by his responsibilities in France and almost constant campaigning. He may have been at a stage in his life when he was no longer interested in the sexual act. That, together with his manifold responsibilities may have kept him and Jacquetta from enjoying a proper union. It is also possible that she had no appetite for him and they may have mutually agreed to not sharing the same bed, both content to maintain the outward show of the marriage for the diplomatic purposes behind the union.

During this period of widowhood her attention was drawn to a very good looking and athletic young knight, Sir Richard Woodville. He was probably at the time in his mid-twenties. His father had been a chamberlain to the duke of Bedford and he himself was in the duke’s service. There was a strong romantic attraction on both sides. She however was a duchess; he was of lesser status. Around this time his father inherited the Northamptonshire estates of the Woodvilles and within a few years he would also come into this inheritance. He was not badly off, but there was a large gap between their respective social status.

Nonetheless Jacquetta was determined to have her man and they married secretly, certainly before 23 March 1437 when Parliament fined the couple £1000. They paid up. Her family and authorities in England were annoyed but concluded that there was not much that could be done, which seems to hint that Jacquetta was already pregnant at the time. The baby she was carrying was born that year and may have been a boy, named Richard. He must have died in infancy because the first child to survive to adulthood, Elizabeth, was the beautiful woman who would propel the family to enduring fame, or notoriety, depending on your viewpoint. In 1464 in circumstances which would have seemed improbable to a writer of fiction, she married Edward IV, king of England.

From the successful birth of Elizabeth, Sir Richard and Jacquetta produced a large and healthy family over the next twenty years. Sir Richard in the meantime made progress in his career being appointed to various important positions. He was created a baron by Henry VI in 1448 and the family’s economic circumstances improved. Around 1440 they were able to purchase the Grafton Manor from the Duke of Suffolk.

Queen Elizabeth, wife of Edward IV

The marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Grey (nee Woodville) in 1464 astonished contemporaries and even today we find it equally astonishing. Elizabeth nevertheless had many qualities that fitted her for the role of queen and an objective assessment would be that she acquitted herself well. She did however have a large number of kinfolk to provide for and this caused resentment against the “Woodvilles” which was eventually to prove their undoing. Elizabeth had two sons from her first marriage, five brothers and an equal number of sisters. All were given status and the girls were matched with plum marriages. The men meanwhile, as they grew up and included members of the wider Woodville kinship formed a sizeable faction at court. The Tudors, if a comparison can be made between the two families, came to three in number, father and two sons, and were never a threat to the establishment. 

Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond

Two high born women made a love match after they were widowed from their first arranged marriages. Both were wealthy enough to make that choice. Neither saw any destiny in this. They simply felt entitled to some happiness and were content to take a chance on love. For Jacquetta this worked out well. She was a strong and wealthy woman and bore a lot of children, all of whom turned out to be intelligent and talented. She faced tragedy late in life when her husband and one of her sons were executed by the earl of Warwick in 1469 but she was able to see her daughter crowned queen of England and her other daughters make highly placed marriages. Her sons achieved positions of some eminence. Catherine had a neglected childhood and may not have been a good mother. She did not appear to have much contact with her first born son and attended neither of his coronations, either in England or France. How she fared with her Tudor children we do not know. She seems to have found love and happiness with Owen Tudor and deliberately opted out of the political mainstream. She had no wish to model herself on her politically active mother. 

Henry Tudor

In the 1430s two knights of middling rank each married a high born widow. A grandson of one and a granddaughter of another became king and queen of England in 1485. Who could have predicted that?

Elizabeth of York

Margaret of Anjou and Jacquetta

On Suffolk's second expedition to France in 1445 to collect henry's bride and escort her to England, he took with him Jacquetta, the former duchess of Bedford, as well as her husband Sir Richard Woodville.The choice of Jacquetta was probably judicious. She spoke French and had been brought up as the daughter of a Count, Margaret's exact status. Jacquetta was about 15 years older than the young Margaret, a mature woman who could calm the nerves of a young girl now propelled to the pinnacle of English society.

What little evidence we have suggests that the two women got along well.  Jacquetta was taken on as one of Queen Margaret's ladies when they came to England and several gifts from Margaret to her were recorded. These gifts may perhaps be taken as an indication of that regard.

