sunshine

The heads of both families must have agreed to the unusual arrangements of 1480—Thomas Etchingham II (Elizabeth’s brother) accepting the burial of an Oxenbridge woman in his family church, and Robert Oxenbridge III allowing his sister to lie away from their family vault. But it is unlikely that either brother instigated this unusual commemoration; instead, Agnes Oxenbridge herself probably requested it, as was then the custom, in a deathbed will that no longer survives. Of course, Agnes Oxenbridge’s instructions could have been ignored, modified, or poorly implemented, so the actual execution of the Etchingham-Oxenbridge monument relied on a collaboration involving the man in whose church it was to be laid (Thomas Etchingham II), her survivors (especially Robert Oxenbridge III), and the London workshop that got the commission (denoted as workshop F by students of brass styles). As a product of so much collective effort, this memorial brass to two women must have been a scandal to no one at the time.

It nevertheless presented some creative challenges. First, the designers had to determine how to place the two effigies, given that most joint monuments commemorated married couples. Elizabeth Etchingham was assigned the conventional spot for husbands (the left, as viewed by observers), perhaps because the brass was destined for her family church, because her family was of more ancient origin, or because her smaller effigy presented less insult to husbandly prerogatives. Second, the designers had to distinguish a young, nubile maiden from her middle-aged counterpart. They used hairstyle and height to this end, differentiating the smaller maiden with youthful f lowing hair from her larger, coifed, and middle-aged companion.

Third, the designers had to express the relationship that caused these two women to be remembered together, and their decisions here are especially revealing. The design suggests that no one—not Agnes Oxenbridge in pre-mortem requests, not Thomas Etchingham II and Robert Oxenbridge III acting on her behalf, and not the artisans in the workshop—shied away from representing the two women as an intimate couple. Indeed, the monument seems to have been designed with special emphasis on their warm affection. This affection was suggested, of course, by the simple fact of their joint brass, for most brasses with multiple figures remembered married persons—a motif generally understood as celebrating the closeness and fidelity of marriage. But the designers of this brass pushed beyond mere joint commemoration in stressing intimacy, for Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge were also deliberately shown facing each other, moving towards each other, and looking directly into each other’s eyes.

Most contemporary joint effigies showed couples facing the front, much like bodies laid in tombs, but Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge were portrayed in semi-profile, turned towards each other. New and not yet standard, this pose derives partly from design developments extraneous to the specifics of this 1480 monument—particularly the patterns favored by workshop F and a desire to show in effigies the complex headdresses of the time. But the pose had an affective purpose too, for as Paul Binski has noted of other brasses, “the turning of figures on their axis enabled the intimacy of marriage to be expressed.” The designers of the Etchingham-Oxenbridge brass evoked intimacy by adopting this inward turn, and they emphasized it even more by eschewing two features common in other brasses of workshop F—a so-called “jaunty” leaning of the figures away from each other and a draping of women’s gowns in deep, immobilizing folds. 

The effigies of Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge lack these distancing features and show, instead, the two women moving towards one another. As if to seal the affective power of the composition, the designers show Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge gazing directly into each other’s eyes, even though most married couples in contemporary brasses stare past each other into the distance. Their brass unmistakably evokes more intimacy and mutual affection than do most contemporary monuments of husbands and wives."

Character

As Lord Protector, duke and king's uncle, Humphrey was a bit of disaster. He showed an ineptitude in politics, his independent military campaigns were flashy but insubstantial, he caused a diplomatic incident with his first marriage and a scandal with his second, he jeopardised the Anglo-Burgundian alliance by marrying Jacqueline of Hainault and pursuing her lands, he was argumentative and took everything personally. As David Rundle succinctly puts it, Humphrey was "hot-headed, cack-handed and tight-fisted". His chief failing, imo, was his inability or failure to adapt to changing circumstances - namely, to doggedly pursue and promote the policies of Henry V at a time where they were no longer viable.

Humphrey does have some potential good points. As regent during Henry VI's coronation expedition to France, he seems to have conducted himself well and there were no complaints about his behaviour. He responded quickly and effectively to the threat of the Jack Sharp rebellion and there are no known conflicts between himself and parliament or the minority council. This time seems to be remembered as a period of stability and may have helped shape the legend of "Good Duke Humphrey".

