Bastard Prince by Beverley A. Murphy

were accustomed to working at the centre of Tudor government. Wolsey’s ‘new men’ were by no means unsuited to their task. Many of them had firsthand experience of the unique difficulties of the north, having served under Wolsey in his capacity as Archbishop of York or Bishop of Durham. Between them they had a wealth of clerical and legal experience, including canon, civil, chancery and equity law, which allowed them to exercise the same function as the king’s courts in London. Significantly, none of Richmond’s officers were above the rank of knight. It remained to be seen whether this new initiative would be successful in controlling the established northern lords. 33
    From the outset there were indications that more might be asked of them than they could deliver. In a significant departure from previous models the authority of Richmond’s council was not confined to Yorkshire but extended right across the border counties, though it was not a complete departure from the traditional feudal form. The council was still responsible for the administration of Richmond’s lands and household. In January 1527 the surveyor and general receiver of his estates, Thomas Magnus, arranged ‘for divers great causes to meet with sundry my lord of Richmond’s officers in Lincolnshire’. He then made a substantial detour through Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire, in order ‘to survey and see my lord’s lands in those parts’. In a similar manner one of the council, William Franklyn, Archdeacon of Durham, was pressed into service to take a view of Richmond’s lands in the north. In addition, all manner of domestic concerns, from the order in the kitchen to the arrangements for Christmas, were as much part of their duties as the government and security of the north.
    It did not take long for these dual requirements to clash. Henry decided that Richmond should have a chapel at Sheriff Hutton ‘because the Lord Dacre and the Lord Latimer have chapels’. The council begged to be allowed to put this matter off until they had tackled the instructions they had already been given ‘for the good order as well of my said Lord’s household, as of the north parts of this realm, which we esteem to be matters of no small importance’. The government of the north was bound to be a difficult and time-consuming task; and the administration of the large and complex community that was a ducal household was also a significant undertaking. If one was to be preferred to the other, then the envisaged model of justice and domesticity was going to suffer.
    A second potential difficulty was the king’s and Wolsey’s evident inclination to use Richmond’s patronage as if it were their own. The cardinal’s role was by no means confined to setting up the establishment. In 1527 when the Duke of Norfolk wanted to place his servant in Richmond’s household, he was required to ask Wolsey ‘to write a letter unto my lord of Richmond’s council to admit him’ as he had been advised that they would not do so ‘without your grace’s letters to them directed for that purpose’. In his turn the cardinal, like any good lord, also assumed responsibility for promoting the welfare of Richmond’s servants. When the duke’s chamberlain, Sir William Parr, hoped to secure a grant of lands from the king, it was Wolsey who pressed his suit. While it was natural that Richmond’s officers should consult Wolsey regarding their role as the king’s Council of the North, their eagerness to defer to him over other matters was rather at odds with Richmond’s role as an independent magnate.
    The role of the king in his son’s affairs was even more complex. The creation of a separate household, financed from his own lands, did not stop Henry from regarding his son’s possessions as his to bestow. There was, of course, an element of royal prerogative in