4 Dowager: Anything but a “Quiet Retirement”

DOI: 10.4324/9780429261022-6

The death of Henry IV in March 1413 was the start of Joan's second widowhood and yet another transition, from consort to dowager queen. While there is often a perception that dowagers exit the stage of court and disappear for a quiet life of “retirement”, fuelled perhaps by reduced mentions of royal women after the major ceremonial and lifecycle events such as betrothal, marriage, and the birth of royal heirs are complete, this was hardly the case for Joan and many other elite women in the latter years of their lives. As this chapter and the ones to follow demonstrate, Joan continued to remain active on all fronts over the rest of her long life; she not only outlived two husbands, but many of her relatives by blood and marriage, as her life spanned seven decades. Indeed, her period as dowager queen lasted 34 years and witnessed the reigns of the two remaining Lancaster kings: her stepson Henry V and his son, Henry VI.

This chapter will focus on the turbulent politics of this period between Henry IV's death in 1413 and Joan's own passing in 1437, noting her continued engagement in the events of the period and the conflict generated by the ongoing Hundred Years War. It will be divided into three distinct periods: the early years of Henry V's reign between 1413 and 1419 when Joan was still the pre-eminent woman at the English court; the “Crisis Years” of 1419–22 when Joan and three of her sons were all placed in various forms of detention; and the final years of 1422–37 during the reign of Henry VI. As this is such a long and significant period of her life, it will also feature heavily in the three thematic chapters to follow. Joan's extensive activity during this period in regard to her lands and the defence of her rights and revenues will be charted in Chapter 5, and in Chapter 6 we will examine her relationships with the members of her household and network of officials in Brittany and England. In the final chapter we will explore the spaces Joan lived in, including the residences of Kings Langley and Havering-atte-Bower, which she favoured in her dowager years, as well as examining her possessions, gift-giving, and her ongoing patronage.

The king's beloved mother: 1413–19

While the death of her husband in 1413 must have been personally devastating, even if it had been long expected due to his ill health, on a practical level it appears to have made little impact on her position in the Lancastrian court. Her stepson, Henry V, was unmarried, so there was no new consort to displace her as the premier woman at court and she appears to have continued to fulfil the female aspect of the monarchy as Henry's “beloved mother”. As we will see in the following chapter, Henry initially treated his stepmother with great respect, championing her rights to lands and revenues and generally continuing the work of his father to ensure that she had the financial stability to maintain her household and queenly status.

Tensions were incredibly high regarding relations with Joan's relatives across the Channel—while the latter half of Henry IV's reign had seen improved relations with Brittany, there were still incidents of skirmishes and seizures of English and Breton boats at the outset of Henry V's reign, requiring negotiations, restorations to be made, and the reaffirmation of the truce established between the two realms.1 Henry was also negotiating with Joan's Valois cousins, sending two unsuccessful embassies to Paris in 1414 to discuss his territorial demands in northern France, including the overlordship of Brittany, and the hand of Katherine de Valois.2 Joan's brother Carlos III of Navarre may have been concerned about the failure of these talks and how deteriorating Anglo-French relations might impact his realm—in November 1414 he sent a special gift to the English ambassadors and dispatched his cousin Carlos de Beaumont, who had only recently returned from his long posting at the English court as Joan's chamberlain, back to England.3 Beaumont, an expert diplomat, would have probably conferred closely with Joan and built on his excellent relationship with the new king to ascertain what the English were likely to do next and ensure that Navarre's relationship with England was not jeopardised by Joan's transition from consort to dowager or by the threat of an English invasion of France.

The political drama increased in 1415 with the launch of an English expedition to France which culminated in the famous battle of Agincourt. In June, before Henry's departure, he formally bid Joan farewell and gave her leave to stay in several royal residences during his absence.4 He did not, however, entrust her with the governance of the realm—while later sixteenth-century chronicles claim this was the case, it is clear that Henry named his brother John, duke of Bedford, as lieutenant in the king's absence.5

The momentous battle of Agincourt was a pivotal moment in English and European history and had a significant personal impact on the life of Joan of Navarre. While she would have been pleased for the success of her stepson Henry V, with whom, by all accounts and indications, she had a close relationship, Joan also lost several family members in the battle; it was at the same time a victory over her Valois cousins as well. Joan would have also been torn between supporting her stepsons and her own sons and sons-in-law across the Channel. Her eldest son, Jean V, managed to avoid taking part in the battle as his Breton force had yet to arrive before the battle took place. However, his brother Arthur de Richemont had gone ahead and the prospect that Breton troops might yet arrive had given hope to the French at the very end of the battle.6

Yet some of her relations were killed, including her son-in-law Jean I d’Alençon, who had played an important role in the campaign and fought fiercely before he was cut down by one of Henry V's bodyguards in the thick of the fighting around the English king. Alençon's death and valiant efforts in the battle were noted in contemporary accounts—Monstrelet notes that he fought “moult puissament”, killing Henry's uncle, the duke of York.7 His role was magnified still further in the seventeenth-century poem of the battle of Agincourt by Michael Drayton, who claims that Humphrey was saved by his brother Henry from Alençon, who “prest [the king] so sore/That with a stroke (as he was wonderous strong)/He cleft the Crowne that on his Helme he wore”.8 This account of Henry's “providential intervention” to save Humphrey likely originated in the Vita Henrici Quinti, which Humphrey himself commissioned and to which he may have contributed his own memories of the event.9 While this story might be seen as an indicator of the courage of these three men as valiant warriors, from Joan's perspective it could also be seen as a manifestation of her own divided loyalties—her two stepsons (including Humphrey whom she was particularly close to) fighting for their lives against her son-in-law, to whom she may not have been as personally close, but who was the father of several of her grandchildren. If Henry did indeed kill Alençon, as Drayton suggested (“into small peeces cut”), it demonstrates the worst possible outcome of the conflict for Joan, the violent death of her family members.

Back in England, the news of the battle was greeted with jubilation:

And thenne thorowe London they lette rynge the bellys in every chyrche and song Te Deum; and at Powlys, at ix of the clocke, the tydyngys were oppynly proclaymyd to alle the comeners of [th]e cytte and to alle othyr strangerys. And thenne the Quene [Joan] and alle hyr byschoppys and alle the lordys [th]at were in London that tyme, wentte to Westemyster on hyr fete a prosessyon to Synt Edwarde ys schryne, whythe alle the prestys, and clerkys, and fryers, and alle othyr relygyous men, devoutely syngynge ande saynge the letanye.10

While Joan led this service of thanksgiving at Westminster, one wonders if during the Mass she merely contemplated Henry's victory or said prayers for the soul of her son-in-law and for her daughter Marie, now a widow with five young children back in France. As Agnes Strickland reflected later, “No trifling tax must the widowed queen have paid for greatness, when, instead of putting on her mourning weeds and indulging in the natural grief of a fond mother's heart, for these family calamities, she was called upon to assume the glittering trappings of state”.11 Joan could not openly mourn for her family's losses or call attention to herself as a foreigner with strong ties to the vanquished party—indeed, as will be discussed further later, the remaining aliens in her entourage were targeted yet again in 1416 and openly accused of working as spies for the enemy.12

Joan's son Arthur de Richemont was one of a host of elite prisoners along with her cousins the dukes of Orleans and Bourbon, the counts of Vendome and Eu, and Marshal Boucicaut, captured at the battle and brought back to England by Henry V. Jonathan Sumption commented that these high-ranking prisoners “followed in Henry's footsteps to be exhibited like trophies to the crowds in London and Westminster and decorate his court at Windsor. The English King had no intention of admitting them to ransom until it suited him politically”.13 Shortly after the battle, Arthur crossed the Channel in the entourage of the king along with the other prisoners from Calais to Dover on 16 November 1415 and was taken to London on 23 November. Once in London, Joan requested permission to see her son, which was granted by Henry V, even if Georges Toudouze suggests this was done grudgingly.14

