Spacious house in

sunny Sarasota

to rent by the week or month

e-mail, German, French and Spanish also spoken, airport pick-up in Tampa or Sarasota on request.
Search this 5000 page website with
search tips advanced search
site search by freefind

List of pedigrees
Bland of Northern Neck Va.
Nicholas of Roundway
Hester of Fleming Co Ky
Author's DNA match comparisons
Visitors since 22nd March 2009:

It is really something to sing and dance about.
Dig up those old bones and get them dancing!

Change the two party system
so people against something like abortion
but for something like environmental protection never again get bigger and badder storms
and two bankrupting wars instead.

Find your roots!
Get DNA tested too!

Send contributions, additions and corrections and report faulty links!
Please use this blank formating file for additions and corrections in HTML and copy it into your e-mail!
If you want your entire peidgree to be posted in the InternetPlease fill in this free blank table pedigree with your pedigree data using you NotePad continuous text editor and attach it to an e-mail to the author of this site!

The following is a contribution by John Trivett. The author's connection to this tree is Anne Trevet b c 1180 dau of William Trevet, who married Adam Kary b c 11705 (a 1198) and had Ca22 John Karry who married Elizabeth Stapleton and had Ca21 Sir William Cary and was presumably the sister or aunt of Sir Hugh Trivett b c 1200 m Eve and Sir Thomas Trivett b c 1200 d c 1270


COPYRIGHT © 1996-2007 John E. Trivett



My work on the TRIVETT FAMILY HISTORY has been a labour of love.
I did initially try to sell the information, hoping to regain some of my expenses, but this was not forthcoming, however, now it is very important to me that as many Trivett(s) as possible have the chance to see their beginnings. 
The next step is to start creating the Trivett World Tree. To do this we all need to work together (intercommunication).
If you are interested please get in touch and pass on any family line or history known from 1500 to1800 and we will hopefully progress from there.
Email me John Trivett by clicking here 
There are approximately 
900 families in the U.S.A.
125 " " Canada.
115 " " Australia.
440 " " England
in all about 3,500 persons, plus the similar spellings.
What I have found is only the start. One thing I have learnt is, the more you find, the easier it is to spot a connection. The family tree has some persons missing, but it is still one family line.
Prior Nicholas wrote a lot of books, which would have been of great interest. (I have learnt recently that some have been sold to a private buyer. That is very unfortunate for all of us. We may never know anything about them.)
I welcome anybody that wishes to expand on the work I have done. I also welcome any criticism or contradiction, because if it proves something is incorrect then we are learning more about the family.
All the best to my numerous cousins.
John Trivett Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, England.
As pertaining to any pictures, some of which, source unknown, shown on any of these pages re: Trivett Family History, if they are in any way in "breach of copyright", please advise and the said picture will be removed straight away.

Please use our GUEST BOOK I look forward to reading any comments you may have on our Web Site.


Sir Thomas Trivett c1331-1388 and Lady Elizabeth Trivetts' Tomb at Canterbury Cathedral

The Will of Elizabeth Trivett 1421 translated by Janet Pickford

A Very Interesting Study of Sir Thomas Trivett's Military Life Written as a Dissertation by Rachel Cox

Prior Nicholas Trivett

Trivett Family Tree

The History of Doddington Hall

Murder of Edward the 2nd


Trivett & Similar Genealogy Index

Trivett History New Info Section


I have been asked by a number of people to set up a method whereby they can make Voluntary Monetary Contributions Worldwide to assist in the financial expense of keeping our Trivett Family History Website which costs me £7 - 05p a month ie. £84 - 60 a year & Trivett Family Com which costs about £20 - 00 a year running. Many thanks for any donations submitted ie In the past or the future.To make a contribution just press the donation button on the left. You may have to join up with PayPal to make it work but it is free.

If anyone knows of a cheaper way of running our main Trivett Family site please let me know.

This section shows a narrative of 42 chapters written by Cousin Donald Trivett in Canada. 

It is an Historical Novel of events which might have involved the Trivett/Trevett family going back to pre 1066 Conquest times in France. 

The title is King's Man

Photograph showing Donald & Pauline Trivett on their 50th Anniversary





Bridgwater Castle

The Siege of Rouen 1418-1419 


FAMILY SEARCH Stratton Dorset and many other places

Wyenot.Com The place for information on Ross-0n-Wye and the Wye Valley


THE TRIVETT Surname Message Board


Our TRIVETT FAMILY WORLD TREE SITE is now operational CLICK HERE TO ENTER where you can intercommunicate with each other. It's all free.



This next section is a large pdf file so please allow time for it to download

TREVETT'S of SUSSEX by Brian Trevette 

TREVETT FAMILIES of DORSET (2nd edition) by Brian Trevette 

Tom Trivette of Louisiana USA his web site on the North Carolina/Kentucky Trivette's 

Steve & Pauline Jones' Family History. 

This site is a member of WebRing. 
To browse visit Here.

Previous Counter Reading and Guest Book Contents

Previous Counter Reading and Guest Book Contents No.2

Previous Counter Reading and Guest Book Contents No.3

Previous Counter Reading and Guest Book Contents No.4

Previous Counter Reading and Guest Book Contents No.5

Please sign my guestbook

Hit Counter
Hickey Freeman
Email me by clicking here

Click here to visit

[Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5]

This Heart of England - Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester site owned by THE TRIVETT FAMILY HISTORY 1040 -- 2000 JOHN E. TRIVETT.

Clan McLean Connections website click here.


I. Introduction

The focus for this dissertation is a fourteenth century knight, Sir Thomas Trivet. My search began with the Westminster Chronicler who painted a less than flattering portrait of this obscure knight, accusing him of accepting bribes from the French during the disastrous Flanders expedition of 1383.1 However, it soon became clear that Trivet, the son of a lesser Somerset landowner, was a relatively successful knight who had risen from obscurity through his own militaristic ability. Although he is thought to have been born in 1330, the pinnacle of his career came late, in the reign of Richard 2nd and in the 1380s in particular.2 It is with his later career that I will mainly be concerned in this dissertation, namely, the Flanders expedition of 1383 and his run-in with the Appellants in 1387, which led to his brief arrest in 1388 before he died, as a result of a riding accident,on the 6th October that year. I hope to tackle this biogaphy of Thomas Trivet thematically rather than chronologically, centering on issues such as his connections, his family and the brief exploits which embroiled him in the politics of the troubled reign of Richard II. In approaching Trivet's life in this way, I hope to grasp the all-important question of whether I feel that his political and military career was a success or not.

To begin with. it is necessary to provide an overall view of this Somerset knight. Given-Wilson points out that although Trivet was closely associated with Richard's court, he was not a Chamber Knight3 He was, as Mitchell reveals, a Banneret of the Household, which meant that he was allowed vassals under his own banner and was more than likely, knighted on the battlefield.4 Mitchell has found evidence of his status as a banneret in 1382 when he was among the appointed escort to meet Richard II's future wife, Anne of Bohemia,at Calais.5 As a King's Knight, evidence of his close connection with the Chamber can only be found between June 1377 and June 1378, alongside a John Trivet who also came from Somerset.6 The latter could either be his father or his cousin (and kinsman), with whom he seems to have been quite close.7 It is not known when he was made a Banneret of the Household, but it is perhaps possible that he was a King's Knight much earlier than 1377 since in the late 1360s he appears in Spain, serving under the Black Prince at Najara and later in Poitou.8 More importantly, on the 27th October 1375 hc was given a grant for life of £40 yearly and this was confirmed on the 17th May 1378 when he was described as ‘a servant of the late King’.9 The height of his career came. as I have said, in the 1380s. On the 22nd February 1386 he was appointed Admiral for the West, but the rise of the Appellants shortened what would have otherwise been an illustrious career.10 He was one of the few of Richard’s friends who outwardly opposed the Appellants in 1387, but this action ultimatcly led to his arrest in 1388.