Before we give Humphrey a whole cookie for this, it's important to remember some points. One - he was aided immensely by his rival, Cardinal Henry Beaufort, being out of the country. Two - he appointed his own choices to important positions, i.e. as chancellor, which meant he was surrounded by men willing to work with him and unlikely to seriously oppose him. Three - his responsibilities were largely focused on the domestic so he wasn't dealing personally with France or Burgundy, his chief weaknesses. Four - what followed after his tenure as regent was more conflict within the council ruling for Henry VI, the failure of Henry VI's personal rule and the Wars of the Roses which means that Humphrey probably looked much better by comparison.

Some of those who studied Humphrey (e.g. Kenneth Vickers, Frank Millard) have suggested he might have been better as king or regent than he was politician and counsellor. Vickers, at least, seems to have been opinion that the chief problem with the minority council was that there were too many discordant opinions given equal weight and England would have been better-served by a regency where there would be one ruler.

Humphrey to Vickers' mind wasn't great but he was no worse a candidate than Cardinal Beaufort. Millard is far more optimistic and sees in Humphrey a personality that was more suited to ruling. I do wonder if Humphrey really would be that open to counsel, especially if the counsel went against his own will or criticised his policies, and I doubt the premise of one regent would have been the cure Vickers thinks it was - Edward II and Richard II were both deposed in part because of their failure to maintain cordial relationships with their nobles which is a problem I can see Humphrey having. Vickers seems to have held Cardinal Beaufort in less esteem than Humphrey so the idea of Humphrey as a regent was more appealing than Cardinal Beaufort.

It's possible, I think, that he could rise to the occasion and be a decent king, at least on the domestic stage. But this also would depend on whether he was able to move beyond his quarrels with some members of the aristocracy (most notably Cardinal Beaufort) and keep them onside - if not, he might end up facing similar problems that Edward II and Richard II did.

Of course, this all depends when he became king. If it happened in the 1440s, for example, he might not have had the heart or strength to maintain the quarrels of his more impetuous years.

The French Problem

Part of Humphrey's popularity came from his opposition to the policies of Henry VI in France. But as the saying going, it's much easier to be in opposition than it is to govern.

On the sidelines, he could easily call for expensive, impractical but flashy campaigns while knowing that they would never get off the ground. As king, he would be well aware of the dire state of the treasury and responsible for funding the campaigns. This might have led him to be more realistic and find a more viable alternative, or to adopt the strategies he'd been opposing. Depending on when he became king, he might have found that there was no better alternative that cutting English losses and running.

France was always a tricky subject for the king to pursue. Peace with France was often controversial - Richard II's 27-year truce was famously unpopular, despite the length of the truce and the massive gains it brought him. Even if Humphrey got a truce with good terms or even something as desirable as the French agreeing to honour the terms of the Treaty of Bretigny (made by Edward III in 1360), it could still damage his popularity. Moreover, Henry V's Treaty of Troyes was still in recent memory and the betrayal of its terms might have been particularly disastrous.

This also supposes that the English claim to France was viable after the loss of Henry VI (whether we're talking about a case whether he was never born or his death). The Treaty of Troyes confirmed the throne of France on Henry V and his heirs and Henry V was careful to emphasise that included the possibility of his brothers as his heirs, and of course Humphrey inherited the same claim to the French throne as Henry V did. But it must have been known that a son of Henry V and Catherine de Valois was much easier to sell to France than Henry V's brothers. One was Charles VI of France.'s grandson, the other was the great-great grandson of Philippe IV of France.

Of course, we also have the question of whether Humphrey would be willing to abandon the Treaty of Troyes when he was so fiercely protective of Henry V's legacy. Then, it depends on when he came to that realisation in time to get a good deal or whether he was better at negotiating his way out of a flaming dumpster fire than William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk was when he negotiated the Treaty of Tours.*

Succession

Childless monarchs tend not to do well and even a lengthy wait for a heir could be a problem, as Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou found out. The lack of children tended to result in anxiety about the future of the dynasty and could well be seen as a personal failing of the monarch.

Humphrey had no legitimate children from his two marriages. We don't know why this was. Humphrey fathered two known illegitimate children so it seems likely that it was widely believed his lack of legitimate children were due to his wives' infertility.** If he became king, he might have believed he should "bow to necessity" and have his marriage to Eleanor Cobham annulled. This might have been personally disastrous, given he evidently cared about her, potentially scandalous, and likely devastating to Eleanor, who would lose her status and her husband. But it would have benefits to Humphrey-as-king. It would allow him to make a diplomatic alliance with a continental power, could result in the birth of heir(s) to continue the Lancastrian dynasty, and given the scandal of his marriage to Eleanor, it might have helped rehabilitate his reputation.

However, had Humphrey succeeded in fathering a legitimate heir, it might backfire. Assuming he succeeded when John, Duke of Bedford died (September 1435), fathered an heir at some point afterwards and still died in February 1447, any child would still be a minor which tended to mean trouble for the realm and trouble for the child-king (cf. the unrest around Edward III's minority, Richard II and Henry VI).

Humphrey might have chosen to maintain his marriage to Eleanor - after all, he didn't remarry after their marriage was annulled in 1441. In that case, he might have stayed quiet on the succession, as Richard II did, or openly acknowledged an heir from amongst the nobility - probably, Richard, Duke of York.

Humphrey seems to have a cordial relationship with York*** so he may have been able to avoid the problems that York gave Henry VI. York was unlikely to complain about being overlooked and underappreciated by Humphrey, they seem to have been on the same page in regards to France, and it's possible that Humphrey would have been content acknowledging York as his heir. It is, however, possible that by favouring York, Humphrey would end up antagonising Suffolk and/or Somerset into opposing him.

Scandal

Honestly, top marks for Humphrey here. We'd love to be talking about an English king knowingly married a married woman (admittedly, when she was trying to have her marriage annulled), how he had an affair with his bigamist wife's lady-in-waiting and married her and how his doctor wrote a medical treatise warning about the dangers of too much sex. Hell, the historians obsessed with the idea that his grandfather had an STD or syphilis would have a field day with him. To say nothing of the scandal around his mistress-turned-wife (turned queen?) who was accused of being a witch who seduced Humphrey with magic spells.

(Did I take a moment to image the foul historical fiction and "history books" that'd be written about Eleanor and shudder? Yes. But still, top marks for scandal.)

All of this is just stuff he did as the Duke of Gloucester. If he'd annulled his marriage to Eleanor, there's another scandal - especially if he carried on having an affair with her (a not unknown occurrence for noblemen forced to give up their lovers) or if she or his new wife died not long after. If Eleanor and Humphrey had a miracle baby, there would have probably been accusations of adultery or changelings, as there were for Margaret of Anjou.

There's also Humphrey general messy bitch status and the intrigue and drama of his quarrels would provide entertainment for years. He may have also been secretly a goth. If we're truly desperate, one of his servants wrote a book that featured a verse about medieval toilets. Not necessarily scandalous but it does tell us how a medieval nobleman pooped.

Conclusions

In short, I think Humphrey would be a fun king to talk about. A dumpster fire with more than enough sex scandals - and all without murdering any of his wives. He might have finally matured under the pressures of kingship and been a decent king or flailed his way through to the end - or he might have gotten himself deposed. :(

* The Treaty of Tours was not solely Suffolk's responsibility; he seems to have been hamstrung by Henry VI's "peace at all costs" directive. It was an expensive, ineffective and short-lived peace treaty that set Margaret of Anjou up to fail as Queen of England. Humphrey seems to have favoured a better alliance (the Count of Armagnac over Rene of Anjou) but we have no idea if an Armagnac alliance would have resulted in a better situation than the Angevin treaty did.

** Jacqueline of Hainault was married four times, none of which produced children, and at least some of these marriages were consummated. There were rumours she was pregnant with Humphrey's child and the notoriously unreliable Alison Weir claimed that she and Humphrey suffered a stillbirth. The only known sexual relationship Eleanor Cobham had was with Humphrey and produced no children. Lauren Johnson suggested on Twitter that Humphrey's groin injury at the Battle of Agincourt may have left him unable to father children but this is purely speculative. We don't know when his illegitimate children were born to determine if they were born before Agincourt. Furthermore, Eleanor's attempt/claim to have sought out fertility remedies tend to suggest that if this was the case, it wasn't obvious to someone in intimate contact with him and she thought it was possible to have a child with him.