Last Post Of The Year

This will be the last post for three weeks or so, as I'm off on my Christmas holidays (yay!) in a day or two.


I've just realised that I missed the fifth anniversary of the blog a couple of weeks ago.  Yes, 'Edward II' has now been around for half a decade!  Little did I think on 3 December 2005 that I'd still be here at the end of 2010, having written 338 posts, and that so many people would be reading the blog!  Here's to the next five (and more) years of Defending Edward II Against Crapness...;-)


The next post will be about Edward's friend Sir William Montacute (died 1319), but I've decided to put it up when I'm back online in early January, as it's not quite finished.  In the meantime, here's something considerably less informative, though definitely more amusing: the names of some of the valets in Edward II's household...


Tassard de Flamoseles
Erman Poilhaud
Sanx (or Sanche) Garsie
Faydit de Mountbreton
Gumbaud de la Batude
Ottelyn Ferre - probably the same man named elsewhere as 'Ottelinus' and 'Otto the German' (Oto le Alemaund)
John du Chariot
Perot Trumel
Burgeys de Til
Percok Bard
Odet de Milsentz
Lup Burgund (of Bordeaux)
Armand de Polliou
Amaneu de Pelegrue
Frisot de Montclair
Merlin de Sene
Jakinettus de Marigny
Guyllimot Poyntz
Tallifer de Tillio
Bidau de Saviniaco
Blasius Aldebrandini
Paganellus Bonmyn ('of Pistoja')
Sanctius de Aspe
Vitalis de Saurnak
Vannus Forteguerre
Hamo Quarrel
Oudinus Bruaunt
Menandus de Fonte
Gailhard Assalhiti


Women's names I've spotted in the records of Edward's reign:


Laderana, Wymarca, Orangia, Amflusia, Amflesa, Drua, Eufegia, Amicabilia, Sayena, Richera, Dyamanda, Femisia, Juetta.  (But no Briannas or Topaz Plantagenets, hehe. :)


Some contemporary nicknames, as recorded in Edward's chamber accounts and various other places:


Thomas - Thomelyn
Richard - Richardyn, Hick
John - Janyn, Janekyn
Marmaduke - Duket
Edmund ('Esmond' in the spelling of the era) - Monde
Simon - Syme
Walter - Watte or Wat (as in Wat Tyler, a few decades later)
Hugh - Huchon, Hughelyn
Isabella - Sibille
Katherine - Katin or Katine


And, of course, Piers - Perot.


My favourite names among Edward's servants:


Litel Wille (Little Will), Litel Colle (Little Colin) and Grete Hobbe (Big Rob).


My favourite men's names that you seldom if ever hear as given names nowadays:


Anketin, Saer, Pentecost, Lovekyn, Sewal, Walran, Hamo, Icok.  

And finally, the excellent name of a man who sent a petition to Edward II in May 1318: Dominion de France.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you, and see you in 2011!

The Earl Of Arundel's Shabby Treatment Of His Eldest Son

Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel and Surrey, was the eldest son of Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel (1 May 1285-17 November 1326) and Alice (c. 1287-before 1338), sister of John de Warenne, earl of Surrey.  As Surrey had no children by his wife Jeanne de Bar, Edward II's niece - though he had plenty of illegitimate ones - Richard Fitzalan was his uncle's heir as well as his father's, and was one of the richest men in England.  Richard was probably born in 1313 or at the beginning of 1314: according to a papal letter of 1345, he was seven when he married the eight-year-old Isabel Despenser, eldest daughter of Hugh the Younger, at Havering in Essex on 9 February 1321.  Edward II attended the wedding and paid for a piece of Lucca cloth to make a veil for spreading over the heads of the child-couple during their nuptial mass, and gave two pounds in pennies to be thrown over them at the chapel door.  [1]  Earl Richard was and is known by the nickname 'Copped Hat' (whatever that means).  I'm not a great fan of Richard, to put it mildly, but I can't help but admire him for his actions in the summer of 1330, when he was still only a teenager: he rebelled against the regime of Isabella of France and Roger Mortimer, and, named as 'the king's enemy and rebel', was forced to flee the country.  Edward III, shortly after he overthrew his mother and her favourite a few months later, recalled Richard to England and restored him to his lands and goods. [2]

