The Soldier in Later Medieval England
DIVIDED LOYALTIES – HUGH DE BROWE, JOHN DE CALVELEY AND RICHARD DE VERNON AT THE BATTLE OF SHREWSBURY 1403
This profile focuses on three parallel case studies all linked by a common theme – death at or after the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403. Perhaps it should occasion no surprise that many prominent members of the military community were involved in this most decisive of decisive battles. However, what is intriguing is the number of connections between the combatants, who were closely linked by ties of family and neighbourhood and by their shared military experiences, but who ended up fighting on opposite sides during the struggle between Henry IV and the Percys.
Sir John Calveley provides the best introduction to this group. He was well connected in the military community of England, as his uncle was Sir Hugh Calveley and he was also related somehow to Sir Robert Knollys, two of the most famous captains of the Hundred Years War. Sir John travelled extensively throughout Europe both in arms and for business. In addition, he may have fought in two civil wars within England, first for the Appellants against Richard II at Radcot Bridge in 1387 and later for Henry IV at the battle of Shrewsbury, where he was killed. Sir John also had close associations with several of the rebels against whom he fought at Shrewsbury, as we shall see, and this has led some historians to incorrectly claim he fought with the Percys in this battle.
Sir John Calveley can be shown to have served as an MP on four occasions in his career, for Rutland in 1383 (Oct), Leicestershire in 1385, Rutland again in 1390 (Nov) and Leicestershire in 1397 (Sept). As a result of his serving as an MP we are treated to an entry in the History of Parliament, which provides us with a short biography where we can start our collection of information on this soldier and public servant. In his entry he is described as Sir John Calveley of Stapleford (Leics.) and Teigh (Rutland). Although there is not a date for his birth, he died in 1403 and was probably knighted between October 1383 and November 1384. 
Given his connections with the military establishment, it is perhaps not surprising to find that Sir John had a well-developed career in arms. We are first able to place him on the ill-fated crusade of Bishop Despencer to Flanders in 1383, thanks to his securing the legal instruments of a letter of protection and appointment of attorney to look after his affairs whilst he was away on campaign.  This expedition may have been chosen as a good proving ground for the young man, as his uncle, Sir Hugh, was one of the leading commanders. This seems to have given him a taste for the martial life and he followed up this expeditionary experience with service on the Scottish marches. He joined the retinue of the earl of Northumberland on the expedition of John of Gaunt into Scotland in 1384 and remained in the north in the garrison of Berwick upon Tweed for at least one year.  This continued presence on the Scottish borders would have brought him into the political orbit of the Percy family. However, from his support for the king against the Percies at Shrewsbury, it appears that this was not the defining relationship of his career.
A more lasting connection seems to have been formed during the period of Appellant supremacy (1387-88) with the earl Marshal, Thomas Mowbray, earl of Nottingham. Whilst Sir John led his own retinue on the expedition led by Richard FitzAlan, earl of Arundel in 1387, he took the unusual step of serving in another captain’s retinue, that of the earl Marshal, in the follow up campaign of 1388.  Indeed, he is the only such retinue captain to demonstrate this pattern of service between the two expeditions. Calveley seems to have been firmly connected to the earl Marshal from this point on, serving with him during 1389-90 in a standing force on the East March of Scotland.  The earl of Northumberland resented the appointment of Mowbray as Warden of the East March, and Calveley’s service with the earl Marshal may have soured his relationship with the Percys.  It seems that this connection continued until the earl Marshal’s forced exile in 1398, since Sir John was one of a group of eighty well-wishers who accompanied the earl to Lowestoft, whence he left England, never to return. 
There is an interesting gap in Calcerley’s career in 1396-7. He travelled abroad in 1396, after appointing attorneys to supervise his affairs in England, and had returned by the second parliament of 1397. It is not clear what the purpose of this voyage was.  Could it be possible that he had joined the crusade of Nicopolis in 1396? Another possible participant at Nicopolis is Sir Ralph Percy, and as we have mentioned, Calveley had indeed previously served with the Percys at Berwick-upon-Tweed. Various European chroniclers place an English contingent at the final battle of the crusade,  but modern historians have disagreed over the accuracy of such remarks. Charles L. Tipton addressed the question of English involvement in an article, where he argued that the English were not involved in the expedition on the grounds that he could not identify any individual leaving England in order to be at Nicopolis.  Tipton also provided evidence to show that suggested participants could be placed elsewhere at the time of the crusade. As we have seen Sir John Calveley was out of the country for long enough to have served in the crusade. Palmer argued against Tipton’s conclusions and provided other evidence to support his opposing case.  Neither work has answered the question of English participation satisfactorily, but recently other historians have stated that John Beaufort, the son of John of Gaunt, was present at Nicopolis.  Unfortunately, in the current case, it is more likely, if less glamorous, that Sir John was actually chasing the debts owed to his uncle by the King of Aragon. 
