Jump to content

Act of Accord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Act of Parliament
Parliament of England
Citation39 Hen. 6
Territorial extent  England
Dates
Royal assent25 October 1460
Commencement7 October 1460
Text of statute as originally enacted

The Act of Accord was an act of the Parliament of England which was passed on 25 October 1460 during a period of intense political division and partisanship at the top of government. Three weeks earlier, Richard, Duke of York had entered the Council Chamber—in the presence of several Lords but the absence of the king, Henry VI—and laid his hand on the empty throne, claiming the crown of England. His grounds were that he and Henry were both direct descendants of Edward III, but York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines, and Henry's was through only one. Following discussions between Royal justices, York and Parliament, the House of Lords decided that Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him. This automatically removed Henry's son, Edward, Prince of Wales, from the succession. Henry agreed to the compromise, which became the Act of Accord.

Political partisanship had already erupted into civil war the year before, and far from lowering political pressure, the act split the nobility further. The queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son, although her husband had publicly supported the act. In this, she was joined by the majority of the English nobility who also opposed York. Margaret, in the north with her son, immediately raised an army and began destroying Yorkist estates. York led an army to challenge her but was defeated at the Battle of Wakefield on 30 December. They were, in turn, defeated three months later at the Battle of Towton by York's son Edward, Earl of March, who was crowned King Edward IV.

Background

[edit]
Main article: Wars of the Roses

During the 1450s, English politics become increasingly partisan and factional.[1] The richest noble in the land—and heir to the throne until 1453—Richard, Duke of York was in opposition to the government of King Henry VI. The King was weak-willed and easily led, and government was effectively controlled by his favourite, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, York's enemy.[2] King Henry had become mentally incapacitated in August 1453, becoming comatose, unable to feed himself or recognise any of his companions.[3][note 1]

In Late Medieval England, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and the maintenance of God's Peace,[5] and weak government was perceived as encouraging the collapse of law and order. Contemporaries saw this as happening in the last years of Henry's reign; there was a rise in violence, gang warfare[1][6] and local feuds.[7][8] The feud between the Percy and Neville families in Yorkshire was of such violence and breadth that it impacted national politics.[9] One contemporary chronicler called this the "beginning of the greatest sorrows in England".[10] There was nearly a decade of violence in the southwest between the Bonvilles and Courtenays.[11] Less impactful nationally yet still regionally destructive were the feuds between the Harrington and Stanley families in the northwest,[12] John, Lord Talbot and James, Earl of Wiltshire on the Welsh marches,[13] and between William Tailboys and Ralph, Lord Cromwell in the Midlands.[14] Those disaffected with King Henry—predominantly the Nevilles—Richard, Earl of Salisbury and his son, Richard, Earl of Warwick, but also John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk—gathered around York. They are now often known as Yorkists, and those loyal to the king—the majority of the English peerage—are often termed Lancastrian, after the royal dynasty.[15][note 2]

In 1455 these local feuds coalesced into open battle. The King summoned a great council to be held in Leicester in May. Several chroniclers of the day suggest that Somerset was poisoning the King's mind against York,[2] and the Yorkists wrote to Henry describing what they called the "doubtes and ambiguitees [and] jealousie" spread by their enemies.[17] York and the Nevilles may have feared imminent arrest: they reacted swiftly and violently. They ambushed the King's small army—most of which comprised his royal household[18][note 3]—at the First Battle of St Albans on 22 May in a pre-emptive strike.[19] Fighting in the streets lasted only a short time, and though there were few fatalities among the common soldiery, the chief Lancastrian captains—Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, Somerset and Thomas, Lord Clifford—were all killed. They were three of the King's most loyal and powerful supporters, and the first two were personal enemies of the Nevilles and York.[20][21] Because of this, the clash has been described as more akin to a series of targeted assassinations than a fully-fledged battle.[22][23] King Henry was captured by the Yorkists after the battle; once again they controlled the government.[24]

Four years of peace followed. By 1459, the political situation—tense and partisan despite the king's efforts at reconciliation—had once again descended into outright civil war.[25][26] The previous year, the Earl of Salisbury had gathered his council, and they had determined to "take the full part" with York when the time came.[27] In September 1459 Salisbury marched south from his castle at Middleham at the head of a 5,000-strong army to join up with York at Ludlow.[28] En route they encountered a larger royal force at Blore Heath, which Salisbury defeated.[29] Salisbury's victory was only temporary. In October, the Yorkists were routed at Ludford Bridge. York went into exile in Dublin; Salisbury, Warwick and Edward of March took refuge in the English-occupied French town of Calais.[30] They and their followers were attainted in the Parliament of Devils in October 1459.[31]

In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed", argue the authors of the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England project.[32] The Calais lords returned to England in May 1460 and entered London the following month. Almost immediately, Warwick and March journeyed north to meet the royal army, which in June 1460 they defeated at the Battle of Northampton.[33][28] King Henry was taken prisoner and escorted to Westminster.[34]

York's claim to the throne

[edit]

And coming there he walked straight on, until he came to the king’s throne, upon the covering or cushion on which laying his hand, in this very act like a man about to take possession of his right, he held it upon it for a short time. But at length withdrawing it, he turned his face to the people, standing quietly under the canopy of royal state, he looked eagerly for their applause.[35]

Abbot Whethamstede of St. Albans Abbey, reporting on York's entrance into Westminster.

Colour chart
Red Lancastrian claim through third son, male line
Dark blue York's claim through second son, female line
Light blue York's claim through fourth son, male line
Black No dynastic role
Simplified York and Lancaster descent from Edward III
King Edward III (d. 1377)Philippa of Hainault (d. 1369)
Edward the Black Prince (d. 1376)Lionel, Duke of Clarence (d. 1368)John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (d. 1399)Edmund, 1st Duke of York (d. 1402)
Richard II (d. c. 1400)Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster (d. 1381) m. Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (d. 1381)Henry Bolingbroke (d. 1400), Earl of Derby, 2nd Duke of Lancaster, later Henry IVEdward, 2nd Duke of York (d. 1415)
Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March (d. 1398)Henry V (d. 1422)
Henry VI (d. 1471) m. Margaret of Anjou (d. 1482)
Edward of Lancaster (d. 1471)
Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (d. 1425)Anne Mortimer (d. c. 1411)Richard, Earl of Cambridge (d. 1415)
Richard, 4th Duke of York, 6th Earl of March (d. 1460) m. Cecily Neville (d. 1495)
Edward IV, 4th Duke of York, 7th Earl of March (d. 1483)George, Duke of Clarence (d. 1478)Richard III (d. 1485)

The House of Lancaster descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the third surviving son of Edward III. This emphasised the male line of descent. On the other hand, the House of York descended from King Edward twice, from Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward Gaunt's younger brother. York also possessed a claim through the second son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence and unlike the Lancastrian claim, this claim was based upon a female line of descent, as Clarence had only had a daughter, Philippa. This was considered the stronger of York's two claims, as although it was passed through the female line, it was as a descendant of an elder—so dynastically superior—son.[36] Langley's son, Richard, Earl of Cambridge, had married Anne de Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer and sister of Edmund Mortimer.[37][38] York also argued that Henry Bolingbroke had unjustly taken the throne in 1399.[32] His assertion was essentially a legitimist[39] de jure claim.[40] York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, but it became hypothetical after Margaret gave birth to the king's son, Edward of Westminster. Hence, when York claimed the throne before Parliament on 10 October 1460,[41] it was legally within his right to do so; whether it was tactically sound was less certain.[42]

King Henry VI
King Henry VI, whose grandfather had deposed the last Plantagenet King, Richard II
MargaretAnjou
His wife, Margaret of Anjou, the eventual figurehead of her husband's government

It is not known how much the Nevilles knew of York's plan before his arrival from Ireland. Warwick had met with York in Dublin while they were both in exile.[note 4] It is unknown what they discussed, and they later met in Burford on York's return to England. It is possible that the earl knew of York's intentions; the medievalist Alex Brondarbit argues that Warwick "may have been pushing the duke into a step [York] had proved unwilling to take for nearly a decade".[41] There was no swell of public acclamation when York landed as he might have expected. If Warwick had known of the duke's plans, he presumably felt it necessary to distance himself from them when he saw York's reception. The same may have gone for the Earl of March.[41] The medievalist Michael Jones has queried whether Warwick was keen to disassociate himself from York's plan because it had been his responsibility to raise popular support in London prior to the duke returning, but he had failed to do so.[44] Each of the lords concerned had, relatively recently, expressed their utmost loyalty to Henry as their liege lord; that might now be looked on as perjurous, especially if their protests of disagreement with York were now doubted.[41]

York claims the throne

[edit]
Richard, Duke of York
Richard of York, a descendant of Edward III and claimant to the English crown
Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury
Richard, Earl of Salisbury, longtime associate of York's, leader of the House of Neville and father of the Kingmaker

York does not seem to have been keeping his dynastic ambitions a secret. From his landing near Chester in early September 1460, charters and letters signed under his seal began omitting reference to the regnal year, "quite out of conformity with usual practice", says the historian Charles Ross.[45] This proclaimed York's royal blood to all.[40] On entering London, his sword was borne aloft before him, as at a coronation.[46][note 5] Similarly, rather than just his traditional Mortimer quarterings, his trumpeters' banners were emblazoned with the Arms of England, in the manner of a king.[39]

York travelled to Westminster to meet the king and his peers, many of whom were gathered for Parliament, which had opened in the king's presence but York's absence, on 7 October.[32] It soon became clear that his time in Dublin had allowed him to consider his claim to the Lancastrian crown.[38] To the surprise of all those gathered, he immediately did so.[47] John Whethamstede, Abbot of St Albans, described how York marched across the Great Hall with armed men and reached for the throne "like a man taking possession".[32] Whethamstede indicates that York assumed he had the support of most the English nobility. He was wrong.[35] He waited for applause that never came. Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, asked if York wanted an audience with the King. York replied, "I do not recall that I know anyone within the kingdom whom it would not befit to come sooner to me and see me rather than I should go visit him".[35] The response was an "embarrassed" silence,[48] and consternation.[32] York had "shocked and angered" his colleagues,[41] resulting in his claim being fiercely opposed.[49] The historian Paul Johnson has called York's behaviour "an act of supreme stupidity".[50]

The Nevilles were as averse to York's claim as other nobles.[47] The pro-Yorkist French chronicler Jean de Wavrin reported that Warwick had "angry words for the earl [and] showed the duke how the lords and people were ill content against him because he wished to strip the king of his crown".[51] According to Johnson, both York's eldest son, Edward of March, and Archbishop Bourchier refused to confront the Duke of York, so on two occasions, he sent Salisbury's second son Sir Thomas instead.[52] He backed his father and brother against York's claims. By 11 October, York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings; they did not meet in person until the act's ratification at the end of the month.[32] York openly spoke of being crowned three days later. Thomas advised strongly against this. He reported to the nobles, who sent him back for further negotiation. This time Thomas found York preparing for his coronation.[53] He informed the duke that his position was untenable "to both lords and people".[54] What was said between Thomas and the duke remains unknown, but Johnson argues that his "mandate must have been both blunt and bluntly delivered",[55] as York abandoned his coronation plans and acquiesced to the idea of a compromise agreement.[47]

Negotiations and the act of Parliament

[edit]

On Saturday 18 October the lords requested that the royal justices examine York's matter. Two days later, they declined to do so, arguing that the king's God-given regality was beyond their mortal and legal competence.[32] The lords then turned the matter over to the serjeants-at-arms. They, too, refused to deal with it, "predictably ", says The History of Parliament Online (HPO), on the grounds that anything that was outside the judges' remit must necessarily be beyond theirs also.[32] The process of questioning York was returned to the lords. Their most important question to York was why, if he based his claim on his descent from Clarence, he bore the Langley arms. To this, York responded that his reasons were known to the realm at large and that just because he had never worn the Langley arms, this did not eliminate his claim to them: "Though right for a time rest and be put to silence, yet it rotteth not nor shall it perish", York wrote in reply.[39]

