ing royal power.
London’s artisanal guilds also stressed that in accroaching royal power to himself, Brembre had acted without the judgement of the law (see footnote 3). As mayor, Brembre not only made the law but was also supposed to uphold the rule of law and serve as an example. In their petition, however, the guildsmen created an alternative story, one in which Brembre had used royal power to subvert civic life.
The murder of John Constantyn
Throughout their petitions, the guildsmen adopted and adapted the language and arguments used by the Lords Appellant to make their grievances specific to a London context. This was even the case when discussing the horrifying murder of John Constantyn, a cordwainer who was executed in 1384 in Cheapside because he revolted against what he believed to be Brembre’s injustices.
At the time of Constantyn’s murder, Brembre portrayed himself as a mayor who acted to strengthen the governance of London and suppress anyone who dared cause havoc in London, yet we see that in the Saddlers’ Petition and the Cordwainers’ Petition an alternative story is told. For the Saddlers and the Cordwainers, Brembre had only been able to do this and execute Constantyn because of accroaching royal power to himself (see footnote 4).
Even those who had showed loyalty met their ends at Brembre’s hands because of how he had used Richard II’s royal power for his own selfish means. As argued within the Embroiderers’ Petition, even individuals who were ‘so bold as to offer the proof for his loyalty’ were imprisoned and treated with contempt (see footnote 5).
He was a man bereft of any obligation to those who lived in London and, thus, someone who the guildsmen portrayed as a man far removed from having the accepted principles and behaviours of a Mayor of London. He was viewed as having abused his rights and powers as mayor, subverting the traditional power dynamic between mayor and king as a way of enforcing his authority.
A clear act of treason
The guildsmen forged a scenario in which by accroaching the king’s power, Brembre silenced his opponents, with the implication being that Brembre used the king’s powers to serve his own self-interest. What Brembre did, in their eyes, was a clear act of treason. Brembre had subverted the traditional relationship between that of the king and those who served him.
Richard II’s rights were a prominent feature of the petitions, and the guildsmen were echoing medieval beliefs in kingship, for we see these ideas in poems such as Lak of Steadfastness by Geoffrey Chaucer, who described that a strong medieval king was to:
[c]herish thy folk and hate extorcioun.
Suffre nothing that may be reprevable
To thyn estat don in thy regiounLak of Steadfastness, 23-25
A medieval king was not to tolerate any behaviour that could be damaging to the realm, and his royal power was to not be abused in any way (see footnote 6).
It’s of no surprise that the phrase ‘encontre la corone’ (‘against the crown’) and ‘encontre ley et la corone’ (‘against the law and crown’) are found throughout this group of petitions. The guildsmen were arguing that in committing his crimes, Brembre was guilty of treason by going against the Crown and the law of the land.
The impact of the Guild Petitions in the overall proceedings of the Merciless Parliament was questioned by contemporary writers. The author of the Westminster Chronicle, for example, gives them minimal importance in orchestrating Brembre’s downfall (see footnote 7). In contrast, the political pamphleteer Thomas Favent offers a very different portrayal, praising the efforts of the guildsmen in their endeavour to challenge the corruption of Brembre (see footnote 8).
Regardless, what these records show us is how treasonous behaviour was understood in the medieval world and how a group of individuals could come together to frame their arguments to demonstrate how the treasonous crime of accroaching royal power could be applied in an urban context.
In the end, the Merciless Parliament condemned Brembre for his wrongdoings, and he was executed on 20 February 1