GLYNDOWR JOINED BY WELSH STUDENTS OF OXFORD. -- TAKES LORD GREY
PRISONER. -- HOTSPUR'S FURTHER DESPATCHES. -- HE QUITS WALES. --
REFLECTIONS ON THE EVENTFUL LIFE AND PREMATURE DEATH OF ISABELLA,
RICHARD'S WIDOW. -- GLYNDOWR DISPOSED TO COME TO TERMS. -- THE KING'S
EXPEDITIONS TOWARDS WALES ABORTIVE. -- MARRIAGE PROPOSED BETWEEN HENRY
AND KATHARINE OF NORWAY. -- THE KING MARRIES JOAN OF NAVARRE.
1401.
When Owyn Glyndowr raised the standard of rebellion in his native
land, and assuming to himself the name and state and powers of an
independent sovereign, under the title of "Prince of Wales," declared
war against Henry of Bolinbroke and his son, he was fully impressed
with the formidable power of his antagonists, and with the fate that
might await him should he fail in his attempt to rescue Wales from the
yoke of England. Embarked in a most perilous enterprise, a cause of
life or death, he vigorously entered on the task of securing every
promising means of success. His countrymen, whom he now called his
subjects, soon flocked to his standard from all quarters. Not only (p. 109)
did those who were already in the Principality take up arms; but
numbers also who had left their homes, and were resident in distant
parts of the kingdom, returned forthwith as at the command of their
prince and liege lord. The Welsh scholars,[111] who were pursuing
their studies in the University of Oxford, were summoned by Owyn, and
the names of some who obeyed the mandate are recorded. Owyn at the
same time negociated for assistance from France, with what success we
shall see hereafter; and sent also his emissaries to Scotland and "the
distant isles." On those of his countrymen who espoused the cause of
the King, and refused to join his standard, he afterwards poured the
full fury of his vengeance; and in the uncurbed madness of his rage,
forgetful of the future welfare of his native land, and of his own
interests should he be established as its prince, unmindful also of
the respect which even enemies pay to the sacred edifices of the
common faith, he reduced to ashes not only the houses of his opponents,
but Episcopal palaces, monasteries, and cathedrals within the
Principality.
[Footnote 111: See Ellis's Original Letters, second
series, vol. i. p. 8.]
Owyn Glyndowr was in a short time so well supported by an army,
undisciplined no doubt, and in all respects ill appointed, but yet
devoted to him and their common cause, that he was emboldened to try
his strength with Lord Grey in the field. A battle, fought (as it (p. 110)
should seem) in the very neighbourhood of Glyndowrdy,[112] terminated
in favour of Owyn, who took the Earl prisoner, and carried him into
the fastnesses of Snowdon. The precise date of this conflict is not
known; probably it was at the opening of spring: the circumstances
also of his capture are very differently represented. It is generally
asserted that a marriage with one of Owyn's daughters was the condition
of regaining his liberty proposed to the Earl; that the marriage was
solemnized; and that Owyn then, instead of keeping his word and releasing
him, demanded of him a most exorbitant ransom. It is, moreover, affirmed,
that the Earl remained Glyndowr's prisoner to the day of his death.
Now, that Lord Grey fell into the Welsh chieftain's hands as a prisoner,
is beyond question; so it is that he paid a heavy ransom: but that he
died in confinement is certainly not true, for he accompanied Henry V.
to France, and also served him by sea. The report of his marriage with
Owyn's daughter, might have originated in some confusion of Lord Grey
with Sir Edmund Mortimer; who unquestionably did take one of the Welsh
chieftain's daughters for his wife.[113] It is scarcely probable that
both Owyn's prisoners should have married his daughters; and still (p. 111)
less probable that he should have exacted so large a ransom from his
son-in-law as to exhaust his means, and prevent him from acting as a
baron of the realm was then expected to act. Dugdale's Baronage gives
the Earl two wives, without naming the daughter of Glyndowr. Hardyng,
in his Chronicle presented to Henry VI, thus describes the affair:
Soone after was the same Lord Gray in feelde
Fightyng taken, and holden prisoner
By Owayne, so that hym in prison helde
Till his ransom was made, and fynaunce clear,
Ten thousand marks, and fully payed were;
For whiche he was so poor then all his life,
That no power he had to war, nor stryfe.
