Richard II and the Lords Appellant

Although the Wonderful Parliament in 1386 tried to curtail the excesses of King Richard II, it was the Merciless Parliament in 1388 that truly forced the king to accept that Magna Carta was no joke and the king did not have supreme authority in the kingdom and was answerable to the parliament. The parliament was requested by a small group called the Lords Appellant, and we should understand their role during this part of Richard's reign before we go on.

The Hundred Years War was still going on in 1386, and England had had two decades of losses. The Wonderful Parliament held Richard's favorites responsible for these military failures and for the egregious taxation used to fund the war. A group of trusted nobles was chosen to take over the management of the kingdom and the king, the Lords Appellant.

The Lords Appellant were:

• Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester; Richard's uncle, who forced him to attend the Wonderful Parliament
• Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel
• Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick
• Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby (another nephew of Woodstock, being John of Gaunt's son)
• Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham

They began their task right after the Wonderful Parliament ended, and the following year (1387) felt it necessary to launch an armed rebellion against Richard because one of his favorites, Robert de Vere, had raised an army for the king. (The illustration shows the Lords Appellant throwing their gauntlets down in front of Richard, but I cannot find an anecdote that explains this Victorian picture.)

In February 1388, the Merciless Parliament met to deal with Richard's favorites, de Vere and Michael de la Pole, Nicholas Brembre (who had been mayor of London several times), Chief Justice Robert Tresilian, and Alexander Neville (Archbishop of York). They were all accused of vice and swaying the king wrongly and lining their own pockets. As a prelate, Neville was only exiled after losing his position and all his estates and possessions, but everyone else was executed.

The executions did not stop there: dozens of members of the royal administration were purged. Finally they came to Simon Burley, who had been the king's father's advisor and was one of the king's regents when he was young. Burley was defended by Edmund Langley, the Duke of York, who was also a son of Edward III and therefore also Richard's uncle. Langley's brother, Thomas of Woodstock, rose to condemn Burley. Richard, who was in attendance of course, spoke up for the first time, and argued with his uncle Woodstock. Woodstock finally told him that he needed to stop defending his friends if he wanted to keep his crown. That made Richard sit back down.

One of the complaints about Richard was that he was a failure at the war with France, and was trying to negotiate a peace. Parliament (and the Lords) preferred military successes over a truce. Although Richard became effectively a puppet under the Lords Appellant, he managed to get revenge on the Lords and Parliament by the Truce of Leulinghem, but that's a story for tomorrow.

Richard II and the Wonderful Parliament

From October to November 1386, the Wonderful Parliament took place in Westminster Abbey. Its initial purpose was to discuss King Richard II's request for money (his uncle, John of Gaunt, was pushing for war with France as part of the Hundred Years War). In fact, a French fleet had been massing across the Channel in Flanders all summer, and the rumor of invasion was credible. Money had been spent to have 10,000 soldiers surround London for protection, and more was requested to prepare for war with France. The king's request would have brought a sum of £155,000—this would have been the largest tax in England's history, and Parliament was alarmed.

Other issues arose as well. Richard's marriage to Anne of Bohemia was supposed to bring her father, Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, onto the English side. There did not seem to be much support from Charles, however, and the man who negotiated the marriage, Michael de la Pole, had been made chancellor a few years before and more recently made Earl of Suffolk. Also, Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford, had just been made Duke of Ireland. Richard's elevation of his favorites to such positions was very concerning to Parliament, who considered these men and others close to Richard to be out for themselves and inappropriate royal advisors.

Richard was going to absent himself from Parliament—he did not like being told what he could and could not do—but his uncle Thomas of Woodstock, the Duke of Gloucester, threatened him with being deposed if he did not attend.

Parliament considered de la Pole a bad chancellor and wanted him impeached. Richard was forced to get rid of his chancellor and deal in the future only with advisors approved by Parliament. He left Westminster and spent a year traveling the country, ignoring the advice of Parliament's approved advisors and trying to gather support for himself.

