12

The Reign of the Dublin King

The Dublin King and his supporters probably remained in Mechelen with Margaret of York until after the celebration of the feast of Easter, which, in 1487, fell on Sunday, 15 April. Meanwhile Henry VII had ridden from Bury St Edmunds to Norfolk, where he celebrated Easter in Norwich, staying at the bishop’s palace. It was in the hall of the episcopal palace that he fulfilled his royal obligation of feet washing on Maundy Thursday (12 April). He took the Earl of Lincoln’s father, the Duke of Suffolk, with him to Norwich; probably he thought it wise to have the duke where he could see him – just in case. On Easter Monday, following the Sunday celebrations, the king briefly travelled north, towards the Norfolk coast, making a rapid pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham.1

It seems that Henry was uncertain at this stage what his opponents in Flanders were planning to do. He knew that they ‘then wer in Selande and Flawndres to the see warde and, as was reportede, [were] to lande in this realme, [but] in what parte it was no certeynte’.2 But of course, the king was well aware that the Earl of Lincoln’s homeland was in the eastern counties, and that this part of the country had also, until quite recently, been the Yorkist power-base of the late John Howard, Duke of Norfolk. Thus the king made arrangements to assemble a fleet at the port of Harwich, while on 7 April he had ordered the repair and manning of beacons along the coast. It therefore seems that he was at least half expecting that his enemies would take the shortest sea route from the ports of Flanders and land somewhere in Norfolk, Suffolk or Essex.

However, he also took a wider perspective. Having made due provision for the defence of the East Anglian coast, he then rode via Cambridge, Huntingdon and Northampton to Coventry. The Duke of Suffolk remained with him for the first part of the journey, but then the king sent the duke to Windsor, to act as his deputy at the annual Garter Feast of St George (Monday, 23 April). The king himself spent St George’s Day in Coventry. It was some time in the course of about the next two weeks (from the end of April to the beginning of May) that Henry VII received the news that his enemies had sailed from the Low Countries and had crossed the Channel, to land in Ireland.3

Henry VII had also been in contact with the city of York. He wrote to the city from Huntingdon on Friday, 20 April. Two days later, on Sunday, 22 April 1487, the following royal letter was read to William Todd, the mayor, and to members of the city council:

Trusty and welbeloved we grete you wele, and perceve wele the fast love and trouthe ye bere unto us accordingly to your dutie, and trust of your assured contynuaunce in the same, wherby ye shall cause us alwey to rest your favourable and gracious souverain lord. And for somoche peraventure as our rebelles and ther adherentes might by some crafty meanes and by espiell doo som reproche or vilany to our Citie there in case ye ne wer forseyng and advertised of the same, we therfor hertly pray you, and as ye tendre the welle of oure said Citie, and of yourself, exorte and desire you, that ye have yourself from hensfurth in such await that noon espies passe by you untaken, nor that any or rebelles or ther adherentes come amonges you, but that ye kepe due watche and warde for the suretie therof, as well by day as by night, and from tyme to tyme as unto youre discreccions it shalbe thoght behovefull. And on this we shalbe with Godis leve be nere unto you alwey tassiste and relief you if the case require. Ye can not doo for us that we shall forget, but soo remember it hereafter, that ye shall have cause of reason to thinke youre dutie unto us for wel employed. Yeven undre oure signet at our Towne of Huntyngdon the xx day April.4

In this letter the king warned that supporters of the Dublin King might attempt to get into York and subvert the city’s loyalty. However, he encouraged the city council to make sure that York remained loyal to the new royal dynasty.

Another letter from Henry VII was sent to York on Thursday, 3 May. This time the king – now based in Coventry – reported that his opponents had sailed from Flanders towards Ireland, therefore there appeared to be no immediate need to defend the city of York:

Trusty and welbeloved we grete you wele. And forsomoche us we have certain knowleige in sundry wise that our rebelles bene departid out of Flaundres, and goon westwardes, it is thoght by us and by oure Counsaill that ye shal not nede to have any strength or company of men of werre for this season to and by amonges you, and therfore we pray you that ye woll have sad regard to the good rule and sauf keping of oure Citie there, to the appesing of rumours and correcting of evel disposed folkes, with sending unto us youre newes from tyme to tyme. And assure yourself that for this true acquitail ye have beene of unto us, wherin we pray you to continewe, we shal be soo good and gracious souverain lord unto you as of reason ye shall have good cause to thinke the same for wel employed. Yevene undre our signet at our Citie of Coventre the iiij day of May.5

Five days later Henry VII wrote to the mayor again, to tell him that he did not now expect the enemy to come to York. However the king made it clear that he was keeping an eye on developments. If it seemed necessary he would contact the city again, or the Earl of Northumberland would take the necessary action:

From the King to the Mayor, Aldermen, etc.

