Richard Scrope: The Awkward Archbishop
There were no initial indications that Richard Scrope was destined to become a medieval phenomenon. Born as the third son in an established northern family, Scrope thus followed this position’s traditional career path: entering the church and commencing an ecclesiastical life. His career followed a gradual trajectory until 1398, when he was appointed as the Archbishop of York: a position attributed to his cousin, a favourite of Richard II.
Scrope had remained neutral from the factionalism that engulfed Richard’s reign, often serving as an envoy to the Papacy and to Scotland. Despite this, during the Lancastrian usurpation, Scrope participated in the delegation that received Richard’s abdication in the Tower of London. These newfound allegiances to Henry IV lasted a mere six years, when in 1405 Archbishop Scrope led a popular protest against the Crown. Scrope’s actions came amidst a year of challenge for Henry IV and the Lancastrian regime. Owain Glyndwr’s long running campaign for an independent Wales reached a pinnacle;the Despenser Conspiracy temporarily abducted Edmumd Mortimer, Fifth Earl of March: the next best claimant to the English throne, in an attempt to transport him to Owain Glyndwr;and in the north of England, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland commenced a short-lived rebellion against the Crown. These three insurrections were interlinked by the most unique document of Medieval England, the Tripartite Indenture: which represented an alliance between Northumberland, Glyndwr and Mortimer. If the aims of the document had been achieved then England would have been partitioned between them and the Earl of March would have been placed on the throne.
This unison between the other conspiracies of 1405 leaves Scrope and his popular protest as an outlier which; combined with the oddity of Scrope’s leadership, means that the Revolt of 1405 has been the focal point of extensive studies and research. Through this, an academic consensus has emerged that favours a Percy-Scrope affinity, the popular revolt of Scrope being conjoined to the wider machinations of 1405 and the Tripartite Indenture. Yet this overlooks two questions that could cast a level of doubt on the academic consensus. Firstly, never before and not again until the Reformation would a member of the established clergy command an insurrection or popular protest against the crown, inducing the question as to how and why did Scorpe become leader of the revolt? Secondly, what motivated Scrope’s actions at the end of the popular protest in 1405 and why did he disband his rebels?
In order to answer the first of these questions, must be given to the complex and broader topic of the selection process of leaders of popular protest. Within medieval England, three key criteria can be identified that elucidates how individuals emerge as clearly identifiable leaders of popular protest. These criteria are: relevant experience, the consent of the masses and a pre-existing prominent position. Addressing the first criterion, nearly all identifiable leaders of popular protest retained some relevant experience; though the type of experience in question varies depending on the leader in question. Wat Tyler, leader of one of the Peasants Revolts of 1381, as an example, is believed to have had experience as a soldier in France as well as being trade educated peasant. This notion of leaders of popular protest having relevant experience is reinforced by the fact that Jack Cade, leader of Cade’s Revolt in 1450, is also attributed to having experience as a soldier. It isn’t just military experience that was relevant to leaders of popular protest as demonstrated by John Ball. Ball was an itinerant preacher who emerged as a leader of one of the contingents of the Peasants Revolt in 1381. He was noted by contemporaries for his skills of oration, often taking the form of galvanising sermons and preaching that motivated the rebels to actions. So much so the emergence of other leaders of the Revolt of 1381 such as Wat Tyler are attributed to the groundwork laid by Ball’s oration. Ball’s experience also included a history of opposition to the establishment with his preachings being considered heretical and resulting in his excommunication twice in 1366 and 1381. These two examples regarding Ball, indicate how relevant experience helped him emerge as leader of one of the contingents in 1381. Therefore together these three individuals indicate that one of the criteria to become the leaders of popular protest is relevant experience.
The second criterion is consent of the masses. This criteria is self-explanatory: a leader of popular protest only remains as such while they retain the support of those following them. The loss of the support of their followers would then presumably lead to the dispersion and collapse of their forces. Therefore it is a crucial criterion for leaders of a popular protest to retain the consent of the masses. This criterion is gained from proficiency in the first and final criteria: the unification behind a leader with social sway who nevertheless represents the ideals of the common man was considered the pinnacle of rebellious leadership.