As for the French fleet, England got lucky: a rebellion in Ghent took their attention, and there was no invasion of England that season. Also in 1386, Gaunt left England to attempt his dream of succeeding to the throne of Castile. Parliament had never trusted him, assuming that he wanted the English throne himself. Richard was upset with him as well: Gaunt was the chief military leader, and the promise of claiming France did not materialize fast enough. Gaunt's wealth had often supported Richard's desires, but with Gaunt in Spain fighting his own battles, Richard had lost a source of support and felt deserted.

The rest of Richard's reign was going to be one long argument with Parliament about the extent of his power and autonomy. The Wonderful Parliament was considered even more damaging to him that the Merciless Parliament in 1388. That is our next stop on this brief tour of the life of Richard II.

Richard II, the Boy King

When King Edward III died on 21 June 1377, ideally his eldest son would have succeeded him. Unfortunately, Edward (called "The Black Prince") had died almost exactly one year before. History might look back and say the succession should have passed to the next available son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and at the time probably the wealthiest man in England after the Crown. English royal succession didn't work that way, however, and the next in line was the son of young Edward.

That son, Richard of Bordeaux, was 10 years old. Parliament wanted to crown him as quickly as possible, fearing that Gaunt would try to usurp the throne. At his coronation on 16 July 1377, Archbishop of Canterbury Simon Sudbury put the crown on his head and the succession was set.

Normally, a king in his minority would have a regency council that included his uncles—who obviously knew a lot about the administration and defense of the realm—but Parliament feared Gaunt's influence, so others were chosen such as Sir Simon Burley and Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford.

From 1377 to 1381, little is heard from or about the new king. Regency councils are managing national affairs. It is with the Peasants Revolt of 1381 that Richard becomes more active in public, especially when at 14 he rides out to address the rebels personally.

In many ways he was an oddity. He had picked up some different mannerisms from his upbringing on the continent. One was the eyebrow-raising use of a piece of cloth made especially for dealing with sneezes and coughs. Another was that he did not know English. He was the last English king whose first language was French; Simon Burley was his tutor in the English language.

Months after the Revolt, he married Anne of Bohemia, daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV. This arrangement, negotiated by Michael de la Pole, was supposed to give England a powerful ally in its problems with France.

A few years later came a parliament called the Wonderful Parliament. Unfortunately for Richard, it wasn't wonderful for him. I'll explain that next time.

Katherine Swynford, Widow

After John of Gaunt died, in 1399, his third wife, Katherine Swynford, lost a lot of status. His health had been declining (he was approaching 60 years old), and in 1398 he had been expelled from England because he had displeased his nephew, King Richard II. On 3 February 1399, Gaunt made a detailed will, leaving all movable possessions (clothing, furniture, jewelry, etc.) to Katherine. He died the next day.

Immediately, the king's escheators (officers meant to keep track of where a decedent's inheritance goes) seized everything, including the Lancaster estates. She made a plea to the king in March, and got the estates returned, along with an annuity of £1000. Later, the king allowed her to keep the estates she had been given prior to marriage with Gaunt, but took the Lancastrian estates, since the king would have to find a new Duke of Lancaster. She gave the estates of Kettlethorpe and Colby (received from her first husband, Sir Hugh Swynford), to her only son from that marriage, Thomas as Swynford. She moved to a rented house in Lincoln, where she lived out the rest of her days.

All this took place in 1399. In the fall of that year, Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke (who had been exiled for life by Richard) returned to England, deposing Richard and crowning himself Henry IV. Katherine and Gaunt's children, the Beauforts, and Thomas Swynford supported Henry.

Although the new king referred to Katherine officially as "the Mother of the King," she did not return to court life, staying quietly in Lincoln and all but disappearing from history. In 1400 Henry gave her a new estate in Yorkshire, and £200 of the annual rents of Huntingdonshire, as well as an annuity of 700 marks (this was all in addition to the £1000 that had been assigned to her long ago by Gaunt). She had more than enough to live comfortably anywhere in the kingdom.

She died on 10 May 1403 and was buried in a tomb in Lincoln Cathedral (see the illustration). Made of fine marble and decorated with heraldic shields, with a carved likeness of her on top, it was topped with a brass canopy. The figure of her was partially damaged in 1644 during the English Civil War.

