 Hello, it's wonderful to be here and thank you so much to Jen for that kind introduction and you all both here and online for listening. But without further ado, as many of you will know, a number of works and articles have been written about English bishops in the later Middle Ages and their involvement in politics. Purely by way of example, bishops work of chancellors has been poured over by William Dodd, their services Royal Diplomats has been considered by Mary Blust and Joel Rosenthal. Their place in Parliament has been examined by Phil Bradford and Alison McHardy, their importance in procuring and paying taxation has been looked at by Mark Hornerodd and Rosemary Hayes and their role in disseminating the king's propaganda has been evaluated by W.R. Jones and once again by Alison McHardy. Now much of this work is excellent, and I think the work of William Dodd, Mark Hornerodd and Alison McHardy in particular has been outstanding, and I'm not here to criticise its conclusions. Now what much of this work has in common is that it's been thematic, focusing on just one of the Episcopathe's many roles in politics. Of course that's understandable. Any study which attempted to consider the whole sweep of the Episcopathe's activities over any meaningful period of time would have to grapple with an enormous number of sources, an enormous number of examples, an enormous number of issues. It's practical and manageable for historians to divide Bishop's political responsibilities into smaller chunks, and indeed working somatically can allow for greater clarity and precision in argument than when one considers everything together. However, there are two drawbacks was considering things somatically. First is that when one just focuses on a single aspect of what Bishop's did politically, one can miss the interconnections and interrelationships between their different roles. The second is that when one considers just a single piece of this jigsaw, it's difficult to get the whole end of the picture and a coherent sense of the whole. But how important was the Episcopathe in later medieval politics. It's not always easy to answer that question by looking at just a single facet of things. So today I do want to take a slightly different approach. I'm going to look at the whole breadth of the Episcopathe's roles in politics, and I'm going to do so through considering a single case study. The third negotiations were granted taxation in 1337 at the outset of the Hundred Years War. The immediate origin of these negotiations lies in the diplomatic mission to the continent led by Henry Burghers, Bishop of Lincoln in the spring of 1337. Burghers enjoyed considerable success in persuading many of the princes of the low countries to pledge their support to Edward. He also swiftly learned that Philip VI, the King of France, had little desire for peace. Philip formally declared war on Edward, announced that he would proceed with the confiscation of Gaskini, which was at that point in English hands, and pronounced that he would assist the Scots against England, as he was bound to do under the term of the Treaty of Corbyn. Accordingly, back in England, wits of summons were sent out in June 1337 through a great council. This invited almost 100 men, including 15 bishops, to treat upon certain affairs which had been brought to the King's attention by the envoys whom he had sent to certain parts beyond the sea. This council metting July at Westminster. While records concerning the council are frustratingly slim, meaning that we cannot know for certain what was discussed, it appears it was decided that war with Philip and the French could not be avoided. Since Edward was to go to war and wanted to lead an expedition himself to the low countries, he needed sufficient political and financial support. This was particularly essential as Berger should went on to build a grand alliance against Philip VI. He negotiated with more princes from throughout the low countries and throughout Germany, and procured promises from them to assemble an army of almost 7,000 troops, but only at the price of over £160,000. To put that in context, the crown's ordinary revenue at that point in time was in the realm of £10,000. Edward therefore needed to reach out to his subjects. He did so for two reasons. Firstly, to convince them of the justice of his war. Secondly, to see if they would give him some money in case a great council which was due to assemble in September that year didn't give him an adequate subsidy. So in August 1337, Rytz was sent out from the chancery, which was headed by the Chancellor, Robert Stratford, Bishop-elect of Chichester, ordering special meetings of the county courts and special assemblies of the local clergy. Unsurprisingly, bishops were tasked with addressing these local gatherings of clergy. So, for example, John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, was asked to address the clergy of his archdioces. William Melton, Archbishop of York, was asked to address the clergy of his. And Adam Allerton, Bishop of Winchester, was asked to address the clergy of his bishop. I could go on. But they were also tasked with addressing many of