Thomas Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk,KG (22 March 1366 – 22 September 1399) was an English landowner and peer. His family was a venerable one, and by the time Thomas reached adulthood, they were extremely influential in national politics. He claimed a direct bloodline fromKing Edward I. His father died when Thomas and his elder brother were young. John soon died, and Thomas inherited theEarldom of Nottingham. He had probably been friends with the king,Richard II, since he was young, and as a result, he was aroyal favourite, a role he greatly profited from. He accompanied Richard on his travels around the kingdom and was elected to theOrder of the Garter. Richard's lavish dispersal of his patronage made him unpopular with parliament and other members of theEnglish nobility, and Mowbray fell out badly with the king's uncle,John of Gaunt.

Mowbray journeyed into Scotland with the king whenhe invaded in 1385, although it is possible that their friendship was waning at this point. Richard had a new favourite,Robert de Vere; Mowbray, meanwhile, became increasingly close toRichard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, whose daughterElizabeth he married. The king already distrusted Arundel and Mowbray's new circle included the equally estrangedThomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. Together they plotted against the king'schancellor, theEarl of Suffolk,appealing him in parliament. Suffolk wasimpeached, and a council was appointed to oversee the king. Mowbray gradually became disillusioned with his comrades, perhaps because of the brutal revenges they took and by 1389, he was back in the king's favour. Mowbray entered into jousts, ledembassies and joined Richard on his 1395 invasion of Ireland, negotiating successfully with theIrish Kings. By now, the king felt sufficiently restored to power to attack his enemies, which seems to have culminated in Mowbray's killing of Gloucester in Calais in 1397 on Richard's orders. Probably in aquid pro quo, Mowbray was madeDuke of Norfolk soon after.

In the meantime, Mowbray had fallen out with John of Gaunt's eldest son,Henry Bolingbroke, and they arranged atrial by combat. No sooner had this begun than the king cancelled it in person. Heexiled them both: Mowbray for life, Bolingbroke for ten years. Mowbray took a vow ofpilgrimage, intending to travel toJerusalem. He reachedVenice, but in September 1399, he died before leaving it. By his wife Elizabeth, he left two sons and three daughters. The eldest son,Thomas, inherited his father'searldom of Norfolk, rebelled against the king in 1405 and wasbeheaded for treason. Mowbray's second son, alsoJohn, inherited the dukedom and served the crown faithfully.

The Mowbrays were an oldbaronial family, having been first ennobled in 1295. By the 14th century, advantageous marriages, service to the crown and its rewards gave them great political standing.^[1][2] Thomas Mowbray was the son ofJohn, Lord Mowbray and his wife Elizabeth Segrave, the daughter and heiress ofJohn, Lord Segrave by his wifeMargaret, Duchess of Norfolk. Margaret in turn was daughter and heiress ofThomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, the fifth son of KingEdward I.^[3]

Thomas Mowbray was born in 1366; the precise date is unknown.^{[4][note 1]} He was probably named after thecult ofSt Thomas Becket, which his mother followed. Thomas's elder brotherJohn was their father's heir. Lord Mowbray died in 1368. Four years later, the brothers became theward of their great-aunt,Blanche of Lancaster. John—a "special friend" to the king, suggestEnoch Powell andKeith Wallis— was createdEarl of Nottingham on thecoronation ofKing Richard II in 1377 but died in early 1383.^[5] Almost immediately—within a few days—the earldom was re-granted to Thomas, and even though he was still legally aminor, he was allowedseisin of his patrimony.^[6][4][5]

As a second son, little was recorded of Mowbray's youth, although his background and status ensured him a position atcourt.^[6] The King and Mowbray had probably been childhood friends and he was a royal favourite from around 1382. That year he was granted hunting rights in certainroyal forests and wasknighted.^[7][8] It was around this time thatJohn of Gaunt's sonHenry Bolingbroke began falling out of favour with the King. Mowbray supplanted him in the king's favour.^[9] In 1383, he married ten-year-old Lady Elizabeth Lestrange, heiress of John, Lord Blakemere, although she died not long after the wedding.^[8]

Richard II was only ten when he succeeded his grandfather's,Edward III's, throne in 1377. Although the appearance was maintained that he personally reigned, a continual council was organised to manage government business for him.^[10] This government, originally popular, faced increasing criticism following the suppression of thePeasants' Revolt in 1381.^[11] King Richard was reproved for hispatronage of a few selectroyal favourites, to an extent that has been described as "lavish to the point of foolishness" by a biographer, historianAnthony Tuck.^[10] Parliament also believed that the King should rule as economically as possible, and they observed with displeasure the King's distribution of extravagant wealth to a limited circle. The greatest recipient wasMichael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk.^[12] Abroad, theHundred Years' War was going poorly for England. Several expeditions had left for France in the early years of the reign to defend English French territory, but they were almost all military and political failures.^{[13][note 2]}

