Patron: Ruth Goodman

Issue 19: 2020 

OUR OBJECTS

To promote the permanent preservation of the battlefield and other sites associated with the Battle of Tewkesbury, 1471, as sites of historic interest, to the benefit of the public generally. To promote the educational possibilities of the battlefield and associated sites, particularly in relation to medieval history. To promote, for public benefit, research into matters associated with the sites, and to publish the useful results of such research. OUR AIMS

Working with the owners of the many sites associated with the battle of Tewkesbury, the Society will raise public awareness of the events of the battle and promote the sites as an integrated educational resource. We will encourage tourism and leisure activities by advertising, interpretation and presentation in connection with the sites. We will collate research into the battle and encourage further research, making the results publicly available through a variety of media. In pursuing our objects we will work alongside a variety of organisations in Tewkesbury and throughout the world. We will initiate projects and assist with fundraising and managing them as required. We aim to be the Authority on the battle and battle sites.

CONTENTS

2020 2 2021 3 Sir Henry Grey of Codnor 5 War with the German Confederation 11 Tewkesbury Register, 1876 14 Sanctuary Seekers 15 Tewkesbury Museum Diorama 16 Bewdley and Edward IV 19 Nibley Green – England’s last Private Battle 20 It’s Gotta be ‘round ‘ere Somewhere 22 Battle Relics in King’s Lynn 24 Feigned Retreat at the Battle of Tewkesbury 25 Gupshill Manor 32 The Escape from Tewkesbury 33 A False trail to a knight 36 A European Dimension 37 Leaflets and sales 41

1 (Back to Contents)

2020

No summary of 2020 can start without saying that it’s been a strange year, and indeed it has. Almost everything we do in the Society has been affected in one way or another. Only the monthly walks have been rescued, but even those have been restricted, with pre-booking required. Our primary concern, though, is about 2021. A lot of planning has gone into events for the year, led by the Abbey which has its own anniversary. Some have already been abandoned and the year has shrunk to the months between April and October, when the Abbey was consecrated. Clive Montellier details our hopes for the year below.

On the positive side, we’ve used the enforced period of inactivity to look at what we do and are making some fundamental changes.

First, we have a new Chair, the first change since the Society was formed, with Richard Goddard taking over the baton.

Second, we’re about to launch a new website, which will be much better tailored, we hope, towards the needs of the users, with much more, and more interesting, content; a ‘one-stop shop’ for the battle and battlefield.

Third, we’ve taken the decision to revolutionise our membership arrangements. There will, in future, be no fees for membership. Recognising that almost all our members use the internet nowadays we will be using it as our main method of communication, whist still providing paper versions for members who are not computer users. We will still, of course, welcome donations to support our membership services. We hope that by this means we will attract more members and an international membership, which can only be good for the Society.

This is a big change but we’re confident that it is a sensible move and a natural progression. It is appropriate that for 2021 we move into a new era to face the new challenges. We hope that you will support us in this.

2 (Back to Contents) 2021

Clive Montellier reviews some of the projects which we’re looking at to commemorate the anniversary of the battle.

It won’t have escaped members’ attention that 2021 marks the 550th anniversary of the Battle, along with the 900th anniversary of the consecration of Tewkesbury Abbey.

Rather than try to organize one all-embracing multi-tentacled event, groups from across the Town are engaging to put together a programme of smaller events to mark this significant year, and the Society’s committee has been giving some thought to a combination of one-off and lasting projects to make our mark.

Plans are still evolving, and because of the problems brought by covid, some might come to fruition after the year itself, but on the basis that a signature anniversary is just the time to launch ambitious, ideas so we’re aiming to get them all moving at the very least.

Already coming to life is a conference, to be held on the anniversary weekend, on Saturday 1 May 2021 in the Watson Hall. There are no shortages of Wars of the Roses themed conferences these days, so this one will aim to be unique to Tewkesbury and feature speakers who have something to say not just about the Battle itself but also about the business of preservation and interpretation which is our raison d’etre.

We couldn’t have a conference about the Battle so close to the Battlefield itself without including a tour, so that will be the feature event for Sunday 2 May, linking in with the ‘Armour in the Abbey’ event for those who really want to make a weekend of it.

Staying with the theme of physical exploration of the Battlefield site, there are (now) longer-term plans for a waymarked walk to follow the route of the Lancastrian Army between Gloucester and Tewkesbury alongside the Severn, with a ‘return’ route following footpaths which predate the current A38, which will be an excellent opportunity to stretch the legs and see the landscape from an entirely fresh perspective.

3 (Back to Contents) As a more lasting symbol of the anniversary, we are hoping to erect another piece of public sculpture to complement the Arrivall horses which have proved such a successful and popular addition to the townscape. In contrast to the monumental and majestic horses, though, we aim to make the next piece much more personal, featuring one of history’s often overlooked influential women, in the shape of Margaret of Anjou. The chosen site for a new installation are on Windmill Hill, adjacent to the present Borough Council offices (from where it is eminently possible Margaret watched the Battle unfold). We have put our proposals to the Borough Council for their support to allow us to begin fundraising in earnest.

Also in partnership with the Borough Council, alongside the team at the Gupshill Manor, is a plan to develop a small visitors’ centre in a former garage alongside the pub to make a gateway to the Battlefield, hopefully in conjunction with a new right of way through the brewery’s land behind the pub, offering a much more atmospheric entrance to the Gastons than the current access from the Gloucester Road, which will be part of a long term project to create a ‘heritage park’ around the registered battlefield.

On the subject of Battlefield access, we are building on the recent successful Alleys ‘app’ to develop a virtual Battlefield tour for those who can’t make one of our regular guided walks. With GPS-based technology becoming more and more straightforward to use, what would once have been a major, complex and expensive undertaking is now something we can not only develop but also maintain quite easily, and we certainly have a wealth of information in our tour scripts to put to use. This project is developing well, as it is something which is lockdown immune.

Finally, 2021 will, we hope, also see a focussed metal-detector exploration of the remaining Gaston fields themselves by one of the country’s leading Battlefield analysts. A proposal is inbound to the Tewkesbury Educational Trust who, as owners of the fields, would be the principal stakeholders, but we are standing by to provide context and lead on fundraising for the work if it gains approval.

So, a busy year ahead, Covid permitting. We remain a small band on the Committee, so anyone keen to join in the effort to bring any or all of these projects to fruition would be most welcome!

4 (Back to Contents) Sir Henry Grey, 7th Baron Grey of Codnor (1435 – 1496)

While manning the Society’s stall at the Tewkesbury Medieval Festival a while ago, a member of the public informed us that, “Sir Henry Grey of Condor didn’t have balls”.

On polite enquiry we ascertained that the gentleman was referring to the coat of arms of Sir Henry Grey of Codnor which appears in our book ‘The Street Banners of Tewkesbury’. There we had shown Sir Henry’s coat of arms as; six alternate horizontal stripes of white and blue with three red balls across the top. When, according to our informer, there should have been only the horizontal stripes and, no balls. We thanked him for his observations and assured him we would look into the matter further after the festival. Subsequent research revealed that he was indeed correct. What we had done was to incorrectly attribute the three red balls to the senior branch of the family from Codnor and it was the later, junior, branches that had them.

Barry of six Argent and Azure, in Barry of six Argent and Azure chief three torteaux Gules

We have subsequently corrected the illustration in our book. But having started researching Sir Henry Grey of Codnor more information came to

5 (Back to Contents) light and he turned out to be, like so many of his contemporaries, a more interesting character than at first appeared.

Sir Henry was born in 1435 on the Codnor Castle estate which is located north of the river Trent near Ripley, Derbyshire. This land had been held by the de Grey family since 1200. He was the only child of Sir Henry Grey, the 6th Baron of Codnor, and his wife Margaret Percy, daughter of Lord Henry Percy of Athol.

When his father died in 1444 our Sir Henry became the 7th Baron of Codnor, but as he was only nine years old was a minor and could not legally run the estate which was his inheritance. Therefore he was placed as a ward to John, Viscount Beaumont. It was he who then controlled and probably profited from the Codnor estate until Henry came of age.

In 1454 Sir Henry married Catherine Strangeways, a daughter of Sir Thomas Strangeways and Katherine Neville. This marriage was childless.

Later at the age of 26, the now established 7th Lord Grey of Codnor fought for the Lancastrians at the 2nd battle of St. Albans on February 17th 1461. Leading his retinue, and men from the Codnor estate, they joined a 25,000 strong force commanded by Sir Henry Beaufort, the Duke of Somerset. The Yorkist forces opposing them, were led by the Earl of Warwick. He had deployed his men badly and they were soon out-manoeuvred and driven from the town. King Henry VI, who had been held captive by the Yorkists, was then freed to once more be the Lancastrian claimant to the throne.

