Among medieval urban historians, one topic that has received increasing scholastic attention in recent decades is the way in which relationships were conducted among religious institutions, civic governors and the crown. By observing the processes involved it has become clear that such bodies negotiated matters of jurisdiction, authority, superiority and the exercise of power, all of which were vital in the construction of corporate identity. Through the use of conflict, compromise and co-operation in various combinations over time, and sometimes even concurrently, relations between these groups were often in a state of flux, frequently necessitating further interventions, alliances and negotiations. Even though this led to a complex web of relationships, for the various constituents there remained an essential binary of ‘us’ and ‘them’, the ‘other’, which allowed the group to define itself collectively through the deployment of specific markers. A contemporary example well illustrates this paradoxical phenomenon of complexity and simplicity, as well as highlighting the importance of spatial issues in the construction of identity.

As events in Northern Ireland continue to demonstrate, the apparently simple religious divide between Protestant and Catholic hides a multiplicity of complex associations. These numerous groups, linked as much by struggle as by solidarity, frequently seek to define themselves collectively through the use of flags, marches and murals. The emblems carried, the route taken, and the words and images drawn provide ways in which to highlight a group’s territory, memory and history, and thus its identity. Furthermore, they may be countered or reinforced by other messages, subtle differences among constituents recognised by the local population, yet often lost in the reported narrative provided for outsiders. Similarly, the people of late medieval England would have been aware of such dynamic complexity. However, when examined today, distance being marked in time rather than spatially, these group relations may appear simpler or prove difficult to disentangle where some degree of complexity is still evident, as well as presenting analytical problems regarding the processes involved in the construction of corporate identity.

As noted above, the construction of identity through relationships should be seen as an ongoing process that at times of conflict was thrown into sharp focus, requiring corporate re-assessment and the need to define one’s self against ‘the other’, which might involve co-operation with a third party.