Bastard Prince (28 page)

The respect due to authority took no account of age. It was widely accepted that children lacked the skills and experience to function effectively in the adult world. A child was taught ‘to submit [itself] lowly and reverently to all [its] betters'. However, a child of rank, whether he was a gentleman, an earl, a duke or a king, commanded exactly the same ‘reverence' from his servants and inferiors as any adult counterpart. None of Richmond's council would have been permitted to appear in his presence without removing their hats and observing the appropriate obeisance. The little duke might be persuaded, cajoled or completely circumvented, but his direct will could not be disobeyed by his councillors.

To be fair, many of Richmond's officers were genuinely concerned to see that his lands were well cared for and his household well run, in a manner befitting his status as the foremost peer of the realm. Unfortunately, neither the king nor Wolsey felt any compulsion to fall in with their wishes.

Since none of Richmond's council had any rank of their own to support their ‘requests', conflicts did arise. John Uvedale, a former protégé of the Howards, had served as Richmond's secretary since 1525. With the rise of Anne Boleyn, Uvedale found himself ever more in her service at court and away from the north. At his request, and with the agreement of Richmond's council, John Bretton was appointed to act as his deputy in his absence. Then Uvedale was promoted and the king decided that Thomas Derby should take his place as secretary to the duke. In anticipation of Derby's arrival, Bretton found himself another position in the south of England and effectively handed in his resignation to Richmond's council.

The council refused to accept it. They had no idea when Derby was supposed to arrive and ‘being desolate of any other person able to exercise the said room' asked Bretton to stay on. To keep him there they promised that he might have all the profits arising from the position. It was a good deal for Bretton. As deputy he had been accustomed to paying all the ‘issues and profits remaining and growing of the same' to Uvedale in return for a set fee. Now his income would be significantly increased. Needless to say, he stayed. However, neither Uvedale, nor indeed the king, was best pleased with this turn of events. Even though Uvedale was no longer Richmond's secretary, Bretton was accused of stealing his rightful income and on 31 January 1528 he was ordered to be imprisoned in York Castle.

At first Richmond's council complied with the king's order. However, on 9 March 1528 they advised Wolsey that ‘as the matter in transit between him and John Uvedale be of no great weight or importance' they had gone ahead and released him. Amid lurid descriptions of the ‘sore and contagious' diseases, which had swept through the jail and sent fourteen of the prisoners to their death, they stressed Bretton's frailty. Although they recited the measures they had taken to keep Bretton at York until the whole business was cleared up, they also offered a solution of their own. If the king insisted on giving the profits to Uvedale, which they believed Bretton had earned and genuinely deserved, then ‘we at our own cost and charge shall pay and sustain the same as we in performance of our promise be bound of good conscience to do'.

Significantly, they were anxious that neither Wolsey nor the king should ‘think that ever we presumed to allocate any person to that room or office' (surely exactly the sort of thing the duke's council should have been doing). In reality, however earnestly they spoke of the trust and judgment that had been placed in them, these servants of the crown could not expect to command the level of consideration and autonomy which would be allowed to a duke. Perhaps because of this, even at this early stage, Richmond regularly wrote to the king on behalf of his officers in his own hand. Realising that the bailiff of his Manor of Torpell in Northamptonshire, John Brede, was ‘a man far in age' the young duke asked ‘in my most humble and most lowly wise' that the yeoman usher of his chamber, Robert Markham, might jointly hold the post, presumably with an eye to stepping into Brede's shoes as his infirmity advanced.

The extent of Henry's involvement in Richmond's affairs does seem to have exceeded normal bounds. In 1528 the duke again reminded his father that:

At first sight, Richmond seemed in no position to make demands. He was the king's dutiful son as well as his obedient subject. He owed everything he was to his father's good will and he was still only nine years old. However, not even the king or Wolsey could blatantly ignore the express wishes of the duke.

