¹ For a convenient summary of the earlier half of the century see Haines, R. M., ‘Conflict in government: archbishops versus kings, 1279-1348’, in Rowe, J. G., ed., Aspects of Later Medieval Government and Society (Toronto, 1986), pp. 213–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and his more detailed studies of Adam Orleton (Cambridge, 1978) and John Stratford (Toronto, 1986). The importance attached by Edward HI to his control of the chancellorship is well illustrated by his conflict with Stratford in 1340-1: Ferster, J., Fictions of Advice: the Literature and Politics of Counsel in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia, 1996), pp. 72–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the contest between clergy and laity for control of the chancellorship see now Hudson, Anne, ‘ Hermofodrita or Ambidexter. Wycliffite views on clerks in secular office’, in Aston, M. and Richmond, C., eds, Lollardy and the Gentry in the Later Middle Ages (Stroud and New York, 1997), pp. 41–51.Google Scholar

² Hudson, Anne, The Premature Reformation (Oxford, 1988).Google Scholar

³ For a full discussion see Gransden, A., Historical Writing in England (London, 1974-82), 2, pp. 118–93Google Scholar; also Duls, L. D., Richard II in the Early Chronicles (The Hague, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Gransden, , Historical Writing, 2, pp. 131–8, 155–60Google Scholar; Given-Wilson, C., Chronicles of the Revolution, 1397-1400 (Manchester, 1993), pp. 4–6, 64Google Scholar; Eulogium historiarum, ed. F. S. Haydon, RS (1858-63); The Chronicle of Adam Usk, 1377-1421, ed. C. Given-Wilson (Oxford, 1997); Favent, T., ‘ Historia Mirabilis Parliament ’, in McKisack, M., ed., Camden Society ser. 3, 37 (1926)Google Scholar; Knighton’s Chronicle, 1337-1396, ed. G. H. Martin (Oxford, 1995), pp. xxxii, l—li; Walsingham, T., Historia Anglicana, ed. Riley, H. T., RS (1863-4)Google Scholar; Chronicon Anglie, ed. E. M. Thompson, RS (1874). My thanks to Diana Wood and Anthony Tuck for a reference to Galbraith, V. H., ‘Thomas Walsingham and the St Albans Chronicle, 1272-1422’, EHR, 47 (1932), pp. 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ The Westminster Chronicle, 1381-1394, ed. L. C. Hector and B. F. Harvey (Oxford, 1962), p. xlvi; cf. Gransden, Historical Writing, pp. 182-7. The main source for the Westminster Chronicle was Gloucester’s household, and it is not surprising that it is pro-Appellant, anti-Lollard, and unreliable: pp. xxivf., lx-lxiii, 107.

⁶ Falsification of records by a corrupt clergy became a regular charge in Reformation polemic: Pineas, R., ‘William Tyndale’s use of history as a weapon of religious controversy’, HThR, 40 (1962), pp. 121–41.Google Scholar

⁷ See further Watts, J., Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 1, 27–8, 36, 106–9, 121, 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also McKenna, J. W., Political Propaganda in Later Medieval England (Brighton, 1988)Google Scholar. For the selection of material by the Chancery see Westminster Chronicle, p. xlvi.

⁸ Conveniently ed. and tr. by C. Given-Wilson, Chronicles, pp. 168-84.

⁹ Jones, R. H., The Royal Policy of Richard II: Absolutism in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1968), pp. 167, 175Google Scholar; Kantorowicz, E. H., The King’s Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957), pp. 24–41Google Scholar. For the traditional nature of this see in general Ullman, W., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (London, 1966), pp. 117–37Google Scholar; Turner, R. V., ‘King John’s concept of royal authority’, History of Political Thought, 17 (1996), pp. 157–78Google Scholar. This disposes of the suggestion that Richard derived his idea of royal power via Burley from the De regimine principum of Aegidius Romanus: Saul, N., Richard II (New Haven, CT, and London, 1997), pp. 249–50, 385–6Google Scholar; ‘Richard II and the vocabulary of kingship’, EHR, no (1995), pp. 863-701.