The king who exiled Gaunt and Bolingbroke, Richard II, has been mentioned many times, but not directly discussed. I'll tell you tomorrow about a king who was a boy who did not speak the language of the country he ruled.

Katherine Swynford, Royal Bride

The love affair between John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford could hardly be a secret, especially when she started bearing his children while he was married to his second wife, Constance of Castile. Even before that his gifts to her of estates and castles and money could hardly be explained simply because of the care she gave to the daughters from his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.

Katherine's increased social and economic status began in autumn of 1372, so that is likely when the affair truly began (although there must have been some attraction prior).

Katherine and Gaunt had four children between 1373 and 1381. The English chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote of an event in March 1378 when Gaunt and Katherine were seen in public together:

...casting aside every shame of man and the fear of God, allowed himself to be seen riding through the Duchy with his concubine, a certain Katherine Swynford. [Chronicon Angliæ]

Supposedly Gaunt's family also warned him about the affair's consequences. His legitimate children might well have been concerned about their step-siblings and whatever favors might have been shown to them instead of to the "originals." In 1381, after the Peasants Revolt, Gaunt accepted that his behavior was partially to blame for the public unrest, and broke with Katherine.

After the death of Constance in 1394, however, Gaunt decided to take Katherine as his third wife and Duchess of Lancaster; this would also legitimize his children by her. They were married in Lincoln Cathedral on 13 January 1396. Gaunt had oral permission from Pope Boniface IX, so he wrote to the pope on 1 September 1396, confessing his affair and that it began while he was married but Katherine was not, laying out the details of her importance to the royal family. Boniface wrote a papal bull, declaring the marriage valid. He also legitimized the Beauforts, their four children born before the marriage.

With the papal blessing, everything changed. While Gaunt lived, no one could accuse Katherine of inappropriate behavior. They were free to be a couple in public. The illustration is of a poetic reading at court at the time, and there is speculation that the audience is meant to represent real people and that Katherine is probably one of them. Gaunt only lived another five years, however. Life as Duchess of Lancaster started well, and worked out well for the Beauforts later, but things changed after Gaunt's death. I'll tell you how next time.

Katherine Swynford, Royal Mistress

Katherine Swynford (c.1350? - 10 May 1403) was the daughter of a knight from Hainaut. Her father, Paon de Roet (his and Katherine's arms are shown), followed Philippa of Hainaut when she came to England to marry King Edward III. Katherine was a lady-in-waiting to the queen.

Just as kings found advantageous marriages for their offspring, so did they help their favorites marry well. Katherine Roet was married to Hugh Swynford, a knight in the retinue of John of Gaunt. Accordingly, Katherine was transferred to the household of Gaunt's wife, Blanche. When Blanche died in 1368, Katherine became lady-in-waiting to her daughters, Philippa and Elizabeth. Katherine and Hugh had three or four children.

In the same year that Hugh Swynford died, 1371, John of Gaunt married Constance of Castile and returned to England from the continent. Katherine was now lady-in-waiting to Constance, the new Duchess of Lancaster and also styled Queen of Castile. Katherine now had a little more to her name: Hugh was not wealthy, but the king and Gaunt made sure his estates in Lincolnshire became Katherine's (Hugh's son and heir being a minor, the estates would have become property of his overlords, the king and Gaunt). Gaunt also increased her annuity from 20 to 50 marks, a very decent sum, to help the upkeep of the estates.

In 1373, Katherine had a child, John Beaufort (the surname came from one of Gaunt's estates in Hainaut). The father was John of Gaunt. They had three more children, all while Constance of Castile was still alive. Gaunt did not exactly keep the relationship quiet: he gave Katherine an annuity and several estates as a sign of his favor. 

Knowing that Katherine was the favorite of Gaunt (the most powerful man in England after the king), many would try to curry favor with her. The mayor of Leicester gave her a gift of 16 shillings' worth of wine, recorded as to "Lady Katherine Swynford, mistress of the Duke of Lancaster." That was in August 1375 and is the first public acknowledgement of the affair. The public in general, however, was appalled at the behavior, and the two were forced to break off the affair in 1381. Katherine left her position as lady-in-waiting to the woman whose husband she was sleeping with and settled in Lincoln, likely the Kettlethorpe estate from her deceased husband.