He seems to have been quite a fiery, impulsive character. For example, whilst he was still in Spain in March 1379, he had a violent quarrel with a Castilian, Pedro Manrique, and he immediately wanted to settle the dispute with a 100-a-side combat in Aragon.11 Perhaps his quick temper contributed to Westminster's derogatory view of him. In fact Trivet has been considered in a less than flattering light even by modem historians. For example, Goodman refers to him as an ‘unpopular soldier'.12 It is difficult to judge his popularity, but it is clear that he was a competent soldier who ultimately became a successful attribute to the court of Richard 2nd. Trivet's career was studded with bouts of military achivements combined with 

personal miscalculations. But above all, he maintained a loyalty towards King Richard that may have led to his downfall, had he not perished before parliament was able to punish him.

2. The rise of Sir Thomas Trivet and his connections

Thomas Trivet was born the only son of John and Elizabeth Trivet in about 1330.1 Thomas's subsequent career was undoubtedly orchestrated by his father, who seems to have played an important role both in Somerset and in some of the major English expeditions abroad in the 1360s. For example, in the Janauary Parliament of 1348, John represented his county in the House of Commons.2 The Register of the Black Prince records a John Trivet, who was one of the Prince's yeomen. On the 31st May 1364, he was granted a regular income of £40 yearly for life in recognition of 'good service' and this was increased to 100 marks yearly on the 5th August 1365 'in consideration of his past and future good service'.3 This undoubtedly refers to the Black Prince's campaigns abroad, for in 1367, both John and Thomas served under the Black Prince in Spain, and John himself was at the Battle of Najara in April 1367.4 As a result,it can be assumed that the Trivets found favour in the Black Prince's retinue, which would have aided Thomas once Richard II ascended the throne.

Since Thomas predeceased his father, he probably never received the full inheritance of his father's estates. Instead, Thomas obtained the vast majority of his lands through his second wife,Elizabeth Limbury, daughter and heir of the relatively wealthy knight, Philip Limbury (see Appendix 1 ) whom he probably married in the late 1370s. There was a odeat difference in their ages, Thomas being about 27 years older than her, but after he died she never remarried. Instead she died a widow in 1433 outliving their two daughters, Anne and Joan. Despite her status as heir to her mother and fathers' estates in Somerset, Kent, Cambridge, Suffolk and Lincoln by 1388 (her brother was presumably dead by this thne - see Appendix 1 ), she probably did not fully inherit her entitlement until after her mother's death on 21st February 1388.5 In fact, Thomas Trivet had only just received the lands due to him and his wife, before he died suddenly in October that same year.6

He seems to have had no issue by his first wife, Joan, although he did obtain the manor of Limbury, Bedford through her death.7 Although this is stated in Trivet's Inquisition Post Mortem, it may be an error, mistakenly attributed to Joan when in fact it probably belonged to his second wife. Elizabeth. whose father died in possession of the manor in 1367 or 1368.8 If it in fact did belong Io Joan then it is reasonable to assume that Joan was a member of the Limbury family or closely connected with them on the assumption that Bedford was one of the family's strongholds. For example, at the turn of the century, a JohnLimbury held lands in Bedford and Cambridge, presumably on the inheritance of his father Walter.9

The inquisition into Trivet's lands after his death gives a detailed picture of the major parts of his estates.10 Most of these were situated in Somerset and were granted to Thomas by Sir John Clinton, Sir Matthew Gournay, Richard Mareys and Robert Wrenche. Clinton was his wife's stepfather and Gournay was his uncle by his grandmother's first marriage (see Appendix 1), but I have not been able to establish a connection between Mareys and Wrenche. Among the appointments given jointly to him and his wife, was the manor of Otterhampton in Somerset. The hamlet of Otterhampton had belonged to Trivet's grandfather and had probably reverted to the Gournays after the latter's death in 1316.11 It had been the traditional manorial demesne of the Trivet family at the turn of the fourteenth century and was relatively prosperous with 90 acres of arable land, 30 acres of meadow and 20 acres of pasture, with 8 ‘neifs’ who owed 3 days work in the autumn and about £4 8s worth of rent.12 At his death, Thomas also held the manor of Puriton and Crandon. The Trivets had held lands in the latter as far back as the late thirteenth century, when Thomas's great great grandfather settled his share of the manor of Crandon on his son William. In turn, William's grandson John was granted ‘free warren’ at Crandon in about 135413 It was then passed onto Thomas Trivet's widow, Elizabeth Limbury, presumably after John's death. She granted Crandon to her late husband's cousin, John Trivet, during her lifetime, although she died in 1433 in possession of the said manor.14

Among Trivet's other personal or business connections in the 1370s, were a few London vintners. In 1373, he used his manor of Northaston in Oxfordshire as surety for a loan of about £80 obtained from the London vintner, John Clyvelee (who later became an alderman betxveen 1377 and 1384) which he seems to have been unable to pay at the specified time.15 Trivet also obtained a pardon for John Tonge on the 7th October 1378, who was perhaps the orphaned son of the London vintner, William Tonge.16 However, the reasons fbr Trivet's particular connections with these London vintners can only be speculated.

One of the most interesting of 'Trivet's connections is his relationship to the celebrated knight, Sir Matthew Gournay. Gournay was Trivet's uncle and half-brother to Trivet's father, John(see Appendix 1)17 Joan (Trivet's grandmother) had presumably divorced Gournay's father Thomas Gournay before marrying Trivet's grandfather, Thomas Trivet before 1316.18 Matthew Gournay probably went some way in furthering his nephew's military career. For example, on the 10th March 1378. Thomas was engaged to serve under Gournay in Aquitaine with 80 men at arms and 80 archers.19 Even earlier than this, Gournay had been present at the Battle of Najara in 1367, as had John Trivet, and like the Trivets, he too became one of the military fo11owers of the Black Prince. Gournay and Thomas Trivet were obviously close, since Gournay acted as one of his nephew's mainpernors on the 30th May 1388 after Trivet's trouble witi tie Appellants.20

Thomas Trivet owed much of his success to his abilities as a soldier. The first recorded encounter of his military exploits was on an expedition to Spain in 1367 alongside his father, John21 Five years later he was in Poitou, serving under Sir Thomas Catterton in the Contentin. He continued in Catterton's service, and in 1375 took part in the defence of St Sauveur le Vicomte, before returning home after the town fell.22 It was in recognition of his military abilities that he received his first royal grant of a regular income of £40 yearly on the 27th October 1375. Catterton, on the other hand, faked less well and was ordered before the King and parliament on the 13th June 1376.23

It seems relatively surprising that Trivet should gain royal favour through his 'military abilities' since the majority of expeditions in which he played a part, ended in failure for one reason or another. After St Sauveur le Vicomte, his luck did not change. In October 1379 (after he had returned to England from Navarre where he had been promoting the English cause in the Peninsula - another failure) he was appointed to accompany Sir John Arundel on the ill-fated expedition to Brittany. The fleet hit bad weather even before they had managed to engage the enemy, and Trivet's ship was one of the few lucky ones able to limp back to Southampton.24 His pride, perhaps more than mildly dented he had the chance to redeem himself in the following year in Buckingham's subsequent expedition to Brittany. Trivet formed part of the advanced guard on tie long march from Calais and he had some successes, capturing Seigneur de Brimeu at Clery-sur-Sommne and routing the Burgundians at Fervaques and Sire De Hangest.25 But the expedition itself achieved nothing strategically, though it did provide the environment for Trivet to prove himself as a capable soldier. From these opportunistic successes, he was ordered to accompany Sir Thomas Percy and Sir Robert Knolles on a mission to the Duke of Brittany at Rennes in October 1380, and from there, he served at the siege of Nantes.26 He had returned to England before June 1381, for when the Peasants' Revolt struck, he was ordered to keep the peace in Kent and to take part in the subsequent retribution in July.27 His inclusion in the quashing of the revolt in Kent is more likely explained bv the fact that he had a minor landed interest in the county, since he held tenements in Bethersden (near Ashford) through his second wife, Elizabeth 1imbury.28

