Bastard Prince (29 page)

Richmond's half-brother, King Edward VI, would voice a similar concern when he declared ‘my Uncle of Somerset dealeth very hardly with me and keepeth me so straight I cannot have money at my will'. This was not exactly pocket money, but intended to reward those supplicants and players who came before their king. Wolsey acknowledged that one of the aspects of Richmond's affairs that needed to be redressed was the arrangements for personal expenses ‘for giving of rewards, for playing money unto my lord's grace [and] for his apparel' which obviously needed to be replaced more frequently than for an adult. This problem, at least, does seem to have been amended. At his death in 1536 Richmond's almoner handed over about £490 in ready money which he had been holding for the duke.

Despite all the difficulties, examples of Richmond exercising his own patronage are easy to find. When the parsonage of Dimby fell vacant in 1529, Richmond overrode the customary rights of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, in order to bestow it on his tutor Richard Croke. Giles Forster, who served as master of the horse after the departure of Sir Edward Seymour, earned £3 6
s
8
d
per annum as the steward of Merton in Westmorland. Even lesser servants could benefit from Richmond's generosity: Robert Metcalf, a clerk of the kitchen received 2
d
a day as bailiff of Cottingham in Yorkshire. At his death several of Richmond's servants held offices within his lordships. If George and Richard Cotton seem to have done exceptionally well, with a clutch of such posts between them, they repaid Richmond with eleven years of loyal service. Since they were the only servants allowed to accompany his body into Norfolk, they were perhaps particularly close to the duke.

An unusual aspect of Richmond's patronage, given Richmond's lack of years, was his connection with Haltemprice Priory in Yorkshire. In February 1528 Brian Higdon advised Wolsey that the prior at Haltemprice was dead and that two of the brethren were coming up to London to ask for a replacement. He described the priory as being well built, with lands worth about 200 marks, and added ‘the Duke of Richmond and Somerset is founder'. Since Higdon was both Richmond's chancellor and Dean of York he is unlikely to have been mistaken. A founder's responsibilities might include sponsoring an establishment's business in the royal courts or protecting the financial interests of the monks. In return the founder was assured of the grateful services of the monks in praying for them and their family, they had a right to lodgings in the priory during their lifetime and a place of burial after their death.

The claim that Richmond was indeed their founder was reiterated in the visitation of the monasteries in 1536, when the priory was also found to possess the relics of the arms of St George, a part of the true Holy Cross and the girdle of St Mary ‘which is thought to be helpful in childbirth'. However, the sense in which Richmond was the founder is questionable. The priory did draw some of its income from lands in his possession, but that would not give him founder's rights since Sir John de Meaux had founded a religious house at Haltemprice in 1406 so it was not a new foundation. On the other hand, a re-foundation would have enhanced Richmond's status. Richmond already maintained a chapel in his household. Adorned with tapestries of the passion of Christ, staffed by clerics in vestments of cloth of gold and crimson velvet embroidered with Richmond's arms, and a choir, it was as much a matter of prestige as religion. Although being the benefactor of a religious house had obvious benefits for the next world, it was probably hoped this move would enhance Richmond's image on earth.

In general, Richmond's age was not a serious handicap when it came to the administration of his lands. It could even be a positive benefit. When Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, had formerly held the lordship of Bromfield and Yale, he had used its income to raise credit and the revenues sharply decreased.
⁷
Instead, Richmond could count on experienced officers like his surveyor and general receiver James Morice who had faithfully served both Henry VIII and Margaret Beaufort. It was his duty to collect rents and fees from the various stewards and bailiffs and handle the practical details of grants and leases. Things did not always run smoothly. Wolsey suggested that the repairs of houses in Boston harbour in Lincolnshire should be arranged before they fell into the sea and in 1534 bad weather in the north meant the harvest failed and Richmond's tenants claimed they were too poor to pay him any rent.
⁸