According to the account of the Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, the encounter between mother and son, long estranged after Joan's departure for England to wed Henry IV in 1403, was somewhat strained. The chronicle claims that Joan was keen to see if Arthur could recognise his mother and so hid among her ladies, placing one of them in her usual spot as if she was the queen. Arthur quite naturally addressed this lady as if she was indeed the queen, at which Joan berated him for being a bad son for failing to recognise his true mother and began to cry.15 While the veracity of this account cannot be firmly established, the chronicle is a contemporary piece written by a Breton noble, Guillaume Gruel, whose brother Raoul apparently served Arthur and shared his English captivity.16 However, Paul Strohm and Lisa Hilton have suggested that rather than recounting their actual encounter, this may be a story concocted to leverage tropes of mistaken identity common in medieval romances rather than a comment on her as a mother who had abandoned her son many years previously.17

While the chronicler notes that Joan generously provided money and clothing to ensure Arthur's comfort during his confinement, it appears that this was the last time that mother and son met according to his account. Yet there were certainly further opportunities for additional reunions during Arthur's captivity. Arthur was held in a number of places during his English captivity, including the Tower of London, Fotheringhay, Middleham, and Windsor, largely under the care of Sir Thomas Burton who was also responsible for Boucicault, the count of Eu, and later Joan's cousin Charles d’Orleans.18 The exact conditions of his confinement are unclear—Sumption claims that Arthur and the other prominent prisoners were “accommodated in comfort and allowed some freedom of movement”, while Toudouze and Knowlson have claimed that Arthur was held in fairly rigorous and unpleasant conditions, although this would be unusual for such a high-ranking prisoner, particularly given that he was the dowager queen's own son.19 Whatever the actual circumstances of his imprisonment were, he was not strictly confined to a cell, was allowed to receive visitors such as his servant John Catin who received a safe conduct to visit Arthur in early 1417, and was even brought to court at various points, including for the visit/peace conference of Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1416.20 The arrival of Sigismund was celebrated with intensive and lavish ceremonial, in which Joan would have no doubt played a prominent role as the premier lady of the land and Sigismund's cousin through her grandmother Bonne of Luxembourg. Arthur and other high-ranking prisoners played a prominent role in the conference as well, with Sigismund “treating them with conspicuous respect as if they were the true representatives of France”.21 It is very likely that Joan and Arthur's paths would have crossed here and potentially at other points when Arthur was brought to court for negotiations or held in any of the major residences such as the Tower or Windsor until at least late 1419.

Arthur's capture put Joan in a very difficult position both as Arthur's mother and as Henry V's stepmother. Queenly intercession was a key part of her role and Joan had successfully requested a number of pardons during the reign of her husband, Henry IV, as discussed in the previous chapter. Yet Arthur's release would be impossible for Joan to effect—he was far too valuable as a political prisoner and Joan had to be careful not to be seen as placing her loyalties to her own children and her relatives in Brittany and France above the good of her adopted realm in England. She did, however, attempt to mediate between the two realms for their mutual benefit and played a significant role in restoring or repairing relations between England and Brittany in the challenging period after Henry's victory at Agincourt.

In April 1417, a safe conduct was issued for Jean V to personally come to England—he does not appear to have crossed the Channel to see his brother and mother, but it did signal the start of another period of intensive contact and negotiation between England and Brittany.22 Joan's trusted servant John Periaunt was dispatched across the Channel to Brittany instead, and rewarded the following month by Jean V in connection with his mission.23 Henry crossed the Channel himself in August 1417 to begin another campaign in Normandy. After the brutal sack of Caen in September, Henry turned his focus on the Alençon lands, which were “defended with masculine determination” by Joan's daughter Marie, Alençon's widow and mother of the new young duke.24 While Marie raised an impressive number of men in an attempt to defend her son's lands from the English, by the end of the month Henry had the territory under his control. Jean V was granted another safe conduct to come to Alençon to meet with Henry in October and promised that Brittany itself would be safe while he came to meet with the king.25

Apart from protecting his own duchy, Jean had familial motivations to treat with Henry, given that his sister's and nephew's lands had been seized by the English, as well as impetus from his mother, who was doubtless keen to see Brittany spared, her daughter and grandchildren protected, and her son and stepson reconciled. Indeed, the treaty signed by Henry and Jean in November 1417 was specifically noted as being “at the request and insistence of the most excellent and illustrious lady, queen, our mother as she desires peace and tranquillity” and noted that Jean was “our beloved brother and close relation” through their mutual connection to Joan.26 In addition, Jean brokered a second treaty between Henry V and Yolande of Aragon, the recently widowed duchess of Anjou and titular queen of Jerusalem, who had recently become a virtual family member as Jean V had affianced his eldest daughter, Isabelle, to Yolande's son, the young duke of Anjou, just a few months earlier. Before his death, Louis II of Anjou had impressed upon his wife the need to ally with Jean V “whom he believed held the key to a lasting peace between the princes [of France]”.27 Yolande appears to have exerted a quasi-maternal influence on Jean and considerable impact on the political events of successive years as the mother-in-law of the dauphin (later Charles VII).

Perhaps Jean's political vacillations during the Hundred Years War could also be seen as the pull of two important women in his life—his mother on the Anglo-Burgundian side and Yolande, who became a significant power in the dauphin's Orleans-Armagnac camp. These near constant shifts might make Jean V appear wily; Richard Vaughan called him “an irresolute intriguer who managed to keep himself out of serious trouble and promote his own interests by shifting in and out of alliances with each of his powerful neighbours, and double-crossing them one after the other”.28 Yet while the Breton historian Saint-Saveur conceded that Jean V's strategies were “une politique sans grandeur”, it did have the effect of preserving Brittany during a period of intense political turbulence which could have easily resulted in the invasion and destruction of his duchy if he had acted otherwise, and earned him the appellation of “le Sage”.29

Like his nephew Jean V, and indeed like his father, Carlos II, Joan's brother Carlos III has been accused of prevaricating “politique de bascule”, perhaps a result of having ties on all sides or creating ties on both sides of the conflict in order to ensure his realm's long-term security, which resulted in his reign being hailed as a golden age for Navarre. Sometimes this could result in somewhat contradictory moves—for example, in March 1418, when, as Eloísa Ramírez Vaquero notes, there was a “clear alienation” between Carlos III and the dauphin/Orleans-Armagnac party, he still agreed to contract a betrothal between his daughter Isabel and Jean, the Armagnac heir.30 Jean d’Armagnac was the widower of Joan's daughter Blanche, so this marriage could be seen as a way of keeping this heir in the extended family. The Armagnac lands were strategically close to both Navarre and England's lands in Gascony and the family itself was obviously at the centre of the internal conflict in France—Jean d’Armagnac himself became even more important when his father, Bernard VII, was assassinated on 12 June 1418, making him the new count. But at the same time as Carlos contracted this betrothal for Isabel, he had dispatched his cousin and trusted diplomat Carlos de Beaumont back to England—indeed, Beaumont himself became involved in the Norman campaign and on 16 March 1418 he received the surrender of the castle of Hommet as the deputy of Joan's stepson Humphrey of Gloucester.31 Again, this engagement with the campaign could also been seen as contradictory for Navarre, for in 1418 its key Norman port at Cherbourg was taken by the English as was Evreux, the dynasty's ancestral possession, from Joan's grandfather, Philip d’Evreux, husband of Juana II.

