Wonderful Parliament

The Wonderful Parliament was an English parliamentary session held in October to November 1386 which pressed for reforms of King Richard II's administration. The King had become increasingly unpopular in the preceding years due in the main to perceived extravagance to his favourites and the unsuccessful prosecution of the ongoing war in France. Further, there was a well-grounded fear that the King of France was poised to invade England, as he had been gathering a fleet in Flanders for much of the year. Discontent with Richard II climaxed when the King requested a then-unprecedented sum with which to invade France himself. Instead of granting the King's request as he must have expected, the two Houses of the Lords and Commons effectively united against him and his unpopular Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk. They saw de la Pole as both a favourite who had benefited—unfairly—from the King's unwarranted largesse, and the minister responsible for the King's failures. They demanded the Earl's impeachment.

Wonderful Parliament
←13th Parliament of King Richard II Merciless Parliament→
Overview
Legislative bodyParliament of England
Term1 October 1386 (1386-10-01) – 28 November 1386 (1386-11-28)

The King at first refused to attend the parliament; he in fact attempted to dissolve the sitting, to no avail. Richard requested Parliament send a delegation to negotiate with him at Eltham Palace; they, fearing an ambush, sent two Lords instead. One of them, the Duke of Gloucester (Richard's uncle) proceeded to threaten Richard with deposition until the King agreed to return to Westminster and do parliament's bidding. He was forced to sack his unpopular minister and was only allowed to appoint a royal council that was vetted by the Lords and Commons. The King was immensely angry at what he perceived to be an unnatural restriction on his natural right to receive his choice of counsel and appoint his own ministers, and soon left London. He spent much of the following year gathering support in the regions, ignoring his parliament-imposed council, and taking legal advice as to how to overthrow the restraints that constrained his rule. During this time de la Pole was returned to royal favour. Although the King managed to overturn most of the restrictions the Wonderful Parliament placed upon him, within a few years the crisis had resurged, even worse than in 1386, resulting in armed conflict between Crown and nobility, and, eventually, de la Pole's exile and death.

Political background
King Richard II of England, from the portrait in Westminster Abbey.[1]

For the previous three years, Richard II had been growing in unpopularity. He was increasingly seen as distributing patronage ("lavish to the point of foolishness," states one biographer)[2] to royal favourites, rather than using the funds he had available to him to the benefit of the common weal.[3] At the same time, parliament was increasingly coming to the view that the King needed to rule as economically as was possible; against this, they saw, they believed, not only friends of the King receiving extravagant patronage, but even his own ministers—specifically, Suffolk.[4] Furthermore, the Hundred Years' War had been restarted by the French in the last years of the reign of King Edward III[3] until an uneasy peace with the Treaty of Bruges in 1375 (an "abject and costly failure").[5] War had broken out again a couple of years later. By the accession of Richard II in 1377, there had been few expeditions to France to defend English territories, and those that had been launched were military and political failures (for example, the Bishop of Norwich's expedition in 1383).[6] Yet in the meantime, parliament faced requests from the King for increased subsidies to pay for these assaults, regardless of their lack of strategic success. The King and his advisers, therefore, were increasingly unpopular, and one of those advisers—Michael de la Pole, the Chancellor—became even more disliked due to his influence on foreign policy. De la Pole has been described as a "staunch loyalist,"[7] and Richard had elevated him to the peerage as Earl of Suffolk only the previous year. Suffolk advocated making peace overtures to the French, which, although (as historians have noted with hindsight) was most likely the sensible strategy at the time, was unpopular with much of the English nobility, some of whom probably still expected a martial career as their fathers had enjoyed, with the financial and chivalric benefits it could bring the successful.[2] Indeed, some, it has been said—such as the Earls of Arundel and Warwick—had "been kept in good humour since 1376 only by a lavish distribution of Crown perquisites and war salaries."[8]

