The Bishop who Took Down Richard II

faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond.

Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. L. Neonaga, and some of the world's leading historians, as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand new release every week, exploring everything from the ancient world to World War Two. Just visit historyhead.com/subscribe.

Hello, I'm Matt Lewis. Welcome to Gone Medieval from Historyhead. The podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We've got the most intriguing mysteries, the gobsmacking details, and latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the printing press, from kings to popes to the crusades. We cross centuries and continents to delve into rebellions, plots, and murders to find

the stories big and small that tell us how we got here. Find out who we really were with Gone Medieval.

Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval, I'm Matt Lewis.

In 2005, the BBC ran a poll to find out the most villainous figure in British history, taking the worst person from each century and playing them off against each other. When it came to the 15th century, the result might surprise you. People voted the greatest villain of the 15th century in Britain to be Thomas Arandel, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Why? We'll find out in a bit. Did he deserve it? We'll explore that too. You might also be asking exactly who is Thomas Arandel.

“Well, that's what we're going to find out right now.”

To help us, I'm delighted to be joined by Professor Chris Given Wilson, a meritist professor of history at the University of St. Andrews. He's the author of numerous fantastic books, including Henry IV and Chronicles, and is a general editor of the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. And his latest book is a biography of this fascinating figure entitled Archbishop,

Chancellor Kingmaker, a life of Thomas Arandel. A very warm welcome Chris to Gone Medieval. Thank you. It's great to have you with us. We're here today to talk about Archbishop Thomas Arandel,

who people may have heard of, may not have heard of, but they're about to find out all about him and why he's such a fascinating character. Your new biography of Archbishop Arandel, kind of focuses on his career after 1396 mainly.

But I wondered if you could just give us a little bit of information about who Thomas Arandel is, when is he born,

“who were his parents, what are his families importants?”

He's born sometime in 1353. We don't know the exact date. He is the fourth child of the Richard Earl of Arandel, who is the richest man in England. His wealth was quite remarkable,

and indeed much remarked on at the time. When he died, he left over 70,000 pounds, sitting in chests in the high tower of his castle at Arandel, which in modern terms makes him a multibillionaire. This was quite exceptional amount of disposable wealth to have.

So Thomas Arandel was definitely born with a silver spoon in his mass, and his dad was a man who believed in using his wealth to promote his children's careers. And quite remarkably, we know very little about his childhood,

but he went up to Oxford when he was about 16, which was quite normal in those days. That was the usual age to go up to Oxford.

He never completed his degree.

We'll come back to that if you want, because in the middle of his degree, his dad died, but not before having made sure that Thomas was going to be well provided for, which meant he had been destined by his father, presumably,

at a really a quite a young age for a career in the church, which was quite normal, because he wasn't going to, unless there were all sorts of accidents, he wasn't going to inherit the title and the lands of the Earl of Arandel.

“- And I think this quite often a perception”

that the idea that young good children go into the church is almost kind of pushing them away, getting rid of them solving a problem, but actually that was a route to some slightly different power and authority for the family, isn't it?

It kind of does broaden the Arandel reach.

So it was a decision which doubtless was good for and appreciated by the family. But yes, I mean, it wasn't what it later became, you know, which was sort of traditionally in the 18th or 19th century, if you had three children, three sons,

you know, one inherited their states,

the second one went in the army,

and the third one went into the clergy, which was a sort of traditional thing. You find that sort of mentioned in Jane Austen and so forth. But this was most definitely a route to influence. But I mean, remarkably, he became a bishop,

having not even yet been ordained a priest. He became a bishop at the age of 20 in 1373.

“And he was, I think there's absolutely no doubt”

that the reason why he became a bishop. Why this was, this was according to the pope when he appointed him as Bishop of Ealy in 1373, the pope said in his letter of appointment, he said no one so young has ever been appointed

to a bishopric. And he said that he hoped that Thomas would follow in the footsteps of his father and defend the church.

And I think it's almost beyond doubt

that money must have passed hands. I suspect that the Earl of Arindall must have passed a quite significant sum. I'm sure we're talking about thousands of pounds. Must have passed a quite significant sum to poke Gregory

in order to get his sum elected or appointed. To the bishopric of Ealy at such a young age. - So we've got some very definite nepotism going on there, but does he turn out to be a good bishop? Given that he's so young, given that he's essentially

“been put in that position because his father's bought it for him,”

does that make him a bad bishop or does he turn out to be quite good at it? - No, he turns out to be really rather good at it. And going back to what you said the reason why my biography of Arindall begins in 1396, 97.