On March 29th, 1462 Sir Henry reaffirmed his Lancastrian loyalties when he again took his men to fight in what was to be the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil, the battle of Towton in Yorkshire. This time he was on the losing side and was among the many Lancastrian supporters who were captured. Forty-two of his fellow knights were executed after the battle. Sir Henry was eventually granted a royal pardon and then swore an oath of allegiance to the new King, Edward IV. This then put Sir Henry on the winning side and he was allowed to keep his title and estates. As for the King he now had a knight who came from a family whose reputation to previous monarchs had been as loyal servants and formidable soldiers in times of war.

6 (Back to Contents) In 1463 Sir Henry Grey was licensed by King Edward to; “labour by the cunning of philosophy into the transmutation of metals, at his own cost, but he should answer to the king if any profit grew from it”. Sir Henry was obviously wealthy enough to finance various experiments. These may have included the smelting of various metals or even attempts to turning base metal into gold and to search for the philosopher’s stone of immortality.

A year later in 1464 Sir Henry Grey became an indentured retainer to Sir William Hastings who was the 1st Lord Hastings, Chamberlain to the Royal Household, Master of the Mint and a Privy Councillor. To sign such an indenture with a more powerful man was a common practice in the 15th century. This was a mutual arrangement of support and protection. Which roughly translated as; I’ll fight for you if you will speak for me.

For many years the Greys had been involved in long-running dispute with the Vernons of Haddon Hall. This had centred around the intimidation of electors in Derby. Inevitably this led to clashes between the family’s respective retinues, involving maybe as many as 500 men. Eventually this turned into a local power struggle and an inter-family feud. Violence erupted again in 1467 when Lord Grey’s retinue clashed with that of the Earl of Shrewsbury’s. One of the casualties of this clash was Roger Vernon, esquire of Belper and uncle to Sir Henry Vernon of Haddon Hall. Further fighting ensued, said to have been at Codnor Castle itself. This was so extensive that the King set up a Commission of Oyer and Terminer to look into the cause of the unrest and to take action against those involved. The commission was headed by the King’s brother George, Duke of Clarence and supported by his brother-in-law the Earl Rivers and Sir William, Lord Hastings. As a result of this, early in 1468, both the Greys and the Vernons were bound over in the sum of £1,000 each to keep the King’s peace. This was an attempt to stop them intimidating the witnesses and jurors of the commission itself. The commission came to no clear verdict as the Duke of Clarence sided with the Vernons, and Sir William Hastings sided with Grey. This was not really surprising as Grey was one of his indentured retainers. It obviously paid to have friends in high places.

In 1470 King Edward IV was driven into exile to Burgundy by the political manoeuvrings of the Earl of Warwick. On the King’s return in 1471 his closest supporter, Sir William Lord Hastings, called on his indentured retainers to gather their fighting forces. He raised over 3,000 men,

7 (Back to Contents) including those of Sir Henry Grey of Codnor. These forces then fought in two major battles that year. First being the battle of Barnet, on April 14th, where the Earl of Warwick was killed, and then the battle of Tewkesbury, on May 4th, where Edward Prince of Wales, the last Lancastrian claimant to the throne, died.

After these battles, King Edward IV awarded Sir Henry Grey £100, “for bringing unto us a great number of men defensibly arrayed at his own cost and charge”.

Later in 1471 Sir Henry had further dealings with the King when he was summoned before the Star Chamber and questioned about his links with rioters in Nottingham. These riots had been organised against the Lord Mayor and City Corporation in an attempt to gain control over the position of Sheriff of Nottingham. After Lord Hastings had spoken in Sir Henry’s defence the King merely gave Sir Henry a warning that in future he should not favour or maintain any malefactors in the city of Nottingham. Again, it paid to have friends, especially in the form of Lord Hastings, in high places.

When in 1475 King Edward IV decided to re-open the English claim on the French throne he attempted to organise a military force to support his claim. Sir Henry loyally answered the call by offering himself along with ten fully armed men-at-arms and one hundred and fifty-five archers. In the end, due to financial restraints, the King could not mount a full-scale invasion, but he did force the French into peace negotiations which culminated in King Edward signing the Treaty of Picquigny with the French King.

After the death of his first wife Katherine, in 1477 Sir Henry married Margaret Stanley. She was a daughter of Sir Thomas Stanley, 1st Lord Stanley of Knowlesley and a sister of Sir William Stanley, who had become a major power in Cheshire and north Wales during the Wars of the Roses. This marriage also proved childless.

The governance of Ireland had always been a problem for the medieval Kings of England. They generally allowed the Anglo-Irish nobility to run the country with only nominal intervention from the English crown. But by 1478 King Edward was alarmed at the power held by the Deputy Lieutenant of Ireland, Sir Gerald Fitzgerald, 8th Earl of Kildare, so he dismissed him. He then decided that Sir Henry Grey, 7th Baron Grey of

8 (Back to Contents) Codnor was the best man to replace him. Sadly, for Sir Henry, the Irish lords did not share this opinion and to show their displeasure they united against him. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Baron Portlester, refused him the use of the Great Seal, thus making it impossible for him to authorise any acts of government. He was also denied the use of Dublin Castle. Customarily this was the seat of the Deputy Lieutenant, but the constable of the castle refused him entry. And when Sir Henry attempted to hold a session of parliament at Trim the sheriffs of Dublin and Louth refused to co-operate and the whole process collapsed into chaos. Within a year these Irish lords had made his position so untenable that he could not impose any form of authority. Eventually he had to return to England and report his failure to the King.

When in 1483 Edward IV died his brother, as Richard III, took the throne. Sir Henry was invited to attend Richard’s coronation and to ensure his service to the new crown was granted estates in Norfolk, Suffolk and Rutland, these increased his income by just over £266 per year. Sir Henry then demonstrated his loyalty by helping to put down a rebellion against Richard that was raised in the name of the Duke of Buckingham. In 1484 Sir Henry was serving as Joint Commissioner of Array for Derbyshire, Sussex and Kent. The following year he assembled the fighting men from his estate and joined King Richard’s army to fight against the forces of Henry Tudor, Duke of Richmond.

The battle was fought at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485 and resulted in Sir Henry being captured, King Richard III being killed and England gaining its first Tudor monarch.

In an attempt to maintain stability in the country the new King, Henry VII, offered a pardon to many who fought against him. For the second time in his life Sir Henry accepted a pardon from a new King, swore another oath of allegiance and was then reconfirmed in his titles and offices. Later in 1487 he was given a royal appointment, which was to run for twenty years, as Commissioner of the King’s Mines. This gave him royal permission to search for gold, silver, copper, tin and lead anywhere in the country.

In 1492, at the age of 57, Sir Henry married for the third time. This time his bride was Katherine Stourton, the widow of Sir William Berkeley of Beverston, Gloucestershire and daughter of Sir William Stourton, 2nd

9 (Back to Contents) Baron Stourton. Maybe this was a last attempt to produce a legitimate heir for his branch of the Grey family, sadly it was not to be.

Even so Sir Henry had fathered at least three illegitimate sons during his lifetime, Henry, Richard and another Henry, but none of them succeeded him. But he did acknowledge them during his lifetime and made generous provision for them in his Will.

Sir Henry died during Easter 1496 at the age of 61 and was buried on his estate at Aylesford. With no legitimate heir, the title Baron of Codnor fell into abeyance and remained so until 1989. Prior to his death Sir Henry had made arrangements for his aunt Elizabeth’s husband, Sir John Zouch, to purchase his estate. That branch of the Zouch family lived at Codnor castle from 1496 until 1634, during which time they made extensive alterations to the castle and grounds. In recent years this site has been the subject of an episode in the television series ‘Time Team’ during which numerous phases of the castle’s development were unearthed and recorded.

So, what started out as looking for the lost balls Sir Henry Grey in the long grass of history has revealed that he was far more than just another knight who fought at the Battle of Tewkesbury.

The House of Grey: The story of a Medieval Dynasty

If you want to learn more about then wider Grey family, Melita Thomas has recently had a book published which charts their story, from Lord Grey of Ruthin’s disputes with Owain Glyndwr through to the tragic end of Lady Jane Grey. (Amberley Publishing; ISBN 9781445684970)

Strangely, if you search for the book on the Internet, Tudor times shows a cover with a coat of arms with no balls, but the same cover on the Amazon site includes balls. Take your pick!

10 (Back to Contents)

War with the German Confederation

We focus a great deal on relationships with France and Burgundy, but largely because of Neville interests and actions England was also fighting on another front, in a war with the Hanseatic League.

