Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 63.djvu/196

  and vi.; Kemble's Codex Diplomaticus, vol. v.; Hugo Candidus, pp. 1–8, 24, ed. Sparke; Dict. of Christian Biogr., articles ‘Wulfhere,’ ‘Saxulf,’ and ‘Peada;’ Green's Making of England, pp. 306–8.]  WULFORD or WILFORD, RALPH (1479?–1499), pretender, born about 1479, is described in ‘Fabyan's Chronicle’ as son of a cordwainer in London, and he was not improbably a member of the London and Kent family of Wilford [cf. art. ]. He resembles Lambert Simnel [q. v.] in the obscurity of his origin, and, like Simnel, he was one of the tools used by the Yorkists in their endeavours to overthrow Henry VII. Like Simnel, too, he was made to personate the Earl of Warwick, eldest son of Edward IV's brother, the Duke of Clarence [see ], though, according to Fabyan, Wilford only ‘avaunced himself to be the son or heir to the Earl of Warwick's lands’ (Chronicle, p. 686)—an absurd statement in view of the fact that Warwick was not more than four years older than Wulford. Wulford was educated for the part by one Patrick, an Austin friar, and in 1498 rumours were spread abroad that that year was likely to be one of great danger for Henry VII (Cal. State Papers, Spanish, i. 206). Wulford began to confide to various persons in Kent—the scene of Warbeck's early attempts—that he was the real Earl of Warwick. Henry VII had, however, learnt to be prompt in dealing with pretenders, and before the conspirators could take definite action both Wulford and his preceptor were arrested. Wulford was executed on Shrove Tuesday, 22 Feb. 1498–9, and Patrick was imprisoned for life.

[Fabyan's Chron. pp. 685–6; Hall's Chron. p. 490; Polydore Vergil's Historia, p. 770; Bacon's Henry VII; Lingard's Hist. of England; Busch's England under the Tudors, i. 119–20.]  WULFRED (d. 832), archbishop of Canterbury, first appears as archdeacon under Archbishop Ethelhard [q. v.] He had large estates in Kent, and was probably a Kentish man (Ecclesiastical Documents, iii. 557). He was consecrated in Canterbury at the time of the council of Acle in 805, probably early in August (ib. p. 559), and the next year received his pall. Before long he had some disagreement with Cenwulf, king of Mercia. Though Cuthred, who had reigned in Kent in dependence on Mercia, was succeeded in 807 by Baldred, with whom the archbishop was on friendly terms, Cenwulf virtually ruled the kingdom, and was doubtless jealous of the archbishop's political influence, for Wulfred's wide possessions rendered him peculiarly powerful; his position is illustrated by the fact that his coins are not, like those of his predecessor, stamped on the reverse with the name of the Mercian king. Cenwulf evidently regarded his power as dangerous to the Mercian supremacy, and unscrupulously attempted to counterbalance it by attacking the metropolitan see. Their disagreement had reached the ears of Leo III in 808, who refers to it in a letter to the Emperor Charles the Great (Monumenta Carolina, p. 313). In 814 Wulfred, accompanied by Wigthegn, bishop of Winchester, went to Rome, probably to represent his cause to the pope, who may have arranged matters, for in 816 Cenwulf was present at a provincial council held by Wulfred at Chelsea. This council was attended by all the bishops of the southern province, and eleven canons were agreed upon (Eccl. Documents, u.s. 579–85).

In 817 Cenwulf seized the monasteries of Minster in Thanet and Reculver, which belonged to the church of Canterbury, and, in order to defeat the archbishop's resistance, laid false charges against him before the pope. In consequence, according to a contemporary document, for six years (817–822) ‘the whole English nation were deprived of primordial authority and the ministry of holy baptism’ (ib. p. 597); the words are doubtless rhetorical, for no other notice of a virtual interdict of so tremendous a character is known to exist. As it was from Canterbury that baptism first came to the English, and the archbishop was the head of national Christianity, it seems probable that this puzzling sentence really means that during the progress of the quarrel Wulfred was more or less prevented from exercising his authority, either by Cenwulf's tyranny or by the pope during the examination into the king's charges against him. Wulfred evidently represented his innocence to the pope and the Emperor Lewis, who seem to have espoused his cause. Their interference enraged Cenwulf, who, about 820, cited the archbishop to appear before him at a witenagemot at London, and demanded that he should surrender another estate and pay a fine, in which case he would withdraw the charges that he had made against him, threatening that if he refused he would confiscate all his property, would banish him from the land, and never receive him back again, ‘either for pope or emperor or any other person.’ Wulfred was forced to agree, but the king did not keep his word, and still kept possession of Minster and Reculver.

Cenwulf died in 822, and Ceolwulf, who became king in that year, appears to have been