Somerset, Henry Beaufort, Duke of,43,54,103; taken prisoner and beheaded after the battle of Hexham,43(note),54(note).
Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of,133,141; executed after the battle of Tewkesbury,146.
Soss Moss Hall, Cheshire,245to251.
St. Alban’s, first battle of,2(note),23,43(note),54(note).
St. Alban’s, second battle of,82.
St. John, Hospital of, at Northampton,48.
St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of,132.
St. John, John Longstrother, Prior of,132,140; executed after the battle of Tewkesbury,146.
St. Ledger, Sir Thomas, executed and attainted,191,195,199.
Stafford, Edmund Earl of, slain at Shrewsbury,8.
Stafford, Humphrey Earl of, slain at the first battle of St. Alban’s,48(note),49,199.
Stafford, Lord Henry, of Buckingham,106(note).
Standard of Edward IV.,117.
„ Henry VII.,117(note).
„ Richard III.,117(note).
Stanley, Sir William,28,31,168.
Stanley, Thomas Lord, afterwards Earl of Derby,28(note),167,180.
Stoke, battle of,177.
Stoke, village of,180,190.
Strange, George Lord,162,180.
Stutton, bridge of,89.
Suffolk, John de la Pole, Duke of, married Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV.,177note,191,192,199.
Surrey, Thomas Howard, Earl of,165.
Swartz, Martin,178; slain at Stoke,187.
Swartz Moor, in Lancashire,178.
Talbot, Sir Christopher, slain at Northampton,46.
Talbot, Sir Gilbert,165,167.
Tewkesbury, battle of,131.
Throgmorton, John,148.
Towton, battle of,81.
Towton Hall,101.
Towton village,87,89,100note.
Tresham, Henry, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury,146,148.
Tresham, Sir Thomas, executed after the battle of Tewkesbury,146,148.
Trollop, Sir Andrew,99,103; slain at Towton,106.
Trollop, Sir David, slain at Towton,106.
Troutbeck, Sir William, slain at Blore Heath,26.
Tudor, Sir Owen, slain at Mortimer’s Cross,73,201.
Urnan (quæreUrman), Sir John, slain at Tewkesbury,142,148.
Vaughan, Sir Thomas, beheaded at Pontefract,41(note),105(note).
Vaux, Sir William slain at Tewkesbury,142,147.
Venables, Sir Hugh,26.
Venables, Sir Richard,8.
Vernon, Sir Richard,8.
Vestynden, Ralph, bearer of Edward’s the Fourth’s standard of the Black Bull at the battle of Towton,117.
Veuglaire,219to244.
Wakefield, battle of,53.
Wakefield Green,58,62,63.
Wales, Edward Prince of, son of Richard III.,195,199.
Wales, Edward Prince of, son of Henry VI.,47,54(note),198; murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury,144.
Warford, Little, Cheshire,247.
Warwick, Anne Countess of,133,200.
Warwick, Edward, Earl of, imprisoned and afterwards put to death by Henry VII.,172,175,196,199.
Warwick, Richard Neville, Earl of (the King-Maker),24,39,100,205,207; slain at Barnet,208.
Wateley, Henry, slain at Tewkesbury,148.
Well, King Richard’s,159,160,164,173.
Welles, Leo Lord, slain at Towton,104.
Welles and Willoughby, Richard Lord,104.
Wenlock, John Lord,42,100,133,140; death of, at the battle of Tewkesbury,142.
Wensleydale, Fore Abbey, in, remarkable grant to the monks of,292.
Westmoreland, Ralph Neville, first Earl of,24(note),199.
Wharfe, River,88,113.
Wichingham, Sir William,147.
Widevile, or Wodevile, family of,40(note),105(note).
Wigmore Castle,76,77,78.
Willoughby, Robert Lord,104.
Wilmslow Church, Cheshire,253to266.
Wiltshire, James Boteler, Earl of,56,69; taken prisoner and beheaded,56(note).
Wittingham, Sir William, slain at Tewkesbury,142.
Wolves, probable period of the extinction of, in England,287to299.
Worcester, John Tibtoft, Earl of, executed in 1470,193(note).
Worcester, Thomas Percy, Earl of,2; taken prisoner and executed,8.
Wroughton,148.
Wyche, or De la Wyche, ancient Cheshire family of,245.
York, heraldic devices and badges of the House of,22,117.
York, Cecily Duchess of, strange and mournful afflictions and calamities in her family,192to197.
York city, surrendered to Edward IV.,118.