¹⁰ Genet, J.-P., ‘La Monarchie anglaise: une image brouillée’, in Blanchard, J., ed., Représentation, pouvoir et royauté à la fin du moyen âge (Paris, 1995), pp. 93–107Google Scholar. Just as the subject prayed to the saint to intervene with God, so the saint and therefore the king became the channel of either divine grace or displeasure to the subject: to oppose a royal grant to de Vere incurred ‘the curse of God, St Edward and the king’: CPR, 1381-5, p. 542. In the 13 90s Richard impaled his arms with those of St Edward.

¹¹ Charge 1.

¹² Charges 16, 19.

¹³ The point is well made by Tuck, A., Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973), pp. 91, 105, 116.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Charges 4, 6, 7, 14-15, 21, 26-8.

¹⁵ Steel, A., Richard II (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 116–17.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Turville-Petre, T., England the Nation: Language, Literature and National Identity, 1290-1340 (Oxford, 1996), pp. 5–6, 98–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the appeal to Magna Carta see charge 29; cf. charge 12 against Nicholas Brembre in Knighton, Chronicle, p. 468.

¹⁷ Charges 1, 10, 15, 29: the ‘unworthy persons’ include ‘interfering foreigners’.

¹⁸ Charges 10-12, 16-17, 30, 33.

¹⁹ Charges 3, 9, 11, 22-3, 27, 30; Knighton, Chronicle, p. 410. See also Boureau, A., ‘The development of ideas of royal contract in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries’, in Blanchard, , Représentation, pp. 165–75Google Scholar. A concern for iustitia as the essence of the feudal contract is emphasized by Lessnoff, M., Social Contract (London, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Tuck, A., Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Totowa, NJ, 1985)Google Scholar; Bushnell, R. W., Tragedies of Tyrants: Political Thought and Theater in the English Renaissance (New York, 1991).Google Scholar

²¹ Eccles. 10.16; cf. Is. 1.2-4, 3.4-5; Ps. 92.1-3; Gal. 4.1-2; also Dio Cassius, Roman History, LII, xiv, 2. It was applied to Richard II by Adam Usk, Chronicle, p. 6 and Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 2, p. 97, but the theme has a vast literary background, and was used not only by popes (Gregory VII, Innocent III) and papalists (Augustine, Hincmar, John of Salisbury, Aegidius Romanus), but was in general later medieval usage: Dante, Wyclif, Chaucer, Gower. It relates to the still larger practice of condemning one’s opponents as pueri.

²² Given-Wilson, C., “Richard II, Edward II and the Lancastrian inheritance’, EHR, 109 (1994), pp. 553–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Song of Lewes, in Wright, T., ed., Political Songs of England, Camden Society (1839), 2nd edn by Coss, P. R. (Cambridge, 1996), pp. xxii–xxiii, 72–121Google Scholar. The use of the term ‘feudal’ in this context needs careful definition. The feudal system was used by every king as a means of making his supremacy effective, using his subjects, especially the aristocracy in the first instance, in the administration of the kingdom and the prosecution of war. Its basic principles, aristocratic rather than monarchic, did not pose an insuperable difficulty for a strong ruler. But during a period of personal weakness, such as a minority, the true anti-monarchic tendencies of feudalism could limit and restrict the powers of the king, changing the nature of the kingship itself.

²⁴ Charges 22, 25, 29-30, 33.

²⁵ For Gaunt see now Goodman, A., John of Gaunt (London, 1992)Google Scholar; Walker, S., The Lancastrian Affinity, 1361-1399 (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar. As Margaret Aston has shown, the Flanders crusade was itself an oblique undermining of Gaunt’s influence.

²⁶ Saul, Richard II, p. 163.