Margaret of Anjou

At a crisis point in February 1461 Jacquetta was called upon by the mayor and aldermen of the City of London to mediate with Margaret when she held a rampant army at the city gates. Margaret's forces had just defeated the earl of Warwick at the second Battle of St Albans and after finishing off the duke of York at Wakefield on 30 December 1460, this should have proved decisive for the Lancastrian cause. But Margaret had the political equivalent of a tin ear. Her troops had plundered and laid waste many parts of the country and they continued with their merry destruction after St Albans. The city of London was nervous, and with good cause, so they did not immediately open the gates and sought assurances from Margaret. Hence they sent out the duchess of Bedford, who they clearly felt would have Margaret's ear and that they would get a fair hearing about their concerns.

Assurances were given and the city fathers agreed to admit Margaret and her forces. Who knows what might have happened after that, but any potential for destruction or even establishing firm government was forestalled.  The citizens disagreed with the decision of the mayor and aldermen and refused to open the gates, and, led by John Lambert, father of Elizabeth Shore, later a mistress of Edward IV and known to history as "Jane" Shore, they put up sufficient resistance so that Margaret decided to turn back to her secure territory in the midlands.

This may be regarded as a significant turning point in the struggle for power known as the Wars of the Roses.

A few months later Margaret's cause was lost at the battle of Towton. Jacquetta's husband and sons decided to realign their fortunes to the Yorkist cause and we may imagine that Jacquetta and Margaret never met again for the rest of their lives.

The Wedding at Titchfield Abbey

Just to the north of the village of Titchfield in Hampshire is an old stone bridge which crosses the River Meon. Locally it is known as the"Anjou Bridge." This stone bridge dates from 1625 and doubtless there were earlier wooden bridges at this narrow crossing and it was this bridge that Margaret of Anjou crossed with her retinue to meet her husband Henry VI at Tichfield Abbey. The date was April 22nd 1445 and there she was married to Henry with the bishop of Salisbury officiating.

The "Anjou Bridge" with Titchfield Abbey in the background.

There is little trace of the abbey today. It was acquired by Sir Thomas Wriothesly, later Baron Titchfield an later still earl of Southampton in 1539 and he immediately set about converting the abbey into a splendid Tudor country house. Of that only the gatehouse and some walls survive.

Margaret was 15 years old and Henry eight years her senior and this day was the culmination of a good deal of diplomatic effort over a protracted period. It was a highly political marriage with a great deal at stake, for the English at any rate, and it turned into a major political miscalculation by the English.

Activity around the idea of a marriage went back to the beginning of 1444 when the English were trying to construct a truce. French resurgence since the time of Joan of Arc made the English hold on Normandy increasingly tenuous and expensive and some breathing room was required. A marriage for Henry, now in his early 20s seems to be a way of securing this. Charles VII of France was amenable to the idea, but he would not propose his own daughters and attention then fell upon Margaret of Anjou. Her father, Rene, duke of Anjou was a cousin to the Valois king but other than that had little to offer. He had wasted a good part of his life pursuing his phantom title to the kingdom of Naples and bankrupted himself in the process. Therefore Margaret came only with a name and a dowry.

However, the English government was interested. The arrangement promised a two year truce with the prospect of negotiating something of longer duration, and in a spirit of optimism Margaret was married at the church of St Martin at Tours on 24 May 1444 to Henry VI. Standing in as proxy for the king was William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk. Once the diplomatic business of the marriage and the truce was effected, the earl returned to England.

Six months elapsed and Suffolk, newly promoted to marquess, returned to France to escort Margaret to England. He was accompanied by Sir Richard Woodville and his wife Jacquetta. They were to spend some time in France. Margaret was unwell at this time and the winter weather that followed did not allow a crossing so it was not until April of the following year that they were able to ross the Channel.

The party landed at Porchester on 9 April but Margaret was again unwell. It seems to have been something more than sea-sickness as it was described as caused  'of the labour and indisposition of the sea by occasion of which the pocks broke out upon her.' Whatever the complaint, it kept her down for seven days.

The chroniclers are vague about what happened to her. Gregory say that she went to Hampton (Southampton) to rest in God's House, before returning to Titchfield. Gregory says that she went to Southwell (probably meaning Southwick) and Fabyan's Chronicle also records that they were married at Southwick. It may be hard to make sense of all this. Porchester had been converted to a royal palace by Richard II and was perfectly able to accommodate large retinues. It was a practical place to house Margaret's party. There was a connection with the Priory of Southwark since it was at one time within the walls of Porchester Castle until they decamped for their own place a few miles north in the middle of the 12th century and it is possible that Henry himself was staying there. It would make better sense for him to be lodging at Titchfield; otherwise why hold the ceremony there rather than Southwick? Margaret may have been taken to God's house at Southampton because there were men there who could minister o her sickness. She would have been taken by water (by far the fastest way to travel) and returned to Porchester ready to progress to Titchfield.