Is because his early career was investigated in great detail by a historian called Margaret Aston about 60 years ago. And she published a book called Thomas Arindall,

a Study of Church Life in the Rain of Rich of the Second,

which is a long book and extremely detailed book. And a book, the conclusion of which is that Arindall turned out to be actually a very conscientious bishop and a popular bishop with his own clergy.

So no, this was not a case of a guy just being thrust into a post and everyone hating him, actually everyone seems to have appreciated him. And later on, the chronicler of Ely said what a good bishop of Ely he'd been.

“And that is, I think a seam which runs through his life”

that once he moved to Canterbury, then he was much appreciated as the archbishop of Canterbury as well. But no doubt, we'll come on to that later. And what role do you think his brothers position as one of the Lord's Appellan, a kind of prominent opponent

of Richard II? How does that affect him? Because Arindall was right up there as one of those Lord's Appellan who is trying to control Richard II's government

and tighten bonds around the king. Does that affect Arindall archbishop Arindall at all? Or bishop Arindall at this point? Yeah, this affects him a lot. But Arindall himself is no friend to Richard II.

Arindall himself, you can see him, he becomes involved in politics, as of course, so many bishops do, to be a bishop was to be an actor on the political stage as well as the ecclesiastical stage very much so at this time. And there were quite a few aristocratic bishops,

but none who were really quite as influential as Arindall turned out to be. Arindall himself in the mid-1380s became strongly opposed to Richard II's government. And I mean, you know, with good reason, really.

I mean, Richard II had, from really quite early in his life, quite autocratic, one might even say tyrannical instincts. And he was beginning to show that side of him, even in the mid-1380s. And of course, the great complaint as so often

was about his favorites. Men like Robert Devere, who he made Duke of Ireland, Michael Delafoul, who he made chancellor, and other people, they were plenty of others as well. These were regarded as the king's cronies.

They were leading him astray. They were appropriating his resources for themselves privately. And the crown was bankrupt. Her the war was going badly. There was a real invasion scared.

I mean, the French were about to invade England in 1386, but fortunately, the weather turned against them. And it may be that they wouldn't be able to come anyway. But anyway, there was a lot of officers to mention to Richard.

And it was led as you say by the Lords of Palant.

the man with the blood of our man, the biography is about. He was not a member of the Lords of Palant because the reason why they're called the Lords of Palant is because they launched what's called an appeal of treason. Against the king's chief cronies or ministers,

or whatever you want to call them. And of course, a treason would have led to execution and churchmen could not be involved in punishments of blood or death. So Aaronville had to get out of the clause.

But his brother, yeah, he was violently anti-Richard II. I mean, on two different occasions, Richard II is recorded as actually punching the Earl of Aaronville, which is a pretty remarkable thing to do once let alone twice. So there was absolutely no love lost between those two.

So Aaronville was Bishop Aaronville. He was very much in support of the Appellants and he was one of the leading opponents of the king.

“And I think would probably have been anyway”

regardless of what his brother did. And if you look at the chronic clos of Richard II's reign and when they talk about Aaronville, they tend to present him, perhaps somewhat ideologically, but not completely unrealistically,

as a man who had the defense of England's traditional liberties, whatever you actually think those were, which is another complicated matter, but a man who had the defense of England's traditional liberties at heart.

And there are several speeches or conversations

which he has with the king, which basically say,

stop acting like this. This is not the way kings act on one occasion. He actually appears to threaten Richard II with the possibility of deep position if he doesn't mend his ways.

- Yeah, and ultimately his brother, the Earl of Aaronville, will be executed by Richard, when Richard II feels ready to get his revenge on the Lord's appellant, the Earl of Aaronville is one of those who is executed.

Is it fair to say that Bishop Aaronville Archbishop of Aaronville, I mean, obviously he doesn't like Richard the second already, he established that, but is there an extent to which he's kind of tricked into being involved in his brother's downfall?

- Well, he isn't, he is in a way.

“I think I just need to go back a little bit.”

You asked whether his brother's behavior affected him, anyway, and although they were very much singing from the same him sheet in the mid 1380s. By the 1390s, Aaronville was acting as Richard

the second chancellor, and he was by now really more concerned

to try to restore peace and harmony in the realm. To try to heal the divisions of the past, but the Earl of Aaronville remained troculant. And he and his brother, although they don't seem to have had significant falling out or anything like that,

he and his brother are really going on divergent paths in the 1390s, the early 1390s, because Aaronville is maintaining this stance of really quite insulin opposition to Richard whereas Aaronville, as chancellor of the king,

is trying to smooth things over. So being the Earl of Aaronville's brother is actually becoming a little bit problematic for archbishop, Aaronville, by the mid 1390s. - I don't know, it's difficult to know how to put this,

but he is kind of made by Richard the second, almost complicit in his brother's arrest and death. But I mean, it's wrong to say he is complicit, because what Richard tells him to do eventually when he gets completely fed up with Aaronville

in 1390s with early Earl of Aaronville in 1397, he says to archbishop Aaronville, "Go and get your brother and bring him to me." And Aaronville says, "If I bring him to you, will you kill him?" And the king says, "No, I won't.

