What do you think?
Rate this book
Henry V's Brother: John of Lancaster, Regent of France
Named after his famous grandfather, John of Gaunt, John of Lancaster Duke of Bedford, has been largely forgotten and sidelined in history. As the third of four sons, he was not his father’s heir, but he nonetheless distinguished himself in his youth in his service on the Scottish borders.
As an adult, he was overshadowed by his charismatic older brother, the warrior king and victor of Agincourt, Henry V. Yet Henry trusted John the most of all his brothers and twice left him to rule England during his expeditions in France. John Duke of Bedford was the man who really governed England for almost half of his brother’s nine-year reign.
John reached the pinnacle of his career when he was appointed Regent of France. As Regent, he governed a polity that had not existed for three centuries: a truly Anglo-Norman realm. It was not just ruled by England but populated by English settlers who lived & fought alongside the French.
For thirteen years, John held the English kingdom of France together on the negotiating table and often on the battlefield. He struggled against renegade soldiers and his adversary, Charles VII of France, but sometimes against the political machinations of his relatives to keep his late brother’s dream alive.
John became a man noted for equitable rule and an unshakeable commitment to justice. In England, people looked to him to heal the divisions which poisoned Henry VI’s government, and in France, they viewed him as the only statesman fully committed to the good governance of Normandy and Paris.
Today, John is only remembered as the man who condemned Joan of Arc, even though he was not involved. This biography provides a much-needed reassessment of John’s life and political career.
As an adult, he was overshadowed by his charismatic older brother, the warrior king and victor of Agincourt, Henry V. Yet Henry trusted John the most of all his brothers and twice left him to rule England during his expeditions in France. John Duke of Bedford was the man who really governed England for almost half of his brother’s nine-year reign.
John reached the pinnacle of his career when he was appointed Regent of France. As Regent, he governed a polity that had not existed for three centuries: a truly Anglo-Norman realm. It was not just ruled by England but populated by English settlers who lived & fought alongside the French.
For thirteen years, John held the English kingdom of France together on the negotiating table and often on the battlefield. He struggled against renegade soldiers and his adversary, Charles VII of France, but sometimes against the political machinations of his relatives to keep his late brother’s dream alive.
John became a man noted for equitable rule and an unshakeable commitment to justice. In England, people looked to him to heal the divisions which poisoned Henry VI’s government, and in France, they viewed him as the only statesman fully committed to the good governance of Normandy and Paris.
Today, John is only remembered as the man who condemned Joan of Arc, even though he was not involved. This biography provides a much-needed reassessment of John’s life and political career.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 30, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 11, 2026
Following the accession of his eldest brother, Henry V, to the throne, John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford was his loyal lieutenant: trusted to rule England as Henry campaigned in France. Upon Henry’s premature death and the succession of the infant Henry VI, John served as Regent of France, trying to secure France following the Treaty of Troyes. It was a position John would retain until his death, having won a victory at a battle known as the “second Agincourt” and witnessed the rise and fall of Joan of Arc.
Promoted as a “much-needed reassessment” of John off Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford, Joanna Arman’s Henry V’s Brother: John of Lancaster, Regent of France aims to bring new awareness of Bedford’s life and his vital role in the penultimate stages of the Hundred Years War.
To be honest, I’m fond of Bedford and I’d enjoyed some of Arman’s academic work so I was really excited to get my hands on Henry V’s Brother– the first biography of Bedford since E. Carleton William’s 1963 My Lord of Bedford, 1389 - 1435: Being the Life of John of Lancaster, First Duke of Bedford, Brother of Henry V and Regent of France and second only to exist – only to be deeply disappointed. I hoped to love Henry V’s Brother, expected it to be a solid biography if nothing else. It was not solid. It was slop.
Arman has an aptitude for writing engaging prose aimed at a general, not academic, audience without talking down to them. I enjoyed some of her speculations, insights and arguments about Bedford’s life. Above all else, I enjoyed the way she spoke about more obscure women like Mary de Bohun or Anne of Burgundy, frequently ignored or dismissed as wholly domestic “nice girls who didn’t make history”. Given enough time, research, effort, proofreading, factchecking and editing, I really feel that Arman could have knocked this out of the park.
Unfortunately, I can’t review a hypothetical version of this book.
Henry V’s Brother reads very much like a first draft of a book, sent unread by the author to the publisher who sends it, still unread, straight into print. There are countless typos and inconsistencies in spelling (the Duke of Burgundy is referred to interchangeably as “Philippe” and “Philip”, sometimes within the same paragraph). This is in the hardback edition that I purchased myself as well as in the ARC provided by Netgalley. I found myself wondering if the book had even been proofread but in the acknowledgements, Arman thanks her mother for proofreading so now I’m wondering if the wrong file – the original, unproofread draft – was sent by mistake to the publisher.
And as engaging as Arman’s prose could be, this was severely weakened by these numerous typos and mistakes in the writing, by repetition (one paragraph is repeated almost verbatim in the very next paragraph, just with some specific examples added in) and by poor structure (the first chapter, detailing the childhood of Bedford and his siblings, jumped around chronologically).