However inscrutable Carlos's political moves may have been during this period, Joan may have been the impetus for a further move to bring her homeland and marital home closer together, reinforcing this period of close cooperation, showing that she was an able and agile politician like her brother and son. Another of Joan's nieces, Blanca, the recently widowed queen of Sicily and designated heir to Carlos III's throne in Navarre, was an extremely desirable prize on the European marriage market with suitors across Europe making a play for her hand. In April 1419, Humphrey of Gloucester appointed ambassadors to negotiate a marriage with Blanca—as Humphrey appears to have been quite close to Joan, perhaps even her favourite stepson, it is likely that she encouraged this match, which could have resulted in Humphrey becoming king consort of Navarre. Concurrently, Henry V was continuing his negotiations with France, which included discussions for a marriage of his own with Joan's cousin, Katherine de Valois. Humphrey, however, was clearly too late to secure the Navarrese heiress; Beaumont immediately dispatched a missive to Henry V to inform him that a marriage for Blanca was already being negotiated with Juan, infante of Aragon, softening the rejection perhaps with a personal gift of a book to Henry V.32

While this gambit for an Anglo-Navarrese marriage was clearly unsuccessful, Joan was more effective in terms of keeping the peace between her son and stepson. The Anglo-Breton truce was extended in January 1419 and the following month Jean V was issued a safe conduct to come to Rouen, which Henry V had just secured after an extended siege.33 In March 1419, the two signed another truce—the text of this document largely mirrors the November 1417 version, including the language that the peace had been made at Joan's insistence.34 In addition to these political negotiations, as highlighted in Chapter 7, Joan was also engaged in a fairly intensive gift exchange between herself, her son, and her stepsons of valuable objects designed to reinforce these diplomatic meetings and ensure continued good relations between Joan's extended brood. With regard to Joan's extended Valois family, 1419 saw an increasingly charged political climate, with Henry negotiating with both sides of the internal division between the king and the duke of Burgundy on one hand and the dauphin and the Orleans-Armagnac faction on the other. The reconciliation of the duke of Burgundy and the dauphin in July threatened the possibility of a united French repulsion of Henry's army, driving him in turn to threaten Paris itself. The murder of the duke of Burgundy in early September changed the landscape once again, triggering a new round of intensive negotiations between Joan's stepson and her Valois relatives.

In this dramatic period we have seen Joan's deep connection to and engagement with political negotiations and the events of the war itself, showing that her familial influence could be felt even while remaining at a physical distance back in England. However, given her close ties to France, Navarre, and Brittany, and the constantly shifting line between being allies, enemies, and neutral regarding England, it was vital that her loyalty to Henry V was unquestioned—any suspicions could have disastrous implications.

Crisis years: 1419–22

After Agincourt, Henry V's biographer Hutchinson noted the heightened state of xenophobia and religious panic and argued that Joan, as a foreign queen who had been an adherent of the anti-pope during the Schism, might be a natural target for persecution.35 As noted previously, the foreigners in her household had been the object of another round of purges of aliens in 1416 when they were accused of being spies—indeed it has been suggested that the queen may have been the primary suspect as Joan's “subjects believed that she was an enemy agent planted in their midst”.36 In 1419, a specific member of her household was the focus of investigation: her confessor, the Franciscan friar John Randolph. On 16 August, Henry's kinswoman lady Bergevenny was commissioned to seize Randolph's goods from the Franciscan house in Shrewsbury and her man Richard Pepyr duly reported the findings of the raid to the king's council later that month.37 Randolph himself may have already fled at that point as he was arrested in Guernsey and taken to Henry V in Normandy—after being held at Chateau Gaillard, he was sent to the Tower of London in February 1420.38

Randolph's evidence led back to his mistress, Joan, although it is unclear if the friar accused her with evidence which broke the ecclesiastical seal of the confessional. In addition to his testimony, Joan was further implicated by their close relationship and the fact that Randolph clearly had a large quantity of the queen's own goods when an inventory of his possessions in Shrewsbury was taken.39 At the beginning of October 1419 Joan herself was arrested and it was alleged in Parliament that Joan had “plotted and schemed for the death and destruction of our said lord the king in the most evil and terrible manner imaginable”.40

The language is vitally important here—what is suggested is that Joan was contriving the king's death, a serious and treasonable act to which Henry would have been particularly sensitive, given the plots against his life and his father's during the previous reign and the assassinations of two Burgundian dukes, the duke of Orleans, and the count of Armagnac across the Channel. What is critically not included here is the word “witchcraft”, although that has become intrinsically associated with this charge and, indeed, in many ways has defined Joan's memory as a so-called “royal witch”. The accusation of witchcraft was added by chroniclers—the Brut and the Chronicles of London have virtually identical language here which has been extremely influential on later reporting and perception of Joan's arrest:

And in this yeer Randolff, Maistre off Dyvynyte, that some time was Quene Johannys confessour, wrouht, as men seyn thurh the excytyng off the sayde Quene, by sorcerye and nygromancye fforto haue dystroyed the king. But as god wolde alle his vnthryffty werking was espyed. Wherfore the same Quene loste her lands, and was putte into the castell off Ledys vndir the kepyng off Sir John Pelham, knyht.41

This particular chronicle places much more focus on Randolph; indeed there is far more discussion of Humphrey of Gloucester's failed attempt to spring the Franciscan, whom he also had ties to, from the Tower in 1425 than the queen's arrest or fate. However, it is important to note not all contemporary chronicles described Joan's detainment in the context of supposed “sorcery”—Walsingham's chronicle, one of the most important for this period of English history, notes,

In this year the widow of the late King Henry, Queen Joanna, was accused of an evil deed, namely of having plotted to harm the king. All her servants were taken from her and she was given into the custody of John Pelham. He allowed her nine serving women and took her into Pevensey castle that he might keep her guarded there under his care.42

Walsingham's version of events more closely mirrors the language recorded in Parliament—while both note that Pelham was her jailor, she was in his keeping at Pevensey but was later transferred to Leeds Castle in Kent.43 And as will be discussed further in the following chapter, she did indeed lose her lands—for some historians, this has been seen as the primary motivation for her arrest.

The motivation—and the context—of Joan's arrest are important to unpick and understand as this move on Henry's part to accuse his stepmother of a serious crime and detain her for several years has long attracted comment for its surprising volte-face after years of good relations and cooperation between the two. E. Carlton Williams has suggested three possible motivations for Joan's arrest. First, as noted above, the repeated calls for the expulsion of foreigners from her household suggests that many may have believed that she was in league with the enemy and conveying information via her servitors.44 The second reason given was a desire to repurpose Joan's dower for the use of Henry's campaigns, potentially adding another 10,000 marks per annum to the war effort. While many historians have given great credence to this, and indeed this may well have been a key factor in Henry's decision to seize her lands, a counter argument is whether this comparatively small sum in the larger scheme of his military financing would have been worth the approbation of levelling such a serious charge on his aging stepmother.45 The third rationale given was the possibility that her accusation stemmed from a real concern about witchcraft—Williams notes that only a few weeks before her arrest Archbishop Chichele had ordered prayers to be said in all churches in the realm to protect the king from witchcraft. The Breton historian Toudouze suggests a fourth possibility, that Joan's arrest and the possibility that she could be burned at the stake was blackmail for her sons, to ensure their good behaviour and cooperation with the English.46

Yet another possibility was that Henry sought to neutralise her and her influence at court and on the political negotiations of the Hundred Years War by detaining her on a charge as a possible traitor which also tainted her reputation. Henry may have given credence to the repeated accusations of spies in her household, and he may well have worried whether her loyalties lay with him and England or with her Breton, Navarrese, and French relations. Again, Henry had been the focus of several plots and would have been extremely concerned if Randolph had been involved in a genuine conspiracy. As Gwen Seabourne notes, political conflict is often a context for imprisonment, and suspected traitors could be held without trial, which is exactly what happened with Joan.47 She was never formally charged with the very serious crime of treason—or witchcraft—and thus never had to face the court, so Henry did not need to worry that his stepmother would be found guilty, necessitating the unsavoury prospect of executing her and seriously alienating Brittany and Navarre, nor would she be liberated and restored to her lands, making him look unreasonable for detaining her in the first place.48 Yet if he was truly concerned that Joan was a dangerous traitor, Henry would never have allowed her to live in comfortable confinement in a series of royal residences and entertain revered guests including the archbishop of Canterbury, his brother Humphrey of Gloucester, and his friend Thomas, Lord Camoys, who appeared to remain with Joan at Leeds Castle for nearly a year.49