Mowbray remained high in royal favour following the death of his wife, and he was elected to theOrder of the Garter in October 1383, despite his military inexperience.^[10][15][16] The King granted himgrace and favour rooms at theroyal palaces ofEltham andKings Langley.^[10] As an important courtier, Mowbray accompanied Richard on his tour of East Anglia in 1383.^[17] His closeness to the King drew the opprobrium of his uncle,John of Gaunt,Duke of Lancaster—the most powerful man in the Kingdom after the King.^[10][18][19] Gaunt accused Mowbray, along withRobert, Earl of Oxford andWilliam, Earl of Salisbury of plotting against Richard.^[10] Gaunt had fallen out of favour with his nephew and had withdrawn fromthe council. In retaliation for his accusations, says thechroniclerThomas Walsingham, Mowbray, de Vere and Montacute plotted to kill the duke in February 1385. The King heldjousts between 13 and 14 February and Gaunt's murder was to be committed on the 14th; it is possible that Richard did not disapprove, such had relations between him and his uncle broken down over military policy.^[20] Gaunt told Richard that he viewed the King's advisors as "unsavoury"; Mowbray and his colleagues lodged a series of further accusations against the duke.^[21][22] Gaunt received a warning of the attack at the joust and fled on the night of 14 February.^[23]

^{[note 3]}

On 30 June 1385—as the royal army was about to leave for Scotland—Mowbray received his great-grandfather's office of Marshal of England.^{[27][note 4]} He led a force of 99men-at-arms and 150archers, serving with Gaunt in thevanguard.^[30] Mowbray helped draw up the King's ordinances for the campaign at Durham,^{[31][note 5]} although by now, suggests Given-Wilson, Mowbray's relations with Richard were cooling.^[10]

Less than a year after his first wife's death, Mowbray marriedElizabeth Fitzalan. Elizabeth was a daughter ofRichard, Earl of Arundel, and, although the King attended their wedding and the week-long festivities accompanying it, it is unlikely that the marriage was popular with Richard.^{[note 6]} His second marriage must have been a turning point.^[35] Richard doubtless saw Arundel as a negative influence on Mowbray and feared the strengthening of the earl's position against him. Mowbray and Elizabeth had also wed without his permission, so the Kingdistrained Mowbray's estates until he had received the value of the license. Tuck argues that "nor was the king's concern unfounded"; Mowbray had been increasingly isolated at court by the King's latest favourites, such as Oxford, and had moved into the circle of those who opposed the new royal intimates, perhaps seeing them as the best way to dispose of his rival.^[35] This circle also included not only Richard's father-in-law but his uncle,Thomas, Duke of Gloucester.^[10] In a sign that Mowbray was not completely out of favour, Elizabeth received her robes as a Lady of the Garter in 1386.^[36]

Both men had played an important role in parliament's attack on Richard'schancellor,Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk at theWonderful Parliament of 1386.^{[37][38][note 7]} The Wonderful Parliament had taken place against a backdrop of genuine fear of a French invasion^[41]—Walsingham described how Londoners, in his view, like "timid mice they scurried hither and thither^[42]—and Arundel had been appointedAdmiral of England. In March the following year he, in turn, appointed Mowbray his deputy, and they took a fleet out ofMargate and encountered a French-Flemish fleet almost immediately. The result was its crushing defeat. Between 50 and 100 French-Flemish ships were captured or destroyed.^{[43][note 8]} The King was unimpressed. When Arundel and Mowbray returned to court, Richard claimed they had only defeated merchants, and Oxford turned his back on the earls.^[47] It was, however, an extremely popular victory with the people.^[48]

For most of the 1380s, Mowbray received what he doubtless considered his due from the King in lands, offices and grants.^[6] But by 1387, he became increasingly estranged from Richard's court.^[49] The main reason for this was probably jealousy of de Vere. While he was wealthy enough not to rely on royal favour, as de Vere did, he expected the honour and dignity that his birth and status demanded. This he saw increasingly syphoned off to his rival.^[50] Although the Wonderful Parliament had set up a commission to effectively restrain the King,^[49] it turned out to be ineffective. Richard emasculated the commission by leaving London immediately, ignoring its deliberations, and holding his own councils in the provinces.^[51][52] He also took legal advice from his judges who, unsurprisingly, found in his favour that those responsible for parliament's treatment of the King should be deemed traitors.^[53][54] In response, Mowbray joined Bolingbroke, Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick inappealing several of the King's friends, including Oxford, of treason, and raised an army atHornsey, north of London. The Appellants' army engaged Oxford's at theBattle of Radcot Bridge, inflicting a crushing defeat on the royalists in December.^[55] Mowbray did not take part, as he was guarding the road back to theWest Midlands atMoreton in Marsh,^[56] although he may have sent a portion of his retinue to the Appellant army.^[57]

