Battle of Shrewsbury

‘His government [Robert, Duke of Albany], after the death of his brother, Robert III (1407), commenced with a show of prosperity. He renewed the league offensive and defensive with the kingdom of France, and entered into negotiation with England. In the communings which ensued, he made no application for the liberation of his nephew, the present sovereign, nor was his name even mentioned in the transaction. But the Earl of Douglas, whose military services were valuable to the defence of the frontier, was restored to freedom, having been taken at the battle of Shrewsbury, where he had fought on the side of Sir Henry Percy with his usual distinguished valor, beating down the king of England with his own hand, but being in the course of the conflict himself made prisoner, according to his habitual bad luck. George, Earl of March, had rendered Henry IV effectual assistance during that insurrection, being the first who apprised that monarch of the conspiracy against him. But he was now weary of his exile, and, disappointed of his revenge, returned to his allegiance to Scotland, upon restoration of his estates. These were great points gained in reference to defence upon the border…’

The Battle of Shrewsbury was fought on July 21, 1403.  King Henry IV of England battled Hotspur; Henry Percy in this encounter, with results favoring Henry IV.  The text above, from Sir Walter Scott’s ‘Scotland”, discusses some of the players at a time after Shrewsbury had taken place.

Flamborough Head

King James I of Scotland was a strong ruler, though his reign was shortened by 18 years of captivity under English Kings Henry IV - VI.  Gaining the throne in 1406 on the death of his father, Robert III, the 12 year old James was sailing to France to grow up in safety when disaster struck; March 30, 1406 (OS).  Sir Walter Scott provides some history on this event in 'Scotland'.

'Meantime Prince James, the only surviving son of the poor infirm old king, being now (1405) in his eleventh year, required better education than Scotland could afford, and protection more efficient than that of his debilitated father. Robert III could not but suspect the cause and circumstances of his eldest son's death, and be conscious that the ambition which had prompted the removal of Rothsay would not be satisfied without the life of James also. The youthful prince was, therefore, committed to the care of Wardlaw, bishop of Saint Andrew's, and was by his advice sent to France, as the safest means of protecting him from his uncle's schemes of treachery or violence. He was embarked accordingly, Henry Sinclair, earl of Orkney, being appointed as his governor. A considerable number of Lothian gentlemen, with David Fleming of Cumbernauld, attended him to the ship. But on their return they were attacked, for what reason is unknown, by James Douglas of Balveny, uncle to the earl. A skirmish took place on Hermanston Moor, where Fleming and several of his companions fell.

This bloody omen, at the commencement of Prince James's voyage, was followed by equally calamitous consequences. The vessel in which he was embarked had not gained Flamborough Head, when she was taken by an English corsair. As the truce at the time actually subsisted, this capture of the prince was in every respect contrary to the law of nations. But knowing the importance of possessing the royal hostage, Henry resolved to detain him at all events. "In fact," he said, "the Scots ought to have given me the education of this boy, for I am an excellent French scholar." Apparently this new disaster was an incurable wound to the old king; yet he survived, laden with years and infirmities, till 1406, just a twelvemonth after this last misfortune. His death made no change in public affairs, and was totally unfelt in the administration, which continued in the hands of Albany.'

Henry IV of England

Henry Bolingbroke, Henry IV of England, died on March 20, 1413.  Henry was the first Lancaster king.  First cousin to King Richard II, with whom he spent much time growing up, the relationship became strained once the two had competitive interests.  Sir Walter Scott reports the following in "The History of Scotland":

'...a very curious subject of diplomatic discussion subsisted between Henry IV and the Regent of Scotland.

There is a story told by Bower, or Bowmaker, the continuator of Fordun's Chronicle, which has hitherto been treated as fabulous by the more modern historians. This story bears, that Richard II, generally supposed to have been murdered at Pontefract castle, either by the "fierce hand of Sir Piers of Exton," or by the slower and more cruel death of famine, did in reality make his escape by subtlety from his place of confinement; that he fled in disguise to the Scottish isles, and was recognised in the dominions of the Lord of the Isles by a certain fool or jester, who had been familiar in the court of England, as being no other than the dethroned king of that kingdom. Bower proceeds to state, that the person of Richard II thus discovered was delivered up by the Lord of the Isles to the Lord Montgomery, and by him presented to Robert III, by whom he was honourably and beseemingly maintained during all the years of that prince's life. After the death of Robert III, this Richard is stated to have been supported in magnificence, and even in royal state, by the Duke of Albany, to have at length died in the castle of Stirling, and to have been interred in the church of the friars there, at the north angle of the altar. This singular legend is also attested by another contemporary historian, Winton, the prior of Lochleven. He tells the story with some slight differences, particularly that the fugitive and deposed monarch was recognised by an Irish lady, the wife of a brother of the Lord of the Isles, that had seen him in Ireland—that being charged with being King Richard, he denied it—that he was placed in custody of the Lord of Montgomery, and afterwards of the Lord of Cumbernauld—and, finally, that he was long under the care of the regent Duke of Albany. "But whether he was king or not, few," said the chronicler of Lochleven, "knew with certainty. The mysterious personage exhibited little devotion, would seldom incline to hear mass, and bore himself like one half wild or distracted." Serlealso, yeoman of the robes to Richard, was executed because, coming from Scotland to England he reported that Richard was alive in the latter country. This legend, of so much importance to the history of both North and South Britain, has been hitherto treated as fabulous. But the researches and industry of the latest historian of Scotland have curiously illustrated this point, and shown, from evidence collected in the original records, that this captive, called Richard II, actually lived many years in Scotland, and was supported at the public expense of that country.