The final criterion is that leaders of popular protest retained a pre-established position within society; however, unlike the other criteria this is not ubiquitous and leaders of popular protest can emerge without it. There are countless examples of this throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. During the Peasants Revolt of 1381, in Winchester, numerous leaders were associated with the city’s merchant guilds or civic leaders. William Wygge, noted as the ringleader of the revolt here, was connected to both the Mayor and bailiff of Winchester. While this is an example of the gentry leading popular protest, there are examples of members of the nobility doing the same; only these occurred following Scrope’s Revolt. Richard, Duke of York is one of these examples; who during the 1450s attempted to galvanise and lead popular protests in an attempt to further his own agenda, such as the Dartford Rising of 1452. Therefore, while not necessary, a final criteria which enabled individuals to assume leadership of popular protest was a pre-established position.
From the previously discussed criteria, we can see that Archbishop Scrope fits all three of them. He retains relevant experience drawn from his ecclesiastical training, a pre-existing position in the region given that he was the Archbishop of York and he had the support of the masses given that he managed to raise a popular army. With that in mind we must now turn to a debate first highlighted by Thomas Walsingham about the question whether Scrope acted of his own accord and why did he become the leader of the revolt in 1405?
To approach this question, let's start with looking at why Scrope revolted in the hopes that understanding his motivations could explain why he emerged as leader. The best way to understand any potential motivations, is to explore the manifesto published by the rebels and recorded in the work of Johannis de Trokelowe. The majority of the articles are inline with the revolt’s designation as a tax revolt, or they provide a connection to the Tripartite Indenture, there is an outlier that focuses on the Church. The article stipulates the desire for the remediation of injuries against the Church to thus ensure the freedom of the Church. Henry IV’s policy towards the Church had been one of leadership, only following the Church’s lead in matters of their own expertise. In practice this translated into relying on the Church to help combat the developing issue of Lollardy, whilst Henry exerted control over appointments, the ongoing schism and anything else that involved the Church in a political nature. At the same time, Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury was often conciliatory and unwilling to oppose the King, perhaps because his return to England had only been enabled due to Henry’s deposition of Richard II. With that in mind, an argument can be made that the independence of the Church had been gradually eroded during the reign of Henry IV. An issue that is reflected in the article from the rebel’s manifesto given the desire to ensure the freedom of the Church. The extent to which the popular masses were aware of the complex relationship between the Church and State can be questioned; but without a doubt Scrope was aware of the erosion of the Church’s independence. Therefore the inclusion of that specific article can be interpreted as a potential explanation for the reason Scrope revolted in 1405. At this juncture the inclusion of the article, indicates an underlying ecclesiastical concern behind the revolt. Scrope was the only individual amongst potential leaders that has ecclesiastical knowledge. So given the undertones of ecclesiastical grievances particularly so high up in the manifesto indicates the importance and influence of Scrope in the revolt. It can thus also be interpreted as an explanation as to why he emerged as the leader.
The next way to approach the question is to look at alternative candidates for leadership of the revolt, a process which starts with an exploration of the sources. The best two accounts of the revolt of 1405 are drawn from the works of John Hardyng and Thomas Walsingham. Hardyng depicts the revolt as Scrope leading the insurrection with the Earl Marshal, before being joined by the Earl of Northumberland and his forces: only for Northumberland to flee without his men. In contrast Walsingham begins his own portrayal of the revolt by questioning whether Scrope acted of his own accord, before indicating that Scrope manipulated the Earl Marshal to revolt. And that while Northumberland rallied forces in support, he ended up fleeing towards Scotland without reaching Scrope. The differences between the descriptions is interesting, both sources connote Scrope as being the leader to a certain extent. Hardyng’s interpretation makes it clear that Scrope was the leading figure of the revolt, Mowbray and Northumberland following his lead. Meanwhile Walsingham questions a potential Scrope-Northumberland affinity that ultimately fell apart following the failure of the two rebel forces to unify during the revolt. Walsingham’s depiction also argues that the Earl Marshal was manipulated to revolt by Scrope. These sources alone denote Scrope as the leader but they don’t explain why, to answer that we must focus down on each of the individuals mentioned in the sources: the Earl Marshal, Thomas Mowbray, Second Earl of Nottingham and Henry Percy, First Earl of Northumberland.