Mowbray appears responsible for dissuading Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick from marching to London and deposing the King. Indeed, he and Bolingbroke may have been a moderating influence on the others.^[58] Conversely, due to his position asEarl Marshal—one of the two heads of theCourt of Chivalry—his presence with the Appellants enabled them to frame their offensive juridically rather than as a traditional noble rebellion.^[59] Mowbray was amongst the Appellants that attended Richard in theTower of London—with arms linked^[10]— on 30 December 1387 and accused the King of treachery towards them. They also demanded Richard order the arrest of the appellees; Walsingham reports that he only agreed to do so on being threatened, once again, with deposition.^[60] The King attempted to divide Mowbray from his colleagues, asking him to stay behind when the others were ready to leave.^[61] With the King now under their control,^[62] Mowbray and the Appellants called parliament for early 1388. This session became known as theMerciless Parliament on account of the vengeance it laid on the King's closest supporters,^{[63][note 9]} with Mowbray overseeing the executions with "the aid and authority of the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen of London".^[65] Mowbray was to take the condemned to the Tower and "'from there drag him through the city of London as far as the gallows at Tyburn, and there hang him by the neck".^[66]

For his part, there are signs that Mowbray was becoming dissatisfied with his comrades through the course of the parliament, which Tuck suggests was because Mowbray was "never as committed to the destruction of the court faction as Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick".^[10] Given-Wilson suggests that the inclusion of Mowbray by the Appellants broadened their base among the nobility (from his having had less acrimonious relations with the King), but also weakened them as a body by diluting their grievances. As indicated by Mowbray's dispute with Warwick over the Gower lordship, they were already "shot through with personal and political differences" as it was.^[67] Tuck suggests that, while Mowbray seems able to have stomached the convictions of the others, "the real rift occurred over the question of Sir Simon Burley's fate".^[10] Gloucester and Warwick accused him of exercising undue influence over Richard;^[68] Burley, the under-chamberlain, had been tutor to the King, who wanted to save him. Mowbray and Bolingbroke agreed, but to no avail, and in May 1388^[10] Burley washanged atTyburn.^[69]

Mowbray was loyal to the King and court.^[70] Early indications of Mowbray's return to favour came in early 1389 when he had his estates restored to him and waspardoned for having married without the King's licence.^[10] In March, he was appointed warden of theEast March andcastellan ofBerwick Castle, receiving wages of £6,000 in peacetime and twice that in time of war.^[71] His appointment was not a success; he alienated the traditional lord of the north,Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who retired to court. Mowbray held no lands in the north and had few contacts among thegentry, upon whom he needed to rely to raise his army. Mowbray's tenure in the East March was effectively disabled from the start;^[72] Mowbray's ineffectiveness to highlighted in June that year, when a Scottish incursion ravaged the north of England and, facing little opposition, went as far south asTynemouth. Mowbray, theWestminster Chronicle reports, refused the Scottish offer of a pitched battle and retreated to Berwick Castle.^[73]

The King regained sole control of government around in May 1389, and Mowbray attended a royal council meeting inClarendon Palace that September, demonstrating the gulf that existed by then between him and his ex-comrades.^[74] At another meeting the following month, the King attempted to increase Mowbray's remuneration in March. The council, headed byWilliam of Wykeham aschancellor, refused—"in the name and by the will of all the other lords of the council"^[71]—and Richard was forced to acquiesce, albeitvultu quodammodo indignanti, or "with an angry expression".^[71] Henry Percy had been recompensed for the loss of the wardenship with thecaptaincy of Calais; in 1391, he and Mowbray exchanged offices, returning Percy to the March and sending Mowbray to France.^[10]

As a result of Mowbray's return to the court party, his undertaking of royal service for the King increased. He jousted before Richard's chamberlain atSt Inglevert, nearBoulogne, in April 1390, where he proved himself a champion against the French, who the well-regarded knight led,Jean de Boucicaut.^{[77][note 10]} Mowbray led a group of up to 60 English knights and esquires.^[78] The following month another joust was held atSmithfield, outside London. Mowbray's presence in the King's party was a part of Richard's policy of reconciling the appellants to his personal rule and, by extension, furthering his own power.^[79] Here, before the King, Mowbray defeatedJohn Dunbar, Earl of Moray—who later died, says one chronicler, of his wounds^[80]—after six jousts with an unrebated lance.^{[note 11]} Froissart wrote how, at Smithfield "everyone exerted himself to the utmost to excel: many were unhorsed and more lost their helmets".^[82]

Mowbray joined the King on his campaign to Ireland in 1394. Richard's strategy was toplant his nobility across the country in direct confrontation withGaelic kings to force them into submission. Mowbray occupiedCarlow,^[83] of which he was granted the lordship.^{[84][note 12]} Mowbray led several raids against theKing of Leinster,Art Macmurrough, and a royal letter to the council reported how he "had several fine encounters with the Irish".^[86] Mowbray burned nine villages, killing many, and captured around 8,000 head of cattle. On one occasion, he nearly captured MacMurrough "and his wife in their beds".^{[86][note 13]} MacMurrough's escape left Mowbray "sorely vexed", and in revenge he had the house razed, as well as 14 surrounding villages. He then marched through theBlackstairs Mountains "which was all bog... no Englishman has commonly entered before".^[75] A number of enemies were captured. Their leader was executed, and his head sent to Richard.^[75]