There were also a plethora of historical mistakes. Richard II was said to have ascended to the throne when he was 8 (he was 10), Henry IV is said to be two years older than Richard (they were born in the same year, Henry was a few months younger than Richard), that Richard was “the tender age of 13” when he had to deal with the Peasants Revolt in 1382 (he was 14 and the revolt took place in 1381). Sure, this isn’t directly relevant to Bedford’s life – but Arman continues to make basic errors in more relevant areas. Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester and later Cardinal of England, is named “Thomas Beaufort” at one point, while Bedford’s brother, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, is said to have contracted dysentery at the siege of Harfleur – it was their older brother, Thomas, Duke of Clarence who contracted dysentery at Harfleur while Gloucester is not known to have suffered the disease at any point of his life.
It could be argued that these are all minor errors but these are all very easy to factcheck and making such basic mistakes just makes me wonder what other, larger errors Arman could be making. I couldn’t trust her text and with, minimal citations, there is little avenue to investigate her claims.
This problem is compounded by other issues. I couldn’t even get past the second page of the first chapter without alarm bells ringing when Arman references a “Gilbert de Bohun” who should have received the de Bohun inheritance instead of being split between Eleanor and Mary de Bohun (Bedford’s aunt and mother respectively) upon the death of their father. No study of this era ever mentions a “Gilbert de Bohun” and Lucia Diaz Pascual’s thesis on the de Bohun family only references a Gilbert who was born in the thirteenth century who possibly had a son called Oliver. Genealogy websites reference a Gilbert de Bohun who died in 1360 – several years before Eleanor and Mary were born but no one younger. Where did Arman’s Gilbert come from? Either Arman has uncovered groundbreaking new evidence which she has failed to detail or cite or she’s just copying a spurious claim that some random, anonymous person had edited into Wikipedia and has since been edited out. Not a great look either way.
Additionally, Arman often incorporates debunked myths like Henry V being educated at Oxford (which leads her to speculate that Bedford might have also been educated there) or being raised by John Montagu, Earl of Salisbury. Again, no creditable historian takes these myths seriously – Anne Curry explicitly labels the story of Henry’s Oxford education as “apocryphal” and while children were educated at Oxford and Cambridge, these were institutions for the education of those in clerical orders.
There is a broader problem, too: Arman’s bibliography is staggeringly slim. I found myself raising my eyebrows as I read it. In the first part, there’s her choice of reference books on more peripheral figures like Joan of Arc, Henry IV, Richard II, Henry V etc. In some cases, it’s a case of citing only one or two books, in other cases it’s the choice of book cited. For example, there’s only one book on Joan of Arc and it’s Helen Castor’s pop history account of her life. Why not cite Régine Pernoud, one of the foremost of scholars on Joan? Or any of the number of academic studies on Joan? Nor is Joan an obscure figure in Bedford’s life – indeed, the story of their conflict (if it can be called that) takes up two chapters of Arman’s biography. There are more general histories of this period of the Hundred Years cited as well but it doesn’t help the impression of somewhat slapdash research. It’s also notable that all of the authors cited whose work touch on Joan are English, not French.
In the second part, there is a lot – a lot – of work about Bedford himself that isn’t cited. Not one single article or volume on the Bedford Hours or his other surviving manuscripts is cited. Richard Wadge’s book on the Battle of Verneuil – Bedford’s “second Agincourt” – is cited but earlier articles about the battle are not. Articles directly dealing with Bedford’s time as regent are also uncited (despite some having PDFs linked to on Wikipedia!), as is Jeffrey Chipps Smith’s article on the tomb of Bedford’s wife, Anne of Burgundy. S. B. Chrimes’s research on Bedford, including the publication of the letters Bedford wrote during his time in the north is missing too, as is Jenny Stratford’s The Bedford Inventories: The Worldly Goods of John, Duke of Bedford, Regent of France 1389-1435s and all but one of Stratford’s publications on Bedford. It was particularly frustrating because I was lucky enough to have a friend send me some scans of The Bedford Inventories and could remember offhand information from them that would have helped pad out Arman’s earlier chapters and centre Bedford more.
All of this means that when Arman advances an argument, it’s very hard to take her at her word. The book is unresearched and littered with errors. How can I trust Arman’s assertion that Bedford had nothing to do with Joan of Arc’s death when she’s apparently read so little about Joan? How can I trust that her argument isn’t based on faulty information gleamed from Wikipedia or pop history?
As other reviewers have mentioned, Bedford takes a backseat in the first half of the book. Partly, this reflects a need to establish the backdrop of his life – understanding Bedford’s life involves understanding the circumstances under which his father came to the throne, for example – and a lack of evidence directly dealing with Bedford. But Arman doesn’t take the opportunity to flesh out some of Bedford’s life. For instance, the fact that his men arrested the mystic and author Margery Kempe goes unmentioned. While Arman rightly notes that the Battle of Agincourt is not directly relevant to Bedford, there was a lot more that could have been said about Bedford’s experiences with it, such as the rumours that circulated in England that Henry V’s army had suffered a huge defeat. Somewhat oddly, Arman references the idea that Bedford could have lost one or more brothers at Agincourt – but doesn’t reference that one of his brothers (Gloucester) was injured in the battle. And again, there is evidence and studies of Bedford’s life that could be utilised to centre Bedford but isn’t included here.