Examples of Richmond's own involvement in the care or exploitation of his lands are not easy to find. While no magnate of his status would have overseen day-to-day business, many took an active interest in what was, in essence, their power base. A number of Richmond's estates, like Maidcroft in Kent, were let out to farmers. When Richmond bought the Lordship of Arwystli and Cyfeiliog in Montgomeryshire from Sir John Dudley, the manor court was told ‘that the said estate be kept in my lord Ferrers' name as farmer and not in my lord of Richmond's name'. In other cases, parts of his estates were leased to various monastic houses. Syon Monastery in Kent, and St Mary's Chantry in Lincolnshire both held lands from the duke. In 1535 a vicar in Kingsbury Hundred was paying just over 7
s
in rent to Richmond in his capacity as Lord of Langport in Somerset. This was not the most productive way of realising the value of property, since the possibility for development and improvement was lost in return for a fixed fee. Parcels of land let out to farm or lease were a standard form of land use for those with extensive properties and not in themselves a reflection of Richmond's youth. However, it did provide the duke with a steady income and relieved his officers of some responsibilities.

Unlike an actual minority, where the ward might grow to find his assets stripped and his lands despoiled, Richmond's holdings do not appear to have suffered unduly in the hands of his officers. When Richmond took possession of the Manors of Wrestlingworth in Cambridgeshire and Bassingbourn and Orwell in Bedfordshire in 1525, they yielded a sum total of £45 10
s
10½
d
. After his death that sum total was £45 10
s
10
d
exactly. It was not the place of Richmond's council to make innovative (and possibly risky) developments. They had to answer to the king. Richmond's occasional purchases did not compare with the policy of acquisition in Lincolnshire undertaken by Edward, Lord Clinton. The modest improvements made to his residences, including some building work at Sheffield, were insignificant beside the magnificent works commissioned by the king. The policy of maintenance and repair was nothing like Margaret Beaufort's extensive programme, which included an ambitious scheme at Boston in Lincolnshire to prevent flooding.

Although Richmond would take a keen interest in many aspects of his responsibilities, his personal involvement in the care or exploitation of his lands seems to have been at best sporadic and at worst non-existent. In a rare example, in 1534 the duke was taken to view a breach in the sea defences at Poole in Dorset. He solemnly reported that the damage was likely to hinder the collection of custom dues and also be to ‘the great annoyance and decay of my said town . . . unless some good remedy be shortly had in that behalf'. Time and again in numerous counties the period of Richmond's tenure coincides with a significant gap in even the basic records, like manor court rolls. This perhaps explains how Richmond's lordship has sometimes been completely overlooked, with local histories often omitting any connection with Richmond at all.

Significantly, this apparent lack of interest did not extend to the question of his title. Any attacks on his rights were vigorously defended in the king's courts like any adult magnate. When Thomasyn Andrews of Fremington in Devon committed suicide, all her goods and cattle ‘to the value of £20 and above' were forfeit to the duke, as lord of the manor. Instead, Elizabeth Chicester, and four accomplices conspired to keep her possessions for themselves. Casting himself as ‘your son and faithful subject' Richmond complained to the king through his Court of Star Chamber. When thieves broke into his park at Bedhampton to slaughter and steal his deer, Richmond again sought to obtain a subpoena. The bill pointed out that their actions were in violation of the king's laws and lack of suitable punishment would set a perilous example to other like-minded offenders.

Richmond's eagerness to assert his rights could also result in a less welcome use of the courts. In 1531 Randall Lloyd, Richmond's deputy steward in his new lordship of Bromfield and Yale, refused to allow the customary general pardon at a change of lord or lady, where all rents, debts and other due monies would be waived in return for a single fee of six marks, so the tenants took their case to the Star Chamber. The king was asked ‘of your most noble and abundant grace, to admit the said tenants and inhabitants to their said old ancient customs'. Regrettably, the verdict does not survive. While it is probably safe to assume that Richmond had certain advantages in securing a favourable verdict, it is to be hoped that his officer was not allowed to use the good name of the duke to perpetrate such an unjust practice.