Mowbray eventually secured MacMurrough'sindenture of submission to Richard. During these negotiations, Mowbray possessed fullin locum regis powers,^[87] and persuaded Macmurrough to evacuateLeinster for the English.^[10] His sub-chieftains followed.^[88] In the event neither macMurrough nor his armies left Leinster, and Mowbray was in no position to force them. His attempts to installEnglish lordship in the province came to nothing; he returned to England in May 1395.^{[89][75][note 14]}

On his return, Mowbray almost immediately became involved, with his comrades-in-arms from the Irish campaignLord Scrope and theEarl of Rutland, in the negotiations over Richard's proposed marriage toIsabella,^[4] daughter of the French King,Charles VI.^[91] Mowbray made many trips to France, finally concluding negotiations in March 1396. Thebetrothal was made official in September, and Mowbray escorted the French King to Calais. Richard also deputised Mowbray to conduct secret negotiations withPhilip, Duke of Burgundy andJohn, Duke of Berry. Given-Wilson suggests that the King "had considerable faith in Mowbray's diplomatic ability" since in May the next year, Mowbray represented England at theImperial Diet inFrankfurt.^[4] This had been called to end the latestPapal Schism by forcing the resignation of the two partisan popes.^[92] Richard's faith in Mowbray is reflected in the numerous grants the earl received in this period. Tuck suggests that Mowbray could afford to spend an estimated 40% of his total income just on wages toretainers, suggesting hisaffinity was substantial enough to match that of most earls.^[4]

In 1397, at Warwick's expense, Mowbray received the lordship ofGower, which their two families had been quarrelling for possession of for most of the preceding century. Saul suggests that Mowbray relied on his friendship with the King to retrieve the grant, which had been in Beauchamp's hands since 1354.^[93] This was "doubly disastrous" for Warwick, comments Saul; not only was it the richest lordship he possessed—thus having a major impact on his income^[94]—but he was ordered to repay Mowbray the profits he had earned since 1361,^[95] amounting to around £5333 per annum.^[4] The atmosphere at court was tense. Richard may have felt threatened, suspecting that the Appellants would launch another attack; this may have persuaded him to get in first.^[94] In early July, the King settledall family accounts with the Appellants. He invited Arundel, Gloucester and Warwick to a feast—ofHerodian infamy, reported Walsingham—at which they would be arrested. Only Warwick attended. Arundel and Gloucester were apprehended later. They were tried individually and convicted of treason in September.^[95] Warwick forfeit his titles and estates and was sentenced tolife imprisonment. Arundel was beheaded;^[96] Mowbray, as Earl marshal, oversaw the sentence of his erstwhile comrade.^[97] Gloucester was exiled to Calais.^[96] It was probably Mowbray's attempts to save Simon Burley's life years before that saved Mowbray's in 1397.^[98]

Gloucester had been covertly arrested on the night of 10–11 July 1397,^[100] and "bundled out of England to Calais".^[101] It was popularly speculated that the King personally ordered Gloucester's assassination, and it was later alleged—in the 1399 parliament—that Mowbray was likely instrumental, in his role ofCaptain of Calais.^[96] Rumours of Gloucester's death had been circulating since August, and Given-Wilson speculates that this may be a sign that Richard had ordered Mowbray to kill the duke then, but that the latter hesitated several weeks.^[102] Richard ordered William Rickhill,Justice of the King's Bench,^[103] to Calais, "in the company of our dearest kinsman Thomas, earl marshal and earl of Nottingham ... and there that you do and perform each and everything which is enjoined on you by the aforesaid earl on our behalf".^[96] In the event they travelled separately.^[104] Rickhill left England on 7 September and was to receive Mowbray's instructions when they arrived.^[105] The writs he had, notes McVitty, "were deliberately left undated or were post-dated to fit a falsified timeline".^[106] When they met, Mowbray's instructions were that Rickhill was to have a "colloqium ... clearly and openly certified under his seal".^[103] Gloucester made his confession, in the presence of witnesses, on 8 September.^[105] The following day, when Rickhill requested another meeting with the Duke, Mowbray refused him.^[107] A few days later, parliament requested Mowbray to bring Gloucester back to England to have him stand trial before it. Mowbray returned thewrit of summons^[100] with the bald reply that he was unable to do so because the duke was dead:^[108] "I held this duke in my custody in the lord king's prison in the town of Calais, and there, in that same prison, he died".^{[102][note 15]} The historian Amanda McVitty suggests that "historians generally agree that by this point, Richard must have known that Gloucester was already dead".^[109]