In her preface, Arman criticises E. Carleton Williams’s biography of Bedford for making “arbitrary character judgements”. I would level the same criticism at Arman, particularly in the way she wrote about Thomas, Duke of Clarence and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Hewing to pop history narratives, she depicts Gloucester as a trouble-making buffoon who is more bark than bite and Clarence as a thoroughly untrustworthy figure.
In the case of Gloucester, he was probably a more complex than this and Arman’s claim that “he … never went to France” following Bedford’s death is somewhat disingenuous. He commanded a relief force when Calais was besieged by the Duke of Burgundy in 1436, and he was increasingly out of favour and out of step with Henry VI’s administration in the 1440s – whatever he personally may have been willing to do (which we do not and cannot know), Henry VI or his government would have never allowed him to go to France in those years.
As for Clarence, Arman maintains that Clarence wasn’t trusted by Henry V, which is evidenced by the fact that Henry appointed Bedford to govern England in Henry’s absence rather than Clarence as it “should have been”. This assertion is difficult to maintain: kings were often accompanied on military campaigns by their heirs once they were of age and there is no contemporary comment that suggest Clarence’s presence on the Agincourt or Normandy campaigns was unusual in any regard. I have always struggled with the argument that Henry’s distrust of Clarence is proved by the fact he took him campaigning – which meant Clarence was legitimately mustering a huge amount of armed men under his banner – and by granting him independent commands on these campaigns. We also see Henry displaying great trust in Clarence at the end of his reign: when he returned to England in 1421, he left Clarence in command of the English forces in France.
When dealing with Clarence’s death, Arman remarks that “history has been unkind” to him. Yet she herself has continued in this tradition. I don’t mean the continuance of the narrative that Clarence was distrusted by Henry V – though that is part of it. She is quick to note that Clarence’s marriage was incestuous – including a footnote that stresses that though Margaret Holland was his aunt by marriage, she was also biologically his cousin as if there is something seriously unusual and gross about it. They were no more biologically related than your typical medieval aristocratic couple. She also suggests that had Clarence been in England, he could have disrupted Henry V’s succession. Sure, it’s possible – but it’s purely speculative and seems to have only been included to the dramatise the brothers’ relationship and vilify Clarence.
Like a lot of English historians, Arman treats Jacqueline of Hainault, Gloucester’s first wife, as little more than a nuisance who was ruining the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and the war effort in France. Yet to look at Jacqueline’s own circumstances suggests she was a woman who fought tirelessly for her rights and her rights were threatened precisely because she was a woman. Perhaps it’s easier to dismiss her situation as “that cad Gloucester’s self-aggrandising mistake that nearly ruined the war effort” than to admit to the complexities of Jacqueline’s situation and the ways that the English government, not just Gloucester, let her down.
Arman adopts quite a dismissive tone towards Joan of Arc. Like Helen Castor before her, Arman seemingly delights in taking the opportunity to repeatedly call Joan a “whore” and a “witch” under the excuse that this is what the English and therefore Bedford called her. This ironic misogyny is paired with Joan being depicted as an over-arrogant, inexperienced zealot who alienated her allies, was incapable of listening to reason, failed to learn from her mistakes, and favoured flashy and dangerous military tactics that her compatriots, rightly, had serious objections to. Arman even suggests that Joan was brought down by her vanity, arguing that because Joan was dressed like a nobleman in “rich robes and ostentatious outfits” she was easily identifiable to her enemies and thus easily captured: “no more was she the humble peasant girl”.
The account of her trial that follows is quick and pat, there is no suggestion that her trial was rigged and Arman’s frequent assertions that Bedford had nothing to do with it or Joan’s death do not convince, especially since she does not even reference the stories that Anne of Burgundy (Bedford’s wife) supervised a virginity exam on Joan, let alone the (probably scurrilous) report that Bedford spied on Joan during this exam.
I finished the chapters on Joan not only wanting to read academic work on her but also desirous for a sympathetic account of her life, even if it demonises Bedford like the “some modern movies and other commentators” Arman references but never names.
Although billed as a reassessment of Bedford, it’s hard to see what, exactly, is being reassessed. The narrative of Bedford as a highly competent man who worked tirelessly to uphold his nephew’s rights in France is intrinsic to any discussions of him. He was the only person, I think, who had any hope of maintaining the victories that Henry V had won in France and had been largely successful with this until the Siege of Orléans – which he seems to have been overruled on. He has been repeatedly labelled as “the best king England never had”. Perhaps. But perhaps it was his absence in France that allows this image to flourish: as Arman’s account of Henry VI’s French coronation expedition attests, he was frustrated and insulted by the intrusions of Cardinal Henry Beaufort and the minority council into his government. This also suggests that the problems in England weren’t entirely all down to Gloucester being a buffoon.