A further question is how, in the absence of his patron Mowbray, did Sir John cope in the interregnum between the regimes of Richard II and his usurper, Henry IV? Sir John appeared to have survived his service on the Appellant-led campaigns and was appointed a king’s knight from 1394. Despite this, he also found it pertinent to secure a royal pardon in 1398, perhaps as a direct result of the earl Marshal being exiled in the same year.  The pardon may also have been to absolve him from participation in an earlier civil war, that resulted in the battle of Radcot Bridge in 1387, and at which the earl Marshal led a force against troops loyal to Richard II, commanded by the earl of Oxford. Although we do not have many named participants for this important event, many of the soldiers who fought in the surrounding campaigns, like Calveley himself, did also take a pardon during 1398. 
We can reasonably question the depth of Sir John’s attachment to Richard II. Even though a former king’s knight to Richard II, he did not find it unseemly to join with the usurper Henry IV. As noted in the History of Parliament, the new king, ‘in December 1400, gave his ‘dear bachelor’ custody of the manor of Stapleford with rents to the value of £40 a year, and Sir John was one of the six persons summoned in the following July to represent Leicestershire at a great council’.  This was perhaps in reward for Sir John’s leading a retinue in support of Henry on the royal expedition to Scotland of 1400. 
This brings us to the end of his career and his death fighting for the new king at Shrewsbury. Philip Morgan comments that he in fact died fighting as a rebel, as a keeper of his estate was appointed in 1404 ‘by reason of his forfeiture and outlawry’.  However, it is not clear that his estate was lost because he was a rebel, as it would seem that his lands were forfeit because he had offered sureties of £200 for the debts of another Cheshire lord, one who was definitely a rebel, Sir Richard Vernon, lord of Shipbrook in Cheshire.  Indeed, the Calendar of Patent Rolls clearly records that this was indeed the reason for his goods being declared forfeit.  It would appear that he had been fighting for the king, but had ironically been tainted because of his relationship with one of the rebels.
It is perhaps worthwhile pondering a while on the nature of loyalty and how a man might choose a side in such a momentous event such as a civil war. When we consider one or two of Sir John’s close colleagues and relatives, and the path they chose, it becomes clear, that any analysis by historians is wrought with difficulty. It is also clear that the choice being made would have been fraught with emotion for such a highly significant event.
We mentioned earlier that Sir John had stood as surety for the overseas debts of Sir Richard Vernon. The act of suretyship was a serious matter, since the surety would be held liable for the debt in the default of the principal. Indeed, Sir John’s lands were seized into the king’s hands on account of Vernon’s debts. It is therefore likely that the two men had a trusted relationship. There were certainly connections between the two families. Indeed, the Calveleys had originally been granted their chief manor of Calverley (Cheshire) by the Vernons in the early thirteenth century. More recently, Richard Vernon may have served as a man-at-arms in the company of Sir Hugh de Calveley in 1380-1 and Sir Ralph Vernon, Richard’s older brother, served with Sir John on the expedition of the earl of Arundel in 1388. 
As we have seen, Sir John may have fought for the Appellants at Radcot bridge in December 1387. It is likely that Sir Ralph Vernon also took part in the battle, although on the opposing side. The chronicler Henry Knighton tells us that Vernon was sent by Richard II to muster his forces prior to the battle of Radcot Bridge in December 1387.  It is perhaps strange to find Sir Ralph serving with the Appellant earl of Arundel, so soon after he would have opposed him directly in battle. Sir Ralph died c.1397 and was succeeded by his younger brother Richard. Although not retained as a king’s knight, Richard de Vernon did serve as a member of the king’s Cheshire bodyguard in 1398 and took part in the ill-fated Irish campaign of 1399. 
