John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk KG Earl Marshal (12 September 1415 – 6 November 1461) was a fifteenth-century English magnate who, despite having a relatively short political career, played a significant role in the early years of the Wars of the Roses.

Born in 1415, Mowbray was the only son and heir of John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk and Katherine Neville. He inherited his titles upon his father's death in 1432. As he was still a minor, Mowbray became a ward of King Henry VI. The King placed him under the protection of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, whom Mowbray would later campaign alongside in France. His behaviour as a young man appears to have been controversial. Although exactly what he did remains unknown, it was severe enough for the King to place strictures upon him and separate him from his followers. His early career was spent with the military, where he held the wartime office of Earl Marshal.[note 1] Mowbray commanded the defence of England's possessions in Normandy during the ongoing Hundred Years' War. He also fought in Calais in 1436, and from 1437 to 1438 served as warden of the east march on the Anglo-Scottish border, before returning to the fighting in Calais.

Mowbray's marriage to Eleanor Bourgchier in the early 1430s involved him in the highly partisan and complex politics of East Anglia. He became a bitter rival of another local lord, William de la Pole, Earl (later Duke) of Suffolk.[note 2] Mowbray prosecuted his feuds with vigour, often violently taking the law into his own hands. This drew the ire of the Crown. He was bound over for massive sums and imprisoned twice in the Tower of London. Violent tactics were also employed by his enemies, particularly by de la Pole. The local gentry looked to Mowbray for protection against the duke and to further their own attacks on him, but often Mowbray was incapable of providing the good lordship asked of him. De la Pole was both a powerful local force and a favourite of the King and had his ear; Mowbray was neither.

As law and order crumbled in eastern England, national politics became increasingly factional, and there were popular revolts against the King's unpopular councillors. Richard, Duke of York, who by the 1450s was feeling excluded from government, became increasingly belligerent. York rebelled twice, and both times, Mowbray defended King Henry. Eventually, though, Mowbray drifted politically towards York (with whom he had shared an enmity of de la Pole). For much of the decade, Mowbray was able to evade direct involvement in the increasingly fractious political climate, he aligned with York in early 1460 until York's death later that year. In April 1461 Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton, by his late arrival with reinforcements. Mowbray was almost immediately rewarded by the new regime, but did not live to enjoy his rewards. He died in November 1461, and was succeeded as Duke of Norfolk by his only son, John.

Background and youth

John Mowbray was the only son of John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk and his wife Katherine Neville,[6] who was a daughter of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, a powerful magnate in northern England.[7][note 3] The younger Mowbray was born on 12 September 1415 while his father was absent in France campaigning with Henry V.[9] Mowbray was only seventeen at his father's death and still legally a minor. During his minority, his estates were granted by Henry VI to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester for a farm of 2000 marks[6] (approximately £1,667).[10] Mowbray's wardship, and the right to arrange his marriage, was sold to Anne of Gloucester, Countess of Stafford for £2,000. By March 1434, Anne had arranged for Mowbray's marriage to her daughter Eleanor Bourgchier.[6]

For the good rewle and governaunce of my lord of Northfolk beyng in the Kynges ward, it semeth expedient that he as wele as tho that shall be a boute hys person kepe and observe as hit towcheth hem severally the rewle comprised in tharticles undir wryton...[11] (I.e., For the benefit of the Duke of Norfolk as the King's ward, it is expedient that he and those with him obey the rules written below as far as he and his followers are affected by them)

The National Archives, Chancery Masters' Exhibits, C 115/K2/6682 fo. 251, Ordinances for John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, c. 1435..

As a young adult, Mowbray appears to have been raucous and troublemaking, and surrounded himself with equally unruly followers. This seems to have drawn the King's attention:[6] Mowbray had only recently—with the other lords—swore an oath in parliament not to recruit or welcome villains and wrong-doers into his affinity, nor to maintain them.[12] He was summoned before the King and his council. Mowbray was instructed in how to conduct himself henceforth,[6] and a precise regimen was imposed upon him.[13] Exactly which aspects of Mowbray's behaviour were viewed as were problematic is unknown, but since it resulted in what one historian described "unprecedented" council-imposed restrictions being placed upon him, his conduct must have been deemed "abnormal".[14] These ordinances not only dictated the time he should go to bed at night and rise in the morning,[13][note 4] but even addressed his demeanour.[14] His  disorderly followers were dismissed, and replaced with those deemed suitable by Henry VI. Their stated role was to turn Mowbray towards "good reule and good governaunce,"[6] and they were not just to guide Mowbray but also report any disobedience of the council's instructions back to that body.[14]

Inheritance, early career and royal service


On his father's death in 1432, Mowbray inherited the office of Earl Marshal,[6] but not yet his father's lands or titles. Mowbray's father, in fact, had never been able to completely control his own estates, as they were encumbered by two Mowbray dowagers, Mowbray's mother Katherine, and his sister-in-law, Constance Holland. They each held a third of the inheritance as their dower.[note 5] Constance died in 1437, but Mowbray's mother survived until around 1483.[19][note 6] Because of this, the historian Rowena Archer—who made one of the few full-length studies of the Mowbray family—described Mowbray as inheriting a "hopeless" and "onerous" legacy. It also had political consequences for the future. As he never personally held much property in the counties where his inheritance was (only holding, for example, seven of the twenty-six manors held by the Mowbrays in Norfolk and Suffolk), his influence was thus restricted there.[19]

Claim to the earldom of Arundel, royal service and local rivalries

A photograph of a fifteenth-century handwritten petition to the King
Mowbray's 1433 petition to parliament over the lordship of Arundel and the right to the earldom of Arundel.

Immediately following his father's death, Mowbray claimed the earldom of Arundel. This set him against John, Lord Maltravers, who also claimed it.[21] This was an old dispute. Mowbray's father and grandfather had also claimed the earldom, which had blocked Maltravers' father's claim.[22] Mowbray based his claim through his grandmother Elizabeth Fitzalan, Duchess of Norfolk; Maltravers through his great-grandfather Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel. In July 1433 Mowbray personally presented a petition to Parliament (receiving special permission to attend as a minor). Mowbray—"in a rather remarkable decision," says Archer—lost the case.[23] Maltravers, though, died in May 1435 and so was never summoned to parliament under his new title.[21][note 7]

In August 1436 Mowbray accompanied the Duke of Gloucester on a military campaign to relieve Calais, which was under siege by the Duke of Burgundy. The expedition was a success, and Burgundy was forced to withdraw.[6][24] On 13 September the same year, back in England, he received livery of his inheritance, and immediately began a busy period devoted to royal service. In 1437, possibly due to Gloucester's patronage[6] Mowbray was appointed Warden of the Eastern March for a one-year term of office. Mowbray clearly had had little experience of the north of England,[25] but was paid wartime wages of £5,000 to prosecute the campaign against the Scots.[26] 1438 saw Mowbray return to Calais and Guînes, leading an expedition to strengthen their defences; Burgundy still presented a threat. Although Mowbray soon returned to England, in June 1439 he was again back in Calais, at Oye,[6] escorting Archbishop John Kemp's diplomatic mission to the peace conference.[27] Possibly Mowbray disapproved of royal foreign policy (which by then was aimed at making peace with the French rather than waging war), as this was to be  his last expedition.[6]

A colourful fifteenth-century drawing of the Siege of Calais
The 1436 Siege of Calais, as later illustrated in the Vigiles du roi Charles VII

For much of the 1430s, Mowbray had problems in East Anglia, where the bulk of his estates now lay. William de la Pole had become increasingly powerful, both at court and in the region, and was Mowbray's biggest rival.[6] Mowbray had enough political clout in the 1330s to control parliamentary representation in Suffolk[28] but the increasing local importance of the duke weakened his grasp. Mowbray clashed with de la Pole, and committed many illegalities doing so. These included damaging property of rivals, assaults, false allegations of outlawry (with confiscation of goods), and even murder.[29]

