Bastard Prince (15 page)

At one point in the summer of 1527 Henry was content to offer her the role of ‘my only mistress, rejecting from thought and affection all others save yourself', which Eric Ives has translated as something akin to the role of ‘maîtresse en titre' employed at the French court. Somewhat at odds with her reputation as a wanton, Anne reportedly responded that her virginity belonged to her husband. If Anne was bidding for the higher prize of becoming Henry's queen, then she was also adhering to the same moral stance for which Jane Seymour was so admired, and it is perhaps rather unfair that she should be blamed for that. At her age it was a risky policy. While she held Henry's interest there was no possibility of other suitors. Yet this path had no guarantee of success. Her fears that Henry might return to Katherine and ‘my youth and time spent to no purpose at all' betrayed more than a simple desire to goad Henry into action. Fortunately for Anne, Henry's commitment to Leviticus was at least equal to his passion for her.

For the moment the gathering storm clouds that would become the English Reformation had no impact on Richmond. Instead, the spring and summer of 1528 saw a drama of another sort. The north of England did not escape the sweating sickness, which swept across the land. Richmond was, for the moment, in good health. But the death of six local people, which his council described with lurid detail, and the dreadful news ‘that many young children be sick of the pox near thereabouts' was not reassuring. As a precaution, in May Richmond was taken from Pontefract Castle to Ledstone, some three miles away. Here he waited out the pestilence with a train of just five attendants, at a house of the Prior of St John's, within his manor of Pontefract. The emergency also highlighted another shortfall in Richmond's apparently illustrious household. The list of officers drawn up in 1525 had included Dr William Butts, one of the king's physicians, as resident doctor. Yet it seems that position had never been filled.

In July 1525 the duke's council had written to remind Wolsey ‘to send a physician unto my lord's grace for the preservation of his person'. Now the council worriedly pointed out how dangerous it was for Richmond to be without a doctor ‘in this time of such strange infirmities'. Thankfully, by October the danger was past. Magnus wrote to Wolsey to reassure him that Richmond and his small company had remained perfectly healthy throughout the crisis. To everyone's undoubted relief he was now safely back in his own house surrounded by all his servants. Richmond himself wrote to thank his father for his concern.

There is nothing to suggest that Henry's focus on his matrimonial affairs caused any diminishment of his affection for his only son. While Richmond was at Sheriff Hutton, Henry maintained regular contact with him by letters and messengers, which passed to and fro. Richmond thanked his father for his ‘most honourable letters' or gifts of ‘goodly apparel' sent from court. One of the ‘tokens' sent by the king, via Thomas Magnus, was a gold unicorn horn set with pearls and turquoise. Another was a collar of gold ‘for my Lord's neck' set with seven white enamel roses. Now the king responded to the present emergency by forwarding a selection of medical remedies. Richmond assured his father that these ‘preservatives' had made all the difference, ensuring his continuing good health.

The duke also continued to be a focus of patronage and power for the local nobility. In the autumn of 1528 William, Lord Dacre called to pay his respects on his way south to the king. The Earl of Northumberland went one better and invited Richmond to visit with him at his house at Topcliffe near Thirsk. No doubt with some trepidation, Richmond's council agreed to a single night's stay for the nine-year-old boy. They need not have worried. Richmond rose to the occasion and ‘did use himself, not like a child of his tender age, but more like a man in all his behaviours'. About this time the Earl of Westmorland and his wife, perhaps as a means of storing up favour for the future, also brought their son and heir, Lord Neville, to live in Richmond's household.

Unlike Mary, who was recalled from Ludlow in the Marches of Wales in the summer of 1528, Richmond was allowed to remain at Sheriff Hutton. Nor was this a simple case of out of sight, out of mind, since it is clear the whole enterprise was costing far more than had originally been planned.

When he was first sent to Yorkshire it was envisaged that the income from Richmond's lands and offices would pay for the duke and his household. It was estimated that his ordinary expenditure would be just over £3,000, which was well within Richmond's anticipated revenues of £4,000. Yet while the first year's accounts submitted by George Lawson, for the period 12 June 1525 until 31 July 1526, appear healthy with a clear balance of £484, in fact the year's expenses could not have been met without the loan of £500 from the Abbot of St Mary's in York. In fact, they were fortunate that the revenues were higher than expected. In the first six months they had already managed to spend £2,650, which made them approximately £1,150 over budget.