Despite these close ties to Richard II, Richard Vernon initially seemed to have successfully navigated the transition to the rule of Henry IV and served, like Sir John, on the Scottish campaign of 1400.  Vernon’s loyalty to the new regime seems to have been less than sincere, however, since he joined the Percies in their rebellion of 1403 and was captured at Shrewsbury. After the battle Vernon, together with the earl of Worcester and another leading Cheshire lord, Sir Richard Venables, was executed and their body parts distributed through the kingdom. 
We have not found any further evidence directly linking Calveley and either of the Vernon brothers, but they do have another associate in common, namely Sir Hugh Browe, another Cheshire knight and experienced soldier who also died fighting against the king at Shrewsbury in 1403.  This man can more precisely be identified as Sir Hugh Browe of Teigh and Woodhead (Rutland) and Tushingham (Cheshire) born 1346, again thanks to his biography by the History of Parliament.  As well as being a neighbour of Calveley in Teigh, Rutland, he was also his son-in-law, for Sir John married Hugh’s widowed mother-in-law, Margaret Folville.
Hugh was also a witness at the celebrated Scrope-Grosvenor trial in 1386-87. In his deposition, Browe claimed kinship with Sir Robert Grosvenor, another Cheshire knight, whom he supported during his dispute, with Lord Scrope about their respective rights to bear the arms azure a bend or. Sir Ralph Vernon and Richard Vernon were also witnesses for, and relatives of, Grosvenor. Their testimonies provide an invaluable window into their careers, although they must also be handled with care, as we shall see. Ralph said he was 50 years of age and had been armed for 20 years. All three claimed to have seen Grosvenor bearing the arms in question in Guyenne, and Sir Hugh and Sir Ralph claimed to have served with Grosvenor at the siege of La Roche-sur-Yon in Poitou as well as in the army that Richard II took to Scotland much later in 1385. 
Browe seems to have had the most eventful career. His connection with his probable uncle, Sir Robert Knollys, involved him in the struggle of John Montfort, duke of Brittany, against the French. It is reported that he was entrusted with the custody of Derval castle during Knollys capacity as lieutenant of Brittany. He was besieged by the French and offered hostages if not relieved within 40 days. Knollys’ managed to enter the town and claimed the agreement to capitulate did not apply to him as the hostages had been given without his knowledge. The French therefore executed the hostages, and Knollys in retaliation, killed a similar number of prisoners in the town and threw their bodies over the wall. Such a story reminds us of the reality and indeed brutality of the war between England and France. 
However, Browe denied taking part in any major continental expeditions in the Scrope-Grosvenor case, but from the surviving military administrative records, we can confirm that he was in Edmund, earl of March’s planned retinue in 1374 and he was with Knollys and John of Gaunt on the expedition in 1378, where he served in the retinue of the earl of Arundel.  His military fame was such that Froissart mentions him by name in his description of the siege of St. Malo during the campaign of 1378.
‘The siege of St. Malo was directly commenced, for they were in sufficient numbers to undertake it: they overran the country, and did much damage. Those who were most active in this business were sir Robert Knolles, and sir Hugh Broc his nephew, who were well acquainted with those parts. These two made excursions daily, and the canon de Robesart in company with them. Some days they lost, and at others gained: they, however, burnt and destroyed all round St. Malo’. 
Browe’s ‘mis-speaking’ during his testimony in 1386-7 was probably a legal ploy. He may have ‘forgotten’ about his presence on these campaigns in order to deny that he had seen Scrope bearing the disputed arms. The depositions given in the Scrope-Grosvenor dispute have been used uncritically by some historians as an accurate record of the careers of the deponents, but this should remind us that the depositions were part of a legal process and produced to support the claims of one side or the other.
Further in 1380 Browe took out letters of protection as he intended to accompany Thomas of Woodstock on his Breton expedition.  As mentioned above, Richard Vernon may also have served on this campaign as a man-at-arms in the company of Sir Hugh de Calveley, Sir John’s more famous uncle. It can also be shown that Browes later renewed his acquaintance with Arundel and served in the earl’s retinue in 1387 and led his own retinue in the follow up campaign of 1388.  Philip Morgan provides an insight into the dangers of campaigning overseas as even though Browe has taken out an enrolled protection, ‘in 1387 Sir Hugh Browe’s manor house at Christleton was robbed of clothes and silver objects during his absence with the earl of Arundel’. 
