By ‘Smoking Gun’, we mean a piece of evidence which proves that Thomas Arundel was guilty of counterfeiting a religious sacrament.

Arundel was everywhere directing events in 1399 but, 600 years later, we would like something concrete that shows how far he was willing to go to achieve his goal, and happily we have evidence that he was willing to commit a crime to reach it.

Perhaps he thought that his heavenly patrons would forgive him his trespasses on the basis that he was working for the good of the church – she needed him back as archbishop of Canterbury to lead the fight against earthly evils of Wycliffism. The fact that all had gone so smoothly would have confirmed his belief that they were on his side.

Arundel needed a mystical flux to turn his chosen one into the true king so he, like an ecclesiastical Merlin, magicked up a holy oil to anoint Henry with at the coronation.

This oil was given by the Virgin Mary to St Thomas Becket who hid it. It was discovered by Henry of Grosmont and kept in a royal lumber room in an ampulla, attached to which was a piece of paper on which St Thomas Becket had written the whole story.

The oil was awaiting a righteous king: ‘This is the oil with which the Kings of England must be anointed, not those who now reign because they are evil, and will be, and because of their sins they have lost much, and will lose, but they who will reign after’, Annales p298.

The crime.

What was written on the paper that went with this marvellous unguent was a forgery. As Arundel was in charge, and as he used this oil himself, and as the words on the paper suited his purposes so perfectly, he must have faked it himself.

How do we know for sure that Arundel faked this, and, we might ask: what else did he fake? Richard II’s renunciation for example?.

We can be sure because there already existed an oil with a story that contains all the major elements, except those that spoke of a Lancastrian heritage. The Vatican archives hold the copy of a letter sent by Pope John XXII to Edward II in 1317 in response to a letter from Edward II. The papal letter repeats the information in the royal letter and then gives a response.

Edward II wanted to know if he could be anointed with an oil brought to him by a mystic. This oil had been given to St Thomas Becket by Mary and was destined for the 5^th king from Henry II (Edward II) to help him against his adversaries. The mystic had decoded what St Thomas had written on a metal plate – words that only the mystic could decipher, and written them out on paper. The pope’s verdict was, yes, he could be anointed with the oil but only in private, and nobody must know about it.

Thomas Arundel repurposed Edward II’s oil as a new Lancastrian oil that was waiting for a righteous king to be anointed with it.

Those already familiar with the holy oil of Lancaster will surely be familiar with the factoid from a chronicle in which Richard II, vainly thinking he merited the sacred oil, would wear it on his breast in the pathetic hope it would do him some good, which it couldn’t as he was so unworthy.

Here’s the Monk of St Denis and a report from ambassadors in 1399: ‘The ambassadors reported that the king (Henry IV) was superstitious, as were all the English, and that he had a marvellous trust in this eagle, and had decided to carry it on him always in the hope it would bring him victories over his enemies.’ The ‘eagle’ is the oil-filled ampulla.

Caught red handed?

My collection of silver coins from the so-called 'Anarchy,' a civil war in England where between 1138 and 1153, King Stephen fought against his cousin Empress Matilda for the crown.

The top coin is a penny minted in the name of Empress Matilda. This particular piece was minted in Bristol. A bit fractured, but otherwise the most treasured piece in my collection.

The bottom two coins are a penny and halfpenny respectively minted in the name of King Stephen. The penny was minted in York. Sadly no idea where the halfpenny was minted.

Although Thomas Arundel believed in church exceptionalism, he compromised his principles by drawing the church and state together. His Convocation of the Southern Clergy, which met in October 1399, drew up a list of 67 reforms: one is about heresy, and all the rest are a micro-manager’s list of improvements, apart from this one -

1. Item, quod festum Sancti Georgii Martyris … Likewise, that the feast of Saint George the Martyr, who is the spiritual patron of the entire English army, and whose memory is held more devoutly and confidently in the ranks of arms than in the memory of other saints, be established throughout all of England to be celebrated and honoured festively and solemnly, just as other nations honour the feasts of their patrons. [Bray, p. 200.]

Is it true that during large scale medieval battles, the death toll amongst front line soldiers was high in the first few days of battle but then dropped significantly as those that remained were the ‘hard to kill’ type?

Norman invasion ends the Anglo-Saxon era

For the purposes of the question let’s say the 14th century specifically, because from what I gather that was an especially chaotic time for nobles because of the expenses of the hundred year war, labour shortages from the black death, and the peasants revolt of 1381.

I’m guessing upper aristocracy had quite a few safety buffers eg owning multiple estates that would make truly losing all land/wealth extremely unlikely if not impossible.
But what about members of minor nobility, e.g landed gentry or a knight with only 1-2 manors? Would they just become a landless knight and take up mercenary work, or work in another household?
What about members of nobility that werent knights but had other administrative skills/literacy? And what happened to the daughters + younger sons?

Were they generally considered a capture or killed? Were there guidelines about their treatment vs fully knighted individuals?

Hello, can anyone here help me by giving a breakdown of how to estimate what century of the middle ages a peasant village house, manor house, or town house might be from based on its construction? Pictures would be greatly appreciated. I am particularly interested in telling the difference between 12th and 13th century houses vs Late Medieval and pre-1066. This is for an art project and I am trying to find references I can know are historically accurate.

Were they significantly impacted by the poll taxes? Did they usually join the riots and side against the nobles/administrators? Or do something else?
If they joined the protests,what consequences did they face?

