Act of Accord

Act of Parliament
Parliament of England
Citation	39 Hen. 6
Territorial extent	England
Dates
Royal assent	25 October 1460
Commencement	7 October 1460
Text of statute as originally enacted

The Act of Accord was an Act of the Parliament of England which was passed on 25 October 1460, three weeks after Richard of York had entered the Council Chamber and laid his hand on the empty throne. Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him, excluding Henry's son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act.

Far from ending the Wars of the Roses, it split the kingdom further, as it was unacceptable to the queen, Margaret of Anjou, who saw her son disinherited while retaining a large body of Lancastrian supporters. In the immediate aftermath, the Lancastrians defeated and killed York in December 1460, but they were, in turn, defeated in the spring of 1461 by York's son Edward, who then became king.

Background

Main article: Wars of the Roses

By 1459, the domestic political situation—tense and partisan despite the king's efforts at reconciliation—had descended into outright civil war. ^{[1] [2]} Salisbury marched south from his castle at Middleham in September to join up with the Duke of York at Ludlow with him in a 5,000-strong army. ^[3] On route they encountered a larger royal force at Blore Heath, which Salisbury defeated, killing its leader, James Tuchet, Baron Audley. ^[4] Salisbury's victory was only temporary, however, and in October, the Yorkists were routed at Ludford Bridge. York went into exile in Dublin, while Salisbury, Warwick and Edward of March took refuge in Calais. ^[5] They and their followers were attainted in the Parliament of Devils in October 1459. ^[6]

In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed". ^[7] The Calais lords returned to England in May 1459 and entered London the following month. Almost immediately, Warwick and March journeyed north to meet the royal army, which in June 1460 they defeated at the Battle of Northampton. ^{[8] [3]} King Henry was taken prisoner and escorted to Westminster.

York's claim

And coming there he walked straight on, until he came to the king’s throne, upon the covering or cushion on which laying his hand, in this very act like a man about to take possession of his right, he held it upon it for a short time. But at length withdrawing it, he turned his face to the people, standing quietly under the canopy of royal state, he looked eagerly for their applause. ^[9]

Abbot Whethamstede of St. Albans Abbey, reporting on York's entrance into Westminster.

The House of Lancaster descended from John of Gaunt, the third surviving son of Edward III. This emphasised the male line of descent. On the other hand, the House of York descended from Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward III and younger brother of John of Gaunt. Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent, as descendants of Lionel, the Duke of Clarence. Langley's second son, Richard of Conisburgh, had married Anne de Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer and sister of Edmund Mortimer. Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp. ^{[10] [11]} York also argued that Henry Bolingbroke had unjustly taken the throne in 1399. ^[7] His assertion was essentially a legitimist ^[12] de jure claim. ^[13] York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, although it was theoretical until Edward of Westminster had also died childless. Hence, when York claimed the throne before parliament on 10 October 1460, ^[14] it was within his right to do so, although whether it was tactically sound was less certain. ^[15]

It also uncertain as to the amount the Nevilles knew of York's plan prior to his arrival. Warwick had met with York in Dublin while on their respective exiles. It is unknown what they discussed, but they also met in Burford on York's return to England. Hence, it is possible that the earl knew of York's intentions; indeed, argues Brondarbit, "he may have been pushing the duke into a step he had proved unwilling to take for nearly a decade". ^[14] There was no swell of public acclamation when he landed as York might have expected. If Warwick had known of the duke's plans, he presumably felt it necessary to distance himself from them when he saw the reception he received. The same may have gone for March, ^[14] although the medievalist Michael Jones has queried whether Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself with York's plan may have reflected how it originally required him to raise popular support in London and Westminster prior to the duke returning but having been unable to do so. ^[16] The fact that they had very recently expressed their utmost loyalty to Henry as their liege lord could now be reinterpreted as perjury on their half, especially if doubt could be laid on their protests of disagreement with York. ^[14]

In any case, York does not seem to have been keeping his dynastic ambitions a secret. From his landing near Chester in early September, charters and letters signed under his seal began omitting reference to the regnal year, "quite out of conformity with usual practice", says Ross, ^[17] and indicating that he was now intent on claiming the throne for himself. ^[13] When York entered London, he had his sword born aloft before him and the arms of England, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king. ^[12]