Richard Fitzalan and Isabel Despenser's only child, Edmund Fitzalan ( I use the name Fitzalan in this post, but the family mostly called themselves 'de Arundel' in the fourteenth century), appears to have been born in 1327 - he was said to be twenty in 1347 [3]- when both his parents were still extremely young, probably only fourteen and fifteen.  1327 must have been a bleak year for the young couple: their fathers and Isabel's grandfather the Elder Despenser had recently been executed as traitors, Isabel's mother Eleanor de Clare and eldest brother Hugh (the Even Younger, 1308/09-1349) were in prison, her great-uncle Edward II had been deposed, and three of her four younger sisters had been forcibly veiled by the supposedly merciful Isabella of France.  (The youngest, Elizabeth, only a baby in 1327, married Roger Mortimer's grandson Maurice, Lord Berkeley.)  Perhaps not surprisingly, Richard and Isabel's marriage was not a happy one, and in December 1344 Richard managed to have it annulled on the grounds that the couple had been "forced by blows to cohabit, so that a son was born" even though they had "expressly renounced" their marital vows at puberty, having been forced in childhood to contract them "by fear of their relatives."  [4]  This may be true, though none of the said relatives were still alive to object, and Richard's affair with the widowed Eleanor of Lancaster no doubt had a great deal to do with his desire for an annulment.  He married her with unseemly haste in February 1345, in the presence of Edward III.  [5]  Eleanor (c. 1318-1372) was the fifth of the six daughters of Henry, earl of Lancaster (d. 1345) and Maud Chaworth (d. c. 1321); sister of the great Henry of Grosmont; and widow of Henry Beaumont's son and heir John, killed jousting in 1342.  To add insult to injury, she was also Isabel Despenser's first cousin (Maud Chaworth was the elder half-sister of Hugh Despenser the Younger).  Richard Fitzalan and Eleanor of Lancaster were to have five children who survived into adulthood: Richard, born c. 1346, Richard's successor as earl of Arundel and beheaded by Richard II in 1397; John (drowned in 1379), marshal of England; Thomas (d. 1414), archbishop of Canterbury; Joan (d. 1419), countess of Hereford and grandmother of Henry V; Alice (d. 1416), countess of Kent.  Isabel Despenser appears not to have re-married, and falls into obscurity after the annulment; she was still alive in 1356 (Note: Douglas Richardson discovered this), but the date of her death is not known.   The date of Edmund Fitzalan's death is not known either, but was between 1376 and 1382.

Edmund Fitzalan, although he sent an indignant petition protesting his treatment to the pope in 1347, was made illegitimate by the annulment of his parents' marriage.  Despite his illegitimacy, he was knighted and made an excellent marriage, sometime before the summer of 1347, to Sybil, one of the daughters of William Montacute, earl of Salisbury (d. 1344) and Katherine Grandisson.  Sybil's siblings included William, earl of Salisbury (1328-1397), Elizabeth, who married Edmund Fitzalan's uncle Hugh, Lord Despenser (died 1349), son and heir of Hugh the Younger, and Philippa, who married Roger Mortimer's namesake grandson and heir, the second earl of March (1328-1360).  Edmund Fitzalan and Sybil Montacute had three daughters: Elizabeth, who married Sir Leonard Carew and has descendants; Philippa, who married Sir Richard Sergeaux and has descendants; and Katherine, who married someone called Deincourt.  (For more info about Edmund, see Susan Higginbotham's excellent post about him.)  I find Richard Fitzalan's willingness to disinherit a male heir puzzling; there was evidently nothing wrong with Edmund, and although Richard was to have three sons by Eleanor of Lancaster and knew before marrying her that she was fertile (she had a son and a daughter by John Beaumont), he couldn't have known for certain beforehand that she would bear him sons, or that they would survive childhood.

Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, wrote his will at Arundel Castle on 5 December 1375, and died on 14 January 1376.  He was buried next to Eleanor of Lancaster, who had died in January 1372; their tomb and effigies still exist in Chichester Cathedral (pic here) and inspired Philip Larkin's great poem 'An Arundel Tomb'.  Richard, although one of the richest men in England, did not leave a single bequest to his eldest son Edmund or to his granddaughters Elizabeth, Philippa and Katherine.  The following were named in the will and left bequests: his and Eleanor's sons Richard, John and Thomas (then bishop of Ely); his daughters Joan and Alice; the eldest daughter (unnamed) of his son John; Henry and Edward, younger sons of his son John; William, another son of his son John; his sister 'Dame Alaine'; his nephews and nieces, Alaine's children by Roger Lestrange; his uncle John Arundel (perhaps an illegitimate son of Richard, earl of Arundel who died in 1302).  Richard asked his executors Hugh Segrave, Guy Brian and Edward St John in the last line of his will "to be good to my children," but evidently didn't include his eldest son Edmund in this...

