Silver Boar - Vol VII No. 4 -December 2000

Editor Jane Wilkinson. B.A.

THE ROYAL BASTARDS OF MEDIEVAL ENGLAND by Madeleine Orkasky
RICHARDS EXIT AND ENTRY by Dorothy Mitchell

THE ROYAL BASTARDS OF MEDIEVAL ENGLAND. Madeleine Orkasky.

One result of the Church’s attempts to regulate Christian marriage customs from about 1050 onwards was that a clearer line could to be drawn between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Before then it must have been difficult to say whether a man was a bastard or not; monogamy was not well established. Formal marriage was considered to be necessary and since primogeniture was not yet the dominant form of inheritance pattern at any level of society, it must have seemed to many laymen that there was little point in trying to make the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. In 1035 William the Bastard was widely acknowledged as his father’s heir in Normandy, white in England in the same year the illegitimate Harold Harefoot gained the throne in preference to his legitimate brother Harthacnut. One hundred years later things had changed. This was due to the attitudes among churchmen and common lawyers, which wrought so enduring deterioration in the legal rights accorded to illegitimate children. During the 12th century the church began to prohibit illegitimate children from entering the clergy. Dispensations could he obtained for a price. If one just wanted to be legitimised, the same applied. Joan of Kent being the first royal bastard to do so in 1226. A bastard was legally a FILIUS NULLIUS, the son of nobody and it was up to the church courts, working with the common courts, to decide whether or not a man was illegitimate.
“Mantle Children” were children born out, of wedlock, but not in adultery, whose parents subsequently married. The church considered such children to be automatically legitimised by their parents subsequent marriage; at the wedding ceremony they were placed under the “Care Cloth” or mantle which was spread over their parents and became henceforth lawful children of the marriage. Yet, a younger son born after his parents marriage would be granted the inheritance in preference to the elder son who had been before their parents marriage. Another thorny problem was of children born to married women who were suspected of having committed adultery. From the 12th century English common law maintained that in all such cases there must he a strong presumption, that the child was the son of his mother’s husband. There were only two grounds on which the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock, and during the lifetime of his mother’s husband, could he challenged. Firstly, the proven impotence of the husband, secondly, proven non access by the husband to his wife. Naturally, husbands tried to keep a vigilant watch over their wives. What led the English common lawyers to impose upon husbands the duty of acknowledging as their own any children born to their wives was the desire to prevent the disinheritance of legitimate children, was to encourage husbands to keep a good watch over their wives. This law led to a well known proverb in medieval England "Who that bulleth my cow, the calf is mine" Shakespeare used this in King John. It was easier for husbands to disinherit their children by claiming that their wives had committed adultery. In France, 1420, the future Charles 7th was disowned and disinherited from the crown by his own father and mother. Granted his father was more or less insane but his mother, Isabella of Bavaria, was a known adulteress, referred to, by her grandson, Louis XI, as" A GREAT WHORE" The one English king who was the son of a known adulteress, was Edward 3rd.
The church’s attitude to divorce also created serious problems with regard to legitimacy. After the l2th century a marriage could not be dissolved, it could only be declared to have been invalid from the start, which meant that any children of the marriage would be deemed bastards. Annulment on grounds of consanguinity presented more problems. The lay courts enforced time principle that any divorce between parents, including divorce for consanguinity, was legally retrospective, automatically bastardising the children and rendering them unable to inherit. This is what Henry VIII did to his two daughters.
A bastard could inherit but only if the parents did not have legitimate heirs, that the father recognised him as his own son and expressed a desire that he should be his heir, and that, at least among the higher social classes, the king, or other feudal lord of the property concerned, should agree.
The Beauforts were the most celebrated “Mantle Children” in history. At their official legitimisation in the parliament of 1397, a year after John of Gaunt’s wedding to Katherine Swynford, all four of their children, by now adults, were placed under the “care cloth” with their parents! Strictly speaking they were not as the church thought of as “Mantle Children” as they had been born in adultery.. However, Richard II legitimised them, pointing out that they had sprung from royal stock. Now, let us have a look at other Royal Bastards.