What did Constance think of this affair? Did she know? Gaunt was her best option for getting to the Castilian throne that had been usurped from her father, so she may have taken the bad with the potential good. Her Castilian ladies-in-waiting, however, likely noticed and complained: in 1373 they were all sent by Gaunt to Nuneaton Priory, a Benedictine monastery many days' journey from London. (They were allowed back a year later.)

Katherine was not completely personae non grata, however. King Richard II made her a Lady of the Garter in 1387. She also was brought back into royal service, so to speak, by joining the household of Mary de Bohun, Gaunt's daughter-in-law by virtue of marriage to his eldest son, Henry Bolingbroke (the future King Henry IV).

Constance of Castile, Duchess of Lancaster, died 24 March 1394 and was buried in Leicester. Gaunt and Katherine were now free to pursue an open relationship. They were still haunted by the scandal, and the shadow of adultery. 

How they handled it, and what happened after, will be tomorrow's topic.

John of Gaunt

John of Gaunt (6 March 1340 - 3 February 1399) was a highly influential man in adulthood. He was the third son of Edward III and Queen Philippa, born while the queen was in Ghent in Flanders (called "Gaunt" in English). (Actually, he was the 4th son, but an earlier son had died after a few weeks, years before John was born.)

In the 1350s, he was raised in the household of his older brother Edward of Woodstock (later known as the Black Prince). Accounting records showed that John had two "Saracen" companions named Sigo and Nakon.

He spent much of his youth in France and Spain where he took part heavily in the "family business," which was fighting France in the Hundred Years War. Edward tried (as kings do) to arrange advantageous matches for his children, and for John he arranged a marriage to Blanche of Lancaster in 1359. Blanche was not only a great beauty, but her father was the powerful first Duke of Lancaster, Henry of Grosmont. (Trivia: both John and Blanche had King Henry III as their great-great-grandfather, making them third cousins.)

John's father-in-law died in 1361, and a year later Edward made John the Duke of Lancaster and gave him half Henry of Grosmont's lands. He inherited even more land when his wife's sister, Maud the Countess of Leicester, died childless in 1362. At this point John owned land in almost every county in England and 30 castles. The rents from these properties flowing upward to John gave him an income of £8,000 - £10,000 annually (the buying power of about $200 million today), and allowed him to maintain a lifestyle comparable to a king's.

In 1370 he took a small army to Aquitaine to reinforce his older brother Edward, whose health was beginning to suffer. John was left in charge while Edward returned to England. In September 1371, John returned to England, but not before re-marrying. Blanche had died in 1368. This time, John married Constance of Castile, daughter of Peter the Cruel. Peter had been king of Castile, but was killed in 1369 by his half-brother Henry. John felt that Constance gave him a potential claim to the throne of Castile. He even introduced her to England as Queen of Castile and tried to style himself King of Spain, or at least "my lord of Spain," but no one was buying it. Ultimately, his and Constance's daughter Catherine married Henry II's son, Henry III of Castile, settling the matter of Castilian succession.

Now I'd like to jump to John's third wife, even though we haven't discussed the death of his second; yes, that's an important clue to what's to come. See you next time.

Who Were the Lollards

Was Lollardy popular? Besides for Sir John Oldcastle and John Wycliffe, I mean.

Because Lollards believed that baptism and confession were not necessary for salvation, many people were drawn to Lollardy: it was comforting to know that generations of good people who were never baptized would be welcome into Heaven.

Many priests appreciated Lollardy for its egalitarian and back-to-basics nature: praying to saints and saints' images was idolatry that should be shunned. A Bible in the vernacular was important so that everyone who wished (but did not know Latin) had access to it. All the "smells and bells" trappings of the Roman Catholic Church (bells, organs, holy water, incense, grand buildings), were not Bible-based and just being grandiose for the sake of it. Clerics should not be allowed to hold positions in government and have temporal power.

