So, I have the information now and travelling the right path is going to be so much more rewarding than anything mere guesswork can provide – for me and everyone else. There’s still a little of that, mind you…

So, I’ve talked a little bit about Maud and Thomas’s marriage (and here) and about Gervase Clyfton before. Not quite totally wrong, but close enough. There are times when being wrong can be bitter and close to unbearable. This is not one of those times. I’ve linked both those posts to this one, coz this one is definitive! Um, well… As close to it as I can get, and that’s a good deal closer than I was at the start of all this.

Near the end of my Gervase Clyfton post, I suggested three possible reasons why Maud married him. I can now say, with very little uncertainty, that it was reason #1. She loved him.

Pretty much the whole of this post is based on two articles by Dr Rhoda Friedrichs: The Remarriage of Elite Widows in the Later Middle Ages and Rich Old Ladies Made Poor: The vulnerability of women’s property in late medieval England. The first one I stumbled upon, the second I knew about but couldn’t access. I got in touch with Rhoda Friedrichs, who very kindly sent me a copy. In the meantime, the Article Fairy blessed me once more and I now have a two copies! (Thanks, Susan!) As with many much anticipated events, the arrival of the article was tinged with a little ‘what if I’ve set so much store by this and it’s not what I hoped for?’. But it was… and more! So, from those two articles, some bits and pieces from the Patent Rolls of Henry VI and Edward IV, as well as Edward IV’s Close Rolls, and some flavour courtesy of Richard Roos, I present to you:

Marriage & the Nevills: Robert, Thomas, Gervase and Maud – the director’s cut

Robert

Maud Stanhope’s life was turbulent and tumultuous to say the least. It didn’t begin that way, though. The oldest of three children born to Richard Stanhope and Maud Cromwell, she was probably destined to marry into comfortable and safe Nottingham gentry. Her father had children from a previous marriage, and her full brother Henry was set to inherit both their mother’s property and that of their uncle, Ralph Lord Cromwell. (Cromwell was a large figure in Maud’s life, both during his lifetime and after his death.) Apart from her brother, Maud had a sister Jane, who was two years younger than her. At the time of Maud’s first marriage, neither she nor Jane had much to recommend them as brides of noblemen – they preferred wives who could bring them wealth or, particularly for younger sons, titles. Maud had neither.

Before, and for some time during, her first marriage, Maud held a position in the household of the duchess of Gloucester. Here she met, among others, Gervase Clyfton (Gloucester’s treasurer) and William Nevill lord Fauconberg. What her relationship with the former might have been isn’t known, but she seems to have carried on a ‘courtly’ love affair with Fauconberg before being replaced in his affections by Barbelina Herberquyne, a member of Margaret of Anjou’s household. In Roos’s poetry, Maud is consistently associated with Mercury’s gift of eloquence and a fondness for argument. It would seem that she was a woman of some intelligence and not a little learning. In later life, her willingness to argue her case deserted her only once. After the downfall of first the duchess of Gloucester and later the duke, Maud left court to live with her husband in Lincolnshire.

Around 1448, Uncle Cromwell found Maud a husband. He was a widower of mature years with a grown up daughter of his own. On her marriage to him, Maud would gain herself a title – Lady Willougbby – but little by way of wealth. Robert Willoughby was not a rich man. He owed Cromwell money and wasn’t in a position to pay up. So the two men struck up a deal. Cromwell’s niece, Maud, would marry Lord Willoughby, with the debt written off against her dowry. Maud gave her consent to this, but whether she was happy in her marriage, we don’t know. It would seem that there was some resentment from her step-daughter Joan, then married to Robert Lord Welles. Joan no doubt feared that her father’s new bride, who was just a year older than her, would do something stupid like have a son, thus depriving Joan of an inheritance she’d have been counting on for most of her life. She needn’t have worried – the Willoughbys had no children.

When Robert died in July 1452, Joan Welles and her husband immediately took steps to secure her late father’s property, including Maud’s dower. Maud was forced to flee Eresby for the sanctuary of her uncle’s castle at Tattershall. Though her mother was still alive, and living at Tuxford in Nottinghamshire, Maud didn’t seek shelter with her. Maybe there was more room at Tattershall for Maud and her household.

