I’m afraid that to my mind Thomas Arundel was a very unpleasant creep. Given full rein, he’d have been England’s Torquemada! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada)
The fellow had no redeeming features that I could see. He was everything that was vile and obnoxious about the high-ranking Men of God of his time. More the Baby-eating Archbishop of Bath and Wells than the Archangel Gabriel. If I were Richard II, I’d have kicked him out as well, and prayed that his ship sank in a God-sent storm in the Channel. But, like the cat—and John Morton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Morton_(cardinal) a century later—the exile came back, and helped a Lancastrian usurper, Henry of Bolingbroke—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England—steal Richard’s throne. Oh, and he condoned Bolingbroke’s murder of Richard while he was at it.
Arundel was the son of Richard Fitzalan, 3rd Earl of Arundel—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fitzalan,_3rd_Earl_of_Arundel—who was probably England’s richest magnate…and, appropriately, another very unpleasant man. The earl thought nothing of dumping his inconvenient Despenser first wife—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_le_Despenser,_Countess_of_Arundel— and his son and heir—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Fitzalan_(1327-1382)—in order to marry a more career-enhancing Lancastrian noblewoman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Lancaster).
Thomas Arundel was one of the children of this second marriage….and by my standards that made him illegitimate. Shades of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. The Despenser marriage had been perfectly legal, and the earl had entered into it willingly enough, yet he claimed he’d been forced and virtually beaten into consummation. Rubbish. He’d been of an age to refuse the union if he’d wanted, but at the time a Despenser wife suited him. When he changed his mind he crossed the Pope’s palm with silver, had the marriage annulled, and deliberately bastardised his innocent, very legitimate firstborn son.
The Pope couldn’t possibly have really believed the marriage should be annulled, so I’m left to conclude that the silver in his holy palm weighed enough to make it all worthwhile. Annulment or not, that first marriage had been perfectly true and legal, agreed to by both parties.
You can read more about the 3rd Earl of Arundel’s marital shenanigans at https://murreyandblue.co.uk/2024/09/21/the-disgraceful-second-marriage-of-the-unpleasant-3rd-earl-of-arundel/.
So that’s the family background of our brave Archbishop Thomas Arundel. His was the usual tale of a wealthy aristocratic younger son being fast-tracked through the Church ranks. He was Bishop of Ely at the age of only 20! Can you imagine it? Whether or not he was worth all the hype is another story. Yes, he was clever, but yes he was also scheming and without conscience. A bit like his dear old Dad.
Oh, I know my support of Richard II (and Richard III, while I’m at it) is showing, but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrongly maligning Thomas Arundel. The man was a poisonous snake. Period.
I already have a previous biography of him—the excellent Thomas Arundel, a Study of Church Life in the Reign of Richard II by Margaret Aston, published 1967—and formed my opinion after reading it. Now he has a new biography—Archbishop Chancellor Kingmaker, a Life of Thomas Arundel by Chris Given-Wilson—which I will read with interest. But I doubt very much if it will change my opinion of an odious subject.
The author has written about his book for Medievalists.net, see https://www.medievalists.net/2026/04/villain-defender-thomas-arundel/
by viscountessw
The New Murrey and Blue blog 
Leave a comment