From the eleventh century, German merchants began to dominate trade in the northern seas. Unlike England, the Holy Roman Empire had very weak central government and free cities developed, nominally under the overlordship of the provincial lord but in practice self-governing and self- sustaining, all using a model town Charter first granted to Lubeck by Henry the Lion, known as the ‘Lubeck Law’. These cities were much more nimble than the nations which surrounded them. Their government consisted of a council of twenty burghers and four Bürgermeisters, who shared mayoral duties. They thrived on trade and formed a loose association known through history as the Hanseatic League. (A Hanse was a group of travelling traders; the word is still with us in ‘Lufthansa’).

The cities developed trade routes over the centuries and established themselves in non-Hansa sea ports, gaining privileges over taxes and residence. In England, the dominant trade was wool to Flanders but trading into the Baltic and to Scandinavia grew in importance. The principal ports were Boston, (King’s) Lynn, Hull, Southampton and London. In all these places, there were resident colonies of German merchants, known as ‘Easterlings’.

Times changed and the English began to develop their own merchant skills and their own merchant shipping. The men of Lynn in particular were exploring the Baltic and their share in trade to Danzig (Gdansk) in particular grew greatly, to the extent that they had a permanent presence there and an onward distribution network. Try as they might, they couldn’t negotiate the same privileges as the Easterlings had in England. Resentment grew, and in 1447 Henry VI revoked all Hansa privileges in England.

Among his other interests, the Earl of Warwick was a competent seaman. He had ships which traded around Europe and even his own flagship man-of-war, the Trinity. The Newport Ship is likely to have been in his fleet. In the uneasy period between St Albans and Towton, he saw

11 (Back to Contents) opportunities to make mischief, and a profit. Despite the existence of the wool staple, which gave Calais exclusive rights over wool export, Queen Margaret had issued licences to Italian traders to evade the monopoly. To huge acclaim, he captured three of their ships which were loading at ports near Calais and took them off to loot. Despite protestations, no action was taken against him.

In 1458, he raised the stakes higher by intercepting a group of Hanseatic ships sailing to the Baltic laden with salt. When they declined to dip their flags to the Captain of Calais his fleet attacked and captured them, taking them into port to dispose of the cargo. This action played to the growing xenophobia in England, where the popularity of the Easterlings was already low. Peace talks in Hamburg failed, with England refusing to pay any compensation.

1468 saw an unrelated incident precipitating a state of war. Merchants from Lynn and Bristol murdered the Danish Governor of Iceland. In retaliation, the Danish King commissioned privateers from Danzig to attack a fleet of six ships sailing through the Oresund into the Baltic. The two ships from Lynn were held and the others released. However, one of the others was a Neville ship, and the opportunity for mischief was not to be missed. Despite the Hansa protestations that they were not involved, Warwick saw to it that Hanseatic assets in England were seized and a demand for £20,000 compensation was made. The Hanse held a council in Lubeck, declared war on England and imposed a trade boycott. It seems surprising that with all the other distractions of the time that England could pursue such a war, but they did. In 1471, the Hansa played a small part to support King Edward’s return from Flanders. They provided fourteen ships in return for a promise of privileges (which was reneged upon).

Military engagements, at sea, were inconclusive but England lost the economic war. They could not afford the losses to the Baltic pirates who were set loose on them or the blockades of their traditional trade routes. In 1474, the Treaty of Utrecht ended the hostilities. King Edward was in a sensitive position because of his need to clear the way for a war with France and to maintain good relations with the merchants of Flanders, controlled by Duke Charles of Burgundy and gave concessions that disadvantaged the English merchants, the Merchant Adventurers.

12 (Back to Contents) The treaty negotiated between the League and England restored Hanseatic privileges in the Port of London, including immunity from the Tunnage and Poundage levy. It not only restored their property in the ports they traded from but where it was leased they were granted the freehold. Londoners rioted in the streets in protest. It was undoubtedly a defeat for England. It took a hundred years for English merchants to gain a foothold in Germany, and trade to the Baltic never reached its earlier levels.

In Kings Lynn there is a warehouse which was built in 1475, on land given to the Easterlings as a condition of this treaty. This is the only physical evidence of the Hanseatic League remaining in England.

The Hanseatic London headquarters was known as the ‘Steelyard’. This was a walled community with its own warehouses on the river, its own weighing house, chapel, counting houses, a guildhall, cloth halls, wine cellars, kitchens, and residential quarters. It was populated by merchants principally from Danzig and Cologne. The site was destroyed in the Great fire of London. It was on the north bank close to Blackfriars Bridge and is now occupied by Cannon Street Station.

13 (Back to Contents) From The Tewkesbury Register, and Agricultural Gazette. - Saturday 29 April 1876

“Two interesting discoveries have been made this week in the Abbey. Near the foot of a pillar north-west of the tower, the workmen turned up the upper portion of a coffin lid, on which was still remaining the greater part of a tilting helmet, on which the head of a monumental effigy formerly rested. The colour remains upon the unmutilated portion of this, and it has been suggested that this part represents the Prince of Wales' plume as it used to be delineated in mediaeval times. If this be so, then the coffin which it covered was certainly that of the unfortunate Prince who was slain so cruelly after the Battle of Tewkesbury.

It was also thought desirable that the Clarence vault should be opened before the commencement of arrangements for laying the new pavement. On removing the large slab behind the altar, a flight of steps was disclosed leading into a vault with a depressed arched roof, and measuring 9 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 6 feet 4 inches high. The pavement of this vault consists of encaustic tiles, and in the centre a long cross is formed of heraldic designs, some of the coats of arms not having been previously discovered in the Abbey.

On the southern side of the vault is a stone coffin containing a large portion of two skeletons, the skull of one of which is perfect. These are supposed to be the remains of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence which were found heaped together in a corner of the vault about 40 years ago, and were placed in the stone coffin which was removed there from another part of the church on purpose.

The vault itself is perfectly dry, but the coffin was found nearly full of very clear and pellucid water. The vault has not been opened for 40 years. How the water came into the coffin is a puzzling question. One theory is that the flood of 1852 percolated through the crown of the vault, and flooded the floor to a sufficient height to fill the coffin; that the floor has since been drained dry, but the water has not had opportunity of passing away either by drainage or evaporation. Another theory refers the circumstance to the irony of fate, which has decreed that the bones of the bibulous Duke who chose to be drowned in a butt of wine, have now to repose in the purer but less generous fluid by way of penance.”

14 (Back to Contents) Sanctuary Seekers

Sanctuary is a topic which often comes up in discussions about the later Wars of the Roses, and the whole subject is mired in mystery, not helped by the alternative versions of events from later propogandists.

Shannon McSheffrey is a historian at Concordia University and author of several studies of medieval life. Her latest is ‘Seeking Sanctuary: Crime, Mercy, and Politics in English Courts, 1400-1550’. This isn’t a cheap book.

The OUP synopsis says: ‘Seeking Sanctuary explores a curious aspect of premodern English law: the right of felons to shelter in a church or ecclesiastical precinct, remaining safe from arrest and trial in the king's courts. This is the first volume in more than a century to examine sanctuary in England in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Looking anew at this subject challenges the prevailing assumptions in the scholarship that this 'medieval' practice had become outmoded and little- used by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Although for decades after 1400 sanctuary-seeking was indeed fairly rare, the evidence in the legal records shows the numbers of felons seeing refuge in churches began to climb again in the late fifteenth century and reached its peak in the period between 1525 and 1535. Sanctuary was not so much a medieval practice accidentally surviving into the early modern era, as it was an organism that had continued to evolve and adapt to new environments and indeed flourished in its adapted state. Sanctuary suited the early Tudor regime: it intersected with rapidly developing ideas about jurisdiction and provided a means of mitigating the harsh capital penalties of the English law of felony that was useful not only to felons but also to the crown and the political elite. Sanctuary's resurgence after 1480 means we need to rethink how sanctuary worked, and to reconsider more broadly the intersections of culture, law, politics, and religion in the years between 1400 and 1550.’

However, without buying the book it is possible to discover a great deal about the subject on the ‘Sanctuary Seekers’ website, https://sanctuaryseekers.ca/, which looks at hundreds of cases between 1394 and 1557. The account of Edward’s actions at Tewkesbury could be challenged, but that’s a matter of interpretation.

15 (Back to Contents)

Tewkesbury Museum Diorama

2021 will mark the 50th anniversary of the much-admired model of the Battle of Tewkesbury which is on display in the museum. It has an interesting story.

It was made as part of the quinquennial celebrations in Tewkesbury and was the centrepiece of a commemorative exhibition. Construction was led by Geoffrey Wheeler supported by members of the Richard III Society and local people. The model depicts the moments when the 200 spears charged into the Duke of Somerset’s forces. Elsewhere on the diorama other moments are depicted; the death of Lord Wenlock, the slaughter in the Bloody Meadow and the death of Prince Edward.