On 29 September 1397, Mowbray received aroyal pardon for his role as an Appellant.^[110] This was part of Richard's re-establishment of his aristocracy known as theDuketti: "dukelings"^[111][96] or "little dukes".^{[112][note 16]} Given-Wilson has suggested that Mowbray's new title "cheapened the great titles at the crown's disposal",^[114] whileRowena Archer has argued that, although he may not have been related to the King by blood, "he had lineage and wealth to merit so high an honour".^[2] He also suggests that this does not necessarily indicate the true relationship between the two men. As an (albeit ex) appellant, Richard must have found it difficult to forget Mowbray's earlier treason, irrespective of his subsequent loyalty. For Mowbray's part, he was too experienced a political operator at the court not to realise this.^[4] To celebrate their return to the King's grace, Bolingbroke and Mowbray held a ceremonialrequiem mass and feast,^[110] last which the King and Queen attended.^[115] Ostensibly this was to commemorate the return from theHoly Land of Mowbray's father's bones for reinterment;^[110] John Mowbray had built up a posthumous reputation asvir catholicus and something of acult surrounded him.^[116] John Mowbray's bones were reliquaried at aCarmelite church, a display that was clearly intended to reflect personally on Mowbray also, increasing his political stature just as he had been elevated to the highest title in the land.^[115]

By late 1397, Richard was planning another expedition to Ireland, while in another repercussion from the Revenge Parliament, around the same time Mowbray quarrelled withBolingbroke, nowDuke of Hereford. Not only did this seriously disrupt the King's plans, but^[117] says Saul, it was also the event that "brought the royal house of cards come tumbling down".^[118] The historianCaroline Barron argues that "a certain amount of inter-aristocratic rivalry could work to the king's advantage, but it was a dangerous game to play", and this one was to be fatal to Richard.^[119] The causes behind their dispute are no longer obvious, but Saul suggests that although a "tangled story", Given-Wilson's explanation is probably as accurate as can now be discerned. He suggests that the issue was less with the personalities involved and more with broader disagreements regarding royal policy, which the King could not contain.^[93][120] The narrative of events only survives through Bolinbroke's later retelling.^{[note 17]} They had both been pardoned in December 1397 in the final session of the previous parliament.^[122]

According to Bolingbroke, he met Mowbray on the London–Brentford road^[123] while on their way to theShrewsbury parliament,^[124] Mowbray telling him that the king was planning on having them both arrested and that theroyal pardons they had received were valueless;^[123] Richard intended to "annul that record".^[121] Bolingbroke said he protested that the King would not commit such a breach of faith,^[121] to which Mowbray supposedly reminded him that Warwick, Arundel and Gloucester had also had pardons.^[125] The King, in turn, was backing their enemies at court, especiallyRoger Mortimer, Earl of March, the Duke of Surrey and theEarls of Wiltshire,Salisbury andGloucester.^[123] Mowbray apparently urged Bolingbroke to turn against Surrey, Wiltshire and Gloucester, arguing that "even if they are unable to achieve their purpose at present, they will be intent on destroying us in our homes ten years hence".^[126] Mowbray was probably more concerned for his safety than Bolingbroke, as the latter had the support of John of Gaunt behind him, and Mowbray did not.^[127]

The King heard of their encounter and made Bolingbroke repeat Mowbray's "many dishonest and slanderous words"^[128] at the Shrewsbury sitting of parliament.^[117] On 3 January 1398, Bolingbroke presented the King with a deed—"to the best of his memory"—of accusation.^[122] Mowbray was furious^[129] and denied everything.^[130] Parliament could not establish the rights or wrongs of the affair, and Richard set up a committee to resolve it.^[117] Believing that Bolingbroke was doing his father's bidding, Mowbray laid an ambush for Gaunt in early 1398, although the Duke escaped toShrewsbury. Mowbray now panicked, says Given-Wilson, and fled. Thus, only Bolingbroke's narrative of events survives, as Mowbray did not hang around long enough to provide his own. The King reacted immediately. Mowbray forfeited his office of Earl Marshal, and an order went out for his arrest.^[129] Mowbray appeared before Richard atOswestry in January 1398, having either surrendered or been arrested. Pending a full council hearing in April, he and Bolingbroke were imprisoned in Windsor Castle. Bolingbroke was promptly bailed by his father; Mowbray remained in prison.^[131] However, the lack of either supporting or disputing evidence for either party's claims made it a "he said, he said" situation, and as a result, Richard decided that it could only be settled withtrial by combat,^[132] since both men refused to be reconciled.^[133] The day was set for 16 September 1398 inCoventry,^[132] with the delay being intended to allow cooler heads to prevail if possible. They did not, and the tourney took place as agreed. Both men were experienced and skilled jousters,^[131] and according toAdam of Usk,^[134]

On the day of battle they both came in great state to the appointed place, which was fenced with a wet ditch. But the duke of Hereford appeared far more gloriously distinguished with diverse pieces of equipment of seven horses. And, because the king had it by divination that the duke of Norfolk should then prevail, he rejoiced much, eagerly striving after the destruction of the duke of Hereford. But when they joined battle, it seemed to him that the duke of Hereford would prevail.^{[134][note 18]}

At this point, the King intervened and stopped the combat. Usk avers this was because he saw that Mowbray was on the verge of losing, whereas the official chronicle says Richard was averse to two of his subjects injuring themselves or worse in the name of his justice. Another contemporary chronicler, the author of theChronicque de la Traïson et Mort suggests that the fighting had hardly begun when the King stopped it.^[136][137] The scholar Amanda McVitty suggests that he saw the chance to rid himself of two ex-Appellants while appearing to be acting with chivalric magnanimity.^[132] Allington-Smith suggests that, perhaps, "it was not in his interest that either of them should win".^[130]Anne Curry has argued that, in his office of Earl Marshal, Mowbray would usually have organised such a duel himself. Historians, she proposes, have not made enough of the fact that this was not enough for Bolingbroke to restrain his attack.^[138]

