No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Thomas Arundel and the Baronial Party Under Henry IV*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
Extract
In July 1399, the exiled Henry of Lancaster returned to England with the exiled archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arundel, and a few followers and successfully wrested the English throne from Richard II. Historians have long debated the events of the revolution of 1399 and Henry's subsequent reign. In the last century Stubbs argued that Henry “had risen by advocating constitutional principles” and had “made the validity of a parliamentary title indispensable to royalty.” Lapsley, on the other hand, claims that it was Henry's followers, not Henry, who promoted parliamentary power; they tried to force a parliamentary title on him, but to no avail. McFarlane agrees with Lapsley that Henry was not inspired by constitutional principles; rather Henry “duped” and “outwitted” his followers in his successful usurpation of the crown.
McFarlane goes on to describe a baronial opposition to Henry which was led by Thomas Arundel. In his Cambridge Medieval History article on the Lancastrian kings, he writes: “At the beginning of the new reign he [Thomas Arundel] seemed to stand with the Percies and other noble supporters of the revolution for the preponderance of the baronage in the affairs of the realm.… In Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights this interpretation is somewhat qualified:
If we may judge from the speech with which he [Arundel] opened the first Parliament of the new reign he stood for what may be called the traditional baronial theory of government. The government he said, would not be “by the voluntary purpose or singular opinion” of the king alone but by “the advice, counsel and consent” of “the honourable wise and discreet persons of his realm.” This was as much a warning to Henry as a manifesto on his behalf.
McFarlane adds that Arundel was “evidently not altogether happy at the way the new king was already behaving.” He and Henry “only gradually … came together.”
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1984
Footnotes
*
This is a revised version of a paper delivered at the Rocky Mountain Conference on British Studies in October, 1978.
References
1 Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development, 2d ed., 3 vols. (Oxford, 1875–1878; reprint, 1968), 3:8, and 2:508.Google Scholar
2 Lapsley, Gaillard, “The Parliamentary Title of Henry IV,” English Historical Review 49 (1934):423-449, 577–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 McFarlane, K.B., Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights, ed. Harriss, G.L. and Highfield, J.R.L. (Oxford, 1972), pp. 51-56, 63.Google Scholar
4 McFarlane, K.B., “England: The Lancastrian Kings, 1399-1461,” in Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Gwatkin, H.M.et al., 8 vols. (Cambridge, 1911–1936; reprint, 1957–1959), 8:373.Google Scholar
5 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, p. 64.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., pp. 64-65.
7 Ibid., pp. 106-109. See also Kirby, J.L., Henry IV of England (London, 1970), pp. 238–242.Google Scholar
8 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, p. 79.Google Scholar
9 Ellis, Henry, ed., The Chronicle of John Hardyng (London, 1812), pp. 350, 352 n.Google Scholar
10 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, pp. 49–52.Google Scholar
11 Ibid., pp. 52-54.
12 Davies, Richard, “After the Execution of Archbishop Scrope: Henry IV, the Papacy, and the English Episcopate, 1405-8,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 59 (1976):43, 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Thomas Arundel as Archbishop of Canterbury, 1396-1414,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1973):15.
13 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, pp. 64–65Google Scholar. Davies, , “After the Execution,” p. 43Google Scholar, refers to McFarlane and writes: “Perhaps Arundel had not been entirely content with Henry IV's mode of accession to the throne.”
14 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, p. 65.Google Scholar
15 McFarlane, , “England,” pp. 373–74.Google Scholar
16 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, pp. 106–113.Google Scholar
