English Chronicles and the Power of Queens

P a g e | 1

Volume 1 of David Carpenter's biography of Henry III for the Yale English Monarchs Series ended on a cliffhanger. Despite all the peace and prosperity England has enjoyed under Henry's rule, the barons think they can do a better job and take control of the government. The king is shuffled off into a corner while their revolutionary regime enacts reforms that will end his favouritism to foreigners and bring justice to the people. It will also terminate his madcap scheme to make his youngest son the king of Sicily, which Carpenter calls the most ridiculous agreement ever made by an English monarch. But he's not surprised, as Henry has always been a woeful king. Lazy, naïve and easily manipulated, it was only a matter of time before far superior individuals intervened. They would put the affairs of the kingdom in order, help him be a king. This being England, it gets messy and the whole thing descends into war and chaos. Lucky for Henry, he's the simple fool that he is, because that's the only thing that saves him and his dynasty in the end. It's a revolution born and died of an idiot.

The American Historical Review, 1994

This study attempts a reassessment of the rebellion of 1215–17 in two regions: southwestern England and the Welsh marches. After examining the historiography of the 1215–17 conflict and some problems with the evidence, the article deals with the two regions in turn. In the first, the rebellion is found to be somewhat stronger than has been appreciated and to be, to a considerable extent, one of local county communities, rather than of great barons. In the second, the rebellion is seen as much stronger than it has been portrayed, although here the great rebel barons play a significant role. In both regions, the rebellion appears as one directed against an exploitative and intrusive central government and its aggressive curial servants, while also, in the outcome of the rebellion, a degree of common interest between the rebels and baronial loyalists is suggested. Overall, although there are some contrasts between the two regions, the study stresses the elements of a common cause in the rebellion. In 1961, J. C. Holt's groundbreaking study, The Northerners , based on a detailed analysis drawn from one very important region, offered an interpretation of the origins and course of the 1215 revolt against King John and of the civil war that followed. 1 His conclusions, which in most respects have remained unchallenged, were that the revolt in the north derived from a level of royal financial pressure unprecedented in that region, an over-ruthless political exploitation of the consequent debts, and resentment at King John's aggressive use of patronage to favour a narrow circle of the 'king's friends'. This latter category included some local men, but also those who were from outside the region and, in some cases, from outside England. Grievances over these men and their behaviour are not easily separable from the financial pressure. If 'the harshness and corruption of some administrators' was a grievance, this was partly because of 'the harshness of the policies which they had in any case

2011

The medieval historian engaged with the systems of power and authority that surrounded him. In his account of the Peasants' Revolt in late medieval England, the ecclesiastical historian Henry Knighton (d. 1396) both reinforced and challenged the traditional order. This thesis explores the ways in which his ideological perspectives shaped his understanding of the events of June 1381 and how this understanding was articulated through the structure, language, and cultural meaning of the historical text. The reconstruction of authorial intention and reclamation of both Knighton and the medieval reader as active participants in the creation of history challenge a historiography that has long disregarded Knighton as an unremarkable historical recorder. Instead, they reveal a scholar whose often extraordinary approach to the rebels and traditional authorities expresses a great deal about the theory, practice, and construction of power and authority in late medieval England. ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most importantly, I wish to thank Dr. Cynthia Neville for her invaluable support and patience. One could not hope for a wiser, more instructive, or more conscientious supervisor. Thank you as well to Dr. Krista Kesselring for her greatly appreciated comments and feedback, and without whom this thesis would not be nearly as strong. Thanks also to the remaining members of my committee, Dr. Melissa Furrow and Dr. Gary Kinoch, for the generous contributions of their time and knowledge. I would also like to acknowledge the support and counsel of last year's Graduate Coordinator, Dr. Jerry Bannister. My thanks to Valerie Peck, the best Graduate Secretery anyone could ask for and without whom I would be lost, and to Tina Jones who has strengthened my spirit and preserved my sanity on many an occasion. My most sincere gratitude as well to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Faculty of Graduate Studies of Dalhousie University, and the Dalhousie Department of History for their generous financial support. To my friends, who have borne my many unsolicited lectures about Henry Knighton and the Peasants' Revolt with the greatest patience, forbearance and generosity of spirit, and who have somehow managed to put up with me inspite of it all. A final thank you to my most constant and cherished source of support: my family-with whom anything is possible, and without whom everything is empty. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The summer of 1381 saw the occurrence of a singular and unprecedented event in English history, commonly referred to as the Peasants' Revolt. In June, an amalgam of peasants, merchants, and artisans rose up, beginning in Essex and Kent and tearing a path across the south of England. Under the leadership of Wat Tyler, they stormed prisons and monasteries, tore up charters, and attacked figures of authority, all the while demanding equality, freedom, and the restoration of their "ancient rights." Most generally, the causes of the Revolt included the tumult of the aftermath of the Black Death, and the Hundred Years War. The immediate cause, however, was a series of poll taxed imposed by the fourteen-year-old boy-king, Richard II. Following months of agitating, the rebels gathered together and marched on Canterbury on 10 June 1381. They assembled together at Blackheath on 12 June. Just two days later, the main force of the rebels had reached and gained access to London, stormed the Tower and executed several high-ranking officials there including the archbishop of Canterbury and the royal treasurer. Outside the city, a substantial group of the rebels met with the king directly and obtained from him a charter pertaining to their request that he abolish serfdom. Within London the mob looted, venting their anger on lawyers, judges, and foreigners in particular. The following day, the remaining rebels met again with the king, but there, at Smithfield, Tyler was killed and the band dispersed. The Revolt was effectively over. Localized rebellions, which had erupted throughout the south of England while the events in London took place, were suppressed more slowly. The bishop of Norwich, Henry Despenser, defeated a large contingent of rebels on 26 June at North Walsham, and Thomas of Woodstock and Sir Henry Percy defeated the remaining Essex rebels on 28

This paper intends to explore the discourse on interpreting and constructing Henry VI’s kingship through his royal image in his lifetime and his martyr-saint image in his posthumous cult. The making of Henry VI’s royal and martyr-saint images, as this paper contends, manifests in the maneuvering of a variety of epithets such as innocent, simple and chaste in a wide spectrum of texts by both supporters and opponents of Henry VI. By tracing the employment of the epithets in fashioning the images of Henry VI, the paper argues that the epithets fabricate a coherent discourse on constructing Henry’s kingship which not only reflects a fifteenth-century understanding and frustration of an incompetent king but also responds to anxiety and political tensions in the fifteenth-century English court.

Royal Studies Journal, 7(1), 2020

Review of Luke Sunderland, Rebel Barons: Resisting Royal Power in Medieval Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Parliamentary History, 2014

Dr Linda Clark, to whom the 11 essays in this book are offered with 'affection, respect and gratitude' by 12 of her friends and colleagues, continues to place a wide spectrum of historians and others in her debt. The four volumes of The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386-1421, which she edited in 1993 with J.S. Roskell and Carole Rawcliffe (one of the writers in the present volume), set a benchmark for the study not only of the medieval English parliament but also of the social fabric of the counties and boroughs of England from which members of parliament were drawn. She assumed alone the task of editing what will surely prove to be even weightier volumes for the years 1422-1504; meanwhile, her unobtrusive effectiveness as editor is matched by a determination to place the scholarship of her collaborators at the heart of research and writing about 15th-century England. Thus, while half of the writers in this volume are Dr Clark's present or former colleagues in The History of Parliament Trust, others are based elsewhere, especially in London's historical circles. Indeed, the volume has a metropolitan air-to a large extent inevitable with its main focus on parliament-and so it is salutary to have an opening chapter (by A.J. Pollard) on 'The People and Parliament in Fifteenth-Century England' that examines 'popular engagement with Parliament' beyond 'the middling sort' who were MPs, even beyond those who took part in elections or presented petitions to parliament. This is a subject worth taking further − by identifying those whose opinions were specifically reflected in petitions, or considering the throngs which crowded meetings of parliament − in order to substantiate Professor Pollard's nice conclusion that 'some of the people for some of the time [were involved] in parliamentary affairs'. Several writers rely on readily-available and unpublished evidence from East Anglia or southeast England; occasionally one yearned to have one's eyes raised to wider horizons. Nevertheless, important themes are authoritatively examined that have broader resonance and reflect on the character of those who were members of parliament-the 'Personalities and Power' of the volume's title. Simon Payling's mastery of English land law, and its manipulation by the social class that provided MPs, reveals in his account of the disputed descent of Dodford Manor, near Northampton, the unedifying side of the traffic in entailed properties. If deception and fraud might mar the pursuit of property, just as striking is his conclusion that resort to law and influence might be more effective than violence or force of arms. This is a theme tellingly illustrated by the actions of a knight, Henry Inglose, who was variously MP for Suffolk and Norfolk in

