Post-classical history



1. McFarlane, Lancastrian Kings, p. 133. It is worth noting that McFarlane did not specify what he meant by ‘greatness’ or ‘the greatest man’.

2. McFarlane wrote ‘the historian cannot honestly write biographical history: his province is rather the growth of social organisations, of civilisation, of ideas’ (quoted in Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, v).


1. Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 44–8.

2. Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 71–2.

3. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 85. The guidebook to La tour Jean sans Peur, Paris, suggests that it was not actually the duke’s bedchamber. The reasons it gives are that the tower is small, and not of the expected ducal grandeur. The chamber beneath the duke’s is described today as the equerry’s chamber. However, Vaughan’s statement, based on the building accounts, is explicit: the principal room was indeed designed for John’s personal safety at night. The fifteenth-century chronicler Monstrelet also states specifically that he built this tower to sleep in at night. The two chambers are supported on huge stone pillars, rising twenty-five feet or so above the first-floor guard chamber, and reached only by an extremely elaborately carved stone staircase, which incorporates several of the duke’s heraldic badges. The wonderful staircase ceiling suggests strongly that, although this was a small chamber, it was intended to be seen by the duke. The whole edifice amounted to a lordly stone box supported sixty feet above the walls of Paris. And as the tower was constructed in 1408–9, after the murder of Orléans and John’s return to the city, I suspect that the extraordinary design, incorporating so much empty space, was a means of preventing the duke being attacked in his bedchamber by the use of fire. The tower is illustrated in the second plate section of this book.

4. Allmand, Henry V, p. 48. There had been earlier embassies appointed to negotiate with Burgundian ambassadors – e.g. those of 3 July 1406 and 29 November 1410 (Hardy, Syllabus, pp. 556, 566) but these seem to have been for the defence of Calais and the local truce. See Nicolas (ed.),Privy Council, ii, pp. 5–6 for the instructions to the ambassadors appointed on 29 November 1410.

5. Fears, esp. p. 322.

6. Fears, p. 337; Allmand, Henry V, p. 48.

7. Monstrelet, i, pp. 18–19. Although the then duke of Burgundy (Philip the Bold) was excepted by Louis in this agreement, this was only with regard to Louis’ part of the bargain. In other words, Henry would have still been liable to help Louis against John the Fearless’s father even though Louis was not bound to help Henry against the duke of Burgundy.

8. Fears, pp. 114, 134–5, 155.

9. Hardy, Syllabus, ii, pp. 567–8. An extension of the truce in Flanders was sealed on 27 May 1411.

10. In support of this it should be noted that on the same day that Henry appointed the ambassadors to treat with the Burgundians at Calais he granted safe conduct for ambassadors of the king of France to come to England. See Syllabus, ii, p. 566. See also p. 567, where redress of injuries with ambassadors from Burgundy and France are simultaneously authorised on 27 March 1411.

11. Curry, Agincourt, p. 26.

12. Fears, p. 339; Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 19–24.

13. Given-Wilson (ed.), PROME, 1411 November (Introduction) states the fleet sailed in September. Curry, Agincourt, p. 27, states that the force was sent to meet the duke of Burgundy at Arras on 3 October.

14. Allmand, Henry V, pp. 48–9. It is perhaps significant that the name of the duke of Berry was removed from the 1 September instructions to the ambassadors to treat with John the Fearless, removing any requirement for the English to fight Berry on John’s behalf. See Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 21–4.

15. Fears, p. 338. The consensus view on intervention in France in 1411 is specified in Allmand, Henry V, p. 48; Curry, Agincourt, p. 27.

16. In Fears, p. 341, I stated two thousand English archers and eight hundred men-at-arms were at St-Cloud. However, recent research suggests that the expedition consisted of just one thousand men (200 men-at-arms and 800 archers). See Tuck, ‘The Earl of Arundel’s Expedition’, p. 232. See Curry, Agincourt, p. 29 for further variations on the number.

17. Fears, p. 345.

18. Hingeston (ed.), Royal and Historical Letters, ii, pp. 322–5; Curry, Agincourt, p. 31.

19. Fears, p. 347. They were built at Ratcliffe in the Thames, according to Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 372.

Christmas Day 1414

1.I have presumed that Henry held his Christmas feast in 1415 in Westminster Hall, where the marble seat stood. It is entirely possible that he held it instead on a smaller scale, in the White (or Lesser) Hall, to the south. However, as Christmas was one of the three traditional crown-wearing occasions, and given Henry’s attitude to traditional kingship, I suspect that Westminster Hall was the actual venue.

2. For Christmas rituals in the medieval royal household, see Hutton, Rise and Fall, chapter one.

3. The problem is dealt with in full in Mortimer, ‘Richard II and the Succession’; Fears, Appendix Two. A simplified overview appears in Mortimer, ‘Who was the rightful king in 1460?’

4. Fears, pp. 190–1.

5. The spice-plate is mentioned in Henry’s inventory. See PROME, 1423 October, item 31 (the inventory of Henry V), entry no. 8. It is described as ‘the great gold spice-plate, set with a balas ruby in the mouth of the eagle on the fruitlet of the said spice-plate’. It had twelve balas rubies and sapphires around the fruitlet, six pearls and four pendant pearls in the beaks of four eagles, and 229 pearls and twenty-four balas rubies and sapphires around the cover. It also had twenty-four clusters, each of four pearls and a diamond, around it, and an eagle with a sapphire in its beak in the bottom of the basin of the spice-plate. Around each of the feet were four large pearls, four balas rubies, four sapphires and 112 pearls. The whole object was worth £602 5s.

6. This impression of ‘innocence’ is not a contemporary description but my own impression, based on studying the English portrait of Henry in the Royal Collections.

7. Hutchinson, Henry V, p. 72; McFarlane, Lancastrian Kings, p. 124.

8. Woolgar, Senses, p. 138.

9. For the slashed sleeves, see the portrait of Henry V in the Royal Collection; for Henry wearing a high-collar gown, see the image of Hoccleve presenting his The Regement of Princes to Henry (BL Arundel MS 38, fol. 37); for long sleeves with rich linings see the same image and also the image of Jean de Galopes presenting his translation of Bonaventura’s Life of Christ to Henry (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 213 fol. 1r.). For a hanseline worth £151 belonging to the king, see Henry’s inventory in PROME, 1423 October.

10. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 191.

11. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 190.

12. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 200–1. Both the earl of Ormonde and Bishop Courtenay attested to this separately.

13. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 195.

14. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 201.

15. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 188.

16. Barker, Agincourt, p. 39. For the exhortation to look the lord directly in the face as a matter of good manners, see Furnival (ed.), Babees Book, p. 3.

17. Although he did empower negotiators to treat with the king of Aragon and the duke of Burgundy for his marriage to their daughters, these seem not to have been serious offers, as the Aragon negotiators were men of relatively low rank. The marriage to the duke of Burgundy’s daughter was negotiated while Henry was still prince; the marriage negotiated when he was king was to Katherine of France.

18. His promises to consider no other marriage but to Katherine are in Foedera, ix, p. 140 (18 June 1414), p. 166 (18 October 1414), pp. 182–4 (4 December, extending promise to 2 February 1415).

19. Writing by the king survives in all three languages. It is not proven that he spoke Latin, but it is probable, given that he chose to write in it. According to Allmand in ODNB, Henry V could speak Latin.

20. Allmand states in ODNB that the fifteenth-century story of his residing at Oxford under Beaufort’s care in 1398 is unsupported.

21. ‘No one expected him to become king’, wrote Professor Allmand in his Henry V (1992), p. 8. Since that work was written, Edward III’s entailment to the throne, made in 1376, has been brought to light by Professor Bennett. This makes clear that Henry IV believed rightly that he was likely to succeed to Richard II’s throne if Richard should die without children. By September 1386 Richard had been married for over four years and his wife had not conceived. With regard to Henry V’s date of birth on 16 September 1386, see Mortimer, ‘Henry IV’s date of birth and the royal Maundy’, pp. 568–9, n.7. By the time Henry V was six, Richard II had been married for more than ten years without progeny. There was therefore every reason to suspect that Henry IV would indeed inherit the throne, in line with Edward III’s entail; and, if not Henry IV, then one of his sons, presumably the eldest, Henry V. Therefore his father and grandfather – at the very least – expected him to inherit.

22. For example, Henry IV executed the archbishop of York in 1405 as well as other prelates in later years. Henry V was in opposition to the archbishop of Canterbury in religious and political affairs in the last years of Henry IV’s reign.

23. For Henry’s devotion to the Trinity and to the English saints, see Allmand, Henry V, pp. 180–1. For Edward III’s devotion to the English saints, see Perfect King, p. 60. For Edward III’s devotion to the Virgin Mary, see Perfect King, pp. 111–12. For Henry IV’s devotion to the Trinity, seeFears, pp. 196–7.

24. Allmand, Henry V, p. 33.

25. Wylie, Henry V, p. 189.

26. Curry, Agincourt, p. 33; Allmand, Henry V, p. 32.

27. Harriss, ‘The King and his Magnates’, quoting Kingsford (ed.), First English Life, p. 14.

28. For sorcery at the English court, see H. A. Kelly, ‘English kings and the fear of sorcery’, Mediaeval Studies, 39 (1977), 206–38.

29. PROME, 1423 October, item 31, entries 107 and 700.

30. When the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Winchester, and two of the king’s brothers flattered the mayor of London by giving him the seat of honour in the Guildhall, the prelates were seated on the mayor’s right and the brothers on the mayor’s left. See Riley, Memorials, pp. 604–5.

31. DL 28/1/6 fol. 24r.

32. Barker, Agincourt, p. 45.

33. Barker, Agincourt, p. 45.

34. This is noted by Waurin, as stated in Jenny Stratford’s article on John in ODNB.

35. This quotation is from G. L. Harriss’s article on Humphrey in ODNB.

36. March witnessed just over half of the royal charters in 1414–16 and, by the reckoning of his own accounts, was in Henry’s company in 1414 (ODNB), so was very probably there that day.

37. Hugh Mortimer, later treasurer of England, had been Henry’s chamberlain when prince of Wales (Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 58). He was sufficiently close to Henry for the king to be the supervisor of his will (Register of Henry Chichele, ii, pp. 86–7). He was not related to the main Mortimer family of the earls of March, or any of their collateral branches. He and his brother Thomas were the sons of Thomas and Sarah Mortimer of Helpston, Northants. Hugh held the manor of Great Houghton. His father, Thomas the elder, was the son of Ralph Mortimer and the brother of Joan Sulgrave, who confirmed the manor of Helpston on Hugh and his brother (Northants Record Office F(M) Charter/ 913, 930). The grandfather of Thomas and Hugh, Ralph Mortimer, who was born about 1312, was the son and heir of Ralph Mortimer of Helpston (d. 1325), who was the son of Sir Waleran Mortimer of Exton, Rutland, and Eakley, Bucks (fl. 1295–1317). Sir Waleran was the son of William Mortimer (d. c. 1273) who was in turn the son of Waleran Mortimer, who held part of Eakley in 1242–3 (Book of Fees, p. 873). Before that it is not possible to trace the ancestry of this family, but their heraldry shows no connection with the Mortimers of Wigmore.

38. Given-Wilson, Royal Household and the King’s Affinity, p. 60.

39. Queen Joan had her own household. For a set of her household accounts, dating from 1419–20, see E 101/406/30.

40. McFarlane, Lancastrian Kings, p. 124; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 223.

41. Wylie, Henry V, p. 7.

42. Wylie, Henry V, pp. 34–5. I mistakenly named him Richard Whytlock, not John, in Fears, p. 348.

43. Wylie, Henry V, p. 8.

44. Powell, ‘Restoration of Law and Order’, p. 63.

45. John Fox, Acts and Monuments (1641), p. 739. See also John A. F. Thomson, ‘Oldcastle, John, Baron Cobham (d. 1417)’, ODNB.

46. Fox, Acts and Monuments, p. 742; Ruffhead (ed.), Statutes, i, p. 493.

47. Vale, English Gascony, p. 69.

48. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 124; Vale, English Gascony, p. 72. Some guns were sent to Gascony (see entry for 23 January 1415) but when they were shipped is not clear.

49. Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 99–102.

50. On 4 June 1414 Henry authorised his ambassadors to accept the duke of Burgundy’s homage at the same time as negotiating an alliance with him. Foedera, ix, pp. 137–8.

51. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 423.

52. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 477.

53. Barker, Agincourt, p. 92.

54. Foedera, ix, p. 159.

55. Chronica Maiora, p. 402.

56. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 163.

57. Issues, p. 336.

58. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 142–4.

59. PROME, 1414 November, item 2.

60. CPR, p. 292.

61. HKW, pp. 998–1000.

62. Fears, p. 219; Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 205–8.

63. Harriss, ‘The King and his Magnates’, esp. pp. 35–9.

64. Powell, ‘Restoration of Law and Order’, p. 61.


1. See John Russell’s Boke of Nurture, in Furnivall, Babees Book, p. 182 for the lamp.

2. Henry V’s inventory (PROME, 1423 October, item 31) notes many Arras tapestries. See entries 757–97 in particular.

3. This was in the Prince’s Palace at Westminster at the time of his death. PROME, 1423 October, item 31, entry 773. The following item is no. 768 in the inventory.

4. For Henry’s clock in the shape of a nef, see PROME, 1423 October, item 31, entry 247. In Fears, p. 92, I noted that his father had a portable clock – or at least a basket to transport a clock – even though the portable clock is supposed not to have been invented until the invention of the spring mechanism in the 1430s. Further research needs to be done in this area to establish whether these references really do relate to portable mechanical timepieces.

5. Printed in Furnivall, Babees Book, p. 176.

6. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 15. This was normally the duty of the king’s chamberlain, Lord Fitzhugh, but he was abroad at this time.