Things came to a head with the death of Sir William Compton in May 1528. When he succumbed to the sweatingsickness which swept across the land, his demise left the stewardship of two of Richmond's manors, one in Somerset and the other in Dorset, vacant. Since the king had appointed Compton, he clearly felt he had every right to appoint his successors. He earmarked Sir Giles Strangeways and Sir Edward Seymour for the posts. Admittedly, these lands were now in Richmond's hands and technically the right of patronage belonged to the duke. Since both men had links with Richmond's household, Henry might feel that appearances were being observed. On 10 July 1528 the king's instructions were duly sent to the duke, only to discover that Richmond had already granted the office in Somerset to his ‘trusty and diligent servant' Sir George Cotton and the post in Dorset to his chamberlain, Sir William Parr.

The conflict presented all involved with a dilemma. The decision, albeit made ‘by the advice of my council' was undeniably Richmond's. Even Wolsey had to be apprised of events by Sir Thomas Magnus. The duke explained his action as if it was the most natural thing in the world. He had a great number of servants who had not yet received any reward, Wolsey had assured him that he should fill any vacancies and so he had. Although Richmond was careful to stress that the posts were not that important, one being worth only 100
s
a year, and was anxious to assure Henry that ‘the same are and shall be at your most gracious commandment' he did not actually revoke his grants. For its part, his council took refuge in confusion, claiming Henry's exact wishes were unclear. It is tempting to assume that this decisive action had been intended to catch the king on the hop. Now they had succeeded in granting the offices, the ball was in Henry's court.

As long as those areas in which the king expressed an interest remained vacant, Richmond and his council had scant grounds to refuse him. However, if Henry seriously expected Richmond to serve as an effective representative of the crown, the duke's own authority must also be seen to be respected. While Henry might appropriate some of the duke's patronage to his own use, by couching his requirement in the nature of a request, any move to overturn a decision already made could set a dangerous precedent. Since Richmond's jurisdiction, as both a bastard and a minor, was limited by what was allowed to him by the crown, it was especially important that Henry should acknowledge and defer to his son's personal prerogative. Although Henry was doubtless not best pleased at having his intentions blocked by his nine-year-old son and his council of clerks and lawyers, he could not afford to ignore the potential damage to the duke's carefully crafted, but still fragile, political persona if he decided to overturn his appointments.

In the end it seems a compromise of sorts was reached. Like most compromises it was far from ideal. For the moment, Sir Giles Strangeways was to be disappointed.
⁵
Sir Edward Seymour was more fortunate. On 25 August 1528, in a document impressively adorned with Richmond's own seal, the duke granted Seymour the stewardship of the Manor of Canford and the other premises in Dorset. By these means the dignity of both the king and the duke was preserved.

As Henry's representative at Sheriff Hutton, the duke's role was clearly defined. As a private magnate Richmond's authority depended more on his personal reputation. Many of Richmond's officers served on local government commissions. Several of his council also had their own links with areas, in particular the city of York. Richmond's cofferer, Sir George Lawson, served as an alderman for the city and was subsequently to represent York as both a Member of Parliament and as mayor. Sir Richard Page, the duke's vice-chamberlain, was recorder of York from 1527 until 1533. However, when Richmond wanted to secure the post of ‘sword bearer' for his servant Alan Ary in January 1528, the response of the city council was distinctly lukewarm. They told Richmond that they wished to wait ‘unto such time as the King's grace and the lord Cardinal's grace pleasure might be further known'.

Given Richmond's age and circumstances they may have been genuinely concerned not to offend the king. However, the referral to a higher authority also provided them with a convenient excuse to defer making any answer. Relations between the city of York and Richmond's council were not always good. In August 1528, the town was called to account in a dispute over taxes. Also the city had already had Wolsey's servant, Robert Fournes, foisted upon them. His appointment had proved most unpopular and the mayor had apparently reproached Fournes to his face:

Despite Richmond's request, the office went to Henry Fawkes, a merchant who had enjoyed the freedom of the city since 1504. The personal authority of the duke was clearly not sufficient to counter the resentment of the city. Although to be fair no magnate, with the possible exception of the king, could realistically expect that his will would always to be granted.

Conversely, perhaps with an eye on his possible future prospects, many people were keen to gain entry into Richmond's service. William Eure was ‘very desirous to have my lord of Richmond's fee'. Although the fee itself was only £10, he declared it was worth more to him than ‘a thing of far greater value'. When Sir William Bulmer's age and infirmity weighed too heavily upon him for him to be able to continue in his duties as the steward of Richmond's household and other offices, he was quick to offer his sons as convenient replacements. A third generation of his family, Matthew Boynton, the husband of Bulmer's granddaughter Anne, was also found in Richmond's service.

A large number of Richmond's own servants were keen to use their influence to secure places in his household for their friends and relations. Nicholas Throckmorton, who with three older brothers lamented the fact that he had little chance of inheriting his fortune, probably owed his position as a page to his uncle, Sir William Parr, who served as the duke's chamberlain. Henry Partridge, one of the young, unmarried gentlemen of the chamber, was possibly the son or younger brother of Richmond's former nurse, Anne Partridge. The ‘master Skeffington' who was a groom of the privy chamber in September 1531, was probably a relation of William Skeffington, by that point serving as Richmond's deputy lieutenant in Ireland. Robert Johns, one of the yeoman of the chamber, may well have been a relation of the yeoman of the wardrobe, Hugh Johns.

Perhaps this was nothing more than the general scramble for offices and advancement, an age-old desire to get on in the world. When Sir Jason Laybourne expressed his wish to serve the Duke of Richmond, he was equally interested in any other preferment that might supplement his income. Philip Morice, the brother of the young duke's general receiver, went to considerable lengths to be received into Richmond's employment. He used his brother's connection as a valued servant of Thomas Cranmer, so that Cranmer would presume on George Boleyn's obligation to him, in order that Boleyn might approach his uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, to grant Morice a place in Richmond's service. The young duke's household does seem to have been a useful link into royal service. Thomas Eynns from Shropshire was not alone in finding that his time with Richmond would lead on to a position in Prince Edward's household. Even though Richmond's prospects of the crown were never exactly spoken of, many in his service must have hoped to profit by association with him. At the very least he was the king's son anda duke in his own right. Any man would be pleased to serve such a master and there were increasingly rewards to be had.

Richmond was clearly anxious to live up to his position and did the best he could with numerous gifts and grants from his personal possessions. George Cotton received a horse with a flaxen mane and tail that had been a present to the duke from Sir William Skeffington. Even the ‘sore worn' gift of a doublet of cloth of silver, which Richmond gave to Nicholas Throckmorton, was still a valuable present. Throckmorton also received a crimson riding coat, a gown of black velvet and a riding coat ‘of new coloured cloth' from the young duke. Nor was he the only beneficiary. John Jenny, one of the unmarried gentlemen of the chamber, received a doublet of purple velvet embroidered with gold chains and lined with black and Hugh Johns, the yeoman of the wardrobe, was given a black velvet riding bonnet, trimmed with gold. Henry Partridge, who was perhaps rather more Richmond's own size, found himself the proud owner of seven pairs of former ducal hose in various colours, as well as a black bonnet with twenty-seven solid gold buttons.

If Richmond might seem to be a gullible target from whom benefits and rewards could be easily extracted by flattery, then the same could sometimes be said of his father. If getting what you wanted meant pleasing your patron, then such practice was not foul means, but good business practice. Gifts and tokens were a customary and expected part of good lordship. Richmond's pointed reminder in 1527 that ‘it hath not been my chance as yet hitherto to prefer any one of my servants to any manner of promotion either spiritual or temporal' was not the complaint of a child, but the concern of a duke who cannot repay the good service of his officers in an appropriate manner. Sometimes the monetary fees were little recompense for the trouble and expense of the office. It was the fringe benefits, which could be goods, prestige or opportunities for personal gain, which were the real attraction.