York claims the throne

Parliament had opened in the king's presence but York's absence, on 7 October. ^[7] When the Duke of York returned from Dublin in late September 1460, he travelled to Westminster to meet the king and his peers, many of whom were gathered for parliament. It soon became clear that his time in Dublin had given him the opportunity to consider his claim to the Lancastrian crown. ^[11] To the surprise of all, he immediately did so. ^[18] John Whethamstede, Abbot of St Albans, described how York marched across the Great Hall with armed men and reached for the throne "like a man taking possession". ^[7] Whethamstede's testimony indicates that York assumed he had most of the English nobility behind him. He was wrong. ^[9] He waited for applause that never came. Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, asked if York would like an audience with the King. York replied, "I do not recall that I know anyone within the kingdom whom it would not befit to come sooner to me and see me rather than I should go visit him". ^[9] The response was an "embarrassed" silence, ^[19] and consternation. ^[7] York "shocked and angered" his colleagues ^[14] and his claim was "fiercely" opposed. ^[20] Among modern historians, for example, Paul Johnson has called York's behaviour "an cct of supreme stupidity". ^[21]

The Nevilles were as set against his claim as every other member of the nobility. ^[18] The pro-Yorkist French chronicler Jean de Wavrin reported that Warwick, too, was unhappy with the duke, giving him "angry words for the earl showed the duke how the lords and people were ill content against him because he wished to strip the king of his crown". ^[22] According to the historian P. A. Johnson, both York's eldest son, Edward of March and the Archbishop refused to confront the Duke of York, so on two occasions, Salisbury's second son Thomas was despatched instead. ^[23] He backed his father against York's claims. By 11 October, York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings; they would not meet in person until the Act's ratification at the end of the month. ^[7] York openly spoke of being crowned three days later. Neville was sent back to him for further negotiation, and York was found preparing for his coronation. ^[24] Neville informed the duke that his position was untenable "to both lords and people". ^[25] Although what was said between Thomas and the duke remains unknown, argues Johnson, his "mandate must have been both blunt and bluntly delivered", ^[26] as York acquiesced to the idea of a compromise agreement. ^[18]

Negotiations and the Parliamentary Act

King Henry VI, whose grandfather had deposed the last Plantagenet King, Richard II

His wife, Margaret of Anjou, the eventual figurehead of her husband's government

King Henry VI and Queen Margaret

On Saturday, 18 October, the Lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter; two days later, they replied in the negative, arguing that the kin's god-given estate and ultimate regality were beyond their mortal competence. ^[7] The lords next turned the matter over to the serjeants-at-arms. They, too, declined to examine York's claim, "predictably ", says The History of Parliament Online (HPO), on the grounds that anything that was outside the judges' remit must necessarily be beyond theirs also. ^[7] So, the process of questioning York was returned to the Lords themselves to adjudge. Their most important question was why, if he based his claim on his descent from Clarence, did he bear the Langley arms? To this, York responded that his reasons were known to the realm at large and that just because he had never worn the Langley arms, this did not eliminate the claim: "Though right for a time rest and be put to silence, yet it rotteth not nor shall it perish". ^[12]

Parliament

At which parlement the commones of the reame being Assembled in the common house, comonyng & treting upon the title of the said Duke of York, sodenly fili doun pe crown which hang the in myddes of fe said hous, which is the ffraytor of the Abbey of Westmynster, which was take for a prodige or token that the reign of King Henry was ended. And also the Crown which stode on the highest toure of pe steple in the Castel of Dover, fil down this same yere. ^{[27] [note 2]}

The Brut Chronicle

York's claim constituted the majority of parliamentary business in the October 1460 session. ^[7] Although both Houses are known to have debated the issue, the only enrolled record comes from that in the Lords. ^[7] The nobility present at this parliament—which Ross notes is "the more remarkable" in view of the fact that many of Margaret and Henry's stalwart supporters were not even present ^[12] —may still have felt latent loyalty to the King as God's anointed. It is also possible that those who might otherwise have supported him were loath to do so on account of how long he had absented himself in Dublin while the Nevilles fought his campaign. ^[30] Ross suggests that the nobility's willingness to keep Henry in power but jettison his son suggests that their loyalty was to him rather Margaret, Edward or the dynasty; indeed they may have believed—or chosen to believe—the rumours of Edward's illegitimacy. ^{[12] [note 3]} Until now—for instance, in his previous protectorates—York had merely replaced a set of councillors with another. The Act, however, went fundamentally further into the realms of attacking the very principle of inheritance upon which society was based. ^[33]

