EVIDENCE FROM THE COURT OF CHIVALRY

Evidence from the court of chivalry [1]

Historians have made much use of the cases contested in the court of chivalry in the later fourteenth century.  Detailed depositions were delivered by the supporters of either side of the contesting parties, usually to prove a case of heraldry.  Witnesses would be called to testify where they had seen the heraldry in use.  On many occasions therefore this would be on the field of battle, and hence we are provided with first hand evidence of a deponent’s military career.  This evidence does not contain every campaign a man would have attended, as one would only have to testify where he had seen the arms in question, and not list every expedition he had been on. [2] However, a witness would often begin his deposition with his age and also the number of years he had been in arms, thus indicating the possible length of military service.   I must confess that I also made extensive use of these cases in my own book, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century (Boydell, 2004) and the following is adapted from a section written before the medieval soldier database was born.  In order to demonstrate the usefulness of the online database I have revisited the careers of two of the soldiers in the discussion below (Sir John de Brewes and William Plumstead).  These are just brief sketches, but hint at the wealth of information we have gathered.

The case most discussed is that of Scrope v. Grosvenor, contested in 1386, and thus almost contemporaneous with the campaigns of the earl of Arundel in 1387-1388.  A full transcript of the case was published by Sir N. Harris Nicolas in 1832.  The first volume contains the surviving depositions and the second volume contains a history of the house of Scrope and also biographies of the Scrope deponents.  A third volume, containing a history of the house of Grosvenor and biographies of the Grosvenor deponents was sadly never delivered. [3]   The Scrope v. Grosvenor case was a dispute over the right to bear the arms azure bend or.  This was brought to a head when Sir Robert Grosvenor and Sir Richard Scrope had borne these arms on the royal expedition to Scotland in 1385.  The ensuing case records over 300 depositions taken at various locations throughout England during 1386 supporting both claims to the arms.  A number of historians have referred to the case in their discussions of the military community in England, most recently Michael Bennett and Philip Morgan, using the Grosvenor depositions in their discussions of military service amongst Cheshire men. [4]   The case is also famous for featuring the testimony of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, when he claimed he was aged ‘forty and upwards’ and ‘had been armed twenty-seven years’.  Chaucer gave support to the case of Sir Richard Scrope and stated that he had first served with Edward III in France in 1359.  Chaucer, by his own account, was unlucky on this, his first campaign, and was taken prisoner by the French. [5]

The following Table summarises the deponents in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case who also can be identified as serving in the campaigns of 1387-1388.  It shows the details of their service in 1387-1388; their age as stated in the deposition; their years of active service as stated in their deposition; the campaigns at which they claim to have seen the disputed arms.  The table also shows an estimate of their age at their first campaign, calculated from the information given about current age and years of service.  The age of these men at the depositions is pertinent to this discussion, as they were given just one year before the campaigns of 1387-1388.

Deponents in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case who can be indentifed in the campaigns of 1387 – 1388

The Table demonstrates that 40 deponents can be identified as serving on the campaigns of 1387-1388.  This includes the earl of Arundel and the earl of Devon, 22 knights, 15 esquires and one archer.  It also includes 10 men who captain a retinue on at least one of the expeditions led by the earl of Arundel and eight men who serve in both 1387 and 1388.  It is possible to calculate the average age of those testifying and also the years of service that they have shown.  The youngest man testifying was Ralph Bulmer, who stated that he was 21 years old and had been in arms for just three years.  He had therefore first served with John of Gaunt in Scotland in 1383 at the age of 18.  He had then served on the royal expedition to Scotland in 1385. He also serves in the retinue of Sir William, Baron of Hylton in 1388, and has thus served in three campaigns by the age of 23. [6]    Sir Ralph also secured a royal pardon in 1398 thus indicating that his actions in support of the Appellants may have later appeared treasonous to Richard II. [7]   Two soldiers appear to be serving in their 70s, namely John Boteler, esquire, intending to serve with Sir Thomas Percy in 1388 [8] and Sir Andrew Lutterell, also serving with Sir Thomas Percy in 1388. [9]    John Boteler can also be identified as serving with Sir William de Windsor in 1380, thus supporting his position in the military community. [10]