The museum isn’t very large, and the model needed as large an area as was possible. Space was found for a base measuring 12 ft x 6 ft. The Gupshill Manor was at the centre, and the landscape stretched to include all of the battlefield. Contours were used to create the landscape, which was transferred to the board by fixing wooden blocks for the high ground over which was fixed a layer of chicken wire covered by papier mâché made from strips of pasted newspaper. The upper layer was sprinkled with sand whilst the paste was wet, which was either spray- painted green, for grass, or left as bare earth. The topographical details from the fifteenth century were researched, and the ‘Arrivall’ description of foul lanes and deep dikes and many hedges was used to create as accurate a battlefield as possible. Strips of loofah, dyed and painted, made hedges and bushes, and the same material has thatched the Gupshill Manor. Trees were made from twigs topped with fibres from shredded pot-scourers, sprayed various shades of green.

The armies were made using large quantities of Airfix HO/OO range ‘Robin Hood’ and ‘Sheriff of Nottingham’ series figures. Over 2,000 were used. As there were a limited range of figures they had to repeat many times, and the modellers’ concern was to avoid ‘serried ranks’ of identical figures. They set about the incredibly painstaking task of altering figures by cutting them at the waist or amputating limbs and gluing them back on again at different angles, or even on different bodies, to vary the pose. Special attention was paid to the leaders and other important knights. Whole new figures were created for heralds, drummers and 16 (Back to Contents) trumpeters. Horses underwent the same surgery, particularly to create the falling and dying horses at the forefront of the cavalry charge. Figures were then, again painstakingly, painted in the livery colours of their leaders and all fixed into position on the base.

Not content with this level of work, the modellers added one hundred and twenty standards and banners, carefully painted in miniature and displayed on poles made of long and strong bristles. For identification, a set of framed charts, again beautifully painted, were provided and hung in the room.

An illustration from the 1971 Tewkesbury Festival souvenir leaflet, showing the then Town Clerk, Ken Smales, admiring the newly-finished battle model in the museum. Around him is the rest of the battle display. In those days it was in a room on the top floor.

The exhibition remained until local government reorganisation in 1974 brought disputes about ownership of the museum, and closure. The model was transferred to Gloucester Museum where it was put on display. It suffered, though. It had been constructed in situ on the top floor of a seventeenth century building with small doors and narrow 17 (Back to Contents) staircases. The base was far too big to manoeuvre and the decision was taken to cut it down to 8ft x 4ft. Luckily, this preserved the larger part of the battle itself, sacrificing the scenarios depicting key incidents.

In 1980, the museum reopened and reclaimed its collection, including the battle model and exhibits. It was displayed on the first floor this time, on a purpose-made base and under an acrylic cover. Since then, it has moved rooms but is substantially as it was. The ravages of time are showing a little. The landscape is looking threadbare in places and the limitations of UHU cement over time are being demonstrated with knights occasionally shedding arms or in extreme cases splitting in half at the waist. These glue failures are thankfully rare, but the time is approaching for some very painstaking conservation work.

With 2021 approaching, there are plans to refurbish and update the museum’s interpretation of the battle, taking advantage of new information and theories developed over the last fifty years, as well as some new technology, though it will be low key. The centrepiece will continue to be this magnificent model.

Bewdley and Edward IV

Bewdley, on the River Severn in North Worcestershire, was a Mortimer manor, inherited by Edward when his father died in 1460. In 1471, the manor provided archers who fought in the vanguard at Tewkesbury, under the command of the Duke of Gloucester, raining ‘right a sharp shower of arrows’ down on the Duke of Somerset.

In 1472, King Edward granted a charter of incorporation to the Town of Bewdley, granting the Freemen freedom from tolls as a reward for their service. Later, his brother, now Richard III, contributed to the building of the new stone bridge which cemented the town’s prosperity.

18 (Back to Contents)

Nibley Green: England’s Last Private Battle

Richard Goddard reports on a visit to a Nibley Green guided walk led by Adam Dolling on Saturday September 21st

The battle of Nibley Green has long been a particular interest to me. It wasn’t just the battle which drew me to site but the whole background of the Berkeley/Lisle dispute. So, when Adam Doling advertised a guided walk through the Battlefield Trust not only I but several other members from the Society decided to make it a day out.

While the battle was hardly a Wars of the Roses battle, more of a civil dispute with private armies between two families over property rights, the protagonists were not unconnected with the dynastic struggle that overshadowed the period

The battle itself was the culmination of one of the longest legal disputes in English history and began way back in 1343 when Thomas, the 3rd Baron Berkeley - having seen many noble families’ estates disappear due to plague and squabbles over titles. He enacted a legal device called an entail. In short, he gifted his estates to a trusteeship gave it straight back to him and upon his death would ensure the lands and title would pass to his chosen beneficiary. Thomas only wanted a male to inherit the title and so the Berkeley male-tail was conceived. He need not have worried as he had a son Maurice who inherited the title on his death. Maurice had been badly wounded at Poitiers but had a son Thomas who inherited the title in 1368. Thomas married Margaret Lisle and they had a daughter Elizabeth who married Richard Beauchamp the 13th Earl of Warwick. Thomas died in 1417 and in theory, through the tail-mail, the estates should have passed to the next male heir, his younger brother’s son James. However, before James was able to make a claim to the title Elizabeth and Richard had claimed the inheritance and all paperwork relating to the tail-male was lost!

James challenged the seizure through the courts and won but it meant nothing without the means to enforce the decision and the Earl had a sizeable personal army to draw upon.

19 (Back to Contents)

In 1422 Henry V intervened and told Warwick to give up the claim and James took possession. However, it was short lived. With Henry’s death later that year, Warwick took the castle by force. The dispute continued through sons and daughters on both sides until 1470 when William Lord Berkeley. (descended from James, the original tail-male) found himself in procession of the castle and the current challenger was John Talbot 2nd Viscount Lisle, who could trace himself back to Maurice’s daughter Elizabeth (the one who broke the tail-male).

After a period of relative calm Berkeley appears to have sought to recover manors at Wooton-under-Edge which were initially given to Elizabeth earlier in the dispute. Lisle in retaliation had planned to seize the castle under subterfuge but his plan was discovered and Berkeley challenged his chivalry, calling it cowardly and underhand; a challenge Lisle was unwilling to let go unchallenged for his or his family’s name and challenged Berkeley to a personal dual. Berkeley’s response was to call the challenge unfair as he described himself as old and sick. He was 40 and Lisle 20, but he did respond saying to Lisle to bring as many men as he thought necessary to fight Berkeley at Nibley on the morning of the 20th. Lisle did not receive the challenge until the 19th. He responded by summoning as many men as he could muster (approximately 300) and marched to the allotted battleground at North Nibley approximately equidistant from Berkeley Castle and Lisle manor at Wooton-under-Edge, and thus into a trap.

Saturday 21st September 2019 dawned to a bright sunny morning. We all mustered at North Nibley Church at 10:30 am where Adam gave an overview of the dispute and the events leading up to the day. We then began to walk down Frog Lane towards Burleigh Court. Having reached the junction of the lane towards the Court we stopped to view Nibley Green which in 1470 was an open area stretching south and forming a flattish strip of land between the steep slopes of Shakeley Hill and the Swynebourne brook which in turn formed the boundary of the great Michael wood. This was the suggested scene of the battle

We moved on south along the lane before turning off into the driveway of Bush Street Farm and crossing over the Swynebourne before stopping to look back across the green and the church on the hill.

20 (Back to Contents) This was the position Berkeley had taken. From here he had watched Lisle approach and take up position on the hill just below the church. Berkeley with 200 visible men. He cajoled Lisle into attacking his position and didn’t have to wait long before Lisle gave up the high ground and charged downhill towards the small band of Berkeley. Waiting until they had reached the level ground of the green, the remaining 800 men stepped out of the wood and launched a murderous arrow storm at their attackers. Lisle appears to have been the target of several archers and he was soon struck to the ground. Several men ran forward to finish Lisle off. His men seeing their commander fall and realising they had been led into a trap began to fall back towards the church having to now negotiate the steep slope.

Was the ability of Berkeley to raise an army at such short notice pure chance? Or as suggested Berkeley already suspected that Lisle was about to make a claim on the inheritance and so began to muster and when Lisles challenge of a dual came it became the ideal opportunity to launch his ambush plan.

We then had an opportunity to visit what is said to be the last remaining oak tree from the Great Michael Wood before making our way back into the lane and limp back towards the Church. Approximately half way up the hill we entered a private garden which offered elevated views back across the Green and the site of the battle before continuing up and back to the Church.

On arrival we entered the graveyard where a mass grave pit had been found believed to be that of the 100 or so Lisle men that fell. Inside the church we saw the extension that was paid for by Lord Berkeley in thanks for his victory.