York, House of, descent of the,22.
York, Richard Duke of,22; slain at Wakefield,58,64.
York, Richard Duke of, son of Edward IV., believed to have been murdered in the Tower,195,199.
Zouch, John Lord,166.
THE END.
F.Pickton, Printer, Perry’s Place, 29, Oxford Street.
Page24, note 1.
Instead of “Richard the oldest son, Earl of Salisbury, and afterwards Earl of Warwick,” read, “Richard the eldest son, Earl of Warwick, and after his father’s death, also Earl of Salisbury.”
„329, Index.
After “Bourchier, William, Earl of Ewe,” instead of “118 (note), 209 (note),” insert, “40 (note 1), 118 (note 4), 209 (note 3).”
„339, Index.
After “Shrewsbury, John Talbot, first Earl of, slain at Castillon, 46 (note),” add “103 (note 6).”
[0]This errata slip, inserted before page 1 of the book, has been applied in this transcription.—DP.
[v]It has been considered advisable to commence this work with an account of the battle of Shrewsbury, which was a prelude to, and had so close a relation to, the wars of York and Lancaster, that it may, without much impropriety, be considered as one of them.
[vi1]Fenn’sCollection of Original Letters of the Reigns of Henry VI.,Edward IV.,and Richard III., Preface, p. vii.
[vi2]Ibid., Preface, p. viii.
[vii]Most of the papers relating to the fields of battle have been transmitted to, and read, from time to time, before meetings of the Society of Antiquaries of London. In consequence of further information, obtained in my subsequent visits to the respective scenes of action, and derived from other sources, additions in some instances, and alterations in others, have however been made in several of the papers. For example: my visits to Towton Field amount altogether to nine; and since the paper upon it was read before the meetings of the Society, considerable additional information has been acquired respecting if, which has naturally caused some alterations to be made.
[viii]Ralph Brooke (York Herald), William Dugdale (Norroy King at Arms), Francis Sandford (Lancaster Herald at Arms), and, in some instances, John Leland the Antiquary, are the principal authorities relied upon respecting the personages, families, and other genealogical matters mentioned in this work.
[1a]The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Shrewsbury was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 25th of March, 1852, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.
[1b]I visited the field of battle in September and October 1851, August 1852, June 1853, June 1854, May 1855, and May 1856 and also in September, 1856, which was after part of this work had been sent to the press.
[1c]Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, son of Henry Lord Percy and Mary his wife, sister of Henry Duke of Lancaster, was created the first Earl of Northumberland of that surname, at the coronation of King Richard II. in 1377. He and Henry Percy his son, called Hotspur, gained the battle of Hallidown Hill, against the Scotch, in 1402. After the battle of Shrewsbury, being supposed to be disaffected, he was committed to the Tower of London; but having been liberated from thence, he, with Lord Bardolph, came out of Scotland in the ninth year of Henry IV. with considerable forces against Henry; and at Bramham Moor was encountered by Thomas Rokeby, sheriff of Yorkshire, where the earl was taken prisoner, and Lord Bardolph dangerously wounded; and they were brought to York, where they were both beheaded in 1408. He married two wives: the first was Margaret, daughter of Ralph Lord Neville of Raby, by whom he had issue Henry Percy (called Hotspur) slain at the battle of Shrewsbury; Thomas Percy, the second son; Ralph Percy, the third son; and Alan Percy, the fourth son, who died young. The earl’s second wife was Maud, daughter of Thomas Lord Lucy, by whom he had not any issue. Henry Percy (Hotspur) left issue, by his wife Elizabeth, oldest daughter of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, a son Henry, afterwards second Earl of Northumberland, who in the third year of Henry V. was restored to his honours; a staunch supporter of the Lancastrian party, and was slain at the first battle of St. Albans, on the 22nd of May, 1455;[2c]and a daughter, Elizabeth, married to John Lord Clifford, and, after his death, to Ralph Neville, second Earl of Westmoreland of that surname.
[2a]Sir Thomas Percy, Knight, a younger brother of Henry Percy, first Earl of Northumberland, was created Earl of Worcester and Lord High Admiral of England in 1397, and taken prisoner at the battle of Shrewsbury, and beheaded in that town in 1403.
[2b]Owen and Blakeway’sHistory of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 186; Carte’sHistory of England, vol. ii. p. 659. The battle is stated, in Gough’s edition of Camden’sBritannia, vol. ii. p. 418, to have “began in Oldfield or Bulfield, a little north of the north gate, and raged as far as what is now called Battlefield.” In Stow’sAnnalsthe place is “called Oldfield,aliasBulfield, not farre from a place called Barwike.”
