Et li gentilz chevaliers s'en acquitta si loyaument que onques il n'entendi ce jour à prendre prisonnier, mès disoit au prince : « Sire, chevauciés avant ; Diex est en vostre main : la journée est nostre. »

However, his knowledge of the English court would suggest that his portrayal was accurate in tone if not in detail. The objection at court, as portrayed here by Froissart, would appear to be based on status, with the disgrace lying, as Philips has argued, not in Katherine ‘being the mistress of a great man . . . but in getting above her baseborn station by presuming to marry the man she slept with’. The great ladies of the court have no sense of outrage at any previous immoral liaison, but have a heightened sense of the damage done to their personal prestige, having to give way to a woman of lower status. The conclusion can be drawn that, had Katherine been of noble birth, there would have been no objection to the marriage from the ladies of the court – but the affair may then have been more of a scandal. Katherine was good enough to be a mistress, but not to be Gaunt’s official consort, whereas a woman good enough to be a duchess would surely not have paraded publicly as a mistress: ‘English elite society was materialistic and pragmatic enough to tolerate marriages between merchant and gentry, or gentry and aristocratic, groups, if worldly ambition were served thereby, but powerful taboos, born out of intense class consciousness, lurked just below the surface.’ Indeed, males of the gentry and aristocratic classes had mistresses without suffering condemnation, but the women were either prostitutes or women of lower status who were themselves married or widowed and presumably therefore considered women of the world. Certainly the class issue can be seen to arise when marriage occurred. Elizabeth of Lancaster’s elopement with Holland was a scandal until they married, whereas de Vere’s conduct with Agnes Lancecron became a scandal when his noble wife was unceremoniously dumped for a woman who was a mere waiting maid. It was on the marriage of Agnes to de Vere, and Katherine to Gaunt, that both women were emphatically described as being of low birth. But Froissart suggests that the manner in which Katherine conducted herself was in actual fact of the standard desired in noble ladies: ‘Catherine Roet, however, remained duchess of Lancaster, and the second lady in England, as long as she lived, and she was often with the king. She was a lady accustomed to honours, for she had been brought up at court during her youth.’ This implies that Katherine was able to hold her own among the highest ranks of society. And surely Gaunt would not have married a woman unable to carry out duties by the side of the King. But Froissart’s style is problematic – his flowery and chivalrous prose shows he was influenced by romance literature. Furthermore, ‘he was always reluctant to criticise the wealthy and influential, especially if they came from his native Hainault’. In this respect, it is notable that, when being disparaging about Katherine, Froissart calls her Swynford, but when being complimentary he calls her Roet. The maiden apparently cannot be faulted, but the widow can. Moreover, the mistakes Froissart made with regard to her children, and to the presence of the Countess of Derby, cast doubts over the accuracy of his comments on Katherine. However, it does seem highly likely that the royal ladies at court would have found it objectionable to make way for a mere knight’s daughter, while at the same time it is highly probable that Katherine did excel at court etiquette, as a result of both her court upbringing and her role as governess.

"A crazy priest in the county of Kent, called John Ball, who for his absurd preaching, had been thrice confined in the prison of the archbishop of Canterbury, was greatly instrumental in inflaming [the peasantry] with those ideas. He was accustomed, every Sunday after mass, as the people were coming out of the church, to preach to them in the market places and assemble a crowd around him; to whom he would say, --

'My good friends, things cannot go on well in England, nor ever will until every thing shall be in common; when there shall be neither vassal nor lord, and all distinctions levelled; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves. How ill have they used us! and for what reason do they hold us in bondage? Are we not all descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve? and what can they show, or what reasons give, why they should be more the masters than ourselves? except, perhaps, in making us labour and work, for them to spend.

'They are clothed in velvets and rich stuffs, ornamented with ermine and other furs, while we are forced to wear poor cloth. They have wines, spices, and fine bread, when we have only rye and the refuse of the straw; and if we drink, it must be water. They have handsome seats and manors, when we must brave the wind and rain in our labours in the field; but it is from our labour they have wherewith to support their pomp.

'We are called slaves; and if we do not perform our services, we are beaten, and we have not any sovereign to whom we can complain, or who wishes to hear us and do us justice. Let us go to the king, who is young, and remonstrate with him on our servitude, telling him we must have it otherwise, or that we shall find a remedy for it ourselves. If we wait on him in a body, all those who come under the appellation of slaves, or are held in bondage, will follow us, in the hopes of being free. When the king shall see us, we shall obtain a favourable answer, or we must then seek ourselves to amend our condition.'"

I know you don’t know London geography that well, but when you’re talking about how the king’s council is suggesting that they take a bunch of soldiers down “four London streets” to converge on the rebels at St. Katherine’s (right outside the Tower) and kill them all as they slept—a spectacularly terrible plan, but that’s not my point—would it kill you to NAME THEM? Some of us have convincing dialogue to write and don’t have any maps that go into that much detail. And your former employer used to patronize St. Katherine’s so I am guessing you do know that specific area.

Chroniques de Froissart vol. 1, The Hague 72 A 25, folio 320 v.

"Sir John Chandos, who was a strong and bold knight, and cool in all his undertakings, had his banner advanced before him, surrounded by his men, with the scutcheon above his arms. He himself was dressed in a large robe which fell to the ground, blazoned with his arms on white sarcenet, argent, a pile gules; one on his breast, and the other on his back; so that he appeared resolved on some adventurous undertaking; and in this state, with sword in hand, he advanced on foot towards the enemy.

This morning [at Lussac] had been hoar-frost, which had made the ground slippery; so that as he marched he entangled his legs with his robe, which was of the longest, and made a stumble: during which time a squire, called James de St. Martin (a strong expert man), made a thrust at him with his lance, which hit him in the face, below the eye, between the nose and forehead. Sir John Chandos did not see the aim of the stroke, for he had lost the eye on that side five years ago, on the heaths of Bordeaux, at the chase of a stag: what added to this misfortune, sir John had not put down his vizor, so that in stumbling he bore upon the lance, and helped it to enter into him. The lance, which had been struck from a strong arm, hit him so severely that it entered as far as the brain, and then the squire drew it back to him again."