Richard of York, a descendent of Edward III's and claimant to the English crown

Richard, Earl of Salisbury, longtime associate of York's, leader of the House of Neville and father of the Kingmaker

The Duke of York and the Earl of Salisbury

Ross argues that "York had miscalculated, but he did not intend to allow his claim to be ignored". ^[12] Having to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal front. ^[22] The Nevilles, as much as York, negotiated the Act ^[15] with the lords of parliament, York's councillors and Henry's lawyers. ^[14] At a meeting between the Houses of Lords and Commons on 7 October, parliament codified York's dynastic position. On the 24th, this was passed into law as the Act of Accord ^[22] and promulgated on the last day of the month. ^[14] Parliament had, in effect, upheld the Yorkist claim to the throne, and according to historian Craig Taylor, "only the reluctance to remove an anointed king, and so to call into question the legality of the actions of the monarchs since the usurpation of 1399, prevented more radical action from being taken". ^[34] The lords' compromise reflected their understanding that there were historical flaws in both parties' claims to the throne. ^[35] The lords were doubtless under pressure from York's councillors to reach an agreement, but before they did, the chancellor begged them that if anyone knew of a better solution, even at that last minute, they should propose it. No one did, and the King gave his assent the next day. ^[7] The resultant compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored; ^[36] this had disinherited the French Dauphin, Charles, in favour of Henry of Monmouth (later Henry V of England) while allowing Charles VI to remain king until he died. ^[37]

For the third time in his life, ^[38] York was made de facto Lord Protector ^[36] and received 10,000 marks, of which half was to go to March and Rutland. ^{[12] [note 4]} The money was to come from the prince of Wales own patrimony as well as the revues of the earldom of Chester and duchy of Cornwall. ^{[7] [note 5]} Perhaps most importantly from his perspective, the Act was granted both the moral high ground against his opponents and the legal machinery and wages to pursue them. ^[38] York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors. ^[39] If it had ever been fully implemented, ^[40] it effectively disinherited Prince Edward, as it made York Henry's heir apparent. ^[15] York would take the throne on Henry's death, unless the latter chose to abdicate first. ^[12] Boardman suggests that this indicates the level of support Henry could still personally command. The Act specifically forbade his removal by forceable means, and even though many of York's supporters clearly felt Henry was incapable of ruling, they equally preferred to see him as a figurehead rather than York as a king. ^[41]

Reception

Most of York's supporters would probably have been satisfied with the return of their estates and titles, ^[41] and indeed, this was the first item on the parliamentary agenda. The business of overturning the Coventry Parliament's attainders and forfeitures had already begun with acts of council. The Nevilles had started receiving lands as early as August and on the second day of the parliament on the grounds that Salisbury had attainted "through the sinister labours of persons intending the king's destruction". ^[7] Very little other business was attended too, with no new attainders being brought nor reforms inducted. ^[36] On 31 October, York, March and Rutland swore public oaths to keep the peace and uphold the agreement; the King did similarly. Having sworn to protect the King's life, York presumably expected the King to do likewise, argues George Goodwin: "he may not have been crowned, but York's person was now sacrosanct". ^[42] An attack on York was now legally treason. ^[42] The Act was promulgated in the City of London on 9 November 1460. ^[7]

The Act neither stopped the fighting nor resolved the fundamental dynastic issue; ^[41] it neither pleased everyone nor resolved anything. ^[41] York's claim turned the struggle from a partisan one to a dynastic one. ^[41] Notes Boardman, "disinheritance was a grave matter", and it may have been the single thing that turned Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy. ^[41] Conversely, it may have enabled the gentry and urban gentry to support York with a clearer conscience than they other wise would have, now that it was law. ^[43] it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away who until now had not had to make a clear renunciation of the King. ^[41] Margaret could not accept the disinheritance of her son and perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward to what they considered his rightful legal position. ^[14] John Gillingham has argued that it is possible that the Act actuallly made Margaret's position stronger, at least among her supporters and those previously wavering in their support. If she had been looking for a reason to reignite the civil war—which she had, says Gillingham, but had been stymied due to her husband's acquiescence in his change of circumstances—then the disinheritance of the Prince of Wales was reason enough. ^[44] The nobility that did not attend the parliament—"long-term Lancastrian servants or those who had personal vendettas against the Yorkist lords"—became more implacable in their resistance to the Yorkist government. ^[45]