However, the lack of trial also meant that Joan could not clear herself of the charge and repair the damage to her reputation as a potential traitor—or this slur that she was a possible witch, which may have been attached to her name thanks to her father's reputation as a poisoner who may have dabbled in necromancy as well. Queens are often brought down or attacked on reputations, often in terms of an allegation of sexual impropriety, although Joan became one of several royal women who were also tainted with an allegation or insinuation of being involved in witchcraft, including her stepdaughter-in-law, Humphrey's second wife Eleanor Cobham, who was tried for the offence in 1441.50 It has to be said that the arrest of his stepmother on nefarious charges and her prolonged detention has not been beneficial to assessments of Henry V's character and became a stain on his own reputation as a conscientious king. If the king seriously believed that his stepmother was a traitor, a witch, and potential murderer and did nothing more than keep her under house arrest, it would make him look rather weak for failing to punish her for her crimes. Yet it is not weakness that Henry has been accused of by multiple historians, but greed and avarice—the same charge that others have levelled against Joan—as well as a distinct lack of chivalrous behaviour against his stepmother. For example, Hutchison has argued that “Henry's treatment of his step-mother scarcely did him honour”, while another biographer, Bryan Bevan, claims that Joan's arrest demonstrates the “hard, very unattractive side” of Henry's character—very much at odds with his reputation as a “conscientious” king.51

Returning to the wider picture, by late 1419 both Arthur de Richemont and his mother Joan of Navarre were Henry V's prisoners. However, the situation for Joan and her children was about to escalate significantly. As noted previously, Joan's first husband, Jean IV, had fought a rival branch of the family, the Penthièvres, for the right to the ducal coronet throughout his life and reign. Indeed, Joan's marriage to Jean IV had been motivated by his desire to produce issue which would ensure the continuation of the Montfort line and keep the Penthièvres from retaking the duchy. As Joan produced a large brood of children, including four sons, the success of the Montfort line seemed assured, yet the Penthièvres had never given up hope of regaining the duchy of Brittany. By 1420, Jean V had been on the ducal throne for 20 years and was seemingly secure except for the constantly shifting political landscape of the Hundred Years War. As the count of Penthièvre had “showed great outward marks of affection” to Jean V, the duke may not have suspected that he was, in fact, working with the dauphin to develop a plot to capture him. According to Enguerrand de Monstrelet, the trap was baited with an invitation to dine with the count's mother, Marguerite de Clisson; the date was set for 13 February and the count and his party rode out to meet Jean, his brother Richard, and their entourage at the bridge of la Tuberbe.52 After the duke and his brother crossed the bridge, the count's fool apparently removed some planks and made a joke that they would not be able to leave, which Jean V found extremely amusing until the count's brother, Charles d’Avagour, sprung out from hiding with his men and ambushed them. Penthièvre claimed that he was arresting Jean in the dauphin's name and to reclaim the duchy which was rightfully his.

Jean and his brother Richard were taken into captivity and like Arthur and Joan across the Channel were moved around a number of secure Penthièvre strongholds and through dauphinist territory during the course of their imprisonment. Sources vary as to how Jean and Richard were treated—Monstrelet claims that they were kept relatively reasonably with a valet to serve them and that “no violence was done to their person”, but Sumption argues that Jean was repeatedly coerced by Marguerite and her sons and “threatened with hideous tortures and death” if he refused to cooperate and cede the duchy, particularly as the tide turned against his captors.53

Figure 4.1 Illustration of Joan and her three sons imprisoned, from Garrett MS. 40, “Missal, Carmelite use (French c. 1440–76)”, folio 111r.

Source: Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library. Image supplied for use courtesy of Princeton University Library.

Jean's wife, the French princess Jeanne de Valois, was at the city of Vannes when she received news of her husband's capture on 15 February. She sprang into action, calling a council and convening the Estates of Brittany to support the duke and work for his immediate release, calling on every possible source of aid from her networks in France and beyond. The decision was taken to confiscate all Penthièvre lands and effectively go to war against the family, attacking their territories, beginning with the castle and town of Lamballe, which surrendered after only 15 days of siege, only to be gutted by the victors, indicating the depth of ferocity with which the Bretons responded to the seizure of their duke. Unsurprisingly, the Penthièvres’ allies quickly deserted them as the Breton army continued to attack and take their castles and lands, including Castle Andren and la Motte d’Ebron. Jeanne de Valois also appealed to Henry V for assistance—using emotional language designed to illicit a chivalric response to assist the duchess as a “damsel in distress”, noting multiple times how extremely upset she was and appealing to Henry as a prince who had “a reputation for being honourable and valiant”.54

The duchess pleaded not just for Henry's general assistance but specifically for the release of Jean's brother, Arthur de Richemont, so that he could come back to Brittany to lead the campaign against the Penthièvres and effect the rescue of Jean V and Richard. Arthur immediately added his request to Henry V to release him so that he could help his brothers and also asked the king to punish the count of Penthièvre for his treasonous actions to his liege lord the duke.55 A Breton delegation, led by Jean de Malestroit, bishop of Nantes, went to meet with Henry V to negotiate Arthur's release but were unable to bring him home quickly to free his brothers Jean and Richard in turn. While Jonathan Sumption claims that Henry was willing to release Arthur so that he could retake Jean from the count of Penthièvre and his allies, Marie-Hélène Santrot has argued that Henry V hated Arthur and had no intention of liberating him, whether his brothers were in danger or not.56 Indeed, some historians have questioned whether it was Henry V himself who was behind Jean V's detention, which occurred during the crucial period when the Treaty of Troyes was being negotiated, which resulted in Henry's marriage to Katherine de Valois, effectively securing the French throne. It seems more likely that since the dauphin appears to have been behind the seizure of the duke and his brother, the dauphin was the one who sought to neutralise Jean V and Brittany, but Knowlson argues that even if Henry did not instigate the situation, he “sought to profit from [these] complicated circumstances”.57 Certainly he was holding all the cards at this point, with Arthur and Joan detained under his pleasure, and by withholding Arthur from Brittany, they lacked his strong leadership and the potential that he might be able to quickly secure Jean and Richard's release and crush the Penthièvres.

In the end, Jean and Richard were released fairly swiftly without the assistance of Arthur de Richemont or Henry V. The campaign that the duchess and the Estates waged against the Penthièvres was so successful that the rebel family was effectively brought to its knees, with Marguerite de Clisson under siege in their stronghold at Champtoceaux. Although Jean V agreed fairly outrageous terms for his release with the Penthièvres, which included not only the restoration of all the Penthièvre strongholds but a marriage with the duke's daughter which would include a massive dowry of three major ducal castles, the Estates of Brittany flatly refused to comply with the treaty Jean signed after he was restored to liberty.58 This situation had a few significant outcomes: it signalled the total domination of the Montfort dynasty in Brittany and the end of the threat of the Penthièvres as their Breton lands were lost, and the count and several of his brothers ended up in exile in Hainault where he had other territory—Marguerite faced trial in Brittany for her part in plotting the seizure of the duke. Another outcome was that Brittany was, temporarily at least, pushed back into the arms of the English. Although Henry V had not released Arthur in time to help his brothers escape from the Penthièvres, he did allow Arthur to meet his brother at Pontorson in the autumn of 1420 to convince him of the need to side with the English—Carlton Williams claimed that Henry believed Arthur's “forceful” personality would be certain to win Jean over.59 Arthur himself was paroled until Michaelmas 1422 on the condition that he would fight for Henry V “against everyone other than his older brother”.60

Thus by late 1420, Joan's three sons, Arthur, Jean, and Richard, were back at liberty after their respective detainments. Yet Joan was still held in England, and it appears her release was not high on her sons’ or stepsons’ agenda—indeed, in 1422 Arthur was attending the festivities for Henry V's wedding in Paris, while in Brittany Jean V worked to seize Joan's lucrative Breton dower, just as Henry V had seized her English lands back in 1419. Joan's Navarrese family do not appear to have protested openly about her imprisonment either—they may have felt unable to do so, given that Henry V was making himself master of France and held some of their own patrimony in northern France. In 1421, a year of intensive diplomatic negotiation in the context of the wider European political situation, Navarrese documents record preparation and expenses for the visits of the ambassadors from France, Burgundy, and England and messengers going back and forth between Brittany and Navarre.61 It is impossible to say with certainty, however, if Joan's situation was part of these negotiations, messages, and discussions.