However, as Anthony Tuck has said, subsequent royal "policy of rapprochement with France made little headway." In fact, it may, combined with his uncle John of Gaunt's 1385 invasion of Castile, have provoked the planned French invasion of England of 1386.[2] On top of this, France had just renewed the 'Auld Alliance' with Scotland,[9] by which the former promised the latter an Expeditionary Force and 40,000 gold florins. The absent Gaunt could use neither his wealth nor his retinue in defence of his nephew the King when the attacks of the Wonderful Parliament came.[8] Either way, the war with France, such as it was, was the immediate cause of the parliament as it was not only exorbitantly expensive, but had no military successes to show for the expense.[10] For Richard, too, as Roskell put it, it also had the result of creating an "adversely critical attitude towards the government" that reflected (poorly) upon the King.[11]

The King urgently needed funds to defend both the border with Scotland and the kingdom itself from both Scottish border raids and a French invasion,[12] and the absence of Gaunt probably added to the sense of panic.[13] It is also possible that Richard took advantage of Gaunt's absence to advance some of his favoured courtiers further up the peerage.[14]

Parliament and parliamentary commissions

The previous parliament of October 1385 had attempted to force a commission upon the King in an effort to reform his Royal Household and especially its expenditure.[15][16] This commission not only criticised the King's distribution of patronage, but also prevented him from elevating his choice of men to the ranks of the upper nobility. However, this commission and its advice to take more judicious counselling appears to have been ignored by Richard. Combined with a series of external events beyond the government's control, by the time the 'Wonderful Parliament' sat—the following October—"an atmosphere of political crisis" was apparent to all.[16]

Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, threatened to depose Richard in 1386

No successes had been achieved since the previous parliament (for instance, a victory over the Scots would have diverted some negative attention from the King's finances and patronage), so by 1386, "the Commons had no good reason to overlook the excessive generosity of the King or to acquiesce in his government's arbitrary taxation" as Palmer put it. Most of the critical elements of the 1386 parliament had already been touched on in the previous one; little had been done, however, to resolve them by either King or Chancellor, and when the 1386 parliament convened it "nursed a number of very substantial grievances."[15]

Domestically, there was a financial crisis, which was blamed on Suffolk and the King's perceived extravagance.[17] The biggest external threat influencing political decision making at this time was the threat of imminent French invasion. King Charles VI of France had, after six years of siege, finally taken Ghent and crushed its revolt. He soon turned his eye to England, and from March 1386 he gathered a large invasion fleet[13] at Sluys, and by September it was reckoned in England to be on the verge of sailing. The King summoned the royal council to Osney Abbey, in Oxfordshire on 8 October. and it was there decided to summon parliament. As a result, writs of summons were issued to the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal (including Richard's newly elevated favourites), as well as nearly 300 commoners.[16] In the meantime an army of 10,000 men had been gathered to surround London and protect it from the expected invasion,[8][18] and it was that invasion, and the concomitant necessity for urgent funds, that provided the main reason for parliament being called.[19]

Parliament opened on 1 October 1386, with a notably small number of ecclesiasts attending. Those that did—such as Bishop Courtenay, brother of one of Richard's most outspoken critics—were probably regarded by the King as partisan—against him.[20] The Chancellor, de la Pole made the opening speech as was customary; it would be the last occasion on which he would do so. In his speech he claimed that it had been decided in Oxfordshire that the King would personally lead a foreign expedition to defend his claim to the French throne and prosecute the war with France with increased vigour. No sooner had the Chancellor finished his address than the Commons themselves came before the King in the House of Lords.[16]

Attack on the Royal prerogative

The opening—and for the King, most important—business on the parliamentary agenda was a subsidy of four fifteenths and two tenths—the then massive sum of about £155,000.[16] "Never before had such a sum been demanded,[12] and it was this that precipitated Suffolk's fall.[21] There was an immediate—and concerted—assault by the Commons and the Lords,[8] who were of "with one mind" and "complaining grievously."[16] The Commons represented public opinion (which, explains May McKisack, "demanded a scapegoat")[19] and with the Lords (composed of such powerful men as the Earls of Warwick and Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Winchester and Exeter), would have, it has been said, "presented a formidable opposition to a boy of nineteen," as the King was.[14] The precise political manoeuvrings of the various parties are now obscured, but no royal business was transacted.[8] At some point the discussions moved from the question of tax to that of the King's Chancellor. However it came about, it certainly resulted in the King making a spirited defence of his right to choose his own ministers and the royal prerogative.[8] The Commons also demanded that the King appoint his councillors in parliament.[22]

