JACK CADE’S REBELLION (1450)

Distressed by high taxes, corrupt local officials, and the recent loss of Normandy, the commons of Kent, led by a man named Jack (or John) Cade, rose in rebellion in the summer of 1450. Because HENRYVI and his advisors suspected that Richard PLANTAGENET, duke of York, had instigated the uprising, and because York later incorporated many of the rebels' complaints into his criticism of the government, Jack Cade's Rebellion is often seen as a prelude to the WARS OF THE ROSES.

In late May 1450, only weeks after the murder of the king's unpopular chief minister, William de la POLE, duke of Suffolk, a large body of men from the towns and villages of Kent gathered at Blackheath, across the Thames from LONDON, to demand redress of various grievances. Composed of rural peasants, artisans, and tradesmen from the towns, and a small group of clergy and landowning GENTRY, the Kentish rebels were, at least initially, well organized and disciplined. Their elected leader was the mysterious Jack Cade, who also went by the names John Mortimer and John Amendalle. Although he was probably seeking only to attract the duke's supporters to his cause, Cade's use of the name Mortimer- the family name of York's mother-led the government to seriously consider the possibility that York was somehow involved in the rebellion. The rebels denied any connection with York, but their demand that the king rid himself of all advisors linked to the late Suffolk and turn instead to princes of the blood like York only heightened the government's suspicions. The idea that York was behind the Cade uprising, although generally rejected today, became a commonplace of Tudor PROPAGANDA and was even suggested by William Shakespeare in his HENRY VI, PART 2 (see SHAKESPEARE AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES).

Thanks to the obscurity of Cade's background, and perhaps to government attempts to discredit Cade, rumors soon circulated that the rebel leader was an Irishman related to York, that he was a black magician, and that he had once fled the realm after murdering a pregnant woman. Whatever Cade's history, his manner impressed the royal councilors who met him, and the rebel manifesto crafted under his leadership-the "Complaint of the Commons of Kent"-displayed his skill as a propagandist. Comprising fifteen articles, the "Complaint" focused on the corrupt practices of the king's officials in Kent, who were charged with extortion, perversion of justice, and election fraud. The commons also called for an inquiry into the loss of Normandy and into the misappropriation of royal funds by the king's household servants.

In early June, after submitting their "Complaint" to the COUNCIL, the rebels obeyed an order to withdraw from Blackheath. However, when an advance party of the royal army followed them into Kent, the rebels ambushed and destroyed their pursuers. At news of this repulse, a nervous council committed Lord Saye, the hated former sheriff of Kent, and William Cromer, the equally unpopular current sheriff, to the TOWER OF LONDON. The king then withdrew from the capital. On 4 July, the Londoners, who were sympathetic to many of the rebels' grievances, allowed Cade and his followers to enter the city, where they immediately seized and executed Saye and Cromer. On the night of 5 July, as the rebels grew more disorderly, the citizens, assisted by the Tower garrison under Thomas SCALES, Lord Scales, drove the insurgents from the city and recaptured London Bridge. This action allowed the council to issue a free pardon on 8 July, and most of the rebels returned home. After invalidating his pardon by attempting to seize Queenborough Castle, Cade was killed on 12 July while resisting arrest. Although the rebellion was over, Cade's name continued to spark unrest in Kent for almost a decade, and the rebels' grievances lived on as the basis of York's opposition to a royal government from which he felt himself excluded.

Further Reading: Griffiths, Ralph A., The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981); Harvey, I. M.W., Jack Cade's Rebellion of 1450 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991);Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI (London: Eyre Methuen, 1981).

WELLES UPRISING (1470)

Occurring in Lincolnshire in the spring of 1470, the Welles uprising provided Richard NEVILLE, earl of Warwick, with a second opportunity to overthrow EDWARD IV.

Richard Welles (1431-1470), seventh Lord Welles, was a prominent Lincolnshire nobleman and a former Lancastrian. His father, Lionel, the sixth Lord Welles, had been killed fighting for the house of LANCASTER at the Battle of TOWTON in March 1461. Although Welles was attainted by the first PARLIAMENT of Edward IV, his son Richard, who had himself fought for HENRY VI at the Battle of ST. ALBANS in 1461, submitted to the new king and regained his father's lands. Perhaps because he was related to the NEVILLE FAMILY, Welles was also allowed to assume his father's title in 1468.

Early in 1470, Welles, his son Sir Robert Welles, and his brothers-in-law Sir Thomas Dymmock and Sir Thomas de la Lande attacked the manor house of Sir Thomas Burgh, a Lincolnshire gentleman who was Edward IV's Master of Horse. The attackers destroyed Burgh's house, carried off his goods, and forced him to flee the county. Later official accounts of the incident claimed that Welles was acting on behalf of his kinsman Warwick; the earl was seeking another opportunity to draw the king into the north, where he could be surprised, defeated, and dethroned in favor of George PLANTAGENET, duke of Clarence, who was Edward's brother but Warwick's ally. Some modern historians have dismissed this claim as Yorkist PROPAGANDA and have argued that Welles's attack on Burgh arose from some private feud, a common occurrence in the fifteenth century, and that Warwick simply made use of the incident when the king decided to intervene to support his servant.

Edward summoned Welles and Dymmock to LONDON, but the two men initially refused to comply, pleading illness. Changing their minds, both took SANCTUARY at Westminster, which they were induced to leave by promise of a pardon. Meanwhile, Sir Robert Welles, now likely acting in concert with Warwick and Clarence, issued proclamations throughout Lincolnshire in early March for men to join him in resisting the king, who, it was claimed, was coming north to punish the men of the shire for their support of the ROBIN OF REDESDALE REBELLION in 1469. Already marching north when he learned of Sir Robert's defiance, Edward ordered that Lord Welles and Dymmock be brought up from London. Forced to write to his son, Lord Welles declared that he and Dymmock would die if Sir Robert did not submit. Upon receiving this letter, Sir Robert, who had been maneuvering to trap the king between his rebels and the oncoming forces of Warwick and Clarence, retreated, allowing the royal army to intercept him on 12 March. After summarily executing Lord Welles and Dymmock, the king attacked and destroyed the rebel force at the Battle of LOSECOTE FIELD, where both Sir Robert and documentary evidence of Warwick and Clarence's complicity were captured.

On 14 March, Sir Robert Welles confessed to the king that Warwick and Clarence were the "partners and chief provokers" (Ross, p. 141) of his treason, and that the purpose of the entire enterprise was to make Clarence king. On 19 March, as he prepared to pursue the earl and the duke, Edward had Welles executed before the army. With the Welles uprising crushed and their plans in ruins, Warwick and Clarence fled into the West Country where they took ship for FRANCE. In 1475, a bill of ATTAINDER (later reversed under HENRY VII) was passed against Lord Welles and his son, and the Welles estates were granted to William HASTINGS, Lord Hastings.

Further Reading: Haigh, Philip A., The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1995); Ross, Charles, Edward IV (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998).

OXFORD CONSPIRACY (1462)

Uncovered in February 1462, the Oxford Conspiracy was a vague Lancastrian plot that centered on John de Vere, twelfth earl of Oxford (c. 1408-1462), and his eldest son, Sir Aubrey de Vere. Because the failed plot led to the executions of both de Veres, the Oxford Conspiracy not only contributed to the political instability that marked the early 1460s, it also transformed the earl's surviving son, John de VERE, thirteenth earl of Oxford, into an implacable foe of the house of YORK.

During the winter of 1461-1462, rumors of Lancastrian intrigues swept England. Jasper TUDOR, earl of Pembroke, was said to be planning a descent on WALES; Henry BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, was thought to be preparing an invasion of East Anglia; and a large army of Spaniards and Frenchmen was believed to be poised for a landing in Kent. Another persistent rumor claimed that the earl of Oxford, a powerful Essex magnate and a staunch supporter of HENRY VI and the house of LANCASTER, was behind a series of attacks launched against English coasts by Lancastrian raiders operating out of FRANCE. Thus, when Yorkist agents intercepted letters passing between Oxford and Queen MARGARET OF ANJOU, the discovery only confirmed Yorkist suspicions about the earl's activities.

Arrested on 12 February 1462, Oxford and his son Aubrey were confined to the TOWER OF LONDON. The Yorkist regime, fearful of both internal rebellion and external invasion, dealt quickly and harshly with the de Veres. Tried for treason before John TIPTOFT, earl of Worcester and constable of England, both men were condemned, along with several accomplices who were likely members of Oxford's AFFINITY. The exact nature of Oxford's plotting is unclear. He appears to have been charged with organizing some type of Lancastrian invasion and also possibly with conspiring to lead a party of armed RETAINERS, ostensibly raised on the king's behalf, to intercept and kill EDWARD IV as he rode north to meet Lancastrian incursions from SCOTLAND. One source claims that Aubrey de Vere informed on his father, accusing the earl of planning a Lancastrian landing on the Essex coast. However, such a betrayal, given Sir Aubrey's own condemnation and what is known of his character, seems unlikely.

Sir Aubrey died first, suffering the full horror of execution for treason-hanging, drawing, and quartering-at Westminster on 20 February. Being a member of the PEERAGE, Oxford had his sentence commuted to beheading, which he suffered on 26 February. Because no ATTAINDER was passed against his father, John de Vere, the second son, was allowed to assume his father's title and estates until he was himself arrested for Lancastrian plotting in 1468. Although soon released, the thirteenth earl of Oxford was thereafter a constant opponent of every Yorkist regime.

Further Reading: Seward, Desmond, The Wars of the Roses (New York: Viking, 1995).

Buckingham’s Revolt (1483)

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: The House of York vs. the House of Lancaster
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): England
DECLARATION: No formal declaration
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: An episode in the continuing struggle, called the War of the Roses, between the House of York and the House of Lancaster, two families of English royalty battling for the throne
OUTCOME: The throne passed to Henry VII.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Totals unknown; contemporary correspondence mentions 20,000 led by Richard converging on London.
CASUALTIES: Totals unknown. Little fighting occurred.
TREATIES: No formal treaties

The WARS OF THE ROSES (1455–1485) that gripped England for three decades were a sanguinary affair between the Yorkists and the Lancastrians that saw the crown pass back and forth between the two houses. The final phase of the war began in 1483 with the death of Edward IV (1442–83) and preparations for the ascension of his 12- year-old son, Edward V (1470–83) in April. Two months later a rebellion of nobles, led by Richard of Gloucester (1452–85), the brother of Edward IV and uncle of Edward V, and Henry Stafford (c. 1452–83), duke of Buckingham, placed Richard of Gloucester on the throne as Richard III.

For his support Buckingham was handsomely rewarded, but for some unknown reason he suddenly switched his loyalty. The earl of Richmond, Henry Tudor (r. 1485–1509), a Lancastrian supporter, conspired with Buckingham to rise against Richard in a coordinated rebellion in several regions of England. In October Buckingham led Lancastrian forces in Brecknock and Kent, but autumn rains kept him from uniting with supporters in the south. The rebellion quickly fell apart, and Buckingham went into hiding. He was betrayed and on November 2 arrested and executed in Salisbury for treason a short time later. Nevertheless, Henry was able to maintain Lancastrian support and two years later defeated Richard at the Battle of Bosworth, ending the Wars of the Roses and placing Henry on the throne as Henry VII.

Further reading: Antonia Fraser, ed., The Wars of the Roses (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000); A. J. Pollard, ed., Wars of the Roses (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995); Alison Weir, Wars of the Roses (New York: Random House, 1996).

Warwick’s Rebellion (1469–1471)

Elizabeth Woodville

PRINCIPAL COMBATANTS: Earl of Warwick vs. King Edward IV
PRINCIPAL THEATER(S): England
DECLARATION: None
MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Warwick sought to overthrow the king.
OUTCOME: Warwick’s Rebellion was defeated, Warwick was killed in battle, and Edward IV returned to the throne.
APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEN UNDER ARMS: Unknown
CASUALTIES: Unknown
TREATIES: None

Richard Neville (1428–71), earl of Warwick, was the power behind the throne of England’s Edward IV (1442–83). While he had been negotiating a grand diplomatic marriage between Edward and some French bridal candidates, Warwick discovered that Edward had already secretly wed Elizabeth Woodville (1437–92), an English woman, the widow of a Lancastrian knight, and well outside of the royal circle. She was an extraordinary beauty who refused to be kept as Edward’s mistress; he yielded and married her. Warwick kept his outrage to himself—until Edward dared to replace certain government appointees chosen by Warwick with those nominated by Elizabeth Woodville, who, it was clear, was emerging as a political power. Even worse, in 1467, Edward struck an alliance with Burgundy, the traditional rival of France, thereby wrecking Warwick’s negotiations with that nation. Edward cemented the alliance by marrying his sister Margaret of York (fl. 1470s) to Burgundy’s Charles the Bold (1433–77).

This was the final straw. In 1469, Warwick led an outright rebellion. Warwick defied the king in June 1469 by marrying his eldest daughter, Isobel (fl. 1460s), to the king’s brother, George, duke of Clarence (1449–78). A figure known to history as Robin of Redesdale, and subsequently identified as Sir John Conyers (1433–69), assembled a force of discontented northerners. Edward sent an army against this band. As a battle developed at Edgecote, an army under Warwick suddenly appeared and immediately sided with Conyers’s rebels. Together, Conyers and Warwick defeated the royal army and gave chase to Edward, whom they ran to ground at Coventry and took prisoner. Warwick held Edward for three months, but, finding that he had little support from his fellow nobles, he released the king.

The new-found freedom did not make Edward grateful. In March 1470, with the rebellion renewed, Edward dispatched an army to confront the rebels at Losecoat Field. This time, it was the king’s forces that emerged victorious. Edward declared Warwick a traitor, sending him fleeing to France for his life. There he plotted with Queen Margaret of Anjou (c. 1430–82), the consort of Henry VI (1421–71), the deposed English king who was then languishing in the Tower of London.

After recruiting a French force, Warwick invaded England in 1470, stormed the Tower, and freed Henry. This time, Edward fled—to Burgundy. He returned to England in 1471, however, and fought Warwick at the Battle of Barnet. Warwick was slain in this battle. Henry VI was subsequently recaptured and, once again, sent to the Tower, where he died, leaving Edward IV the undisputed king of England.

Further reading: Andrew Boardman, The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (Stroud: Sutton, 1998); Christine Carpenter, The Wars of the Roses: Politics and Constitution in England 1437–1509 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Phillip A. Haigh, The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (Stroud: Sutton, 1999); A. J. Pollard, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower (New York: St. Martin’s, 1991).