"I promise you I won't kill him." Well, Aaronville, the Earl of Aaronville, is hiding in his castle in Rygate, knowing that the king is gunning for him. And does not he's very reluctant to come

and to talk to the king.

“I mean, that's what Richard says he wants to do”

to get Aaronville's comment told him. But eventually he goes and he says to his brother, "The king has promised that he's not gonna harm you if you come to him." And the Earl of Aaronville, therefore, accepts this

and he goes to see Richard and Richard immediately arrest him.

And he's never free again, he's locked away

in a carousel of castle. The Earl of White, he's brought trial in Parliament and condemned and ahead it for treason. So, you see, Aaronville, Bishop Aaronville, had been duped there.

the second, which on quite sure we're gonna get on to in a minute,

“where he comes around to deposing Richard the second”

and drawing up the charges against Richard, he talks about that, he says in the document which lists Richard the second's crime, and you deceived me, you told me you wouldn't harm my brother and then you had him killed.

He feels that very deeply. He's been made to complicit. - Yeah, which is understandable. If he felt like he was trying to build bridges and smooth things over and solve problems for Richard,

this must have felt like a really poor payback for all of that effort. - Yes, by 1397, you quite right, you point to what is often called the revenge parliament, Richard the second's revenge parliament.

And this is the parliament and this is the year in which the chronicler Thomas Walsinger, who is by afar in a way, the fullest chronicler

for Richard the second's reign,

he says in this year Richard the second began to tyrannize his people and a lot of people saw it like that.

“And it was financial tyranny and it was pure revenge”

on the people, the leading appellants who had opposed him 10 years earlier in 1386 and 1387. And driven his friends down to the country into exile or executed some of his friends. So this is very much a case of Richard the second's revenge

and Arindlow, Bishop Arindlow, because he had been chancellor at the time, although he hadn't been involved in the sentences against Richard the second's favourites in 1387. Because he had been chancellor at the time,

he was also accused by the king of being involved in the treason, against what Richard called treason against him in 1387. I mean, accusations of treason were bandied round rather frequently in Richard the second's reign on both sides. And Arindlow was, therefore, convicted of treason in parliament

but because he was a cleric, I mean, normally if you're convicted of treason, it was straight off to the gallows. And if you're not of high birth, it's an extremely unpleasant death,

as I'm sure you know, lots of nasty things done before you actually die. But because he was a cleric and there was no tradition in England of executing clerics. Some had been murdered but none had been judiciously executed

in England since the Norman conquest. He has driven his toll to go into exile. And apparently, I called it again, according to Arind Bishop Arindlow's account. The king said to him, "Don't worry, I'll recall you quite soon

and I'm not gonna make anyone else archbishop of Canterbury while you're abroad." And do we believe what Richard says? Well, we don't got them believe what Richard says. Hardly was he out of the country

when Richard wrote to the Pope and said, "I need a new archbishop of Canterbury." Unbelievable. So it's a belief, well, Richard. Yeah, absolutely.

And we also just mentioned that Arindlow has become archbishop of Canterbury in 1396. And it feels like a strange decision because he's not really a friend of Richard. He's trying to work inside with his government.

So it's only the year before his brother and the rest of the Lord's appellate would fall. So is this the moment where he's still on good terms

“with Richard and he is appointed archbishop of Canterbury?”

Was this not necessarily what Richard the second would have wanted? Well, I think Richard the second was all right with it. I think Richard the second was still in his waiting and watching phase at this point. I don't think he really made the decision

to get his revenge until sometime during 1397.

Although, with Richard, you're never quite sure

he may have been harboring hopes of doing that for a long time. He quite possibly was. But anyway, no, the thing is, by 1396, when the former archbishop of Canterbury William Curtley died, Arindlow was so obviously

the senior cleric for most the high, you know, he was head and shoulders above the whole of the rest of the Episcopal bench. He'd been archbishop of York by now for eight years. He'd been promoted to the archbishop of New York in 1388.

So he was already an archbishop. He'd been chancellor for something like seven of the previous 10 years. He was a dominant figure. He had a powerful personality, Arindlow did.

And he was recognized as a defender of the church's liberties. And there's no evidence that Richard showed any opposition to his choice. But the monks of Canterbury said, we want Arindlow. The Pope said, yep, Arindlow, that's a good idea.