Lollards did not bother with fasting or abstinence, and they challenged clerical celibacy. They did not recognize any special authority of the pope, and especially of papal pardons. Personal piety was more important than what the Church said it could do for you. This made the individual feel more responsible for and in charge of his life.

This idea of the importance of the individual rather than the importance of the "higher powers" in society was very attractive to the common people, and spilled over to their notions of the need for social and economic reform. Heavy taxation and always being made to feel that you were less important than the nobility started to be questioned. Lollardy's tenets were intimately tied to movements such as the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

Not just commoners were drawn to Lollardy. There was a group of Lollard Knights in the last quarter of the 1300s. Among them were Lewis Clifford, John Clanvowe, and Richard Stury. I mention those names particularly because they were all friends of Geoffrey Chaucer, himself someone who was willing to make fun of the clergy, write about the common man, and write in English (court literature prior was usually in French).

All these men had another person in common, one far more powerful than they. That was John of Gaunt, third son of King Edward III and uncle of King Richard II. Gaunt was at one time the most powerful and influential man in England, but all things come to an end. I'd love to tell you more tomorrow.

Lollardy

What was Lollardy, and why was it so dangerous or objectionable that Sir John Oldcastle needed to be executed for it in 1414? That Wycliffe had to be condemned for it, especially when he translated the Bible? Why was it part of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381? Why was it important to Thomas Arundel to stamp it out?

Lollardy was an attempt in the later 14th century to make radical reforms in Western Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church. It had a synonym in "Wycliffite," because Lollards were followers of the reform ideas of John Wycliffe. "Lollard" was a pejorative nickname whose origin is uncertain, but may come from Middle Dutch lollaerd, "mumbler." In fact, "lollaerd" was used in the Netherlands much earlier than Wycliffe's movement  for non-mainstream groups such as the Beghards/Beguines and Fraticelli.

So what are some of Wycliffe's points that caught on? One is the belief in consubstantiation. The Roman Catholic Church had been teaching transubstantiation: that the bread and wine were transformed into body and blood in a way that meant they were no longer bread and wine. Wycliffe said they remained bread and wine even though the presence of God was in them as well.

What else? How about that baptism and confession were not necessary for salvation? In the New Testament, in 1 Peter 2:9, it reads:

You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light. 

Exodus 19:6 has "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation."

The Lollard idea was that everyone is part of a "universal priesthood" and therefore the Church does not have the ability to give a particular divine authority to a priest. With no special divine authority, there is no value in making a confession to a priest, and anyone can baptize.

Wycliffe also believed that everyone should have access to the Bible, and so he produced the first Bible translation into Middle English vernacular. (The illustration from the 19th century shows him giving his Bible translation to his followers.) I say "produced" because scholars now believe he guided others to write parts of it and did not write it all himself. Some think there were earlier English versions that he used/incorporated/was inspired by.

So how did Lollardy catch on? If it was so different from what the Church officially believed, was it going to receive a wide acceptance? Tomorrow we'll see who from the upper echelons of society might have adopted Lollard ideas.

The Oldcastle Revolt

When Sir John Oldcastle escaped from the Tower of London to avoid execution for the heresy of Lollardy, he fled to Cooling Castle and became the center of an attempt to revolt against King Henry V. Oldcastle sent messages to Lollard friends, many of whom were wealthy and could afford to outfit followers with weapons.

One group started rebelling prematurely on 26 December 1413 in North Lincolnshire, but ended it to head to London, where they were all supposed to meet on 9 January 1414. There were many priests among the Lollards who believed in the need for reform in the Church. They helped organize groups in Derbyshire, Essex, Leicestershire, Bristol—everywhere in England, in fact.

They were not numerous enough to make a difference, however. Two yeomen spied on the rebels and found Oldcastle's hidden location. Oldcastle, learning that he was found out, decided to move ahead and destroy churches, ultimately hoping to overthrow the king.

Henry gathered troops the evening of the 9th to confront the group that was assembling in London, and sent troops on the roads to stop any others from joining the rebels. Dozens of Lollards were taken into captivity after a (not surprisingly) brief battle of two very unmatched armies. On 10 January trials were held for the heretics/traitors.