The average age of those testifying and serving in 1387-1388 is 43 years old.  It is also interesting to note that 11 of the men testifying have over 20 years of service by the time of the case in 1386.  Many of these men began campaigning at a young age. Sir James Chudlegh’s deposition demonstrated that he first served aged 11 [11] and nine men in total had gained military experience before the age of 20.  Chudlegh served with the earl of Devon in 1387 and 1388. [12]   The average age and levels of experience demonstrated indicate that those on campaign would have consisted of well-experienced soldiers.  However, it should be noted that the sample included in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case is selected and is therefore naturally skewed.  The deponents were chosen because they had a lot of experience and were able to testify that they had seen the arms on a number of occasions throughout the shared English military experience.  Therefore one man remembers the siege of Calais in 1347, three men served with Edward III in France in 1359 and five men had served with the Black Prince in 1369.  Therefore, although the experience demonstrated by those at the Scrope v. Grosvenor case is extensive, it should be remembered that not all of our participants would be able to claim such a pedigree of service.

The list of deponents includes Sir John de Brewes, who served as a knight in the retinue of the earl of Arundel in 1387 and jointly captains a retinue in 1388 with Sir Andrew Hake. [13]   He testified that he was 54 years old and that his service had begun at the siege of Calais in 1347, therefore when he was just 15 years old.  He also mentions that he was present at the battle of Mauron in Brittany in 1352 and he also served in 1383 and with John of Gaunt in Spain in 1386. [14]   He had therefore returned from Spain, just prior to joining the campaign in 1387.  Using the medieval soldier database, we can confirm some of this service from the official record and also extend his service record to include other expeditions, which he did not mention in his testimony.  We can add his service on a naval expedition under the command of Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford in 1372. [15]    In 1373, he took a letter of protection to serve in France in the company of Edward, lord Despencer. [16]   We can see that his relationship with John of Gaunt had already begun by 1378, when he joined him on a naval expedition at Christmas of that year, [17]   and his involvement in Bishop Despencer’s  crusade of 1383 is also backed by his appointing attorneys whilst he served overseas on this campaign. [18]

Sir Edward Dallingridge stated that he was 40 years of age and had been in arms for 27 years, since aged 13 when he participated in Edward III’s expedition of 1359.  He also stated that he had seen the arms displayed by Scrope on four separate expeditions. [19]   Sir Thomas Trivet had seen the arms of Scrope at six expeditions, despite only being at arms for 13 years and aged 36 at his testimony. [20]   Sir Gilbert Talbot was 46 at his deposition and had served since age 19, thus having 27 years in arms.  Sir Gilbert testified that he had seen the Scrope arms on four occasions since 1359. [21]   Sir John Lovell, who served with Lord Welles in 1388, [22] also testifies in the case.  Despite stating that he was only 45 in 1386, he had seen the arms of Scrope displayed on six different expeditions since 1358.  He had thus served for 28 years since the age of 17.  Lovell was also a king’s knight, retained by Richard II in 1386 and also served on the royal expeditions to Ireland in the retinue of the king.  Despite this service in the royal household he still required a royal pardon in 1398. [23]

These few examples drawn from the table, demonstrate that these men have been almost constantly in military service and thus are examples of ‘professional’ soldiers with military careers stretching back into the reign of Edward III.  This evidence suggests that these men would have served in the campaigns of 1387-1388, because military service is what they did.  Furthermore, the earl of Arundel would have appreciated the experience of the men whose careers are illustrated in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case, when he was recruiting his forces.  This is demonstrated by the significant number of soldiers who campaign in 1387-1388 and also make depositions at the court of chivalry.

Two other cases have also been discussed by historians to further illustrate the late fourteenth century military community.  Maurice Keen has analysed the records from the Grey v. Hastings case in the early years of the reign of Henry IV. [24]   Keen identified similar patterns of service to that shown in the analysis above.  He noted that of his selection of examples, four men had served by the time they were 12 years old. [25]   The Grey v. Hastings dispute was different to the case of Scrope v. Grosvenor, as it also concerned the inheritance of the earl of Pembroke, who had been killed in a tournament in 1389, without direct heir.  The man who dealt the fatal blow was Sir John St. John, who also served in 1388. [26]   Sir Reginald Grey of Ruthin had inherited the Pembroke estate and Sir Edward Hastings was challenging the inheritance.  Both men had used the arms of the earl of Pembroke, or a manche gules, in the Scottish expedition of Henry IV in 1400.  The case, which was brought by Grey, therefore had a wider remit than the right to bear these arms.  Indeed, Hastings was using these arms [27] in an attempt to provoke such a challenge.  The case is of interest because Sir Reginald Grey had also served in the retinue of the earl of Arundel in 1387. [28]   Grey himself had been a deponent at the Scrope v. Grosvenor case. [29]   Keen provides nominal evidence for those who supported Sir Reginald Grey.  I have been unable to find any continuity with those who served in 1387-1388.  However, Keen also describes the careers of 42 witnesses who testified for Hastings, and of these, 13 men can be found to have also served in the campaigns of the earl of Arundel, the following table.

Hasting’s deponents

These men have colourful careers in the military community, and it was clear that Hastings had found witnesses who could add strength to his case, due to their military experience.  Robert Fyshlake is a particular relevant example, as it allows us to demonstrate the career of an archer in the English armies. [30]   Fyshlake can be identified as serving in the retinue of the earl Marshal in 1388. [31]   His deposition does not feature this service, as Hastings did not serve in these campaigns.  His testimony states that he accompanied Edward’s father, Hugh Hastings III to Jerusalem and the Eastern Mediterranean; he had been on expedition with John of Gaunt in 1378; he had served on the ill-fated expedition of Sir John Arundel in 1379; in 1380 he had served with the earl of Buckingham in Brittany; and he had served in Scotland in 1385. [32]   Therefore, including the campaign of 1388, Fyshlake had served in five major expeditions and demonstrates that archers could also show a professional level of service in the royal armies.

William Plumstead, an esquire with Sir William Heron in 1388, [33] also enjoyed an extensive military career and took part in several English expeditions.  He had served in Gascony in 1370; with Gaunt in 1378; with Sir John Arundel in 1379; with Buckingham in 1380; and in Portugal with Gaunt in 1386. [34]   He continued this service by joining Arundel’s expedition in 1388. In addition to his own testimony, the medieval soldier database shows that he also served at sea with Buckingham in 1377-1378, [35] and confirms his service with Gaunt in 1378. [36]   We can also add that he served with Edward, lord Despencer in France in 1374. [37]

Sir John Wiltshire, who served in the retinue of the earl of Arundel in 1388, [38] also demonstrates an impressive military career.  He testified that he served in the sea fight off La Rochelle in 1372; in Scotland in 1385; and with Gaunt in 1386. [39]   Wiltshire also served with Richard II in Ireland in 1399. [40]   These three men, respectively an archer, esquire and knight, demonstrate extensive careers as revealed by a combination of their own testimony and the medieval soldier database.  This is mainly utilising their first hand evidence when they had seen a Hastings bearing arms.  This supports the evidence provided by the Scrope v. Grosvenor case, which demonstrates that many professional soldiers served in 1387-1388, regardless of the political implications.  As far as they were concerned they treated the campaign as another part of their military career.  However, Plumstead and Wiltshire both secured a royal pardon in 1398, perhaps because their actions during the period of Appellant supremacy had brought them under suspicion. [41]   It may not have been plain sailing for them in the later years of Richard II’s reign, as the earlier adherence to the Appellants had taken on a treasonous undertone. Perhaps men who served in such a professional manner would have been drawn to the Appellants’ company in opposing the royal force of de Vere in December 1387.  However this need not have blocked further service to the king as demonstrated by Wiltshire’s service in 1399.

