 |
| “Each story is gripping.” Discovering Diamonds Reviews |
 |
| FREE on Amazon getbook.at/BetrayalStories |
Today - Mercedes Rochelle talks about her story:
My short story in the BETRAYAL anthology, Family or Fealty?, is about Thomas Percy, probably the most able—if the least flamboyant—member of the Percy clan in this period. But, Shakespeare notwithstanding, I don't really think he was the motivating force behind the rebellion that led to the Battle of Shrewsbury. He had much to lose, and nothing to gain. So what led to this disastrous conflict?
The Percies were
such a powerful force in the North they practically acted like rulers in their
own kingdom. For much of Richard II's reign and the beginning of Henry IV's, Earl
Henry Percy and his son, Sir Henry (nicknamed Hotspur) alternated between the wardenships
of the East Marches and the West Marches toward Scotland. They were experienced
in dealing with the tempestuous Scots, and their retainers were fiercely loyal.
When Henry IV returned from exile and began his campaign that led to the throne,
the Percies were his staunchest supporters; they provided a large portion of
his army. Henry Percy was directly responsible for persuading King Richard to
turn himself over to Henry Bolingbroke—the beginning of the end of Richard's
fall.
Naturally, this
was not done out of sheer kindness. Henry Percy expected to be amply rewarded
for his services, and at the beginning he was. But the king was uncomfortable
about the potential threat of this overweening earl. He soon began to promote
his brother in-law, Ralph Neville the Earl of Westmorland as a counterbalance,
chipping away at Percy's holdings and jurisdictions. Additionally, the Percies
felt that they were not being reimbursed properly for their expenses; by 1403
they claimed that the king owed them £20,000. But
even with all this going on, it's likely that the earl may have contained his
discontent, except for the belligerence of his impetuous son.
One possible
catalyst was Hotspur's refusal to turn over his hostages taken at the Battle of
Homildon Hill. This battle was a huge win for the Percies in 1402, where so
many leaders were taken—including the Earl of Douglas—that it left a political
vacuum in Scotland for many years to come. Once he learned of this windfall,
King Henry insisted that the Percies turn over their hostages to the crown. It
was his right as king—even if it was against the code of chivalry. Though
probably not the wisest choice, considering the circumstances. There were many
possible reasons he did so; he was desperately short of funds—as usual. It's
possible he may have wanted to retain the prisoners as a means of ensuring
Scottish submission. Earl Henry agreed to turn over his hostages, but Hotspur
absolutely refused to surrender Archibald Douglas, letting his father take the
heat. One can only imagine that all was not well in the Percy household,
either.
There was more
at stake. The king had just returned from a humiliating fiasco in Wales, where
he had campaigned in response to the English defeat at Pilleth, where Edmund
Mortimer was captured by the Welsh. Mortimer was the uncle of the eleven
year-old Earl of March, considered by many the heir-presumptive to the throne
(and in Henry's custody). Edmund was also the brother of Hotspur's wife. By the
time Henry demanded the Scottish hostages, it was commonly believed that the
king had no intention of ransoming Mortimer; after all, he was safely out of
the way and couldn't champion his nephew's cause. This rankled with Hotspur,
and it is possible that he thought to use Douglas ransom money to pay for
Mortimer's release himself.
Hotspur finally rode to London in response to the king's demands, but he went without Douglas. Needless to say, this immediately provoked an argument. When Hotspur insisted that he should be able to ransom his brother in-law, Henry refused, saying he did not want money going out of the country to help his enemies. Hotspur rebutted with, "Shall a man expose himself to danger for your sake and you refuse to help him in his captivity?" Henry replied that Mortimer was a traitor and willingly yielded himself to the Welsh. "And you are a traitor!" the king retorted, apparently in reference to an earlier occasion when Hotspur chose to negotiate with Owain Glyndwr rather than arrest him. Allegedly the king struck Percy on the cheek and drew his dagger. Of course, attacking the king was treason and Hotspur withdrew, shouting "Not here, but in the field!" All of this may be apocryphal, but it is certainly powerful stuff.
The whole
question of Mortimer's ransom became moot when he decided to marry the daughter
of Glyndwr and openly declare his change of loyalties on 13 December, 1402. No
one knows whether Hostpur's tempestuous interview with King Henry happened
before or after this event; regardless, a bare minimum of eight months passed
before Shrewsbury. Were they planning a revolt all this time? It is likely that
early in 1403 one or both of the Percies were in communication with the Welsh. Owain
Glyndwr was approaching the apex of his power, and a possible alliance between
him, Mortimer, and the Percies could well have been brewing. It would come to
fruition later on as the infamous Tripartite Indenture (splitting England's
rule between them), but by then Hotspur was long dead.
No one has been
able to satisfactorily explain just why the Percies revolted against Henry IV.
If they were so supportive of young Mortimer—as was stated in Hotspur's
manifesto before the battle—why did they work so hard to put Lancaster on the
throne? All evidence points to their self-aggrandisement. And looking at the
ensuing three years, it became evident that King Henry was not willing to serve
as their puppet, nor was he willing to enhance their power at the expense of
the crown. The Percies' ambitions were thwarted by the king's perceived
ingratitude, and the consensus of modern historians is that they hoped to
replace him with someone more easily manipulated.
Where did Thomas
Percy fit into all this? His family's fortunes were his own. Win or lose,
there's a better-than-even chance that he would rise and fall along with them,
whether he participated in the rebellion or not. In the end, I suspect he
couldn't conceive of fighting against his own kin.
About Mercedes:
Mercedes Rochelle is an ardent lover of medieval history, and has channeled this interest into fiction writing. She believes that good Historical Fiction, or Faction as it’s coming to be known, is an excellent way to introduce the subject to curious readers. She also writes a blog: HistoricalBritainBlog.com to explore the history behind the story. Born in St. Louis, MO, she received by BA in Literature at the Univ. of Missouri St.Louis in 1979 then moved to New York in 1982 while in her mid-20s to “see the world”. The search hasn’t ended! Today she lives in Sergeantsville, NJ with her husband in a log home they had built themselves.
Website: http://www.MercedesRochelle.com
Blog: http://www.HistoricalBritainBlog.com
Facebook:
http://www.MercedesRochelle.net
Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/authorRochelle
Fascinating, Mercedes! And I love your approach to "Historical Faction". Intriguing character study of Thomas Percy.
ReplyDeleteGreat insights into the scheming and personal conflicts behind these historical events, Mercedes!
ReplyDeleteOh, the Percies! Tough, powerful and tricky through the centuries. Still going strong today thanks to Lady Elizabeth Percy in the 17th/18th centuries. Such an interesting family!
ReplyDelete