Bastard Prince (32 page)

Part of his goods were immediately granted away. If Richmond had been an adult magnate, he would have been expected to reward and remember his friends in his last will. It was customary to provide his servants with lengths of black cloth for funeral clothing and wages commensurate with their years of loyal service. The few gifts made out of Richmond's goods did not really compare, but they may not necessarily have reflected the wishes of the duke. Two days after his death John Gostwyk began an extensive inventory of the duke's goods. Even as he was taking the inventory Gostwyk asked that he might be allowed to buy a mule ‘which I have already in my custody . . . for she is too little for the King's Highness'.

It was probably the king's decision to deliver several parcels of silver gilt to ‘my Lady's Grace', probably Mary Tudor. Richmond would no doubt have approved of his half-brother, Lord Tailbois, having his green taffeta and velvet coat. The horse with its saddle and harness of black velvet, which was given to Surrey, was most likely Richmond's own. His widow, Mary Howard, was allocated a few bits and pieces, including two solid silver spoons and one silver gilt spoon, but how Viscount Lisle came by one of Richmond's chairs is less clear.

Richmond did not leave the sort of grand building enterprises that proclaimed the power and wealth of his elders to the world. He displayed no real delight in scholarship. Indeed, according to the inventory of his goods, all the books in his household were strictly for religious services, so it is hardly fair to expect any examples of poetry or polemic. If he inherited his father's love of music, it was as a performer rather than a composer. If he had loved art with the same passion that he reserved for sport and hunting, then the relics he left behind him might have been more numerous.

The extent of Richmond's influence is perhaps more easily weighed in the void left by his death. The most immediate and pressing problem was the redistribution of his offices. Any hopes that Norfolk harboured of regaining his former position as Lord Admiral were quickly dashed. That post went to a rising privy councillor, Sir William Fitzwilliam. Instead, Norfolk was sent to Sheriff Hutton to quell the mounting disorder in the north. Another star in the ascendant, Sir Edward Seymour, was given the office of chancellor and chamberlain of north Wales, which Richmond had recently acquired from the condemned Henry Norris. Sometimes the solution was simple and straightforward. The former deputy-captain at Berwick, Sir Thomas Clifford, slipped seamlessly into Richmond's office as captain of the town and castle. However, not all the vacancies were so easily filled.

Despite Richmond's apparent lack of involvement in the mechanics of government in Ireland, his sudden death caused immediate repercussions. The Irish parliament had been in the midst of a session, called under his authority as Lord Lieutenant. Now that he was dead, the concern was expressed that his authority was no longer valid and ‘the authority of the Parliament was extincted and all acts in the same Parliament ensuing . . . [were] faint and void in law'. Since the Parliament had dealt with a number of important matters relating to church and state, it was suggested a new commission should be sent over to ensure the acts were fully ratified in law. After some deliberation, Cromwell decided the statutes were perfectly valid. However, the decision not to appoint another Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is evidence that Richmond's particular usefulness to his father was not easily replicated in other men.

As a landed magnate Richmond's loss also caused other problems. Since there was no possibility that his wife might be pregnant, all his property immediately reverted to the king. Even so, it was not exactly a seamless transition. When the steward of Ruthin wrote to commiserate with the Duke of Norfolk on his loss, he pointed out that the deputy receiver there intended to take advantage of Richmond's death by keeping all the revenues, rents and profits which he had collected. In Yorkshire, Richmond's former tenants in Masham and Nidderdale reacted with dismay at the demand for ‘the God's penny and a g0ressom due on the change of lord' on top of a year's rent, tithes and other payments which now all fell due at the same time.
²
Their reaction contributed to the worrying anarchy in the north. Not only did they refuse to pay their rents, but they added their voices to the protests against the suppression of the monasteries.