By this time, Henry Stanhope had died, leaving Maud and Joan as Cromwell’s joint heirs. As the expected practice was for a rich man to leave one third of his property to his wife, one third to his heirs and one third for the salvation of his soul, and as Cromwell was a very rich man indeed, suddenly Maud became a very attractive marriage prospect. She should have had both social and financial independence, and the right to choose who (or whether) to remarry. In reality, she was in need of a protector, someone who could secure and safeguard her current and potential property. Like, say, young Richard Nevill had done when his wife came into her sudden and unexpected inheritance. The Nevills were good people for Cromwell to turn to, and not only for Maud’s sake. Cromwell had troubles of his own and was in need of powerful support. Allying himself to the Nevills, and giving Maud into the hands of an energetic young man like Thomas, the earl of Salisbury’s second son, might just be the answer to both their problems. In May 1453, the marriage contract was sealed. In August, the wedding took place at Tattershall castle.

Thomas

In December 1454, Maud’s mother died. In Lady Stanhope’s Inquisition Post Mortem, Maud is said to be 30. I had been working on the premise that she and Thomas were the same age, but she was some 5 years older than him. Clearly, this age difference bothered neither of them, as both were quick to consent to the match. For Maud, it offered a way out of what must have been a most embarrassing poverty and an imposition on her uncle and aunt. That it was an imposition is borne out by the fact that Cromwell billed her for her household’s expenses during her months at Tattershall. Maud hadn’t been expecting this and it’s likely it distressed her on two counts: she didn’t have any money, and he was the one she’d turned to in her time of need – family are supposed to cheerfully help out under such circumstances. (Judge Judy, I’m sure, would have made mincemeat of Uncle Ralph – one suspects that he would have got an iconic “You’re an idiot!” or two.)

A poem in the Devonshire ms, often attributed to Thomas Wyatt, may have been written by Richard Roos for Thomas Nevill, possibly to be recited during the wedding festivities.

I can make few guesses about the state of Thomas and Maud’s marriage. They had no children, and the birthplaces of children can be a very useful guide as to how much time a couple spent together. Where they lived, either together or separately, during their seven year marriage is pretty much a matter of guesswork. They started their married life at Middleham Castle and I suspect they stayed there for the last three months of 1453 and much, if not all, of 1454. Thomas was, at this time, up to his eyeballs in Percy and Maud was homeless.

Late in 1453, a ‘Lady Willoughby’ is listed amongst the guests attending Margaret of Anjou’s churching. Now, Maud used this title right up until she inherited the Cromwell title from her sister, but it could refer to her step-daughter, Joan Welles. They may both have been there, which might have been awkward had Maud not been surrounded by the dazzling display that was the Nevill women, which included the most dazzling of them all – the Countess of Warwick; and had there not been other, more pressing and more prominent examples of bad blood on display. In the interests of not bombarding the reader with too many minor characters, I have chosen to leave the step-daughter out of the picture altogether, except when Maud allows a stray thought about the bitch Joan to pass through her mind.

In February 1456, Jane Stanhope married Humphrey Bourchier, a nephew of the Duke of York. Thomas and Maud may well have attended the wedding, which was probably, like Maud’s, celebrated at Tattershall. The next time they were there was later in the year when they, along with Jane and her husband, attended Cromwell’s funeral.

Of Cromwell’s funeral, and the revelation of the terms of his will. Friedrich has this to say: “The Nevilles may or may not have had detailed information about the extent of Cromwell’s wealth, but they certainly had the evidence of their eyes: well over a hundred manors and buildings in over a dozen counties, with a solid core in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, palatial manor houses, three of them newly built, costly furnishings and adornments, over a hundred horses in the stables, and a reputed annual expenditure of over £5,000. There was also the presumption that one of them would acquire the title of Lord Cromwell.”

Thomas was about to get his reward for rescuing Maud from financial embarrassment. One third of Cromwell’s wealth, shared between the two sisters and their husbands, would have represented a great deal. Given that Lady Cromwell predeceased her husband, that should have risen to two thirds. Cromwell, however, had changed his will. Maud and Jane were to get property to the value of 500 marks per annum each – a tiny fraction of what they were expecting. Their husbands tried everything they could to change this state of affairs, from attempting to negotiate with the executors to seizing goods and property by force. Thomas must have been bitterly disappointed and I can only think that Maud must have felt deeply let down by her uncle. But a will is a will and there was nothing to be done. Thomas Nevill was certainly better off than he might otherwise have been, but that wouldn’t have been much consolation. No decision at that time seems to have been made regarding the Cromwell title.

