Paul Murray Kendall and the writing of History

 Paul Murray Kendall was an American academic and writer (1911-1973) who made his name in the 1950s with a very good book on Richard III and others on 15th century history. I have just been reading his book on Warwick the Kingmaker and came across this passage.

On November 9th he entered Westminster Hall, accompanied by a retinue of attendants. Numbers of men of the royal household lounging about the hall glowered upon the party. After Warwick had gone on alone into the council chamber, the King's menials began to jeer at the men who bore the badge of the Ragged Staff. The language grew hot on both sides. Someone drew a dagger. In an instant men were slashing at one another with whatever weapon they had at hand. Up from the pantries and the kitchens streamed servants of the King brandishing knives and cleavers -

In the council chamber Warwick heard desperate cries of 'Warwick! Warwick!' He rushed into the great hall, was immediately beset by men of the royal household intent on making an end of him. Surrounded by his outnumbered retinue he fought for his life. His friends from the council forced their way to his side. Slowly they cut a path down the hall. Once they were in the open air, Warwick and his men made a break for the barges. Just in time they pushed out into the Thames beyond the reach of their pursuers.

This is brilliant writing. He creates a scene and carries the tension and desperation of the moment through his short punchy sentences. He draws a picture of a great hall where most were gathered and a private chamber for the council meeting. The kitchen must have been below stairs. But where did this information come from? Men running up from the pantries and kitchens brandishing knives and cleavers. Really?

So I went back to the sources to find out what people actually wrote at the time:

The xxx vij. yere, the kyng and the quene beyng at Westminster, the ix. day of Nouembre fylle a grete debate betwene Richard ere of Warrewyk and theym of the kynges hous, in so moche that they wolde haue sleyne the erle; and vnnethe he escaped to his barge,

(Stowe Chronicle, ed Davies p. 78)

There is not much to go on here, but the London Chronicle adds a little more detail.

In this yere, after Candelmasse, a man of therle of Warwyk smote a seruaunt of the kynges in Westmynster hall; wherwith the kynges howsold meyny were wroth, and came owte with wepons, and some for hast with spittes, for to haue slayn therle; but the lordes that were his frendes conveyed hym to his barge; how be it many of his howsold meany were hurt. And for this was great labour made to the kyng to have had the seed Erle areasted; but he Incontynently departed the town toward Warwyk.  (Chronicle of London, ed Kingsford)

So this is the source for Murray Kendall's purple passage. The facts we have here are the date, Candlemass - November 9th, the location - Westminster Hall, that one of the earl's men hit one of the king's men, that it got out of hand, that some of the lords friendly to Warwick protected him as he made his way to the barge, that he made a hurried escape.

It seems probable from this account that words were spoken which provoked one of the earl's men to shove or hit the other. There is little doubt that the atmosphere at court was hostile to Warwick, and there were some there whose fathers had been killed three years earlier at the Battle of St Albans. The charge he had come to answer had nothing to do with this. Since tensions were high, many more got involved  and before too long weapons were out. Some grabbed spits, which may have been at hand, but Kendall interprets this as men rising from the kitchens with knives and cleavers. He also supposes that there was a separate council chamber but this is unlikely. The purpose of a great hall was to conduct the king's business in a public theatre. Warwick was there for a dressing down over his piratical behaviour in the English channel. It would not do for this to be done outside the ears of the court.  The hall in any case was not for the general public or even the kitchen staff, who in any case would have been in a separate building in the 15th century; the "below stairs"  kitchen only became common in the 19th century. But the lords and court officials would be in attendance. Whatever justice was to be delivered onto Warwick needed witnesses.

There were lords there who would have happily run through Warwick with a sword, if they dared, but were probably content to stand by. If Warwick was killed in the fracas their hands would be clean. Nevertheless, if this were to happen it would have been a scandal that would be difficult for the monarchy to live down. Perhaps even the myopic Margaret of Anjou could see that. Warwick still had friends at court and they most likely offered him a protective cordon so that he could reach his barge. The atmosphere was certainly hot and the Stowe Chronicle reports that the earl feared for his life.
It is reported here that there were those who pressed the king, probably led by the duke of Somerset,  to have Warwick, arrested, but the bird had flown.