Turning to his family, his wife Elizabeth, was also present at court as a Lady of the Garter.29 However there is no evidence stating when she was actually rewarded with such an honour. There is also no evidence of her at court while her husband was still alive, but according to Mitchell, she received a grant from the King sometime after Thomas's death.30 In the 1390s, she seems to ha~ been quite active as a pacifying figure, obtaining pardons for a number of people,31 the most interesting being a pardon to Joan Richmond, who broke into the Chamber at Lincoln in June 1393 and stole a blue cloth. Both Elizabeth Trivet and the King's sister (the Countess of Huntingdon) supplicated successfully for her pardon.32

Thomas’s two daughters by Elizabeth must have predeceased their mother, for they are not mentioned in her will33 Since their first daughter, Anne, was born in 1381 it can be assumed that they married in the late 1370s, although this cannot be proved.34

All in all, an incomplete picture emerges from the evidence of trivet's actvities in these early years. There is no record of his early career before the 1360s, but it is hard to believe that he didn't follow the part of a soldier until he was into his late thirties given his father's military abilities as well as his connection to the great fourteenth century knight, Matthew Gournay. With such connections and an advantageous second marriage which would bring him wealth and a handsome number of estates in the near future. Trivet's status and military career were fast developing.

3. The Navarrese Campaign (1378-9)

This campaign is the first of Trivet's expeditions to be recorded in some detail. It was perhaps the first time that he had been given the leadership of a campaign designed to promote English interests abroad, and therefore deserves to be explored in detail. English interest in the Iberian Peninsula had intensified since 1369 when the French had helped to secure the Castilian Crown for the usurper, Henry of Trastamara.1 From then on, Castile had become a satellite of France, her navy used by the French to attack the English coast. The English had tried to counter this threat by seeking an alliance with Aragon. However, the situation in the Peninsula had changed by 1378, when the Castilians, acting in the French interest, invaded the independent state of Navarre.2 Charles II of Navarre was King in his own right, but also a vassal of France and he had tried to maintain his independence by seeking an alliance with England, or Aragon. The French were provoked into using force after two Navarrese envoys were found in Paris with papers which suggested that there was an alliance with England. As a result, Charles stepped up Anglo-Navarrese negotiations. In June 1378, Charles himself visited England asking for help to repel the Casttitan threat and he was offered the services of l,000 troops for four months' for a campaign ..... inside the confines of Navarre or outside it", but only on condition. that he ceded possession the port Cherbourg’.3

These troops were to be provided by Sir John Neville of Raby who was also Lieutenant of Aquitaine. It could be assumed that Trivet was serving under Neville already, for he had taken his retinue to Gascony in 1377.4 Trivet's uncle, Sir Matthew Gournay, was already in Gascony and had an interest in the proxvince since, by the late 1370s, he was both Governor of Bayonne and Captain of Dax.5 In fact, on the 10th March 1378, Trivet was engaged to serve under his uncle in Aquitaine before he was employed to fight in Navarre later that year.6 The English force for the Navarrese campaign was not formally assembled until October 1378 when Trivet was appointed its leader. Gascon documents relating to his appointment, specifically state that he was made Captain of Tudela and that his retinue was to be stationed there during the campaign.7 According to Russell Trivet received payment for the expedition from the Gascon treasury on the 30th October ‘for service under the King 
of Navarre for two months ' and he 'took 20 men at-arms and 20 archers on top Of his own retinue of 160 men (80 men-at-arms and 80 archers)8 In England Neville was preparing the English fleet to set sail for Bordeaux, but he was delayed as a result of a shortage of ships and did not reach his destination until 8th September9 Trivet perhaps waited for these reinforcements until he ventured towards Navarre around October, with about 200 English men and two Gascon Knights (.Andre Handry and Monnot de Plaissac) who brought 100 men each. However, he was held up on the way by Gournay in Dax who persuaded him toassist his men in ridding the surrounding countryside of Breton troops.10 They were relatively successful, sacking the castles of Montpin, Claracq and Pouillon.11 However, by this time most of southern Navarre had fallen to the Castilian troops, and the blame could be placed at Trivet's door for his unnecessary delay at Dax. Charles II himself was besieged at Pamplona and running short of supplies. He was therefore counting on Trivet's immediate help. Neville (who had obviously reached the province by this time) assured Charles that Trivet was on his way. On hearing that in fact he was unnecessarily delayed at Dax, Charles immediateIy ordered him to march. In the end, Trivet did not encounter the enemy at Pamplona, since they had decided to retreat as soon as news reached the Castilian commander that Engish forces were on their way. By this time, winter was fast approaching and the majority of English troops (under Trivet himself) marched to their intended destination at Tudela. Trivet was probably annoyed at having been denied an encounter with the enemy he had been sent to fight, and so when the weather proved relatively mild, he set out for the Castilian town of Soria on Christmas Eve. Unfortunately, his force lost their way in a sudden snowstorm, and by the time they had reached the

outskirts of Soria, the Castilans were expecting them. There was a small skirmish with the town's garrison although, according to Saul, he and his men did leave 'laden with booty ,.12 They withdrew back into Navarrese territory, burning Castilian villages on ther way before Charles himself greeted them at Cascantes. The King of Navarre seems to have been pleased with Trivet's exploits, despite the raid's lack of tactical value.13

In spite of Trivet's brief success, Charles II had already made steps to conclude a treaty with Castile, and this was sealed, despite Trivet's protests, on 31st March 1379 at Briones. Through the terms of the treaty, Engish interest in Navarre all but ended, and in this respect, Trivet had failed. Charles II promised to expel all English and Gascon troops from his kingdom and agreed that none of his children would marry English royalty.14 However, this did not prevent Trivet from trying to salvage EnglLsh interest in the province. While the peace was being concluded, he took the opportunity to attack the countryside around Tudela, and when this caused little effect, he was perhaps ordered to pursue an Anglo-Aragonese alliance. As Russell states; 'he reported to the Aragonese king that

Castilian troops in Navarre had begun to raid Aragonese territoty' and he may have offered to hold the Tudela salient for En Pere if given any encouragement from Barcelona'.15 In April,he evidently went to Aragon in person to discuss these future possibilities with the King of Aragon himself but nothing came of it. By the summer of 1379, Trivet had returned to Bordeaux. having been paid for his exploits the handsome sum of 20,000 francs.16

It is difficult to say precisely how this particular expedition aided his advancement or affected his later military career. The King of Navarre had certainly seemed impressed bv his exploits, and he seems to have established a rapport with the King of Aragon, but ultimately, he had failed to further English interest in the Peninsula, and as from 1379, Navarre could no longer be used as a stepping stone into Castile. On a personal scale, he seems to have done quite well from the campaign. As Russell notes; 'on his return to England from Navarre, he was well received by Richard II'.17 The campaign itself had been an excellent opportunity for him to show his military abilities, which were to be later put to use in the Bishop of Norwich's 'crusade' to Flanders in 1383.

4. The 1383 Expedition to Flanders

The 1380s saw a disagreement among those advocating war with France over whether to open up an offensive against the French through Flanders or through Spain. The pro-Spain party (led by Gaunt who had interests in the peninsula) had won the argument so far with the parliamentary backing of the Earl of Cambridge's joint expedition with the Portuguese against Castile in 1382, but by November of the same year, Cambridge was back in England humiliated after the Portuguese and Castilians had come to an agreement behind his back. Undeterred, Gaunt applied for a new expedition at the more modest subsidy of £43,000 in the parliament of October 1382. However, events in Flanders had by this time taken a more dramatic turn, swaying opinion towards English intervention in the Low Countries. From around 1379 onwards, the city of Ghent had launched a civil war against the ruler of Flanders, Count Louis of Male. The situation was complicated by the fact that the Count, as a vassal of France looked towards his more powerful neighhour to maintain his authority in the provinces. The provinces, on the other hand, looked to the English for support. England and Flanders enjoyed important trade links which were vital to the economy of both countries, England providing the wool which Flanders made into cloth. The effect of the civil war on the English wool trade was forcing not only mercantile opinion towards the 'way of Flanders', but also governmental opinion, since a poor economy due to the lack of wool exports, meant bad tax returns.1 The situation was further swayed towards the ‘way of Flanders’ with the attractive proposal for a 'crusade' to Flanders, made in the parliament of Octobcr 1382 by Henry Despenser, Bishop of Norwich.