The sisters did get the plum property – Tattershall was theirs to share, though not its contents. Until Jane’s death in 1481 it doesn’t seem to have been Maud’s principle place of residence. Where she and Thomas lived, I don’t know, but I was most gratified to find that my carefully worked out premise that they lived in a Cromwell manor at Bleasby in Nottinghamshire has turned out to be at least plausible – it was one of the manors Maud was forced to turn over to Anthony Wydeville in 1465 (see below). I’ve put them there because it’s nice and central – not too far from Tuxford (which Maud also inherited), Tattershall and Nottingham. Maud’s third husband styled himself ‘of Eresby’, and Eresby was where Maud’s once lost dower property was. Though I haven’t found any record of how and when she got this back, it does seem that she did and that was where she lived while married to Gervase Clyfton.

Another thing I don’t know is what comprised her jointure and what property Thomas owned in his own right, so what she may have inherited from her second marriage is a mystery.

After John Nevill’s marriage to Isobel Ingoldisthorpe in May 1457, and Warwick’s departure for Calais, Thomas served as his brother’s lieutenant in the West March. This may have precipitated a move north, but again I don’t know that for certain. I’ve put them temporarily in Carlisle, for plot reasons more than anything else, but if they were there, it wasn’t for long.

In 1459, the Nevills and their ally, the Duke of York, were starting to feel the heat. York was, at the time, Henry VI’s chief councillor, but the King’s confidence in him wasn’t shared by his Queen. Three parties set off for York’s castle at Ludlow – Warwick coming from Calais and the Nevills from Middleham. On the way, the earl of Salisbury and his sons, Thomas and John, (and possibly in company with his countess) engaged the forces of Lords Audley and Dudley at Blore Heath. Salisbury won the day but lost his sons. Though the details are sketchy, it seems they were separated from the main Nevill force, either chasing the defeated enemy or held up due to an injury to one of them, and were captured. They spent the next year or so in Chester Castle. The rest of the Yorkists, including the countess of Salisbury, fled England, having been attainted for treason.

Where was Maud? I’ve not come across a suggestion that she shared her husband’s captivity. Like the other wives of the missing Yorkists, with the exception of the countess of Salisbury, she was specifically excluded from the charges against her husband. Though Thomas’s property was subject to forfeit, hers was not. It must have been a worrying time for everyone.

Thomas and John were released after the Yorkist victory at Northampton. He and Maud would have been reunited at some point. Maud was clearly not a diehard Yorkist, and she may have been uncomfortable with the actions of her husband’s family. She might even have shared the political views of her third husband and begun to distance herself from the Nevills. Thomas was killed the following year at the battle of Wakefield. Maud had been his wife for seven years. Their marriage had rescued her from financial distress and they had shared the disappointment of her curtailed inheritance and the struggle to win a larger share. However she felt about him, and whatever the state of their marriage, his death must have come as something of a blow. She didn’t, however, spend much time in mourning.

Gervase

Just when and how Maud and Gervase Clyfton became reacquainted I don’t know. It would seem that she knew him from her days at court, when he was Duke Humphrey of Gloucester’s treasurer. She may have had contact with him while he was treasurer of Calais, a post he held from 1450 to 1460. He was an odd choice for her for a number of reasons. Friedrich says that their marriage “flew in the face of all prudence and common sense.” He was illegitimate, of considerably lower social status and, worst of all, a committed Lancastrian. From the point of view of Maud’s in-laws, he’d fought on the wrong side both at Wakefield and Towton. The Countess of Salisbury named him as one of the men responsible for the wrongful death of her husband. A marriage licence was granted them on 10 August 1461 by Archbishop Booth of York. The Nevills must have been outraged. Any hope she had of their ongoing support vanished. Maud was on her own.

According to Seaton, Richard Roos wrote a poem for Gervase, in celebration of his new wife. (As a frequent subject, or at least inhabitant, of Roos’s poetry, and as an old friend from her days at court, Maud became a caretaker for his work. It is thanks to her passing them on to her Stanhope cousins that many of them are still in existence.)

Gervase was some years older than Maud. He owned land in Kent, courtesy of his first wife, and served in the commons. So far, I’ve come across four sources that have different opinions on the number of children he had from his first marriage. An extremely useful RootsWeb discussion says that he was married first to Isabel Scott and they had  a daughter, also Isabel, who married John Jernyngham. It also states that Isabel Scott had been married before, so this daughter may have in actuality been a step-daughter.  The Peerage makes no mention of a first marriage or children. Friedrich says he was a ‘childless widow’. Malcom Mercer’s The Strength of Lancastrian Loyalism, in The Journal of Medieval Military History, vol V, mentions a step-son, Sir John Scott, a close supporter of Edward IV. (Thanks again, Susan.)

