The Political Allegiances of Christ Church Priory 1400-1472: the Evidence of John Stone's Chronicle

383 The Political Allegiances of Christ Church Priory 1400-1472: the Evidence of John StsTone’s Chronicle meriel connor I n the Parker Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, is to be found a fifteenth-century manuscript, CCCC MS417. A Latin edition of this manuscript, transcribed by W.G. Searle, was published by the Cambridge Antiquarian Society in 1902, and this edition is well known to many historians of the fifteenth century. The preface of the manuscript declares it to be the ‘book of brother John Stone, a monk of Christ Church Canterbury, composed as a result of his great work in the year 1467 in his fiftieth year as a monk’.1 Stone’s name first occurs in the Christ Church records on 13 December 1417, when he was about eighteen years old.2 He was born in Kent and lived as a monk at the priory for some sixty years. The surviving manuscript is a copy of that ‘great work’, which has been described as ‘an extremely curious and interesting memorandum book of most miscellaneous character’.3 Over the years, scholars have frequently cited Searle’s edition to provide evidence for some aspect of their research. However, little attention has been given to the original manuscript or to the composition of the work as a whole. Closer examination of the text shows it to be more than a chronological account of the internal life of this important medieval religious house. It reveals in addition that John Stone was well aware of external events, both local and national, and it may demonstrate how discord, particularly during the period of the Wars of the Roses, influenced the views and loyalties of the monastic community. At the outset, some consideration should be given to the manuscript itself. It is written on paper, is of octavo size and was tightly rebound in 1952. The folio numbering is not contemporary. The manuscript is written in fairly neat, legible bookhand of the fifteenth century, but the autograph is not Stone’s own. It is clear that the manuscript is a copy, probably, though not necessarily, from a complete original text. For the most part, it reads coherently and fluently. Several changes of hand occur.4 Various scribal errors are present, some caused by the scribe’s eye moving to a MERIEL CONNOR 384 line with similar wording.5 As Searle observed, there are also ‘places in the text where the sense shows that passages more or less extensive must have been omitted by the scribe’.6 (Some of these gaps were obviously left for the inclusion of a small piece of information not available at the time of writing.) Marginalia appear, including the words nota and versus, which are probably contemporary.7 Some underlining and other marks have been added at later dates. The use of rubrication and, in a few places, of dramatic flourishes, give the manuscript a certain visual sense of occasion. The rubrication ceases on folio 75v (1464), where there is an obvious change of hand, and recommences on folio 88v (1470), but is used sparingly. These embellishments suggest that the text was considered to be of importance, though the relatively careless correction of errors suggests that it was not intended primarily for display.8 It is likely that the intention was to make the text available for use. The literary style is not flamboyant, nor are literary devices employed. Though the manuscript records material in more or less chronological order, there is no evidence to suggest that it is being added to annually. The author identifies 1467 as the year of compilation, but the last item is dated 1472. It is probable that entries were added for the final years. That the author of the original was indeed John Stone is suggested by references to himself in the text.9 The reporting of a fire in May 1464 (fol. 73), which caused damage to the parish church of Stone-in-Oxney and nearby houses, and the naming of two local residents, is the only entry in the manuscript to record such an event, making it likely that this was Stone’s birthplace. The parish church of St Mary still bears the scars of that fire, and the former rectory is a fifteenth-century timber-framed house – clearly the successor of one of those that were destroyed. Stone describes himself as the compiler of ‘these chronicles’. The term ‘chronicle’ is difficult to define. Stone’s work is, perhaps, somewhere between an annal, a list of years with notices of events recorded alongside, and a selective history of events.10 A similar, though shorter, work exists written by a Christ Church contemporary of Stone’s, William of Glastonbury.11 Christ Church Priory had a history of chronicle writing, of which Stone would have been aware; but, although his own community was strongly conscious of its past, especially its customs and traditions, Stone’s record does not relate the history of Christ Church from its foundation.12 Neither does he attempt to set his narrative in a broad historical context from the creation of the world, as is the case in traditional chronicles, modelled more or less on the popular Brut.13 However, Stone’s work shares some common ground with such ‘histories’ as the Crowland Chronicle Continuations, and records a number of the same events.14 The writing of more traditional monastic chronicles at Christ Church, as elsewhere, had virtually ceased by the fifteenth century.15 Stone’s work, unlike the monastic chronicles of the thirteenth THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 385 and fourteenth centuries, focuses principally on the internal life of his house: the celebration of the liturgy; rituals and ceremonies; the election and enthronement of archbishops; the duties of their suffragans; and even the weather. It provides a unique insight into institutional life in an English Benedictine monastery in the fifteenth century. Much that Stone recorded came from personal observation, but he does refer to some of his own written sources, such as the priors’ registers and the martyrology – a register of the names of deceased monks and benefactors. A significant proportion of the manuscript is devoted to recording the obits of monks. Beyond this view of the internal workings of Christ Church Priory, though, Stone’s work provides information concerning the frequent visits of some of the most powerful and influential men and women of the day. Some of what is recorded concerning the world beyond the cloister came from personal observation. Other information filtered into the monastic precinct through a variety of channels including, no doubt, statements made in Chapter, personal communications with those monks whose occupations took them into the outside world, and conversations reported or overheard from the many visitors of all social levels who entered the Cathedral precinct. Information about current events, such as battles of the Wars of the Roses, may have come from newsletters. The outcome of a battle, with lists of casualties and other details, was commonly distributed in written bills, and schedules and newsletters were generally held to be a reliable source of information when rumours were rife.16 Writing in Archaeologia Cantiana in 1999, Malcolm Mercer explored the nature of Kent’s political society in the late fifteenth century in the absence of a resident dominant peer. He advanced the idea that ‘affinity’ operated on two levels, ‘on the one hand according to the force of circumstances at any given time; on the other hand, on a deeper, emotional level as a result of long-standing traditions of service’. Mercer noted the tendency of the local gentry ‘to congregate around those who represented royal authority at the time’. He argued that, in the early fifteenth century, ‘connections forged by local families with the Beauforts were fundamental in determining the nature of Lancastrian loyalism later in the century’, and that the ‘Beaufort influence was reinforced by personal ties to key magnates with territorial interests in the county’.17 It is the purpose of this study to re-examine John Stone’s manuscript, not to determine what it has to tell us about monastic life as such, but rather in an attempt to seek out what the work might reveal about the political interests and loyalties of the community of Christ Church Priory. Christ Church attracted large numbers of visitors in the late Middle Ages. Many people came to Canterbury on pilgrimage. Some came because of Canterbury’s geographical position on the road between London and the Continent. Christ Church was itself a centre of lordship of considerable MERIEL CONNOR 386 power and influence extending over a wide geographical area.18 It was an important patron, with powerful connections, including the king and some of the most powerful magnates in the land. Inevitably the priory developed as a centre for local, national and international politics. John Stone’s text falls into three sections, though these are not defined as such. The first section begins with a list of gifts made by Stone to Canterbury