As Saul states; ‘his was the last genuinely popular expedition to be put into the field by an English government for some forty years’,2

It was proposed that the Bishop should take a force to Flanders, headed by a secular lieutenant and made up of 3,500 men at arms and a similar number of archers.3 It was to be a crusade against the Clementist supporters (i.e. supporters of Pope Clement VII) of the Count of Flanders, but only on the provision that the English army would not take up war against the Flemish Urbanist supporters (i.e. supporters of Pope Urban VI). By proposing a 'crusade', the cost of the expedition would be part-funded by crusading indulgences, thus reducing the financial burden on the taxpayer in the wake of the upheaval of the Peasants' Revolt. The preparations for the crusade were well-organised and extensive. Froissart writes of 2,500,000 francs raised in alms - enough for both the Flanders' expedition and perhaps another expedition to Castile led by the Duke of Lancaster.4 Saul writes that at the start of the expedition, Despenser's army perhaps numbered about 3,000 men at arms and 3,000 archers, but when they finally set out on the 16th May 1383 from Sandwich, they perhaps numbered no more than 4,000 to 5000 men. There was no secular lieutenant appointed, although, interestingly, Sir John Neville of Raby had offered his services, but according to Despenser, the King had not allowed him to take up the post.5 Neville had been connected to Trivet once before in 1378 when he had provided the troops tO fight alongside CharlesII of Navarre in the province under Trivet.6

When Despenser was later impeached in parliament for the impending debacle, it was stated that he was granted leadership of the expedition on condition that he took with him 'the best and most stufficient captains of the realm, after royalties....But the Bishop refused to certify their names until after permission had been granted to hzm.’7 The captains that Despenser actually took to Flanders are stated clearly in Froissart's extensive account of the expedition, among them, Hugh CalveIey, William Elmham and Thomas Trivet.8 Trivet's involvement in the expedition would later cost him a brief spell in prison and a hefty fine, but in the meantime, the crusade began well. However, Trivet was still in England at this point, lagging behind the rest of the army 'and it was not until the Londoners and the bishop's friends threatened violence that he sailed and joined Despenser at Dunkirk late in May.’9 Therefore, he was probably not with 3,000 strong force that marched from Calais to Gravelines on the 19th May. The latter took the town by storm, striking fear into the neighbouring settlements and causing Bourbourg to surrender without a fight.10 Despenser's army then marched on Dunkirk where a Flemish force of 12,000 had assembled and it was here that Trivet finally caught up with him.11 The English were victorious, and according to Froissart, the Flemish lost 9,000 men beneath the town's walls.12

However their success did not last and a disagreement ensued over how the expedition should then proceed. As Saul records, Despenser wanted to advance on Clementist Artois, but his captains, Trivet among them, argued that they should advance on Ypres, although its occupants were supporters of Pope Urban VI.13 This was tO prove a grave mistake, since the town was too heavily defended and dysentry soon broke out among the English troops. Despencer and his men were forced to withdraw on the 10th August after a siege lasting two months, as a result of the rumour that about 80,000 soldiers (mustered by the King of France) were on their way from Arras to relieve the town.14 By this time, concerns over the success of the crusade were being voiced in England. On the 24th August, Gaunt and his brother, Thomas of Woodstock, wrote to Richard warning him of the inevitable disaster.15 In Despenser's impeachment proceedings in 1383. it was alleged that around this time the King's Council had received letters from the captains in Flanders saying that the expedition 'was in great peril and daily deteriorating' mainly because of the lack of a secular lieutenant.16

Following Froissart's account, the English withdrew to Bergues under Hugh CalveIey, whilst the humiliated Bishop retmried to Gravelines.17 The remaining troops under CalveIey could not possibly hope to defend Bergues from Charles VI's army as it marched to meet them. As a result, the forces were split, Calveley marched to Gravelines and the rest under Trivet and Elmham went to Bourbourg. Charles VI of France arrived outside Bourbourg on the 12th September and the siege began. There are two detailed accounts of the events in the city, that of Froissart and a brief narrative in Knighton's Chronicle. The latter blatantly favours Trivet's role in the siege suggesting that he perhaps either received his account from Trivet himself or from someone in the latter's retinue. He writes of Trivet being besieged by the King of France, with incidentally no mention of Despenser or even Elmham (although Elmham was at Bourboug when the town eventually surrendered). The King, Knighton reports, threw his forces at Bourbourg but they were 'well-beaten' and forced to withthdraw.18 Charles VI then invited Trivet and his men to surrender, to which Trivet gallantly replied; 'that if the King of France and his men wished to continue the assault against them as they had begun it, at the end of fourteen days he would find a smaller number of Englishmen enclosed within a smaller space, ready to repel him and his men in their rough English way.

He was grateful, he said, that so noble a king, with so powerful an army, should have done such an honour to a handful of Englishmen as to grant them the favour off a battle’.19 The end of the siege is glossed over quickly, the chronicler explaining that they agreed to surrender on the provision thm they would be allowed to leave unharmed.

Froissart, in far more detail, records how all-out battle was avoided in favour of a peaceful settlement. On the 14th September 1383. he states that Charles VI. the Count of Flanders and the Dukes of Berry, Burgundy, Bourbon and Brittany received an English envoy consisting of 14 knights, including Trivet and Elmham, in the royal tent outside the city walls. An agreement was made in which the English force would withdraw back tc Gravelines and evacuate from there, taking with them their weapons and luggage. Accordingly the army, under Trivet and Elmham, left Bourbourg on the 16th and by the next day they were at Calais having sacked Gravelines on their way through.20

The Bishop of Norwich, his captains and their men returned to England to a less than favourable welcome. Anger was voiced not so much because the crusade had been an overall disaster, but because the leaders of the force had denied an English victory in favour of personal gain. Of all the chroniclers, the Westminster Chronicler is most critical. He states that Trivet, Elmham and Farringdon who led the army at Bourbourg surrendered the town to the King of France because they had been 'lured by bribes’.21 The Chronicler is incensed by their actions; 'we are aware of no occasion when this' infamous thing has been done by the knights'of England... Will not the action of these knihts redound to the everlasting future humiliation qf Englishmen? It will indeed.’22 He states that the captains received the total of 28.000 francs between them in bribes but this has been slightly exaggerated. In total they received 13,000 francs with Trivet curiously singled out as receiving an additional amount of money.23 However, Trivet was eventually fined the total sum of 1,400 francs. with no evidence of any extra sum given to him by the French.24

Parliament was called for the 26th October 1383, and the process of impeachinent against Bishop Despenser began and was quickly followed by the trial of the captains themselves. Trivet among them. Saul states how '..the four threw themselves on the King’s mercy, pleading somewhat curiously that they had given the realm good value for money’,25 He suggests that the blame for this debacle was slightly misplaced since the English force could not have hoped to defeat a well-maintained French royal army. Retreat was the only viable option.26 However, this did not stop the rising tide of criticism directed at Despenser and his men. Among this criticism is a direct attack on Trivet himself by the Westminster Chronicler. The Chronicler, who tends never to write favourably of Trivet, scornfully states

that Trivet threw himself on the king’s mercy and was therefore aUowed to go free.27 The

Chronicler is mistaken, however. since Trivet was imprisoned albeit briefly.28

Why, then, has he singled out Trivet for criticism? Martin suggests that Westminster took his account of the expedition from a newsletter, which Despenser probably wrote.29