HENRY I
He was one of the most effective kings ever to wear the English crown. One of his greatest achievements was to unite the two parts of his father’s Anglo-Norman empire. At his death William the Conqueror had left Normandy to his eldest son, Robert Curthose, England to his second son, William Rufus and to his third son, Henry, a hoard of silver. Rufus was killed with an arrow, Robert died in prison, so for the last 30 years of his life Henry ruled both England and Normandy, he was well respected, as well as feared, however, he was an incessant womaniser. He fathered, by various mistresses, at least 20 royal bastards, more than any other king in English history he had one legitimate son, William Audelin who was drowned during the disaster of the White Ship in 1120. That left him with Matilda, his legitimate daughter as heir to the throne. She was the mother of the future Henry II. Strong willed and arrogant time barons would not accept her and the throne went to Stephen, Henry’s nephew.

ROBERT OF GLOUCESTER was the must famous of all Henry’s bastards. The king thought a lot about him, giving him a good education, bringing him up in the royal household and marrying him to Mabel, heiress to the lordship of Glamorgan, the vast honour of Gloucester and many valuable lands in Normandy. Robert, born to an unnamed woman from Caen, would be about 30 at the time of William’s death, now became the most influential and respected of the king’s male descendants. Henry made him the guardian of’ Matilda’s interests and gave him an earldom. Robert supported Matilda against Stephen for many years and her son, Henry II declared that it was due to the support of Gloucester, his uncle, that had made possible him ascending the English throne.
Robert of Gloucester died, aged 57, at Bristol castle, 1147.

RICHARD I
Despite 8 years of marriage to Berengaria of Navarre, Richard failed to provide an heir, he may have been homosexual but he fathered at least one bastard, Philip de Cognac, born to an unknown mistress before he became king. Not much is known about Philip, but Shakespeare characterises him in King John as the bastard Philip de Faulconbridge. Richard gave him the castle and honour of Cognac, Amelie, daughter of the lord of Cognac may have been given to him in marriage. The only noteworthy exploit attributed to Philip was the murder of the vicomte of Limoges, whom he held responsible for the death of his father. In the spring of 1199, Richard went to besiege the castle of Chalus-Chabrol in the Limousin, where the vicomte, Adhemar, was resisting his lordship. A cross bow bolt, fired by a sniper from the castle walls, struck Richard in the shoulder, gangrene set in and he died. Although Richard pardoned the sniper, Philip thought Adhemar was to blame and killed him. Philip is next heard of in England in 1201, when he sold his lordship to King John, them promptly disappeared from the records.

KING JOHN
By rights, Arthur, son of Henry II’s third child, Geoffrey, should have inherited the throne of England. By primogenitary custom he was Richard’s heir, but primogeniture was not universally accepted at that time. ‘to make certain of his own acceptance John decided the matter by having Arthur murdered in the castle at Rouen.
John was a great womaniser and had at least 7 bastards. John was married twice. First to Isabel of Gloucester, Robert’s grand daughter who gave him no children so he divorced her on the grounds of consanguinity, they were second Cousins, then to Isabel of Angouleme, whom he had abducted when she was twelve. She had one son, Henry. Hawise, the Countess of Auma le, gave birth to Oliver one of Henry’s illegitimate sons, and “Queen Clementia” is said to be the mother of Joan, John’s only known illegitimate daughter.
Joan married Llewelyn ap lorworth, prince of’ North Wales in 1206 and became an influential figure in diplomatic affairs between England and Wales. They had two children, David and Ellen, David succeeding his father as prince of North Wales in 1240. Ellen married first, John Scot, earl of Chester heir to the Scottish throne, then Robert de Quiuncey. Joan died in 1236. Oliver helped to quell the French forces during the last year of John’s reign, and under Henry III took part in the defence of Dover. He received many offices arid died in 1218 during the fifth crusade.
It is extremely unlikely that Henry III had mistresses, certainly no bastards of his are recorded, It is possible that Sir John Botetourt, one of the knights of Edward’s household, was really the king’s bastard. Sir John styled himself as Lord of Mendlesham (Suffolk) but there is no clear information as to his parents were. The was specially favoured by Edward because besides being a knight he was regular member of the royal council.

