Loyal service in the Middle Ages generally demanded some form of remuneration. This was particularly true of service to the crown. As K. B. McFarlane put it, ‘the king's service was profitable; his favour the only sure road to success… under a ruler who knew his job they [i.e. those who served him] were amply rewarded’. The substantial rewards granted to Edward III's household knights stand as a testament to the truth of this statement. The minimum each knight received was their biannual allocation of robes and fees worth 8 and 10 marks, respectively, for simple household knights, and 16 and 20 marks for household bannerets. Though these amounts were only small compared to the annual incomes of Edward's richest and most distinguished household bannerets – which could reach upwards of £500 (750 marks) – for the rank-and-file of the knightly household, whose incomes were often little over £40 (60 marks) a year, they would have been a welcome source of additional revenue. These payments were only the beginning of what a household knight could hope to attain under Edward III, however. The time these men spent in royal service was often accompanied by generous grants of land, money and titles. This allowed some of the longest serving household knights to establish themselves among the wealthiest and most influential noblemen in the country.

In this chapter, the range of benefits on offer to a household knight will be assessed in order to better understand the relationship that existed between service and reward in late medieval England. This is important because there is at present a great deal of debate concerning the place of royal patronage – that is, the dispersal of reward or advantage by the king in return for past, present or future service – within the late-medieval polity. On the one hand, a number of influential historians, such as Michael Prestwich, have argued that ‘patronage was the essential lubricant of political society’ at this time. Likewise, James Bothwell's intricate analysis of royal patronage under Edward III contended that ‘simply being a comrade in arms in wars abroad, companionable at home, generous to his friends and family and forgiving to his enemies… was not a way to keep powerful, ambitious families in line’.