Clyfton’s tenure as treasurer of Calais ended in 1460. Given his activities at the time, he was probably dismissed. There’s no mention of him in connection with Ludford, but he might have been one of the men who deserted York and Warwick. His tenure as treasurer could not have continued after that. He was succeeded by the Blounts, father (briefly) and son, Walter Lord Mountjoy,

It makes no sense to me that Gervase Clyfton wasn a stranger to Maud when they married, or even a recently renewed friend. Their paths must have crossed many times, given the Calais connection. He continued in his post when Warwick became Captain of Calais and, until 1460, there’s nothing to suggest any difficulties between the two men. Warwick certainly kept him on (or recommended to whoever it was in charge of such posts that he stay on, or at least not requested that he be replaced). Whatever the story, and whatever the relationship at the time between her and Gervase, Maud had a husband fighting on one side at Wakefield and at least an old friend on the other. Whatever grief she suffered at the news of Thomas’s death, it was shortlived. Some four months after the battle of Towton, she and Gervase were married.

Maud didn’t attend Thomas’s funeral at Bisham in 1462. Perhaps she was neither welcome nor invited.

She also, by her marriage to a man committed to the Lancastrian clause, forfeited her chance of gaining the Cromwell title. In 1461, it was Jane’s husband, Humphrey Bourchier, the new king’s cousin, who was summoned to parliament as Lord Cromwell. It seems odd to me that during their various periods of political ascendancy before that time, the Nevills didn’t manage to secure the title for Maud and Thomas. It was certainly one of the incentives for the marriage.

Maud and Gervase didn’t have a comfortable life. Gervase was specifically excluded from the pardons in March 1461 and there was no lasting reconciliation with the new king, Edward IV.

From the Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward IV:

And that whatsoever person holding the party of the said adversary [Henry VI], that within ten days after this proclamation would depart from them, shall have grace and pardon of his life and goods, except Andrew Trollopp, William Grymsby, Edward Digby, William Feldyng, Thomas Fitzharry, Ellis Cornewayll, Doctor Moreton, Gervase Clyfton, Thomas Tunstall, Henry Lowys knight, Thomas Parker of the Forthe, Thomas Everyngham, John Devet, both bastards of Exeter, Master Hugh Payn, Thomas Langton, Henry Beaumont, William Belyngham, Alexander Hody, Henry Tudnam – Clapham the younger…

He wasn’t included in the list of men the people of England were invited to “actually destroy and bring out of life”. That was limited to Trollop, the bastards of Exeter, and a handful of others. As I alluded to earlier, I haven’t seen him mentioned in connection with Trollop’s actions at Ludford  - and that doesn’t mean he isn’t mentioned somewhere, just that I haven’t seen it. It seems likely that he was one of Warwick’s Calais men who slipped away, thus precipitating the flight. The ending of his tenure as treasurer of Calais in 1460, coupled with his exclusion from the pardon, make me think that might have been the case. Maud was walking a dangerous path. If she and Gervase weren’t already lovers in 1459/60, and it’s entirely feasible that they were, she was at least on friendly terms with a man seen by the new government – which included her late husband’s brothers – as a traitor. This was how he continued to be seen for the bulk of their marriage.

Clyfton continued to work for the restoration of Henry VI, taking the field against John Nevill at Hexham. In 1465, in order to secure him a pardon, Maud handed over 16 manors to the king’s new brother-in-law, Anthony Wydeville. From the Close Rolls of Edward IV, 1465:

Gervase Clyfton knight and Maud his wife, late the wife of Robert lord Willoughby, to Anthony Wydevyle lord Scales and lord of Newsels and his assigns. Gift with warranty during the life of the said Maud of the manors of Candlesby, Halom, Lamley, Snawdon, Boston, Bleeseby, Gyppesmere, Goureton, Drainsfeld, Baseford, Quynton, Rasyn, Lufton, Belcheford and Tusfford with Denynecourt’s rent etc, cos Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby and Warwick, and the manor of Tumby co Lincoln except a great wood called ‘Tumby wodes’ otherwise ‘Tumby chace’, all late of Ralph lord Cromwell or of another to his use at his death, with advowsons of churches, chapels and chantries thereto pertaining, and all other lands, rents, reversions and services there wherein the grantors or others to their use or to the use of the said Ralph had any estate or interest, and request that all feoffees shall make the said Anthony an estate thereof during the life of the said Maud, with the exception aforesaid. Dated 24 November, 5 Edward IV.