[Footnote 112: Lingard places the site of Owyn's
victory over Lord Grey on the banks of the
"Vurnway."]
[Footnote 113: The Monk of Evesham reports that
Lord Grey was released about the year 1404, having
first paid to Owyn five thousand marks for his
ransom, and leaving his two sons as pledges for the
payment of five thousand more. The same authority
informs us that Edmund Mortimer espoused the
daughter of Owyn with great solemnity. The Pell
Rolls (1 Henry V. June 27) leave us in no doubt as
to the fact of that marriage.]
Another letter from Henry Percy to the council, dated June 4, 1401, is
very interesting in several points of view. It proves that the
negociations "carried in and out," mentioned in a letter written by
the chamberlain of Caernarvon to the King's council, had been
successful, and that the Scots had sent aid to the Welsh chieftain: it
proves also that Hotspur himself was at this time (though bitterly
dissatisfied) carrying on the war for the King in the very heart of
Wales, and amidst its mountain-recesses and strongholds; and that Owyn
was at that time assailed on all sides by the English forces, a (p. 112)
circumstance which might probably have led to his "good intention to
return to his allegiance," at the close of the present year. Henry
Percy declares to the council that he can support the expenses of the
campaign no longer. He informs them of an engagement in which, assisted
by Sir Hugh Browe and the Earl of Arundel, the only Lords Marchers who
had joined him in the expedition, he had a few days before routed the
Welsh at Cader Idris. News, he adds, had just reached him of a victory
gained by Lord Powis[114] over Owyn; also that an English vessel had
been retaken from the Scots, and a Scotch vessel of war had been
captured at Milford. Another letter, dated 3rd July, (probably the
same year, 1401,) reiterates his complaints of non-payment of his
forces, and of the government having underrated his services; it
expresses his hope also that, since he had written to the King himself
with a statement of his destitute condition, should any evil happen to
castle, town, or march, the blame would not be cast on him, whose
means were so utterly crippled, but would fall on the heads of those
who refused the supplies. Henry IV. had certainly not neglected this
rebellion in Wales, though evidently the measures adopted against the
insurgents were not so vigorous at the commencement as the (p. 113)
urgency of the case required. His exchequer was exhausted, and he had
other business in hand to drain off the supplies as fast as they could
possibly be collected. He was, therefore, contented for the present to
keep the rebels in check, without attempting to crush them by pouring
in an overwhelming force from different points at once.
[Footnote 114: This nobleman, John Charlton, Lord
Powis, died on the 19th of October following, and
was succeeded by his son Edward, who, on the 5th of
August, (probably in 1402 or 1403,) applied to the
council for a reinforcement.--Min. of Coun.]
Towards the middle of this summer, the King marched in person to
Worcester. He had directed the sheriffs to forward their contingents
thither; but, when he arrived at that city, he changed his purpose and
soon returned to London. Among the considerations which led to this
change in his plans, we may probably reckon the following. In the
first place, he found his son the Prince, Lord Powis, and Henry Percy,
in vigorous operation against the rebels; his arrival at Worcester
having been only three or four days after the date of Percy's last
letter. In the next place, the council had urged him not to go in
person against the rebels: besides, almost all the inhabitants of
North Wales had returned to their allegiance, and had been pardoned.
He was, moreover, naturally anxious to summon a parliament, with a
view of replenishing his exhausted treasury, and enabling himself to
enter upon the campaign with means more calculated to insure success.