By 1440, de la Pole had become a royal favourite. Mowbray was imprisoned, at de la Pole's instigation,[6] on at least two occasions, in 1440 and in 1448.[30] The first occasion saw him bound over for the then-massive amount of £10,000, and confined him to living within the royal Household,[31] preventing him from returning to seek revenge in East Anglia.[6] Likewise, apart from an appointment to commissions of oyer and terminer in Norwich in 1443 (after the suppression of Gladman's Insurrection), he received no other significant offices or patronage from the crown. A recent biographer of Mowbray's, the historian Colin Richmond, has described this as Mowbray's "eclipse". Richmond has also suggested that soon after his last bout of imprisonment, in 1449, Mowbray journeyed on a pilgrimage to Rome; a licence[note 8] for him to do so had been granted three years earlier.[6]

Crime and disorder in East Anglia

Mowbray's ancestors had been largely Midlands magnates based around Lincolnshire estates. Even his father—after he became duke of Norfolk and received his mother's East Anglian dower lands—was often an absentee lord.[36][note 9] Mowbray's father was thus never able to establish a sizeable (or "particularly coherent") regional following there, and this was the situation Mowbray inherited.[29]

Every magnate required a powerbase, and Mowbray had to build one for himself. The choice of making East Anglia the locus of his landed authority was somewhat forced upon him since this was where the bulk of his estates were: much of his Lincolnshire inheritance was held by his mother as dower.[37][29] Mowbray was very much a newcomer to political society in the region,[37] and had to share influence with others.[38] By the time of Mowbray's majority, de la Pole —with his links to central government and the King—was an established power in the region.[39] He hindered Mowbray's attempts at regional domination for over a decade,[40] and the feud between the two lasted from the moment Mowbray became Duke of Norfolk to the murder of de la Pole in 1350.[5] Their feud was often violent, and this encouraged clashes between their respective followers. In 1435, Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham, led a group of Mowbray retainers who murdered James Andrew, one of de la Pole's men. When local aldermen attempted to arrest Wingfield's party, the latter rained arrow fire upon the aldermen.[41] Mowbray secured royal pardons for those responsible.[29]

De la Pole fought back violently, with what one contemporary labelled "greet hevyng an shoving." [42] He was successful in doing so. Within a couple of years, Mowbray could not protect his retainers as he had previously done. A Paston letter tells how Robert Wingfield, who was involved in a bitter dispute with one Robert Lyston, "procured and exited the wurthi prince the Duke of Norffolk to putte oute ageyn the seid Robert Lyston" from the latter's Suffolk manors. Lyston, though, with de la Pole's support, repeatedly sued Wingfield in court until in 1441 Wingfield was imprisoned in the Tower of London. In 1440, Mowbray was able to influence the Exchequer to quash Wingfield's fines; but Mowbray's success was fleeting. [29] Mowbray was more successful in his support of John Fastolf—in one of the latter's many lawsuits[note 10] 1441, and was able to impose an advantageous settlement (for Fastolf) in Chancery.[45] Generally, though, says Helen Castor, Mowbray's influence "proved woefully inadequate" to protect and defend his retainers and tenants to the degree they could reasonably expect from their lord.[29] It was his supporters' misfortune, one historian has said, that "Norfolk's power never matched the status attributed to him".[45][note 11]

Mowbray's personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade. Between 1440 and 1441 he was imprisoned in the Tower following a dispute with John Heydon,[47] who was close to de la Pole.[6] Mowbray was bound over on 2 July 1440 for the "enormous" sum of 10,000 marks also having to reside in the King's household, swearing no further  harm to Heydon.[31]

In 1443 Mowbray and Wingfield fell out over Hoo manor. Wingfield had received Hoo from the second duke, but the third duke wanted it returned to his possession.[47] Mowbray reacted violently. R. L. Storey called Mowbray's "methods of argument" exceptional,[48] writing how Mowbray:

Brought a force of men, with cannon and other siege engines, battered Wingfield's house at Letheringham, forced an entry, ransacked the building and removed valuables amounting to nearly £5,000, according to his victim's evaluation.

— R. L. Storey, [48]
A photograph of the ruins of Framlingham Castle in Suffolk
Framlingham Castle, still in a remarkable state of preservation in 2008, was Mowbray's East Anglian headquarters, and from where he directed many of the attacks on his numerous regional rivals and opponents.[49]

Wingfield deserted Mowbray in light of the latter's continuing attacks on him over Hoo,[50] and offered a bounty of 500 marks for the head of a Mowbray retainer. In November 1443 Mowbray was bound over for £2,000 to keep the peace with Wingfield and instructed to appear before the royal council the following April. The council ordered them to seek arbitration. This found against Mowbray, who had to pay Wingfield 3,500 marks as compensation for the damage the duke caused to Letheringham. He was also had to recompense Wingfield for Hoo before he could get it back. It was presumably as part of these proceedings that Mowbray suffered his second bout of imprisonment in the Tower, which commenced on 28 August 1444; he was released six days later.[48]

In June 1446 one Mowbray's father's retainers, Henry Howard, was murdered in Stoke-by-Nayland, Suffolk.[51] He was probably visiting his sister-in-law (and Mowbray's aunt), Margaret Mowbray,[note 12] at the time, as her house was only five miles (8.0 km) away.[54] Howard's killers appear to have been retainers of John, Baron Scrope of Masham;[note 13] and it is not impossible that Scrope actively aided and abetted them in the killing.[54]  On 18 June 1446 Mowbray oversaw the presentment of an Ipswich jury to examine the killing, but Mowbray's case soon stalled. Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," and as a result, the King ordered that proceedings against Scrope's men cease.[56] At least five of the thirteen jurors were Mowbray retainers.[57] This may have been the only occasion on which Mowbray personally sat on a local King's Bench commission as the hearing J.P.[58]

The arbitration between Mowbray and Wingfield did not resolve their feud, and in 1447 Wingfield returned to the attack. Along with another ex-Mowbray retainer, William Brandon,[note 14] he assaulted, robbed and threatened Mowbray's staff. on 6 December 1447, Wingfield threatened Mowbray's chaplain. Mowbray—as Justice of the Peace for Suffolk—ordered Wingfield to keep the King's peace; this was ignored. Wingfield was then committed to Melton gaol. Three hours later Brandon broke Wingfield out of prison. Mowbray applied to Chancery for, and received, letters patent ordering Brandon and Wingfield to not come within 7 miles (11 km) of Mowbray.[60] This order too was ignored, and they dwelt at Letheringham (only about five miles from Mowbray's castle at Framlingham), and started breaking into Mowbray's retainers' houses in the area. Mowbray requested that a commission of oyer and terminer be organised to investigate Wingfield and Brandon, and this was issued in late December 1447.[61]

By the early 1450s Mowbray believed that he alone held East Anglia, and described himself as the "princypall rewle and governance throw all this schir," a Paston letter reports.[6] John de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, another enemy of de la Pole, was desirous of Mowbray's "good Lordship",[62] and in 1451 they collaborated in Suffolk investigating participation in Jack Cade's Rebellion.[63] The region continued to experience disorder: Mowbray's own men were responsible for much of it.[6] This included the destruction of properties belonging to Alice Chaucer, Duchess of Suffolk.[64][note 15] The Duke of Suffolk himself had fallen from power and been murdered in April 1450.[66] In the years following, says Richmond, Mowbray's affinity committed "one outrage after another [and] the duke was either unable to control them, or chose not to do so".[6] Mowbray used devious means to defeat his opponents, including having them charged with outlawry in another county without them knowing, and then claiming their goods as being forfeited to himself.[67]

...after the dethe of Henri Howard the sessions of pees were at Gippeswiche the Saturday next after Trinity Sunday last passed there being oure right trusty and right welbeloved cousin the Duc of Norff... at the wyche tyme the said Duc as it is said seing that he might not doo endite the said lord Scrop nor noone of his maynee for the dethe of the said Howard...