And I mean, the whole question of a point how you appoint bishops is, of course, pretty complicated at this time. But we probably don't need to go into that. But it was just kind of like a shoe in.

That's very much how it seemed. And everyone seemed to agree this, you know, when Curtin died, it's going to be Arindlow. And it was. But he did immediately resign the chance to the ship.

Of course, that's exactly what Thomas Beckett did. You know, 200 and something years earlier, 230 years earlier. Thomas said, I can't be chancellor and archbishop. And Henry II said to me, I want you to be my chancellor and my archbishop.

And Beckett said, I cannot possibly do both.

“And of course, that's what really led to the quarrel.”

Between Henry II and Beckett. Anyway, yeah, yeah. So we've kind of left Archbishop Arindlow in exile. He's been replaced as Archbishop of Canterbury. But what point does he manage to become attached

to Henry Bollingbrook's cause? Bollingbrook will end up in exile, as well, as one of the junior Lord's Appellant? Yep. Does Arindlow kind of quickly become attached

to him to see Henry Bollingbrook out? Well, when Arindlow was driven into exile, in September 1397, Bollingbrook was not driven into exile for another year or year later. And when Richard II exiled him, he said,

he was only exiling in for 10 years, but that was later extended, as we'll see. When Richard II exiled him, he said that he was to have no contact with Archbishop Arindlow. And the Kralekler adds, because he feared Arindlow's

cancel and wisdom.

“In other words, he thought he thought Arindlow was”

a bit too clever to be in touch. Anyway, Arindlow went off to Florence,

while he went to Rome first, and he told the Pope,

this is completely unfair. I want you to reinstate me at Canterbury, and the Pope said, I really can't. I mean, he said, the Pope apparently said, I'd love to, but I can't, because Pope just really couldn't afford

to get on the wrong side of King's too much. And so he went off to Florence. He had a lovely year in Florence, and he met all those humanists, like Colut, Joe Salotati, and Podgio Bracalini, and he described Florence

as an earthly paradise. The crunch came when John of Gaunt died, which was in February 1399. And Henry of Bollingbrook was, of course, the eldest son of John of Gaunt,

and Henry of Bollingbrook had been told by Richard when he exiled him, that he would be allowed to inherit any estates, which fell into him, while he was in exile.

“And Choccaro, Richard may not have told the truth,”

and Choccaro, Richard, didn't tell the truth. No sooner, well, within a month of Gaunt's death, Richard II announced that Bollingbrook's exile was going to be extended for life, and that he was confiscating the Lancasterian inheritance,

which was a vast inheritance. It dwarfed any other noble inheritance in England at the time. It was worth something in the region of 10 or 11,000 pounds a year, and no other noble had an inheritance, had lands worth more than about 4,000 pounds a year.

So the Duchy of Lancaster was absolutely vast. And that is what, when Irelandal heard this, he was still down in Florence. When Irelandal heard this, he immediately set off, and he knew that Bollingbrook was in Paris,

and so he set off Norse. He joined up with Bollingbrook, and they obviously decided it's time to go and get rid of this king. - Yeah, I'm kind of Richard,

the second one is to bring about the thing that he feared.

He was obviously worried about Bollingbrook, getting Council from Irelandal, and the two of them getting their heads together, and what that might mean. And he's kind of just pushed them both out of his house,

into the garden somewhere, and they've managed to find each other's surprise surprise. I mean, do we get any kind of a sense of how involved Irelandal was in that ultimate decision to depose Richard?

Obviously Henry has a driver, a motivation to do that, too. Is this something they both agree on, or do we see a bit of pressure from Irelandal or from, is it Bollingbrook that's leading that desire to depose Richard?

- Well, it's all rather obfuscated by the fact that when they come back to England, Henry says, "No, no, no, I haven't come to claim the throne. I've come to get my Dutchy back." Now, how many people believed him?

I don't know. I think it's pretty obvious that they, I think that from the start, they were determined to get rid of Richard, and they were determined that Henry the fourth,

Henry the Bollingbrook should become, King Henry the fourth, and Irelandal was obviously quite determined to get his archbishop, Rick back. Richard, of course, was very silly,

and having made these very controversial decisions, immediately disappeared to Ireland, to go and lead a campaign to Ireland. So, when Bollingbrook and Irelandal arrived at the very beginning of July 1399,

they basically, it was a bloodless campaign,

and when Richard came back from Ireland, they captured him, they seized him at the castle of Fint in North Wales,

taken off to London. And once they had the King in their possession,

“which, of course, was the crucial thing.”

Richard was advised by some people, "Why don't you go off to France and buy your time?" Or whatever, the French, he was married to the French, King's daughter. They said the French will probably help you, but, nope, Richard didn't do that.