Initially the marriage was considered a success by the English public since it promised years of peace in the future, but it quickly unravelled. In July a French embassy came to England to discuss a further truce and of course they wanted something in return. The County of Maine, at that time a buffer state between French Anjou and English Normandy, was desired by the French. Both Henry and Margaret, already asserting herself, were party to the negotiations and Henry gave a private undertaking to cede Maine to France in return for a 20 year truce. Suffolk and a few others were involved but the treaty was a secret one and by 22 December Henry agreed in a letter to surrender Maine by 30 April 1446.

Had this resulted in the intended peace the trade may not have been such a bad one but the Maine garrison, who had not been consulted or informed, refused to surrender. Charles chose to consider this a breach of the treaty and marched into Maine in February 1448. Two weeks later it was his. The following year he marched into Normandy and within two months had taken Rouen. Everything was quickly lost and England's presence in France was now reduced to the Pale of Calais.

The Last Knight Errant

Detractors of the Woodvilles tend to skate over the life of the youngest son Edward. He was too young to be of any political significance during the reigns of Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII, but in any case, his aptitude and interest was soldiering and he went out of his way to be in the thick of the action. Christopher Wilkins has written a full biography, The Last Knight Errant, which throws light on his somewhat obscure life.

Edward Woodville was the last Woodville with a significant reputation and he died as he had lived as a fighting man. Soldiering was very much in the Woodville tradition. His grandfather and father had been soldiers, as had two of his older brothers and they all had good reputations. Edward revelled in it. While his elder brothers Antony and John had been recognised as skilled jousters they appeared to have broader interests. Antony held a high reputation on the jousting field but was a complex man who tended to avoid the uncertainties of battle where he could. Edward actually sought out battles.

He was the youngest of the Woodville brothers. As with all of them his birth date is uncertain but it was probably c 1458.  He followed in the footsteps of his father and older brothers and became a military man.

The first record that we have of him is in April 1472, when he accompanied Anthony to Brittany with 1,000 archers. There may have been little action but at the apprentice age of 16 this was his first exposure to a military campaign.

Presumably he was on hand in the following years but there was not much military engagement during Edward’s second reign.  In 1478, he appeared at a tournament held to celebrate the marriage of young Richard, Duke of York, to Anne Mowbray; his horses were resplendent in cloth of gold.  Later that year, and he was then 20, he was sent to Scotland to negotiate a marriage contract between the widowed Anthony Woodville and Margaret of Scotland. He was accompanied by the much more experienced John Russell, Bishop of Rochester, who was presumably the lead negotiator, while Edward was there to represent his brother’s interest.  Nevertheless it was a significant posting and may signify that he could be trusted with such roles. The parties agreed a treaty with a dowry of 4000 marks to be paid by the Scottish King James and a wedding was planned for October. In the end the marriage did not come to pass as the Scots continued to raid the northern border of England and King James began to prevaricate.

Two years later in 1480, Edward Woodville was assigned the governorship of Porchester Castle. This had been under the control of Antony and it is perhaps a recognition of Edward’s growing maturity and competence that he was given this responsibility. Porchester had been an important fort since Roman times  and it had been refurbished and rebuilt during the reigns of Richard II and Henry V and was gradually taking over in importance from Southampton. Portsmouth was also becoming a naval centre as activity shifted away from Southampton. Together with Carisbroke Castle, also under the command of Antony Woodville, Porchester formed a key defence for the south coast. As commander of Porchester and governor of Portsmouth Edward was now able to learn about maritime matters.

That year he was sent to Burgundy to escort Edward IV’s sister Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy, to England for a visit.  He took with him twelve servants dressed in the York livery of ‘merry and blue’  (maroon and blue) and he was granted a yard of purple velvet and a yard of blue velvet so that his tail could make suitably resplendent clothing.

And so it was not until 1482, when Richard, Duke of Gloucester, led an army against the Scots, that Edward Woodville participated in military action. In this campaign he served as one of Richard’s lieutenants, with five hundred men in his force. This would suggest that he was experienced enough in arms to undertake this kind of leadership. As he moved north he was commissioned to recruit men and there was the option to make payment in lieu of service. The town of Coventry, we learn,  contributed twenty pounds in lieu of men.