[2c]The 22nd of May, according to Dugdale, vol. i. p. 166 and 342, and Sandford, p. 321; but the 23rd of May, according to Fabyan, Hall, Holinshed, and Grafton.
[3a]The accounts are but meagre and incomplete respecting the precise object of the insurrection; but it is usually treated by historical writers as having been set on foot with a view to dethrone Henry IV., and to place Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, a descendant of Lionel Duke of Clarence, son of Edward III., upon the throne of England.
[3b]Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.
[4a]Holinshed, Walsingham.
[4b]Hall, Holinshed, Grafton.
[4c]Owen and Blakeway’sHistory of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 185.
[4d]A proclamation of Henry, issued at Burton-upon-Trent on the 16th of July, on the occasion of the rebellion of Percy, has been preserved.—See Rymer’sFædera, vol. viii. fo. 313.
[4e]A proclamation or royal mandate was issued at Lichfield by Henry, on the 17th of July.—See Rymer’sFædera, vol. viii. fol. 314.
[4f]Owen and Blakeway’sHistory of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 185.
[5a]Hall, Grafton.
[5b]“A portion of the suburbs of Shrewsbury was intentionally burnt; that measure being considered requisite for the safety of the town, in consequence of the approach of Hotspur’s army.—Rot. Parl.9 Henry IV., vol. iii. fo. 619.”
[5c]Stow’sAnnals, Speed’sHistory. It is stated in Owen and Blakeway’sHistory of Shrewsbury, although their authority for it does not seem altogether satisfactory, that Percy retired to a place called Bull Field, a short distance from Shrewsbury, an extensive common, which stretched from Upper Berwick to the east, and to have encamped there during the night of the 19th, and to have marched the next day by Harlescot and Abright Hussee, to Hateley Field, where he made a stand at the spot now called Battlefield.—See Owen and Blakeway’sHistory of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 186, 187.
[7]Hall, Holinshed, Walsingham, Speed, Stow, Grafton, Sandford, p. 265; Dugdale’sMonasticon, vol. vi. part 3, p. 1426.
It is remarkable, that although in Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. i. p. 280, it is stated that the battle was fought on the eve of St. Mary Magdalen (21st of July, 1403;) yet on p. 168 he states that it was fought on St. Mary Magdalen’s day (22nd of July). See also Rymer’sFædera, tome viii fo. 320.
It is stated in Owen and Blakeway’sHistory of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 187, 188, for which Otterburne is cited as their authority, that a portion of Percy’s forces was posted behind a field of peas, which would naturally form some obstacle to the attack of the royal army—“Oportebat regis exercitum, si pugnare vellet, accedere super aream satam pisis adultis; quas pisas ita nexuerant et tricaverant ut impedimento forent accedentibus prætensi laquei eorundem.”
[8a]To save repetition, it is well to mention, that this account of the battle has been collected from Hall, Holinshed, Walsingham, Grafton, Speed, Stow, and Monstrelet, c. 7.
[8b]Edmund Stafford, Earl of Stafford, was the third son of Hugh Earl of Stafford, and his wife Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, the elder Earl of Warwick, and the heir of his brothers Thomas and William, and was after their deaths without issue, the fifth Earl of Stafford and Lord of Tunbridge. He married Anne, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, sixth son of Edward III. He was the father of Humphrey Stafford, first Duke of Buckingham, slain at the battle of Northampton fighting for the Lancastrian party in 1459. The strange and mournful fatality which attended the principal members of this powerful and celebrated family, will be noticed in treating upon the latter battle, in Chap. III.
[8c]LelandiCollectanea, vol. ii. p. 389 [313].
[9]In note 5 of Owen and Blakeway’sShrewsbury, vol. i. p. 194, it is stated that the church is in length 126 feet, and in breadth (with the cemetery) 65 feet.
[10a]Lel.Coll.vol. i. p. 388.
[10b]Grose, vol. ii. p. 356, plate 28, fig. 8. Meyrick’sAncient Armour, vol. i. p. 33.
[11a]Some articles discovered there came under the notice of the Archæological Institute in August 1855.
[11b]Dugdale’sMonasticon, vol. vi. part 3, p. 1427.
[11c]SeeFrontispiece.
[11d]Similar to the trench or pit on the north side of Saxton Church, mentioned in my paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1849, relative to the field of the battle of Towton, which pit contained the bones of many men of men slain at that sanguinary battle. See Chap. VI.
