The Story Of Hardyng

By Author: Water Henry
Total Articles: 73
Comment this article

In saying that Hardyng was 'still a Lancastrian' when he composed Lansdowne, Kingsford was ignoring the fact that Hardyng had been brought up from the age of in the household of Henry ('Hotspur') Percy and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Mortimer, third earl of March. Hardyng shared the Percy belief that Elizabeth's brother, Roger, fourth earl of March, had been formally acknowledged as heir presumptive to the childless Richard II, as grandson, through his mother, of Lionel, duke of Clarence, elder brother of John of Gaunt. Hardyng had fought along with Percy at the battle of Shrewsbury (1405), for the claim of Edmund, fifth earl of March, as rightful heir of Richard II against the usurping Henry IV York's father had been Replica Omega executed by Henry V in 1415 for plotting to place Edmund on the throne. It was York's subsequent claim as Edmund's nephew and legitimist heir of Richard II that Hardyng repeatedly stressed in his chronicle for York:

Nevertheless, Kingsford was certain that after his failure to obtain Geddington from ...
... Henry VI, Hardyng had switched his allegiance from Lancaster to York, for discreditable reasons: 'Hardyng had scarcely obtained his long-sought reward in return for the first [sic] version of his Chronicle before he set to work to rewrite it in quite another spirit. The extraordinary contrast which is thus presented is little to the author's credit. His change of attitude was too quick, and his motive too obvious'.69 Undoubtedly Kingsford's belief that the 'Ricardian' version had been written after the 'Henrician' one was influenced by the fact that in October 1460 York, despite all his previous oaths of loyalty to Henry VI, had suddenly advanced his own claim to the throne. In a compromise, parliament decreed that York and his heirs should Omega Replica Watches succeed Henry after Henry's death (matters that Hardyng failed to mention when rehearsing York's career for Edward IV). Although Kingsford avoided falling into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, the temptation for recent commentators has been to propose that Hardyng started to rewrite his chronicle for York in the few weeks before York was killed on 30 December 1460. Peverley, for example, has said that 'The text was revised, and at times radically altered, to take into account the new political circumstances of late 1460. In both Stonor Letters and Papers and English Historical Literature Kingsford occasionally left contradictory statements and unresolved hesitations. In considering the date of Hardyng's chronicle for Edward IV, he deduced that Hardyng had probably presented it to the king at Leicester in May 1463, a time that fits well with the internal evidence. Hardyng concluded his narrative account of recent history with events that occurred after 5 January and before May 1463, and he evidently wrote when Henry VI, his queen and son were still in Scotland.90 It was, he told Edward, now sixty-three years since Edward's forebears had been divorced from regality by the usurpation of Henry IV in September 1399.91 Kingsford also thought, however, that because the epilogue (in Grafton's manuscript and some others) refers to Edward's queen as 'elected sovereign lady' of England, the unnamed queen must be Elizabeth Woodville. Edward secretly married her in May 1464. Because that became known only at Michaelmas, Kingsford concluded, Hardyng must still have been working on his chronicle at that time.

It is now almost a century since Kingsford published his English Historical Literature. Naturally, much of that work has not stood the test of time. In general, however, his reputation as an assiduous seeker and publisher of historical material is well deserved, and for students of literature was reinforced by Antonia Gransden. As a result, some of Kingsford's judgements still carry great weight. But two in particular have here been re-assessed. The first part of this article has also implied that, after making all due allowances for the date of publication, and for the possible external difficulties that Kingsford may have faced in compiling and editing the Stonor correspondence, someone like his perceived rival, James Gairdner, would have been better suited to the task of careful transcription.