CHAPTER XVIII The Spring of 1470 saw many sudden changes in England. Edward moved resolutely against the rebels, and everyone knew that although he might be dilatory and careless for long periods, yet once he was started on an enterprise he was likely to finish it successfully. At the beginning of March it was known that the king was going in person into Lincolnshire. It was supposed that the Earl of Warwick would accompany him. But although summoned to the king's host, Warwick and Clarence preferred to remain in Warwick Castle, from which they might effect a junction with the insurgents who were coming south. But Edward's movements were too rapid. He marched toward Lincolnshire. On March 12th he met the rebels at Eppingham in Rutlandshire. The king had a good following. It was said that there were never seen in England so many goodly men and so well arrayed in a field. The success which always seemed to follow the king when he went into battle attended him now. The rebels made no stand. The royal artillery tore through their ranks, and from the precipitation with which they fled the battle became known as Luz Coat Field. For the Lincolnshire men threw away their coats the lighter to run away. Sir Robert Wells and three of his men were captured and beheaded, but the king we are told showed grace and favor to the ignorant and guiltless multitude. Sir Robert Wells before dying confessed that Warwick had been at the bottom of the rebellion, intending if successful to make Clarence King. The battle of Eppingham had prevented Warwick from joining the insurgent army. The rebellion was quashed by King Edward's swift strategy. Recognizing that for the time at least the game was finished, Warwick and Clarence fled north, first to Chesterfield, then to Manchester, hoping to get assistance from the men of Lancashire. But Edward going north too followed in their tracks. They did not wait, but flying south again they reached Exeter and then Dartmouth, where Warwick's influence with the seafaring people procured a few small ships to carry him in Clarence with their respective households to Calais. King Edward as a matter of fact did not pursue them far. He stopped at York to receive the homage of the gentleman of the county, but he could not leave Warwick's brother as Earl of Northumberland. John Neville had not taken part either in Robin of Reedsdale's rebellion or in that of Sir Robert Wells. On the other hand he had done nothing and had been no help to the king. So on March 25th Edward took from him the earldom of Northumberland and restored it to the Percy's. As a consolation he raised Neville a step in the peerage as Marquis Montague, small consolation indeed for the loss of the ancient earldom of Northumberland with its wealth and privileges. King Edward had thus won a great victory. He had triumphed in the field over his enemies. The great kingmaker himself was a fugitive scouring the channel a pirate in the narrow seas. Yet within six months by another sudden turn of fortune's wheel Edward himself was a fugitive abroad and Warwick was once more king making in England. Again the wheel of fortune turned and another six months after saw Edward safely back in England never more to go on his travels. The rest of Warwick's doings in 1470 are of a wonderful kind. He must have appeared off Calais toward the end of April. Edward suspecting that this was his destination had sent special orders warning Lord Wenlock the lieutenant of the tower not to admit him. These orders, Wenlock, though a friend of Warwick, did not care to disobey. Moreover the merchants of Calais were bound to Burgundy by strong ties of commerce and Charles of Burgundy let them know that he was supporting Edward. So Warwick was refused admittance to Calais although he attempted to force an entry by bombarding the port. While his ships lay in the roadstead his daughter, the Duchess of Clarence, who was present with her husband was delivered of a son. It is said that Warwick's supplies were so reduced by this time that he had to beseech the lieutenant of Calais as a special concession to send two flagons of wine for the invalid Duchess. Then Warwick sailed away toward Normandy capturing all the Flemish and English merchant men that he could find on the way and throwing their crews into the sea. He landed at Arfleur on May 6th where his men sold the booty they had taken from the merchant men. Charles of Burgundy by way of reprisal seized all the French ships which came to the fair of Antwerp.  It was as if the Middle Ages were ending amid the destruction of all accepted ideas to give place to a doctrine of opportunism. It is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, footnote. Machiavelli, Prince, Chapter 15, end footnote. Warwick to maintain himself in this world was willing to do what in all his past life he had held to be wrong. He was going to put down one of England's strongest kings and to restore her weakest. The other parties in this great diplomatic revolution, Queen Margaret and Louis of France, are much easier to justify. It must have been a terrible effort for Queen Margaret to consent to ally her cause with Warwick. It was he of all others who had worked most steadfastly to ruin her family. It was he who personally had led her husband, ignobly bound by thongs, to prison in the Tower of London. It was he who had cast doubts on the legitimacy of her son. Yet in accepting Warwick's help now she broke no promises, she abandoned no friends. She felt that Warwick had fearfully wronged her, but now that he was ready to do her service it was not for her to judge his motives but to accept his help for what it was worth. Warwick had Louis XI any reason to reject the Earl. It was the business of the King of France to protect his country. He had offered a peaceful alliance to King Edward and his offer had been refused, not even courteously but with scorn. The Anglo-Burgundian alliance was a serious danger to France, which was just winning its way to a stable condition after a hundred years of turmoil. If Warwick could restore the Lancastery in Friends of France it was not for Louis to object. So under the skillful mediation of King Louis the great alliance was gradually arranged. Queen Margaret and the Earl of Warwick made terms and her last great assault was prepared against the Yorkist House. At this time Margaret was in France urging Louis through her follower the famous lawyer Fortescue to lend her an expeditionary force against the Yorkists. The arrival of Warwick with bitterness in his heart against King Edward was too good a chance for her advisors to miss and they worked hard to overcome her scruples. Louis XI used all his influence. After twenty days of intricate negotiation and discussion at Angers Margaret was at last induced to accept Warwick's help. She received the apologies of the Earl from his knees and she allowed a contract of marriage to be made between her son Prince Edward and Anne the younger daughter of Warwick. King Henry was to be restored to the throne of England. The Prince Edward and Princess Anne were to succeed him when he died only if their issue failed was the Duke of Clarence to succeed to the throne. This arrangement seemed to leave Clarence further from the crown than ever. But it is to be feared that his weakness was such that Warwick only looked upon him as a convenient but not very reliable tool. Once the alliance of Warwick and Margaret was concluded no time was lost in preparing a strong expedition. Meanwhile King Edward was following his usual practice when danger was not actually present of leaving things alone. Charles of Burgundy who had no desire to lose the important friendship of England sent him continual warnings that tremendous danger was threatening from the side of Warwick. Edward indeed did something but not enough. He sent out a fleet under Antony River's Lord Scales to patrol the channel but it seems not to have kept the sea long enough. Charles of Burgundy did more. He had a fleet which regularly blockaded the Seine and prevented Warwick's expedition from moving. But a September gale forced the Burgundian fleet to abandon its watch for a time and so clear the passage for Warwick. Queen Margaret and her household remained in France to await the event. The Earl with a force of which the numbers are not known crossed the channel on or about September 8th 1470 and affected a landing in Devonshire at Dartmouth. The people of the county showed goodwill. Soon quite a large force was gathered around the Earl. Edward in spite of the warnings of Charles of Burgundy was taken by surprise. He was in Yorkshire with a force to deal with a small insurrection which no doubt had been arranged for the purpose of drawing him thither. When he heard of the landing of Warwick and of the lack of any opposition to the Earl he came to the conclusion that his only chance was flight. If he had had a good force he would doubtless have made a stand. There was no cowardice in King Edward. But the levies of the north were not with him. Warwick's brother, the Marquis Montague, was at this time staying at Pontefract. He now requited the clemency and confidence with which Edward had honored him by forming a conspiracy to kidnap the king as he was lying at Doncaster. Montague was a man of great power in the north. Edward, when he heard of this plot through a spy, realized that his condition was perilous. He made all speed to King's linen Norfolk where a small ship of his own and two Flemish vessels were lying. Getting on board on October 3rd without baggage or money he set sail for the territories of his Burgundian brother-in-law. The extraordinary suddenness with which Edward lost his kingdom surprised contemporary observers. The monkish chronicler of Croyland explains it by referring to the apathy of the people of England. When Warwick and his men landed in Devonshire the people showed this attitude not so much joining them as waiting upon them to show them every attention. The country by this time seemed to have lost interest in the wars of the Roses and to be content to accept anyone who was strong enough to take the kingdom from his opponent. The shrewd Burgundian official, Philippe de Comines, explains the flight of Edward in another way. It was very surprising to see this poor king run away in this manner and be pursued by his own subjects. He had indulged himself in ease and pleasures for twelve or thirteen years together and enjoyed a larger share of them than any other prince of the time. It seems true that Edward had been self-indulgent and careless. He showed great energy and boldness when a crisis was actually present, but in the periods of comparative quiet between each crisis he was neither prudent nor careful. At the present juncture with the stout body of eight hundred men or more who stood by him he might have made a good fight, but he would almost certainly have lost his realm and his life. His flight was certainly not due to a lack of courage. It only showed that he realized at last the need of prudence. A kingdom as easily lost might be as easily re-won. By the time he regained it Edward had learned his lesson. There was no chance of the crown slipping from him again. He was fortunate to obtain a fair passage to Holland, although his ship was chased by some Easterlings, men of the Hanseatic League, who at this time were on bad terms with the English. He dropped anchor just off the little port of Alkmar in Friesland. There Louis de Bruges, Seigneur de la Huthuse, who was governor for the Duke of Burgundy in Holland, came to him and showed every kindness. Edward was so poorly furnished with money at the time of his flight that he had only been able to pay the master of the ship that carried him with a gown lined with martinskins. By the