Gervase Clyfton knight to Anthony Wydevyle knight lord Scales and lord of Newcelles. Bond in 1,ooo/ payable on the feast of the Purification next. Dated (as the last).

Condition, that if the manors etc above mentioned, except a wood of Tumby called the ‘Chace’, which the said Gervase and Maud his wife have given during her life to the said Anthony and his assigns, be before the Purification next found by two auditors by the parties appointed not to amount to the yearly value of 400 marks over and above charges and reprises, the said Gervase and Maud shall within one month likewise give other manors and lands to the amount lacking, and meantime shall suffer the said Anthony and his assigns without let to take all issues and profits of those already granted.

Gervase Clyfton knight to the king. Bond in 5,000/ payable on Easter day next. Dated 20 November, 5 Edward IV.

Condition, that he and Maud his wife shall observe and fulfil all things contained in a charter of divers manors and lands by them made to the said Anthony, and in a bond by him given to the said Anthony, both dated 24 November, 5 Edward IV, and in keeping of John earl of Worcester by assent of the said Gervase and Maud.

Memorandum of the acknowledgement of the foregoing writings by the said Gervase, 9 December.

These grants to Anthony Wydeville represented 80% of Maud’s wealth and property – an enormous price to pay for marrying a man of ‘inconvenient political loyalties’ (Friedrich, Rich Old Ladies Made Poor, 221).

In 1468, Gervase was rumoured to be plotting on behalf of Henry VI. During the Readeption government, with Humphrey Bourchier  in prison (as diehard a Yorkist as Clyfton was a Lancastrian), Maud and Gervase were mistress and master of Tattershall. Maud’s at-a-distance reconciliation with the Nevill brothers must have felt a little strange. She’d been abandoned by them after her third marriage, and now her husband was a firm part of Warwick’s government – though quite what part I’ve yet to find out. Maud may have made her sister feel as unwelcome in their shared property as she no doubt did when it was a focus of Yorkist activity during the years leading up to the restoration of Henry VI.

Records of Warwick’s brief Readeption government are scarce, as is correspondence to and from Warwick. Maud would seem to have been a forceful personality and I wonder if she wrote to her once brother-in-law asking for his help to restore the properties previously granted to Lord Rivers, then in exile with Edward IV (and others) in Burgundy. Warwick had a good deal of fence mending to do, and if any steps were taken in this regard it would be for Clyfton’s sake, not Maud’s. As she didn’t give up trying to secure a fairer share of her uncle’s estate until almost the end of her life, it is entirely within the bounds of possibility that she made overtures to Warwick in order to restore her previously relinquished lands.

Humphrey Bourchier died fighting for his cousin, Edward IV, at Barnet. Gervase Clyfton was executed after the battle of Tewkesbury. Maud was a widow for the third time, and in the most dire financial straits.

Maud

Maud remained a widow for the rest of her life. With no money to recommend her, and at 47 no longer in the first bloom of youth, she wasn’t much of a catch. With three husbands dead, two by violence, and nothing to show for any of her marriages except the memories of a better life, she may well have felt it better not to tempt fate for a fourth time. She should have been looking forward to a more than comfortable old age. In 1472, she had to borrow money to hold Christmas. The following year, she sold (or lost in default of the loan) two of her remaining manors. But that wasn’t to be the end of her troubles. It was now William Lord Hastings’ turn to take from her what little she had left. Hastings was married to Thomas Nevill’s sister, Katheryn. But once again, no residual family feeling remained, and Hastings got what he wanted, not only from Maud but from her now remarried sister, Jane.

In 1476, a deal was made with bishop Wainflete (who’d been involved in the Cromwell inheritance from the start) over Tattershall Castle. I’m still trying to make sense of this. Wainflete wanted the Cromwell lands “for his college, but he was prepared to make what he considered appropriate provisions for the two ladies [Maud and Jane], rather than leave them utterly impoverished, a prospect that did not evidently trouble Lord Rivers or Lord Hastings” (Friedrich, 224). In any event, the sisters were to hold Tattershall for the bishop. They may have had difficulty with its upkeep, for in 1476 Maud was trying to get the money together to build herself a house on the grounds.

