1415: Henry V's Year of Glory (94 page)

32.
Syllabus
, ii, p. 584;
CPR
, p. 342; Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 454.

33.
These payments appear on the Issue Roll E 403/621 under 27 April.

34.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, pp. 153–4.

35.
Foedera
, ix, pp. 225–7; Wylie, i. p. 453.

36.
Foedera
, ix, p. 219–20.

37.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, p. 155 (place of meeting); Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 496, n. 1 (Star Chamber).

38.
See Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, p. 156; or
Foedera
, ix, p. 222, for a printed list of those present. Although these minutes locate this meeting to 16 April, the correct date was the 15th. See Appendix 2.

39.
Fears
, pp. 368–9.

40.
ODNB
.

41.
‘To Richard of York [Richard of Conisborough], son of the late Edmund, duke of York, to whom Richard II gave 350 marks yearly, on top of the £100 he receives yearly …’ to be paid until the king can find a means to support
‘his young relative’. He received £285 before 5 Dec. 1414 (
Issues
, p. 337).

42.
ODNB
, under Richard, earl of Cambridge.

43.
See Appendix Two.

44.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, p. 151.

45.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 507.

46.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 509.

47.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 511.

48.
Gesta
, p. 17. See also Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 55. Curry’s comment on this point that ‘the truth of this remark is not certain’ may be applied to most other chroniclers’ remarks throughout history. It is of course possible that this element of the Issue Rolls was only supplied at a later date by a clerk who interpreted the payment in this way, but even so there is plenty of independent evidence of sending ambassadors via Harfleur, the naval base, which does suggest spying. There seems little room for doubt that there was deliberate ambiguity about the destination of the expedition at this juncture.

49.
Perfect King
, Appendix Five, pp. 422–6.

50.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 138.

51.
See Barker,
Agincourt
, pp. 175–6 for a neat summary of the strategic advantages.

52.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 404. For Bourchier, Phelip and Porter, see above under 24 January and 13 March.

53.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, pp. 157–8.

54.
HKW
, ii, p. 1004;
CPR
, p. 346.

55.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, pp. 231–2.

56.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, p. 233. ‘Cory’ has been corrected to ‘Corfe’.

57.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, p. 158.

58.
Foedera
, ix, p. 223. The number of archers seems to have been revised to sixty by 23 May. See
ibid
., p. 250. He was paid for sixty archers, according to the enrolled account E 358/6; by the time of Agincourt he was down to 35. Note: the earldom of Huntingdon had been forfeit by Sir John Holland’s father in 1400. Sir John was not formally restored until 1417, when he came of age. However, most contemporary sources – e.g. the
Gesta
, and the May council minutes – refer to him as the earl of Huntingdon. This official indenture for the campaign also names him as an earl. Hence this title has been used in this book.

59.
CPR
, p. 329.

60.
CPR
, p. 342.

61.
Oliver,
Monasticon Exonienses
, p. 248.

62.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, p. 131.

63.
CPR
, p. 306.

64.
Henry did not necessarily leave it to the last minute to go to Windsor. The reference to him and the council being at Westminster on 21 April may be an enrolment of a decision made some days earlier.

65.
For the date of foundation, see
Perfect King
, Appendix Six, pp. 427–9.

66.
This list is drawn from
CP
, ii, pp. 537–9 and Belz,
Memorials
, pp. 399–400. The order of seating is based on those of 1406, 1408 and 1409, coupled with the order of succession to each seat recorded in
CP
. Where there are discrepancies (the seats of Fitzhugh, Umphraville and Cornwaille) the
CP
order of succession is preferred. For the two tables marked with their names in French see Belz, ix.

67.
Namely Henry
V
, Clarence, Gloucester, York, Arundel, Dorset, Salisbury, Talbot, Fitzhugh, Scrope, Morley, Camoys, Felbrigg, Erpingham, Cornwaille, Daubridgecourt.

68.
Hutton,
Rise and Fall
, p. 27.

69.
There was no cap at this time. See Belz,
Memorials
, p. lii.

70.
PROME
inventory no. 1091.

71.
PROME
, 1423 October, item 31, nos 139, 146, 163, 169 and 170.

72.
PROME
, 1423 October, item 3, no. 264.

73.
The ladies who were issued robes in 1413 were the dowager queen of England, the duchesses of Clarence and York, the dowager duchess of York, the countesses of Huntingdon, Westmorland, Dorset, Arundel and Salisbury, the dowager countess of Salisbury, Lady Beauchamp, Lady Ros and Lady Waterton. See Belz,
Memorials
, lv. Most of these had been issued robes in earlier years and were issued them again in later years, so they constituted a group of Ladies of the Garter. See
CP
, ii, pp. 591–6.

74.
Belz,
Memorials
, ix. In later years these tables were exhibited in the chapel at Windsor – but they were sadly dilapidated by the seventeenth century, and were subsequently destroyed.

75.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, pp. 233–4.

76.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, pp. 234–5.

