Richard Redman: the Yorkist Years

((3. 1461—88)

Joseph A. Gribbin

The period of English history which witnessed the fortunes of the houses of

Lancaster and York, and the advent of the Tudor dynasty, is conveniently, if

somewhat inaccurately called ‘The Wars of the Roses’.I Recent studies do not

belittle the importance of the battlefield in determining the fate of the ruling

classes, but they have attempted to dispel the seemingly perennial miscon-

ception of endemic warfare in this era, according proper emphasis upon the

dynastic struggle which made the ‘Wars of the Roses distinctive’.2 Historians

have also tried to evaluate the extent to which this ‘power game’ impinged

upon the activities of English society, church and economy, proposing thatdisruption to the daily activities of medieval life was largely minimal.3 BishopRichard Redman of St Asaph may not spring to mind as a major ecclesiastical

figure in this era, though he is numbered among the upper clergy who were

more directly affected by the events which shaped fifteenth-century England.

Though Redman was never appointed to the more prominent positions of

authority in the realm, he played a role in serving the Yorkist monarchs,

Edward IV and, more significantly, Richard III. In addition to Redman’s

duties to the state and episcopal obligations, he was a member of the Premon-

stratensian order, abbot of Shap Abbey in Westmorland and the energetic

commissary-general of the abbot of .Prémontré in England. While Redman

remained active into the latter years of the reign of Henry VII, this present

study focuses upon surviving evidence for Redman’s career against the back-

drop of the Wars of the Roses: his ‘Yorkist’ years.“Richard Redman’s origins in northern England have some bearing upon his

subsequent career in church and state. Though we cannot ascertain his date of

birth or events in his early life, Redman came from a notable northern family

whose main residence was situated at Levens, near Kendal in Westmorland.

Richard’s position in the Redman family tree is not entirely clear, though it

seems likely that he was a son of Richard Redman of Bossall in Yorkshire and

younger brother of Brian Redman (d. 1483).5 Assuming that this attribution is

correct, Richard, the future bishop, was grandson of Sir Richard Redman of

350

Levens (d. 1426), who became lord of Harcwood through marriage to

Elizabeth, daughter of William, Lord Aldbrough. Redman’s grandfather wasone of the wealthiest Yorkshire parliamentary representatives and had a distin-

guished career as a sheriff of Cumberland between 1389 and 1412, sheriff of

Yorkshire (1403—4, 1415—16), MP for Yorkshire (1406, 1414, 1420, 1421) and

was speaker of the House of Commons in 1415. He was a recipient of valuable

grants from Richard II, accompanying the king to Ireland (1394—5 and 1399),

and exhibited loyalty to the House of Lancaster during the reigns of Henry IV

and Henry V.‘5 Bishop Redman may well have received a university education,

though evidence for this is not forthcoming.7 He became a Premonstratensiancanon at Shap Abbey, which is about nineteen miles from Levens. His family

had been among the abbey’s earliest benefactors, and also of anotherPremonstratensian abbey, Cockersand in Lancashire.8 It is not known precisely

when Redman made his monastic profession, though he was probably elected

abbot of his community before 1458. There is no evidence to show whether ornot this was due to the influence of his family.9

Redman’s first commission as commissary-general of the three English

Premonstratensian ‘circaries’,'° accorded him the authority of the abbot-general(i.e. the abbot of Prémontré) in England and occurred between 1454—56 and

1458, in the latter years of Henry VI’s reign. It initiated a period of nearly ten

years of controversy among the English white canons, between Redman and

Abbot Thomas Shorham of Bayham (6. 1439—66), who, with the Abbot of St

Radegund’s, were recent commissaries.” A letter written by Abbot Shorham,

dated 24 March 1459, indicates that Redman’s commission had ceased to be

valid on 9 January 1459. Shorham went to great lengths to stress his position as

‘sole’ commissary and the nullity of Redman’s commission, and summoned the

English Premonstratensian abbots to a general chapter at Smithfield on 4 June

in the same year.'2 However Redman had previously regained his commission on

4 March. In a letter Redman sent to the English abbots (12 April 1459), he

claimed that Shorham falsely told the abbot of Prémontré that he had despoiled

the abbeys of Bayham and St Radegund’s, appropriated the order’s subsidies

and had committed other enormities. Shorham attached the seals of sixteenother abbots, with his own, onto a blank piece of paper and, without their prior

knowledge, wrote upon it accusations against Redman. After the abbot of

Prémontré was shown that Shorham’s accusations were spurious, his commis-

sion — which must have been acquired after levelling accusations against

Redman — and that of the abbot of St Radegund’s, were withdrawn and

Redman was re-appointed commissary-general. Shorharn evidently was not

commissary-general on 24 March 1459 and had effectively summoned an illegal

general chapter of the English Premonstratensians. The abbot of Prémontré

351

delegated six abbots to enquire into Shorham’s conduct at another English

general chapter. Redman prohibited the English abbots from obeying Abbot

Shorham and forbade them from attending the general chapter at Smithfield,

convening another chapter at Lincoln on 11 June.” Though the results of the

enquiry into Shorham’s conduct are not recorded, the Lincoln general chapter

decreed that none of the English abbots were to obtain a commission from the

abbot of Prémontré or the pope, without the approval of the other abbots, or the

greater part of them.”The abbot of Bayham evidently retained his abbacy after 1459 and again

attempted to regain his commission by incriminating Redman. In 1466—67 a bill

of complaint was sent on Shorham’s behalf to the chancellor of England,

Archbishop George Neville, who had recently been promoted to the diocese

of York. Shorham sought a writ to be issued against Redman and that he beexamined before the archbishop.l5 The bill indicates Shorham’s animosity

towards Prémontré, for he claimed that he was the visitor for twenty-five yearsand more, and had continued in his post uninhibited — not strictly true — until

he was usurped

‘. . . of late in the dayes of Hem" [VI] late kyng . . . by the Subtiell

meanes of thabbot of Shappe’ whiche abbot purchessed of the

Hedhous in Fraunce a commission to thentent [sic] to be vysitour of

the same ordour . . .’ and ‘. . . also by the mayntenance of the lord

Clyfford that last was . . .’.