The National Archives, KB 145/6/25.

Mowbray also forced the gaoler of Bury St Edmunds to release a man charged with murder into Mowbray's custody. According to the gaoler's later report, he had done so, but only out of "fear and terror" of the Duke of Norfolk.[68] Mowbray spent much of the early 1450s hunting down de la Pole's affinity;[62]

The removal of de la Pole had not increased Mowbray's power in East Anglia.[69] He still had rivals in the region with wealth and court connections.[70] The Earl of Oxford in particular now wished to extend his landholdings from Essex into Suffolk,[6] and Lord Scales had been granted the remnants of de la Pole's affinity by Queen Margaret.[69] It was precisely this lack of political connections (specifically, his exclusion from the King's council) that had defeated him against de la Pole.[71] Mowbray was also unsuccessful at influencing local commissions [72] and nominating parliamentary candidates in shire elections.[6] In any case, the county of Norfolk already possessed a strong and relatively independent layer of wealthy gentry; for example, the Pastons, the Howards, and those around John Fastolf. They were equally eager to augment their positions at the expense of a neighbour, even if that neighbour was a lord.[6]

Later career and political crisis

The 1450s saw English politics become increasingly partisan and factional, with a rise in violence and local disorder. Jack Cade's rebellion in 1450—directly aimed at royal favourites like de la Pole—had explicitly named Mowbray as one of the King's "natural counsellors" necessary to reform the realm.[73] Even so, Mowbray was part of a major royal army which eventually defeated the rebels.[74]

The King was urged "to take about his noble person his true blood of his royal realm, that is to say, the high and mighty prince the Duke of York, exiled from our sovereign lord's person by the noising of the false traitor the Duke of Suffolk and his affinity. Also to take about him his person the mighty prince the Duke of Exeter, the Duke of Buckingham, the Duke of Norfolk ... and he shall be the richest Christian king."[75]

John Stowe's Historical Memoranda on Cade's rebellion.

During the next crisis—the near-rebellion of Richard of York in Autumn 1450[note 16]—Mowbray took York's side against the new royal favourite, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset.[note 17] York canvassed Mowbray for support, as Mowbray was one of the few nobles openly critical of the court.[78] For the former, this was a logical alliance, as Mowbray was as bitter an enemy[79] of Somerset as York was.[6] Mowbray gathered his forces at Ipswich on 8 November (having ordered John Paston to meet him there "with as many clenly people as ye may get"), and may have travelled into London with York, who had also recruited locally.[80][note 18] Thus, when he arrived for the parliament it was with a large, heavily armed force.[82] Mowbray was appointed, with the Duke of York and Earl of Devon, to maintain law and order in the City of London for the duration of the parliament,[83] though in the event his retinue caused as much trouble as it prevented. For example, on 1 December, they joined with York's force to attack Somerset's house in Blackfriars. Such was the violence that the beleaguered duke was lodged in the Tower of London in for his own protection.[6] Two days later the King and his magnates rode through London with up to 10,000 men. Mowbray personally rode ahead with a force of 3,000. This show of force was designed to quell any remnants of support for Cade's rebels, who by now had been mostly defeated and rounded up.[84]

Certayn notable knyghtis and squyers of this countee theer to have comonyngs with your good Lordshep (the earl of Oxford) for the sad rule and governaunce of this counte, (Norfolk) wych standyth ryght indisposed.[49]

– August 1450, and Mowbray summons his men to parley with him and the Earl of Oxford at Framlingham.

Mowbray's alliance with York was intermittent. The latter rebelled again in 1452, confronting a royal army at Dartford; Mowbray was with the King. For his service he later received £200 and a gold cup.[6] York may have abandoned the alliance because of his objection to Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia, as York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order.[85] Mowbray's campaign against Somerset, meanwhile, continued unabated. In 1453, with the King now incapacitated and York protector, Mowbray personally presented charges against Somerset in parliament, attacking his failure to prevent the loss of the "two so noble Duchies" of Normandy and Guyenne" in France.[86][87] As a result, Somerset was imprisoned in the Tower for the next year.[86] In April 1454, Mowbray was asked to join the York's regency council. Mowbray swore goodwill to York's government, but claimed to be too ill to attend.[6]

In early 1455 the King recovered his health, the protectorate came to an end, and Somerset was swiftly released from the Tower. As a result, suggests historian Ralph Griffiths, Mowbray may have (and "quite rightly," he says) feared for his own safety, with Somerset now free.[88]

The Wars of the Roses

A picture of the White Tower, the main Keep of the Tower of London
The Tower of London; both Mowbray and his arch-enemy Suffolk were imprisoned here at different stages of their careers.

Following the collapse of the 1454 – 1455 protectorate, the Yorkist lords[note 19] retreated to their estates, and Mowbray distanced himself from factional politics. An uneasy peace existed between the court and the Yorkists until April 1455, when the King summoned a Great Council to meet at Leicester the following month. The Duke of York feared that the purpose of this council was to destroy him once and for all; several chroniclers of the day also suggest that Somerset was poisoning the King's mind against him.[90] The duke and his Neville allies proceeded to raise an army from their northern estates. The King and a small force left London on 20 May; the Yorkists approached from the north with a speed calculated to surprise.[91] In a pre-emptive strike, York and his allies intercepted the King at the first Battle of St Albans. Mowbray managed to avoid involvement in the fighting,[92] even though, as Earl Marshal, his heralds were used during negotiations between the two camps.[93] It is uncertain at what point Mowbray joined the battle, or if he even reached the King in time to take part.[6] The fighting lasted only a short time, and though there were very few fatalities among the soldiery, the Earl of Northumberland, the Duke of Somerset and Lord Clifford were killed. They were not only three of the King's most loyal supporters, but Percy and Somerset at least were bitter enemies of the Nevilles and York.[93] After the battle Mowbray threatened to hang the Royal Standard bearer, Sir Philip Wentworth, at the news that Wentworth "cast it down and fled" the battlefield (as one of William Worcester's correspondents informed him).[94] Whatever part, if any, Mowbray played in the fighting, by now contemporaries viewed him as being sympathetic to York.[92] It is likely that Mowbray was—probably deliberately—vacillating.[note 20] He did not attend York's victory parliament in 1455, and sources suggest that he pilgrimaged again: he is known to have walked to Walsingham in 1456, and over the next two years may have travelled to Amiens, Rome or even Jerusalem.[6]

Following After four years' uneasy peace, civil war again broke out in September 1459 when the Yorkist Earl of Salisbury fought off a royal ambush at the Battle of Blore Heath, but was then, along with York and his supporters, driven into exile by the King's army.[97] Mowbray took neither side, but with the Yorkists exiled, when a parliament was called at Coventry, Mowbray attended. Here the Yorkists were attainted,[98] and on 11 December 1459 Mowbray took an oath of loyalty to keep Henry VI on the throne.[6][note 21] He received a number of royal commissions in the final months of Lancastrian rule.[100]

The Nevilles and the Earl of march had spent their exile in Calais, while York and his other son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland, retired to Dublin. The Neviiles returned to England first: they landed at Sandwich, Kent, in late June 1460. They were soon admitted into London, from where they could plan their assault on the King's army, which was based in Northampton. On 10 July the Yorkist army under Warwick and March defeated the royalist army at the Battle of Northampton, and once again the King was captured.[101][102] Of Mowbray's activity, Colin Richmond says that he "is more likely to have observed from a safe distance than participated" in it.[6]