The first individual mentioned in the sources was Thomas Mowbray, Second Earl of Nottingham; although the argument for him being the leader of the revolt is weak. Despite this Mowbray retained strong motivations to revolt against Henry IV, his father had been exiled due to testimony from Henry before the usurpation of 1399. Compounding this Mowbray’s minority during the usurpation and initial years of Henry’s reign meant that he was unable to truly object as the family’s dukedom, lands and titles were lost either to the crown or supporters of the new regime. Together these two factors potentially provide strong motivating factors to rebel against the King by the time Mowbray reached his majority in 1405. Other information makes the potential motivations convincing, such as the fact that Mowbray had been raised in the household of Queen Isabella, second wife of Richard II; theoretically connoting some Ricardian sympathies and further reasons for the hostility to Henry IV. While these motivations for rebelling are strong, there are several weaknesses when it comes to any potential interpretation of him being the leader. Firstly Mowbray lacked leadership experience or any relevant experience. By the time of his execution in 1405, Mowbray was barely twenty with no experience of campaigning. As established earlier popular protest leaders require some level of past experience, Mowbray lacks this completely. So compounding this with the sources and it is clear to see that Mowbray can’t be considered the leader of the revolt, it also prompts further questions about his own agency during the revolt and whether or not he was manipulated into action?
With that in mind attention shifts to the second individual mentioned in the sources: Henry Percy, First Earl of Northumberland. To begin with Northumberland had been the kingmaker, of Henry IV, the support of the Earl and his son; Henry ‘Hotspur’ Percy enabling the usurpation of 1399. As a result the two were lavishly rewarded and became two of the most important individuals in the kingdom. Yet by 1405; Northumberland’s fate and the position of the family had shifted, a rebellion in 1403 by his son and brother had led to their death and Northumberland being arrested. Initially accused of treason, Northumberland’s trial in the Parliament of January 1404 saw the charge downgraded to trespass; his numerous offices forfeited and his prominent position lost, although he retained the bulk of the family’s northern lands. It was this reduction in prominence and alienation with the regime that provided one potential motivation for Northumberland revolting in 1405. The other motivation is the Earl and his family’s long held desire for a quasi-regal northern domain, that would have made him the most important individual in northern England. While the reduction in prominence had undercut this desire, the Tripartite Indenture offered an alternative expression of it, as if the document had been achieved then Northumberland would have been granted everything north of the river Trent. While these territorial desires present convincing motivations for Northumberland revolting, the Earl also retains relevant experience in contrast to Mowbray. By 1405, Northumberland was approaching his mid-sixties and a proven warrior and commander, the bulk of his experience can be attributed to his position on the Anglo-Scottish border and the near permanent skirmishing and warfare that occurred there. This argument alone makes Northumberland a more convincing candidate for leadership than Mowbray. Plus the age and more established position of Northumberland compared to them young and reduced position of Mowbray, only creates a more convincing argument. But this seems to contradict the sources, particularly Hardyng. The wording of Hardyng’s account of the event presents it as if Scrope led Northumberland to revolt. This idea would challenge the current academic consensus of a Percy-Scrope affinity which prefers the notion hinted at in Walsingham’s account of the two individuals working together. Hardyng is an outlier here, as through an exploration of other sources they either present a Percy-Scrope affinity or in the case of the Liber Pluscardenisis they favour Northumberland as the overall leader. Whatever the case the argument for Northumberland to be considered a leader of the popular protest whether that be independently or in conjunction with Scrope. Therefore a convincing argument exists for Northumberland being a leader of the revolt of 1405.
Ultimately though the actual events of the rebellion of 1405 affected the leadership of the revolt. While Scrope raised a force at York in 1405 with Mowbray, it is clear to see that Scrope was the leader of that specific contingent. Meanwhile Northumberland raised his own contingent in order to support the Archbishop, only to never reach York. A failed attempt to capture the King’s representative in the north, Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland resulted in Northumberland abandoning the cause, fleeing north towards Scotland. Thus Scrope was left alone as the leader of the rebels in 1405.
All in all the reason why Scrope emerged as leader of the revolt is due to a combination of his motives and the absence of anyone more qualified or experienced. The emphasis on religious grievances within the manifesto is indicative of Scrope’s involvement and influence over the revolt, something that can be interpreted as him being in a position of leadership. Meanwhile Thomas Mowbray’s lack of experience and potential manipulation removes him from consideration of being a potential leader. In contrast, while the argument for Northumberland being a leader is strong, his absence and flight to Scotland removes him from consideration. Hence why Archbishop Scrope emerged as the leader of the revolt in 1405.
