History Sunday: John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (III)

My apologies for having to split this up into so many parts, I honestly thought one post and that would be it.  Presenting the third and final instalment of my posts about John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.

Gaunt was in charge of the 1376 "Good Parliament" when the commons demanded less taxation and

Alice Perrers at Edward III's side

the removal of Alice Perrers, King Edward III's mistress.  Another woman hated at the time and condemned by history, fiction and fact alike, although a few novels have tried to remedy that opinion (the only one I've read is Anne O'Brien's, another one I couldn't finish; I do apologise, Ms O'Brien you are a talented writer but the romance is personally too soppy for me).  Gaunt was opposed to this but didn't have the support of the rest of the lords or Edward of Woodstock and so initiated their demands.

Edward of Woodstock died at 38 in June 1376, effectively leaving Gaunt with the responsibility for everything.  His nephew, Richard, was now heir presumptive to the English throne but was still a child.

1377 was the year of the "bad parliament" when Gaunt effectively reversed all of the things he had done the previous year.  Alice Perrers was reinstated as mistress and apparently controller of the King, and the poll tax was levied much to the furious displeasure of the commons.  Why did Gaunt do this?  It's a decision I can't get my head around, perhaps it's because I don't know enough.  Had he perhaps agreed to the 1376 parliamentary terms because his older brother had insisted and that as soon as he was dead he did as he pleased?  Gaunt wasn't a stupid man, he would have known his decision to anull the acts of 1376 would provoke national anger but he did it anyway. I will never understand that decision and I don't condone or approve of it either; it was a dickish move, sir!  The commons obviously thought so too because apparently his coats of arms were destroyed wherever they were to be found and his famous Savoy Palace on the Strand in London was nearly looted; John himself was also forced to remain at the other side of the Thames to escape the violence.

Gaunt's unpopularity maintained and during this time was when various nasty rumours surrounding him were created.  One that was reported to riled him was that he was actually the son of a butcher, or

baker (think it was butcher) in Ghent so wasn't the King's real son.  I think the person I feel more sorry for is Philippa in this rumour because it puts her in a terrible light; I'm actually glad she was dead when that rumour was bandied about.  The reason, or origin, of this rumour was that Edward III was not at John's birth in Ghent....how is that a clue that he must be illegitimate?  Poor commoners, grasping at straws.  The other, and one I've mentioned before, was that John wanted the throne of England for himself......oh, really, is that why he angered the nation he was trying to claim?  Yes, you can see these rumours were beyond baseless.

When John went once again to France in 1378 and was unsuccessful his popularity took a further dip.

King Edward III died in June 1377, Richard II, son of Edward of Woodstock, was made King at ten years old.  John proved the rumours false by disappearing and not acting as regent to his young nephew.

Jumping to 1381, the Peasant's revolt, evidently Gaunt was a main target of anger and violence, being the figurehead of the government under the young King Richard II.

The revolt is not really complicated but there are a lot of moving parts and it doesn't all begin in 1381.  I don't know that much about it, I know the leader of the movement was Wat Tyler and that he and a large group of commoners marched on London to demand change.  Richard II, at 14, went out to meet them.  Because he was so young nobody blamed him for the decisions of government because he was still a minor and had practically no power.  The rebels demanded the removal and execution of some of the leading people in the government, Gaunt was one of them.  John was in Scotland at the time.  Richard agreed to all of their terms and everything looked peachy, until Tyler was killed following some easily misunderstood actions in a tense situation.

If Richard looked anything
like David history would
be a lot different.  I also
went to see this in Stratford
and ended up feeling
sorry when Richard died.

 The revolt stretched out over months as parts of the south of England and London were destroyed by the rebels.  It all ended with Tyler's death, and of course, the reneging by Richard of his promises of change and the execution of the other main leaders.

Gaunt, who was in Scotland, came back down into England only to be told about the peasant revolts and that his mansion in London, the Savoy, had been destroyed as a result.  The nobles in the north of England closed their doors to him and he had to go back over the border to my native Scotland, to the court of King Robert II until everything had been settled.  How must he have felt then?  Having to, effectively, run back to Scotland who had minor skirmishes with England during this time, and practically beg for protection?  As much as I want to feel sympathy for John, he did bring it on himself.  This, for me, is where the fictional version I absolutely adore and the real man really separate for me.  The man I speak of, the man who practically gave the finger to the commons and ploughed on, isn't the chivalric, noble man I wish he was.  Nobody's perfect but it seems as though if John had ever been noble or kind it had disappeared by 1377.  I do get the impression he was stubborn and terribly wilful, both of which do not make good leaders.

In 1386 John set sail to Castile to try to take the throne there but failed and remained in Portugal where he married his eldest daughter, Philippa, to King John I in 1387.  This was to create an alliance, and a place for his army to rest, where he could get to Castile better, but in the end it was to no avail. His only surviving child by Constance of Castile, Catherine, was married to Henri III of Castile in 1388.  He then went to Aquitaine where he remained until 1389.

Whilst John was gone it left his youngest brother, Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, to raise a form of rebellion against Richard II who was by now beginning to irritate the nobles.  He was an unsuitable king and his decadent behaviour got him dethroned by his cousin in 1399.  The Lords Appellant, led by Gloucester, caused a political crisis whilst Gaunt was absent.  Gloucester, it seems, would never give up his opposition of Richard's rule.

When John returned in 1389 it was less than a year later that his nephew, the king, gave him the Duchy of Aquitaine.  Apparently this was not popular in Aquitaine as they were accustomed to being ruled by either the King or his heir.  He didn't actually go to Aquitaine until about 1394.

We all know he returned to England in 1396 and married his long time mistress, Katherine de Roet-Swynford.  Gaunt at this time was a counsellor to the king, but also by this time his son had become involved in the politics of Richard's unhappy reign.  When Gloucester was murdered sometime in the late 1390s Gaunt said and did nothing, probably because Henry, his son, had also been involved in the anti-Richard corner.  Unfortunately he could do nothing to prevent his son's exile in 1398.  How must he have felt when his only son was forced to leave England and only return after six years had passed?  John was in his late 50s by now and at a time when people didn't live that long he may have thought he would never see his son again.  Unfortunately if that was the case his fears came to fruition.

John of Gaunt, first Duke of Lancaster, died at Leicester castle on the 3rd February 1399 at aged 58.  He was buried beside his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, at St Paul's cathedral.

A reconstruction of what St Paul's
used to look like.

 My mind always goes to Katherine here.  How did she feel that the love of her life wanted to be buried beside his first wife and not her?  I think I read somewhere that his decision to be buried next to Blanche was to effectively strengthen Henry of Bolingbroke's claims, as he was the only legitimate son of Gaunt.  Maybe I just made that up but whatever the reason that's where he was buried.

As I've said in another post Leicester castle is now just a mound but I do intend to go there next week and see where Gaunt, and Constance of Castile, both left this world; when I put it like that it sounds morbid, doesn't it?

What was intended as one post became three, I would like to thank those who have made it to the third post, it must have been difficult with all my lapses of concentration.  As for references, there are none in the text (I hate referencing and I find with history someone has always said it before you).  I have two sources.

Wikipedia (numerous pages on everyone I've mentioned in this post)
Weir, Alison: The Story of John of Gaunt and his scandalous Duchess, 2011.

I would also recommend the novels:
Seton, Anya: Katherine, 1954
O'Brien, Anne: The Scandalous Duchess, 2014
                         The King's Concubine, 2012
Harper, Karen: The First Princess of Wales, 2006

No doubt I've read more on this time period but those are the ones that stick out in my mind.  Happy reading!