7. The royal household accounts for the period are not well preserved. Those for 1415 do not survive at all. The statement here is drawn from the accounts of Henry’s father as king, before he was ill, in 1402–3 (E 101/404/23). The amounts spent on the feast for that year, which was held at Windsor Castle, are as follows: Christmas Day £224 18s 5½d; 26th December £76 12s 2d; 27th £81 9s 7d; 28th £81 9s ½d; 29th £64 11s 9d; 30th £67 0s ½d; 31st £87 os 4½d; 1st January £92 8s 10d; 2nd £70 0s ½d; 3rd £68 18s 2½d; 4th £70 9s 2½d; 5th £64 os 4½d; 6th (Epiphany) £89 2s 2d; 7th £72 19s 4½d. After that the sums spent each day sunk back well below the £50 mark.

8. E 101/406/21 fol. 21r (Thomas More’s wardrobe account for 1413).

9. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 479–80.

10. Allmand, Society at War, pp. 25–7; Barker, Agincourt, p. 179; Wylie, Henry V, i. p.138.

11. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 189.

12. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 87.

13. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 189–90. For a modern scholar’s estimate of how many men were present – 29 cardinals and 600 prelates – see Chronica Maiora, p. 400.

14. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 189–90.

15. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 476.

16. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 98.

17. Chronica Maiora, p. 399, note 5 cont. on p. 400.

18. Fears, p. 254.

19. Jacob, Chichele, pp. 35–8.

20. Wylie, Henry V, p. 248; ODNB (under Oldcastle); Spinka (ed.), Letters of Jan Hus, pp. 213–15.

21. Most writers state that the English embassy arrived as one, either on 21 January (following Jacob Cerretano’s journal) or 31 January (following Richental’s chronicle). It was about five weeks’ travel from Constance back to London in summer (see ODNB, under Catterick). In winter it seems to have been more: Warwick took ten weeks, from 11 November to 21 January (E 101/321/27). Sir Walter Hungerford set out on 27 October (according to his expenses, E 101/321/28), two weeks ahead of Warwick. According to hisODNB entry, Robert Hallum preached at Constance on 15 January. Thomas Polton’s petition on Henry’s behalf was delivered in December 1414, before any prelates arrived, due to his being a protonotary at the curia; this serves as a reminder that not all the English nation arrived as one (Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 471).

22. These men had all been present at a meeting of the great council on 29 December. See Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 436–8. John, count of Alençon, had been created a duke the previous day, 1 January (Curry, Agincourt, p. 25).

23. Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 193–202; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 401. The council meeting on 2 January can hardly have failed to discuss the civil war.

24. CCR, p. 165; Foedera, ix, p. 188.

25. CCR, p. 169 (Ireland); CPR, p. 288 (man of Calais).

26. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 320.

27. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 16.

28. PROME, 1414 April, item 15.

29. CPR, p. 294.

30. See Mark Ormrod, ‘The Rebellion of Archbishop Scrope and the Tradition of Opposition to Royal Taxation’, in Dodd and Biggs, Reign of Henry IV: Rebellion and Survival (2008), pp. 162–79.

31. Fears, pp. 286–7.

32. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 434.

33. Spinka (ed.), John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 30.

34. Spinka (ed.), John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 48.

35. Fox, Acts and Monuments, p. 789.

36. Spinka (ed.), John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 100, 115.

37. Spinka (ed.), John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 116.

38. He was detained from 28 November. For Lord John de Chlum’s petition for him to be released, in line with the emperor’s safe-conduct, see Fox, Acts and Monuments, p. 823.

39. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, p. 148.

40. E 403/620.

41. For Henry donating 4s per day in 1413, see Thomas More’s account E 101/406/21 fol. 5r–17r. This was a regular amount, separate from his oblations.

42. Papal Registers 1404–15, p. 456.

43. ODNB; Pugh, Henry V, pp. 61–4. They were knighted on the eve of Henry’s coronation.

44. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, p. 143.

45. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, p. 145.

46. Barker, Agincourt, p. 86 states it was already built; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 383 is less certain.

47. CPR, p. 293.

48. Barker, Agincourt, p. 84.

49. Foedera, ix, pp. 178–9. Lisle was appointed on 16 November 1414.

50. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 481.

51. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 104. Note that Richental is inaccurate not only with respect to the identities but also the dates of arrival. He declares the English arrived on 31 January. He also stated they arrived on 7 December and that Warwick was accompanied by ‘two archbishops and seven bishops’ (Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 95). Cerretano’s date is to be preferred.

52. Foedera, ix, pp. 167, 169.

53. See Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 481; Foedera, ix, p. 162.

54. Jacob, Chichele, p. 35.

55. Chronica Maiora, p. 400.

56. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 425, n. 3.

57. CPR, p. 293.

58. Dodd, ‘Patronage, Petitions and Grace’, in Dodd and Biggs, Reign of Henry IV: Rebellion and Survival, pp. 105–35, at p. 105.

59. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 339–41.

60. Although there is some doubt about this – Thomas Beaufort’s expense account for this journey claims payments from 14 December 1414, and diplomatic expenses were normally reckoned from the day the claimant left London – it is possible that this relates to when his household set out. The documents for the truce, dated 24 January, name all four ambassadors, but Courtenay seems to have travelled ahead without Langley, Beaufort and Grey. Langley and Beaufort were at a council meeting in London in February in the second year of the reign. See Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 150–1.

61. E 403/621 under 18 May. Issues, p. 340 correctly transcribes this. Wylie, i, p. 435 n. 6 has this as 14 December.

62. E 101/321/26.

63. E 403/621 records the passage of these three ambassadors under 11 April.

64. Foedera, ix, pp. 196–200. It is assumed here that Courtenay agreed the prolongation. He travelled separately to the other principal ambassadors, and two of the others were still in England in February, as shown by the minutes of a council meeting.

65. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 436.

66. CPR, p. 294.

67. CCR, p. 169.

68. CCR, p. 172; CPR 1413–1416, p. 280.

69. CPR, p. 277.

70. CPR, p. 275.

71. CPR, p. 295.

72. Barker, Agincourt, pp. 94–5. Wylie, ii, p. 381, states Edward III once owned 150 ships.

73. Foedera, ix, p. 195. The petition is dated 21 January, and endorsed by the chamberlain. The pardon on the Patent Rolls is dated 30 January (CPR, p. 275).


1. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 17.

2. In 1403, for example, the amount spent on cooking for the royal household on the eve of Candlemas was £11 15d; on the last three days of January that year it had been £13 17s 1d, £11 15s 8½d, £16 5s 4d. Candlemas itself saw £22 10s 1½d spent on cooking. See E 101/404/21.

3. CPR, p. 293.

4. For other letters issued this day, see the three in CPR, p. 278, among others. None were attested by the king personally.

5. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 109.

6. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 210–11.

7. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 109.

8. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 109–10.

9. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 311 n. 2.

10. Luke 2: 29–32.

11. CPR, p. 284.

12. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 110.

13. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 203; Monstrelet, i, p. 324.

14. Curry, Agincourt, p. 47.

15. For the minutes of the meeting see Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 150–1. The reference of the original document is now British Library, Cotton Cleopatra F. III fol. 168–9 (formerly foliated 135–6). It reads ‘sensuent certains ordennances faites en le moys de ffeurer l’an du regne du Roy Henri le quint second’. I am grateful to Julian Harrison, Curator of Medieval and Earlier Manuscripts at the BL, for checking this detail for me. The St Denis chronicler states that the English ambassadors rode into Paris on 9 February. Monstrelet states they entered the city with a company of six hundred men on the 10th. However, as noted under 9 February, it is difficult to accept that the whole embassy arrived at that time. Thomas Beaufort was in Paris by 21 February, as the St Denis chronicler stated.

16. This was in line with the advice of the council of the previous autumn. See Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 145–8.

17. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 21.

18. Note that it was always described as the nation of England, not Britain.

19. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 483.

20. The roll in question is E 403/620.

21. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 21–3. In February 1417, six great ships are recorded – the Trinity Royal, the Holy Ghost, the Nicholas and three carracks – plus eight barges and ten balingers (24 vessels in all). The list for August 1417 categorises them differently, naming three great ships (including the Trinity Royal and the Holy Ghost), eight carracks, six ships, one barge, and nine balingers, two of which were associated with the Trinity Royal and the Holy Ghost (27 vessels).

22. Issues, p. 338

23. See also Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 104.

24. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 101–2.

25. Curry, Agincourt, p. 48 dates this order to 20 February, citing E 403/619 m. 12. The payment date is clearly under 4 February in E 403/620 as well as under the 20th.

26. CPR, p. 276.

27. Foedera, ix, p. 200; Chronica Maiora, p. 403; CPR, p. 294.

28. CCR, p. 172. John Clyffe is described as ‘master’ of the minstrels in E 405/28.

29. CPR, pp. 278, 281.

30. CCR, p. 167.

31. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 483.

32. CPR, p. 280.

33. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 322.

34. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 409.

35. Note that the French embassy, which left Paris on 4 June 1415, took thirteen days to reach Calais, and that was later in the year, when the weather was better. One way of tallying the discrepancy noted in the text would be to suggest that the privy council minute is wrongly dated to February but this is unlikely. The account of the embassy delivered the following January in the Tower of London dates the ambassadors’ crossing to France in February 1415 (Foedera, ix, p. 209).

36. For the legal travelling day of twenty miles, see Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 343; for higher travelling speeds see TTGME, p. 132. Information about the phases of the moon has been taken from, downloaded 10 September 2008.

37. Bishop Langley, the earl of Dorset and Richard Grey travelled together, independent of Courtenay, as the Issue Rolls for 11 April make clear. Richard Redman’s chronicle also states that the entry of the embassy was a great spectacle; see Cole (ed.), Memorials, p. 31.

38. The English embassy as a whole is supposed to have stayed at the hôtel de Clisson; but Courtenay was noted as staying at the hôtel de Navarre when he received a visit from Fusoris. Although we do not know the exact date of this meeting, Courtenay’s different residence suggests he was staying elsewhere prior to the arrival of the other English ambassadors, and that he later joined them at the hôtel de Clisson.

39. Allmand, Henry V, p. 8. The astrological treatises quoted by Professor Allmand (Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 393, fol. 109–11; MS 192 pt iii, fol. 26–36) state that Henry was born at 11.22 am on 16 September 1386.

40. CPR, p. 294; Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 21–3.

41. Monstrelet, i, p. 322. Waurin’s claim that it was eight days’ celebration cannot be correct, for Ash Wednesday (the first day of the Lenten fast) fell on the fourth day.

42. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 19.

43. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 19.

44. These were favourites of the monks at Westminster in the period. See Harvey, Living and Dying, pp. 34–71; also A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations, pp. 415–76; leche Lombard appears at pp. 458–9.

45. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 18, 58.

46. Fears, pp. 211–19.

47. Brie (ed.), Brut, ii, pp. 494–5.

48. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 211–12.

49. CCR, p. 167. This letter was issued under the authority of the privy seal; it could have been issued in response to a letter under Henry’s signet sent from elsewhere.

50. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 483–4.

51. CPR, p. 281.

52. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. x, 341.

53. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 217.

54. Foedera, ix, pp. 197–200.

55. CPR, p. 284 (both).

56. CPR, p. 286. See also the king’s order of 28 February to the escheator in Gloucestershire in relation to Richard Beauchamp of Bergavenny and his wife Isabel, she being an heir of the late Thomas, Lord Despenser. CCR, pp. 165–6.

57. CCR, pp. 174–5. The grant to Constance was actually dated 18 February 1415; that to Eleanor 22 February 1415. They have been concatenated here with the other Despenser grant because they clearly relate to the same initiative, which was probably issued in respect of all three parties on the same day, and simply drawn up in separate parts on different days.

58. For other acts, see CCR, p. 168; CPR, pp. 285, 294.

59. CPR, p. 288.

60. Foedera, ix, p. 136.

61. Foedera, ix, p. 141; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 414, n. 6.

62. E 405/28.

63. CCR, p. 173.

64. Foedera, ix, p. 202; CPR, p. 294.

65. Curry, Agincourt, p. 49.

66. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 527.

67. Hardy and Hardy (eds), Waurin, p. 171.

68. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 438 (portrait of Katherine); Monstrelet, i, p. 322.

69. E 403/620.

70. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 415. Vale states that ‘in a convention signed by Henry’s ambassadors at Ypres on 7 August 1414 John the Fearless agreed to support his [Henry’s] claim to the crown [of France] and to furnish him with troops’. Vale, English Gascony, p. 70.

71. Neither of these payments to Henry Scrope on this roll can relate to his embassy in 1413, for which he was reimbursed in the same year. (See Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 149–50.) The duke of Orléans was in communication with Henry in late 1414, granting safe conducts to Henry’s messengers and sending his own chamberlain in November 1414. That November the duke of Burgundy also sent his chamberlain to Henry – it is possible that Scrope’s second voyage relates to these further negotiations with Burgundy. See Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 415–16; Foedera, ix, p. 179.

72. The ‘une’ does not necessarily relate to a female form of ‘one’, as spelling of French words, like English, had yet to be standardised. The quotation comes from the Iliad, ii, lines 204–5.

73. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 217–18.

74. Monstrelet, i, p. 325.

75. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 56; Foedera, ix, p. 203.

76. Wylie, Henry IV, iii, p. 395.

77. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 221.

78. HKW, ii, pp. 988–1000. Sutton House followed, in April 1415. See ibid., p. 1004.

79. Dugdale, Monasticon, vi, p. 29.

80. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 230–1.

81. Dugdale, Monasticon, vi, pp. 542–3. For the two-storey church, see ibid., p. 541, quoting Weever.

82. Dugdale, Monasticon, vi, p. 542 (dimensions); HKW, i, p. 265 (brickmakers).

83. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, pp. 323–5 (where this is dated to the 24th); Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 203–4; Curry, Agincourt, p. 47. See also de Baye, ii, p. 210 n. 1, where it is dated to the 23rd.

84. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 445.

85. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 90–3.

86. Issues, p. 339.

87. Luard (ed.), Flores Historiarum, iii, p. 193; CCR 1327–30, p. 4. I am grateful to Kathryn Warner for drawing my attention to these references to Burgoyne.

88. Markham, Court of Richard II, p. 33. This site may also have been used by earlier kings as a retreat. See CCR 1327–30, p. 4.

89. HKW, i, p. 245.

90. E 101/620 (last membrane).

91. Issues, p. 340. This item was on a membrane which is detached from E 101/620.

92. Issues, p. 340.


1. Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 211–12.