A third case in the court of chivalry, as discussed by Andrew Ayton, was the dispute between John, Lord Lovel, and Thomas, Lord Morley, over the right to bear arms, argent a lion rampant sable crowned and armed or, triggered by service in Scotland in 1385. [42]   Sir John Lovell served in the retinue of Lord Welles in 1388 and as we have discussed above was also a deponent in the Scrope v. Grosvenor case. It could be Lord Lovel’s son, Sir John who served in 1388; however this is not clear.  If it was the elder John, itis interesting that he decided to serve in 1388 for the Appellants despite being abjured from the royal court in the same year for his loyalty to the king. [43] Leland, in his article on the abjuration admits that it is difficult to tie Lord Lovel down, because of the preponderance of Sir John Lovels in the family.  He points out, for instance, it may well be that Lord Lovel died in 1391; however the Complete Peerage does not acknowledge this.[44]   It could be possible that the career of Lord Lovel as discussed above may be an amalgam of the careers of father and son. [45]

We are not able to make any further comparisons with the Lovel v. Morley case and the campaigns of 1387-1388, as only a small number of the deponents are mentioned in the article.  However, Ayton makes a number of generalisations from the evidence, which demonstrates that the gentry of the later fourteenth century were actively involved in the military community:

‘In short, the active warrior aristocracy extended well down the social hierarchy, beyond the knightly community, to rest squarely in the ranks of the lesser gentry’. [46]

The preponderance of esquires in the Scrope v. Grosvenor evidence and also Grey v. Hastings evidence supports this claim.  It can be seen that those men who testified and served in 1387-1388 had extensive military careers and they came from the ranks of esquires and archers, as well as the knights as one would expect.

Keen suggested that the evidence of the Grey v. Hastings case seems to suggest that, in the last quarter of the fourteenth century, men were less interested in campaigning in the king’s service, thus accounting for the relative lack of experiences described in the depositions. [47]   Ayton, however, suggested that in fact the gentry had not become demilitarised.  He comments:

‘Decades of campaigning, requiring heavy, if intermittent, recruitment, and a decidedly more intensive phase of warfare after 1369, had focused the attention of the gentry on the wars in France and in Scotland – wars in which esquires and other men of subknightly status played an important if too rarely recognised part’. [48]

The evidence of the court of chivalry has also demonstrated that a good number of the men who appeared as witnesses were also involved in the campaigns of 1387-1388.  This indicates that these campaigns were not fought as a one-off experience, but for many contributed to their overall experience of warfare in the service of the English crown.   The medieval soldier database enables us to check and extend the accounts of their careers given by the soldiers themselves before the court of chivalry. What is intriguing about this little bit of extra research on William Plumstead and John de Brewes, is that they appear to have had a similar service record.  Both serve with Gaunt in 1378, again in 1386 and also in the expeditions of 1387-88.  In addition, we can now add that they have both served with Edward, lord Despencer in the early 1370s.  The ability to link soldiers in this way perhaps demonstrates that we still have a lot to discover about the shared experience of the English military community. We can also see that for these two soldiers at least – their depositions to the court of chivalry appear to be on the whole accurate, if understated, representations of their careers to 1386.

Adrian R Bell

[1] This Soldier of the Month profile is updated from Adrian R Bell, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century (Boydell, 2004), pp.140-150  As such, it does not fully utilise the Soldier database in its current form, but concentrates on military service in 1387-1388 (apart from the profiles of John de Brewes and William Plumstead).  Information on soldiers can be found on the AHRC-funded ‘The Soldier in Later Medieval England Online Database’, medievalsoldier.org (accessed 30/9/08).  Thanks to Dr Tony Moore for comments incorporated into this version.

[2] See for instance the understated evidence given by Sir Hugh Browe, discussed in the Soldier of the Month entry for June 2008: /divided-loyalties-hugh-de-browe-john-de-calveley-and-richard-de-vernon-at-the-battle-of-shrewsbury-1403/ (accessed 30/9/08), perhaps to avoid perjuring himself, as he was testifying on behalf of Grosvenor, and would not want to emphasise his attendance on campaigns with Scrope.

[3] The Scrope and Grosvenor controversy, ed. N. Harris Nicolas, 2 vols (London, 1832).

[4] Michael Bennett, Community, Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 82-83, 166; Philip Morgan, War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403 (Manchester, 1987), pp. 128-130.

[5] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 178, ii, p. 404.

[6] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 65, ii, p. 216.  1388: TNA E101/41/5 m 5d.

[7] TNA C67/30 m 21.

[8] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 300.  1388: TNA E101/40/39 m 1.  His name has been marked with a ‘cross’, indicating that he has not passed muster and has therefore not travelled with the expedition.  It is possible to speculate that he was not accepted due to his age!

[9] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i. p. 243.  1388: TNA E101/40/39 m 1.

[10] TNA E101/39/7 m 3 and 4.

[11] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 75, ii, p. 244.  These figures assume that the witnesses stated their correct age in 1386.

[12] 1387: TNA E101/40/33 m 3.  Enrolled protection, TNA C76/71 m 12.  Enrolled attorney, TNA C76/71 m 8.  1388: TNA E101/41/5 m 4.

[13] 1387: E101/40/33 m 1.  Enrolled protection, C76/71 m 12.  1388: E101/41/5 m 12d.

[14] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 63, ii, p. 208.

[15] TNA E101/32/20 m.1; C 76/55 m. 33 (attorney).

[16] TNA C 76/56 m. 31.

[17] TNA C 76/62 m.1.

[18] TNA C76/67 mm. 8, 17.

[19] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 164, ii, p. 370.

[20] Ibid., i, p. 179, ii, p. 413.

[21] Ibid., i, p. 174, ii, p. 397.

[22] E101/41/5 m 3.

[23] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 190, ii, p. 450;  King’s knight, Richard II: The Royal Household, p. 285, retained for life, of Wilts/Oxon, in 1386; 1394: CPR 1391-1396, p. 486 (attorney), p. 493 (protection); 1399: CPR 1396-1399, pp. 541, 552 and 558 (attorney), pp. 545 and 563 (protection); Royal pardon: C67/30 m 17, 12^th June 1398.  For biography see Complete Peerage, viii, pp. 219-221.  Sir John Lovell could possibly also be his son who also served in Ireland in 1399, CPR 1396-1399, p. 563 (protection), ‘as John, son of John, Lord de Lovell’.

[24] Maurice Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry: The Case of Grey v. Hastings’, in P. Contamine , C. Giry-Deloison and M. Keen (eds), Guerre et societe en France, en Angleterre et en Bourgogne, XIVe-Xve siecle (Lille, 1992), pp. 123-42.

[25] Ibid., p. 131.

[26] E101/41/5 m 3.

[27] Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, pp. 125-128.

[28] E101/40/33 m 1.

[29] Scrope v. Grosvenor, i, p. 207.

[30] See extended biography by David Simpkin, ‘Robert de Fishlake’, Soldier of the Month for February 2008, /robert-de-fishlake/ (accessed 30/9/08)

[31] E101/41/5 m 3d.

[32] Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, pp. 132-133.

[33] E101/41/5 m 8.

[34] Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, pp. 132-133.

[35] TNA E101/37/10 m.1, serving in the retinue of Sir Michael de la Pole

[36] TNA E101/38/2 m.1, serving in the retinue of Buckingham.

[37] TNA C76/57 m.7.

[38] E101/41/5 m 1.

[39] Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, pp. 132-133.

[40] CPR 1396-1399, pp. 541 and 551 (attorney), p. 545 (protection).

[41] Plumstead: C67/30 m 15; Wiltshire: Ibid., m 3.

[42] Ayton, ‘Knights, Esquires and Military Service: The Evidence of the Armorial Cases before the Court of Chivalry’ in A. Ayton and J.L. Price (eds.), The Medieval Military Revolution: State, Society and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (New York, 1995), pp. 81-104.

[43] John L. Leland, ‘The Abjuration of 1388’, Medieval Prosopography, 15:1 (1994) pp. 115-138, see pp. 115, 135-137.  Thomas, Lord Camoys was also abjured and served in the campaigns of 1387-1388.

[44] Complete Peerage, viii, pp. 219-221 for father and p. 221 for son.

[45] Leland, ‘The Abjuration of 1388’, p. 136, citing CPR 1388-1392, pp. 520 and 512, for reference to him as dead and replaced by Sir John Lovel as heir.

[46] Ayton, ‘Knights, Esquires and Military Service’, p. 96.

[47] Keen, ‘English military experience and the Court of Chivalry’, p. 133-136.

[48] Ayton, ‘Knights, Esquires and Military Service’, pp. 96-97.