Aftermath

Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick. ^[12] Even closer, the bulk of the Lancastrian army was regrouping in Yorkshire, ^[18] where much of the nobility was loyal to Henry. Margaret rapidly and vigorously raised an army which almost immediately began attacking York's and Salisbury's estates and tenants. ^{[46] [47]} Law and order was thus high on York's priorities. While no one in government could state openly that it was the queen and Henry's supporters who were behind this malcontent—instead being phrased as a need to protect the kingdom's borders from invasion by the Scots—HPO suggests that "it is clear from indirect references that the duke received a specific royal command to deal with the unrest". ^[7]

The Yorkist lords left London on 2 December 1460 to restore a semblance of order to the region and arrived at York's Sandal Castle on the 21st of the month. Nine days later, York, his son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, Salisbury, Thomas, and many of their closest retainers led a sortie in strength to attack a Lancastrian army gathered near the castle. Details of the Battle of Wakefield are sparse, but the Yorkists—possibly outnumbered three to one—are known to have gone down to a crushing defeat. York and Thomas Neville died on the field. ^{[48] [49]} Rutland and Salisbury both attempted escape; Rutland was probably probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge, ^[50] while Salisbury was captured and later executed at Pontefract Castle. ^[51]

Although Wakefield was a decisive blow for the Yorkists, the war was not yet over; even after news of the defeat reached Edward, now Duke of York, he continued recruiting a large army in the Welsh Marches. In early February, he inflicted a heavy defeat on the royalists under Jasper Tudor at the Battle of Mortimer's Cross. Edward made his way to London, where he met Warwick. ^[52] By now, suggests Hodges, the Act "seemed less realistic than ever", ^[39] and its full implications became apparent. Since Henry's supporters had breached the agreement's terms, and his own oaths, he had abrogated his kingship. ^[53] Edward was proclaimed King Edward IV on 4 March. The Act of Accord was declared null and void ^[52] and Henry—who it was claimed had breached the Act long before 4 March ^[54] —a usurper. ^[13] The Lancastrians had retreated to the north, however, and still posed a threat to the new regime. Accordingly, Edward raised a large army and followed them. ^[55] On 29 March 1461, the two forces clashed at Towton in what has been described as "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil". ^{[56] [note 6]} The result was a decisive victory for the Yorkists, ^[61] and on 28 June 1461 Edward IV was crown at Westminster Abbey. ^[62] The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how made them responsible for supposedly starting the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist chroniclers for the rest of the reign. ^[63]

Notes

1. Refectory. ^[28]
2. Transcribes as, generally:

   At which parliament, the commons of the realm being assembled in the common house, coming and treating upon the title of the said Duke of York, suddenly fell down the crown which hung then in the midst of the said house [which is the refectory ^{[note 1]} of the abbey of Westminster] which was taken for a prodigy or token that the reign of King Harry was ended: and also the crown which stood on the highest tower of the steeple in the castle of Dover fell down the same year. ^[29]

3. Rumours had been spread by Warwick, as part of Yorkist propaganda, from almost the moment of Edward's birth, that he was actually the son of either a passing tradesman or the Duke of Somerset. ^{[31] [32]}
4. March was to receive 3,500 marks and Rutland 1,500 marks. ^[12]
5. It is probable that from this grant stems the erroneous supposition that York was also granted these royal titles too. ^[7]
6. Other similar descriptions of Towton from historians are as "Britain’s bloodiest day in a long history of sanguinary conflict", ^[57] "the largest, longest fought, and bloodiest day in English medieval history", ^[58] "the biggest, longest and bloodiest military engagement on British soil", ^[59] "the costliest encounter ever fought on British soil", and that "in the modern-day world, where something has to be the biggest, longest, even bloodiest, in order to be remarkable, then Towton has many claims to be that singular event on English soil". ^[60]