Arman’s Bedford does emerge virtually spotless but this itself is hardly new and in some way neglects the evidence. The idea that he had anything to do with Joan of Arc’s downfall is rebutted by a sharp “no he wasn’t”. A distinct lack of interest in his conduct in relation to Jacqueline of Hainault abounds. Gloucester emerges as a vindictive man who turns on his brother, while Bedford has nothing to do with except be “saddened by the breakdown of his relationship with his only surviving brother”. Bedford’s rare political misstep (his marriage to Jacquetta of Luxembourg, which the Duke of Burgundy took to be a gross insult to himself and the memory of his sister, Bedford’s first wife) is blamed on the advice of Louis of Luxembourg – nor does Arman unpack the allegations that Louis was in effect ruling through Bedford as Bedford ailed in his final years.
What does seem to be the case is that Bedford has been overlooked and under-acknowledged. Historians of Henry VI’s reign tend to focus on England and Bedford makes cameo appearances as the capable, competent Regent of France who returns to England to restore order before going off to try and maintain the English hold over France. Historians of the Hundred Years Wars are often partisan and focus on marquee events like the Battle of Agincourt or the rise and fall of Joan of Arc. The only previous biography of Bedford is out of print, as is The Bedford Inventories and the volumes dedicated to his surviving manuscripts.
I had hoped Henry V’s Brother would help bring new attention to Bedford. Perhaps it has. But there are just far too many problems with it – not just interpretational problems but basic errors. I had issues with E. Carleton Williams’s My Lord of Bedford, 1389 - 1435: Being the Life of John of Lancaster, First Duke of Bedford, Brother of Henry V and Regent of France but it is far and away the stronger biography. If you want to learn more about Bedford, try and get your hands on that.
Disclaimer: I received a free copy to review from the publishers via Netgalley.
Promoted as a “much-needed reassessment” of John off Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford, Joanna Arman’s Henry V’s Brother: John of Lancaster, Regent of France aims to bring new awareness of Bedford’s life and his vital role in the penultimate stages of the Hundred Years War.
To be honest, I’m fond of Bedford and I’d enjoyed some of Arman’s academic work so I was really excited to get my hands on Henry V’s Brother– the first biography of Bedford since E. Carleton William’s 1963 My Lord of Bedford, 1389 - 1435: Being the Life of John of Lancaster, First Duke of Bedford, Brother of Henry V and Regent of France and second only to exist – only to be deeply disappointed. I hoped to love Henry V’s Brother, expected it to be a solid biography if nothing else. It was not solid. It was slop.
Arman has an aptitude for writing engaging prose aimed at a general, not academic, audience without talking down to them. I enjoyed some of her speculations, insights and arguments about Bedford’s life. Above all else, I enjoyed the way she spoke about more obscure women like Mary de Bohun or Anne of Burgundy, frequently ignored or dismissed as wholly domestic “nice girls who didn’t make history”. Given enough time, research, effort, proofreading, factchecking and editing, I really feel that Arman could have knocked this out of the park.
Unfortunately, I can’t review a hypothetical version of this book.
Henry V’s Brother reads very much like a first draft of a book, sent unread by the author to the publisher who sends it, still unread, straight into print. There are countless typos and inconsistencies in spelling (the Duke of Burgundy is referred to interchangeably as “Philippe” and “Philip”, sometimes within the same paragraph). This is in the hardback edition that I purchased myself as well as in the ARC provided by Netgalley. I found myself wondering if the book had even been proofread but in the acknowledgements, Arman thanks her mother for proofreading so now I’m wondering if the wrong file – the original, unproofread draft – was sent by mistake to the publisher.
And as engaging as Arman’s prose could be, this was severely weakened by these numerous typos and mistakes in the writing, by repetition (one paragraph is repeated almost verbatim in the very next paragraph, just with some specific examples added in) and by poor structure (the first chapter, detailing the childhood of Bedford and his siblings, jumped around chronologically).
There were also a plethora of historical mistakes. Richard II was said to have ascended to the throne when he was 8 (he was 10), Henry IV is said to be two years older than Richard (they were born in the same year, Henry was a few months younger than Richard), that Richard was “the tender age of 13” when he had to deal with the Peasants Revolt in 1382 (he was 14 and the revolt took place in 1381). Sure, this isn’t directly relevant to Bedford’s life – but Arman continues to make basic errors in more relevant areas. Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester and later Cardinal of England, is named “Thomas Beaufort” at one point, while Bedford’s brother, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, is said to have contracted dysentery at the siege of Harfleur – it was their older brother, Thomas, Duke of Clarence who contracted dysentery at Harfleur while Gloucester is not known to have suffered the disease at any point of his life.
It could be argued that these are all minor errors but these are all very easy to factcheck and making such basic mistakes just makes me wonder what other, larger errors Arman could be making. I couldn’t trust her text and with, minimal citations, there is little avenue to investigate her claims.