Sources

1) Thomas Stapleton, 'A Brief Summary of the Wardrobe Accounts of the tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth years of King Edward the Second', Archaeologia, 26 (1836), p. 338.
2) Calendar of Fine Rolls 1327-1337, p. 181; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1330-1334, p. 20; Calendar of Close Rolls 1330-1333, p. 81.
3) Calendar of Papal Letters 1342-1362, p. 254.
4) Ibid., p. 164.
5) Ibid., pp. 176, 188.

More Fourteenth-Century Proofs Of Age, Or, I Know Your Date Of Birth Because My Son Fled The House With A Greyhound That Day

More extracts from proofs of age (see the last post directly beneath or here), in the Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem 1300-1307 and 1307-1327:

1300, Derbyshire: Richard Daniel (elder brother of John Daniel, killed on the orders of Roger Mortimer in November 1326) is known to have been born in Wexford on 25 April 1274 partly because "Roger de Cheilmardon, aged 70 and more, says that at about the feast of All Saints 26 years ago he came to the house of the said William [Foljaumb], and seeing the said Richard an infant asked who he was, and was answered and told that he was born in Ireland, at which he greatly marvelled."

1301, Northumberland: Margery de Bocland, daughter and heiress of Elias Cusyn, was born on 25 January fifteen years previously:
"Simon de Ruchestre, aged 42, agrees, and remembers because he was then building his hall, 15 years ago.
William Gryse of Matfen West, aged 54, agrees, and remembers because at the feast of Easter next after the said birth, Robert his brother was slain by robbers going to York on the business of Sir John de Herteweyton, 15 years ago, and he loved his brother above all living.
Adam son of Bernard de Ryhill, aged 40, agrees, and remembers because on the day she was born there was a great storm, and he was on his journey from Ryhill to Brynckeburn, and when he had to ride across the Coket he was nearly drowned, and that was 15 years ago."

1302, Ireland: Gilbert de Clare, lord of Thomond (died 1307, nephew of Gilbert 'the Red' de Clare, earl of Gloucester (died 1295), first husband of Hugh Despenser the Younger's sister Isabel, and brother of Margaret, Lady Badlesmere and Maud, Lady Clifford) was proved to have been born in Limerick on 3 February 1281 on the testimony of twelve men, including the following:
"Elias de Cheyne agrees, and recollects because his mother sent to Juliana de Clare the said Gilbert's mother a present by him on the day she was in labour, 21 years ago...
Robert de Inscul agrees, and recollects because he was in a fight at Kyldroyn between the English and Irish on Monday after All Saints, when Robert le Butiller, knight, was wounded whereof he died, and the said Gilbert was born a year after; which fight was 22 years ago...
Maurice Gerveys agrees, and recollects because Walter his brother was wounded in the aforesaid fight so that his life was despaired of.
Stephen Kyvernok agrees, and recollects because he was serving the said Thomas [de Clare] the father at his table, when news came to him of the birth of the said Gilbert."

(Thomas de Clare (d. 1287) helped the future Edward I escape from captivity in 1265, with the aid of Roger Mortimer's grandfather Roger Mortimer (d. 1282); Edward subsequently defeated Simon de Montfort at the battle of Evesham.)

1303, Nottingham: Richard son and heir of Hugh le Heryz was born on the day of Holy Trinity 1282:
"...in that year the king was in the war of Wales, and Llewellyn prince of Wales was taken and slain after the feast of St Martin...
William Torkard of Boneye, aged 50, agrees, and recollects because in Whitsun week before the said Richard's birth, Margery his wife taken with great weakness bore a son scarcely six thumbs in length, who nevertheless lived until he was baptised and then died...
John son of John of Stapelford, aged 41, agrees, and recollects because John his father was in the war of Wales with Sir Peter de la Mare and was drowned with his lord and many others, as well knights as others, in the water of Conewey [Conwy] on the day of St Leonard next after the said Richard's birth 21 years ago."

(That's a reference to the battle of Moel Y Don and the collapse of Edward I's bridge across the Menai Strait on 6 November 1282.)