Instead of fighting, the two men were exiled: Mowbray for life, Bolingbroke for 10 years.^[132] Usk suggests that Mowbray would at some point be welcomed back, when "being minded he might restore him".^[134] Given-Wilson suggests that even at this stage, Richard had foreseen the possibility of confiscating the two men's estates.^[139] The longer sentence on Mowbray was supposedly because, while the charge of treason had not been proven, he had failed to renounce the appellants severely enough, had misgoverned Calais to the endangerment of the country and had plotted against John of Gaunt.^[140] Mowbray was given a choice by Richard. He could go onpilgrimage toJerusalem, Germany, Bohemia or Hungary.^[140] This allowed Mowbray to save his honour.^[141] Anywhere else was prohibited upon pain of death. He was banned from communicating with Bolingbroke during the latter's exile.^[140] This sentence could not be appealed, nor could they request to return early,^[142] although he would receive £1000 per annum from his estates while abroad.^[143][144] His office of Earl Marshal was granted to Westmorland,^[145] while his heir was placed in the household of Richard's Queen as apage.^[146] Mowbray also set up a council to advise the young Thomas in his father's absence, which included some of his own experienced councillors such asSir John St. John.^[147]

Mowbray sailed fromLowestoft toDordrecht on 19 September 1398;^[148] over a thousand well-wishers saw him off from the quay.^[149] It was 2PM, and Mowbray was accompanied by around 30 people, including servants and retainers. A historian of the town has commented that, "If the authorities had chosen Lowestoft as the embarkation point in preference to Yarmouth because it was smaller and less well known, their hopes of keeping the event low-key seem not to have worked".^[150] Observers included eighty members of the Suffolk gentry, and they testified that, with a strong wind behind him—"bon vent et swerf" was recorded^[151]—he could easily make sixleague before sunset.^[4]

Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, did not die until March 1399. Mowbray would not, though, inherit the great Brotherton estates.^[155] Even though he had been granted letters of protection after the Coventry judgement allowing him to sue for the right to enter any new inheritance, these were cancelled the same day Richard announced he would confiscate Bolingbroke's Lancastrian inheritance.^[156][155] This has been described by the scholar Douglas Biggs as an act of either "malice or great folly".^[157]

In Venice, he arranged to purchase a ship from theSignoria, during which negotiations he is recorded in the senate records as "Magnificent Lord the Duke of Gilforth", or Guildford. The antiquarian Mary Margaret Newett commented that "it is not clear why he took this title or how long he bore it", although there are a number of Venetian documents extant from a few years later that refer to him again as Duke of Norfolk.^[158]

Mowbray died of theplague inVenice on 22 September 1399.^[159] He was buried inSt Mark's Cathedral with an unusual funerary slab. The imagery includes theroyal arms of England (per his office of Earl Marshal), thelion crest of his family, theWhite Hart of Richard II and the White Swan of Henry IV—although the latter, comments the historianDavid Marcombe had "its head curiously concealed beneath Mowbray's helm".^[160] Had he died closer to home, he probably would have been buried in the familymausoleum at Axholme.^[161]

Chris Given-Wilson has argued that Mowbray's feud with Bolingbroke led directly to the latter's usurpation of Richard's throne.^[162] Bolingbroke returned to England in early July 1399. He claimed that he had only returned to claim his Lancastrian inheritance, but with Richard in Ireland and facing no resistance as he marched south, and claimed the throne on 30 September.^[163][164] Shortly afterwards, on 6 October 1399, the creation of Mowbray as Duke of Norfolk was annulled by Parliament, although his heir retained his other titles.^[165]

Mowbray's executors were granted £1000 for the fulfilment of his will, payment of debts and burial in Venice.^[166] In 1532Mowbray's descendant,Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk requested the return of Mowbray's bones from Venice, intending them to bereinterred with his ducal descendants.^[154]

Mowbray founded theAxholme Charterhouse in 1395 or 1396; he had been petitioning the papacy since at least 1389 for authority.^{[167][168][note 20]} He bequeathed Axholme "atun or twopipes Gascon wine" a year, along with other smaller donations to other houses.^[169] Also in 1396 he founded aCarthusian monastery at Epworth.^[160]

Contemporary chroniclers are near-universal in their condemnation of Mowbray, although those that have survived were all writing after Bolingbroke seized the throne.^[140][157] The historianNigel Saul has described Mowbray as being "driven by ambition and lust for power" and fickle in character.^[170] Barron suggests he was "an erratic and insecure man",^[127] while Given-Wilson says that "impetuous and mercurial Mowbray may have been", but he was not without principles.^[140]

Mowbray married first, after 20 February 1383, Elizabeth le Strange^[8] (c. 6 December 1373 – 23 August 1383),suo jure Lady Strange of Blackmere, daughter and heiress ofJohn le Strange, 5th Baron Strange of Blackmere and Lady Isabel de Beauchamp, daughter ofThomas de Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick. Lady Elizabeth was 9 years old at the time of her marriage and died within around 6 months of being married; as such the couple had no issue.^[171] Mowbray's second wife wasLady Elizabeth FitzAlan (c. 1372 – 8 July 1425), widow of Sir William Montagu, and daughter ofRichard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel andLady Elizabeth de Bohun, daughter ofWilliam de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton,^[172] by whom he had two sons and three daughters.