There is no doubt that the writing of Paul Murray Kendall makes for bright and entertaining reading. He adds colour to the narrative, but perhaps there is too much fictional flesh and too little historical bone here, which brings me to the purpose of this post. It is surely the job of the historian to construct some sort of narrative from meagre sources of information. The historian also has to assess the reliability of the source against other known facts. It is a difficult intellectual exercise and will rarely lead to a fluent narrative. The historical novelist is quite free to stretch and embroider and imagine in order to create a satisfactory reading experience. I contend that the historian, however intuitive, will never have this freedom.

This is not to say that history is not subject to changing interpretations; reading the literature on Richard III, for example, over the past 100 years should be sufficient to convince one that a wide range of interpretations of the same event is possible. The evidence does not change (except in rare instances) but new reading of the evidence is always possible, and an historian is quite entitled to argue the case.

As an illustration, it is possible to infer from the above Chronicle entry that the hostility towards Warwick may have had something to do with the first Battle of St Albans in 1455. At that battle two of Warwick's bitter enemies, the earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford were killed. Also done to death was the duke of Somerset, arch rival to the duke of York. Other casualties in this short street battle were light so it is legitimate to suspect that these men were deliberately targeted. However there is no accusation on record to support this suspicion, which is not to say that the suspicion is unfounded. One might therefore wonder if there was more behind this scuffle in 1458 than Warwick's recent freebooting in the Channel. It is a legitimate query, which the historian can raise, but not answer.

To be fair to Paul Murray Kendall, he was well aware of what he was doing. He, when "confronted with a handful of documents—odd moments of personal history fortuitously preserved—[was] forced to make biographical bricks with very little straw." His method, as illustrated in the above passage, is to bring his own detail to the narrative. Which may be fine, but, as I have already indicated, he makes some anachronistic errors. He takes the use of the words "king's servants" in an 18th or 19th century sense as the 'king's menials'. They were more likely court officials - office holders, scribes, guards. Kitchens in the Middle Ages were separate buildings. Fire was a recurrent hazard and if you look at the ruins of any medieval building it is apparent that these buildings were detached. So the idea of kitchen servants rushing upstairs with cleavers and meathooks is pure fiction. So too is the idea that Warwick was off in a separate council chamber when the ruckus started. As I have suggested above it is more likely that Warwick was present in the Great Hall. 

The issue I have with Paul Murray Kendall's presentation is that he describes an event as it happened, rather than as it may have happened. While I agree that such phrases as "it is likely that" or "it is probable that" make for very tedious reading, I contend that it is the historian's job to distinguish between the facts we know and those which are a matter for speculation.

Richard Wydeville as a Jouster

Sir Richard Woodville was a skilled man at arms, possibly one of the leading jousters of his day. The Close Rolls contain this entry in 1440 which shows that  a lot of expense and trouble was to be taken to set up this event in Smithfield.

1440 Nov. 10. Westminster

To the treasurer and the barons of the exchequer. Order to view the king's command to the sheriffs of London, and to allow them in their account at the exchequer all sums of money which by oath of the sheriffs or their deputies they shall be assured are spent by virtue thereof ; as Peter de Vasques of Spain knight, coming of late to England with licence of the king, has challenged Richard Wydevyle the king's knight to certain points or feats

of arms, and the king has gladly granted licence for the same, and has ordered the sheriffs at his cost to erect lists and barriers of timber at ‘Westsmythfelde’ in the suburbs of London by 26 November instant, and to cover the ground within the lists with sand for the purpose, so that there be no let or obstacle there by stones or otherwise, and further by advice of John duke of Norffolk marshal of England to construct a place there for the king suitable to his royal estate.

[Foedera.]