References

1. Watts 1996, p. 343.
2. Pollard 1990, p. 269.
3. Horrox 2004.
4. Hicks 1998, p. 163.
5. Gillingham 1993, p. 105.
6. Hicks 1998, p. 166.
7. Given-Wilson et al. 2005.
8. Goodman 1996, p. 38.
9. Haigh 2002, p. 37.
10. Storey 1999, pp. 3, 188.
11. Hicks 2010, p. 155.
12. Ross 1975, p. 60.
13. Jones 1997, p. 347.
14. Brondarbit 2022, p. 117.
15. Boardman 1998, p. 33.
16. Jones 1997, p. 348.
17. Ross 1975, pp. 59–60.
18. Watts 2004.
19. Ross 1975, p. 59.
20. Laynesmith & Woodacre 2023, p. 5.
21. Johnson 1988, p. 212.
22. Haigh 2002, p. 38.
23. Johnson 1988, p. 214.
24. Johnson 1988, pp. 214–215.
25. Hicks 1998, p. 189.
26. Johnson 1988, p. 215.
27. Brie 1906, p. 530.
28. M. E. D. 2024.
29. Murray 1970, p. 155.
30. Haigh 2002, pp. 37–38.
31. Laynesmith 2013, pp. 210–211.
32. Laynesmith 2017, p. 126.
33. Gillingham 1993, p. 118.
34. Taylor 1999, p. 112.
35. Santiuste 2011, p. 51.
36. Hicks 1998, p. 190.
37. Allmand 2014, p. 142.
38. Hicks 2000, p. 398.
39. Hodges 1984, p. 342.
40. Dockray 2000, p. 34.
41. Boardman 1998, p. 34.
42. Goodwin 2011, p. 114.
43. Fleming 2015, p. 98 n.40.
44. Gillingham 1993, pp. 117–118.
45. Johnson 2019, Lancastrian servants.
46. Hicks 1998, p. 213.
47. Dockray 2020, p. 69.
48. Haigh 1996, p. 126.
49. Johnson 1988, pp. 222–4.
50. Neillands 1992, p. 98.
51. Pollard 2004.
52. Pollard 2016, p. 23.
53. Goodwin 2011, p. 148.
54. Ross 1975, p. 63.
55. Goodman 1996, pp. 41–55.
56. Gravett 2003, p. 7.
57. Sadler 2011, p. 1.
58. Haigh 2002, pp. 98, 170.
59. Boardman 1994, p. xi.
60. Goodwin 2011, pp. 1, 188.
61. Ross 1986, pp. 51–55.
62. Ross 1975, p. 42.
63. Jones 1997, p. 351.

Works cited

• Allmand, C. T. (2014). Henry V (repr. ed.). London: Methuen. ISBN   978-0-41353-280-0.
• Boardman, A. W. (1994). The Battle of Towton (1st ed.). Stroud: Alan Sutton. ISBN   978-0-75091-245-7.
• Boardman, A. W. (1998). The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN   978-0-75091-465-9.
• Brie, F. W. D., ed. (1906). The Brut; Or, the Chronicles of England. Vol. I. London: Early English Text Society. OCLC   1152760686.
• Brondarbit, A. R. (2022). Soldier, Rebel, Traitor: John, Lord Wenlock and the Wars of the Roses. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. ISBN   978-1-39900-347-6.
• Dockray, K. (2000). Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou and the Wars of the Roses: A Source Book. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN   978-0-75092-526-6.
• Dockray, K. (2020). "Contemporary and Near-contemporary Chroniclers: The North of England and the Wars of the Roses, c. 1450–1471". In Clark, L.; Fleming, P. (eds.). Rulers, Regions and Retinues: Essays Presented to A. J. Pollard. The Fifteenth Century. Vol. XVIII. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. pp. 65–80. ISBN   978-1-78327-563-2.
• Fleming, P. (2015). "The Battles of Mortimer's Cross and Second St. Albans: The Regional Dimension". In Clark, L. (ed.). Essays Presented to Michael Hicks. The Fifteenth Century. Vol. XIV. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. pp. 91–102. ISBN   978-1-78327-048-4.
• Gillingham, J. (1993). The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fifteenth-Century England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN   978-0-29782-016-1.
• Given-Wilson, C.; Brand, P.; Phillips, S.; Ormrod, M.; Martin, G.; Curry, A.; Horrox, R., eds. (2005). "'Henry VI: October 1460'". British History Online. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. Woodbridge. Archived from the original on 18 February 2018. Retrieved 28 March 2024.
• Goodman, A. (1996). The Wars of the Roses (2nd ed.). New York: Barnes and Noble. ISBN   978-0-88029-484-3.
• Goodwin, G. (2011). Fatal Colours: Towton, 1461: England's Most Brutal Battle. London: Orion. ISBN   978-0-29786-072-3.
• Gravett, C. (2003). Towton 1461: England's Bloodiest Battle. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN   978-1-84176-513-6.
• Haigh, P. A. (1996). The Battle of Wakefield 1460. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN   978-0-7509-1342-3.
• Haigh, P. (2002). From Wakefield to Towton: The Wars of the Roses. Bradford: Leo Cooper. ISBN   978-0-85052-825-1.
• Hicks, M. A. (1998). Warwick the Kingmaker. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN   978-0-63116-259-9.
• Hicks, M. A. (2000). "Bastard Feudalism, Overmighty Subjects and Idols of the Multitude during the Wars of the Roses". History. 85: 386–403. OCLC   905268465.
• Hicks, M. A. (2010). The Wars of the Roses. London: Yale University Press. ISBN   978-0-30018-157-9.
• Hodges, G. (1984). "The Civil War of 1459 to 1461 in the Welsh Marches II: The Campaign and Battle of Mortimer's Cross, St Blaise's Day 3 February 1461". The Ricardian. 6: 330–345. OCLC   11995669.
• Horrox, R. (2004). "Neville, John, Marquess Montagu (c. 1431–1471)" . Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online) (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/19946.(Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
• Johnson, L. (2019). Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN   978-1-78497-962-1.
• Johnson, P. A. (1988). Duke Richard of York 1411–1460. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN   978-0-19822-946-9.
• Jones, M. K. (1997). "Edward IV, the Earl of Warwick and the Yorkist Claim to the Throne". Historical Research. 70: 342–352. doi:10.1111/1468-2281.00048.
• Laynesmith, J. L. (2013). "Telling Tales of Adulterous Queens in Medieval England: From Olympias of Macedonia to Elizabeth Woodville". In Mitchell, L.; Melville, C. (eds.). Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Leiden: Brill. pp. 195–214. ISBN   978-9-00422-897-9.
• Laynesmith, J. L. (2017). Cecily Duchess of York. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN   978-1-47427-226-1.
• Laynesmith, J. L.; Woodacre, E. (2023). "The later Medieval English Consort: Power, Influence, Dynasty". In Norrie, A.; Harris, C.; Laynesmith, J. L.; Messer, D.; Woodacre, E. (eds.). Later Plantagenet and the Wars of the Roses Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 1–16. ISBN   978-3-03094-886-3.
• M. E. D. (2024). "freitour and freitur". Middle English Compendium. Archived from the original on 30 April 2024. Retrieved 28 April 2024.
• Murray, M. A. (1970). The God of the Witches (repr. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19501-270-5.
• Neillands, R. (1992). The Wars of the Roses. London: Cassell. ISBN   978-1-78022-595-1.
• Pollard, A. J. (1990). North-eastern England During the Wars of the Roses: Lay Society, War, and Politics 1450–1500. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN   978-0-19820-087-1.
• Pollard, A. J. (2004). "Neville, Richard, Fifth Earl of Salisbury (1400–1460)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/19954. ISBN   978-0-19-861412-8. Archived from the original on 28 November 2019. Retrieved 28 April 2024.(Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
• Pollard, A. J. (2016). Edward IV: The Summer King. Penguin Monarchs. London: Penguin. ISBN   978-0-14197-870-3.
• Ross, C. D. (1975). Edward IV. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN   978-0-52002-781-7.
• Ross, C. D. (1986). The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN   978-0-50027-407-1.
• Sadler, J. (2011). Towton: The Battle of Palmsunday Field 1461. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. ISBN   978-1-84415-965-9.
• Santiuste, D. (2011). Edward IV and the Wars of the Roses. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. ISBN   978-1-84415-930-7.
• Storey, R. L. (1999). The End of the House of Lancaster (rev. 2nd ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. ISBN   978-0-75092-199-2.
• Taylor, C. (1999). "Sir John Fortescue and the French Polemical Treatises of the Hundred Years War". The English Historical Review. 114 (455): 112–29. OCLC   51205098.
• Watts, J. (1996). Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-52165-393-0.
• Watts, J. (2004). "Richard of York, Third Duke of York (1411–1460)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23503. Archived from the original on 16 July 2018.(Subscription or UK public library membership required.)