Since the embassy of 1480 the Scots had continued to make border incursions and the northern lords, and indeed Edward himself, were determined to bring this to an end. Richard, duke of Gloucester, as warden of the north was placed in charge. The expedition was successful and the town of Berwick was restored to English control and has remained a part of England ever since. The campaign overall was successful and Richard of Gloucester emerged with great credit, not only for the military success but the diplomatic solution afterwards. Edward must have distinguished himself as Richard made him a knight banneret on July 24, 1482. The two men, brothers in arms in the summer of 1482 found themselves enemies in 1483.

The following year was of course momentous. In April 1483, Edward IV died. Edward Woodville took part in his funeral procession, and it was while he was at sea on a campaign against Philippe de Crèvecoeur, known as Lord Cortes, that word reached him of Richard’s coup at Stony Stratford. Edward V’s council had appointed Edward Woodville to deal with this French threat and had a fleet of ships at his disposal. At the time it was a straightforward appointment; he was the leading naval figure. However, that authority was put into question after Richard gained control and ordered that Edward Woodville be seized at Southampton.

Sir Edward may not have been aware of these orders. On May 14 he  sailed into Southampton Water and captured a French ship which was carrying a huge amount of gold amounting to £10,201. He appropriated this in the name of the king and prepared and signed an indenture to establish that this was not an act of piracy. He wrote that in the event ‘that it can be proved not forfeited unto the King . . . He (Sir Edward) shall repay the value of the said money in English merchandise within three months . . . If the said money is to be forfeited the Sir Edward be answering the King.^⁠1’ He also styled himself in this document  ’Sir Edward Wydeville, knight, uncle to our said sovereign Lord and great captain of his navy.” None of this reads like a man intending to raid the English treasury and defect to Brittany and the indenture was sent to the king’s council.

In London, policy was turning 180 degrees. Cortes was no longer a French invader but a victim of Sir Edward. Richard was prepared to do a deal with Cortes and restore his ships and goods.

Mancini reported that two of the ships, under the command of Genoese captains, encouraged the English soldiers on board to drink heavily, then overcame the drunken men and tied them up with ropes and chains. With the Englishmen immobilised, the Genoese announced their intent to return to England, and all but two of the ships set out for Southampton. Sir Edward Woodville was left with two loyal ships, The Trinity and The Falcon and having grasped the new reality, sailed on to Brittany, where he joined Henry Tudor, with, presumably, since it was never heard of again, the £10201 in gold coins.

When Henry sailed to England in the autumn of 1483 to join the abortive rebellion against Richard III, it seems likely that Edward would have been with him, since his brothers Richard and Lionel were involved in the rebellion and his brother-in-law the Duke of Buckingham was the highest-ranking rebel. In the event, Henry sailed into Poole harbour but, suspecting that the friendly soldiers who urged him to disembark were supporters of Richard III, sailed back to Brittany.

The Crowland chronicler described Edward as one of his leaders at the battle of Bosworth: a “brother of Queen Elizabeth and a most courageous knight.” He was rewarded for his support and was granted Porchester (previously held by him) and the Captaincy of the Isle of Wight, which included the lordship of Carisbrooke Castle. The Captaincy of the Isle of Wight was an important post, formerly held by his eldest brother Antony and historically held by the Redvers barons of Devon.

Sir Edward Woodville remained single and led the life of a libertine. We will never know if he would have grown out of that. It is not an unfamiliar pattern for young men to ‘sow their wild oats’, especially, as a younger brother, there was no dynastic pressure on him. His contemporary John Paston followed this path, chasing women constantly until at about the age of 30 he decided to settle down. Mancini, when reporting Edward’s licentious activities included Edward Woodville as one of the king’s dissolute companions.

He seems also to have inherited some of Antony’s other titles because it was as “Lord Scales” that he went to fight the Moors in Granada, serving in the armies of Ferdinand and Isabella. Here he earned some European fame as the Conde de Scala (count of Scales.) Spain was undergoing political transformation. The kingdoms of Aragon and Castille had become united through the marriage of the two monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, and a concerted effort was being made to drive the Moors out of Southern Spain. The struggles attracted mercenaries.

Edward must have been leading one of these groups when he arrived at Seville in 1 March 1486. Although settled in high office at home in England he must have fond life too dull and leapt at the opportunity for some real action. He had 300 men under his command, 100 were described as archers and 200 as yeomen.This phase of the Spanish campaign was fighting against a divided Moorish kingdom, but nevertheless it was still strong. As edward arrived at Loja the Spanish troops were trying to establish camp when they were ambushed by the Moors. Edward spied an opportunity to attack a Moorish weak point and asked permission of King Frednand to attack This was given and he led a  foot charge against the Moors with his men fighting in a wedge formation.

