Sir Andrew Trollope

sir andrew trollope.pngWe know that Sir Andrew Trollope was a bit of a hero so far as the Hundred Years War is concerned.  He was probably part of Sir John Falstaff’s company in the 1430s.  We also know that he did a bit of nifty side changing at the Battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459 from the Yorkist to the Lancastrian side – nothing too surprising there; everybody seems to have swapped sides at some point in the proceedings.  It is actually a bit surprising he was on the Yorkist side in the first place as he had become associated with the Beauforts during his time in France.

It is explained by the fact that Trollope began the period of the Wars of the Roses in Calais  as Master Porter, a position he was appointed to in 1455, where the Earl of Warwick held the position of captain.  When Warwick returned from France, Trollope came with him to beef up the Yorkist position at Ludlow.  Unfortunately on the 12 October 1459 Trollope availed himself of the offer to swap sides and receive a pardon from Henry VI.  He duly took his men across the lines and spilled the beans about Richard of York’s plans.  York was forced to flee in the night and the people of Ludlow experienced first hand the problems of being on the losing side of a conflict .

We know that Trollope spent some time in France during the following year when the Lancastrians received a set back and we know that by December 1460 he was in Yorkshire. He and Somerset led the forces that defeated York at the Battle of Wakefield on the 30th December 1460.  We don’t know whether he tricked York into believing that he had more loyal men than he thought or whether he lured York out into open ground as the chronicler de Waurin recounts before revealing his true colours.

What we do know is that he fought at the second Battle of St Albans where he was knighted. An account of his role was given in Gregory’s Chronicle. He was injured by a caltrop (a spiky device left on the ground to injure animals and men) so stood and fought on the same spot killing fifteen men.  Six weeks later he was himself killed at the Battle of Towton in 1461 – Edward had specifically identified him as someone to be extinguished with the additional incentive of a reward of £100.

We also know that Trollope is an example of a man who benefitted from the Hundred Years War.  Historians think that he came from County Durham originally and that his background was the dying industry.  He rose because he distinguished himself on the battlefield, probably helped himself to any loot that was available and married well.  His wife was further up the social ladder than him being the sister of Osbert Mundeford one of his superior officers. Elizabeth and Sir Andrew had two children that we know of – one, David, was killed at Towton with  his father  (he’s sometimes identified as Andrew’s brother) whilst the other, Margaret, married Richard Calle was was the Pastons’ bailiff (as in the Paston Letters).

Wagner, John A. (2001) Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses.


4 thoughts on “Sir Andrew Trollope

  1. Amazingly good article especially at this day of the old year. Had dinner at British Embassy drank two bottles of bubbley before 9pm here. Feeling fine went to pub with some English friends . Emerged rather bedraggled but again fine. Off now to celebrate new year after texting my sister who has a birthday today. I booked taxi so no probs. Could not write an essay if i tried but it is that time of night is it not.Take a big breath and down a whiskey and fall back in that computer seat and relax dear you.Wakefield battle can wait another year. i was slammed by a friend who hates history when I mentioned Waterloo on 18th June this year. He is no longer near me since that moment.Need more friends with education other than law.Happy New Year from your admirer.

    • it was after as Margaret died at on early age after having three or four kids. then Richard Calle married Margaret Trollope after and had a couple more kids

  2. Back in the saddle today found Paston Letters account 1923 copy unabridged. So now curled up before the fire in my favorite armchair reading. Good account of Richard 111 as Duke before rise to King. have not read them since college days and now must but Churchill account of Paston as servant in court writing back home with breaking news. When Tey wrote her book on Richard she failed to take notice of Paston letters that came out discovered in 1950 and her book 1952 mention nothing about it. Perhaps she had written the book and then saw her mistake but published to be rich and ignore the proof that all London was talking about his take of throne and vanish of the Royal children. So her novel falls down to nothing in the light of her argument that no finger was pointed at Richard as he was crowed. We know that no Bishop or Arch Bishop would place the crown on his head other than that very man who accused Edward of marriage to two ladies after Edwards death of course.Richard may well have been framed by Beaufort but we may never know what happened to them. The bones prove nothing really other than later it was said that velvet was found under the bones proving nicely that they dated from not before 1480 when velvet first arrived in Royal hands.If 1483 ended the boys lives then we may have the bones already as certainly Charles 11 thought was correct. i believe that the velvet was added after the bones were found. Richard had no need to kill them as the girls could rule above his claim. i think he acted rashly and that worked well with Morton and Beaufort as killers. Just my thoughts but Paston really changes his mind at last moment as he wrote to his wife that news of Duke as king.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.