It can be seen from this that Browe’s relationship with Arundel was well secured. As we have shown, this relationship can indeed be traced back to as early as 1378 when Browe serves in Arundel’s retinue in Gascony on the campaign led by John of Gaunt. He is listed third in Arundel’s retinue, which would suggest a relationship had already been established at this early part of his career. His position in the earl’s retinue of 1387, listed in 20th position, would reinforce the suggestion that Browes enjoyed a long-standing relationship with the earl. Indeed, Goodman identifies Browe as a retainer of Arundel and suggests that Arundel retained Browe because of his great military experience. 
Furthermore, it is possible that Browe, like Calveley, fought for the Appellants at Radcot Bridge. This is indeed the case as Browe had to secure a royal pardon at this time, taken out on the same day as his father in law, Sir John Calveley.  The necessity for a pardon at this time may also suggest that Browe, like Calveley, may have been involved in the battle of Radcot Bridge, in support of Arundel, although this cannot be known for certain.
However, Browe’s value to the earl was not restricted to military matters. Sir Hugh Browe served in Parliament as member for Rutland in the Merciless Parliament of February 1388 and again in November 1390.  In the latter year he would have served with Sir John Calveley as Cheshire’s representatives. It was quite possibly through Arundel’s influence that Sir Hugh first entered parliament in 1388, in order to help the Lords Appellant impeach the King’s chief ministers. That Browe played an active and willing part in this scheme seems likely as Arundel rewarded him with a grant of land for his services. The Calendar of Patent Rolls lists the following award during the Appellants’ control of government:
‘Licence with the assent of the Council, for Richard, earl of Arundel, to demise his manors of Trofford and Dunham, co. Chester, with the appurtenances (except knight’s fees and advowson), held in chief, to Hugh Browe, knight, for life’. 
This generous gift of land is dated 16th March 1388, between the two expeditions of 1387 and 1388, and after Radcot Bridge. It can therefore be seen as a reward for Browe’s past service and continuing loyalty. It also brings us back to our third family, the Vernons. For the land that Browe received from Arundel was subsequently farmed out to Sir Ralph Vernon and others at an annual rent of £51. 
Is this relationship with Arundel, like that between Calveley and the earl Marshal, something that would have tainted Browes’s relationship with the crown? It may be expected that Browe, as a loyal retainer of Arundel, would have found his loyalty to Richard II questioned when Arundel was executed in 1397 and indeed, Browe, like Calveley, thought it wise to secure a royal pardon. However, we should not jump so quickly to conclusions when trying to define loyalty in this politically dynamic society. Despite his service with Arundel, Sir Hugh went on to demonstrate his commitment to Richard II, serving in the royal expeditions to Ireland in 1394 and in 1399, on the latter occasion with Richard Vernon. 
However, Browe’s loyalty to Richard II proved as negotiable as his earlier allegiance to Arundel. Following Richard’s deposition, Browe initially appeared loyal to Henry IV and was retained as a king’s knight in 1400.  However, this fledging relationship was to end with his support of the Percy rebellion in 1403. This is particularly surprising, as Browe was actually serving in the company of Prince Henry against the Welsh rebellion when he decided to desert from the royal cause and join the Percies.  If he did not actually die at the battle of Shrewsbury on 21st July 1403, he was certainly dead by the 18th August of that year.  The fact that a man who had supported the opposition to Richard II in 1387-88, died fighting against his usurper 25 years later demonstrates the fluidity of politics at this time.
Browe’s son, Robert, was later pardoned for his part in the rebellion.  This provides us with an opportunity to test the effectiveness of adopting a more lenient policy towards former rebels. In the case of Robert Browe, it proved to be a fruitful decision. Robert went on to serve with Henry V on the Agincourt campaign in the retinue of the duke of York. It is interesting to note that Robert does not emulate his father’s military career, as he fails to gain the status of knight, perhaps due to his earlier misdemeanour.  He did retain his position of local influence, in spite of his earlier treason, and represented Rutland at Parliament on no less than seven occasions between 1407-1439. 
