Paul the Deacon's Writings

Paul the Deacon (c.720s – 13 April c.796-799) has many writing attributed to him (some probably erroneously, like a life of Gregory the Great, that was written much earlier than Paul). He was in the household of Adelperga, a daughter of King Desiderius of the Lombards.

Adalperga, upon reading a history by a 4th century Roman named Eutropius that covered the founding of Rome to Eutropius' lifetime, was not pleased that it covered only pagan Roman achievements and not any Christian topics. She asked Paul to amend it, so he added extracts from Scripture to a version for her.

Another request for a history came from Angilram, the Bishop of Metz, to write a history of the diocese of Metz, giving Paul access to the diocesan records. Paul finished it by 784, noting that Angilram's own entry would be completed later. Paul also refers to Angilram in his Historia Langobardorum ("History of the Lombards"), calling him a "very gentle man and distinguished by holiness."

Paul also wrote a summary of De verborum significatione libri XX ('Twenty Books on the Meaning of Words") that he dedicated to Charlemagne. It was edited by a 2nd century Roman (Festus) of a work by a turn-of-the-millenium Roman grammarian (Verrius). Later...

Paul’s work, and through it that of Festus and of Verrius, became the subject of intense interest again during the Italian Renaissance after a copy of the work was discovered by Poggio Bracciolini and Bartolomeo da Montepulciano at the Abbey of St. Gall in 1416. [source]

Charlemagne also asked him to compile a collection of homilies, which Paul did and which was used in Frankish liturgy. One of Paul's homilies, In Assumptione, raises the possibility that the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven. He also produced a commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict which still exists, although in a revised form.

His major work, the history he wrote of the Lombard people, was his most used, right up until the 15th century. Although possessing factual errors and questionable timelines, it is a view into the culture and myths over the course of a couple centuries. Some of the sources from which he drew are lost to us, making his work even more valuable as insight to an earlier time. There are 115 extant manuscripts, all with minor differences and many with large pieces missing.

Let's dig out some gems from this work tomorrow.

Paul the Deacon

Winfrid was born about 720 in the Duchy of Friuli, the northern part of the Italian Peninsula that was the kingdom of the Lombards. His parents, Warnefrid and Theodolinda, were well-to-do, and Winfrid grew up well-educated, knowing some Greek along with Latin.

Winfrid decided that rather than inherit from his father, he would join the clergy, taking the title Paulus Diaconus, Paul the Deacon. He was likely one of the secretaries to King Desiderius of the Lombards. When Desiderius married his daughter Adelperga to the Duke of Benevento, Adelperga requested that Paul continue the Breviarium Historiae Romanae ("Summary of Roman History") begun by a 4th century Roman, Eutropius.

He was with her at the court in Benevento prior to 774, probably fleeing when Charlemagne captured the territory. By 782 he was in the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino. While there he met Charlemagne, who was very interested in both the Church and education and took a liking to someone who wrote history. Their relationship was strong enough that, after a revolt against Charlemagne's rule in Friuli in which Paul's brother Arichis was imprisoned for taking part, Paul could write to Charlemagne on Arichis' behalf and get his brother freed.

Maybe he already had a reputation for writing history; maybe it was Adelperga's request that got him started on the pursuit. He would start (but not finish) a history of the Lombards (Historia Langobardorum) in six books. When much history about the Carolingian era is written from the point of view of the Franks, Paul's Historia is a valuable view from the other side, that of the Lombards. It also gives us a look into beliefs and culture. It begins with:

The region of the north, in proportion as it is removed from the heat of the sun and is chilled with snow and frost, is so much the more healthful to the bodies of men and fitted for the propagation of nations, just as, on the other hand, every southern region, the nearer it is to the heat of the sun, the more it abounds in diseases and is less fitted for the bringing up of the human race.

He drew on Bede, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, and other histories (some now lost to us) to compile his history.

Tomorrow we'll look at his later life and other writings, some at the request of Charlemagne.

Pepin's Rebellion

There was a rebellion against Charlemagne in 792 by a handful of Frankish nobles headed by Charlemagne's eldest son, Pepin the Hunchback.

An anonymous Saxon poet known only as Poeta Saxo, writing in Annales de gestis Caroli magni imperatoris libri quinque ("Annals of the Deeds of Emperor Charlemagne in Five Books"; see the illustration), summed up the plot:

[W]icked men conceived a great crime which almost blotted out forever the shining light of the Franks, for they busied themselves in many ways plotting to put the king to death. For this purpose a cruel conspiracy is said to have been formed among the Frankish nobles. Conspicuous among them, the king's oldest son madly offered himself as the author of this crime, being more ignoble in his own worthless character than in his birth.

The plot was planned while Charlemagne was away from court, but a Lombard named Fardulf learned of it and informed Charlemagne. The co-conspirators were found out and accused of breaking their oaths of fealty to their king. The court found them guilty of oath-breaking and attempted regicide, confiscated their estates, and condemned them to death.