So he was captured, taken off, put in the tower of London. Bollingbrook was chosen as King. I don't think anyone dared oppose that at the time. Whatever they, some of them clearly didn't want it,

but Bollingbrook was chosen as King, and Art Bishop, Irelandal was immediately restored to Canterbury. He was actually very nice, very nice to the guy who Roger Waldon, whom Richard had appointed as Art Bishop, because Roger Waldon came to see him straight away

and presumably said, "I'm terribly sorry." And Irelandal was extremely nice, forgave him, and a few years later, appointed him back to the Episcopasy, made in Bishop of London. So, you know, it's a remarkable,

“it's actually a remarkable example of a rather nice piece”

of forgiveness in high politics,

which you don't always get.

- Yeah, no, especially not around this period in English history. (upbeat music) , no one else has a plan for such a thing. Visit the Royal Kitchener-Leapness World in Freiburg, with your email, your owner, or your channel,

from a book, all the years, and take our interactive exhibition by the elite tour, and an audio guide and a classic, and the next couple of years, the whole world, from Royal Kitchen, the Royal Kitchener-Leapness World,

only a set of guests. (upbeat music) - So, we know that Henry the Force reign is gonna be tricky. It's gonna be dogged by revolts and rebellions

and efforts to fight against him from--

- For the first six years or so.

- Yeah, yeah. - What part do we see? Irelandal playing in that? Is he serving Henry's new regime,

“or do we see him providing more of a supporting role?”

Is he's kind of scaffolding Henry in power? Because he's been so key to getting Henry there. He has, obviously, has a vested interest in Henry's staying there, I guess. - Oh, he demos that definitely does.

I mean, the first five or six years of Henry's reign, he is facing constant rebellions, the most dangerous of which is the Percy rebellion in 1403. Irelandal is from the beginning 100% behind Henry. That doesn't mean that he's 100% behind

everything that Henry does. They have plenty of disagreements, and there are plenty of things that Irelandal would have liked Henry to do differently, some of which I'm sure will come on to.

But he is 100% behind the idea of Henry remaining as King of England. Because if Henry is overthrown, for example, by the Percy's, and it was a pretty close rom thing, the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403,

if Henry is overthrown, Henry will be executed as a userper, and Irelandal will very probably be executed as well. Or at the very least, he will be driven into exile. Again, of course, he might have come back again.

But I think the second time round, they're more likely to either execute him or just lock him away in prison. So he is 100% behind Henry's kingship. And throughout the reign,

I mean, he's not always formally a counselor.

He doesn't want to be, because he is actually a conscientious bishop. As well as, and you know, and he's not just bishop, he's archbishop, he's got a church, he's got a whole church, he's got a province to run. So he actually wants some time to do what he thinks

ought to be done in the church. But throughout the reign, even when he isn't holding official post as a counselor or later on chancellor of the realm, he is seen as the king's number one advisor. The man closest to the king and the man,

probably the most powerful next to the king after the kingdom. And I actually describe it, England, under Henry the Force, as in some senses, a diarchy, you know, sort of almost a rule by two men. Although, having said that, there was no doubt

who was the boss, Henry was the boss. Henry was a tough cookie. I've written about him elsewhere, but you know. I mean, that relationship, so you know,

having said you can't be archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor. He manages to do that. So I'm quite interested.

“I mean, this seems like a good example of what might have happened”

between Henry the second and Thomas Beckett,

if it had worked the way, Henry the second wanted it to that they could have been a really great team. And they do appear to have become your Henry and archbishop Aranda. They do appear to have become a really strong team. And quite interested in whether you think

either side of archbishop Aranda's life, his services archbishop of Canterbury and his political service, did either of them suffer because of the other? Is he trying to do too much or is he accomplished enough that he can balance both of those things?

- To a certain extent, he can balance them? - Well, to some extent, his position, his friendship with Henry and his service to Henry, gives him additional political power which he can use as archbishop of Canterbury.

But it also, because he is 100% supportive of Henry, it gives him some very difficult decisions to make. And one of the most difficult and one of the most controversial is his acquiescence with Henry's demands for money from the clergy, because Henry, a bit like Richard back in the 1380s,

Henry during the first six or seven years

is constantly bankrupt. I mean, the crown just could not afford to pay for the things it was trying to do or wanted to do. To deal with the rebellion in Wales, to deal with the French threat,

to deal with the Scottish threat, to maintain the throne, you know? And he's constantly asking the clergy for money. And you see, Arindle, particularly from about 40, you know, 24, you know, three onwards,

“during the next couple of absolutely crucial years in the reign,”

you see him increasingly trying to say, saying to the clergy, you've got to give the King more money. We've got to give the King more money. The King needs money. And the clergy, well, as I put it in my book,

you know, a lot of the must of thought, this is the alliance of the shepherd in the wolf. You know, Arindle's meant to be our shepherd, but he's just fleeting us, you know, who's like like the wolf, who is the king.

