The Act of Accord (39 Hen. 6) was an act of the Parliament of England. It was passed into law on 25 October 1460 during a period of intense political division and partisanship at the top of government. Earlier that month, Richard, Duke of York had entered the Council Chamber—in the presence of several lords—and laid his hand on the empty throne, claiming the crown of England. His grounds were that he and King Henry VI were both direct descendants of Edward III, but York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines, and Henry's was through only one. Following discussions between royal justices, York and Parliament, the House of Lords decided that Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him. This automatically removed Henry's son, Edward, Prince of Wales, from the succession. Henry agreed to the compromise, which became the Act of Accord.
Political partisanship had already erupted into the civil war the year before, and, far from lowering political pressure, the act further split the nobility§. Although Henry had publicly supported the act, Queen Margaret of Anjou refused to accept the disinheritance of their son. In this, she was joined by the majority of the English nobility, who also opposed York. King Henry, nominally the head of state, was still in London, which was controlled by the Yorkist government. Margaret, on the other hand, was in the north with her son, raising an army. This began the systematic destruction of York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates. York led an army to challenge her but was killed at the Battle of Wakefield on 30 December. The Lancastrians, in turn, were defeated three months later, on the 29th March, at the bloodiest battle fought on English soil, at the Battle of Towton by York's son, who was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461.
Background
Throughout the 1450s, English politics became partisan and factional. Richard, Duke of York, a powerful noble and heir to the throne until 1453—when Margaret had a son—opposed King Henry VI's government. Henry was easily influenced by favourites, particularly Edmund, Duke of Somerset. In August 1453, when Henry had a nervous breakdown, becoming comatose and unable to feed himself or recognise people, the House of Lords appointed the Duke of York Protector of the Realm. This office was effectively a resurrection of that which Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and John, Duke of Bedford had held during the minority of Henry VI. It was decidedly limited in its powers—the Protector's authority was constrained by the council, which oversaw it. The lords favoured York for the position by way of being the King's closest adult kinsman, as had his predecessors, Gloucester and Bedford, been to Henry V. York and his allies, the powerful northern Neville family—Richard, Earl of Salisbury and his son, Richard, Earl of Warwick—now ran the government. Somerset was imprisoned for treason.
During this period, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and peace, but weak government led to disorder. Contemporaries attributed the rise in violence and feuding to the King's weakness. The violence between the Percys and Nevilles in Yorkshire was of such breadth that it impacted with government, and a chronicler called it the "beginning of the greatest sorrows in England". Other regional violence took place between the Bonvilles and Courtenays in the southwest, the Harrington and Stanley families in the northwest, the Earls of Shrewsbury and Wiltshire on the Welsh marches, and between William Tailboys and Ralph, Lord Cromwell in the Midlands. Those disaffected with King Henry centred around York, and as such are often known as Yorkists; those loyal to the king—most of the nobility—are Lancastrian, after the royal dynasty.
In 1455 the king recovered his sanity and Somerset was freed but peace remained elusive and, in May, political tension became open warfare. Henry summoned a council to assemble in Leicester. In response, the Yorkists complained to him of the "doubtes and ambiguitees [and] jealousie" spread by their enemies, and several chroniclers support the view that Somerset was turning the king against York. He and the Nevilles reacted swiftly and brutally, perhaps fearing imminent arrest. In a pre-emptive strike, they ambushed the small royal army—mainly comprising just Henry's household—at the First Battle of St Albans on 22 May. The confrontation was brief with few fatalities, but among whom were Somerset, Henry, Earl of Northumberland and Thomas, Lord Clifford. They were three of the King's most loyal and powerful supporters, and the first two were personal enemies of York and the Nevilles. The clash has been described as closer to a series of targeted assassinations to a fully fledged battle. Henry was captured by the Yorkists, who once again controlled the government. York became Protector a second time, albeit only until February 1456, when the king felt he had enough support among the lords to rule alone.
Four years of peace followed. By 1459, despite the king's efforts at reconciliation, politics again erupted into civil war. In September 1459, Salisbury, who the previous year had determined to "take the full part" with York, brought a 5,000-strong army from Middleham Castle to meet York at Ludlow. En route they encountered a larger royal force at Blore Heath, which Salisbury defeated. Salisbury's victory was temporary and, in October, the Yorkists were routed at Ludford Bridge. York went into exile in Dublin; Salisbury, Warwick and York's son, Edward of March, took refuge in the English-occupied French town of Calais. They were attainted in the Coventry Parliament soon after.
In May 1460, English politics was again overturned, when the Calais lords returned and entered London the following month. Warwick and March journeyed north and defeated the King's army at the Battle of Northampton on 10 July. Henry was once again a Yorkist prisoner.
York's claim to the throne
+Colour chartLancastrian claim through third son, male lineYork's claim through second son, female lineYork's claim through fourth son, male lineBlackNo 15th-century dynastic role
The House of Lancaster descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the third surviving son of Edward III. This emphasised the male line of descent. On the other hand, the House of York descended from King Edward twice, from Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward, Gaunt's younger brother. York also possessed a claim through the second son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence and unlike the Lancastrian claim, this claim was based upon a female line of descent, as Clarence had only had a daughter, Philippa. This was considered the stronger of York's two claims, as although it was passed through the female line, it was as a descendant of an elder—so dynastically superior—son. Langley's son, Richard, Earl of Cambridge, had married Anne de Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer and sister of Edmund Mortimer. York also argued that Henry Bolingbroke—son of John of Gaunt and Duke of Lancaster—had unjustly taken the throne in 1399 when he deposed King Richard II. York's assertion was essentially a legitimist de jure claim. York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, but it became hypothetical after Margaret gave birth to the king's son, Edward of Westminster. Hence, when York claimed the throne before Parliament on 10 October 1460, it was legally within his right to do so; whether it was tactically sound was less certain.
It is not known how much the Nevilles knew of York's plan before his arrival from Ireland. Warwick had met with York in Dublin while they were both in exile. It is unknown what they discussed, and they later met in Burford on York's return to England. It is possible that the earl knew of York's intentions; the medievalist Alex Brondarbit argues that Warwick "may have been pushing the duke into a step [York] had proved unwilling to take for nearly a decade". There was no swell of public acclamation when York landed as he might have expected. If Warwick had known of the duke's plans, he presumably felt it necessary to distance himself from them when he saw York's reception. The same may have gone for the Earl of March. The medievalist Michael Jones has queried whether Warwick was keen to disassociate himself from York's plan because it had been his responsibility to raise popular support in London before the duke returned, but he had failed to do so. Each of the lords concerned had, relatively recently, expressed their utmost loyalty to Henry as their liege lord; that might now be looked on as perjurous, especially if their protests of disagreement with York were now doubted.
York claims the throne
York did not hide his dynastic ambitions; following his landing near Chester in early September 1460, charters and letters signed under his seal began omitting reference to the regnal year, which according to the historian Charles Ross was "quite out of conformity with usual practice". This proclaimed York's royal blood to all. On entering London, his sword was borne aloft before him, as at a coronation. Rather than just his traditional Mortimer quarterings, his trumpeters' banners were emblazoned with the Arms of England, in the manner of a king.
York travelled to Westminster to meet the king and his peers, many of whom were gathered for Parliament, which had opened on 7 October. It soon became clear that his time in Dublin had allowed him to consider his claim to the Lancastrian crown. To the surprise of all those gathered, he immediately did so. John Whethamstede, Abbot of St Albans, described how York marched across the Great Hall with armed men and reached for the throne "like a man taking possession". Whethamstede indicates that York assumed he had the support of most the English nobility. He was wrong. He waited for applause that never came. Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, asked if York wanted an audience with the King. York replied, "I do not recall that I know anyone within the kingdom whom it would not befit to come sooner to me and see me rather than I should go visit him". The response was an "embarrassed" silence, and consternation. York had "shocked and angered" his colleagues, resulting in his claim being fiercely opposed. The historian Paul Johnson has called York's behaviour "an act of supreme stupidity".
The Nevilles were as averse to York's claim as other nobles. The pro-Yorkist French chronicler Jean de Wavrin reported that Warwick had "angry words for the earl [and] showed the duke how the lords and people were ill content against him because he wished to strip the king of his crown". According to Johnson, both York's eldest son, Edward of March, and Archbishop Bourchier refused to confront the Duke of York, so on two occasions, he sent Salisbury's second son Sir Thomas instead. He backed his father and brother against York's claims. By 11 October, York had Henry removed from the palace's royal quarters, so enabling York to lodge there. They were not to meet again in person until the act's ratification at the end of the month.