The Bishop who Took Down Richard II

From long-lost Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places, to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Ellen Yarniger and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on HistoryHit. 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 II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. 50 pounds cash, gala, where a little joy goes a long way. 18 plus new customers max one spin per day. You could win free spins, cash or no prize. Restrictions and terms apply. Gableware.org. OK, here's the final bill. Thank you. And sorry again about the cold food and the wrong drinks and the long wait. It's OK. And the tarito on your trousers. 20% tip, mandatory. Well, you wouldn't have left one if you had a choice. Right, cash or card. At Skipton, we believe in fairness. That's why we offer great service as standard. Skipton Building Society, founded on fairness. Hello, I'm Matt Lewis. Welcome to Gone Medieval from HistoryHit, 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 Arendel, 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 Arendel. 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, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of St Albans. He's the author of numerous fantastic books, including Henry IV and Chronicles, and is a general editor of the Parliament Roles of Medieval England. And his latest book is a biography of this fascinating figure entitled Archbishop Chancellor, Kingmaker, A Life of Thomas Arendel. A very warm welcome, Chris, to God Medieval. Thank you. It's great to have you with us. We're here today to talk about Archbishop Thomas Arendel, 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 Arendel 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 Arendel is. When is he born? Who are his parents? What are his family's importance? He's born sometime in 1353. We don't know the exact date. He is the fourth child of the Richard Earl of Arendel, 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 sitting in chests in the high tower of his castle at Arendel, which in modern terms makes him a multibillionaire. This was quite exceptional amount of disposable wealth to have. Thomas Arendel was definitely born with a silver spoon in his mass. 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 quite a young age for a career in the church, which was quite normal, because unless there were all sorts of accidents, he wasn't going to inherit the title and the lands of the Earl of Arendel. And I think there's quite often a perception that the idea that you younger 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 Arendel reach. Oh, it absolutely was. So it was a decision which Douglas was good for and appreciated by the family. But yes, I mean, it wasn't what it later became, which was sort of traditionally in the 18th or 19th century, if you had three children, three sons, one inherited the estates, 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, this was according to the Pope when he appointed him as Bishop of Ely 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 Arundel must have passed quite significant sum. I mean, we're sure we're talking about thousands of pounds, must have passed a quite significant sum to Pope Gregory in order to get his son appointed to the bishopric of Ely at such a young age. Yeah. So we've got some very definite nepotism going on there. But does he turn out to be a good bishop, you know, 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 Arundel 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 Arundel, A Study of Church Life in the Rain of Rich of the Second, which is a long book, an extremely detailed book, and a book, the conclusion of which is that Arundel 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, you know, 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 theme 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 brother's position as one of the Lord's appellant, a kind of prominent opponent of Richard II, how does that affect him? Because Arundel is, you know, right up there was as one of those Lord's appellant who is trying to control Richard II's government and tighten bonds around the King. Does that affect Arundel, Archbishop Arundel at all, or Bishop Arundel at this point? Yeah, this affects him a lot. But Arundel himself is no friend to Richard II. Arundel 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 Arundel turned out to be. Arundel 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 De Vier, who he made Duke of Ireland, Michael Dullapool, who he made Chancellor, and other people, there 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. 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 have been able to come anyway. But anyway, there was a lot of opposition to Richard. And it was led, as you say, by the Lords of Pelland. And of course, Arundel was, Arundel Bishop Arundel, the man with the, the, the, the, the, man, the biographies about, he was not a member of the Lords of Pelland because the reason why they're called the Lords of Pelland 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, treason would have led to execution. And a churchman could not be involved in punishments of blood or death. So Arundel had a get out 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 Arundel, which is a pretty remarkable thing to do once, let alone twice. So there was absolutely no love lost between those two. So Arundel was Bishop Arundel. 