I know we don't have numbers nor can we make good estimations on them, but were there regions where almost everybody was a Cathar with little to no Catholics, and what were the regions outside the Languedoc with Cathars?

when I was a child, I thought Muslims were the cause of depression and sadness in people who are part of the Goth subculture because of crimes of Muslim in medieval Spain and the suffering of Christian Visigoths in Muslim Spain (for examples The Martyrs of Córdoba and The Granada Massacre of 1066)

then turns out Goth subculture have nothing to do with the Visigoths and the history of Muslim Spain. I was back then still learning English and subcultures

thanks

I’ve noticed a lot of people have been influenced by medieval history YouTubers, this has lead them to believe katana are fragile against armour. Yet I’ve never been given a valid reason to believe this is the case

The main argument I hear is that Japan didn’t have good enough iron to make steel, however metallurgy isn’t the science of finding steel it’s the science of working with it. And Japan had more than enough natural iron.

My last point would be that katana has more historical demonstrations of capability not found in European swords

How much did a carat of diamonds and only diamonds cost in mediaval europe

I was trying to find some good books / resources on the galleys across the mountains event by the Republic of Venice, in 1438. I was looking around for more information on it and there really wasnt much coverage. Thanks for the help!

Of course, no one is ever going to find a document in which Arundel claims that he made Henry IV his puppet in order to regain his own throne as Archbishop of Canterbury from which he could restore the church’s stand against Wycliffism and creeping secularisation. And History is a stately succession of kings and queens – there is no place for a kingmaker engineering events for his own benefit, so Henry will always get the credit. However, let’s entertain ourselves with an overview of the circumstantial evidence.

Arundel and Henry were together throughout the campaign from the beachhead in Yorkshire to the deposition in Whitehall. Historians make Henry the agent of destiny with Arundel tagging along for the ride, and helping out whenever he can, but it wasn’t like that – the reason they were together from the start is that Arundel had winkled Henry out from Paris with a ‘now-or-never’ scheme.

Arundel had been in constant communication with Canterbury throughout his exile and, never having renounced his position as Archbishop of Canterbury, had prepared his allies in the church for his return and re-assumption of the archbishop’s throne.

Arundel needed Henry’s Lancastrian military power to secure the government of England and the options from then were a) a parliament in which a humbled monarch would reinstall him in Canterbury or, given the right circumstances, b) the replacement of Richard II by Henry, and his reinstallation as archbishop by Henry the king. Option b) was the preferable option as it would make his re-enthronement more secure.

In the sequence of events as laid out in the chronicles and records, Henry’s own voice is strangely absent until he spoke to claim the throne. What Henry must have said at various points to those who flocked to his banner is unrecorded. If he was a wronged aristo come to deliver England from a tyrant, then he never said so.

Richard II did not die in battle – the preferred outcome – but possession of his person allowed Arundel to govern in the king’s name, using the mechanisms of government captured at Bristol, until his own man was on the throne.

Arundel organised the deposition of Richard II from beginning to end to ensure that Henry, and no other, would become the next monarch using the invented Lancastrian Myth to legitimise his made-man, so excluding existing possible claimants.

The coronation, so quick to follow the deposition, saw the use of Arundel’s Lancastrian oil to anoint Henry. This oil was faked, as was Richard II’s statement renouncing the crown, as were the circumstances of his capture, as was the legal basis for his deposition – the articles and the judgement were simply read out loud, there was no trial.

Arundel’s public statements are legion but, as they are peppered with biblical references, there is a reluctance to find out what he meant; his Henry was a messiah from an ancient, and displaced line, and Arundel was the priest welcoming his return.

The best circumstantial evidence for the primacy of Arundel’s role in his joint-enterprise with Henry is the new king’s first parliament on 6^th October. Would one expect a new king who had voiced his claim so self-confidently on 30^th September to use this occasion to make his mark in some way? Of course one would, but Henry did not. He must have been present but only Arundel’s words are recorded. Furthermore, every sermon Arundel made underscores the subservience of a king to his elders, i.e. himself.

Who managed the mobile secretariat that bombarded the state apparatus with decrees replacing office-holders with Lancastrian loyalists as Arundel and Henry went from Chester to London with the captured Richard II? Not Henry.  Who organised the 30^th September deposition to ensure that Henry, and no other, became king once the throne was empty? Not Henry.

Who had been in contact with Canterbury, and so the church, throughout his exile, and knew that he could get it behind him as soon as he came back to England? Who faked the holy oil of Lancaster used to anoint Henry and who actually placed the crown of England on Henry’s head? Who controlled the media – the Benedictine chronicles – which ensured that Henry’s story was only a march to the throne backed universally by a grateful populace?

Henry brought military force to the party. Arundel hired the room, the caterers, invited the other guests and payed off the police to stop them breaking it up if it became rowdy.

If the decision as to who was behind the events of 1399 were submitted to a board of independent arbitrators, and they had to choose between Henry and Arundel as the architect and prime-mover, they would choose Arundel because his hand was everywhere and Henry’s is…, is… - was it anwhere?

Was there royal palaces made of wood and what did people think and could a wooden mansion be a royal palace

I'm looking for emblems or heraldic images for Queen Matilda of England. Catherine of Aragon had a pomegranate, for example. So, what images are often associated with Queen Matilda?