2. Loomis, Constance, pp. 218–19.

3. Dugdale, Monasticon, vi, p. 542. This translation has been smoothed somewhat. The exact text is Haec omnia ad sedulae considerationis examen, inspirante supernam gratiam, in cujus manu sunt regum corda, et testante scriptura, ‘ubi voluerit inclinabit’.

4. Fox, Acts and Monuments, p. 840; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 286.

5. Grime, Lanterne of Lyght (1535), fol. ix recto. With regard to the earlier quotations, these have been taken from Fox, Acts and Monuments, p. 841 and have not been checked in the 1535 edition.

6. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 289.

7. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, pp. 148–9.

8. CPR, p. 288. Temporalities were restored to him on 16 March (Syllabus, ii, p. 584).

9. E 403/621. See under 1 May. The journey would have entailed three days’ travelling each way – the distance to Southampton was 75 miles. Henry may have left in the last week of February and spent several days in Southampton, returning in time to visit the Londoners on the 10th.

10. Riley (ed.)¸ Memorials, p. 603.

11. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 115.

12. Part of this table is preserved on the wall of the undercroft of the hall, in what is now known as the Conciergerie, Paris.

13. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 440.

14. Curry, Agincourt, p. 45; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, pp. 325–6.

15. Foedera, ix, pp. 210–12.

16. Foedera, ix, pp. 212–13.

17. Issues, p. 340.

18. E 403/621.

19. Foedera, ix, pp. 213–14.

20. Curry, Agincourt, p. 50.

21. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 220.

22. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 604–5; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 454.

23. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 20.

24. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 490.

25. Foedera, ix, p. 215. However, it wrongly named Simon Flete as Richard Clitherowe’s companion, not Reginald Curteis as it should have done. Curteis and Clitherowe had received the money in February; the commission was correctly issued in their name on 4 April (Foedera, ix, pp. 216–17).

26. CCR, p. 176.

27. CPR, p. 294.

28. CCR, p. 162.

29. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 222, 491.

30. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 223.

31. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 117, 222.

32. Fears, p. 221. The ‘royal predecessors’ were named as Edward III, the Black Prince, Richard II or John of Gaunt.

33. CCR, pp. 268, 270; Foedera, ix, p. 216; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 454.

34. CPR, p. 308.

35. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 20–1.

36. CPR, p. 321.

37. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 223–5.

38. This date is an estimate. It took Warwick ten weeks to reach Constance in winter but it took Caterick five weeks to return in summer. Six weeks has been allowed for the most important members of the embassy to return. They were back by 11 May.

39. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 21.

40. CPR, p. 307.

41. CPR, p. 321.

42. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 21.

43. Mortimer, ‘Henry IV’s date of birth and the royal Maundy’, pp. 567–76, esp. 572; Fears, p. 371. This concludes that Maundy Thursday (15 April 1367) was Henry IV’s date of birth. Christopher Fletcher, apparently unfamiliar with this work, has subsequently suggested 16 March 1367, which appears in a late-fifteenth-century redaction of the chronicle of John Somer. See Fletcher, Richard II, p. 1, n. 4

44. E 101/406/21 fol. 19r.

45. The first move towards cramp rings to cure epilepsy occurs in the reign of Edward II, in 1323. See Ormrod, ‘Personal Religion of Edward III’, p. 864.

46. E 101/406/21 fol. 19r.

47. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 22–3.

48. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 149.

49. English Historical Documents, p. 208.

50. Marx (ed.), An English Chronicle 1377–1461, p. 42; Brie (ed.), Brut, ii, pp. 374–5. See also Illustrious Henries, p. 129.

51. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 253.

52. Chronica Maiora, p. 399.

53. Sacrosancta has been described as ‘probably the most revolutionary official document in the world’. See Spinka, John Hus at at the Council of Constance, p. 64.

54. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 227–8.

55. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 23–5.

56. E 101/406/21.

57. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 26.


1. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 26.

2. CPR, p. 327. This was assigned to be paid by the abbot and convent of St Peters Gloucester, receivers of a royal manor worth £48, on 11 June. See CCR, p. 219.

3. CPR, p. 328.

4. For example, the meetings of 10 April and 27 May. The only council meeting which Clarence attended in the first half of the year seems to have been the great council of 15–18 April.

5. Issues, p. 340.

6. Cal. Charter Rolls, pp. 479–80. Although the terms of the charter had no doubt been established some days or even weeks earlier, it is noticeable that the necessary arrangements for funding the priory were also dated today (e.g. the compensation grants paid to Queen Joan and Sir John Rothenhale), so this was a key date in Henry’s religious programme.

7. CPR, p. 340. These sums had been allocated to her in lieu of her dower.

8. CPR, p. 372.

9. HKW, i, p. 266.

10. Cal. Charter Rolls, pp. 479–80; Dugdale, Monasticon, vi, pp. 29–34; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 216.

11. CPR, pp. 395, 380. The site is not specified as the Celestine one but the measurements and location allow us to compare it to the Syon Abbey site. Both were about thirty-one acres (give or take an acre) and had a common boundary, so seem to have been one site divided in half. Both sites were bordered by the north bank of the Thames and Twickenham field. The grant of several alien priories’ estates along with the triangular site described in this grant (and the subsequent identical one of 29 July) is further evidence that this site was that of the planned Celestine foundation. See also HKW, p. 266.

12. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 230–1.

13. They departed with the French envoys in July. See Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 231; HKW, p. 266.

14. For a description of Jerome see Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 135.

15. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 131.

16. CPR, p. 296.

17. Foedera, ix, pp. 216–17.

18. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 119–20.

19. Foedera, ix, p. 217; CPR, p. 298.

20. Nine weeks had passed since John XXIII’s confirmation of Patrington’s election. This compares with Richard Beauchamp’s ten weeks travelling to Constance. In the dark of winter it would appear to have been a hard journey, travelling an average of about sixty miles a week.

21. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 229.

22. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 503.

23. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 452; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 501–5.

24. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 501.

25. CCR, p. 268.

26. E 101/406/21 fol. 5v.

27. Kirby (ed.), Signet Letters, p. 161. Kirby suggests the ambassadors who had returned with the cup were Sir John Colvyle and Richard Hals, who had returned in December 1414. A delay of four months before writing to acknowledge a diplomatic gift seems unlikely. It is possible that John Chamberlain returned with it, given his appearance in the February 1415 Issue Rolls. However, that mission too was some months earlier.

28. Riley (ed.), Memorials, p. 606.

29. Rawcliffe, Medicine and Society, pp. 120–1.

30. CPR, p. 342.

31. CCR, pp. 206–7. These were actually granted on the 8th; they are mentioned here so they may be connected more directly with Henry’s instructions.

32. Syllabus, ii, p. 584; CPR, p. 342; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 454.

33. These payments appear on the Issue Roll E 403/621 under 27 April.

34. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 153–4.

35. Foedera, ix, pp. 225–7; Wylie, i. p. 453.

36. Foedera, ix, p. 219–20.

37. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 155 (place of meeting); Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496, n. 1 (Star Chamber).

38. See Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 156; or Foedera, ix, p. 222, for a printed list of those present. Although these minutes locate this meeting to 16 April, the correct date was the 15th. See Appendix 2.

39. Fears, pp. 368–9.

40. ODNB.

41. ‘To Richard of York [Richard of Conisborough], son of the late Edmund, duke of York, to whom Richard II gave 350 marks yearly, on top of the £100 he receives yearly …’ to be paid until the king can find a means to support ‘his young relative’. He received £285 before 5 Dec. 1414 (Issues, p. 337).

42. ODNB, under Richard, earl of Cambridge.

43. See Appendix Two.

44. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 151.

45. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 507.

46. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 509.

47. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 511.

48. Gesta, p. 17. See also Curry, Agincourt, p. 55. Curry’s comment on this point that ‘the truth of this remark is not certain’ may be applied to most other chroniclers’ remarks throughout history. It is of course possible that this element of the Issue Rolls was only supplied at a later date by a clerk who interpreted the payment in this way, but even so there is plenty of independent evidence of sending ambassadors via Harfleur, the naval base, which does suggest spying. There seems little room for doubt that there was deliberate ambiguity about the destination of the expedition at this juncture.

49. Perfect King, Appendix Five, pp. 422–6.

50. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 138.

51. See Barker, Agincourt, pp. 175–6 for a neat summary of the strategic advantages.

52. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 404. For Bourchier, Phelip and Porter, see above under 24 January and 13 March.

53. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 157–8.

54. HKW, ii, p. 1004; CPR, p. 346.

55. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 231–2.

56. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 233. ‘Cory’ has been corrected to ‘Corfe’.

57. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 158.

58. Foedera, ix, p. 223. The number of archers seems to have been revised to sixty by 23 May. See ibid., p. 250. He was paid for sixty archers, according to the enrolled account E 358/6; by the time of Agincourt he was down to 35. Note: the earldom of Huntingdon had been forfeit by Sir John Holland’s father in 1400. Sir John was not formally restored until 1417, when he came of age. However, most contemporary sources – e.g. the Gesta, and the May council minutes – refer to him as the earl of Huntingdon. This official indenture for the campaign also names him as an earl. Hence this title has been used in this book.

59. CPR, p. 329.

60. CPR, p. 342.

61. Oliver, Monasticon Exonienses, p. 248.

62. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 131.

63. CPR, p. 306.

64. Henry did not necessarily leave it to the last minute to go to Windsor. The reference to him and the council being at Westminster on 21 April may be an enrolment of a decision made some days earlier.

65. For the date of foundation, see Perfect King, Appendix Six, pp. 427–9.

66. This list is drawn from CP, ii, pp. 537–9 and Belz, Memorials, pp. 399–400. The order of seating is based on those of 1406, 1408 and 1409, coupled with the order of succession to each seat recorded in CP. Where there are discrepancies (the seats of Fitzhugh, Umphraville and Cornwaille) the CP order of succession is preferred. For the two tables marked with their names in French see Belz, ix.

67. Namely Henry V, Clarence, Gloucester, York, Arundel, Dorset, Salisbury, Talbot, Fitzhugh, Scrope, Morley, Camoys, Felbrigg, Erpingham, Cornwaille, Daubridgecourt.

68. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 27.

69. There was no cap at this time. See Belz, Memorials, p. lii.

70. PROME inventory no. 1091.

71. PROME, 1423 October, item 31, nos 139, 146, 163, 169 and 170.

72. PROME, 1423 October, item 3, no. 264.

73. The ladies who were issued robes in 1413 were the dowager queen of England, the duchesses of Clarence and York, the dowager duchess of York, the countesses of Huntingdon, Westmorland, Dorset, Arundel and Salisbury, the dowager countess of Salisbury, Lady Beauchamp, Lady Ros and Lady Waterton. See Belz, Memorials, lv. Most of these had been issued robes in earlier years and were issued them again in later years, so they constituted a group of Ladies of the Garter. See CP, ii, pp. 591–6.

74. Belz, Memorials, ix. In later years these tables were exhibited in the chapel at Windsor – but they were sadly dilapidated by the seventeenth century, and were subsequently destroyed.

75. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 233–4.

76. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 234–5.

77. Foedera, ix, pp. 225–7.

78. Petit, Itinéraires, pp. 417–8.

79. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 235–6.

80. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 447.

81. de Baye, p. 231, n. 1.

82. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 511.

83. Barker, Agincourt, p. 98, tries to clarify the total number of ships employed by taking the total paid to Clitherowe and Curteys (£5,050) and dividing it by a 2s per quarter-ton rate of hire. The result of 631 ships of ‘twenty tons’ seems to accord with a contemporary report that there were seven hundred ships hired from Holland. However, there are two problems. The first is that not all of the £5,050 was paid for the hire of ships; as this entry in the Issue Rolls makes clear, the £2,166 13s 4d paid on this date was for wages. The second problem is that references to ‘ships of twenty/sixty/a hundred tons/tuns’ relate not to the tonnage of the ship itself or its displacement but to its carrying capacity of twenty tuns or large barrels. An alternative approach might be to regard the £2,166 13s 4d here mentioned as the total wages of the mariners in going to England, then Harfleur and back again. If there were 700 ships, with 700 masters paid 6d per day, and each ship had an average of 30 mariners at 3d per day (these being the usual rates in England), then this sum would not quite have covered eight days’ sailing – hardly enough time, one would have thought to sail from Holland and Zeeland to Southampton, and to load up, sail to Harfleur, unload, and return to Holland and Zeeland. There may have been fewer ships. However, there may have been additional payments for wages (this £2,166 was probably a part-payment), and there may have been different wage rates or numbers of sailors.

84. See also the council meeting discussing these, on 15 May. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 159.

85. CPR, pp. 306–7.

86. These payments are on the Issue Roll for this day: E 403/621.

87. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 237–8.

88. Foedera, ix, p. 205.

89. CPR, p. 302.

90. CPR, p. 343.

91. Foedera, ix, p. 228.

92. Foedera, ix, pp. 235–8.

93. Curry, Agincourt, p. 67.

94. Curry, Agincourt, p. 27. There could have been as many as two thousand archers at St-Cloud, but no more.

95. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 479.


1. From this point, 1 May, certain details noted in the Issue Rolls and other official records have been relegated to the notes. This is because they are worthy of inclusion in order to present as full a record of Henry’s activities as possible but in their respective dates they disrupt the flow of the narrative, reducing the readability – and thus the accessibility – of the text. Today, for instance, the Close Rolls note an order to Henry Kays to pay 20 marks annually to the priory of the Virgin and St Thomas the Martyr at Newark, Surrey (CCR, p. 211). This was followed on 3 May by a related order to deliver letters patent freeing the same priory from tenths and fifteenths. Today a commission was also issued to arrest Gilbert Hesketh esquire of Chester. Hesketh was to be brought immediately before the king and council in chancery (CPR, p. 346). What Hesketh had done to deserve this is unknown, but it is unlikely to have been a serious offence, and possibly was not an offence at all. Hesketh sailed on the forthcoming expedition in the company of Sir William Butler (Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 357), and the following year the king granted him and his mother the wardship of his (Hesketh’s) under-age cousin (DL 25/1649).

2. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 28–34.

3. These payments all appear under today’s date in the Issue Roll, E 403/621.

4. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 238.

5. CPR, p. 343.

6. CCR, p. 211.

7. CPR, p. 320.

8. CPR, p. 346.

9. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 35–6.

10. CPR, p. 321.

11. CPR, p. 343. For the first case see 22 January.

12. CPR, p. 343.

13. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 240.

14. Foedera, ix, p. 239.

15. CPR, p. 308.

16. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 142; Foedera, ix, pp. 239–40.

17. CPR, pp. 344–5.

18. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 34–5.

19. E 101/406/21 fol. 19r.

20. Foedera, ix, pp. 240–1.

21. Foedera, ix, p. 241. Barker suggests the recipient was the mayor of London. See Barker, Agincourt, p. 109.

22. See Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 483. Wylie infers the destination was Holywell from the chronicle of Usk, which mentions Henry going on pilgrimages prior to 16 June. Usk was referring only to offerings at London churches immediately before that date (Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, pp. 254–5). The other evidence for the pilgrimage at this time is the account of the Teutonic envoys; but Wylie mistakes the timing of this pilgrimage. As he states on p. 495, it was shortly before the second interview with the envoys – so after they had been in the country for a full month. As they had left Marienburg on 27 March it can hardly be credited that they had been in the country for a full month by 12 May.

23. Foedera, ix, p. 243 includes a document supposedly attested by the king on the 11th. It is possible that this was in his absence; however the minutes of the council meeting on the 15th specifically state that the king was present. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 159.

24. Gesta, p. 17, n. 3; Jacob, Chichele, p. 35.

25. CPR, p. 345; Kate Parker, ‘Politics and Patronage in Lynn 1399–1416’, in Dodd and Biggs (eds), Rebellion and Survival, pp. 210–27.

26. Actes Royaux des archives de l’Hérault …, vol 1 (1980), p. 209.

27. Warwick had been at Bruges on 1 May (Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 455) and returned to London on 11 May (E 101/321/27). Hungerford returned to London on 10 May (E 101/321/28).

28. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 495.

29. Henry Percy was born on 3 February 1393 (CP, ix, p. 715) or 1394 (Wylie, Henry V, p. 515, n. 3). Note that Rymer was wrong in placing Percy’s petition for his restoration here under 1415. That document is an exemplification, drawn up on 11 May 1416, of Henry’s decision on the first day of the parliament of 1416 (16 March), in response to Percy’s petition to that parliament. See Foedera, ix, pp. 242–3.

30. Foedera, ix, p. 244.

31. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 242–4.

32. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 123–7.

33. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 159. It is not clear why Breton ships were classed along with French and Scottish, as the duke of Brittany had a treaty with Henry, as did the duke of Burgundy, who was lord of Flanders.

34. CPR, p. 327.

35. CPR, p. 324. It is worth noting that Coventry and Lichfield was still described as sede vacante on 8 May. See Foedera, ix, p. 256.

36. CP, viii, p. 451. He was to take one banneret, three knights, fifty-five men-at-arms and 160 mounted archers.

37. CPR, p. 339.

38. Wylie, i, p. 328; Curry, p.67.

39. Foedera, ix, pp. 248–9. The English calendar entry CPR, p. 325 is very brief on this matter, and contracted to the point of being misleading.

40. CPR, p. 325.

41. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 479.

42. Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 346; when the time came to sail, he had thirty-five men-at-arms and 96 archers.

43. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 130.

44. All of these payments are from the Issue Roll, E 403/621, under 18 May.

45. Issues, p. 341; the description of the tabernacle appears in Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 14.

46. E 403/621 under 18 May.

47. E 101/406/21 fols 7r, 19v.

48. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 36.

49. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 222.

50. E 403/621 under 20 May.

51. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 162–4.

52. CPR, p. 348.

53. E 403/621 under 18 May.

54. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 165–6.

55. CPR, p. 337.

56. Foedera, ix, p. 250; CCR, p. 212.

57. SC 8/332/15714 (petition); CPR, p. 361 (grant). A close letter was sent to Henry Kays on 1 June ordering him to deliver the patent letter to Thresk. See CCR, p. 217.

58. CPR, p. 327.

59. Also on 26 May Henry relaxed the restrictions on the export of smelted tin. In the parliament of November 1414 the mayor of Calais had written petitioning the king to force all wool, hides, lead and tin to be exported via the Staple at Calais, where it was meant to be weighed and exhibited before being traded further. However, they claimed that smelted tin was being exported directly to the Low Countries. Henry had acknowledged their case and prohibited the exportation of all tin, smelted and unsmelted (PROME, 1414 November, item 43). Today he reneged, allowing smelted tin to be exported on payment of the appropriate customs.

60. For Henry IV’s devotion to the Trinity, see Fears, pp. 196–7.

61. CCR, p. 218.

62. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 166–7.

63. Foedera, ix, pp. 251–2.

64. Foedera, ix, pp. 252–3.

65. This is an inference from the Issue Rolls payment dated 24 April 1415. Pugh (Henry V and the Southampton Plot, p. 101) states that he had been released on the 24th but this is simply the date of the warrant to deliver him; it was probably not acted upon the same day. As Henry was not keen to waste money the payment for his upkeep is probably a more reliable indicator.

66. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 167. This note has been taken by some historians to mean that Scrope absented himself from the council meeting – for example, Bridgette Vale, in ODNB. This is not necessarily the case. The wording suggests only that Scrope had not yet arrived but was expected to arrive soon enough to join in the imminent discussions about relations with the duke of Burgundy. It is therefore evidence that he was late, not that he did not attend.

67. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 168.

68. CPR, p. 347.

69. CCR, p. 214; Foedera, ix, p. 253.

70. CCR, p. 213.

71. CPR, p. 327.

72. CPR, p. 330.

73. CPR, p. 330.

74. CCR, p. 208.

75. For her marriage to Robert Chalons, see Smith (ed.), Expeditions, p. 294. For her acting as a supervisor of the Lancastrian children, see DL 28/1/6 fol. 35r.

76. He had been at Radolfzell since 17 May.

77. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 246–7.

78. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 452, n. 97.

79. Chronica Maiora, p. 401.

80. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 255.

81. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 81, 142n. Hus was removed a few days before 3 June, when John XXIII was taken there.

82. Foedera, ix, p. 253. Of the other nine, one was called Fydeler (Fiddler) and the others had names unrelated to musical instruments.

83. CPR, pp. 407–8. In each county, one of these men had already contracted to serve on the campaign in person, so there may have been a local recruitment element to this order as well. See Curry, Agincourt, p. 67.

84. CPR, p. 336.

85. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 58–9.

86. This is based on Thomas More’s wardrobe book for 1413, E 101/406/21 fol. 7v. Whereas more than £80 was spent on Trinity Sunday 1413, expenses on the following Thursday were just £47. A normal day at this time was between £28 and £31.

87. CPR, p. 329.

88. Wylie, Henry V, p. 131. See also ibid., pp. 143–5 for the duplicity of Bergerac and other Gascon towns.

89. Spinka, Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 139.

90. Spinka, Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 140.


1. Details of the crown jewels have been taken from Nicolas, Agincourt, appendices pp. 13–18, and Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 469–76, referring also to Henry’s inventory and the image of the crowns in the plate sections of Fears. Courtenay probably expected that most items would be redeemed on schedule – by Christmas 1416 or by early 1417 at the latest. Most were not. Many items handed out were still in pawn in 1422, when Henry V died; and although the inventories said that the holders could keep them, the council continued to redeem them. Note that the Pallet of Spain is valued at £200 in Nicolas. As there were so many jewels, this can hardly have been made of anything other than gold; and given its weight, the gold alone should have been worth a considerable proportion of the £200. It is suspected that this assigned value is too low but at this distance in time it is impossible to tell; it might have been broken in some way. Given the similarity with the crown and pallet of Spain described by the earl of Cambridge in his confession, the two have been presumed to be the same.

2. In Nicolas, the Pallet of Spain is pledged to John Hende. However, according to the earl of Cambridge’s confession, it came to him. See Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 172.

3. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 475–6.

4. As some of the indentures of service made clear, today was the day when the jewels would be assigned. See for example the indenture of Lord Scrope in Foedera, ix, p. 230.

5. CPR, p. 346.

6. CCR, p. 212 (Stone); CPR, p. 331 (Hereford).

7. For the earlier cases, see 22 January and 6 May.

8. TTGME, pp. 59, 297. Although Walsingham’s account is probably grossly exaggerated, something does seem to have happened at the time, as a writ was issued to enquire into the misdoings.

9. CPR, p. 337.

10. Curry, Agincourt, p. 79.

11. Monstrelet, i, p. 329.

12. According to Curry, Agincourt, p. 50, the embassy left Paris on 4 June. One would expect Archbishop Boisratier to have been at the council meeting on the 3rd if he had not already left Paris – so it seems reasonable to conclude that he had already left the city.

13. For the route taken, see Monstrelet, i, p. 329. For the dates of embarkation, see Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 513.

14. CPR, p. 325.

15. For his campaign in 1341 Edward III ordered 130,000 sheaves of arrows for 7,700 bows. See Bradbury, Medieval Archer, p. 94.

16. Making and fletching 130,000 sheaves of arrows (excluding making the arrowhead) at 30 mins each arrow would be roughly 1,560,000 man-hours. At 3,000 working hours per man per year, this is 520 man-years – or forty years’ work for all thirteen men.

17. For the ordinances of 1363, see Bradbury, Medieval Archer, p, 93. The original legislation of 1363 had been renewed in the parliaments of 1388 and 1409.

18. 7 Henry IV (1406), cap. vii.

19. This statement is based on the order of Edward III to gather 130,000 sheaves of arrows, quoted in Bradbury, Medieval Archer, p. 94, and mentioned above. As there were twenty-four arrows to a standard sheaf, it equates to 3,120,000 arrows.

20. The account of the trial is taken from Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 163–7.

21. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, p. 160, n. 2.

22. Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, pp. 159–60.

23. Foedera, ix, p. 260 (warrant); p. 262 (prorogation).

24. CPR, pp. 368–9.

25. CCR, p. 222; CPR, p. 350. These references are methodologically useful in that they reveal the time lapse between a grant and its formal issue. The grant here was specifically made on 5 June; it was drawn up as a close letter on 21 July. It appears on the patent roll dated 5 June, the date of granting. Henry had ratified Dereham’s estate the previous day (CPR, p. 331).

26. CCR, p. 223 (Northampton); CPR, pp. 338 (Hayne), 386 (Green).

27. CPR, p. 329. Aristocratic women did not suckle their own infants in the later middle ages.

28. Foedera, ix, p. 261; CPR, p. 346.

29. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 167. See also ibid., p. 142.

30. CPR, p. 330.

31. CPR, p. 331.

32. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 59.

33. S&I, pp. 442–3.

34. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 449, n. 3.

35. CCR, p. 280.

36. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 59.

37. The articles are in Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 183–201.

38. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, p. 221.

39. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 221–2.

40. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 252.

41. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 101, dates this event to 10 June on the strength of Thomas Gray of Heton’s letter of 2 August to Henry, which stated that it took place a week before he met Richard, earl of Cambridge, at Conisborough, which was a week before Midsummer’s Day (24 June). Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 516 dates this to 31 May.

42. CPR, p. 331 (Canterbury); CCR, p. 221 (Tonge).

43. CCR, p. 221.

44. CCR, pp. 279–80.

45. CCR, p. 277. For a good description about corrodies in practice, see Harvey, Living and Dying, chapter six.

46. CPR, p. 334.

47. CPR, p. 329.

48. CCR, p. 214.

49. This statement is based on the expenditure of the household in Henry IV’s reign. See Given-Wilson, Royal Household, appendix one.

50. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 476.

51. Issues, p. 286.

52. It is likely that he visited several holy shrines in the last days he was in London – he visited St Paul’s and Southwark on the 15th, according to Wylie.

53. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 494. Note: the date of all the Teutonic envoys’ meetings is approximate.

54. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

55. CCR, p. 220 (Victore); CPR, p. 332 (Bury); Wylie, i, p. 482 (Chaucer); CCR, p. 221 (Burgh).

56. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 248–9.

57. Fillastre placed it later in his journal, and described the events at Constance of the 15th before those in France of the 8th. See Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 249–51.

58. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 251.

59. See Gentien’s account of the attack in Fillastre’s diary, Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 253. For confirmation of John’s whereabouts see Petit, Itinéraires, p. 419.

60. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 169–70; CPR, p. 333.

61. CPR, p. 339. The patent letter is dated ‘by the king’ Westminster, 17 June, but the council meeting was probably the same one as the other case of wrongful dismissal, prior to Henry’s departure.

62. CCR, pp. 220, 222 (Whittington), 221 (Venetians).

63. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 483–5. Most authors, like Wylie, date the king’s departure to the 16th. Given-Wilson in PROME gives the 15th. Although Gregory’s Chronicle is alone in supplying this date, it is to be preferred since a patent letter ‘by the king’ is dated at Winchester on the 16th (CPR, p. 338). It is unreasonable to suppose that Henry performed these two religious duties and had travelled the 63 miles to Winchester, then dictated a letter which was written up and sealed by a chancery clerk, all on the same day. However, it is possible that Beaufort had taken the king’s instructions to draw up this patent letter in advance (see also n. 71 below). Arundel was still in London on the 19th and 24th, according to Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 170–1.

64. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

65. Although these are all dated today at Westminster they were dictated ‘by the king’.

66. These were William Cheyne, Roger Horton (both King’s Bench) and John Preston and William Lodyngton (Common Bench). See CPR, pp. 332, 335, 338, 340.

67. CPR, pp. 336, 338.

68. Foedera, ix, pp. 269–70 (Patrington); CPR, p. 347 (Welsh Marches).

69. Riley (ed.), Memorials, p. 613.

70. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

71. It was 63 miles along the old road from London to Winchester – normally a two-day journey at least. It is possible Henry took longer but the patent letter to his brother ‘by the king’ dated there on the 16th suggests otherwise. If Bishop Beaufort had travelled ahead, he may have taken Henry’s instructions to write up this letter and sealed it here while staying at Winchester.