Charlemagne, however, overrode the death sentence on many, including that on his son. Loath to put his eldest son to death, Pepin was (at his own request, according to Einhard and Notker the Stammerer) tonsured and sent to a religious life at the monastery of Prüm (long before Regino of Prüm wrote his Carolingian history).

(And speaking of the religious life, the whistleblower, Fardulf, was given the position of abbot at St. Denis.)

The Lorsch Annals (covering 703 - 803) point out that, the following year, Charlemagne was extremely generous to his loyal retainers. It is possible that Pepin's rebellion was a perfect turning point in his reign. It gave him an excuse to excise Pepin the Hunchback from any chance of royal succession, it brought disloyal retainers out in the open, it made clear that the court would execute rebels, and it prompted Charlemagne to lavishly reward loyalty to ensure no future rebellions.

Pepin died at Prüm somewhere around 810 or 811.

This era of the Franks produced many contemporary chronicles. Einhard, Notker, the Lorsch Annals—all have been mentioned before, as has Paul the Deacon. We actually have a picture of Paul, so let's talk about him tomorrow.

Pepin the Hunchback's Treatment

Charlemagne's first son was named Pepin. Shortly after his birth he developed a spinal deformity that has caused historians to refer to him as "Pepin the Hunchback."

His mother was the concubine Himiltrude, a "noble girl" according to Paulus Diaconus (Paul the Deacon). At one point Charlemagne dismissed Himiltrude from his court, but Pepin remained living there as a royal prince. She was dismissed because Charlemagne was marrying Desiderata, in order to establish an alliance with her father Desiderius, the King of the Lombards.

Pepin, despite his deformity, was important because he was Charlemagne's eldest son and obvious heir. "Pepin" was also the name of Charlemagne's father, and it was a Carolingian custom to re-use names of ancestors, not only to honor them but also to inspire the new generation to emulate them. (Charlemagne's brother and rival, Carloman, had already had a son named Pepin.)

There is no record of discord between Desiderate and her step-son, but then, the marriage lasted only about a year, after which Charlemagne immediately married Hildegarde, a marriage that lasted more than a decade and produced nine children.

Their first child together was named Charles, called "the Younger" for obvious reasons. Their second child was also a son, named Carloman, born in 777. In 781, Charlemagne took Hildegarde and her children to Rome. Carloman was four years old, but had never been baptized. Charlemagne held off because he wanted the pope to perform the baptism. The eldest son, Pepin, was left at home, still living in the palace as a prince.

When Pope Adrian I baptized Carloman, he was given the name Pepin. This younger Pepin was named "King of Italy." 

The elder Pepin's position now seemed precarious. Charlemagne had an heir named for his father who was the result of a legitimate marriage and who showed no physical deformity. The older Pepin still lived at court.

Years later, Pepin was part of a rebellion against his father. It is easy to assume this was simply because he was being passed over, but he couldn't rebel all by himself. If others supported a rebellion, was there a reason beyond trying to reclaim his right as the eldest? We'll talk about other reasons to rebel against Charlemagne tomorrow.

Hunchbacks

In William Shakespeare's Richard III, someone refers to Richard as “that foule hunch-backt toade.” It's the first recorded instance of that term for someone who had a less-than-straight spine, and—putting aside the question of whether Richard was "hunch-backed"—the term gets used in the literature of the next couple centuries to indicate a bad person.

We know what a "back" is, but what is a "hunch"? I once mentioned Bartholomaeus Anglicus' De Proprietatibus Rerum ("On the Order of Things"), a 1240 work by a Franciscan scholar. It was a popular work that got printed and reprinted and translated for centuries. A 1398 English translation by John of Trevisa uses the word "bunch" to describe what Angelicas said about the back of a camel.  A 1582 re-printing of Trevisa's translation made some changes to "modernize" the English says the Dromedary camel “hath a hunch on his backe,” and "the camele of Arabia hath tweye bonches on the bak."

We have no other source of the origin of the word "hunch" to refer to a lump on someone's back. It might have been a typo, but the term "hunch-back" became the norm in English.

Earlier, the Wycliffe English translation of Leviticus 21:20 lists all the physical defects that prevent a man from being a priest, including "if he hath a botche"; this is translated as a hunchback; presumably "botche" is equivalent to the Trevisa "bunch" which later became "hunch."

Shakespeare shows how the physical deformity excludes a person from a normal life, such as athletic pursuits or romance:

But I that am not shapte for sportiue trickes,
Nor made to court an amorous looking glasse,
I that am rudely stampt and want loves maiesty,

Exclusion from normal life is seen centuries earlier than Shakespeare in the life of Charlemagne's eldest son, Pepin. He was called Pepin the Hunchback because of a spinal deformity. Years after his birth, Charlemagne had another son (Carloman) with a different woman but re-named him Pepin of Italy at his baptism by the pope. It seems obvious that Charlemagne was "replacing" his eldest Pepin with a new one. To be fair, the first Pepin was born with a concubine, and the second with a "church-legal" wife, so Charlemagne might have wanted a "proper" Pepin as a son and heir.