²⁷ Note the perceptive remarks of Aers, D. and Staley, L., The Powers of the Holy: Religion, Politics and Gender in Late Medieval English Culture (University Park, PA, 1996), pp. 183–92.Google Scholar

²⁸ E.g. Westminster Chronicle, p. 440: ‘Ad hec rex aliquantulum substit, dicens… scio quid faciam amicis meis existentibus iam in partibus transmarinis.’ The principle of amicitia principis, applied to the political grouping or faction amongst the aristocracy which supported and advised the ruler, had a very extensive pre-Christian history, and was commonplace during the Middle Ages, but then appeared more frequently in the guise of the true Christian as amicus Christi, a term popular with the Wycliffites. The expression retained its currency throughout the eighteenth century for members of the Whig aristocracy and the American Loyalists.

²⁹ Westminster Chronicle, pp. 228-30, 30-2; cf. Jones, Royal Policy, pp. 12f, 130-7; J. S. Roskcll, The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in 1386 (Manchester, 1984), pp. 32-4.

³⁰ Steel, Richard II, pp. 103ff., 141.

³¹ Halliday, R., ‘Robert de Vere, Ninth Earl of Oxford’, Medieval History, 3 (1993), pp. 71–85Google Scholar; Rosiceli, Impeachment, pp. 21-2, 26. According to Froissart ‘by him everything was done and without him nothing’: cited by Mott, R., ‘Richard II and the crisis of July, 1397’, in Wood, I. and Loud, G. A., eds, Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages: Essays presented to John Taylor (London and Rio Grande, TX, 1991), pp. 165–77, at p. 166.Google Scholar

³² See further Roskell, Impeachment; Jones, Royal Policy, pp. 130-6, 143-6, 155ff.; Tuck, A., Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973), pp. 35ff., 58ff., 127–31Google Scholar; Aston, M., ‘The Impeachment of Bishop Despenser’, BIHR, 38 (1965), pp. 127–48.Google Scholar

³³ Dykema, P. A. and Oberman, H. A., eds, Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modem Europe (Leiden, 1992)Google Scholar; Scase, W., ‘Piers Plowman’ and the New Anticlericalism (Cambridge, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ ‘O men ♭at ben on Cristus half, helpe зe now aзenus anticrist; for ♭e perelows tyme is comen ♭a Crist and Powle teldon byfore. But o counfort is of knyзtus, ♭at ♭ei saueron myche ♭e gospel, and han wylle to redon in Englisch ♭e gospel of Cristus lyзf. For afturward, ♭if God wole, ♭is lordschipe schal be take fro preestis, and so ♭e staf ♭at make♭ hem hardye aзenyz Crist and his lawe’, English Wycliffite Sermons, ed. A. Hudson and P. Gradon (Oxford, 1983-96), pp. 2, 64.

³⁵ Waugh, W. T., ‘The Lollard Knights’, ScHR, 11 (1913-14), pp. 55–92Google Scholar; McFarlane, K.B., Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights (Oxford, 1972), pp. 137–226.Google Scholar

³⁶ Valois, N., La France et le grand schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1901), p. 620Google Scholar. For the use of clergy as a civil service see in general Given-Wilson, C., The Royal Household and the King’s Affinity (New Haven, CT, and London, 1986).Google Scholar

³⁷ Mathew, G., The Court of Richard II (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Blair, J. and Ramsey, N., eds, English Medieval Industries (London, 1991), p. 160.Google Scholar

³⁸ Davies, R. G., ‘Alexander Neville, Archbishop of York, 1374-1388’, YAJ, 47 (1975), pp. 87–101Google Scholar; Dobson, R. B., ‘The authority of the bishop in late medieval England: the case of Archbishop Alexander Neville of York, 1373-88’, Church and Society in the Medieval North of England (London and Rio Grande, TX, 1996), pp. 185–94.Google Scholar

³⁹ Palmer, C. F. R., ‘The King’s confessors’, The Antiquary, 22 (1890), pp. 265–6Google Scholar; and for his earlier history as Friar-Provincial, idem, , Archaeological Journal, 35 (1878), pp. 153–4Google Scholar; EHR, 33 (1918), p. 497. After impeachment in 1388 he was banished to Kilmore and died in Ireland in 1393.

