Suchergebnisse

Focussing on the key role of the English medieval parliament in hearing and determining the requests of the king's subjects, this ground-breaking new study examines the private petition and its place in the late medieval English parliament (c.1270-1450). Until now, historians have focussed on the political and financial significance of the English medieval parliament; this book offers an important re-evaluation placing the emphasis on parliament as a crucial element in the provisionof royal government and justice. It looks at the nature of medieval petitioning, how requests were written and ho

AbstractThe name of William Stubbs will forever be associated with the birth of modern scholarship on the late medieval English parliament. At the core of his Constitutional History, a three‐volume work published in the 1870s, is a brilliant synthesis of the development of the early parliament. Since its publication, however, Stubbs's work has generated varied reactions, as scholars have positioned themselves at different points on a sliding scale of praise through to criticism; that is, between praising the Constitutional History for its depth of scholarship and pioneering methodologies, on the one hand, to criticising the work for its present‐minded approach and whiggish agenda, on the other. The aim of this discussion is to strike a balance between these two extremes. While it acknowledges the undoubted flaws of Stubbs's narrative, it also argues for a more nuanced and holistic approach to his work. It suggests that the taint of whiggism has for too long acted as a barrier to a true appreciation of the scholarly merit of the work, merit that extends beyond simply acknowledging its ambition, originality and legacy. The discussion considers some key areas of parliamentary development between c.1290 and c.1406 and notes the continued synergies that exist between what Stubbs wrote 140 years ago and current interpretations and understandings.

This discussion provides the first in-depth investigation into the meaning and significance of a quite exceptional petition presented by the parliamentary Commons in the reign of Richard II. The petition survives as a unique copy in the chronicle of Henry Knighton: it was not recorded on the parliament roll. Knighton inserted the petition into his more general account of the Merciless Parliament of 1388. In this discussion I argue that the petition is most likely to have been presented in the parliament that met in the aftermath of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, and as a result holds great constitutional significance.

In recent years, scholars have begun to look afresh at the dynamics of English "imperial" power in the late medieval period, but the extent to which the English dominions were subject to English law and legislation – and why and how these influences varied between the regions, and over an extended period of time – has been considered less systematically, and rarely comparatively. With its focus on Wales and Ireland this discussion explores the synergies and the strains which shaped attitudes towards the authority of the late medieval English crown and which, ultimately, determined the extent of England's influence beyond its borders. It shows that these attitudes were often fundamentally conflicted and contradictory. It highlights the difficulties of the English crown in seeking to balance the elitist agenda of its English subjects, on the one hand, with its desire to bring the Welsh and Irish more squarely within the orbit of the English state system, on the other hand. It also highlights the often inconsistent attitudes within the dominions themselves, which veered between welcoming or resisting the interference of the English crown. The discussion emphasizes how interaction between the English crown and the people of its dominions was shaped above all by dialogue and negotiation.

It has long been recognized that many late medieval bishops were heavily involved in secular government. Scholars have tended to characterize these activities in fairly general terms, labelling those who chose to serve the crown as 'administrators', 'bureaucrats' or 'civil servants'. In fact, they are better described as king's judges, for a large part of what bishops did in government was dispensing justice in the king's name. The first part of this article explores the contexts of this judicial activity, showing that bishops were especially active in institutions such as parliament, chancery and the council which offered justice to the king's subjects on a discretionary basis. Discretionary justice was closely informed by the precepts of natural law, which in turn derived authority from the abstract notion of the divine will. The second half of the article suggests that the strong theological underpinning of discretionary justice meant that bishops' involvement in secular government did not stand in opposition to their spiritual vocation or their role as leaders of the church. I argue that the sweeping and rather disparaging contemporary and modern characterizations of 'civil-servant' bishops as self-serving careerists ought to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding of the rationale and motivation of those senior clergymen who involved themselves in secular governance.

It has long been recognized that many late medieval bishops were heavily involved in secular government. Scholars have tended to characterize these activities in fairly general terms, labelling those who chose to serve the crown as 'administrators', 'bureaucrats' or 'civil servants'. In fact, they are better described as king's judges, for a large part of what bishops did in government was dispensing justice in the king's name. The first part of this article explores the contexts of this judicial activity, showing that bishops were especially active in institutions such as parliament, chancery and the council which offered justice to the king's subjects on a discretionary basis. Discretionary justice was closely informed by the precepts of natural law, which in turn derived authority from the abstract notion of the divine will. The second half of the article suggests that the strong theological underpinning of discretionary justice meant that bishops' involvement in secular government did not stand in opposition to their spiritual vocation or their role as leaders of the church. I argue that the sweeping and rather disparaging contemporary and modern characterizations of 'civil-servant' bishops as self-serving careerists ought to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding of the rationale and motivation of those senior clergymen who involved themselves in secular governance.

In the second half of the fourteenth century, petitioners hoping to secure royal grace began addressing the king in an increasingly obsequious and ostentatious manner. A strong historiographical tradition is now established which regards this development in very narrow terms, as part of Richard II's attempt to create a new type of authoritarian kingship in the late 1390s. Close analysis of the incidence of these new language forms shows, however, that they emerged much earlier in the fourteenth century. This discussion explores the reasons for this shift in language use, arguing that much broader political, cultural and institutional factors must be taken into account. The emergence of more elaborate ways of addressing the king is, in fact, of great consequence in revealing important developments in the nature of the fourteenth-century parliament, a dramatic shift in the culture of the royal court and, ultimately, a reconfiguration of the expectations of kingship itself. The discussion has at its heart an exploration of the way that language shaped and reflected political authority in the late Middle Ages.

Thomas Favent's Historia has long been recognised as an important source for the turbulent middle years of Richard II's reign, in particular for its praise of the actions of the Lords Appellant in the Merciless Parliament of 1388. But why did Favent write the Historia and for whom was it written? In recent years the Historia has for the first time been subjected to detailed scrutiny and a case has made for regarding it as a political pamphlet written for a community of reform-minded civil servants eager to celebrate the achievements of parliament. This study offers an alternative explanation. It seeks to place the Historia more squarely within the turbulent environment of London's factional politics. Favent's factional affiliations are easily discerned, but his motivations for writing the Historia were complex and multi-faceted. A new reading of this text suggests, in fact, that it was written not to perpetuate divisions within London, but to draw a line underneath them. The article highlights the use of textual representation to shape and ultimately control memories of political conflict.