Turning to the second question: why did Archbishop Scrope disband his rebels? As mentioned this question focuses on Scrope’s actions at the end of the revolt, in an attempt to rationalise his character. The agreed upon events that concluded the revolt: is that the Archbishop dismissed his forces in order to parlay with Ralph Neville, First Earl of Westmorland – only to be deceived and captured by Westmorland. There are two potential lines of reasoning that can explain Scrope’s decision to dismiss his rebels. The first interpretation is that there was deception and trickery involved, as suggested by Walsingham: who claimed that Westmorland resorted to deception because Scrope had a larger force. This is a sensible interpretation, trickery and deception have often been employed by forces to overcome unfavourable odds such as a larger force. A recent example in relation to 1405, was the capture of Conwy Castle in 1401 by the welsh as part of Glyndwr’s ongoing independence campaigns. On Good Friday 1401, whilst the English garrison was at church, forty rebels lead by Rhys and Gwilym ap Tudur seized Conwy Castle, one of the most secure castles of the realm, through trickery and deception causing national embarrassment. Yet the notion of trickery would undermine the idea of Scrope’s astute political nature, given that he was manipulated into falling for a rouse. The second interpretation is following the failure and flight of Northumberland to Scotland, Scrope felt isolated and panicked: deciding to take his chances by surrendering as opposed to fighting on. Again this interpretation is valid as well as supporting the idea of a Scrope-Percy affinity for the leadership of the revolt. Delving into the potential motivations as to why Scrope disbanded his rebels might provide insight into which interpretation is more convincing.
One motivation for Scrope to disband his rebels was societal convention, and that as an Archbishop, he would be afforded some level of protection. There was a history of limited violence against the clergy within England by 1405, whilst Simon Sudbury’s murder was in living memory, this act had been undertaken by a popular mob as opposed to a royal decree. The last time a royal decree had resulted in the death of a member of the established clergy was Thomas Becket in 1170; which had led to several excommunications and interdicts by the Papacy by the Crown. Since that disastrous episode no other bishop or archbishop had been executed by the Crown, instead a convention had emerged for them to be exiled instead. Such as Robert Winchelsey, Archbishop of Canterbury during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II. Winchelsey had been exiled over a dispute with Edward I, only returning to England following the ascension of Edward II. A more recent example was Thomas Arundel, another Archbishop of Canterbury. Arundel was a vocal critic of Richard II and a participant in the Lords Appellants which resulted in his exile in 1397. Arundel eventually returned to England in 1399 as part of Henry Bolingbroke’s party during what would become the Deposition of Richard II. Therefore, a societal convention had been established by 1405, that in matters of dispute between the clergy and the Crown, the outcome would be exile as opposed to execution. Therefore, a possible explanation as to why Scrope may have been willing to disband his rebels, is because he presumed societal convention would keep him safe.
There may also have been a level of arrogance that influenced Scrope’s decision. The murder of Becket had prompted immense international outcry and dismay, something that Scrope would have been aware of through his ecclesiastical education. Couple this with the idea that as a usurper Henry IV would prefer not to anger foreign powers, and an argument can be made that Scrope was motivated by a level of arrogance, presuming his death would be too impactful and destabilising for Henry’s regime. With the benefit of hindsight, we know this wasn't the case and in actuality there was limited international reaction. Adam Usk, writing in Rome at the time of Scrope’s execution fails to mention it; instead dedicating attention to the ongoing political chaos surrounding Rome and the Italian Peninsula. While Usk does eventually discuss the events of 1405 retrospectively in an entry from 1406 through the lens of a conversation between the author and members of Lionel of Clarence’s wedding party, even then there is no mention of Scrope, just the Earl of Northumberland. This lack of papal reaction though can be attributed to the wider issues facing the Papacy, given the instability in the Italian Peninsula and the ongoing schism with the Popes of Avignon. This limited international reaction is also represented in the Liber Pluscardenisis, a Scottish Chronicle which also gives no mention toArchbishop Scrope, only highlighting the arrival of Northumberland into Scotland. The lack of acknowledgement of Scrope could be attributed to the fact that the Pluscardenisis, covers a broad chronology from Malcolm, King of the Scots all the way through to the death of James I, and is clearly being written retroactively. Despite this lack of commentary; the international reaction following the death of Thomas Becket may have instilled a sense of arrogance in Scrope that his death would only serve to weaken Henry’s new regime within the international community, though this is a weaker idea when compared to the other ideas discussed within this article.