The original Pepin staged an unsuccessful rebellion, and I think he deserves his due. We'll discuss his treatment by his father and the rebellion next time. See you soon.

Richard of Conisburgh

Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, was one of the chief conspirators of the Southampton Plot to eliminate Henry V and replace him with Edmund Mortimer. He had an impressive lineage. His father was Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York (and son of King Edward III). His mother was Isabella of Castile, daughter of the sometime King of Castile called Pedro the Cruel.

Isabella had tried to ensure a good life for Richard, naming King Richard II as her heir and asking him to grant an annuity of 500 marks to her son. Richard II did this, but by the time her son came of age and might have been eligible to receive additional favors, Richard II was no longer king, having been deposed by Henry IV. Henry IV had no reason to grant anything to young Richard, although Richard WAS created Earl of Cambridge at the Parliament of 1414.

That title was not accompanied by any estate. No land meant no revenue flowing to the new earl. This may be part of why he conspired to assassinate Henry V in 1415. Richard was beheaded on 5 August 1415. He was only 30 years old.

He had heirs, however. Isabel of York was his eldest, betrothed at the age of three to the son of Sir Thomas Grey, another of the Southampton Plot conspirators. Richard and Isabel had a son, Richard.

Richard, the 3rd Duke of York (22 September 1411 – 30 December 1460), married Cecily Neville. They had several children:

Anne, Duchess of Exeter

Edward IV of England

Edmund, Earl of Rutland

Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk

Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy

George, Duke of Clarence

But it was their youngest who became King Richard III of England (see the stained glass window of Richard and Queen Anne). A grandson of Richard of Conisburgh finally made it to the throne. Now, it would seem natural to next talk about Richard III, but I am hesitant to get too far into the 15th century. Richard was born in 1452, and I think of 1453 as the "end" of the "Middle Ages" (see this post to understand my reasoning).

But I will use Richard II as a link to the next post. The one thing people know about Richard III is that he was a hunchback. So how about if we skew into some medical territory (it's been awhile) and talk about the attitude toward Hunchbacks in the Middle Ages? See you tomorrow.

Isabel's Planned Marriage

I mentioned yesterday the links between the three men who hatched the Southampton Plot to assassinate Henry V and put Edmund Mortimer on the throne. Two of the men made a close tie with each other through the arranged marriage of their children.

Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, had a daughter, Isabel. Isabel of Cambridge (1409 - 1484) was arranged to be married to Sir Thomas Grey. Her husband was the son of Sir Thomas Grey. The elder Thomas had served under Henry IV, and by 1408 was serving the Prince of Wales (the future Henry V).

Grey's son Thomas (1404 - c.1426) was betrothed to Isabel. The marriage took place on 18 February 1413. Note the year: Isabel was not quite four years old at the time, and her husband was only nine!

Richard of Conisburgh had sons. This was a chance to pawn off a daughter, but in a world where arranged marriages were made for important alliances and personal gain, what did the Earl of Cambridge get for marrying his daughter to a simple knight?

Well, a knight could aspire to be more. Richard could offer the lordship of Wark-in-Tyndale to the elder Thomas Grey. This would give the elder Thomas more land and authority. Unfortunately, the offer came with a price. The price was supposed to be a good deal, but it was more than Grey could afford. Grey took the offer anyway, but the payment to Richard was going to take years. Now Grey was in Richard's debt—serious debt.

Historians look back and think that Richard used Grey as a dupe, binding him to Richard's plans on threat of becoming destitute. In fact, during the trial of the three conspirators, Grey is recorded as saying that he was driven to take part out of "poverty and covetousness." Clearly, he was desperate to see it through on the promise of becoming better off as a kingmaker for Edmund Mortimer.

As for the child couple: they had one son, also called Thomas. Isabel married Henry Bourchier, 1st Earl of Essex, in 1426, so her first husband must have been dead by the age of 21.

As for Richard, he did not live long enough to see his descendant take the throne. I'll tell you a bit more about his lineage tomorrow.

The Southampton Plot

People in England during the reign of Henry V were still trying to use Edmund Mortimer as a focal point for a rebellion.

Edmund's sister, Anne Mortimer, had married the 3rd Earl of Cambridge, Richard of Conisburgh. Richard was also a descendant of Edward III. Richard's daughter, Isabel, was betrothed to Thomas, the son of Sir Thomas Grey (Isabel was three years old, Thomas was eight, and there's more to that story, believe me). Richard and Sir Thomas were two-thirds of a plot to assassinate Henry V.

The third member of the plot was the 3rd Baron of Masham, Henry Scrope. Henry was a decade older than Henry V, but the two were close. The king entrusted Scrope with diplomatic missions. He had escorted Henry's sister Philippa on her voyage to Denmark to marry King Eric of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Scrope had married Joan Holland, whose stepson was none other than Richard of Conisburgh. (Richard's father, 1st Duke of York Edmund, had married Joan Holland in 1393 after the death of his first wife and Richard's mother.)