17 Kirby, , Henry IV, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
18 Ibid., pp. 53-54 (see also p. 208), p. 215.
19 Ibid., pp. 208, 233, 238, 242.
20 Aston, MargaretThomas Arundel: A Study of Church Life in the Reign of Richard II (Oxford, 1967), pp. 336–350Google Scholar; McKisack, May, The Fourteenth Century 1307-1399 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 442–461Google Scholar; Harley Ms. 3600 (printed as introduction to Dieulacres Chronicle), in Clarke, M.V. and Galbraith, V.H., eds., “The Deposition of Richard II,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930):157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Strachey, J.et al., eds., Rotuli Parliamentorum: ut et Petitiones et Placita in Parliamento, 6 vols. (London, 1767–1777), 3:351Google Scholar; Thompson, Edward M., ed., Chronicon Adae de Usk A.D. 1377-1421 (London, 1904), pp. 12-13, 155–156Google Scholar; Stow, George B., ed., Historia Vitae et Regni Richardi II, a Monacho Quodam de Evesham Consignata (Philadelphia, 1977), p. 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although some of the French chroniclers claim that archbishop Arundel was involved in 1397 in a new plot by the same Appellants against the king, no evidence of a new conspiracy was brought forward in the 1397 trials. If Richard, therefore, knew of a new plot, he chose to ignore it. For contemporary evidence of this new plot and modern interpretations, see Tout, T.F., Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, 6 vols. (Manchester, 1920–1933), 4:21–22Google Scholar; Steel, Anthony, Richard II (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 230–237Google Scholar; Jones, Richard, The Royal Policy of Richard II: Absolutism in the Later Middle Ages (New York, 1968), pp. 76–84Google Scholar; Tuck, Anthony, Richard II and the English Nobility (New York, 1974), pp. 184–185.Google Scholar
22 John Bushy, Speaker of the Commons, referred to Arundel as the greatest traitor of all. Riley, Henry T., ed., Johannisde Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde, Monachorum S. Albani, Necnon Quorundam Anonymorum Chronica et Annales, Regnantibus Henrico Tertio, Edwarde Primo, Edwarde Secundo, Ricardo Secundo, et Henrico Quarto (London, 1866), pp. 209–210Google Scholar; Chronicon Adae de Usk, pp. 10-11, 153-154; Historia Vitae, pp. 139, 141.
23 Lumby, Joseph, ed., Chronicon Henrici Knighton, 2 vols. (London, 1889–1895), 2:244–245.Google Scholar
24 Aston, , Thomas Arundel, pp. 339–340Google Scholar. See also her assessment of Arundel: “In a violent generation the part which most naturally suited him, in character as well as standing, was that of a mediator and conciliator (p. 377).”
25 Chronicon Henrici Knighton, 2:247Google Scholar; Aston, , Thomas Arundel, pp. 340–341.Google Scholar
26 Reg. Wakefield (Worcester), f. 127 r-v, quoted in Aston, , Thomas Arundel, p. 343Google Scholar. See also Davies, Richard G., “Some Notes from the Register of Henry de Wakefield, bishop of Worcester, on the political crisis of 1386-1388,” English Historical Review 86 (1971):557Google Scholar. The historians of the fourteenth century relate much less about Arundel's activities in the events of 1388. Because the 1388 Parliament considered judgments of blood, Arundel as a churchman was unable to take a prominent part in the proceedings, either as supporter of the barons or as mediator between them and the king. Aston, , Thomas Arundel, pp. 345–346.Google Scholar
27 Johannis de Trokelowe, pp. 202-203; Haydon, Frank S., ed., Continuatio Eulogium Historiarum sive Temporis, 3 vols. (London, 1858–1863), 3:371–372.Google Scholar
28 Davies, Richard G., “The Episcopate and the Political Crisis in England of 1386-1388,” Speculum 51 (1976):666, 682–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 The Ricardian author of the Dieulacres Chronicle exaggerated Arundel's contribution by saying that he helped Henry win over “almost all the castles in all of England by tricks” (“The Deposition of Richard II,” p. 171). Exaggeration aside, Arundel's familial and social ties to the nobility, his friendships with the clergy, his past services to the realm, and his sheer ability were assets that Henry found useful.
30 Arundel considered himself archbishop from the moment he returned to England; Hook, Walter F., Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, 12 vols. (London, 1860–1876), 4:483Google Scholar; Henry's acceptance of him as archbishop was crucial in this regard. The Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, ed. Bellaguet, M.L., 6 vols. (Paris, 1839–1852), 2:712–713Google Scholar, says that during the invasion Henry restored Arundel “de facto” to Canterbury by the authority of certain bishops, since royal and ecclesiastical authority had been suspended.