A full account is given by the Spanish chronicler Bernàldez::

Dismounting from his horse and armed with sword and battle axe, he charged forward at the Moorish host before them all, with a small company of his men, armed like himself, slashing and hacking with brave manly hearts, killing and dismounting the enemy left and right.

This inspired the Spanish.

The Castilians, seeing his charge, rushed on to support it, following on the heels of the Englishman with such valour that the Moors turned tail and fled.^⁠2

The next stage in the fight was to scale the walls and Sir Edward was not above leading his men in this dangerous mission.

Unfortunately just as the suburbs were carried, the knight, as he was mounting a scaling ladder, received a blow from a stone which dashed out to of his front teeth and stretched him senseless on the ground.

There seems to be no doubt that his charge against the Moors was pivotal to the outcome of the battle and although he played no part in its conclusion he was acknowledge and richly rewarded by the king and queen. Isabella sympathised with the loss of his teeth and he is said to have wittily replied: “Christ, who reared this whole fabric, has merely opened a window, in order more easily to discern what goes on within.” In an age before the invention of false teeth it did nothing for his appearance, or perhaps even for his speech. Edward was sent home to England with a rich array of gifts, including twelve horses, two couches, and fine linen.

Those who know about the development of medieval tactics in warfare will not that by marching with his men in a tight disciplined group Sir Edward was at the forefront of military thinking. This technique of mixing trained knights with ordinary soldiers had been pioneered successfully by the Swiss and more forward thinkers adopted this approach, hitherto lights and ordinary foot soldiers fought in separate groups on either side, but by mingling lights and men at arms with ordinary infantry proved to be a much better fighting unit.

He was back in England in 1487 fighting for Henry VII against forces led by John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, in support of Lambert Simnel, a young pretender to the throne. After three days of skirmishing near Doncaster, Edward’s troops were forced to retreat through Sherwood Forest to Nottingham. At the Battle of Stoke, however, where Edward Woodville commanded the right wing, victory went to Henry VII.

In May 1488, possibly by this time in his thirtieth year, and in his prime as a soldier Edward asked Henry VII to allow him to assist the duke in fighting the French. Henry VII, who was seeking peace with France, refused the request, but Edward ignored this and returned to the Isle of Wight, where he raised four hundred and forty “tall and hardy personages” and sailed to Brittany. Edmund Hall, writing in his chronicle in the next century suggests his motive as  “either abhorring ease and idleness or inflamed with ardent love and affection toward the Duke of Brittany.”

When he arrived in Rennes he was greeted with enthusiasm. Two barrels of claret were rolled out and consumed in their honour and as they were paraded in the Boute de Cohue square a further two barrels of white wine were opened. Musicians played and there was great celebration. Sir Edward himself snd his close entourage are treated to a great banquet. When news got back to the French they were incensed and made representations to King Henry who denied supporting the expedition and assured them he would not break the truce that existed between them. The truce however masked French preparations. The Bretons became alarmed and began to assemble an army over the summer , but the English force of Edward Woodville was probably the only professional force there. Somewhat late in the day his expedition did get official sanction in the end and Henry sent reinforcements, but the French arrived in Brittany before this could be done.

The French forces were overwhelming. Edward was in the vanguard leading 2000 men  and as they charged they were overcome by the superior French forces. Edward was killed together with many of his men. The Breton forces broke and the battle ended in a rout. It was the end of an independent Brittany.

A grey stone monument marks the battle at St. Aubin-du-Cormier on July 22, 1488. Amongst those recognised fighting for the Breton cause on that day are: “Lord Scales and 500 English archers.” Edward Woodville  had fought his last battle.

It is intriguing to ask what drove a man like Edward Woodville. He was as talented an athlete as his father and older brothers Antony and John but he was distinctive in that he deliberately sought glory on the field of battle. The other Woodvilles fought when need be and used their talent to grace tournaments in peace time. Edward clearly relished the risk and thrill of battle. Antony had at least two opportunities to fight on foreign fields but declined on both occasions. Edward was only too eager to get into a fight and travelled great distances at some expense to find glory on the battlefield.

According to Mancini, and this is the only reference, Edward was something of a libertine. He wrote that “although [Edward IV] had many promoters and companions of his vices, the more important and especial were three of the . . . relatives of the queen, her two sons and one of her brothers.”   Her two sons in this instance were the older Greys, both of whom had a reputation that is reported elsewhere and it must be assumed that the Woodville brothers the high profile Edward. Antony had a respectable, even pious, reputation; Lionel was a bishop; and Richard seems to have led a quiet life. So one concludes that Edward is the Woodville mentioned here.