Trusty and welbeloved we grete you wele, and have undrestand by manyfold reportes made unto us the effectuel devoir and grete besinesses that ye put you in, for the good provision and preparacion of vitaill and othre stuff for such men of wirship and theire retenues, as we late commaunded to goo thidder for the surtye and defense of our Citie ther, if oure rebelles had arrived nigh thoos parties, for the which as we for many othre causes have doon, we thanke you hertely, and thus by your truthes and good myndes daily to us contynued ye have assured the favour of our good grace unto you, like as ye shall fynd in effect in such poursutes as ye shall make unto us hereafter; lating you wit that seing our rebelles, as we be ascertayned, bee departid westwardes, we have licensid suche personnes as we comaunded to make ther repar thiddre, to depart thens for a season and to resort to you agene if the caas shall so require, and also our cousin the Erle of Northumberland entendeth hastily to be in the cuntrey nigh unto you, which we doubt not wol gladly assiste and strength you at all tymes if ye desire hym so to doo. Yeven undre our signet at our castell of Kenelworth the viijth day of May.6

Meanwhile, ‘King Edward VI’, together with his supposed cousin the Earl of Lincoln, Viscount Lovell, General Martin Schwartz and the troops recruited by Margaret of York had all landed in Dublin on Saturday, 5 May 1487. This date is confirmed by a surviving letter from Henry VII to the Earl of Ormond.7 In Dublin they ‘were joined by such troops as Kildare had been able to enlist. These seem to have been Celtic Irish for the most part, and were evidently mere “bonnachts” or mercenaries, since no Irish chief led them and we do not hear to which clan or clans they belonged. Polydore Vergil says they were almost unarmed – doubtless their weapons seemed to the Germans and English somewhat primitive.’8 Although some Irish cities, including Kinsale, Drogheda and probably Trim, backed the cause of the Dublin King, Waterford was openly opposed to him. John Butler, the mayor of Waterford, ‘even dispatched messengers charged with remonstrances to Dublin’.9

In the Irish capital, however, plans were going ahead to mark and bless the installation of the Dublin King on a grand scale. It was on the Feast of the Ascension (Thursday, 24 May 1487) that the most remarkable event of this entire story took place. On that Thursday ‘Edward VI’ was crowned in one of Dublin’s two cathedrals – the Cathedral Priory of the Holy Trinity – commonly known as Christ Church. For the first (and only) time in its history this 400-year-old church was to witness and host a royal anointing and crowning.

It was not, however, the first time that a king of England had been seen in the cathedral. In 1171 Henry II, the theoretical Plantagenet royal progenitor of ‘Edward VI’, had attended Christmas mass in the same church. Indeed, that was reported to be the first occasion after the murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket that the repentant Henry II – the first Plantagenet king – had been permitted to receive Holy Communion.

According to later accounts, the coronation mass of 1487 was well attended. Irish lords, led by the Earl of Kildare, members of the Church hierarchy, and, of course, the Earl of Lincoln and Viscount Lovell were all present. Reportedly the Irish clergy were headed by the primate of Ireland, Dr Ottaviano Spinelli del Palacio (or Palatio), Archbishop of Armagh. However, in an attempt to avoid problems with Henry VII, Ottaviano himself later claimed that he had ‘opposed the profane coronation’.10 The Archbishop of Dublin, Walter FitzSimon(s), was certainly present. Thus it might possibly have been Archbishop FitzSimon (promoted to the archbishopric three years earlier, during the reign of Richard III) who carried out the anointing and crowning of the child-king ‘Edward VI’. Despite this archbishop’s tantalizing surname, there is no surviving evidence that he was in any way connected with priests or organ-makers based in Oxford. Other members of the Church hierarchy who seem to have attended the Dublin coronation include John Payne, Bishop of Meath; William Roche, Bishop of Cloyne; and Edmund Lane, Bishop of Kildare. Reportedly it was the Bishop of Meath who preached the homily, in which he summarised the claim to the throne of ‘King Edward VI’.11

The ceremony was apparently carried out with due propriety and solemnity. The little king was anointed with the chrism of the cathedral priory, crowned with the holy crown of the Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of Dame-gate, and duly enthroned, probably in Archbishop FitzSimon’s own ceremonial cathedra. Evidently this unique occasion created great interest in the Irish capital, and crowds were waiting outside the cathedral to see the new king emerge. Unfortunately because of his rather small size, initially it was rather difficult for them to catch sight of him. He was therefore enthroned again, this time upon the shoulders of the young William Darcy of Platten, county Meath, cousin of Lord Darcy of Knayth, grandson of the late Baron Killeen, and a protégé of the Earl of Kildare.12 ‘Great Darcy of Platen, [was] a man of very tall stature’.13 Thus, seated upon Darcy’s shoulders, ‘Edward VI’ was carried back from the cathedral priory to Dublin Castle. There the traditional post-coronation banquet was held.

