A Note on Sources

There have been two scholarly biographies of John of Gaunt. The first, written by Sydney Armitage-Smith in 1904, and the second, by Anthony Goodman in 1992. Armitage-Smith led the vanguard in unearthing the body of documents relating to John of Gaunt. He transcribed, translated and published John of Gaunt’s Register – his roster of accounts: a crucial source on his life and movements as the Duke of Lancaster. Anthony Goodman provides a thorough analysis of John of Gaunt’s life, looking meticulously at his movements, politics and ambitions in impeccable detail – a crucial starting-point for this book. W. Mark Ormrod’s work on Edward III and the political landscape of the fourteenth century has also been essential reading. Professor Ormrod has offered smooth explanations on complex medieval politics, for which I am grateful. Equally, Michael Jones’s excellent biography of the Black Prince has shed new light on the life and times of the world-famous Prince. I am indebted to Dr Jones’s new research on the siege of Limoges, which I discuss in the book. In unpacking the complexities and nuances around the war in France, I have relied on the excellent series on the Hundred Years War by Jonathan Sumption. The colour, detail and even humour that leaps off the pages of his books enabled me to unpack how the ongoing war with France might have affected John of Gaunt.

Of the original sources available for Gaunt, his Register is the most insightful. It is preserved in the National Archives as part of the Records of the Duchy of Lancaster, PRO 30/14. Two hundred and thirty-five folios (pages) of original manuscript are bound in vellum in a large volume, around thirty centimetres in length and twenty centimetres wide. Inside the two volumes that make up the complete register are a series of documents with names and dates listed in the margins, that were copied by Lancastrian clerks and passed under John of Gaunt’s Privy Seal – his personal seal, akin to a signature. The Register is a crucial piece of evidence in understanding Gaunt’s movements, the management of his land and property, and his relationships. There is information concerning the most senior members of his household – his council – which included a chancellor, a steward, a chamberlain, a controller and a receiver. There is also information on his treasurer, castle constables, grooms, cooks, carpenters, minstrels, falconer, gardener and armourers. The Register discloses information about Gaunt’s personal life in the gifts and grants he gave to family, loyal retainers, the church and his wives and mistress, and provides the greatest source of information on Lancastrian administration. The Register sheds more light on John of Gaunt’s personal activity and decision-making than any other source available.

Other administrative records that have been crucial in my research are the Parliamentary Rolls, the Calendar of Close Rolls and Calendar of Patent Rolls and the Inquisitions Post Mortem in the reigns of Edward III and Richard II, amongst others. All of these are helpful in analysing the political landscape of the fourteenth century that John of Gaunt spent the majority of his life – successfully, and unsuccessfully – navigating. At the National Archives in Kew are the Duchy of Lancaster records which I have rifled through – resulting in black fingertips and a sneeze. John of Gaunt’s personal seals, also held at the National Archives, provide a visual representation of his rise to power – notably in the change of his seal to include the arms of Castile and Leon.

The most colourful description of Gaunt’s world comes from the chronicle accounts of the period. Chroniclers were historians – often clerical – who described events in chronological order. The archetypal image of a chronicler is a monk or scribe clutching a quill and inking colourful manuscripts but, by the fourteenth century, a chronicler could also be secular and attached to a great household as a clerk.

The chronicles covering John of Gaunt’s early years were largely focused on the war with France and give detailed accounts of the battles and campaigns that took place. Jean le Bel was a French soldier from Liege and one of the early chroniclers to write in French rather than in Latin. Of all the chronicle accounts, his was largely reliable. As a solider, he travelled to England and Scotland and often wrote from personal experience. When he was not present, he did acquire good eyewitness accounts. Le Bel was a canon at Liege Cathedral, whose clergy were heavily involved in the practice and preparation of war, where he gathered much of his information.

Jean Froissart, writing from the 1360s, was heavily influenced by Jean le Bel and even repurposed sections of Le Bel’s chronicle in his own. Froissart came to the English court under the patronage of Queen Philippa of Hainault – consort of Edward III – around 1361, until her death. The Queen employed Froissart as a court poet and story-teller. After the Queen’s death, Froissart found employment in France with the Duke and Duchess of Brabant, and later as a chaplain to the Count of Blois. Around this time, his accounts of the Hundred Years War, particularly the siege of Limoges, became less favourable to the English. Through his prolific account of the period, Jean Froissart has become one of the best-known medieval writers.