1305, Gloucester: John son and heir of Robert de Stallinge was born on 8 November 1283:
"William de la Haye, aged 48, agrees, and knows it because on the day that the said Maud [John's mother] purified herself the said Robert [de Stallinge] made a feast to all his neighbours, but did not invite him, at which he was angry."

1307: Richard son and heir of Adam de Stubhuse was born on 1 November 1286:
"John Scarthcroft, aged 50, says the same, and knows it because he was in a certain house on the said day and year."

Well, that's not vague at all, is it?

1308: John son and heir of Simon le Hauekere was born on St Clement's Day 1285:
"William Quynton of Conyton, aged 54, says the same, and knows it because he married his wife Thephania in 12 Edw. I and buried her on the same eve of St Clement, 13 Edw. I, in the cemetery of Conyton, and was almost mad with grief.
Roger de Hiltone, aged 60, says the same, and recollects it because on the same day of St Clement he held a feast in honour of the saint, when, all his neighbours sitting at dinner, his oven and kitchen were burned.
John Pollard of Fendrayton, aged 40, says the same, which he recollects because on that same day of St Clement he was robbed and wounded almost to death by robbers."

1308: Margaret de Harle, daughter and co-heiress of Brian de Brompton, was born on 28 October 1293:
"Hugh de Bolledon, aged 60, says the same, and knows it because he had a son who fled from his house with a greyhound to Huggeford on the said day, and did not return for two days."

1308: John brother and heir of Robert de Derle was born on the Friday after the Purification twenty-two years previously:
"Robert de Dethek, knight, aged 60...knows it because on Saturday after the Epiphany last, twenty-two years ago, Henry de Derle, father of the said John, went with him from Nottingham to Derle, fell ill of the excessive cold, and died within a fortnight after, and Alice his wife bore the said John on the said Friday following.
William de Hopton, aged 50, says the same, and knows it because he begot a daughter Alice of one Edda de Metlak, who was born on the day of the Purification last twenty-three years ago, and was weaned the end of that year, and the said John was born twenty-two years ago, and the same Edda was hired for his nurse."

1309, Suffolk: Bartholomew son and heir of John Davelers was born on 28 September 1287:
"Robert le Vyte, aged 66, says as above, and knows it because on that Friday he came to the hall of Everwarton for 14 shillings due to him for a cloth of russet, and found the lady lying in childbed...
Richard le Warde, aged 55, says as above, and knows it because on that Friday he was repairing the house of Roger le Priur at Everwarton, and fell and broke his right leg."

1310: Elizabeth, younger daughter and co-heiress of Brian de Brompton (and sister of Margaret de Harle above), 'was 14 on Wednesday after St Nicholas last':
"Adam Osberne, aged 60, agrees, and knows it because when building a chamber in his place near the manor of the said Brian, he heard the said Elizabeth wailing...
Richard Faber, aged 60, says the same, and knows it because William de Drayton his servant was slain in Ayston the same day, and in following the felon he saw the said Elizabeth being baptised at the door of the church.
William de Weston, aged 50, Richard de Morton, aged 40, Philip de Castro, aged 50, and Adam Hasard, aged 40, agree, and know it by many evident reasons."

Which would be...?

1312, Cambridge: John son and heir of William Heved was born 'on the day of St Benet, 17 Edw. I':
"William Quynton, aged 52 and more*, says the same, and knows it because he had a wife named Thephania (Thiph'), who died on the day of Holy Trinity, 18 Edw. I**, and was buried on the Sunday following in the graveyard of Conyton; and for the sale of an ox on the same day of St Benet he was excommunicated by the rector in the said church...
William Morel, aged 80, says the same, and knows it because he had a son Henry who the same day and year set out on pilgrimage for Rome, and never returned."

* William was said to be 54 in 1308 in John le Hauekere's proof of age, above.
** He said that Thephania died in 13 Edw. I, not 18 Edw. I, in John le Hauekere's proof of age.  Hmmm.
That last entry about William Morel's son makes me feel sad; how awful never to know what happened to your child.

1314, Lincolnshire: Peter kinsman and one of the heirs of Peter de Campania was born 'on the eve of St Laurence 18 Edw. I' (9 August 1290):
"Lambert ad Ripam of Netelham, aged 50, says the same, and knows it because the men of the township of Netelham built a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the year of the said Peter's birth, and he with others went on the said day of St Laurence to Saxilby to buy timber for the said chapel, and the men of Saxilby announced the birth of the said Peter to him...
John Luyght of Netelham, aged 45, says the same, and knows it because on the said day of St Laurence he carried hay from Saxilby to Netelham which he bought of one William in the Croft, who announced to him the said Peter's birth, and one of his horses fell and broke its neck."

