Charles I

The E R A S M U S Journal

Ionut EPURESCU PASCOVICI
MENTALITY CHANGES IN LATE MEDIEVAL ENGLISH SOCIETY AND THE EXECUTION OF CHARLES I (1649) [1]

On 30 January 1649, the king of England was executed in London, after being charged of treason by a court of revolutionists. His name was Charles Stuart and his dynasty had been ruling England only since 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded queen Elisabeth, who died without direct heirs. Charles’ Scottish origin hadn’t made him more popular among his subjects, who were all accustomed to hating their northern neighbours. Moreover, his reign had been a political and financial disaster, causing the revolt of his subjects. But all these make little difference. He was the king of England, the successor of William the Conqueror and, according to a frequently discussed political idea, the successor of the Anglo-Saxon kings. The medieval tradition made him God’s representative on earth and both he and his father had placed special emphasis on this widely-spread belief, defending the theory of the divine right of kings. The rite of anointing, performed at the coronation of all kings, put him above ordinary men. As late as the eighteenth century peopled still believed that the king of England enjoyed supernatural powers. His authority was sacred and his person immune.

It is only in light of these facts that his execution reveals its full significance. It was not a political manoeuvre or an outburst of some desperate rebels, even though it may have looked like one. It was a clear break with a tradition which went back to the beginnings of the Middle Ages. Its revolutionary character is obvious. The fundamental basis of the English society were altered and this calls for an explanation.
One may argue that this inconceivable act, the execution of the legal sovereign, was merely the result of the convulsions of the Civil War, that nobody really desired the death of the king and that his execution can be included among those "moments of madness" that seem to characterise every revolutionary moment. It is however doubtful that the regicides acted on a momentary impulse and that they didn’t realise the implications of their action. On the contrary, there is solid evidence that they thought it over and that they really meant it. But be that as it may, one fact can hardly be denied: some three or four centuries ago the bare thought of deposing and assassinating the monarch could not have crossed the mind of one of his subjects. Even if we accept that the trial and the execution were planned by a minority who did not reflect the feelings of the English people toward monarchy, some questions have to be answered: what motivations determined their action, what ideology legitimated their decision, what made them break with so strong a tradition of government, how could they even think that the monarch, given by God to the English people, can be judged and convicted by them?
For such a radical idea to emerge it took a change in mentality, a change in the attitude toward the fundamental basis of monarchy. Analysing this process is not an easy task because one has to differentiate between the political and the spiritual side. A certain movement aiming to increase the participation of the political elite in the affairs of the kingdom is obvious in England ever since Magna Charta (1215). With the emergence of the English Parliament the position of the monarch met a new challenge. The kings had to make political concessions who affected their power. They depended on the vote of the Parliament in financial matters. The English Civil War itself can be viewed as a tax-payers’ revolt. [2] But these are political issues; they affected the power of the king, not his spiritual authority and much less his sacred person. The execution of Charles I cannot be explained by this evolution, because its significance was not only political, it was also spiritual. The spiritual aspect of this event is precisely the object of this essay, which will attempt to give some answers to the questions mentioned above, emphasising the importance of some medieval events in bringing about a change in the attitude of the English toward their monarch. The selection of these events, for which only the author of this essay can be held responsible, is somehow arbitrary. They do not include the classic episodes of the opposition against monarchy, such as Magna Charta (1215) or the revolt of Simon of Montfort and the beginning of Parliament (1265). The history of internal conflicts in England is much to vast, from the anarchy of 1135-54 to the War of the Roses (1455-85). Instead, this essay focuses on the violent actions against the monarch, ended with his deposition and very often, death. This vision is based on the assumption that most of the rebellions which marked the history of England in the Middle Ages were not aiming to overthrow the king but to obtain social and political reforms. They were not meant to alter the sacred authority of the monarch, but merely to increase the participation of the representatives of the realm in the process of political decision.
My selection refers to the deposition and murder of Edward II (1327), the deposition of Richard II (1399), the events of the War of the Roses: the conflict between Henry VI and Edward IV (1471) and the controversial reign of Richard III (1483-1485). Estimating the impact of these events on their contemporaries is speculative, due to the lack of evidence regarding the mental profile of the medieval people. However, it is likely that they marked the minds of at least a minority. My intention is to determine whether the memory of these events had any part to play in the execution of Charles I.

In order to realise the true dimension of the execution of Charles I is necessary to present the extent of the spiritual authority of the medieval monarchs. The German tradition claimed that the kings were the descendants of gods - the Anglo-Saxon kings traced their origin to Wotan, the supreme Germanic god. The Christian Church used this background to consecrate the position of kings, making them the representatives of God on earth, reigning through the grace of God, as the formula "Rex Dei Gratia" stated. All power came from God through the king who distributed parts of it to his subjects; the fundamental issue was that the formerly close connection between king and his people was severed, because the people conferred no power to him and accordingly, couldn’t take it away by legal means. [3] The rite of anointing increased the spiritual authority of kings. Its universal significance was that it invested with a sacred character the person or object which was anointed; it was a privilege - apart from priests the "Lord’s anointed" were to be found only among kings. [4] It was intended not only to distinguish the monarch from all other mortals but also to show the legitimacy of his rule, sanctioned by divinity. [5] The "Lord’s anointed" were inviolable, being defended by God - as it was written in the Scriptures: "Nolite tangere Christum meum". Rebels against the king, regardless of the context, were stigmatised as God’s enemies, since they had revolted against the divine rule - the consequence was eternal damnation. [6] This explains the very small number of conspiracies aiming to depose and murder the monarch - Marc Bloch enumerates only three kings who died a violent death at the hands of their subjects, in the Early Middle Ages. [7] Moreover, the nature of kings was essentially different from that of ordinary men - it was a divine nature. They had supernatural powers and people strongly believed that the kings of England and France could miraculously heal scrofula. [8] All these characteristics of the medieval monarchy were still perceived as genuine in the early seventeenth century, even though a series of violent events affected the prestige of the English monarchy.

We know little about the circumstances that surrounded the death of Edward II. It may be that he was not the first king of England to die as the result of a plot - William Rufus is suspected to have died in an accident engineered by his brother Henry, who succeeded him at the throne (August 1100) [9] and the debate regarding this alleged murder, even though inconclusive, was public at the beginning of the twelfth century. We are better informed, however, on the deposition of Edward II.
Even though a rebellion this was not a classic revolt of a group of magnates, because the opposition was led by Edward’s wife, Isabelle of France. The support of the baronial opposition was, however, essential for the success of the action. Edward had been confronted with this opposition from the very beginning of his reign (1307) but he managed to control it. What made this movement special was also the presence of the king’s son, Edward among the conspirators. Isabelle and her son left France, where they had planned the rebellion and sailed to England, in September 1326. [10] Together with a group of nobles like William II, count of Hainault or Roger Mortimer, the queen encountered no resistance in England and Edward II was compelled to leave London, considered to be tumultuous. The people, hostile to Edward II, welcomed the queen and the young prince who took control of the situation. The king’s favourites, Hugh Despenser and his son, were executed. The magnates proclaimed prince Edward keeper of the realm (October 1326). The last step was the deposition of Edward II and it was accomplished by a decision of the Parliament, assembled in January 1327. The Parliament decided that prince Edward should succeed to the throne and Edward II finally agreed to resign, after being threatened by the delegates of the Parliament that if he resists all of his heirs would be excluded from succession. The new king, Edward III, began his reign on 25 January 1327.
The deposition of Edward II is a very controversial issue. The assembly who took that decision had an obvious representative character as it included both barons and bishops as well as Londoners, but it was not a lawful Parliament because the king was not present. Moreover, the legal basis of such an act did not exist. Nor was a valid precedent in the history of the kingdom to set an example. [11] This is why the Parliament so vigorously insisted that Edward II accept the decision, thus making it legal and this is why Edward III issued a proclamation, stating that his father renounced, on his good will, to govern the kingdom. [12] This appearance of legality, together with a propaganda which took advantage of the numerous shortcomings of Edward II made things easily to accept for the people of England. But the dimension of this act can hardly be exaggerated: it broke a long tradition of government, going even further than the revolts from 1215 and 1258 and marking the political stage of England. [13] The prestige of monarchy was affected and it may have seemed that it only took an assembly of barons, clerics and townsmen to depose a king.
Moreover, if Edward’s life hadn’t been initially endangered by the revolt, after the deposition the former king was regarded as a potential source of trouble. He was placed under surveillance in the castle of Berkeley where two attempts to rescue him were made. Finally, Isabelle and her lover, Roger Mortimer, realised that they could not afford to keep him alive and he was assassinated (September 1327). For many people it must have been clear that his death was planned by the two regents. We do not know what was the impact of his deposition on his contemporaries, much less the impact of his death, an even more obscure event. The chronicles and the documents cannot reflect the feelings of an entire nation and since the fourteenth century was not an age of private journals and personal correspondence, who could provide us with some inside information about the mentality of that time, we can only estimate the importance of these events. The facts, however, speak for themselves and modern historians appreciate that the consequences of the events of 1327 reached far beyond that period and led to the decline of the medieval monarchy. [14] As it has been noted, Edward’s murder and deposition were particularly shocking for a country with such a strong government as the English monarchy had been ever since 1066. [15]
Seventy years after the deposition of Edward II another similar event took place, facilitated by the example of 1327. This time the king was not replaced by his son and a usurper took the throne, legitimating his claims through his royal origin. It’s definitely a step forward and it shows the decline of the English monarchy.
The actors were king Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke, the son of John Gaunt and grandson of Edward III. The apparent cause of Henry’s rebellion was a decision taken by Richard II in 1398, when he banished both Henry and his rival, Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk and then confiscated the Lancastrian lands who otherwise would have passed to Henry. Henry took advantage of Richard’s departure to Ireland to put up a successful rebellion and he managed to capture the king who was placed in the Tower of London (August 1399). The scenario from 1237 was repeated: Henry’s propaganda persuaded people that Richard voluntary resigned, designating him as successor to the throne [16] and an assembly similar to the Parliament of January 1327 accepted the resignation. Once again the support of the Londoners contributed to the success of the deposition. However, since there were still doubts as to Richard’s guilt or to the legal basis of the deposition a case against the king was presented to the assembly who after hearing the charges consecrated the deposition. [17] Soon afterward Richard died at Pontefract Castle, of natural causes. Due to the tyrannical character of his reign the deposition was welcomed by the people of England and as a previous act had taken place in 1327, it did not have the same impact. Nevertheless, it was not supported by any law - according to the chronicle of Adam of Usk the assembly used as precedent and legal basis for the charges against Richard II the decree of deposition passed at the council of Lyon (1245) by pope Innocent IV against the emperor Frederick II [18] ; but the two situations had little in common, because the assembly of 1399 did not have the power and authority of the pope.
Thus, the fourteenth century witnessed two violent attacks directed not only against the effective power of the monarchy, but also against the spiritual authority of this institution and even against the person of the king, generally considered to be immune.
The last events I will discuss occurred during the War of the Roses, a time of internal conflicts and insecurity. They are closely related and is best that they be analysed together. In the first case the mental illness of king Henry VI, who had long periods of insanity, allowed his cousin Richard duke of York, who had better claims at the throne, to put up a rebellion. He was defeated by the Lancastrians, the king’s allies, but his son Edward carried on the fight, proclaimed himself king under the name of Edward IV and won the battle of Townton driving Henry out of the kingdom (1461). Even though the origin of Edward IV was royal this was a usurpation. [19] In 1465 Henry attempted to win back his kingdom but was defeated again and imprisoned in the Tower. A revolt led by Richard Neville, earl of Warwick temporary restored him (1470) but Edward finally took control of the situation and after Henry’s son and heir was killed in the battle of Tewkesbury Edward had his rival murdered in the Tower of London (1471). Of course, the official story was that Henry died of natural causes but as to how many people believed it we can only speculate. The different accounts of Henry’s death, save the official version, Historie of the Arrival of Edward IV, state that he was murdered by Edward and his brother Richard, duke of Gloucester. As the chronicle of Robert Fabyan, written at the beginning of the sixteenth century narrates, the general opinion those days was that the duke of Gloucester stabbed Henry. [20] Even in a time of political crimes and civil war such a fact could not have passed unnoticed. Most people regretted the death of Henry VI. [21] Let alone the disastrous impact that so numerous depositions and quarrels for the throne had on the image of the English monarchy it seemed that the English were getting more and more accustomed to having their kings assassinated.
Even more terrible than the confrontation between Henry VI and Edward IV was the brief reign of Richard III (1483-85). After the death of Edward IV his twelve-year old son was proclaimed king under the name of Edward V. Richard, duke of Gloucester took advantage of the situation and using as pretext a rumour which claimed that the young Edward and his brother were bastards imprisoned them in the Tower and took the throne. Like in 1327 and 1399 the propaganda was very important - the people were convinced that Edward’s marriage was not a true marriage and therefore all of his heirs had no right to succession and in this context a Parliament asked Richard to take over the crown (25 June 1483). [22] The new king was initially accepted by the people who feared a long minority. But he was soon suspected to have killed his two nephews, whom nobody ever saw after they had been placed in the Tower. Whether he had them killed or not is less important, what matters is that this tale had become the general belief and made him extremely unpopular. It also affected the image of the English monarchy so badly, that in 1484 the chancellor of France, in his speech to the States General of Tours, cited the example of England as a country in which the murderer of the lawful heirs to the throne was made king by the favour of the people. [23] The situation became difficult for Richard. After a first rebellion had failed, in the summer of 1485 Henry Tudor, sole male claimant to Lancastrian ancestry and the throne, landed at Milford Haven. Richard's supporters widely deserted him, and he was defeated and killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field. His reign was associated with the assassination of the two heirs which shocked not only England but also Europe.
The Battle of Bosworth is the starting point of a very fertile period in the history of England - the rule of the Tudor dynasty. It was an agitated period, a time of external wars, a time who witnessed the beginnings of Protestantism in England, but was not a time of political violence - except for the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics during the reign of Mary I (1553-58) and the execution of Mary, queen of Scots in 1586. [24]
In conclusion, the possible precedents of the execution of Charles I are the four events I have presented. They were all spectacular because they all broke with a tradition who valued the life of kings more than the life of any other mortals. The appearance of legality for which the regicides strove hardly could not, in any of these cases, change the profoundly illegal character of their act. Regardless of the technical arguments of shrewd lawyers who attempted to make all this depositions look legitimate and regardless of the shadow cast by the official propaganda on the suspect deaths of Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI and of the two children of Edward I - Edward and Richard - the spiritual side of these events made a clear impact on the English society. Maybe only a minority realised all the subtle aspects contained in the theory of the divine monarchy, but even the most ignorant people strongly believed that the king was above all mortals and that he had supernatural powers - as it is shown by the general belief in the miraculous healing performed by monarchs. In this context, the deposition and murder of these kings left a mark in the minds of people. After these violent events the English monarchy could not have remained the same.

The key question refers to the relation between these events and the execution of Charles I. The latter was definitely far more complex, being the product of a new age. The roots of the Civil War go back to the reign of Elisabeth I and maybe even further. [25] But the fundamental evolution of the conception about monarchy took place in the Stuart age, especially during the reign of James I. James strongly believed that the king was the representative of God on Earth, given by God to the people of England. He reaffirmed the theory of the divine right of kings, being almost aggressive in sustaining it. His efforts were successful and he gained numerous adherents - a classic example is J. Lesley, author of the article A slap on the Snout of the Republican Swine that rooteth up Monarchy, directed against the critics of the monarchy, in which he argued that the kings cannot do wrong, for they are of divine right. [26] Of course, James was not original in doing this, because, as we have seen, he was merely defending a fundamental and traditional principle. As Christopher Hill put it, his ideas about the divine right were not more extreme than those of Elisabeth I had been, but he expressed them more often, using them in his competition for power with the Parliament. [27] This is the real problem: the political finality of James’s convictions. This theory, even though still valid, had become somehow obsolete, not because people doubted the divine nature of the king - they still believed that he had miraculous powers - but because of political factors, such as the growing power of Parliament. Reaffirming this theory with such vigour, James was faced with a double reaction: while most people believed even stronger in the divine nature of the king they resented the political consequences of this theory, i.e., James’s claims to an autocratic rule.
When the Civil War began in 1642 this situation was very much the same. I will not insist on the narrative of the Civil War, nor on its causes. [28] The essential fact is that the Parliament did not fight against monarchy, aiming to establish a republican regime. In the early seventeenth century, the key question in England was not whether the monarchy was the ideal form of government, but rather what was the extent of monarchical power, what was the relation between the king’s will and the king’s law. [29] The objective of the Parliament was to induce political reforms which would increase its importance in the affairs of the country, placing monarchy in a secondary position. After Charles was finally defeated at Preston (1648) and taken in custody the parliamentarians were only hoping that they could reach a final agreement with him; but the leaders of the New Model Army, which had gained supremacy over Parliament since 1647, were already considering replacing the king, holding him responsible for the blood shed in the war. It seems that the obstinate refuse of Charles to comply to the demands of the Parliament sealed his fate. He had a clear conception about monarchy and he resisted all pressures, with the desire to defend the right passed upon him by God and to hand it intact to his son. [30] The response of the army leaders was radical. They controlled the Parliament and compelled it to establish a High Court of Justice for the trial of the king.
The sessions of the High Court of Justice began on 8 January at Westminster - the public character of the king’s trial is an expression of the confidence of his judges, who felt that their action was legitimate and necessary. But they were only a minority reflecting the position of an army who suffered the most during the Civil War. The real force was that army, now in control of London, Parliament and the entire country. [31] Everything was taken care of, so that nothing could go wrong: the Court, presided by John Bradshaw, the son of a country gentleman, consisted of 135 members but the quorum was fixed at 20 people to prevent the possible absences. [32] The king was accused to have "traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament and the people therein represented". [33]The legal argument of his prosecutors was that Charles Stuart had been "admitted King of England and therein trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise". [34] But the king never recognised the right of the Court to judge him, permanently demanding to know what authority had invested it with this right - thus, he showed clearly the illegal character of this procedure. He was not allowed to defend himself and he was denied the opportunity to make a final speech, after the hearing of the sentence - a sentence signed by 59 people and delivered on 27 January, proclaiming "that the said Charles Stuart, as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer and a public enemy, shall be put to death, by severing his head from his body". [35] His opinion on the trial, reflecting both his belief in the doctrine of the divine right and the illegitimate character of the Court, was exposed in the notes he had made for a speech he intended to deliver on 22 January:

"Now I am most confident this day’s proceeding cannot be warranted by God’s laws; for, on the contrary the authority of obedience unto Kings is clearly warranted and strictly commanded in both the Old an New Testament, which, if denied, I am ready instantly to prove. And for the question now in hand, there it is said, that ‘where the word of a King is, there is power; and who may say unto him, what doest thou?' (Eccles. viii.4) Then for the law of this land, I am no less confident, that no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King, they all going in his name; and one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong." [36]

The execution of Charles I, January 30th, 1649.

Even if the king’s trial and execution was a last resort, the motivations of the regicides’ decision were complex. For one thing, it was clear that Charles would not give up and accept the demands of the Parliament. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assert that Cromwell still feared a possible turn over which would replace the king in his position. [37] However, the moral side of the trial seems to have been decisive. The people who judged Charles were animated by Puritan convictions. In their opinion, the trial and the sentence were a necessary act of justice, meant to repair the calamities of the Civil War through the punishment of their moral author. This is why they made the trial public. Edmund Ludlow, one of the leaders of the New Model Army, wrote in his memories that the pain inflicted by the king on the country could only be cleared by the shedding the king’s blood. Another general, Thomas Harrison, affirmed at his own trial in 1661 that the king’s sentence was ordained by God and that he and his colleagues acted as the "instruments" of God. [38]Political motivations were also important - it is noteworthy that Charles was not deposed, but judged as King of England, as the procedures of his trial shows it. The aim of his prosecutors was to struck not only the man but also the office, the institution of monarchy and this view was expressed by the Solicitor General, John Cook, who said that the sentence was pronounced not against one tyrant, but against tyranny itself. [39]
The combination of political and religious motivations should not be surprising. At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Church and the State were a unity. Even the main revolutionary movement, the Puritanism, though essentially religious, had also a political character, aiming to introduce democratic and popular reforms in Church as well as in State. [40]
Puritanism is considered by most historians responsible for that change in mentality which made people think that their legal and sacred monarch can be brought to trial and executed by his subjects. We’ve seen that the execution of Charles Stuart was the work of a minority of people, most of them leaders of the army and puritans. We’ve seen what were their reasons and indeed Puritanism was at the origin of these reasons. The fact that the early seventeenth century was a moment of climax for the theory of the divine right of kings is another argument that this change in mentality occurred at a later date and as a result of the development of Puritanism and that the medieval events I’ve presented did not leave, altogether, a profound mark in the English society.
Despite this evidence in favour of Puritanism, I think that the medieval political legacy had also an important part to play in the execution of Charles I. It provided the regicides with something more important than the moral - and even mystical - arguments of Puritanism: it gave them precedents. It is true that most people continued to believe, after the violent events which affected the medieval monarchy, in the sacred and divine nature of the king. But for them such violence, even though detestable, was no longer a novelty - the collective conscience preserved the memory of those events. Assassinating the king was not such an extraordinary act - it had happened before and it could happen again. For those few people who decided to get rid of Charles and of monarchy this was not an unknown dilemma - the medieval history of the realm was a source of inspiration for them. It is likely that before they even heard of the Puritan doctrine they had already found out that some centuries ago the king of England was deposed and murdered, against all religious and moral principles. These precedents not only made their decision easier to take, but allowed them to transfer an essentially moral and religious matter - the need for the punishment of the man responsible for the crimes of the Civil War - in the political field, where the solution, the practical means for accomplishing this, were provided by the examples from the English medieval history.

To sum it up, a relation between the execution of Charles I and the violent effects which affected the image of the medieval English monarchy can be identified. It is not a direct relation and this is why demonstrating its existence can be subject to speculations, rather than facts. We cannot know what were Oliver Cromwell or Thomas Harrison thinking when they decided to eliminate Charles I; but we can presume that these marking events of the history of England influenced, even if indirectly, their judgement.

FOOTNOTES

[1] This paper has first been presented at the IXth annual ISHA (International Students of History Association) conference, "Revolution?!", Helsinki 1998. I'm indebted to the participants at the workshop "Mental revolutions and revolutionary mentalities" for their valuable comments and criticisms.

[2] Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714, London, 1993, p. 91.

[3] Walter Ullmann, A history of political thought: the Middle Ages, Harmondsworth, 1970, p. 54-55.

[4] March Bloch, The Feudal Society, volume II, Chicago, 1974, p. 380.

[5] Walter Ullmann, op. cit., p. 86-87.

[6] Ibid., p. 90.

[7] March Bloch, The Feudal Society, p. 381.

[8] The classic work for this aspect of the divine nature of the medieval kings is March Bloch, Les Rois Thaumaturges, Strasbourg, 1924.

[9] See Frank Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042-1216, New York, 1983, p. 170.

[10] See especially May McKisack, The fourteenth century, 1307-1399, Oxford, 1992, p. 83-96.

[11] The deposition of a king was not an unknown fact. Early in the Middle Ages there were accounts of monarchs overthrown by their subjects - for example the case of the frank king Childeric, deposed by his subjects who eventually threatened that they would kill him (c. 450). Gregoire de Tours, History of the Franks, Book II., Chapter 12, edited by Paul Halsall in "Internet Medieval Source Book" (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html), 1997. But the essential difference between the ancient German monarchy and the medieval monarchy was that the latter enjoyed the theocratic character described above.

[12] May McKisack, op. cit., p. 92.

[13] B. Wilkinson, The later Middle Ages in England, 1216-1485, London, 1969, p. 130-132.

[14] May McKisack, op. cit., p. 96.

[15] English Historical Documents, volume IV, 1327-1485, edited by A.R. Myers, London, 1969, p. 5.

[16] Which was far from being true. On the contrary, Richard proved himself more resistant to the pressures made upon him than Edward II had been in 1327.

[17] May McKisack, op. cit., p. 494-495.

[18] E.H.D, IV, p.179.

[19] He was the descendant of Phillipa, the daughter of the second living son of Edward III, Lionel, duke of Clarence while Henry VI was the grand-grandson of John of Gaunt duke of Lancaster, the third living son of Edward III. However, as it can be easily noticed, Edward’s claims were based on a maternal link with Edward III.

[20] E.H.D., IV, p. 317.

[21] Especially the Londoners. E.F. Jacob, The fifteenth century, 1399-1485, Oxford, 1961, p. 569.

[22] Richard was crowned on 6 July. Ibid., p. 620-621.

[23] E.H.D., IV, p. 337.