31 Chronicle of John Hardyng, pp. 350, 352 n.
32 Chronicon Adae de Usk, pp. 28, 178; Johannis de Trokelowe, p. 249; Chronicle, Dieulacres, “The Deposition of Richard II,” p. 173Google Scholar; Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3:416Google Scholar; The “Histoire du Roy d' Angleterre, Richard,” (Creton), ed. Webb, John, Archaeologia 20 (1824): 125-129, 347–349Google Scholar, the Chronicque de la Traisen et Mort de Richart Deux Roy Dengleterre, ed. Williams, Benjamin (London: English Historical Society, 1846), pp. 47, 195Google Scholar, the Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, 2:714–715Google Scholar, and “The Kirkstall Chronicle, 1355-1400,” ed. Clarke, M.V. and Denholm-Young, N., Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 15 (1931):134CrossRefGoogle Scholar, omit Arundel's name, stating that only Northumberland served as Henry's envoy. But Creton blames Arundel for suggesting the sending of Northumberland because, said the archbishop, in no other way could Richard be captured. The Historia Vitae, p. 155 says that the archbishop, the earls of Northumberland and Westmorland, and Lord Henry Percy went to see Richard. The Continuatio Eulogium, 3:382Google Scholar, says Arundel and Henry of Lancaster met Richard at Conway; the chronicler here refers erroneously to the later meeting of Richard, Henry, and Arundel at Flint.
33 Chronicle, Dieulacres, “The Deposition of Richard II,” p. 173Google Scholar; Chronicque de la Traison, pp. 47, 197-198; “Histoire du Roy,” (Creton), pp. 133-137, 354-357.
34 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, pp. 51–52.Google Scholar
35 Bean, J.M.W., “Henry IV and the Perdes,” History 44 (1959):214CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tuck, , Richard II, pp. 45–52.Google Scholar
36 “Histoire du Roy,” (Creton), pp. 140, 359.
37 Bean, , “Henry IV,” pp. 215–219Google Scholar; Wilkinson, Bertie, “The Deposition of Richard II and the Accession of Henry IV,” English Historical Review 54 (1939): 217–219Google Scholar accepts the veracity of Hardyng's story.
38 Bean, , “Henry IV,” pp. 216–217.Google Scholar
39 Chronicle, Dieulacres, “The Deposition of Richard II,” p. 179Google Scholar; Bean, , “Henry IV,” pp. 217–218.Google Scholar
40 Bean, , “Henry IV,” pp. 219–221Google Scholar; 225-226.
41 “Histoire du Roy,” (Creton), pp. 125-128, 347-348.
42 Ibid., p. 147; Chronicque de la Traison, pp. 50-52, 200-201.
43 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, p. 52Google Scholar remarks that an oath on the host was “no mere formality for an archbishop.”
44 Richard made a number of promises to Arundel and Henry at the time of their exiles which he failed to honor.
45 Continuatio Eulogium, 3:361, 369–370Google Scholar. McNiven, Peter, “Legitimacy and Consent: Henry IV and the Lancastrian Title, 1399-1406,” Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982):477CrossRefGoogle Scholar finds “no conclusive evidence that Richard II had given any guidance on the question of his successor,” for the Parliament Roll contains no evidence of this claim made by the chronicler. See also Bean, , “Henry IV,” p. 219 n. 46.Google Scholar
46 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, p. 52.Google Scholar
47 Ibid., pp. 54-55.
48 Chronicon Adae de Usk, p. 30.
49 Lapsley, , “Parliamentary Title,” pp. 583-587, 596–606.Google Scholar
50 The events of September-October, 1399 have been much discussed, especially as a result of Lapsley's article. See Lapsley, , “Richard II's Last Parliament,” English Historical Review 53 (1938):53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clarke and Galbraith, eds., “The Deposition of Richard II,”; Wilkinson, “Deposition of Richard II”; McNiven, “Legitimacy”; Richardson, H.B., “Richard II's Last Parliament,” English Historical Review 52 (1937):39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “The Elections to the October Parliament of 1399,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 16 (1938-1939): 137-143; Wright, H.G., “The Protestation of Richard II in the Tower in September, 1399,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 23 (1939): 151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunham, William H. Jr. and Wood, Charles T., “The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom's Authority, 1327-1485,” American Historical Review 81 (1976):738–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Caspary, Gerard E., “The Deposition of Richard II and the Canon Law,” in Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Monumenta Juris Canonici, Series C:Subsidia, I), ed. Kuttner, Stephan and Ryan, J. Joseph (Vatican City, 1965), pp. 189–201Google Scholar; Chrimes, S.B., “The Fifteenth Century,” History 48, n.s. (1963): 18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge, 1936), pp. 106–115; Kirby, , Henry IV, pp. 60–74Google Scholar; Jacob, E.F., The Fifteenth Century, 1399-1485 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 10–17Google Scholar; Steel, , Richard II, pp. 270–285.Google Scholar
51 Chronicon Adae de Usk, pp. 29-30, 181-182.
52 Rotuli Partiamentorum, 3:422.Google Scholar
53 Lapsley, , “Parliamentary Title,” pp. 589, 604Google Scholar; Stubbs, , Constitutional History, 2:503.Google Scholar
54 Rotuli Partiamentorum, 3:415.Google Scholar
55 Lapsley, , “Parliamentary Title,” pp. 605–606Google Scholar; idem, “Richard II's Last Parliament,” p. 74.
56 Rotuli Partiamentorum, 3:415.Google Scholar
57 McFarlane, , Lancastrian Kings, p. 64.Google Scholar
58 Chronicon Henrici Knighton, 2:219Google Scholar; Davies, , “Episcopate,” pp. 666, 682Google Scholar suggests Arundel was an “important contributor” to this political theory presented to Richard.