Fourteenth-Century Proofs Of Age, Or, I Know How Old You Are Because I Came Back From Santiago At The Time You Were Born

I was browsing through the Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem 1307-1327 the other day, and read several entries I found really interesting.  In an era half a millennium before the invention of birth certificates, and two hundred years before baptisms began to be recorded in parish registers, how did people know their correct date of birth?  Here are three proofs of age taken in 1315 which demonstrate how...

1) The proof of age of Sir Thomas de Lovayne, son and heir of Sir Matthew de Lovayne, taken in Suffolk on 10 March 1315.  (Matthew died shortly before 24 May 1302 when Thomas was twelve, leaving a widow, Maud: C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, vol. 3, p. 65.)

"Thomas de Kokefeld, 50 and more, says that the said Thomas de Lovayne was 23 on 11 July 8 Edw. II [i.e. the eighth year of Edward II's reign, 1314], for he was born at Blidiston [Bildeston] on that day 19 Edw. I [1291] and baptised the same day in the church of Chelisworth [Chelsworth].  Thomas de Blakenham his uncle and Thomas le Bret were his godfathers, and one Maud atte Lane his godmother; and this he [Thomas de Kokefeld] knows well because at that time he was (stetit?) with the said Thomas de Blakenham, and came with him to the church.

Giles de Wathisham, 40 and more, says the like and knows it because his mother was in the church and he with her.

Osbert de Aldham, 50 and more, agrees, and knows it because John his son and heir was born in the same year, and was 24 on the feast of the Purification [2 February] last.

Walter de Bokeland, 40 and more, agrees, and knows it because at that time he was kept at home by sickness and one Christiana le Browystere [i.e. Brewster], who was with the said Thomas [de Lovayne]'s mother when he was born, told him of it the next day at his house in Thurlaston.

William de Denardiston, 60 and more, agrees, and knows it because Christiana de la Dale, who was with the said Thomas's mother when he was born, told him of it the next day at Thurlaston.

John le Waleys, 40 and more, agrees, and knows it because his father died in the same year and he received his land.

William de Whatefeld, 40 and more, agrees, and knows it because Robert le Virly of Bildeston purchased a tenement in Elmesete [Elmsett] the same year and time, and told him of the birth.

Walter de Naulton, 50 and more, agrees, and knows it because he came to speak with one of the godparents of the said Thomas and saw him baptised.

Geoffrey le Clerk of Buchenham, 45 and more, agrees, and says that Geoffrey his father was servant of Matthew de Lovayne at Bildiston, when the said Thomas was born, whose mother died immediately after his birth, and the said Geoffrey the father caused her death to be written, and commanded him to keep it.

John Nakeman, 60 and more, agrees, and knows it because the same day and year he came to the manor of Bildiston to speak with the steward, and he followed to Chelisworth and saw the said Thomas baptised."

Sir Thomas de Lovayne was granted his lands on 28 April 1315 (Cal. Close Rolls 1313-1318, p. 172).

2) The proof of age of Robert son and heir of Robert de Hugham, taken in Kent on 'Thursday the morrow of St Barnabas, 8 Edw. II' (12 June 1315).  Robert senior was born in c. 1250 and died on or shortly before 18 April 1301, leaving his widow Alice and his son Robert, then said to be aged either nine or ten: Cal. Inq. Post Mortem 1300-1307, pp. 16-17.

"Roger Hadde, aged 40, says that the said Robert was 22 on the day of St Martin [11 November] last, and was born at Hugham on Monday before that feast, 21 Edw. I [1293], and on the Tuesday following was baptised in the church of St Lawrence there; and this he knows because one John de Bressinge, esquire of the said Robert's father, married Sarra the said Roger's sister, who bore a son Richard in the same year, who is now 22 and more; and he also saw the same Robert baptised by one Simon, vicar of Hugham, and Robert de Baldewyne and Gerard de Herst were his godfathers.

Adam de Mardenne, aged 40, says the same, and knows it because he saw the same Robert at Hugham lying in his cradle; and in the same year he journeyed to St Edmunds [words missing] there for half a year, and at that time Joan his wife died.