York himself returned from exile in October 1460; much to the consternation of his allies, he almost immediately claimed the throne.[103] Mowbray's attitude to this is uncertain, as the chroniclers omit mention of him. What is clear is that at some point between the Yorkists' return from exile in June and early December, Mowbray threw in his lot with them.[104] The precise cause of Mowbray's change of loyalties remains unknown. Colin Richmond argues that the Lancastrian defeat at Northampton in June 1460 was fundamental, and Mowbray lost friends and colleagues. It is also possible that King Henry's capture there encouraged him to desert the King.[6] Christine Carpenter puts it down almost solely to Mowbray's failure to improve his position in Norfolk under Henry,[100] while Castor points to the October 1460 Yorkist parliament being the turning point for Mowbray: possibly he believed that the attempted settlement contained in the Act of Accord was the best possible outcome.[105]

The King and Queen still had support from much of the nobility, and they withdrew to the north where they commenced a campaign of ravaging York and the Nevilles' estates. This forced York, Salisbury and Rutland to go north on 9 December and suppress the Lancastrians. Mowbray remained in London with Salisbury's and York's sons, the Earls of Warwick and March. York and Salisbury's expedition ended in disaster. Choosing to engage a Lancastrian army outside the duke's castle at Sandal, the Yorkists were crushed at the Battle of Wakefield on 30 December. York Rutland and Salisbury, died in or soon after the battle.[104][106] The Queen's army made its way south, intending to enter London. Mowbray, Warwick, and his brother John Neville, Lord Montagu, marched out of London, intending to intercept the approaching Lancastrians. Mowbray brought King Henry with them.[78] The two armies clashed on 17 February 1461 just outside of St Albans, where the Yorkists were defeated. Abandoning the King to his wife and her supporters, Mowbray and Warwick swiftly retreated to London before the victorious Lancastrian army could reach the city.[107]

Battle of Towton

A map illustrating Mowbray's flank attack at the Battle of Towton
Yorkist and Lancastrian positions at the Battle of Towton, showing the attack of Norfolk's force on the Lancastrian flank.

The Lancastrian army marched on London, but the city refused it entry. On 3 March 1461 Mowbray attended a great council at Baynard's Castle organised small group of Yorkist loyalists, and agreed to offer Edward, Earl of March the throne.[108][109] The following day—indicating the urgency for resolution felt by the Yorkists by this stage[78]— Mowbray was despatched into East Anglia to raise his country "with all diligence to prepare for the war on the party of King Edward".[110] The Lancastrian army had returned to the north where, on 29 March 1461, York and Lancaster met at the Battle of Towton. It was to be one of the longest and bloodiest battles fought on British soil,[111][112][113] and "fought in bitter Yorkshire weather and no less bitter spirit",[114] says Charles Ross. On Mowbray's advice, says Ross,[115] Edward followed the Lancastrian army north with a new army.[114]

Mowbray seems to have recruited successfully in the region, as one of the Paston letters says that "every town hath waged and sent forth."[116] Mowbray left East Anglia via Cambridge on 17 March 1461, where John Howard and his own force of men joined Mowbray's; Howard also brought with him a gift of money from Bury St Edmunds Abbey.[95] The force that Mowbray was raising may have constituted the Yorkist rearguard[117] and so not part of the main Yorkist army, intending to join with it later.[114] He was still not with Warwick's and March's council of war held at Doncaster[118] in late March.[119] There are different explanations for Mowbray's delay. Possibly he faced difficulty in mustering troops; the army recently raised to fight at St Albans had been dispersed. This would require re-mustering.[120] Also possible is the fact that—since he died only a few months later—Mowbray may have been too ill to have kept up with the main Yorkist force.[110] At Pontefract Mowbray transferred command of his army to Sir John Howard, his cousin and retainer, knowing that time was of the essence for the Yorkists and that yet, whilst he was with them, his soldiers could only march as quickly as he could travel.[121] If Mowbray was ill, then it is unlikely that he fought personally; Boardman observed that "a sick man would never have survived such a strength-sapping ordeal, especially a noble in armour-plate."[122] If his contingent was also tasked with bringing up Yorkist artillery, this would have further slowed them down—they may have abandoned armoury en route in order to increase their speed.[122][note 22]

Mowbray arrived late to the battle but at a crucial point.[114] His prolonged absence after a day's bitter fighting must have been a growing worry for the Yorkists, especially as they may have thought him up to a day's march away.[123] Mowbray's absence presented an acute problem for the Yorkist army; Philip A. Haigh describes them, by four o'clock in the afternoon, as doomed without him.[121] There must have been much messaging between Edward and Mowbray throughout the day,[124] but battle fatigue had almost certainly set in on both sides by the time Mowbray's troops arrived[120][125] on the eastern edge of the battlefield.[126] A contemporary chronicler described the situation thus

So did The White Lion [Mowbray] full worthily he wrought,

Almighty Jesus bless his soul, that their armies taught.

Blessed be the time, that God ever spread that flower![127]

The Rose of Rouen, c. 1461[128]

And about four o'clock at night [i.e., 4  am] the two battles joined and fought all night till on the morrow in the afternoon. About noon the aforesaid John, Duke of Norfolk, with a fresh band of good men of war came to the aid of the newly elected King Edward...[129]

— The Hearne fragment, Thomas Hearne's Thomae Sprotti Chronica[130]

Mowbray's army launched a decisive attack on the Lancastrian flank, turning them left.[114] He brought, after all, a force something in the region of 5,000 men.[131] His arrival had the effect of both reinvigorating the Yorkist army and crushing Lancastrian morale with his surprise attack[126] and led rapidly to a Lancastrian rout[120] and gave the victory to Edward IV.[132]

Under the Yorkists

A photograph of the modern ruins of Thetford Priory
The ruins of Thetford Priory, Norfolk, in 2006, where John Mowbray was buried.

Earls Marshal played an important role in coronations. Like his predecessors, Mowbray officiated at the coronation of Edward IV at Westminster Abbey Edward's on 28 June 1461. Within two months he had received a number of lucrative offices.[6] Public order was a problem for the new King from the beginning of his reign, and East Anglia was no exception. Mobs rampaged during that year's parliamentary elections.. Norfolk may have encouraged this; he is certainly a candidate for ordering the murder of the country coroner, one Thomas Denys that August.[100]

Even though Mowbray was a confirmed supporter of the new Yorkist regime, he still met with strong opposition from the East Anglian gentry in the first year of the reign. This was despite (theoretically, at least) having the support of the King in government,[70] and backed though he was by John Howard in the shires.[70][note 23] Howard was by now one of Mowbray's senior retainers —described as Mowbray's "right well-beloved cousin and servant"[28]— and Sheriff of Norfolk.[133] By November, however, he had been arrested by the new Yorkist regime.[134]


Mowbray did not live long enough to benefit from the Yorkist victory.[134] Mowbray died on 6 November 1461, aged 45, and was buried at Thetford Priory. He was succeeded by his only son, John.[6] His mother, Katherine Duchess of Norfolk, survived him and lived until 1484. She had already taken two more husbands during Mowbray's own lifetime, and took another after his death.[135][20][note 24]

Marriage and issue

Mowbray married Eleanor Bourgchier, the daughter of William Bourgchier, Count of Eu and Anne of Gloucester, Countess of Buckingham. Eleanor was the sister of his successor as Justice in Eyre, Henry Bourgchier. They appear to have shared a close bond: while travelling in May 1451, Mowbray supposedly dispensed with his retinue to enjoy, according to Colin Richmond, "a private tryst" with his wife.[6] The couple had one child, also John, who in 1448 married Elizabeth, daughter of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury.[6] The son was seventeen when his father died in 1461, and inherited the estate four years later.[136]

Character and legacy

Ralph Griffiths has suggested that when Archbishop John Kemp died in 1453, it may have at least in part been due to the bullying and threats he had recently been subjected too: "notably by Norfolk himself".[137] One modern historian has placed much of Suffolk's success in the region, which antagonised Mowbray so much, as being down to Mowbray's own "crass incompetence" in being "ineffectual" at assisting those members of the political community who would expect to rely on a lord of his stature's protection.[100] J. R. Lander called Mowbray "a disreputable thug",[138] while Richmond concludes that Mowbray was "cavalier with the rights of others to a safe life and a secure livelihood". Fundamentally, says Richmond, whilst "many medieval aristocrats were irresponsible men ... Mowbray's individuality lay in the thoroughness of his irresponsibility."[6] On a more positive note, says Michael Hicks, the quality of honour was clearly very important to Mowbray, as his pursuit of Somerset (for that duke's abject performance in France) shows. Likewise, as Earl Marshal, he must have possessed a good understanding of chivalry and its application, as it was fundamental to the office.[139]

Cultural depictions

Mowbray, as "Duke of Norfolk", is a minor figure in the play King Henry VI, Part 3 by William Shakespeare.[140][141][note 25] He appears in act I, scene i, and act II, scene ii as a supporter of the Duke of York;[143] the first time just after the Battle of St Albans, and is portrayed "conspicuously associated with opposition."[144] This is ahistorical, as Mowbray was still loyal to King Henry at this point. His second appearance in the play is at the Battle of Towton.[145] The play has been adapted for the screen several times. In the 1960 BBC TV serial An Age of Kings, the character appears in the episode "Henry VI: The Morning's War" portrayed by Jeffry Wickham. In 1965 the BBC again adapted the history plays for television, this time based on the 1963 theatre production The Wars of the Roses. Here the character appears in the episode "Edward IV" portrayed by David Hargreaves.

In the Elizabethan play The Merry Devil of Edmonton, though Mowbray does not appear as a character on stage, the comic character Blague repeatedly claims that: "I serve the good Duke of Norfolk."[144][146] Exactly what period the play is set in is the subject of a discussion amongst scholars. Suggestions range from the reign of King Henry VI (1421–1471) to the 1580s (in Queen Elizabeth I's reign). The 20th-century Shakespeare scholar W. W. Greg places it in the reign of King Henry VI, basing his conclusion in part on Thomas Fuller's posthumously published History of the Worthies of England (1662).[147] If this is the case then the "Duke of Norfolk" referred to in the play would be Mowbray.[144] According to J. M. Bromley, the play evokes "the similarities between poaching and treason",[144] and the anonymous author deliberately links this Duke of Norfolk to both.[144] Rudolph Fiehler noted how Blague's service to the duke was very much based upon the unsavoury characteristics of "cowardice, poaching and thievery".[146] It has also been suggested that his comic catchphrase[148] was deliberately intended to invoke Sir John Falstaff, one of Shakespeare's best known characters, for the audience. In Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 2, Justice Shallow refers to Falstaff as having once been a page to "Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk",[149] Mowbray's grandfather.[150] Falstaff, of course, is commonly considered to be a fictional representation of either Sir John Oldcastle or Sir John Fastolf—or possibly an amalgamation of the two—both of whom are variously associated with Mowbray.[150][146]


  1. ^ Along with Constable of England, the marshalcy was one of the two great military officers of the medieval English crown,[1] and has also been described as being of the "utmost importance in matters of ceremony and frequently involved questions of precedence," as well as being responsible for the marshalling of parliament.[2] She also notes, however, that "specific instances of the earl [marshal] undertaking tasks arising from his office are extremely rare."[3]
  2. ^ William de la Pole had entered East Anglian political society in 1431, after fifteen years campaigning in France. His increasing power in East Anglia, which so continually thwarted Mowbray's ambitions, was not confined to regional politics. Under such a weak King as Henry VI, de la Pole "virtually governed the country."[4] According to Roger Virgo, Mowbray was "forced into a position of inferiority, even humiliation" by de la Pole's dominance.[5]
  3. ^ Westmorland's eldest son, Mowbray's uncle, Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury would later be a close ally with Richard, 3rd Duke of York from the mid-1450s and into the early years of the Wars of the Roses; Salisbury's son was Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, known today as "Kingmaker."[8]
  4. ^ There was a religious focus to this regimen. Specific restrictions on Mowbray included having to rise between 6 am and 7 am each morning, attend matins, prime and the lesser hours with his own chaplain, then attend the morning mass. Much the same pattern was then to be repeated in the evening, with prayers to the Virgin before a 10 pm curfew.[15]
  5. ^ The legal concept of dower had existed since the late twelfth century as a means of protecting a woman from being left landless if her husband died first. He would, when they married, assign certain estates to her—a dos nominata, or dower—usually a third of everything he was seised of. By the fifteenth century, the widow was deemed entitled to her dower, regardless of whether the husband had made such a provision earlier.[16] The situation the Mowbray heirs experienced was not uncommon in the late middle ages. The Holland family inheritance, for example, had been more or less the same for the previous eighty years, but when the last Holland earl of Kent Edmund inherited the title from his brother Thomas (who had died childless), in 1404, the estates had to support three dowagers. They were his mother Alice, his brother (widow, Joan Stafford, and his aunt, Elizabeth of Lancaster, Duchess of Exeter.[17] Edmund died in 1408; his wife the made a fourth dowager on the inheritance, and, there being no male heirs, it was broken up and divided amongst them and Edmund's five sisters. [18]
  6. ^ The precise date of Katherine Neville's death is unknown, but she is known to have attended the coronation of King Richard III in June 1483; Rowena archer places her death as occurring at Epworth in "in the late summer" that year.[20]
  7. ^ Since the next parliament was in October 1435. Rowena Archer considers this as "proof that at a critical moment there was no substitute for the personal, determined stance of an adult lord" when it came to defending a family's privileges, and compares John Mowbray, the second Duke's success in doing so with the failure of his son, who of course was still a minor when parliament came back to the issue in 1433.[23]
  8. ^ From the fourteenth century, concerned at "the potential loss of resources, in terms of men, valuables, currency and horses," [32] English governments made increasingly concerted efforts to control pilgrimage[33] ("sainte vouage").[34] Licences were therefore made mandatory for both those wishing to travel on pilgrimage, and those who would transport them.[32] By the mid-fifteenth century licensing had become part of a "package tour" system of pilgrimage, although it would increasingly fall out of use by the end of the century.[35]
  9. ^ Helen Castor says of the second Duke of Norfolk, he "spent a considerable proportion of the years between 1415 and 1425 serving in France, but that on his periodic returns to England, he seems to have visited East Anglia relatively rarely, dividing his time instead between London and Epworth".[36]
  10. ^ John Fastolf's adversaries were always those in the affinity of the Duke of Suffolk, and Fastolf spent a lot of time and more money on prosecuting them;[43] likewise, Mowbray was "the lord to whom Fastolf usually turned" for assistance.[44]
  11. ^ Historian Michael Hicks notes that "Bastard Feudalism existed for the mutual advantage of lords and retainers...Bastard feudal lords were expected to support their retainers in their just causes" and that this could mean that "the lord backed his man in all his quarrels, just or not, took his side, if necessarily backed him by force and/or in the courts, and was ultimately drawn into conflict with his opponent's lord".[46]
  12. ^ The Howard family at this time has been described by one modern historian as "one of the wealthiest and most prestigious gentry lines in England", and Sir Robert Howard (John Howard's father) had married Mowbray's aunt, Margaret some years before.[52] Robert himself had long been a member of Mowbray's father's household.[53]
  13. ^ John Scrope, 4th Baron Scrope of Masham was the brother of Henry, Lord Scrope, who had been executed by King Henry V for his treasonable role in the Southampton Plot.[55]
  14. ^ At some point before 1461, Brandon married Wingfield's daughter Elizabeth.[59]
  15. ^ Granddaughter of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, she had married William de la Pole sometime between 1430 and 1432 as her third and last husband.[65]
  16. ^ York had felt himself increasingly isolated from court, even though he was the King's closest blood relation, and was, at the time, the royal heir. However, Suffolk's fall merely led to the rise of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset as the new royal favourite, further eclipsing the duke. York resorted to arms.[76]
  17. ^ In 1443, Somerset had been promoted from earl to duke, and with it, received not only an annuity but precedence over Mowbray in the peerage. In fact, although Mowbray (according to Michael Hicks) "prided himself on being royal himself", two other royal dukes were also created in the 1440s, apart from Suffolk.[77]
  18. ^ York held lands in over twenty English counties, mostly in the north of England and the Welsh marches, but he held a significant swathe of manors around the Suffolk / Norfolk border.[81]
  19. ^ York had become allied with the Neville family, which consisted primarily of Mowbray's uncle, Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, and his son, the premier earl in the land, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick. The alliance had begun sometime in the early 1450s, and had been cemented during the protectorate, when York had appointed Salisbury his Lord Chancellor.[89]
  20. ^ This may also have been recognised by Mowbray's contemporaries, particularly those from his own area. Some fifteenth-century political verses in the archives of Holkham Hall, composed between the Battle of Towton and November 1461,[95] describe the period of Henry VI's reign up until the 1450s in great detail, but then, says Richard Beadle, omits the last few years of the reign, riven by factionalism as it was. Beadle suggests that, for the Norfolk composer of the verses, "one reason for his not wanting to remember them might be the uncertain allegiance of the Duke of Norfolk, who had at various times supported and distanced himself from the Yorkist cause."[96]
  21. ^ Charles Ross notes that this was in spite of his family relationship with York (and also that he was not the only one of the duke's kinsmen to do so. His cousins the Duke of Buckingham, Viscount Bourgchier, and Lord Bergavenny, also attended the Coventry parliament and likewise took the oath to Henry VI.[99]
  22. ^ Posited by Andrew Boardman, who considers it "impossible," on the one hand, that Edward would not have gathered artillery support while in London, yet on the other, subsequent archaeological excavation has not uncovered any sign at all of their presence on the battlefield.[122]
  23. ^ The Howard family at this time has been described by one modern historian as "one of the wealthiest and most prestigious gentry lines in England", and Sir Robert Howard (John Howard's father) had married Mowbray's aunt, Margaret some years before.[52] Robert himself had long been a member of Mowbray's father's household.[53]
  24. ^ In fact, she outlived all her Mowbray descendants, and this meant that no Mowbray duke of Norfolk ever received his full inheritance, due to her lengthy tenure of her dower.[37]
  25. ^ Mowbray's grandfather Thomas, 1st Duke of Norfolk, also appears in Shakespeare's Richard II, but is a far more pivotal character with a much greater role.[142]