This was an international tournament and the honour of the country was clearly at stake, so we may presume that Sir Richard was chosen as the champion, the best of his time. He was probably in his mid 30s and at the peak of his experience. Jousting was a brutal sport. The men were not fighting with play swords but with real weapons and usually the tournament would be fought until one man yielded. From the Chronicle of London we might gather that both men were a match for each other and before any serious damage could be done, as the men reached for their pole axes, the King intervened and called "Hoo!", bringing the match to a draw with no honour lost on either side.

In this same yere, the morwe after seynt Katerine day, was a chalange in armes provyd afore the kyng, withinne lystes mad in Smythfeld, betwen Sr. Richard Wodevill, knyght of Engelond, and a knyght of Spayn, whiche knyght for his lady love shulde fyghten in certeyn poynts of armes, that is to seye, with ax, swerd, and daggere; and or thei hadde do with the polax the kyng cried, hoo. (In this same year, the morning after St Catherine's Day [Nov 25th], was a challenge in arms before the king, at the Smithfield lists, between Sir Richard Woodville of England and and a knight of Spain, and would fight for their lady love with axe, sword and dagger. When they got to the point of using a pole axe, the king cried, "Hoo!")

In the previous year on Shrove Tuesday he jousted with Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk at the Tower of London. There is no other detail but it may add to the impression that Sir richard Woodville was one of the premier jousters of the day.

The Origin of the Woodvilles

The Woodvilles arrived, fully formed as it were, on the scene in the early 15^th Century. Their origins are completely obscure. Yet, by the time they come into history, they were clearly people of some substance, although not in the top rank of society. Richard Woodville, who became the first Earl Rivers, was a man of some means and was well placed in royal service. His father, also Richard, was not insignificant either. He was the second son of John Woodville, who had served as Sheriff of Northampton and had made his way in life through royal service. As the second son he could not inherit the Woodville estates but he appears to have done enough for himself to acquire some land in Kent, where he raised his children with his wife Joan Bedlisgate (Bittlesgate).  The Bedlisgates had Beauchamp connections. He was brought up, and educated,  in the same household as Henry, Prince of Wales, later Henry V, and this obviously stood him in good stead. He did military service in France and in 1423 was appointed Chamberlain to the Duke of Bedford. After Bedford’s death in 1435 he was made Lieutenant of Calais and in 1436 given the post of Constable of Rochester Castle. He did well for himself and neither he nor his children were from mean or humble stock. 

This has to be emphasised as there is a tendency to dismiss the Woodvilles as insignificant because they had no royal blood in their veins.

Redvers

Except that may be a possibility. When Richard Woodville took the name Earl Rivers he and his family probably knew something about their origins that has not survived on record, that  they were descendants of the highly placed Redvers family from Conquest times.

Richard de Redvers was a supporter of William the Conqueror’s eldest son, Robert Curthose, but switched his allegiance to the youngest, who became Henry I after the death of William II in 1100. Redvers was highly trusted by Henry I and he rewarded him with the barony of Plimpton in Devon and the Lordship of the Isle of Wight. In addition he had inherited estates in the Contention region in Normandy and the Vexin. Redvers was rich and powerful.

There is some argument about the 1^st Earl of Devon, whether it was Richard or his son Baldwin. Most now agree that Matilda, Henry I’s daughter, created Baldwin de Redvers as the first earl in 1141, during her brief moment of power. The male succession died out in 1262 and the title and lands passed to his sister, Isabella, known as Isabella de Fortibus. She died in 1293, having outlived all of her six children. The earldom of Devon passed to cousins, the Courtenay family and the Isle of Wight was sold to the Crown.

When Richard Woodville chose the title of Baron Rivers in 1448 (later elevated to Earl Rivers in 1466) he must have (let us assume) had in mind some connection to the illustrious Redvers family. One assume that this matter was discussed with the heralds and they presumably endorsed the claim, most likely through a female descendant. None of this speculation can be supported by documentary evidence but it is plausible. When he was created earl, Rivers added an escutcheon of a gold griffin on a red background to his coat of arms. The Redvers coat of arms was a gold lion rampant on a red shield. It is tempting to infer that this was a homage to his supposed Redvers lineage.