In a letter to his council, dated Worcester, 8th June 1401, the King
refers to two points of advice suggested by them. "Inasmuch as (p. 114)
you have advised us," he says, "to write to our much beloved son, the
Prince, and to others, who may have in their possession any jewels
which ought to be delivered with our cousin the Queen, (Isabella,)
know ye, that we will send to our said son, that, if he has any of
such jewels, he will send them with all possible speed to you at our
city of London, where, if God will, we intend to be in our own person
before the Queen's departure; and we will cause to be delivered to her
there the rest of the said jewels, which we and others our children
have in our keeping." In answer to their advice that he would not go
in person against the rebels, because they were not in sufficient
strength, and of too little reputation to warrant that step, he said
that he found they had risen in great numbers, and called for his
personal exertions. He forwarded to them at the same time a copy of
the letter which he had just received from Owyn himself. Not from this
correspondence only, but from other undisputed documents, and from the
loud complaints of French writers,[115] we are compelled to infer
something extremely unsatisfactory in the conduct of Henry IV. with
regard to the valuable paraphernalia of Isabella, the maiden-widow of
Richard. To avoid restoring these treasures, which fell into his hands
on the capture of that unfortunate monarch, Henry proposed, in (p. 115)
November 1399, a marriage between one of his sons and one of the
daughters of the French monarch. In January 1400 a truce was signed
between the two kingdoms, and the same negociators (the Bishop of
Durham and the Earl of Worcester) were directed to treat with the
French ambassadors on the terms of the restitution of Isabella; and so
far did they immediately proceed, that horses were ordered for her
journey to Dover. But legal doubts as to her dower (she not being
twelve years of age) postponed her departure till the next year. She
had arrived at Boulogne certainly on the 1st of August 1401; and was
afterwards delivered up to her friends by the Earl of Worcester, with
the solemn assurance of her spotless purity.
[Footnote 115: Many of our own historians have,
either in ignorance or design, very much misled
their readers on the subject.]
It is impossible to glance at this lady's brief and melancholy career
without feelings of painful interest:--espoused when yet a child to
the reigning monarch of England; whilst yet a child, crowned Queen of
England; whilst yet a child, become a virgin-widow; when she was not
yet seventeen years old, married again to Charles, Earl of Angouleme;
and three years afterwards, before she reached the twentieth
anniversary of her birthday, dying in childbed.[116]
[Footnote 116: It is not generally understood,
(indeed, some of our historians have not only been
ignorant of the fact, but have asserted the
contrary,) that this princess was the elder sister
of Katharine of Valois, married thirteen years
after Isabella's death to Henry of Monmouth.
Katharine was not born till after Isabella's
restoration from England to her father's home.
Isabella was born November 9, 1389; was solemnly
married by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Richard
II. in Calais, November 4, 1397 (not quite nine
years old); was crowned at Westminster on the 8th
of January following; was married to her second
husband, 29th June 1406; and died at Blois, 13th
September 1409.--Anselme, vol. i. p. 114.]
By the above letter of the King, which led to this digression, (p. 116)
we are informed that the Prince was neither with his father, nor in
London; for the King promised to write to him to send the jewels to
London. He was probably at that time on the borders of North Wales; or
engaged in reducing the Castles of Conway and Rhees, and in bringing
that district into subjection. Indeed, that the Prince was still
personally exerting himself in suppressing the Welsh towards the north
of the Principality, seems to be put beyond all question by the
records of the Privy Council, which state that "certain members of the
Prince's council brought with them to the King's council the indenture
between the said Prince and Henry Percy the son (Chief Justice) on one
part, and those who seized the Castle[117] of Conway on the other (p. 117)
part, made at the time of the restitution of the same castle."[118]
[Footnote 117: One of these, Wm. ap Tudor, with
thirty-one others, was pardoned July 8. In his
petition he suggests that in all disputes between
the burgesses and themselves, there ought to be a
fair inquest, half Welsh and half English. This is
supposed to have been the usual law; but probably
in these turbulent times it might too often have
been dispensed with for a less impartial mode of
trial. Besides, among the many severe enactments
against the Welsh, the King, in 1400, had assented
to an ordinance proposed by the Commons, to remain
in force for three years, that no Englishman should
have judgment against him at the suit of a
Welshman, except at the hands of judges and a jury
entirely English.]