In 1487, Margaret Beaufort got her hands on Tattershall. Maud, now living in her house on the castle grounds, “asserted herself one last time by issuing ordinances for observations at Tattershall College, indicating that she was still the patron of the college and the heiress of the founder. But in fact it was Lady Margaret who now held Tattershall and the real patronage of the college, although she was courteous about Lady Willoughby’s status as co-founder. Perhaps she was courteous about her daily life as well; we do not know, for Lady Willoughby, of course, had scarcely any property left to leave records, and her last ten years are silent. We can safely assume that Margaret Beaufort made sure she was indeed “honourably brought to earth” when she died on 30 August 1497, with no funeral image but with an inscription at the foot of her uncle’s prominent gravestone” (226-7). In this inscription, Maud is named as Lady Willoughby, through her first husband, and Lady Cromwell, through her uncle.

The Wars of the Roses left many women widowed by violence. Some, like Maud after the death of Thomas, picked themselves up, dusted themselves off and got on with the next phase of their lives with new husbands. Others, like Maud after the death of Gervase, chose to remain widows (or had the choice made for them) and did the best they could with what little they had. The more I read about Maud, the more interesting a person she becomes. A woman, one suspects, of great dignity and strong personality, she faced each of life’s difficulties, fighting when she could, surrendering when she had no choice. She married twice for good and sensible reasons, and once for very personal ones. Though there’s no way of telling if her marriage to Thomas Nevill was a happy one, I can imagine them forming a strong partnership in the matter of her inheritance. I can picture them in a room at Tattershall, Jane and Humphrey Bourchier with them, leaping to their feet when Cromwell’s executors give them the bad news, demanding their rights and deciding to do whatever it took, by use of force if necessary, to secure what belonged to them. I can also see her with Gervase, faced with an impossible choice – lose the bulk of her property and wealth or lose the man she loved.

At the time of her death, Maud had secured the Cromwell title. Sadly, from her three marriages she had no children to pass this to. What was left of her inheritance, and her sister’s, passed to distant cousins. I wonder sometimes what the children of Thomas and Maud would have been like – I suspect they would have been a force to be reckoned with. Certainly a Nevill son would have been a useful addition to Maud’s arsenal in her fight to retain something of her uncle’s wealth.

I refuse to see Maud as sad and defeated, though she must have been close to both at times. She occupies the same place in my heart as her sisters-in-law, Katheryn lady Hastings and Margaret countess of Oxford. All three were tied by marriage to politically active men who led their wives to the heights of power and prestige and into the depths of poverty and ignominy. Only one of them predecased her husband. Katheryn buried two and Maud three. Capturing her spirit and personality isn’t an easy task, but I feel I owe it to her to try.

Margaret Beaufort, widowed countess of Richmond, gives birth at Pembroke Castle to her only child – a son, Henry. His father, Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, is the half-brother of Henry VI through their mother, Catherine of Valois. Edmund died of plague while a prisoner at Carmarthen Castle in November 1456.

In 1485, after this battle of Bosworth, Henry will become Henry VII.

Marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

The vendor tells me they posted it on 11 December and I should have received it well before Christmas. I didn’t…

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 6,600 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 6 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Richard Nevill earl of Salisbury is murdered at Pontefract castle. He was captured after the battle of Wakefield and held in custody pending ransom. He was set upon my a mob and executed, possibly by Robert Holland, Bastard of Exeter.

Oh… and it’s my birthday!

Battle of Wakefield.

Richard duke of York and his son Edmund, earl of Rutland are killed. Thomas Nevill, son of Richard Nevill earl of Salisbury is killed, as are William Bonville lord Harrington, husband of Salisbury’s daughter, Katheryn, and Edward Bourchier, son of York’s sister Isabel.

Dunstanburgh castle surrenders to Warwick and his brother John lord Montagu. The captains are offered pardon with their lives. Henry Beaufort duke of Somerset goes to Durham, where he becomes (temporarily) reconciled with Edward IV.

Bamburgh castle surrenders to Warwick and his brother John lord Montagu.

It is important to stress from the outset that the purpose of this intensive four day program was not to point fingers and lay blame. We are all responsible for what goes on in the workplace, and this includes Occupational Health and Safety. It is our view that, while we got some things right, we could have done better across the board. We seem to have forgotten something very important – a safe working environment is everyone’s responsibility. In light of this, it was decided that an urgent PD session should be held as soon after the incident as possible, with a view to doing better going forward, with ALL parties represented, so far as was practical.

