Well now, are we to believe the horrific tale related at Medievalists.net? Or should we regard it as yet another malicious work of imagination from Thomas Walsingham. Let’s face it, Walsingham was venomous and untruthful to a fault. The nastiest type of tale-teller. Which leaves me disinclined to believe that Sir John Arundel was guilty in this instance.
Walsingham either disagreed with the whole venture, or had a grudge against Sir John Arundel. The only true part of his narrative is likely to be the storm!
Froissart sometimes got the wrong end of the stick, but he didn’t lie knowingly. Walsingham did, and his last paragraph is proof (to me) that he knew he’d just fibbed quite disgracefully.