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 clothes of Richard II's reign, and when they talk about Arundel, they tend to present him perhaps somewhat idealistically, but not completely unrealistically as a man who had the defence of England's traditional liberties, whatever you actually think those were, which is another complicated matter, but a man who had the defence of England's traditional liberties at heart. And there is 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. And on one occasion, he actually appears to threaten Richard II with the possibility of deposition if he doesn't mend his ways. And ultimately, his brother, the Earl of Arundel, will be executed by Richard when Richard II feels ready to get his revenge on the Lord's appellant. The Earl of Arundel is one of those who is executed. Is it fair to say that Bishop Arundel, Archbishop Arundel, I mean, obviously he doesn't like Richard II already, you've established that. But is there an extent to which he's kind of tricked into being involved in his brother's downfall? Well, he is in a way. I think I just need to go back a little bit. You asked whether his brother's behaviour affected him in any way. And although they were very much singing from the same hymn sheet in the mid 1380s, by the 1390s, Arundel was acting as Richard II's 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 Arundel remained truculent. 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 Arundel is maintaining this stance of really quite insolent opposition to Richard, whereas Arundel, as Chancellor of the King, is trying to smooth things over. So, being the Earl of Arundel's brother is actually becoming a little bit problematic for Archbishop Arundel by the mid 1390s. Oh, I don't know, it's difficult to know how to put this, but he is kind of made by Richard II, 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 Arundel in 1397, he says to Archbishop Arundel, go and get your brother and bring him to me. And Arundel 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, Arundel, the Earl of Arundel, is hiding in his castle in Ryegate, 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 Arundel to come and talk to him. But eventually he goes and he says to his brother, the king has promised that he's not going to harm you if you come to him. And the Earl of Arundel therefore accepts this, and he goes to see Richard, and Richard immediately arrests him. And he's never free again. He's locked away in a Carisbrook castle. The Earl of YG has brought trial in Parliament and condemned and headed for treason. So you see, Arundel, Arundel, Bishop Arundel, had been duped there. And he later, when he comes around to deposing Richard II, which I'm quite sure we're going to get onto in a minute, when he comes around to deposing Richard II and drawing up the charges against Richard, he talks about that. He says, in the document which lists Richard II'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 complicit. Yeah, 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 rightly point to what is often called the Revenge Parliament, Richard II's Revenge Parliament. And this is the Parliament. And this is the year in which the chronicler Thomas Walsingham, who is by far and away the fullest chronicler for Richard II's reign, he says, in this year, Richard II 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 out of the country into exile or executed some of his friends. So this is very much a case of Richard II's revenge. And Arendelle, Bishop Arendelle, because he had been Chancellor at the time, although he hadn't been involved in the sentences against Richard II'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 II's reign on both sides. And Arendelle 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 judicially executed in England since the Norman conquest. He is told to go into exile. And apparently, again, according to Aaron Bishop Arendelle's account, the King said to him, don't worry, I'll recall you quite soon, and I'm not going to make anyone else Archbishop of Canterbury while you're abroad. And do we believe what Richard says? Well, we don't often believe what Richard says. Hardy was he out of the country when Richard wrote to the Pope and said, I need a new Archbishop of Canterbury. Unbelievable. Oh, it's very believable with Richard. Yeah, absolutely. And we ought to just mention that Arendelle has become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1396. And that just feels like a strange decision, because you kind of said, he's not, he's not really a friend of Richard, he's trying to work inside Richard's government. So it's only the year before his brother and the rest of the Lords appellant would fall. So is this a moment where he's still on good terms with Richard, and he is appointed Archbishop of Canterbury? Or is this not necessarily what Richard II would have wanted? Well, I think Richard II was all right with it. I think Richard II 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, you know, 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 Curtney, died, Arendelle was so obviously the senior cleric, the 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, Arendelle 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 Arendelle. The Pope said, yep, Arendelle, 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. Everyone seemed to agree this, you know, when Curtney died, it's going to be Arendelle. And it was ready. He did, he did immediately resign the Chancellor's ship. But that's normal. 