It is, of course, hard to say exactly how personally involved Richmond was in preparing the cases. In a sense, that did not matter. If Richmond was to operate effectively as a magnate, then it was important that he was being seen to act like one. In 1533 when a dispute broke out over John Sidney's rights to certain lands of the Manor of Lamarsh in Essex, Sidney professed himself to be ‘very loath to contend with the said Duke'. However, this did not prevent him from defending the lands in question from Richmond's officers ‘with force and arms in riotous manner'. When Richmond applied to the king for a subpoena to enforce his lawful entry, John Sidney stood his ground and submitted a rebuttal to refute the duke's arguments. Such issues were part and parcel of landholding in the sixteenth century, as men increasingly used litigation for all manner of ends. That Richmond sought redress from the crown, was not an indication of any lack of authority, but helped to underscore his position as the rightful lord.

Nowhere was this more apparent than in a long-running legal wrangle over the rightful ownership of a single manor in Dorset. When Richmond was granted the Manor of Canford in 1525, the dispute had already been running for eight years. In simple terms, the king claimed the manor as parcel of the dukedom of Somerset, while Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, alleged it was hers as sister and heiress of Edward, Earl of Warwick. Margaret had actually been granted Canford, along with other manors, in 1513 as part of the earldom of Salisbury only to have the king's favourite, Sir William Compton, cast doubt on the proper descent of some of her lands. Margaret firmly believed he was motivated more by malice than by justice, because ‘he obtained not his purpose of her in marriage'. When she refused to take him as her husband he took revenge on her by suggesting to Henry that Canford and certain other lands did not belong to the earldom of Salisbury after all.

Most likely, William Compton would not have been as eager to pursue the case if his marriage proposal had been accepted. However, as steward of Canford, he had access to the title deeds and other documents. If something in those documents called Margaret's title into question, he had a duty to tell the king. Wolsey mounted an investigation on behalf of the crown and, by October 1518, the manor was back in Henry's hands. The king clearly believed the matter was concluded by June 1519 when he appointed Robert Bingham as bailiff and keeper of Canford, but Margaret was less willing to let the matter drop.
⁹
It was not so much Richmond's acquisition of the manor in 1525 which encouraged her to revive her claim, as the death of Sir William Compton in 1528.

The Countess of Salisbury was quite certain that she was the rightful owner of Canford. In her suit she told the king:

In response to her charges the duke's council set about attempting to prove his clear title to the lands. The challenge was taken very seriously. Thomas Magnus advised Wolsey that all the duke's receivers and auditors in the south of England had begun ‘to search and inquire in every place of their circuit, for all such evidence'. Margaret, who, after all, had had plenty of time to marshal her arguments, was keen for the case to be heard. Magnus was determined to stall until the results of the searches were known.

His caution was fully justified. Richmond had had his own problems in asserting his title to the manor. Even armed with the king's letters patent, the duke had been unable to take possession of all the relevant deeds and documents. Resorting to a bill in the king's Court of Chancery, it was alleged that one John Incent ‘refused, and yet doth refuse, contrary to all right and good conscience' to deliver up the documents. Given that Compton had allegedly found something in those papers that had refuted Margaret's title, Incent's action was more than simply inconvenient.

John Incent was the Master of St Cross Hospital, Winchester and ‘a clerk of both laws'. Since the lands had originally been purchased by Cardinal Beaufort specifically to endow St Cross Hospital he probably had a better claim to the manor than either Margaret or Richmond. Yet in his answer to Richmond's bill of complaint Incent slanted his evidence to Margaret's benefit. He claimed that John, Earl of Salisbury, had owned the manor, only to forfeit it to the crown in the reign of Henry IV when he was found guilty of high treason. In fact, the lands had legally reverted to the king. Incent also asserted Margaret's superior title and asked that she should be called before the court in order to set out her own case in person.