Despenser's hostile feelings towards his captains were well-known as a result of his words

against them in Parliamemt. He had suddenly turned on his captains during the second hearing of his impeachment and was trying to place the blame on them. Whereas before he had praised his captains, saying they were both ‘good and sufficient' he now criticised them for refusing to fight the French once the latter had begun to advance.30 He implied that it was due to his captains' actions that he was forced to retreat.31 He also turned the blame on them for the loss of Gravelines, saying that the cession of the captured forts back to the French and the subsequent lawlessness of the evacuated English armies on the shores near Calais meant he had to give up Gravelines to come and rescue them.32 This seems hardly plausible since the troops who left Bourbourg under Trivet and Elmham had been allowed to retreat with their booty and luggage.33 He also answered the charges accusing him of not having the specified number of troops at Calais, by stating that he had the full compliment by the time he had reached Ypres. As Kingsford suggests that Trivet and his retinue only caught up with Despenser's army at Dunkirk, this certainly seems a plausible argument.34

Despenser's spirited defence in the parliament of 1383 must have been well-known since Walsinghmn also blames the debacle on the captains. He writes that 'the knights who were with the bishop in Flanders were imprisoneded because they had disobeyed the bishop, and, what was worse, were traitors; but soon they were bailed out by their friends', making payment in gold’.35 Trivet in fact spent little time imprisoned in the Tower for his actions before he was released after obtaining royal fayour.36 A payment of 1,400 francs was made from his goods and chattels in Somerset and Dorset in March 1384, and it was not long before he was back at court in the King's favour.37

5. Trivet's association with Richard II's court and his career as Admiral

The Monk of Westminster is the only chronicler to record Trivet's involvement in an obscure incident in 1385. A heated council meeting took place in March of that year, during which, William Courtenay (the Archishop of Canterbury) broached the subject of a rumour that Richard was planning to have Gaunt secretly murdered. The King was naturally furious at the accusation, leaping 'to his feet with a volley of threats against him'.1 Later that day, Courtenay was conducted (under the protection of the Earl of Buckingham) to a meeting with the King on the Thames between Westminster and Lambeth palace. The Westminster Chronicler records that the subject was broached again, and an argument ensued during which Richard drew his sword with the intention of running the Archbishop through. However, he was restrained by Buckingham, Sir John Devereux and Sir Thomas Trivet. Trivet's presence at the meeting is not explained, but his proximity to the King is certainly intriguing and suggests that he had a certain pre-eminence at court by this time. Perhaps the Appellants disgust at his influence at court in 1388 was well-founded. The Westminster Chronicler goes onto say that Richard was so angry with the three that had manhandled him, 'that in their fear they jumped from his barge into the Archbishop's boat. It was therfore in discord that on this occasion they parted company with the King'.2 This passing remark shows that Trivet did not always enjoy a fruitful relationship with his monarch. The period between 1385 and 1388 could be considered the pinnacle of his career but this did not protect him from occasional royal displeasure. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the situation could not have been that great, since on the 5th November 1385. Trivet enjoyed a royal grant of £100 yearly 'of the issues and profits of the stannary, (i.e. tin mine) of Cornwall'.3 Was this a grant in recognition of the King's 'friendship' with this Somerset knight?

Trivet's gowing prominence at court was coupled with the growth of his military career.

He was made Admiral for the West on the 22nd February 1386 at the same time as Sir Philip D’arcy was made Admiral tbr the North, replacing Sir John Raddington and Sir Thomas Percy respectively.4 As Admirals, Trivet and D’arcy held vital posts in the defence of England against foreign invasion. Among their duties, they were expected to protect English shipping in home waters, as well as conduct the occasional raid on French (and their allies') shipping. In such a high profile appointment, the admirals were vunerable to criticism. As Roskell points out, 'the supersession of the latter pair (i.e. D’arcy and Trivet) by the Earl of Arundel soon after the parliament of 1386, hardly suggests that they were considered to have been highly satisfactory’.5 However, during the spring and summer of 1386, the admirals had to contend with conditions outside their control. There was a certain lack of shipping available to them.6 In April I386, a number of ships were commandeered to transport the newly appointed Lieutenant of Ireland, Sir John Stanley, to Ireland. In March 1386, all ships over 60 tons were ordered to sail to London to repel a suspected French invasion. The remaining ships exempt from this order were used by Gaunt to conduct his men to Spain the same year.As a result, the scarcity of available ships left for the two English Admirals was so dire that Gaunt was under orders to send his fleet back to England as soon as he had reached Spanish soil. Unfortunately, Gaunt's fleet did not set sail from England until July 1386 and therefore could not have returned home until mid-July at the earliest.7 In the treaty between Richard II and John I of Portugal concluded in May 1386, there was a specific stipulation providing the English Admirals with a loan of I0 armed galleys from Portugal to arrive in London before Christmas of that year.8 Under these circumstances, is it fair to dismiss Trivet's brief spell as Admiral as being unsatisfactory? In fact, D’arcy and Trivet began their career quite well. In July 1386 the two admirals captured 'a fair number of large vessels' bound for Sluys, including 4 Genoese 'tarits' and at least one Spanish ship, 'la Seinte Marieship'.9 He was later granted one of these ships, as was D’arcy.10 The captured ships were taken to Sandwich and some of them were still there in 1387 whilst the council continued to debate whether the capture was justified or not.11 Despite this early success, by the end of the Wonderful Parliament, both Admirals had been dismissed from their posts and replaced by the Earl of Arundel.12 Goodman cites how when the Appellants came to power in 1387 (Arundel who was put in charge of the English naval expedition of that year) tried to copy Trivet and Darcy's policy of blocking the route to Flanders which had proved such a success under the previous Admirals.13 However, unlike his predecessors, Arundel's expedition proved a financial and tactical embarrassment.

The question remains as to whether Trivet was re-appointed Admiral for the West again in 1388, after the Merciless Parliament had ended. As early as the 27th November 1387, Trivet was making preparations to have his ship, 'la Kateryne' refitted at Sandwich to be ready for future service in the King's wars.14 Could this be in reference to an 'expedition' led by Trivet as Admiral in the near future? At this point, Trivet was not under arrest and still closely, associated with the court and so it might be possible. After he was subsequently arrested, he was released from prison on the 30th May 1388 on the condition that he would appear in the next parliament, if he was not delayed 'upon the present expedition at sea in the King's wars'.15 However, whether this was in recognition of an expedition led by Trivet as Admiral, is again dubious.

Goodman suggests that the reason for Trivet's alleged ambush of the Appellants on the 17th November, was his anxiety'to recover naval command from Arundel'.16 It certainly

provides a reasonable explanation for his otherwise hasty actions at a time when some of the closest of Richard's intimate circle of friends were fleeing his side. However, it is also reasonable to suggest that Trivet acted in this manner out of loyalty to his monarch.

He owed his elevation at court to Richard and there are no examples of Trivet acting against the King's wishes at any other time. Of the actual event in 1387, Knighton states how someone close to the King (which Martin believes must be Trivet), said to him; ‘My lord, let us arise and fall upon your enemies, and pen them like a herd of sheep, and belabour them as though the Devil himself were rending their hides’.17 Knighton's account is corroborated by the Westminster Chronicler who specifically states that Trivet 'advised the King to take to the field and unfurl his standard against the insurgents’.18 But neither speak specifically of Trivet's intention of organising an ambush for the Appellants. In reality, the Appellants were delayed on the journey to meet the King at Westminster on the 17th November 1387, because they had been warned of an ambush by the Mews at Charing Cross and by the Archbishop of Canterbury's house.19 Ultimately, the ambush failed, and Trivet (alongside other Knights of the Household) was imprisoned in the succeeding parliament. However, as Given-Wilson points out, Trivet's actions singled him out alongside de Vere as one of the few loyal individuals to stand by Richard in this time of crisis.20

6. Trivet's arrest in 1388 and subsequent death

After the Appellants ill-fated meeting with Richard in the Tower at the end of December 1387, the lords travelled to Westminster to take over the household and its administration.1 They carried out the wholesale arrest of a nmnber of household and Chamber officials a few days later on the 4th January 13882. Among those arrested from the Chamber or who were closely associated with the Chamber, were such officials as James Berners, John Salisbury, William Elmham and Nicholas Dagworth, and of course, Thomas Trivet. All those arrested were sent to various castles around the countiy. Trivet was sent to Dover Castle under the keeping of Sir John Devereux along with John Beauchamp, John Salisbury and John Lincoln (a clerk).3