[Footnote 118: The castles in Wales were at this
time very scantily garrisoned; indeed, the
smallness of the number of the men by whom some of
them were defended is scarcely credible. And yet,
in the exhausted state of the treasury of the King,
of the Prince, of Henry Percy and others, those
castles, even in the miserably limited extent of
their establishments, could with difficulty be
retained. When besieged, the garrison could never
venture upon a sally. For example, Conway had only
fifteen men-at-arms and sixty archers, kept at an
expense of 714_l._ 15_s._ 10_d._ annually:
Caernarvon had twenty men-at-arms and eighty
archers: Harlech had ten men-at-arms and thirty
archers.--See Sir H. Ellis's Original Letters.]
Owyn appears to have left his own country, in which the spirit of
rebellion had received a considerable though temporary check; and to
have been at this period exciting and heading the rebels in South
Wales, especially about Caermarthen and Gower.
* * * * *
Hotspur himself left Wales probably about the July or August of this
year, 1401; for on the 1st of September he was appointed one of the
commissioners to treat with the Scots for peace; and he was present at
the solemn espousals which were celebrated by proxy at Eltham, April
3, 1402, between Henry IV. and Joan of Navarre. We must, therefore,
refer to a subsequent date the information quoted by Sir Henry Ellis
from an original paper in the British Museum, "that Jankin Tyby of the
north countri bringthe lettres owte of the northe country to (p. 118)
Owein, as thei demed from Henr. son Percy." Soon after the departure
of Percy, a proclamation, dated 18th September 1401, notifies the rapid
progress of disaffection and rebellion among the Welsh: whether it was
secretly encouraged by him at this early date, or not, is matter only
of conjecture. His growing discontent, visibly shown in his own letters,
this vague rumour that Jankin Tyby might be the confidential messenger
for his treasonable purposes, and his subsequent conduct, combine to
render the suspicion by no means improbable. The proclamation states
that a great part of the inhabitants of Wales had gone over to Owyn,
and commands all ablebodied men to meet the King at Worcester on the
1st, or, at the furthest, the 2nd of October. Perhaps this, like his
former visit to Worcester, was little more than a demonstration of his
force.[119] Historians generally say that he made the first of his
expeditions into Wales in the July of the following year; the Minutes
of Council prove at all events that he was there in the present autumn,
but how long or with what results does not appear. The council met (p. 119)
in November 1401, to deliberate, among other subjects, upon the affairs
of Wales, "from which country (as the Minute expressly states) our
sovereign lord the King hath but lately returned,[120] having appointed
the Earl of Worcester to be Lieutenant of South Wales, and Captain of
Cardigan."[121]
[Footnote 119: The Monk of Evesham states expressly
that, towards the end of this year, the King,
intending to hasten to Wales for the third time,
came to Evesham on Michaelmas-day, September 29,
but not with so large a force as before; and on the
third day, after breakfast, he proceeded to
Worcester, whence, after the ninth day, with the
advice of his council, he returned through Alcester
to London.]
[Footnote 120: On Monday, October 16, 1402, the
Commons "thank the King for his great labour in
body and mind, especially in his journey to
Scotland; and because, on his return, when he heard
at Northampton of the rebellion in Wales, he had at
_that_ time, and _three times_ since, with a great
army (as well the King as my lord the Prince)
laboured in divers parts." When Owyn is represented
by Shakspeare as recounting the various successful
struggles in which he had tried his strength with
Bolinbroke, the poet had solid ground on which to
build the boastings of the Welsh chieftain:
"Three times hath Henry Bolinbroke made head
Against my power: thrice from the banks of Wye
And sandy-bottom'd Severn have I sent him
Bootless home, and weather-beaten back."]
[Footnote 121: The regular appointment bears date
31st March 1402.]
The record of this council is remarkably interesting on more than one
point. It throws great light on the state of Owyn's mind, and his
attachment to the Percies; on the confidence still reposed by the
King's government in Percy, and on the condition of Prince Henry
himself. The several chastisements which Owyn and his party had
received from the Prince, from Percy, from Lord Powis and others, had
perhaps at this time made him very doubtful of the issue of the struggle,
and inclined him to negociate for his own pardon, and the peace of the
country. The Minute of Council says, "To know the King's will (p. 120)
about treating with Glyndowr to return to his allegiance, _seeing his
good intention at present thereto_". His readiness to treat is
accompanied, as we find in the same record, with a declaration that he
was not himself the cause of the destruction going on in his native
land, nor of the daily captures, and the murders there; and that he
would most gladly return to peace. As to his inheritance, he protests
that he had only received a part, and not his own full right. And even
now he would willingly come to the borders, and speak and treat with
any lords, provided the commons would not raise a rumour and clamour
that he was purposed to destroy "_all who spoke the English language_".
He seems to have been apprehensive, should he venture to approach the
marches to negociate a peace, that the violence and rage of the people
at large would endanger his personal safety. No wonder, for his
footsteps were to be traced everywhere by the blood of men, and the
ashes of their habitations and sacred edifices. At the same time, he
expressed his earnest desire to carry on the treaty of peace through
the Earl of Northumberland, for whom he professes to entertain great
regard and esteem, in preference to any other English nobleman.
Whether any steps were taken in consequence of this present opening
for peace, or not, we are not told. But we have reason to suppose that
Wales was in comparative tranquillity through the following (p. 121)
winter[122] and spring. The rebel chief, however, again very shortly
carried the sword and flame with increased horrors through his devoted
native land. We read of no battle or skirmish till the campaign of the
next year.
[Footnote 122: The Pell Rolls contain many items of
payment about this time to the Prince of Wales; one
of which specifies the sum "of 400_l._ for one
hundred men-at-arms, each 12_d._ per day, and four
hundred archers at 6_d._ per day, for one month,
who were sent with despatch to Harlech Castle to
remove the besiegers." Probably they had been sent
some considerable time before the date of this
payment, Dec. 14, 1401.]
The questions relating to Prince Henry, which were submitted to this
council, inform us incidentally of the important fact, that though he
was now intrusted with the command of the forces against the Welsh,
and was assisted in his office (just as was the King) by a council,
yet it was deemed right to appoint him an especial governor, or tutor
(maistre). He was now in his fifteenth year. These Minutes also make
it evident that the soldiers employed in his service looked for their
pay to him, and not to the King's exchequer. We shall have frequent
occasion to observe the great personal inconveniences to which this
practice subjected the Prince, and how injurious it was to the service
generally. But the evil was unavoidable; for at that time the royal
exchequer was quite drained.
"As to the article touching the governance of the Prince, as well (p. 122)
for him to have a tutor or guardian, as to provide money for the support
of his vast expenses in the garrisons of his castles in Wales, and the
wages of his men-at-arms and archers, whom he keeps from day to day
for resisting the malice of the rebels of the King, it appears to the
council, if it please the King, that the Isle of Anglesey ought to be
restored to the prince, and that Henry Percy[123] should agree, and
have compensation from the issues of the lands which belonged to the
Earl of March; and that all other possessions which ought to belong to
the Prince should be restored, and an amicable arrangement be made
with those in whose hands they are. And as for a governor for the
Prince, may it please the King to choose one of these,--the Earl of
Worcester, Lord Lovel, Mr. Thomas Erpyngham, or the Lord Say; and, for
the Prince's expenses, that 1000_l._ be assigned from the rents of the
Earl of March, which were due about last Michaelmas." We have reason
to believe that the Earl of Worcester, Thomas Percy, was appointed
Henry of Monmouth's tutor and preceptor. He remained in attendance
upon him till, with the guilt of aggravated treachery, he abruptly
left his prince and pupil to join his nephew Hotspur before the battle
of Shrewsbury.