It is then now clear, that, to counterbalance the advantage which Henry IV. possessed over the regent of Scotland by having in his custody the person of James, and consequently the power of putting an end to the delegated government of Albany whenever he should think fit to set the young king at liberty, Albany, on his side, had in his keeping the person of Richard II, or of someone strongly resembling him, a prisoner whose captivity was not of less importance to the tranquility of Henry IV, who at no period possessed his usurped throne in such security as to view with indifference a real or pretended resuscitation of the deposed Richard...'

Owen Glendower

The last independent prince of Wales died on September 20, 1415.  Glendower served the future Henry IV of England while a young man.  Glendower led a Welsh revolt, beginning in 1400/01, which began when neighbor Reginald Grey, 3rd Baron Grey de Ruthyn, failed to notify Glendower of Henry's call to his Scottish campaign in 1400, then disingenuously charged Glendower with treason.  By the time Henry learned of the rebellion, he had difficulty quelling it.  Glendower gained control over most of Wales by 1405, in part due to an alliance with Henry Percy and Edmund Mortimer.  Welsh control lasted until 1408, when Henry's son, the future Henry V captured Aberystwith.  The circumstances of Glendower's death remain uncertain to this day.

Walter Scott references Owen Glendower, and the setting in 1400, in a publication titled "Scotland", by Sir Walter Scott, Dionysius Lardner, and Mayo Williamson Hazeltine:

'In 1400, Henry therefore summoned the whole military force of England to meet him at York, and published an arrogant manifesto, in which he vindicated the antiquated claim of supremacy, which had been so long in abeyance, and, assuming the tone of lord paramount, commanded the Scottish king, with his prelates and nobles, to meet him at Edinburgh and render homage. Of course no one attended upon that summons, excepting the new proselyte March, who met Henry at Newcastle, and was received to the English fealty. But if Henry's boast of subjecting Scotland was a bravado inconsistent with his usual wisdom, his warfare, on the contrary, was marked by a degree of forbearance and moderation too seldom the characteristic of an English invader. Penetrating as far as Edinburgh, he extended his especial protection to the canons of Holyrood, from whom his father, John of Gaunt, had experienced shelter, and in general spared religious houses.


The castle of Edinburgh was gallantly held out by the Duke of Roth say, aided by the skill and experience of his father-in-law, the Earl of Douglas. Albany commanded a large army, which, according to the ancient Scottish policy, hovered at some distance from the English host. The Soots had wisely resolved upon the defensive system of war which had so frequently saved Scotland. But they could not forbear some of the bravado of the time. The Duke of Rothsay wrote to Henry that, to avoid the effusion of Christian blood, he was willing to rest the national quarrel upon the event of a combat of one, two, or three nobles on every side. Henry laughed at this sally of youthful vivacity, and, in answer, expressed his wonder how Rothsay should think of saving Christian blood at the expense of shedding that of the nobility, who, it was to be hoped, were Christians as well as others. Albany also would have his gasconade. He sent a herald to Henry to say that, if he would stay in his position near Edinburgh for six days, he would do battle with him to the extremity. The English king gave his mantle and a chain of gold to the herald, in token that he joyfully accepted the challenge. But Albany had no purpose of keeping his word; and Henry found nothing was to be won by residing in a wasted country to beleaguer an impregnable rock. He raised the siege and retired into England, where the rebellion of Owen Glendower soon after broke out. A truce of twelve months and upward took place between the kingdoms.'

Battle of Towton

"...We must not tarry," said Margaret; " let us part here — you for Dijon

— I to Aix, my abode of unrest in Provence. Furewell — we may meet in a better hour—yet how can I hope it? Thus I said on the morning before the fight of St. Albans — thus on the dark dawning of Towton — thus on the yet more bloody field of Tewkesbury — and what was the event? Yet hope is a plant which cannot be rooted out of a noble breast, till the last heart-string crack as it is pulled away..."

From Scott's "Anne of Geierstein".

The Battle of Towton occurred on March 29, 1461.  The Yorkists, under King Edward IV won the battle decisively, giving the Lancastrians a crushing blow.  Edward had claimed the throne on March 4, 1460 soon after the death of his father Richard.  Edward held the throne until 1470, when Lancastrian King Henry IV was restored to power.  Henry's second reign ended the next year, with the Battle of Tewkesbury, after which Edward was himself restored to the throne.