[11e]In a note (5) to Owen and Blakeway’sHistory of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 194, referring to a MS., it is stated that a pit was made there for the slain, 160 feet long, 68 feet broad, and 60 feet deep, over which the church was afterwards built; but those dimensions, and especially the depth, are evidently very greatly exaggerated. In modern warfare, much smaller pits suffice for the dead.
[11f]Leland’sItinerary, vol. iv. p. 181a.
[12]When I visited the church in May 1856, I was very sorry to hear that a subscription had been entered into, for the purpose of what was termed “renovating” this curious and interesting edifice. As far as respects removing the modern pillars, and the plastered ceiling from the chancel, and making the latter appear more in accordance with its ancient state, few persons would object to that measure; but it ought to be borne in mind that the chancel will accommodate, and much more than accommodate, the whole number of church-goers of the very scanty population of Battlefield parish; and that the renovation or rebuilding of any other part is wholly unnecessary, with reference to the spiritual requirements of the parishioners. It would evince great want of taste and judgment to renovate or restore the ancient nave and tower. The remains are most valuable to the historian and archæologist. The interval was so very short, comparatively speaking, between the erection of the church in the reign of Henry IV., and the seizure of the edifice and its contiguous college and hospital in the reign of Henry VIII., that we cannot doubt that the remains are now an authentic and interesting example of church architecture of the reign of the former monarch. The parties who wish for or recommend the renovation of the nave, or the restoration of the whole of Battlefield Church, may possibly find some architect, who, like an old-clothes man, may undertake to “renovate” the article which he is accustomed to deal in, or, in other words, to make it “as good as new”; but when the alterations in this church are finished, they may probably furnish an example of a lamentable destruction of a very ancient, curious, and historical relic of times gone by. As a proof of the mischief which may be done by so-called restorations, let any person of good taste, who has paid even moderate attention to archæology and church architecture, look around, and say whether, out of the numerous ancient churches which have been attempted to be restored or renovated, during the last quarter of a century, there can be found more than some five or six, where bad taste or presumption has not been evinced in the attempts of the various architects to restore or renovate them. If this tasteless system is allowed to proceed, we may, ere long, hear of some ignorant architect who may offer to rebuild or beautify Tintern Abbey, or restore or renovate Kenilworth Castle.
[13a]There were in 1856 only two pinnacles on the north aide, and three on the south side of the tower.
[13b]Of the description usually called a Newel staircase.
[14a]SeeFrontispiece.
[14b]The figure of the Virgin with the dead Christ in her lap, is usually designated a “pieta,” and it is said that the sculptors of the fifteenth century were very fond of the subject. It is mentioned in theGentleman’s Magazine, vol. lxii. p. 893, and vol. xliv. September, 1855, p. 296, in noticing the Proceedings of the Archæological Institute. A view of the church is also engraved in vol. lxii. p. 898.
[17a]Dugdale’sMonasticon, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1426. Dukes’Antiquities of Shropshire, p. 34, and Appendix xxxv. Leland’sItinerary, vol. iv. fo. 181a.
[17b]Dukes’Antiquities of Shropshire, p. 34.
[18a]“Quandam placeam terræ cam omnibus ædificiis super-edificatis, infra dominium de Adbrighton-Hussee, juxta Salopiam, jacentem in campo qui vocatur Bateleyfield, in quo campo, bellum inter nos et Henricum Percy defunctum, et cæteros rebelles nostros, super extitit, et per Dei gratiam victoriam habuimus et triumphum; quæ quidem placea terræ fosso includitur, continens in longitudine et latitudine duas acras terræ, unacum duobus ingressibus et egressibus; uno, viz., extendente in longitudine de Hadenallestone directè super terram Recardi Hussee domini de Adbrigton-Hussee, in comitatu Salopiæ,” &c. &c. In another part of the charter is the following passage: “Habendum et Tenendum dictam placeam terræ, fosso sic inclusam,” &c. &c.—Dugdale’sMonasticon, vol. vi. part iii. pp. 1426, 7.
[18b]“Idem Bogerus nuper de licentiâ regiâ habuit, ex dono et feoffamento prædicti Ricardi.”—Dugdale’sMonasticon, vol. vi. part. iii. p. 1426.
[19a]Dugdale’sMonasticon, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1426.
[19b]“et animabus illorum, qui in dicto bello interfecti, et ibidem humati existunt, et animabus omnium fidelium defunctorum celebraturis imperpetuum.”—Dugdale’sMonasticon, vol. vi. part iii. p. 1427.