⁴⁰ Braybrooke, who took a leading part in the arrangements for the Bohemian marriage, seems to have been a covert Wycliffite sympathizer (his brother was one of the Lollard knights). He was reinstated under Henry IV and often participated in Lollard trials, yet it was to Braybrooke that the Bohemians copying Wyclifs works went in 1407.

⁴¹ As the Westminster chronicler wrote of Courtenay, Chronicle, p. 138: ‘numquam, pro veritatis prolacione, salve semper tramite recte justicie capud eo modo alicui inclinaret aut genu, cum pocius juxta canónicas sancciones regum colla et principum genibus pontificium inclinali debeant et submitti.’

⁴² For Courtenay’s ‘unswerving loyalty’ to the papacy see Dahmus, J. H., William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1381-96 (University Park, PA and London, 1966), p. 192Google Scholar, cf. pp. 13-14, 44-5 - although Dahmus, pp. 21-2, dislikes the idea of there being hierocratic and anti-hierocratic parties amongst the bishops.

⁴³ Davies, R. G., ‘The episcopate and the political crisis in England of 1385-1388’, Speculum, 51 (1976), pp. 659–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the difficulty of assigning bishops to episcopal groups see Highfield, J. R. L., ‘The English hierarchy in the reign of Edward III’, TRHS, ser. 5, 6 (1956), pp. 115–38.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Davies, ‘Episcopate’, esp. pp. 659-60, 691-3.

⁴⁵ Ibid., p. 691.

⁴⁶ Gaunt’s increasing attachment to the Carmelites is discussed by Goodman, Gaunt, pp. 241-7. That Gaunt ‘repented’ his previous attitude and came to terms with the papalists seems clear enough, but the question of dating remains. Walsingham’s suggested 1381 (Chronicon Angliae, pp. 151, 328) must be too early, whilst 1389 (Historia Anglicana, 2, p. 194) is too late. Courtenay is alleged (Westminster Chronicle, p. 117) to have saved Gaunt from a royal plot to murder him in 1385. In the following century the reconciliation between Gaunt and the bishops was commemorated in the St Cuthbert window of York Minster.

⁴⁷ For Courtenay after 1384 see Dahmus, J. H., ‘Richard II and the Church’, CathHR, 39 (1953-4), pp. 408–33Google Scholar. Courtenay became much more active again in hunting Wycliffites in 1389: Knighton, Chronicle, pp. 530-4.

⁴⁸ As argued by Palmer, J. J. N., ‘England and the Great Western Schism, 1388-1399’, EHR, 83 (1968), pp. 516–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, R. G., ‘Richard II and the Church in the years of “tyranny”’, JMedH, 1 (1975), pp. 329–62, at pp. 329–30, 335.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Dahmus, ‘Richard II and the Church’, p. 432.

⁵⁰ Westminster Chronicle, pp. 116, 139; other accounts listed by Dahmus, “Richard II and the Church’, p. 416, n. 2.

⁵¹ Goodman, A., The Loyal Conspiracy: the Lords Appellant under Richard B (London, 1971), p. 9Google Scholar. For a royalist view, SirBussey, John, ‘a most cunning and cruel nature’: Adam Usk, Chronicle, pp. 155–6Google Scholar. Although Thomas Arundel had already acquired some prominence by his support for Despenser in the Flanders crusade, Davies would see him as a man of limited political experience who came to the fore through his brother’s support: ‘Episcopate’, pp. 663, 682.

⁵² Aberth, J., Criminal Churchmen in the Age of Edward III: the Case of Bishop Thomas de Lisle (University Park, PA, 1996)Google Scholar. It should be borne in mind, however, that de Lisle was a committed papalist who retired to Avignon in 1361, when he fell foul of the King. A recent description of him as ‘the Al Capone of Ely’ might with justice also be applied to Thomas Arundel.