72. CPR, p. 338.

73. See the table of towns in TTGME, p. 10.

74. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 477–8. The matter was resolved when the men of Salisbury receieved an assignment on the wool customs at Southampton in return for their 100 marks.

75. Chronica Maiora, p. 402n; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 543; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, p. 329; Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 60. They went to London, and thence to Winchester, where they arrived on 30 June and met Henry on 1 July. Their nervous state is suggested by Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 486. Wylie’s statement that they were conducted by Sir John Wiltshire is probably an error, based on reading the French Villequier for Wiltshire; the Issue Roll in May clearly names Sir John Wilcotes.

76. Foedera, ix, p. 283.

77. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 502.

78. For direct reference to Glendower see Thomas Gray’s letter in Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 166. David Howel is mentioned on the same page. Percy and March are mentioned throughout the confessions and letters on pp. 160–73.

79. Brie (ed.), Brut, i, pp. 75–6.

80. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 162.

81. For Mordach’s recapture being a week after his abduction, see Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 101, 107, n. 31. For Ralph Pudsay, see CPR, p. 339.

82. Kirby (ed.), Signet Letters, pp. 196–7.

83. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

84. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 170–1.

85. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 311. Maidstone is 41 miles from Westminster. It is therefore somewhat unlikely that Archbishop Chichele was at Westminster in the morning and presided at this consecration. But it is difficult to decide which is more likely to be in error – the council minute or the date of the consecration. Given that it is possible that he did the whole journey in one day, as this was almost the longest day, this has been allowed to stand.

86. Curry, Agincourt, p. 66.

87. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 168. The purpose of stirring the earl of March has been inferred – the original document is damaged.

88. As Lucy declared that part of the plot was to raise the north once Percy was free, it probably took place before it was known in London that Mordach had been recaptured. Cambridge seems to have known on 17 June that Percy was to be delivered to the custody of Robert Umphraville and John Widdrington, so the plot to free Percy probably postdates the instructions regarding his delivery agreed at the council meeting on 21 May.

89. The line just preceding this in Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 168, referring to the gathering of Lollards and coats of arms, does not necessarily relate to the Oldcastle rising of 1414 (as Pugh’s note suggests); it could be a gathering for a more recent event, such as the sermon on Horsleydown, mentioned under 3 March.

90. Fears, pp. 206–7.

91. CPR, p. 356; ODNB, under Patrington. Although one might explain this as being due to the hiatus in the papacy, it is noticeable that Henry did not write to Constance or the pope (whichever was in power) asking for his man to be provided, as he did with the new bishop of Norwich in November 1415. Nor did he need to wait for the new bishop to be confirmed by the pope (as Patrington was not provided until December 1417, a week before he died) whereas Henry released the temporalities in August 1416. It is very tempting to see a desire to take the money into royal hands behind this nomination.

92. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 472.

93. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 496.

94. Foedera, ix, p. 271.

95. CCR, p. 218.

96. CCR, p. 232.

97. CCR, p. 218.

98. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 38.

99. CCR, p. 218.

100. For the authorship of the will, see Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 182. The will itself is printed in Foedera, ix, pp. 272–80.

101. For Scrope’s statements against the campaign, see Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 164.

102. Hutton, Rise and Fall, pp. 38–9.

103. CCR, p. 218.

104. CPR, pp. 340, 365. Woodhouse’s patent letters were dated 25 June and 6 July at Westminster ‘by the king’.

105. CPR, pp. 337–8.

106. CPR, p. 339.

107. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 162.

108. Spinka (ed.), Letters of Hus, p. 193.

109. CCR, p. 210; CPR, p. 353.

110. CPR, p. 355 (both grants).

111. Foedera, ix, pp. 282–3; Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 486–7.

112. CPR, p. 342.

113. CPR, p. 351. This was issued from Westminster ‘by the king’. From Winchester today was a grant ‘by the king’ to the king’s servant William Wyghtman of the keeping and governance of a minor, John Harpesfield. See CPR, p. 355.

114. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 487 has mistranslated le roi baisa la lettre as ‘the king put down the letter’. It clearly means ‘kissed’ as the Latin version rex osculatus est litteras says (albeit referring to more than one letter).

115. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 513–14.


1. For times of meals see Harvey, Living and Dying, p. 43.

2. CPR, p. 339. Other letters dated at Winchester today include an order for the justices of the peace and the royal justices not to hold any sessions in Hampshire while the king was lodged there (CCR, p. 216) and the presentation of William Croydon, a royal chaplain, to the vicarage of Amberly in the diocese of Chichester (CPR, p. 339).

3. According to the chronicler Monstrelet the archbishop ended his speech with an offer of French lands and the hand in marriage of the king’s daughter, Katherine, stating that this was conditional on Henry disbanding the army he was mustering at Southampton and refraining from invading France. However, Monstrelet seems to be less reliable and more prone to later prejudice than the official St Denis chronicler, from whose account details of the French embassy in early July is taken. See Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 329.

4. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 517.

5. Nicolas (ed.), Testamenta Vetusta, i, pp. 189–90.

6. Spinka (ed.), Letters, p. 206.

7. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 517–19. Also today Henry renewed his licence for the chapter of Chichester Cathedral to elect a new bishop. He probably suggested they elect his humble nominee, Stephen Patrington, at the same time. See CPR, p. 338.

8. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 489.

9. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 519.

10. CCR, p. 215 (dated Winchester). The ports were Sandwich, Lynn, Melcombe, Southampton, Great Yarmouth, Chichester, Plymouth, Fowey, Bristol, Bridgewater, St Botolph’s town (Boston), Kingston upon Hull, Newcastle upon Tyne, Dover and Dartmouth.

11. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 253–5.

12. The other lords named were the bishops of Norwich and Chester, the duke of York and the earls of Huntingdon and March. Note that there was no bishop of Chester in 1415; however, Langley was almost certainly there, as he had led previous embassies to France, and had greeted the ambassadors on their arrival.

13. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 519–21. The French text, which I have otherwise used here, states that the archbishop referred to ‘your two kingdoms’ which seems most unlikely; the Latin ‘both kingdoms’ is original and to be preferred.

14. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 502–3.

15. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 416.

16. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 503–4.

17. CPR, pp. 301–2 (York), 341 (murder), 407 (shipbuilding). The ship was probably not the famous Grace Dieu, the largest ship of the middle ages, as this was commissioned the following year from William Soper.

18. CPR, p. 342. This commisison was actually dated Portchester; but given the distance from Winchester to Portchester (18 miles), it is unlikely that Henry himself rode to and from the castle before the morning.

19. Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 224–5.

20. Hus’s last letters appear in Spinka (ed.), Letters of John Hus, pp. 207–11.

21. The account of Hus’s death is taken from Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance, pp. 225–34, and Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 133–4.

22. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 504–5. Note the claim made by two others of the embassy that this was not Fusoris’s first meeting with the king, he having spent two hours with him the previous afternoon. Fusoris denied this. See p. 505, n. 6.

23. Most of this passage comes from Wylie but this specific point is in Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 525.

24. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 505–6.

25. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 522–5.

26. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, pp. 329–30.

27. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 60.

28. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 256–7.

29. Kirby (ed.), Signet Letters, p. 197 (Bordeaux); CPR, p. 348 (Fife).

30. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 511.

31. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 507.

32. Gesta, p. 17; Wylie, Henry V, i p. 512.

33. CCR, pp. 206 (Calais), 216 (Trinity Royal), 219 (Venetians).

34. CCR, pp. 216 (sergeants), 223 (Wakeryng), 225 (Bordiu), 232 (Rochford).

35. CPR, p. 351 (both Loddyngton and crown).

36. Kirby, Signet Letters, p. 161.

37. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 66.

38. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 498.

39. Curry, Agincourt, p. 126.

40. CCR, pp. 277–8.

41. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 55, 258.

42. See Gray’s letter of confession in Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 161–3, and Scrope’s letter, ibid. p. 169. For the relationship between Lucy and Gray, see ibid. p. 187. Gray later claimed that Scrope and Arundel had both agreed to support the earl of March three years earlier; but this was probably an attempt to spite Arundel when Gray was facing trial, as Arundel was one of the king’s closest friends and his loyalty was never in doubt.

43. Foedera, ix, p. 287.

44. Perfect King, p. 283. The petition is SC 8/332/15711.

45. CPR, p. 359.

46. This is Hamulton as transcribed by Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 163. The confession states that Gray came there that day. But he woke up at Southampton, so had reached Southampton on the night of the 20th and it was at Southampton that Cambridge and Gray plotted together (ibid., p. 182).

47. Testamenta Vetusta, i, p. 192.

48. Their commissions were drawn up on the 25th, and their instructions on the 28th. See Foedera, ix, pp. 293–7.

49. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 94.

50. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 164.

51. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 169.

52. John Wakeryng, keeper of the privy seal, was probably at Waltham with the chancellor (CPR, p. 350).

53. CCR, p. 224. Thomas was Henry Beaufort’s stepfather and guardian as well as his cousin.

54. CPR, p. 350. As with many of the other similar grants being made at this time, Henry stated that if the money was not repaid within the year, the recipients might dispose of the tabernacle as they saw fit, provided they give the king a month’s notice.

55. CPR, p. 356.

56. Barker, Agincourt, p. 77; Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 520–1.

57. Monstrelet, i, p. 331.

58. Curry, Agincourt, p. 77.

59. CCR, p. 278 dates this to 24 June. Foedera, ix, p. 289 dates it to 24 July, not 24 June; Curry in Agincourt, p. 74, follows the July dating. I presume the July date is more likely to be correct, as men were not mustering in June and so were not likely to have need to complain of molestation.

60. Foedera, ix, p. 288.

61. CPR, p. 358. Also today Henry dictated a signet letter to the keeper of the privy seal telling him to draw up a licence for the convent of St John the Baptist, Godstow, to elect a new abbess. See Kirby, Signet Letters, p. 161.

62. CPR, p. 328.

63. Otway-Ruthven, Medieval Ireland, pp. 348–9.

64. Henry’s first will, in Latin, appears in Foedera, ix, pp. 289–93. His second, in English, is in Nichols (ed.), Royal Wills, pp. 236–43. The apparent antipathy to Thomas is strengthened in this second will, of 1417, in which he bequeathed the duchy of Lancaster to be divided between his two younger brothers, missing out Thomas entirely. For Henry’s third will, see P. and F. Strong, ‘The Last Will and Codicils of Henry V’, EHR, xcvi, pp. 79–102.

65. Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 164–5.

66. Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 169–70.

67. Fears, pp. 206–7.

68. See Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 172–3. Cambridge admitted Scrope knew nothing of the cry of usurper, nor of the plan to give battle with men of the north.

69. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 493.

70. Curry, Agincourt, p. 80. Other royal business conducted today includes Henry’s grant of permission for Janico Dartasso to reside in England for life and to continue to receive the annuities granted him there by the king and his father and Richard II, regardless of any laws requiring him to live in Ireland if he enjoyed an income from those parts. A similar grant was made on Henry’s orders to the Irishman, Philip Natervyle. See CPR, p. 356. Today also Henry waived any royal rights in the advowson of a Norfolk church so that Thomas Beaufort could grant it in its entirety to the priory of St Cross and St Mary, Wormingay, to endow a vicar to pray for his soul (CPR, p. 349).

71. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 212.

72. CPR, p. 344; Curry, Agincourt, p. 76.

73. S&I, p. 443.

74. Curry, Agincourt, p. 80.

75. The original is printed in Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 526–30. See also Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 493; Curry, Agincourt, p. 51; Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix pp. 5. The last is a very erratic translation. The same letter appears dated 5 August in Waurin, pp. 179–80 and Monstrelet, i, pp. 331–2.

76. CPR, p. 353.

77. Foedera, ix, p. 297.

78. Foedera, ix, p. 298.

79. Kirby, Signet Letters, p. 161; CPR, pp. 356–7.

80. CPR, p. 358. The trustees were Thomas Beaufort, Lord Fitzhugh, Sir John Rothenhale, and Robert Morton.

81. CCR, p. 223. The names were John Yate corviser, John Snowhite corviser, and Christopher Horylade of Derby, all of whom had been arrested in the Southampton area.

82. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 165.

83. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 97–8.

84. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 204; Barker, Agincourt, p. 59; Curry, Agincourt, p. 109; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 99–100.

85. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 332.

86. EHD, p. 210; Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 157; Chronica Maiora, pp. 404–5.

87. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 170

88. Issues, p. 342.

89. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 530.

90. PROME, 1415 November, item 9; CPR, p. 409. The lords were the Earl Marshal and the earls of Salisbury, Suffolk and Oxford, Lord Zouche, Lord Camoys, Lord Fitzhugh and Sir Thomas Erpingham. The justices were William Lasingby and Robert Hull.


1. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 44.

2. Mortimer, ‘Richard II and the Succession to the Throne’, pp. 333–4.

3. Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 167–71.

4. The first version appears in Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 166–7; the second on pp. 172–3.

5. Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 166–7, 172–3.

6. CPR, p. 331 (Grawe); CPR, p. 365 (More); C 53/185, nos 10 & 11 (Joan). Those mentioned as witnesses were ‘Henry, archbishop of Canterbury; our very dear uncle, the bishop of Winchester, our chancellor; Thomas bishop of Durham; Richard bishop of Norwich; Thomas duke of Clarence, John duke of Bedford, and Humphrey duke of Gloucester our very dear brothers; Edward our very dear kinsman, duke of York; Edmund earl of March; Thomas earl of Arundel our treasurer; and Richard earl of Warwick our very dear kinsman, Sir Henry Fitzhugh our chamberlain; Sir Thomas Erpingham, our steward of the household; and John Wakeryng keeper of the privy seal’. Note, Erpingham had been replaced as steward on 24 July, so this grant must have originally been made and witnessed before then, and was simply engrossed or sealed today.

7. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 182.

8. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 129.

9. Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 182–3.

10. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 183.

11. CCR, pp. 278–9.

12. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 331; Waurin, p. 178; Curry, Agincourt, p. 80.

13. Taylor, Roskell (eds), Gesta, p. 21.

14. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 530.