Joan's children may not have been any more proactive in trying to secure her release than her Navarrese relatives, which may have been due to political and diplomatic reasons or it could be seen as evidence of alienation from their mother who had left them in Brittany nearly 20 years previously. While Strickland claims that the bishop of Nantes was sent by Jean V to Henry V with an embassy to demand Joan's freedom, it appears that Strickland misunderstood the focus of negotiations on securing the release of Joan's son Arthur, or possibly misinterpreted the duchess of Brittany's appeal to Henry V for the release of Jean V from the Penthièvres.62 Yet while her children may not have petitioned for her release while in captivity, they do appear to have tagged a rider onto negotiations between the duke of Burgundy and the Estates of Brittany in April 1423, ironically more than seven months after she was actually released, to secure the “pardon of their mother” so that she might be able to return to visit them in Brittany “in innocence and liberty”.63

Ultimately, Joan's release came in the summer of 1422 in the midst of more political negotiations. Henry drafted a letter to release Joan on 13 July, just as Breton ambassadors were being dispatched to swear fidelity to the terms of the Treaty of Troyes.64 It is not clear if Joan was released for political expediency, if new evidence came to light, or if the guilt about his treatment of his stepmother as his health was failing from dysentery motivated him to let her go—he died on 31 August 1422, roughly six weeks after this letter was composed. Although Joan is not fully exonerated by the letter, Henry twice notes a lack of certainty over the basis of her arrest—“we doubting lest it shuld be a charge unto our conscience” and “whiche charge we be avisid no longer to ber in our conscience”—indicating perhaps that he did not want to go to his death with Joan's detention weighing on his mind. Henry further notes that her dower and all of her moveable goods should be fully restored to her, along with cloth for five or six gowns and that she should be free to “remoeve thens into what o(th)er place wythin owre roiume that hir lust, and whanne her lust”.

Final years: 1422–37

After Joan's release in 1422, she appears to have lived a quieter life in terms of politics and ceremonial, largely away from the court of her step-grandson Henry VI; as we will see in the following chapters, she was still incredibly active, working intensively on the full restoration of her lands and rights and maintaining a sufficiently grand household for a dowager queen. In addition to her multiple petitions regarding her own lands, Joan also continued to engage in intercessory activity for others, including a petition in 1427 to request an inquisition regarding the activities of a member of Parliament, Thomas Makworth, who had been working with a group of local men to prevent the people of Derby from attending the market in the neighbouring town of Ashbourne.65 Yet she was no longer the only queen in the realm, as her cousin Katherine de Valois was also a dowager after the death of Henry V, and as she was the mother of the new young king, her position at court was clearly going to be superior to the king's step-grandmother. The downgrading of her position can be seen in subtle ways; Joan had once been a member of both the chivalric Breton Order of the Hermine, created by her first husband Jean IV, and became a lady of the Order of Garter in England, receiving robes throughout the reign of her second husband Henry IV and in the early years of Henry V's reign as well. However, she stopped receiving Garter robes when she was detained and did not receive them again in the reign on Henry VI—while Chloë McKenzie's research shows that the overall number of the Ladies of the Garter radically decreased under the reign of Henry VI, other prominent ladies at court such as Katherine de Valois; Humphrey's two wives, Jaqueline of Hainault and Eleanor Cobham; and the countesses of Warwick and Suffolk received robes, thus her omission from the list could still be seen as a sign of her reduced status at court or that her reputation had not fully recovered from the accusation of treason in the previous reign.66

In the remaining years of Joan's life, the political landscape continued to be turbulent and relations between England and Brittany fluctuated between periods of war and peace. A year after Henry V's death on 17 April 1423, a treaty of alliance was signed between the dukes of Bedford (on behalf of the young Henry VI), Brittany, and Burgundy.67 The alliance was reinforced by marriages between the three—Burgundy's two sisters, Anne and Margaret, were married, respectively, to Bedford and Arthur de Richemont. On the other side of the political front, Joan's youngest son, Richard, was confirmed as count d’Etampes by the dauphin (later Charles VII) and made an important marriage around this same time to Marguerite d’Orleans, countess of Vertus and daughter of the murdered Louis d’Orleans and Valentina Visconti.68

Joan's stepson Humphrey also made a marriage in 1423 with significant political import, to Jacqueline, the countess of Hainault—in contrast to the previous marriages which had affirmed alliances and allegiances, this marriage threatened to undermine the Anglo-Burgundian relationship as Jacqueline's inheritance in the Low Countries was a matter of active dispute with the duke. Humphrey's campaigns on his new wife's behalf in Hainault the following year did little to relieve the political tension, with Philip the Good challenging Humphrey to a duel in order to resolve the situation—the prospect of a fight between her favourite stepson and her cousin might have seriously worried Joan.69 Humphrey caused further scandal by abandoning both the campaign and Jacqueline of Hainault to return to England in 1425 with his mistress, Eleanor Cobham, one of Jacqueline's ladies in waiting, whom he eventually wed when his marriage to Jacqueline was declared void in 1428. As we will see in Chapter 7, Joan appears to have been quite close to Eleanor and the couple visited her several times during her later years at her manor of Kings Langley.

In 1425 tensions heightened on various fronts surrounding Joan. Back home in England, Humphrey found himself increasingly pitted against Henry Beaufort, the bishop of Winchester (who had officiated at Henry and Joan's 1403 wedding) for control of the king's council. Across the Channel, Yolande of Aragon had recruited Joan's son Arthur away from the Triple Alliance of Bedford, Burgundy, and Brittany and back to the side of the dauphin—he was made constable of France on 7 March 1425. As noted previously, Joan's youngest son, Richard d’Etampes, was already an adherent of the dauphin and recruiting Jean V was now vital to create the “triumvirate of Yolande, Brittany and Richemont” that the queen of Jerusalem desired, aided perhaps by the Breton duchess Jeanne de Valois, who was supportive of her brother's cause.70 On 7 October 1425, Jean V signed the Treaty of Saumur, which effectively broke Brittany's alliance with England and Burgundy and pledged himself to support the dauphin instead—England responded by declaring open war on Brittany in January 1426.71

As the mother of the now avowed enemy, Joan's loyalties were again suspect and the following month yet another petition to expel aliens from her household was brought forward to Parliament, arguing that these “foreigners reveal the advice given to the king to his enemies overseas”.72 Brittany itself was invaded as far as Rennes, where Joan had long ago orchestrated Jean V's ducal coronation—and battles were fought at St James de Beuvron and Pontorson on the Breton-Norman border where Arthur sought to help his brother's beleaguered duchy.73 To bring peace to Brittany, Jean V reopened talks with England in July 1427, and after Henry VI promised to maintain Brittany's privileges if he switched sides again, Jean agreed to a truce on 8 September which reaffirmed both the terms of the Treaty of Troyes and his allegiance to the English king.74 Again familial language was used as a key element in diplomacy, with Henry referring to Jean as “my very dear and beloved uncle” which he was through both his relationship to Joan and via Jean's marriage to his aunt Jeanne de Valois.