The setting up of the household had been an expensive business. As well as repairs to the buildings, there had been the huge outlay on fixtures and fittings, elaborate furnishings, twenty-six horses and their equipment, as well as travelling expenses. All this before the basic expenses of diet, fees, rewards and wages had been addressed. In addition to his household expenses, the duke's council were also called upon to defray official costs in their role as the king's Council in the North. In October 1527 they paid for a band of sixty soldiers, both horse and foot, to be stationed at Felton, a lordship of Sir William Lisle, in an attempt to capture the outlaws. The plan was to arrest Lisle and his men when they came for supplies, but at 4
d
per person, per day, over two months, the policy was expensive. The council apologetically explained that this was not their fault, but that ‘horsemeat and all other victuals be very scarce and extreme dear in those parts'.

The council were also expected to discharge the various fees of local officers of the crown. Yet they quickly found themselves short of ready cash. In September 1526 the Earl of Westmorland complained to Wolsey that he had not received his fee as Vice-Warden of the East and Middle Marches. Wolsey referred him to Richmond's council and they referred him to the king. As they apologetically explained, they had had some difficulties collecting the duke's rent and fees, in fact they admitted they ‘could not obtain any part of the revenues'. So far they had only received £400 from Richmond's estates. In the spring of 1527 Magnus was nudging Wolsey to think of his godson's expenses when re-distributing the lands of the Lord of St John's, even as the poor man languished on his deathbed. More than once the duke's council applied to Wolsey, hoping that he would ‘remit, pardon and forgive' the £500 borrowed from the Abbot of St Mary's.

The magnificent style of a ducal household made no concession to Richmond's tender age. On an ordinary day the entire household would sit down to two main meals consisting of ten different sorts of meat, including such delicacies as half a lamb or a kid, veal, rabbits, chickens and geese, as well as bread, pies, custards and fruits, all washed down with ale or beer. On fish days salmon (both salted and fresh) cod, pikes, shrimps, turbot, sturgeon, eels, whelks, crayfish and other sea and freshwater fish graced his table. Each of his principal officers had a special menu costing 6
s
5
d
a day and were also allowed bread, beer, wine and beef in their chambers for breakfast and supper. Candles to see by and kindling to keep them warm were another perk, with others of Richmond's servants, such as gentlemen waiters, chaplains and grooms, enjoying similar privileges on a sliding scale, according to their rank.

In such an establishment it was perhaps inevitable that there would be some below stairs pilfering. Wolsey's instructions had ordered that access to the wine and beer should be strictly regulated. Despite this, the opportunity for self-enrichment proved too much for some. In April 1526 the council advised Wolsey that Simon Prior, a yeoman purveyor (appointed by the cardinal) had obtained 230 beasts worth £60 from a widow named Agnes Clerc ‘surmising then untruly that they should be for the use and expenses of my said lord of Richmond's household'. In fact none of them found their way to the duke's table. Hearing that Prior, who they belatedly declared was a rogue, had been arrested at Tottenham on some other charge, they asked that Mistress Clerc should be recompensed out of his confiscated goods. Human nature being as it is, the occasional incident of this kind was no doubt an occupational hazard in even the most well-ordered of households. Unfortunately, Sheriff Hutton was far from being the most well-ordered of households.

Matters were not helped by the fact that a ‘clerk of the green cloth', the officer responsible for the accounts, was not appointed until August 1526. Once he arrived he and Thomas Magnus drew up a programme to assess and review the household expenses. What they found was a history of poor accounting where books and inventories were not regularly kept. They realised Richmond's household was living far beyond its means. In February 1527 it was decided that only drastic measures would suffice and eighteen members of the household were discharged, some as being superfluous to requirements and a few for their (unspecified) misconduct.

If the council were pleased with their decisive handling of the situation, the king was not. Not only did Henry tell them to re-admit several of the dismissed officers, but also to pay them greater wages than before. Declaring themselves to be ‘much perplexed', Sir William Bulmer, steward of the household and Sir Thomas Tempest, the comptroller, defended their actions, protesting that these new instructions made ‘all our orders and directions to be of little regard; and we and all other officers and Councilors here be lightly esteemed among my Lords servants'. They claimed the books were now in order and there was no wastage. However, since expenditure had not been sufficiently reduced they had taken the only possible action. Now there was the further worry that all of those who had been dismissed would be encouraged to return, hoping for better terms than before.

In the same letter, Bulmer and Tempest confidently asserted that the improved accounting and ‘many other good and politic devises daily practiced' had brought the household into much better order. They assured Wolsey that the high costs were not due to ‘great waste or unreasonable expense'. They could not have been more mistaken. Only six days later Magnus made his own calculations and broke the bad news to Wolsey. The clerk of the green cloth had estimated that, not including wages and liveries, the household's weekly expenditure did not exceed £25. In fact, they were spending over £50 a week. The clerk of the green cloth ‘some deal confused' declared he would look at his figures again. Before he could do so he caught cold and promptly died.

Magnus had no hesitation in attributing his demise to the stress of the financial situation. He advised Wolsey that in future he thought it was best if he handled the finances himself. With careful management and regular accounts he hoped to make some headway before Easter, but things remained tight. Somewhat ironically, he advised Wolsey not to be too hasty in sending up a new clerk of the green cloth. Not only had the last one been more a hindrance than help, but also the duke could not afford to pay any more wages.

The council certainly seemed to believe that over-manning was the root cause of their financial difficulties. The following October Magnus was successfully able to discharge several of Richmond's servants, this time reminding Wolsey that if they were re-admitted the king would have to bear any charges that could not be met. However, Richard Croke laid the blame for the spiralling costs firmly on the shoulders of Sir William Parr and George Cotton, who, along with Cotton's brother Richard, who served as comptroller of the household, were openly accused by the tutor of embezzlement. According to Croke all manner of goods had been siphoned off from Richmond's kitchens for their personal use, only a fraction of which ever appeared in the formal accounts. He also alleged that Parr was often absent and on the few occasions when he was present, he spent more time hunting or hawking than attending to business.

In view of their conflict over control of Richmond, Croke may have hoped to engineer his enemies' dismissal. Procuring the odd cut of meat or spare haunch of venison was one thing, but making sufficient provision for the needs of one's entire family was quite another. Croke's willingness to defend his claims in front of the council certainly suggests he was sincere, and the fact that these men remained in Richmond's service is not necessarily proof of their innocence. The charges, which Croke was confident could be substantiated by the clerks of the kitchen, never seem to have been formally investigated. Since by Croke's own admission the fraud did not appear in the accounts, it was probably difficult to judge the extent of the abuse, although the possibility exists that some of those dismissed for misconduct paid the price for their superiors' misdeeds.

Even allowing for a certain amount of bias, Croke's charges appear to be borne out by the disordered state of the household. No one seemed to be quite sure what proportion of the rich velvets and expensive fabrics that were Richmond's cast-off wardrobe should be re-used, which should be given in lieu of fees or which should be granted to Hugh Johns, the yeoman of the wardrobe of robes. Certainly, when Wolsey sent up a new set of articles intended to curb overspending the measures included firmer controls over the procurement of food stuffs and stricter rules over what were legitimate perks of the job, such as the droppings from the roast meat, and those things that were not, like table cloths.

Slowly, things did improve. A year later in October 1528, Magnus was still reporting on his progress, sending, of all people, Sir William Parr to Wolsey with the details. To be fair they were not alone in their difficulties. At this time Sir John Neville, Sheriff of Yorkshire, also complained to Wolsey that recent shortages in the north had substantially added to his expenses. Richmond's council were obviously at fault for their shoddy accounting and dubious management. But they were hampered by Wolsey's failure to ensure good practice or to appoint a clerk of the green cloth. In addition, the king's use of Richmond's household as a source of patronage as well as a political statement resulted in a greater number on the payroll than the revenues could support. While the question of financial irregularities did not arise again, things were not completely resolved. In April 1529, the duke's council was still trying to avoid repayment of the £500 borrowed from the Abbot of St Mary's in 1526.