This refers to John, Lord Clifford, the hereditary sheriff of Westmorland." Thisparticular accusation appears to give Shorham’s complaints the flavour of verac-

ity, as Redman’s abbey lay within Westmorland: the Clifford family were also

patrons of Shap.l7 However it is noteworthy that the same Lord Clifford — amember of a prominent Lancastrian family —— had led a force against Edward IVand the Yorkists at the battle of Towton (1461), and was killed shortly after-

wards. He had also been attainted by statute in the parliament of 1461." Certain

events in the 1460s indicate that Redman actually had the support of the new

Yorkist regime and was sympathetic to it (see below), despite his family’s previ-

ous support of the Lancastrian monarchy and Clifford’s patronage of Shap.

Shorham’s accusations in 1466—67 and his association of Redman with Clifford,

appear to have been an attempt to smear Redman’s credentials politically, as

Edward IV was on the throne. While patrons of religious houses in the latermiddle ages could, and did, promote the interests of their monastic beneficiaries,

H.M. Colvin indicates that there was little in the way of direct interference

by them in the internal government of the English Premonstratensians or in

abbatial elections — though they had an interest in them — and aside from

352

Shorham’s bill of complaint, there is no explicit evidence that Lord Cliffordintervened on Redman’s behalf at Prémontré.l9 It is noteworthy that the trial ofAbbot John Downham of Beauchief in 1462, for misdemeanours, was conducted

by Redman, the abbot of Welbeck and the prior of Easby, ‘. . . ex mandate excel-lentissimi Regis nostri . . .’ and by other ‘dominorum’. Documentation relatingto the trial not only states that Redman acted as commissary-general at this time,but that his authority to do so was accepted by King Edward.20

Indeed prior to, or after Shorham had his bill sent to Archbishop Neville,

Abbot Simon de la Terriére of Prémontré (1458—70) wrote to the EnglishPremonstratensian abbots on 1 October 1466, informing them that Shorham’scommission had been cancelled, as if to remove all doubt concerning the veracityof his commission, and that Redman had taken his place, ‘. . . non obstantibusquibuscumque per prefatum abbatem de Begham in contrarium allegatis seuallegandis’. The abbot indicated that Shorham had been wholly negligent in theperformance of his duties and he granted faculties to Redman as commissary-general on 7 October, for twelve years.21 Shorham’s apparent desire to damageRedman in the eyes of the House of York had backfired, as there is no record ofany trial or subsequent action being taken against him: and King Edward oncemore acknowledged Redman by recognising his new commission from the abbotof Prémontré, and granted him a letter of protection.22 In addition, one could

speculate as to whether Archbishop George Neville was ‘favourably disposed’towards Redman when he considered the bill of complaint. The Redmans ofLevens held land in Yorkshire (Harewood) and they were feed by the Nevillelordship at Middleham. As a consequence the Redman family were situatedwithin the Neville affinity, and Archbishop Neville may well have been aware ofthis in taking no action against Abbot Redman.23

Several years after Redman secured his position as commissary-general ofthe English white canons, Henry VI briefly regained the throne (1470) andKing Edward fled into exile. Edward returned to England the following yearand successfully recovered the English crown. On 17 August 1472 the popeprovided Redman to the see of St Asaph in North Wales. Bishop Thomas Bird,Redman’s predecessor, had been deprived of the bishopric by Edward in 1463on account of his Lancastrian sympathies." Although St Asaph and the otherimpoverished Welsh dioceses were not among the ‘glittering prizes’ of theepiscopate and the precise circumstances surrounding'Redman’s promotionare unknown, it is unlikely that Edward IV would have sanctioned his eleva-tion to episcopal orders had he not remained faithful to the Yorkists prior tothe king’s restoration, apart from Redman’s abilities as an efficient, zealousadministrator of the English white canons.” Whether or not Redman deliber-ately sought an episcopal placement in the same manner as other ‘monastic

353

bishops”, remains uncertain; though he followed their example by retaining hisabbey in commendam, in order to maintain a reasonable, if not entirely ade-quate level of income. Redman’s episcopal appointment should probably beregarded primarily as a reward for his loyalty to the Yorkist regime.”Englishmen, such as Redman, also appear to have been promoted to Welshsees generally in preference to native Welsh—speaking clerics because of Englishfears of native insurrection west of the marches, decades after the Glendower

(Glyn dé‘vr) rebellion.27 Prior to Redman’s episcopate the diocese of St Asaphhad not only been deprived of a chief shepherd for a number of years, but —— inaddition to its existing poverty — had suffered from the ravages of the WelshWars and Glyn dé‘vr’s revolt. The restoration of the cathedral church is themost tangible evidence for Redman’s role at St Asaph.28 Although earlierattempts at reconstruction had been undertaken, it is clear that Redman com-

pleted re-roofing the nave, probably re-roofed the transepts, installed the per-pendicular east window in the chancel, erected a stone pulpitum at the eastcrossing (no longer extant) and the finely carved stallwork in the choir. While

St Asaph’s cannot rival the great English cathedrals, its rebuilding was aremarkable feat, considering the great expense that such an enterprise entailedin a poor diocese.29 Apart from a few documents in his remarkable Premon-stratensian visitation register, there is little in the way of extant writtenevidence for Redman’s pastoral ministry in his diocese.” It seems likely that hewas frequently absent from St Asaph on account of his duties as Pre-monstratensian commissary-general and servant of the English crown: thoughthe loss of Redman’s episcopal register does not allow us to gauge his residencysufficiently. Nevertheless the restored cathedral church, surviving documents in