While Joan would have no doubt been relieved both that Brittany was safe from English attack and that her son was allied with her stepsons again, Jean's reunification with England meant a break with his brothers, Arthur and Richard, who remained allied to the dauphin and, along with Joan's grandson, the duke of Alençon, took part in campaigns with Jeanne d’Arc. This was not the only point of animosity between her children, as in September 1431 Alençon took Jean de Malestroit hostage—this was Jean V's trusted councillor who had connections with Joan and had been with him since the start of his reign; Malestroit was so close to the duke of Brittany that de la Martinère suggests he was a father figure for him.75 Alençon took Malestroit to the castle of Pouancé, which was shortly besieged by his uncles Jean V and Arthur de Richemont and his cousin François, the heir of Brittany, who had recently married Yolande d’Anjou, along with a supporting Anglo-Breton force. Joan's daughter Marie and Alençon's pregnant wife were inside the castle—it is worth considering how Marie must have felt to be besieged by her brothers and nephew or Joan's feelings back in England on hearing of this family debacle. Fortunately, a peace was brokered between Alençon and his uncles, the siege was lifted, and the chancellor returned, but this was a dangerous rift within the family which could have had deadly consequences.

Yet the 1430s were not completely dominated by division in the family. A major olive branch to build connections between England and Brittany came in 1432 with the arrival of Joan's young grandson Gilles, the namesake of her son who died 20 years previously at the siege of Bourges. Gilles was a similar age to the young Henry VI and the two appear to have bonded deeply—creating a lasting Anglophile leaning for Gilles which had profound consequences in later life.76 This was an effective strategy for creating connections as an alternative to marriage—Jean V also sent his son Richard to be raised at the French court, again always playing both sides and leveraging his own familial connections and his sons’ Valois blood through their mother Jeanne.77 Gilles was brought to England by his father's right-hand man, Jean de Malestroit, who was engaging in ongoing political negotiations in connection with the trip. Joan appears to have been involved with the talks as in the following year letters from Henry VI to Jean V reference Joan “sending charge” to the receivers of her dower lands in Brittany to pay the outstanding balance of the ransom of some English prisoners from the revenues of her lands there in an attempt to heal this bone of contention between the two realms.78 Gilles was hosted by Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who had long ago been Joan's champion during the jousting celebrating her coronation. There is no clear record of Gilles’ interaction with Joan, but it is highly likely that she met with him during the two years that he was at the English court or that he may have visited her at one of her residences.

Diplomatic links between England and Navarre continued during this period, with flurries of activity; one of these was between 1423 and 1425 when John Gentill was dispatched on a diplomatic trip to visit the courts of all the Iberian monarchs (a repeat of the trip he took around the period of Henry V's Agincourt campaign) and the Navarrese ambassador Johanin Forment also visited England in 1424, shortly after a trip to Brittany.79 Another Navarrese ambassador, Gracian de Monreal, along with Johan Galindo, the merino of Sangüesa, and Johan de Ezpleta, visited England in early 1430 in conjunction with ambassadors from Aragon—at this point, Joan's brother Carlos III had passed away and the kingdom was ruled by his daughter Blanca I and her husband Juan of Aragon.80 At this time Navarre and Aragon were in conflict with Castile and appear to have sought an alliance with England to support their position—potentially sealed with a marriage between one of their daughters and Henry VI himself which would have brought another Navarrese queen to England to follow in Joan's footsteps. However, the response of the privy council acknowledged the long-standing good relations between England, the Navarrese, and Aragon, but was somewhat cagey—although Philip Gentill was sent to treat for an alliance with the Navarrese and Aragonese ambassadors at Bayonne later that year, the English concurrently signed a one-year truce with Castile.81 Further interchange took place between England and Navarre with Navarrese embassies in 1433 and 1436, as well as interesting evidence of an English musician, Master Johan, who spent an extended period at the court of Joan's niece Blanca I as her “royal harper”—while it is impossible to say if Joan's musical patronage extended this far, it does show continued contact between the two realms through various means.82

In the 1430s, Joan was clearly reaching her twilight years in her seventh decade—her household records from 1427–8 note a period of serious illness during this time and expenses for doctors and medicine. Yet in spite of this illness, Joan survived many of her peers, children, and stepchildren—her stepson Thomas of Clarence passed away in 1421, his sister Philippa, queen of Sweden, died in 1430, and John of Bedford in 1435, leaving only Humphrey of Gloucester out of her brood of stepchildren. Her cousin, the diplomat Carlos de Beaumont who once served as her chamberlain, died in 1432 in his early seventies. Joan's daughter-in-law and cousin, Jeanne de Valois, duchess of Brittany, passed away a year later in 1433, and her sister Katherine de Valois, the dowager queen of England, followed her only a few years later, in January 1437. Ironically, Katherine's death briefly left Joan once again as the only queen in England and theoretically the most senior woman in the realm, but age and poor health meant she was in no position to take up a strong ceremonial role; instead her daughter-in-law Eleanor Cobham could be seen as filling this space as a “quasi-queen” in this period.

The last ceremonial of Joan's queenly career—and her life—was her funeral at Canterbury Cathedral. We have a letter from Henry VI which gives us an impression of the event. He notes that

oure counsail have appointed the funerelles of oure graundmodre Quene Johane whom God assoille to be holden and solempnized at Caunterbury the xi (11th) day of August next coming where we have appointed our saide uncle and other lordes and ladyes of this our reaume … to be present at the same day to the worship of God of us and oure saide graundmodre.83

A list follows of those who were to attend the funeral, headed by Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, and his wife Eleanor Cobham—a suitable choice as Joan's favourite (and only remaining) stepson who at this time was a key figure in the politics of the realm. The archbishop of Canterbury was also in attendance and likely officiated at the event—possibly along with the three bishops, two abbots, and two priors who were also present. There was also a selection of important nobles, including the duchess of Norfolk and the earls and countesses of Huntington, Northumbria, and Oxford. It could be argued that Joan's funeral was perhaps not as grand or as impactful as that of her predecessors Philippa of Hainault and Anne of Bohemia, as they were consort queens when they died, while Joan was the relic of two reigns past and only the king's step-grandmother. Yet the illustrious guests in attendance and the splendour of the location would have conferred considerable glory to her memory and been a suitably queenly send-off. When word of Joan's death arrived in Navarre in the autumn of 1437, 42 libros were spent on wax and torches and 30 requiem Masses which were said for repose of her soul, a final ceremonial touch which showed that her niece Blanca I and her natal family had not forgotten her either. As noted in the final chapter of the book, Joan was laid to rest alongside her second husband, Henry IV, in the tomb she had created for them both at Canterbury Cathedral, which heralded for all time Joan's many identities—as Navarrese infanta, Breton duchess, and England's queen.