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 him, 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 Arendelle in exile. He's been replaced as Archbishop of Canterbury. At what point does he manage to become attached to Henry Bolingbrook's cause? Bolingbrook will end up in exile as well as one of the junior lords appellant. Does Arendelle kind of quickly become attached to him? Does he seek Henry Bolingbrook out? Well, when Arendelle was was driven into exile in September 1397, Bolingbrook was not driven into exile for another year, a year later. And when Richard II exiled him, he said he was 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 Arendelle. And the chronicler adds, because he feared Arendelle's counsel and wisdom. In other words, he thought he thought Arendelle was a bit too clever to be in touch. Anyway, Arendelle went off to Florence. Well, he went to Rome first, and he told the 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. You know, because Pope's just really couldn't afford to get on the wrong side of Kings too much. You know, and so he went off to Florence. He had a lovely year in Florence, and he met all those humanists like Colugio Saletati and Poggio Braccolini. And, you know, you know, he described Florence as an earthly paradise. The crunch came when John of Gaunt died, which was in February 1399. And Henry of Bolingbrook was, of course, the eldest son of John of Gaunt. And Henry of Bolingbrook 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 shock horror, Richard may not have told the truth. And shock horror, Richard didn't tell the truth. No sooner, well, within a month of Gaunt's death, Richard II announced that Bolingbrook's exile was going to be extended for life, and that he was confiscating the Lancastrian 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 Aaron Dahl heard this, he was still down in Florence, when Aaron Dahl heard this, he immediately set off and he knew that Bolingbrook was in Paris. And so he set off north, he joined up with Bolingbrook and they obviously decided it's time to go and get rid of this king. Yeah, and kind of Richard II managed to bring about the thing that he feared. He was obviously worried about Bolingbrook getting counsel from Aaron Dahl 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, you know, into the garden somewhere, and they've managed to find each other. Surprise, surprise. I mean, do we get any kind of a sense of how involved Aaron Dahl was in that ultimate decision to depose Richard? You know, 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 Aaron Dahl or from, is it Bolingbrook 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 duchy 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 IV, Henry Bolingbrook should become King Henry IV, and Aaron Dahl was obviously quite determined to get his Archbishopric 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 Bolingbrook and Aaron Dahl 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 Thint in North Wales, and he was never a free man again, taken off to London. And once they had the King in their possession, which of course was the crucial thing, you know, Richard, Richard was advised by some people, you know, why don't you go off to France and buy your time or whatever, you know, the French, he was married to the French King's daughter, though they said the French will probably help you. But no, Richard didn't do that. So he was captured, taken off, put in the Tower of London. Bolingbrook was chosen as King. I don't think anyone dared oppose that at the time, you know, whatever they, I mean, some of them clearly didn't want it, but you know, Bolingbrook was chosen as King. And Archbishop Aaron Dahl was immediately restored to Canterbury. He was actually very nice, very nice to the guy who Roger Walden, whom Richard had appointed as Archbishop, because Roger Walden came to see him straight away and presumably said, I'm terribly sorry. And Aaron Dahl was extremely nice, forgave him, and a few years later appointed him back to the the Episcopacy 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. Fancy making your day even brighter at Gullar, with thousands of dazzling slots, slingo and live casino games. There's more to Gullar than bingo. Sign up to whirl our shiny daily free spin reel for chances to win up to 50 pounds cash. Gullar, where a little joy goes a long way. 18 plus new customers max one spin per day. You could win free spins cash or no prize restrictions and terms apply gamblerware.org Nothing beats a jet to holiday. Right now, we've got some great deals available. Plus, you'll get the best choice of rooms and hotels. Book now with just a 60 pounds deposit per person. Get 22 kilograms of baggage included. And now you can go direct from London Gatwick. Nothing beats a jet to holiday package holidays you can trust after an out of protected subject to availability conditions. Spring is in the air, which means it's culture spring clean time. Time to pressure wash the patio, degrime the decking and spray that winter muck away. Then inside windows, backed floors made fab sofa spludgers sorted then relax. This is what culture spring clean feels like. Discover the culture range today. So we know that Henry the Force reign is going to be tricky. It's going to 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 Aaron Dall 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 he's been so key to getting Henry there. He has obviously has a vested interest in Henry staying there, I guess. Oh, he 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. Aaron Dall 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. There are plenty of things that Aaron Dall 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 run thing, the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, if Henry is overthrown, Henry will be executed as a usurper and Aaron Dall 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, you know, 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 Fourth, 