15. Walsingham, Chronica Maiora, p. 405.

16. Walsingham, Chronica Maiora, p. 406; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 528.

17. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 173.

18. CPR, p. 409.

19. Pugh, Southampton Plot, pp. 184–5.

20. Pugh, ‘The Southampton Plot of 1415’, pp. 67–8, 129.

21. CCR, p. 225.

22. Pugh, ‘The Southampton Plot of 1415’, p. 64.

23. CPR, pp. 349–50.

24. Foedera, ix, pp. 302–3.

25. CPR, p. 360.

26. CPR, pp. 328, 361.

27. CPR, p. 378.

28. CPR, pp. 360; 361–2.

29. Testamenta Vetusta, i, pp. 190–1 (West, dated 1 August), 192–3 (Oxford); Nicolas, Agincourt, pp. 339–40; 352 (for the retinues).

30. CPR, p. 349.

31. See Archer, Walker (eds), Rulers and Ruled, p. 91 for Sir John Mortimer’s comments on March.

32. CCR, p. 278.

33. Foedera, ix, p. 254. The earlier order had been issued on 28 May.

34. Curry, Agincourt, p. 76.

35. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 2–3; Willett, ‘Memoir on British Naval Architecture’, Archaeologia, 11, pp. 154–9 at p. 155 for the colour of the sails.

36. CCR, p. 208.

37. CCR, pp. 210–11, 225; Foedera, ix, pp. 304–5; Curry, Agincourt, p. 49.

38. CPR, p. 352.

39. CCR, p. 227; Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 535.

40. CPR, p. 349.

41. Henry acknowledged later that it much troubled him that he had given away the Scrope lands. However, despite this confession, he never took steps to reverse the distribution. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 537; PROME, 1423 October, item 29; CPR, p. 361.

42. CPR, p. 353.

43. Gesta, p. 21; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 5.

44. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 73, 284. Thirty-five pages accompanied thirty-nine men-at-arms on the return journey.

45. For Curry’s estimates of the numbers, see Curry, Agincourt, pp. 75–7. Curry discounts the pages, and so assumes the total number of men was in the region of 12,000. There is no reason to suppose the earl of Oxford’s retinue was not representative of the whole army; therefore any assessment of the total number of men must include a number of pages more or less equivalent to the number of men-at-arms.

46. Perfect King, p. 247.

47. Gesta, p. 23; Curry, Agincourt, p. 81.

48. Gesta, p. 23. Note: ‘Steward’ is spelled ‘Stewart’ herein.

49. Gesta, p. 25.

50. Gesta, p. 23. There were several ways of reckoning time. The oldest was to divide the daylight into twelve hours, so this could mean around midday. However the same chronicler uses the timing of ‘the fifth hour after noon’ (horam quintam post nonam), so if he had meant between 12 and 1 p.m. he would not have used the older system. Hence the sixth hour here is likely to relate to the sixth hour after midnight, which chimes with Henry’s proclamation of the previous day that he would land in the morning.

51. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 19; Curry, Agincourt, p. 82. For Edward III’s knighting his son, see Perfect King, p. 226.

52. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 52. Curry, quoting the Berry Herald, suggests they were both at Caudebec and that the numbers of men with them were exaggerated. Curry, Agincourt, p. 87.

53. Gesta, p. 33; Curry, Agincourt, p. 84.

54. Curry notes in ‘Military Ordinances’, p. 244, that Upton’s ordinances do not include the clause regarding wearing the cross of St George; all the other ordinances, including those of Richard II, do include it. However, it is highly probable that the cross of St George was worn on the 1415 campaign. The French were noted to have worn the white cross in response. In 1415 it was probably thought unnecessary at the outset to spell out the need to wear the red cross; but a few infractions of this rule may have led to it being stipulated in later ordinances.

55. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 404.

56. Gesta, pp. 29–31; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 7; Curry, Agincourt pp. 84, 335.

57. Monstrelet, i, p. 333.

58. Gesta, pp. 33–5.

59. The great gun is named in Brie (ed.), Brut, ii, p. 553.

60. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 25; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 90–1.

61. Curry, ‘Military Ordinances’, p. 229. The earliest surviving set of military ordinances are the twenty-six clauses governing the behaviour of men on Richard II’s expedition to Scotland in 1385, See Maurice Keen, ‘Richard II’s Ordinances of War of 1385’, in Rowena Archer and Simon Walker (eds), Rulers and Ruled, pp. 33–48.

62. Curry, ‘Military Ordinances’, pp. 221–3. Although Curry is very circumspect in choosing the set which relates to 1415 – she considers it possible also that the St John’s College set could also relates to 1415 – the set known as Upton’s ordinances seems most likely. The order to captains to proclaim them and receive copies, which appears only in the preamble to Upton’s set, became enshrined in the main text of the other sets. There are fewer clauses, suggesting the later sets were amplifications of these fourteen. Unlike the later sets of ordinances, the first two clauses of Upton’s set tally with the description of the first part of the proclamation as recorded in the Gesta. The six clauses in Upton which are not in the St John’s College set seem more theoretical and possibly based on general experience of warfare (in Wales, for example); the three in the St John’s set which are not in Upton seem closely based on the experience of fighting in France. All the St John’s College ordinances are in the later Mantes set, so if the Mantes ordinances were based on one or the other, it was far more likely to have been the St John’s College set, which was thus probably more recent.

63. The military ordinances of Upton have been published in their Latin form in Upton, De Studio Militari, pp. 133–45. The ordinances of Mantes (1419 or more probably 1421) have often been used as those governing the army in 1415. A calendar of all of Henry V’s ordinances appears as an appendix to Curry, ‘The Military Ordinances of Henry V’, pp. 240–9. According to the French chronicle of the abbey of St Denis, the English deemed it ‘an almost unpardonable crime to have women of easy virtue in the camp’ (S&I, p. 105). This is supported by the last of Upton’s ordinances. For prostitutes in the English royal household, see Given-Wilson, Royal Household, p. 60.

64. Nichols (ed.), Collection of all the Wills, pp. 217–23 (in French, but dated under 22 August); Testamenta Vetusta, i, p. 186 (English calendar, following Nichols and dated 22 August); Foedera, ix, pp. 307–9 (French, correctly dated).

65. For the identification of the baker as Gurmyn, see Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 289.

66. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 290; Fox, Acts and Monuments, pp. 840–1.

67. Barker, Agincourt, p. 180.

68. Gesta, p. 35.

69. Gesta, p. 37.

70. Raoul le Gay was given exaggerated figures concerning Henry’s army – including 50,000 men and 12 cannon. The latter would have been easier to count than the former, so perhaps are not quite as exaggerated. But le Gay would not have been given this number if there had been more. See Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 27.

71. Fears, pp. 303–4.

72. Gesta, p. 37.

73. For the number of gunners, see Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 386.

74. Curry, Agincourt, p. 113.

75. CCR, pp. 280–1; Wylie, Henry V, p. 104. For Hovingham and Flete remaining at the duke’s court, see the entry for 7 December.

76. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 52.

77. Curry, Agincourt, p. 85.

78. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 617–18.

79. Curry, Agincourt, p. 87; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 96. The latter states two galleys, not one.

80. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 6–7.

81. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 334.

82. Gesta, p. 39.

83. Gesta, p. 41.

84. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 25–6.

85. Curry, Agincourt, p. 103; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 53.

86. Curry, Agincourt, p. 94; Gesta, pp. 41–3.

87. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 334.

88. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 27. The question of Henry’s ill-health was one previous example of Courtenay misinforming Fusoris.

89. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 420.

90. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 29.

91. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 535.

92. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 104–5.

93. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 100.

94. Rawcliffe, Medicine and Society, p. 4; S&I, p. 435.

95. For Henry’s nightly inspections of his lines, see Curry, Agincourt, p. 93.


1. Chronica Maiora, p. 408.

2. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 41–2; Chronica Maiora, pp. 408–9. For the heat, see Curry, Agincourt, p. 92.

3. CP, v, p. 482; Curry, ‘Agincourt’, in ODNB.

4. Foedera, ix, pp. 310–11; Wylie, ii, p. 40, n. 5.

5. Curry, Agincourt, p. 96.

6. This letter is much misquoted in many sources. For instance it is often said that the king requested cannon be sent to him; that in fact was a separate request, made in June. A full text of the letter appears in S&I, pp. 444–5.

7. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 122–3 (Arundel’s company).

8. S&I, p. 445.

9. Issues, p. 342. This payment was made on 4 October in respect of the messenger carrying the order to Dover. It must have been about a month earlier that Henry summoned the fishermen.

10. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 53; Curry, Agincourt, p. 105.

11. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 541.

12. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 29.

13. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 292.

14. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 539–41; Curry, Agincourt, p. 105.

15. Wylie, Henry V, i, 291–2.

16. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 42; Curry, Agincourt, p. 92.

17. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 259, 283.

18. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 135.

19. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 96–105.

20. Gesta, p. 45.

21. Curry, Agincourt, p. 91.

22. Curry, Agincourt, p. 95.

23. Gesta, p. 47

24. Gesta, p. 49.

25. Chronica Maiora, pp. 406–7.

26. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 25.

27. Curry, Agincourt, p. 107.

28. Walsingham actually says the Sunday after Michaelmas; the Gesta does not mention any of this bargaining about the date but states the Sunday before Michaelmas. See Gesta, p. 51; Chronica Maiora, p. 407.

29. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 100.

30. Gesta, p. 51; Chronica Maiora, pp. 407–8.

31. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 535–7.

32. Curry, Agincourt, p. 107.

33. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 336.

34. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 336; Barker, Agincourt, p. 239.

35. The dating of this event comes from a single fifteenth-century manuscript, and so is open to question. See ODNB, under Glendower.

36. Gesta, p. 53. Chronica Maiora, p. 408 states at this juncture there were sixty-four hostages.

37. Gesta, p. 52.

38. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 56.

39. Froissart, quoted in Gilbert, A Medieval Rosie the Riveter’, p. 350.

40. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 619–20; S&I, pp. 441–2.

41. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 97–8.

42. Chronique de Ruisseauville, quoted in Curry, Agincourt, p. 162; S&I, p. 124.

43. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337; Gesta, p. 55.

44. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 63–5, 331.

45. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 58.

46. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 109–10; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 102–3.

47. CP, v, p. 458.

48. Perfect King, p. 172.

49. It is stated that Bruges was accompanied by Raoul de Gaucourt in Gesta, p. 57. It is worth noting that de Gaucourt does not mention this in his statement but rather stresses how ill he was at the time. See Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 25; Curry, Agincourt, p. 117. See under 29 September for a strategic reason why de Gaucourt might have been sent to the dauphin.

50. Foedera, ix, p. 313 (Latin); Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 29–30 (English).

51. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 46.

52. His four men-at-arms are named in Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 357.

53. Gesta, pp. 55–7; Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 25.

54. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 101.

55. Fox, Acts and Monuments, pp. 838–9.

56. See the ODNB entry for Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick.

57. PROME, 1415 Nov., introduction; CCR, pp. 287–8.

58. See the ODNB entry for Warwick. He was at Harfleur but not at Agincourt, ‘having been sent to Calais with prisoners’.

59. On this parallel with Edward III, see C. J. Rogers, ‘Henry V’s Military Strategy in 1415’, pp. 399–422.

60. Barker, Agincourt, pp. 220–1; Curry, Agincourt, p. 118. Curry is sceptical about the veracity of this report, which was put forward by Titus Livius Frulovisi, who was employed by Humphrey. The implication of this account would be that Humphrey had supported Henry V when even Thomas’s courage had failed him. Thomas and Henry V were both dead by the time this account was written, so they could not dispute it.

61. S&I, p. 65.

62. Gesta, p. 61.

63. S&I, p. 65.


1. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 47.

2. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 101; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 112–13.

3. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 212.

4. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 60.

5. Henry had originally set sail with at least 11,248 fighting men: 2,266 men-at-arms and 8,982 archers. About forty or fifty fighting men had died at Harfleur, and he had sent home between 1,330 and 1,900 more. If the losses were in the standard 3:1 proportion of archers to men-at-arms, then he had at least 1,781 men-at-arms and 7,527 archers remaining. It is unlikely that he had more than 1,926 men-at-arms and 7,952 archers.

6. For Botreaux, see Curry, Agincourt, p. 121. According to S&I, p. 430, in 1416 the deputies were four barons: Hastings, Grey, Clinton and Bourchier. Technically there was no Lord Hastings in 1415, and no Lord Bourchier either; so these ‘barons’ must have been Sir Edward Hastings and Sir William Bourchier. These four men were not necessarily those deputed to defend Harfleur in 1415, but the companies of Sir Edward Hastings and Lord Clinton were amalgamated in the garrison (according to Curry, ‘Agincourt’, inODNB). Wylie states that the captains were Sir John Fastolf, John Blount and Thomas Carew; Fastolf was certainly there as he led the sortie in November (Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 332).

7. This total of 10,000 is backed up by a newsletter issued after the battle (see S&I, p. 264). It is in excess of the 5,000 archers and 900 men-at-arms given in the Gesta (and other chronicles based on it) as the Gesta allows for 5,000 men being sent home. This was almost certainly an exaggeration, to enhance the ‘miracle’ aspect of Agincourt. Adam Usk and the London Chronicles state there were 10,000 men on the march; Thomas Walsingham, Brut and John Strecche all say 8,000. The latter could relate to just fighting men, not including the pages; this section of the army creates a substantial ambiguity. One English source – Benet’s chronicle – gives the figure of 11,000 men. French sources claim many more; but the smallest figures given by the French roughly correspond with the largest figures given by the English writers, which in turn tally with the record sources at about ten thousand men. See the comparison table in Curry, Agincourt, pp. 326–8.

8. For a licence to return to England from Harfleur dated today, see Curry, S&I, p. 447.

9. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 74; S&I, p. 124.

10. Curry, Agincourt, p. 120.

11. Foedera, ix, p. 314.

12. Curry, Agincourt, p. 126.

13. Barker, Agincourt, p. 224.

14. Foedera, ix, pp. 314–15. A translation appears in S&I, pp. 446–7.

15. Barker, Agincourt, p. 229.

16. The new agreement with John the Fearless, negotiated by Morgan, was delivered to Westminster on the 10th; a messenger from Morgan carrying this had probably passed through Calais on the 6th, 7th or 8th.

17. Curry, Agincourt, p. 107.

18. S&I, p. 67.

19. Curry, Agincourt, p. 157; Hardy (ed.), Waurin, p. 190; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 75–6, 88.

20. Gesta, pp. 60–1; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 88; S&I, p. 6; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 126, 324.

21. Gesta, p. 61; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 114.

22. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 90; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 126, 154, 156.

23. Curry, Agincourt, p. 126.

24. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 92.

25. Rawcliffe, Medicine and Society, p. 182.

26. Testamenta Vetusta, i, p. 186.

27. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 207.

28. Barker, Agincourt, p. 238.

29. Curry, Agincourt, p. 160.

30. Gesta, p. 63; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 92–3; Curry, Agincourt, p. 127.

31. Curry, Agincourt, p. 128.

32. Curry, in Agincourt, p. 127, points out that it is 35km from Arques to Eu, and the English army was travelling at an average of about 22km per day if they ended their fourth day’s march at Arques. But the English clearly did not stay at Arques; they marched through. Thus it would appear that by the end of the fourth day they had covered more than the 88km from Harfleur – perhaps nearer 98km. This would leave them with a much more manageable 25km to Eu. This would in turn be in line with an average 24.5km per day since leaving Harfleur.

33. S&I, p. 57.

34. Curry, Agincourt, p. 128; Barker, Agincourt, p. 234.

35. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 421.

36. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 208.

37. Curry, Agincourt, p. 106.

38. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 63, n. 7.

39. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 134–5.

40. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 141–2.

41. Gesta, p. 63.

42. S&I, p. 147.

43. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 131–2, 135.

44. Barker, Agincourt, p. 229.

45. Gesta, p. 65.

46. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 111.

47. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 620–1.

48. CP, i, p. 246; Wylie, Henry V, p. 68; ODNB (under ‘Thomas Fitzalan’).

49. S&I, p. 88. In the hope of pre-empting enquiries about the identity of the John Mortimer here mentioned, he was not the Sir John Mortimer executed in 1424 as supposed by Edward Powell in ‘The Strange Death of Sir John Mortimer: Politics and the Law of Treason in Lancastrian England’, in Archer and Walker (eds), Rulers and Ruled, p. 86. The John Mortimer knighted on the Agincourt campaign died at Agincourt (Kirby (ed.), IPM, xx, p. 109). This identifies him as John Mortimer (1392–1415) of Martley, the great-great-grandson of Roger, Lord Mortimer of Chirk (1256–1326), and thus the fourth cousin twice removed of Edmund Mortimer (1391–1425), earl of March.

50. Gesta, p. 67.

51. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337.

52. Issues, p. 342.

53. Curry, Agincourt, p. 132; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 112.

54. Curry, Agincourt, p. 163; S&I, p. 124.

55. S&I, pp. 43, 148; Curry, Agincourt, p. 139; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 114.

56. S&I, p. 148.

57. CPR, p. 379. The grant was finally made on 28 November.

58. S&I, pp. 30, 77.

59. Gesta, p. 69; Curry, Agincourt, p. 140 notes that some French sources place the order for the stakes to be made on the 20th.

60. Gesta, p. 69; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 117; S&I, pp. 57, 66.

61. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 108–9; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 104, 122.

62. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 421.

63. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 139, 324.

64. S&I, p. 44; Gesta, p. 71; Curry, Agincourt, p. 143.

65. S&I, p. 57.

66. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 145–6.

67. Gesta, p. 71 notes the order to burn the villages. S&I, p. 103 states that they were indeed burnt.

68. Gesta, pp. 73–5.

69. S&I, pp. 148–9.

70. Gesta, p. 75.

71. Curry, Agincourt, p. 148.

72. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 141, 150; S&I, p. 172.

73. S&I, p. 111.

74. Curry, Agincourt, p. 121.

75. S&I, pp. 45, 77. For a discussion as to which lords sent the heralds, see Curry, Agincourt, pp. 149–52. I suspect that some chroniclers’ addition of the name of the duke of Orléans was in light of his command at the battle, and that the duke of Bourbon issued the challenge.

76. S&I, p. 180.

77. Gesta, p. 75.

78. S&I, p. 132; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 121–2.

79. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 338; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 218–9; S&I, p. 180.

80. Curry, Agincourt, p. 221.

81. S&I, p. 132.

82. Curry, Agincourt, p. 153.

83. Gesta, pp. 76–7.

84. Curry, Agincourt, p. 156.

85. S&I, p. 172.

86. Wylie suggests it in Henry V, ii, p. 127. See Curry, Agincourt, pp. 152–3 for a supporting view.

87. S&I, p. 117.

88. Curry, Agincourt, p. 156.

89. Curry, Agincourt, p. 160; S&I, p.152.

90. S&I, p. 58.

91. S&I, p. 68.

92. Gesta, p. 77.

93. S&I, p. 173.

94. Curry, Agincourt, p. 218.

95. Gesta, p. 79; S&I, p. 59 (for Henry riding ahead).

96. Gesta, p. 79.

97. S&I, p. 45.

98. Perfect King, p. 393; Fears, pp. 197, 265.

99. For example, the chronicle of Ruisseauville, S&I, p. 124.

100. S&I, p. 153.

101. S&I, pp. 50, 63.

102. See Curry, Agincourt, pp. 215, 218. Curry supposes that the duke of Orléans was not with the army during the day of the 24th but did send out the count of Richemont during the night. This would suggest he arrived late on the evening of the 24th or during the night. Gilles le Bouvier (the Berry Herald) states that he arrived on the day of battle itself, as Henry was drawing up his troops. S&I, p. 181.

103. S&I, p. 59; Curry, Agincourt, p. 168.

104. Curry, Agincourt, p. 215; S&I, p. 155.

105. S&I, pp. 59, 69, 92, 154.

106. S&I, p. 154.

107. S&I, p. 163. Although note that one of the commanders named is the count of Marle, who is named by the Berry Herald as taking his place in the main battle (S&I, p. 181).

108. The placing of the French crossbowmen is noted in both English and French sources: S&I, pp. 36 (crossbowmen at the back of the men-at-arms and on the wings), 106 (crossbowmen not at their post, having been given permission to depart), 125 (archers not used), 159 (archers ordered not to shoot for fear of hitting the men-at-arms) and 173 (the archers, crossbowmen and infantry at the rear). Pierre Cochon notes that all those of lower status were pushed to the rear (S&I, p. 113).

109. S&I, pp. 34, 36, 106, 161, 181; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 222–5. See also S&I, p. 61 for the wings of the French army being forward, like horns.

110. S&I, p. 111.

111. S&I, p. 172.

112. S&I, pp. 34, 46, 59.

113. Gesta, p. 83. It is worth noting that the two men whom Henry had appointed to lead the vanguard and rearguard embodied what he had to lose. The duke of York’s brother had been the traitorous earl of Cambridge who had sought to put the earl of March on the throne. Sir Thomas Camoys was similarly connected to the supposed conspirators. His wife was Elizabeth Mortimer – the widow of Hotspur, the mother of Henry Percy, and the aunt of the earl of March. If God were to be seen to favour Henry’s enemies, then the verdict of an English defeat would not just stand for France but also for Henry’s enemies in England, for it could be seen to vindicate the earl of Cambridge’s cause and the earl of March’s claim.

114. S&I, pp. 132–3, 154, 157.

115. S&I, p. 184. The follow-up statement that both of the men dressed like the king were killed may reflect a deliberate attempt to detract from Henry’s posthumous heroic reputation by associating Henry with this somewhat unchivalrous tactic, which the count would have learnt about during his time as a prisoner in England. At least one if not both of the men dressed as Henry IV at Shrewsbury were killed. See Fears, pp. 268–9, 272–3. The fact that no other French source mentions two men dressed as Henry probably indicates it is a malicious assertion.

116. S&I, pp. 46, 52, 95, 154–5.

117. S&I, p. 134.

118. S&I, p. 70.

119. S&I, pp. 60, 71.

120. S&I, pp. 104, 118, 124, 129–30, 125, 132, 153, 189. Note the French writers themselves are divided on whether such negotiations took place the previous evening or this morning. It is exceedingly doubtful that Henry ever made an offer of any sort. The only reason for supposing he might have done so are the moments when he chose to avoid conflict, firstly at Blanchetaque and secondly after leaving Péronne. But both those decisions had been taken to avoid fighting on ground which the French had chosen. Henry did not try to avoid battle at Agincourt. If he did send heralds to the French, then they were most probably sent the previous day, to request a truce overnight.

121. S&I, pp. 124, 130.

122. This is the Burgundian view. See S&I, p. 159.

123. S&I, p. 181.

124. S&I, pp. 61, 71. The latter does not name the lords.

125. S&I, pp. 153, 164.

126. S&I, p. 157.

127. S&I, pp. 72–3 (Pseudo-Elmham).

128. Most chronicles which mention the stakes say the archers took them. Some do not mention them in the fight, however; and one specifically says the archers did not carry them (S&I, p. 72). Probably some did take them and some left them.

129. Gesta, pp. 85–7; S&I, pp. 72 (mouthfuls of earth), 159–60 (Erpingham).

130. S&I, pp. 181–2.

131. For Clignet de Brabant leading this charge, see S&I, p. 173. For only 120 men being able to respond and charge with him, see S&I, p. 160 (p. 186 states 300). For Guillaume de Saveuses and his 300, see S&I, p. 161.

132. For the rain overnight and the muddiness of the field, see S&I, pp. 34 (Gesta: rain the whole night through), 51 (Walsingham: softness of the ground), 106 (monk of St Denis: torrents of rain … quagmire), 113 (Pierre Cochon: so much rain, ground soft), 115 (French Chronicle: newly worked land), 124 (rain all night), 125 (ibid: feet often sank deep into the ground), 130 (des Ursins: raining a long time, soft ground, feet sank into the ground), 133 (des Ursins: rain, soft ground, progress difficult), 154 (Burgundians: Monstrelet, le Fèvre, Waurin: rain all night; churned up ground), 159 (Burgundians: many horses churn up the ground … a quagmire).

133. For the disrupting of the French vanguard, see S&I, pp. 125, 161. For the three columns, see Gesta, p. 89.

134. For the piles of dead, see S&I, pp. 37, 47, 92 (two spears’ height). For the tightly packed third rank, and Guichard Dauphin and Vendôme, p. 107.

135. S&I, p. 107.

136. Curry, Agincourt, p. 253.

137. S&I, p. 168. The French assigned the honour of killing him to the duke of Alençon, although whether Alençon was fighting against the vanguard or the main battle is uncertain. In the Burgundian chronicles, Alençon is supposed to have attacked the king after killing the duke of York – but the king was in the main battle, and some distance away from York.

138. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, pp. 256–7. No source mentions Sir John Mortimer of Martley; his death on 25th or 28th October is noted in Kirby (ed.), IPM, xx, p. 109 (writ issued 5 December). He was certainly on the campaign, as he was knighted at Pont Rémy.The Visitation of Kent, p. 209, quoting BL Harleian MS 6138 fol. 125, calls him Hugh Mortimer and states he was slain at Agincourt. For Dafydd Gam’s attempt on Glendower’s life, see Fears, pp. 291, 430 (n. 27).

139. S&I, p. 62.

140. S&I, pp. 52, 125, 131, 134, 162, 168. For Henry fighting with a battle axe see ibid, p. 52. For Humphrey wounded in the groin and Henry defending him, ibid, pp. 47, 62, 73, 184. For the cutting of Henry’s crown, ibid, pp. 47, 94, 157 (where it was cut by one of the eighteen).

141. S&I, pp. 60, 115, 162, 174–5.

142. S&I, p. 115 (point of defeat). Des Ursins states he had just a dozen men (S&I, p. 134).

143. S&I, p. 134.

144. S&I, p. 163.

145. S&I, p. 163.

146. For orders concerning the baggage, see S&I, pp. 35, 59, 69, 154. For the attack on the baggage train, see S&I, pp. 53, 118, 125, 163. For the jewels found, see S&I, p. 125; Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 26.

147. Riley (ed.), Memorials, p. 621.

148. Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, pp. 137–9; Barker, Agincourt, p. 302. That the dukes of Orléans and Bourbon were taken at this time, and not at a later point, is suggested by the author of the Gesta, which notes that these two men were kept alive during the massacre. The Burgundians seem to suggest Orléans was found at a later time. See S&I, p. 165.

149. Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, p. 135.

150. S&I, p. 127.

151. S&I, pp. 37, 62, 88, 125, 131, 190. It is possible that the two accounts which refer to the new army being led by the duke of Brabant have confused this with the regrouped army under Clignet de Brabant. Alternatively, the Ruisseauville writer might have attributed to Clignet command of a force which should have been connected with the duke of Brabant.

152. For instance, see the article by Jerome Taylor, ‘The Battle of Agincourt: Once more unto the breach’, in The Independent, Saturday 1 November 2008.

153. S&I, p. 118; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 342.

154. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 172.

155. S&I, p. 47.

156. S&I, p. 62.

157. For example, the duke of Brabant’s body was found some way away from the battlefield (S&I, p. 174). Ghillebert de Lannoy’s companions were burnt alive in a house in Maisoncelles – out of sight of the French lines.

158. S&I, pp. 37, 108, 125, 163.

159. Tuck, ‘The Earl of Arundel’s Expedition’, p. 233.

160. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 172. The chronicle of St Denis supports this, stating that the order was executed quickly. See S&I, p. 108.

161. S&I, p. 62. Frulovisi had information from Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, which may underpin this point. However, he claims that Henry threatened that he would kill the prisoners unless they withdrew. It is difficult to see how this was true, given that the French did not advance and yet he killed the prisoners anyway.

162. S&I, pp. 125, 184.

163. S&I, p. 37.

164. S&I, p. 165.

165. This suggestion is based on le Fèvre’s statement that he kept his army arrayed and no French showed despite his being in the field for four hours. The ‘four hours’ cannot relate to the battle itself, as Henry had actually been in the field since dawn; so it is assumed that it relates to the period of time he was waiting after the end of the battle. English chronicles also state that it was not until evening that Henry left the battlefield; see S&I, pp. 63, 74.