These three men had close ties to each other, and decided to place Edmund Mortimer on the throne in place of Henry V. They subsequently approached the 5th Earl of March and told him of their intent to make him king, assuming that Edmund (now 23 years old and ready to rule) would be in favor. This was not the case.

Edmund had seen what happened to people who threatened the king's status in Edmund's name. He wanted no part of it, and on 31 July 1415, while Henry V was at Portchester Castle (see illustration) making plans to invade France, Edmund informed him of the assassination plot.

The three co-conspirators were promptly arrested, put on trial at Southampton, and beheaded on 2 August (Grey) and 5 August (Richard and Scrope).

As for Edmund Mortimer, he was appointed to the regency council for the baby Henry VI after the death of Henry V in 1422. He was later made the King's lieutenant in Ireland, and wound up living there from 1424 until his death in January 1425, the man who refused to be king. He left no heirs.

I want to take a closer look at the men of the Southampton Plot, particularly that "marriage" of the two children. See you tomorrow.

Edmund Mortimer's Later Life

Although he was a thorn in the side of King Henry IV—because he had a greater claim to the throne and was used as a focal point for rebellion—Edmund Mortimer (1391 - 1425) was nevertheless kept alive and safe. Near the end of Henry IV's reign, Edmund and his brother Roger were kept in the Tower of London. In 1409 they were given into the custody of the Prince of Wales, Henry, who was five years older than Edmund.

Edmund had a greater claim to the throne than the Prince of Wales as well, but when Henry IV died in March 1413 and the Prince of Wales became king, the Prince had to make a decision about Edmund. He had no doubt come to know Edmund well, not only personally but through Henry's siblings (Edmund and Roger had originally been raised alongside Henry's younger brother and sister), and decided he was not a threat by himself, despite what his older relatives might have tried in the past.

Henry (illustration) gave Edmund and Roger their freedom. Not only that, on 8 April 1413 (the day before Henry's coronation as Henry V), Edmund and Roger were made Knights of the Bath.

Two months later, Henry granted to Edmund his hereditary estates (Edmund's father was the 4th Earl of March). Edmund was 21, free, and now living in style. In 1415 Edmund received a papal dispensation to marry someone whose relationship to him was a little closer than was considered proper due to the laws of consanguinity, Anne Stafford. Edmund and Anne were both descendants of Edward III, and second cousins once removed. Henry was unhappy with the marriage—he had not been consulted for approval—and fined Edmund 10,000 marks.

This was the only disagreement between the two. Edmund never tried to claim the throne and was completely loyal to Henry, taking part in the king's court as an advisor.

There were, however, others who were not pleased with Henry V, and tried to use Edmund without his knowledge. Tomorrow I'll share the story behind the Southampton Plot.

The Mortimer Kidnapping

Young Edmund Mortimer, who was the heir-presumptive of Richard II with the strongest claim to the throne of England, was being raised by the usurper Henry Bolingbroke, now King Henry IV. Edmund's uncle, Sir Edmund Mortimer, in 1402 declared that young Edmund was the rightful heir to the throne, putting him publicly opposed to Henry's reign.

Sir Edmund's sister Elizabeth was married to Henry "Hotspur" Percy. Sir Edmund made an arrangement with the Percy family of northern England and Owain Glendower of Wales (now Sir Edmund's father-in-law) called the Tripartite Indenture, by which they would overthrow Henry and divide Great Britain among themselves. Their first attempt to overthrow Henry IV resulted in the death of Hotspur.

They did not give up. One step toward success was gaining control of the "captive" Edmund. Henry was raising Edmund and his brother Roger with Henry's own younger children at Windsor Castle.

For the rescue they turned to Constance of York, whose husband had been executed after a plot to assassinate Henry IV. In February 1405, Constance and her brother, Edward of Norwich Duke of York, managed to get to Edmund and Roger and kidnap them. They were overtaken in Cheltenham, 3/4 of the way to Wales.

Constance and Edward of Norwich were imprisoned. Many monarchs would have killed the buy in order to prevent him from being the focal point for a rebellion. Henry IV was kinder than that, as well as confident of his military superiority that could put down any rebellion.

Edmund and Roger were returned to Windsor, but ultimately kept in the Tower of London. Sir Edmund was kept in check and died in 1409. With the chief rebel gone, Henry IV handed custody of young Edmund to the Prince of Wales, Henry (later King Henry V), who was 22, five years older than Edmund.

While Henry IV lived, he would not allow Edmund or Roger to go free. They were now old enough and savvy enough to understand that they might someday become king of England with the right backing, and there were still people in England who would support them. Tomorrow I'll explain their fate after Henry IV died. You might be surprised.

The Mortimer Rebellion

Although Edmund Mortimer was only seven years old when Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard II, he was a potential political threat. He was Richard's heir-presumptive, and his lineage gave him a greater right to the throne of England through the laws of primogeniture than Henry had.