EDWARD II, did have an illegitimate son but nothing much is known about him. He was born around 1310, was called Adam and accompanied his father on the Scottish campaign of’ 1322.

EDWARD III had 3 illegitimate children by Alice Perrers, John, Joan and Jane and although their father tried to provide for at least one of them, they suffered from the aura of public disapproval which surrounded their mother at the start of the new reign, and rapidly sank into obscurity. Although, a great deal is known about John than his sisters. he was probably born around 1364 and was given the surname of de Southeray, sometimes spelt “Surrey” Julio was brought up at court and was married to Maude, sister of Henry, Lord Percy. He was knighted along with the future king, Richard II, Henry Bolingbroke, another future king and several other scions of the nobility. With the death of Edward John’s days of’ glory came to an abrupt end. He then embarked on a military career and became involved in the hundred Years War, during which he accused Edmund of Langley of pocketing the soldiers wages. Amazingly, no action was taken against him. John died around 1385.

EDWARD THE BLACK PRINCE, left one legitimate son, Richard II, and at least one illegitimate son, Sir Roger de Clarendon who was mentioned in the Prince’s will. As Richard left no issue whatsoever, Roger was the only well known descendant of the Black Prince,t he man who just 25 years previously had been the undisputed heir to the English throne. Roger’s mother was Edith de Willesford, probably low born as in 1385, Richard II granted her £6.13.4d for life for “her maintenance” His name suggests that he might have been born at the royal palace of Clarendon, Wiltshire, his date of birth is unknown. Roger married, Margaret, heiress to the barony of La Roches and although she owned great tracts of lands she died before reaching her majority. There is no evidence that Roger married again.
The Black Prince died in 1376, leaving Roger “a silk bed”. He became a knight of the King’s chamber. Richard granted him £100 annuity. It would appear that Roger was handy with his sword and went about wounding men. For wounding a Sir William Drayton, Roger was imprisoned in Wallingford castle, then released on bail and promptly absconded. he was outlawed and his goods and chattels forfeited to the king. For the next 3 years he was on the run, then he joined with several Franciscan friars from. Leicestershire, in a plot to overthrow Henry IV, convicted of treason, they were drawn on hurdles to Tyburn, and hanged. A good chance for Henry to get rid of a possible contender.