After the battle, Berkeley wasted no time in making his way to Lisle’s Manor at Wootton to claim his estate back. Upon his arrival he promised he pregnant Lady Lisle safe passage but it is suggested that when she appeared she was relieved of her jewels and had to run for her life. She reclaimed her husband’s body from the battlefield and is alleged to have been buried in Painswick Church. She also launched a claim through the court for financial compensation against Berkeley for the murder if the husband. However, at this point it time it failed to be heard as Warwick and Clarence were in open rebellion (supported by Berkeley), and Edward had led to Burgundy. However, with Edwards return and victory

21 (Back to Contents) over Warwick (by now Berkeley had changed sides again) the case was eventually heard and proved. Berkeley was heavily fined and removed from all official posts.

Lady Lisle having lost her child shortly after Nibley had remarried Sir Henry Bodrugan a Cornishman who perhaps wisely kept a low profile during wars.

The initial legal dispute was finally settled in 1609 when the Lisles and Berkeleys agreed on a settlement to end it. The then Lord Berkeley payed Sir Robert Sidney Lord Lisle £7,320 to discharge the debt.

“It’s Gotta Be ‘Round ‘Ere Somewhere”

Bernie Willoughby reports on getting lost on the way to Nibley Green.

We all fetch up on a nice bright Sunday morning in Morrison's carpark, but there are not enough motors. “Do you mind driving?” Muggins, of course, is hoping for a lift but hey better step up to the plate.

“Right okay where is it? Hope I've got enough juice .” Well Richard is gone and Steve is just heading off. Follow him, so off we go and immediately lose him on that Ashchurch roundabout.

Oh well; just head on down the big road it's somewhere near Berkeley. I haven't been to Berkeley for years; not since we got banned from the Mediaeval Babes weekend following a violent incident involving anger management failure and expensive dentistry. Well it was supposed to be a battle re-enactment but that as I say is another story.

So we hammer on merrily past Gloucester and beyond and jerk our way off the big road and onto the little road to good old Berkeley, narrowly missing some other road user who knew where he was going. We bumble along this pleasant by-way from miles and miles and miles. It seems like forever, but it’s very pretty.

22 (Back to Contents) “Are we nearly there yet?”

“Well you've got to look out for a sign to North Nibley”

“Oh, right. Well left, probably”

We wind through this lovely verdant dappled tree canopy tunnel it's dreamlike and endless. Where the hell is this place?

There's a sign - Nibley something. We turn down an even windier little track; before us open countryside meadow and woodland. No sign of the others, though.

“Where are we?”

We turn round and go back a bit. Nope! We go back down again.

“Hang on” say I “there’s a church there over there”. It’s Bit of a clue I think. We drive back up heading for said church tower.

“North Nibley. Huzzah! It does exist!” We ask a lady if she seen a load of strangers in her village.

“Just around the corner by the church gate” she says. She makes no judgement.

And there they are looking impatient. Whew! Made it. It’s not a wild goose chase after all. A close-run thing though. It turns out that we had been on the battlefield when we went down the little lane. The woods beyond where dastardly William Wasteall (Lord Berkeley) had galloped out to ambush poor naive young Lord de Lisle in the last private battle on English soil (unless you count the Mediaeval Babes incident) The most memorable thing there today is a vast old oak tree of huge girth. Better than the one in Sherwood Forest it was already a substantial tree in 1470. It was worth the trip just for that.

My companions and guides in this escapade where the Lawrences father and son; Andrew and Cameron. Thanks for a good day out boys, and many apologies for my driving!

23 (Back to Contents)

Battle relics in King’s Lynn?

In the middle of the nineteenth century, in the early days of the industrial revolution, when Shropshire was a major centre of activity and innovation, efforts were being made to make the River Severn navigable for large boats as far as Stourport. Before they abandoned the idea and decided on a series of locks and weirs, great efforts were made to dredge the river to a continuous depth of six feet. The vast amounts of silt passing down the river made this impossible.

One of the principal Engineers managing the dredging was George Edwards, a native of King’s Lynn. He worked along the whole length of the river. There is a report in the Norfolk Chronicle of Saturday 13 February 1847 about new acquisitions at Lynn Museum, among which are ‘a sword, a dagger and a kind of halberd’ which were donated by George Edwards. They were found on the River Severn but the exact place is not known.

Dredging suggests that they were in the mud of the river bed, and as one of the changes to the river made at this period was the ripping out of the fords along its length a possibility is that they came from the area around the ford at Lower Lode, though that is pure speculation and wishful thinking!

Tewkesbury Museum have contacted Lynn Museum, who have had to search their dusty recesses. They have found some weapons without any provenance, but have nothing to connect them to those described as coming from Tewkesbury. It was a bit of a long shot!

The other items donated to the museum at the same time are interesting in a ‘cabinet of curiosities’ sort of way. They include an ancient specimen of ecclesiastical needlework, two bows and twelve arrows from New Zealand, a set of shark’s teeth, a stuffed bittern, some lava from Ascension Island, a cinnamon stick, a specimen of a Bengal tigress and a skeleton of the same, eighteen cowries, a carved canoe paddle from the Sandwich Islands and a small alligator from the West Indies.

No wonder ‘our’ weapons couldn’t be located.

24 (Back to Contents) Feigned Retreat at the Battle of Tewkesbury

By Richard Andrews

This article first appeared in Hobilar, the Journal of the Lance and Longbow Society (http://lanceandlongbow.com ) and appears with their kind permission

Recently I’ve been reading Edward Hall’s Chronicle, which as you probably know describes the reigns of Henry IV to Henry VIII of England. Its full title is ‘The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre and Yorke’, and it was first published in 1548.

An interesting point struck me in Hall’s description of the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471. By way of a small digression, it was the battle of Tewkesbury that first sparked my interest in the Wars of the Roses, when I was on holiday in the area and visited the battlefield. That was about 40 years ago, and as you can imagine, I’ve read a good few descriptions of the battle since then, by many authors ancient and modern. So it was nice to find something new in Hall’s account which I’d never come across before (or if I had, I’d forgotten it), namely, the description of a feigned retreat.

Now whether or not you take much interest in the Wars of the Roses, you may have come across the idea that they were militarily rather backward, mere scuffles in the street or in the back gardens of towns, with little to match the innovations in contemporary European warfare and a poor sideshow after the glories of Poitiers, Agincourt, etc. A closer study of the period shows how mistaken that idea is, though it isn’t the point of this article. But even an aficionado of the Wars of the Roses might be surprised to hear of a feigned retreat being used as a tactic, in a period more associated with arrow-storms and ponderous heavy infantry slogging-matches.

We must of course take into account the fact that Hall is a Tudor writer, not contemporary with the Wars of the Roses. In general, his narrative contains a lot more circumstantial detail than the earlier chronicles of the same events. He does tend to invent speeches, and he may have invented other details. So we need to be cautious about the veracity of 25 (Back to Contents) his account where (as with the feigned retreat) there is no corroboration from other sources. But Hall may be recording oral traditions or other sources lost to us.

The other detailed chronicle account of the battle of Tewkesbury is in The Historie of the Arrivall of King Edward IV (“The Arrivall”). This was probably written fairly soon after the battle, perhaps by a participant in the campaign. It is Edward’s official account of his victory, but despite its obvious Yorkist leanings, it carries much weight since it is detailed and almost contemporary.

There are plenty of modern accounts of the battle which are easily accessible, so I won’t describe the whole battle, though a brief summary may be useful. The Yorkist king Edward IV had returned from exile to reclaim his throne from the Lancastrians, whose army was gathering in the south-west under Queen Margaret and the Duke of Somerset. They were probably aiming to cross the River Severn to join other Lancastrians in Wales. Edward caught up with the Lancastrians before they could cross the Severn at Tewkesbury, so they turned at bay and adopted a strong defensive position.

Various sources seem to agree that the Lancastrian position was a strong one and difficult to approach, probably because of ditches, streams and sunken lanes. Hall goes further and says the Lancastrians entrenched their camp. This isn’t mentioned in the Arrivall, but was fairly common practice during the wars (for example, entrenchments were used at Dartford, Ludford Bridge and Northampton.) I doubt, however, that the Lancastrians would have had the time or energy to dig ditches after their long march to Tewkesbury.

The Yorkists opened the attack. For some reason, the Duke of Somerset then left his strong defensive position and led his vanguard forward against the Yorkists, but Somerset lacked support from his fellow commanders and was thrown back. After this, the Lancastrian army crumbled and broke, effectively ending the Lancastrian cause until it was revived much later by Henry Tudor.

Somerset’s advance was clearly a decisive moment in the battle, and raises the question why he chose to advance from his apparently strong defensive position. Perhaps that position wasn’t quite as strong as the Yorkist accounts make out; those accounts would tend to emphasise

26 (Back to Contents) how difficult the fight was, since that enhances the glory of the victory. Perhaps, as several authors have suggested, Somerset advanced because he was losing in the opening exchange of archery and gunfire. Or perhaps, as Hall indicates, he fell for a ruse.