Henry treated the boy well, putting him (and his brother, Roger) in the care of a trusted retainer and raising him with Henry's own youngest children. Edmund had two sisters, but they lived quietly with their mother, who had remarried. A few years later, however, events took a turn that made the young Edmund more of a threat without the boy even lifting a finger.

Edmund's uncle, Sir Edmund Mortimer, was captured in June 1402 in Wales by Owain Glendower, a rebel leader. Bolingbroke, now King Henry IV, thought that Sir Edmund had actually chosen to defect and join the Welsh rebellion. Henry refused to pay ransom for Sir Edmund and confiscated his lands. Sir Edmund reinforced the suspicion of defection by marrying Glendower's daughter, Catrin. On 13 December 1402 he declared publicly that Edmund was the rightful heir to Richard II.

Sir Edmund's sister, Lady Elizabeth Mortimer, was married to Henry Percy, the 1st Earl of Northumberland. The Percy family was notable for helping keep control of the north of England against the Scots and the northern seas. Henry Percy and his son, also named Henry but nicknamed "Hotspur," rebelled against King Henry in collusion with Sir Edmund. The Percys felt that they were not appreciated enough by Henry IV for what they provided. The initial rebellion failed, and Hotspur was killed (see illustration).

In 1405, Sir Edmund, Henry Percy, and Glendower made an agreement called the Tripartite Indenture, in which they would depose Henry IV and divide the kingdom into three parts. They rebelled against Henry IV in a plot designed to free the young Edmund and make him king (after which, no doubt, Sir Edmund would be a chief advisor).

There was a plan to abduct young Edmund and his brother. It worked, but the consequences were grave. I'll tell you more tomorrow.

Edmund Mortimer

When Henry Bolingbroke decided in 1399 to return from exile in France and force his cousin, King Richard II, to return to him the properties and titles of Henry's deceased father, John of Gaunt, he gained so much popular support that his ambitions expanded to take the Crown from Richard as well. In doing this, Richard's chosen heir-presumptive was knocked out of the running. That man was Edmund Mortimer.

He was "heir-presumptive" because his position was potentially temporary if Richard had born a son. Who was Edmund? Why was he considered appropriate as a potential king of England? What happened to him after 1399?

Edmund's father was Roger Mortimer, the 4th Earl of March. Roger's mother was Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster, the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp, son of Edward III (and first "boss" of the page Geoffrey Chaucer). Edmund's parents and grandparents on both sides traced back to kings of England. Edmund's father had been made heir-presumptive, but his death in the Ireland campaign in 1398 caused the position to fall to Edmund.

Richard II was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke on 30 September 1399. Edmund was only seven years old, and clearly not seen as a threat to Henry, even though his lineage gave him status as heir to the throne above the rights of Henry.

Henry had no quarrel with the young and fatherless Edmund. His mother, Eleanor of Holland, had already remarried. Henry placed the child Edmund into the care of Sir Hugh Watertown, a trusted servant and attorney of Henry's father who now served Henry. Edmund was raised with Henry's own children, the ten-year-old John and five-year-old Philippa.

"Keep your enemies closer." Henry might have intended to raise Edmund as a loyal member of his household and court, ensuring that Edmund never saw Henry as a usurper. There were those—relatives of the young Edmund—who knew how to read a geneaology table and knew that there was a chance to replace Henry with Edmund and bring control of England back to their side of the family.

It only took a few years for an incident in Wales to turn into an opportunity for rebellion. This rebellion—entirely unconnected to anything Edmund would or could do—affected events and made Edmund less safe. I'll explain tomorrow.

Henry in Exile

After the Trial by Combat affair in 1398 between Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray (which was supposed to be to the death), King Richard II exiled Mowbray for life and Henry for 10 years. They were each allowed a few weeks to put their affairs in order, and they were granted annuities to live on. Henry went to France.

In 1399, Henry's father, John of Gaunt, died. Word came to Henry that Richard was not going to allow Gaunt's land to automatically go to Henry. Henry would have to request the lands from Richard. This was an insult on top of exile (which many people felt Henry did not deserve).

He sought out Thomas Arundel, the former archbishop of Canterbury who had been exiled by the Lords Appellant, who had taken over Richard's administration to root out corruption. Henry had been one of those Lords Appellant, but he met with Arundel and made peace with him.

While Richard was in Ireland on a campaign to deal with Irish defiance and a shrinking English population due to plague. While in Ireland, and struggling in the mountainous terrain, word came that Henry had arrived in England and was gathering an army.

Richard rushed back to England, but Henry was already gathering popular and military support. He had Arundel with him as an advisor. The stated goal was to claim the title of Duke of Lancaster that was his father's. Enough support flocked to him, however—and enough of Richard's supporter's deserted the king—that the goal shifted to replace Richard with himself.

What fighting there was didn't last, and Henry Bolingbroke was crowned King Henry IV on 13 October 1399. He was the first king to address the crowd in English since before 1066.