History of European Ideas, 1994

This has been researched from sources published in England. The books and the articles are founded on sources in the public domain. None of this text can be found elsewhere. It is the sole property and authorship of Justin R Grant-Duff. The period of 15th century Europe was one of the bloodiest and most violent in history. the English had been fighting since 1400 almost continually throughout the reigns of Henry IV, V, and VI and into the civil war known as the War of the Roses. In 1449, duke of Somerset and earl of Shrewsbury surrendered the last main garrison in Normandy, held at Rouen. The duke fled home, as General Talbot was left to take what men were left to defend the Cotentin and the remaining possessions that had most recently been in English hands since the siege of Harfleur in 1415. Driven out and their estates compromised, many soldiers, unpaid and exhausted mercenaries returned to London in search of work and shelter. Many were very angry at the incompetence of the feeble king, his corrupt, greedy minister Duke of Suffolk , and parliament's failure to vote monies for wages to soldiers, who were years in arrears of pay, promised by the court and leaders of the army. The ensuing chaos spilled out onto the streets; all around the kingdom law and order broke down. The bookish king used to sitting in the Court of Chancery heard case after case of pleas from despairing litigants whose lands and estates had been looted and stolen, their inheritance ignored, the title deeds and documents not administered at local shire courts as they should have been. Shire-reeves and bailiffs were often threatened and intimidated by angry bands of knightly squires roaming the countryside on horseback visiting their claims upon unaware manors. This was a time of the blood-feuds; the old gentry certainties had broken down, the Exchequer empty, and the kingdom bankrupt, the government unable to collect taxes, and the king indecisive, dithered over what to do. Meanwhile a young Duke of York, only 24 years old had distinguished himself in battle in France, blamed the court faction led by the General, Duke of Somerset for the loss of the colony in Normandy. He went to parliament and demanded that an inquiry be held into the duke's conduct. The mob broke out onto the streets, threatened to storm the Tower of London, and kill any nobleman found in the open. York was picked up by his friend, Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon who happened along in his barge as it floated down the River Thames. Rescued but unrepentant, the duke repaired to the fastness of his castle at Ludlow. A large, new and impressive bastion it controlled vast estates along the Welsh Marches. This was the situation in London, when only Queen Margaret of Anjou protected her benighted husband from intrigue and conspiracy at court. There was a religious taboo that no king should be harmed, or anointed king removed but in the most extreme circumstances; memories burnt of Henry's grandfather's usurpation, and no suggestion prevailed in 1450 of any change. It was economic collapse, however and military failure that would scar Henry VI's kingship.

This year marks the 800 th anniversary of Magna Carta in the United States, a charter of liberties that King John of England was coerced into granting to the barons of England, that is, noble landholders who were lords of knights and castles, in June 1215. Magna Carta resulted from a rebellion by the barons who took up arms against their king. They resented John's burdensome financial exactions to pay for military campaigns in France that he lost, and his arbitrary and unjust governance embittered them. They saw him withholdinglands and privileges that they believed rightfully belonged to them, and they went to war against him in spring 1215. Today this Great Charter resonates more powerfully in America today than in Britain, and it seems only natural that we should commemorate its 800 th anniversary. As a British scholar writes, "Magna Carta was a charter written by Englishmen, but the logical development of its ideas and their implementation has been left to Americans." 1 The central problem facing the rebel barons was subjecting the king to the 'rule of law', or what we today term in the U.S. 'due process of law'.

Quidditas, 1989

Arizo na Hum a nitie ouncil The merit of the Middle English alliterative poem Richard the R edeless and Mum and the othsegger can be judged accurately only if they are approached as individual compo iti ns. Ever since the Early English Text ociety published the label Da and Robert teele edition of Mum and the oth egger in 1936, most schola r have uncritically accepted the ingle-poem theory the e editor posited, regard less of how this adveJ"Se ly affected their analy e of the work. ' The argument for regarding Richa,•d and Mum as fragments of one comp ition, begun in 1399 and fini hed sometime between 1403 and 1406, is, however, far less conclusive than the evide nce agains t thi theory.• Indeed, the compulsion to regard these distinct po m a one actually impedes the process of assess ing their pos ible contribution to Middle English literature, especiall the contribution of the more arti ticall y sophisti ated Mum.]. P. Oakden' admonition over fifty years ago that the e poems merited mor h lar hip than yet had been awarded them remains true today.' One step toward remedying this •ituation i to examine Richard and Mum a eparate omposition by the same author. Examinations of the use of Piers Plowman, dialect, meter, and vocabular poim to the poems' composition b y the ame author:' The, ork a l o hare the common goal of advi ing a king, and the poet's fundamental theories and hi view of life remain constant. But important changes reinforce the theory that Mum is a la t.er composition, not a continuation. Differences in intended aud ience, obje ts of criticism, and style strongly indicate they were conceived a ' separate poems.> Furthermore, the author has become a more poli hed arti t in Mum than he was in Richard, possibly because Henr IV's trengt.h required a ubtlety of expre ion that Richard's dire predicament in the earlier book of poetic advice rendered unnecessary.• Another

These unknown, often nameless individuals make up the majority of the society living under their authoritative monarch but exert a significant impact on the daily operations of theatre trade and war. The sixteenth-century functioned differently than today for Shakespeare and King

University of Winchester, 2019

This Thesis has been completed as a requirement for a postgraduate research degree of the University of Winchester.

Medieval Prosopography, 1990

amount of labor and ingenuity which went into tracking down the sources and the care and good sense that went into making the text. The usefulness of the edition is greatly enhanced by indices of scriptural citations, names, significant words, and subjects, although there is unfortunately no bibliography. Thomson is to be thanked and congratulated on having provided us with an excellent edition of an important text.