Parliament

[edit]

At which parlement the commones of the reame being Assembled in the common house, comonyng & treting upon the title of the said Duke of York, sodenly fili doun pe crown which hang the in myddes of fe said hous, which is the ffraytor of the Abbey of Westmynster, which was take for a prodige or token that the reign of King Henry was ended. And also the Crown which stode on the highest toure of pe steple in the Castel of Dover, fil down this same yere.[56][note 7]

The Brut Chronicle

Ross argues that "York had miscalculated, but he did not intend to allow his claim to be ignored".[39] Having failed to achieve popular acclamation, he pushed his case on a legal front,[51] and it constitutes almost the only business recorded on the Parliamentary Roll for the October 1460 session.[32] Both Houses are known to have debated the issue, but the sole extant copy comes from the House of Lords.[32] Intense negotiations took place between York, the Nevilles,[42] and the lords, along with York's councillors and Henry's lawyers.[41]

At a meeting between the Houses of Lords and Commons on 7 October, Parliament codified York's dynastic position. On the 24th, this was passed into law as the Act of Accord[51] and promulgated on the last day of the month.[41] Parliament had, in effect, upheld the Yorkist claim to the throne, and according to historian Craig Taylor, "only the reluctance to remove an anointed king, and so to call into question the legality of the actions of the monarchs since the usurpation of 1399, prevented more radical action from being taken".[59] The lords' eventual compromise intimates their own suspicion that both parties' claims were to some degree flawed.[60] The lords were doubtless under pressure from York's councillors to reach an agreement, but before they did, the chancellor implored them to propose a better solution, even at that last minute. No one did, and the king gave his assent the next day.[32] The resulting compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;[61] this had disinherited the French Dauphin, Charles, in favour of Henry of Monmouth (later Henry V of England), while allowing Charles VI to remain king until he died.[62] Forty years later, the Act of Accord decreed that Henry would retain the throne for life, but that on his death, instead of it descending to the Prince of Wales, York—now heir apparent[42]—or York's heirs would succeeed instead.[63] This also applied if Henry chose to abdicate the throne.[39]

Boardman suggests that the lukewarm acceptance of York's claim indicates the level of support Henry still commanded. The act specifically forbade his removal by forcible means, and even though many of York's supporters felt Henry was incapable of ruling, they preferred to see him as a figurehead rather than York as a king.[64] The nobility present at this parliament—which Ross notes is "the more remarkable" as many of Margaret and Henry's strongest supporters were not present[39]—may still have felt latent loyalty to the king as God's anointed. It is also possible that those who might otherwise have supported him were loath to do so on account of his long absence in Dublin while the Nevilles fought his campaign.[65] Ross suggests that the nobility's willingness to keep Henry in power but jettison his son suggests that their loyalty was to him rather than Margaret, Edward or the dynasty; they may have believed—or chosen to believe—the rumours of Edward's illegitimacy.[39][note 8]

For the third time in his life,[68] York was made de facto Lord Protector;[61] this time he was not merely replacing one set of councillors with another, which had effectively been the extent of his powers on previous occasions.[69] York received 10,000 marks, of which half was to be split between March and Rutland.[39][note 9] The money was to come from the Prince of Wales's own patrimony as well as the revues of the earldom of Chester and duchy of Cornwall.[32][note 10] Perhaps most importantly from York's perspective, the act granted him the moral high ground against his opponents and the legal machinery and wages to pursue them.[68] York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors.[70]

Reception

[edit]

Most of York's supporters would probably have been satisfied with the return of their estates and titles,[64] and indeed, this was the first item on the parliamentary agenda. The business of overturning the Coventry Parliament's attainders and forfeitures had already begun with acts of council. The Nevilles had started receiving lands in August, and on the second day of the parliament, Salisbury's attainder was overturned on the grounds that it had been obtained "through the sinister labours of persons intending the king's destruction".[32] Very little other business was conducted, with no new attainders being brought nor reforms inducted.[61] On 31 October, the king, York, March and Rutland swore public oaths to keep the peace and uphold the agreement. Having sworn to protect the king's life, York presumably expected the king to reciprocate, argues George Goodwin: "He may not have been crowned, but York's person was now sacrosanct".[71] An attack on York was now legally treason.[71] The act was promulgated in the City of London on 9 November 1460.[32]

The Act of Accord neither stopped the civil war nor resolved the fundamental dynastic issue;[64] it neither pleased everyone nor resolved anything.[64] York's claim turned the political struggle from a partisan one to a dynastic one.[64] Notes Boardman, "disinheritance was a grave matter", and it may have been this that turned Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy.[64] It may have enabled the gentry and urban gentry to support York with a clearer conscience, now that it was law;[72] it may also have driven Yorkist loyalists away, who until now had not been forced to make a clear renunciation of the king.[64] Margaret would never[73] accept the disinheritance of her son and this perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as the only chance of returning Edward to what they considered his rightful position.[41] John Gillingham has argued that it is possible that the act made Margaret's position stronger, at least among her supporters and those previously wavering in their support. If she had been looking for a reason to reignite the civil war—which she had, says Gillingham, but had been thwarted due to her husband's acquiescence in his change of circumstances—then the disinheritance of the Prince of Wales was reason enough.[74] The nobility who did not attend the parliament—"long-term Lancastrian servants or those who had personal vendettas against the Yorkist lords"—became more resolute in their resistance to the Yorkist government.[75]

Aftermath

[edit]
Contemporary line drawing of Edward Prince of Wales
Near contemporaneous image of the disinherited Edward, Prince of Wales

Events elsewhere needed urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick.[39] The bulk of the Lancastrian army was regrouping in Yorkshire,[47] where much of the nobility was loyal to Henry. Margaret rapidly raised an army which began attacking York's and Salisbury's estates and tenants.[76][77] Law and order were thus high on York's priorities. While no one in government could state openly that it was the queen and Henry's supporters who were behind the discontent—instead it was phrased as a need to protect the kingdom's borders from invasion by the Scots—HPO suggests that "it is clear from indirect references that the duke received a specific royal command to deal with the unrest".[32]

The Yorkist lords left London on 2 December 1460 to restore order to the region, arriving at York's Sandal Castle on the 21st. Nine days later, York, his son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, Salisbury, Thomas, and many of their closest retainers led a sortie in strength to attack a Lancastrian army gathered near the castle. Details of the Battle of Wakefield are sparse, but the Yorkists—possibly outnumbered three to one—are known to have suffered a crushing defeat. York and Thomas Neville died on the field.[78][79] Rutland and Salisbury both attempted escape; Rutland was probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge,[80] and Salisbury was captured after the battle, and later executed at Pontefract Castle.[81]

Wakefield was a severe blow to the Yorkists, but the war was not over. Even after news of the defeat reached Edward, now Duke of York, in the Welsh Marches, he continued recruiting a large army; this force may have originally been intended to go north and join his father at Sandal. In early February, he inflicted a heavy defeat on the royalists under Jasper Tudor at the Battle of Mortimer's Cross. Edward made his way to London, where he met Warwick,[82][83] who had just been defeated by Margaret's army at the Second Battle of St Albans.[84] By now, the act appeared less likely to restore peace then ever,[70] and its full implications became apparent. Since Henry's supporters had breached the agreement's terms and his own oaths, he had abrogated his kingship.[85] Edward was proclaimed King Edward IV on 4 March. The Act of Accord was now declared null and void; it was no longer necessary.[82] Henry was accused of breaching the act long before that date[86] and declared a usurper.[40] The victorious Lancastrian army had retreated to the north and still posed a threat to the new regime. Accordingly, Edward raised a large army and followed them.[87] On 29 March 1461, the two forces clashed at the Battle of Towton, in what has been described as "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil".[88][note 11] The result was a decisive victory for the Yorkists,[93] and on 28 June 1461 Edward IV was crowned at Westminster Abbey.[94] The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for the civil war, became a theme of Yorkist propaganda until the end of the dynasty in 1485.[95]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The precise nature of Henry's illness is unknown,[4] but Griffiths describes it as "a severe mental collapse, accompanied by a crippling physical disablement".[3]
  2. ^ The labels "York and Lancaster" oversimplify the complex networks of loyalties and connections by which the English nobility was interlinked. At the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, the House of Lancaster—whose supporters have been labelled "Lancastrian"—was the ruling, governing dynasty founded by King Henry IV. His primary title had been Duke of Lancaster, and in 1399 he usurped the throne and deposed his cousin, Richard II. The ancestors of the Duke of York accepted the new political paradigm throughout the reign of Henry IV and his son Henry V, as did York himself throughout most of Henry VI's reign. Henry was both inept as a ruler and manipulable by powerful noble advisors, and they gradually alienated the Duke from central government. Those who gathered around him in opposition to these favourites—and later the King and Queen themselves—were known as "Yorkists".[16]
  3. ^ Boardman suggests much of the King's force were men from his "stables, mews, kitchen and pantry, along with the 'above'–stairs departments of the chapel, hall, wardrobe, counting house and chamber", for example.[18]
  4. ^ As Admiral of the Seas, Warwick had the Calais navy at his disposal, with which he sailed to Ireland on a "great journey". On the outward voyage, he seized merchant shipping for their spoils, and on his return, he effectively defeated a royal fleet under the Duke of Exeter outside Dartmouth.[43]
  5. ^ The early 15th-century chronicler Thomas Walsingham described how, at Richard II's coronation, the new king's "sword was born aloft before him by Simon Burley".[46]
  6. ^ Meaning the refectory.[57]
  7. ^ Transcribes as, generally:

    At which parliament, the commons of the realm being assembled in the common house, coming and treating upon the title of the said Duke of York, suddenly fell down the crown which hung then in the midst of the said house [note 6] of the abbey of Westminster which was taken for a prodigy or token that the reign of King Harry was ended: And also the crown which stood on the highest tower of the steeple in the castle of Dover fell down the same year.[58]
  8. ^ Rumours had been spread by Warwick, as part of Yorkist propaganda, from almost the moment of Edward's birth, that he was actually the son of either a passing tradesman or the Duke of Somerset.[66][67]
  9. ^ March was to receive 3,500 marks and Rutland 1,500 marks.[39]
  10. ^ It is probable that from this grant stems the erroneous supposition that York was also granted these royal titles.[32]
  11. ^ Other similar descriptions of Towton from historians are as "Britain’s bloodiest day in a long history of sanguinary conflict",[89] "the largest, longest fought, and bloodiest day in English medieval history",[90] "the biggest, longest and bloodiest military engagement on British soil",[91] "the costliest encounter ever fought on British soil", and that "in the modern-day world, where something has to be the biggest, longest, even bloodiest, in order to be remarkable, then Towton has many claims to be that singular event on English soil".[92]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 638.
  2. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 740.
  3. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 715.
  4. ^ Rushton 2010, pp. 147–148.
  5. ^ Lewis 2013, p. 35.
  6. ^ Storey 1999, pp. 165–76.
  7. ^ Bellamy 1973, p. 27.
  8. ^ Grant 2014, p. 208.
  9. ^ Fleming 2005, p. 58.
  10. ^ Pollard 1990, p. 245.
  11. ^ Carpenter 1997, p. 112.
  12. ^ Given-Wilson 1987, p. 168.
  13. ^ Archer 1995, pp. 114–115.
  14. ^ Smail & Gibson 2009, p. 456.
  15. ^ Hicks 2010, p. 12.
  16. ^ Hicks 2010, pp. 12–13, 43–45.
  17. ^ Hicks 2000, p. 170.
  18. ^ a b Boardman 2006, pp. 553–5355.
  19. ^ Roskell 1954, p. 155.
  20. ^ Hicks 2010, p. 110.
  21. ^ Thomson 2014, p. 204.
  22. ^ Armstrong 1960, p. 35.
  23. ^ Wolffe 2001, p. 289.
  24. ^ Roskell & Woodger 1993.
  25. ^ Watts 1996, p. 343.
  26. ^ Pollard 1990, p. 269.
  27. ^ Grummitt 2015, p. 191.
  28. ^ a b Horrox 2004.
  29. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 163.
  30. ^ Gillingham 1993, p. 105.
  31. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 166.
  32. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Given-Wilson et al. 2005.
  33. ^ Goodman 1996, p. 38.
  34. ^ Hicks 2010, pp. 153–154.
  35. ^ a b c Haigh 2002, p. 37.
  36. ^ Ross 1975, pp. 4–5.
  37. ^ Storey 1999, pp. 3, 188.
  38. ^ a b Hicks 2010, p. 155.
  39. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Ross 1975, p. 60.
  40. ^ a b c Jones 1997, p. 347.
  41. ^ a b c d e f g h Brondarbit 2022, p. 117.
  42. ^ a b c Boardman 1998, p. 33.
  43. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 76.
  44. ^ Jones 1997, p. 348.
  45. ^ Ross 1975, pp. 59–60.
  46. ^ a b Gransden 1996, p. 152.
  47. ^ a b c d Watts 2004.
  48. ^ Ross 1975, p. 59.
  49. ^ Laynesmith & Woodacre 2023, p. 5.
  50. ^ Johnson 1988, p. 212.
  51. ^ a b c Haigh 2002, p. 38.
  52. ^ Johnson 1988, p. 214.
  53. ^ Johnson 1988, pp. 214–215.
  54. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 189.
  55. ^ Johnson 1988, p. 215.
  56. ^ Brie 1906, p. 530.
  57. ^ M. E. D. 2024.
  58. ^ Murray 1970, p. 155.
  59. ^ Taylor 1999, p. 112.
  60. ^ Santiuste 2011, p. 51.
  61. ^ a b c Hicks 1998, p. 190.
  62. ^ Allmand 2014, p. 142.
  63. ^ Dockray 2000, p. 34.
  64. ^ a b c d e f g Boardman 1998, p. 34.
  65. ^ Haigh 2002, pp. 37–38.
  66. ^ Laynesmith 2013, pp. 210–211.
  67. ^ Laynesmith 2017, p. 126.
  68. ^ a b Hicks 2000, p. 398.
  69. ^ Gillingham 1993, p. 118.
  70. ^ a b Hodges 1984, p. 342.
  71. ^ a b Goodwin 2011, p. 114.
  72. ^ Fleming 2015, p. 98 n.40.
  73. ^ Sadler 2005, p. 346.
  74. ^ Gillingham 1993, pp. 117–118.
  75. ^ Johnson 2019, Lancastrian servants.
  76. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 213.
  77. ^ Dockray 2020, p. 69.
  78. ^ Haigh 1996, p. 126.
  79. ^ Johnson 1988, pp. 222–224.
  80. ^ Neillands 1992, p. 98.
  81. ^ Pollard 2004.
  82. ^ a b Pollard 2016, p. 23.
  83. ^ Hodges 1984, pp. 332–333.
  84. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 216.
  85. ^ Goodwin 2011, p. 148.
  86. ^ Ross 1975, p. 63.
  87. ^ Goodman 1996, pp. 41–55.
  88. ^ Gravett 2003, p. 7.
  89. ^ Sadler 2011, p. 1.
  90. ^ Haigh 2002, pp. 98, 170.
  91. ^ Boardman 1994, p. xi.
  92. ^ Goodwin 2011, pp. 1, 188.
  93. ^ Ross 1986, pp. 51–55.
  94. ^ Ross 1975, p. 42.
  95. ^ Jones 1997, p. 351.

Works cited

[edit]
  • Allmand, C. T. (2014). Henry V (repr. ed.). London: Methuen. ISBN 978-0-41353-280-0.
  • Archer, R. E. (1995). "Parliamentary Restoration: John Mowbray and the Dukedom of Norfolk in 1425". In Archer, R. E. & Walker, S. (eds.). Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England: Essays Presented to Gerald Harriss. London: Hambledon Press. pp. 99–116. ISBN 978-1-85285-133-0.
  • Armstrong, C. A. (1960). "Politics and the Battle of St. Albans, 1455". Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. 33: 1–72. OCLC 316298250.
  • Bellamy, J. G. (1973). Crime and Public Order in England in the Later Middle Ages. London: Routledge. OCLC 224783573.
  • Boardman, A. W. (1994). The Battle of Towton (1st ed.). Stroud: Alan Sutton. ISBN 978-0-75091-245-7.
  • Boardman, A. W. (1998). The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN 978-0-75091-465-9.
  • Boardman, A. (2006). The First Battle of St Albans, 1455. Stroud: Tempus. ISBN 07524-2983-3.
  • Brie, F. W. D., ed. (1906). The Brut; Or, the Chronicles of England. Vol. I. London: Early English Text Society. OCLC 1152760686.
  • Brondarbit, A. R. (2022). Soldier, Rebel, Traitor: John, Lord Wenlock and the Wars of the Roses. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-1-39900-347-6.
  • Carpenter, C. (1997). The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, c. 1437–1509. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52131-874-7.
  • Dockray, K. (2000). Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou and the Wars of the Roses: A Source Book. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN 978-0-75092-526-6.
  • Dockray, K. (2020). "Contemporary and Near-contemporary Chroniclers: The North of England and the Wars of the Roses, c. 1450–1471". In Clark, L.; Fleming, P. (eds.). Rulers, Regions and Retinues: Essays Presented to A. J. Pollard. The Fifteenth Century. Vol. XVIII. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. pp. 65–80. ISBN 978-1-78327-563-2.
  • Fleming, P. (2005). "Politics". In Radulescu R. Truelove A. (ed.). Gentry Culture in Late-Medieval England. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 50–62. ISBN 978-0-71906-825-6.
  • Fleming, P. (2015). "The Battles of Mortimer's Cross and Second St. Albans: The Regional Dimension". In Clark, L. (ed.). Essays Presented to Michael Hicks. The Fifteenth Century. Vol. XIV. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. pp. 91–102. ISBN 978-1-78327-048-4.
  • Gillingham, J. (1993). The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fifteenth-Century England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-29782-016-1.
  • Given-Wilson, C. (1987). The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-41514-883-2.
  • Given-Wilson, C.; Brand, P.; Phillips, S.; Ormrod, M.; Martin, G.; Curry, A.; Horrox, R., eds. (2005). "'Henry VI: October 1460'". British History Online. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. Woodbridge. Archived from the original on 18 February 2018. Retrieved 28 March 2024.
  • Goodman, A. (1996). The Wars of the Roses (2nd ed.). New York: Barnes and Noble. ISBN 978-0-88029-484-3.
  • Goodwin, G. (2011). Fatal Colours: Towton, 1461: England's Most Brutal Battle. London: Orion. ISBN 978-0-29786-072-3.
  • Gransden, A. (1996). Historical Writing in England: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century. Vol. II. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-41515-125-2.
  • Grant, A. (2014). "Murder Will Out: Kingship, Kinship and Killing in Medieval Scotland". In Boardman, S. (ed.). Kings, Lords and Men in Scotland and Britain, 1300-1625: Essays in Honour of Jenny Wormald. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 193–226. ISBN 978-0-74869-151-7.
  • Gravett, C. (2003). Towton 1461: England's Bloodiest Battle. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-513-6.
  • Griffiths, R. A. (1981). The Reign of King Henry VI. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-7509-1609-7.

Grummitt, D. (2015). Henry VI. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-31748-260-4.

Further reading

[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Stub icon

This legislation article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Act_of_Accord&oldid=1239257588"