Henry was a remarkable man due to his various interests and skills, and his reign is worth discussing, but what about the "road not taken"? If Henry had not acted, or if he and Richard had died during this conflict, who would have been king? Richard had named an heir, someone who would have known that he was next in line should the king die, but then saw his opportunity for glory slip away when Bolingbroke return. Tomorrow, let's visit the life of Edmund Mortimer.

Henry and Richard

Henry Bolingbroke and his cousin, Richard, were childhood friends, but when they were older Henry became one of the Lords Appellant in 1387 who took it upon themselves to curtail what they saw as excesses and corruption in the administration of Richard when he became king.

Not only had they been friends, but Henry's father and Richard's uncle, the powerful (and sometimes feared) John of Gaunt, was a steadfast supporter of Richard personally and of royal authority generally.

After all that business (revisited recently in this blog), Richard could not find it in him to punish Henry. Richard awarded him the title Duke of Hereford, from Henry's deceased father-in-law. (Henry's and Richard's uncle Thomas of Woodstock tried to get the title for himself, having married another daughter of the deceased duke, but Thomas had been an enemy of Richard and was killed—perhaps due to an order from Richard—while in Calais.)

In 1398, the 1st Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Mowbray, supposedly said "many dishonest and slanderous words" about the king that Henry reported to Richard as treason. Mowbray denied the accusation, and Parliament tried to find the truth. Ultimately, Richard felt Trial by Combat was needed to resolve the issue. Mowbray had also been one of the Lords Appellant, and perhaps Richard saw this as a way to rid himself of two people who had opposed him using a "chivalrous" method.

Adam of Usk, a Welsh priest and chronicler, described the encounter:

On the day of battle they both came in great state to the appointed place, which was fenced with a wet ditch. But the duke of Hereford appeared far more gloriously distinguished with diverse pieces of equipment of seven horses. And, because the king had it by divination that the duke of Norfolk should then prevail, he rejoiced much, eagerly striving after the destruction of the duke of Hereford. But when they joined battle, it seemed to him that the duke of Hereford would prevail.

Richard stopped the combat, not wanting two important subjects to be injured, and declared that both should be exiled. Mowbray was exiled for life, but Henry was only exiled for 10 years.

It is never wise to exile someone who might be your enemy and a potential heir to your throne. It might make them long for revenge, and puts them where you cannot easily know what they're planning. See you tomorrow.

Thomas of Woodstock

I mentioned yesterday that Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, married Mary de Bohun, through whom he inherited the title Earl of Hereford, but that it almost didn't happen. That uncertainty was due to the machinations of Henry's uncle, Thomas of Woodstock.

The last time we saw Thomas of Woodstock in this blog he was one of the Lords Appellant, working to curtail the administration of his nephew, Edward the Black prince's son King Richard II. In this he was opposing his older brothers, John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster and Edmund Langley Duke of York.

Thomas was the youngest child of Edward III and Philippa of Hainault. He was born 7 January 1355 at Woodstock Palace (hence his surname). He was the second Thomas: there had been a son named Thomas earlier who did not survive long after childbirth. At 19 in 1374 he was married to Eleanor de Bohun, 11 years younger than he and the daughter of the 7th Earl of Hereford. Eleanor and her younger sister, Mary, were co-heiresses of their father.

The sisters' father had died in 1373, and Thomas and Eleanor were given the responsibility to raise Mary, who at that point was only about four years old.  Thomas decided that Mary's upbringing should be dominated by religious instruction: he was pressuring her to become a nun so that she would not inherit anything from her father and all would go to Eleanor and (by extension) Thomas. Thomas kept Mary at his castle in Essex, Pleshey, which had come to him via marriage (Pleshey had been in the Bohun family since 1227).

Thomas' older brother, John of Gaunt, also had his eye on the Hereford estates, and decided Mary would be a good match for his son, Henry. Henry was very literate, his father was a patron of poets (like Geoffrey Chaucer), and the Bohun family had an extensive library and was one of the foremost publishers of books in England at the time. (I'm not saying that was the reason for the match, but it certainly was an enhancement to her status in Gaunt's eyes.) John of Gaunt and Mary's aunt managed to sneak Mary out of Pleshey and out of Essex, where she was able to marry Henry Bolingbroke (in 1381).

Thomas had plenty of titles without becoming Earl of Hereford. He was Duke of Aumale, Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Buckingham, and Earl of Essex. We may come back to him some day, but for now let's return to Henry Bolingbroke and his bride.

Henry Bolingbroke

I wrote not too long ago about Bolingbroke and his adversarial relationship with his cousin, Richard II. It might be useful to see him as an individual, starting with his youth.

Henry was born c.April 1367 at Bolingbroke Castle in Lincolnshire to John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster. John was Duke of Lancaster, having inherited that title (as well as estates and great wealth) from his father-in-law, Henry Grosmont. Henry was named in honor of his maternal grandfather.

He was given a tutor, Thomas Burton (one of Henry Grosmont's old servants), when Henry was seven, and at nine was given a military tutor, William Montendre. Hugh Herle, Gaunt's household chaplain, was also a tutor, teaching Henry to read and write fluently in French, English, and Latin. (When Henry eventually came to the throne, he was the first monarch in England since the Norman Invasion of 1066 to address his subjects in English rather than French.)