Woodville

At this point we may turn to the name Wydville, or Woodville, as it was represented in the 15^th Century. This does not sound like a name of English origin although at least one website has offered Woodwell in Northamptonshire as a possible origin for the name. I think that this is unlikely and it probably comes into the category of Norman place names that attached themselves to the invading families in 1066, names like, Geneville, Neuville, Longueville are examples. 

Wood is an English word with no equivalent in French, so I am tempted go with the sound of the word and look for something similar in France. There is an "Oudeville", a small village in Seine-Maritime, which may be a candidate for the name. I don't know enough about how the name of this village developed, but if you think about the pronunciation of the French word for "yes" - oui (pronounced by the English as "we") you can see how the name Wydeville might have developed while in England.

The Wydeville coat of arms, before ennoblement, was a simple one, in itself an indication of some antiquity. Beginning in the 14th century and gathering pace in the 15th century, coats of arms became more complex. The example below shows the Knight of the Garter crest of Earl Rivers. The original Wydeville device is now part of a complex of quarterings, and, as noted above, the Griffin appears to be a nod to the Redvers heritage.

Redvers and Woodville

 This is speculative, but we can imagine a scenario where a man, a knight of Oudeville stock married a Redvers woman and their descendants acquired the corrupted surname of Wydeville or Woodville.

Whatever their origins the Woodvilles, when they emerge in the 15^th Century, were a well-established gentry family with manors in south Northamptonshire, none of which had been acquired overnight. A Walter de Wydeville makes an appearance in a dispute with the Abbot of Grestain in 1235. Walter had jurisdiction over the Hundred Court of Cleyly, so he was not without influence or standing in the community.

Jacquetta of Luxembourg: 3 From Duchess to Lady

In 1435 the duchess became free (relatively speaking) to choose her own destiny. While somewhat constrained by the ruling that she was not to remarry without the king's permission, she allowed her heart to rule her head. And why not? She found happiness with Sir Richard Woodville and if the evidence of raising a large family is anything to go by, she must have felt years later that she made the right choice.

Economically, it was not such a bad outcome. Sir Richard was not a wealthy magnate, but he was far from being poor and as a rising start in the court of Henry VI had prospects. She had her own dowry income, which was not inconsiderable, estimated at over £1000 per annum.

The date of the marriage is unknown, but it must have been before 23 March 1437 when Parliament fined the couple £1000 for marrying without the King's permission. It was a heavy fine but not inconsistent with standard practice for someone of Jacquetta's rank marrying without licence. The couple probably factored this into their decision and Jacquetta at any rate could afford to meet the fine.

Sir Richard was engaged in the siege of Gerberoy in the Spring of 1436 and was captured by the French. He was released in May of that year and was therefore free to pursue his romantic interests. It can be inferred that they got together and married in the Autumn of 1436 because there was a hint that the duchess might have been visibly pregnant in March 1437 when the court discovered the fait accompli. Monstrelet reported that Jacquetta's uncle, the bishop of Therouane was annoyed at the revelation but concluded that nothing could be done at this stage. Had the secret wedding been exposed earlier it is probable that the powerful bishop could have arranged to have the marriage annulled. The expectation of a child made that impossible.

Sir Richard was a fine figure of a man "beautiful and well formed in his person", according to Monstrelet, and as an athlete and jouster had an established reputation. From the point of view of the personal attractiveness of the newly weds it was not such a bad match. Socially, there were those who sneered at it, and over 20 years later, the status of Sir Richard, then Lord Rivers was a subject for reproof. Rivers, together with his son Antony, had been captured at Sandwich and taken to Calais where the earl of Warwick was in rebellion against the king. Rivers was 'rated' by Warwick, his brother Salisbury and the young Edward, earl of March, for merely being the son of a squire who had married above his station. From the context, reported in a letter buy William Paston, it sounds as if Rivers accused Warwick of being a traitor to the king and that Warwick was unwilling to take such insults from a man he regarded as his social inferior by a large margin.

In 1437 they must have settled in the manor house at Grafton in Northamptonshire. The manor had been in the hands of the de la Pole family, by this time earls of Suffolk, and although the manor was at the heart of ancestral Woodville country, it was not at the time in Woodville hands. This was corrected three years later when Sir Richard and Jacquetta were able to purchase this rather small manor from the earl of Suffolk.

Here, their first child, Elizabeth, was born in 1437. None of the Woodville children have recorded dates of birth and the approximate year of birth has to be inferred from later records. There is some agreement about the year of Elizabeth's birth. She was followed by a daughter and then Antony c 1440. The real birth order is not known and people have argued for Margaret, Anne and Jacquetta as the next eldest. My own intuition is that it was probably Margaret, named after Jacquetta's own mother. Further children followed until the birth of Catherine c 1458. Twelve of these children survived to adulthood and part of the cause of resentment against the Woodvilles after Elizabeth's marriage to Edward IV, was that there were so many of them to be granted titles and marriages.

Jacquetta's life was not confined to the country in south Northamptonshire, at least not after the early years of marriage. She was sent to France in 1444 to accompany Margaret of Anjou to England for her marriage to Henry VI at Titchfield on 22 April 1445. Thereafter she was in attendance of the queen. Accounts for the queen's household record gifts to Jacquetta from the queen in 1447 and 1452.  Richard;s career was developing at the same time. She was also present with the queen's household at Coventry in May 1457. It seems reasonable to infer that Jacquetta was a permanent member of the queen's household from 144 to 1460 and presumably was in attendance on the queen except for those months when she was in confinement to give birth.

She was in London in February 1461 (by this time past childbearing) and was asked by the Mayor and aldermen of London to negotiate with Queen Margaret's forces outside the city walls. Evidently she was trusted by both sides.

Lord Rivers and his family were firmly committed to the Lancastrian government for a generation but that changed at  the battle of Towton on 29 March 1461, which was a decisive victory for the Yorkists. Rivers and his son Antony were both captured and sent to the Tower of London. They were released in July after swearing allegiance to the new king and it may be inferred that Jacquetta's Burgundian connection may have been a factor. More likely the pardon was due to Edward's generosity of spirit and his determination to unite the country. Unlike several other pardoned families, the Woodvilles remained true to their new master.

Jacquetta of Luxembourg: 2 Widowhood

At the death of her husband, John, duke of Bedford at Rouen in the early hours of 14 September 1435. he was buried in Rouen Cathedral, the spiritual home of his Norman ancestors, and was in fact buried 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 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 ws also gifted the value of 12000 lives in moveable goods. This made her a wealthy woman.

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 estates normally going to the heir. In this case there was no heir and the duke's brother and cousins 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.

She was granted her dower rights by the King on 6 February 1436, with the proviso that she should not remarry without royal permission. 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.

Her time during this period, between the duke's death in September 1435 and her secret marriage to Sir Richard Woodville before 23 March 1437, 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. There were also estates in England to attend to.

At some time in 1436 she began an affair with Sir Richard Woodville. He was the son of the duke's chamberlain, Richard Woodville, and was himself connected to the service of the duke. They probably knew each other before the duke's death, although there is no suggestion that there was any romance between them until 1436.

Against all expectation, and probably scandalously at the time, she secretly married Sir Richard leading to the rising influence of the Woodvilles in English politics for the next half century.

Jacquetta of Luxembourg: 1 Her Life as the Duchess of Bedford

Jacquetta of Luxembourg, daughter of the Count of St Pol married John, duke of Bedford 20 april 1433. He was 44; she 17.

1433 was a momentous year for the Duke. His first wife Anne of Burgundy died at 2 am on November 14th 1432. She was only 29. She had borne no children during here marriage (at least none of record) but 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. Her funeral was held on January 8th 1433 in Paris at the church of the Célestines.

Not long after this political manoeuvres began to find a new wife for the widowed duke. These may not have been initiated by the duke himself but those around him who sought some advantage from the situation. It was Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, a close friend and confidante of the duke, who arranged for a meeting with his niece Jacquetta. At the age of only 17 she was undoubtedly very attractive. Contemporary reports describe her as pretty and lively. No contemporary image of her was made, or survives, but it seems reasonable to infer that she was very presentable.
Bedford therefore would have found nothing to object to in her 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 Luxembourg 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 class 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 imposible to divine.