Henry soon moved to reassert his authority over Richmond's former holdings. Within weeks, William Orrell, a page of the king's chamber, had been appointed bailiff of the Richmond fee in Norfolk. The king's officers were charged with collecting outstanding debts and fees, although it would be more than two years before the bailiff of Richmond's Manor of Droitwich in Worcestershire paid up the £10 19
s
which was owing. It took Henry even longer to turn his attention to the Welsh Marches. Not until October 1537 were the Earl of Worcester and others sent to investigate Richmond's holdings there; and it was not until March 1538 that Robert Wingfield was made auditor of the possessions of the Countess of Richmond, including those back in the king's hands because of Richmond's unexpected death.

A number of large grants helped to minimise the disruption caused by Richmond's death. Henry's long-time friend and former brother-in-law, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, was particularly fortunate with a significant spread of lands in the Midlands. The king's cousin, Henry Courtenay, Marquess of Exeter, was given the disputed Manor of Canford and other lands in Dorset. In order to support his new dignity as Lord Admiral, Sir William Fitzwilliam was allowed land in Devon and elsewhere.

These large grants were followed by a trickle of smaller grants. Men and woman from all levels of court society, from Henry's final queen, Katherine Parr, who received the lordship and Manor of Thorpe Achurch in Northamptonshire, to John Cocke, one of the king's footmen, who received a lease of lands in Overstone in Northampton, benefited from Richmond's death. The Manor of Kingsbury, in Somerset, went to Roger Amyce, whose father-in-law had been Richmond's cofferer. However, the Manor of Boston, in Lincolnshire, was perhaps a special case. In 1545 it paid £646 15
s
4
d
for the right to become a corporate borough. Significantly, even though Jane's pregnancy was known only months after Richmond's death, there was no attempt to reserve any of his holdings for an expected prince, an indication that Henry did not envisage Richmond as his heir.

With the dismantling of Richmond's estates came the break up of his household. Among Cromwell's papers is a note ‘to know what the King will do with the Duke of Richmond's servants'. Many of the duke's officers had been with him since his creation in 1525. Now they found themselves scrambling to find other positions. The £528 purse which Henry allowed them ‘at the defraying of that household' would not go far, and as Henry was due to receive a year's worth of rent and revenues from Richmond's lands and had already taken £490 in ready money from the duke's almoner it was only a token gesture, rather than a serious attempt to defray their hardship.

The most fortunate stayed in royal service. Richard Cotton found himself serving his king in another role when he was called to help combat the Pilgrimage of Grace. Hugh Johns, Richmond's yeoman of the wardrobe, was lucky enough to find alternative employment with the king. Some looked hopefully towards the household of the duke's half-sister Mary, which the rumours had it ‘shall be shortly advanced and the number of persons thereof augmented'. Others were subsequently accepted into the household formed for the new Prince Edward, although it took Thomas Eynns three years to secure his position there and in the meantime he complained of his ‘great costs and charges . . . whereby I am more than half undone'. A few men looked to their friends and relations to secure continuing employment. Sir Thomas Darcy, a former gentleman waiter, was particularly fortunate when he moved effortlessly into the service of his rising relation, Edward Seymour.

One of the most interesting choices of patron for Richmond's servants after their lord's death was Thomas Cromwell. Being old and infirm, Thomas Holland did not feel able to accept Cromwell's offer of a post, but rather than waste the opportunity, he was quick to send up his son and heir instead. When the Duchess of Norfolk was looking to aid a brewer named Arnold, who obviously secured his place in Richmond's household through his connections with the Howards, she confidently approached Cromwell for his help, as it was evidently common knowledge that he had taken on several of Richmond's former servants. The fact that the Blount's youngest son, Henry, was accepted into Cromwell's service might reasonably have arisen out of an association with Richmond. Thomas Eynns spoke of Cromwell's fondness for the duke as ‘doth plainly appear in the bounty and goodness that you did after his death most charitably extend for his sake only to divers and sundry his servants'.