Somerset was commanding the vanguard of the Lancastrian army, so was probably on the right wing, where he faced Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III). I have drawn up a simplified plan of the battle to show the dispositions and key movements as they are generally understood, although other interpretations are available. Hall writes:

“The duke of Gloucester, which lacked no policy, valiantly with his battle assaulted the trench of the Queen’s camp, whom the duke of Somerset with no less courage defended. The duke of Gloucester for a very politic purpose, with all his men recoiled back. The duke of Somerset perceiving that, like a knight more courageous than circumspect, came out of his trench with his whole battle, and followed the chase.”

27 (Back to Contents) Hall explains that Somerset expected his fellow Lancastrian leaders to follow him up in support, but they didn’t. Hall continues:

“The duke of Gloucester taking the advantage that he adventured for, turned again to face the duke of Somerset’s battle, which . . . were within a small season shamefully discomfited.”

I have modernized Hall’s spelling and punctuation, but I hope the sense is clear enough. Gloucester is depicted as a crafty general and Somerset an impetuous one, so the vital ingredients for a ruse are already in place. Gloucester attacked and then deliberately drew back, luring the incautious Somerset out of his defences. This withdrawal might of course have been a bit less deliberate than Hall suggests: perhaps Hall is covering up Gloucester’s defeat, but I think not, since Gloucester turns again to face Somerset and defeat him. If Gloucester’s men had been beaten, it seems unlikely they would have returned to the fight with Somerset’s troops bearing down on them. In fact the whole episode is presented by Hall as a cunning ploy by Gloucester to feign a retreat then attack again when Somerset is more vulnerable, a plan which works perfectly.

It is worth mentioning that Hall is no apologist for Gloucester, quite the opposite, he thoroughly condemns Gloucester’s seizure of the throne as Richard III. So he is unlikely to be flattering Gloucester or excusing an unplanned retreat. Given Hall’s severe censure of Gloucester elsewhere in his writings, it is impressive how strongly Hall emphasises Gloucester’s planning, purpose and courage at Tewkesbury. Gloucester’s withdrawal to lure out Somerset is clearly presented as a deliberate plan, not a happy accident or botched attack.

In contrast, the Arrivall makes little mention of Gloucester’s role in the battle, giving much credit instead to King Edward’s prowess. The Arrivall does not mention a feigned retreat; in fact it credits Somerset with a crafty ploy, by using the dense terrain to conceal his advance. Luckily Edward has prepared a ruse himself, hiding 200 spears (cavalry) in nearby woods as reserve, who then outflank Somerset. The combination of this ambush and Edward’s prowess drive Somerset back.

Should we discount Hall’s feigned retreat, since it doesn’t appear in such a weighty source as The Arrivall? The purpose of The Arrival is to glorify Edward’s role, which might explain why any clever stratagems used by

28 (Back to Contents) Gloucester aren’t mentioned: they might detract from Edward’s heroism. Hall’s account would certainly seem much more credible if it had been corroborated by The Arrivall.

There will be readers who doubt whether a late medieval English army was capable of conducting a feigned retreat, a tactic we associate more with Mongol horsemen or ancient Parthian cavalry. We don’t tend to think of English medieval armies (usually fighting on foot) being very maneuverable or devious. Our national myth tells instead of stolid defence in the Hastings/Agincourt mode, backs to the wall and no trickery.

We might suppose that a very high degree of control and flexibility is required to conduct a feigned retreat successfully. It certainly seems a risky tactic which could easily turn into a real retreat. But there seems to be a good case that the Normans pulled it off at Hastings, so it wasn’t a trick only used by light skirmishing cavalry. The Norman army’s system of command and control probably wasn’t much different from the Yorkist army’s at Tewkesbury. The degree of training and experience might have been broadly similar too. So I don’t think we should rule out the possibility that Gloucester conducted a feigned retreat. We should resist the temptation to assume that medieval people weren’t as clever as us. They had generations of military experience to draw on from the Hundred Years’ War.

Furthermore, Tewkesbury may not be the only instance of a feigned retreat during the Wars of the Roses. Again our evidence comes from Hall’s chronicle, so we must be cautious: it might just be a favourite idea of his own invention. But at the battle of Blore Heath in 1459, Hall tells us that the Yorkist Earl of Salisbury tricked his opponent Lord Audley with a similar ruse. The armies were divided by a stream, narrow but deep, and Salisbury was outnumbered. Hall writes that Salisbury

“ . . caused his soldiers to shoot their flights toward the Lord Audley’s company, which lay on the other side of the said water, and then he and all his company made a sign of retreat. The Lord Audley . . . blew up his trumpets, and did set forth his vanguard, and suddenly passed the water. The earl of Salisbury, which knew the slights, stratagems and policies of warlike affairs, suddenly returned, and shortly encountered with the Lord Audley and his chief captains, or (i.e. before) the residue of his army could pass the water.”

29 (Back to Contents)

Here then is a very similar instance of a feigned retreat. Again we have a wily Yorkist general who opens the fight but then seems to retreat, drawing the enemy forward into a less advantageous position. Salisbury then returns to the fray, isolating the enemy leaders on his side of the stream, before the rest of the Lancastrian army could cross. Lord Audley is killed and the Lancastrians are defeated after a hard fight.

A cynic might feel that Hall’s descriptions of these two feigned retreats aren’t very credible, since he wasn’t contemporary with the events and is the only author to mention them. Mind you, every account of battles during the Wars of the Roses is retrospective to some degree, so the fact that Hall wrote after the event isn’t unusual. Even so, it seems a bit odd that Hall describes a feigned retreat at Tewkesbury when he doesn’t mention the other Yorkist ploy which is detailed in the Arrivall: the hiding of troops in a wood.

Hall does have a habit of repeating the same themes in several of his battle descriptions. For instance he usually says that each battle took place on a “fair plain”, after the armies have camped close together. Whether his use of these stock phrases suggests limited knowledge or the invention of details is debatable.

Mention of a feigned retreat at Blore Heath does recur in Michael Drayton’s Poly-Olbion, published in 1612, but this may derive only from Hall’s account.

For a wary historian, the jury is probably still out on whether to believe Hall’s descriptions of feigned retreats. A wargamer might take a bolder view, and say that Hall’s descriptions provide evidence which isn’t contradicted elsewhere and may be plausible. One of the joys of wargaming is that it lets us try out the “what ifs” of history: what if Hall’s description is correct? So it might be reasonable to allow for feigned retreats in a miniature wargame, which leads to the question: how do we achieve this on the wargames table?

Some sets of wargames rules don’t seem to provide for feigned retreats at all. In several sets, once a unit enters close combat, it can’t choose to break off; it can only retreat when it is defeated. Certain sets allow troops to make a controlled withdrawal from combat, but sometimes only skirmishers or mounted troops can do this, and the withdrawal

30 (Back to Contents) wouldn’t compel the enemy to advance. Various rule sets cater for troops getting out of hand and making unscheduled advances, but rarely as a result of enemy withdrawals. Several rule sets allow for impetuous or cunning commanders, which at least is a start.

What we need is a rule that allows undefeated heavy infantry to make a controlled withdrawal from combat, then return to the fray once the enemy have been drawn out of position. There should also be a chance that the ruse doesn’t work successfully, since there is an obvious risk of feigned flight becoming a real flight, or of the defenders smelling a rat and just staying put.

I can’t recall many wargames rules which cater for this manoeuvre (but you may be better informed). An honourable exception is the DBMM rules by Phil Barker which allow players to prepare various stratagems, including feigned flight. This is likely to draw some enemy troops forward, depending on how well the enemy commander can control them, which depends on a dice roll. This is not quite the same as tricking the enemy commander into ordering an advance, but the effect might be similar.

I must admit that DBMM aren’t my favourite rules for the Wars of the Roses, since they feel too generic and seem designed for much larger battles. But they deserve credit for letting us try out Hall’s feigned retreat. If your own favourite wargames rules don’t allow for such manoeuvres, perhaps they underrate the tactical ability of medieval armies.

Sources Hall, Edward: The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre and Yorke (1548) Dockray, K (ed.): The Historie of the Arrivall of King Edward IV, in Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV (1988) Hammond, P W: The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, (1990) Wheeler, Geoffrey & McGill, Patrick: The Battle of Tewkesbury 1471 (1995) Griffith, Paddy (ed) The Battle of Blore Heath, 1459 (1995)

[Edward Hall’s Chronicle can be read in the Internet Archive web site; https://archive.org/details/hallschronicleco00halluoft/mode/2up in a version published in 1809]

31 (Back to Contents)

32 (Back to Contents)

Gupshill Manor

Adrian Fray has been researching landholdings south of Tewkesbury and came across three documents in the County Records Office throwing some light on land transactions by the Cotton family, who held Gupshill Manor through the sixteenth century.