[Footnote 123: The whole of Anglesey was granted to
Hotspur for life. 1 Hen. IV, 12th October
1399.--MS. Donat. 4596.]
We are not informed how long Prince Henry remained at this period (p. 123)
in Wales, after Percy had left it. Probably (as it has been already
intimated) there was an armistice virtually, though not by any formal
agreement, through that winter and the spring of 1402. The next undoubted
information as to the Prince fixes him in London in the beginning of
the following May, when being in the Tower, in the presence of his
father, and with his consent, he declares himself willing to contract
a marriage with Katharine, sister of Eric, King of Norway;[124] and on
the 26th of the same month, being then in his castle of Tutbury, in
the diocese of Lincoln, he confirms this contract, and authorises the
notary public to affix his seal to the agreement. The pages of authentic
history remind us, that too many marriage-contracts in every rank of
life, and in every age of the world, have been the result, not of
mutual affection between the affianced bride and bridegroom, but of
pecuniary and political considerations. Perhaps when kings negociate
and princes approve, their exalted station renders the transaction
more notorious, and the stipulated conditions may be more unreservedly
confessed. But it may well be doubted whether the same motives do not
equally operate in every grade of life; whilst those objects which
should be primary and indispensable, are regarded as secondary (p. 124)
and contingent. Happiness springing from mutual affection, may doubtless
grow and ripen, despite of such arrangements, in the families of the
noble, the wealthy, the middle classes, and the poor; but the chances
are manifold more, that coldness, and dissatisfaction, and mutual
carelessness of each other's comforts will be the permanent result. We
must however bear in mind, when estimating the moral worth of an
individual, that negociations of this kind in the palaces of kings
imply nothing of that cold-heartedness by which many are led into
connexions from which their affections revolt. The individual's
character seems altogether protected from reprobation by the usage of
the world, and the necessity of the case. State-considerations impose
on princes restraints, compelling them to acquiesce in measures which
excite in us other feelings than indignation or contempt. We regret
the circumstance, but we do not condemn the parties. Henry IV. of
England, and Eric of Norway, fancied they saw political advantages
likely to arise from the nuptials of Henry's son with Eric's sister;
and the document we have just quoted tells us that the boy Henry, then
not fifteen, and still under tutors and governors, gave his consent to
the proposed alliance.
[Footnote 124: He was present in the Castle of
Berkhamsted on the 14th of May, at the sealing of
the marriage contract of his sister Philippa with
King Eric.--Foed. viii. 259, 260.]
The more rare however the occurrence, the more general is the admiration
with which an union in the palaces of monarchy is contemplated when mutual
respect and attachment precede the marriage, and conjugal love and (p. 125)
domestic happiness attend it. And here we are irresistibly tempted to
contemplate with satisfaction and delight the unsuccessful issue of
this negociation, whilst Henry was yet a boy; and to anticipate what
must be repeated in its place, that, to whatever combination of
circumstances, and course of events and state-considerations, the
marriage of Henry of Monmouth with Katharine of France may possibly be
referred, he proved himself to have formed for her a most sincere and
heartfelt attachment before their union; and, whenever his duty did
not separate them, to have lived with her in the possession of great
conjugal felicity. Even the dry details of the Exchequer issues bear
most gratifying, though curious, testimony to their domestic habits,
and their enjoyment of each other's society.