A further interpretation of what influenced Scrope’s decision could be ignorance, particularly given Henry’s previous record of punishment against traitors and opponents. By 1405, Henry had seen off numerous challenges and threats to his throne and the new regime. From these challenges a commonality had emerged when it came to their fates: John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon and Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester had both been executed following their involvements in rebellions. This was not unique to Henry IV’s reign. Since the reign of Edward II, it had become commonplace for noble traitors against the King to be executed, as it was with Thomas of Lancaster in 1322 and then again with some of the Lords Appellant during Richard II’s reign. Therefore, an argument could be made that Scrope was ignorant of this fact, though there is a counterpoint that ties into the first interpretation of convention: Constance Despenser, Lady Despenser. Despenser was one of the leading individuals involved in the Despenser conspiracy that also occurred in 1405. The conspiracy sought to kidnap and transport Edmund, Fifth Earl of March, a claimant to the throne of England, to his uncle Edmund Mortimer. Only Mortimer had defected to Owain Glyndwr following his capture in battle in 1402. When the conspiracy was defeated, Despenser was briefly imprisoned before being released with minimal restoration to her lands, despite the fact that she was one of the leading figures of the conspiracy. This apparent leniency though could be attributed to the fact that she was by convention meant to be afforded a level of protection. This also acts as support for the idea that Scrope’s actions can be attributed to relying on convention. Nonetheless while there could have been an argument for ignorance motivating Scrope’s decision, a reliance on convention was clearly at play here too. So we return to the overarching question of this section: why did Richard Scrope disband his rebels? The answer was he was relying on convention. The notion of convention is not something to scoff at, and was a powerful idea within medieval England, truthfully the only explanation that can satisfactorily rationalise the actions of Scrope. Scrope disbanded his rebels because by convention he would be safe.
It was mentioned in the introduction that the academic consensus favours a Percy-Scrope affinity, with the Archbishop being manipulated into revolt by Northumberland - the Archbishop being a political fool. Yet as this article has demonstrated, that is not the case. Scrope emerged as leader not because he was manipulated but because he met the specified criteria and actively coordinated the revolt, as demonstrated by the manipulation of Thomas Mowbray. Furthermore, the reliance of Scrope on convention in the disbandment of his rebels removes any argument of ignorance or arrogance. Together, this starts to present a picture of Archbishop Scrope that challenges the academic consensus. Instead of being a manipulated fool, there are indications that Scrope was politically astute and aware of his circumstances in 1405. The lynchpin of this being the sources’ interpretations of the events where they present Scrope as the leader manipulating individuals to revolt as opposed to being manipulated himself. Thus, without a doubt, further research of the topic is needed but for now the academic consensus has begun to be challenged.
Bibliography
Primary:
Annales Ricardi Secundi et Henri Quarti Regum Angliae. Translated by Henry T. Riley. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1866.
https://archive.org/details/johannisdetrokel100trok/page/404/mode/2up
Buchanan, Maurice and Felix James Henry Skene, ed. Liber Pluscardenisis. Edinburgh: W.Paterson, 1877.
https://archive.org/details/liberpluscarden00unkngoog/page/n303/mode/2up
Hardyng, John. The Chronicle of Ihon Hardyng. Translated by Henry Ellis. London: F.C and J. Rivington, 1812.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hxdwxe&seq=393
“Henry IV: October 1404.” In Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, edited by Chris Given-Wilson, Paul Brand, Seymour Phillips, Mark Ormrod, Geoffrey Martin, Anne Curry, Rosemary Horrox. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2005).
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/october-1404
Johnston, M.S.F., ed. Adam of Usk’s Chronicle,1377-1421. Malvern: Ceramicon, 2023.
“Richard II: January 1397.” In Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, edited by Chris Given-Wilson, Paul Brand, Seymour Phillips, Mark Ormrod, Geoffrey Martin, Anne Curry, Rosemary Horrox. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2005).
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/january-1397
“Richard II: September 1397, Part 1.” In Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, edited by Chris Given-Wilson, Paul Brand, Seymour Phillips, Mark Ormrod, Geoffrey Martin, Anne Curry, Rosemary Horrox. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2005).