By the age of 14 he was traveling with his father, riding and hunting and even jousting, a sport which he enthusiastically embraced. At a particularly aggressive joust in 1389, a "joust of war" with uncapped lances, Henry traded strokes with one of the most formidable jousters in Europe, Sir Jean le Maingre. Sir Jean declared Henry one of the most admirable of all the challengers.

During the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, he was trapped in the Tower along with Richard II. He narrowly escaped with the help of a guard, John Ferrour of Southwark, who stood between Henry and the angry mob and convinced the mob to allow Henry to flee.

Contemporary chroniclers reported that he never lost a battle when on crusades. John Gower (contemporary and friend of Chaucer) said he was "full of knighthood and all grace."

In 1381 he married Mary de Bohun; he was 14, she was not yet 10 (their first child was not born until five years later). Mary was the daughter of the Earl of Hereford. Through her he would become Duke of Hereford as well as of Lancaster via his father. The illustration shows his coat of arms blending the two titles.

He almost didn't become Earl of Hereford, and almost didn't marry Mary because of the schemes of one of his uncles. Tomorrow I'll explain how the youngest son sometimes struggles to gain more power for himself.

The Downfall of the Lords Appellant

The Lords Appellant must have felt they had done good service to the kingdom of England after the Merciless Parliament of 1388 eliminated everyone who was considered a corrupting influence on King Richard II. In fact, they rewarded themselves with £20,000 for their service and the expenses of hunting down malefactors.

That money may have been the catalyst for a turn of fortune. In September 1388, the Cambridge Parliament was called to address the state of the government's funds. By the end of 1388, the support for the Lords Appellant by the House of Commons had begun to wane.

The Commons made several complaints, arguing that the Lords had not been attentive to the proper governance of the country once they had eliminated their enemies. The approved tax was very small and committed only for defense of England in its northern boundary. Nothing was raised to continue wars in France.

Then, in 1389, Richard's uncle John of Gaunt returned from campaigning in Spain (Gaunt had married Constance of Castile—whose father the king of Castile had been deposed—and claimed the Castilian throne in her name, for which he had to fight). Gaunt was wealthy and powerful and worked to restore the king's power. He convinced the Lords Appellant and the king to compromise. The 1390s were relatively stable, but Richard never forgave the Lords Appellant, and eventually had his revenge.

The Duke of Gloucester, one of the Lords Appellant, was Thomas of Woodstock, one of the sons of Edward III and therefore Richard's uncle. He was captured during the wars in France and held captive in Calais. Richard (presumable) gave an order to kill him. (see illustration) Others were executed or imprisoned.

One of the Lords Appellant was Henry Bolingbroke, John of Gaunt's son. This was one explanation why Gaunt was able to reason with the Lords Appellant. When Gaunt died in 1399, Richard did not have to worry about angering his most valuable ally. Richard had exiled Henry for ten years (it didn't last), and forbade him to inherit from his father.

The exile and confiscation of his father's estate and title did not sit well with Henry, obviously. You might be familiar with his name and what happened next. If not, I'll save the surprise until next time.

The Merciless Parliament, Part 2

After the Merciless Parliament in 1388 had eliminated the five specific advisors to Richard II that they considered the most corrupt, the Lords Appellant decided to sweep through the rest of the administration.

First came the judges that had approved all of Richard's actions. There were seven of them, and they were allowed to have trials before the House of Lords, in which they pleaded for leniency. Leniency was not to be offered, however, and they were all condemned and executed.

The Parliament wanted to eliminate anyone who would be considered a "bad advisor" to the king, and this meant almost anyone with whom Richard had contact. Chamber knights and servants did not escape.

Sir Simon Burley (c.1336 – 5 May 1388) had been the tutor of Richard, and a "friend of the family" for longer. He had grown up alongside Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince. Now he was Richard's vice-Chamberlain, and therefore considered too influential on the king.

An honorable man whom many had known their whole lives and fought alongside, his condemnation was not universal. Lords argued for mercy. Two of Richard's uncles argued openly. Edmund Langley, Duke of York, defended Burley. Thomas of Woodstock rose to condemn Burley. Richard spoke up to argue with his uncle Thomas and was told to stop defending his friends if he wanted to keep the crown.

Queen Anne of Bohemia reportedly went down on her knees for three hours and begged him to be spared. (see illustration) She was told to pray for him. A letter from the population of Kent threatened an uprising if Burley were not executed. In the end, he was allowed a swift death by the axe instead of the traitor's death by hanging.

The king's steward, Sir John Beauchamp, was impeached for exerting undue influence on the king. He was imprisoned in the Tower and then executed. Dozens of other members of the king's household were executed.

The king's household had been reduced by half, and men were put in place to oversee its functioning. The five Lords Appellant were allowed £20,000 for their expenses.

