Author Archives: kristenleeg

Interview with Jock Phillips

Jock Phillips is a free-lance professional historian. Until 2014 he was the General Editor of Te Ara, the Online Encyclopedia of New Zealand in the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He was previously New Zealand’s Chief Historian following 16 years teaching American and New Zealand History at Victoria University of Wellington.  He was also the founding Director of the Stout Research Centre for the study of New Zealand society, history and culture; and was the Conceptual Leader for the History exhibitions at Te Papa, Museum of New Zealand. He has published fifteen books on New Zealand history, of which the best known is A Man’s Country: The image of the Pakeha male – a history. His latest book, To The Memory, is a comprehensive illustrated history of New Zealand war memorials. Read his article on the Maori and royal tours in the Royal Studies Journal Volume 5.

IMG_9885 comp

Memorial for the soldiers of the Arawa tribe who died in World War I. Photo by Jock Phillips.

 

RSJ Blog: Hello, Jock! Thanks for participating. We often see think-pieces about the “cult of celebrity” or “celebrity worship.” Does our modern interest in celebrity provide rivals to royalty or do they benefit from our fascination? Both?

Jock: At least since the coming of mass media with newspapers, there have always been celebrities who have been rivals in popular interest for royalty. In New Zealand’s case significant indications of this have been ‘tours’ by people other than royalty; and it is revealing to list some of the tours by non-Royals which made a powerful impression.  In the 19th century tours by authors such as Mark Twain, Anthony Trollope and (a bit later) Rudyard Kipling were big news; in the early 20th century there were major tours by heroes of the British Empire such as Robert Falcon Scott and Baden Powell.  In the mid 20th century sporting heroes were much feted – there were huge crowds in Wellington to welcome the MCC ‘bodyline’ cricket team in 1933, not to mention tours by local heroes such as the 1925 Invincible All Black rugby team and the runner Jack Lovelock.  In the 1960s there were huge crowds in the streets to welcome The Beatles and The Rolling Stones; and a bit later the numbers were repeated (along with a few protestors) for the American President LBJ.  Some may argue that the plethora of mass media now – television, film and the internet besides the printed page – have increased the number of non-royal competitors for celebrity; but they have long been there.

 RSJ Blog: Why might indigenous people see the monarch as their benefactor (or “benefactress” as they termed Queen Victoria)?

 Jock: I can only really talk with any authority about the case of Maori.  For Maori the Queen was seen in positive terms because she was the other signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi; and subsequently Maori saw her as providing a protection against local white governments whom they felt had disregarded the terms of the treaty.

RSJ Blog: A number of the articles talk about “race patriotism” or “British race patriotism.” How has the British monarchy both supported and challenged these ideas?

 Jock: Most members of the British Empire regarded the monarch as the symbolic head of the Empire and therefore the purest expression of the values of the British race.  Interestingly even some Maori accepted this because it was argued that Maori were ‘honorary whites’, an Aryan people, who shared the racial characteristics of the Anglo-Saxons. But of course this was purely symbolic, because all the evidence is that some members of the royal family, most notably Edward, the Prince of Wales, during his 1920 tour, were appallingly racist towards indigenous people, especially Maori.

RSJ Blog: It seems that the monarch and the white colonizers of New Zealand saw the Maori in a more positive light than the monarch and the white colonizers of Australia saw the Indigenous Australians. Is this an accurate impression? If so, why might that be? Is it due to the Treaty of Waitangi (1840)?

 Jock: I think the main reason that white colonial powers in New Zealand including the British monarch, regarded Maori more positively and treated them with more respect than the treatment of indigenous Australians is that Maori had been very effective militarily.  From about 1500 when there was a growing Maori population and a competition for resources, a strong tradition of military achievement developed in Aotearoa.  Iwi or tribes developed who built thousands of fortified pa around the country and a cult of military prowess emerged. In the early 19th century Maori very quickly gained access to guns and through fights between iwi developed a remarkable skill in the new warfare – indeed some have argued that Maori were the first to really develop trench warfare as a response to guns. When white people arrived they quickly found that Maori were no push-over militarily, and indeed in both the 1840s and 1860s wars Maori very nearly defeated the colonizers who had to call for professional assistance from the Imperial army.  In this context the only way white people could establish a foothold in the country was to negotiate – hence they were forced into negotiating the Treaty of Waitangi.  So in my view respect for Maori came out of the barrel of a gun. The Treaty was a consequence of this respect, not the cause of it. In Australia we now know that there was more armed resistance than once believed, but it was never on the scale of Maori resistance.

RSJ Blog: How similar and different is the relationship of the British monarchs with the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand?

Jock: I think the existence of a treaty in which the monarch was the other signatory did make a big difference.  Maori put enormous energy in the 19th and early 20th centuries into appealing to the British monarch – through elaborate welcomes when royalty toured and through numerous attempts to travel to England in order to petition the monarch. It was also true that because of their military strength Maori had to be given a place in the local political scene (Maori could vote on the same terms as Europeans from the beginning and from 1867 there were Maori seats in parliament).  This allowed them access to the local political authorities who were controlling royal tours and relations with the monarch, which indigenous Australians did not have.

RSJ Blog: Since monarchs are now generally supposed to be above politics, how can the royal family help indigenous people in their pursuit of justice?

Jock: To be honest in 2018 I do not see the royal family having much impact on the politics of member states of the Commonwealth.  However if members of the royal family respect indigenous culture and give it appropriate time and recognition, this may have some impact on local perceptions.

RSJ Blog: What is the new nationalism in late-twentieth century Australia? Was there a new nationalism in New Zealand around this time as well?

Jock: As both Australia and New Zealand emerged out of the British Empire from the 1960s, a similar new nationalism emerged.  In New Zealand’s case the old nationalism saw New Zealand as a ‘better Britain’, a country which had all the values of the British race but none of the social problems.  New Zealanders thought of themselves as the ‘most loyal’ dominion of all.  From the 1960s this view came under attack, and a new nationalism emerged which positioned New Zealand as an independent South Pacific country.  Maori and Pacific culture became more important to the identity; and in place of a role as a loyal territorial of the Anglo-American Empire, the country pushed values of international peace and regarded its anti-nuclear position as central to identity.

 RSJ Blog: Thank you for your time! How are things progressing with your work on war memorials?

Jock:  I have worked for over 30 years on studying the history of war memorials and my book on the subject, To the Memory, was finished last year; but I continue to follow up side-issues and give talks on this subject especially with the centenary of the armistice upon us.  I have now just completed a memoir about my life as a historian, Living History, which I expect to be published next year.

Advertisements

Modern Monarchies Around the World

The current special issue of the Royal Studies Journal is about royal tours in the modern era. While many of us who study monarchies specialize in ancient, medieval, or early modern history, there are a number of monarchies alive and well in today’s world. The maps below highlight the world’s current monarchies.

current world monarchies

Current Monarchies simplified map

The first map shows the 16 countries of the British Commonwealth that recognize the monarch as head of state (the larger Commonwealth consists of over 50 countries) and the 29 other countries with monarchs. The second map is a simplified version of the first: it provides country names but many smaller principalities were left off the map.

The 16 Commonwealth Countries with a monarch are: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and St. Lucia.

Current Monarchies in the Americas

The 10 monarchies in North America are all part of the Commonwealth.

monarchies in Oceania

A close-up of the monarchies in Oceania. All but the Kingdom of Tonga (green) are part of the Commonwealth.

 

current monarchies africa

Current monarchies in Africa are Lesotho, Morocco, and Swaziland.

current monarchies asia

The current monarchies in Asia are Bahrain, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.

current monarchies europe

The current monarchies in Europe are Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Vatican City.

The only continents without any monarchies are Antarctica and South America. Asia and Europe are tied for the most monarchies, with 13 each.

*All maps were made using Mapchart.net, which is an extremely fun resource!

New Website for the Royal Studies Journal!

The Royal Studies Journal has moved to a new and improved website! Please visit at https://www.rsj.winchester.ac.uk/.

To help you navigate the new site, Ellie Woodacre has kindly recorded a video. Please view it here.

We have a new website because Winchester University Press has teamed up with Ubiquity Press, a leading open-access publisher. Joining forces with an established open-access publisher keeps the journal at the forefront of scholarship and streamlines access to both current and back issues.

We hope you enjoy the new website!

Conference Report from Kalamazoo

This year the Royal Studies Network and Royal Studies Journal hosted two excellent sessions on Plural/Corporate Monarchy at the 53rd International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Congress at Kalamazoo is one of the largest gatherings of medievalists from around the world, and it features papers from a wide range of disciplines such as history, English, philosophy, religious studies, and world languages to name just a few. Medievalists from undergraduates to senior scholars enjoy the scholarship, social opportunities (including a Saturday night dance), and book discounts. Be on the lookout on the Royal Studies Network Facebook page for more information about future Kalamazoo sessions.

Below are quick summaries of our sessions, provided so that those who were unable to attend don’t miss out!

Session One:

Erin L. Jordan’s paper, “Melisende, Fulk and Corporate Monarchy in the Twelfth-Century Kingdom of Jerusalem” discussed corporate monarchy in the Latin East. Jordan argued that Melisende was a true co-ruler and when her husband Fulk tried to cut her out, she (with the support of native nobles) rebelled in 1134. The couple reconciled rather quickly because co-rule worked very well for a conquest kingdom such as that of Jerusalem. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem follows more Mediterranean patterns of monarchy where the demands of war make a partnership between the king and queen particularly useful.

Manuela Santos Silva’s paper, “The king, his wife, their children and their households: Royal power in Iberia in late middle ages” is part of a larger project investigating collective monarchy in the Iberian peninsula. Using law codes such as Las Siete Partidas and Portuguese letters and chronicles, Silva traces the answers to such vital questions as: who should be king? What is the role of the royal family in an elective monarchy? What is the role of the royal family in an inherited monarchy? Should we refer to some monarchies as “shared monarchy”?

Janna Bianchini’s paper, “Duplicate Monarchy? Kings Confirming Royal Women’s Gifts in León-Castile” focused especially on Sancha Raimúndez (1095-1159) and her many royal diplomas. The vast majority of Sancha’s surviving grants are not confirmed by her royal brother, suggesting that royal women could grant land independently. Several of the diplomas issued jointly by Sancha Raimúndez and Alfonso VII show the royal siblings acting via verbs in the first person plural (we give, we concede), which indicates a joint dominion over certain lands or rights. In a close examination of some of Sancha’s grants, Bianchini then explored the concept of “keeping while giving” that seemed to be in action with some of Sancha’s grants.

During the question-and-answer period, participants and audience members discussed the idea of a Mediterranean or “frontier” concept of rulership that relies fairly heavily on corporate monarchy. Is this a thing? Worth pondering!

Session Two:

Kristen Geaman’s paper, “Is All Monarchy Plural? A Look at Medieval Kings and Queens” took the idea of corporate monarchy beyond the Mediterranean to England. Looking specifically at intercession and the idea that a king needed/had two genders, she suggested that English monarchy could also be seen as plural because kings and queens together often embodied and enacted the performance of the king’s two genders. Intercession, in which a merciful queen tempers a vengeful (but just) king particularly showcases the monarchs working together to fulfill both kingly genders.

Anna Jagosova’s paper, “The House of Luxembourg (1309 ‒ 1442): Ruling practices in composite monarchy from gender comparative perspective” explored the charters from the many domains ruled by the House of Luxembourg to highlight the role of consorts in ruling these territories. With such disparate holdings, the regnants needed assistance, which queens could often provide. Comparing the language in extant charters, Jagosova showed that queens and kings used nearly identical language. Queens were generally especially powerful in places where they held lands, either from their dowers or morning gifts.

Abdulaziz Alqabli’s paper, “Religious Authority in the Mamluk Era 1250-1517” explored how the Mamluk sultans of Egypt used the Abbasid caliphs (who they had installed in Cairo after their defeat by the Mongols in 1258) and the ulama (religious scholars) to help legitimize their rule and prevent rebellions by the populace. The Mamluks particularly needed this support because of their slave origins. In addition to the support of religious leaders, the Maluks promoted jihad against both crusaders and the Ottomans to shore up their authority. But without the support of the Abbasid caliphs, the Mamluks likely would not have been able to rule; the official stance that the caliphs had delegated authority to the sultans solved a number of problems.

During the question-and-answer period, participants and audience members discussed the Mamluks and the importance of land/wealth as a route to power. The Luxembourg queens, rather like the “frontier” queens of the first session could exercise more power the more wealth they possessed.

Overall, the sessions emphasized the necessity of thinking about monarchy in medieval terms, rather than (as Janna Bianchini noted) “absolutist terms.” Medieval monarchs were not absolute monarchs (we will leave it to other scholars to determine whether absolute monarchs were actually absolute monarchs), and it isn’t helpful to think of them as a bunch of “the state is me” kind of people.

Royal Studies Journal and Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU) Early Career Researcher and Postgraduate Student Article Prize 2018

article prize snipEXTENDED CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
For the Royal Studies Journal and Canterbury Christ Church
University (CCCU) Early Career Researcher and Postgraduate
Student Article Prize 2018
Launched in June 2015, the Royal Studies Journal Early Career Researcher and
Postgraduate Student Prize is awarded to a current early career researcher or
postgraduate student for the best published, or unpublished, scholarly article or
book chapter (approx. 5,000-10,000 words in length) based upon original
research on any topic falling within the broad geographical and temporal scope
of royal studies. The Royal Studies Journal and our prize sponsor, Canterbury
Christ Church University (CCCU), are committed to assisting, encouraging, and
supporting the career development of early career researchers and postgraduate
students in a highly competitive professional research environment.

Extended closing date for nominations is March 31, 2018. Further particulars and the nomination form are
available via the Royal Studies Journal website at:
http://www.rsj.winchester.ac.uk/index.php/rsj/pages/view/CCCU
For further information, please contact the prize convenor, Dr Zita Eva Rohr zita.rohr@mq.edu.au or the
Journal Editor-in-Chief, Dr Elena Woodacre Elena.Woodacre@winchester.ac.uk

Interview with Jennifer Mara DeSilva

Jennifer Mara DeSilva is an Associate Professor of History at Ball State University (Indiana, USA). She has written several articles about the papal Masters of Ceremonies and edited collections examining the reformist behaviour of early modern bishops and the coercive process of sacralizing of space in the premodern world. Her current research focuses on how individuals and groups at the Papal Court established identities through office-holding, rituals, and relationships with groups and sites. Read the full article in the Royal Studies Journal.

RSJ Blog: Thank you so much for talking with us! So the canonical age for cardinals was 30, which many people probably find surprising in the premodern era – a lot of undergraduate students don’t necessarily think people in the past lived that long! Why was the age for appointment 30 and does that suggest anything about life expectancy?

Jennifer: Calculating life expectancy in the premodern world is problematic. The fact that so many people died as infants or children makes the mortality rate deceptive low. If a man lived past 20 years of age or a woman past successive childbeds, they were likely to live for many years more, barring falling victim to a disease epidemic. With that in mind, we should also remember that there were several canonical ages. The canonical age for becoming a cardinal or a bishop was thirty, which was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-63). However, the canonical age for other ecclesiastical offices – tonsured monk, deacon, priest – varied over time and according to the authority. Most likely this says more about the vision of man’s intellectual frailty and potential, than it does about how long people lived. Yet, even with these age thresholds articulated, we would be hard pressed to find a medieval or early modern depiction of a cardinal that was not modeled on a much older man. Indeed, many modern films use the same stereotype of bearded maturity, decades past thirty, when depicting the College of Cardinals. This suggests that canonical ages functioned as guidelines illustrating a hierarchy of offices and the need for experience-based wisdom in those office-holders.

The broad population that the premodern College of Cardinals embraced can be seen in two sixteenth-century portraits: An Unknown Young Cardinal by a follower of Titian (16th century), now at Petworth House, National Trust, UK and Titian’s Cardinal Pietro Bembo (Samuel H. Kress Collection, c.1540), at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. The unknown young cardinal is likely under the canonical age of thirty, while Pietro Bembo was about seventy when Titian painted his portrait, having been elevated to the College in 1539.

RSJ Blog: Your article talks about the life stage adolescentia (14-28 years old). Is this life stage at all similar to that of today’s teenager?

Jennifer: Yes and no. In the premodern era, depending on one’s economic status, this phase could include years spent as an apprentice and journeyman worker, as a novice, or at university. By the age of 28 most men were still only approaching the point at which they could afford to start their own household, enter a guild as a master, or hold a civic or ecclesiastical office of power. In that sense adolescentia was a stage of continued dependence or training. This might seem similar to the lengthening period that today many people spend in post-graduate studies or research before landing a first full-time and permanent job in their chosen field. Of course, in contrast to this period’s characterization as “in-training,” financially, intellectually, and emotionally, teenagers today (13-19 years old) face the same stereotypes that Bernardino of Siena and Girolamo Savonarola identified in early modern adolescents. Some things have barely changed.

RSJ Blog: How big was the College of Cardinals? One of the reform decrees the article quoted mentioned there shouldn’t be two men from the same mendicant order, which really seems to limit options!

Jennifer: Over the course of the fifteenth century the College of Cardinals grew. Although reform decrees limited the College to a maximum of twenty-six members, after the 1450s the population fluctuated between the high twenties and the low thirties. Through the 1500s the College continued to grow, reaching a maximal plateau of seventy members. In 1587 Pope Sixtus V reinforced this ceiling by decree and it continued until the late 1950s when Pope John XXIII and his successors allowed it to creep upwards. However, even by the late sixteenth century very little store was placed in the fifteenth-century limits, and the mendicant orders played a diminishing role in cardinals’ origins. Many men elevated to the cardinalate in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were secular canons who had held positions in the pope’s household or in the Curia.

RSJ Blog: Your article mentions that the pope is often criticized for these under-aged cardinals but these youngsters are appointed anyway. Who was criticizing the pope for this? Protestants? Or the secular rulers who benefitted?

Jennifer: Secular rulers rarely suggested that fewer cardinals be appointed. Through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they were more concerned with balancing factions in the College of Cardinals between themselves. This was especially true of France and Spain. Nevertheless, criticism sprung from both Catholics and Protestants, as well as some members of the College of Cardinals. Tension existed between those who had been promoted before thirty years of age and those who sought the promotion of under-aged relatives, against outsiders who had either had no skin in the game (historians of deceased popes) or profited from highlighting continued Catholic abuses (Protestants).

RSJ Blog: How much resistance did popes offer to the appointment of under-aged cardinals? Did your research turn up any young cardinal candidates who were never appointed or were made to wait until after they turned 30 for papal appointment?

Jennifer: Each promotion occurred because of a distinct assortment of motives and pressures. In the same way that popes objected to adult candidates with unsuitable pasts, there is evidence of reluctance to elevate very young men to the College. In several instances adolescent or pre-adolescent nominees were required to wait several years before their promotion was publicized, during which time they were prohibited from assuming the office’s dress or title. In all cases, these nominees were members of ruling families that were important to the pope. While none of these men were forced to wait until they turned thirty, this practice suggests that there was a widespread acknowledgement that one could undermine the authority inherent in the office, if the nominee was too far from the canonical age.

RSJ Blog: Why have historians been so attached to the idea that these under-age cardinals were the relatives of sitting popes rather than elites from Catholic states?

Jennifer: Into the twentieth century the papacy stood as an emblem of difference separating Catholicism from other Christian denominations, but also as an emblem of human invention and corruption. While denominational prejudice has largely left the discipline of History, centuries-old criticism that emphasized the pope’s autocratic rule and ability to create cardinals merged with disapproval of the swift social mobility that election to the papacy brought. The result was that papal nephews, sons, and grandsons, many of whom were underage, attracted so much attention and criticism that effectively they obscured the other men who profited in a similar but less conspicuous fashion. The under-aged papal kin provoked a far greater response than under-aged nobles, who traditionally were expected to compete for titles and wealth in a way that was unseemly for the relatives of a cleric.

RSJ Blog: Thank you again for you time and participation! What is next for you?

Jennifer: You are very welcome, Kristen, Cathleen, and Elena! This year I am one of the inaugural fellows of Ball State University’s Digital Scholarship Lab, where I am using timeline, mapping, and networking software to explore how Bolognese patricians competed for place and power. My current project is a digital study of how patrician families in Bologna, Italy, used offices, both ecclesiastical and lay, to compensate for limited access to executive civic authority. These tools offer exciting new insights and comparative opportunities for studying the past.

Interview with Alexander Brondarbit

‘Into our defense and saveguarde’: Eton College and the Good Lordship of Edward, Duke of York

Alexander Brondarbit is an Academic Planning Analyst at UC Santa Cruz and Instructor for the E-Campus at Oregon State University. His research focuses on the high and local politics of late medieval England with particular emphasis on the Wars of the Roses.  His teaching interests include the history of high and late medieval Europe, the Church in the Middle Ages, and medieval sex, gender, and culture.  You can read his article in the Royal Studies Journal, Issue 6 here.

RSJ Blog: What is a signet warrant? How does it differ from other types of documents?

Alexander: The signet warrant was a means of connecting the king with the ordinary operations of his government. It was produced by the third type of writing office which arose after the other two writing offices (e.g., the chancery and privy seal office) had left the royal household to be housed permanently in Westminster. This change had occurred by reason of the high workload of those offices and the sheer volume of letters that were being produced. Obviously, the king was not always in Westminster and still needed a means of transmitting his will on official business regardless of his location. The signet office was thus formed in the early fourteenth century to meet this demand.

It differed from the Westminster offices in several ways. It was much smaller, less bureaucratic, and less solemn than the chancery. The signet was kept by the king’s secretary who was often a clerk based about the king’s person rather than say a bishop with public duties like the chancellor. A particularly interesting difference is the suspicion that often arose over the use of the signet. Initially used sparingly, the signet was seen as a method by which Richard II abused his royal prerogative as he bypassed the privy seal office in warranting the issue of letters under the great seal. The signet seal disappeared for a time when the Lords Appellant were victorious in 1388, yet it eventually reemerged in a more muted fashion afterwards as it definitely had its uses despite the concern it engendered.

RSJ Blog: Had scholars largely ignored this document before, aside from including it in histories of Eton?

Alexander: I’d say many scholars do seem to have been unaware of it. The Duke of York’s signet letter was first examined by the English historian and archivist, Sir Henry Maxwell-Lyte in his A History of Eton College produced in 1875. Aside from some minor errors in his transcription, Maxwell-Lyte also did not fully appreciate the significance of the document as he focused entirely with the Yorkist regime’s treatment of Eton. This emphasis has been replicated by later historians of the college as one might expect as they were not as interested in what the document told us about this critical, and somewhat opaque, stage of the Wars of the Roses. Cora Scofield did quote a snippet of the signet warrant in her biography of Edward IV, but she relied on Maxwell-Lyte’s book and it is doubtful she ever consulted the record in person. The same goes for Charles Ross’s biography which quotes an even briefer portion of the document without any citation suggesting again that he may have been repeating the quote from Scofield’s work. I believe what we have here is a case of a great document that was known in the late nineteenth century, but sadly was forgotten except by historians of Eton College.

ECR 39 124

ECR 39/124. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of Eton College.

RSJ Blog: Briefly, what happened to Eton under the Yorkist kings?

Alexander: Edward ultimately proved vindictive toward Lancastrian institutions in the early years of his reign. It was hardly impolitic to do so given that he still did not have full control of his own realm and a constant reminder of his more scholarly predecessor whom many still believed to be the rightful king could not have been a welcome proposition. This is all the more likely given the high survival rate of propaganda that attests to Edward’s right to rule. After he became king, Edward commanded King’s College Cambridge to pay its revenues to the exchequer and many of its estates were resumed in 1461. Eton received an even harsher sentence as Edward considered suppressing the college and annexing it into St George’s Chapel at Windsor. That Edward was committed to this course of action is without doubt as he secured a bull from Pope Pius II authorizing the abolition of the college in 1463 and we see this order taking effect two years later when its moveable goods (furniture, jewels, bells, clothing etc.) were removed to Windsor. Many of Eton’s original endowments were lost to resumption as the king dispersed the lands to his supporters. The impact of this initial royal policy is quite evident in the sharp decline of revenue as the annual income fell to a mere £321 at its lowest point in 1466-7. This is quite a fall as Eton received an average annual income of £1,200 under Henry VI. The diminished income prevented operations from continuing at Eton although the provost remained living on site.

For reasons unknown, Edward softened his stance toward Eton after 1467. At the king’s request, Pope Paul II revoked the bull annexing the college to Windsor. The tale that the school was saved by the charms of Edward’s mistress, Jane Shore, is an amusing one that even the college enjoys telling today, but there is no evidence to support this. I find the timing quite surprising given that the Lancastrian threat was far from over at this stage of the reign.

Unfortunately, Richard III’s attitude toward Eton is difficult to determine. The lone account roll for his reign does show that the college’s revenue had improved to an annual income of £565 in 1483-4, but this was largely by the minor grants Edward allowed the college in the latter half of his reign. If Richard harbored plans for Eton (which I doubt he did) they were never realized by the time he was killed at Bosworth Field.

RSJ Blog: Was Edward taking advantage of Provost Westbury or was it just good politics?

Alexander: Largely strapped for cash, Edward was certainly pressing his advantage here as he was raising funds to pay the troops needed for his campaign against the Lancastrian army in the north. This exchange with Eton was simply one avenue at his disposal to get the resources he needed, but it was merely a drop in the bucket. The bulk of money the Yorkists acquired came from London; within a few days of his reign Edward and his allies had received some £8,700 from the city dating back to the prior year. It is also worth noting that the quid pro quo arrangement between Edward and Provost Westbury was far from unique, particularly in the opening days of his fledgling regime. In 1461, Winchester College presented gifts to earn an exemption to the act of resumption in the king’s first parliament. In that same year, Canterbury paid nearly £300 to the king for a charter granting perpetual county status to the city and confirming its pre-existing civic liberties. Had Eton not been so closely associated with the House of Lancaster it is much more likely Edward would have kept his promises to protect the institution.

RSJ Blog: Is this part of a larger project? What are you up to next?

Alexander: At present, I am currently reshaping my thesis into what I hope will be my first monograph. My book will examine the Yorkist political power-brokers in operation in the reigns of Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III. Power is its major theme as I utilized records held throughout several local archives in addition to the national archive in order to develop a picture of how the politically active men and women mediated and expressed royal power. So often historians make the determination of influence by listing the patronage one acquired from the Crown. I sought to bring in other avenues by which to see their influence at work both at court and in the shires.