Power and Authority

(1)

Power and Authority

Self-representation of the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk in

fifteenth-century England.

(2)

Abstract

In this thesis two noble families of fifteenth-century England are central: the dukes of Norfolk – the Mowbray family – and the dukes of Suffolk – the De la Pole family. The families differ in their backgrounds as the dukes of Norfolk can trace their lines back to William the

Conqueror and the dukes of Suffolk descended from fourteenth-century wool merchants, which makes them relatively young nobility. Influenced by Kevin Sharpe’s idea of the relationship between representation and authority, this thesis searches for an answer to the question how the ideal image of a fifteenth-century duke came into being and how this was pursued by two noble families with a very different background and in how far their

(3)

3

Introduction

In late Medieval England, the nobility was a distinct group at the top of society. Their members were landlords and military leaders and advised the king. They had specific rights and constantly tried to expand their spheres of influence. Sometimes, certain noblemen even managed to control the king, when he was weak. Noble families took positions at court and in Parliament, controlled their lands from their manors and strove to acquire more power and authority. Climbing higher on the social ladder was an important aim for the English nobility. There were several grades in the nobility, with the ducal titles being the highest from the fourteenth century. The first ducal title in the history of England was created in 1337, when king Edward III made his son Edward duke of Cornwall. After this, more duchies were created, but they were generally given to members of the royal family. There were, however, a few exceptions in the beginning of the ducal history. Moreover, the nobility faced a threat that came from the thirteenth century, namely the upcoming merchant class. These merchants also wanted to climb up the social ladder, and managed to come very far, because of the extending social mobility in England. By the end of the fourteenth century, 'wealthy merchants were buying manors and estates in the country, marrying into county families and being accepted as gentry'.1_{At this time, two families received a duchy, an aristocratic family} and a merchant family.

The duchy of Norfolk was given in 1397 to the Mowbrays, an old noble family, which could trace its ancestry back to the Conquest. Thomas Mowbray, earl of Nottingham and Earl Marshall was one of the first noblemen to receive a ducal title from Richard II. The duchy of Suffolk, on the southern border of Norfolk, was owned from 1443 by the de la Poles, interestingly, a merchant family with the wool merchant William de la Pole (died 1366) as patriarch. William de la Pole was created duke by Henry V and even managed to become the king’s closest advisor.2_{De la Pole was called the most despised man of the fifteenth century.} The dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, just like the rest of the nobility, strove to acquire more power and authority and also showed their power and authority in public.

An important aspect of the nobility, which is closely associated with power and authority, is their image. The British historian Kevin Sharpe endorses the current trend among historians, in which ideas, images and rituals are not separable from an understanding of

1_{Roger Dennys, Heraldry and the Heralds, 152.}

(5)

5

power and authority in the past.3 Kings, medieval barons, but also presidents in modern times, wanted to represent themselves in a certain way. They wanted to construct an image of themselves, to ‘sell’ themselves as leaders to their subjects. This current approach of historians is less focused on the issues and institutions of politics, and more focused on media, images and appearances. According to Sharpe, representation is not only about reflecting authority, but also about constructing it.4 Important for an image was a noble lifestyle. The historian Chris Given-Wilson, who has written several works on the history of English kings and nobility in the Middle Ages, has written a book about the English nobility in the fourteenth century. According to him, ‘while a man might be born into noble society, he must continue to justify his place within it by leading a lifestyle worthy of his station.’5_{A duke had} to behave like a duke. The question is: how did a duke behave? What did the ideal duke do; what were the conditions established by the image of the ideal duke, which English dukes wanted to meet? To whom did dukes look when they thought about their representation? Did they look to other English dukes, to the king of England, to foreign dukes maybe? And how was this done in practice, by the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk? How important were descent and lineage? I am going to investigate the ideal image of a duke and the ways Norfolk and Suffolk tried to pursue this. The research question is: how did the ideal image of a fifteenth-century English duke come into being and how was this pursued by the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, with their respectively noble and merchant backgrounds?

In the investigation I use the comparative method to show how two different families, with an entirely different background, strove to pursue the ideal image of an English duke in the fifteenth century. I have chosen in particular for the Mowbrays and the de la Poles, because they were the first two non-royal families to receive a duchy and at the same time had such a different background. The duchies of Norfolk and Suffolk cooperated on the field of regional politics, and the focus on them makes this thesis an investigation of the easternmost part of England. I will use the duchies of Norfolk and Suffolk as a case study in the investigation of the representation strategies which were applied to pursue the ideal image of the English duke. The investigation is question-centered, because the research stems from the research question and the primary sources serve to support the research. I will use the secondary sources to investigate how the ideal image which the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk

3_{Kevin Sharpe, “Chapter 1: Representing Rule. Terms, Premises, Approaches,” in Selling the Tudor Monarchy:}

Authority and Image in Sixteenth-Century England, ed. Kevin Sharpe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 4.

4_{Idem, 7.}

5_{Chris Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political}

(6)

6

wanted to satisfy was established and I will analyze the primary sources to see how the dukes represented themselves and thus tried to meet this ideal image. I will use different primary sources and I have determined the division of chapter based on the different sources. In this way, there will be enough emphasis on the primary sources and the answers that they can give.

Power, authority and representation are terms which will frequently be used in my thesis. I use the definitions which are also used in Kevin Sharpe’s book. He says that power consists of the effective means by which the ruler could enforce his will, and that authority was a more cultural construction.6 I see authority as the recognition of power by others. Representation - in the context of my thesis - means the image of the dukes and I will make a division between self-representation and representation by others. Representation by others is the image others made off the dukes: how they depicted the dukes in for example pictures or plays. The other kind of representation is the image the dukes construct of themselves. How did they want people to think of them; what view of themselves did they emphasize? How did they appear in public, and how did they construct this image? I think that representation is linked to authority in two ways, namely as an expression of authority and as a means to gain more authority. This is what Kevin Sharpe says when he writes about reflecting and constructing power and authority. In the thesis I will discuss Sharpe’s contribution more critically and show different views on the relationship between power, authority and representation.

I have selected four kinds of sources in which I will analyze the representation strategies of the duchies of Norfolk and Suffolk. First, sources concerning power politics, to see what position the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk took amongst the English nobility. I will analyze parliamentary petitions, records from the Privy Council and marriage politics.7 I will analyze through parliamentary petitions how the dukes represented themselves in front of other noblemen and whether Privy Council and marriage were used as a strategy in the quest for authority. Parliamentary records from the Middle Ages (Rotuli Parliamentorum; ut et

Petitiones et Placita in Parliamento) are published in 1783, and also available online.8

Records from the Privy Council are available in Proceedings and Ordinances, the reproduction of the records by Sir Harris Nicholas.9 Second, I will analyze sources concerning

6_{Sharpe, “Representing Rule”, 8-9.}

7_{Privy Council was reserved for a small group of confidants of the monarch and concerned members from}

different social groups, including dukes.

8_{http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/rolls.shtml}

(7)

7

heraldry, to search for the importance of ancestors and traditions. The sources will be parts of the heraldry of the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk. The coats of arms the dukes had, say something about the traditions and ancestors they thought to be important. Third, sources related to the ownership of houses and land, and also servants, to see how the dukes represented themselves as landlords. These sources consist of letters, from the Paston Collection and, to a lesser extent, the Stonor Collection.10 These letters do not only say something about the Pastons and the Stonors, two gentry families who were the writers or receivers of these letters, but also about the dukes of Norfolk and, to lesser extent, Suffolk. As knights in Norfolk and Suffolk, the Pastons and Stonors dealt with these families. Because of a lack of primary sources with details about the houses, I can only use secondary sources, which go back to the eighteenth century. Finally, sources that concern the legacy of the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, which is traceable in the last wills and tombs. Wills say something about the material and immaterial interests and belongings of the author, but also about the way he wanted to have grip on his representation after his death. Tombs deal more with visual representation. Wills of the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk are published by North Country Wills, and are available online.11

In the first chapter, I will shortly discuss the historical context of my investigation. I will limit the historical overview to the Mowbray and de la Pole families and the duchies of Norfolk and Suffolk in the late Middle Ages, because the broader topic of the English and European nobility will be discussed in the next chapter. I will emphasize the political aspects of the duchies: how the duchies were created, how the dukes acquired more power and the political sides they chose. In the case studies the investigation will be more cultural, and therefore the political perspective in the first chapter.

In the second chapter, I will give the theoretical context of this research. First I will discuss the concepts of authority and representation. The first important work on this subject is Kevin Sharpe, who wrote in the first chapter of his book Selling the Tudor Monarchy, in which he discusses the representation of authority.12 I will approach his work critically, and I will place it against another, less theoretical work, Given-Wilson’s The English Nobility in the

Late Middle Ages. Both authors write about the concept of representation and authority, one

of them without mentioning the concepts, and serve to give a good theoretical basis for this research. After that, I will give attention to the emergence of dukes and the important issues in

10_{Paston Letters and Papers, ed. James Gairdner, 6-vol. (London, 1910).Stonor Letters and Papers, 1290-1483,}

ed. Charles Kingsford (London, 1919).

(8)

8

their self-representation. I have chosen not to limit my investigation to England only, because in this way I can make a broader comparison and also discuss European representation strategies. I will emphasize the Low Countries as a frame of reference, because there has been much research done on the duchies of Brabant and Burgundy, and these duchies were very prominent concerning cultural representation. Two quite important books on this topic are by Robert Stein and Ronald Asch. Stein has written about the Low Countries from a political (and political-cultural) perspective, and has especially done much research on the dukes of Burgundy and Asch, discussing the relationship between the crown and the nobility from the perspective of the court and emphasizing international contacts and influences at court.13

The next four chapters will be devoted to the case studies, the duchies of Norfolk and Suffolk. I have divided the chapters on the basis of the different sorts of primary sources. In the first chapter I will discuss the power politics of the duchies, in the second chapter I will discuss heraldry in the duchies, in the third chapter I will discuss their houses, lands and servants and in the last chapter I will discuss their legacy. In these four chapters I will give a historiographical introduction of the topic, analyze the representational strategies I found in primary sources and compare the both of the duchies with each other. In this way, I hope to be able to conclude how both duchies strived to pursue the ideal image of the English duke in the fifteenth century.

The literature is a broad selection of the different topics that will be discussed in my thesis. I have selected works about the English nobility in the late Middle Ages that say something about the political and cultural functions of the English nobility and their relation with the crown in that time. These works also say something about the title of duke: how it was created and what its characteristics were in the fifteenth century. Besides Given-Wilson’s work The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages, the book by Anthony Tuck, Crown and

Nobility, 1272-1461 is a good addition to the literature.14 Tuck describes the importance of the relationship between the nobility and the king for the English government in the late Middle Ages, mainly during the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Roses. Important is also

English Society in the Later Middle Ages, by S. Rigby, which places the nobility more in the

broader context of English society, and gives a social perspective.15 Meanwhile, Michael

13_{Robert Asch, Princes, Patronage and the Nobility (London: German Historical Institute, 1991) ; Robert Stein}

and Judith Pollmann, ed. Networks, Regions and Nations: Shaping Identities in the Low Countries, 1300-1650 (Leiden: Brill, 2010).

14_{Antony Tuck, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986).}

15_{S. Rigby, English Society in the Later Middle Ages: Class, Status and Gender (London: MacMillan Press,}

(9)

9

Hicks has written from a political perspective, with his book English Political Culture in the

Fifteenth Century, in which the nobility also receives attention.16

I have also included some more thematic works, which deal with certain (cultural) aspects of the nobility. In Heraldry and the Heralds by Roger Dennys, the importance of heraldry for the English nobility in the Middle Ages, but also in current times, is discussed.17 This book is a good addition to the literature for its many examples. This work about heraldry is supplemented by Antony Wagners bespoke book, Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle

Ages, which is a relatively old, but classic work about heraldry and used by many historians.18

I have also selected some works about parliament, houses and wills, referring to the other three kinds of sources this investigation consists of. Another significant work is Life in an

English Country House, written by Mark Girouard.19 The author extendedly describes the cultural (representational) functions of these houses for the upper class in England.

Also included are works that cover specifically the duchies of Norfolk and Suffolk and the de la Poles and the Mowbrays. I have included the eleventh chapter of Mark Bailey’s book The Decline of Serfdom in Late Medieval England, which is titled “The Dukes of Norfolk”.20_{Besides that, I have also included articles of Linda Mitchell and Rowena Archer} about the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk, and Marilyn Roberts’ book The Mowbray Legacy as monograph about the Mowbray family.21 About the de la Poles, there are less secondary sources, what surprises me, because they were one of the most notable noble families in the fifteenth century. John Watts devotes a chapter to the influence of William de la Pole, first duke of Suffolk, on the weak king Henry VI in his book Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship and J. Thomson has written an article about the dukes of Suffolk, in particular about John de la Pole, second duke.22 I have also found secondary sources about the residences of the noble

16_{Michael Hicks, English Political Culture in the Fifteenth Century (London: Routledge, 2002).} 17_{Rodney Dennys, Heraldry and the Heralds (London: Cape, 1982).}

18_{Antony Wagner, Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages: An Inquiry into the Growth of the Armorial}

Function of Heralds (New York: Oxford University Press, 1939).