Seigneur de la Huthuse, Edward and his friends were brought to the Hague and news of their arrival was sent to the Duke of Burgundy. Meanwhile eleven days had sufficed for warwick to gain England for King Henry the prisoner in the tower. The flight of Edward was a public acknowledgment that the kingdom was at the disposal of the Earl. Moreover, warwick's following, after he had been a short time in the country, seems to have grown very large. The Lancastery and Gentry would of course flock to him as he represented Queen Margaret and meant to restore Henry the Sixth. The many neutral people, too, and they seemed typical of the mass of Englishmen then, would come to him, wishing to stand well with the new government. But Edward, when he fled from the country, left many friends behind him. These he advised at the time, through his faithful chamberlain Lord Hastings, to submit to the Earl of Warwick and to wait for better times. They took the advice and quietly waited for Edward's return. This explains the transitory character of the Lancastery and Restoration. It explains, too, the essential stability of King Edward's position. The Londoners were known to be his friends, and London was the heart of England. But for a time all went well with Warwick. The Londoners made no resistance, and the newcomers, on October 6th, were able to enter the city and occupy the chief places. The Earl's first act was to go to the tower to restore King Henry to the throne. Since his imprisonment there in 1465, Henry had been well treated. He saw his friends occasionally, and he bore his captivity with complete equanimity. Warwick, when he had led Henry to the tower in 1465, had cried, treason, treason, and behold a traitor. But now he proclaimed him king, attended him to his palace in Westminster, and restored to him his royal prerogative. On October 13th, 1470, a solemn procession was held, and in St. Paul's the crown was publicly placed on King Henry's head, the poor king remaining subdued and silent like a crowned calf. All laws were once more enacted in the name of King Henry, and all rits and patents were dated in the 48th year of his reign. But there was no great joy at the restoration, more especially as the Kentish men who came to London with Warwick took the opportunity to plunder where they could the houses of the citizens. End of section 25. Section 26 of the Wars of the Roses by Robert Balmain Moet. This Lubrivox recording is in the public domain, recording by Pamela Nagami. Chapter 19 The Last of the Lancasterians Part 1. Queen Margaret and her son did not follow the successful expedition. Throughout the brief period of Lancasterian restoration, October 1470 to April 1471, they remained in France, mainly as it seems at the court of Louis XI. Undoubtedly, this was a mistake, as the presence of the young Prince Edward of Wales would have done something to rouse the sentiment for the Lancasterian family, which the appearance of the now apathetic King Henry failed to evoke. Queen Margaret had not seen her husband since she left him in Bambura Castle in August 1463. It is strange that she did not now take the opportunity afforded by his restoration to come over to England and see him. Poor Henry himself sent to France for his wife and son in February 1471, but still they did not come. If Margaret was waiting for Warwick to establish the Lancasterian government on a firm basis, she was waiting in vain. Boldness and confidence were essential to the safety of the restored dynasty. The absence of Queen and Prince showed how much that essential boldness and confidence were lacking. It may be that Margaret, as a French woman, did not understand the English nation. The new government did what it could to get the machinery of administration into working order. Warwick had the position of Lieutenant of the Kingdom. New money was struck with the head of Henry on one side and an image of St. Michael on the other. These coins were called angels. A parliament was summoned to meet on November 26. The new government showed itself merciful, seeing that everybody quietly accepted the new regime. Only the Constable of England was executed. John tiptoed, Earl of Worcester, that horrid butcher and savage beheader of men. He had been captured hiding near Weybridge, knowing that he could expect no mercy. His death took place on October 18, 1470. On November 26th, Parliament met. Archbishop Neville, Warwick's brother, was again Chancellor and preaching the opening sermon from the text, Turn, O Back Sliding Children. In the event of the House of Lancaster becoming extinct, the reversion of the crown was settled upon Clarence. The attainers formally passed against Henry's supporters were reversed, and thus prominent exiles like the Duke of Somerset were able to come back to England. The Parliament sat till Christmas. So ended the year 1470. Nothing seems to have happened to disturb the peace of the new government until March 1471. Early in that month, it became known that King Edward was likely at any moment to make a dissent upon the East Coast. Since his horrid exit from England on October 3, 1470, Edward had been vigorously preparing for his return. At first things had not gone well for him. The Duke of Burgundy, who was at Boulogne when he first heard of Edward's disaster, it was reported as the King's death, received the news with equanimity, for his personal tastes lay more towards Lancaster than York. When he heard that Edward was alive and in Flanders he was a little troubled. He sent Philippe de Comines to Calais to inquire after the disposition of the garrison there. De Comines reported that on receiving the news of Edward's flight from England within a quarter of an hour, the whole town had assumed the ragged staff the livery of the Earl of Warwick. So great was the instability of human affairs. Worse was to follow, for de Comines learned that Warwick, according to the terms of his alliance with Louis XI, intended to send 4,000 men over to Calais to make war on Burgundy. From this, however, he was dissuaded by the remonstrances of the merchants of the staple, who feared to lose the great market for their wool which was in Flanders. Edward did not meet Duke Charles till the beginning of 1471. In the meantime, he must have relied chiefly on the hospitality of the Seigneur de la Hothouse, when Fortune later smiled on him, Edward was able handsomely to repay this kindness. But in January 1471 two meetings were arranged between Edward and Charles. The important conference was at St. Paul, on January 7. Charles, who feared the consequences for his duchy of the Union of the Earl of Warwick and Louis XI against him, was loath to give open support to the Yorkist cause. But at last, while publicly pretending to give no assistance and issuing a proclamation against any of his subjects taking part, he agreed to lend Edward fifty thousand Florence, and three or four great ships of his own, besides hiring a number of Hanseatic ships well armed, to convey Edward's force to England. Next month, February, Edward seems to have passed at Bruges, where he was well received by the Flemish nobility and greatly helped in his plans for invading England. On March 2, his force embarked at Flushing. He had in all twelve hundred men mainly English, but partly Flemish auxiliaries. Chief among his followers were his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, his brother-in-law Antony Earl Rivers, and his chamberlain Lord Hastings. Contrary winds prevented the ships making the passage to England until March 11. During all this time, Edward kept the men on board ship, ready to sail. But on the 11th, the expedition sailed for the coast of Norfolk, arriving off Cromer on Tuesday, March 12. Finding through inquiries made by some of his men on shore, that the people of East Anglia favored the Earl of Warwick, Edward sailed further north, and in spite of a severe tempest, landed on the fourteenth of March in the shelter of Spurnhead near the side of the little port of Ravensburg. Ever since Henry of Bollingbrook landed there in 1399, the sea had been gradually encroaching, and by 1471 there was probably little of Ravensburg left. Today it is disappeared. On the next day Edward, having collected his men, for they had not all landed at the same spot, pushed forward to York, proclaiming like another Henry of Bollingbrook that he only came to claim his inheritance as Duke of York. So they proceeded in a northeasterly direction by Holland Beverly, without opposition to York, the capital of the north, March 18. Here King Edward and his host were refused admittance. But on the King consenting to bring only fifteen men at arms leaving the rest of his force outside, it was agreed to admit him. The citizens seemed by no means to have all favored his party. Edward, however, whose courage was of the highest, did not fear to enter almost alone. He was greeted by a multitude of citizens crying, Long live King Henry, but on Edward's appealing to them as Duke of York, they responded to him by crying at last, Long live the noble Duke of York. His confidence and courage were rewarded. Even the rest of his forces were now admitted, to receive much needed refreshment and rest on condition that they should depart next morning. Next morning King Edward and his men, avoiding all chance of a riot with the citizens, left York and took the road for Tadcaster. From there he followed the more westerly road to Wakefield, so avoiding Pontifract, which was held by Warwick's brother, the Marquis Montague. That Edward was able to march so far unopposed was largely due to the fact that the safeguarding of the north for King Henry was entrusted to two different men. To Warwick's brother, the Marquis Montague, formerly Earl of Northumberland, and to Henry Percy, whom in 1470 Edward had restored to the earldom of Northumberland when he deprived Montague of it. Between Montague and Percy there could be no cordiality. Percy purposely did not oppose Edward's march and so rendered him great service. Montague alone was too weak to oppose the King. From Wakefield, which was part of the domain of the Duke of York, Edward advanced to Don Caster and to Nottingham. At Nottingham he is said to have received his first considerable accession, six hundred well armed men under two local knights. Here too he received his first definite news of the plans of his enemy. His spies informed him that the Duke of Exeter and the Earl of Oxford were behind him at Newark, eighteen miles northeast of Nottingham, with four thousand men of East Anglia. But Edward had no need to turn back to deal with them. When they heard that he was likely to come, they hastily evacuated Newark. Edward on learning that the men of East Anglia were no longer dangerous, immediately continued his advance, hoping to have a decisive conflict with the Earl of Warwick, who had left London and come into Warwickshire, there to gather all his men for dealing with the invader. Edward marched through Leicestershire, where he received an accession of three thousand men. Warwick avoiding a battle retired into Coventry with about seven thousand men. Edward arrived in front of the town on March 30th. His forces are said to have been slightly inferior to those of Warwick. Nevertheless, the Earl refused his offer of battle and kept within the walls. It is possible that he was waiting for reinforcements to come from his brother Montague, from the East Anglian men under the Duke of Exeter, and perhaps also from the Duke of Clarence. Nevertheless, his refusal to meet King Edward's army was a mistake, for the King leaving Coventry behind went on at once and occupied the town of Warwick. Thus he lay between the Earl's forces and London. The balance of power at this moment lay with Clarence, who