the assemblies of the county courts. Sometimes it's a help of local aristocracy and royal officials. Thus, for example, John Granderson, Bishop of Exeter, addressed the people of Devon in his cathedral city alongside Hugh Courtney, the Earl of Devon. Likewise, Roger Northborough, Bishop of Coventry in Lichfield, addressed the men of Staffordshire at Stafford alongside Ralph Bassett, a prominent local baron. And Anthony Beck, Bishop of Norwich, addressed the men of Norfolk in his cathedral city. And the men of Suffolk at Berysent Edmonds, alongside Robert Ufford, the Earl of Suffol. Again, I could go on. But the interesting point is that the only counties in which bishops did not address the county gatherings were those in which there was no Episcopal seat such as Oxfordshire, where the abbots of Abingdon and Oesny addressed the people at Oxford, or those in which the Episcopal seat was vacant, or where it's incumbent was otherwise occupied. So, for example, in Sussex, the Earl of Arundel addressed the county assembly in Chichester, perhaps because Robert Stratford had yet to be consecrated as Bishop, or perhaps because he was occupied in Westminster as the Royal Chancellor. When addressing these assemblies, both those of the clergy and of the laity, bishops were instructed to explain to those assembles the King's intention and will concerning the defence of the realm against the King of France, to show them how the King of the Bly to spend great sums of money for the war with France, and to induce them to aid the King to the extent of their ability. These arguments were drawn from a schedule, which they were ordered to expound to the clergy and people, and also to publish in every church of their diocese. This schedule has become well known to historians as Edward the Third's manifesto, having been published under this title in the fourth volume of English historical documents. Its purpose was to highlight the offers made to the King of France by the King of England to avoid war, which were rejected by the French in order to demonstrate how the King was forced into conflict and how he was compelled to raise money. Accordingly, to make its case, Edward's manifesto made reference to a number of overtures made by the English to the French. Many of these have been conveyed by bishops. So, the manifesto mentions how Edward crossed secretly into France and came to Philip, humbly requesting the delivery of his land, offering and doing to the King as much as he ought and more. This refers to a secret meeting between Edward and Philip in April 1331, when Edward had been accompanied by only a small entourage, which included John Stratford, then Bishop of Winchester, and by this point Archbishop of Canterbury. It also notes, for example, how Edward proposed that his son, who came to be known as the Black Prince, married Philip VI's daughter. Negotiations in this regard were pursued by John Stratford in the autumn of 1331 and by Stratford and Orlerton again in the spring of 1332. It goes on to mention Edward's suggestion that his brother, John of Elsin, might marry any lady of the Blood Royal, which was taken forward by Adam Orlerton in early 1332 and John Stratford in the spring of 1334. And it makes repeated reference to Edward's offers to join Philip on a crusade to the Holy Land, which were made in a variety of iterations from late 1331 to the summer of 1336. These were pursued by various ambassadors, including Stratford, Orlerton, William Airman, the Bishop of Norwich, and Richard de Berry, the Bishop of Durham. The case advanced in Edward's manifesto was thus built on a series of missions to France undertaken by bishops throughout the 1330s. Now, while we don't know who wrote this schedule, my suspicion, although this is pure conjecture, is that it may have been altered by Archbishop Stratford. There are four strands of potential evidences. Firstly, we know that Stratford had form with drafting important texts. Edward II's deposition articles were dictated in his presence and written down by his clum, William Nees. Secondly, we know that he was committed to the war with France in 1337. In the Parliament of March that year, he called together the bishops to swear an oath on his arch-episcopal cross to support Edward's right in France. Thirdly, we know that he was an influential councillor of the King at this point in time. Edward later alleged that the Archbishop had persuaded him that, as peace was unobtainable by moderate means, it was necessary to pursue it by force of arms. Finally, we know that Stratford himself brought into the argument that Edward was forced into war by Philip's effusils to listen. In 1341, he himself wrote that every effort had been made for peace, but that Philip, viper-like, had refused to listen. It was therefore not Edward's thought that the war had began, but Philip's. And yet, whether or not Archbishop Stratford drafted this manifesto, we know that it was sent out and circulated by the chanceau, which was, of course, headed by his brother, Robert. The arguments of Edward's manifesto and the efforts in addressing the county and clerical assemblies seem to have paid off for Edward, at least