Mowbray's eldest son andhis namesake, inherited the earldom of Nottingham but rebelled against Henry IV in 1405 and was beheaded at 19. The younger Thomas had married Constance, daughter ofJohn Holland, Duke of Exeter around 1400.^[173]Mowbray's second son,John, thus inherited his father's earldoms. John marriedKatherine Neville, daughter of the northernmagnateRalph, Earl of Westmorland in 1412, and for loyal service underHenry V, John was restored to the dukedom of Norfolk in 1425.^[174]

Mowbray's oldest daughter Elizabeth marriedMichael de la Pole, 3rd Earl of Suffolk by 1403. Michael was described by a contemporary chronicler as being "as strong, as active and as daring as any member of the court" of Henry V, and, dying at theBattle of Agincourt in 1415, was one of the few notable English deaths.^[175] Margaret, the second daughter, married twice, first toSir Robert Howard, by whom she was the mother ofJohn Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk.^[176] She was married by 1420;^[177] Robert Howard may have been a retainer of the 2nd Duke of Norfolk and certainly fought with him in France.^[178] Her second marriage was toSir John Grey ofRuthin, Denbighshire, an old friend of the Mowbrays.^[179] She died in 1459.^[176] The youngest daughter Isabel also married twice. Her first husband was Sir Henry Ferrers, son ofWilliam, Baron Ferrers of Groby; Henry died in 1425. She married secondlyJames Berkeley, 1st Baron Berkeley.^[180][3]

The patrimony that Mowbray inherited was substantial, predominantly based aroundEast Anglia, and focused on the family's holdings inLeicestershire,Lincolnshire andYorkshire. These included the importantmanors ofMelton Mowbray and theirCaput baroniae ofAxholme.^[181] His mother's Segrave inheritance augmented these estates, bringing him manors inHuntingdonshire,Norfolk,Sussex,Warwickshire andWiltshire. His second wife—whose father, the Earl of Arundel, was one of the wealthiest men in the country—brought him further estates in Norfolk, as well as more inBuckinghamshire andEssex.^[181] Hislanded income was in the region of £1,475 per annum.^[181] Given-Wilson calls this "a sizeable patrimony, but not one which would have put Mowbray in the first rank of English earls".^[4] However, this figure does not include the various gifts of valuables or grants of office and land he received from the King.^[181] Further, on the death of his grandmother,Countess Margaret, he would have expected to gain another major power base in East Anglia, particularly centred onFramlingham Castle.^[182] There was also a swathe of land acrossYorkshire, stretching throughHovingham,Thirsk andNidderdale.^[4] Combined with her estates on theWelsh Marches,^[182] aroundChepstow,^[183] and other English counties, these have been adjudged to be worth approximately another £3000 annually.^[182] Saul has estimated his annual income at around £2,000 per annum.^[50]

As Thomas Mowbray, his quarrel with Bolingbroke and subsequent banishment are depicted in the opening scene ofShakespeare'sRichard II.^[185] Mowbray is charged not only with Gloucester's murder but also with embezzling money intended to pay for the Calais garrison.^[186] The King promises that "frowning brow to brow, ourselves will hear / The accuser and the accused freely speak", although Mowbray professes himself unable to speak as freely as he wished due to the King's blood links with Bolingbroke.^[185] Mowbray's fears are unfounded: Richard describes Bolingbroke's charges as based on "ancient malice", and Mowbray is goaded into making his challenge for trial by combat, presumably so the King cannot find in his favour.^[187] Mowbray, understanding he is a pawn in the King's plans, prophetically replies to Richard's "Lions make leopards tame" with the retort, "Yea, but not change his spots".^[188][189] Bolingbroke's accusations, argues Dr.Imke Lichterfeld, "are grave indeed", and range from theembezzlement of 8,000nobles,^{[note 21]} to the death of Gloucester and treason: three crimes each worse than the last.^[191]

His death in exile is announced later in the play by theBishop of Carlisle.^[192] Mowbray is also mentioned inHenry IV, Part II, as having once employed the now-dissoluteFalstaff as a page. The implication in that scene, set around 1405, is that Mowbray represents an extinct generation of great warriors, particularly as he is the last Englishman to have died on a crusade in the Shakespearean canon.^[193] When Shakespeare was writing, deposition was a politically sensitive subject, as, like Richard,Elizabeth I was also childless and increasingly paranoid of dynastic threats from her nobility. Shakespeare uses the exiling of Mowbray and Bolingbroke to represent the exiling of Catholicrecusants during her later reign;^[194] and, suggests scholar Alfred Thomas, "would thus have resonated with those Elizabethans who had been forced to repudiate their native English tongue as they assumed a life of exile in Catholic Europe".^[195] Further forcing comparison with Elizabeth, Mowbray outright rejects his sovereign's "women's war" of words.^{[196][note 22]}