This paper has investigated some of the extensive connections between three knights from Cheshire families, Sir John Calveley, Sir Richard Vernon and Sir Hugh Browe, including service for the earl of Arundel in the campaign of 1388 and other ties of kinship and neighbourhood, including co-operation in national and local affairs. Despite these shared bonds, however, in the political crises of 1387 and 1403 they chose different sides. It is clear that they must have thought long and hard before deciding to fight either loyally or in rebellion at the battles of Radcot Bridge and Shrewsbury, as they were also fighting against men they knew well and alongside whom they would have fought on happier occasions.
Adrian R Bell and Tony Moore
 J. S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe (eds.), The History of Parliament. The House of Commons 1386-1421 4 vols (Stroud, 1992), vol.2, pp. 467-69.
 We are helped in our construction of the military career by the AHRC-funded ‘The Soldier in Later Medieval England Online Database’, dev.medievalsoldier.org, accessed 15/1/08. TNA C76/67 m.17, Protection for John Calveley; TNA C76/67 m.7, attornies for John Calvyle, namely John Knot of Grethame and Robert de Sproxton.
 1384 expedition: TNA E101/40/5, ‘Calvelay’; Garrison: BL Cotton Roll XIII.8 m. 1, ‘Calvelay’.
 1387: TNA E101/40/33 m 17, ‘Calverlee’, retinue listed 19th on the muster roll and consisted of 50 men, 1 knight, 19 esquires and 30 archers. Protection, TNA C76/71 m 14, ‘Calviley, alias Calverley’. 1388: TNA E101/41/5 m 3, ‘Calvylegh’, listed 8th in retinue of the earl Marshall.
 TNA E101/41/17, m.1, ‘Calvylegh’.
 HOP, ii, p. 469. After his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, the earl Marshal died of the plague in Venice on 22nd September 1399, The Complete Peerage, ed. G.E. Cockayne (13 vols, London, 1910-1957), vol. ix, p. 604.
 HOP, ii, p. 469.
 This paragraph on Nicopolis draws upon the article, Adrian R. Bell, ‘England and the Crusade of Nicopolis’, Medieval Life, Issue 4 (Spring, 1996), pp. 18-22, p. 19. For the chroniclers see J. Froissart, Chronicles, ed. and trans. T. Johnes (2 vols, London, 1874), vol. 1, p. 618; Antonio Fiorentino in L. Muratori (ed.), ‘Antonio Fiorentino- Chronica Volgare’, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, xxvii, part ii (Cita de Castella, 1900-23); Schiltberger in The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, J.B. Telfer, ed. Hakluyt Series, no. 58 (London, 1879).
 Charles L. Tipton, ‘ The English at Nicopolis’, Speculum, 37 (1962), pp. 528-40.
 Palmer, England, France and Christendom (London, 1972), Appendix (o), pp. 239-240.
 Goodman, John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe (Harlow, 1992), p. 203; N. Housley, The Later Crusades, 1274-1580 – From Lyons to Alcazar (Oxford, 1992), p. 75.
 Edouard Perroy (ed.), The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II (London, 1933), no. 200, 145, 244-246. Our thanks to Professor Anthony Goodman for this reference.
 Given-Wilson, The Royal Household and the Kings Affinity: Service, Politics and Finance, 1360-1413 (New Haven and London, 1986), p. 284, of Cheshire/Leicestershire, retained for life in 1394.
 TNA C67/30 m. 3, 1st May 1398.
 For analysis of the pardon evidence see, Adrian R Bell, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century (Boydell, 2004), pp. 125-128.
 HOP, ii, p. 469.
 TNA E101/41/1 m. 7, ‘Calveley’.
 Philip Morgan, War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403 (Manchester, 1987), p. 216, with reference to: DL28/15 f. 17d, f. 185; Riley, H.T. (ed.) Annales Richardi Secundi et Henrici Quarti, in J. de Trokelowe et Anon., Chronica et Annales (Rolls Series, 1866), p. 369.
 CPR 1401-5, p. 293, for an order dated July 26th 1403 at Lichfield, to the sheriff of Salisbury to receive the quartered body of Henry Percy and the heads of the baron of Kynnerton and Richard Vernon ‘chivaler’. The order continues with detailed instruction regarding where to send the quarters and heads for further public display throughout England.