had four thousand men, raised in Glastisher and Wiltshire. The Duke had soon sickened of his position in the restored Lancastrian court. Warwick's acknowledgment of King Henry and Prince Edward of Wales cut him off more than ever from the crown. The old Lancastrian nobles did not conceal their contempt for him. While Edward was in Flanders, great efforts had been made by his sister the Duchess of Burgundy through various messengers to reconcile the two brothers. Clarence soon made up his mind to support Edward again and to use his levies in his brother's service. While Edward was at the town of Warwick, he heard that Clarence was coming to him. Some inkling of this may account for the Earl of Warwick's hesitation in Coventry. But the Earl would have been well advised to attack the King separately before the approach of Clarence. For Edward, when he heard of Clarence's approach, at once set out and met his brother at Banbury, thence the United forces returned to the town of Warwick. Some futile negotiations took place with the Earl in Coventry. These failed, and Edward again offered battle under the walls of that town on April 5th. But again failing to draw the Earl, he resolved to go straight on to London from which he must have had good intelligence that the citizens would receive him without difficulty. On Palm Sunday, April 7th, he attended service in the great church at Daventry and is said to have received an intimation from Saint Anne that his campaign would be successful. From Daventry, Edward went on to Dunstable and was able to send comfortable news to his Queen, who since his departure for Flanders had been in Sanctuary at Westminster. Thence he pushed forward to London and entered the city on April 11th. He was loyally received by the Mayor, Alderman, and Burgesses, and by the Archbishop of York, Warwick's brother, who seeing the hopelessness of attempting to hold London had made terms with King Edward. If Edward had been refused admittance into London, he would have been in an extremely perilous situation, liable to be crushed between the Earl of Warwick and his rear and the Londoners in front. An attempt had been made on April 9th, two days before his arrival at the city, to rouse the Lancastrian party there. The Archbishop of York had held a council at St. Paul's. King Henry, who had all the time of Edward's march remained in London, mounted on a horse and showed himself at the head of six hundred supporters. But this was not sufficient display of force to win over the Londoners. Philippe de Comines later made inquiries into the causes of Edward's good reception into the city, and learned that there were three. Firstly, the presence of many Yorkists who had stayed in Sanctuary throughout the Restoration of King Henry, and especially the presence of a son and heir to King Edward, born in Westminster Sanctuary on November 3rd of the previous year 1470. The second cause was the great debts which King Edward owed in the city, which obliged the tradesmen who hoped to be repaid to support his Restoration. The third cause was that the citizens' wives, with whom he had formerly been familiar, forced their husbands and relatives to declare themselves on his side. So King Edward entered London and the unfortunate King Henry was once again a prisoner. On April 12th, Good Friday, a council was held to consider the situation. Next day, the 13th, Edward marched out again with his men, and King Henry with him, to meet Warwick. For the Earl now reinforced by Montague and men from the north, and by the Duke of Exeter and the Earl of Oxford, with their East Anglian contingent, was coming steadily toward London to risk everything upon a battle. King Edward, with his usual energy whenever a fight was in prospect, marched up the great north road. Some of Warwick's men had already entered Barnet, but Edward's advance guard drove them back to their main body, which was about one and a half miles north. The Yorkist main body came up to the town as night was approaching, but Edward, foreseeing the danger if his army were caught next morning by Warwick among the narrow streets, refused to spend the night there, and gave orders that his men should go through the town and take up their position for the night outside near Warwick's host. The Earl was evidently surprised by this move, and owing to the darkness of the evening, did not precisely understand the Yorkist position. He ordered his artillery, which always formed an important part of his armies, to fire all night into the Yorkist host. But the shots passed over the enemy's heads. In the darkness, Warwick's gunners mistook the range as the Yorkists were really nearer than was supposed. King Edward's artillery did not reply, and his men were instructed to light no fires and make no noise. Next morning, Easter Sunday, April 14th, 1471, between five and six o'clock, Edward arrayed his army for battle in spite of the great fog which was overall. Warwick's forces are said to have been much superior to Edward's. Each army was apparently drawn up in three battles, a right, a center, and a left. The opposing lines, though extending about the same length, were not exactly opposite each other. The Lancastrian right overlapped the Yorkist left, and the Yorkist right overlapped the Lancastrian left. This is an old and well-known weakness to which all ancient and medieval armies were subject when they advanced to a hand-to-hand combat. Each man instinctively pressed toward the right, and so the opposing lines seldom met exactly, but one overlapped the other at each end. This tendency is noticed and explained by Thucydides in his account of the Battle of Montenegro in 418 B.C. In this way, the Lancastrian right enveloped and broke the Yorkist left, and fugitives carried the report of a defeat to London. But King Edward, who always fought on foot, led his men against the center where Warwick was, himself striking down everyone who opposed him. His brother's Gloucester and Clarence on the right did good service too, and managed to envelop and break the opposing Lancastrians. Meanwhile the victorious Lancastrian right had taken to plundering and so lost the fruits of its success, but the Yorkist right was sufficiently kept in hand to wheel around so as to take the Warwick's center in the rear. Four hours' hard fighting brought the conflict to an end. The losses on each side were heavy, especially on the Lancastrian side, where Warwick, Montague, and the Duke of Exeter were all three dead. In this battle, both sides fought upon foot. On Edward's part, this was his invariable custom. Warwick, on the other hand, as a rule began the battle by leading his men to the charge on foot himself, this done he would mount one of his horses and hold himself and his squires in reserve, either to charge boldly at the decisive moment or to save themselves in case of defeat. But on this occasion he was advised by his brother, the Marquis Montague, who was a man of great personal courage, to fight on foot along with the rest of his army. Thus it was that Warwick, when his men gave way, was delayed in getting to his horses, and so was overtaken and slain in a wood nearby. King Edward is said to have expressed regret for his death. In this battle the order to kill the gentry and spare the commons was not given. For King Edward was much angered at the way in which the common people had abandoned his cause and favored the Earl of Warwick at the time of the flight to Burgundy in October 1470. So now he had resolved to call out no more to spare the common soldiers. The number slain is as usual variously stated. Sir John Paston, who fought on Warwick's side, says that there were slain of bold parties together more than a thousand. Other estimates give a total of four thousand, but Sir John Paston is not likely to have underestimated the number's slain. Edward permitted honorable burial to his dead opponents. The bodies of Warwick and Montague were exposed for two days at St. Paul's to convince the common people that they were dead. Then they were buried in the family resting place of the Earl's of Salisbury in Bishop Abbey on the Thames near Marlowe. In the weeks preceding the Battle of Barnet, Queen Margaret had been getting together a considerable force to come at last to England for the support of her husband and the Earl of Warwick. At the same time, Edmund, Duke of Somerset, one of the most devoted of the Lancastrians, left London for the West country to raise a force with which he might join Margaret when she landed. He had succeeded in raising a fair-sized body in the West about the time of the Battle of Barnet. Queen Margaret assembled her men at Arfleur on March 24. She had with her the Prince Edward her son, the Countess of Warwick, Lord Wenlock, and a number of Lancastrian knights. High seas it is said kept her ships, mainly supplied in all probability by Louis XI, weatherbound till April 13. But it is possible that she was still hesitating, waiting to hear if King Edward was defeated or till the West should have risen to support her. On Easter Day, April 14, when the Battle of Barnet was fought, she landed at Weymouth, a convenient port from which to join the Duke of Somerset, who was raising the men of Dorseture. From Weymouth, Margaret, who could not have had more than a few hundred men in all, went to the Benedictine Abbey of Surin, seven miles north of Dorchester. There she was met by Edmund, Duke of Somerset, and Thomas Courtney, Earl of Devon, with a good number of people. They brought her the terrible news of Edward's success at Barnet. But the situation was not considered hopeless, for though Warwick was dead and King Henry a prisoner, the Lancastrians were in arms in great numbers in Dorseture, in Wales under Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, and in the North.  The Queen, on the advice of her friends, moved on with all her forces to Exeter, for her cause was always strong in the West. THE LAST OF THE LANCASTRIANS, PART III Edward heard of her landing on April 16th when he was at London. He had to allow some days for the resting and refreshing of his men who had fought at Barnet, and for the raising of new forces in the friendly home counties. Meanwhile he himself went down to Windsor Castle and celebrated St. George's Day, April 23. Then he set out to find Queen Margaret's army, which his spies informed him was in the region of Cornwall, and marching toward the North West. For Queen Margaret and her force had left Exeter and taken the direct road to Glastonbury, and from there to Bath. As she went along she gathered more armed men to her standard. It was her object to get into the Severn Valley, for although the Yorkist family had large estates and great influence in the Central District of the Welsh March around Ludlow, yet on the whole the rest of the March country seems to have favored the Lancastrians. Margaret might find support there in being able to join forces with Jasper Tudor, so King Edward planned to meet her and offer battle by the Severn about Gloucester and Tuxbury, where foreign army coming from the direction of Bath is the Gate of Wales. King Edward, marching through the country on the North side of the Thames, reached Sirencester on April 29, at the time when Queen Margaret was approaching Bath. He believed from what his scouts told him that Margaret was coming up to offer battle, but instead she marched to Bristol, where she received a good welcome and reinforcement in men money and especially artillery. On May 2, Margaret sent some mounted men to Sudbury to inspect and occupy a field for battle with King Edward, but when Edward, whose scouts or spies brought him this information, marched up in his best order to Sudbury, he found no enemy there. Queen Margaret's force had slipped