Robert Hadde, aged 50, says the same, and knows it because he married Alice his wife in the same year, and had a son born two years after who is 20.

Philip de Boycote, aged 46, agrees, adding that he had a daughter Emma with Sarra his wife, who is now 22 and more, and thus he knows of the age of the said Robert.

Walter ate Welle, aged 42, says as above, and knows it because he was esquire to the said Robert's father at the time of his birth, and Robert Baldewyne and Gerard de Herst were godfathers, and Sir Simon, vicar of Hugham, baptised him.

Adam de H[], aged 44, says that the said Robert is 22, and he knows it because in the year of the said Robert's birth, he journeyed to Santiago, and that is twenty-two years ago.

William de Clopham, aged 45, says the same, and knows it because he was in the same year with Lady Lora de Otteham, who was at the assembly which Sir Robert father of the said Robert made, when Lady Alice the mother of him was purified, and he then saw the said Robert.

Walter ate Halle, aged 48, says the same, and had knowledge of it because Joan his wife was in the service of Dulcia, aunt of the mother of the said Robert when news came of his birth; and because in the same year he was imprisoned in the castle of Dover by Sir Stephen de Penecestre the keeper.

Peter Taylour, aged 51, says the said Robert is 22, and he knows it because he saw Sir Robert the father [words missing] John de Borewike by writ of novel disseisin, and was one of twelve jurors of the said assize at Maydestan [Maidstone], in which time the same Robert was born.

Hamo Gold, aged 40, says the said Robert is 12 [sic], as above, and knows it because his houses were burned in Maydestan in that year, and he bought timber of Sir Robert the father, and so he well recollects.

John Gilbert, aged 56, says the said Robert is 22 and more, as above, and knows it because Henry his father died in the same year, and he has had his inheritance twenty-two years and more.

Robert de Hethurst, aged 57, says the said Robert is 22, and this he knows because he saw him lying in his cradle, and in the same year [Hethurst] was imprisoned in the castle of Canterbury."

Robert de Hugham died shortly before 6 June 1317, still only twenty-four, and childless: Cal. Fine Rolls 1307-1319, p. 330.

3) The proof of age of John son and heir of John de Albiniaco (Albini, d'Aubigny, Daubeny), taken in Kent on 13 February 1315.

"Alexander Badecok, aged 50, says that the said John was 22 at the feast of St Peter ad Vincula [1 August] last, for he was born at Hockingdene [Hockenden] on that day 22 Edw. I [1294], and baptised on the morrow in the church of St Mary, Creye [Cray], and this he recollects because his sister Alice was nurse of the said John, and he often saw him lying in his cradle.

Thomas atte Spyche, aged 40, says the same, and recollects it because he was at the purification of Isabel the said John's mother.

Richerus de Marisco, aged 40, agrees, and knows it because he saw the said John borne into the church to be baptised.

John le Welsh, aged 40, agrees, and knows it because he was servant of John the father, when the said John [the son] was born.

Simon atte Purye, aged 50, agrees, and knows it because his [John de Albiniaco the younger's] father told him on the day the said John was born, that he had a son of which he greatly rejoiced.

Richard Walter, aged 40, agrees, and knows it because he was a thresher at Hockingdenne at the time the said John was born.

Simon Coleman, aged 50, agrees, and knows it because he is and was at that time a near neighbour at Hockingdenne.

Gilbert Gerold, aged 40, agrees, and knows it because he often saw the said John lying in his cradle.

Nicholas de Hockingdenne, aged 50, agrees, and knows it because he was in the service of John de Albyniaco the father when the said John was born.

Ralph Vyel, aged 50, agrees, and knows it because he was servant at Hockingdenne when the said John was born.

Simon Laston, aged 40, agrees, and knows it because he saw the same John on the day he was baptised.

Robert Pertrich, aged 50, agrees, and knows it because he is a near neighbour at Hockingdenne and was at the purification of the same John's mother."

***
I cannot adequately express how much I love these entries for the insight they give into life in the early fourteenth century...