  1. ^ Squibb 1959, p. 1.
  2. ^ Archer 1995, p. 104.
  3. ^ Archer 1984b, p. 168.
  4. ^ Richmond 2005, p. 203.
  5. ^ a b Virgoe 1980, p. 263.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj Richmond 2004.
  7. ^ Hicks 1998, p. 13.
  8. ^ Hicks 1998, pp. 1–13.
  9. ^ Archer 2004c.
  10. ^ Davis 2011, pp. 17–19.
  11. ^ Orme 1984, p. 125.
  12. ^ Given-Wilson et al. 2005c.
  13. ^ a b Harriss 2005, p. 115.
  14. ^ a b c Orme 1984, p. 122.
  15. ^ Orme 2003, p. 208.
  16. ^ Kenny 2003, pp. 59–60.
  17. ^ Stansfield 1987, pp. 151–161.
  18. ^ Stansfield 2004.
  19. ^ a b Archer 1984a, p. 29.
  20. ^ a b Archer 2004a.
  21. ^ a b Given-Wilson et al. 2005a.
  22. ^ Archer 1984b, p. 103.
  23. ^ a b Archer 1984b, p. 116.
  24. ^ Vaughan 2014, pp. 80–83.
  25. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 404.
  26. ^ Griffiths 1981, pp. 162–163.
  27. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 448.
  28. ^ a b Crawford 2010, p. 14.
  29. ^ a b c d e f Castor 2000, p. 108.
  30. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 587.
  31. ^ a b Castor 2000, p. 110.
  32. ^ a b Dyas 2001, p. 138.
  33. ^ Morrison 2000, p. 54.
  34. ^ Webb 2001, p. 166.
  35. ^ Stopford 1999, p. 133.
  36. ^ a b Castor 2000, p. 104.
  37. ^ a b c Castor 2000, p. 105.
  38. ^ Castor 2000, p. 56.
  39. ^ Castor 2000, p. 114.
  40. ^ Harriss 2005, p. 203.
  41. ^ Virgoe 1980, p. 264.
  42. ^ Castor 2000, p. 109.
  43. ^ Rose 2006, pp. 53–54.
  44. ^ Smith 1984, p. 62.
  45. ^ a b Smith 1984, pp. 62–63.
  46. ^ Hicks 2013, pp. 150–151.
  47. ^ a b Storey 1999, p. 226.
  48. ^ a b c Storey 1999, p. 227.
  49. ^ a b Ridgard 1985, p. 5.
  50. ^ Hicks 2010, p. 96.
  51. ^ Ross 2011, pp. 79–80.
  52. ^ a b Ross 2011, pp. 75–76.
  53. ^ a b Castor 2000, p. 107.
  54. ^ a b Ross 2011, p. 80.
  55. ^ Pugh 1988, p. 119.
  56. ^ Ross 2011, p. 83.
  57. ^ Ross 2011, p. 84.
  58. ^ Ross 2011, p. 86.
  59. ^ Gunn 1988, p. 47.
  60. ^ Castor 2000, pp. 114–115.
  61. ^ Castor 2000, p. 117.
  62. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 591.
  63. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 649.
  64. ^ Castor 2004, p. 93.
  65. ^ Archer 2004b.
  66. ^ Coote 2000, p. 195.
  67. ^ Maddern 1992, p. 38.
  68. ^ Maddern 1992, p. 157.
  69. ^ a b Harriss 2005, p. 626.
  70. ^ a b c Virgoe 1997, p. 58.
  71. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 586.
  72. ^ Castor 2000, p. 111.
  73. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 638.
  74. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 611.
  75. ^ Ross 1974, p. 12.
  76. ^ Watts 2004.
  77. ^ Hicks 2010, p. 80.
  78. ^ a b c Boardman 1996, p. 8.
  79. ^ Grummitt 2013, p. xxxii.
  80. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 690.
  81. ^ Ward 2016, p. 104.
  82. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 565.
  83. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 647.
  84. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 648.
  85. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 592.
  86. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 721.
  87. ^ Burley, Elliott & Watson 2007, p. 14.
  88. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 723.
  89. ^ Pollard 1990, pp. 257–258.
  90. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 740.
  91. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 741.
  92. ^ a b Griffiths 1981, p. 798.
  93. ^ a b Hicks 2010, p. 110.
  94. ^ Giles 1845, p. lv.
  95. ^ a b Beadle 2002, p. 113.
  96. ^ Beadle 2002, p. 110.
  97. ^ Gillingham 1990, pp. 107–108.
  98. ^ Given-Wilson et al. 2005b.
  99. ^ Ross 1974, p. 22.
  100. ^ a b c d Carpenter 1997, p. 158.
  101. ^ Carpenter 1997, pp. 146–147.
  102. ^ Ross 1986, pp. 43–47.
  103. ^ Ross 1986, p. 48.
  104. ^ a b Gillingham 1990, pp. 119–122.
  105. ^ Castor 2000, p. 188.
  106. ^ Goodman 1996, pp. 42–43.
  107. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 872.
  108. ^ Ross 1974, p. 34.
  109. ^ Ross 1974, p. 30.
  110. ^ a b Boardman 1996, p. 78.
  111. ^ Peach 2004, p. 5.
  112. ^ Boardman 1996, p. ix.
  113. ^ Breverton 2014, p. 131.
  114. ^ a b c d e Ross 1974, p. 35.
  115. ^ Kaufman 2004, p. 67.
  116. ^ Goodman 1996, p. 143.
  117. ^ Haigh 2001, p. 65.
  118. ^ Boardman 1996, p. 59.
  119. ^ Scofield 1923, p. 162.
  120. ^ a b c Boardman 1998, p. 18.
  121. ^ a b Haigh 2001, p. 86.
  122. ^ a b c Boardman 1996, p. 75.
  123. ^ Fiorato, Boylston & Knüsel 2007, p. 19.
  124. ^ Boardman 1996, p. 130.
  125. ^ Ross 1974, p. 36.
  126. ^ a b Haigh 2001, p. 87.
  127. ^ Boardman 1996, p. 50.
  128. ^ Haigh 2001, p. 63.
  129. ^ Kaufman 2004, p. 68.
  130. ^ Myers 1996, p. 284.
  131. ^ Goodwin 2011, p. 152.
  132. ^ Castor 2004, p. 143.
  133. ^ Pollard 2011, p. 10.
  134. ^ a b Castor 2004, pp. 151–152.
  135. ^ Jacob 1993, p. 464.
  136. ^ Castor 2004, p. 152.
  137. ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 724.
  138. ^ Lander 1980, p. 2.
  139. ^ Hicks 2010, p. 88.
  140. ^ Quennell & Johnson 2002, p. 148.
  141. ^ Shakespeare 2001, p. 181.
  142. ^ Saccio 2000, p. 128.
  143. ^ Dobson & Wells 2001, p. 321.
  144. ^ a b c d e Bromley 2011, p. 125.
  145. ^ Shakespeare and History 2018.
  146. ^ a b c Fiehler 1949, p. 364.
  147. ^ Kathman 2004.
  148. ^ Bennett 2000, p. 6.
  149. ^ Henry IV, Part 2, 3.2.26–28.
  150. ^ a b Kirwan 2015, pp. 108–110.


  • Archer, R. E. (1984a). "Rich Old Ladies: The Problem of Late Medieval Dowagers". In Pollard, A. J. Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History. Gloucester: Alan Sutton. pp. 15–35. ISBN 978-0-86299-163-0. 
  • Archer, R. E. (1984b). The Mowbrays: Earls of Nottingham and Dukes of Norfolk to 1432 (D,Phil thesis). University of Oxford. OCLC 638691892. 
  • Archer, R. E. (1995). "Parliamentary Restoration: John Mowbray and the Dukedom of Norfolk in 1425". In Archer, R. E.; Walker, S. Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England: Essays Presented to Gerald Harriss. London: Hambledon Press. pp. 99–116. ISBN 978-1-85285-133-0. 
  • Archer, R. E. (2004a). "Neville, Katherine, duchess of Norfolk (c.1400–1483)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  • Archer, R. E. (2004b). "Chaucer [married names Phelip, Montagu, de la Pole], Alice, duchess of Suffolk(c. 1404–1475)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-54434 (inactive 2018-01-04). Archived from the original on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  • Archer, R. E. (2004c). "Mowbray, John, second duke of Norfolk (1392–1432), magnate". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-19453 (inactive 2018-03-04). Archived from the original on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  • Beadle, R. (2002). "Fifteenth-century Political Verses From the Holkham Archives". Medium Ævum. 71: 101–121. OCLC 67118740. 
  • Bennett, C., ed. (2000) [1608]. The Merry Devil of Edmonton (repr. ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-86674-7. 
  • Boardman, A. W. (1996). The Battle of Towton (repr. ed.). Gloucester: Alan Sutton. ISBN 978-0-75091-245-7. 
  • Boardman, A. W. (1998). The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN 978-0-75091-465-9. 
  • Breverton, T. (2014). Jasper Tudor: Dynasty Maker. Stroud: Amberley Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-44563-402-9. 
  • Bromley, J. M. (2011). Intimacy and Sexuality in the Age of Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-13950-532-1. 
  • Burley, P.; Elliott, M.; Watson, H. (2007). The Battles of St Albans. Barnsley: Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-47381-903-0. 
  • Carpenter, C. (1997). The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, c.1437-1509. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-31874-7. 
  • Castor, H. (2000). The King, the Crown, and the Duchy of Lancaster: Public Authority and Private Power, 1399–1461. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820622-4. 
  • Castor, H. (2004). Blood and Roses: The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century. Chatham: Faber & Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-21670-3. 
  • Coote, L. A. (2000). Prophecy and Public Affairs in Later Medieval England. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-903153-03-1. 
  • Crawford, A. (2010). Yorkist Lord: John Howard, Duke of Norfolk c.1425–1485. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-1-44115-201-5. 
  • Davis, J. (2011). Medieval Market Morality: Life, Law and Ethics in the English Marketplace, 1200–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-13950-281-8. 
  • Dobson, M.; Wells, S. (2001). The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19811-735-3. 
  • Dyas, D. (2001). Pilgrimage in Medieval English Literature, 700-1500. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-0-85991-623-3. 
  • Fiehler, R. (1949). "I Serve the Good Duke of Norfolk". Modern Language Quarterly. 10: 364–366. OCLC 924728310. 
  • Fiorato, V.; Boylston, A.; Knüsel, C. (2007). Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461 (2nd paperback ed.). Oxford: Oxbow Books. ISBN 978-1-84217-289-6. 
  • Giles, J. A., ed. (1845). The Chronicles of the White Rose of York: A Series of Historical Fragments, Proclamations, Letters, and Other Contemporary Documents Relating to the Reign of King Edward the Fourth. London: James Bohn. OCLC 319939404. 
  • Gillingham, J. (1990). The Wars of the Roses (2nd ed.). London: Weidenfield and Nicholson. ISBN 978-1-84885-875-6. 
  • Given-Wilson, C.; Brand, P.; Phillips, S.; Ormrod, M.; Martin, G.; Curry, A.; Horrox, R., eds. (2005a). "'Introduction: Henry VI: July 1433'". British History Online. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. Woodbridge. Archived from the original on 17 February 2018. Retrieved 17 February 2018. 
  • Given-Wilson, C.; Brand, P.; Phillips, S.; Ormrod, M.; Martin, G.; Curry, A.; Horrox, R., eds. (2005b). "'Henry VI: November 1459'". British History Online. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. Woodbridge. Archived from the original on 18 February 2018. Retrieved 18 February 2018. 
  • Given-Wilson, C.; Brand, P.; Phillips, S.; Ormrod, M.; Martin, G.; Curry, A.; Horrox, R., eds. (2005c). "'Henry VI: October 1435'". British History Online. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. Woodbridge. Archived from the original on 23 February 2018. Retrieved 23 February 2018. 
  • Goodman, A. (1996). The Wars of the Roses (2nd ed.). New York: Barnes and Noble. ISBN 978-0-88029-484-3. 
  • Goodwin, G. (2011). Fatal Colours: Towton, 1461 - England's Most Brutal Battle. London: Orion. ISBN 978-0-29786-072-3. 
  • Griffiths, R. A. (1981). The Reign of Henry VI. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-04372-5. 
  • Grummitt, D. (2013). A Short History of the Wars of the Roses. Short histories. London: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-84885-875-6. 
  • Gunn, S. J. (1988). Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, c.1484-1545. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-63115-781-6. 
  • Haigh, P. A. (2001). From Wakefield to Towton: The Wars of the Roses. Barnsley: Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-0-85052-825-1. 
  • Harriss, G. L. (2005). Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921119-7. 
  • Hicks, M. A. (1998). Warwick the Kingmaker. Oxford: Longman Group. ISBN 978-0-63123-593-4. 
  • Hicks, M. A. (2010). The Wars of the Roses. London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-30018-157-9. 
  • Hicks, M. A. (2013). Bastard Feudalism (2nd ed.). Harlow: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-31789-896-2. 
  • Jacob, E. F. (1993). The Fifteenth Century, 1399-1485. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285286-1. 
  • Kathman, D. (2004). "Fabell, Peter (fl. 15th cent.)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 10 March 2018. Retrieved 10 March 2018. (Subscription required (help)). 
  • Kaufman, A. L. (2004). "To Write: Sir Thomas Malory and his Cautionary Narrative of Legitimation". Enarratio. 11: 61–88. OCLC 984788270. 