This problem is compounded by other issues. I couldn’t even get past the second page of the first chapter without alarm bells ringing when Arman references a “Gilbert de Bohun” who should have received the de Bohun inheritance instead of being split between Eleanor and Mary de Bohun (Bedford’s aunt and mother respectively) upon the death of their father. No study of this era ever mentions a “Gilbert de Bohun” and Lucia Diaz Pascual’s thesis on the de Bohun family only references a Gilbert who was born in the thirteenth century who possibly had a son called Oliver. Genealogy websites reference a Gilbert de Bohun who died in 1360 – several years before Eleanor and Mary were born but no one younger. Where did Arman’s Gilbert come from? Either Arman has uncovered groundbreaking new evidence which she has failed to detail or cite or she’s just copying a spurious claim that some random, anonymous person had edited into Wikipedia and has since been edited out. Not a great look either way.
Additionally, Arman often incorporates debunked myths like Henry V being educated at Oxford (which leads her to speculate that Bedford might have also been educated there) or being raised by John Montagu, Earl of Salisbury. Again, no creditable historian takes these myths seriously – Anne Curry explicitly labels the story of Henry’s Oxford education as “apocryphal” and while children were educated at Oxford and Cambridge, these were institutions for the education of those in clerical orders.
There is a broader problem, too: Arman’s bibliography is staggeringly slim. I found myself raising my eyebrows as I read it. In the first part, there’s her choice of reference books on more peripheral figures like Joan of Arc, Henry IV, Richard II, Henry V etc. In some cases, it’s a case of citing only one or two books, in other cases it’s the choice of book cited. For example, there’s only one book on Joan of Arc and it’s Helen Castor’s pop history account of her life. Why not cite Régine Pernoud, one of the foremost of scholars on Joan? Or any of the number of academic studies on Joan? Nor is Joan an obscure figure in Bedford’s life – indeed, the story of their conflict (if it can be called that) takes up two chapters of Arman’s biography. There are more general histories of this period of the Hundred Years cited as well but it doesn’t help the impression of somewhat slapdash research. It’s also notable that all of the authors cited whose work touch on Joan are English, not French.
In the second part, there is a lot – a lot – of work about Bedford himself that isn’t cited. Not one single article or volume on the Bedford Hours or his other surviving manuscripts is cited. Richard Wadge’s book on the Battle of Verneuil – Bedford’s “second Agincourt” – is cited but earlier articles about the battle are not. Articles directly dealing with Bedford’s time as regent are also uncited (despite some having PDFs linked to on Wikipedia!), as is Jeffrey Chipps Smith’s article on the tomb of Bedford’s wife, Anne of Burgundy. S. B. Chrimes’s research on Bedford, including the publication of the letters Bedford wrote during his time in the north is missing too, as is Jenny Stratford’s The Bedford Inventories: The Worldly Goods of John, Duke of Bedford, Regent of France 1389-1435s and all but one of Stratford’s publications on Bedford. It was particularly frustrating because I was lucky enough to have a friend send me some scans of The Bedford Inventories and could remember offhand information from them that would have helped pad out Arman’s earlier chapters and centre Bedford more.
All of this means that when Arman advances an argument, it’s very hard to take her at her word. The book is unresearched and littered with errors. How can I trust Arman’s assertion that Bedford had nothing to do with Joan of Arc’s death when she’s apparently read so little about Joan? How can I trust that her argument isn’t based on faulty information gleamed from Wikipedia or pop history?
As other reviewers have mentioned, Bedford takes a backseat in the first half of the book. Partly, this reflects a need to establish the backdrop of his life – understanding Bedford’s life involves understanding the circumstances under which his father came to the throne, for example – and a lack of evidence directly dealing with Bedford. But Arman doesn’t take the opportunity to flesh out some of Bedford’s life. For instance, the fact that his men arrested the mystic and author Margery Kempe goes unmentioned. While Arman rightly notes that the Battle of Agincourt is not directly relevant to Bedford, there was a lot more that could have been said about Bedford’s experiences with it, such as the rumours that circulated in England that Henry V’s army had suffered a huge defeat. Somewhat oddly, Arman references the idea that Bedford could have lost one or more brothers at Agincourt – but doesn’t reference that one of his brothers (Gloucester) was injured in the battle. And again, there is evidence and studies of Bedford’s life that could be utilised to centre Bedford but isn’t included here.
In her preface, Arman criticises E. Carleton Williams’s biography of Bedford for making “arbitrary character judgements”. I would level the same criticism at Arman, particularly in the way she wrote about Thomas, Duke of Clarence and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Hewing to pop history narratives, she depicts Gloucester as a trouble-making buffoon who is more bark than bite and Clarence as a thoroughly untrustworthy figure.
In the case of Gloucester, he was probably a more complex than this and Arman’s claim that “he … never went to France” following Bedford’s death is somewhat disingenuous. He commanded a relief force when Calais was besieged by the Duke of Burgundy in 1436, and he was increasingly out of favour and out of step with Henry VI’s administration in the 1440s – whatever he personally may have been willing to do (which we do not and cannot know), Henry VI or his government would have never allowed him to go to France in those years.