to some extent. He succeeded in securing some grants from them. Thus, for example, while we don't know the exact sum involved, we know that the men of the West Riding of York, who had been addressed by William Milton, gave at least something to the King. Yet in the end, the great council which assembled in September 1337, granted Edward an unprecedented 15th and 10th for three years, and the convocations of Canterbury and York, which followed a clerical tense for three years. Regrettably, we don't know the details of what happened at either of these meetings, for nothing resembling a Parliament role exists to the Assembly of September 1337 and no acts of convocation survive for the convocations of September and November. Yet, bishops were certainly summoned to both of these assemblies and certainly attended them, and it's reasonable to suppose that they played an important part in both of these gatherings. We know from accounts of other great councils and convocations that they played an important role in stage managing procedures and feelings in discussing matters themselves and in persuading the clergy to grant subsidies. Indeed, they agreed to pay taxation themselves as they contributed to both clerical tense and lay 15th and 10th. With this financial backing behind him, Edward cancelled the earlier grants and the monies already collected were credited towards the new subsidies. So Edward got his money and his negotiations were grant or successful. But what does this episode reveal about the importance of the church and of the bishops in particular in politics and political culture? It reveals that they were deeply important to the operation of the 14th century political system. They weren't merely important in disseminating propaganda or in diplomacy or in the King's administration and so on. Instead, but simply, bishops were everywhere. In this one episode, we see the work of bishops as diplomats as their missions both instigated Edward's search for money and provided justifications to his arguments. We see the work of bishops as civil servants as an Episcopal Chancellor orchestrated the administration of proceedings. We see the work of bishops as royal propagandists as they communicated the King's messages to his people and they well has drafted his manifesto. We see the work of bishops as financiers of the Crown as they procured grants from both clergy and laity and indeed at Crescent taxation themselves. And we see the bishops in great councils and convocation as they attended the assemblies which granted substantial taxes to Edward and brought the attempts of him to secure cash. Directly from local communities to an end, but bishops weren't really prevalent across the breadth of political life, but their roles were also profoundly interconnected. So, for example, Episcopal diplomats went on missions to the court of Philip VI, but these were later drawn upon explicitly by Archbishop Stratford if he was indeed the author of Edward's manifesto. His manifesto was circulated to the other bishops by Vicciansui, which was headed by Robert Stratford, another bishop-elect, and the messages of this manifesto were allaged to both clerical and lay assemblies by yet more bishops. For today's purposes, this has two important ramifications. Firstly, it means that when historians write somatic accounts about the Episcopal's role in politics, something which I do and which I think historians should continue to do, they should be profoundly aware that their theme is only a smaller part of the bigger picture, and I think they should always keep half an eye out for connections, for parallel and for contrast with other potential themes, which aren't the focus of their discussions. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the omnipresence of bishops means that they were the heart of politics and political culture in later medieval England. Despite this, some histories have sought to sideline the church in the Episcopacy. One thinks of Michael Threst, which is plantagenate England, where he says he will only consider the church when irrelevant, and the same authors as Sui Edwards, where bishops crop up on a mere handful of occasions, and where the bishop who gets perhaps the most detailed treatment is bishop Stubbs, the great 19th century historian. Yet these works inevitably miss something, or indeed quite a lot, for the church and its leaders should be at the front and centre of our accounts. Just as one wouldn't dream, at least I hope, of writing a political history of medieval England without including the king, or the nobility, or perhaps a gentry, one shouldn't think of excluding the church and the Episcopat either. These were men who were at the centre of politics, both in practice, as I hope I've shown today, but also in theory. In the same year as these negotiations, John Granderson, the Bishop of Exeter, petitioned the king and emphasised how, I quote, The substance of the nature of the crown is principally in the person of the king as head, and in the peers of the realm as members, and especially the prelates, such as that one member cannot be severed from the crown without dividing the kingdom. Thank you.