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/september-1397-pt-1
“Richard II: September 1397, Part 2.” In Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, edited by Chris Given-Wilson, Paul Brand, Seymour Phillips, Mark Ormrod, Geoffrey Martin, Anne Curry, Rosemary Horrox. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2005).
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/september-1397-pt-2
“Tripartite Indenture.” In Owain Glyndwr: A Casebook, edited by Michael Livingston and John K. Bollard, p.112-115. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013.
Walsingham, Thomas. The Chronica Maiora. Translated by David Preest. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005.
Usk, Adam. The Chronicle of Adam Usk, 1377-1421. Translated by Chris Given-Wilson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Secondary:
Archer, Rowena E. “Mowbray, Thomas, Second Earl of Nottingham (1385-1405), Magnate and Rebel.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-19460.
Arvanigian, Mark. “Managing the North in the Reign of Henry IV, 1402-1408.” In The Reign of Henry IV: Rebellion and Survival, 1403-1413, edited by Gwilym Dodd and Douglas Biggs, p.82-104. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2008.
Barlow, Frank. “Becket, Thomas [St Thomas of Canterbury, Thomas of London] (1120?-1170), Archbishop of Canterbury.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-27201.
Biggs, Douglas. “Archbishop Scrope’s Manifesto of 1405: ‘naive nonsense’ or reflections of political reality?” Journal of Medieval History 33, no.4 (2007).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304418107000395
Broadman, Andrew. Hotspur: Henry Percy, Medieval Rebel. Stroud: Sutton Publishing Limited, 2003.
Dahmus, John W. “Henry IV of England: An Example of Royal Control of the Church in the Fifteenth Century.” Journal of CHurch and State 23, no.1 (1981): p.35-46.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23915898.
Dunn, Alistair. The Politics of Magante Power: England and Wales, 1389-1413. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.
Given-Wilson, Chris. Henry IV. London: Yale University Press, 2016.
Given-Wilson, Chris. “Mowbray, Thomas, First Duke of Norfolk (1366-1399), Magnate.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-978019861412-e-19459.
Harvey, I.M.W. “Cade, John [Jack] [alias John Mortimer; called the Captain of Kent] (d.1450), Rebel Leader.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-4292.
Hinck, Helmut. “The Rising of 1381 in Winchester.” The English Historical Review 125, no.512 (2010): p.112-131.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25639924.
Horrox, Rosemary. “Despenser, Constance, Lady Despenser. (c.1375-1416), Noblewoman.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-57622.
Hughes, Jonathan. “Arundel [FitzAlan], Thomas (1353-1414), Administrator and Archbishop of Canterbury.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-713.
Hutchinson, Harold F. Edward II: The Pliant King. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode (Publishers) Ltd, 1971.
Lewis, Matt. “The Capture of Conwy Castle.” History Hit, February 13, 2023
https://www.historyhit.com/the-capture-of-conwy-castle/
Livingston, Michael. “Owain Glyndwr’s Grand Design: The Tripartite Indenture and the Vision of a New Wales.” Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium 33, (2013): p.145-168.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24371940.
McNiven, Peter. “Scrope, Richard (c.1350-1405), Archbishop of York.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-24984
McNiven, Peter. “The Betrayal of Archbishop Scrope.” The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54, no.1 (1971): p.173-213.
https://jstor.org/stable/community.28211965.
Ormrod, W.M. “An Archbishop in Revolt: Richard Scrope and the Yorkshire Rising of 1405.” In Richard Scrope: Archbishop, Rebel, Martyr, edited by P.J.P. Goldberg, p.28-44. Donington: Shaun Tyas, 2007.
Prescott, Andrew. “Ball, John (d.1381), Chaplain and Leader of the Peasants’ revolt.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004).
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-1214.
Schlauch, Margaret. “The Revolt of 1381 in England.” Science & Society 4, no.4 (1940): p.414-432.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40399356.
Image Accrediations:
The west window (1338–39), with curvilinear tracery in the Decorated style - By Peter K Burian - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=70143231
One of the towers, near sunset, York Minster - By Peter K Burian - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91426842
Some of the 15 statues of kings, from Henry III to Henry VI, in the 15th-century Kings Screen - By Peter K Burian - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=70142638
The nave of York Minster - By Diliff -Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35078736