Up until the incident at our Ferrybridge sub-branch, which we will not be dealing with separately as, by and large, it involved events similar to those that occurred at the Towton office, we had 85 days without a workplace accident. This admirable record wasn’t just broken at Towton, it was smashed. OH&S has looked into this and we were, frankly, shocked by our findings. It is clear that staff members have little regard for safety, their own or that of others.

This report is divided into five sections reflecting the timetable: Occupational Health and Safety, Conflict Resolution, Workplace Bullying, Industrial Relations, focusing specifically on Unfair Dismissal and Selection Panel Training, and a final session of Resolutions and Recommendations.

Occupational Health and Safety

The following concerns were addressed:

1. Lack of mandated breaks;
2. Use of equipment (eg longbows) not rated for Blizzards;
3. Dangerous tools and equipment (eg very sharp swords, heavy axes);
4. Lack of protective gear;
5. Lack of weather appropriate clothing;
6. Dangerous animals (eg horses) loose in the workplace;
7. Overcrowding in sickbay/low level of co-ordination among First Aid Officers.

1. Lack of mandated breaks

Studies clearly show that optimal performance cannot be achieved when staff members are physically and mentally not at their peak. Forward planning in such matters as adequate transport is essential when large groups are moving between work sites. Several nameless and frankly unwashed staff members claimed that they had been required to walk, and that they were not able to enjoy their mandated fifteen minute break upon arrival at the Towton office. This is unacceptable. Processes need to be put into place and strictly adhered to in the future. A form has been generated that will help track individual staff members’ break times. These are to be signed off by the staff member and two (2) Senior Managers. (Senior Manager is defined as anyone holding the rank of baron or above. The requirement for two signatures is reduced to one (1) if the Senior Manager in question is a Duke or a Marquis. If the Senior Manager is a King, an imperious wave of the hand is sufficient.)

2. Use of equipment not Blizzard-rated

This particularly affected our Lancastrian Department. A small avalanche of complaints has been received in this regard, most stating that the arrows from these bows did not reach their intended target (ie, the Yorkist Department). The Yorkist Department, on the other hand, stated that their bows were fine and they didn’t know what the Lancastrian Department’s problem was. A committee will be formed to look into the feasibility of establishing a Blizzard Rating rubric. The Earl of Warwick asked if this was to include Mist and Fog, but it was decided there were too many variables for this to be practicable, such as Mist Raised by Magic from a Very Great Distance by a Witch.

3. Dangerous tools and equipment

A number of accidents, many unfortunately fatal, were recorded, the immediate cause of which was the use of dangerous tools and equipment. Razor sharp swords, heavy axes, things with pointy bits are NOT suitable tools for the workplace. An independent inventory and review of all equipment is to be carried out and anything that is deemed likely to cause physical injury is to be removed and banned from the workplace and safer alternatives distributed. There were several strenuous objections to this, mostly along the lines of “If you take away our swords, what’s the point of us”? but these were dismissed. What staff do is not the concern of OH&S, making sure they do it safely is.  We must all operate within the parameters set down in the OH&S Policy and Procedures Handbook. There are to be no exceptions to this! Threatening us with sharp swords, heavy axes and things with pointy bits isn’t going to change anything. Copies of the Handbook will be distributed to every member of staff, just as soon as the monks have returned from RSI leave.

4. Lack of protective gear

Standards have slipped of late and many staff members were wearing protective clothing that was both obsolete and old. It was stressed (once again) that padded jackets and leather coats offer little or no protection. One of nameless and once again unwashed, who under the current anti-discrimination laws we were forced to invite and not sneer at too much, stated that proper equipment cost money and could it not be provided by the Company, or at least be made available at a subsidised rate. Most members of Senior Management sneered at this suggestion. It must be understood – provision of proper protective gear is YOUR responsibility. Running to your immediate superior and complaining that they haven’t given you a coat of chainmail will not be tolerated. The nameless and decidedly unwashed staff member was taken aside during lunch and given a sound thrashing for his impudence. While management doesn’t condone this, it is the responsibility of each Senior Manager to keep their subordinates in check and it is our policy to allow each Senior Manager to do so in a way he thinks fit.

5. Lack of weather appropriate clothing

See 4. above.