59 Davies, John S., ed., An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richrd II, Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI, Camden Society 64 (1855):16Google Scholar; Continuatio Eulogium, 3:382Google Scholar where the meeting is incorrectly placed at Conway Castle.
60 Rotuli Parliamentorum, 4:3.Google Scholar
61 Ibid. 3:434 (for Richard's tyrannies, see pp. 417-422). Tuck, , Richard II, p. 1Google Scholar, says the king's most important problem in the fourteenth century was his relations with his nobility. They expected the king “to pay due regard to their interests and prejudices in his conduct of government.” If he did, they only advised and provided military leadership; if he did not, they might try to intervene and impose restraint on him.
62 Davies, , “After the Execution,” pp. 43, 45Google Scholar; idem, “Thomas Arundel,” p. 15.
63 Kirby, J.L., “Councils and Councillors of Henry IV, 1399-1413,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 14 (1964):42CrossRefGoogle Scholar remarks: “Arundel was a conscientious archbishop, and his political ambitions probably took second place to his desire to administer his province in peace and protect his church from the Lollards.”
64 Davies, , “Thomas Arundel,” p. 12.Google Scholar
65 Ibid., p. 13.
66 Kirby, , “Councils,” pp. 61–65Google Scholar; attendance records are extant for only 247 days between November 11, 1399 and January 30, 1407, when Arundel became chancellor. Arundel appears on 68 of the lists; see also pp. 38-39 for a brief analysis of the proportion of these surviving records to the actual conciliar meetings.
67 Ibid., p. 42. “He was the leading member of the council during the whole reign with the exception of the two years, 1410 and 1411.…”
68 Public Record Office E 28/7; Kirby, “Councils,” p. 46.
69 Davies, , “Thomas Arundel,” p. 15.Google Scholar
70 Public Record Office E 401/617, 621, 623, 626, 631, 637; E 404/20/268; E 403/580/6; E 403/587/12; E 401/638; E 403/595/9; Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office (Henry IV), 4 vols. (London, 1903–1909), 3:215, 4:421Google Scholar; [N.] Nicolas, Harris, ed., Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, 7 vols. (London, 1834), 2:32Google Scholar. Only two of these ten loans came after 1407.
71 Rotuli Partiamentorum, 3: 524–526Google Scholar. Davies, , “After the Execution,” p. 45.Google Scholar
72 Johannis de Trokelowe, p. 399; Joan, countess of Hereford, wrote in October 1405, that she and her brother the archbishop had been slandered to the king; Legge, M. Dominica, ed., Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions from All Souls Ms. 182 (Oxford, 1941), pp. 399–400Google Scholar has suggested that this letter refers to suspicions arising from the Scrope uprising; her source (Wylie, James H., History of England under Henry the Fourth, 4 vols. (London, 1884–1898), 2:51Google Scholar) does not say this but refers instead to the duke of York's conspiracy. The letter might refer to either event. On the matter of the execution of Scrope—Henry's execution of Archbishop Scrope despite the pleas of Arundel need not indicate that Arundel had fallen from favor but simply that Henry, enraged at the continual revolts against his rule, had determined to stop uprisings and so made an example of Scrope; Kirby, , Henry IV, pp. 187–188Google Scholar. Davies, , “After the Execution,” p. 45Google Scholar believes Arundel was “under a cloud” at the time of Scrope's execution.