And that undoubtedly, I mean, there's a very, the interesting thing about Arindle was that despite the fact that quite a lot of his clergy must've had those thoughts about him. For the most part, the Orthodox clergy,

the Orthodox Catholic clergy in England were remarkably supportive of him. You know, his bishops on the whole did not well, hardly any of them did not turn against him in any way. That was, that was Beckett's great problem.

The bishops turned against him.

“And, you know, once your bishops turn against you,”

then as an archbishop, your authority is fatally undermined.

The bishops never turned against Arindle.

On the contrary, they were very supportive, but quite a lot of the lower clergy must've been grinding their teeth at, you know, yet again another demand for money which the archbishop is telling us to pay the king.

- Yeah, I mean, all of that points to him, perhaps being a very charismatic man. You know, he was good at delivering those bad messages in a way that didn't necessarily alienate the people who didn't want to hear what he was saying.

- Yeah, I think he was charismatic. I mean, it's a fascinating thing. If you look at the sources closely, you'll see that his spoken words are reproduced more often than anyone else in the, by the chroniclers,

or in memorandums and so forth, memorander. And are reduced more often than anyone else's even the kings. So what I'm taking from that and what actually comes through pretty clearly is that he was a man, he was a remarkable orator,

a man who spoke with great emotional power and was very robust. There are many examples of arguments that he had in the council, you know, telling people, you know, possibly not to make too many demands

on the clergy or whatever. There's a great dis-indowment debate which goes on in 40, you know, three, 40, you know, for, you know, when some of the nights say, oh, just dis-indow the church, take all their lands

and goods away from them and then, you know, and of course Aaron was not gonna have any of that. And he really runs on these nights. You know, there's one council where some of Henry's walk-aptive and say, just take their gold and send them home on foot,

take their horses as well. We need them in the war against Wales and Aaron will rounds on them in absolute fury. (laughs) I wonder how Archbishop Aaron will manages to deal with

or rationalize or cope with Henry IV's execution of Richard Scroat, the Archbishop of York in in 40,05. Because this is an instance in which you've got a King execating the second most senior member of the clergy.

Oh, he was absolutely, he was distraught.

He was distraught.

“And you've got to remember, this is the first time”

since the Norman Conquest, but a bishop, let alone an archbishop, as Richard Scroop was, but a bishop has been judicially executed by an English king. Archbishop's have been murdered before,

but that, you know, to judicially try for trees and an execute, a bishop is something quite different. Aaron though did his best to try to save Scroop, Scroop was a friend of his, Scroop had worked with him at Eely and at York.

You know, they'd known each other for 30 years or more,

worked closely together. And, well, there's various stories told about it. And, I mean, one story, which we don't necessarily have to believe, but it kind of gives an impression of what was going on, is when Aaronville, Aaronville, was down in the south of England

when he heard that Henry the Force at Captured Archbishop Scroop, who was probably not really rebelling against him at all, just protesting, you know? But, you know, that's a matter of interpretation. When he heard that Henry had arrested Scroop,

he rode all through the night up to York.

“Arrived and said, "You must not execute this man.”

You can't execute this man." You know, ask the Pope about it, take into full Parliament, but for Heaven's sake, don't just execute it. And, apparently, Henry said to Aaronville, "You must be very tired after your long ride.

Go and have a lie, Dan." And, while he was having a rest, Archbishop Scroop was executed, by Henry. . [Music]

Which must have been troublesome for Archbishop Aaronville, because that's so close to what happened to his brother as well. This must have felt like being kind of tricked and betrayed by a king again. Yeah, that's very true. That's very true. It is. He must have felt that.

Apparently, he got-- he was so upset when he got-- I mean, the story may very, very well be exaggerated, you know. But I mean, what is clear is that he did not-- he strongly advised Henry not to execute Scroop, but Scroop, but Henry went ahead anyway.

He was absolutely distraught by it. Apparently, he got ill for several days afterwards. And, you know, it was a perilous moment, but then there's a sequel to this. I mean, it was a perilous moment because, as I say,

“this had never been done before, and what was the pope going to do?”

The pope was innocent the six, and what was he going to do? I will fortunately innocent the six didn't get round to it for several months, because he was faced with a rebellion in Rome. But when he did, he issued a bull of excommunication against everyone who had been involved in the death of Archbishop Scroop,

but without naming them. He didn't name. I mean, the person, you know, who cheerly had executed Scroop, was Henry the Force. But so the pope didn't name it, and the pope sent

innocent the six sent this bull to England. And whenever a bull of excommunication was issued by a pope, it would be sent to the Archbishop who was responsible for publicising it

and announcing it in England, and Arandle never publicised it.

People knew, because the chronic clos, you know, plenty of chronic clos say, you know, innocent the third excommunicated, all the people who had been involved in Scroop's death. So the chronic clos knew this perfectly well, and they knew that Arandle had declined to publicise it, because he didn't want to embarrass Henry.

This was a very difficult decision, but you know, to be excommunicated, that's kind of, I mean, quite what the effects would have been a very difficult to know, but it is a kind of license to your people, your subjects, to rebel against you. Whether whether they would have, is another matter.

A bit right, all of these moments don't seem to have particularly affected the relationship between Henry and Archbishop, and you know, Arandle is still kind of protecting Henry from the consequences of an action that he didn't want him to undertake, but they do seem to care on to work

Arandle is absolutely wedded to Henry's kingship.

“And that is, as I said earlier, partly a question of self-protection,”

because Henry trusts his Archbishop, the Archbishop Trust, Arandle trusts Henry, they work very well together. And now the other factor you've got to bring in here is Henry's declining health. And from 1406 onwards, Arandle has not been keen on the idea of

becoming Chancellor again, in the first six or seven years of the reign. But when Henry the

Force starts getting seriously ill, which he really did from 1406, and then much more seriously from 1408, Arandle thinks I've now got to step up. I'm the only person who's really capable of replacing this increasingly debilitated king. And interestingly enough, the relationship between them,

“which has always been good, despite, you know, the obvious disagreements over things like”

groups execution, the relationship between them becomes very close at this time. They become very good friends, they become very fond, they have very affectionate towards, they write enormously affectionately towards each other, they completely trust each other. And Arandle is really as responsible as Henry is, more or less for the government of England, for most of the last five or six years of the reign, not all because Prince Henry,

the future Henry the fifth, is on the scene as well, but that's another story. Yeah, I mean, when Henry the fifth does succeed, does Archbishop Arandle managed to maintain his position, he's so closely tied with Henry the fourth personally, can he transfer that to Henry's son? No, no, there have been serious, I mean,

Prince Henry, or how, as I always think of him, Prince Henry, the future Henry the fifth,

is chafing at the bit. And by the end of 14, by the beginning of 1410, well, by the end of 149, really, when the king is really very ill, Arandle's been chancellor for three years now and is doing things that Prince, how doesn't like that Prince Henry wants done differently. And Prince Henry, more or less, sidelines his father in the Parliament of January 1410 and takes over the government of the realm for two years. And all sorts of things come between them, it's clear that

the relationship between Arandle and the Prince are not really good. Those are the war in France, the world, the civil war in France. England wasn't actually at war with France at this time,

there was non-linear truth, but there's a civil war in France, this is going to become what is called

the Burgundian Armoniac Civil War, which is going to go on for 25 years and absolutely tear France apart. But it's a question, Prince Henry wants to support the Burgundians and Arandle and the king want to support the Armoniac side, and this becomes a big issue between them. Then there's the question of the allocation of resources. Prince Henry thinks that the most important thing is the protection of Calais, which has been English for more than 50 years by now,

50, 60 years. And so he wants money allocated to the defense of Calais. Prince King Henry, Henry IV, he is more concerned with the retention of Gaskini, England's colony in the south of France. So that's where a resource is going to be allocated anyway. The king takes back power in the autumn of 1411 and retains it until his death in March 1413. Whereupon Henry V becomes King, and the day after, he becomes King, he dismisses Arandle as Chancellor, he dismisses him from

the Council, he relieves him of several posts and for the last well Arandle only lives for another 11 months. But for the last 11 months of his life, he is quite surely in the political wilderness.

“He is yesterday's man. And I think he feels this, he's still archbishop of Canterbury,”

and he still tries to get things done, but no longer does he have the ear or the confidence of the King. There was no good relationship between Prince Henry and Arandle. So the last 11 months of his life provide a rather depressing anti-climax to his life for him. And one of the aspects that we ought to talk about with Arandle, so something that people may know about him in particular, is his relationship, dislike of maybe, Lullardy and that form of heresy and his persecution of Lullard.

So you point out in the book that he in 2005, the BBC ran this poll to find the the worst, most terrible villain in every century of British history. And Arandle won it for the 15th century. Now the man you've described to me so far does not feel like someone you would classify as a villain who dominated the whole century. So how did he end up in that position of people feeling

it was the greatest villain of the 15th century while Thomas Arandle because he persecuted the Lullard's.

“Who were a sec to ask for? I think it was translation of the Bible and the lay priesthood or”

something like that. You know, which are things which nowadays, everyone thinks, you know, well, why don't you translate the Bible? Why can't we read it in English? You know, why can't we have a lay priesthood? Well, anyway. I think I think just to fill in the background a little bit, there had been very, very little heresy in England. There was no real homegrown heresy in England at all before about 3080. So Lullardy, the English heresy, as it's often called,

was something really new which the English should not have had to deal with. As an archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arandle sees it as his mission, his charge from God, to maintain the unity of the Catholic faith in England. And he is determined. This is why some people don't like him. This is why the Protestants of the 16th century absolutely loathed him. He is determined to eradicate Lullardy. And of course, it is during his archbishop's

hypocrisy that there are two two Lullard's are burned for heresy. And this is seen as a terrible thing. This is the man who introduced burning for heresy to England. No, he wasn't. Heretics had been burnt in England in the 12th century in the 13th century and probably in the early 14th century, not very many, but some. And it was perfectly clearly seen as the correct punishment for unrepentant heretics, in other words, heretics who refused to recant. And also, it was not

Arandle who introduced the statute which authorized the burning of heretics, which was the statute was a confirmation of what everyone thought was right anyway. So, yes, the Protestants loathed Arandle. I mean, Kranma had his chantry chapel, his chant, Arandle's chantry chapel in Canterbury Cathedral demolished right down to the ground. So, that is why some people think he is the villain. You know,

one of the greatest villain. I mean, you know, he even beats Richard the third, which is pretty good.

Oh, careful, Chris. Don't go too close to that one for me now. Oh, well, yeah, that is why some people think that he is the big villain of the 15th century. Yeah, so for your money, that's an incorrect reading of his history. You know, you seem like you really don't believe he deserved to make that list at all. Oh, no way. No way. I mean, he was an extraordinarily competent man. And in many ways, a very principled man. But if you'd be, if you were archbishop of Canterbury,

I mean, you know, William Curtney, his predecessor, he was pretty hard on Lollard's too. I mean, the no one got round to burning Lollard's under Curtney. But then, you know, it was, it was Henry the Force and the Commons who decided that the first Lollard should be burned in 4001. I don't say that Arandle necessarily disagreed with that, but it wasn't on his initiative. If Arandle's legacy then, and the way that we think about him today shouldn't be as that persecutor of Lollard's,

“what do you think he's biggest legacy is? What should people think of Arshbishop Arandle today?”

Well, I mean, I can't help thinking that really his most important contribution to public life

was helping Henry of Bollingbrook to get rid of Richard II. I mean, there were plenty of other things. I mean, he was a financial genius. You know, he was the man who restored the Solvency to Henry of the Force, Rain, or Henry of the Force XI, if you prefer, after 1407. You know, after 1406 when he became Chancellor again, he was a financial genius, so that was quite a contribution. But the most important thing was getting Richard, was getting rid of Richard II. Because

Richard II was a man with real turret tyrannical inclinations. And, you know, the sentence with which I finished my book is saying, you know, if Richard's downfall was a personal tragedy, his success would have been a nation's tragedy. If he'd been allowed to go on behaving like he was in those last two or three years of his reign. He saved England from a big water if there.

“I think so. I think so. Yeah. He and Bollingbrook between them. Yeah, one year. Well, thank you so”

much for joining us, Christopher, to give us such detail about Arshbishop Arandle. I've found him absolutely fascinating. I hope listeners have enjoyed it too. And they can all go and grab a copy of your book. If they want to find out even more about Arshbishop Arandle. This has been an absolutely wonderful thank you Chris. Okay, bye then. Thank you very much. If you'd like to

and decide for yourself whether he deserves that title or not, you can grab a copy of Chris's

“fantastic book, Arshbishop Chancellor Kingmaker, a life of Thomas Arandle right now.”

In the vaults, you can also find an episode with Helen Castor about the rivalry between Richard

the second and Henry IV that would be a perfect compliment to this episode, as well as the time

“Dan Jones visited to talk about Henry the Fifth. There are new instruments of God Medieval”

every Tuesday and Friday, so please come back to join Eleanor and I for more from the greatest

millennium in human history. Don't forget to also subscribe or follow us on Spotify or wherever you

“get your podcasts and tell all of your friends and family that you've gone Medieval. You can also”

sign up to history hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a new release every week at historyhit.com/subscribe. Anyway, I bet that you go. I've been Matt Lewis and we've just got Medieval with history hits. [Music] [BLANK_AUDIO]