⁵³ Aston, M., Thomas Arundel: a Study of Church Life in the Reign of Richard II (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar. There is also a good general account of Arundel in McNiven, P., Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV (Woodbridge and Wolfeboro, NH, 1987), pp. 63–78.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Hughes, J., Pastors and Visionaries: Religion and Secular Life in Late Medieval Yorkshire (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 246–7Google Scholar; as with the papacy, spiritual vision and political involvement may well go together. ‘Arundel and his clergy extended this principle of strong church government and applied it to the inner lives of parishioners as they set about influencing and monitoring what people thought and felt’ I cannot share Margaret Aston’s impression that he was not much concerned with heresy before the 1390s: Thomas Arundel, pp. 328-35.

⁵⁵ Davies, R. G., ‘Thomas Arundel as Archbishop of Canterbury, 1396-1414’, JEH, 14 (1973), pp. 8–22, at p. 11.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ I am most grateful to Professor Katherine Walsh for an advance copy of her excellent study ‘Lollardisch-Hussitische Reformbestrebungen im Umkreis und Gefolgschaft der Luxemburgerin Anna, Kཆnigin von England (1382-1394)’, now published in Pánek, J., Polívka, M., Reichrtova, N., eds, Häresie und vorzeitige Reformation im Spätmittelalter: Herausgegeben von Frantisek Smahel (Munich, 1998), pp. 77–108Google Scholar. See pp. 81-3, 107 for a list of Bohemian knights in England. This suggests that Anne had greater political influence in English affairs than is allowed for by Saul, Richard II, pp. 83-95, 455-7. It is likely that the Virgin Mary on the Wilton Diptych is a portrait of Anne; the way the child Jesus is held shows Bohemian influence.

⁵⁷ Deanesly, M., The Lollard Bible and other Medieval Biblical Versions (Cambridge, 1920), pp. 79–95.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Weltsch, R. E., Archbishop John of Jenstein, 1348-1400: Papalism, Humanism and Reform in Pre-Hussite Prague (The Hague and Paris, 1968)Google Scholar. The deposition of Richard II in 1399 was matched by the rejection of Wenceslas as rex Romanorum in 1400: in both cases Boniface IX was involved.

⁵⁹ Simpson, A., The Connection between English and Bohemian Paintings in the Second Half of the Fourteenth Century (London, 1978 and New York, 1984).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 2, p. 119.

⁶¹ Goodman, Loyal Conspiracy, p. 12, referring to Westminster Chronicle, p. 119.

⁶² Bede justified the Anglo-Saxon conquest on the grounds that the British were heretics and therefore tyrants, not worthy of anything but to be enslaved: Higham, N. J., An English Empire: Bede and the Early Anglo-Saxon Kings (Manchester, 1975), pp. 16–18, 31.Google Scholar

⁶³ E.g., Loserth, J., ed., De Ecclesia (London, 1886), 12, p. 263Google Scholar. Law made by an unjust prince is not to be observed because ‘patet quod hoc est contra fidem catholicam … et tunc foret indubie lex iniusta et nunquam permittendo’; 15, pp. 340-2, the king can determine what is heretical and therefore can deprive priests who abuse their power ‘tamquam ab haereticis Dominus auferatur’, because according to Hos. 5. 6, ‘God withdraws himself from both priests and kings who spurn the patrimonium Christi.

⁶⁴ Gransden, Historical Writing, 2, p. 131.

⁶⁵ PL 201, cols 1297-1300; Decretales, 5.7.9. The situation, which of course became common enough after the Reformation, had to be faced openly with George I Podebrady of Bohemia in the mid-fifteenth century: Heymann, F. G., George of Bohemia, King of Heretics (Princeton, NJ, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Odlozilik, O., The Hussite King (George of Podiebradi) in European Affairs (New Brunswick, NJ, 1965).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Denton, J. H., Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, 1294-1313: a Study in Defence of Ecclesiastical Liberty (Cambridge, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, J. R., The Church and the Crown 1305-1334 (Toronto, 1980).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Walsh, ‘Lollardisch-Hussitische Reformbestrebungen’, pp. 91-2. For the Bohemian marriages and grants see the Westminster Chronicle, pp. 160-2, 188-90.

⁶⁸ Another indication of Urban’s change of attitude is Pileo di Prata’s transfer of allegiance to Avignon in 1386. Urban was encouraged to support the Appellants in March 1386 by the hope of obtaining a subsidy: Davies, ‘Episcopate’, p. 678.

⁶⁹ For bis earlier career see Goodman, Loyal Conspiracy, pp. 1-3. For the enormous amounts of territory controlled by the Appellants between themselves, and the family connections between their wives, see the lists in McKisack, M., The Fourteenth Century, 1307-1399 (Oxford, 1959), p. 460.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Saul, Richard II, pp. 166-7, following Eulogium historiarum iii, p. 359. Goodman, Loyal Conspiracy, p. 153, asks the interesting question of whether Bolingbroke was really representing Gaunt.

⁷¹ Higden, , Polychronicon, ed. Babington, C. and Lumby, J. R., RS (1865-86), 9, pp. 69–70Google Scholar; Walsingham, , Historia Anglicana, 2, p. 141.Google Scholar

⁷² The phrase is Ferster’s, Fictions, p. 1. An even better example is provided by Knighton’s description of the visit by the Appellants to Richard in November 1387, Chronicle, pp. 402-4.

⁷³ ‘…en displesaunce du Dieu et de seynt eglise, en deshonour de uous et de vostre coroune et de tous uoz noblez et gentiles et a touz estatez du dit roialme’: Knighton, Chronicle, p. 442; also pp. 392, 414, 454-6, and cf. pp. 400-2 for the King’s Friends as seductores regis and traitors, etc. See also Richard’s complaint to Albert of Bavaria cited by Mott, ‘Richard II’, p. 175.

⁷⁴ Knighton, Chronicle, p. 354.

⁷⁵ Ibid., pp. 360-2. Walter Skirlaw, Bishop of Bath and Wells, was dismissed as Keeper of the Privy Seal and replaced by the Keeper of the Rolls of Chancery, John Waltham.

⁷⁶ Roskell, Impeachment, pp. 51-2; Ferster, Fictions, pp. 68-70. For the argument over the appointment of sheriffs, Westminster Chronicle, p. 404.

⁷⁷ Favent, “Historia Mirabilis Parliamenti’, p. 2, ‘circa regem glomorantes’.

⁷⁸ Walsingham, , Historia Anglicana, 2, p. 149.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Westminster Chronicle, p. 208.

⁸⁰ McKisack, Fourteenth Century, p. 459.

⁸¹ Knighton, Chronicle, p. 414.

⁸² Westminster Chronicle, p. 32; Favent, Historia Mirabilis Parliamenti’, p. 24; Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 2, p. 172.

⁸³ Favent, “Historia Mirabilis Parliament?, p. 21; Higden, Polychronicon, 9, pp. 156-7; cf. Davies, ‘Episcopate’, pp. 672-3.

⁸⁴ Westminster Chronicle, pp. 332-4, 354, 472; Higden, Polychronicon, 9, p. 264. Richard was thwarted in his attempt to bring Neville back to England in 1391.

⁸⁵ Raine, J., Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, RS (1879-94), 2, pp. 425–6Google Scholar. Arundel had attempted but failed to obtain a prebend at York in 1370: Barrell, A. D. M., The Papacy, Scotland and Northern England, 1342-78 (Cambridge, 1995), p. 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁶ For details see Hughes, Pastors and Visionaries, pp. 173-216, 227, 298.

⁸⁷ Saul, Richard II, pp. 235, 268-9. Adam Usk, Chronicle, p. 35, called Warwick ‘a wretched old woman’.