Redman’s Premonstratensian register and evidence for his later ministry atExeter, indicate the seriousness with which he attempted to fulfil his episcopalresponsibilities, while undertaking concurrent duties?l He assisted in the conse-cration of Thomas Myllyng, as bishop of Hereford in the Lady Chapel atWestminster Abbey on 21 August 1474.32

Redman remained English Premonstratensian commissary-general afterhis episcopal appointment. Although St Asaph’s poverty was undoubtedly areason for retaining Shap in commendam, with its revenue,33 it enabled Redmanto maintain a foothold among the English white canons as a prelate of the order,and he genuinely cared for the welfare of his spiritual alma mater. Indeed papalgrants of commendam were not intended to lead to ‘a decrease in divine worshipand the usual number of monks [or canons] and ministers in the monastery”.34Redman did not reside continuously at Shap, though he was not simply anabsentee landlord. During the reign of Edward IV he is known to have visitedShap in 1479, 1482, and possibly in 1481; there may have been other visits.’s As

354

far as the regulation of the other twenty-nine English Premonstratensian abbeyswas concerned, Redman’s visitation register exhibits his energetic efficiency as avisitor and commissary-general. Redman is known to have visited the abbeys ofBeauchief and Welbeck in 1472, proposed to visit Dale in 1474, and held othervisitations in 1475, 1478 and 1481/82. He held provincial or ‘general’ chapters ofthe canons in 1473, 1476 (at Lincoln), 1479 (Leicester), and in 1480 (Leicester).Another general chapter was held after 1471 and probably before 1475, and aprovincial chapter at Stamford before 1476. Redman also planned to visit thePremonstratensian nunnery of Broadholme (Nottinghamshire) in 1478.36Contact between the abbot of Prémontré and the English white canons wasmaintained during this time, albeit infrequently. Letters from Redman toPrémontré survive from c. 1475—76 and c. 1477 and communications fromPrémontré to Redman exist from 1466 and 1475.”

Redman served Edward IV in various appointments, like other bishops.”From 1474 he was a member of the king’s council. Edward appointed him asone of the commissioners in the counties of Flint and Chester in 1474, ‘. . . toapprove all the castles, manors and other properties . . .’ in those counties, andto consider ‘. . . the appointments of all ministers and officials, and to negotiatewith the county community concerning a mise’.39 In 1483 Redman wasappointed as trier of petitions for Gascony, and again, with other individuals in1484.‘10 It is apparent that Redman had to make allowances for the duties heperformed on behalf of the crown during his Premonstratensian visitations. In1478 he delegated his full commissarial authority to Abbot John Bromfield ofCoverham (1470—88), making him his subdelegate in the northern circary, withthe power to visit and reform the Premonstratensian abbeys in that region‘usque [ad] revocationem nostram’ because he was often occupied ‘in servicioexcellentissimi principis regis nostri’ and would be absent from the northerncircary." Despite other evidence indicating that business external to thePremonstratensian order led to adjustments to Redman’s visitation schedule,Bromfield’s appointment as subdelegate is unique, and he also visited most ofthe northern houses in the same year, continuing to be active within the Englishcircaries in the early 14805.“2

The weeks following the death of Edward IV on 9 April 1483, witnessed thebrief, minority reign of the king’s twelve year old son Edward V, the establish-ment of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as protector of the English realm and hisusurpation of the throne, culminating in his coronation as Richard III (6 July1483). The speed in which these events occurred took England, and most of theYorkists, by surprise, though the government of the realm appears to havefunctioned normally during Gloucester’s protectorate.“3 Indeed Redman pos-sibly held a provincial chapter of the English Premonstratensians on 16 May.“

355

We do not know how Redman viewed the dramatic events of 1483, includingthe rumours concerning the fate of Richard’s nephews in the Tower of London.Yet it will be seen that with the accession of Richard III, Redman played amore active role in supporting the Yorkist monarchy, being closely aligned toRichard, as well as remaining on the king’s council. One should consider thathis association with King Richard was not solely on the basis of his competenceas an administrator or his existing loyalty to the House of York in Edward IV’sreign. A significant factor was the connection between the Redman family andRichard as Duke of Gloucester. Richard had gained major territorial acqui-sitions in the north, following Edward IV’s restoration to the throne in 1471.By the time Gloucester seized the throne, he had the largest noble affinity of hisday, replacing the dominance of the Neville family, with its lordships centredon Middleham, Sheriff Hutton and Penrith." It had been indicated above thatland held by the Redman family in Yorkshire was feed by the Nevilles atMiddleham. In obtaining the Neville affinity, the Redman family came withinGloucester’s northern sphere of influence, and thus entered into Gloucester’sservice. This ‘continuity of service’ benefited both the lord and his affinity andis apparent in Edward Redman’s service to Gloucester as a lawyer, and after hebecame king.“6 Edward inherited the family’s estates in Yorkshire andWestmorland in March 1483, and became one of the esquires of the body ofRichard’s household. By January 1484 he probably fulfilled the dual roles assheriff of Somerset and Dorset, served as MP for Carlisle, and was ‘a commis-sioner of array, arrest, imprisonment and oyer and terminer’ in Wiltshire,Dorset, Devon and Cornwall in 1484. He had been appointed by Richard III toconduct an enquiry into the rebels of Bodmin on 13 November 1484 afterBuckingham’s Rebellion.47 Edward Redman clearly benefited from the king’spatronage and profited by the dispossession of Sir Robert Willoughby, SirRoger Tocotes, Walter Hungerford and Richard Edgecombe to the tune ofover £400.“ The allegiance of the Redman family to Richard was clearly animportant determining factor in Richard Redman’s zealous service to the king.His personal association with ‘Ricardians’ is also noteworthy. Redman’s con-nections with the monastic community of Durham cathedral-priory, whosedominus specialissimus was Gloucester, is exemplified in a letter which PriorRobert Ebbchester (d. 1484) sent to Redman in the first year of Richard’sreign, in response to his request to present Master William Brown to theVicarage of Merrington at its next vacancy. Ebbchester explained that he couldnot accommodate Redman on this occasion, on account of Sir RichardRatcliffe’s interest in the matter and in consideration of ‘. . . the grett rewll thathe [Ratcliffe] berith under the kynges grace in cute cuntrey’.”

It is evident that Redman played a ceremonial role in Richard’s coronation

356

in July 1483, for which he was given livery. In the procession to Westminster

Abbey, Redman bore the paten. At the pulpit in the abbey, prior to the corona-tion, he may have announced Richard’s appearance as the lawful king, though

this is uncertain. After the ceremony Redman, with the bishop-elect of St

David’s, Thomas Langton — a fervent supporter of King Richard — ensuredthat the eagle ampulla of holy oil used at the coronation was taken to West-

minster Abbey for safe keeping. Both bishops may well have conveyed the oil

from Westminster Palace to the abbey on eve of the coronation.” On 24 July,

in the same year, Redman accompanied those who met the king at Oxford and

at Warwick in August, where Richard held discussions on the proposed

marriage between his son Edward and the daughter of the Spanish king. In the

same month Redman was with the king at York, accompanying him as he rode

triumphantly through Micklegate Bar with four other bishops, including

Richard Bell of Carlisle,’I and was present at the investiture of the prince of

Wales in September. He was with King Richard at Lincoln in October, when

news of Buckingham’s rebellion broke; at Grantham, where the king received

the great seal (19 October) and at Westminster on 26 November, when the

great seal was returned to the chancellor. In 1484 Redman was at York on 25

June when the treaty between Richard and John of Portugal was ratified and at

Westminister with members of the privy council on 12 August.52 Redman’s

diplomatic activities are apparent in the truce that was forged between England

and Scotland in 1484. On King Richard’s instructions the Scots were met byRedman, the earl of Nottingham, with other noblemen and clerics, who were to

escort them to their lodgings on 11 September. Redman also joined the English

delegation the next day, which included Archbishop Thomas Rotherham of

York and Bishop John Russell of Lincoln, for a more formal first meeting

between both parties at Nottingham Castle and was appointed as a commis-

sioner when negotiations began on 14 September. After six days a three year

truce was agreed upon, with a treaty on 20 September.‘3Redman’s visible presence with Richard on his itinerary through England is

not only indicative of his support for him, but clearly demonstrates the esteem

in which the king held Redman as an advisor in matters of state, despite the

sparsity of records detailing the activities of the king’s council.54 This is also

apparent in the patronage which Richard bestowed upon the bishop. The

king’s registers (British Library Harley MS 433) record that Redman was

granted an annuity of £10, ‘. . . whiche thabbot and Convent of Welbek for the

ferme of mylnes of Ratford in the Countie of Notingham’ paid.” It is alsorecorded that Redman ‘. . . baths a prive scale to John Hayes Receyvor in the

west parties to content unto him during the kinges pleasire vc markes yerely of

thissues of his Receipt before a1 other de primis demm'is’.‘6 Richard also

357

obtained a papal dispensation for Redman on 10 June 1485 ‘. . . to receive andretain in commendam . . . the said church of St Asaph . . . the said monastery[Shap] . . . the yearly value of both not exceeding 1300 gold florins of theCamera, [and] any benefice with or without cure [etc.] . . 3.57 These annuitiesand papal dispensation reveal that Richard endeavoured to augment Redman’sincome — possibly at Redman’s request — given the poverty of his diocese.Though it has been argued that Richard III’s patronage of various individualswas ‘overgenerous to a fault’, it can also be shown that there was a growingtendency for Richard after 1484, a period in which he was losing support, toplace his trust in, and to reward, only a closely defined group of persons whowere committed to his regime, especially northerners.”

How were Redman’s obligations towards the Premonstratensian orderaffected by his service to Richard III ? It has been suggested that it was becauseof his political affinity and duties that ‘Redman made no general visitationsduring these years [i.e. between 1483 and 1484], only resuming them in 1488’.59While Redman was greatly preoccupied with serving the crown, no triennialvisitations were due in that period. He may have intended to conduct them in

1485, but failed to do so, possibly because of royal duties. Yet Redman appearsto have continued managing the internal affairs of the order during Richard III’sreign. In 1484 he sent a letter from Westminster ‘. . . sub sigillo nostro visitatorio’to the abbots of Croxton and Cockersand, ordering that the prior of Hornby —a dependancy of Croxton — was to appear before him at his residence inWestminster within fifteen days of the citation, for judgment concerning ‘certisarticulis sibi objiciendis responsurus’.6° In the following year (13 April) the kinggave permission for one John Rede,

‘to goo and passe at this tyme into the parties of Fraunce, to theReuerend fadre in god Thabbot of Premonstre, and to the generalchapitour of thordre of Premonstre, by the special desire and com-maundemente of the visitour of the same ordre within this our

Royaume [i.e. Redman], for certain matters and causes concemynggreatly the wele of that religion’."

Apart from knowing Redman, Richard III was already acquainted with thePremonstratensians, for as duke of Gloucester, he was a generous patron toCoverham Abbey. In 1472 and 1473 he donated £40 towards repairing the abbeychurch and in 1476 purchased (for 100 marks) and gave the abbey the advowsonof Seaham parish church in County Durham, worth £15 per annum. Richardgave Coverham a further £20 in 1483.62

Redman’s fortunes changed with the death of Richard III at the battle ofBosworth Field and the accession of Henry VII in 1485. In the same year the

358

new king issued writs summoning parliament to meet at Westminster on 7November, and it is not surprising that Redman’s name was omitted from the

surviving list detailing those present at this parliamentary session, given hisassociation with King Richard. Redman’s absence may also indicate that hefeared reprisal on this account." However Henry tried to be conciliatorytowards his former opponents — though with exceptions — which was largelydue to his desire to maintain continuity with the former government of therealm, as Richard III had done, and in an effort to place his rule on a stable

footing: Redman was granted royal protection and a general pardon on 22February 1486.“ After this time Redman was active in the affairs of the Englishwhite canons. On 12 May 1486 a general chapter was held at Lincoln andvisitations are known to have taken place at Blanchland in Newcastle, by proxy(26 May ?), at Easby (28 May) and, on the same day, of Coverham, again byproxy, at Easby. A provincial chapter was held the following year at Leicesteron 14 August.65

It should not be supposed that the transition of government was speedilyachieved and that Yorkist sentiments had evaporated. Henry VII faced a seriousdynastic challange in the rebellion of Lambert Simnel in 1487, who pretended tobe Edward, the young earl of Warwick.“ A rival claimant to the throne provedattractive to Yorkist sympathisers and Bishop Redman appears to have beenimplicated in the plot, according to a papal bull of Pope Innocent VIII(5 January 1488), which was sent to Archbishop John Morton of Canterburyand Bishops Peter Courtenay of Winchester, John Alcock of Ely and RichardFox of Exeter. After extolling the duties of bishops in regard to showing goodexample by obedience to their kings (‘principibus’), the bull relates that‘Richard, bishop of [St] Asaph’, aware of the admonitions and the penalties ofthe apostolic see prohibiting rebellion in the kingdom of England, and againstKing Henry, had shown counsel and favour to the king’s enemies, committingperjury and lese maiestatt's (i.e. high treason ,‘7 and incurred ecclesiastical cen-sure ‘to the peril of his soul, affronting the dignity of bishops, and a perniciousexample and scandal to many’. In order to ascertain the truth of the allegations,all or at least two of the bishops who were sent the bull, were to investigate thematter according to ecclesiastical law.“ The legal language of the bull vividlyunderlines the serious, treasonable nature of the allegations which Redmanfaced. It is likely that the allegations were forwarded to Rome by agents of thecrown.69 Yet whatever their veracity, and the suggestion that the Cumbrian rebelrecruits first assembled at Shap — Redman’s abbey7°— surviving sources fail toindicate the findings of the enquiry, if it was held. There is no indication thatRedman faced ecclesiastical sanctions, for after the rebellion he continued to

retain his bishopric and functioned as commissary-gcneral of the English

359

Premonstratensians.’l In the same year that the papal bull was issued,Archbishop Morton of Canterbury sent Redman, the dean and two members of

the St Asaph chapter, a commission (24 April) to implement another papal bull,

apostolice sedis (6 August 1487), issued at the request of King Henry, partly as aconciliatory measure to those who had incurred excommunication during the

rebellion. It enabled the recipients to absolve sub conditione

‘omnes et singulos viros religiosos Ordinis Premonstratensis aliosque

quoscunque per civitatem et diocesim Assavenses . . . secundum for-

mam et effectum literarum Apostolicarum’.

The contents may indicate that the commission was issued at Redman’s

request.72 He was at convocation in 1489 and Archbishop Morton felt confi-

dent enough to appoint Redman as one of the commissioners to preside over it

in his absence.73 Furthermore, it is noteworthy that despite the charge of lese

maiestatis, Redman was also appointed a commissioner in the negotiationswith the Scots in 1488, and was made trier of petitions for England, Ireland,

Wales and Scotland in 1489.74I Richard Redman’s alleged involvement in the Lambert Simnel rebellion

brought to an end his association with the House of York. His appointments in

1488 and 1489 could have been among the conciliatory measures granted to

recent opponents of the Tudor regime. In any case it is clear that Redman, by

then, had faced up to newer political realities, along with other clergy whoshared his Yorkist leanings. Redman’s service to the crown was to continue

under Henry VII, and he was rewarded with the bishopric of Exeter in 1495,and finally Ely in 1501.75 Yet memories of earlier days may well have lingered

on. As bishop of Ely, Redman presented to Queens’ College, Cambridge —which was associated with King Richard — six napkins and a tablecloth

marked with an ‘R’.75 Redman could merely have expressed a desire to have hisbenefactions to the college visibly commemorated with the initial of his

Christian name and surname upon a tablecloth: yet it may well have been done

in memory of Richard III, whom Redman served devotedly.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

The author wishes to express his gratitude to the Richard III and Yorkist History Trust for agrant given during the course of his doctoral studies at Cambridge.

1. A.J. Pollard, ‘Introduction: Society, Politics and the Wars of the Roses’, A.J. Pollard, ed.,The War: of the Roses, Basingstoke 1995, pp. 1—2.

2. Pollard, ‘Introduction’, p. 2. For the military aspects of the Wars of the Roses see J.Gillingham, The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fifteenth Century England,London 1981.

360

hm

5.

6.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.14.15.

. See the excellent collection of essays in Pollard, ed., The Wars of the Roses. ,

. For Redman’s life generally (c. 1458-1505) see J .A. Gribbin, The Premonslratensian Orderin Late Medieval England, Woodbridge 2001, passim, esp. ch. six. Note my comments onevaluating the lives of medieval bishops from surviving sources, ibid, pp. 174—75.The fullest account of the Redman family remains W. Greenwood, The Redmans of Levensand Harewood, Kendal 1905, esp. pp. 117—20; cf. A.J. Pollard, North-Eastern Englandduring the Wars of the Roses, Oxford 1990, p. 103, where Redman’s grandfather is said tobe his father.J .S. Roskell, The Commons and their Speakers in English Parliaments 1376—1523,Manchester 1965, pp. 162—64; J .H. Tillotson, ed., Monastery and Society in the Late MiddleAges: Selected Account Rolls from Selby Abbey, Yorkshire, 1398—153 7, Woodbridge 1988,p. 83 and n. 194; P. Routh and R. Knowles, The Medieval Monuments of Harewoad,Wakefield 1983, pp. l7, 18, 19—21.'

. Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, p. 175. '

. W. Fan-er, ed.- The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey, Chetham Society (new series), vols38—40, 43, 56—57, 64 (1898—1909), vol. 64, p. 1314. The original site of Shap— —Preston 1nKendale — is about five miles from Levens; cf. A. Jessopp, ‘Redman, Richard (d. 1505)’,L. Stephen and S. Lee, eds., Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 16, Oxford 1921—22,p. 826; Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, p. 175.Abbot Redman’s first commission as commissary-general of the English white canons wasbetween 1454/56—1458. A document addressed to Bishop Marmaduke of Carlisle ‘or otherbishop executing the will of the apostolic see’, dated at Shap on 10 October 1444, indicatesthat ‘Richard abbot of the monastery of Blessed Mary Magdalene of Hepp’ [i.e. Shap] . . .’presented Thomas Sakleman, cleric of the diocese of Carlisle, for ordination ‘ad omnessacros ordines’ on the title of the monastery. Colvin indicates that three of Shap’s abbotsbore the_ name of Richard, including Redman. The ‘Abbot Richard’ mentioned in the 1444

- document is not indicated by Calvin. He could well be Richard Redman, though this isuncertain. Apart from no information relating the year of Redman’s birth, Colvin indi-cates that an Abbot Robert — the first predecessor he indicates before Redman’s abbacy— occurs solely in 1412. This leaves an unaccountable gap of possibly forty years betweenAbbot Robert and Redman, which may be partly accounted for with the addition ofanother Abbot Richard. See Cumbria Record Office (Carlisle), D. & C. Machell ofCrackenthorpe MS 2/7; H.M. Colvin, The White Canon: in England, Oxford 1951, p. 414;Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, pp. 175—76. I am most grateful to Harry Hawkinsfor drawing my attention to the Carlisle document. -The circaries were the regions through which the Premonstratensians controlled andorganised their abbeys. England’s thirty Premonstratensian abbeys were grouped asfollows: Northern Circary: Alnwick and Blanchland (Northumberland), Cockersand(Lancashire), Coverham, Easby, Egglestone (Yorkshire), and Shap (Westmorland);Middle Circary: Beauchief and Dale (Derbyshirc), Barlings, Hagnaby, Newbo, Newhouse

_ and Tupholme (Lincolnshire), Croxton (Leicestershire), Halesowen (Worcestershire),Lavendon (Buckinghamshire), Sulby (Northamptonshire) and Welbeck (Nottingham-shire); Southern Circary: Bayham and Durford (Sussex), Beeleigh (Essex), Langdon and StRadegund’s (Kent), Langley, Wendling and West Dereham (Norfolk), Leiston (Suffolk),Titchfield (Hampshire) and Torre (Devon).The following account of the controversy and the devolution of authority among theEnglish Premonstratensians, is discussed in greater detail in Gribbin, The Premon-stratensian Order, pp. 11— 19,1.76—82British Library Add. MS 4934, ff. 89—90v; F. A Gasquet, ed., Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia, 3 vols, Camden Society (third series), vols 6,10,12 (1904-06) (hereafterCAP), vol 1,11. 78. .BL Add. MS. 4934, ff. 86—88v, 92—92v; CAP, vol. 1, nn. 38, 144.BL Add. MS. 4934, f. 93; CAP, vol. 1, n. 80.Public Record Office, Cl/31/468. '

361

16.

17.18.19.20.21.22.

23.24.

25.

26.

27.28.

29.30.31.

32.

33.34.35.36.

37.

38.39.

40

41.

Ibid. Other accusations in the bill are related in Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order,pp. 179—82.Colvin, White Canons, p. 170, n. 3.C. Ross, Edward I V, New Haven and London 1997, pp. 36—37, 66, n. 6.Colvin, White Canons, pp. 225—26, 293—96.BL Add. MS. 4934, ff. lll—l 1v; CAP, vol. 2, n. 222.Bodleian Library Oxford, MS. Ashmole 1519, ff. 8—8v; CAP, vol. 1, nn. 39-40.Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519, f. 8v; CAP, vol. 1, n. 97. In 1468 the bishop of Durham was senta mandate by Rome to bestow papal confirmation upon Redman, if his appointment ascommissary-general was found to be valid: CPL 1458—71 , p. 329.Pollard, North-Eastern England, pp. 130—31, 254, 301—2.J. Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300—1541: The Welsh Dioceses, vol. 11, London1965, p. 39; R.G. Davis, ‘The Church and the Wars of the Roses’, Pollard, ed., The Wars ofthe Roses, p. 141.Calvin, White Canons, p. 364. Contrast this with the case of Sir Richard Redman of Levensand Harewood (d. 1476). He may have aligned himself with George, Duke of Clarenceagainst Edward IV, and was pardoned on 14 June, 1472: J. C. Wedgwood, History ofParliament: Biographies of the Members of the Commons House, 1439—1509, London 1936,pp. 709-10For an informative analysis of monastic bishops and the practice of cammendam by papallicence, see B. Dobson, ‘English and Welsh Monastic Bishops. the Final Century,1433-1533’, B. Thompson, ed., Monasteries and Society m Medieval Britain. Proceedingsof the 1994 Harlaxlon Symposium, Stamford 1999, pp. 348—65. Redman’ s abbacy at Shapin commendam IS discussed 1n the following paragraph.Dobson, ‘English and Welsh Monastic Bishops’, pp. 352—53.G. Williams, Renewal and Reformation: Wales, c. 1415—1642, Oxford 1993, pp. 3—30, 118.The extent to which the cathedral church of St Asaph was damaged during Glyn dwr’ srebellion has recently been questioned. T. W. Pritchard, St Asaph Cathedral, MuchWenlock 1997, p. 7.E. Hubbard, The Buildings of Wales: Clwyd, Harmondsworth 1986, pp. 435—39, pl. 35.Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519, ff. 108V, 109,110V, 111v; CAP, vol. 1, nn. 112,113, 123, 125,126.

Dobson, ‘English and Welsh Monastic Bishops’, p. 363. Gribbin, The PremanslratensianOrder, pp. 184-85, 193—202.A.T. Bannister, ed., Regislrum Thome Myllyng Episcopi Herefordensis, The Canterburyand York Society, vol. 26 (1920), p. l.CPL 1471—84, p. 316; Calvin, White Canons, p. 364; see n. 26 above.Dobson, ‘English and Welsh Monastic Bishops’, p. 356, n. 26.Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, pp. 190—92.Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, pp. 8, 235—38. Redman’s visitations and role ascommissary-general are analysed in greater detail in Gribbin’s book.Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, pp. 16, 18-19, 176—84. Another letter Redmanwrote to the abbot of Prémontré (c.1470—89) cannot be dated with greater accuracy.R.N. Swanson, Church and Society in Late Medieval England, Oxford 1989, pp. 103—9.D.J. Clayton, The Administration of the County Palatine of Chester: 1442—1485, ChethamSociety (3rd series) vol. 35 (1990), p. 55; J .R. Lander, ‘Council, Administration andCouncillors, 1461 to 1485’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vol. 32 (1959),p. 170. Concerning the term ‘mise’, see P.H.W. Booth, The Financial Administration of theLordship and County of Chester 1272—1377, Chetham Society (3rd series) vol. 28 (1981),p. 124.

J. Strachley et al., eds., Rotuli Parliamentorum, 6 vols, (London, 1767—77), vol. 6, pp. 196,238. On the role of the ‘trier of petitions’ see G. Dodd, ‘The Hidden Presence: Parliamentand the Private Petition in the Fourteenth Century’, A. Musson, ed., Expectations of theLaw in the Middle Ages (forthcoming).Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519, f. 15v; CAP, vol. 2, n. 312.

362

42.43.

. Colvin, White Canons, p. 235.45.

46.

47.

48.49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.57.

Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, pp. 37—38.R. Edwards, The Itinerary of King Richard [II 1483—1485, London 1983, pp. 1-4;R. Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service, Cambridge 1991, pp. 120—37.

Horrox, Richard II], pp. 27, 39, 48; M. A. Hicks, Richard II! as Duke of Gloucester: A Studyin Character, Borthwick Papers n. 70 (1986), p. 11; Pollard, North-Eastern England,pp. 285—341.Horrox, Richard III, pp. 1—26. Edward Redman’s involvement in an attack upon SirWilliam Gascoigne at Harewood in 1479, ‘clearly did not stand against him’ in the eyes ofGloucester: R.C.E. Hayes, ‘ “ Ancient Indictments” for the North of England, 1461—1509’,A. J. Pollard, ed., The North of England in the Age of Richard III, Stroud and New York1996, pp. 32—33. Note that Gloucester was granted the Cumberland palatinate in 1483:Hicks, Richard III as Duke of Gloucester, pp. 22—23, 25.Greenwood, The Redmans, pp. 98—106; L. Gill, Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion,Stroud 1999, pp. 96, 104, 108. Note that the family’s estate at Levens was not sold duringthe reign of Henry VII (temp. Edward Redman): Greenwood, The Redmans, p. 113; cf.J. Nicolson and R. Burn, The History and Antiquities of the Counties of Westmorlandand Cumberland, 2 vols, London, 1777 (repr. 1976), vol. 1, p. 204; Gribbin, ThePremonstratensitm Order, p. 35, n. 72.Gill, Richard III and Buckingham 's Rebellion, p. 108.‘Littera missa Domino Episcopo Assenense: Right reverent fader in God I [i.e. Ebb-chester] recommend me to youre goode lordship praing youre goode lordshipe that ye wullstand als goode and tendre lord to my bretheren and me as ye have doan aforetyme [myemphasis] ’: Durham Dean and Chapter Muniments Reg. parv. III, f. 188v; A.J. Pollard,‘St Cuthbert and the Hogg: Richard III and the County Palatine of Durham, 1471—85’, R.A. Griffiths and J. Sherborne, eds., Kings and Noble: in the Later Middle Ages: A Tribute toCharles Ross, Gloucester and New York 1986, p. 109; A. J. Pollard, Richard III and thePrinces in the Tower, Stroud 1997, pp. 232—33, 238. Redman appears to have been on goodterms with Ebbchester’s predecessor, Richard Bell, Bishop of Carlisle, who was also asso-ciated with King Richard: ibid; R. B. Dobson, ‘Richard Bell, Prior of Durham (1464—78)and Bishop of Carlisle (1478—95)’, R.B. Dobson, Church and Society in the Medieval Northof England, London and Rio Grande 1996. p. 159.A.F. Sutton and P.W. Hammond, eds., The Coronation of Richard III, Gloucester andNew York 1983, pp. 10, 37, 39 n. 169, 46, 165, 217 nn. 45, 47, 218 n. 67, 219 n. 74, 249.Langton — who had family connections in Westmorland — also appears to have beenclosely acquainted with Redman: R. J. Knecht, ‘The Episcopate and the Wars of theRoses’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, vol. 6, n. 2 (1958), pp. 124, 125;Gribbin, The Premonslralensian Order, p. 198.Dobson ‘Richard Bell’, pp. 157—58; The Fabric Rolls of York Minster, Surtees Society, vol.35 (1858), pp. 210—11.Edwards, The Itinerary of Richard III, p. ix, n. 23; CR. Markham, Richard 111: His Life andCharacter, London 1906, p. 129; PRO C 81/1530/45; PRO C 81/1530/49; CCR 1476—85,p. 346-47; Gill, Richard III and Buckingham ’s Rebellion, p. 72. Redman was also involvedin the collection of the tenth in 1484 and 1485: CFR 1471—85, pp. 281, 310.L]. Macfarlane, William Elphinstone and the Kingdom afScotland, 1431—1514, Aberdeen1985, pp. 131-35; J. Gairdner, ed., Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of RichardIII and Henry VI], 2 vols, Rolls Series, London, 1861—63, vol. 1, pp. 63, 64, 66.Lander, ‘Council, Administration and Councillors’, p. 138. On central government inRichard III’s reign, E. J. Bolden, ‘Richard III: Central Government and Administration’,The Ricardian, vol. 12 (2000), pp. 71—81.R.E. Horrox and P.W. Hammond, eds., British Library, Harleian MS. 433, 4 vols,London, 1979—83, vol. 1, p. 185; CPR 1476—85, p. 480.British Library, Harleian MS. 433, vol. 1, p. 268; vol. 2, p. 205.CPL 1484—92, p. 13. For an earlier grant in 1483 see CPR 1476-85, p. 412.