News of the Dublin coronation of ‘King Edward VI’ is said to have been subsequently conveyed to Henry VII either by Nicholas St Lawrence, fourth Baron Howth, or by a man called Thomas Butler.14

With ‘Edward VI’ duly enthroned as the Dublin King, the government of Ireland was now officially conducted in his name. One normal function of sovereigns has long been the issue of coinage. Indeed, it has not always been necessary to actually establish oneself as a universally accepted, fully recognised king in order to be able to issue coins. At various times mere claimants to thrones have had coins struck and circulated in their names. The usurper Carausius, who claimed the Roman imperial throne in the third century, issued coins in London and Colchester, even though he never actually became a true Roman emperor. More recently, coins were issued in the names of various ousted European kings. The Stuart princes issued coins at various times after James II had lost his British thrones. In nineteenth-century France and Spain, too, coins were issued in the names of unsuccessful or deprived claimants.

Thus, it would be in no way surprising if coins had been issued in 1486 and 1487 in the name of the Dublin King. While it has never been suggested that coins bearing his name and title circulated in England, it has certainly been asserted that coins were issued in Ireland in the name of ‘Edward VI’. What is more, there does appear to be some evidence to support this contention. Unfortunately, however, owing to two particular characteristics of medieval coinage, which we shall see in a moment, the evidence is not – and can never be – absolutely conclusive.15

Many valuable studies relating to the ‘coins’ of the Yorkist pretenders have been published over approximately the last 150 years.16 and it is useful to begin by outlining the general understanding of the coinage of the period.

Although in Ireland some copper coins were made and circulated in the fifteenth century, in England at that period only silver and gold coins existed. English coinage was based around the ‘long cross’ silver penny (1d), which had first been issued in this design by Edward I in 1279. This silver penny was subsequently reproduced by all the succeeding rulers up until the year 1489, with its overall design and its royal ‘portrait’ basically unchanged (as we have already noted in the context of English crown designs).

In 1351 a silver four-penny piece (‘groat’) and two-penny piece (‘half groat’) joined the penny.17 At the same time Edward III also introduced gold coins called the ‘noble’ (worth 80d), half noble (worth 40d) and quarter noble (worth 20d) All of these coins continued to be issued, with their designs virtually unchanged, during the reign of Richard II, and throughout the Lancastrian period.

In 1464–65, however, Edward IV reformed the English coinage.18 This action seems to have been as contentious and unpopular at that period as changes in currency are today. Overall, Edward IV’s modifications resulted in a reduction of the bullion weight of all English coins.19 The noble and its subdivisions were abolished, and new gold coins were introduced to replace them. These were the ‘ryal’ (120d) together with its half and quarter, and also the ‘angel’ (80d). During the Readeption of Henry VI the ‘angel’ was joined by the ‘angelet’ or half angel (40d). It was also Edward IV – the first monarch of the house of York – who introduced the use of the rose emblem for the first time on English coins, often accompanied by the Yorkist sunburst.20

One very important fact which must be taken into account relates to the inscriptions on coins at this period. Throughout the fifteenth century all English coins bore the reigning monarch’s name and titles in Latin. However, the king’s regnal number was never included in the coin inscriptions. Also no fifteenth-century English coins ever bore a year date.21

As we have already noted, no coinage attributed to the Dublin King was ever produced in England. But in Ireland, coins which have been attributed to ‘Edward VI’ actually circulated as currency. The Irish silver coinage of the late fifteenth century was basically similar to that of England in terms of its denominations. Ireland, however, had no gold coinage. The Irish coinage was also distinctive in other respects. For example, although the Irish silver coins had similar face values to those issued in England, they differed from the English currency both in their bullion value and in their designs.

Actually, for over 100 years (between 1340 and 1460) no Anglo-Irish coins were produced, except for one issue of pennies in 1425–26. This was because the earlier issues of coinage in Ireland had resulted in the export of silver to England and the Continent, adversely affecting the Irish economy. When Edward IV’s government decided to reinstate the issue of Irish currency, one of its priorities was therefore to seek to avoid any repetition of such problems.22

To avoid the export of bullion from Ireland it was essential to try to ensure that the planned new Irish coinage would be unacceptable in England. One obvious way to achieve this was to make the Irish coins of lower real value than their English equivalents. The other obvious way of ensuring that Irish coins could not creep into England unnoticed was to ensure that they looked different from their English counterparts. In this way Irish coins would appear recognisably ‘foreign’. One curious result of all this is that the Irish silver coins of the Yorkist period are a good deal more imaginative in their design than the rather boring contemporary English issues, whose appearance had remained unchanged for more than a century. However, Irish coins again became very similar in appearance to their English counterparts in the 1470s, with the result that, once more, they began to be exported to England. Indeed, English hoards reveal that Irish coins were imported into England in quite large numbers.

Our picture of the evolution of the Irish coinage under Edward IV is informed not only by the surviving examples of the coins themselves, but also by documentary evidence. During the period in question, the Irish Parliament produced detailed legislation on the subject of the Irish coinage, and fortunately this has been preserved and published.23 However, the legislation conflicts at times with what appears actually to have been issued in terms of coinage, and we shall return to this important point later.

In 1461 an agreement was made with one Germyn Lynch to the effect that the latter should mint 1d, 2d and 4d coins, bearing an open crown on the obverse, and with a long cross and pellets on the reverse, together with the name of the mint. These coins were to be struck at Dublin, Trim, Waterford (Dondory), Limerick and Galway.24 The result of the agreement was Edward IV’s ‘crown’ coinage of 1461–63 – though the coins did not bear the king’s name. In 1463 the Irish Parliament legislated that this anonymous ‘crown in a tressure’ coinage should henceforth bear on its obverse an abbreviated version of the inscription Edwardus Dei Gratia Dominus Hibernie.25 At the same time legislation set the weight of the groat at 48 grains. However, it appears that on this and other occasions the legislation in respect of coin weights was probably not carried into effect.26

In 1465 new instructions were issued. The weights of the coins were again to be slightly reduced (groat = 42.1 grains),27 and Lynch was henceforth instructed to produce ¼d, ½d, 1d, 2d and 4d pieces, bearing an English-style obverse design, which showed a symbolic crowned full-face head of the monarch, with the inscription Edwardus Dei Gratia Dominus Hibernie. However, it is not clear whether these instructions were immediately carried out. Thus some authorities assign a series depicting a cross on a rose (obverse) and a sunburst (reverse) as Edward IV’s third Irish coinage, from 1465 to 1467.28

In 1467, for what is known as Edward IV’s fourth Irish coinage, the English style ‘crowned full-face bust’ obverse design was introduced, while the reverse was changed to a rose-en-soleil design. At the same time Drogheda and Carlingford were added to the list of authorised mints and the weight of the coins was slightly increased.29 The weight of the Irish groat was now formally set at 45 grains – still lower than the contemporary English standard.

In 1470 the Irish coinage adopted an English-style reverse design. The weight went down again slightly (groat = 43.6 grains) and the obverse inscription was expanded to read Edwardus Dei Gratia Rex Anglie & Dominus Hibernie.30 Officially the list of authorised mints was reduced to three: Dublin, Trim and Drogheda. However, surviving examples of this coinage show that in fact mints were still functioning at Limerick, Waterford, Cork and Galway. Coins of this type (which, with a minor change in weight, lasted from 1470 to 1478) are more widely preserved than those of the earlier series.

A statute of 1478 made provision for the issue of a new silver coinage comprising 1d, 2d and 3d coins, but it gave no details of either the design or the weight.31 The coins actually issued at this period did not conform to the specifications of the statute in terms of their face value, for half groats and 3d pieces were not made, in spite of the legislation. Only groats (4d) and pennies were issued. These retained a crowned bust of the king on the obverse, but introduced a new reverse design, which consisted of a rose superimposed upon the centre of a long cross.32 This coinage seems to have continued in production right up to the end of Edward IV’s reign and beyond.33

In 1482/83 Edward IV was apparently planning to authorise a new standard for the Irish coinage. His surviving indenture on this subject is undated but was probably issued at about the same time as the appointment of Thomas Galmole as master of the Irish mints, that is to say on 7 March 1482/83.34 The indenture made provision for the issue of pennies and halfpennies of the English standard weights. However, it is thought that no such coins were issued. No further changes seem to have taken place in the Irish coinage prior to Edward IV’s demise.35

In Ireland, as in England, following the death of Edward IV, it seems to be completely impossible to distinguish coins which were minted during the brief reign of Edward V. The accession of Richard III can, however, be discerned, because of the change in the royal name. Richard III seems to have briefly continued in his own name the production of Edward IV’s ‘rose on cross’ coinage. After a short time, however, he appears to have introduced a new groat and half groat, known as the ‘three crowns issue’. This is the key Irish coinage in our present context, because ‘three crowns’ coins continued to be issued for some years – into the reign of Henry VII. Thus these were the Irish coins which were in production, and in use, in 1486 and 1487 – during the period of the Dublin King.

This new coinage was probably originally inspired by the plans made by Edward IV, shortly before his death. However, as actually issued by Richard III, it was not an exact implementation of Edward IV’s indenture of March(?) 1482/83. That indenture had provided for the minting of new pennies and halfpennies. However, the actual ‘three crowns’ coinage consisted only of groats and half groats.36

Over the years, there were minor variations in the details of both the design and the inscription. In general, the ‘three crowns’ coinage bears the royal arms of France quartering England, together with the first half of the royal title, on the obverse. On the reverse are the three crowns which at this period comprised the arms of Ireland,37 together with the end of the royal title – the part referring to Ireland itself. Coins of the ‘three crowns’ series survive from the mints at Dublin and at Waterford. The coins of the Waterford mint display both the shield bearing the royal arms on the obverse, and the three crowns on the reverse, within tressures (borders of curves, or arches). But such tressures are absent from the coins minted in Dublin.38

Four types of inscription can be identified on surviving examples of the ‘three crowns’ coins. Some bear the name RICARD., some carry the name HENRICVS (or occasionally HENRIC.), some are inscribed with the name EDWARDVS, and some are anonymous. Thus one example is simply inscribed between the arms of the long crosses front and back:

obverse:    REX A / NGLIE / FRAN / CIE

reverse:    :ET  / REX: / HYB / ERNIE

The inclusion of a small rose in this reverse inscription possibly suggests (but does not prove) a Yorkist context in the case of this specimen,39 and in fact some of these anonymous coins are among those generally attributed to the Dublin King.40 Interestingly, a subgroup of this anonymous coinage comprises specimens where the royal arms on the obverse are flanked by tiny shields bearing the cross saltire of the Fitzgerald coat of arms.

In terms of rarity, the most numerous ‘three crowns’ coins are the various HENRICVS issues, and the anonymous coins. RICARD. specimens are rarer. The rarest examples are those inscribed EDWARDVS.41 Until the 1960s it had been generally assumed that the existence of ‘three crowns’ coins inscribed EDWARDVS proved that this coinage had actually been introduced at the end of the reign of Edward IV, and that it was therefore the new coinage referred to in Edward’s indenture of 1483. The design and inscription specified in that indenture appeared to fit the ‘three crowns’ coins, for the indenture stipulated that the new coins should carry ‘the king’s arms on one side upon a cross trefoiled on every side and with this scripture Rex Anglie & Francie, and on the other side the arms of Ireland on a like cross with this scripture Dns Hibernie’.42 The obverse of the ‘three crowns’ coins certainly conforms to the description in the indenture, while the reverse design, bearing three crowns one above another, superimposed over a trefoiled cross is one possible interpretation of the wording of the indenture (though the document itself might perhaps have intended that the three crowns would be disposed upon a shield, two above and one below, as on the Irish copper farthings of Edward IV).

However, Dolley and others have pointed out that the indenture of 1483 spoke of coins of different values to those actually minted. The indenture refers to pennies and halfpennies, whereas the actual ‘three crowns’ coinage comprises half groats and groats only. Dolley therefore concluded:

All the documentary evidence in fact shows is that at the very end of the reign [of Edward IV] there was being contemplated a new coinage for Ireland, and that the type specified was one very similar to, but not identical with, one eventually used by Richard III, though with the important distinction that Edward seems to have envisaged an ‘English standard’ coinage of pence and halfpence, whereas Richard was content to continue with new types an ‘Irish standard’ coinage of groats, half groats and pennies.43

In general, Dolley’s conclusion in respect of the documentary evidence is correct (though his statement that the coinage type envisioned by the indenture was ‘not identical with’ that introduced by Richard III contains an element of assumption on his part). Nevertheless the discrepancies between the specifications of the indenture and the coinage later issued by Richard III do not in themselves disprove the notion that Richard was intending to implement Edward’s indenture. We have previously noted other, similar discrepancies between documentary evidence and actual coinage.

While ‘three crowns’ groats and half groats which bear the names RICARD. and HENRICVS are generally assumed to belong to the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII respectively, once it had been decided that coins of this series bearing the royal name EDWARDVS could not be attributed to Edward IV it obviously became necessary to account for them in some other way. It was therefore proposed that the explanation must lie in the events of 1487. In other words, coin collectors and researchers concluded that the ‘three crowns’ coins inscribed EDWARDVS must have been issued in the name of the Dublin King.44 Since it is now certain that the Dublin King reigned as ‘Edward VI’, this conclusion seems reasonable.

In addition to the named ‘three crowns’ coins, we noted earlier the existence of anonymous specimens, bearing royal titles only. We also noted the fact that some anonymous specimens bear small shields with a cross saltire to the left and right of the royal arms on the obverse, just below the horizontal arm of the long cross. The cross saltire was the main charge on the coat of arms of the Fitzgerald family (the earls of Kildare and their cousins, the earls of Desmond).45 In this instance it has generally been assumed that the Geraldine arms on the coins refer to Gerald, Earl of Kildare and that therefore the anonymous coins were also issued for the Dublin King – possibly either before he returned to Ireland and was crowned, or after he had been defeated at the Battle of Stoke. This is certainly plausible, but the evidence in respect of the anonymous ‘three crowns’ coins is not, and probably never can be, conclusive.

In addition to the probable issue of coins in the name of Edward VI, documents were also issued in his name. Not many examples of such documents survive. However, the Ormond Papers in the Irish National Library contain what appears to be a letter issued in the name of ‘Edward VI’ by the Earl of Kildare, as governor of Ireland.46 In translation, this reads:

Edward, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, to all to whom these presents may come, greeting. Know that we have granted to our dear Peter Buttyller ‘gentilman’, otherwise called Peter Buttiller, son of James Buttiller ‘gentilman’, the office of sheriff of our county of Kilkenny, to have and to hold the said office to the aforesaid Peter during our pleasure – saving to us the fines and amercements coming from the said county – receiving from us in that office the accustomed fee.

In witness whereof, we have had these our letters patent made.

Witness our very dear cousin, Gerald, Earl of Kildare, our Lieutenant of our kingdom of Ireland, at Dublin, on the 13th day of August in the first year of our reign.

Dovedalle.

By writ of Privy seal.

August 13 [1487]47

In his note referring to this letter, Curtis observed:

This curious and puzzling document cannot be of the reign of Edward IV, because in the first year of his reign the Earl of Kildare was not a Gerald. It cannot be of the reign of Edward VI, because before the first year of his reign Sir Piers Butler (Peter Butler, son of James Butler) was dead. There is moreover adequate reason to show that it cannot belong to the reign of Edward V. In the first place the document is dated August 13, and Edward V’s brief reign lasted only from April 9 to June 22, 1483. In the second place it describes the earl of Kildare as Lieutenant, an honour which he never held under any official King of England; and in the third place it styles Ireland a kingdom and Edward, King of England, France and Ireland, a style which was not adopted by any monarch prior to Henry VIII; for up to that time the Kings of England were merely Lords of Ireland.48 The only conclusion left is that the document belongs to the ‘reign’ of Lambert Simnel whom the Great Earl had crowned as King Edward, on May 24, 1487. The date of the document (August 13, 1487) seems at first sight to upset this conclusion, for the Battle of Stoke, at which Simnel was captured, was fought on June 16, 1487. But the date is no real objection to its authenticity as a Simnel relic, for as late as October 20, 1487, two months after the suggested date of the document, Henry VII, writing to the citizens of Waterford, records that ‘the said Earl with the supportation of the inhabitants of our said city of Dublin, and others there … will not yet know their seditious opinions, but unto this day uphold and maintain the same’.

Affixed to the document is a seal which appears to be the Great Seal of England, bearing the effigy of a child king. Possibly this was an authentic seal of Edward V, which had come into the possession of the Yorkist party in Ireland.

Despite what Curtis says, the design of the seal is not consistent with the usual designs of the great seals of approximately contemporary English sovereigns, such as Edward IV or Richard III. Their great seals do not have a coat of arms on the reverse but an equestrian figure of the king. Moreover, as we have already noted, the very clear depiction of the crown above the royal arms on the reverse of the seal is not English in design. It is an open French crown – with a bordure of eight fleurs-de-lis and no crosses. It is, in fact, identical to the normal crown of a French prince of the blood – such as the Duke of Burgundy. In addition the starting point of the reverse inscription is marked not by a cross or a rose (as might usually be the case in England) but by a fleur-de-lis. The crown worn by the young sovereign on the obverse of the seal also appears to be adorned only with fleurs-de-lis – no crosses. The most likely place for the seal to have been made is therefore somewhere in France or the Flemish lands of the former Dukes of Burgundy. As suggested earlier, since one of the key supporters of the Dublin King was Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, it may well have been Margaret who had the seal made.

Notes

Abbreviations

CPR	Calendar of Patent Rolls
ODNB	Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
PROME	Parliament Rolls of Medieval England

  1.  Cavell, Heralds’ Memoir, pp. 109–10.

  2.  Cavell, Heralds’ Memoir, p. 110.

  3.  Cavell, Heralds’ Memoir, pp. 110–11.

  4.  Raine, York Civic Records, pp. 10–11 (original records, Book 6, fol. 84).

  5.  Raine, York Civic Records, pp. 13–14 (original records, Book 6, fol. 88).

  6.  Raine, York Civic Records, p. 16 (original records, Book 6, fol. 91b).

  7.  J.O Halliwell, ed., Letters of the Kings of England, 2 vols, London 1848, vol. 1, p. 171.

  8.  Hayden, ‘Lambert Simnel’, p. 628.

  9.  Hayden, ‘Lambert Simnel’, p. 630.

10.  Cited in Hayden, ‘Lambert Simnel’, p. 627.

11.  Hayden, ‘Lambert Simnel’, p. 627; Bennett, Lambert Simnel, p. 6.

12.  Darcy, who had briefly studied at Lincoln’s Inn in 1485, was later vice-treasurer of Ireland and held a knighthood. He was aged about 27 at the time of the Dublin coronation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Darcy_(died_1540), accessed December 2013.

13.  Hayden, ‘Lambert Simnel’, p. 629.

14.  Hayden, ‘Lambert Simnel’, p. 627.

15.  I published a paper on the coins attributed to the Yorkist pretenders five years ago (J. Ashdown-Hill, ‘Coins attributed to the Yorkist Pretenders, 1487–1498’, Ricardian, 19 (2009), pp. 63–83). The evidence I then produced fairly firmly undermined the suggestion that coins and tokens were later issued in the name of the second Yorkist pretender, Perkin Warbeck/Richard of England. That evidence and conclusion still hold good. However, my earlier conclusion in respect of the alleged coinage of the Dublin King was simply that further research was required. In particular, I argued that it was necessary to seek to clarify the royal name and numeral employed by and for him. Since the present study has now come to the firm conclusion that the boy crowned in Dublin did indeed use the royal identity of ‘King Edward VI’, and since very clear evidence in support of that conclusion has been presented here, my earlier views regarding the alleged coinage of ‘Edward VI’ do now need to be updated somewhat.

16.  A. de Longpérier, ‘Perkin Werbecque’, Revue Numismatique (1860), pp. 384–95; H. Symonds, ‘The Irish Silver Coinage of Edward IV’, Numismatic Chronicle, series 5, n. 1 (1921), pp. 108–25; C.N. Schmall, ‘Note on the “Perkin Warbeck Groat” dated 1494’, Numismatist, 41 (1928), pp. 219–20; R. Carlyon-Britton, ‘On the Irish Coinage of Lambert Simnel as Edward VI’, Numismatic Chronicle, 6th series, 1 (1941), pp. 133–5; C.E. Blunt, ‘The Medallic Jetton of Perkin Warbeck’, British Numismatic Journal, vol. 26 (1949–51), pp. 215–16; M. Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin, a note on the date of the “three crown” coinage of Ireland’, Numismatiska Meddelanden, 30 (1965), pp. 103–12; P. Power, ‘The History and Coins of Lambert Simnal [sic] and Perkin Warbeck’, Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin, n. 615 (November 1969), pp. 376–8; M. Dolley, ‘Simnel and Warbeck – some recent misconceptions’, Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin, n. 616 (December 1969), pp. 424–5; G. Brady and C. Gallagher, ‘The Lambert Simnel Coinage: An enquiry’, Spink Numismatic Circular, 103, no. 8 (October 1995), pp. 301–2.

17.  Edward I had briefly issued a groat, but later abandoned it.

18.  Further major changes to the English coinage were introduced by Henry VII from 1489 onwards.

19.  For purposes of comparison with the fluctuating weight of the Irish coinage under Edward IV, the reformed ‘light’ English coinage of the same monarch had a groat weighing 48 grains (reduced from the groat of 60 grains of the earlier ‘heavy’ coinage).

20.  As the author and others have argued previously, there is no evidence that the so-called ‘red rose of Lancaster’ was really used by any of the Lancastrian monarchs. Roses had been used as punctuation marks in the Marian inscription (MARIA MATER GRACIE) of an Anglo-Gallic jetton of Henry VI, but never as part of the main design of a coin: see M. Mitchiner, Jetons, Medalets and Tokens, vol. 1, The Medieval Period and Nuremberg, London 1988, p. 190. Much earlier, a rose had figured at the neck of the tunic of Edward I on some of his English and Irish silver pennies: S. Mitchell and B. Reeds, eds., Standard Catalogue of British Coins, vol. 1, Coins of England and the United Kingdom, 26th edition, London 1990, p. 97, and P. Seaby and P.F. Purvey, eds., Standard Catalogue of British Coins, vol. 2, Coins of Scotland, Ireland and the Islands, 1st edition, London 1984, p. 111.

21.  Dating was only introduced to English coins in the reign of Edward VI (son of Henry VIII), in the sixteenth century.

22.  The initial plans were actually made by the Lancastrian government of Henry VI.

23.  The following summary of legislation from 1461 to 1470 (inclusive) is derived from Symonds, ‘Irish Silver Coinage of Edward IV’, p. 114.

24.  In the event most of the coins seem to have been struck in Dublin. Examples are known from Waterford, but none of the other named mints is represented among the surviving specimens.

25.  This was Edward IV’s second ‘crown’ coinage (1463–65).

26.  At this date the weight of the English groat was still 60 grains.

27.  Reflecting the fact that the English groat had by now been reduced to a weight of 48 grains. On this occasion, and at the time of all subsequent weight changes, earlier Irish coins were withdrawn from circulation to enforce the new standard.

28.  Seaby, Catalogue, p. 116. However, some would assign the cross on rose coinage to the 1470s.

29.  Coins may have been issued by all the named mints, but because with each reissue of the coinage, old coins were recalled and melted down, few Irish coins of this period survive, so it is difficult to be sure. There are extant examples of the fourth coinage minted at Dublin, at Drogheda and at Trim.

30.  Abbreviated to REX.ANGL.DNS.HYB.

31.  Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin’, p. 105, citing J. Simon, An Essay towards an Historical Account of Irish Coins, Dublin 1749 and 1810, p. 29. The original text of the statute was no longer extant in 1965.

32.  Seaby, Catalogue, p. 122.

33.  We may also note that Dolley suggests that the rare Irish copper farthing (¼d) of Edward IV, displaying a shield of arms bearing three crowns on the obverse and a rose-en-soleil on the reverse probably dates from about the same period. Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin’, p. 104. Seaby (Catalogue, p. 123) would date this coin somewhat earlier (1467–70).

34.  Society of Antiquaries MSS 116. The text is published in Symonds, ‘The Irish Silver Coinages of Edward IV’, pp. 122–3, though Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin’, pp. 109–10 offers some corrections and demonstrates that the marginal drawings of a penny and half groat of the ‘three crowns’ issue which now accompanies the manuscript text of the indenture is a nineteenth-century interpolation.

35.  ‘Introduction to the coinage of Edward IV – Three Crowns Issue 1483–1485’, http://www.irishcoinage.com/HAMMERED.HTM, accessed October 2008.

36.  On this point see Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin’, pp. 109–10. As we have seen, such discrepancies between legislation and implementation are not unknown.

37.  The well-known Irish harp was a later invention, which we owe to Henry VIII: ‘The Arms of Ireland’, http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/ireland.htm, accessed October 2008. ‘As late as 1536 the Great Seal of Ireland preserves the three crowns as the arms of Ireland’, Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin’, p. 103, n. 2, citing Archaeologia, 85 (1935), plate XCI, 3.

38.  One other minor design feature which varies is the form of the trefoils at the end of the arms of the long crosses. On some specimens these are formed by pellets, on others by annulets. The former are believed to be earlier in the series than the latter.

39.  The title Rex Hybernie rather than Dominus Hybernie is anachronistic at this period. It has been taken by some to indicate a sovereign crowned in Ireland (i.e. the first Yorkist pretender), Carlyon-Britton, ‘Irish Coinage of Lambert Simnel’. But this point is now generally discounted: ‘Proceedings of the Royal Numismatic Society’,Numismatic Chronicle, 7th series, 9 (1969), pp. xii–xiii. For the use of the rose emblem on coinage see above.

40.  See, for example, Power, ‘History and Coins’, p. 377 and figure 1. However, other anonymous ‘three crowns’ coins have been assigned to Henry VII: Seaby, Catalogue, 126–7; Spinks, Coins of Scotland, Ireland and the Islands, London 2003, pp. 139–40.

41.  Based on their values as given in Seaby, Catalogue, and Spinks, Coins of Scotland, Ireland and the Islands, pp. 139–42.

42.  Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin’, p. 111.

43.  Dolley, ‘Tre Kronor – Trí Choróin’, p. 112.

44.  For example, one published account states categorically that the Dublin King ‘had Groat coins struck by his supporters, the FitzGeralds, sometime between May and July of that year, at the Dublin and Waterford mints, in the three crowns style’. G. Petterwood, ‘The Harp and the Shamrock!’, Tasmanian Numismatist, vol. 9, n. 6 (June 2004),http://www.vision.net.au/~pwood/june04.htm, accessed October 2008.

45.  See Ashdown-Hill, ‘Execution of the Earl of Desmond’, figure 1.

46.  E. Curtis, Cal. Ormond Papers, vol. III (1413–1509), Dublin 1935, pp. vii, xxv, 261–3 (document 272).

47.  ‘Edwardus dei gratia Rex Anglie et Francie et Hibernie omnibus ad quos presents litere peruenit salute. Sciatis quod nos concessimus dilecto nobis Petro Buttyller gentilman, alias dicto Petro Buttiller filio Jacobi Buttiler gentilman, officium vicecomitis nostri comitatus Kylkenn’, habendum et tenendum officium predictum prefato Petro quamdiu nobis placuerit, saluis nobis finibus et amerciamentis dicti comitatus perueniendis. Precipiendo de nobis in officio illo feodum consuetum. In cuius rei testimonium has literas nostras fecimus patentes.Teste precarissimo consanguineo nostro Geraldo comite Kyldar’ locum nostrum tenente regni Hibernie, apud Dublin’, xiii die Augusti, anno regni nostri primo.Dovedalle Per breve de priuato sigillo nostro.’

48.  Note, however, that – significantly – some of the ‘three crowns’ coins also bear the title Rex Hibernie.