past and was marching post haste for Gloucester. This was the critical moment of the campaign. If Margaret got over the Severn at Gloucester, she would have been able to join with Jasper Tudor and to raise the whole of Wales in arms, and so to go on to Lancashire. But King Edward selected one of his officers, Richard Beecham, son of Lord Beecham, and sent him on with a company of men at arms to occupy Gloucester and hold it against Margaret for the few hours necessary to enable him to bring up his army. Beecham moved quicker than the larger body of troops with Margaret and reached Gloucester in time to put it into a state of defense against the attack of the Lancastrians. Some of the citizens seemed to have favored the Lancastrians so that the arrival of Beecham was very timely for the cause of King Edward. Margaret and her forces came up at 10 in the morning, May 3, 1471, after a forced march and found they were too late. With Edward's force on their heels, they did not dare to deliver an assault on the town. There was no course open to them, but to push on as quickly as they could till they could find some means of crossing the Severn. They had already been marching all night, and it took them till nearly 5 p.m. to reach Tewkesbury, which was only 10 miles further on. There was no bridge here, the army was dead to a tired and had lost its compactness. Many men had fallen out of the ranks and become for the time mere stragglers. Edward's army, well equipped and well led, was not far off now. So Margaret was compelled to stop and give battle. She had still time to choose a good position and to face the enemy without the panic that might arise from a further flight. Edward had been marching apparently in a course parallel to that of the Lancastrians. We are told he came by open country, Champagne, on the slopes of the Cotswolds to a village called Cheltenham, where he received definite news that the Lancastrians were at Tewkesbury. His force was all ready for the fight, being arranged in the usual three battles, with an adequate number of mounted scouts in advance and on both sides. With his customary energy, he refused to allow his men to rest in the pleasant village of Cheltenham, but pushed on towards Tewkesbury. When his army had proceeded five miles out of the eight that separated them from the Lancastrians, the evening had closed in, and it became necessary to halt for the night. This respite must have been welcomed to both sides, especially to the weary Lancastrians. For these must have realized how impossible it was to shake off the determined pursuit of King Edward. Next day, Saturday, May 4th, 1471, as it dawned bright and clear, Edward had his trumpets sounded and drew up his forces in battle and advanced to the Lancastrian position. Queen Margaret and Prince Edward seemed to have relied for their dispositions on the advice of Edmund Duke of Somerset. The position was skillfully chosen, one mile outside the town of Tewkesbury. They occupied elevated ground in an angle formed by the Swillgate Brook and the River Avon. Behind was the Abbey in town of Tewkesbury. The ground in front of them was broken up by hedges, bushes, and ditches, a common feature in the Severn Valley. Somerset commanded the right, Prince Edward had the central battle, and the Earl of Devon had the left. In three battles also the Yorkists made their advance. Edward led the center, Gloucester had the right, and Hastings the left which was held in reserve. The attack must have taken place early in the day. The Yorkist army was very well led. Each division could be counted on to do its duty. King Edward on foot in the center was a host in himself. His brother Gloucester could always be relied on to do a useful piece of work on the right. He was a careful and also brilliant and determined leader who never did anything to disturb the general plan of operations. Lord Hastings on the left was not brilliant, but he had solid qualities which were very useful to the King. He was content to face and hold the enemies right while Edward and the dashing Gloucester broke the opposite center and left. As the Yorkist force advanced their artillerymen and archers sent deadly shots among the enemy who replied with their artillery and archers also. Had the Lancastrians remained in their position it would have been very difficult for the Yorkists to come to close quarters with them. But Edmund, Duke of Somerset, who commanded the Lancastrian right, judged it better to lead his knights and men at arms in a charge against the advancing enemy rather than to stand still and suffer from the Yorkist missiles. So he took a strong body of his men out of the park where they had their station into a deep lane which led forward toward the left flank of the Yorkist center. Thus he was able to approach quite close to the enemy without being perceived. Then suddenly issuing from the lane he boldly charged at the head of his men on to the surprised Yorkists. But King Edward, though surprised, was not off his guard. Facing the charge and fighting as he always did on foot at the head of his men he steadied his ranks and received the attack of Somerset with great firmness so that he not merely met and checked the charge but actually drove them back toward the lines they had just left. At this critical moment Somerset found himself suddenly charged from the outer side by a force of two hundred picked lances whom Edward had previously detached to occupy a small wood below into the west side of Somerset's lines. This new assailant on one side combined with Edward's determined attack on the other was too much for Somerset's knights to bear. They gave way and King Edward's men were able to advance into the park or enclosure of the Lancastrian right wing making great slaughter as they went. Having broken the enemy's right or voward Edward turned his men against the Lancastrian's center where under Prince Edward the main body made a desperate fight but the battle was soon over. The breakup of their right had exposed their center to a deadly turning movement. Before long the whole army was broken and scattered in hopeless route. The losses on the side of the Lancastrians were extremely heavy. Their position though good for defense gave small means of retreat. The Duke of Somerset fled for sanctuary to Tuxbury Abbey. It is said that when driven after his disastrous charge back to the Lancastrian's center with his own axe he broke the head of Lord Wenlock and then turned his horse from the field. Lord Wenlock under Prince Edward was in command of the center. He had not supported the charge of Somerset but had merely kept his position. The Duke ascribed this inaction to treason yet there is much to be said in its favor. It was Somerset's charge that sacrificed all the advantages of a good position. Prince Edward who was said to have been a handsome youth now aged seventeen and a half years was slain as he tried to leave the battlefield crying on the Duke of Clarence's brother-in-law for help. The Earl of Devon fell fighting as did also Somerset's brother John. The Duke of Somerset was taken out of sanctuary in the Abbey and beheaded for treason two days after the battle, Monday, May 6th. Thus all the legitimate heirs of the House of Beaufort were extinguished but a representative of John Beaufort remained. The Lady Margaret who had married Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond. Their son, Henry Tudor, was at the time of the Battle of Tuxbury in Wales with his uncle Jasper Tudor, Earl of Penbrook, raising the country for Queen Margaret. Toward the rest of the Lancastrian army, King Edward showed clemency. Although the sanctuary of the Abbey could not legally protect them from the consequences of treason, yet their lives were spared. The bodies of Prince Edward and the other noble dead were buried with duobsequies in the Abbey. Queen Margaret who was found at a convent not far from the battlefield was taken prisoner to be brought to London to appear before the King's triumphal car. England was thus re-won for King Edward, although not yet entirely subdued. There still remained three troubled regions. Jasper Tudor, Earl of Penbrook and his nephew, Henry Tudor, were in arms in South Wales. There was a rising in Yorkshire. London itself was being menaced, though Edward himself did not know this, by the Bastard of Folkenburg, an illegitimate son of the Earl of Kent, who had crossed the Channel with men from the garrison of Calais and landed at Sandwich at about the time of the Battle of Tuxbury. But these obstacles to King Edward melted away one after the other. From Tuxbury he pushed northwards to Coventry where he arrived on May 11. There he received news that the rebellion in the north had collapsed, largely owing to the efforts made in his behalf by Henry Percy, the restored Earl of Northumberland. At Coventry Edward rested his army for three clear days. On recede of news from London announcing the raising of Kent by the Bastard of Folkenburg, he led his army back to meet this new danger. But ere he arrived at London all was practically over. Folkenburg with many of the men of Kent had arrived at the south side of the river on May 11 and demanded the release of King Henry from the Tower. But the men of the city and the garrison of the Tower under Edward's brother-in-law Antony, Lord Rivers, foiled the bold attempt of the Bastard, who after doing considerable damage to the houses on London Bridge, and plundering all the suburbs on the south of the river, was compelled to fall back to Sandwich. By this time the army of King Edward was quite close. He entered London with great state and splendor on May 21, with the captive Queen Margaret in his train. Queen Margaret was kept in England till 1476, when she was allowed to retire to France. End footnote. His own Queen and their son, who throughout the campaign of Tuxbury had been living under the guardianship of Lord Rivers in the Tower of London, were ready to welcome him. They had just escaped a serious danger. Had the Bastard of Folkenburg succeeded in his boldly conceived and well executed plan, as he might have done for the temper of the citizens was always uncertain, he would have gained the person of King Edward's wife, son, and heir, and also of the old, legitimate King Henry VI. As things turned out the Bastard's attempt was a complete failure. On May 23rd King Edward followed him to Sandwich and there accepted his surrender. He was put in charge of the Duke of Gloucester, but in September, after attempting to escape, he was beheaded. The two tutors, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke, and his nephew Henry, were still in Pembroke, refusing to recognize the Yorkist King. They would not yield, neither could they by themselves uphold the Lancastrian power. They remained in South Wales for another three months probably in hiding. In September they gave up their hopeless enterprise and sailed away to Brittany. Long before this, the sorrowful King Henry had breathed his last. He seems to have died on the same day as King Edward entered London, May 21st. One account says that hearing of the disaster at Tuxbury, he died of pure displeasure and melancholy. But many people believed he was murdered. Later writers point to the Duke of Gloucester as instrumental in his death. With King Henry, the legitimate Lancastrian line became extinct. End of Section 28. Section 29 of the Wars of the Roses by Robert Balmain Moat. This Librovox recording is in the public domain, recording by Pamela Nagami. Chapter 20 English Society During the Wars of the Roses, Part 1. From the year 1450 to 1471, from the rising of Jack Cade to the death of Henry VI, a condition of war with a few intervals of peace had been existing in England. This war, which