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

The Duke of Burgundy was outraged, as anticipated and he had 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 June 18 they sailed for England and reached London on June 23rd 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's life work had been to maintain the French kingdom, which was trying to do against increasing hostility in France and with tepid support from home. 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 Flulbrook in Warwickshire, but there is no mention of her.  So for this marriage there is almost nothing that can help us understand what went on. 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 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 (1432) he was still 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.

When she and  Bedford returned to France in July 1434, he was already in poor health and on 14 Sep  1435 he died.

Bedford’s career had not been easy. Since the death of his brother Henry V he had been Regent of France, a position which was by no means straightforward, complicated not only by intermittent attack from the Dauphin, based at Bourges, but by the unreliability of allies such as the Duke of Burgundy and the Duke of Brittany. Further, he was often undermined at home by his uncle, Cardinal Beaufort and his younger brother Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.

She was well provided for. 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 Feb 1436  provided that she seek the king’s permission before she married. This was an opportunity for her. As a widow she would be expected to marry again and as a widow with large estates she was a target for any matchmaker on the make. She no doubt felt entitle to please herself the second time around and accordingly she did. She married for love.

Grafton House

In the village next to the church there is a large house which has a recorded history since the time of Henry VIII. According to the King's Works, in 1528=9 the building program at Grafton was to repair and extend the existing house, so we can fairly assume that the Woodvilles inhabited a mansion on this spot. We do not know what was there before, for reasons which I will explain later, and there is a complete absence of any information, historical or archaeological, to guide us. We can only guess.

Richard Woodville and his wife Jacquetta settled here after their clandestine marriage c. 1436. We might therefore assume that there was already a suitable house on this site, and with the church adjacent had always been the demesne of the tenant. Grafton manor was valued at 26 shillings in 1086 and £24 in 1440 and so could provide a modest living for the sub-tenant. The tenant in chief was the Abbey of Grestain to 1348 and the de la Pole family after that date. The Woodville family was prominent in South Northamptonshire but were not necessarily tenants of Grafton Manor before 1436, or if they were, did not need to live at Grafton House.

Richard Woodville was the eldest son of a junior branch of the Woodville family. His uncle Thomas died without issue in 1435 and the Woodville inheritance passed to his father. The date seems convenient as it would readily offer a suitable house for the newly married couple in the following year. Richard Woodville, being a single man and a soldier, plainly had no need to consider a house before this. The house need not have been grand at this time, although as they expanded their family over the next twenty years there was probably pressure to enlarge and improve the property.

Richard's prospects were very bright in this period. His wife had an independent income and in 1441 he inherited his father's estates. They were able to buy the manor from the earl of Suffolk in 1440 and it is fair to assume that they spent money developing the house over the next quarter century. They may even have re-built it, but that may be a conjecture too far.

The history of the house becomes clearer after 1527 when Henry VIII acquired the manor from the marquess of Dorset. In the following year stone was reclaimed from the old castle at Castlethorpe and timber was cut from Salcey Forest for rebuilding. New chimneys were added to the house in 1536-7 and a wrought iron gate was built at the entrance on the lane. Building rubble, again from Castlethorpe, was used to build a 14 ft. high wall along the lane. Apparently this was to enclose a bowling alley, which, on the northern side, was bounded by a mound of clay brought from nearby Potterspury. Some rather fat skittle in Terrace, Cornwall, which survive from Tudor times, suggest that Henry VIII's bowling alley was more like a skittle alley. The high wall was most likely intended fro privacy and security. The wall today, which extends almost to the Northampton Road, has been cut down to five or six feet.

Henry rather liked Grafton and he created a park for hunting to the west to include most of the Grafton manor and some of Potterspury. He was therefore to be found here with some frequency. In the summer of 1529 he received the papal envoy, cardinal Campeggio, during the negotiations over the divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Grafton was the place where he had his last meeting with Cardinal Wolsley. Two years later, in 1531, he received the Hungarian ambassadors. Interestingly, they were not accommodated at Grafton but at an inn in Stony Stratford. Henry paid the bill of 16s 6d. He held Privy Council meetings there in 1540 and 1541.