Oldcastle had managed to evade capture for a few days, but was caught—badly wounded in the process—and brought to London on a horse litter. As a heretic he should have been burned at the stake. As a traitor who turned against his king, he merited hanging (and drawing and quartering). They decided to do both. The illustration in this and yesterday's posts show him burning in the gallows. If he were lucky, then the hanging killed him before he could suffer the agonizing torture of being cooked in the flames. (It is possible that Henry—mindful of their earlier friendship—arranged this so that he would die from hanging first, saving him some suffering.)

I mentioned in yesterday's post that Oldcastle was the subject of an anonymous Elizabethan play that was likely the source material for Shakespeare's treatment of Falstaff. I also said Oldcastle's family would become important later. In fact, when Shakespeare's Henry IV appeared on stage in 1597-98, the character we know as Sir John Falstaff was called "Sir John Oldcastle." In Henry IV, Part 1, Prince Hal calls Falstaff "my old lad of the castle." In an early text of Henry IV, Part 2 in 1600, one of Falstaff's lines is preceded by "Old." instead of "Fals." And the iambic pentameter is thrown off in some lines that include "Falstaff" that would scan properly if "Oldcastle" were substituted.

The truth is, in the Elizabethan Age Protestantism had changed England and the world, and executed Lollards were seen as holy martyrs. Moreover, the Cobhams were very powerful. Objections to their famous ancestor being portrayed in this light caused the change in the Henry plays.

So what ideas was Lollardy promoting that were so threatening to the established order? Let's go into that next.

Sir John Oldcastle

Thinking of King Henry V of England often brings to mind the play by Shakespeare and the characters within. Shakespeare probably learned about them from an anonymous Elizabethan play, The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable Battel of Agin-court: As it was plaide by the Queenes Maiesties Players. The play describes Prince Henry as an irresponsible youth who later becomes king and takes a completely serious turn, turning his back on his earlier lifestyle and the friends he had then. Its first printing was 1594; Shakespeare's first of the Henry plays, Henry IV, Part 1, came out in 1597.

One of Henry's friends was Sir John Oldcastle, the model for the Shakespeare's character of Falstaff. His family was well-to-do (this becomes important tomorrow). He was involved in the Welsh campaigns against Owain Glendower, and was made a captain of some of the Welsh castles. It was probably around this time that he came to know young Henry. Sir John was in parliament in 1404 as a Knight of the Shire for Herefordshire. He was later High Sheriff of Herefordshire and justice of the peace. When he married Joan, heiress of Cobham (an important Kent family), his financial fortunes rose: he came to own several manors as well as Cooling Castle. From then on his title in Parliament was "Lord Cobham."

He had another trait, however, that did not aid him in advancement. He was a Lollard.

Lollards were "proto-Protestants," a movement that was sparked by the ideas of John Wycliffe who wanted reform in Western Christianity. Lollards were considered heretics and dealt with accordingly when confirmed in their ideas. When the churches on his (wife's) estates engaged in unlicensed preaching, Sir John was accused of Lollardy. Henry was informed of this, but refused to take action against his friend until firm proof could be found.

It was. Something he had written was discovered that confirmed his Lollard beliefs. Again, Henry would not condemn his friend until he had spoken to him personally. Oldcastle was willing to offer up to the king "all his fortune in this world," but would not change his beliefs. He fled from Windsor and the king's presence to Cooling Castle. At this point, Henry had to let the wheels of justice run their course. Oldcastle refused the summons by the archbishop to appear before court, but Oldcastle obeyed when Henry issued a Royal Writ. Oldcastle was sentenced to burning as a heretic.

Henry ordered a reprieve of 40 days in the Tower of London to allow Oldcastle to repent. In that time, he escaped the Tower. At that point, with nothing else to lose, he decided to strike back.

How? I'll tell you tomorrow, as well as why I wrote that parenthetical note in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Henry's College Years

Henry V (16 September 1386 - 31 August 1422) was King of England from 1413 until his death.