Those who had no powerful patron to assist them were not quite as fortunate. One of the most wretched was William Wood, sometime servant to the duke. Having been employed in Richmond's stables at Sheriff Hutton on the basis of food and drink only, he had, by his own admission, loitered on in the duke's household without any master. On Richmond's return south he had followed the establishment to Wolsey's residence of the More in Hertfordshire and then on to Windsor, surviving by attaching himself to anyone in Richmond's service who would accept him. By July 1538, he was in trouble with the Council of the North for using seditious words and his career remained firmly in the doldrums.

One of those most intimately affected by Richmond's death was his widow, Mary Howard. Whereas before she could have looked forward to presenting the King of England with a grandson, now her future was uncertain. At first sight her prospects seemed promising. At seventeen she was still younger than many girls at their first marriage. She now had not only her father's wealth and her mother's royal connections to recommend her, but her rank and status as Duchess of Richmond and Somerset and her expected income as a widow, making her a most attractive prospect.

Although the young couple had never lived together, decorum did require a decent period of mourning. The young Duchess of Richmond retired from the court to her father's house at Kenninghall in Norfolk. In November 1536 the duke assured Cromwell, ‘it is not possible for a young woman to handle herself more discreetly than she hath done since her husband's death'. As well as the three geldings with their bridles, saddles ‘and all other things belonging to them' which brought her back to Norfolk, she had an unspecified amount of her husband's plate and jewels. While these things were not without value, there could be no serious question of her remarriage until the question of her jointure had been settled.

However, almost as soon as Richmond was in his grave, Henry began to express doubts about the validity of his son's marriage to Mary Howard. Everyone was happy to agree that their union had never been consummated. What the king now began to question was whether sexual intercourse was a requirement in contracting a binding and lawful marriage. Rather than granting Mary's jointure, Henry decided to refer the matter to the judges and lawyers. Anxious at both the possibility of doubt and the delay, Norfolk expressed his hope that a favourable decision would quickly be secured. The duke's anxiety was increased by the knowledge that he was about to make an imminent departure to Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire on the king's business. Since this meant leaving his rather headstrong daughter to her own devices he was keen to see the matter settled before he left.

If Norfolk hoped that mention of his good service would force a speedy resolution, he was to be sorely disappointed. Despite a stream of letters he was unable to secure any sort of a decision. Cromwell replied with promises and platitudes, but little sign of any action. In May 1537, almost a year after Richmond's death, Norfolk wrote somewhat testily from Sheriff Hutton: ‘good my lord make an end for my daughter's cause, all learned men do say that I spoke with there is no doubt of her right'. Mary also believed that her marriage had been entirely valid. As such, her first instinct was to blame her father. Obviously, he had not presented her case properly to the king. In fact the duke's many letters, several written in his own hand, makes it clear that his daughter's suit was never far from his thoughts. Mary dismissed her father's undoubted efforts as nothing but words. She was convinced the king could not know the true facts for ‘so just a Prince' would never deny his son's widow the justice that was allowed to the ‘worst gentlewoman in this realm'.

To her father's horror Mary suggested that she should go to London to press her suit in person. When that request was denied she did the next best thing and wrote to Cromwell pleading for him to intercede on her behalf. According to her father she had been ‘put in such comfort by learned men that her right is clearly good', that she could not see any reason for the delay. What she blatantly failed to appreciate, and what her father was all too painfully aware of, was that the delay had little to do with the vagaries of matrimonial law and everything to do with the mood of the king.

All the evidence supports the view that Mary was legally entitled to her jointure. When Cromwell asked the Archbishop of Canterbury for his opinion, Thomas Cranmer was embarrassingly direct:

Although even a contract made in the present tense could be dissolved by mutual consent, strictly speaking this was illegal. The Church courts strongly disapproved of such actions, preferring to back the validity of the marriage. In the eyes of both the law and the Church Mary and Richmond had been husband and wife. Ironically, it was probably the justice of Mary's position that was causing the delay. The judges were reluctant to deliver a verdict that would upset the king, who was not happy to hear any decision which would require him to honour his financial obligation.