166. S&I, pp. 108–9.

167. S&I, p. 165.

168. S&I, p. 94; Curry, Agincourt, p. 290.

169. For numbers of the French dead, see S&I, pp. 11, 53, 93, 110, 118, 127, 134, 168, 182; Barker, Agincourt, pp. 324–5. The last is Gilles le Bouvier’s account, which states that 4,000 French knights and esquires were killed, and 500–600 other ‘men of war’, supporting the notion that infantry and archers were sent to the back.

170. S&I, p. 126.

171. S&I, p. 133.

172. S&I, p. 126.

173. S&I, p. 165.

174. S&I, p. 48.

175. S&I, p. 52.

176. S&I, p. 74.

177. S&I, p. 166.

178. S&I, p. 175.

179. S&I, pp. 109–10.

180. CPR, p. 381; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 63.

181. S&I, pp. 74–5.

182. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 621–2; ODNB.

183. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 282–3; S&I, p. 167; Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, pp. 140–1.

184. S&I, p. 444. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 41 states that the decision was in response to Henry’s letter of 3 September; but this does not mention war engines, and the June letter does.

185. Vale, Gascony, p. 75.

186. Issues, p. 342. This payment is dated 15 October.

187. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 182–4.

188. CCR, p. 237.

189. CPR, p. 378.

190. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 537, n. 9.

191. S&I, p. 131.


1. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 45.

2. A particularly good description of the plights of some of the Agincourt widows is given in Barker, Agincourt, pp. 324–9.

3. Wylie, Henry V, iii, p. 1.

4. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 267–9.

5. CPR, p. 380 (Norwich); CCR, p. 240 (March). The entry for Edmund in ODNB states that the full fine of 10,000 marks was due. The CCR entry does not overtly state that this was an instalment.

6. Belz, Garter, lvi–lvii; Gesta, p. 133; CP, ii, p. 539.

7. PROME, 1415 November.

8. CCR, p. 236.

9. CCR, p. 245; HKW, i, p. 266.

10. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 25–6.

11. CPR, p. 382.

12. CCR, p. 287.

13. CPR, p. 380.

14. PROME, 1415, appendix; CPR, p. 371.

15. de Baye, pp. 222–3.

16. Chronica Maiora, p. 413; Gesta, pp. 100–1; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 583.

17. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 52.

18. Foedera, ix, pp. 319–20; Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, pp. 136–7.

19. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 27.

20. Gesta, p. 100, n. 3 (stayed two days); Jacob, Chichele, p. 113.

21. Jacob, Chichele, p. 113; Allmand, Henry V, p. 97; Gesta, p. 100.

22. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 259.

23. CCR, p. 256.

24. CPR, p. 382.

25. CPR, p. 381.

26. Foedera, ix, p. 320. The grant is dated as being dictated at Westminster – but as yet Henry was still somewhere between Rochester and Eltham Palace. See Allmand, Henry V, p. 97. Presumably Rippon had returned with Warwick earlier in the year, as he was mentioned by Cerretano as being part of the initial English delegation.

27. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 137.

28. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 264, where the date is 22 November (corrected to 21st on p. 540).

29. CCR, p. 237.

30. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 536–7, n. 10.

31. CPR, p. 411.

32. Gesta, p. 102 (quotation); Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 261 (four miles).

33. Gesta, p. 107.

34. Gesta, pp. 107–9.

35. Gesta, p. 113.

36. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 263; Capgrave, Illustrious Henries, p. 134; Chronica Maiora, p. 413. Usk states this funeral Mass was held the next day; Walsingham on 1 December. Other chroniclers state there were more than twelve bishops – sixteen or eighteen.

37. Curry, Agincourt, p. 284.

38. Vale, English Gascony, p. 75.

39. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 422.

40. S&I, p. 178; Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 209.

41. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 348.

42. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 263.

43. Foedera, ix, pp. 320–1.

44. Foedera, ix, p. 321.

45. CCR, p. 242.

46. CPR, pp. 379, 380. The letters to the pope and the council were dated 25 November.

47. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 184–5.

48. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 332.

49. ODNB, under Thomas Beaufort.

50. CPR, p. 380.

51. CPR, p. 381.

52. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 69; Foedera, ix, pp. 321–2.

53. Foedera, ix, p. 324.

54. CPR, p. 379. The order was given for the patent letter to be drawn up on 3 December. CCR, p. 236.

55. CCR, p. 297; Foedera, ix, p. 322.

56. The messenger had arived in Henry’s absence, before 30 October. See Issues, p. 343, where he was rewarded with gilt-silver cups which had belonged to Henry Scrope.

57. Wylie, Henry V, p. 314. Hingman returned to England in or before 1425, when he became deputy to Bishop Wakeryng of Norwich, who was then at Constance. The last known Greenland-generated Norse documents date from 1408; so presumably Hingman returned to Europe when the Greenland community was given up.

58. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 422

59. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 209.

60. Cal. Charter Rolls, v, p. 482.

61. S&I, p. 185.


1. Chronica Maiora, p. 413; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 270.

2. CPR, pp. 374 and 379 (Arundel), 377 (Robesart), 378 (Clitherowe and Cawardyn), 383 (Dominicans), 402 (Bedford).

3. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 423; S&I, p. 178.

4. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 583, 587; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 350.

5. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 186–7.

6. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 350.

7. Parker, ‘Politics and Patronage in Lynn’, p. 224.

8. CPR, p. 411.

9. CCR, p. 287 (French); CPR, pp. 374 (Kent), 405 (Wales).

10. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 209; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 226.

11. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 96–7.

12. CCR, pp. 230 (Somercotes), 236 (Wyrom and Sherman). CPR, pp. 379 (coal, abbot of Canterbury), 384 (Charterhouse).

13. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 227, quoting Juvénal des Ursins, p. 525; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 349.

14. For the names of the ambassadors, see Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 349. For the date of sending them, see de Baye, p. 228, n. 2.

15. Foedera, ix, p. 323; Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, p. 138, n. 41.

16. CPR, p. 378.

17. CPR, p. 380.

18. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 537, n. 8.

19. CPR, p. 384; Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 536–7.

20. Issues, p. 343.

21. de Baye, p. 227, n. 1, quoting Juvénal des Ursins, p. 525; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 348.

22. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 348; Petit, Itinéraires, p. 423.

23. CPR, p. 405.

24. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 104.

25. CPR, p. 385. The reversion was after the death of Thomas Erpingham.

26. CPR, p. 383.

27. CPR, pp. 398–9.

28. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. xv, 188–91; Foedera, ix, pp. 324–5.

29. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 349; de Baye, p. 228, n. 2; Petit, Itinéraires, p. 423; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585.

30. de Baye, p. 229.

31. De Baye, p. 229, n. 1, quoting Juvénal des Ursins, p. 525.

32. CPR, p. 397.

33. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585; de Baye, pp. 228–9, n. 2.

34. Foedera, ix, pp. 325–6.

35. CPR, p. 381.

36. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 504.

37. The terms of 13 December appear in Loomis (ed.)¸ Constance, pp. 269–79. Benedict XIII was finally deposed on 26 July 1417.

38. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 138.

39. E 403/623; Issues, pp. 343–4.

40. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585.

41. Foedera, ix, p. 327.

42. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 583.

43. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 332. Wylie claims this sortie was led by Beaufort, but he seems to have been back in England by the end of November and to have remained there until early 1416.

44. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 106; Barker, Agincourt, p. 238.

45. Issues, p. 344.

46. Issues, pp. 344–5

47. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 589; de Baye, p. 233.

48. For the feast being at Lambeth, see Chronica Maiora, p. 413. The date given is 1416 but Christmas 1415 is obviously intended, from the positioning of the reference. See also Gesta, pp. 113–14.

49. Dockray, Warrior King, p. 222.


1. McFarlane, Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights, p. 133. The line was actually written in 1954 according to Curry, Agincourt … Erpingham, p. 9.

2. Allmand, Henry V, p. 3.

3. Allmand, Henry V, p. 443.

4. Curry, Agincourt … Erpingham, p. 9.

5. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 145.

6. Hardy (ed.), Waurin, p. 391.

7. Bradbury, Medieval Archer, p. 117.

8. Issues, pp. 278 (joust), 280 (sparrowhawk), 284 (swordfight, and king’s fool), 285 (‘to a certain woman’).

9. J. Simmons, ‘Mr Rowse’s Masterpiece’, National & English Review (January 1951), pp. 44–5.

10. For chess, cards and tables, see Dockray, Warrior King, p. 214.

11. Dockray, Warrior King, p. 222. He said this at Caen, in 1419, when asked how he justified killing so many innocent people.

12. Allmand, Society and War, p. 42.

13. Dockray, Warrior King, p. 214.

14. Allmand, Henry V, p. 8. The ambiguity in Allmand’s text is clarified in Mortimer, ‘Henry IV’s date of birth and the royal Maundy’, pp. 568–9, n. 7.

15. Otway-Ruthven, Medieval Ireland, pp. 165, 334, 348–50; ODNB, under John Talbot.

16. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 537; PROME, iv, p. 213 (1423); CPR, p. 361.

17. HKW, ii, pp. 569–70.

18. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 15.

19. Harriss, Shaping the Nation, p. 592.

20. Pugh, Southampton Plot, p. 138.

21. Vale, English Gascony, p. 76.

Appendix 1

1. Testamenta Vetusta, i, p. 189, quoting Hume, vol. iii, p. 64.

2. Bennett, ‘Edward III’s Entail’, p. 608.

3. For the declaration being in 1386 not 1385, see Mortimer, ‘Richard II and the Succession’, pp. 325–8.

4. Mortimer, ‘Richard II and the Succession’, pp. 331–3.

5. For the murder of the duke of Gloucester, see Fears, pp. 142–6; James Tait, ‘Did Richard II Murder the Duke of Gloucester?’, in T. F. Tout and James Tait (eds), Historical Essays by Members of the Owens College Manchester (1902); A. E. Stamp, ‘Richard II and the Death of the Duke of Gloucester’, EHR, 38 (1923), pp. 249–51; R. L. Atkinson, ‘Richard II and the Death of the Duke of Gloucester’, EHR, 38 (1923), pp. 563–4; A. E. Stamp, ‘Richard II and the Death of the Duke of Gloucester’, EHR, 47 (1932), p. 453.

6. Fears, pp. 205–9.

7. Riley (ed.), Annales, p. 399 refers to Thomas Mowbray, Earl Marshal, confessing that he was aware of the duke’s plot to rescue the boys. This has been seen as corroboration of Constance’s accusations. However, the chronicler may just have been describing the plot as ‘news of the duke’s intentions’ as a shorthand for the plan. The duke offered to defend himself in a duel to protest his innocence. The ODNB states that he confessed he knew of the plot after an initial denial; I do not know of the source for this, but, even if correct, it does not mean that he was complicit in his sister’s designs.

Appendix 2

1. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 150–1.

2. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 154–5.

3. See for example that of Lord Scrope of Masham, printed in Foedera, ix, pp. 230–2.

4. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, p. 154.

Appendix 3

1. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 334.

2. Gesta, pp. 58–9.

3. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 122–3.

4. S&I, p. 436.

5. S&I, p. 434. Barker, Agincourt, p. 215 states that 47 archers were sent back to England.

6. This is the method used in Barker, Agincourt, pp. 215–16.

7. Curry, Agincourt, p. 123.

8. Gesta, p. 59, n. 5; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 67.

9. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 67. In addition, it is worth noting that some men seem to have returned with more men in their company than they had at the outset, presumably due to reorganisation of companies during the campaign. This would mean our understanding that these were all ‘reinforcements’ would be wrong.

10. Curry, Agincourt, p. 123.

11. The ratio of combatants to non-combatants in the lists of the sick sent home, 1,330 out of 1,693 (79%), compares closely with the ratio of combatants to non-combatants in the army as a whole (between 75% and 78%, depending on the number of Cheshire archers); so we can be confident that these lists describe men of all status groups, occupations and ranks, not just the combatants.

12. The ‘we can prove …’ statement is to be found in Curry, Agincourt, p. 123.

13. S&I, pp. 429–30, 433. For the number in his retinue, see Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 63. He had contracted to provide 960, which is the figure Curry uses, but according to Wylie he actually mustered 798 archers and 246 men-at-arms. Of these a total of 742 men made it back to England; it is not clear how many were invalided home from Harfleur and how many died at the battle.

Appendix 4

1. The Gesta is normally regarded as a work of propaganda, written to bolster Henry’s reputation. Anne Curry writes that ‘the purpose of the Gesta was likely to extol to a European audience at the council of Constance the king’s virtues as a Christian prince’ (Agincourt, p. 260). Chris Given-Wilson questioned the assumption that it was a propaganda-related piece in a talk delivered at the University of Exeter in November 2007, pointing out that it was written in Latin, which relatively few contemporaries would have been able to understand. However, as Curry suggests, and as this book shows, Henry’s ambition in 1415 was coupled with his need for divine approbation. It was as clerically orientated propaganda that the Gesta was written, by a priest. One might say that propaganda concerning military miracles – divine intervention in military affairs – had to be written by a priest, in Latin. The language of this book does not invalidate its propaganda purposes.

2. In Curry, Agincourt, p. 228, the ‘minimum figure’ for the English army is 8,732 fighting men: 1,593 men-at-arms and 7,139 archers. This incorporates her assumption that the lists of those sent back to England with dysentery are complete. It also seems not to account for the 160 Englishmen who had fallen into French hands since leaving Harfleur.

3. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 326–7; S&I, p. 12.

4. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 25–6.

5. S&I, p. 156.

6. S&I, p. 181.

7. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 222–8, esp. 226.

8. Curry, Agincourt, p. 228.

9. S&I, p. 156. With regard to other retinues, the duke of Alençon seems to have no retinue in Curry’s reckoning, unlike all the other dukes. There may be other hidden retinues within the army. The men from the Marches of Boulogne are mentioned in the Burgundian chronicles (S&I, p. 157).

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!