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 tough cookie. I've written about him elsewhere. But you know, that relationship, so Archbishop Barender will go back into serving as Chancellor again, 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 Barender. They do appear to have become a really strong team. I'm quite interested in whether you think either side of Archbishop Barender'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? Well, 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. And he's constantly asking the clergy for money. And you see Arendel, particularly from about 1402, 1403 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, a lot of them must have thought this is the alliance of the shepherd and the wolf. Arendel's meant to be our shepherd, but he's just fleecing us, who's like the wolf, who is the king. And that undoubtedly, I mean, there's a very interesting thing about Arendel was that despite the fact that quite a lot of his clergy must have 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 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 Arendel. On the contrary, they were very supportive. But quite a lot of the lower clergy must have 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 country, by the chroniclers, or in memorandums and so forth, memoranda, 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 the great disendowment debate which goes on in 1403, 1404, you know, when some of the knights say, oh, just disendow the church, take all their lands and goods away from them, and then, you know, and of course, Arendall's not going to have any of that, and he really rands on these knights. You know, there's one council where some of Henry's war captains 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 Arendall rounds on them in absolute fury. I wonder how Archbishop Arendall manages to deal with or rationalise or cope with Henry IV's execution of Richard's Grape, the Archbishop of York, in 1405, because this is an instance in which you've got a king executing the second most senior member of the clergy. Arendall, I can't imagine Arendall was happy about that. 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 that a bishop, let alone an Archbishop, as Richard's group was, that a bishop has been judicially executed by an English king. Archbishops have been murdered before, but that, you know, to judicially try for treason and execute a bishop is something quite different. Arendall did his best to try to save groups. Group was a friend of his. Group had worked with him at Ely 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. I mean, 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 Arendall, Arendall was down in the south of England when he heard that Henry IV had captured Archbishop's group, 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 cannot execute this man, you know, ask the Pope about it, taken before Parliament, but I haven't said don't just execute it. And apparently, Henry said to Arendall, you must be very tired after your long ride. Go and have a lie down. And while he was having arrest, Archbishop's group was executed by Henry. Okay, here's the final bill. Thank you. And sorry again about the cold food and the wrong drinks and the long wait. It's okay. And the chorizo on your trousers. 20% tip, mandatory. Well, you wouldn't have left one if you had a choice. Right, cash or card. At Skipton, we believe in fairness. That's why we offer great service as standard. Skipton Building Society, founded on fairness. Which must have must have been troublesome for Archbishop Arendall, because that's so close to what happened to his brother as well. This must have felt like being 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 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, let's say this had never been done before. And what was the Pope going to do? The Pope was innocent the sixth. And what was he going to do? And, well, fortunately, innocent the sixth didn't get around 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 clearly had executed Scroop was Henry IV. But so the Pope didn't name him. And the Pope sent... Innocent the sixth 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 Arendl never publicised it. People knew, though, because the chroniclers, you know, plenty of chroniclers say, you know, innocent the third, excommunicated all the people who'd been involved in Scroop's death. So the chroniclers knew this perfectly well. And they knew that Arendl 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 licence to your people, your subjects to rebel against you, whether they would have is another matter. I bet, right? All of these moments don't seem to have particularly affected the relationship between Henry and Archbishop Arendl. You say, you know, Arendl 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 carry on to work together very well for the rest of Henry the Force reign. Arendl 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 trusts Arendl, trusts Henry. They work very well together. Now, the other factor you've got to bring in here is Henry's declining health. And from 1406 onwards, Arendl 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, Arendl 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 Scroop's execution, the relationship between them becomes very close at this time. They are, they become very good friends. They become very fond. They are very affectionate towards, they write enormously affectionately towards each other. They completely trust each other. And Arendl 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 V, is on the scene as well. But that's another story. Yeah, I mean, when Henry V does succeed, does