During the short reign of his son £170 was spent on the house in 1551-3 and this work continued into the first year of the reign of Queen Mary, when an expenditure of £450 was recorded. These were significant expenditures but there is no evidence that either monarch spent any time there.

Queen Elizabeth visited in 1564, 1568 and 1575, and in preparation for the last visit £1842 was pent on a 'new building' of two floors and four roofs.

King James I stayed at the house on alternate years in 1608, 1610, 1612, 1614 and 1616.

After this the house must have been neglected because in 1619 instructions were given to board up those parts of the new buildings which were exposed to the elements. In 1628 Charle I mortgaged the honour of Grafton to Sir Francis Crane, who, at the same time, obtained a 31 year lease on Grafton House. He apparently planned to establish a tapestry works there and the King gave him £1000 toward the cost of repairing the building.

The tapestry works scheme came to nothing and it seems that the house fell into a more dilapidated state. As to who was to blame both sides had differing views in the dispute. Crane's accusers suggested that he had removed materials to build a new house at Stoke Bruerne. Crane responded that he had but his house at Stoke Bruerne before Charles I came to the throne and brought his master mason as a witness to point out that the stone was set in mortar mad of earth. Crane appears to have established his case.

This last piece of evidence might support the idea of poor construction in the time of Henry VIII. If the lime was mixed with readily available soil rather than troubling to bring in sand, this might explain the constant repairs over the century. This is curious. Sand is a common enough material and could have easily been carted from a few miles away without adding significantly to the expense. This sound suspiciously like a builder implementing a cheap shortcut and a lack of supervision.

At any rate the old mansion only had a few years left. In December 1643 was captured by Parliamentary troops, who, after looting the house of its valuable contents, set fire to the building. In 1650 it was reported that only outbuildings remained - a stable, brewhouse, buttery and kitchen.

A new house was built circa 1661 and it appears from a plan drawn in 1725 that some Tudor elements of the old building were incorporated in the new one. Of the house inhabited at the time of the Woodvilles (as with so many 15th century buildings) there is no trace at all.

Grafton

The Grafton Manor was a small one of about 1300 acres and not, according to the Domesday assessment, a wealthy one. It was assessed at four-fifths of one hide, and to put that into perspective it was generally reckoned that 5 hides would support a Saxon thane. Godwin, the man who held it at the Conquest was a freeholder, but had no higher status.

By 1086 the manor was one of the plentiful landholdings of Robert, Count of Mortain. His son William granted the manor at some date before 1106 to the abbey of Notre Dame de Grestain, located by the River Seine estuary. The abbot therefore became the tenant-in-chief. The land was sub-let to other tenants while the abbey enjoyed the income.

In 1348 the abbey sold the manor in order to raise funds. It passed through a middleman in a complex financial transaction to Sir Michael de la Pole. He was a very successful, and by this time hugely wealthy, Hull merchant. His descendants were to play a large role in English politics in the 15th century.

The Woodvilles first make their appearance in a Grafton context because of a dispute between Walter de Woodville and the Abbot of Grestain in 1235. Walter de Woodville apparently controlled the Court of Cleyly Hundred and believed that the Abbot, as tenant of Grafton, should be subject to his court. The Abbot thought otherwise and the matter was contested, eventually being resolved in the abbot's favour in 1316. It is tantalising to wonder how matters were dealt with over a period of 80 years but documentary evidence is silent. In 1316 the charter released the abbot and his tenants from suit at the Hundred Court. The grant was signed by John de Woodville, son of Walter de Woodville. I can only assume that this Walter de Woodville was not the Walter de Woodville of 1235.

This does at least show us that the Woodville family were already established in the area, although at this time they had no connection with Grafton itself.

Sir Richard Woodville probably settled here after his marriage to Jacqueline, duchess of Bedford after 1436 and leased the manor from the de la Poles. In 1440, he and his wife were able to purchase the manor from the de la Pole family. It was used as surety for two loans totalling 900 marks - £600, so it seems reasonable to assume that this was the purchase price. The annul value of the manor at that time was £24, and if that was the only source of income it would take 25 years to pay off. As it turned out he came into an inheritance a year later that considerably improved his income.

His father died in 1441 and Sir Richard came into the Woodville inheritance. This included several manors in the Cleyly Hundred and other estates in South Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire, as well as The Mote in Kent, his father's residence. I should mention here that Sir Richard's father was in the junior Woodville line, but after the death of his half brother Thomas in 1435, came into the Woodville inheritance.

The Woodville connection with Grafton was therefore within the lifetimes of the protagonists in the Woodville saga of the 15th century.

After Earl Rivers was executed in 1469 the house and manor passed to his son Anthony, who in turn was executed in 1483. Anthony left no heirs and the land and title passed to his younger brother Richard ho died in 1491, also without issue. He wiled the estate to his cousin, Thomas Grey, marquess of Dorset and it stayed in this family until 1527 when the second marquess of Dorset negotiated an exchange of manors with Henry VIII. Thereafter it was a royal manor until 1706 when it became the property of the second duke of Grafton.

Grafton village is still very small. It tops rising ground above the Tove Valley to the east. Part of the village lines the east side of the Old Stratford to Northampton with a few houses beyond. The village appears to have escaped any post war development.

Bookends

On April 30th 1464 Edward IV slipped away from his lodgings at Stony Stratford to pursue the beautiful widow, Elizabeth Woodville, who was living at the manor of Grafton four miles away.
On the same day in 1483, Richard, duke of Gloucester arrested Earl Rivers at Northampton and secured the person of the designate king at Stony Stratford.
These two events (and there is a discussion to be had about the accuracy of the first date) are markers for the Yorkist Age, and certainly mark the startling rise of the Woodville clan and their eventual downfall. The fact that Stony Stratford was at the centre of the two events is pure coincidence; nonetheless, the events cam be used as bookends for the Woodville era at the core of English politics.
I grew up two miles away from Stony Stratford. In the mid twentieth century it was still a small town ranged out along the Watling Street, the road which was the town’s reason for being and its source of prosperity. It had grown some redbrick extensions in the 19^th century as a consequence of the neighbouring railway town of Wolverton, but its core was, and remains, an impressive frontage of 18^th century and early 19^th century buildings.

Stony Stratford was at one time full of medieval buildings, but two disastrous fires, one in 1736 and an even bigger one in 1742, destroyed almost all of the medieval town.

Stony Stratford High Street today. This was once a major thoroughfare but through traffic now bypasses the town. Even so it is clogged with local traffic.

Medieval Stony Stratford has long since disappeared. A few buildings retain elements of 15th and 16th century construction, such as roof timbers, and there are one or two early 17th century buildings. One 13th century church is still in use and the ruin of another 13th century church still occupies its place on the eastern side of the Watling Street. Any sites that may have been associated with the time of Edward IV and Richard III are difficult to ascertain. I will discuss these in future posts.

Stony Stratford's High Street circa 1907. The railways dramatically reduced traffic in the 19th century and it was only after 1945 that this street became a busy highway.

This blog is intended to record what I can and what I know of the Woodville family and perhaps provide some reassessment of their place in history.
The Woodville family of this story lived four miles to the north west of Stony Stratford at the manor of Grafton. They belonged to the gentry. They were far from being impoverished and owned several manors in South Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and even in Kent. They did military service. They were not obscure in their own time, and they rubbed shoulders with and served some of the prominent men and women of their time. Sir Richard Woodville, the first Baron Rivers, was a rising star and held several significant offices during the reign of Henry VI, although it is fair to say that he was not quite at the top rank of 15th century English society.
The Woodville story is an interesting one. They were not especially popular during this period and they have generally received harsh treatment from historians. Do they deserve their reputation, or is there a more balanced view? I hope to explore some of these questions in future posts.
To start with we can take the two events in Stony Stratford as the bookends for the volumes that lie between.