As for Clarence, Arman maintains that Clarence wasn’t trusted by Henry V, which is evidenced by the fact that Henry appointed Bedford to govern England in Henry’s absence rather than Clarence as it “should have been”. This assertion is difficult to maintain: kings were often accompanied on military campaigns by their heirs once they were of age and there is no contemporary comment that suggest Clarence’s presence on the Agincourt or Normandy campaigns was unusual in any regard. I have always struggled with the argument that Henry’s distrust of Clarence is proved by the fact he took him campaigning – which meant Clarence was legitimately mustering a huge amount of armed men under his banner – and by granting him independent commands on these campaigns. We also see Henry displaying great trust in Clarence at the end of his reign: when he returned to England in 1421, he left Clarence in command of the English forces in France.
When dealing with Clarence’s death, Arman remarks that “history has been unkind” to him. Yet she herself has continued in this tradition. I don’t mean the continuance of the narrative that Clarence was distrusted by Henry V – though that is part of it. She is quick to note that Clarence’s marriage was incestuous – including a footnote that stresses that though Margaret Holland was his aunt by marriage, she was also biologically his cousin as if there is something seriously unusual and gross about it. They were no more biologically related than your typical medieval aristocratic couple. She also suggests that had Clarence been in England, he could have disrupted Henry V’s succession. Sure, it’s possible – but it’s purely speculative and seems to have only been included to the dramatise the brothers’ relationship and vilify Clarence.
Like a lot of English historians, Arman treats Jacqueline of Hainault, Gloucester’s first wife, as little more than a nuisance who was ruining the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and the war effort in France. Yet to look at Jacqueline’s own circumstances suggests she was a woman who fought tirelessly for her rights and her rights were threatened precisely because she was a woman. Perhaps it’s easier to dismiss her situation as “that cad Gloucester’s self-aggrandising mistake that nearly ruined the war effort” than to admit to the complexities of Jacqueline’s situation and the ways that the English government, not just Gloucester, let her down.
Arman adopts quite a dismissive tone towards Joan of Arc. Like Helen Castor before her, Arman seemingly delights in taking the opportunity to repeatedly call Joan a “whore” and a “witch” under the excuse that this is what the English and therefore Bedford called her. This ironic misogyny is paired with Joan being depicted as an over-arrogant, inexperienced zealot who alienated her allies, was incapable of listening to reason, failed to learn from her mistakes, and favoured flashy and dangerous military tactics that her compatriots, rightly, had serious objections to. Arman even suggests that Joan was brought down by her vanity, arguing that because Joan was dressed like a nobleman in “rich robes and ostentatious outfits” she was easily identifiable to her enemies and thus easily captured: “no more was she the humble peasant girl”.
The account of her trial that follows is quick and pat, there is no suggestion that her trial was rigged and Arman’s frequent assertions that Bedford had nothing to do with it or Joan’s death do not convince, especially since she does not even reference the stories that Anne of Burgundy (Bedford’s wife) supervised a virginity exam on Joan, let alone the (probably scurrilous) report that Bedford spied on Joan during this exam.
I finished the chapters on Joan not only wanting to read academic work on her but also desirous for a sympathetic account of her life, even if it demonises Bedford like the “some modern movies and other commentators” Arman references but never names.
Although billed as a reassessment of Bedford, it’s hard to see what, exactly, is being reassessed. The narrative of Bedford as a highly competent man who worked tirelessly to uphold his nephew’s rights in France is intrinsic to any discussions of him. He was the only person, I think, who had any hope of maintaining the victories that Henry V had won in France and had been largely successful with this until the Siege of Orléans – which he seems to have been overruled on. He has been repeatedly labelled as “the best king England never had”. Perhaps. But perhaps it was his absence in France that allows this image to flourish: as Arman’s account of Henry VI’s French coronation expedition attests, he was frustrated and insulted by the intrusions of Cardinal Henry Beaufort and the minority council into his government. This also suggests that the problems in England weren’t entirely all down to Gloucester being a buffoon.
Arman’s Bedford does emerge virtually spotless but this itself is hardly new and in some way neglects the evidence. The idea that he had anything to do with Joan of Arc’s downfall is rebutted by a sharp “no he wasn’t”. A distinct lack of interest in his conduct in relation to Jacqueline of Hainault abounds. Gloucester emerges as a vindictive man who turns on his brother, while Bedford has nothing to do with except be “saddened by the breakdown of his relationship with his only surviving brother”. Bedford’s rare political misstep (his marriage to Jacquetta of Luxembourg, which the Duke of Burgundy took to be a gross insult to himself and the memory of his sister, Bedford’s first wife) is blamed on the advice of Louis of Luxembourg – nor does Arman unpack the allegations that Louis was in effect ruling through Bedford as Bedford ailed in his final years.
What does seem to be the case is that Bedford has been overlooked and under-acknowledged. Historians of Henry VI’s reign tend to focus on England and Bedford makes cameo appearances as the capable, competent Regent of France who returns to England to restore order before going off to try and maintain the English hold over France. Historians of the Hundred Years Wars are often partisan and focus on marquee events like the Battle of Agincourt or the rise and fall of Joan of Arc. The only previous biography of Bedford is out of print, as is The Bedford Inventories and the volumes dedicated to his surviving manuscripts.