73 Johannis de Trokelowe, p. 399; Davies, , “After the Execution,” p. 45.Google Scholar
74 Luders, A.et al., eds., Statutes of the Realm [1101-1713], 9 vols, in 10 (London, 1810–1828), 2:125–128.Google Scholar
75 Johannis de Trokelowe, pp. 373-374, 391-393; Riley, Henry T., ed., Historia Anglicana Thomae Walsingham, 2 vols. (London, 1863–1864), 2:259, 265–266.Google Scholar
76 The pardon granted to Arundel in June 1412 does not have reference to any real crimes; Rymer, Thomas and Sanderson, Robert, comps., Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et Cujuscumque Generis Acta Publica, inter Reges Angliae, 20 vols. (London, 1704–1735), 8:753Google Scholar. The same pardon was made to “each and all the lieges” of the king; ibid. 8:711; Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office (Henry IV), 5 vols. (London, 1927–1938), 4:311Google Scholar. Perhaps the pardons refer to the fact that by the end of December 1411, the king was finally in control of the government, and all rebellions had been put down. All his lieges were, therefore, made secure against charges resulting from most past wrongdoing. Perhaps Arundel's oppostion to the royal council that had just lost power (the party of Prince Henry) prompted a specific grant to him. The pardons may be a royal response to a specific petition of the Lords and Commons in the Parliament that had just ended, that Henry consider them and the members of his previous Parliament as his faithful and loyal lieges; Rotuli Partiamentorum, 3:658.Google Scholar
77 McFarlane, , “England,” pp. 373–374.Google Scholar
78 Davies, , “After the Execution,” p. 50.Google Scholar
79 Kirby, , “Councils,” p. 64.Google Scholar
80 Brown, A.L., “The Commons and the Council in the Reign of Henry IV,” English Historical Review 79 (1964):2-11, 29Google Scholar. See Chrimes, S.B. and Brown, A.L., eds., Select Documents of English Constitutional History 1307-1485 (London, 1961), pp. 205–206Google Scholar and Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3:530Google Scholar for some of the documents.
81 Brown, , “Commons,” pp. 12–28Google ScholarPubMed; Kirby, , “Councils,” pp. 54–56Google Scholar; see also Rotuli Partiamentorum, 3:567–607.Google Scholar
82 Kirby, , “Councils,” pp. 55-56, 64.Google Scholar
83 Brown, , “Commons,” pp. 26–27Google Scholar. Brown claims that after 1406 “the council became more active in dealing with major questions than in the first part of the reign.” This period, however, “requires a separate study,” which apparently has never been made.
84 Kirby, , Henry IV, pp. 226, 241–242.Google Scholar
85 Kirby, , “Councils,” pp. 57-59, 65.Google Scholar
86 McFarlane, , “England,” p. 375Google Scholar; idem, Lancastrian Kings, pp. 106-108; McNiven, Peter, “Prince Henry and the English Political Crisis of 1412,” History 65 (1980):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Kirby, , Henry IV, pp. 226–228.Google Scholar
87 Giles, John A. ed., Incerti Scriptoris Chronicon Angliae de Regnis Trium Regum Lancastrensium Henrici IV, Henrici V, et Henrici VI (London, 1848), pp. 62–63Google Scholar. The Continuatio Eulogium, 3:420–421Google Scholar and An English Chronicle, p. 37 date this suggestion of abdication to 1413. Years later (1426) Beaufort did not specifically deny the charge that he had suggested abdication; Rotuli Parliamentorum, 4:298Google Scholar; Kingsford, Charles L., ed., The First English Life of Henry V (Oxford, 1911), p. xxiGoogle Scholar; idem, ed., Chronicles of London (Oxford, 1905), p. 92; see also Kirby, , Henry IV, p. 238.Google Scholar
88 McNiven, , “Prince Henry,” pp. 3–5Google Scholar; he argues that a dispute over an unauthorized military venture to France, probably “despatched by the prince against his father's wishes” was “amajor specific factor in a more general political conflict over the royal prerogative and the exercise of authority.”
89 Kirby, , Henry IV, pp. 209–210.Google Scholar
90 This theory is accepted in part by Stubbs, , Constitutional History, 3:63Google Scholar and Kingsford, Charles, Henry V: The Typical Mediaeval Hero (New York, 1901), pp. 65, 70.Google Scholar
91 Anstey, Henry, ed., Munimenta Academica, 2 vols. (London, 1868), 1:251–252Google Scholar; see Salter, H.E., ed., Snappe's Formulary and Other Records, Oxford Historical Society 80(1924)Google Scholar for the story of the conflicts of Arundel and Oxford.
92 See Bean, , “Henry IV,” pp. 221–227Google Scholar for examples.
93 Brown, A.L., “The Reign of Henry IV,” in Fifteenth-Century England 1399-1509: Studies in Politics and Society, ed. Chrimes, S.B., Ross, C.D., Griffiths, R.A. (New York, 1972), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar