Davies, Richard G., 'Thomas Arundel as Archbishop of Canterbury, 1396-1414', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1973), 9-21

-

Quick Summary

Thomas Arundel served at the centre of politics under both Richard II and Henry, yet his first consideration was to the diocese of Canterbury and the fulfilment of his spiritual duties

  • Arundel was involved in politics but also a champion of the church in England
  • Arundel’s fortunes fluctuated under both Richard II and Henry IV
  • Arundel attended every parliament from 1399 until his death in 1414
Key Conclusion

Davies explores Thomas Arundel’s conduct as a churchman and his involvement in politics during his time as archbishop of Canterbury between 1396 and 1414. Arundel served under both Richard II and Henry IV as chancellor, and the article examines the ‘degree of enthusiasm with which Arundel engaged in such governmental activities’. On the basis of evidence taken from surviving episcopal registers (church records), Davies concludes that ‘one sees more than a figure engaged only in political affairs’ (p. 14). Ultimately, Davies finds the epitaph penned by the chronicler Thomas Walsingham in 1414 a fitting one, when he wrote of Arundel as ‘the most eminent bulwark of the English Church and its unconquered champion’ (p. 21).

Content Overview

Although Thomas Arundel was not a renowned scholar, a reformer, or a saint, Davies argues that Walsingham’s assessment of the archbishop for his ‘stature, courage and dedication to the church’ was well directed (p. 21). From 1386 onwards, Arundel became closely involved in the factional struggles of Richard II’s reign. He was promoted to archbishop of Canterbury on 25 September 1396, but suffered exile the following year in November 1397.  He played a pivotal role in placing Henry IV on the throne, and regained Canterbury in the process. His ‘fortunes continued to fluctuate’ (p. 14) under the new regime until 1407 when he accepted the position of chancellor once again and played a key role in politics until 1410.

Further Findings

The selection and appointment of the archbishop of Canterbury in late-medieval England was made with the ‘decisive interest of the crown in mind’, and the appointee ‘could anticipate repeated calls from the Crown for his support, counsel and service’. Davies observes that a characteristic feature of this period was the ‘mutual respect, comfort and cooperation between Crown and Church’ (p. 9). From 1399 until his death in 1414, Arundel attended every parliament and convocation (church council), which contributed to the fact that he spent nearly half of his reign at Canterbury in London. Yet, Davies argues that the ‘archbishop’s first consideration was ever his own diocese’ – ‘every Easter was spent at Canterbury saving 1411’ (p. 16).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research h...
Read more

Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-
Quick Summary The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane Key Conclusion Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against J...
Read more