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.