Cathedral since his profession as a monk, and is followed by a list of obits of forty-five monks who died at the priory between the years 1415 and 1443 finishing with that of Thomas Herne, a monk held in high regard at Christ Church. This obit is followed by a list of Herne’s gifts to the Cathedral, probably used by Stone as a model for his own list. A short second section (fols 18v-20: Searle pp. 19-21) is made up of a miscellaneous selection of events dating from 1411-1435. The written style of these items is different from others in the manuscript, at one point appearing to have been extracted from a Latin poem (fol. 18v). The third section starts in the manner in which it is to continue – a series of chronological entries, beginning with the consecration of Archbishop Thomas Bourchier as bishop of Worcester, in May 1435, and continuing with a mixture of obits interspersed with events. The short middle section is of particular interest. At first sight, the items included might seem to have been entered to no particular purpose. However, closer inspection reveals a catalogue of Lancastrian succession and allegiances. Following a short obit of Prior Chillenden on 20 March 1413 is a note of the death of Henry IV, who chose to be buried in Canterbury Cathedral, close to the shrine of St Thomas. The next item recalls the death ‘in the rectory of Hackington’, outside Canterbury, of Archbishop Thomas Arundel (in 1414). ‘Kent must weep because Thomas Arundel has died’ (fol. 18v). Arundel had been elected archbishop by the monks of Christ Church in August 1396, and had ‘close and harmonious relations with his cathedral chapter’.19 In 1397, Arundel was denounced by Richard II and condemned to exile and forfeiture. Arundel was an unwavering Lancastrian supporter and did much to ensure the survival of Henry IV’s unstable reign. He preached a lively sermon on the occasion of Richard’s deposition, endorsing Henry’s claim to the throne with biblical references.20 A brief account follows of some of the triumphs of Henry V in battle against the French (fol. 18v; Searle p. 19). The expedition to Harfleur is noted, at which ‘King Henry V besieged [the town] with the people inside’. This ended in an important naval victory on 15 August 1416. Henry V, who was inspecting the construction of a new ship at Small Hythe, on hearing news of this victory went immediately to Canterbury Cathedral and ordered a Te Deum to be sung in public celebration.21 The capture of Rouen, ‘at which Henry V subjugated the Normans’, is noted next. Then there is a short account of how ‘the victorious King Henry THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 387 V’ was married in Troyes to ‘the lady Katherine, daughter of the most serene Prince Charles, king of the French’. This marriage was part of the ratification of the Treaty of Troyes. By the terms of this treaty, Katherine was to marry Henry; her father, Charles VI of France, would disinherit his son the Dauphin; Henry would be declared regent of France and heir to Charles and, following Charles’s death, the ‘crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and appurtenances’ would be vested in Henry and his heirs.22 It would appear that the date of the treaty, 2 June 1420, was auspicious for, Stone tells us, it was ‘the day of the Holy Trinity, which in this year is coincident with the feast of St Odo’, a tenth-century archbishop of Canterbury much venerated at Christ Church in the fifteenth century. The next item listed is a prayer, expressed on behalf of Henry V, that Thomas Duke of Clarence, a military ‘hero’, killed at the battle of Baug������������������������������������������������������������������������in1421,‘shouldfight,withthehelpofChristandtheHolySpirit’. é in 1421,��������������������������������������������������������������,‘‘should fight, with the help of Christ and the Holy Spirit’� .Clarence’s body was returned from France for burial in Canterbury Cathedral near the shrine of St Thomas. Stone then records the consecration of William Alnwick as bishop of Norwich, at the high altar of Canterbury Cathedral – a service celebrated by Archbishop Chichele on 18 August 1426. Stone informs us that Alnwick was ‘keeper of the privy seal of Henry VI, king of England and France’ (fol. 19; Searle p. 20). Alnwick took up this post in 1422. He was close to the king and a faithful Lancastrian supporter.23 The final entry of note in this brief catalogue of events is Stone’s reference to the��������������������������������������������������������ecoronationofHenryVI,askingofEnglandandFrance, coronation of Henry VI, as king of England and France, at Westminster Abbey on 6 November 1429. The manuscript then states that, on ‘the day of St George the martyr’ (23 April) 1430, the boy king crossed to France to be crowned in Paris. The noting of the feast of St George for the departure for France might have been seen as an auspicious choice. Malcolm Mercer observes in his article that ‘the political profile of Kent started to change as a result of the increasing prominence of the Beaufort family in national politics’.24 The Beauforts had close links with Canterbury Cathedral and its community in the early fifteenth century, and shared Henry IV’s devotion to St Thomas. Henry IV was the first king to be anointed at his coronation with the holy oils which, according to legend, were given by the Virgin Mary to St Thomas during his exile in France. For Henry, therefore, the shrine of St Thomas had a profound personal significance, and use of the oil at his coronation may have been perceived as lending weight to his claim to the throne, a claim supported by Archbishop Arundel.25 It is probable that Henry IV’s devotion to St Thomas led to his decision to be buried close to the shrine, in the Trinity Chapel at Canterbury Cathedral.26 John Beaufort had a close relationship with his half-brother the king who, on his accession to the throne, bestowed honours on him, including creating him first earl, and MERIEL CONNOR 388 then marquis, of Somerset, and making him constable of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. A prestigious marriage was secured for John with Lady Margaret Holland, daughter and later co-heiress of Edmund, Earl of Kent, and the king acted as godfather to their first child – named Henry in his honour. John Beaufort shared Henry IV’s devout wish to be buried close to the shrine of St Thomas.27 Margaret Holland was a generous benefactress of Canterbury Cathedral, and her coat of arms is displayed in a number of places there.28 She maintained her interest in the Cathedral until her death. On the death of her husband, John Beaufort, in 1410, she married Thomas, Duke of Clarence, the eldest of Henry V’s brothers and, until his death in March 1421, heir presumptive to the throne. Before her death, Lady Margaret commissioned a tomb to be placed in the newly constructed chapel of St Michael, in the Cathedral’s south-west transept. Stone records her death on 30 December 1439, and her two husbands were exhumed and reinterred on 8 January 1440, to share with her the magnificent tomb, which displays the effigies of all three (fol. 24; Searle p. 26). Margaret’s son John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset, inherited valuable Beaufort possessions in Kent. Edmund Beaufort, Marquis of Dorset, third son of John Beaufort and Margaret Holland, succeeded to his brother’s title as duke of Somerset, and was a rich and influential patron, who also gave generously to Christ Church. On the death of Cardinal Beaufort in 1447, Edmund became head of the family. It has been suggested that either Cardinal Beaufort or Edmund, Duke of Somerset, might have contributed generously to the construction of the cathedral pulpitum.29 The iconography of this screen, portraying King Ethelbert, founder of Canterbury Cathedral, Edward the Confessor, the patron saint of both Richard II and the Lancastrians, and the monarchs themselves, from Richard II to Henry VI, is in itself a statement of the continuity of kingship and of the legitimacy of the house of Lancaster. In 1453, in acknowledgement of his generous patronage, Edmund had been granted the use of the house called Meister Omers, in the Christ Church precincts.30 Had he not been killed by the Yorkists at the Battle of St Albans on 22 May 1455, Edmund would doubtless have been buried in St Michael’s Chapel. Stone records that Edmund’s daughter Isabelle was buried in the family chapel of St Michael on 31 October 1453 (fol. 48v; Searle, p. 58). Thomas Beaufort, Count of Perche, another of Lady Margaret Holland’s sons, was buried on 21 October 1421 in the monks’ cemetery ‘close to the tomb of St Thomas the Martyr’, but later re-interred in St Michael’s Chapel (fol. 19v; Searle, p. 20).31 Cardinal Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester and half-brother of Henry IV, had equally strong links with Christ Church Priory. This distinguished, wealthy and well-connected prelate was a powerful ally to Christ Church. The priory records note