The leading chronicles for the second part of the fourteenth century covered – amongst many things – the Black Death, war with France, the Good Parliament, the death of Edward III and ascension of Richard II, Wycliffe and Lollardy, unrest on the Scottish Borders and the Peasants’ Revolt.

Thomas Walsingham’s Chronicle is a polemic against John of Gaunt and anyone else Walsingham considered to be in breach of the Christian order of things – a large part of the Edwardian and Ricardian court. Thomas Walsingham was a Benedictine monk, based at St Albans Abbey – one the greatest monasteries of medieval England. Non-secular chroniclers of the fourteenth century were, like Walsingham, based in monasteries and dedicated to recording history as it was made. Thomas Walsingham was responsible for the scriptorium – the writing room – in which scribes, illuminators and binders worked tirelessly to produce manuscripts. Thomas Walsingham’s chronicle was not from first-hand experience, but he seems to have had a network of informants – particularly for the Good Parliament in 1376. Walsingham has been a crucial source, for he was also one of the only English chroniclers to record events in Europe, such as the Papal Schism of 1378. This allows a glimpse into English reactions to major events overseas as well as domestic ones. In 1399, when John of Gaunt’s son Henry IV ascended the throne, Walsingham’s polemic was replaced with a less hostile version of events.

A stark alternative source to Thomas Walsingham is Henry Knighton. An Augustinian canon from St Mary of the Meadows in Leicester, Knighton was an advocate of John of Gaunt, and always offered a favourable representation of the Duke. Although Knighton shared Thomas Walsingham’s views on Lollardy and infidelity, he blamed those around John of Gaunt, rather than the man himself. Knighton gathered his information from abbey documents and discussion with the Abbot. Otherwise, his knowledge was from informants in London and rumour. However, at Leicester, Knighton would have seen and possibly met John of Gaunt so had some level of authority regarding his character. His description of Gaunt’s popularity in Leicester and the citizens’ protection of his assets during the Peasants’ Revolt is likely correct.

From the North of England, the Anonimalle Chronicle is the best source, compiled at St Mary’s Abbey in York. It is considered to be one of the best accounts of the Good Parliament of 1376, and although the scribe was in York, he had a reliable informer. Equally, the chronicle gives a detailed account of the Peasants’ Revolt and destruction of John of Gaunt’s property. The chronicler may have used the same London informer, but it is also possible that the account was copied from an unknown London chronicle. Nonetheless the Anonimalle Chronicle is a valuable source.

The best and least polemical source for the period, particularly the political scene in London, is the Westminster Chronicle. This covers 1381 to 1394 – five years before Gaunt’s death. It is unknown exactly who wrote the chronicle and its author is often nicknamed the ‘Monk of Westminster’. Of all of the medieval records, the Westminster Chronicle is the best narrative source of the reign of Richard II and is immaculately chronologically ordered, making it easy to follow events as they happened. Where other chroniclers were forced to rely on London informants, it is likely that the Monk of Westminster did witness much of his account. The information regarding fractious internal politics, particularly between John of Gaunt and Richard II, is invaluable.

Chroniclers were not usually present for the events they describe and many had an external motivation behind their accounts. Documents that survive were usually written by clerks and are largely administrative; however, many have been lost, or are barely legible. Together they build an understanding of John of Gaunt’s world, but we can never know what it was truly like.

John of Gaunt, and the reigns of the Plantagenets, cannot be studied without examining their extensive castle-building. On inheriting the Dukedom of Lancaster, Gaunt assumed an impressive roster of properties, including some iconic castles that still stand today. Kenilworth Castle in Warwickshire was a particularly important building project and I have spent time walking within its grounds and inspecting its stones. Pontefract Castle’s ruins rest in Yorkshire, Gaunt’s powerhouse in the north where he rested or mustered his army before and after marching to Scotland. It was at this castle that Henry IV ruthlessly incarcerated and murdered his cousin, Richard II, shortly after Gaunt’s death. The area around the Savoy is particularly atmospheric. The palace, or ‘fair manor’, symbolised John of Gaunt’s inheritance as the Duke of Lancaster, a title and duty he hugely respected. The destruction of the Savoy Palace was cataclysmic for Gaunt and I believe that the year 1381 was pivotal in his life thereafter. The Savoy represented power, kingship, wealth, grandeur and, most importantly, the Lancastrian legacy. When the palace was reduced to ashes, he never recovered the loss, and today only the foundations of the chapel remain.