The future of the Lords Appellant became uncertain, however, when John of Gaunt returned from campaigning in Spain a year after the Merciless Parliament. Let me tell you tomorrow what happened then.

The Merciless Parliament, Part 1

A few years back I offered a brief look at the Lords Appellant, the group put in charge of England because of the excesses in the administration of the young king, Richard II. Richard tried to overthrow the Lords Appellant, but they forced Richard to call a parliament session that became known as the Merciless Parliament.

Assembled from 3 February to 4 June in 1388, the goal was to deal with corruption and incompetence. England had been losing territory to France for the past 20 years as part of the Hundred Years War. A parliament two years earlier (called the Wonderful Parliament) had put the blame for losses squarely on Richard's advisors. It was the Wonderful Parliament that had removed Richard from his administrative authority and created the Lords Appellant.

The five Lords Appellant and the Parliament named five advisors of the king who "had to go." They were Michael de la Pole (who had negotiated Richard's marriage to Anne of Bohemia and been made chancellor), Nicholas Brembre, Robert de Vere (Earl of Oxford whom Richard had made Duke of Ireland), Alexander Neville (Archbishop of York), and Chief Justice Robert Tresilian.

They were all declared a corrupting influence on the king, for "living in vice, deluding the said king ... embracing the mammon of iniquity for themselves." They were all convicted and sentenced to death without trial. They were not even present when sentence was passed.

Brembre was in London, but fled to Wales when he heard the verdicts. He was arrested and taken to the Tower. As a bishop, Neville could not be executed by a secular court, but he was impoverished and exiled. Tresilian was found hiding in Westminster and dragged into court by a mob. He was right away stripped, hanged, and had his throat cut. De Vere fled to Belgium, and died in 1392 after being injured in a boar hunt (he was 30 years old).

Brembre was brought before the parliament for trial, but was not allowed to hear the charges, and so pled "guilty of nothing." In a treason trial, the king was allowed to speak, but when Richard tried to speak on behalf of his friend, the Lords Appellant (and 300 other members of parliament) threw down their gauntlets (see illustration), threatening armed rebellion against Richard.

Twelve noblemen were put in charge of determining Brembre's guilt, but except that he was friendly with the king they could find no reason for the death penalty. The Lords Appellant, wanting blood, spoke to the guild leaders of London to find cause, but that turned up nothing useful. (Maybe they should have asked Brembre's new "friend," Thomas Usk, who was good at turning state's evidence.) They finally called London's current mayor, the goldsmith Sir Nicholas Twyford, who had lost the mayoral election to Brembre earlier when Brembre had armed men chase Twyford's supporters out of the London Guildhall. Through a series of leading questions, the Lords drew from Twyford and London's aldermen details that they used to hang him for treason.

The five advisors were not sufficient to appease the Merciless Parliament, however. The net widened. I'll explain tomorrow.

Thomas Usk, Civil Servant & Poet

We know little of Thomas Usk's early life except that he was born in London. The name Usk appears in several records, but we cannot link the various folk with that surname together. He became a civil servant and left us some writings. He produced a poem called "The Testament of Love" (the illustration here is from one manuscript). He also wrote a certain amount of biographical detail, from which we know more about his later life.

He admits to having Lollard leanings as a young man, and the populist/Wycliffite leanings of John Northampton were attractive to him. He subsequently hitched his wagon to the rising star of Northampton who became mayor of London in 1381, and was instrumental in implementing Northampton's plans. He even says he supplied money to some of the people in this circle of reformers.

When fortunes change in 1383 with Northampton's defeat by Nicholas Brembre, however, Usk's public identity as a member of the reform crowd made life in England unsafe. He fled to the continent, but had to appeal to his former confederates for money to be able to live abroad. He found that the camaraderie he was experiencing while in England was a one-way street, and the road didn't go in his direction. He had to return to England for lack of funds.

In August 1384, back in England now, he was arrested as an accomplice to the seditious group headed by Northampton and taken to Newgate prison. He was released when he promised to tell everything he knew about the workings of Northampton's administration.

Northampton was brought before the king and council and discovered that the chief witness against him was Usk. Enraged, Northampton denied everything and challenged Usk to single combat. (Northampton had been known to have a temper, and long before becoming mayor he had been involved in public altercations, one of which even led to his imprisonment for. time.)

King Richard II was outraged by this behavior and sentenced Northampton to be hanged. We are told that the intercession of the queen, Anne of Bohemia, turned the sentence to life in prison. This was 18 August. Usk received a pardon from the king on 24 September.

Usk wrote that his new alliances did not seem to trust him, despite his recanting of Lollardy and new loyalty to Brembre. He survived, however, and was named under-sheriff of London in October 1387. Unfortunately, that was not the happy ending he might have hoped for.

Richard had to deal with a rebellion by his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, one of whose principal advisors was Nicholas Brembre. Usk had once again hitched his wagon to the wrong star. He was arrested along with Brembre and others.

This brings us to something that has been mentioned but not described, the Merciless Parliament of 1388. Tomorrow we'll examine that event and the final fate of Thomas Usk.