Why was Trivet arrested? The charges brought against him could not have been great since although he was ordered before the council on the 15th February 1388, he never did attend a formal trial.4 He was released even before the end of the Merciless Parliament.5 Was he arrested as a result of his public opposition to the Appellants a few months earlier? Trivet's actions in November 1387 (when he tried to ambush the Appellants on their way to meet the King) undoubtedly did nothing to endear him to the lords. Or perhaps the reason was a personal vendetta with the Earl of Arundel. Goodman has suggested that Trivet urged the King to take up arms against the Appellants in November 1387 because he was 'anxious to recover his naval command from Arundel’.6 The latter may have suggested his arrest on the 4th January 1388 with this still in mind. Another alternative lay in his involvement in the 1383 crusade to Flanders. William Elmham was among those arrested alongside Trivet and he too had beem a captain on this ill-fated expedition. It may or may not be significant that Elmham was released from imprisonment on the same day as Trivet.7 but it is safe to assume that this episode had been resolved by the time of the Merciless Parliamemt. The most likely explanation for Trivet's arrest is his close involvement with the court and his influential proximity to the King. As a Banneret of the Household hc enjoyed a favourable position at court in the 1380s. In October 1385, for example. he received 'four ells of black cloth’for the funeral of Princess Joan of Kent alongside such men as the EarLs of Oxford and Suffolk and Simon Burley.8 The amount of cloth he received for this sombre occasion. Mitchell notes, was important since the other household knights received just three and three quarter ells - the extra cloth used to denote household seniority. His position at court, therefore, must have been illustrious to be included alongside such influential individuals.

Trivet's imprisonment did not last long and he was released on the 30th May 1388, under the mainprise of Henry de Beaumonde, Matthew Gourney, John de Bromwych and Henry Grene.9 However, he was released under the surety that he was to be brought ‘before theKing and council in the next parliament to answer touching whatsoever shall be laid against him‘.10 The matter of his arrest had still not been resolved since no direct charges could be brought against him. In fact, according to the Westminster Chronicler, on the day that he died (6th October 1388) a somewhat vague proclamation was made in the Cambridge Parliament that; ‘anybody who wished to accuse him of treason or of at any other outstanding crime that would properly be visited with the death penalty, was to appear and put his case on the following day when the accused would be subjected to a judicial decision in accordance with what was alleged and proved'.11 Since his timely death prevented such a confrontation in parliament, it is difficult to speculate whether he would have actually been charged or not. Perhaps the only matter which could have been brought against him was the fact that he had remained at court when he, along with other 'less desirables', were ordered to leave in the previous parliament. But he was not the only knight to disregard the parliament's orders. As Tout states; 'in spite of the overhauling of 1388, the King still kept by his side some of the less offensive of his chamber officers’.12

He died on his way to rejoin the King's household at Barnwell priory, near Cambridge.13 Westnmster gives a detailed account of his death stating that his horse fell while he was galloping towards Barnwell, 'crushing him so badly that he lived barely nine hours or more‘.14 He must have died in debt to the King for little time was wasted before his goods and chattels were ordered into the King's hands." The day before parliament came to a close (i.e. 16th October 1388), two sergeants-at-arms and an escheator were appointed to seize Trivet's possessions in Lincolnshire, stating that Trivet had 'not accounted for divers

large sums of money by him received at the Exchequer'.16 According to Kingsford,'many people rejoiced at his death by reason of his overweening bearing, as well as on account of his treachery in the crusade of I383 and the evil advice which he had given to the King’.17 Again, the notion of Trivet's unpopularity, even in death, comes solely from the Westminster Chronicler's viewpoint. He was, the Chronicler writes, due to be judged in parliament on the 7th October, but as a result of his death 'God forstalled any such judgement with his own '.18
7. Conclusion

In charting the career of Thomas Trivet, it is clear that he owed much of his success to his abilities as a soldier. He came from a family who were associated with the retinue of the Black Prince (especially his father, John Trivet) and this association perhaps resulted in his close assimilation with the court of Richard II. He enjoyed an illustrious military career, especially in the late 1370s and early 1380s (for example, as Admiral for the West in 1386). As leader of the Navarrese expedition in 1378 and 1379 he failed to further the Anglo-Navarrese alliance, and despite his attempts to stop the Treaty of Briones between Castile and Navarre, the latter was lost as an English stepping stone into the Iberian Peninsula. However personally, he seems to have emerged quite well from this campaign. He had proved himself as a capable soldier, if not a competent diplomat and returned to England to be warmly received by Richard II. Only a few years later, he was to play a part in the Bishop of Norwich's 'crusade' to Flanders as one of 'the best and most sufficient captains of the realm’.1 though this 'crusade' began well, it soon turned into nothing short of a debacle, with the blame subsequently directed at Despenser and his captains once they had returned to England. As the account of the Westminster Chronicler has shown, anger was particularly fierce in England because the captains (Trivet among them), had received bribes from the French in return for their withdrawal from Flanders.2 But as Saul has pointed out, the captains had little choice in the matter against a well-maintained French army.3 The English captains had done what they could under the circumstances.

As Admiral for the West, Trivet again seems to have done his best in unfavourable conditions. He and D’arcy had to contend with a distinct lack of ships at a time when English fears were heightened as a result of the gathering French fleet at Sluys which threatened invasion. In spite of this set back, the two admirals did remarkably well, seizing a small fleet of enemy ships bound for Sluys in the summer of 1386.

He enjoyed a certain 'friendship' with Richard which seems to have stemmed from an intense loyalty to his monarch, as well as a means of furthering his advancement (the grant of £100 from the stannary at Cornwall in 1385, for example, may have stemmed from his closeness to the King).4 His presence at court was influential enough for him to be arrested by the Appellants in January 1388, alongside other chamber officials and household knights. But again, his ability to ride out the tide of criticism prevailed and he was released and back at court again by the summer of 1388. It is difficult to judge Thomas Trivet as anything less than a success. He was never as influential at court as Robert de Vere, for instance, but nevertheless he was still a cause for concern for the Appellants in 1388. Finally,if Kingsford's assumption that ‘many people rejoiced at his death’ is to believed, then it suggests that Trivet must have been a success at court and on the battlefield for him to be rewarded with such bitter resentment.5

1 L.C. Hector and B. F. Harvey eds, The Westminster Chronicle 1381-1394, (1980),p.46

2 The only reference I found for a possible date of birth (i.e. 1330) was in T. J.Hunt and P. N. Dawe eds., 

Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset,

vol. xxvI, {1955), p.216. However, given that his presumed father, John Trivet was born in 1316. this is open to dispute.

3 C.Given-WiLson, The Royal Household and the Kings Affinity (1986, p 164 He dismisses the only

reference to Trivet as a (Chamber Knight in the Westminster Chronicle, (Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle p230n) since the chronicler cites no reference for this assumption.

4 In email from Dr -------- 11th April 2000 (see Appendix 3). I am very grateful to Dr mitchell for the enormous help she has given me for this dissertation.

5 lbid

6 lbid

7 After Thomas's death. his widow Elizabeth ganted John the manor of Crandon. Somerset. which had

belonged to her husband, and John was named as her heir when she died in 1433 (R. W.Dunning ed., A History of the County of Somerset vol.VI (1992) p. 138 & p.186

8 C.L.Kingsford, ‘Thomas Trivet', DNB, vol. XIX. {1909), p.1163

9 CPR 1374-7, p.181; CPR 1377-81, p.198

10 N. Saul, Richard 2nd ( 1997), p. 153

11 P.E. Russell, The English Intervention in Spain and Portugal in the time of Edward III and Richard II, ( 1955 ), p.277n. The dispute was called off on the 28th March because En Joan. who was called to witness it, didn't think that the reason for the quarrel warranted such a combat.

12 A. Goodman, The Loyal Conspiracy, The Lords Appellant under Richard II, (1971), p.26 

1 John died after Thomas m 1304 and had no living male heirs at his death (IMP 15-23 Richard II, vol. XVII), p.447 (no. 1258). I have assumed that his mother was called Elizabeth since a 'John' and an 'Elizabeth Trivet' are mentioned in CCR 1343-6, p. 635 as having tenements m Northaston, Oxfordshire in July 1345 - Thomas Trivet held the manor of Northaston at his death (IMP 7-15-.Richard II.vol. XVI, p.297)

2 Kingsford. DNB. vol. XIX, p.l163

3 The register of the Black Prince AD 1351-1365,(part II- Duchy of Cornwall),(1935),p.206 & p.213 

4 Kingsford, DNB. vol. XIX, p.1163 - which suggests that John was Thomas's brother, but I am not convinced by this.

5 IMP 7-l5 Richard II Vol.XVI. p.205-6 (nos. 534-7.)Joan died in 1388 the widow of John Clinton She

was jointly enfeoffed of the said lands with Philip Limbury, (her first husband).

6 CCR 1389-92,p.65. The King took the necessary homage on 3rd August 1388.

7 IMP 7-15 Richard II. vol. XV1. pp.298-9 {no. 769).

8 IMP Edward III, vol.XII, p.128 {no. I52)

9 CCR 1302-7, p.322

10 IMP 7-15 Richard II, vol.XVI,pp.297-9(nos. 764-770). See Appendix 2 for a map of his estates

11 IMP Edward II, vol VI,p43(no.57)

12 Dunning, History of Somerset vol.VI,p.107

13 Ibid p.186

14 Ibid

15 R.R. Sharpe ed Calendar of letter-books of the City ofLondon..Letter-Book H, (1907), p.89, CCR
1369-74 p. 559

16 CPR 1377-81, p.393, Sharpe, Calender of letter-books H, p.357

17 Russell, English Intervention. p.270n; Kingsford. DNB. vol XIX, p.1163

18 CPR 1330-34, p.89. Thomas Gournay was embroiled in the death of Edward II and was murdered in custody off the coast of Gascony in 1333 (N. Fryde, The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321-1326, (1979), p.201. p204, & p206}

19 Kingsford, DNB, vol.XIX, p.1163

20 CCR 1385-9, p.397-8

21 Kingsford, DNB, vol. XIX, p.1163

22 Ibid.

23 CCR 1374-7, p.318.Trivet was one of those ordered to produce Catterton before this parliament

and he acted as one of the mainpernors on the 19th July 1376 (Ibid.p.439)

24 Kingsford, DNB, vol. XIX-, p 1103

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 CPR 1381-5, p.23 & p.72

28 IMP 7-15 Richard II, vol. XVI, p298 (no.766); (see Appendix 2 )

29 G.E. Cokayne et al., The Complete Peerage, vol.II, p.594 (she received the robes as Lady of The Garter in 1390 and 1399)

30 In email from Dr -------- 11th April 2000

31 CPR 1391-9, pp. 288, 369 & 387 (in 1393 and 1394)

32 Ibid. p.286

33 E.F.Jacob ed., The Register of Henry Chichelle, Arcbishop of Canterbury, 1414-1443, vol.II, (1937),


34 IMP7-15 Richard ,II vol. XVI, p.297 (no. 764)

1 See Saul. Richard II pp.38-41,for the summary of the events in Spain.

2 See Appendix 4 for a map of Navarre and the places mentioned in this campaign.

3 Saul, Richard II, p.40

4 Russell, English Intervention. p.270n

5 J. G. Fotheringham, Matthew Gournay', DNB. vol, V1II. (1908), p.291: Russell, English Intervention p.271

6 Kingsford, DNB, vol. XIX, p. 1163

7 Russell, English Intervention,p270

8 Ibid p270; Kingsford, DNB, vol XIX, p. 1163

9 Ibid

10 Russell, English Intervention p. 271

11 Kingsford, DNB, Vol XIX, p.1163

12 Saul, Richard II,p.40

13 Russell, English Intervention, p273

14 Ibed p.275. There had been rumours that Gaunt,s daughter (Catalina) was about to be betrothed to Don Pedro of Navarre.

15 Russell, English Intervention, p.277

16 Kingsford, DNB, vol. XIX, p.1163

17 Russell, English Intervention, p270

 1 Saul, Richard II. p100. Wool exports had decreased dramatically from 18000 sacks between 1381 and 1382 to 11,000 sacks between 1382 and 1383 ( M. Aston, ‘The impeachment of Bishop Despenser’, BIHR, (1965),p.134

2 Saul, Richard II, p. 107 ( see Appendix 5 for a map of the places mentioned in the Flanders ‘crusade’)

3 Aston, BIHR, (1965), p. 137

4 Froissart, vol. XI, pp. 86-8

5 Aston, BIHR, (1965), p.129

6 See above p.10

7 Aston, BIHR,(1965),p.128(taken from Rot.Parl.III,


8 Froissart, vol. XI,pp.88-90

9 Kingsford, DNB,p.1164(taken from Walsingham,HA,ii,p.86 & p.94

10 Saul,Richard II,p.105

11 Froissart,vol. XI,pp.95-7

12 IBID. This figure is also cited by the Chronicler, Adam Usk, in C.given-Wilson ed., The Chronicle of Adam Usk, 1377-1421,(1997),p.15

13 Saul, Richard II,p.105

14 Froissart, vol. XI,pp.122-4

15 Aston, BIHR,(1965),pp.144-5

16 IBID,p.129

17 The following movements of the English army (up until the seige of Bourborg) are taken from Froissart, vol.XI,pp. 122-33

18 G.H.Martin ed., Knightons Chronicle 1337-1396, (1995), p.326

19 Martin,Knightons Chronicle, p.328

20 Froissart, vol. XI, p.149

21 Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle, p.49

22 IBID.

23 IBID. p.46n(taken from Rot.Parl.III, p157); CCR 1381-5,p.368

24 IBID.

25 Saul,Richard 11,p.106

26 Ibid, pp. I05-6

27Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle,p53

28 Along wiih William Elmham, Henry Ferrers and Robert Fitz Ralph - lbid p.52n (from Rot. Parl. III. p.158)

29 Martin Knighton's Chronicle p Ixvii

30 Aston, BIHR, (1965),p.129. Westminster singles out Trivet, Elmham and William Farringdon as refusing this request made by Despenser and the well-respected, Hugh Calveley (Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle,p45)

31 Aston,BIHR, (1965) p 130
32 Ibid.

33 Froissart, vol, XI,p.149

34 Kingsford,DNB, p.1164

35 Cited in A.R. Myers ed, English Historical Documents IV; 1327-1485, (1965),p.147

36 Kingsford, DNB, p.1164 (taken from Rot.Parl III, p.152-3 & 156-8), He was certainly out oi' prison by November 1384, when he was placed on a commission inquiring into the possession of some land in somerset (CPR 1381-5 p.505p.368

37 CCR 1381-5, p.368

1 Hector and Harvey, Westminster Ckronicle. p.117

2 lbid.

3 CCR1385-9,p.61

4 J.S.Roskell, The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, in 1386 in the context of the reign of Richard II, (1984),p69


6 IBID. pp.69-70

7 Roskell, Impeachment of de la Pole, p.71

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid. p.216 (on the 8th September 1386).

11 Roskell, Impeachment of de la Pole, p.72 (the fleet consisted of some Flemish, Spanish- but mostly Genoese ships, with the suspected sailing destination of Sluys. This couldn't be proved and so the seizure of the ships goods'had to be justified}

12 T.F.Tout. Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England vol III. (1928), p.417

13 Goodman, Loyal Conspiracy, p.129

14 CPR 1385-9, p395

15 Ibid. p.397-8

16 Goodman, Loyal Conspiracy, p.26

17 Martin,Knightons Chronicle. p,407

18 Hector and Harvey. Westminster Chronicle. p.213

19 Martin, Knighton's Chronicle. p.413n

20 Given-Wilson, Royal Household. p.221

1 ToutChapters, vol III, p.428

2 Ibid p 428. Westminster mistakenly places the arrests a few days earlier (Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle,p.229 )

3 CCR 1385-9, p394

4 Ibid,; Kingsford, DNB, p.1164

5 CCR 1385-9, p397

6 Goodman, Loyal Conspiracy p.26

7 Tout, Chapters vol. 11I, p.452n

8 In e-mail from Dr--------, 11th April 2000 (taken from PRO E101/401/16 m27)see Appendix 3

9 CCR 1385-9, p.397

10 Ibid

11 Hectot and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle, p.369

12 Tout, Chapters, vol III, p, 149

13 Ibid. p.309n

14 Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle, p.369

15 On the 8th Octobcr 1388 an order was made to seize his lands (CPR 1383-91 p291). His possessions in Iklingion, Cambridge, were specifically ordered to be seized on the 10th October 1388 (CCR—1385-9 p. 533)

16 CPR 1385-9 p.550

17 Kingsford, DNB, vol. XIX, p.1164

18 Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle, p.369

1 Aston, BIHR, (1965), p.128 (taken from Rot. Parl III, pp. 153-4)

2 Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle p.49

3 Saul, Richard II, (1997}, pp. 105-6

4 CCR 1385-9, p.6l

5 Kingsford, DNB, vol. XIX, p.1164


Notes for Appendix 1

1. R.W. Dunning, A History of the CounW of Somerset, vol. VI, (1992), p. 141

2. Ibid.

3. CFR 1272-1307, p. 144 & p.222

4. IMP Edward II, vol. VI, p.43 (no.57)

5. Ibid.; CFR 1307-19, p. 229

6. T.J. Hunt and P. N. Dawe eds., Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset vol. XXVI,

(1955), p. 51

7. CCR 1343-6, p.635

8. Hunt and Dawe, Notes and Queries, vol. XXVI, p. 51; C. L. Kingsford, ' Thomas Trivet', DNB, vol. XIX, p. 1163

9. IMP 7-15 Richard II, vol. XVI, pp. 298-9 (no.769)

10. CPR 1429-36, p.332; IMP 7-15 Richard IL vol. XVI, p.298 (no.767); E. F. Jacob ed., The Register of Henry Chichelle, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1414-1443, vol. II, pp. 495-7

11. IMP 7-15 Richard II, vol. XVI, p.297 (no.764)

12. This line of descendants is taken from F. W. Weaver and C. H. Mayo eds., Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset vol. IX, (1905), pp. 119-22

13. CPR 1330-34, p. 89

14. J. G. Fotheringham, 'Matthew Gournay', DNB, vol. VIII, p.291

15. This line of descendants is taken from IMP Edward HIt, vol. IX, p.399 (no.576)

16. IMP Edward HI, vol. XII, pp. 128-9 (no. 152)

17. IMP 7-15 Richard II, vol. XVI, p.205 (nos. 534-7)

From: Dr -----------------

Sent: 11 April 2000 22:55

Subject: Thomas Trivet

Thomas Tryvet was a household knight of Richard H; more importantly, he was a banneret of the household. Evidence for his chamber office can be found only for year 1, 22 June 1377 - 21 June 1378, PRO C61/91 ml0. This document = the Gascon Rolls.

Evidence for chamber office can most reliably be found in the Wardrobe Books but their survival is patchy; all we have for RII's reign cover the years 7/8; 13/14; 16/17; 19/20; and these do NOT include Thomas; the only mention of him as a chamber knight comes from the C61 mentioned above.

**However, he is mentioned as a 'banneret' of the household in:

year 7, when he was amongst the group of knights who went to meet Anne at Calais. He was one of only 3 bannerets then mentioned. The others = William Montagu, le ritz [son of the earl of Salisbury] and John Bourser; year 9, when he received robes for the funeral of Joan of Kent - October 1385, PRO E101/401/16 m27.

He then received 4 ells of black long cloth in company with the earls of Kent, Oxford, Nottingham, Suffolk, as well as the sub-chamberlain, Simon BurIcy, and the steward Lord John Montagu. Thus the group he was included in was illustrious. The other household knights [not bannerets] received only 3~ ells of long black cloth on this same occasion. The extra cloth = either for a longer sleeve or a higher neck to denote household seniority.

Do not be misled into thinking that the chamber knights were the most senior of the household knights. For example, on the occasion of Joan's funeral, Peter Comenay, William Neville, Baldwin Bereford, Richard Abberbury, Nicholas Sarnesfeld etc. all received cloth together with all the other household knights even though they had all at some time between 1377-85 held chamber office and been mentioned in the Wardrobe Book, E101/401/2 f42.

Since you will find it difficult to consult documents, I give references to my thesis which has all this set out on pp. 301; 304; 326; 327. Also p.237, which shows that there was evidence for his household status in years 1,3, 8, 9, 1 l[also year 10 which I seem to have left out of the Appendix] and that he was dead in year 13. Thus also look at pp. 241,247, 261,269, 271 which give dates and documentary references. If you want any help with these specifically please ask.

Shelagh Mitchell, Some Aspects of the Knightly HousehoM of Richard ll, London University PhD thesis 1998 (LSE thesis).

Tryvet was also Admiral of the South and West in year 10, C66/322 m27; you can find this in the printed Calendars of Patent Rolls for October 1386. Also see, CPR 1385-89 p. 376.

I also have payment being made to him as Admiral in 1389, from the Issue Rolls [see below#].

The Admiral also had a legal aspect; see the court of the Admiralty.


Thomas' death is mentioned in the Westminster Chronicle. His closeness to the king can be inferred from the fact that he was made to abjure the court by the Appellant Lords. From the Westminster Chronicle footnotes you can work out various relationships/networks.

Elizabeth Tryvet, also called Lady Tryvet, was in receipt of a grant from the king after her husband' s death but unfortunately I cannot put my hand on that ref. She was also a Lady of the Garter, for which see The Complete Peerage, vol 2 Appendix B. Her membership of this places her in select company. Nigel Saul's new book speaks generally of the 'Garter Ladies' and this might help you to judge her importance [I cannot find this reference - it is in the context of women in general]; this book also has something on Thomas' military career in Navarre, on the bishop of Norwich's crusade etc.

*I am sure that you know to use the index of the Calendars of Patent and Close Rolls for both Edward III and Richard II.

*For the military career, look at Carte, Gascon Rolls. This is only a selection of the entries on the original rolls and they are in Latin but printed nevertheless. Also, look at the *Deputy Keeper's Reports, there might be something. There should be an index telling you which of the volumes deals with the Gascon Wars of EIII and RII and see if you find Thomas. These volumes are at the Institute of Historical Research and the PRO.

*Also look at the Calendars oflnquisitions Post Mortera for the year 1388 which should give you the lands of Thomas and his heir.

*Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, vol vi p. 144 gives further refs. to the Admirals of Edward III and RII and to the court of the Admiralty but this will not be helpful for Trvyet specifically. For Thomas see, ibid vol iii pp.435 n3,452 n2 which really is only the story of the expelling from court and subsequent sureties etc.

*Victoria County History for Somerset might also be a help.

*Anthony Goodman in Loyal Conspiracy p. 26 refers to Thomas as 'unpopular' [might be true from the Monk of Westminster's comments on Thomas' death]; that he had lost the Admiralship to the earl of Arundel; p. 129 shows that, as Admiral, Arundel copied one of the tactics first used by Thomas when he was Admiral; p. 172 for Thomas and Nicholas Brembre's attempts to ambush the Lords Appellant.

[see above#. I have a payment to Thomas as Admiral in 1389 so he must have regained his position as Admiral after the Appellants but I have not checked this. It may be a payment in arrears. ]

*Something of the career of Thomas as Admiral in, J.S. Roskell, The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole.

I have not investigated Thomas' relationship to John Tryvet but I think John is also from Somerset. John had a career in Gascony.