I had hoped Henry V’s Brother would help bring new attention to Bedford. Perhaps it has. But there are just far too many problems with it – not just interpretational problems but basic errors. I had issues with E. Carleton Williams’s My Lord of Bedford, 1389 - 1435: Being the Life of John of Lancaster, First Duke of Bedford, Brother of Henry V and Regent of France but it is far and away the stronger biography. If you want to learn more about Bedford, try and get your hands on that.
Disclaimer: I received a free copy to review from the publishers via Netgalley.
March 2, 2025
Thank you Netgalley for an advanced copy!
John of Lancaster is one of those historical figures who spent generations always one degree away from the throne. Just as later Elizabeth of York was daughter, sister, niece, wife and mother to the king of England, so too was John of Lancaster son, brother, and uncle to the king of England. he's also always overshadowed, and not just by whoever is one the throne. As a child, it was his proud grandfather John of gaunt. Then his adventurous father, who became Henry IV, then is militaristic brother, Henry V. Then, when the king dies young and his baby nephew is on the throne, he still is overshadowed by the antics of his other brothers, by his Beaufort uncles, and, as he tries to hold the young empire together, he is overshadowed by the legendary Joan of Arc, and finally, his own death his overshadowed by the antics of his second wife immediately making a scandalous new marriage to a hot young man of no rank who work for her first husband.
Overall, this book is a good look at the Lancastrian dynasty before the War of the Roses, but not quite a biography of John, as so many other people and events take center stage in what is supposed to be his own story.
John of Lancaster is one of those historical figures who spent generations always one degree away from the throne. Just as later Elizabeth of York was daughter, sister, niece, wife and mother to the king of England, so too was John of Lancaster son, brother, and uncle to the king of England. he's also always overshadowed, and not just by whoever is one the throne. As a child, it was his proud grandfather John of gaunt. Then his adventurous father, who became Henry IV, then is militaristic brother, Henry V. Then, when the king dies young and his baby nephew is on the throne, he still is overshadowed by the antics of his other brothers, by his Beaufort uncles, and, as he tries to hold the young empire together, he is overshadowed by the legendary Joan of Arc, and finally, his own death his overshadowed by the antics of his second wife immediately making a scandalous new marriage to a hot young man of no rank who work for her first husband.
Overall, this book is a good look at the Lancastrian dynasty before the War of the Roses, but not quite a biography of John, as so many other people and events take center stage in what is supposed to be his own story.
January 21, 2025
Having recently read Dan Jones' fantastic "Henry V" I thought this was a perfect time to learn more about his brother John, so this book seemed like it came at just the right time. While I did end up learning some things about John (I knew pretty much nothing before), I can't say this is a great biography of him.
The first half of the book is essentially backstory, giving the reader the history/biography of Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V. Yes, necessary to understand the turbulent times and background of John's upbringing, especially as his father becomes king and John steps up to guard the north of England. But more of the spotlight could have been turned to John instead of his brother, father, and uncle. Instead, it is almost easy to forget you're reading what is meant to be a biography of John until after Henry V's death when John becomes Regent of France. He finally becomes the focus of his own biography and you get a decent sense of the ridiculous infighting and politics he deals with in the French and English governments- where he seems to be the only one not out for himself.
The writing is extremely casual and it is rare that the author refers to historians of the time, quotes letters, or gives the reader a sense of whether what we're reading is her opinion, historical opinion of the time, or definite fact. An exception to this is when it comes to Joan of Arc and the author points to sources to clear up the facts that John actually had nothing to do with Joan, except possibly be in the same area of France as she was at one point.
One of the problems I had with this book is that the advanced copy I was given clearly hadn't seen an editor yet, so the number of mistakes in the writing and unnecessary repetition occasionally made sections almost unreadable. Presumably this will be fixed by the time the book goes to print. I'd have given the book at least 1 extra star if it hadn't been for that.
This is the first biography I've read on John of Lancaster, so I don't know if the approach the author took to him was unique. It read as as a pretty basic, decent introduction to an important, and probably overlooked, historical figure to me. I'll be checking the bibliography to read more about him from other sources.
I received a DNR from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
The first half of the book is essentially backstory, giving the reader the history/biography of Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V. Yes, necessary to understand the turbulent times and background of John's upbringing, especially as his father becomes king and John steps up to guard the north of England. But more of the spotlight could have been turned to John instead of his brother, father, and uncle. Instead, it is almost easy to forget you're reading what is meant to be a biography of John until after Henry V's death when John becomes Regent of France. He finally becomes the focus of his own biography and you get a decent sense of the ridiculous infighting and politics he deals with in the French and English governments- where he seems to be the only one not out for himself.
The writing is extremely casual and it is rare that the author refers to historians of the time, quotes letters, or gives the reader a sense of whether what we're reading is her opinion, historical opinion of the time, or definite fact. An exception to this is when it comes to Joan of Arc and the author points to sources to clear up the facts that John actually had nothing to do with Joan, except possibly be in the same area of France as she was at one point.