363

58.59.

60.61.62.

63.

64.65.66.

67.

68.

69.

70.71.72.

73.

74.

75.76.

Horrox, Richard 111, pp. 26, 316—17.Edwards, The Itinerary of Richard III, p. ix. Note that there were some visitations in 1486:see n. 65.Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519, ff. 30—30v; CAP, vol. 2 , n. 339.Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519, f. 47v; CAP, vol. 1, 11.44.Pollard, North-Eastern England, p. 181, where Pollard cements that ‘It is perhaps notsurprising that after 1485 Gloucester’s generosity should be forgotten, even by his one-timeclose associate Bishop Richard Redman, who, as visitor of the Premonstratensians inEngland, praised Abbot John Askew [c. 1488—1509] for his building repairs, and evenlikened him to a new founder [in 1491]. One suspects that the credit for reviving this som-nolent house lay rather with Gloucester: in the 14905, however, such things were better notmentioned’: Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519, f. 93; CAP, vol. 2, n. 322. Gloucester’s patronageshould certainly be acknowledged. However the continued management and conservationof Coverham by its abbots ‘in spiritualia et temporalia’ was surely of more immediate con-cern for Redman during his visitations ?J. Enoch Powell and K. Wallis, The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of theEnglish House of Lords to 1540, London 1968, p. 528.CPR 1485—94, p. 57; J. Guy, Tudor England, Oxford 1988, pp. 55—6; see n. 54.Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, pp. 238—39.M. Bennett, Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke, Stroud 1987, pp. 29, 35, 41—8; cf. Guy,Tudor England, p. 58.For the term lese maiestatis (‘lesse-majesty’), see J. G. Bellamy, The Law of Treason inEngland in the Later Middle Ages, Cambridge 1970, pp. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11—13, 20, 225—26.For the original document — which I have briefly summarised —— complete with its leadbull seal, see PRO SC 7/23/2. Concerning Henry VII’s relations with the papacy seeBennett, Lambert Simnel , pp. 39, 119.Cf. Bennett, Lambert Simnel, pp. 122—23, for a letter sent by Henry VII to Pope InnocentVIII (5 July 1487), relating that several Irish bishops ‘lent assistance to the rebels’.Bennett, Lambert Simnel , p. 74.Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519 and CAP, vols 1—3, passim.Bodl. MS. Ashmole 1519, ff. 66v—67; CAP, vol. 1, n. 49; T. Rymer, ed., Foedera, London1704-35, vol. 12, pp. 324—25.C. Harper-Bill, ed., The Register of John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury 1486—1500, TheCanterbury and York Society vol. 75 (1987), vol. 1, pp. 29, 30, 31.Rotuli Parliamentorum, vol. 6, p. 410; D. Macpherson, cd., RotuIi Scotiae in Turri Lon-dinensi et in Doma Capilulari Westmonasteriensi, 2 vols, London 1814—18, vol. 2, p. 487.Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, pp. 189—90, 193—203.A.B. Emden, A Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500, Cambridge 1963, p. 476;W.G. Searle, History of Queens' College Cambridge, 2 vols, Cambridge 1867—71, vol. 1,pp. 87—113passim.

It should be noted that Andrew Doket (Duckett etc.), the first president of Queens’College Cambridge, is believed to have been a younger son of Richard Duckett (d. 1448)of Grayrigg, Westmorland, whose second wife was a daughter of Sir Richard Redman(d. 1426), by his second wife Elizabeth: a possible second cousin of Bishop Redman. Thelatter’s benefactions to Queens’ could therefore have also been due to family ties with theDokets, and one John Doket — possibly Andrew Doket’s brother — had associations withEdward IV and Richard III. The Doket connection with the Redman family —— whichsome have doubted — appears to be strengthened by the fact that a Henry Dokett is notedspecifically as a relative of Redman in the latter’s will and acted with the bishop in thematter of paying a bond in 1505. Two other individuals bearing the Doket surname alsohad connections with Quecns’: Gribbin, The Premonstratensian Order, p. 202; J .S. Roskell,L. Clark and C. Rawcliffe, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1386—1421,Stroud 1992, p. 804—6; J. Twigg, A History of Queen ’s College, Cambridge [448—1986,Woodbridge, 1987, pp. 5-6.

364