KATHERINE SWYNFORD AND THE BEAUFORTS. Although John of Gaunt was never able to achieve more than nominal for his claim to a kingdom, he was destined through three marriages, to become the ancestor of the kings of Scotland, Castile and Leon, and Portugal, as well as of the Lancastrians. Yorkists and Tudor kings of England. Gaunt’s first wife was Blanche of Lancaster, they had three children, the youngest being Henry Bolingbroke. His second wife was Constanza, daughter of the murdered Pedro 1st of Castile. It was about this time that Gaunt’s affair with Swynford began. Gaunt’s infidelity was well known in his day. One chronicler called him a MAGNUS FORNICATOR. One girl, Marie de Saint-Hilaire, a lady in waiting to Edward III’s queen, bore him a daughter, Blanche who married Sir Thomas Morieux. Marie was from Hainault, as was Katherine who was born about 1350. She was the younger daughter of Sir Payne Roelt who had come to England in the service of Queen Phihippa. Her sister, also named Philippa, married Geoffrey Chaucer, the poet, at the time being an esquire in the household of Edward III. In 1367, Katherine married Sir Hugh Swynford in the employ of Gaunt. They has 2 children, Thomas and Blanche. Sir Hugh was killed in battle in Aquitaine, 1372. Katherine was governess to Gaunt’s children, by his first wife, a post she held for ten years, during which four illegitimate children were born to her and Gaunt. When she left she went to live in the household of Mary de Bohun, Gaunt’s daughter in law, along with her bastards. Soon she was living on her Lincolnshire estates, in 1396 Gaunt and she were married. After being his mistress for 25 years, Katherine was to be Gaunt’s wife for only 3 years. Gaunt died at Leicester castle in 1399, in his will he left Katherine an enormous quantity of jewels, plate and rich clothes as well as money and lands which he had granted to her since their affair began. These bequests were confirmed by her stepson when he became king. Katherine retired from Court and spent the last few years of her life in Lincoln. Her son by her first marriage, Sir Thomas Swynford became sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1401, while her second son by Gaunt, Henry Beaufort had been chosen as bishop of Lincoln in 1398. Katherine died in May 1403 and was buried with monumental magnificence in the Angel Choir of Lincoln Cathedral to which she had given so generously.
From Katherine’s marriage to Gaunt, much followed. Shortly after the marriage the Pope confirmed the legitimacy of their children. As they had been born in adultery they did not qualify as “mantle children”. In the parliament of February 1397 the legitimacy of the Beauforts was confirmed by the king, lords and Commons of England in a ceremony unprecedented in English history. Consequently the four children were declared capable of inheriting “whatever dignities honours, ranks and offices, public or private, feudal and noble there may be....as if you were born lawful”. And from that moment on the Beauforts prospered, they became virtually a second royal family. But Henry IV, Gaunt’s son, had been crafty, he had inserted into the legitimising ceremony, EXCEPTA DIGNITATE REGALI, excepting the royal dignity. In short, they could attain anything except the crown of England. The children Katherine bore Gaunt were; John Beaufort, born 1372. Henry Beaufort, born 1375, Thomas Beaufort, born, 1377, Joan Beaufort born 1379. Henry, until his death in 1447 was one of the foremost politicians in England. Thomas, like his brother, became Chancellor of England and was created earl of Dorset in 1412 and the Duke of Exeter in 1416, he served as Henry V’s lieutenant in Normandy and was a Knight of the Garter. Joan, the youngest, married twice, her second husband being Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland. One of her many children, Cecily, married Richard, Duke of York. Amongst their many children were Edward, Edmond, George and Richard. The first and last of these became the Yorkist kings of England.

EDWARD IV
All historians agree that Edward IV had a healthy sexual appetite, yet only three or four of his bastards are known by name. A son, Arthur and two daughters, Grace and Elizabeth. Regarding Grace, only one reference is made to her, that was when she was reported to be on the funeral barge of’ Elizabeth Woodville, which suggests that she must have been brought up in Elizabeth’s household. Little more is known about Elizabeth except that she married Lord Lumley some time in the 16th century. It is said that she was the daughter of Elizabeth Lucy and born about the time of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Arthur is much better known than the other two. Although his early life is shrouded in obscurity he rose to prominence in middle age becoming one of the favourites of his nephew, Henry VIII. At the Court of Tudor no man was safe and Arthur Plantagenet, created Viscount Lisle in 1523, was arrested in May 1540 and imprisoned in The Tower. His collection of’ 3,000 private letters were seized from his house in Calais for examination by the royal officials. They have remained in crown custody ever since, though half of them has been published in six volumes, entitled THE LISLE LETTERS. The date of Arthur is problematic. His mother was almost certainly Elizabeth Lucy,(nee Wayte) and he was called Arthur Wayte in his youth. he was probably born sometime between 1461-1464, for tradition has it that was the period of Edward IV’s affair with Elizabeth Lucy.
“He loved her well” said Sir George Buck., “and she was his witty Concubine, for she was a willing wench.... willing and ready to yield herself’ to the king and his pleasures without any conditions” Elizabeth was the daughter of one Sir Thomas Wayte whose family had lived near Southampton for generations. Her affair with Edward must have been more than a casual affair because she was also the mother of Elizabeth. Arthur’s boyhood was spent at the easy going, slightly decadent court of Edward IV. In 1472, (the king’s tailor was ordered to make various robes for “my lord the bastard’’ What became of him after Edward’s death is a mystery. Probably he went to live with his mother. In 1501 he emerges from the shadows, by this time Henry VII could afford to be generous to his illegitimate brother in law. In this year he became a member of Elizabeth of York’s household. When she died in 1503, he transferred to the king’s household. In 1509 he was appointed as one of the new king’s esquires of the body and was known as Arthur Plantaganet.
For thirty years Arthur prospered in the royal service. Most certain it was Henry who arranged Arthur’s marriage to his first wife, Lady Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, and widow of Henry VII’s most notorious minister, Edmond Lord Dudley. Elizabeth bore him three daughters, and it was through that he acquired his title of Viscount Lisle in 1523 which elevated him to the English peerage. In 1524 he was made a knight of the Garter, 1525 he became vice admiral of England.
His wife died in 1525, in 1529 Arthur married Honour Grenville, some thirty years younger than him and prone to emotional instability. A month after attending Henry’s marriage to Anne Bolyne, Arthur relinquished his post of vice admiral and took on the responsibility as the king’s governor of Calais. It is from this period, 1533-1540, that almost all the Lisle correspondence dates. Arthur was caught up in a religious conspiracy, no doubt instituted by Henry, and was relieved of his post. He, his wife and servants were imprisoned in the Tower and with his arrest on the 19th May 1540, the Lisle letters come to an end. In 1541, Henry declared his intention of emptying the Tower of all its prisoners, which meant they would be released or beheaded. It was to be the former. Honour went to Calais and when Arthur was informed of his release he had a heart attack and died.

RICHARD III has been credited with as many as seven bastards, but only three of’ three are known by name. Two, were probably born before his marriage to Anne Neville, he openly acknowledged. His illegitimate daughter, Katherine, was married to William Herbert, earl of Huntingdon, at which time Richard settled property on them worth 1,000, marks, as well as a cash annuity of £150. This was generosity indeed. John of’ Gloucester, or John of Pomfret, as he is sometimes known, suggests that he may have been born in Pontefract castle. John seems to have been a favourite of his father’s. He was probably born in 1470, for he was knighted in York, during his father’s royal progress in 1483. On March 11th Richard appointed “. . . our dear son, our bastard of Gloucester, whose quickness of mind, agility of body and inclination to all good customs, give us great hope of his good service for the future..’’ to be Captain of Calais. After Bosworth Tudor captured him and imprisoned him with other Yorkist Pretenders.
In 1499, Perkin Warbeck, Clarence’s son, the young earl of Warwick, arid John were executed. According to a 17th century writer, “... it happened about the same time as the two unhappy gentlemen suffered, there was made away with a base son of Richard III, having secretly been kept in prison for a long time. The occasion, so it seemeth, was to prevent a practice of certain Irishmen of the west and south parts of Ireland, who sought and attempted to get him into their hands, with a purpose to make him their chief, or prince, for they would he glad of any noble gentleman, legitimate, or illegitimate, for the love they bore to Richard, Duke of York...”
The 3rd illegitimate child of Richard is Richard of Eastwell, who only learned of his true identity on the eve of Bosworth, and spent the remainder of is life working as a stone mason. He was supposed to have been born in 1469, dying in 1550.
It is one of those perverse ironies of English history that neither Henry I, who fathered more bastards than any other of our kings, nor Charles II, who ran him a close second, was able to pass his crown to a legitimate Son.

Sources. The Royal Bastards of Medieval England by; Chris Given Wilson and Aleiss Curteis.

---

RICHARD’S EXIT AND ENTRY Dorothy Mitchell.

As a “follow up” to David Mason’s excellent. article in September’s magazine regarding the final resting place of remains of Richard III, there are one or two points which I would like to put foreward, ones which have always niggled me. These I will approach later For now; we know that Richard rode out of Leicester to confront Tudor by the West Bridge on the morning of Sunday August 21st, 1485. What a sight it must have been. The onlookers could never have seen, nor ever likely to see, a spectacle so magnificent. First would come the trumpeters and heralds, in red and gold tabards, their horses trapped to the ground. Next, the Knights of the Body, gorgeously arrayed, protecting that Body, (Richard’s) who would he fronted by herald Blanc Sanglia bearing aloft the White Boar standard. Then Richard, with his scarlet and gold coat of Arms displaying the French Fleur de Lys and the Leopards of England, maybe wearing his crown, but I doubt it as it was far too valuable to be worn into battle. Perhaps it was a replica, he would be mounted in a white horse, not a charger whose sole purpose was to charge into battle. Behind the coterie of knights, the Duke of Norfolk and hundreds of his red lioned retainers, followed by the rest of the nobles with their deviced men, including Northumberland who was with Richard when he exited Leicester. (Croyland Chronicles). Then would march, or ride, the soldiers of the cities, the York contingent displaying the red Cross of St George and the Five Lions of the City on their jacks and banners. Then would come the surgeons, fletchers, blacksmiths, armourers, cooks, physicians and many more. wagons containing food and medical supplies, arrows, pikes, bows cannon balls, Richard’s portable altar plus its ornaments. Then would rumble the guns, and camp followers who “comforted” the men, especially when wounded. Bringing up the rear, a trusted noble with his men, in case of attack. We know that a ceremonial cross was found at Bosworth, this would be carried in front of Richard, maybe with a chaplain at his side. Being August, probably the sun would he shining, hot and inquisitive as it glared down on the dragon of colourful cacophony making its way to do battle with Tudor, its rays ricocheting from jewels, harness and weaponry, creating a kaleidoscope of faceted beauty.
It was essential for a medieval king to present himself as an invincible deity, to present a show of’ magnificent force that inspired confidence, not only to the onlookers, but to the participants themselves.
What an exit. There could he no doubt about it that such magnificent confidence would win the battle. But history reported it differently.
Over that West Bridge that Richard had ridden less than twelve hours previously, he returned, his naked, mutilated body slung over the hack of a pack horse which his herald, Blanc Sanglia was forced to rode. The rest you all know... how the corpse was tossed into the market place so that people could see for themselves that Richard was dead... that after two scorching days of Being displayed in the sun the nuns of Grey Friars begged Henry for the body to bury...etc...
Now I come to the main point of my article which is; the myth regarding the money secreted in Richard’s bed whilst staying the night at The White Boar, which was supposed to be money to pay his soldiers. As far as I can find out every noble and knight to supply their monarch in times of military emergency with a certain number of their retainers. Moreover, each city parish was committed to financing two men with horse and armour. ‘The city itself paying their wages which was twelve pennies a day, the men receiving half their wages in the in the Common Hall when they left, and half when, or if, they came back (York City records) In fact, it was their captain who took charge of the money. York was committed to 120 men, fully horsed and armed, plus a captain, making it a cavalry unit. So, was the story of the King’s Bed a tongue in cheek hoax? If so, it had disastrous consequences as in 1613, the landlady of the Blue Boar, as the inn was then known, was brutally murdered, supposedly for the treasure in the King’s Bed, which by now was quite famous. Why Richard stayed at the inn instead of the castle remains a mystery. Leicester castle was still inhabitable, more than likely his most trusted friends were staying there. Had Richard booked a room for an illicit rendezvous? I hardly think so, he would have more on his mind. But, did he actually stay there. Is there any documentation to support this? If there is please let me know.
The other “niggle’’ I have is about Richard’s spur striking the side of the bridge and the old witch woman prophesying that “Richard’s head would strike the same spot on his return.” Most probably the latter is true, though I doubt the first as it’s too pat. Richard was a consummate horseman, he would have ridden over the bridge on his own as it was narrow and would have had perfect control. Some legends have the origin of truth, some haven’t. I find the two I have listed hard to believe.