his entry into confraternity in 1429, together with others of his household.32 Between 1430 and 1445, THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 389 Stone recorded a number of the Cardinal’s visits to Christ Church, often as he journeyed to and from France, where he was involved in negotiating peace. In December 1438, Stone noted that the Cardinal’s choir provided the music for a mass celebrated in the prior’s chapel on the occasion of the return of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, after his long period of captivity in France (fol. 20v; Searle, p. 22).33 In his later years, the Cardinal’s relationship with the priory became even closer. He established a retirement home within the precincts of the cathedral in Meister Omers (where Edmund was later to live) which he completely rebuilt to a high standard at his own expense.34 Here he probably spent the winter of 1445-6, and in July 1446 Stone again noted his presence. On 17 September 1446, Queen Margaret spent the day in his company when she came to Canterbury on pilgrimage (fol. 34; Searle, p. 39). Cardinal Beaufort had his vestments and episcopal throne moved to Christ Church, although he died at his palace in Winchester on 11 April 1447. Prior Elham rode to Winchester to his funeral, and a requiem mass was said for him at the high altar in Canterbury Cathedral (fol. 35; Searle, p. 41). The Cathedral priory was amongst the major beneficiaries of the Cardinal’s will, and received £1,000 for building and endowment, in return for perpetual prayers for his soul. His coat of arms appears in the vaulting of Canterbury Cathedral.35 In April 1455, Stone recorded that exequies were sung for the Cardinal in the choir on the anniversary of his death. A set of his vestments was left to Christ Church, and Stone noted that these were worn by the celebrant at high mass on 11 May 1458, and again at the feast of the Assumption high mass in 1463, indicating that he was remembered by the community sixteen years after his death (fols 53, 60, 73v; Searle, pp. 64, 73, 89). The Beauforts, then, were friends and benefactors of Christ Church. But the names which appear in the Christ Church confraternity and livery lists, and in the pages of Stone, indicate the extent of the priory’s involvement with people of influence at all levels of society, both ecclesiastical and secular, who might use their influence to good effect on behalf of the priory. James Fiennes and John Cheyne were two of these. Fiennes (1395-1450) had established links with the Beaufort family throughout the 1440s, and his connections with Christ Church would have strengthened after he acquired the stewardship of the archbishop’s lands in 1443. Archbishop Stafford notified the Prior that Fiennes’ appointment had been made ‘havyng consyderacion how the seid James stond aboute the kyng as he dooth, may dayly proufyte our church and us’.36 Fiennes held manors in Kent and served as sheriff of the county on a number of occasions. He represented Kent in parliament from 1439 until his elevation to the peerage as Lord Saye and Sele in 1447, when he became Chamberlain of the Household and also Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, a post that he held until 1449, when he became Lord Treasurer of England. The positions of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Steward MERIEL CONNOR 390 of the archbishop of Canterbury’s lands were the most important and influential offices in Kent, and Fiennes held both. He had a strong affinity in Kent and played a significant part in Kentish affairs before his violent death in 1450. In 1450, losses in France and government incompetence had caused increasing discontent with the regime of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. ‘Ministerial and household offices revolved within a small group among whom Suffolk, in succession to Cardina Beaufort, was the leader’.37 Suffolk was impeached by the Commons in January 1450. Henry was reluctant to condemn Suffolk, finally agreeing to his banishment instead. He was on his way to exile in Burgundy when his ship was intercepted and he was summarily executed.38 Stone reports the death of Suffolk as follows: William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, was captured at sea. And the following day at dawn he was beheaded … and they threw his body, together with the head, onto the seashore near the town of Dover. And the following day, the mayor of Dover, and others, took up his body and carried it to the church of St Martin, and there his exequies were solemnized, and three masses celebrated, with music. The prior of Dover was celebrant at the third mass in the parish church. On the twenty-second day of May, the Friday before Pentecost, Suffolk’s body was carried to the church of Canterbury, and there he had exequies with three lessons. His body was then carried to the church at Rochester. (fols 41v; Searle, p. 49) Stone’s seemingly sympathetic account of Suffolk’s capture and death suggests that the duke’s mutilated body was treated with dignity and respect by the Benedictine communities at Dover, Canterbury and Rochester. But in the county of Kent more generally, Suffolk was regarded with contempt and there was fear that the men of Kent might be punished for his murder. The passage of his funeral cortege through the county was bound to have evoked a response and intensified dissent. On 3 June 1450, Stone reported the arrival of John Cade at the outskirts of Canterbury: On the third day of June this year, on the vigil of Corpus Christi, a certain ‘unknown’ person rose up in Kent who was called John Mortimer. And on the eighth day of June he approached Canterbury with four thousand men in a great camp between the church of St Michael at Harbledown and the church of St Dunstan. They waited for three hours and afterwards he departed for Blackheath, and there he waited. While the crowd waited outside the walls of Canterbury, Cade sought entry to the city. Stone refers to Cade as ‘John Mortimer’ – a Yorkist title. Furthermore, Stone describes him ambiguously as homo ignotus, which on the one hand could indicate an ‘unknown’ man, but could also mean vulgar, base or of low birth. Stone goes on to report the murder of William THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 391 Ayscough, bishop of Salisbury, the king’s counsellor and confessor. As Cade’s insurgents surrounded London, Ayscough retreated to Wiltshire, where he probably hoped to be more secure as he took shelter at the monastery of the Bonhommes at Edington. But a band of men forced him from the monastery, and Stone reports that ‘on the twenty-ninth day of July … William Ayscough, bishop of Salisbury was killed’.39 In London, Stone reports that Cade, ‘the aforesaid captain entered the city … and accepted the keys to the gates’ (fol. 42v). Sessions were held in the Guildhall to give a veneer of legality to the indictment of those denounced by the rebels. But, despite Cade’s intentions to maintain order, the mob became increasingly out of control. Fiennes was deeply unpopular in the county of Kent, his name being linked with those of Suffolk, Moleyns and Ayscough. He was summoned from the Tower, where Henry VI had reluctantly confined him, possibly to ensure his safety. Fiennes was indicted of treason and extortion. Stone records that on 4 July 1450:40 the lord James Fiennes, lord Saye, knight, and [William] Crowmer [Fiennes’ son-in-law], sheriff of Kent and the clerk of the said sheriff … were beheaded in a street called Cheap (fol. 42v). On 12 July, Stone notes that Cade himself ‘was killed in the county of Sussex, in the parish of Heathfield’. Stone records these events without comment, yet the manner of their inclusion indicates careful selection, and the sometimes ambiguous wording might conceal sympathy for the supporters of the anointed king. Following Cade’s Rebellion, the royal affinity in Kent was led by Sir John Cheyne. Cheyne had not played a prominent role in Kentish politics before Fiennes’ death, and he had avoided the attention of the Kentish rebels. Sir John was a well-connected local landowner, a kinsman of Fiennes and of the Beauforts, and steward of some of Queen Margaret’s properties. In 1444, Cheyne was received into confraternity with Christ Church. He received a livery from successive priors as a token of mutual aid and respect and his cordial relationship with Christ Church is suggested by his regular gifts to the priory of deer and fish.41 John Cheyne served as Member of Parliament for Kent. By 1452 he was victualler of Calais and in 1455, sheriff of Kent. A sheriff was appointed from the senior ranks of the gentry, and, by 1461 at least, the prior of Christ Church played some official part in the appointment of a new sheriff, being required to administer the oath of office.42 From 1450 to 1460, Cheyne was deputy constable of Dover Castle, second in command to the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. He was also the presiding official in the county court and the shire’s chief financial officer.43 These activities gave Cheyne a position of influence at the heart of local and national affairs that, together with his wide circle of contacts, would have made him a valued adviser both to the MERIEL CONNOR 392 archbishop and the priory. Stone records the presence of Cheyne amongst the guests to the enthronement of Archbishop Bourchier on 26 January 1455 (fol. 52; Searle, p. 63). On 22 March 1454, Stone notes the death of Archbishop John Kempe (fols 49-50v; Searle, pp. 59-60). Just five days later, Richard, Duke of York, was appointed Protector of England for the first time, during the period of Henry VI’s mental breakdown, and on 30 March, two days after York’s appointment, Thomas Bourchier was named archbishop of Canterbury by the king’s council. It was not until 23 April, Stone notes, that the ‘future’ archbishop was elected to office by the monks of Christ Church ‘by way of the Holy Spirit’ – several weeks after the appointment by the council. Interestingly, Stone records the text taken for the sermon delivered to those assembled in the chapter house following Bourchier’s election: ‘He shall choose our inheritance for us’, referring, no doubt, to the power of the Holy Spirit.44 It is just possible that this might indicate some resentment of York’s intervention. Further, as part of the process of appointing a new archbishop, the crown insisted on its right to grant a congé d’élire. In this case, Stone noted that the election took place without the king’s licence, which was ‘without precedent’. The reason for this could simply have been Henry’s mental condition. However, the fact that Stone saw fit to record this information might suggest his concern either for the king’s condition, or for his exclusion from the election process, or both. Stone records the enthronement as archbishop of Thomas Bourchier in some detail (fols 52-52v; Searle, pp. 62-3). The guest list for those attending the enthronement reveals how complex were the relationships between Christ Church and the prominent families with Kentish connections. Thomas Bourchier was, of course, of royal descent, through his mother Anne, grand-daughter of Edward III. Bourchier was half-brother to the powerful Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, one of the wealthiest and best-connected landowners in the realm and the most influential of Kent’s magnates. Buckingham was present at Bourchier’s installation, accompanied by a number of his kinsmen, including his son Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, who had married Edmund Beaufort’s daughter Margaret. Buckingham was later to die fighting for the Lancastrian cause at Northampton in 1460. Buckingham’s wife was Anne Neville, daughter of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland and Joan Beaufort. Amongst her many siblings were Richard, Earl of Salisbury, William, Lord Fauconberg and Cecily, wife of Richard, Duke of York and mother of Edward IV. York, was admitted to confraternity with Christ Church in 1436, and his wife in December 1462, together with Edward’s sister Margaret. Salisbury and his son Warwick were frequent visitors to Christ Church, as recorded by Stone, and are also to be found in the confraternity admission lists. John, Viscount Beaumont, Salisbury’s half-brother was also a guest at the enthronement. He, like Buckingham, was THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 393 to die for Henry VI at Northampton. Future Yorkist supporters present included the new archbishop’s brothers Henry Bourchier, Count of Eu, William Bourchier, Lord FitzWarin, and John, Lord Berners; Salisbury’s brother, Edward, Lord Abergavenny; John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, and Sir Thomas Etchingham. Also invited were John Cheyne, Thomas Brown and Thomas Kyriell, father-in-law of John Fogge, though they dined in a different hall from their superiors (fol. 53, Searle, p. 63).45 Archbishop Bourchier was finally to declare for the Yorkist cause in the mid 1450s. Relationships must have become increasingly strained in this family split by political allegiances, a situation that would also have had implications for Christ Church. The community had the responsibility of remembering in prayer all those who were in confraternity with them, which included the living and the dead from both sides of the hostilities of the civil war. On 22 May 1455, Stone records that a battle took place ‘in the town of St Alban the protomartyr, in the presence of King Henry VI and others of his lords, namely dukes, earls and barons. In this battle, lord Edmund [Beaufort], Duke of Somerset, Henry [Percy], Earl of Northumberland and [John] Lord Clifford, were killed’ (fol. 53v; Searle, p. 64). All three men were Lancastrian supporters. By mid 1455, the Yorkist influence at court was strong, although divisions were becoming apparent. In Kent, however, the power of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, holder of the lordship of Tonbridge and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, together with the continued influence of the Beauforts, meant that the Kentish royal affinity was still dominant, despite a period of tension.46 On 17 March 1456 Henry VI came to Canterbury on pilgrimage. After this visit, apart from the raid on Sandwich by the French in August 1457, and a visit on 11 May 1458 by the earl of Warwick on his way to Calais, where he had replaced Edmund Beaufort as Captain in July 1456, Stone refers little to external events. His silence reflects, perhaps, the uncertainty of the times. In May and September 1458, Stone records the arrival and departure of ambassadors of the duke of Burgundy in negotiation with Henry VI through his councillors, and an English embassy to Calais to negotiate with French ambassadors, but Stone notes that ‘nothing was done’ (fols 60v-61; Searle, p. 74). In May 1459, Stone recorded the arrival in Canterbury of Francesco de Coppini, the papal legate (fol. 63; Searle, p. 77). Coppini was appointed by Pope Pius II to promote peace between the rival English factions and ‘to visit the whole realm and reform abuses’.47 (To the pope’s later displeasure, Coppini, far from taking a neutral position, attached himself to the Yorkist cause.)48 The Yorkists, like Henry IV before them, justified themselves as claimants to their rightful inheritance, loyal to the king and supporters of good government. Popular ballads were posted on the gates of Canterbury presenting the Yorkist lords as ‘saviours of the kingdom’.49 However, in spite of events of national importance, Stone MERIEL CONNOR 394 is silent until, on 26 June 1460, he notes the arrival of the Yorkist earls in Sandwich, where they were joined by Salisbury’s brother, William, Lord Fauconberg, and a ‘great company of people’ (fol. 64v; Searle, p. 79). The earls’ popularity may have been the result of repressive measures taken against them after the collapse of Cade’s Rebellion, and of the failure of the administration to correct the abuses against which the rebels had campaigned.50 Amongst other propagandist material in circulation at the time of the Yorkists’ arrival was a recycled manifesto of Jack Cade, rehearsing the grievances of the people of Kent current in 1450.51 Following his report of the earls’ arrival, Stone noted the presence in Canterbury of three ‘renowned’ men, ‘Robert Horne of Appledore, John Scott and John Fogge, all Kentish by birth, who were sent by Henry VI to confront the earls of Salisbury, March and Warwick at St Martin’s, just outside the city. There they discussed peace and reached a conditional agreement. Consequently, they returned to the city and came to the shrine of St Thomas’ (fol. 64v; Searle, p. 79). In the aftermath of Cade’s Rebellion, these men had been commissioned to disperse the rebels. They would all have been well known at Christ Church. In 1452, Fogge and Scott had been appointed keepers of the temporalities of the See of Canterbury, and Robert Horne appears in the Christ Church livery lists.52 All three were royal servants, and had served as commissioners of the peace and sheriffs of Kent. However, far from ‘confronting’ the earls, Fogge, Scott and Horne defected to the Yorkist cause and admitted the earls to Canterbury with their supporters, at which point all the company went to visit the shrine, removed the cross of St Thomas, and carried it before them to St Paul’s Cathedral.53 Although Stone’s account of this episode is short and neutral in tone, a closer look at the language used might suggest otherwise. Stone refers to the three men as viri famosi. The adjective famosus could mean that these men were renowned or famous or, on the other hand, infamous, notorious or worse. Stone’s next entry states that on the following day, 27 June, Coppini came to Canterbury, and stayed not at Christ Church, but at St Augustine’s Abbey.54 On 28 June he came to Christ Church, where he was received with the ceremony due to a papal legate. In view of Coppini’s support of the Yorkist earls, however, it is possible that the Christ Church community’s attitude to him may have been at least ambivalent. From London, the earls went on to Northampton, and Stone reported the battle that took place there on 10 July 1460, which resulted in a resounding Yorkist victory. Stone’s report of this battle is interesting, not least because the location (only) is described in English, possibly copied from a newsletter. Amongst the dead from this battle Stone listed Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, and John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, a loyal supporter of Henry, whose name appears both in the livery lists and the confraternity lists of Christ Church. Stone names other nobles THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 395 and knights who died in the cause of Lancaster at this battle, including Warwick’s brother-in-law, John, Viscount Beaumont. Stone also notes that ‘few were killed on the earls’ [i.e. Yorkist] side’. After the battle, the earls took King Henry to Delapr�������������������������������������������������Abbey,‘closetoNorthampton’totakeshelter,é �����������������������������������������������Abbey, ‘close to Northampton’ to take shelter, and then escorted him back to London as their prisoner, where they arrived on 16 July. Interestingly, Stone also recorded that ‘at the time of the battle, the archbishop of Canterbury [Thomas Bourchier] stood on a hill called the Cross Without a Head’ – perhaps inauspiciously (fols 65-65v; Searle, p. 80). Stone’s next entry records the execution on 29 July of ‘Sir Thomas Brown, sheriff of Kent’ (fol. 66). The relationship between the Christ Church community and Thomas Brown had been cordial. He had, for example, sent them New Year’s gifts on a number of occasions.55 Thomas Brown had remained loyal to Henry VI. His execution followed a summary trial for treason following the Yorkist lords’ entry to London.56 On 1 August 1460, the prior and convent received Thomas Bourchier at the Cathedral. Stone notes only that ‘he was received by the prior and convent in cowls’. Although senior churchmen were often received by the community dressed in cowls, this was probably an unusual way to receive their archbishop. The following day, Henry VI arrived in Canterbury ‘on pilgrimage’. He was received by Archbishop Bourchier, together with William Grey, bishop of Ely, a Yorkist supporter. March, Warwick, and Salisbury were present, as also was Warwick’s brother, George Neville, bishop of Exeter, who had been made chancellor of England on the battlefield of Northampton. The following day, Stone noted that the convent ‘was not robed’ in procession, and that Prior Goldstone ‘celebrated high mass with his pastoral staff in the presence of the lord archbishop’ (fols 66r-v; Searle, p. 81). What are we to make of Stone’s report of these apparent deviations from normal practice? Why were the monks not robed? And why was it specifically recorded that the prior exercised his right to carry his pastoral staff in the presence of the archbishop and the king? The king was still in Canterbury on 14 August 1460, when again he participated in the liturgy and in procession, although Stone particularly observed that he did not wear his crown. Henry had a great love of ceremony. During his reign, solemn crown-wearing processions were more common than had traditionally been the case.57 Wearing the crown defined the king’s status and invoked public recognition of the nature of royal authority. The fact that Henry did not wear his crown suggests that although he was still king, the trappings of kingship had gone. On 18 August, Henry left Canterbury for London, never to return. Stone’s account of the Yorkist victory at Towton in March 1461 is confusing, and the wording seems out of character. Edward is referred to as the ‘most illustrious and excellent king and prince Edward IV by hereditary right’, and Stone describes the attack MERIEL CONNOR 396 against Henry VI, the former king, and all his criminal company with him [cum cunctis suis secum iniuriose concomitantibus], and against almost all the noble lords and gentlemen from the north; where, I relate with heartfelt sorrow, 23,000 men and more were reputedly killed. This happened on Palm Sunday … May their souls rest for ever in peace with Christ. (fols 67v-68) This account that begins, apparently, with a glowing endorsement of Edward’s kingship, finishes with a prayer for the ‘gentlemen of the north’ (predominantly Lancastrian), an expression of profound regret at the senseless loss of life, and a prayer for the souls of the dead.58 Stone recorded the coronation of Edward IV at Westminster in June 1461 and noted that the ceremony was performed by Archbishop Bourchier but that Prior Goldstone was not there. Whether Goldstone was absent by choice or because he had not been invited is unknown. Following his coronation, Edward came to Christ Church in 1461 on the Vigil of the feast of the Assumption, the day on which in the previous year Henry, uncrowned, had taken part in the Christ Church liturgy (fol. 68v; Searle, p. 83). Is this a coincidence, or does it represent for Edward an anniversary; an opportunity to celebrate his ascendancy over his kinsman? On 13 January 1462, Edward returned to Canterbury ‘for the purpose of pilgrimage’ according to Stone (fol. 69v; Searle, pp. 84-85). Edward’s next recorded visit took place seven months later (fols 70v-71), when there was the usual ceremonial reception by the prior and convent. The purpose of Edward’s visit on this occasion was to meet his brother George Neville, John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester (Edward’s cousin and treasurer of England), and William Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel (married to Warwick’s sister). This entry is followed in the manuscript by a note recording the birth of Prince Edward, son of Henry VI, on 13 October 1453. Stone notes that the baby prince’s godfathers were Archbishop John Kempe and Edmund Beaufort, and his godmother Anne Stafford, Duchess of Buckingham. The entry continues: The same day, a letter concerning the birth came to the prior of Christ Church from the king. And after procession, the subprior read aloud the letter to all those standing in the nave of the church and the cantor began the Te Deum laudamus. (fols 71r-v) The importance of the news was endorsed both by its proclamation in the nave and by the liturgical thanksgiving which followed. Since this entry is clearly out of chronological order, one is prompted to wonder whether this is a deliberate mistake: did Stone intend to draw attention, precisely ten years later, to the existence of Edward, Prince of Wales, as rightful heir to the throne? It was quite common practice at Christ Church to copy into the current prior’s register the wording of an earlier charter or grant THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 397 when a matter was in dispute, in order to reinforce the priory’s position.59 It is possible that Prince Edward’s claims were being reinforced in this way. Edward IV came to Canterbury again on 24 August 1463. On 27 August, Archbishop Bourchier arrived, but Stone noted that there was no procession. George, Duke of Clarence, accompanied the archbishop, and ‘the following day they were in procession and at high mass. And this duke had a sword carried before him in procession and elsewhere’ (fol. 72: Searle, p. 88). This was clearly unusual behaviour and would seem to have been a blatant gesture of authority. For example, John, Duke of Bedford, on his way back from the coronation of Henry VI in Paris, had the king of France’s sword carried in front of him ‘at which the people had murmured very much’.60 On 26 June 1464, Stone recorded Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in London and noted again that the prior was not present (fol. 75v). On 13 July 1465, Trinity Sunday, Edward arrived in Canterbury, followed two hours later by his queen. Stone notes that ‘On the same day and at the same time King Henry VI was taken [captive] in the county of Lancashire’.61 The next day the king and queen were in procession. The archbishop celebrated high mass. The king and queen were at second vespers, after which they all went to St Augustine’s Abbey, the archbishop ‘with his cross carried high before him’ (fol. 75v). At this point in the manuscript there is a folio break. There follows a paragraph giving more detail: On the Thursday following [18 July] at about the twelfth hour, a monk came from the county of Lancashire with a letter to King Edward, that King Henry VI had been captured. He was discovered living with some people of that county. Immediately the archbishop of Canterbury had a sermon given in the choir by a secular priest, with the text ‘a man is made whole on the Sabbath day’ [John 7.23].62 After the sermon, the archbishop began the Te Deum, after which there was a procession to the shrine. The king and queen were present at the sermon and took part in the procession. (fol. 76) This entry in the manuscript is followed by another describing the same event per alium scriptorem (by another hand), King Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth came to Canterbury devoutly on a pilgrimage dedicated to visiting the shrine of the martyr, with a number of notable lords. And the Thursday following, in Christ Church Canterbury, it was solemnly revealed and publicly declared in the presence of the people, and of the most illustrious, most eminent King Edward and the Queen, and the lord Archbishop Thomas Bourchier, that King Henry VI was living with a small number [of followers] in the county of Lancaster and was discovered, as was related to the said king by a monk most certainly of the same country. (fol. 76) MERIEL CONNOR 398 The first account is less formal. It refers to the procession and the liturgy; and to the sermon given in the choir by a secular priest, not by one of the community. It says nothing of the public announcement of Henry’s discovery. The rhetorical style of the second account is at variance with Stone’s non-committal mode of writing. The king and queen’s devotion to the shrine is emphasised. The reference to the public proclamation is significant. ‘The effectiveness of the proclamation depend[ed] on publication’.63 The wording of the first account refers to Henry’s discovery (inventus), not of his being captured (captus fuit). Both accounts refer to the delivery of the news by a monk. Momentous news delivered personally by a trustworthy individual would have confirmed its accuracy. Both entries report the same event, but with a noteworthy difference of emphasis. It seems likely that the first is Stone’s own account. The second may have been copied from a newsletter. It may have been inserted at a later date. It may have been intended that it should replace the original reference. Because the surviving manuscript is a copy, there is no detectable change of hand. The inclusion of both accounts would, therefore, appear to be deliberate. In any event, Henry was escorted to the Tower and held there for the next five years. Edward’s next visit recorded by Stone was to accompany his sister Margaret on her journey to marry Charles, Duke of Burgundy (fol. 83; Searle, p. 103).64 Margaret’s royal brothers, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and George, Duke of Clarence, were also there, with a substantial retinue. The period from June 1469 to May 1471 was a time of great political instability in England. ‘Control of the government changed hands three times, and two of these changes involved the crown itself’.65 By June 1469, Warwick made no secret of his grievances, and was endeavouring to arrange a marriage between Clarence and his own daughter Isabel, while hatching a clandestine plan to replace Edward by his brother George. Stone reports that, on 7 June, Clarence came to Canterbury and stayed for two nights at the prior’s lodging ‘with a great household’ (fol. 87, Searle, p. 109). Two days later Warwick’s brother George Neville, Archbishop of York, came to Canterbury. The heading to Stone’s entry names Neville ‘Bishop (episcopus) of York’, although he is described as archiepiscopus in the following text. While this might be a scribal error, it could have been deliberate. Stone records that Neville had made his ‘pilgrimage’ to St Augustine before he visited the shrine of St Thomas, explaining that this was because Neville had not made his vow of obedience at the shrine, as was requisite on his installation as archbishop of York – which in Neville’s case had taken place four years earlier. Custom demanded the presentation of an offering at the shrine, normally a likeness in gold of the archbishop carrying his cross or an appropriate gift of similar value.66 Each archbishop was entitled to carry his cross in the city, diocese or province of the other but the question of precedence was of the utmost THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 399 importance to Canterbury. Neville’s failure to make the customary offering may have been a deliberate slight. His visit to St Augustine’s Abbey also prompted Stone’s negative comment, as he records that ‘he carried his cross high before him here, and in other places, and this had never been seen before’ (fol. 87; Searle, p. 109). St Augustine’s Abbey claimed independence of the authority of bishops, owing its allegiance to Rome only, and the community there was probably affronted by this gesture of authority.67 By 12 June 1469, Trinity Sunday, George Neville had gone to Sandwich to bless Warwick’s new ship, The Trinity (fols 87v-88; Searle, p. 110).68 Warwick was captain of Calais, keeper of the seas, constable of Dover and Warden of the Cinque Ports. Stone recorded that Warwick, Clarence and Robert Gilbert, bishop of London, were present at the ceremony, as were Prior Oxney and three Christ Church monks (possibly including Stone himself), together with the choristers. It is difficult to explain the significance of this entry, or Stone’s attitude to Warwick. Warwick had been a frequent visitor to Christ Church during the preceding years, arriving and departing with various ambassadors. Many discussions would have taken place over the prior’s table. Although the treachery of Warwick and Clarence against Edward were not yet public knowledge, it is possible that Oxney was aware of their growing hostility. On 14 June, Cecily, Duchess of York, ‘mother of the most illustrious King Edward’, arrived at Christ Church, She stayed in the prior’s lodging but, as Stone comments drily, with a more modest retinue than that of her son. She was in Canterbury and Sandwich for two weeks – probably hoping to restrain Clarence and warn him of the consequences of taking action against his brother Edward. On 4 July 1469, Clarence, Warwick and Neville returned to Canterbury (fol. 88; Searle, pp. 110-111). This time, Stone reported that the archbishop of York entered the priory through the Court Gate (to the Green Court), again with his cross held high – an unusual place for an official entry and a defiant way to behave. The following day Neville ‘in accordance with the agreement between the archbishop of Canterbury and the archbishop of York offered his jewel at the shrine of St Thomas the martyr’, and by 11 July, he and Warwick were in Calais where, as Stone reported the said archbishop solemnized the marriage between George, Duke of Clarence, and the lady Anne [another hand corrects this to Isabel] daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. On 12 July, Warwick and Clarence produced a joint manifesto in Calais, setting out their grievances against Edward.69 Stone is silent about these matters. A blank space follows the entry concerning the marriage, and the manuscript continues with a change of hand. The next entry records the celebration of the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas, 7 July 1470 – a Jubilee Year. Then follows an unusually long account of Edward IV’s visit in June 1470, one of only two entries out of chronological sequence. MERIEL CONNOR 400 Edward came with the queen, his eldest child Princess Elizabeth, and four bishops – William Grey, bishop of Ely, Thomas Scrope, bishop of Drohmore, Richard Edenham, bishop of Bangor, and Edward Story, bishop of Carlisle – all loyal Yorkist sympathisers. The royal party arrived on 6 June and stayed for about a week, participating fully in the liturgy of Pentecost (fols 88-88v; Searle, p. 111). Stone noted that the king was ‘not crowned’ in the procession at second vespers on the Sunday of Pentecost. Edward left for Dover and Sandwich on Tuesday 12 June, returning on 14 June. Back in Canterbury, he held a great council at Meister Omers which, according to Stone, was expected to last ‘a long time’; but when Edward heard ‘the news’, the council broke up and the king left for London (fols 89v-90). What the news was is not specified, but it probably concerned Warwick’s negotiations in France with King Louis and Margaret of Anjou. It was about this time that Warwick realised the need to abandon his hopes of putting Clarence on the throne, giving his support to Henry VI instead. Despite momentous events in England, including Edward’s unexpected flight to the continent, and Henry’s restoration to the throne on 3 October 1470, there are no references in Stone to external matters at this time. In March 1471, Edward returned to England. On 3 April, Clarence defected from Warwick and received Edward’s pardon. On 11 April, Edward entered London unopposed.70 He went to St Paul’s Cathedral, where Archbishop Bourchier gave thanks for his restoration and declared Henry deposed. On 14 April 1471, Stone recorded ‘the Battle of Barnet between Edward, King of England, and Richard, Earl of Warwick. And in that battle, on the morning before the Resurrection, the earl of Warwick was killed, together with [John Neville] the marquis of Montagu, the earl of Warwick’s brother. And afterwards the aforesaid Edward came to London’ (fol. 91; Searle, p. 115). Edward entered London in triumph on 21 May welcomed by the Mayor.71 The same night, Henry VIvi died in the Tower, no doubt violently. While these events were happening, Warwick’s cousin, Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, had retained command of Warwick’s ships. When Fauconberg learnt of Warwick’s death at the Battle of Barnet, he landed in Kent, with three hundred loyal men from the command in Calais, and set about raising a rebellion. His arrival attracted supporters from all over Kent for a march on London. The mayor of Canterbury, Nicholas Faunt, joined the gathering force with two hundred citizens of Canterbury. When the rebels heard that King Edward was advancing with some thirty thousand men, they gradually dispersed. However, Edward was resolved that the people of Kent should be punished for their insurrection and Canterbury was later fined and suffered loss of privileges as a consequence.72 Fauconberg received a pardon, though some new offence caused him to be executed in September, and his head was displayed on London Bridge, facing towards Kent. THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 401 Stone’s record is silent about these events. His next entry following the Battle of Tewksbury records the arrival in Canterbury of King Edward, on 26 May 1471, ‘with a great multitude of armed men – it was said about forty thousand’, including the dukes of Clarence, Gloucester, Norfolk and Suffolk. (fol. 91v; Searle, p. 116). On 29 May, Nicholas Faunt was hanged, drawn and quartered right opposite the cathedral gate in the Canterbury Buttermarket.73 Stone’s manuscript states ‘Item die sequent’ Nycholaus faunt maior Civitatis / vocavit Willelmum Pettham ad locum, et prefecit eum in priorem et tunc incepit cantor Te Deum laudamus (Item the following day Nicholas Faunt, mayor of the city / called William Petham to the place and appointed him prior, and then the cantor began the Te Deum laudamus)’. As written, this sentence makes little sense. It is unlikely that any mayor would play an active role in the election of a prior and, in any case, William Petham was not appointed prior until 13 August 1471 – over two months after Faunt was hanged.74 The casual reader of Searle’s edition may not notice that there is a folio break in mid sentence between fol. 92 and 92v (Searle, p. 116). There is no gap in the text, and no apparent change of hand, but it is clear that material must have been omitted or removed from the copy, possibly because of its sensitive nature. On 28 September 1471, the most illustrious King Edward IV came to Canterbury to receive an indulgence. He was received … by the prior William Petham and the convent in green copes. He proceeded to the high altar, and immediately the convent began vespers, and the prior, with other brothers, crossed to the door of the church to receive the queen’ (fol. 92v; Searle p. 117). Calm appears to have been restored. A new prior is in place. Henry VI and his heir are dead. Edward’s reception and participation in the liturgy is recorded just as those of Henry had been before him. Until this last entry, Stone’s accounts of Edward’s visits give little indication of his personal piety. Previous entries refer more to the reason for his visit and the liturgical response to his presence. While Christ Church priory had had to accommodate to the house of York, it would appear their relationship with them was, at least, more perfunctory and less warm than that they experienced with the Lancastrians. Henry VI had visited Canterbury from his youth. The first visit Stone recorded took place in March 1439 (fol. 22; Searle, p. 24), but other visits are known to have taken place before that date.75 Stone’s entries indicate that all but one of Henry’s visits were for the purpose of pilgrimage, and on each occasion he participated actively in the liturgy. The Henry whom Stone observed from his place in the choir and in procession would, no doubt, have confirmed Polydore Vergil’s view of a king ‘careful for his soul’s health’ and ‘such things as tended to the salvation thereof’.76 Moreover, Henry had been consecrated king through the sacred ceremony of MERIEL CONNOR 402 anointing with the oil of St Thomas of Canterbury, and allegiance was due to him. The community had observed at first hand the strength of Lancastrian loyalty as expressed by the Beaufort family and the network of loyalist Kent families of their affinity. As Malcolm Mercer notes, ‘these feelings of loyalty to the Beaufort family and through the Beauforts to the Lancastrian dynasty itself, were extremely durable and passed from one generation to the next’.77 The Christ Church community had witnessed Henry’s ‘devotion to the Church and devotion to its devotions’.78 Already in the 1470s, Henry was being venerated as a popular royal saint, revered as an innocent victim and holy martyr. More than three hundred and sixty-eight miracles were ascribed to his agency.79 Henry VII, unsurprisingly, promoted the cult, aware of the authority that the royal saint could give to his dynasty and at pains to emphasise his blood relationship to Henry VI. He petitioned the pope (unsuccessfully) to have his uncle canonised. Stone’s work has been described as ‘the most engagingly vivid piece of historical writing to survive from any fifteenth century monastery’.80 It provides much information about contemporary monastic life at Christ Church and, until now, it is largely for this purpose that it has been used as a source for research. In her excellent study of the chronicles of medieval England, Antonia Gransden suggests that Stone made ‘little use’ of the news he obtained from the outside world, and that his record of national events is ‘incidental’.81 However, a close study of the text of Stone’s chronicle suggests that his interest in national events was considerable, at least in so far as the Lancastrian cause was concerned, but that ‘because of the malice of the times it [was] not safe to tell the whole truth’, or at least not openly.82 If Stone felt loyalty to Henry, it is likely that, considering the strong sense of corporate identity of a Benedictine monastery, other members of the community would have shared his views. Stone’s entries concerning the world beyond the priory walls are selective. Questions remain unanswered, perhaps even about the manuscript’s compilation and the authorship of the final folios. It would seem, however, that at a time of political division, especially in the mid fifteenth century, Christ Church Priory was a strongly Lancastrian (and Beaufortian) house, with ties of allegiance of many kinds to the Lancastrian kings, their Beaufort relatives and the various Beaufort affinities within Kent. acknowledgements The author is indebted to Professor Caroline Barron, Dr Nigel Ramsay and Professor Nigel Saul for their encouragement and most helpful comments on a draft of this paper. THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 403 endnotes 1 The Chronicle of John Stone: Monk of Christchurch Canterbury, 1415-1471, W.G. Searle (ed.) (Cambridge, 1902). For a complete English translation of Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS417 with introductory notes, see Meriel Connor, ‘John Stone, Monk of Christ Church, Canterbury and his Chronicle, 1417-1472’ (unpublished M.Phil dissertation, Royal Holloway, University of London, June 2001). 2 Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library [CCAL] Lit. Ms. D 12, fol. 6v. 3 J. Wickham Legg and W.H.St John Hope (eds), Inventories of Christchurch, Canterbury (London, 1902), p. 116. 4 See for possible examples fols 8, 75, 79v, 81v, 85, 88v, 93. 5 See for example fols 25, 32v, 88v. 6 Searle, p. ix. See fols 12 r & v, 22, 27r & v, 29r, 30r & v, 31v, 34, 37, 38, 43, 51v, 52f, 53, 61r &v, 65v, 67v, 73v, 78v, 83, 84v, 88. Fols 1v-3v and 6-7v are blank. 7 See, for example, fols 16v, 18v, 19v, 22v, 24v, 38, 39v. 8 See fols 25, 31, 32v, 40, 53v, 64v, 70, 72, 81v. 9 S see fols 4, 37v, 43v, 47, 58v, 59, 68v, 85v. 10 Fol. 85v, ‘Johannem Stone … compositorem istarum cronicarum’. 11 Oxford Corpus Christi College MS 256 (the Chronicle of William Glastynbury, Monk of Christ Church, 1419-48). 12 For a survey of the monastic tradition of historiography, see Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England: ii, 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century (London, 1982), especially pp. 387-424. See also Barrie Dobson, ‘Contrasting Chronicles: Historical Writing at York and Durham at the Close of the Middle Ages’, in Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages, Ian Wood and G.A. Loud (eds) (London, 1991), pp. 211-18. 13 F.W.D. Brie (ed.), The Brut, or the Chronicles of England, ii (Early English Text Society, cxxvi, 1908). 14 Nicholas Pronay and John Cox (eds), The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-1486 (London, 1986). For example, Crowland features battles of the Wars of the Roses, pp. 113, 125, 127; the marriage of the duke of Burgundy, p. 115; the election of an abbot, p. 117; and civil unrest, p. 129. 15 Barrie Dobson, ‘The Monks of Canterbury in the Later Middle Ages, 1220-1540’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay and Margaret Sparks (eds) (Oxford, 1995), 69-153, p. 113. 16 C.A.J. Armstrong, ‘Some examples of the Distribution and Speed of News in England at the Time of the Wars of the Roses’, in Studies in Medieval History: presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern (eds) (Oxford, 1948), 429-454 (432). 17 Malcolm Mercer ‘Lancastrian Loyalism in Kent During the Wars of the Roses’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxix (1999), 223-225; Malcolm Mercer, ‘Kent National Politics, 1437-1534: the Royal Affinity and a County Elite’ (unpubl. doctoral thesis, University of London, 1994). 18 Margaret Sparks, ‘Estates’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, pp. 566-70. 19 Barrie Dobson, ‘Thomas Arundel: Twice Archbishop of Canterbury, 1396-97 and 1399-1414’, Canterbury Cathedral Chronicle, no. 94 (2000), 31-8, p. 36. 20 Ibid., pp. 35, 31. 1 Samuel 9.17, ‘this same shall reign over my people’. 21 C christopher Allmand, Henry V (London, new edition 1997), p. 108. 22 F.A. Ogg, A Source Book of Medieval History (New York, 1907), p. 443. 23 R.A. Griffiths, The Reign of Henry VI (Stroud, 1981), p. 103. MERIEL CONNOR 404 24 Mercer, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism’, 224. 25 Christopher Wilson, ‘The Tomb of Henry IV and the Holy Oil of St Thomas of Canterbury’ in Medieval Architecture and its Intellectual Context, Eric Fernie and Paul Crossley (eds) (London, 1990), pp. 181-8. 26 Christopher Wilson, ‘The Medieval Monuments’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, 451-510, p. 498. 27 Michael K. Jones and Malcolm G. Underwood, The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort Countess of Richmond and Derby (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 20-3. 28 Francis Woodman, The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral (London, 1981), pp. 169, 175. 29 Ibid., pp. 194-95. 30 J. Brigstocke Sheppard (ed.), Literae Cantuarienses: the Letter Books of the Monastery at Christ Church Canterbury (3 vols, Rolls Society 1887-89, London, 1887), p. 214. 31 Stone was probably unsure of his French title and left a blank space for its inclusion. Stone’s work is the only place where Thomas Beaufort’s burial is recorded, see Wilson, ‘Medieval Monuments’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, p. 505. For St Michael’s Chapel and the Lancastrian connection, see Mark Duffy, ‘St Michael’s Chapel, Canter-bury Cathedral: a Lancastrian Mausoleum’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxiii (2003), 309-331. 32 For Cardinal Beaufort’s confraternity, see BL MS Arundel 68, fol. 58; CCAL Reg. S, fol. 115. 33 See G.L. Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of Lancastrian Ascendency and Decline (Oxford, 1988), pp. 203, 366. For other visits see fols 21v, 22v, 23v, 33-33v; see also Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 117, 192, 215, 278, etc. 34 H harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, pp. 359, 367-8. 35 Woodman, Canterbury Cathedral, p. 166. 36 Lit. Cant. III, p. 182. 37 Michael Hicks, Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford, 1998), p. 66. 38 For the death of Suffolk, see Roger Virgoe, ‘The Death of William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk’, East Anglian Society and the Political Community of Late Medieval England: Selected Papers of Roger Virgoe, Caroline Barron, Carole Rawcliffe and Joel Rosenthal (eds) (Centre of East Anglian Studies, 1997), pp. 247-257. For Cade’s rebellion, see Caroline Barron, ‘The Government of London and its Relations with the Crown, 1400-1450’, unpubl. Ph.D thesis, University of London, 1970; I.M.W. Harvey, Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450 (Oxford, 1991). 39 I.M.W. Harvey, Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450 (Oxford, 1991), p. 123. 40 R.A. Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 626-27. 41 For confraternity, see BL MS Arundel 68, fol. 61. For liveries, see Bodl. MS Tanner 165, fols 135v, 140v, 155v, 158v, 166v, 169v, 171v, 174v; for gifts, see for example MA 4, fols 42v, 142, 226v. 42 Lit. Cant., iii, p. 237. 43 Mercer, ‘Kent National Politics’, pp. 8-10, 52, 68. 44 Psalm 47.4. 45 For the political influence of these families, see Malcolm Mercer, ‘Kent National Politics’. For confraternities, see BL MS Arundel 68, Richard, Duke of York, fol. 61; Cecily, Duchess of York and her daughter Margaret, fol. 1; the earl of Salisbury and his wife Alice, fol. 58; the earl of Warwick, fol. 55, William Bourchier, Lord Fitzwarin and John Bourchier, Lord Berners, fol. 60v; John Tiptoft, fol. 55v; Thomas Etchingham, fol. 61v; John Cheyne, fol. 60v; Thomas Browne, fol. 61. It should be noted that Members of the nobility were frequently in confraternity with more than one religious house. THE POLI TICAL ALLEGIANCES OF CHRIS T CHURCH PRIORYriory 1400-1472 405 46 Mercer, ‘Kent National Politics’, pp. 77-8. 47 Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland. Papal Letters, xi, 1455-64, p. 397. 48 Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 862. 49 C charles Ross, Edward IV (Yale, new edition, 1997), p. 25. 50 C charles Ross, The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History (3rd edn, London, 1992), p. 45. 51 Michael Hicks, Warwick, pp. 194-95. 52 Mercer, ‘Kent National Politics’, p. 70; Oxford Bodleian Library MS Tanner 165, fols 171v, 174v, etc. 53 Hicks, Warwick, p. 198. 54 In May 1459, papal permission was granted to St Augustine’s Abbey to hear confessions and grant indulgences to pilgrims. C. Pap. Reg, xi, 1455-64, p. 536. It is possible that Coppini visited the abbey on pilgrimage. Or did he have some other reason that made him reluctant to stay at Christ Church? 55 CCAL MA 4, fols 41, 43 and 94. 56 Hicks, Warwick, p. 180. 57 Bertram Wolffe, Henry VI (London, new edition, 2001), p. 12. 58 R ross, Edward IV, pp. 36-7. 59 See for example papal confirmation of the rule concerning the precedence of Canterbury, Lit. Cant., III, pp. 217-223; CCAL Reg. N, fol. 97; see also Historical Manuscripts Commission: Appendix to Ninth Report (London, 1883), p. 104. 60 Janet Shirley, A Parisian Journal 1405-1449 (Oxford, 1968), p. 183. 61 Henry VI had been living as a fugitive in the north of England, relying on supporters to protect him. He was captured near Bashall, probably by Sir Thomas Talbot, Sir James Harrington, Sir John Tempest and John Levesay, who were later rewarded for their services. They accompanied Henry, bound to the saddle, to the Tower of London. Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 888. 62 The gospel continues (verse 24) ‘Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgement’. 63 Armstrong, ‘Distribution and Speed of News’, 442. 64 Christine Weightman, Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy 1446-1503 (Stroud, paperback edition, 1993), p. 31. 65 R ross, Edward IV, p. 126. 66 Roy Martin Haines, Ecclesia Anglicana: Studies in the English Church of the Later Middle Ages (Toronto, 1989), p. 102; Lit. Cant., III, p. 223, CCAL Reg. N, fol. 97. 67 The papal privileges in favour of St Augustine’s were the subject of long-standing dispute between the abbey and the archbishops of Canterbury from the eleventh century onwards; Susan Kelly, ‘The Anglo Saxon Abbey’, in Richard Gem (ed.), St Augustine’s Abbey Canterbury (London, 1997), 33-50 (pp. 42-43). 68 Hicks, Warwick, p. 232. 69 Ibid., pp. 271-72. 70 R ross, Wars of the Roses, pp. 87-93. 71 Ross, Edward IV, pp. 173-75. 72 R ross, Wars of the Roses, p. 147. 73 R ross, Edward IV, p. 181. 74 CCAL Reg. S, fol. 249. Payments related to the activities of Fauconberg and Faunt are recorded in Canterbury City chamberlains’ accounts CC/FA2, fols 144-45. 75 BL MS Cotton Nero CIX, fol.173v – Henry ‘helde his Ester at Canntyrbery’ before MERIEL CONNOR 406 departing for Calais for his coronation in 1430. A further visit took place from 21-30 July 1436, see ‘Itinerary from 1436-1461’, in Wolffe, Henry VI, p. 361. 76 See Henry Ellis (ed.), Polydore Vergil’s English History (Camden Society, 1844), pp. 70-71. 77 Mercer, ‘Lancastrian Loyalism in Kent during the Wars of the Roses’, 237. 78 Thomas S. Freeman, ‘Ut Verus Christi Sequester’: John Blacman and the Cult of Henry VIvi’, in The Fifteenth Century V: of Mice and Men: Image, Belief and Regulation in Late Medieval England, Linda Clark (ed.) (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 127-142 (136). 79 Richard Marks, ‘Images of Henry VI’, in The Lancastrian Court: Proceedings of the 2001 Harlaxton Symposium (ed.) Jenny Stratford (Donington, 2003), 111-124 (pp. 112, 116, 120-24). 80 D dobson, ‘Monks of Canterbury’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, p. 112. 81 G gransden, Historical Writing in England, pp. 416-17. 82 Annales Monastici, H. R. Laud (ed.) �����������������������������������������������������(RollsSeries1864-9,5vols.iv), pp. 148, citedin(Rolls Series 1864-9, 5 vols. cited in Gransden, Historical Writing in England, p. 220, n. 106.