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Text of statute as originally enacted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. York claimed the crown of England. His grounds were that, while he and Henry were both direct descendants of Edward III, York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines, while Henry's was through only one. Following much discussion—in which the king's serjeants-at-law and justices claimed that under the act, 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 the compromise.

Political partisanship had already erupted into civil war the year before, and, far from lowering political pressure, the act split the nobility further. Notwithstanding that her husband had publicly supported it, the agreement was unacceptable to the queen, Margaret of Anjou, who refused to accept the disinheritance of her son. 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 subsequently 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] Further weakening the government, King Henry had become mentally incapacitated in August 1453, becoming comatose, unable to feed himself or recognise any of his companions.[3][note 1]

Weak government led to a collapse of law and order, and there was a rise in violence and gang warfare in the regions.[1][5] This expressed itself through local feuds,[6][7] such as that between the Percy and Neville families Yorkshire; this was of such violence and breadth that it directly impacted national politics.[8] There was nearly a decade of violence in the southwest between the Bonvilles and Courtenays.[9] Less impactful nationally yet still regionally destructive were the feuds between the Harrington and Stanley families in the northwest,[10] John, Lord Talbot and James, Earl of Wiltshire on the Welsh marches,[11] and between William Tailboys and Ralph, Lord Cromwell in the Midlands.[12] Those disaffected with King Henry—predominantly the Nevilles—Richard, Earl of Salisbury and his son, Richard, Earl of Warwick, with their cousin John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk—gathered around York. As such, they are now often known as Yorkists, while those nobles loyal to the king—the majority of the English peerage—are often termed Lancastrian, after the royal dynasty.[13][note 2]

In 1455 this feuding coalesced into open battle, when York won a skirmish at St Albans in which several leading Lancastrian peers were slain.[15] Four years of peace followed. By 1459, the political situation—tense and partisan despite the king's efforts at reconciliation—had descended into outright civil war.[16][17] The previous year, the Earl of Salisbury had gathered his council, and they determined to "take the full part" with York when the time came.[18] The time came in September 1459: Salisbury marched south from his castle at Middleham to join up with York at Ludlow at the head of a 5,000-strong army.[19] On route they encountered a larger royal force at Blore Heath, which Salisbury defeated, killing its leader, James Tuchet, Baron Audley.[20] Salisbury's victory was only temporary, however, and in October, the Yorkists were routed at Ludford Bridge. York went into exile in Dublin, while Salisbury, Warwick and Edward of March took refuge in the English-occupied French town of Calais.[21] They and their followers were attainted in the Parliament of Devils in October 1459.[22]

In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed", suggests the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England project.[23] 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.[24][19] King Henry was taken prisoner and escorted to Westminster.

York's claim

[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.[25]

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 IIIPhilippa of Hainault
Edward the Black PrinceLionel, Duke of ClarenceJohn, Duke of LancasterEdmund, Duke of York
Richard IIPhilippa, 5th Countess of Ulster m. Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of MarchHenry Bolingbroke, later Henry IV
Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of MarchHenry V
Henry VI m. Margaret of Anjou
Edward of Lancaster
Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of MarchAnne MortimerRichard, Earl of Cambridge
Richard, Duke of York m. Cecily Neville
Edward IVGeorge, Duke of ClarenceRichard III

The House of Lancaster descended from John of Gaunt, the third surviving son of Edward III. This emphasised the male line of descent. On the other hand, the House of York descended from Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward III and younger brother of John of Gaunt. Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent, as descendants of Lionel, the Duke of Clarence. It 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.[26] Langley's second son, Richard of Conisburgh, had married Anne de Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer and sister of Edmund Mortimer. Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp.[27][28] York also argued that Henry Bolingbroke had unjustly taken the throne in 1399.[23] His assertion was essentially a legitimist[29] de jure claim.[30] York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, but it became a theoretical claim after Margaret gave birth to the king's son, Edward of Westminster. Hence, when York claimed the throne before Parliament on 10 October 1460,[31] it was within his right to do so, although whether it was tactically sound was less certain.[32]

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 also was uncertain as to the amount the Nevilles knew of York's plan before his arrival. Warwick had met with York in Dublin while on their respective exiles. It is unknown what they discussed, but they also met in Burford on York's return to England. Hence, it is possible that the earl knew of York's intentions; indeed, argues Brondarbit, "he may have been pushing the duke into a step he had proved unwilling to take for nearly a decade".[31] There was no swell of public acclamation when he landed as York 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 the reception he received. The same may have gone for March,[31] although the medievalist Michael Jones has queried whether Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself from York's plan may have reflected how it originally required him to raise popular support in London and Westminster prior to the duke returning but having been unable to do so.[33] The fact that they had very recently expressed their utmost loyalty to Henry as their liege lord could now be reinterpreted as perjury on their half, especially if doubt could be laid on their protests of disagreement with York.[31]

In any case, York does not seem to have been keeping his dynastic ambitions a secret. From his landing near Chester in early September, charters and letters signed under his seal began omitting reference to the regnal year, "quite out of conformity with usual practice", says Ross,[34] and indicating that he was now intent on claiming the throne for himself.[30] When York entered London, he had his sword born aloft before him and the arms of England, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king.[29]

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

Parliament had opened in the king's presence but York's absence, on 7 October.[23] When the Duke of York returned from Dublin in late September 1460, he travelled to Westminster to meet the king and his peers, many of whom were gathered for Parliament. It soon became clear that his time in Dublin had given him the opportunity to consider his claim to the Lancastrian crown.[28] To the surprise of all, he immediately did so.[35] 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".[23] Whethamstede's testimony indicates that York assumed he had most of the English nobility behind him. He was wrong.[25] He waited for applause that never came. Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, asked if York would like 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".[25] The response was an "embarrassed" silence,[36] and consternation.[23] York "shocked and angered" his colleagues[31] and his claim was "fiercely" opposed.[37] Among modern historians, for example, Paul Johnson has called York's behaviour "an act of supreme stupidity".[38]

The Nevilles were as set against his claim as every other member of the nobility.[35] The pro-Yorkist French chronicler Jean de Wavrin reported that Warwick, too, was unhappy with the duke, giving him "angry words for the earl showed the duke how the lords and people were ill content against him because he wished to strip the king of his crown".[39] According to the historian P. A. Johnson, both York's eldest son, Edward of March and the Archbishop refused to confront the Duke of York, so on two occasions, Salisbury's second son Thomas was despatched instead.[40] He backed his father against York's claims. By 11 October, York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings; they would not meet in person until the act's ratification at the end of the month.[23] York openly spoke of being crowned three days later. Neville was sent back to him for further negotiation, and York was found preparing for his coronation.[41] Neville informed the duke that his position was untenable "to both lords and people".[42] Although what was said between Thomas and the duke remains unknown, argues Johnson, his "mandate must have been both blunt and bluntly delivered",[43] as York acquiesced to the idea of a compromise agreement.[35]

Negotiations and the act of Parliament

[edit]

On Saturday, 18 October, the lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter; two days later, they replied in the negative, arguing that the king's God-given estate and ultimate regality were beyond their mortal competence.[23] The lords next turned the matter over to the serjeants-at-arms. They, too, declined to examine York's claim, "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.[23] So, the process of questioning York was returned to the lords themselves to adjudge. Their most important question was why, if he based his claim on his descent from Clarence, did he bear 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 the claim: "Though right for a time rest and be put to silence, yet it rotteth not nor shall it perish".[29]

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.[44][note 4]

The Brut Chronicle

York's claim constituted the majority of parliamentary business in the October 1460 session.[23] Although both Houses are known to have debated the issue, the only enrolled record comes from that of the House of Lords.[23] The nobility present at this parliament—which Ross notes is "the more remarkable" in view of the fact that many of Margaret and Henry's stalwart supporters were not even present[29]—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 how long he had absented himself in Dublin while the Nevilles fought his campaign.[47] 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; indeed they may have believed—or chosen to believe—the rumours of Edward's illegitimacy.[29][note 5] Until now—for instance, in his previous protectorates—York had merely replaced a set of councillors with another. The act went fundamentally further into the realms of attacking the very principle of inheritance upon which society was based.[50]

Ross argues that "York had miscalculated, but he did not intend to allow his claim to be ignored".[29] Having failed to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal front.[39] The Nevilles, as much as York, negotiated the act[32] with the Lords of Parliament, York's councillors and Henry's lawyers.[31] 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[39] and promulgated on the last day of the month.[31] 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".[51] The lords's compromise reflected their understanding that there were historical flaws in both parties' claims to the throne.[52] The lords were doubtless under pressure from York's councillors to reach an agreement, but before they did, the chancellor begged them that if anyone knew of a better solution, even at that last minute, they should propose it. No one did, and the king gave his assent the next day.[23] The resultant compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;[53] 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.[54]

For the third time in his life,[55] York was made de facto Lord Protector[53] and received 10,000 marks, of which half was to go to March and Rutland.[29][note 6] 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.[23][note 7] Perhaps most importantly from his perspective, the act was granted both the moral high ground against his opponents and the legal machinery and wages to pursue them.[55] York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors.[56] If it had ever been fully implemented,[57] it effectively disinherited Prince Edward, as it made York Henry's heir apparent.[32] York would take the throne on Henry's death, unless the latter chose to abdicate first.[29] Boardman suggests that this indicates the level of support Henry could still personally command. The act specifically forbade his removal by forcible means, and even though many of York's supporters clearly felt Henry was incapable of ruling, they equally preferred to see him as a figurehead rather than York as a king.[58]

Reception

[edit]

Most of York's supporters would probably have been satisfied with the return of their estates and titles,[58] 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 as early as August and on the second day of the parliament on the grounds that Salisbury had attainted "through the sinister labours of persons intending the king's destruction".[23] Very little other business was attended too, with no new attainders being brought nor reforms inducted.[53] On 31 October, York, March and Rutland swore public oaths to keep the peace and uphold the agreement; the king did similarly. 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".[59] An attack on York was now legally treason.[59] The act was promulgated in the City of London on 9 November 1460.[23]

The act neither stopped the fighting nor resolved the fundamental dynastic issue;[58] it neither pleased everyone nor resolved anything.[58] York's claim turned the struggle from a partisan one to a dynastic one.[58] Notes Boardman, "disinheritance was a grave matter", and it may have been the single thing that turned Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy.[58] Conversely, it may have enabled the gentry and urban gentry to support York with a clearer conscience than they other wise would have, now that it was law;[60] it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away who until now had not had to make a clear renunciation of the king.[58] Margaret would never[61] accept the disinheritance of her son and this perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward to what they considered his rightful legal position.[31] John Gillingham has argued that it is possible that the act actually 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 prevented due to her husband's acquiescence in his change of circumstances—then the disinheritance of the Prince of Wales was reason enough.[62] The nobility that 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.[63]

Aftermath

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

Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick.[29] Even closer, the bulk of the Lancastrian army was regrouping in Yorkshire,[35] where much of the nobility was loyal to Henry. Margaret rapidly and vigorously raised an army which almost immediately began attacking York's and Salisbury's estates and tenants.[64][65] Law and order was 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 this discontent—instead being 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".[23]

The Yorkist lords left London on 2 December 1460 to restore a semblance of order to the region and arrived at York's Sandal Castle on the 21st of the month. 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 gone down to a crushing defeat. York and Thomas Neville died on the field.[66][67] Rutland and Salisbury both attempted escape; Rutland was probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge,[68] and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed at Pontefract Castle.[69]

Although Wakefield was a hard blow to the Yorkists, the war was not yet over; even after news of the defeat reached Edward, now Duke of York, he continued recruiting a large army in the Welsh Marches. 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.[70] By now, suggests Hodges, the act "seemed less realistic than ever",[56] 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.[71] Edward was proclaimed King Edward IV on 4 March. The Act of Accord was declared null and void[70] and Henry—who it was claimed had breached the act long before 4 March[72]—a usurper.[30] The Lancastrians had retreated to the north and still posed a threat to the new regime. Accordingly, Edward raised a large army and followed them.[73] On 29 March 1461, the two forces clashed at Towton in what has been described as "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil".[74][note 8] The result was a decisive victory for the Yorkists,[79] and on 28 June 1461 Edward IV was crowned at Westminster Abbey.[80] The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for supposedly starting the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist chroniclers until the end of the dynasty in 1485.[81]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Historians have speculated upon Henry's illness. Its precise nature 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", are, however, considered by historians to oversimplify the complex networks of loyalties and connections by which the English nobility was interlinked. Simply, 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".[14]
  3. ^ Meaning the refectory.[45]
  4. ^ 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 3] 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.[46]
  5. ^ 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.[48][49]
  6. ^ March was to receive 3,500 marks and Rutland 1,500 marks.[29]
  7. ^ It is probable that from this grant stems the erroneous supposition that York was also granted these royal titles too.[23]
  8. ^ Other similar descriptions of Towton from historians are as "Britain’s bloodiest day in a long history of sanguinary conflict",[75] "the largest, longest fought, and bloodiest day in English medieval history",[76] "the biggest, longest and bloodiest military engagement on British soil",[77] "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".[78]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 638.
  2. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 740.
  3. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 715.
  4. ^ Rushton 2010, pp. 147–148.
  5. ^ Storey 1999, pp. 165–76.
  6. ^ Bellamy 1973, p. 27.
  7. ^ Grant 2014, p. 208.
  8. ^ Fleming 2005, p. 58.
  9. ^ Carpenter 1997, p. 112.
  10. ^ Given-Wilson 1987, p. 168.
  11. ^ Archer 1995, pp. 114–115.
  12. ^ Smail & Gibson 2009, p. 456.
  13. ^ Hicks 2010, p. 12.
  14. ^ Hicks 2010, pp. 12–13, 43–45.
  15. ^ Thomson 2014, p. 204.
  16. ^ Watts 1996, p. 343.
  17. ^ Pollard 1990, p. 269.
  18. ^ Grummitt 2015, p. 191.
  19. ^ a b Horrox 2004.
  20. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 163.
  21. ^ Gillingham 1993, p. 105.
  22. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 166.
  23. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Given-Wilson et al. 2005.
  24. ^ Goodman 1996, p. 38.
  25. ^ a b c Haigh 2002, p. 37.
  26. ^ Ross 1975, pp. 4–5.
  27. ^ Storey 1999, pp. 3, 188.
  28. ^ a b Hicks 2010, p. 155.
  29. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Ross 1975, p. 60.
  30. ^ a b c Jones 1997, p. 347.
  31. ^ a b c d e f g h Brondarbit 2022, p. 117.
  32. ^ a b c Boardman 1998, p. 33.
  33. ^ Jones 1997, p. 348.
  34. ^ Ross 1975, pp. 59–60.
  35. ^ a b c d Watts 2004.
  36. ^ Ross 1975, p. 59.
  37. ^ Laynesmith & Woodacre 2023, p. 5.
  38. ^ Johnson 1988, p. 212.
  39. ^ a b c Haigh 2002, p. 38.
  40. ^ Johnson 1988, p. 214.
  41. ^ Johnson 1988, pp. 214–215.
  42. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 189.
  43. ^ Johnson 1988, p. 215.
  44. ^ Brie 1906, p. 530.
  45. ^ M. E. D. 2024.
  46. ^ Murray 1970, p. 155.
  47. ^ Haigh 2002, pp. 37–38.
  48. ^ Laynesmith 2013, pp. 210–211.
  49. ^ Laynesmith 2017, p. 126.
  50. ^ Gillingham 1993, p. 118.
  51. ^ Taylor 1999, p. 112.
  52. ^ Santiuste 2011, p. 51.
  53. ^ a b c Hicks 1998, p. 190.
  54. ^ Allmand 2014, p. 142.
  55. ^ a b Hicks 2000, p. 398.
  56. ^ a b Hodges 1984, p. 342.
  57. ^ Dockray 2000, p. 34.
  58. ^ a b c d e f g Boardman 1998, p. 34.
  59. ^ a b Goodwin 2011, p. 114.
  60. ^ Fleming 2015, p. 98 n.40.
  61. ^ Sadler 2005, p. 346.
  62. ^ Gillingham 1993, pp. 117–118.
  63. ^ Johnson 2019, Lancastrian servants.
  64. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 213.
  65. ^ Dockray 2020, p. 69.
  66. ^ Haigh 1996, p. 126.
  67. ^ Johnson 1988, pp. 222–224.
  68. ^ Neillands 1992, p. 98.
  69. ^ Pollard 2004.
  70. ^ a b Pollard 2016, p. 23.
  71. ^ Goodwin 2011, p. 148.
  72. ^ Ross 1975, p. 63.
  73. ^ Goodman 1996, pp. 41–55.
  74. ^ Gravett 2003, p. 7.
  75. ^ Sadler 2011, p. 1.
  76. ^ Haigh 2002, pp. 98, 170.
  77. ^ Boardman 1994, p. xi.
  78. ^ Goodwin 2011, pp. 1, 188.
  79. ^ Ross 1986, pp. 51–55.
  80. ^ Ross 1975, p. 42.
  81. ^ 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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=1238824317"