Notes

  1. See CCR Henry V, I, 2 June 1413, 21–22 and 12 August 1413, 33. In Foedera 9, see entries on negotiations or reaffirmations of the truce on 14 December 1413, 3 and 4 January 1414, 4 February 1414, 12 February 1414, 18 April 1414, 26 June 1414, 17 October 1414, and 20 August 1415. See also L&M JV, V, nos. 1150–51, 10 August 1413, no. 1196, 25 June 1415, and ADLA E121-17, 17 October 1414.
  2. Jonathan Sumption, Cursed Kings: The Hundred Years War IV (London: Faber and Faber, 2016), 380 and 394–96.
  3. Eloísa Ramírez Vaquero, Carlos III, rey de Navarra, Principe de sangre Valois (1387–1425) (Gijon: Ediciones Trea, 2007), 234–6 and Catalogo XXXI, no. 647, 30 November 1414.
  4. CPR Henry V, I, 30 June 1415, 342. There is some divergence as to whether Henry took his leave of the queen on the 15th or 16th of June; Harold F. Hutchinson, Henry V (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1967), 102; Ian Mortimer, 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory (London: Bodley Head, 2009), 240.
  5. Foedera 9, 11 August 1415. See also John Stow, The annales, or generall chronicle of England, begun first by maister Iohn Stow, and after him continued and augmented with matters forreyne, and domestique, anncient and moderne, vnto the ende of his present yeere 1614, ed. Edmond Howes (London: T. Adams, 1615), 346; Edward Hall, Hall's Chronicle: Containing the history of England during the reign of Henry the Fourth and the succeeding monarchs... (London: J. Johnson et al., 1809), 59.
  6. Anon., Geste des nobles François (1420s) and Jean Juvenal des Ursins, “Histoire de Charles VI, roy de France (c.1430s–1440s),” in The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, ed. Anne Curry (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000), 111 and 131. Note that Philippe Contamine argues that while some French historians have accused Jean V of cowardice, an alternative explanation is that the French refused to wait for the Breton troops which might have saved them: Philippe Contamine, “Bretagne et France a la fin du Moyen Age: le temps de Jean V, de Charles VII et de Jeanne d’Arc,” Bulletin de la Societe Archeologique et Historique de Nantes et de Loire-Atlantique 127 (1991): 78.
  7. Monstrelet, III, 119. However, Rosemary Horrox notes that accounts of the duke of York's death at Agincourt do differ—he may even have suffocated in his armour: Rosemary Horrox, “Edward [Edward of Langley, Edward of York], second duke of York (c. 1373–1415), magnate,” ODNB online, 23 Sep. 2004.
  8. Michael Drayton, “The Battaile of Agincourt (1627),” in The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, ed. Anne Curry (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000), 326–28.
  9. Alessandra Petrina, Cultural Politics in 15th century England: The Case of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 106–7.
  10. William Gregory, “Gregory's Chronicle: 1403–1419,” in The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, ed. James Gairdner (London: Camden Society, 1876), 103–28, British History Online, accessed June 7, 2019, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/camden-record-soc/vol17/pp103-128.
  11. Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest; with Anecdotes of their Courts. vol. III (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1848), 72. Note Strickland wrongly claims that “Her brother, Charles of Navarre, the constable of France, died of his wounds the following day”—her brother Carlos III was not present at the battle, nor was Carlos de Beaumont, the aforementioned alferez who is sometimes referred to in English records as “Charles of Navarre”, harmed either, so it is unclear who Strickland is mentioning here.
  12. PROME, Henry V: March 1416, IX “Bretons”.
  13. Sumption, Cursed Kings, 466.
  14. Georges G. Toudouze, Du Gueslin, Clisson, Richemont et la fin de la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris: Librarie Floury, 1942), 222–23.
  15. Guillaume Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, Connetable de France, Duc de Bretagne (1393–1458), ed. Achille le Vavasseur (Paris, Librairie Renouard, 1890), 19–20.
  16. Auguste Moliner, Les Sources de l’Histoire de France (Paris: Alfonse Picard et Fils, 1904), 255–56.
  17. See Woodacre, “Perils of Promotion,” 135–36; Lisa Hilton, Queens Consort; England's Medieval Queens (London: Phoenix, 2009), 367; Paul Strohm, England's Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation 1399–1422 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 169.
  18. See payment to Burton on 20 May 1419 in Frederick Devon, Issues of the Exchequer being a collection of payments made out of His Majesty's Revenue, from King Henry III to King Henry VI inclusive with an appendix (London: John Murray, 1837), 358, and Jean Kerhervé, “Arthur de Richemont, connetable et duc, Entre guerre et politique, dans la France du XVe siècle,” in 2000 Ans d’Histoire de Vannes (Vannes: Archives Municipales, 1993), 106.
  19. Toudouze, Richemont, 223–24; Sumption, Cursed Kings, 491; Knowlson, Jean V, 111.
  20. Foedera 9, 4 January 1417.
  21. Sumption, Cursed Kings, 492.
  22. Foedera 9, 13 April 1417.
  23. L&M JV, V, no. 1241, 29 May 1417.
  24. Sumption, Cursed Kings, 543. See also Cagny, Chroniques, 111–12.
  25. Foedera 9, 16 and 27 October. A contemporary chronicle claimed that Jean's motivation was to do homage to Henry, claiming “came the Duke of Brytayne vnto be kynge and became his mon”: Anon., English Chronicle, 48.
  26. Foedera 9, 16 November 1417, original text is “Precibus & Instantiis, Excellentissimae & Praeclarissimae Dominae, Reginae, Matris nostrae, ac Pacis & Tranquillitatis desiderio”.
  27. Foedera 9, 16 November 1417. See also Zita Eva Rohr, Yolande of Aragon (1381–1442) Family and Power: The Reverse of the Tapestry (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 92 and 97–100.
  28. Richard Vaughan, Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1970), 9.
  29. See E. Durtelle de Saint-Saveur, Histoire de Bretagne des origines a nos jours (Paris: Perrin et Armor-editeur, 1975), 287–88, 290–91; Jean Markale, Les Grandes Heures de la Bretagne (Paris: Pygmalion, 2008), 374–76.
  30. Ramírez Vaquero, Carlos III, 242.
  31. Foedera 9, 16 March 1418.
  32. Foedera 9, 1 April 1419 for the licence to Humphrey to appoint ambassadors for matrimonial negotiations; 28 April 1419 for the missives regarding Blanca's betrothal and the gift of the book.
  33. Extension of the truce: Foedera 9, 12 January 1419. Safe conduct for Jean V: Foedera 9, 12 Feb 1419.
  34. ADLA E121-24, 19 March 1419.
  35. Hutchinson, Henry V, 201.
  36. E. Carlton Williams, My Lord of Bedford, 1389–1435 (London: Longmans Green, 1963), 10.
  37. CPR Henry V, II, 271, 16 August 1419; Devon, Issues of the Exchequer, 20 August 1419, 360.
  38. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer, 20 February 1420, 365.
  39. See A. Keith Thompson, Religious Confession Privilege, and the Common Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 3, 49–50, and 99 n56. The contents of the inventory will be discussed further in Chapter 7.
  40. PROME, “Henry V: October 1419”.
  41. Anon., The Chronicles of London, introduction and notes by Charles L. Kingsford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 73. See also Kingsford's discussion of the relationship between the text of the Brut and this Julius II B version of the Chronicles of London: Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, ed., English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 118. For a more recent evaluation of the London chronicles and their relationship to the Brut, see Mary-Rose McLaren, The London Chronicles of the Fifteenth Century (London: D.S. Brewer, 2002).
  42. Walsingham, 434.
  43. For payment to John Pelham as her jailor, see Devon, Issues of the Exchequer, 27 Nov 1419, 362. Note: her movements during this period will be discussed in connection with her residences in Chapter 7 and the situation of her household in Chapter 6.
  44. Carlton Williams, Bedford, 48–9.