For a time, in his youth, he was at Queens College in Oxford. There are no records saying he was enrolled (he would have been very young at the time, considering that he was away from Oxford by the time he was sixteen, fighting the Battle of Shrewsbury), but there is other evidence to examine.

For one, his uncle Henry Beaufort was chancellor there from 1397-99. A resident of Oxford named John Rouse affirms in a history that Henry studied there "under the guardianship of his uncle Henry Beaufort, then Chancellor of Oxford."

As king, Henry supported Queens College's rights in a dispute with Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Arundel. After this, Henry made sure that Queens would not be bothered by Canterbury, and instead put it under the protection of the Archbishop of York.

It is also recorded that he learned to appreciate literature and music while at Queens. Prior to Queens he had learned the harp, the recorder, and the flute. While campaigning in 1421 in France he even had a harp delivered to him. As king he granted pensions to musical composers. He is even known to have set to music two parts of the Mass, the Gloria and the Sanctus. Note the illustration and the words in red in the upper-left corner: "Roy Henry." The music is "highly skillful" and was possibly done with help from a professional composer. You can hear the selections at this link.

In a first for an English king, he learned to write in the Middle English vernacular.

Most people's knowledge of Henry is based on Shakespeare's plays. If they remember anything about the plays, it is probably the larger-than-life character of Falstaff. Falstaff was based on a real friend of Henry, Sir John Oldcastle. And yes, Henry had to change his attitude toward Oldcastle radically from when he was a prince. The colorful Sir John Oldcastle and his fate is a good tale for next time.

The Royal Physician

Where there are royals and people of means, they will endeavor to have the best health care. A physician who had a good track record was well worth his fees (and worth giving special dispensations to; consider the example in the 5th paragraph of this post).

Although I would never want to live in the time before modern medicine, I have to admit there were some clever men and women who certainly made a difference in people's lives. One such was John Bradmore, court surgeon to King Henry IV of England. He was from a family of surgeons: his brother Nicholas was a surgeon, and his daughter Agnes married a surgeon named John Longe.

A lot of surgeons in the Middle Ages had side hobbies as metalworkers, no doubt because it was convenient to be able to visualize and manufacture your own instruments. John was a metalworker (and also called a "gamester," suggesting he made jewelry, or used gems for their supposed curative properties (see the use of amethyst here). Facility with metals could arouse suspicion, however.

The Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 between forces led by King Henry's son Henry (who would become Henry V) and Henry "Hotspur" Percy resulted in an arrow embedded in the prince's left cheek. Higher and it might have taken out an eye and gone into his brain. Lower and it might have hit his throat and he could have bled to death. He survived the blow, but the arrow was going to require careful handling.

Normal procedure for an arrow in the flesh was to push it through and treat the wound; this could not be done without driving it through Henry's skull. The surgeons on hand tried to pull it back out, but either the shaft broke or it came free from the point; either way, the arrowhead was still there at the bottom of a deep wound.

John Bradmore would have been the ideal choice for the procedure. There was one problem: Bradmore was in jail. He was suspected of counterfeiting coins, a serious offense against the Crown. This was no time for standing on principle, however. Bradmore was sent for with haste.

Bradmore wrote one of the first treatises on surgery, called Philomena, and in it he describes his steps to help young Henry. He used the pith from an elder branch wrapped in honey-soaked linen to probe the wound to assess its depth. He then used increasingly larger probes to expand the wound. He designed an instrument (the illustration is one re-creation of it based on his description) that he could insert, twisting a screw to open the tongs and grip the arrowhead. He was able to wiggle the arrowhead back and forth and exact it. He then filled the wound with white wine, laying over it a poultice of bread, flour, barley, and honey. He stayed with the prince, changing the dressing as needed, until Henry recovered.

Bradmore died nine years later, in 1412, but lived on a handsome pension from the King in that time. He deserved it; surviving a wound like that was nearly impossible: septicemia or tetanus would have killed anyone without the extreme care that Bradmore provided. Henry went on to become King Henry V, win the Battle of Agincourt, etc.

Before Henry went on to fight battles and get wounded, he had other pursuits. I want to talk about his youth a little more, and his time at college. See you tomorrow.

Henry V

Henry of Monmouth was so-called because he was born in a tower at Monmouth Castle in Wales, but the date of his birth was not recorded because he was never expected to be king. (It has since been decided to call it 16 September 1386.)

King of England at the time was Richard II. Henry's father was the king's cousin (Henry senior was the son of John of Gaunt, younger brother of Richard II's father, Edward the Black prince.) Henry senior took part in a revolt against Richard, which resulted in his exile in 1398.

At that point, Richard took the twelve-year-old Henry under his wing, taking him to Ireland. A year later, his grandfather John of Gaunt died and the Lancastrian rebellion overthrew Richard and put Henry's father on the throne as Henry IV. Young Henry was now the eldest son of the reigning king, and was named heir apparent, Prince of Wales, and Duke of Lancaster. He also became Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester and Duke of Aquitaine.

In 1400 he was named Sheriff of Cornwall and put in charge of part of the military (note that he is about fourteen years old). In 1403 he led an English army to fight Owain Glendower (previously mentioned here). At the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 against Henry Percy (immortalized as "Hotspur" in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1), an arrow was embedded in the left side of our Henry's face.

This would have been dire for any soldier, but the king's son was going to receive the best care. The royal physician treated it with honey as a natural antiseptic, and developed a tool to extract the embedded arrowhead before flushing the wound with alcohol. The patient survived with impressive scars that proved his battle experience (although you'll note the absence of scars in the portrait above).

That physician was John Bradmore, and is too interesting a character to not stop and talk about him next.

The Order of the Dragon

Sigismund, King of Hungary, had an awkward relationship to that title. He only became king because of his marriage to Queen Mary of Hungary. But let me go back a bit.

Mary was born in 1371, and with the death of her father, Louis I the Great, in 1382, she was crowned "King"; her mother, Elizabeth of Bosnia, managed her regency. A female king did not sit well with the nobles, who would rather have had the throne go to Mary's distant cousin, Charles III of Naples. Charles agreed.

Charles decided he should rule Hungary, and took steps to that end, arriving in Dalmatia September 1385. Meanwhile, Sigismund of Luxembourg invaded Upper Hungary (now Slovakia) in 1385, forcing Elizabeth to give him Mary in marriage. Charles' stronger claim meant he was crowned king on 31 December 1385, but the queen mother Elizabeth managed to get Charles killed in February of 1386. Mary was restored to the throne, giving Sigismund the chance to become king. Charles' supporters captured Elizabeth and Mary that July. Elizabeth was killed in January 1387, but Mary was released in June. During their captivity, Sigismund had been crowned by the nobility, and so was in a position to have his bride freed. Mary died in her early twenties in 1395, falling from a horse on a hunting trip while pregnant. (This is leading to the titular topic, never fear.)

This left Sigismund as King of Hungary under circumstances that seemed very tenuous, especially after Mary's death. He needed a way to elevate his importance in the eyes of Hungary and its neighbors and allies. An example of his status was when, in the 1396 Battle of Nicopolis that attempted to help liberate Bulgaria from the Ottomans, Sigismund's leadership was ignored by the French leader John of Nevers. It was small consolation that John was overwhelmed and Sigismund was one of the few survivors.

In December 1408 he founded a new chivalric order. The primary purpose was to unite leaders in the fight against the Ottomans; its secondary purpose (which could not have escaped notice) was to unite leaders under the founder. He did not give it a name: members wore a badge (the illustration is a recreation based on what remnants exist in museums); since the badge was clearly a dragon, it was referred to by names that were variations on "Order of the Dragon."

It lasted until the 16th century, and included many nobles and princes from that part of the world, including Vlad II Dracul and his son Vlad III Dracul, the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula. There were few members from Western Europe; some of them declared themselves allies because they believed in the anti-Ottoman cause, but did not take the oath and wear the badge. One of these was, like Dracula, also the subject of a work of fiction, this time by Shakespeare (and others, to be honest). Tomorrow I'll talk a little about Henry V of England.