77.
Foedera
, ix, pp. 225–7.

78.
Petit,
Itinéraires
, pp. 417–8.

79.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, pp. 235–6.

80.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 447.

81.
de Baye
, p. 231, n. 1.

82.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 511.

83.
Barker,
Agincourt
, p. 98, tries to clarify the total number of ships employed by taking the total paid to Clitherowe and Curteys (£5,050) and dividing it by a 2s per quarter-ton rate of hire. The result of 631 ships of ‘twenty tons’ seems to accord with a contemporary report that there were seven hundred ships hired from Holland. However, there are two problems. The first is that not all of the £5,050 was paid for the hire of ships; as this entry in the Issue Rolls makes clear, the £2,166 13s 4d paid on this date was for wages. The second problem is that references to ‘ships of twenty/sixty/a hundred tons/tuns’ relate not to the tonnage of the ship itself or its displacement but to its carrying capacity of twenty tuns or large barrels. An alternative approach might be to regard the £2,166 13s 4d here mentioned as the total wages of the mariners in going to England, then Harfleur and back again. If there were 700 ships, with 700 masters paid 6d per day, and each ship had an average of 30 mariners at 3d per day (these being the usual rates in England), then this sum would not quite have covered eight days’ sailing – hardly enough time, one would have thought to sail from Holland and Zeeland to Southampton, and to load up, sail to Harfleur, unload, and return to Holland and Zeeland. There may have been fewer ships. However, there may have been additional payments for wages (this £2,166 was probably a part-payment), and there may have been different wage rates or numbers of sailors.

84.
See also the council meeting discussing these, on 15 May. Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, p. 159.

85.
CPR
, pp. 306–7.

86.
These payments are on the Issue Roll for this day: E 403/621.

87.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, pp. 237–8.

88.
Foedera
, ix, p. 205.

89.
CPR
, p. 302.

90.
CPR
, p. 343.

91.
Foedera
, ix, p. 228.

92.
Foedera
, ix, pp. 235–8.

93.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 67.

94.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 27. There could have been as many as two thousand archers at St-Cloud, but no more.

95.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 479.

May

1.
From this point, 1 May, certain details noted in the Issue Rolls and other official records have been relegated to the notes. This is because they are worthy of inclusion in order to present as full a record of Henry’s activities as possible but in their respective dates they disrupt the flow of the narrative, reducing the readability – and thus the accessibility – of the text. Today, for instance, the Close Rolls note an order to Henry Kays to pay 20 marks annually to the priory of the Virgin and St Thomas the Martyr at Newark, Surrey (
CCR
, p. 211). This was followed on 3 May by a related order to deliver letters patent freeing the same priory from tenths and fifteenths. Today a commission was also issued to arrest Gilbert Hesketh esquire of Chester. Hesketh was to be brought immediately before the king and council in chancery (
CPR
, p. 346). What Hesketh had done to deserve this is unknown, but it is unlikely to have been a serious offence, and possibly was not an offence at all. Hesketh sailed on the forthcoming expedition in the company of Sir William Butler (Nicolas,
Agincourt
, p. 357), and the following year the king granted him and his mother the wardship of his (Hesketh’s) under-age cousin (DL 25/1649).

2.
Hutton,
Rise and Fall
, pp. 28–34.

3.
These payments all appear under today’s date in the Issue Roll, E 403/621.

4.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, p. 238.

5.
CPR
, p. 343.

6.
CCR
, p. 211.

7.
CPR
, p. 320.

8.
CPR
, p. 346.

9.
Hutton,
Rise and Fall
, pp. 35–6.

10.
CPR
, p. 321.

11.
CPR
, p. 343. For the first case see 22 January.

12.
CPR
, p. 343.

13.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, p. 240.

14.
Foedera
, ix, p. 239.

15.
CPR
, p. 308.

16.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 142;
Foedera
, ix, pp. 239–40.

17.
CPR
, pp. 344–5.

18.
Hutton,
Rise and Fall
, pp. 34–5.

19.
E 101/406/21 fol. 19r.

20.
Foedera
, ix, pp. 240–1.

21.
Foedera
, ix, p. 241. Barker suggests the recipient was the mayor of London. See Barker,
Agincourt
, p. 109.

22.
See Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 483. Wylie infers the destination was Holywell from the chronicle of Usk, which mentions Henry going on pilgrimages prior to 16 June. Usk was referring only to offerings at London churches immediately before that date (Given-Wilson (ed.),
Usk
, pp. 254–5). The other evidence for the pilgrimage at this time is the account of the Teutonic envoys; but Wylie mistakes the timing of this pilgrimage. As he states on p. 495, it was shortly before the second interview with the envoys – so after they had been in the country for a full month. As they had left Marienburg on 27 March it can hardly be credited that they had been in the country for a full month by 12 May.

23.
Foedera
, ix, p. 243 includes a document supposedly attested by the king on the 11th. It is possible that this was in his absence; however the minutes of the council meeting on the 15th specifically state that the king was present. Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, p. 159.