began in protests against the Lancastrian government, ended in a long conflict between two rival houses, Lancaster in York for the Crown. The name Wars of the Roses is an invention of the 16th century. The white rose of York alone was used as a badge during the actual period of the warfare. Nevertheless the name is a good one and explains the character of the period. This public and sanguinary struggle between two aristocratic factions could hardly have occurred and certainly could never have continued so long in a settled and well-ordered society. But England had seldom been without some serious disturbances since the accession of the Lancastrian House in 1399. The struggle between York and Lancaster seemed scarcely more than a grand and critical instance of the working of causes everywhere potent for harm. A list of riots, feuds, and private wars can without much difficulty be made up to cover the years from 1399 to 1471. Such a condition of society could only exist owing to the lack of a strong hand in justice and police. The government was not equal to its fundamental duty of keeping order. But the weakness of the Lancastrian government is itself difficult to explain. For some reason the dynasty did not have the confidence of the governing classes of that time of the nobles and country gentlemen. Yet the Lancastrians were an honorable house, English and of the old royal family, anxious to govern acceptably, careful to observe the Constitution and to maintain the liberties and privileges of their subjects. But their constitutionalism must not be exaggerated. The Lancastrian experiment was not a medieval anticipation of the limited monarchy of today. Henry VI, when his period of minority was over, exercised much the same constitutional powers as Edward III. He chose his own ministers against the known wishes of Parliament. The truth, perhaps, is not that constitutional progress had outrun administrative order, or the Constitution was not too advanced for the needs of the age. In one respect, at least, in the county franchise, the Lancastrians restricted it. Their weakness has some other cause than their love of freedom. Undoubtedly during the 15th century there was a feeling of lawlessness among the upper classes. This is amply proved by the private wars which families fought with each other and by the difficulty which was found in every county of enforcing the statutes against livery and maintenance. The country seems to have got into the same condition which William of Nubra describes three centuries earlier in the reign of Stephen, when there were in England as many kings or rather tyrants as there were lords of castles. This lawlessness among the upper classes was probably a reaction from the Hundred Years War, the long intermittent conflict on French soil. After the great days of King Henry V, the English fortunes in France slowly declined.  War was their only occupation. In time of peace they were out of place. For law they can have had little respect and the renewal of fighting was their main chance of success. The fathers and relations of these persons had plundered and destroyed the greatest part of France and possessed it for several years, and afterwards they turned their swords upon themselves and killed one another. Thus the Hundred Years War reacted upon England, but fortunately it did not bring with it all the same train of misery. France, it is well known, suffered fearfully in the last stages of the Hundred Years War. The towns within or near the sphere of operations declined, commerce was seriously diminished, in some places whole trades disappeared. In the country district the conditions of life were terrible, atrocious misery, perpetual insecurity, famine, depopulation, emigration. The forest, the brushwood, the desert had reconquered France. Ten years after the war had ended, Louis XI, traveling from Flanders to Paris, saw as he said, only ruins, barren and uncultivated fields, a sort of desert. But England fared more happily. She had no foreign enemy on her soil and the civil tumults, disastrous as they were, did not for a moment set back the solid progress of her people. The population seems not to have declined, nor was the wealth of the country in any way exhausted. With the end of public and private warfare in 1471 the normal life of the people as a whole, which had never been seriously interrupted, went on a pace. The barrens were a small class and even small losses in a few battles seriously diminished their number and power. But the commons were the bulk of England, a perpetual corporation in no wise essentially affected by personal or party changes. Yet it is easy to exaggerate the stability of English life during the wars of the Roses. The general tranquility of the country at large, while feudalism was dashing itself to pieces in battle after battle, was shown by the remarkable fact that justice remained wholly undisturbed. The law court sat quietly at Westminster, the judge's road as of old in circuit, the system of jury trial, took more and more its modern form. These statements should not be taken literally. Things do not go on in times of civil war just as in times of peace. The past and letters alone provide overwhelming evidence of the breakdown of the judicial system and of illegal acts in the county of Norfolk. There is plenty of evidence of a similar state of affairs in Devon, in Yorkshire and elsewhere. The administration of government had broken down, yet the old habits went on and society adjusted itself to the prevailing conditions. There was a lack of governance, but not anarchy, such as the conclusion that may become to after a survey of the different ranks and classes during the period. The rural classes in the 15th century continued the development which had set in after the Peasants Revolt of 1381. Looked at broadly, the results of this revolt were twofold. The Lords of Manners, finding it impossible to compel the Villains to give labor services as rent, ceased to cultivate their demean or home farms. The Villains were allowed to keep their holdings by paying money rents. Each tenant was given a copy of the conditions of his tenancy as registered in the court rolls of the manor. Thus arose the system of copy-hold tenure, by which a tenant obtained a lease of his holding for a certain period, frequently for three lives. About the same time the Lord in many cases turned his cultivated demean into pasture on which a few shepherds reared sheep. Thus the granting of copy-holds and the enclosing of demean land for pastureage were two great movements which went on after the Peasants Revolt. Enclosures were more or less frequently made of tenant holdings also when the leases had expired. Throughout the greater part of the 15th century the country people as a whole were in a fairly prosperous condition. The Villains and free holders were generally left in peaceable possession of their holdings. The great lawyer Littleton, writing in 1475, stated that although many of these people were only tenants at will, yet by the custom of the manor they had a very substantial hold upon their farms. The Lord cannot break the custom which is reasonable in these cases. Villainage as a status was almost extinct. Many of the Villains had become copy-holders and are indistinguishable from the general body of free yeoman. Enclosures had made very little progress before 1470. The Lord, as has been already noticed, often turned his demean land into pastureage, but this harmed nobody. Enclosures of common lands or copy holds by the lords of manors were rare. The great period of such enclosures was roughly from 1470 to 1600. This was largely due to the breakup of feudal tenures and the exploitation of nobles estates on an economic basis. All evidence of the time points to a fair amount of prosperity among the rural classes in this century during the wars of the roses. The armies of the time were small, seldom numbering more than 5,000 men. They remained on foot only for a few weeks at a time, dispersing shortly after the conclusion of each important battle. The armies consisted mainly of the retainers of noble lords and a number of knights and squires. The people as a whole took no part in the fights, but they really held the balance of power. Therefore neither Yorkist nor Lancastrian party dared allowed much plundering by their army, as unpopularity among the people would instantly ruin their cause. The very apathy of the people, so much noticed by Philippe de Comines, proves that the war caused little distress. If it had, it would have ended sooner, for the peaceful folk, the vast majority of England, would have gone over to the party which seemed most likely to rule with a firm hand. The chronicler of Saint Albans, Wettemstead, shows how the plundering done by the northern men of Queen Margaret's army, when they came south after the Battle of Wakefield, was bitterly resisted and greatly damaged the Lancastrian cause. This plundering is mentioned as an exceptional occurrence. During the period of the wars, the price of living in the country districts was not high. Wages were good and employment does not appear to have been difficult to obtain. The fifteenth century was a period of prosperity and content. The wars of the roses did not affect the country at large. Of the country gentlemen, it is hardly necessary to speak. The Pashtun letters give good evidence of their prosperous state. It is said that the grandfather of John Pashtun was a plain husbandment, and his grandmother a bondswoman, that is a woman of V. Lam parentage. Yet the son, William, of this humble and frugal couple became a judge, and the grandson John was a substantial squire in Norfolk. He could afford to educate his sons in the best way, in the Duke of Norfolk's household at Eaton, Oxford or Cambridge. In the seventeenth century in sixteen seventy-nine, the representative of the Pashtun family was created Earl of Yarmouth. This is not the only instance in which prosperous squires of the wars of the roses founded great families. The towns of England also advanced in material well-being during this period. It has been observed that no town during the wars of the roses ever defended itself against an army. One reason for this was that the armies were not very dangerous. They were small, and the leaders could not risk popularity in the country in general by allowing the troops to plunder. The larger towns were able to take care of themselves. When the troops came into London, the citizens organized themselves to protect their property. But the towns had no wish to stand sieges. For one reason they did not care enough for the struggle between Lancaster and York. For another they had no good walls. Since the anarchic reign of King Stephen, the walls of English towns had been neglected, the stones had been used for building, the ditches had been filled up and used as news sites for houses. In the more remote districts, the Welsh march and the North defences were necessary. But elsewhere, especially in the home counties, the disuse of fortifications chose the peacefulness and prosperity of the cities. During the 15th century the towns took little part in politics. An exceptional case occurs in the year 1450 when Thomas Young, member for Bristol, was imprisoned for proposing in Parliament that the Duke of York be declared heir to the throne. But as a rule they were sufficiently occupied with developing their trade. The old rigid system was breaking down. The towns were much less isolated from each other than formerly. The mere marching of Lancasterian or Yorkist armies through the country must have done much to extend the habit of intercommunication. Inside the towns the strict domination by guilds and crafts could not be maintained. By the middle of the 