Blog Searches and Misinformation

Blog searches!


best answers for people born 14 september is smarter than poeple born9 october  Actually, people born on 30 June are the smartest.  (The fact that this is my birthday is completely irrelevant to this theory, of course.)

why did Queen Isabella prefer tall beds  This one has hit the blog before, lots of times, and I'm still baffled as to what it means.

a story about crime and punish ment in the sory called warwick%

photos of edward11 at bannockburn


interesting things that had happened in the 1330


henry viii perverted treatment of catherine howard


statue leon cathedral man castille boy


who is king edward the 2 of england and what did they did

i am writing a letter to queen isabella  Good idea, as long as you don't expect her to write back.

naughty history stuff


pictures of queen isabella in her casket


nasty robin


dutchess elenor percy picture


feeble lazy kingship "edward ii" bruce


most important events of edward III


william wallace and esabella


what did queen isabella do to poor people  Well, she imprisoned eighteen children in Chester Castle in the summer of 1327 as hostages for the good behaviour of the townspeople, who had been "disobedient and ill-behaved."

what did queen isabella believe in  Imprisoning children because some people in the town where they lived had been "disobedient" towards her.  (Funny the way Edward II is often slated for imprisoning some of the wives and children of the Contrariants in 1322, but no-one notices that Isabella did the same thing, isn't it?)

who was the first woman to lead troops into battle in Europe She became a saint

did edward i sleep with isabella of france


Talking of which, here's a quotation from an information sheet apparently handed out at the Highland Games.  Read it and weep...

William Wallace "was not the father of Edward III but neither was Edward II the father of the child. He was totally gay and fathered no children. Isobel had a lover, Mortimer, but he neither was the father of Edward III. It is rumored that Edward I was the father by choice to keep his line going."


Someone actually printed this rubbish, someone who couldn't even spend twenty seconds checking Wikipedia for the birth and death dates of Edward I and III, and no doubt hundreds or even thousands of people read it and assumed it was true.  Sigh...


From another site: Isabella of France "eventually got rid of her husband’s first lover, his second lover, her husband and her own lover...she rid the country of Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser, two of the most reviled people in England, quashed wars with the barons, stopped on civil war by invading England with Mortimer, successfully negotiated treaties with France and Scotland and left the throne to her son who turned out to be a decent king...Oh sure, she wasn’t above drawing and quartering people who crossed her but they deserved it (Hugh Despenser was thought to have raped her)."


Bet you never knew Isabella 'got rid' of Piers Gaveston and Roger Mortimer, did you?  I'd love to know how Isabella 'quashed wars with the barons' and 'left the throne' to her son (it wasn't hers to leave!).  There's really no evidence that Hugh Despenser raped or sexually assaulted Isabella, and although he may have been a pretty unpleasant person, it's not fair to accuse him of such a serious crime when the only so-called evidence is Isabella's statement in a letter of February 1326 that Hugh "wished to dishonour us by his power" (qi nous voudrait deshonurer a son poiar), which is amply explained by Hugh's other actions towards her.


Talking of Hugh Despenser (the Younger), today is the 684th anniversary of his grotesque execution in Hereford.  RIP, Hugh!

Hospitals and the Poor

I found this entry about the famous St Leonard's Hospital, York in the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-1348 recently, and thought I'd post it here.  It's an inquisition taken in January 1324 by William Herle (justice of the court of Common Pleas) and Geoffrey le Scrope (chief justice of the King's Bench), and provides a fascinating insight into what hospitals of the era gave to the poor.  The original was written mostly in Latin, with some French thrown in and one word in English (husewyf).

"There used to be in the infirmary of the hospital of St Leonard, York, twelve score beds for men and women, but now there are only seven score and four.

The livery of each man and woman used to be six loaves a week viz. four of rye and two of wheat, and three and a half gallons of ale, and three days in the week meat, and two days cheese and butter, and two days herrings, except those who have livery of the chaplains, to whom belongs one more loaf in the week, and other companage, which alms have been withdrawn from St Katherine's Day four years ago, to Christmas last past by Master John Walewayn, that is to say from each man and woman two loaves in the week and for their companage they now only take a penny a week, and for their ale a penny a week.

The poor of the infirmary used to have six servants, but now they only have four; there used to be in the infirmary six oil lamps, and now there are only four, which service of servants and lamps has been withdrawn for two years by the said Master John.

There used to be a distribution of beans to the poor at the gate of the hospital every Monday from Whitsun to St Peter's Chair, which was withdrawn by Sir Walter de Langeton, master.

There used to be a distribution on St Leonard's Day of a loaf and a herring to every poor person, who chose to come, which has been withdrawn for four years by Master John Walewayn.