Whilst the King was thus negociating a marriage for his son, he was
himself engaged by solemn espousals to marry, as his second wife, Joan
of Navarre, Duchess of Brittany. As well in the most exalted, as in
the most humble family in the realm, such an event as this can never
take place without involving consequences of deepest moment and most
lively interest to all parties,--to the husband, to his wife, and to
their respective children. If he has been happy in his choice, a man
cannot provide a more substantial blessing for his offspring than by
joining himself by the most sacred of all ties to a woman who will (p. 126)
cheerfully and lovingly perform the part of a conscientious and
affectionate mother towards them. If the choice is unhappy; if there
be a want of sound religious and moral principle, a neglect, or
carelessness and impatience in the discharge of domestic duties; if a
discontented, suspicious, cold, and unkind spirit accompany the new
bride, domestic comfort must take flight, and all the proverbial evils
of such a state must be realized. The marriage of Henry of Monmouth's
father with Joan of Navarre does not enable us to view the bright side
of this alternative. Of the new Queen we hear little for many
years;[125] but, at the end of those years of comparative silence, we
find Henry V. compelled to remove from his mother-in-law all her
attendants, and to commit her to the custody of Lord John Pelham in
the castle of Pevensey.[126] She was charged with having entertained
malicious and treasonable designs against the life of the King, her
son-in-law. The Chronicle of London, (1419,) throwing[127] an air of
mystery and superstition over the whole affair, asserts that Queen
Joanna excited her confessor, one friar Randolf,[128] a master in (p. 127)
divinity, to destroy the King; "but, as God would, his falseness was
at last espied:" "wherefore," as the Chronicle adds, "the Queen
forfeited her lands."[129] Of this marriage of Henry IV. with Joan of
Navarre very little notice beyond the bare fact has been taken by our
English historians. Many particulars, however, are found in the
histories of Brittany. It appears that the Duchess, who was the widow
of Philip de Mont Forte, Duke of Brittany, by whom she had sons and
daughters, was solemnly contracted to Henry by her proxy, Anthony Rys,
at Eltham, on the 3rd of April 1402, in the presence of the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Earl of Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland and
his son Hotspur, the Earl of Worcester, Thomas Langley, Keeper of the
Privy Seal, and others. Having appointed guardians for her son, the
young Duke of Brittany, she left Nantes on the 26th December, embarked
on board one of the ships sent by Henry, at Camaret, on the 13th (p. 128)
January, and sailed the next day, intending to land at Southampton.
After a stormy passage of five days, the squadron was forced into a
port in Cornwall. She was married on the 7th, and was crowned at
Westminster on the 25th, of February following.[130] By Henry she had
no child.
[Footnote 125: Our history supplies very scanty
information as to the family of this royal lady. In
the year 1412 a safe conduct is given to Giles of
Brittany, son of the Queen, to come to England, to
tarry and to return, with twenty men and
horses.--Rymer, May 20, 1412.]
[Footnote 126: Otterbourne.]
[Footnote 127: "By sorcerye and nygrammancie."]
[Footnote 128: The Pell Rolls (27th Sept. 1418)
leave us in no doubt that John Randolf's goods were
forfeited, a circumstance strongly confirming the
report of his conspiracy. Payment is also made to
certain persons for carrying (Feb. 8, 1420) John
Randolf, of the order of Friars Minor, Shrewsbury,
from Normandy to the Tower.]
[Footnote 129: No doubt can remain as to the
accuracy of the London Chronicle in this
particular: several payments are on record,
expressly declared to have been made out of the
lands and property of this unhappy woman. Thus, the
issue of a thousand marks to the Abbess of Syon
(9th May 1421) is made from "the monies issuing
from the possessions of Joanna, Queen of
England."]
[Footnote 130: See Acts of Privy Council, vol. i.
p. 185. The Editor quotes Lobinau's Histoire de
Brétagne, tom. ii. pp. 874, 878; and Morice's
Histoire Ecclésiastique et Civile de Brétagne, tom.
i. p. 433.]