  45. A.R. Myers, “The Captivity of a Royal Witch: The Household Accounts of Queen Joan of Navarre, 1419–21,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 24, no. 2 (1940): 275–76; Labarge, Henry V, 151; Hutchinson, Henry V, 200–1; Strohm, Empty Throne, 163–66; Gemma Hollman, Royal Witches: From Joan of Navarre to Elizabeth Woodville (Cheltenham: The History Press, 2019), 63–5. For the context of Henry V's efforts to finance the war effort, see W. Mark Ormrod, “Henry V and the English Taxpayer,” in Henry V: New Interpretations, ed. Gwilym Dodd (York: York Medieval Press, 2013), 187–216. I would like to thank James Ross for raising this counter argument in our discussions of Joan's arrest.
  46. Toudouze, Richemont, 227.
  47. Gwen Seabourne, Imprisoning Medieval Women: The Non-Judicial Confinement and Abduction of Women in England, c.1170–1509 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 15–16, 27–30.
  48. Hollman, Royal Witche, 65. For further discussion of the situation of elite women accused of treason in this period and their treatment, see the chapter “Trying Women: Royal Female Transgression and Treason” in Sarah Stockdale, “Blood on the Crown: Treason in the Royal Kinship Structure of Fifteenth-Century England” (PhD thesis, University of Winchester, 2018), 67–102.
  49. For the expenditure related to Joan's guests, see “Account Book of the household of Joan of Navarre,” 1420–21, University of Manchester John Rylands Collection Latin MS 238. Camoys appears to have arrived on 12 April 1420 and remained until 31 January 1421—sadly he appears to have died not long after his stay with her. There are multiple rationales for his long stay—Gemma Hollman suggests it might indicate a romantic attachment, but it is equally possible that he was there on Henry V's behalf to keep an eye on Joan as Camoys could be considered one of Henry's “right hand men” or even as Joan's friend as he had known her since escorting her to England back in 1403; Hollman, Royal Witches, 72; Hutchinson, Henry V, 75.
  50. Ralph A. Griffiths, “The Trial of Eleanor Cobham: An Episode in the fall of Duke Humphrey of Gloucester,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 (1969): 381–99; Hollman, Royal Witches, 89–177.
  51. Hutchinson, Henry V, 201; Bryan Bevan, Henry IV (London: Rubicon Press, 1994), 152–53. See also Malcolm Vale's biography Henry V, The Conscience of a King (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016).
  52. For Monstrelet's account of the affair, see Monstrelet, IV, 28–35.
  53. Monstrelet, IV, 31; Sumption, Cursed Kings, 690.
  54. Foedera 9, 5 April 1420. Joel Cornette notes that she also appealed to her brother the dauphin, to other connections in France, and even to Scotland and Iberia for help: Joel Cornette, Histoire de la Bretagne et des Bretons, vol. 1, Des ages obscurs au regne de Louis XIV (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2005), 310.
  55. Foedera 9, 13 April 1420.
  56. Marie-Hélène Santrot, Entre France et Angleterre, Le duche de Bretagne; Essai d’iconographie des Ducs de Bretagne (Nantes: Conseil général de Loire-Atlantique, 1988), 143–45; Sumption, Cursed Kings, 691.
  57. Knowlson, Jean V, 117; Contamine, “Bretagne et France,” 79.
  58. Sumption, Cursed Kings, 706.
  59. Carlton Williams, Bedford, 98. On the meeting at Pontorson, see Gruel, Richemont, 23–4.
  60. Foedera 10, 17 January 1421; Sumption, Cursed Kings, 712.
  61. Ramírez Vaquero, Carlos III, 266–69. For relevant expenses related to ambassadors and diplomacy in this period, see Catalogo XXXIII, no. 419, 10 January 1421; no. 598, 28 March 1421; no. 935, 26 August 1421; no. 1000, 15 September 1421; no. 1022, 22 September 1421; no. 1088, 10 October 1421.
  62. Strickland, Lives, 96. Note: this passage is in a later edition of Strickland's work published in London by Longmans in 1861 and does not occur in the previously cited 1848 edition.
  63. “Traité d’Alliance entre le Duc de Bourgogne & les Etats de Bretagne”, signed at Amiens, 18 April, 1423, in Morice, II, 1125–28.
  64. On the Breton negotiations, see Foedera 10, 9 June 1422 and 17 July 1422. See also Contamine, “Bretagne et France,” 79, and Sumption, Cursed Kings, 760–61. For a copy of the letter of release see PROME, “Henry VI: October 1423”.
  65. SC 8/158/7900, 1427, endorsed by the king's council to bring Makworth to answer to them on 6 July 1427.
  66. Chloë McKenzie, “Ladies and Robes of the Garter: Kingship, Patronage and Female Agency in Late Medieval England, c. 1348–1445” (PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 2019), 98–104, 189–97, and appendix 2 for a full listing of the Ladies of the Garter. See also James L. Gillespie, “Ladies of the Fraternity of Saint George and of the Society of the Garter”, Albion 17, no. 3 (1985): 269–71; Cornette, Histoire de la Bretagne, 295. See also Michael Jones, “Les origines de l’Ordre de l’Hermine et son histoire sous les ducs Jean IV and Jean V,” in Des chevaliers de la Table ronde a l’Ordre de l’Hermine, Colloque a Rennes 27 Sept 2008 (Vannes: Institut Culturel de Bretagne, 2009), 75–81.
  67. The text of the treaty is printed in Monstrelet, IV, 147–49. See also L&M JV, VI, no. 1556, 17 April 1423, as well as two separate treaties on the 17th and 18th respectively, one just with Bedford (no. 1555) and one with Burgundy (no. 1557). See also Richard Vaughan, Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1970), 9–10; Carlton Williams, Bedford, 99.
  68. There is extensive documentation on the titles and finances of Richard and Marguerite in the ADLA, see E26 to 36; the confirmation of his title is ADLA E31-8, 8 May 1421. Dates for their marriage are given in various sources as both 1423 and 1426.
  69. Jehan de Waurin (Jean de Wavrin), Recueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la Grant Bretaigne, A Present Nomme Engleterre, vol. III, From 1422–1431, ed. William Hardy (London: Longman and Co., 1897), 125–29 and 134–77, including the text of letters sent between Burgundy and Gloucester. See also Monstrelet, IV, 210–42.
  70. Rohr, Yolande, 117–27, quote on 124; Wavrin, Recueil, III, 88; Gruel, Richemont, 35–6.
  71. Foedera 10, 15 January 1426. POPC, 3, 181, 15 January 1426. See also Gruel, Richemont, 40–2.
  72. PROME, “Henry VI: February 1426”.
  73. Monstrelet, IV, 284–88; Wavrin, Recueil, III, 225–34.
  74. See ADLA E121-9 and 10, both dated 3 July 1427; see also E121-11, letters vowing mutual assistance between Bedford and Jean V. Also Foedera 10, dated 1427.
  75. On Malestroit's relationship with Jean, see J. de la Martinière, “Un grand Chancelier de Bretagne-Jean de Malestroit,” Memoires de la Société d’Histoire et d’Archaeologie de Bretagne 1 (1920): 9–52; Pierre Thomas-Lecroix, “Jean de Malestroit, Chancelier du duc Jean V, et l’independance de la Bretagne,” Bulletin de la Société Archeologique et Historique de Nantes et de Loire-Atlantique 115 (1978): 135–94. For three contemporary perspectives on this event, see Monstrelet, V, 11–12; Gruel, Richemont, 78–80; and Alençon's chronicler Perceval de Cagny, Chroniques de Perceval de Cagny, ed. H. Moranvillé (Paris: Librarie Renouard, 1902), 181–85.
  76. Bertram Percy Wolffe, Henry VI (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), 177–78. See also A. Bourdeaut, “Gilles de Bretagne-entre la France et l’Angleterre-les causes et les Auteurs du drame,” Memoires de la Société d’Histoire et de l’Archaelogie de Bretagne 1 (1920): 53–145. For documental evidence of Gilles’ trip and related political negotations with Brittany see L&M JV, VII, no. 2023, 29 April 1432; no. 2030, 21 June 1432; no. 2042, 24 August 1432; and Foedera 10, 28 August 1432.
  77. Contamine, “Bretagne et France,” 82.
  78. POPC, 4, 146–51, 18 February 1433.
  79. For John Gentill's expenses, see E101/620/21 (1415–16) and E101/322/8 (1423–5). For the Navarrese ambassador's trips to Brittany and England, see Catalogo XXXV, no. 42, 11 January 1423; no. 689, 8 October 1423; and Catalogo XXXVI, no. 151, 18 March 1424.
  80. Catalogo XXXVI, no. 161, 30 January 1430; no. 165, 31 January 1430; and no. 433, 28 March 1430.
  81. Foedera 10, 7, 8 and 16 November 1430; POPC, 4, 56–9.
  82. On the embassies, see Catalogo XLI, no. 37, 18 January 1433; Catalogo XLII, no. 990, 1436. For Master Johan, see Catalogo XLII, no. 267, 14 September 1435 and no. 262, 15 September 1435.
  83. POPC, 5, 56.