  • Kenny, G. (2003). "The Power of Dower: The Importance of Dower in the Lives of Medieval Women in Ireland". In Meek, C.; Lawless, C. Studies on Medieval and Early Modern Women: Pawns Or Players?. Dublin: Four Courts. pp. 59–74. ISBN 978-1-85182-775-6. 
  • Kirwan, P. (2015). Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-09617-2. 
  • Lander, J. R. (1980). Government and Community: England, 1450–1509. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-35793-8. 
  • Maddern, P. C. (1992). Violence and Social Order: East Anglia, 1422-1442. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19820-235-6. 
  • Morrison, S. S. (2000). Women Pilgrims in Late Medieval England. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-13473-763-5. 
  • Myers, A. R. (1996). Douglas, D. C., ed. Late Medieval: 1327 - 1485. English Historical Documents. 4 (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-41560-467-3. 
  • Orme, N. (1984). "The Education of Edward V". Historical Research. 57: 119–130. OCLC 300188139. 
  • Orme, N. (2003). Medieval Children (2nd ed.). London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-30009-754-2. 
  • Peach, H. (2004). Curious Tales of Old North Yorkshire. Wilmslow: Sigma Leisure. ISBN 978-1-85058-793-4. 
  • Pollard, A. J. (1990). North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses: Lay Society, War, and Politics 1450-1500. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19820-087-1. 
  • Pollard, A. J. (2011). "The People and Parliament in Fifteenth-Century England". In Kleineke, H. The Fifteenth Century X: Parliament, Personalities and Power. Papers Presented to Linda S. Clark. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-1-84383-692-6. 
  • Pugh, T. B. (1988). Henry V and the Southampton Plot of 1415. Gloucester: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 978-0-86299-549-2. 
  • Quennell, P.; Johnson, H. (2002). Who's who in Shakespeare. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-41526-035-0. 
  • Richmond, C. (2004). "Mowbray, John (VI), third duke of Norfolk (1415–1461)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2017. (Subscription required (help)). 
  • Richmond, C. (2005). "East Anglian Politics and Society in the Fifteenth Century: Reflections, 1956–2003". In Harper-Bill, C. Medieval East Anglia. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press. pp. 183–208. ISBN 978-1-84383-151-8. 
  • Ridgard, J. (1985). Medieval Framlingham: Select Documents 1270–1524. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-0-85115-432-9. 
  • Rose, J. A. (2006). "Litigation and Political Conflict in Fifteenth-Century East Anglia: Conspiracy and Attaint Actions and Sir John Fastolf". Journal of Legal History. 27: 53–80. OCLC 709978800. 
  • Ross, C. D. (1974). Edward IV. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-52002-781-7. 
  • Ross, C. D. (1986). The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-27407-1. 
  • Ross, J. A. (2011). "'Mischieviously Slewen": John, Lord Scrope, the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, and the Murder of Henry Howard in 1446". In Kleineke, H. The Fifteenth Century X: Parliament, Personalities and Power. Papers Presented to Linda S. Clark. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. pp. 75–96. ISBN 978-1-84383-692-6. 
  • Saccio, P. (2000). Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19802-871-0. 
  • Scofield, C. L. (1923). The Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth, King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland. I (1st ed.). London: Longmans, Green. & Co. OCLC 1011868853. 
  • Shakespeare and History (2018). "John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk". Shakespeare and History. Archived from the original on 23 February 2018. Retrieved 23 February 2018. 
  • Shakespeare, W. (2001). Cox, J. D.; Rasmussen, E., eds. King Henry VI Part 3 (3rd ed.). London: Arden Shakespeare. ISBN 978-1-903436-30-1. 
  • Smith, A. (1984). "Litigation and Politics: Sir John Fastolf's Defence of his English Property". In Pollard, A. J. Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History. Gloucester: Alan Sutton. pp. 35–58. ISBN 978-0-86299-163-0. 
  • Squibb, G. D. (1959). The High Court of Chivalry: A Study of the Civil Law in England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OCLC 504278136. 
  • Stansfield, M. M. N. (1987). The Holland family, Dukes of Exeter, Earls of Kent and Huntingdon, 1352–1475 (D.Phil thesis). University of Oxford. 
  • Stansfield, M. M. N. (2004). "Holland, Edmund, seventh earl of Kent (1383–1408)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-13518 (inactive 2018-03-04). Archived from the original on 3 March 2017. Retrieved 3 March 2017. (Subscription required (help)). 
  • Stopford, J. (1999). Pilgrimage Explored. Wodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-0-95297-343-0. 
  • Storey, R.L. (1999). The End of the House of Lancaster (2nd revised ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-0-75092-199-2. 
  • Vaughan, R. (2014). Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy. The History of Valois Burgundy (New ed.). Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-0-85115-917-1. 
  • Virgoe, R. (1980). "The murder of James Andrew: Suffolk faction in the 1430s". Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute ofArchaeology and History. 34: 263–268. OCLC 679927444. 
  • Virgoe, R. (1997). "Three Suffolk Parliamentary Elections of the mid-Fifteenth Century". East Anglian Society and the Political Community of Late Medieval England. Norwich: University of East Anglia. pp. 53–64. ISBN 978-0-906219-44-7. 
  • Ward, M. (2016). The Livery Collar in Late Medieval England and Wales: Politics, Identity and Affinity. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-78327-115-3. 
  • Watts, J. (2004). "Richard of York, third duke of York (1411–1460)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-23503 (inactive 2018-01-04). Archived from the original on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2017. 
  • Webb, D. (2001). Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in the Medieval West. London: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-86064-649-2. 
Political offices
Preceded by
The Duke of Norfolk
Earl Marshal
Succeeded by
The Duke of Norfolk
Legal offices
Preceded by
The Earl of Arundel
Justice in Eyre
south of the Trent

Succeeded by
The Earl of Essex
Peerage of England
Preceded by
John Mowbray
Duke of Norfolk
1st creation
Succeeded by
John Mowbray
Earl of Norfolk
3rd creation
Earl of Nottingham
2nd creation
Baron Mowbray
Baron Segrave