⁸⁸ Richardson, H. G., ‘Heresy and the lay power under Richard II’, EHR, 51 (1936), pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁹ Knighton, Chronicle, pp. 506-8, 526; Westminster Chronicle, pp. lxiii, 356-68.

⁹⁰ Saul, Richard B., pp. 298-304.

⁹¹ Westminster Chronicle, pp. 318, 330.

⁹² Davies, ‘Thomas Arundel as Archbishop of Canterbury’, pp. 9-22. See further Aston, Thomas Arundel, p. 299.

⁹³ Knighton, Chronicle, pp. 432-4. The editor comments (p. 433, n. 6) that it is interesting that Knighton should be so concerned with Lollardy that he deals at this point with an episode which was secondary to the melodrama of the Parliament’s principal business. He follows McFarlane’s view, Lancastrian Kings, p. 199, that this was connected with the arrest of Nicholas Hereford the previous year because Knighton includes a copy of the commission of enquiry and seizure (pp. 436-42). But it may be argued that this has no more significance in this context than the stereotyped list of Lollard errors usually cited in the record of a heresy trial (pp. 434-88). McFarlane, pp. 193-4, suggests that the Westminster Chronicle account refers to the charges against Sir Thomas Latimer in May 1388.

⁹⁴ This should not be seen as a royal dismissal of the chancellor, e.g. Goodman, Loyal Conspiracy, pp. 53-4. Arundel regained the chancellorship on 27 September 1391. His subsequent resignation on becoming Archbishop of Canterbury was in accordance with custom: Hughes, Pastors and Visionaries, pp. 131-2. In 1396 Arundel arranged for his replacement by Edmund Stafford.

⁹⁵ Knighton, Chronicle, pp. 532-4.

⁹⁶ The best account is still Workman, H. B., John Wyclif (Oxford, 1926), 2, pp. 342–401.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Perroy, E., L’Angleterre et le Grand Schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1933), pp. 332–5Google Scholar. A compromise was eventually reached by the concordat of November 1398.

⁹⁸ Perroy, L’Angleterre, pp. 352-76.

⁹⁹ Walsingham, Annales, p. 173; Hudson, A., Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 24–9Google Scholar; Aston, M., Faith ana Fire: Popular and Unpopular Religion, 1350-1600 (London and Rio Grande, TX, 1993), pp. 109–10.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ McKisack, Fourteenth Century, p. 522.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., pp. 469-70; for Anne’s death see Knighton, Chronicle, pp. 548-50.

¹⁰² Westminster Chronicle, p. 209.

¹⁰³ Saul, Richard II, pp. 366-7. It is odd that Walsingham dates the beginning of Richard’s tyranny to 1397, unless he saw this exclusively in ecclesiastical terms.

¹⁰⁴ Eulogium historiaram, 3, pp. 376-7; Aston, Thomas Arundel, p. 372.

¹⁰⁵ This follows Sherborne, J., War, Politics and Culture in Fourteenth-Century England (London and Rio Grande, TX, 1994), pp. 131–53Google Scholar: also Saul, Richard II, pp. 414-15. One may take with a pinch of salt Arundel’s assurance to the Lords after Richard’s deposition that his life was not threatened: Saul, Richard II, p. 424.

¹⁰⁶ Sherborne, War, Politics and Culture, pp. 140-3; Saul, Richard II, p. 413.

¹⁰⁷ McKisack, Fourteenth Century, p. 495.

¹⁰⁸ Given-Wilson, Chronicles, p. 186: the theme was that a true king had replaced a tyrannical child. For a full account see Aston, Thomas Arundel, pp. 268-73.

¹⁰⁹ McNiven, P., Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV: the Burning of John Badby (Woodbridge, 1987).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Wilks, , ‘Misleading Manuscripts’, SCH, 11 (1975), pp. 147–51.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Adam Usk, Chronicle, pp. lxxxi, 246; Walsingham, , Historia Anglicana, 2, p. 300.Google Scholar