[19c]Communicated by the Rev. J. O. Hopkins. The author only heard of his death after this work had been sent to the press.
[19d]Psalm lxxiv. 6, 7.
[21]The paper upon the Field of the Battle of Blore Heath was read before a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London, on the 8th of December, 1853, and the thanks of the meeting were voted for it to the author.
[22a]The armorial bearings, devices, and badges of the various members of the rival Houses of York and Lancaster are fully stated in Sandford’sGenealogical History.
[22b]The Duke of York was the son of Richard Plantagenet (called of Coningsburg) Earl of Cambridge, and Anne his wife, daughter of Roger Mortimer Earl of March and Lord of Wigmore and Clare, the son of Edmund Mortimer, third Earl of March, &c. by Philippe, only daughter and heiress of Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of King Edward the Third. Besides which, the Duke of York was descended from Edward III. by his father’s side, in consequence of being the only son of Richard Earl of Cambridge, who was the son of Edmund (of Langley) Duke of York and Earl of Cambridge, fifth son of Edward III., by Isabel, the daughter of Peter, King of Castile and Leon. The Duke of York married Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland, by Joan his second wife, daughter of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. By that marriage he became related to or connected with most of the great noblemen of England. His wife had for brothers, Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury (father of Richard Neville Earl of Warwick, called the King Maker), William Neville Lord Falconberg, George Neville Lord Latimer, Edward Neville Lord Abergavenny, and Robert Neville Bishop of Durham; and for half brothers, Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland, and — Neville Lord of Ousley or Oversley, in Warwickshire, in right of Mary his wife. The Duke of York’s power, with the additional aid of that of his wife’s relations, soon enabled him to bring forward his claims to the throne; and although he was cut off by death in battle, before he could compass his views, his son Edward succeeded in obtaining the crown. The Duke left by his wife, eight sons and four daughters. The sons were—first, Henry, who died young; second, Edward Earl of March, born at Rouen on the 29th of April, 1441, afterwards King Edward IV.; third, Edmund Earl of Rutland, murdered after the battle of Wakefield in 1460, by Lord Clifford; fourth, William, born at Fotheringay, in Northamptonshire; fifth, John, born at Fotheringay; both of the two last died when infants; sixth, George Duke of Clarence, born in the Castle of Dublin, put to death in the Tower of London on the 18th of February, 1477–8; seventh, Thomas, who died in his infancy; eighth, Richard, born at Fotheringay, 2nd of October, 1452, afterwards King Richard III., slain at the battle of Bosworth in 1485. The daughters were—first, Anne, married to Henry Holland Duke of Exeter, but, being divorced from him in 1472, she then married Sir Thomas St. Ledger, by whom she had issue, Anne, married to George Manners Lord Roos, by whom she had Thomas Manners Earl of Rutland; second, Elizabeth, married to John de la Pole Duke of Suffolk; third, Margaret, married in 1468 to Charles Duke of Burgundy, called the Bold, or the Rash; and Ursula, of whom nothing is said by historical writers, and it is, therefore, presumed that she died young.
The Duke of York was the first nobleman in the kingdom, in point of family and power. His claim to the throne of England was grounded on his descent from Lionel, third son of King Edward III. Lionel’s first wife was Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, in Ireland, in whose right, he (Lionel) was created Earl of Ulster; and because he had with her the honour of Clare, in the county of Suffolk, as parcel of the inheritance of her grandmother (Elizabeth, coheir of the last Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford), he was in 1362, created Duke of Clarence,[23b]from which duchy the name of Clarencieux King of Arms, of the south parts of England, is derived. He had issue by Elizabeth his wife, one only daughter, Philippe, before mentioned, who married Edmund Mortimer, third Earl of March, grandfather of Anne Countess of Cambridge, who was the mother of Richard Duke of York, and grandmother of King Edward IV. and of King Richard III.
The Duke of York enjoyed vast possessions in England and Ireland, in right not only of his paternal line of the houses of York and Cambridge, but also of his descent from the great and powerful families of Mortimer (Earls of March), Clare (Earls of Gloucester and of Hertford), and de Burgh (Earls of Ulster). He was closely allied to the great and noble family of Neville, from having married Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland, besides being connected with several other noble and powerful families.
[23a]Some historians mention the 23rd of May, as the day on which that battle was fought.
[23b]From a place in Suffolk, called Clare, or Clarence.
[24a]Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury was the son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland (by Joan, his second wife, daughter of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, and widow of Sir Robert Ferrers of Oversley), and was created Earl of Salisbury after the death of Thomas de Montacute Earl of Salisbury, his wife’s father, in the fifteenth year of King Henry VI., and made Lord Chancellor in the 32nd year of his reign. He married Alice, daughter and heir of Thomas de Montacute Earl of Salisbury, and had issue by her, four sons and six daughters: Richard the eldest son, Earl of Warwick, and after his father’s death, also Earl of Salisbury, the King Maker, slain at the battle of Barnet in 1471; second, John, Marquis Montague, also slain at the battle of Barnet; third, Thomas, married the widow of Lord Willoughby, and was slain at the battle of Wakefield; fourth, George, Bishop of Exeter, and Lord Chancellor, and afterwards Archbishop of York; Joan, the oldest daughter, was married to William Fitzalan Earl of Arundel; second, Cecily, married to Henry Beauchamp Duke of Warwick; third, Alice, married Henry Lord Fitzhugh Baron of Ravenswath; fourth, Eleanor, married Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards the first Earl of Derby of that surname; fifth, Katherine, married William Bonvile, son and heir to William Lord Bonvile and Harrington; sixth, Margaret, married John De Vere Earl of Oxford. Richard Earl of Salisbury was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of Wakefield, and beheaded at Pontefract, and his body was first interred there, and afterwards removed to Bisham Abbey, in Berkshire, which had been founded by, and was the place of interment of the Montacutes, and where the bodies of his sons, the Earl of Warwick and Marquis Montague, were also interred, after the battle of Barnet.
[24b]Richard Neville, eighteenth Earl of Warwick, called the King Maker, was the son and heir of Richard Neville Earl of Salisbury, by Alice, daughter of Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, and married Anne, daughter of Richard Beauchamp, sixteenth Earl of Warwick. His power was so great, that he was mainly instrumental in placing King Edward IV. upon the throne in 1461, and again in dethroning him, and replacing Henry VI. upon the throne in 1470; and he was slain fighting against Edward at the battle of Barnet, on 14th of April, 1471. He left issue two daughters: Isabel, married to George Plantagenet Duke of Clarence, brother of King Edward IV.; and Anne, married, first, to Edward Prince of Wales, son of King Henry VI., murdered at Tewkesbury in 1471; and secondly, to Richard Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III.
[25a]Queen Margaret, usually called Margaret of Anjou, was the Queen of Henry VI., to whom she was married on the 22nd of April, 1445.
[25b]Edward Prince of Wales was the only child of Henry VI. and Queen Margaret. He was born on the 13th of October, 1453, and was murdered after the battle of Tewkesbury, on the 4th of May, 1471.
[25c]James Touchet Lord Audley (the son and heir of John Touchet Lord Audley, who died in the tenth year of Henry IV.) was summoned to Parliament in the eighth year of Henry V., as Lord Audley. He attended Henry V. in his wars in France. In the reign of Henry VI., he took part with the House of Lancaster, and was sent by Queen Margaret to intercept the Earl of Salisbury at Blore Heath, which was not more than ten or twelve miles from Lord Audley’s possession of Red Castle at Hawkstone, now belonging to the Viscount Hill, in Shropshire. After Lord Audley’s death in that battle, his body was interred in Darley Abbey, in Derbyshire. He left a son, John Lord Audley, who adhered to the Yorkist party, and had some offices of importance conferred upon him by Edward IV. and Richard III., and died in 1491, in the sixth year of Henry VII., leaving issue.
[25d]For the historical authorities, see Hall, Holinshed, Grafton, Baker, Speed, Stow, Dugdale’sBaronage, Sandford’sGenealogical History, Kennett’sLives of the Kings and Queens; Leland’sItinerary, vol. vii. fo. 32;Rot. Parl.38 Henry VI. (A.D.1459), vol. v. p. 348. The latter contains the following passage:—“the sonday next after the fest of Seint Mathewe th’ Apostle, the 38 yere of youre moost gracious reigne, at Blore, in youre shire of Stafford, in the feldes of the same towne, called Blore-heth,” &c. &c.; see alsoibid.p. 369, in which it is stated, that Queen Margaret and Edward Prince of Wales had been at Chester, and afterwards at Eccleshall, previously to the battle; and that Lord Stanley was directed, before it took place, to come with his forces, and join the Lancastrians; and that he sent his servant to the Queen and the Prince with a promise to do so in all haste, but failed, and by his failing to join them, the Lancastrians were defeated, although he was, with 2000 men, within six miles of Blore Heath, and that he staid three days at Newcastle, only six miles from Eccleshall, where the Queen and Prince of Wales then were; and that in the morning after the defeat of the Lancastrians, Lord Stanley sent a letter to the Queen and Prince, extenuating his not having assisted them with his forces; and that he then departed home again; and also that the people and tenants of the King and of the Prince, in the hundreds of Wirral and of Macclesfield, had been prevented by Lord Stanley from going to the assistance of the King; and he was also accused of having, on the night ensuing the battle, sent a letter of congratulation to the Earl of Salisbury. If those charges were true, it looks very much as if he had been a Yorkist at heart, but disposed to keep fair with both sides.
[26a]Sir Richard Molyneux was an ancestor of the Earl of Sefton.
[26b]It is remarkable that Ormerod, in hisCheshire, vol. i. p. xxxii., mentions that it was Sir William Troutbeck who was slain in the battle; but in vol. ii. pp. 27 and 28, his son, Sir John Troutbeck, is mentioned as the person who was slain there; and it is stated that the former had been, and that the latter was at that time, Chamberlain of Chester.
[27a]Stow’sAnnals, p. 405. See also Holinshed’sChronicles, p. 649.
[27b]Rot. Parl.vol. v. 38th of Henry VI. p. 348. Leland’sItinerary, vol. vii. fo. 32.
[27c]John De Sutton Baron of Dudley (called in the act of Parliament of 38th of Henry VI. (1459) John Lord Dudley), being a firm adherent to the Lancastrian interest, and being surprised at Gloucester in the 29th year of Henry VI., by Richard Duke of York (upon his return at that time out of Ireland), was sent prisoner to the Castle of Ludlow. (Stow’sAnnals; and Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. ii. p. 215.) He was wounded at the battle of Blore Heath. (Leland’sItinerary, vol. vii. fo. 32.) The imprisonment of the Baron of Dudley in the Tower of London in 1455, is mentioned in Fenn’s collection of original letters (sometimes called thePaston Letters), vol. i. p. 107. It should seem, therefore, that he was twice imprisoned at the instance of the Duke of York. After the accession of Edward IV., Dudley was, however, reconciled to the House of York, and he does not appear to have ever afterwards assisted the opposite party. By his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Berkley of Beverstan in Gloucestershire, he had issue three sons: Edmund, who died in his father’s lifetime, leaving issue John, from whom the Earls of Warwick and Leicester derived their descent; and William Bishop of Durham; he had also a daughter, Margaret, married to George Longueville, of Little Billinge, Northamptonshire, Esq.
[27d]Sir John Neville was afterwards Marquis Montague, and slain at the battle of Barnet in 1471; and Sir Thomas Neville was slain at the battle of Wakefield in 1460.
[27e]Hall’sChronicles, fo. 173; Holinshed’sChronicles, fo. 649; Baker’sChronicles, fo. 195; Stow’sAnnals, fo. 405.
[28a]Afterwards John Lord Wenlock.
[28b]William Stanley (afterwards Sir William Stanley, Knight) was the second son of Sir Thomas Stanley, Chamberlain to Henry VI. Sir Thomas Stanley was summoned to Parliament as Lord Stanley, on the 20th of January, 1455–6, in the 34th of Henry VI., and died in the 37th year of that King’s reign, 1459; he married Joan, the daughter of Sir Robert Goushill, of Hoveringham, in the county of Nottingham, by whom he had three sons and three daughters, and was succeeded by his oldest son Thomas (afterwards first Earl of Derby), who was summoned to Parliament amongst the barons of this realm, on the 24th of May, 1461, in the first year of Edward IV., by the title of Baron Stanley of Latham. (Dugdale’sBaronage, vol. iii. p. 248; Collins’sPeerage, vol. iii. p. 41, 42; and theMemoirs of the House of Stanley, published by J. Harrop in 1767, p. 31.) It is remarkable that Dugdale does not mention any one of the family having been summoned to Parliament amongst the barons of the realm, or having been ennobled, prior to Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards first Earl of Derby. Edmundson, in hisPeerage, states that the latter was summoned to Parliament as Lord Stanley, in 1456; but it should seem that he means the father of the latter. It is certain that the father had a title as Lord Stanley, some time during the reign of Henry VI., from the passage in the act of the Parliament of Coventry, 38th Henry VI. (1459): “William Stanley Squier sonne to Thomas late Lord Stanley;” and from “Lord Stanley” being also repeatedly mentioned, in the proceedings of that Parliament (38th Henry VI.), and William Stanley being there called the brother of Lord Stanley; which it is impossible to apply to any other Lord Stanley, except Thomas Lord Stanley, afterwards first Earl of Derby, who was his brother, and who was also the son of the late Lord Stanley.—Rot. Parl.38 Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. pp. 348, 369, 370. See alsoRot. Parl.39 Henry VI. (1460), vol. v. p. 382; in which the Lord Stanley then living (who was afterwards first Earl of Derby), is called “Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley;” and his deceased father is particularly designated as “Thomas Stanley, late Lord Stanley his Fader;” besides which, the deceased is more than once called “Thomas, late Lord Stanley.” Thomas Lord Stanley, by his defection and opportunely going over, with his forces, at the battle of Bosworth, to the Earl of Richmond, was of the utmost service to him, and was the principal cause of his gaining the victory and the crown, was for so doing, created first Earl of Derby of that name, by Henry VII., in 1485, and died in 1504. Sir William Stanley (brother of the last-mentioned Lord Stanley) also commanded a considerable body of troops, at that battle. The aid of Sir William Stanley against Richard III. on that occasion, contributed very greatly, to place Henry upon the throne of England; yet Henry, forgetful of benefits received, caused Sir William Stanley to be beheaded on Tower Hill, on the 16th of February, 1494—5, on a very questionable charge, not of any treasonable actions, but of some alleged disloyal words. He was of Holt Castle, in the county of Denbigh, where he had large landed possessions, besides great quantities of plate, money, jewels, and other personal property; and the forfeiture of his wealth, is generally supposed to have been no slight motive, in inducing that avaricious and tyrannical King, to put him to death. When he fought at the battle of Blore Heath, there was exhibited a melancholy and revolting but very common effect of civil war; relatives fighting against each other; for his brothers-in-law, Sir William Troutbeck, who had married Margaret, the oldest sister, and Sir Richard Molyneux of Sefton, who had married Elizabeth, the second sister of Sir William Stanley, were both slain in that battle.
[29]A list of the Yorkist noblemen, knights, and other persons who were by that act of attainder declared guilty of high treason, and their possessions forfeited, for having taken arms against Henry VI., or for other alleged offences, and their titles or names, are given here, in the order in which they appear in the act, viz.:—The Earl of Salisbury; Sir Thomas Neville, Sir John Neville, sons of the Earl of Salisbury; Sir Thomas Harrington, Sir John Conyers, and Sir Thomas Parr; William Stanley, Esq., Son of the late Thomas Lord Stanley [and brother of Thomas, the then Lord Stanley], and Thomas Mering, Esq., for being engaged at the battle of Blore Heath, on Sunday next after the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle, in the 38th year of Henry VI.; also the Duke of York, the Earl of March, the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Rutland, John Clinton Lord Clinton, Sir John Wenlock, Sir James Pickering, the said Sir John Conyers, and the said Sir Thomas Parr; John Bourchier and Edward Bourchier, Esqrs., nephews of the Duke of York; Thomas Colt, of London, Gentleman; John Clay, of Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire, Esq.; Roger Eaton, of Shrewsbury, Esq.; and Robert Bold, brother of Sir Henry Bold, for having been in arms with the Yorkists on Friday, the vigil of St. Edward the Confessor, in the 38th year of Henry VI., at Ludford, near Ludlow; Alice, the wife of the Earl of Salisbury; Sir William Oldhall, and Thomas Vaughan, of London, Esq., for having, the former at Middleham, on the 1st of August, in the 37th year of Henry VI., and the two latter at London, on the 4th of June, compassed and imagined the death of the King, and abetted and incited the Duke of York, and the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, to rebellion. Richard Grey Lord Powis,[29b]Sir Henry Radford, and Walter Devereux, Esq., who had appeared in arms at Ludford with the Yorkists, but upon the dispersion of the latter had immediately made submission to Henry VI., and had solicited mercy, had their lives spared, but the act, as originally drawn, declared all their possessions forfeited.[29c]Rot. Parl.38 Henry VI. (1459), vol. v. fo. 348.
[29b]Richard Grey Lord Powis, was an adherent to the house of York, for which he was attainted by the Parliament of Coventry of 38th Henry VI.; but of which the acts and proceedings were annulled by the act of 39th Henry VI. He was with the Earls of Warwick and Kent at the siege of Alnwick Castle, then held by the Lancastrians in 2nd Edward IV. He married Margaret, daughter of James Lord Audley, and died in the 6th Edward IV., leaving issue.