 Calendar of Patent Rolls 1401-1405, p. 353, February 11th 1404, Westminster, ‘Grant to John Calveley and John Swerston, administrators of the goods of John Calveley, ‘chivaler’, who died intestate, of all his goods, taken into the kings hands on his death on account of an outlawry against him in a foreign country, because he was mainpernor of Richard Vernon ‘chivaler’, to the value of £200, that they may pay his debts and execute his will for the safety of his soul’.
 Ormerod, The History of the County Palatinate and City of Chester, 3 vols (London, 1882), vol. 2, pp. 281-2.
 1380: TNA E101/39/9, m. 4; 1388: TNA E101/41/5 m 9, ‘Vernon’, retinue listed 14th on the muster roll and consisted of 85 men including 3 knights, 33 esquires – 36 men at arms and 49 esquires. Described on the muster roll as being ‘vacat’ on 29th August 1388, therefore he had left expedition early.
 Knighton’s Chronicle, 1337-1396, ed. and trans. G.H. Martin (Oxford, 1995), p. 419.
 1398: TNA E 101/42/10, m. 1; 1399: CPR 1396-99, p. 524 for protection.
 TNA E101/42/29, m. 1.
 CPR 1401-5, p. 293
 CPR 1401-1405, p. 253, 18th August 1403 at Worksop.
 HOP, ii, 1386 – 1421, p. 384-386. For more information in Browe, see M.J. Bennett, Community, Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge, 1983), p. 182, claims that Sir Hugh Browe probably first saw service as an archer, citing, J.C. Bridge, ‘Two Cheshire soldiers of fortune: Sir Hugh Calveley and Sir Robert Knolles’, Journal of the Chester Archaelogical Society, vol. 14 (1908), p. 87 and Cheshire R.O., DCH/C/868-9.
 The Scrope v. Grosvenor Controversy, ed. N. Harris Nicolas (2 vols, London, 1832), i. 82, 256-7, 285-6, ii. 266.
 Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xxxi (London, 1892), p. 284; story briefly retold in Michael Jones, ‘Knolles, Sir Robert (d. 1407)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn. Jan 2008 [http://wwww.oxforddnb.com/view/article/15758, accessed 21 Jan 2008]. Both appear to take the story from Chroniques de J. Froissart, ed. S. Luce and others, 15 vols. (Paris, 1869-1975).
 1374: TNA C76/57 m. 10, Protection for one year whilst overseas in the retinue of Edmund, earl of March. 1378: E101/36/32 m 3, third in the retinue of earl of Arundel.
 Froissart, Chronicles, i, p. 544-545.
 TNA C76/65 m. 28, Protection for 1 year whilst overseas in the retinue of Thomas, earl of Buckingham.
 1387: TNA E101/40/33 m. 1; E101/40/34 m. 2i; C76/71 m. 12, Protection. 1388: TNA E101/41/5, m. 10d, retinue listed 12th and consisted of 71 men, including 3 knights, 27 esquires and 41 archers; C76/72 m. 7, Protection.
 Morgan, War and Society, p. 155, citing Chester 25/8 m 23.
 Goodman, The Loyal Conspiracy, p. 120.
 TNA C67/30 m 4, 3rd February 1398 and C67/30 m 3, 1st May 1398.
 HOP, ii, 1386 – 1421, p. 384.
 CPR, 1385- 1389, p. 433, March 16, 1388.
 HOP, ii, p. 384.
 CPR, 1391-1396, p.489, September 27th 1394, Haverford Castle. Protection going to Ireland on the King’s service in the company of Richard, Lord Talbot.
 Given-Wilson, Royal Household, p. 288, life retainer of Cheshire / Rutland.
 W.R.H. Griffiths, ‘The military career and affinity of Henry, prince of Wales, 1399-1413’, MLitt Thesis, Oxford, 1980, p. 22.
 P. Morgan, War and Society, p. 82-83, Browe forfeited 39 horses as a result.
 CPR, 1401-1405, p. 265, August 18th, 1403.
 TNA E101/45/2 m. 3; TNA E101/45/19 m. 3. TNA C76/78 m. 22, DKR 44, p. 560; TNA C76/78, 19A, DKR 44 p. 564. Protections for service overseas with duke of York, second protection notes ‘of Rutland’. It is possible that Robert also served with his father as early as 1378, alongside his older step-brother William Browe, thus making a very early start to his military career, TNA E101/36/32 m. 3.
 HOP, ii, pp. 386-7.