15th century the merchant guild, which controlled the general conditions of commerce in each chartered borough, seems to have become identified in many places with the mayor and corporation. The craft guilds, which organized the particular trades in each town, had also reached a high stage of development beyond which they showed no tendency to progress. Their rules for the admission of members were strictly enforced. The fees and general expenses of membership were high. The apprentices complained that they were hampered greatly in their efforts to become in time themselves masters. The guild and craft system were really growing obsolete and a steady movement toward freer trade was afoot. The guilds and crafts gradually began to confine themselves mainly to social and charitable functions. At the end of the 15th century the crown began to interfere with their trade restrictions. The law of Henry VII enacted that all new bylaws of guilds must be submitted to the scrutiny of the Lord Chancellor. Individual enterprise was becoming freer, for the regulations of crown and parliament were less hampering than those of the guilds, and thus the closeness of the old connection between the enjoyment of burger rights and the exercise of a skilled craft tended to disappear. The prosperity of the towns in the 15th century is attested by the magnificence of the domestic architecture of the period as well as by the sumptuary laws which in the latter half of the century the parliament thought it necessary to enact. The position of London and the nation was unique by reason of its wealth, situation, and the enterprise of its citizens. The party, Lancastrian or Yorkist, which held London, held the kingdom. It is impossible to ascertain accurately the population of London, but to judge from figures that have been compiled for the beginning of the 15th century it may be concluded that it had about 50,000 inhabitants. Although this seems small, it was between three and four times the population of any other town in England. York and Bristol, the next largest, had probably about 15,000. Richard of York and his son Edward IV were popular in London. Edward was always a well-known figure there, and frequently borrowed money from some rich citizens. He gave London a new charter in 1464 and another in 1467. During the brief restoration of Henry VI in 1470 the right of electing their own mayor was taken from the Londoners. But Edward IV on his return to power at once gave the right to the citizen body. His politic alliance with the Duke of Burgundy was another benefit to the city, for it made trade with the wealthy cities of Flanders easy and profitable. That commerce flourished during the period of the Wars of the Roses is proved by the number of foreign merchants who found it worth their while to reside in English towns, chiefly though not entirely in London. These aliens were not popular with the English merchants, as may be seen from the well-known poem, The Liable of English Policy, written in 1436, for it was felt that foreign merchants were given advantages in England which English merchants were not given in foreign parts. As early as 1406 foreign merchants had been prohibited by statute from carrying on retail trade in England. But their wholesale trade continued to flourish. In London the Easterlings, merchants from Hanseatic cities had their own society with offices and warehouses at the steel yard, footnote, on the north bank of the river, on a site in Upper Thames Street, and footnote. Edward IV even risked his popularity by protecting them and continuing their privileges, and in this he showed his wisdom. Henry VII took up his policy with this difference, that the Tudor King took more care to insist upon reciprocal privileges to Englishmen in German markets. End of section 29. Section 30 of The Wars of the Roses by Robert Balmain Mowat. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, recording by Pamela Nagami, chapter 20, English Society During the Wars of the Roses, part 2. The Church in England had an important part in the national life during the 15th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury was always recognized as the first constitutional advisor of the Crown. The prelates were a distinguished body of men, sometimes of the highest birth, like Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, the grand-uncle of Henry VI. Sometimes sprung from Yeoman parents, like Archbishop Chichely, who died in 1443, the founder of All Souls College, or Bishop Wayne Fleet, the founder of Modlin Hall in the University of Oxford. In England, the Church had always been strongly national. From the time of William the Conqueror, the sovereign rights of the English Crown over Churchmen had been jealously guarded. But under the Lancastrian kings, who figured throughout as strictly Orthodox sons of the Catholic Church, the claims of the Pope were again advanced. This was the more easily done under the pious and weak rule of Henry VI. The Pope was allowed to fill up English seas by provision. Even a few Italian absentees were permitted to enjoy the fruits of English dioceses. The interference of the papacy with the appointment of bishops and abbots was all the greater encroachment on the national liberties, because the bishops and mightered abbots had a majority in the House of Lords. The average attendance of temporal peers was a little under 40. The bishops and mightered abbots could number 46. The docility of the Lancastrian kings toward the papacy really strengthened the reaction towards a strong national control, which is so marked under the first two Tudor monarchs. The Church was wealthy and powerful, the monasteries being great landowners. Yet as the lists compiled at the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII show, the wealth of the Church was not so great as people thought. The great-landed corporations had suffered from the rise in wages and the decay of tillage which took place after the Black Death and peasants revolt. Intellectually too, the Church had suffered from its very strength. Aided by the secular arm under the Lancastrians, she had reduced lalardy to feebleness and obscurity. But in doing this, the Church had herself suffered. She lacked the stimulus of opposition. She dominated the schools of learning too strictly for intellectual liberty. The best intellect among the clergy was that of Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester. He was tried by the Archbishop and was compelled to resign his See in 1457. Although in the 15th century, noble foundations arose in Oxford and Cambridge, their record of achievement in the domain of learning is not great. This intellectual barrenness reacted on the condition of the Church. It affected the mental vigor of candidates for ordination. It was not until the revival of learning reached England from the Continent that a successful effort was made to renew the intellectual spirit of the National Church and the universities. Bishop Fox's foundation at Corpus Christi College, Oxford in 1516, in its early, brilliant history, showed the Renaissance at its best. A little was done too under the Yorkist kings. Caxton enjoyed the favor of Edward IV and Richard III, and had the support of a royal pension. John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, Constable, and Butcher of England, was a graduate, both of Balliol and Padua, a student of Greek and a supporter of Caxton. But the intellectual record of the Church under the Yorkists cannot be reckoned high. The chief components of the clerical estate of the realm were the prelates, the lower secular clergy, and the regulars or monastics. Of these, the great bishops in the period of the Wars of the Roses are mainly to be noticed in their attempts to keep the peace. Archbishop Neville of York, it is true, acted something of the part of an intrigue, and is too often found cooperating in the ambitious schemes of his great-brother Warwick, in Yorkshire, or Calais, or London. But Thomas Birchier, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1454 to 1486, acted a better part. His proclivities were distinctly Yorkist, and in some ways notably when Edward IV had to flee the country in 1470, he definitely assisted the Yorkist king. But from the first to last he tried to moderate the ranker of parties, as in the pacification in St. Paul's on March 25th, 1458. Perhaps his desire for peace led him to acquiesce rather too facile in the accomplished work of the strong hand, as when he consented to the coronation of Richard III. The lower secular clergy seemed to have pursued their even way in the 15th century, as has already been noticed the state of learning among them was not high. According to Bishop Peacock of Chichester, the best men were not attracted into the church, because promotion among the lower ranks of the clergy was rare. Throughout the 15th century they seemed to have ceased attending through their proctors or delegates in Parliament. Instead, they taxed themselves for national purposes in the convocations, which generally met about the same time as Parliament. The numbers of the secular clergy were very large. Ordinations were held four times a year, and on each occasion about a hundred candidates were admitted to holy orders. They could all read and write at least, but they were too numerous for all of them to have cures of souls. Thus, besides the respectable and useful parish priests, there was a large number of clergy who had no definite charge, but gained a precarious living by saying masses for the dead. Such priests are said to have comprised actually a majority of the clergy. Idol and celibate, their moral standard, was not high. The monastic clergy emerged into history through the chronicles which they still compiled, such as the Chronicle of Croyland and Lincolnshire or of St. Albans. The Wars of the Roses seemed to have left them untouched. Henry VI was too orthodox to allow his men much license, and Edward IV never showed any ill feeling against the monks. Monasteries indeed exercised a wholesome influence in moderating the rigor of civil war. It was in the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey that Edward's wife, Queen Elizabeth, took refuge when her husband had to flee the country in 1470, and it was while in sanctuary that the queen gave birth to a son, the ill-fated Edward V. After the two battles of St. Albans, the monastery of that town offered a Christian burial to the dead. After the battle of Tuxbury, the Abbey there performed a similar pious duty and was able even to save the lives of the less distinguished of the fugitives who sought for sanctuary. The monks of the time seemed to have led a life to which little objection could be taken. They are known to have been charitable towards strangers and poor people. They performed their religious services and helped out the parochial system. But their usefulness in the 15th century cannot be placed very high. The historians of Croyland and St. Albans have nothing to say about the monks's intellectual accomplishments, about their industry, learning or teaching. They have very little indeed to say about their religious life at all. The monks were interested in the political events of the time. An occasional visit from the king excited them. But the domestic questions to judge from the chronicles which interested them most intimately were bound up with their endowments. They had to be very wary or some skilful and unscrupulous man at court might get a conveyance of some of the monastic land. They had to be careful to safeguard their exemptions from the statute of Mortmain. They had to keep an eye upon the privy council. The truth is, probably, that the monasteries were no longer very wealthy. It was difficult for them