One of the problems I had with this book is that the advanced copy I was given clearly hadn't seen an editor yet, so the number of mistakes in the writing and unnecessary repetition occasionally made sections almost unreadable. Presumably this will be fixed by the time the book goes to print. I'd have given the book at least 1 extra star if it hadn't been for that.
This is the first biography I've read on John of Lancaster, so I don't know if the approach the author took to him was unique. It read as as a pretty basic, decent introduction to an important, and probably overlooked, historical figure to me. I'll be checking the bibliography to read more about him from other sources.
I received a DNR from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
March 27, 2025
In this fascinating new biography about John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford, Joanna Arman brings the forgotten brother of Henry V to life in incredible detail. Exploring his work as regent of France during the Hundred Years’ War and two shorter regencies in England, Arman explores his commitment to justice and fair rule in his brother’s stead. As an overlooked and forgotten political player, John of Lancaster’s contributions to the Hundred Years’ War and Henry V’s reign have been overshadowed by the condemnation of Joan of Arc, which he was not involved with. An interesting reassessment of his life and political career, this book is full of great historical details and information, drawn from some fascinating primary sources, and Arman’s book is very well-written and readable, so all sorts of history readers will enjoy it. Different from a typical biography, the reevaluation element is definitely fascinating and the most interesting part of this book. Well-written, intriguing, and immersive, this biography does a great job including relevant context for John of Lancaster’s life and Arman’s reassessment of his political importance, so readers unfamiliar with the early fifteenth century will still be able to understand this fantastic and engaging new release about another forgotten historical figure.
Thanks to NetGalley and Pen & Sword for the advance copy.
Thanks to NetGalley and Pen & Sword for the advance copy.
January 8, 2025
I found this to be a reall interesting and engaging look at a seemingly forgotten man of history! I knew very little of John of Lancaster so was very eager to learn more about the man and the times, and this book delivered on that front perfectly!
It looks into the turbulent times that were prevalent in the 15th century and the challenges that faced the Royal Family from both in the UK and in France too. There's so many historical names that were relevant at the times, so there's many paths that the author takes you down, seeing their relationship with Henry V and all around him, along with the threats from overseas.
I loved learning more about him as a person, and how he was so loyal to the family and played such a pivotal role in many of the battles and trying to thwart the plots against them. It's also led me to start researching more on my own about various goings on of the time as this book has really sparked off a big interest in me now in the characters of the time. Highly recommended!
It looks into the turbulent times that were prevalent in the 15th century and the challenges that faced the Royal Family from both in the UK and in France too. There's so many historical names that were relevant at the times, so there's many paths that the author takes you down, seeing their relationship with Henry V and all around him, along with the threats from overseas.
I loved learning more about him as a person, and how he was so loyal to the family and played such a pivotal role in many of the battles and trying to thwart the plots against them. It's also led me to start researching more on my own about various goings on of the time as this book has really sparked off a big interest in me now in the characters of the time. Highly recommended!
March 3, 2025
This is an interesting and informative biography of John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford. He was trusted by his brother, Henry V, to govern England during Henry’s French campaigns. During the reign of Henry VI, he served as Regent of France, holding the Anglo-French realm together for thirteen years. Known for his just rule, he strived to maintain order and fulfill his brother’s vision despite political intrigues and war. I was happy to learn more about this capable leader whose influence is too often forgotten.
Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.
Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.
December 23, 2024
I received a copy from NetGalley.
An amazing look into an important historical figure who has been largely marginalized by his older brother and nephew.
However, there is no maybe about the fact that Geoffrey Chaucer’s wife was Katherine Swynford’s sister even though Philippa de Roet is known to history by her maiden name and Katherine is known to history by her first husband’s name.
An amazing look into an important historical figure who has been largely marginalized by his older brother and nephew.
However, there is no maybe about the fact that Geoffrey Chaucer’s wife was Katherine Swynford’s sister even though Philippa de Roet is known to history by her maiden name and Katherine is known to history by her first husband’s name.
January 1, 2025
"A much-needed reassessment of John’s life and political career" this most definitely is not.
See fuller review @ Melisende's Library
See fuller review @ Melisende's Library
December 18, 2025
Errors that could have easily been avoided, too much supposition, and less detail on life of John than on his father and brother.
Disappointed.
Disappointed.
March 18, 2025
I have grown up in the City of Lancaster and we have various relics and even a pub named after John O Gaunt, so I want interested to find out more about his family and especially John on Lancaster. Throughout history he always seems to have been just on the side lines and in the shadow of his grandfather, brother and later his Nephew. But it is quite obvious that his brother Henry V trusted him with his life and country and the man held defend his men and country through countless battles.
This book was well written and really interesting to read, I didn't get bored with the facts. Not only do you get a feel for John of Lancaster, but you also get details of many other historical figures that played their part in history.
Thank you to NetGalley and Pen and Sword History for a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
This book was well written and really interesting to read, I didn't get bored with the facts. Not only do you get a feel for John of Lancaster, but you also get details of many other historical figures that played their part in history.
Thank you to NetGalley and Pen and Sword History for a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews