VERNEY, Sir Edmund (1590-1642), of Middle Claydon, Bucks.

The death of Sir Edmund Verney, the knight marshal and standard bearer to the king, on the battlefield at Edgehill has never ceased to be one of the great set-piece tales of the English civil war. The first high-profile casualty of the fighting, he immediately became the archetypal royalist martyr. More recently, the availability of the Verney family papers, arguably the greatest such private collection in England dating from the seventeenth century, has encouraged new generations of historians to keep retelling the old familiar tale. All too often, from S.R. Gardiner onwards, the contrast between the father and his parliamentarian son, Ralph*, has been used as the textbook example of how the conflict divided families across England. Moreover, as a courtier who died for his king out of a sense of duty rather than conviction, Sir Edmund can still be seen as the embodiment of Caroline chivalry in all its ‘wromantic’, tragic and futile glory.

The Verneys were able to trace their descent back to the early thirteenth century and it was then that they had first acquired lands in Buckinghamshire. But it had taken the mercantile career of a later member of the family, Ralph Verney†, a London mercer and MP for the City in the 1472 Parliament, to found their fortune and to lift them into the foremost ranks of the county gentry. It was he who bought Middle Claydon, the estate between Buckingham and Aylesbury that would become the family’s principal seat under Sir Edmund. In the sixteenth century, however, the main seat of the family was at Pendley in Hertfordshire. On the death of Sir Edmund’s father, Sir Edmund senior, in 1600 the inheritance was divided between two sons from separate marriages. The eldest son from the second marriage, Sir Francis, inherited Pendley but sold it almost immediately. Having taken up piracy, he died in Sicily in 1615 leaving no children. It was therefore Edmund, eldest son from the third marriage, who emerged as the head of the family. He subsequently settled at Middle Claydon.

Edmund Verney entered royal service in 1610 when he joined the household of Henry, prince of Wales. This seems to have been a formative period in his early life; 27 years later he could refer to the prince’s death in 1612 as the moment when he had known the greatest grief.36Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 210. He subsequently transferred his service to the new heir to the throne, becoming one of Prince Charles’s gentlemen of the privy chamber. Later in the 1610s he travelled extensively on the continent and the time he spent in Spain with Lord Digby no doubt came in useful in 1623 when he was one of select group of servants sent out to join Prince Charles and the 1st duke of Buckingham in Madrid.37SP14/139, f. 46.

As one of Charles’s existing servants, Verney was well placed to benefit from his master’s accession in 1625. His principal reward came the following year when he was appointed as knight marshal of the household. One of the more important officials below stairs, the marshal’s main function was to maintain order within the royal palaces. For that reason, his responsibilities also included running the Marshalsea prison at Southwark. Moreover, from 1630 Sir Edmund presided over the revived palace court, which combined the functions of his Marshalsea court with those of the court of the verge.38CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 281; 1631-3, pp. 266, 484; PALA9/6/1; PALA6/1; Aylmer, King’s Servants, 45. The job came with a pension of £200.39CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 281. In 1633 he was re-appointed as a gentleman of the privy chamber so that he could accompany the king to Edinburgh for his Scottish coronation.40Carlisle, Inquiry, 135; College of Arms, Coronations, Anstis, f. 181. When the royal party stopped at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on the way back, he was thrown from his horse, leading to rumours of his death.41Verney MSS, T. Verney to Lady Verney, 24 June 1633 (M636/2).

Verney was now one of the most senior non-noble courtiers in the king’s household and his lifestyle reflected that. From 1634 his London residence was in Covent Garden, the new development by Francis Russell, 4th earl of Bedford, aimed at fashionable, rich courtiers like Sir Edmund.42Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 172-3; CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 254. (When some of the residents complained in 1638 that St Paul’s, the new church built by Bedford as part of that development was inadequate, Verney was among the large group of locals who disagreed.43CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 134.) He also sought to cash in on his excellent court connections by investing in various economic concessions and projects. From 1635 until it was cancelled in 1638, he held a patent for the purifying of tobacco.44CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 513; Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 184-5 Other schemes he attempted to promote were those for sealing woollen yarn, for the licensing of hackney coaches and for the central registration of apprentices.45Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 186, 224-5; CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 97-8. None of these made him much money and, like most courtiers in his position, he was living beyond his means. In 1637 he was one of the feoffees to whom Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, transferred some of his estates.46PROB11/198/482.

In 1639 Verney attended on the king on the campaign against the rebellious Scots.47Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 205. On 26 March, just before he set out, he drew up his will.48PROB11/190/481. At that stage he thought the journey northwards would be no more than ‘an ordinary progress’.49Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 209. He had little time for the Scots and it was not long before he had decided that the king had been ‘basely betrayed’ by his supposed supporters in Scotland.50Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 210. Not that he thought this need be a major setback. In April he told his son

so now all Scotland is gone. I would it were under the sea, for it will ask a great time, and cost much blood, to reduce them again; but, when we are past treating with them, I doubt not but we shall sufficiently beat them in time, and I hope we shall begin this summer.51Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 212.

By May, however, he was more pessimistic, recognising that the army raised by the king was inadequate and yet seeing also that the chances of a negotiated settlement with the Scots had diminished.52Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 228-9. It was, he thought, ‘folly to think any longer of a peace’.53Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 234. By the time he reached Berwick later that month he was a bit more optimistic, thinking that the Covenanters were likely to make some concession that the king might be willing to accept.54Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 241. But he was increasingly aware that, if they did fight, the Scots would beat them.55Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 244, 246. On 6 June Charles Seton, 2nd earl of Dunfermline, arrived at the English camp with a message from the Scots indicating that they were willing to open negotiations. The king then entrusted Verney with the task of delivering his reply. He and Dunfermline crossed over the Scottish lines later that day. The main condition on which Charles wanted to insist was that the Scots should first make public his proclamation of 25 April. Verney returned the following day with the news that the Scots had done so.56CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 284, 294, 303-4, 310, 454, 455; Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 248-50. This paved the way for the negotiated truce, which Sir Edmund thought was ‘much to the king’s honour’.57Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 254. He felt that he had done his bit to avert the bloodshed.58Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 249.

As soon as he could, Verney travelled south to visit Bath ‘for my pain troubles me much’.59Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 254-56. For several years he had been making regular visits to the Somerset spa town in the hope of a cure for his recurring sciatica.60Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 164-5. Gout added other aches and pains.61Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 212. But this time it was only a brief visit. By 21 July 1639 he was back in Berwick, expecting to have to accompany the king to Edinburgh.62Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 258. However, a change in the king’s plans meant that he was back in London by early August. He would then have acted as the second to the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†) in his duel with the 1st earl of Newcastle (Sir William Cavendish†) had it not been abandoned at the last minute.63The Private Corresp. of Jane Lady Cornwallis Bacon, 1613-1644 ed. J. Moody (Cranbury, NJ, 2003), 257. It may well have been at about this time that he sat for a portrait by Sir Anthony van Dyck. Painted in full armour and holding his knight marshal’s baton, he was shown as a soldier.64NPG L202; S.J. Barnes et al. Van Dyck: a complete catalogue of the paintings (New Haven and London, 2004), 608-9. But he had yet to see any real fighting.

The Verneys had never developed a consistent electoral interest in any of the Buckinghamshire constituencies. Their strongest interest was probably at Aylesbury, which Sir Edmund had represented in the 1628 Parliament and where Ralph was elected in March 1640. The seat at Chipping Wycombe was a less obvious choice, but Sir Edmund’s reputation was sufficient to ensure that the following day (7 Mar.) he was chosen by the town’s burgesses, although he and the recorder, Thomas Lane*, faced a challenge from two other candidates. His single committee appointment in the Short Parliament was to the committee on the bill concerning apparel (21 Apr.).65CJ ii. 8a. He spent the summer at Bath, causing his son to report that ‘his bathing makes him very dry, and faint, and somewhat lean than he was’.66Verney MSS, R. Verney to countess of Sussex, 3 Aug. 1640 (M636/4).

That October Verney and Lane were re-elected as the MPs for Chipping Wycombe. There are some hints in Verney’s activity during the early stages of the Long Parliament that he had some sympathies with the king’s critics. In early December 1640 he was included on the committee on the courts of star chamber and high commission, although this may simply mean that he was aware that his own palace court was another prerogative jurisdiction that might come under scrutiny.67CJ ii. 44b. The following February he served on the committee against superstition and idolatry, while in April 1641 he was named to the committee to punish the members of Convocation.68CJ ii. 84b, 129a. This suggests that he had doubts about the king’s religious policies and, as he would tell his friend Edward Hyde*, he had ‘no reverence for the bishops’.69Clarendon, Life (1827), i. 160. He took the Protestation at the first opportunity.70CJ ii. 133a. His support for the moves to pay the army in the north doubtless reflected the fact that his son, Edmund, was serving with that army and constantly complained in his correspondence to his brother of the need to pay them promptly.71CJ ii. 85b; Procs. LP ii. 654, 655.

Verney occasionally acted as an messenger between the two Houses, probably because, as knight marshal, he was thought to be suitably eminent for that role. On 30 June 1641 he was sent up to the Lords to request that they sit that afternoon. Some would have preferred to send George Peard* but they were overruled by those who favoured Verney.72CJ ii. 193b; LJ iv. 295a; Procs. LP v. 421, 426. In March 1642 he also got the Lords to agree to the Commons’ request that both Houses inform the Dutch ambassadors that they wanted Sir Simon Harcourt to be continued on as a sergeant major and major-general in the prince of Orange’s army. However, his handling of the confusion in the Lords over the appointment of the peers to be sent to see the ambassadors, although not originally his fault, may have reflected badly on him.73CJ ii. 462b, 468b; LJ iv. 628a; PJ i. 490, 516. Their court offices were probably also the main reasons why the Commons chose Verney and Sir Henry Mildmay*, along with Denzil Holles*, to visit the French ambassador in late June 1642 to deny the rumour that Sir Thomas Rowe*, the English ambassador to the imperial diet at Regensburg, had offered an alliance to the emperor, Ferdinand III.74CJ ii. 642b. On one matter he had a direct personal interest. He was presumably included on the committee to consider the bill allowing Sir Alexander Denton* to sell lands in Oxfordshire primarily because he was Denton’s brother-in-law.75CJ ii. 164b.

The descent into armed conflict famously placed Sir Edmund in a moral quandary. Hyde’s recollection of a conversation between them that took place in about August 1642 renders Verney as self-consciously melancholic.

You have satisfaction in your conscience that you are in the right; that the king ought not to grant what is required of him; and so you do your duty and your business together: but for my part, I do not like the quarrel, and do heartily wish that the king would yield and consent to what [Parliament] desire; so that my conscience is only concerned in honour and in gratitude to follow my master. I have eaten his bread, and served him near 30 years, and will not do so base a thing as to forsake him; and chose rather to lose my life (which I am sure I shall do) to preserve and defend those things which are against my conscience to preserve and defend.76Clarendon, Life, i. 160.

He then went on to make his comment about not respecting the bishops. Hyde’s account, written many years later, was surely coloured by hindsight. He knew that his readers would be aware of Sir Edmund’s fate and he explicitly noted how prescient the remarks had proved to be. However, as we have seen, there is just about sufficient evidence from Verney’s known activities as an MP in the Long Parliament to confirm that he did have doubts about the bishops and the crisis of conscience described by Hyde was probably real enough. Nor was Hyde the only contemporary to claim this. Another of his friends, Eleanor countess of Sussex, thought that ‘like a good servant’, Verney was ‘much for his master’, while Edmund Ludlowe II* also heard that Verney had acted ‘not out of any good opinion of the cause, but from the sense of a duty which he thought lay upon him, in respect of his relation to the king’.77Verney MSS, Countess of Sussex to R. Verney, 20 June 1642 (M636/4); Ludlow, Mems. i. 43. But that does not mean that Verney really wanted to support Parliament. His second son, Edmund, told Sir Ralph that he had heard that it was ‘a great grief’ to their father that Sir Ralph had decided to back Parliament.78Verney MSS, E. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 14 Sept. 1642 (M636/4). Meanwhile, the countess of Sussex warned Sir Ralph that his father was ‘passionate, and much troubled’ at his decision, although she acknowledged that he might just be saying this to reassure the king.79Verney MSS, Countess of Sussex to R. Verney, [Sept. 1642] (M636/4). However, by July 1642 he had joined Charles at York. He was now sure that they were on the brink of a civil war and he expected to have to take part in the fighting.80Verney MSS, Sir E. Verney to W. Roades, 2 Aug. 1642 (M636/4).

There was no requirement that the knight marshal be appointed as the king’s standard bearer, but there was a certain appropriateness in the king’s choice of Verney for that honour. If the royal standard was a mere symbol, its importance was never more significant than on 22 August 1642. On that ‘very stormy and tempestuous day’, it was Verney who raised it on the Castle Hill (now Standard Hill) at Nottingham ‘with little other ceremony than the sound of drums and trumpets’.81Clarendon, Hist. ii. 290; A true and exact Relation of the manner of his Majesties setting up of His Standard at Nottingham (1642). At least in formal terms, this was the moment the war started. Over the next two months Verney seems to have shadowed the king as he prepared to advance on London.

On 23 October Verney took his place with the standard with the king’s regiment of guards, commanded by Robert Bertie, 1st earl of Lindsey, in the centre of the royalist line set out on the lower slopes of Edgehill.82Clarendon, Hist. ii. 358. It was a particularly exposed position and the standard both made him a target and hampered his ability to defend himself. His gout and sciatica must also have increased his vulnerability. He was soon in the thick of the fighting. According to the royalist martyrologist David Lloyd, a parliamentarian soldier offered to spare Verney in return for handing over the standard, only for Sir Edmund to declare defiantly, ‘that his life was his own, and he could dispose of it; but the standard was his and their sovereign’s, and he would not deliver it while he lived’. Lloyd also claimed that Verney killed 16 men before being cut down.83Lloyd, Memoires, 352. More reliable is the information from the letter Sir Edward Sidenham wrote to Sir Ralph on 27 October to confirm that his father was dead:

… he himself killed two with his own hands whereof one of them had killed poor Jason and broke the point of his standard at push of pike before he fell, which was the last account I could receive of any of our own side of him.84Verney MSS, Sir E. Sidenham to Sir R. Verney, 27 Oct. 1642 (M636/4).

The body was never found.85Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to countess of Sussex, 31 Oct. 1642 (M636/4); Clarendon, Hist. ii. 369. The standard had been recaptured during the battle, but the story that it had Sir Edmund’s severed right hand still tightly grasping it and that the hand was later buried in the church at Middle Claydon seems to rest only on later family tradition.