to adjust themselves to the changing conditions of agriculture. They did not get the pick of the population for the most enterprising men preferred the great and popular callings of the soldier, the lawyer and the merchant. The monks were out of the mainstream of national life. They did little to justify their existence. They neglected their opportunities for instance of becoming great educational centers for which they were well fitted. The need for education was supplied by the great colleges of secular, not monastic, priests founded by Henry VI, Eaton and King's College. Just as in the previous century, William Wickham had turned aside from the monastic system for his noble educational foundations of Winchester and New College. The Wars of the Roses were fought chiefly under the influence of the barons, who with their retainers formed the bulk of every small army that fought in the battles. The number of barons was not high, although their property, taken all together, was very large. In the time of Edward I, the dignity of a baron seems to have depended on his receiving a summons to parliament. But from about the year 1446, barony by patent superseded barony by writ. Thus the highest number of barons existing at one time in the reign of Henry VI was probably 67 or 68. But the number in parliament varied, for during the Wars of the Roses, the king naturally did not summon his enemies who were in the field. The average number of barons summoned in the reign of Henry VI was about 48 or 49. The largest number summoned by Edward IV at one time was 50. It would be difficult to draw up lists showing the lords of the Lancastrian and Yorkist parties respectively, for the same family was not always on the same side. For instance, the Lord Audley, who was killed fighting for Lancastre at the Battle of Bloor Heath in 1459, was succeeded by his son, a Yorkist Lord Audley, a companion of Warwick and Edward of March at Calais in 1460. Another Lord, the Earl of Devonshire, supported Richard of York in the critical year of 1452, but is found fighting for King Henry VI at the First Battle of St. Albans in 1455. However, such instances are rare. On the whole, noble families remained consistent in their attachments. I saw, wrote Philippe de Comines in his memoirs, the Duke of Exeter, but he concealed his name. Following the Duke of Burgundy's train, Barefoot and Barelegged begging for his bread from door to door, this person was the next of the House of Lancastre and had married King Edward's sister. Although like Sir Rafe Percy they sometimes made terms with the enemy, yet they generally returned to the old attachment, they saved the bird in their bosom. It has often been said that the Wars of the Roses were a series of factious fights between great barons, yet the Yorkist party, which was ultimately victorious, numbered much fewer barons than the Lancastrian. The Yorkist king could not have won if he had only had his baronial supporters. Other classes had opinions and made them felt, the middle classes held ultimately the balance of power. A majority of the peers undoubtedly supported the Lancastrian cause. The Yorkist peers included many barons but their opponents had most of the higher ranks of nobility. Thus among the Lancastrians were the Duke of Somerset, Beaufort, the Duke of Exeter, Holland, the Duke of Buckingham, Stafford, the Earls of Northumberland, Percy, Westmoreland, Neville, Pembroke, Tudor, Shrewsbury, Talbot, Oxford, Devere, Devonshire, Courtney, Wiltshire, Butler. The Yorkist list is much shorter. It included two dukes, Norfolk and Suffolk, but few Earls. The chief are Salisbury and Warwick, that's Neville, Essex, Berchere, Worcester, Tiptoft, and Arendelle, Fitzallan. Among barons, the Lancastrians had a strong majority. Chief among these were Lord Clifford, Ruse, Beaumont, Lyle, Stanley, Hungerford, Lovell, Rivers, Wells. The chief Yorkist barons were the Lords Bonville, Sturton, Scroop, Lumley, and several Marcher Lords with the addition of some baronies which were in the families of the Earls of Essex and Salisbury. It cannot be said that any part of the country was definitely Lancastrian or Yorkist. In practically every county, both parties were represented. The Yorkists were very strong on the Welsh March, especially in the centre, where were the greatest states belonging to the Earldom of March, to which Richard, Duke of York, had succeeded. There he had the castles of Ludlow and Wigmore. But the Lancastrians were also strong in Wales, for in the north they had the Earldom of Chester, held by the Crown, and in the south they had the Lordship of Monmouth, belonging to the House of Lancaster, and the Tudor Earldom of Pembroke. In the north of England, the Duke of York had the Lordship of Wakefield, with the Great Castle of Sandle nearby, while the Earldom of Warwick had the Castle of Middlem. But the Lancastrian party was even stronger, for the Earldom of Northumberland had greatest states, both in Northumberland and in Yorkshire. Another Lancastrian, Lord Clifford, had his seat at Skipton, and the Earldom of Westmoreland, also Lancastrian, controlled a great part of the country from which he took his title. In the east there were the powerful Yorkist Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, but Lincoln had the Lancastrian Lord Wells, along with the Yorkist Lord Cromwell. Essex had the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford, but the Yorkist Earl of Essex, although he had not his chief interest there, was not without property and influence. Even in Norfolk and Suffolk, there was a great deal of Lancastrian interest held by Lord Mullins and others. In the south the two parties were mingled. Kent, partly owing to the interest of Lord Cobham, was Yorkist, and the Earl of Arundel, Yorkist, was strong in Sussex. But curiously enough, so was the Lancastrian House of Percy at Petworth. The Beaufort family had estates in Dorset and Somerset, the Earl of Devonshire in Devon, but the Yorkist Earl of Salisbury had estates in Dorset as well as in Wiltshire. In the Midlands the two parties must have been fairly equally balanced. The Earl of Warwick had the castle of that name, but attached to the Duchy of Lancaster, held by Henry VI, were many castles, honours and manners, gathered everywhere over the Midlands. The truth is that the great families of England had so frequently intermarried, that nearly every noble house which survived had ceased to be purely local, and now held estates and much local influence in widely different parts of the country. Any coloured map of England accurately showing all the distribution of Yorkist and Lancastrian estates would be a bewildering mosaic. The wealth of the barons during the Wars of the Roses was undoubtedly large. It is to be judged from the size of their households rather than from the amount of their incomes. It is very difficult to ascertain the value of money in the 15th century as compared with that of the present day. Then five hundred pounds was considered to be a sufficient income for a baron, so it may be supposed that money was much scarcer in those days and that its purchasing power was at least ten times greater than today. The households of the nobility were on a grand scale, from the kings, which numbered over five hundred inmates, and cost thirteen thousand pounds annually, down to a baron which had twenty-five people and cost five hundred pounds. But many lords must have been a great deal wealthier, owing to their accumulation of the titles and estates of extinct families. It was this that made the barons a danger to order in England. There were too few of them, and their holdings in land were too great in proportion to the rest of the population. It has been estimated that the population of England in 1485 was about three millions. Yet while the population had been steadily increasing since the Black Death of 1349 and 50, the numbers of the baronage had been getting smaller. New creations were comparatively few, while the extinction of noble families through war and other causes was fairly common. The lands of extinct families were generally absorbed into some other house, either through intermarriage or by grant of the king. Thus the land collectively held by the baronage was not diminishing. In the first half of the 15th century, it tended to increase, owing to grants out of the crown lands. So it came about that in the Wars of the Roses, a comparatively small number of lords held a large amount of land. The individual barons were too powerful, having almost the influence of kings in their great domains. For this reason, although the middle classes really held the balance of power within the kingdom, particular barons were enormously powerful and exercised an influence out of all proportion to the numbers of their class. It was not until the tutors began the long series of wise promotions from among the country gentry that the number of barons assumed once more a due proportion toward the other classes in the kingdom. The type of a great baron during the Wars of the Roses is of course the Earl of Warwick, picked out by Lytton to exemplify the last of the barons. He was indeed typical by reason of his wealth, his titles, his relatives. So magnificent was he in his housekeeping that at his table, it is said, six entire oxen were consumed every day. His retainers were numerous and any of their friends could share in the Earl's roasts and take away as much as could be carried on a long dagger. Wherever the Earl of Warwick happened to be living at the time, the neighborhood taverns never lacked meat. He was wealthy not only because of his estates, but by reason of the high offices which he held under the crown. The governorship of Calais alone was said to be worth 1,500 crowns a year. In all, in the years between 1461 and 1471, he was considered to be in the enjoyment of pensions amounting annually to 80,000 crowns. This was a revenue almost fit for a king in those days. The family of Neville furnishes a good instance of the accumulation of lands and titles. Warwick himself succeeded to the great Beecham estates and the title of Earl of Warwick in 1449 through his wife, Anne Beecham, heiress of the last Earl. On the death of his father at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, he also became Earl of Salisbury. This earled him his father had himself acquired by marriage in 1425 with Alice, only child of Thomas the Montecute, Fourth Earl of Salisbury. Warwick's three uncles, brothers of Salisbury, were also barons. William was Baron Falkenburg through his marriage about the year 1424 to Joan, heiress of the last Baron Falkenburg of Skelton Castle, Yorkshire. Edward was Baron Burgaveni through his marriage with Elizabeth, sole heiress of that barony, which carried with it estates in the valley of the usk. George was Baron Latimer, a peerage which had been in the Neville family for two generations but which had come to it by marriage. To these five peerages of the Yorkist Nevels must be added the barony of Montague, granted to Warwick's brother John in 1461. Another brother George was Archbishop of York. The ramifications of this wonderful family did not end here, for the elder branch held the earldom of Westmoreland all through the Wars of the Roses, generally supporting the Lancastrian cause. Yet the Nevels were not the only family with almost royal power in England. The purses with their estates in Northumberland, Yorkshire, and Sussex were almost equally powerful. They had the advantage too of greater concentration, for they had not branched out into different lines like the Nevels. It is their feud or private war with the Salisbury Nevels, one of whose seats was at Middleham in Yorkshire in 1449, that is taken by William of Worcester as the actual starting point of the Wars of the Roses. In the 15th century a great lord lived like a king. He went with his enormous household from one castle to another, living at each place upon the produce of his estates. The style of housekeeping in a lord's castle is compared by Bishop Stubbs to that of a college at the present day. The number of servants was numerous, the food consumed was on a grand scale, officials of good education and standing looked after the proper collection of rents and dues, the repair of buildings, the reception and distribution of food supplies. The accounts of a great lord were like those of a small kingdom. A regular staff of clerks was maintained to keep them properly. Every item was carefully entered in the right place. The seal of the lord was necessary to complete every important transaction unless anything should go amiss, all accounts were audited quarterly. The register of John of Gaunt has been edited and published giving a vivid idea of the elaborate, complex and carefully managed system of a great medieval landholder. If the accounts of the Percy's or Nevels were published, they would show a similar great system. A high and wealthy nobleman of the Lancastrian period had in his estates and houses to learn the business of a public administrator and treasurer. This is why in the Middle Ages it was possible for a noble suddenly to be made constable or treasurer of England. It was no new work to him, only on a somewhat bigger scale than what he had already known. This state of things was not without certain advantages for the country at large. The noble was a man trained in the habits of business, with some knowledge of the law as well as of military science. His household was a school where youths of good birth might learn manners and something of business too. The estates, carefully administered, maintained large numbers of well-to-do tenants, the famous yeoman of the wars between England and France. But the influence of the Lord as a center of social life was greatly misused when he took to distributing his honorable badge to all manner of men who had no claim, either as his tenants or as members of his household. This evil system of livery, as the wearing of a Lord's badge came to be known, spoiled all chance of law and order in the country during the Lancastrian period. Any man of lawless inclinations, disbanded soldier, hardy vagrant, highway robber, might apply for the badge of some Lord. The Lord, with an eye to civil war in the near future, might readily consent to increase the number of his clients by the easy grant of a badge. The rascal thus publicly marked as the client of the Earl of Warwick or Northumberland was protected as by a government's uniform. He had assumed a quasi-legal position under cover of which he might commit acts gravely detrimental to the public peace. Frequent statutes bear witness to the prevalence of this evil. In the reign of Henry IV it was enacted that no one should receive badges except bona fide servants or tenants of a Lord. Otherwise badges might only be worn when men were on active service on the marches. But the law was evaded and publicly flouted. The evil practice went on through the century. Edward IV did something to restrain it, but it was not until the reign of Henry VII that livery and maintenance were definitely suppressed through the agency of the star chamber. End of section 30


Hindsight is 20-20. Normally we can look back and we can see patterns or events that happen to cause a certain situation. This is especially true when we look at our own history, the history of man, the history of humanity. We can look back and see why certain wars happened or why certain events took place. And needless to say, over the last few years we have learned more and more and more about our governments and our elite. But before we go any further, you know what to do. Hit that subscribe button and give us a like. I also ask that you check out our producer Tiffany Monroe's website down below. Again, she is a Reiki master here in Atlanta and she runs a non-profit. She has courses that you can get involved with. Or if you're from out of town, you can always contact her and work something out with her privately. Welcome to SOTaric Atlanta. My name is Bryce and today we're going to talk about the death of Gellie. I have to point out that I am aware that as you're watching this, this is the day after our elections. However, I am filming this a week prior to the elections because we will actually be out of town this week. So I wanted to get all my videos done before we left. So if you're wondering why I haven't mentioned the elections and the outcome of the elections, that's why. So who was Gellie and why was her death so mysterious? Well, Gellie was the niece or the half-nice of Adolf Hitler. Gellie's mother was Adolf Hitler's older sister. Now, her mother, Hitler's older sister, was about 10 years older than Hitler. Now, as I said, Gellie was his half-nice. So that means that her mother was his half-sister, meaning that they only shared one parent. Going forward, though, I'm just going to refer to Gellie as his niece. In my opinion, I don't really think it matters if you're half or whole. That just never really made sense to me. If you share a parent, then that's your sibling. Now, it is well known that Hitler was estranged from his family. However, as time was running up to his election, that fateful election, he started to communicate again with his older half-sister. Angela, Hitler's sister, had two daughters, one of whom obviously was Gellie. Gellie was born on the 4th of June, 1908. Now, when Gellie was only two years old, her father died. Her mother ran some boarding houses and did a few jobs here and there to support Gellie and her sister without the income of her husband. However, in 1925, fate took over and Hitler asked his sister, Angela, to come to Munich with her two daughters and work as his housekeeper. At this point, Hitler had a gorgeous nine-bedroom apartment in Munich, as well as a mountain or country home. She lived in Munich with her mother and sister when she was 17 years old. From the get-go, it became apparent to everyone around them that Hitler was obsessed with his niece, Gellie. Gellie called him Uncle Alf. I'm assuming her sister also called him Uncle Alf, but Gellie is the focus of this story. In fact, many accounts say that it creeped people out how obsessed he was with Gellie. He brought Gellie along with him everywhere he went. Not only is it weird enough that her uncle was 19 years older than her, but he was also her uncle. And when I say that Hitler brought Gellie everywhere with him, I mean literally everywhere. Gellie was at all his political meetings. He constantly took her to the movies. She was by his side the whole time. Gellie apparently took an interest in singing, and so her uncle, Alf, Alfie, decided to pay for her to have singing lessons. Now, of course, this isn't odd. I myself am an aunt, and if my niece or my nephew really wanted to take singing lessons, I would do everything I could to make that happen for them. However, this idea of singing lessons comes up later on in the story with Gellie and Adolf Hitler.  So he sent her mother away, but kept Gellie at the apartment in Munich. Around this time, too, Gellie started to develop a relationship with Hitler's chauffeur. But of course, Hitler got furious when he found out, and forced Gellie to end the relationship. This would not be the only time that Gellie would have a relationship with a man her own age and not related to her, that her uncle would end in a very jealous and possessive way. Now, rumors were starting to spread around the inner circles of Hitler's party. They feared that there were some essay going on, or A-B-U-S-E. I believe there probably was. Sorry, I can't say that word on YouTube anymore, so I will spell it out for you. But on the 18th of September of 1931, a huge argument broke out between Gellie and her uncle. It seemed that Gellie wanted to go to Vienna to study music, to give more into her singing. And she also had a man in Vienna that she wanted to marry. After the argument, Hitler left the apartment because he had to go and do a political meeting. And it was later found that Gellie was left dead in the apartment with a gunshot to her chest. Many people noted that there was also a broken nose, as if Gellie had been punched in the face. It is also believed that Gellie was possibly pregnant.  However, people do believe that if she was pregnant, it was either by Hitler himself or this man that she wanted to marry in Vienna. Either scenario was not good for Hitler. His niece carrying his own child definitely would not look good to his public image. And of course the idea of her carrying another man's baby was not something that his jealous and possessive mind could handle. Gellie was only 23 years old when she lost her life.  But many people do not believe this to be true. Many people believe that she was murdered by her uncle in a fit of rage. And a lot of occultists believe that this relationship with Gellie and her eventual death was part of a ritualistic sacrifice in order for Hitler to take the power he needed in Germany. Now, as I said in the beginning, hindsight is 20-20. And over the last few years, we've learned more about SRA or Satanic Ritual A-B-U-S-E. We now know that this type of stuff happens a lot, especially in political circles. And so this case is starting to come back up again in conversation.  For all intent and purposes, Gellie was a very happy girl. Apparently a few days before her death, she wrote a letter to a friend talking about her excitement and her joy for the future. That's not something somebody does if they're going to commit suicide. After her death, apparently, Hitler went into a huge mourning phase. He hung portraits up of Gellie all over his apartment and left her room at his apartment just as it was. Allegedly, Hitler told many people that Gellie was the only woman he'd ever loved. And later on at the Nuremberg trials, it was said that Gellie's death was the start of Hitler's inhumanity, his genocide. So knowing what we know now about these types of things with hindsight being 20-20, do you think that Gellie killed herself? Do you think her uncle murdered her in a fit of rage? Or do you think that Gellie, Hitler's most prized possession, was used as a sacrifice? Perhaps after that sacrifice, a possession took over Hitler that caused this whole global domination of the Third Reich. I know I said global domination because as we know now, the Third Reich did not end with World War II. We're dealing with these same issues even today. We've seen this mysterious laptop from a certain family in politics and we know what's on that laptop. We know about a particular island where certain things happened. We see deaths surrounding these powerful families that cause us to scratch our head in suspicion. And we also know that within these powerful families, such things as SA, or sexual A-B-U-S-E, is rampant. So what are your thoughts and your opinions on Gellie's death? I hope that wherever Gellie is, she is resting in peace. Alright guys, I hope everybody is safe and have a wonderful day. I can imagine in the future when this video will air that this day will hopefully be of great celebration. But I don't know. We'll just have to see. If you would like to purchase our opening song, you can follow the link below. Many thanks to Josh McKay for doing our music and also many thanks to Todd Roderick for helping me produce this video. If you would like to follow Todd Roderick's and expand the Flying Mystics, please do so in the link below. Alright guys, I will talk to you soon and I hope you have a fantastically wonderful day. God bless.