6. Dangerous animals loose in the workplace

A presentation on the Practical Use of the Horse Park was given. Several members of Senior Management protested at this, saying that their horses were essential equipment that allowed them to move quickly and effectively between the workplace and Wales. This was greeted by howls of “Fight on foot, you soft southern shandypants!” by members of our Northern Branch. One of the nameless and (you’d think they’d have at least heard of soap) unwashed was heard to mutter that he didn’t know why he was being asked to sit through a presentation about horses and horse parks as he’d had to run away as fast as he could at the risk of being trampled by several members of Senior Management on their way to Wales. He was taken outside and given a sound thrashing.

7. Overcrowding in sickbay/low level of co-ordination among First Aid Officers

The First Aid Officers were overwhelmed and could not keep up with the flow of injured staff members. The remedy for this is twofold: changed work practices (as outlined in points 1-6 above) and the provision of intensive training for First Aid Officers. We need more volunteers and the more First Aid Officers we have, the better the report on our Strategic Plan will look. On a related matter, the Fire Wardens were deeply disappointed that the practice fire drill scheduled for the day in question was not well attended. This may have been partly due to the blocking of emergency exits and partly to an erroneous belief that fires simply don’t happen during blizzards. OH&S assures all staff that fires can happen anytime and it costs nothing to be prepared.

Conflict Resolution

This was to be conducted by Humphrey Duke of Buckingham, but he was unavoidably deceased. It was pointed out that this has been the case for some months and that our Records Management Department really needs to get on top of things. Sir John Nevill offered to take the session in his absence, but it was felt that he had a conflict of interest, in that he is very much interested in conflict. We attempted to contact Margaret of Anjou to run the session, but she was unavailable, citing a ‘family emergency’. Finally, George Nevill, bishop of Exeter and (currently) Chancellor, agreed to do it. His advice, which took the form of an eight hour sermon, boiled down to one thing: Let the Yorkist Department run things and everything will be fine. This motion was carried by general acclamation by the Yorkist Department. The Lancastrian Department abstained.

Workplace Bullying

A number of complaints, mainly from the nameless and increasingly unwashed, has been received suggesting that they weren’t rostered on and had been coerced into coming to work under threat of death. While we find this difficult to believe, we must allow for the possibility that some members of Senior Management have resorted to bullying tactics. This is unacceptable! A Rostered Day Off is sacrosanct. And if a staff member calls in sick they must not be bullied into coming to work unprepared. It’s worth quoting from one of the complaints. “I don’t even work for the Lancastrian Department. I just know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who does. But I had to turn up anyway and now I have a bloody great hole in the side of my head!” There was general agreement that this was unfortunate but just one of those things. A Getting People to Do What You Want Without Threatening to Kill Them PD session will be run next month. All members of Senior Management, in particular anyone whose last name is Percy, are urged to attend.

Industrial Relations

1. Unfair dismissal

Henry VI has lodged a complaint with the Tribunal asking that his recent dismissal be overturned. He states that he was not given sufficient notice or grounds for the dismissal and he has not yet received his payout and is having difficulty accessing his superannuation. At this point, the Earl of Warwick interjected with “Not given sufficient grounds or notice? We’ve only been telling him since 1455!” After some robust discussion, he agreed to look into the matter further, with a view to getting back to us by 1470 at the latest.

2. Selection Panel Training

The new King was appointed without the position being advertised; without the convening of a Selection Panel; without being required to send in an application and a resume; and without being interviewed. He was appointed on references alone. Popular acclaim, and an eight hour sermon by Bishop George Nevill, are not the appropriate processes and procedures. The Duke of Gloucester pointed us to page 228 of the Human Resources Manual, stating that a new King can only be appointed on the death of the previous King and that it was Henry VI’s fault for not being killed in an appropriate manner. Someone from the Lancastrian Department threw a copy of the OH&S Policy and Procedures Handbook at him, but he ducked and it hit the Duke of Clarence, knocking the beer right out of his hand.

Recommendations and Resolutions

The following recommendations and resolutions were made:

1. The Lancastrian Department should stop snivelling and come to terms with Workplace Change.

2. The Yorkist Department are a bunch of usurping thugs and need to go back to where they came from.

3. The Bishop of Exeter is a splendid Chancellor and should be confirmed in the position for life.

4. All women in a hundred mile radius should be brought to Edward IV so that he need never be alone ever for the rest of his life.

5. The Earl of Warwick should be proclaimed the Greatest Man that Ever Lived and be given leave by the College of Arms to have this emblazoned on his banner.

6. Henry VI would quite like to be King again some day.

A quick word from the Head of the Counselling Department

Our doors are always open if you want to, you know, pop in for a bit of a chat about things.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!

(My thanks to Martin Heskins for inspiring this post.)