Archbishop Arendl manage to maintain his position? He's so closely tied with Henry IV personally. Can he transfer that to Henry's son? No, no, no. There have been serious, I mean, Prince Henry, or Hal, as I always think of him, Prince Henry, the future Henry V is chafing at the bit. And by the beginning of 1410, well, by the end of 1409, really, when the king is really very ill, Arendl's been chancellor for three years now, and is doing things that Prince Hal 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 Arendl and the prince are not really good. There was the war in France, the, well, the civil war in France. England wasn't actually at war with France at this time. There was not only a truce, but there's a civil war in France. This is going to become what is called the Burgundian-Armagnac 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 Arendl and the king want to support the Armagnac 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, 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 Gascony, England's colony in the south of France. So that's, you know, 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 Arendl as chancellor. He dismisses him from the council. He relieves him of several posts. And for the last, well, Arendl only lives for another 11 months. But for the last 11 months of his life, he is quite clearly 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 Arendl. 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 Arendl, so something that people may know about him in particular, is his relationship, dislike of maybe, laladi, and that form of heresy and his persecution of lalad. So you point out in the book that he, in 2005, the BBC ran this poll to find the worst, most terrible villain in every century of British history. And Arendl won it for the 15th century. Now, the man that 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 that way about him? Well, if you look at how that poll by the BBC in 2005 was reported, it was the greatest villain of the 15th century was Thomas Arendl because he persecuted the lalads who were a sect who asked 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 on earth can'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 1380. So Lollady, the English heresy as it's often called, was something really new, which the English had not had to deal with. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arendl 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 Lollady. And of course, it is during his Archipiscopacy that there are two two lalads 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 have 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 Arendl 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 Arendl. I mean, Cranmer had his Chantry Chapel, his Chant, Arendl's Chantry Chapel in in Canterbury Cathedral demolished right down to the Grand. So that is why some people think he is the villain, you know, one of the greatest, with 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 that, 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 if you were Archbishop of Canterbury, I mean, you know, William Kirtney, his predecessor, he was pretty hard on Lollards, too. I mean, no one got round to burning Lollards under Kirtney. But then, you know, it was it was Henry the False and the Commons who decided that the first Lollards should be burned in 1401. I don't say that Arendl necessarily disagreed with that. But it wasn't on his initiative. If Arendl's legacy, then, and the way that we think about him today shouldn't be as that persecutor of Lollards. What do you think his biggest legacy is? What should people think of Archbishop Arendl 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 solvency to Henry the False reign or Henry the False exchequer, if you prefer, after 1407. You know, well, after 1406 when he became Chancellor again, he was a financial genius. So that was quite a 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 tyrannical inclinations. And, you know, the sentence with which I finish 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 what if there. I think so. I think so. Yeah, he and Ian Bollingbrook between them. Yeah, wonderful. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Chris, to give us such detail about Archbishop Arundel. I 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 Archbishop Arundel. This has been absolutely wonderful. Thank you, Chris. Okay, bye then. Thank you very much. If you'd like to know more about the man who was considered the greatest British villain of the 15th century and decide for yourself whether he deserves that title or not, you can grab a copy of Chris's fantastic book, Archbishop Chancellor, Kingmaker, A Life of Thomas Arundel, right now. In the vaults, you can also find an episode with Helen Castor about the rivalry between Richard II and Henry IV that would be a perfect complement to this episode, as well as the time Dan Jones visited to talk about Henry V. The renew installments have gone 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 forward slash subscribe. Anyway, I better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis and we've just gone medieval with History Hit. What if you could feel more confident? Finally, go after that promotion and feel great about inspiring other women. It all starts by recognizing your worth and talking about your wins with confidence. That's why Galaxy Chocolate has created the Unhumble Project, in partnership with the charity Young Women's Trust. To bring you free confidence training, get the pleasure you deserve from the incredible things you do. Take the training today. Search Galaxy Chocolate, the Unhumble Project.