1502 Nov 12th

Bond: [1] Robert Cole of Gloucester and [2] George Cotton, gent.

Condition: Payment of annual rent of 40s. and delivery of muniments relating to the rent of the manor of Gubsyll, Tewkesbury.

Consideration: £50.

[Ref: GloucsPR, D2957, p1279, 302 (178)]

1532 Nov 07th

Bond: [1] Robert Cole of Tewkesbury, gent. and [2] George Cotton, (of Guppeshill).

Condition: Observance by Johane Comyn, widow of Harry Comyn, of an award as to the title of capital messuage called Guppeshyll, and land and tenements in Fiddington, Tredington, Walton, Southwick, and Tewkesbury.

Consideration: £100.

[Ref: GloucsPR, D2957, p1279, 302 (178)]

1553 Oct 16th

Deed: [1] Edward Cowper, clericus, Valentine Fairwether, citizen and haberdasher of London and [2] John Cotton and Anne his wife.

Land in a field called Gaston, by the Cheltenham Way, to the park called Tewkesbury Park, formerly in the occupation of Humphrey Dryver, tailor, Reddclose Mede (11 sellions), 2 sellions in Connigrie, Little Hill (7 sellions and 1 acre), Whilehoddes Close near Culverhouse Close, Culverhouse

33 (Back to Contents) 1 1 1 Close (2 /2 acres), Prieste Bridge ( /2 acre), Vingals (2 /2 acres), all in Southwick, near Guppeshill.

[Ref: GloucsPR, D2957, p1280, 302 (182)]

The Victoria History identifies the first known holder of land there as John Conquest, with a house and one ploughland at Gubshill, within Tewkesbury Manor in 1298. In 1307, William of Gubshill was a free tenant of the Manor of Tewkesbury. There is no record of the manor until the Cotton family, who were substantial property owners in the town.

Locally, it is said that at the time of the battle the Rainsford family were in possession of the Manor. As Sir Lawrence Rainsford (of Rainsford hall, Lancashire) fought with the Lancastrians that would be a convenient explanation of the story that Queen Margaret spent the night there. Looking into the eighteenth century, in 1707 (the date inscribed on the building as the date restored) the property passed, possibly by marriage, from Sir John Denham to William Ransford whose family held it until 1835. The similarity of names and folk memory may explain the confusion.

The Escape from Tewkesbury

This alternative account of Margaret’s escape comes from an oral tradition in the village of Bredon, three miles north of Tewkesbury.

Sylvia Charlewood lived in Bredon as a child in the 1930s, and remembers an interesting folk-tale which gives an alternative account of Queen Margaret’s escape from Tewkesbury:

“At four and a half years old, having been born in November, I attended Bredon village school. I well recall the stories told there by other children. Stories handed down through generations.

The story that concerned Tewkesbury Battle was as follows-- there was a row of very ancient cottages, near the quickest way to the river Avon-they were all huddled together and shared a common loft--they were known as 'Queen's Row’. It was said in the village

34 (Back to Contents) that Queen Margret hid in that loft, following her defeat--she was said to have been hunted by the King, and as his soldiers entered from one end, Queen Margaret left at the end nearest the Avon, and made a hasty escape.

I have no proof of any of this, but the cottages were old enough, and folk history is often proved to be right. It was also said that some of her army had 'dug in' on Bredon Hill, prior to the Battle. There were certainly earthworks of various ages, from prehistoric, via Roman to later, on the Hill.”

Whilst there is no source for this, other than the tales of villagers passed down by word of mouth over many generations, it is worth some consideration, though the suggestion that some of the Lancastrian army were on Bredon Hill before the battle seems unlikely. The accepted version of the escape, that Margaret fled across the Severn at Lower Lode, possibly stopping at Payne’s Place, has no source beyond local stories. The earliest reference to fording the river seems to appear in Cecelia Cooper’s poem of 1820, though she was undoubtedly repeating what she had heard in Tewkesbury. Another folk-tale, possibly.

If we can believe the Arrivall, and there seems no reason not to on this point, Margaret was captured at a poor house of religion close to Malvern, identified as Little Malvern Priory. It has always been assumed that she was heading for Wales, the Tudors and escape from the country. Little Malvern is at the foot of a very steep slope on the eastern side of the Malvern Hills.

From Lower Lode, her direct route would have been to the south west, possibly through Newent to cross the Wye at Ross. On the map below, this is shown as route 2. Importantly, this route is south of the Malvern Hills, which are a significant, and very noticeable, barrier to progress west. There is a route through at Hollybush but this is also south of Little Malvern Priory.

If she crossed at Lower Lode, her route to Little Malvern, 1 on the map below, would be across Longdon Marsh and over Castlemoreton common, ignoring the route through Hollybush continuing on to the Little Malvern. Whilst this seems illogical, there may well be practicalities on the day which pushed her in that direction. If it were not from an

35 (Back to Contents) offer of sanctuary it may have been to evade pursuing Yorkists who may have got to the Hollybush pass before her.

The route through Bredon is shown as 3 on the map. Fleeing to Bredon after the battle is a fairly logical move, if getting through, or around, Tewkesbury were practical, and that would depend on the ‘state of play’ in the town. There’s no doubt, though, that there would be townspeople who would be willing to give her away with inducements. From Bredon, the Avon would have to be crossed, probably at Twyning Fleet where there is an ancient crossing, probably a ford before the seventeenth century. From Twyning, the likely route is to Upton on Severn, where there is a bridge, and then due west to Little Malvern.

In the absence of irrefutable evidence, everything is a hypothesis, and here we have two stories without firm sources. Maybe neither are true. It is interesting to speculate, though and the Bredon version has some attractions but needs a lot more research.

Food for thought!

36 (Back to Contents)

- Gloucester Citizen - 19 June 1889 A False Trail to a Knight

An article in the London City Press (newspaper) of November 9th 1867 contains a long list of worthies of the City of London who were Aldermen of Cheap. Cheap is one of the City wards. Amongst them was a William Tayleur, Grocer, afterwards Mayor. He is described as being knighted in the field with several other Aldermen, by Edward IV, in 1470, after the Battle of Tewkesbury. Ignoring the error in the date, this is interesting because we have no Sir William Tayleur on our list of knights.

The article gave a source; “Some Account Of The Citizens Of London And Their Rulers, From 1060 To 1867 And A Calendar Of The Mayors And Sheriffs From 1189 To 1867” By B. B. Orridge, FGS. A quick search revealed that this was published by William Tegg, Pancras Lane, Cheapside, in 1867. By the magic of the Internet, there is a scanned copy available from the Internet Archive. The book says:

‘1468 (8 Edward IV). Sir William Tayleur, (alias Taylor,) Grocer, Mayor, by his prerogative, elected to be Alderman of Cheap, loco John Norman. Sheriff, 1454. Died, 1484.

‘He was the son of John Taylor, of Ecclestone, in Staffordshire. He migrated from Cordwainers’ Ward, to which he was a benefactor. He was knighted in the field, with several other Aldermen, by Edward IV., in 1470, (sic) after the battle of Tewkesbury. He died in 1483, and was buried at St. Mary, Aldermary. He left lands and tenements to relieve the inhabitants from payment of the tax called “ Fifteenths”, granted to the King.’

Consulting a real source, Andrew Lawrence brought an answer. He pointed to another book in the Internet Archive; “A Book of Knights of the Bath and Knights Bachelor” by Walter C Metcalfe, FSA., where it is recorded that ‘At the Kinge's retourne to London, the 20 day of May 1471, from the feild of Tewkesbury, in the highway without Shordiche, 37 (Back to Contents) he dubbed Knightes as followeth, Aldermen of the Citie, as he was then rydinge into Kent’. Thirteen names then follow, headed by Sir John Stockton, Mayor of London and including Sir William Tayler (spelling was very variable).

It would have been nice to discover an unknown knight, but finding a book of knights was not a bad outcome.

38 (Back to Contents) A European Dimension

The Old Theocsbrian Society, the Old Boys of Tewkesbury Grammar School, wanted a talk about the Battle of Tewkesbury. A step by step account didn’t seem appropriate, so they were given the bigger picture, appropriate maybe in the Brexit season.

A few years after Tewkesbury Medieval Festival started, the first European re-enactors arrived to take part. This prompted a letter to the local press bitterly berating the accuracy of the event because they allowed Germans to take part in a battle which was essentially a struggle between the good folks of Lancashire and Yorkshire. This is maybe an extreme, and inaccurate, expression of the very parochial view we English often have of our history. Certainly, from the viewpoint of Tewkesbury in 1471, the battle would have been a bewildering whirlwind of an event in an otherwise measured life which had little relevance or lasting effect. At the level of kings and emperors, though, the picture was different and the battle was part of a game which was being played for very high stakes indeed. This article is a short look at the international context, what the influences were which led to the battle and who the real winners were.

On July 20th 1470, Louis XI, King of France, seized an opportunity. For five years his cousin Margaret, wife of the imprisoned Lancastrian King Henry VI, had been in exile in France with her son. Now Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick had come to him for assistance, having fled England following a failed coup.

The situation in England had been stable for almost ten years, since the Yorkists had defeated the Lancastrians at Towton and Edward IV was crowned. King Henry had been captured and imprisoned in the Tower of London.

King Louis was the son of Charles VII, the Dauphin, who was inspired by Joan of Arc to drive the English out of France and end the hundred years’ war. Louis’ inheritance was a broken country which was essentially an alliance of duchies, counties and landgraviates whose heads gave their allegiance to the King of France but by and large went their own ways. The greatest of these was Burgundy, whose duke held a swathe of land on the borders of France and the Holy Roman Empire, some of 39 (Back to Contents) which were French and some he held from the Emperor. The Dukes were the archetypical over-mighty barons and their court at Bruges was the most sumptuous in Europe. Cousins of King Louis, they were a thorn in his side. Louis maybe looked with envy across the channel at England and the strong central structure of the kingdom which had been imposed after the Norman conquest. This was the form of government which he aspired to for France. Queen Margaret and Richard Neville became pawns in his game.

It is said that these implacable enemies took a lot of persuading to agree to work together, but eventually they did. Louis brokered this, and offered to provide soldiers and finance for an invasion of England to re- establish the Lancastrians on the throne. All he asked in return was that, once restored, King Henry, or more realistically the Earl of Warwick, should declare war on Burgundy.

Queen Margaret and Prince Edward remained in France until it was safe to return. Warwick’s invasion was too successful. Finding himself unexpectedly outflanked, Edward surprised everyone by fleeing the land, leaving Warwick to free Henry and restore him to the throne. It was a bloodless transition.

Edward sought refuge with his brother in law; Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Charles had been Duke since 1469 and had ambitions to create his own kingdom. He expanded his lands into Flanders and Alsace, but in the process had made enemies of the Swiss and the Archduke of Austria as well as King Louis. Edward was a welcome ally, and it was very much in his interest that England should be a friend. He would have taken little persuading to support his brother-in-law with an expeditionary force to invade and retake the English throne. The Hansa cities of the North Sea coast were also anxious that Edward regained his throne, having suffered at the hands of both Warwick and Louis; they offered practical support. A small fleet was assembled, with two thousand soldiers, at Vlissingen, which sailed for England in March 1471.

Edward’s crossing was rough. There were strong gales in the Channel; gales which held Queen Margaret’s party in Honfleur, fortuitously for Edward, delaying her triumphant return. Edward’s fleet was blown hither and thither and eventually found shelter and landed at Spurn Head, on the Humber estuary. By co-incidence, this was also Henry Bolingbroke’s landing place when he came to confront Richard II and take his crown.

40 (Back to Contents) Like Bolingbroke, Edward lied to the city of York that he’d merely returned to reclaim his ducal inheritance.

Edward marched south with his army. He outsmarted Warwick at Coventry and continued to London to reclaim the throne. He then defeated and killed Warwick at the Battle of Barnet on 14th April. This was not the only significant event of that day, though.

After a long period of waiting in France, Margaret’s ships had eventually found a fair wind, left harbour, and arrived that day at Weymouth. She was accompanied by her son Edward, the Lancastrian heir to the throne. They quickly learned about the death of Warwick and the turn-around in fortunes it brought, but decided to stay and fight. Her lieutenants went into the West Country and south Wales to raise support, intending that the two groups would join where the Severn could be crossed and so form a sufficient army to defeat the Yorkists.

The Yorkist King Edward, meanwhile, had not been idle. He’d moved to Windsor to raise troops then, predicting his enemy’s movements, taken his army to the Cotswolds to intercept them in Gloucestershire; before they had an opportunity to join with the welsh recruits. This possibility was further forestalled by sending instructions to the city of Gloucester, the first bridging point on the Severn, to stop Margaret’s forces entering. They were forced to follow the Severn north and circumstances forced them to stop at Tewkesbury, where Edward’s army caught them and defeated them, killing the Lancastrian heir in the process and ending Margaret’s dynastic ambitions.

Margaret fled Tewkesbury but was captured and taken to London as a prisoner. Her imprisoned husband died in mysterious circumstances, so ending any possibility of a Lancastrian resurgence. Margaret was held captive until King Edward and King Louis signed the Treaty of Picquigny, in 1475. This formally ended the Hundred Years’ War and saw Edward abandon his alliance with the Duke of Burgundy. One of the terms was the ransom of Queen Margaret for 50,000 crowns, which was a considerable sum.

Margaret was unable to repay this debt and Louis knew this. Her family was land rich and cash poor. Louis obliged her to sign over all her rights of inheritance to both her parents’ lands. She had little option but to agree. She went to Angers and lived in her father’s castle there. On the

41 (Back to Contents) death of her father in 1480, Louis invoked the agreement and Margaret was evicted.

Her father had been Count of Piedmont, Duke of Bar, Duke of Lorraine, Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence and King of Naples, though his possession of some of these lands had been undermined by Louis’ annexations as he took every opportunity to consolidate his kingdom. With the Duke’s death, Lorraine, the Barrois, Anjou and Provence became inalienable parts of the King’s landholding. In 1481 her cousin Charles, Count of Maine died and she inherited his lands, and Maine was also signed over to the King. France moved a big step closer to becoming a unitary kingdom and Louis now concentrated on Burgundy and Brittany.

Margaret saw out the rest of her life in poverty. She died of old age, worn out, kinless and friendless, on threadbare sheets, at the age of fifty-two. Here, she is remembered as the “she-wolf of France” for her central role in civil war in England, but perhaps her unwitting role in the unification of France has been more important.

The Chapel of St James is now the Abbey shop. This stone tablet is now hidden behind shelving, but is still there. It’s the only Lancastrian memorial in the Abbey, other than those to the Prince of Wales.

Gloucestershire Chronicle - 11 June 1921

42 (Back to Contents) LEAFLETS

As part of its mission to educate, the Society publishes leaflets which are made freely available in places where tourists gather, in the belief that people who visit Tewkesbury are likely to want to learn about the town, and by implication the battle. To date, we have two leaflets:

1. The ‘Arrivall’ sculpture. This gives information on both the battle and the sculpture. We’re still distributing the first printing. It will be revised and updated before reprinting 2. The Memorials in the Abbey. This leaflet has proved more popular than anticipated and has been valuable in leading Abbey visitors to the locations of unmarked graves in particular. .

BATTLEFIELD SOCIETY SALES

The Society has a range of interesting items available for sale, which might be just the thing for that unusual present. We offer discounts to members and a postal service. We have:  Tewkesbury’s Street Banners. A compilation of biographical details of every identified person with a role in the battle, together with full colour illustrations of their arms. These books are available at £12.99 plus £2 postage and packing. For Society members, £12.99 inclusive of post and package.  Cecilia Cooper; The Battle of Tewkesbury. A poem written in the romantic era, illustrated by original woodcuts and accompanied by literary analysis and biographical essays this is a little slice of Georgian history. These books are available at £10.00, plus £2.00 postage and packing. For Society members, £10.00 inclusive of post and package.  Battlefield Society tee shirts. We have a range of sizes in black with the Battlefield Society logo on the front and the ’routes to battle’ graphic on the back. These are £12.50, plus £2 postage and packing. We have introduced on-line facilities for trading on our new website and can now take payment by PayPal. We endeavour to provide a fast service.

43 (Back to Contents)

The Tewkesbury Battlefield Society is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation; Registered Number 1160146

The Battlefield Society officers are:

Richard Goddard Chairman Clive Montellier Secretary Brian Howgate Treasurer Andrew Lawrence Banner Reeve Emma Fowler Membership Secretary

The Committee meets as required to discuss the ongoing business of the Society. Regular open meetings and events are held, and these are advertised either in the newsletter or by mailshot to Society members.

Membership is open to all with an interest in preserving and enhancing our medieval heritage. There is no charge for membership, and an on-line membership form can be found on the web site. We do, though, appreciate donations and encourage standing orders. Details can be obtained from the Membership Secretary; or [email protected] or for those without internet access, PO Box 147 Tewkesbury GL20 9AP

The Society is a member of the Battlefields Trust.

The Society has a presence on the Internet: http://www.tewkesbury.org.uk/ Email [email protected]

The Society newsletter is published irregularly. A news sheet is produced a little more regularly.

The Society is indebted to ex Councillor Connors for the name of its newsletter

44 (Back to Contents)