19_{Mark Girouard, Life in an English Country House: a Social and Architectural History (New Haven: Yale}

University Press, 1978).

20_{Mark Bailey, The Dukes of Norfolk,” in The Decline of Serfdom in Late Medieval England, ed. Mark Bailey}

(Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2014).

21_{Linda Mitchell, “Maud Marshal and Margaret Marshal: Two Viragos Extraordinaire,” in The Ties that Bind:}

Essays in Medieval British History in Honor of Barbara …, ed. Linda Mitchell, Katherine French and Douglass Biggs (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Group, 2010) ; Rowena Archer, “Parliamentary Restoration: John Mowbray and the Dukedom of Norfolk in 1425,” in Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England: Essays Presented to Gerald Harriss, ed. G.L. Harriss, Rowena Archer and Simon Walker (London: Hambledon Press, 1995) ; Marilyn Roberts, The Mowbray Legacy (Gainsborough: Babash Ryan, 2004).

22_{Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship ; J. Thomson, “John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk,” Speculum Vol.}

(10)

10

families, namely a book about manors in Suffolk and two works about Framlingham House, the residence of the dukes of Norfolk.

(11)

11

1 About the when and how of two families, and two duchies

In this chapter, I will discuss the historical and theoretical context of my research. What was the historical background of the de la Poles and the Mowbrays and their duchies, but also: what happened with the duchies later in time? The historical overviews of the two ducal families will begin with the forefathers of both families, Geoffrey Montbrai and William de la Pole.

1.1 The family of Geoffrey Montbrai

The Mowbrays were a family from Norman descent. One can say that the forefather of the family was Geoffrey de Coutances (died 1093), who was also called Geoffrey de Montbrai, which referred to his place of birth, the Norman village of Montbrai. This man was bishop of Coutances, but also a close friend of William, duke of Normandy, also known as William the Conquerer. Geoffrey went to England with William in 1066, the year of the Conquest, and was given the task of ensuring that the assembled Normans supported the duke of Normandy in his conquest of the throne of England, as he was one of the twenty-five companions of the duke.23_{Roberts makes much use of the chroniclers William of Poitiers and Orderic Vitalis,} contemporary writers of Norman and Anglo-Norman history. Poitiers mentions Geoffrey de Montbrai as one of the twenty-five companions of the duke of Normandy at the battle of Hastings and Vitalis describes him as follows: ‘this Geoffrey, being of noble Norman extraction, and more skillful in arms than divinity, did good service at the Battle of Hastings.’24_{At the coronation of king William, Geoffrey de Montbrai was an important figure} and he is one of the members of the aristocratic group of king William during his reign.

In the eleventh century, the Mowbrays received their first earldom, when Robert de Mowbray was created earl of Northumbria in 1086. Robert was the son of Roger de Mowbray, nephew of Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances. Orderic Vitalis describes a revolt of Norman barons against the king in 1095, with Robert de Mowbray as their leader. Vitalis describes Robert as a man who distinguished himself because of his great power and wealth, and his imposing appearance. ‘He possessed two hundred and eighty manors in England, which the great King William had granted to Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances.’25

23_{Roberts, Appendix A, 186.} 24_{Roberts, The Mowbray Legacy, 2.}

25_{Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, vol. 3, trans. Thomas Forrester}

(12)

12

The Mowbrays kept playing an important role in English politics. In 1215, William de Mowbray, was one of the twenty-five executors of the Magna Carta, the Charter king John agreed with. He is included in the list Marilyn Roberts has made of all ‘Magna Carta barons’ in her work about the Mowbrays.26 And there was more. In 1283 Roger de Mowbray was summoned to Parliament by king Edward I as the first Lord Mowbray. The fourth Lord Mowbray was the father of John Mowbray, who was made earl of Nottingham, and of Thomas Mowbray, who was created the first duke of Norfolk. Both brothers also became Baron Segrave after each other, through their mother, Elizabeth Segrave. Nowadays, the dukes of Norfolk still carry the title of Baron Segrave.

The Mowbrays became dukes when Thomas Mowbray was created duke of Norfolk by Richard II, who created duchies at the same time in 1397.27 He was, however, accused of treason in 1399 and imprisoned. He was banished from England and died in Venice, probably on his way to the Holy Land. His son John Mowbray pursued the restoration of the duchy and succeeded. In 1425, the duchy was restored and John Mowbray became the second duke of Norfolk. His sons, both called John, were the last two dukes of Norfolk. The last duke only had a daughter, Anne Mowbray, who could not pass on the duchy of Norfolk.

1.2 The family of William de la Pole

The Suffolks originally were a merchant family with William the la Pole, a wool merchant from Hull, as their forefather. William de la Pole was not just a common merchant, but was able to become the banker of Edward III. E.B. Fryde, a historian who has done extended research on William de la Pole, calls this man the most influential merchant of medieval England and extendedly describes his strategies to move upwards into the aristocracy.28 Through his mercantile genius, William de la Pole managed to become not only the king’s banker, but also a dominant landowner and aristocrat. He was the first merchant to rival the Italian bankers who had financed the crown since the accession of Edward I in 1272. William collected a fortune which fueled the rise of his son, Michael de la Pole, who became chancellor in 1383 and earl of Suffolk in 1385. He managed to build an influential network in the 1330s, when major departments of the English government moved to York due to the Scottish war. Edward III financed his French campaign with the English Wool Company,

26_{Marilyn Roberts, Appendix B, 187.}

27_{Antony Tuck, Richard II and the Nobility, 67.}

(13)

13

which was owned by William de la Pole.29 The merchant provided enormous advances for the crown and a fortune for himself, through which he was able to become landowner around Hull. In 1339 he was the first merchant to receive the rank of banneret and the office of the second baron of the Exchequer. Pole had managed to become an aristocrat.

Pole’s risk-taking attitude made him great, but eventually also caused his downfall. The king wanted an embargo on the wool trade with Flanders to force them to a political alliance, but de la Pole wanted to sell wool in Flanders to gain more profit. G.L. Harriss, a historian of power relations in late medieval England, argues in his review of Fryde’s book

William de la Pole, Merchant and King’s Banker: ‘it was this dichotomy between chivalric

and mercantile values that carried the seeds of Pole’s own destruction’.30_{While chivalry was} an important characteristic of the nobility, William de la Pole seemed to behave more as a merchant than as a nobleman. His son Michael was the first merchant to be created an earl, the earl of Suffolk.31

Michael de la Poles grandson, William de la Pole, managed to make Suffolk a duchy. This man would also become famous under the title ‘most despised man of England’. John Watt divides in his book the reign of Henry VI in two parts, the more peaceful part until 1450 and the most unsuccessful part until 1461. He analyzes the failure of the government and the crisis in 1450 and nuances the great responsibility given to the ministers of the king for centuries, with de la Pole as their leader.32 He did not, however, deny the power de le Pole had, because of his leadership during the construction of court rule. De la Pole gained much power in the court based on his position as steward of the household. In the 1430s and 1440s ‘Suffolk came to stand in for the king as lord of the household and how he extended this lordship into the realm itself.’33_{But the will of the king was not deniable, as Watt argued.}

William’s son, John de la Pole, became the second duke of Norfolk. In those days, the Wars of the Roses had started, and the de la Poles managed to stay close to the royal power. They allied with Edward IV, and with Richard III, who made John’s eldest son, also John, earl of Lincoln. The earl of Lincoln fought alongside Richard III at the battle of Bosworth, but was killed in action, just as his companion. His father survived him and submitted to Henry VII after the Battle of Bosworth. After his death in 1491, his second son, Edmund de la Pole, became the third and last duke of Suffolk. Edmund remained a Yorkist, unlike his father, and

29_{Idem, 25-26.}

30_{G.L. Harris, ‘Review of William de la Pole’ English Historical Review vol. 106, no. 421 (1991), 982.} 31_{Dennys, Heraldry and the Heralds, 152.}

(14)

14

was the biggest threat to the first Tudor king Henry VII. Not long after he had become duke, his rank was demoted to that of earl. After several intrigues against Henry VII, Edmund de la Pole was taken prisoner and executed in 1513, ‘practically for being a Yorkist’.34_{His brother} Richard declared himself earl of Suffolk and was now the Yorkist threat to the throne, but died in 1525 at the Battle of Pavia.

The de la Poles did not have a family history as extended and engaged with the most important moments in English medieval history as the Mowbrays, but they were involved in the greatest moments in the Wars of the Roses. Although they were only known for two centuries, they managed to become one of the most bespoke families of late medieval England.

1.3 The duchies of Norfolk and Suffolk

The earldoms of Norfolk and Suffolk were created together in 1011, when Ralph the Staller became earl of Norfolk and Suffolk. He was succeeded by Ralph the Guader, who forfeited the earldoms in 1074. The earldom of Norfolk was created for the second time in 1147, when Hugh Bigod was created earl of Norfolk. The Bigods would keep the earldom almost two hundred years, until 1306, when Roger Bigod, the fifth earl, died childless.

The earldom of Norfolk was created for the third time when Thomas Brotherton, son of Edward I and Margaret of France and half-brother of Edward II, became earl. When he was ten years old, Edward I assigned to him the estates of Roger Bigod. Four years later, Thomas was also made Earl Marshall. Because his only son died young, the earl was succeeded by his daughter Margaret, who was created countess of Norfolk for life in 1397 and was also the first woman to receive the office of Earl Marshall.. Her daughter married John Mowbray, fourth baron Mowbray, and their son Thomas Mowbray succeeded his grandmother as Earl Marshall in 1385 and was made earl of Norfolk after her death in 1399. The duchy became forfeit in 1399, when Thomas Mowbray was accused of treason by the new king Henry IV, but was restored in 1425 by his son John Mowbray, second duke of Norfolk. When the fourth duke died without sons, the Mowbray dynasty in the duchy Norfolk ended and his only daughter, Anne Mowbray, got the title of eighth countess of Norfolk.

The title was created for the second time when marriage arrangements were made between the three-year-old Anne Mowbray and the four-year-old Richard duke of York, second son of Edward IV. Richard was made first duke of Norfolk. He and his elder brother,

34_{Walter Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk: Notes on their History and Devolution (London: Unwin,}

(15)

15

Edward V however, were declared illegitimate and imprisoned in the Tower of London. The title duke of Norfolk was created for the third time when John Howard, son of Margaret Mowbray, the daughter of the first duke of Norfolk, was made duke for his support of Richard III’s claim on the throne. Howard died in 1485 at the battlefield of Bosworth, together with his friend Richard III. Until present, the title duke of Norfolk would remain property of the descendants of John Howard.

(16)

16

2 The ideal duke and his representation

2.1 Self-representation

The British historian Kevin Sharpe, known for his investigation of the use of representation by the Tudor and Stuart monarchs of England, has written about the concepts of power, authority and representation.35 He states that power can be defined as the effective means by which the ruler could enforce his will, and that authority was a more cultural construction.36 Representation was, according to Sharpe, mainly a means for the ruler to enforce his authority. Here Sharpe speaks about cultural self-representation: the image of a duke was to be established and enhanced to gain more authority, by means of cultural texts, objects and rituals. The author makes a division between representation by others and self-representation. He agrees with other historians that rulers were never entirely in control of their own image, but he calls representation a debate, in which the ruler tried to establish an image and others sought to undermine the ruler with counter representations. Therefore, he gives self-representation a greater role than it usually receives. Moreover, Sharpe seems to make a clear division between politics and culture, with the political representation of a country, shire or town in a council on the one hand, and cultural representation – imaging - on the other hand. In actuality, he links politics and culture to each other. Behind the cultural representation of rulers lies politics, the reason behind the strategies of a ruler to establish an image of himself. Sharpe also states that politics and culture cannot be seen apart from each other, and therefore joins the current trend among historians, in which culture is seen as an indispensable element of politics.37

The theoretical framework Sharpe sets at the beginning of his bespoke work Selling

the Tudor Monarchy received both positive and critical responses. Richard Rex has managed

to summarize the main criticism in one sentence, when he remarks that ‘what the thesis may lack in originality is perhaps made up for in documentation, for this book is a mine of information.’38_{The positive responses refer mainly to the enormous scale of verbal, visual} and ritual sources and his broad and comparative methodology, instead of an in-depth analysis. The greatest criticism refers to the fact that Sharpe thinks to have been original, but that the book is more of a good overview of sources and literature than an innovatory

35_{Sharpe, “Representing Rule”.} 36_{Idem, 8-9.}

37_{Idem, 6.}

38_{Richard Rex, Review of Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy, review in Renaissance Quarterly vol. 63, no.1}

(17)

17

investigation. The critical responses are more substantive and refer also to Sharpe’s terminology around the concept of representation. Rex says that the methodology in chapter one is applied uneven, pointing to the fact that some subjects, persons, sources or examples are extended greatly, while others are summarized shortly.39 Another point of criticism concerns Sharpe's ignorance of influence from abroad. He describes the English court as a self-contained institute, which flourished through self-innovation, which also applied to the representation strategies of the Tudors. Two Tudor historians, David Loades and David Starkey, have proven through investigation of the English court that there were many 'chivalric contacts' between the English and mainly the Burgundian court, which opposes Sharpe's perspective.40 Another point of criticism is the fact that Sharpe seemed to have ignored the reception of representation. Sharpe does give the reception of representation attention, but calls it a debate between the ruler and his subjects.41_{He describes it all too} peaceful and harmonious, while he forgets the violence from both sides, the complexity of representation during a war, and the non-acceptation of representation.

The British historian Chris Given-Wilson, specialized in the late medieval English monarchy and nobility, has written a book about the English nobility in the fourteenth century, in which he uses different perspectives to analyze the development of the nobility in the late Middle Ages. He does not mention the term ‘representation’ in this context, but does analyze the most important values of a nobleman. The differences between Sharpe and Given Wilson are, firstly, Sharpe’s focus on monarchs and Given-Wilson’s focus on the nobility, secondly, Sharpe’s use of a modern context of media and appearance and Given-Wilson’s attempt to see the representation of the nobility in the fourteenth-century context. The following citation of Given-Wilson shows what Sharpe is said to forget. He first cites K.B. Macfarlane, who gave a definition of a noblemen in 1965, stating that the summons to parliament was the privilege which made a man noble. He himself prefers to broaden the definition and states what, according to him, made a man noble in the fourteenth century:

‘Good birth, inherited land and lordship, and membership of the ‘officer’ ranks in battle were probably the most important determinants of status. Title legal privilege, a substantial degree of wealth, and the trappings of the noble lifestyle provided the visible evidence of that status.

39_Idem.

40_{Loades and Starkey in Ronald Asch, Princes, Patronage and the Nobility, 33.}

41_{Steven Alford, “The Tudor Hard Sell”, Review of Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy, review in Huntington}

(18)

18

Ultimately, though, what mattered most was the extent to which a man’s standing in society was accepted by those whom he regarded as his social equals.’42

The last sentence of this citation of Given-Wilson is in line with Kevin Sharpe’s description of the concept of ‘authority’. Lineage, wealth and a noble lifestyle did not help a man when he did not have authority, is Given-Wilson’s opinion. The author thus turns Sharpe’s theory around by saying that authority was necessary for representation, and was not only a possible consequence of representation. Sharpe says that representation could also be a reflection of authority, but does not see that representation could not land without already acquired authority, which is argued by Given-Wilson.

I agree with Sharpe when he divides cultural representation in two types. First, the image others form of the ruler, and second, the image the ruler makes of himself. The first kind of representation is the image that is created by others, and can only to a certain extent be influenced by a ruler. The other kind of representation he creates himself, but I agree with the critics that it cannot be ignored that the ruler does have influence on the creation, though not on the perception, of the representation. He creates the image that he wants to give of himself. For example, when a ruler wants to be seen as pious, he makes religious references in the texts he writes, the houses he builds and the paintings he orders. He can also choose to give more money to religious foundations than secular ones. In representation, a ruler makes many choices, that can all be led to the question: how do I want to represent myself? The ruler chooses what kind of image he wants to show of himself. In the fifteenth century, when modern media did not yet exist, rulers had less options to represent themselves. All possibilities had to be considered well, because there were not many choices. Fact is that Sharpe only sees representation and authority in one direction. Surely, authority did not come only from representation, but could be extended with help of emphasizing visible evidence, as Given-Wilson calls it.

Moreover, the modern context, sketched by Sharpe, is not always applicable for the fifteenth-century nobility. I have to say that he has a good point. Although the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk were not ‘rulers’ in the way Sharpe speaks about the word, they were looking for power and authority, and they were also familiar with the concept of representation to gain authority. As we see nowadays, no single enterprise, association, instance or person who has the slightest bit of control in society, is unaware of the concept of

(19)

19

media and imaging. Furthermore, representation is not a concept of the last few years, and also not a concept that was reserved for rulers for a long time. Although modern media did not exist in the fifteenth century, the nobility of late Medieval England knew they had an image, and could create one themselves, which could certainly have consequences for their power and authority. One has to respect the dignity of the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, and should see also see them in their own context, as Given-Wilson does.

2.2 The ideal duke

From the literature about the nobility, and especially the English nobility, one can conclude that it is a very complex social (and also political) group. However, it is clear that there were two distinct groups, the higher and the lower nobility, or peerage and gentry as one might prefer, and that the duke belonged to the social higher group, the group directly below the king. In England, until 1337, the highest rank in the nobility was the title of earl. The higher society in England existed of the lower nobility, which included baronets, knights, esquires and gentlemen, and the higher nobility, which consisted of earls, viscounts and barons. The titles of marquess and viscount were only introduced in respectively 1385 and 1440, after that of duke.

2.2.1 The duke

The first duchy in England was established in 1337 when king Edward III made his son, Edward the Black Prince, duke of Cornwall. The king had already created several earldoms, which became more and more common in the fourteenth century. Before, English monarchs were eager to create new titles, because this gesture was originally intended for members of the royal family. At this time, English monarchs realized that through the creation of titles they could create a supporting group among the leading men of their kingdom and also make their preferences clear by giving titles to their personal favorites. Given-Wilson says: ‘partly as a result of Edward III’s willingness to raise new men to earldoms, he created a special place within the ranks of the higher nobility for the royal family, or at least those members of it whom he considered deserving.’43_{So according to the author, the duchy was initially meant} for members of the royal family, to distinguish them from the other high nobility. In fact, it was even meant to distinguish the heir to the throne from others, but this aim was forgotten when Edward III created another three duchies, including one for Henry of Grosmont, who

(20)

20

did not even belong to the royal family. What did distinguish the Black Prince as heir was not his title as duke of Cornwall, but another title he received: that of Prince of Aquitaine.44

In other countries, we see that the duchy was created earlier. William the Conqueror, who came in 1066 to England with help from Geoffrey de Montbrai, was duke of Normandy. The idea of a duchy arose in the Frankish empire, when five so-called ‘stem duchies’ (Stammesherzogtümer), including Bavaria and Saxony, were property of noblemen who wanted to lead their territory. Leaders of the Frankish empire, including Charlemagne, tried to centralize the empire, but had to acknowledge the dukes. Later in time, other sovereign duchies arose, for instance duchies in France, including Normandy and Burgundy, duchies in the Holy Roman Empire, like Luxembourg and Brabant (later belonging to the Low Countries) and duchies in Italy, the Papal states. The duchy has always been a purely European concept. In most parts of Europe the duchies were sovereign. Robert Stein, historian of the medieval Low Countries and mainly of the Burgundian Netherlands, has described the centralization politics of the dukes that ruled this area in the late Middle Ages.45_{In England,} however, dukes did have certain powers and estates and had feudal privileges, but were not sovereign. They were all dependent on the monarch of England.

2.2.2 Representation of a duke

The difficulty is that there was not a written document with the requirements for a duke. There were several documents with rules for the nobility in general, but not specifically for the owners of a duchy. This is unfortunate, because with a document I could reduce the references to certain traditions. However, by looking closely to the history of the English duke in the late Middle Ages, we can find the importance of his representation.

I can say that in England, a duke had the highest position within the nobility, after the crown, and therefore his reputation was important. In the very beginning, dukes had a more stable position than earls – they were often members of the royal family – and therefore did not have to take much effort to keep their position and to continue to be acknowledged as dukes. The Mowbrays and the de la Poles were the first families outside the royal family to receive a dukedom, and had a less stable position than the other ducal families. As the fifteenth century progressed, more dukedoms were given to men outside the royal family, who had to make more of an effort to keep their position. Besides, the nobility had to endure a rather unstable time during the Wars of the Roses.

(21)

21

I think that the keyword in the self-representation of a duke is ‘distinguishing’. A good duke behaved like a duke, and not like an earl, or a baron. He had to show that he belonged to this highest small group of noblemen, who possessed the closest relationship to the king. What differed the duke from an earl? What made him visibly belong to the highest noble group instead of the second highest noble group? I think that the answer lies in the fact that the title ‘duke’ was originally meant for members of the royal family. Dukes were closer to the royal family than other nobles, and therefore the connections with the royal family were to be emphasized. The Mowbrays and the de la Poles, dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, were not members of the royal family, but did have some royal bloodlines through marriage. If anything made the duke prominent, it was, to my opinion, his membership of the royal family or his royal bloodline. And if a duke wanted to represent himself as an ideal duke, he would have used his royal bloodlines – if he possessed them – in his self-representation.

Given-Wilson says that duchies in the fourteenth century were created out of international and domestic considerations.46_{I can conclude that they also had a foreign} agenda. Could I also conclude that the world abroad was important for their representational agenda? And how was this possible when the English duchy, being created for the royal family and not sovereign, differed so much from the duchy elsewhere in Europe? Let us look to duchies in the Low Countries for a comparison.

Stein describes how the dukes in the Low Countries used representation to centralize their duchies and enforce a regional identity in an area where there was a strong sense of locality.47 There was no monarch in the Low Countries, so the dukes functioned as monarchs. The dukes of Brabant, Guelders and Burgundy and the counts of Flanders tried control their territory, and used representation to identify themselves with their subjects. They also tried to represent themselves as legitimate rulers of the territory. For dukes in the Low Countries, politics was a matter of ruling, while for English dukes, politics was a matter of influencing the ruler, or as I would say, ruling indirectly. A Burgundian duke had to prove that he was the best party, the legitimate ruler, while an English duke had to choose the strategically best party. Anne-Laure van Bruaene has analyzed the centralization politics of the dukes in the Habsburg empire, who ‘outdid their Burgundian forebears by exploring the possibilities for image-building.’48 And image-building is what Kevin Sharpe’s investigation is all about.49 He analyzes how the Tudors sold themselves just like Bruaene did for the Habsburg dukes. Van

46_{Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages, 122.}

47_{Stein, Networks, Regions and Nations: Shaping Identities in the Low Countries, 1300-1650 , 4.} 48_{Idem, 8.}

(22)

22

Bruaene, however, limits her essay to public rituals, and shows how the dukes in the Habsburg empire tried to enforce the territorial identity by means of public communication with their subjects. Image-building was also relevant for English dukes, but not as rulers. They cared about their image as members of the highest noble group.

However, there are also similarities between England and the Low Countries. First, the social-economical developments. The duchy of Burgundy was confronted with the same problem as the English nobility: the upcoming bourgeoisie. The merchant class did not only rise in England, but also in the Low Countries. The Burgundian duke Philip the Good was not blocked by this development and made the Burgundian court the center of aristocracy and chivalry and a role-model for European courts. Second, the importance of lineage. Sjoerd Bijker, who has written an article about the dukes of Brabant, speaks about the Brabantine chronicler Van Merchtenen. He wrote a detailed genealogical account of the dukes of Brabant and wanted, according to Bijker, ‘to demonstrate the royal lineage of the Brabantine dukes’.50 This shows the importance of (royal) lineage for the dukes of Brabant, which resembles the importance for the English dukes. The fact that the duchy of Brabant had a sovereign character, unlike English duchies, does not affect the importance of lineage for both areas. This also applied to other duchies in the Low Countries, for they did not have a monarchy above them but pursued marriages with other royal families. How did the dukes of Brabant represent their royal lineage? Bijker analyzes how they used the legend of ‘Brabon’ to represent themselves as the legitimate rulers of Brabant.51 This mythologizing was also visible in Medieval and Early Modern England, where monarchs – and especially Henry VII – used the Arthurian legend in their representation. The first Tudor king made clear that he descended from the mythical king Arthur, to enforce his claim on the throne. But not only the monarchs in England were familiar with this habit, noblemen could also use myths in their representation. Given-Wilson mentions the example of the earls of Warwick whose shield depicted a ‘bear with ragged staff’, referring to the family myth about two legendary earls. Because this mythologizing was also done by the English monarch, would there be any foreign influence?

The answer mainly comes from Robert Asch, who has done research on the topic of courts in the medieval and Early Modern period, and has edited a collection of essays on this topic. According to him, courts have played an important role in the communication between

50_{Sjoerd Bijker, “4. The Functions of the Late Medieval Brabantine Legend of Brabon,” in Stein, ed. Shaping}

Identities, 92.

(23)

23

the crown and the nobility, especially in England, with its centralized state.52 He also says that where there was a court, there was culture. Courtiers from home and abroad moved in and out of the court. R.A. Griffiths, one of the writers of the bundle, has written an article about the English court in the fifteenth century. According to him, the court was a 'series of occasions', by which he means that the court consisted of single events with ceremonies and rituals where the nobility and monarch met.53

As I said before, there has been much investigation about the English court in the fifteenth century and onwards and the connections with foreign courts, so there certainly was a certain amount of foreign influence. Griffiths cites several foreign delegations who described the 'royal splendour' at the English court. In this way, English monarchs and nobility shared representational strategies with foreign states. Werner Paravicini has written about the Burgundian court, which has served as a model for other European courts, according to him.54_{John Paston, a Norfolk knight, describes a wedding ceremony at the} Burgundian Court enthusiastically. Paston has served the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk which enlarges the chance on foreign influence on the Mowbrays and the de la Poles. This courtly exchange is, however, something of the late fifteenth century and is said to flourish during the reign of Edward IV, who was the brother-in-law of the Burgundian duke Charles the Bold. Paravicini also states that it was not before the rule of the Tudor king Henry VII that the 'Burgundian culture in England reached its high point. 55 I can conclude that there was certainly a degree of influence from abroad at the English court, which also influenced the nobility and their cultural representation, certainly in the Tudor period. How about the early fifteenth century?

There is another possibility of foreign exchange in the late Middle Ages, namely the Hundred Years’ War. This proved to be a revival of the military role of the nobility. According to Tuck, the nobility was not thrilled immediately when the war started, saying that ‘their fundamental concern was always their inheritance, the lands and rights which formed the basis of their wealth and power and which they expected to hand on to their heirs’.56 During the reign of Henry V, the nobility became more enthusiastic. Their motives were honor, glory and profit. The higher nobility took the lead in this war, including the dukes. There were different ways in which the dukes could meet foreign dukes. They could meet

52_{Asch, "Introduction", 4.}

53_{R.A. Griffiths, "The King's Court during the Wars of the Roses: Continuities in an Age of Discontinuities" in}

Princes, Patronage and the Nobility, 48.

54_{Werner Paravicini, "The Court of the Dukes of Burgundy: a Model for Europe?", 77.} 55_{Idem, 94-95.}

(24)

24

them at the battlefield, which was certainly a place of cultural display, be imprisoned by the French or vice versa or they could be involved in peace negotiations. An important role in this war was played by the duchy of Burgundy, which insisted on a peace treaty between England and France, because it was disadvantaged by the wool embargo on Flanders. The first three dukes of Norfolk fought against France, similar to their ancestors, the barons Mowbray. William de la Pole, first duke of Suffolk, had been imprisoned by the French and after his liberation was given the task to negotiate peace with France, and had often been present at the embassy. He was an important figure in the marriage arrangements between Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou.57 His father and brother fought with Henry V in France and died at respectively Harfleur and Agincourt.

We can conclude here that there must have been a certain amount of contact between the English nobility and foreign dukes. The question is, however, to what extent this could have influenced the representation of dukes only. I would not doubt the fact that the Mowbrays and the de la Poles, like other English dukes, have been influenced by the Burgundian duchy and that their cultural representation at the time of their duchy could have born influence of the Burgundian tradition. Would an earl, however, not also look to the Burgundian duchy and gain ideas for his cultural representation? We saw earlier that the Mowbrays and the de la Poles could have had contact with, for example, the Burgundian duke earlier than their ducal title. William de la Pole had, as earl of Suffolk, been in close contact with foreign dukes at the French embassy, when he was ordered to negotiate peace with France. Some, or all, of his ideas about his cultural representation could come from his time as earl. Fact is, however, that international considerations were higher than they appear from Sharpe’s theory.

57_{International considerations for the English monarch: his marriage with Margaret Anjou was a way to pursue}

(25)

25

3 Power politics

More power did not easily result in more authority, but power politics was one of the terrains a nobleman had to be proficient in, as Given-Wilson said about the three primary preoccupations of a nobleman.58 Power politics is not only about cultural representation. One of the definitions of representation is: ‘the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.’59 In this way a nobleman could gain more support from the people he represented. This could be done in councils, such as Parliament, to which every nobleman was summoned, and Privy Council. The last one was reserved to a small group of the monarch’s confidants, varying in standing, from bishop to gentleman. Parliament stems from the eleventh century, when monarchs realized that they needed the support and cooperation of the nobility and the church. In the thirteenth century, this concept was extended because now the rural landowners and representatives from towns were also summoned.60 Parliament was for a large part also a means of physical representation: a noblemen could appear in Parliament, was seen by the other nobles and could give his opinions in public. Here Sharpe’s theory is more relevant, for he emphasized the importance of physical appearance. It was important for a nobleman to show himself, and to be seen. Parliament became the characteristic of the nobility around the twelfth century: when one was summoned, one was noble.61_{For a duke, as the highest nobleman, it was a matter of course} that he appeared in Parliament. Privy Council was a less secure case. In the fifteenth century, members of different groups – bishops, earls, knights, gentlemen, dukes, commoners – were summoned. This was thus not a typical thing for dukes, but it could be something to use in their self-representation. Influence on the king’s business was in fact an important preoccupation of a duke. Because Privy Council was not reserved to dukes only, it could also provide access for men from a lower social standing to a higher position. This is what Given-Wilson means with ‘royal service ennobles’.

Another form of power politics is marriage politics. Given-Wilson states: ‘rapid and substantial increase in the size of the estate were much more likely to be secured as the result of a marriage or by royal grant’.62_{Therefore, it was also a quick way to gain more wealth:} estates, land and other property. There was more, however. Through marriages, one could

58_{Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages, 25.}

59_{http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/representation}_{(last seen: 30th June, 2015)} 60_{Hicks, 55.}

61_{Hicks, 56.}

(26)

26

climb higher on the social ladder and could gain more power as well as authority. A strategically good marriage could ensure more property, land and participation in important councils, but it could also give a nobleman and his family more status. Property, land and participation could also ensure more authority, and this shows how much influence marriage politics had on power and authority. The arrangement was not always made by the noble family themselves. Griffiths describes how marriages were arranged at court during the Wars of the Roses, when the monarch organized marriages between ladies at his wife’s court and men of his favorite rank. Given-Wilson argues that this was already done in the fourteenth century, when Edward III used marriage to lend a hand to the men he wanted to elevate, by giving them the hand of a wealthy heiress.

The dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk were also familiar with power politics. They appeared frequently in Parliament, where they showed their political side, chose their allies and enemies, and spoke out in favor of their political preferences. And they were also active at the ‘marriage market’, where they chose their spouses strategically.

3.1 The dukes of Norfolk

The Mowbrays had parliamentary rights since the 13th century. In 1295, Roger de Mowbray, grandson of William de Mowbray, who was one of the twenty-five executors of Magna Carta, received a personal writ of summons to Parliament. Here we see the importance of royal service. The Mowbrays received their place in Parliament through several kinds of service, with which they continued, ending in the highest positions of the English nobility. Roger de Mowbray was summoned as the first Lord Mowbray and became the first Baron Mowbray in this way as well. The Mowbrays appeared actively in Parliament since then.

In 1425 John Mowbray, earl of Norfolk, petitioned in Parliament for parliamentary restoration of the duchy of Norfolk, which had been taken from his father, Thomas Mowbray, in 1399. Rowena Archer has written an article about this struggle of Mowbray’s in her book

Rules and Ruled in Medieval England. She says: ‘much of the life of John Mowbray was

devoted to the rehabilitation of the family name’.63_{The war with France was going on and} John Mowbray could take advantage of that by proving his loyalty to the king and earning the duchy of Norfolk back in that way. The legal system, however, had changed, and this meant that after treason, a family would be in disgrace for generations, which could not easily be solved by showing loyalty to the king. However, in 1425 John Mowbray made claims in

(27)

27

Parliament that eventually led to the restoration of the ducal title of the family. The petition he made was about an old dispute between him and Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick.64 Mowbray made a claim to precedence over Beauchamp to occupy a higher seat in Parliament and various councils. He did this by calling upon his right by blood, arms and the earldom of Norfolk What did he pursue with this action, more power or more authority? A higher seat meant more influence and participation in politics, but also more respect. Mowbray supported his petition with three pedigrees which showed his blood relationship with Henry I and Henry V, and also showed the interest the Mowbray family had in genealogy. This shows how John Mowbray sees himself in comparison with an earl. He used his blood relationship with English kings, thus his royal bloodlines, to claim a position above the earl of Warwick. He succeeded in this, and I think that is because of the authority he had already required. Otherwise he could not have won a dispute with the earl of Warwick.

In 1433 Thomas Mowbray, first duke of Norfolk and John Fitzalan, third Baron Maltravers argued about the lordship of Arundel and the right to the title of earl of Arundel.65 The earldom had gone to Fitzalan because of the death of his cousin, Thomas Fitzalan. Mowbray, however, was married to the late earl’s elder sister and claimed to have more right to the title Earl of Arundel. The dispute could not be solved during their lifetimes. The earldom was created in 1140 for the Norman baron sir William d’Aubigny. D’Aubigny was the Italian version of the surname Mowbray, and the name the Mowbrays had had for several generations. This made Arundel the earldom of the ancestors of the duke of Norfolk.

Privy Council was also a familiar place for the Mowbrays, but not always. Because the Earl Marshall had a permanent place on the Council, the Mowbrays, who owned the title of Earl Marshall between 1383 and 1476, were naturally present at the council. When they became dukes, they were mentioned as dukes, and not as Earl Marshall, in the records. This is with the exception of the time between the imprisonment and death of Thomas Mowbray, the first duke of Norfolk, and the coming of age of his son. What could be gained with presence in Privy Council? I doubt whether it was merely a matter of power and status. The Council did not seem to be a voluntary matter. In the chronological record of the Privy Council of the 1st of December, 1427, the amount of three hundred marks is mentioned as an annual salary for John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk. His titles of duke and Earl Marshall are explicitly mentioned and his salary is higher than the other salaries that are mentioned in the record, for bishops and earls. For that reason there was also a class difference in Privy Council. Archer

(28)

28

says that Mowbray’s attendance at councils was sporadic after he had become duke.66 This proves that the dukedom was an important goal.

3.2 The dukes of Suffolk

The de la Poles received their parliamentary rights in 1366 when Michael de la Pole was summoned to Parliament as a peer, five months before his father, the wool merchant William de la Pole died. William de la Pole had also appeared in Parliament five times, but he represented the city of Hull, of which he was mayor.

William de la Pole petitioned in Parliament in 1450, when he had been imprisoned by the Commons.67 One of the impeachments was the fact that he would have tried to secure succession to the English throne for his son, John de la Pole, by marrying him to Margaret Beaufort, heiress to the duke of Somerset. John had been married a few months earlier to Margaret, both being only children. The marriage would be annulled in 1453, because of a lack of permission which was necessary in this case. In his petition, William de la Pole denied having succession to the throne in mind and claimed, in the words of J.A.F. Thompson, ‘that his original intention had been to secure for his son the hand of the Warwick heiress Anne Beauchamp whose guardian he was.’68 Thompson disputed the argument of de la Pole, moreover, with the help of a document that proved that William de la Pole wanted his son and the heiress of Beaufort to remain married, despite the annulment. As a real duke, he was engaged in marriage politics and secured for his sons the best marriages that were possible. As recent nobleman with a merchant background, marriages were very important for his status. Moreover, it must be said that Margaret Beaufort was not only the most prominent heiress of England, but also a descendant of Edward III through her father. Her marriage with John de la Pole would give the de la Poles a royal bloodline, and make them stronger as dukes. The petition did not help William de la Pole and he was imprisoned soon after his appearance in Parliament. The most despised man of England died in a way many people wanted him to.

Thompson describes John de la Pole as a typical Wars of the Roses nobleman, who changed sides several times.69 He has been a Yorkist, a Lancastrian, and pro-Tudor, and managed to become close to the monarch over and over again, while the war was going on and frictions between the houses of York and Lancaster were becoming worse. John de la

66_{Archer, “Parliamentary Restoration”, 115.} 67_{Rotuli Parliamentorium, v, 177, 182.}

(29)

29

Pole had supported the Yorkist king Edward IV for years, but when this king had to flee, de la Pole quickly managed to come to terms with the government of the reinstalled king Henry VI. He was the brother-in-law of Edward IV, father of the heir designate of Richard III, but also bore the scepters of Henry VI and Henry VII. He attended marriages of the Yorks, Lancasters and Tudors and showed his loyalty to all sides. Royal service did not only ennoble, as Given-Wilson said, but for the de la Poles it was a way to come as close to the king as possible. Was this the behavior of a typical duke during the Wars of the Roses, or were the de la Poles more flexible than the average duke? They certainly knew how to take risks, as was shown by William de la Pole, confidant of Henry VI. They cared less about traditions and principles as the old nobility, because they were only dependent from their money.

The de la Poles also had a seat in Privy Council before they became dukes of Suffolk. Whilst being the earl of Suffolk, William de la Pole, who would later become the first duke, had been given an important task at the French embassy. In 1434, he had come back from the war in France and had been instructed to negotiate peace with France, and therefore already had a confidential position.70_{Shortly after that, William de la Pole became a member of the} Privy Council. We already saw the growth of his power during the reign of the weak king Henry VI. For him, Privy Council was a place to exercise his power, as this council appeared to have relatively more control during the reign of Henry VI than during the reign of any of the other kings in the fifteenth century.71 John Mowbray’s active service for the king ended with the restoration of the duchy of Norfolk. This did not apply to the de la Poles. They had something else in mind: direct influence on the king and the throne of England.

3.3 Marriages

For the dukes of Suffolk, marriage was a crucial instrument in their quest for power and authority. Dennys says about the de la Poles: 'by a series of judicious marriages and capable royal service the family rose steadily'.72 He also sees the importance of marriages for the de la Poles: they were a possibility to climb higher on the social ladder. Here we see the point Sharpe misses. He analyzes the relationship between authority and representation, but ignores the resources of authority. How did they use marriage as an instrument? Michael de la Pole, grandfather of the first duke, had already forged a very lucrative alliance by marrying Katherine Wingfield, heiress of the rich Wingfield family. The Wingfields possessed several

70_{Proceedings Privy Council, vol. 6, x.} 71_Voetnoot!

Power and Authority