Mowbray appears inWilliam Baldwin's andGeorge Ferrers'sA Mirror for Magistrates, from the mid-16th century. He is described as "the chief worker in the duke [of Gloucester]'s destruction", this is because Baldwin and Ferrers followRobert Fabyan's view that by revealing Gloucester's plot against the King, Mowbray thereby sealed the Duke's fate, rather than because he was in Calais himself.^[198][199] They also suggest that Mowbray was perhaps the least committed of the Appellants in 1386. Mowbray is also the subject of a ballad by the late Tudor poetThomas Deloney, "A Song of the Banishment of Two Dukes, Hereford and Norfolke". Deloney is faithful to the chronicles he follows, vilifying Mowbray—who is called "most untrue" to the King^[200]—and emphasising Bolingbroke's wisdom and righteousness and his God-given claim to the throne.^[201] Mowbray is blamed for the King's troubles:^[202]

First Henry Duke of Hereford ere fifteene dayes be past:
Shall part this Realme on paine of death, while ten yeares space doth last.
And Thomas Duke of Norfolk thou, that hast begun this strife,
And thereof no good proofe canst bring,
I say for term of life.^[202]

Mowbray has been a major role in most adaptions of Shakespeare'sRichard II, and only a few can be mentioned here. As Duke of Norfolk, he was portrayed byNoel Johnson in the BBC's fifteen-part serial adaptation of Shakespeare'shistory plays,An Age of Kings in 1960.^[203]Ian McKellen, in an early role, took the play on a provincial tour with theProspect Theatre Company, withStephen Greif as Mowbray, in 1960; he is last seen visiting Gloucester, with guards, carrying a mattress, reflecting the contemporary rumour of his suffocation.^[204] 1973 sawJohn Barton'sStratford-upon-Avon production, withDenis Holmes toRichard Pasco's King, in which Mowbray and Bolingbroke fought each other on massivehobby horses. Barton's production transferred to theAldwych Theatre the following year.^[205] Five years later,David Giles production sawRichard Owens as Mowbray in the BBC'sBBC Television Shakespeare, the entire canon transmitted over a period of seven years.Derek Jacobi led, and Gilles focussed on the ambiguity of the King's relationship with Mowbray, who had been his friend and loyal servant but could not yet trust again.^[206][207]

One of the first plays put on by the newly formedEnglish Shakespeare Company,^[208] Mowbray was played byMichael Cronin between 1987 and 1988 toMichael Pennington's Richard.^[209] Indeed, it had been the RSC's failure to cast Pennington as Richard the previous year—taken byJeremy Irons withRichard Moore as the Duke—that led to the formation of the breakaway group.^[210] Moore played Mowbray as anartisan-type, rather than a military man, with bright green clothes and a clumsy gait.^[211]David Lyon played toDavid Threlfall's Bolingbroke inDeborah Warner's 1995 production at the National Theatre'sCottesloe. This production was notable for the casting ofFiona Shaw as King Richard.^[212] Lyon reprised his role when Warner adapted her production for television two years later. Critic Michael Hattaway noted that, by then, "the uninformed resentment at the take-over of one of Shakespeare's greatest roles by a woman had been quelled by the excellence and intelligence of Shaw's performance".^[213]

In 2000,Steven Pimlott directedDavid Troughton as Bolingbroke toSamuel West's Richard, withPaul Greenwood playing what critic Rhoda Koenig described as a "quietly intense, harshly whispering" Mowbray.^[214] Norfolk. He was played byJames Purefoy in the BBC2 seriesThe Hollow Crown, a 2012television film adaptation of Shakespeare'sHenriad,^[215][216] while the following yearDavid Tennant took the leading role inGregory Doran's RSC production, againstAntony Byrne's Mowbray.^[217]

While Mowbray's purported murder of Gloucester takes place before Shakespeare's narrative begins, Mowbray does not appear in the play named after his victim,Thomas of Woodstock.^[218]

• 1366 births
• 1399 deaths
• 14th-century deaths from plague (disease)
• 14th-century English people
• Barons Mowbray
• Barons Segrave
• Dukes of Norfolk
• Earls Marshal
• Earls of Norfolk (1312 creation)
• Earls of Nottingham
• Knights of the Garter
• Male Shakespearean characters
• Mowbray family

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use British English from September 2017
• All Wikipedia articles written in British English
• Use dmy dates from September 2017
• Articles containing Latin-language text
• Articles containing Medieval Latin-language text
• Articles containing French-language text
• Articles containing Middle French (ca. 1400-1600)-language text
• Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the ODNB
• CS1: long volume value
• CS1 French-language sources (fr)