Even so, Richard did eventually agree to dismiss Michael de la Pole. Also dismissed alongside de la Pole was the Bishop of Durham (the Treasurer)[8] and Walter Skirlaw (Keeper of the Privy Seal). Their successors took office immediately.[23]

Attack on Michael de la Pole

It is possible that the original plan was to Impeach de Vere, who was felt to have at least as much influence with the King as Suffolk, if not more. However, the fact that the attack was eventually launched on the Chancellor is probably down to the simple fact that he was more parvenu and thus, of the two, the easier target.[12] Whatever the original tactics, the plan that was finally acted upon was to impeach de la Pole, and thus to attack the King indirectly; but the articles of impeachment had been sloppily prepared[8] (in fact, it was only the second time in its history that parliament had attempted to impeach anyone).[7] This is not to say that the articles were "frivolous, trivial or paltry."[24] But even so, as a result, the most general charges were unprovable. Others (for example, the conduct of the war with France) were shown to be the joint responsibility of the royal council, and so not solely Suffolk's fault.[8] A recent verdict upon the claims against Suffolk suggests that they were "trivial or unfounded... merely pretexts for dismissing the chief minister of an unpopular King."[25] Even so, the parliament itself became increasingly focused on personally attacking the Earl and the perceived abuse of the authority of the chancellorship, even down to the supposed theft of a charter from Dover Castle. The affair ended up "dragg[ing] on for at least a month [and] degenerated into three badly sustained and trivial charges, behind each of which motives of malice or private interest may be suspected," one commentator has written.[8] De la Pole's main defence was two-pronged: on the one hand, he accused his accusers of expecting a higher morality from him than from the King's other advisers, and on the other hand, that he could not be held solely responsible for what were collective decisions.[12]

Part of Eltham Palace in Kent, where Richard sat out most of the parliament

King Richard had not attended the parliament in person, having retired—possibly in anger—to the royal palace at Eltham,[16] and he refused to obey its demands for impeachment. According to one contemporary chronicler, he declared he would not get rid of a kitchen scullion on the grounds that parliament asked him to.[26] According to the author of another chronicle, the Eulogium Historiarum, he even tried to dissolve parliament at this point, but the Commons refused to leave.[16]

Richard's absence

The Commons reported to the King that they could achieve little without his presence in parliament, so Richard sent for a deputation of forty of them to finalise discussions at Eltham. However, the St Albans Chronicler, Thomas Walsingham, reports that the King was planning[16] on having the parliamentary group arrested[12] or even ambushed and killed, and that, more to the point, the Mayor of London, Sir Nicholas Exton had discovered the plan and warned them.[16] This is the event described by Henry Knighton as the "occultus rumor" in which the King invited forty members of that parliament to a dinner—and then dispose of them.[27] This may well have merely been a rumour, as Knighton suggests—perhaps reflecting the extent to which the King's reputation had declined—but parliament was taking no chances: they sent the King's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester and the Bishop of Ely in their stead.[16]

The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King, on how they perceived his duty[12] and Gloucester appears ultimately to have made a threat of deposition against Richard[22] (under 'ancient law' which dictated that, without a King's presence in an annual parliament,[28] the Commons could go home, facing no punishment for leaving parliamentary business unfinished—in this case, Richard's war tax). The Eulogium Historiarum chronicler alleged that Richard even threatened to appeal to the King of France for aid against his domestic enemies,[16] until the Duke and the Bishop pointed out that the King of France himself was England's greatest enemy.[14] The same chronicle relates how, in parliament, the Lords sent for "the statute by which Edward [II] had been adjudged" and that it was as a result of this manoeuvre that the King became melancholic, and agreed to return to parliament and accept the Commons' petitions. The King eventually dismissed de la Pole as Chancellor on 23 October, and appointed the Bishop of Ely the next day.[22] In what may have been intentional or just "a masterly piece of bad timing"[29] and "extraordinarily ill-judged,"[19] he had promoted his favourite, Robert de Vere from Earl of Oxford to Marquess of Dublin on 13 October. This, says one historian, enraged people all the more.[16]

Aftermath and King Richard's response

The Parliament is highly important in the context of later events, and has been described as "the worst political crisis of the reign to date"[12] and a direct assault on the traditional principle that medieval kings governed by personal prerogative.[30] It marks the first stage in an ongoing power struggle between the King and a set of magnates who became known as the Lords Appellant. On 19 November, Richard appointed his councillors in parliament as the Commons had requested; this was described as a "great and continual council,"[15] composed of eleven peers and three principal officials.[14] They included the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, the Bishops Wickham and Brantingham, Abbot Morice of Waltham Abbey, the Dukes of York and Gloucester, the Earl of Arundel, and Lords Cobham, Scrope and Devereaux.[31] However, Richard was also able to limit their terms of office to a year only, as well as to ensure that the majority of the members were men who already had a history of loyalty to him. This amounted to a concession from parliament; further, except for the Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel, none of the future Appellants who were to do so much harm to the King and his reign, were appointed.[22] The Commons did not appear to believe the King to be sufficiently restrained by these measures, though, and proceeded to call for further concessions from the Crown.[32]

Almost immediately parliament had concluded, Richard denounced the appointed council, and made it clear he would consult it only when absolutely necessary and preferably not at all.[12] Following his impeachment, de la Pole had had his royal grants of land reversed (although he retained his earldom), and was sentenced to be imprisoned, probably in Corfe Castle.[33] The King soon overturned these judgments; not only was de la Pole soon set free,[16] but he joined the King for the Christmas festivities at Windsor later that year,[12] where Richard treated him with "ostentatious warmth."[34] In New Year 1387, the King left London for a prolonged period[16] (on what has been known as his "gyration" around the country),[35] The word gyrare is used by the contemporary chronicler Henry Knighton,[36] the at-least partial goal of which was to gather together and consolidate his supporters.[37] Not only did Richard ignore the parliament-imposed council, but, whilst he was out of London, he even held councils of his own.[34] Since the royal commission was unable to follow him everywhere, this had the effect of removing the royal household from their oversight.[35]

By August 1387, Richard was in Shrewsbury, where he summoned the royal justices. Presenting a number of 'Questions for the judges', as they have been called, to them, Richard intended establishing once and for all the parameters and extents of the liberties and prerogatives of the Crown.[35] More, he wanted an explicit condemnation of those he held responsible as traitors, and a ruling that, therefore, they should die as traitors.[38] Most importantly, he intended to establish whether the law passed imposing his unwanted council was "derogatory... to the lord King." The King clearly intended, despite the constraints parliament had set on his authority, to regain his previous political pre-eminence.[35] The judges, at least, gave him the answers he required;[37] Michael de la Pole was personally involved in both drawing up the questions for the judges and subsequently[39] attesting to them. According to one contemporary, he was personally responsible for threatening the Chief Justice with execution if he refused to seal the document.[33] Further encouragement to the King's campaign was provided around this time, when Archbishop Neville resigned from the parliamentary council and re-pledged his allegiance to Richard II,[40] and by August 1387, de la Pole had returned to his position as the King's closest adviser, entering London with the Richard on the King's return to the capital in November 1387.[41]

Later conflict
Main articles: Merciless Parliament and Battle of Radcot Bridge
Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl of Suffolk's tomb in St Andrew's Church, Wingfield, Suffolk; his father was dead three years after the Wonderful Parliament.

The 'Wonderful Parliament' has been described as setting "the political stage for the rest of Richard's reign"[10] and the first outright conflict between the King and his magnates. Also the King's first political defeat; it was not to be the last.[7] Richard's defiant response to the parliament, and attempts to convict its promoters of treason, ultimately led to the Battle of Radcot Bridge[42] and the Merciless Parliament of 1388. One twentieth-century historian has commented that "it is generally recognised that all the constitutional and political troubles of Richard II's reign can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament."[15] This includes the subsequent military attack by the Lords Appellant on Robert de Vere[38] and those of Richard on the Appellants;[15] although the court party was swept from power in 1386—when, as J. S. Roskell put it, "the exercise of royal authority was virtually handed over to a parliamentary commission"—Richard II had a "violent reaction" to the proceedings. Roskell also suggests that the affair was not so much an argument about who should rule, King or parliament, as the answer to that being anything other than the King would have been anachronistic. Rather, it was regarding whose attitude towards parliament would prevail: the King, who saw parliament as being a tool of royal authority, or parliament, who saw themselves as conciliar to the King.[43]

Although the epithet 'wonderful' is often applied to this parliament (stemming from the use of the Latin mirabilis by a contemporary chronicler to describe it), it actually applied to the later—and more bloody—1388 assembly.[44] Although the parliament of 1386 was described by a later contemporary as having "wrought wonders,"[14] modern historians have been more critical. One has noted the "inanity of the proceedings and the vindictiveness that motivated them, the weakness of the King's government and the inability of anyone to do anything about it."[29]

Literary depiction

One member of the 'Wonderful Parliament,' the M.P. for Kent, was Geoffrey Chaucer, already a well-known poet. Although his personal position regarding later events is unknown, it has been suggested that he used the experience of this and the later Merciless Parliament (which he was also elected to attend) as a basis for his work The Parliament of Foules.[45] His attendance has also been attributed to influencing the Trojan Court scene in his later epic poem, Troilus and Criseyde,[46] in which it is the assembled parliament, rather than the King or the Trojan princes, that is responsible for the subsequent political calamity.[29] Recent commentators have suggested that it shows how Chaucer was "astounded at the vindictiveness of some of [the King's] political adversaries."[47] This work is a more cynical treatment of parliamentary affairs than his previous Parliament of Foules. Indeed, Chaucer was probably personally affected by the goings-on of the parliament and particularly its bloody consequences, it has been argued, as he was not only a royal appointee to his post of London customs' controller, but also a personal friend to some of those under attack.[29]

References
  1. Westminster Abbey 2019.
  2. Tuck 2004a.
  3. Sumption 1990, p. 18.
  4. Roskell 1984, p. 47.
  5. Keen 1973, p. 256.
  6. Thornton 2012, p. 14.
  7. Oliver 2010, p. 87.
  8. Clarke 1967, pp. 35–52.
  9. Roskell 1984, p. 38.
  10. Roskell 1984, p. 11.
  11. Roskell 1984, p. 13.
  12. Saul 1997, pp. 157–161.
  13. Roskell 1984, p. 43.
  14. Scott 1943, pp. 80–86.
  15. Palmer 1971, pp. 477–490.
  16. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England 2005.
  17. Tuck 2004b.
  18. Sherborne 1994, pp. 113–114.
  19. McKisack 1991, pp. 442–444.
  20. Davies 1976, pp. 659–693.
  21. Roskell 1984, p. 45.
  22. Goodman 1971, pp. 13–15.
  23. Roskell 1984, p. 49.
  24. Roskell 1984, p. 185.
  25. Lewis 1927, pp. 402–407.
  26. Knighton 1995, pp. 353–88.
  27. Strohm 2015, p. 150.
  28. Brown 1981, p. 113 n..
  29. McCall & Rudisill 1959, pp. 276–288.
  30. Roskell 1984, p. 35.
  31. Roskell 1984, pp. 49–50.
  32. Roskell 1984, p. 50.
  33. Roskell 1984, p. 197.
  34. Roskell 1984, p. 51.
  35. Saul 1997, pp. 171–5.
  36. Roskell 1984, p. 55, n. 10.
  37. Sanderlin 1988, pp. 171–84.
  38. Davies 1971, pp. 547–558.
  39. Roskell 1984, p. 54.
  40. Roskell 1984, p. 52.
  41. Roskell 1984, pp. 197–198.
  42. Myers 1927, pp. 20–33.
  43. Roskell 1965, p. 131.
  44. Perroy 1951, p. 185.
  45. Giancarlo 2007, p. 164.
  46. Honegger 2004, p. 48.
  47. Crow & Olson 1966, pp. 364–365.

Bibliography
  • Brown, A. L. (1981). "Parliament, c. 1377-1422". In Davies, R. G.; Denton, J. H. (eds.). The English parliament in the Middle Ages. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 109–140. ISBN 0719008336.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Clarke, M. V. (1967). "The Lancastrian Faction and the Wonderful Parliament". In Sutherland, L. S.; McKisack, M. (eds.). Fourteenth Century Studies (repr. ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 36–52. OCLC 70331181.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Crow, M. M.; Olson, C. C., eds. (1966). Chaucer Life-Records. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OCLC 241948.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Davies, R. G. (1971). "Some Notes from the Register of Henry De Wakefield, Bishop of Worcester, on the Political Crisis of 1386-1388". The English Historical Review. 86: 547–558. OCLC 925708104.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Davies, R. G. (1976). "The Episcopate and the Political Crisis in England of 1386-1388". Speculum. 51 (4): 659–693. doi:10.2307/2850716. JSTOR 2850716. OCLC 25967434.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Giancarlo, M. (2007). Parliament and Literature in Late Medieval England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52187-539-4.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Goodman, A. (1971). The Loyal Conspiracy: The Lords Appellant under Richard II. London: University of Miami Press. ISBN 0870242156.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Honegger, T. (2004). Riddles, Knights, and Cross-dressing Saints: Essays on Medieval English Language and Literature. London: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-03910-392-8.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Keen, M. H. (1973). England in the Later Middle Ages. Bristol: Methuen. ISBN 0416835708.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Knighton, H. (1995). Knighton's Chronicle 1337-1396. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19820-503-6.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Lewis, N. B. (1927). "Article VII of the Impeachment of Michael de la Pole in 1386". The English Historical Review. 43. OCLC 925708104.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • McCall, J. P.; Rudisill, G. (1959). "The Parliament of 1386 and Chaucer's Trojan Parliament". The Journal of English and Germanic Philology. 58: 276–288. OCLC 22518525.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • McKisack, M. (1991). The Fourteenth Century (Repr. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192852507.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Myers, J. N. L. (1927). "The Campaign of Radcot Bridge in December 1387". The English Historical Review. 42: 20–33. OCLC 925708104.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Oliver, C. (2010). Parliament and Political Pamphleteering in Fourteenth-century England. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1-90315-331-4.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Palmer, J. J. N. (1971). "The Parliament of 1385 and the Constitutional Crisis of 1386". Speculum. 46 (3): 477–490. doi:10.2307/2851910. JSTOR 2851910. OCLC 25967434.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Parliament Rolls of Medieval England (2005). Given-Wilson, C.; Brand, P.; Phillips, S.; Ormrod, M.; Martin, G.; Curry, A.; Horrox, R. E. (eds.). "Richard II: October 1386". British History Online. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Archived from the original on 8 March 2018. Retrieved 8 March 2018.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Perroy, E. (1951). The Hundred Years' War: With an Introduction to the English Edition by David C. Douglas. Translated by Wells, W. B. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. OCLC 504365624.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Roskell, J. S. (1965). The Commons and their Speakers in English Parliaments 1376-1523. Manchester: Manchester University Press. OCLC 741751995.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Roskell, J. S. (1984). The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in 1386: In the Context of the Reign of Richard II. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-71900-963-1.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Sanderlin, S. (1988). "Chaucer and Ricardian Politics". The Chaucer Review. 22: 171–84. OCLC 43359050.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Saul, N. (1997). Richard II. Bury St Edmunds: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300070039.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Scott, F. R. (1943). "Chaucer and the Parliament of 1386". Speculum. 18 (1): 80–86. doi:10.2307/2853640. JSTOR 2853640. OCLC 25967434.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Sherborne, J. (1994). "The Defence of the Realm and Michael de la Pole". In Tuck, A. (ed.). War, Politics and Culture in Fourteenth-Century England. London: The Hambledon Press. pp. 99–118. ISBN 1852850868.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Strohm, P. (2015). The Poet's Tale: Chaucer and the year that made The Canterbury Tales. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-84765-899-9.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Sumption, J. (1990). The Hundred Years War. III. London: Faber & Faber. ISBN 978-0-57113-897-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Thornton, T. (2012). The Channel Islands, 1370-1640: Between England and Normandy. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. ISBN 978-1-84383-711-4.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Tuck, A. (2004a). "Richard II (1367–1400)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 1 (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23499. Retrieved 8 March 2018.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  • Tuck, A. (2004b). "Pole, Michael de la, first earl of Suffolk (c. 1330–1389)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 1 (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/22452. Retrieved 8 March 2018.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  • Westminster Abbey (2019). "Richard II and Anne of Bohemia". Westminster Abbey. Archived from the original on 3 March 2019. Retrieved 3 March 2019.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.