Alms of forty loaves which used to be given every day at the gate to the poor clerks, who sang at the mass of Our Lady, and other poor persons, have been withdrawn for four years by the said Master John.

The housewife [husewyf] of the orphanage used to take forty-seven loaves a week for the maintenance of the children, of which ten have been withdrawn for four years by the said Master John; and also one of two cows.

Each of the sisters, who wear the habit of the hospital, used to have every week seven loaves, half of white bread and half of whole corn as it comes with buckwheat, and seven gallons of ale, half of the best ale brewed for the brethren, and half of the ale brewed for the poor, and from the kitchen a good mess of meat double and an honest pittance as the brethren have and on every double feast, 24 in the year, two good messes; and for the whole company of sisters two weys of cheese a month; and each sister used to take eight shillings at the gules of August for her clothing; all these alms have been reduced by the said Master John; the possessions of the house are sufficient for the alms.

Examination of the cellarer and brethren of the hospital as to the alms and possessions thereof, containing similar information as to that embodied in the foregoing inquisition and mentioning that some of the property of the hospital was burned and destroyed by the Scots."

- And also, an inquisition taken at Ripon, Yorkshire, in April 1316, by Robert de Cliderhou (i.e. Clitheroe, Lancashire), escheator north of the Trent:

"In the hospital of St Mary Magdalene of Ripon the chantry of one of the two chaplains has been withdrawn by Nicholas de Molyns, warden; travellers, mendicant clerks, and other needy persons and wayfarers ought to have refuge for a night with supper and bed, but no such hospitality is now given; yearly on St Mary Magdalene's Day there ought to be distributed to each poor person coming there, a loaf of wheaten bread worth ½d, when wheat is worth five shillings and a quarter, and a herring, in place of which a saucer full of flour or beans is now given to some poor persons, but the greater part go away without a portion; none of the other works of charity incumbent upon such a hospital are performed owing to the absence of the warden, who seldom resides there."

The Birth Of Edward III, 1312

Today marks the 698th anniversary of the birth of King Edward III at Windsor Castle on Monday 13 November 1312, or as his contemporaries would put it, 'on the feast of St Brice in the sixth year of the reign of our lord King Edward, second of that name after the Conquest', or 'on the Monday after St Martin in the sixth year of the reign of our lord King Edward, son of King Edward'.

Edward of Windsor's father Edward II was then twenty-eight and his mother Isabella of France probably seventeen, or shortly to turn seventeen. Edward was born as heir to the English throne, displacing his father's twelve-year-old half-brother Thomas of Brotherton (whom the king made earl of Norfolk a few weeks later), and would grow up to be, apart from his younger brother John of Eltham, the only surviving grandson of Philip IV of France. He was destined to live until the age of sixty-four, father twelve legitimate children and at least three illegitimate ones, succeed to his father's throne while his father was still alive, begin the Hundred Years War with France and live through three outbreaks of the Black Death; to say that his life was eventful and exciting barely begins to describe it.

As was so often the case in Edward II's reign, little Edward was born at a time when his father was feuding with his barons and the kingdom was teetering on the brink of civil war, thanks to the killing of the king's beloved Piers Gaveston five months earlier (and let me reiterate here that Isabella was already pregnant at the time of Piers' death, and that Edward II's relationship with Piers therefore did not impede his marital relations with his queen, as a lot of people seem to think). Edward II spent the summer of 1312 provisioning his castles, summoning loyal barons to him and ordering London to close its gates against Piers' killers, having left Isabella in the north of England, presumably for her own safety. The king did find time, though, to pay a man called John de Colon of Lombardy "for making his minstrelsy with snakes in the presence of the king" at Canterbury on 16 August. [1]

The king and queen were reunited on or around 9 September 1312 for the first time since late June, and by the 17th of that month had retired to Windsor Castle, where they would spend most of the next few months together. They were accompanied by the dowager queen Marguerite, Edward's stepmother and Isabella's aunt, and Marguerite's brother Louis, count of Evreux, whom their half-brother Philip IV had sent to England to negotiate between the king and his barons in the aftermath of Piers Gaveston's murder. Evreux had long been on close terms with Edward, and it was to him that Edward sent his humorous letter about lazy dogs and big trotting palfreys in 1305.

Edward II gave two pounds to a Welsh minstrel called Coghin, who performed for him, and presumably the eight-months-pregnant Isabella, at Windsor on 12 October. [2] A few days later, Edward granted his wife permission to make her will, which was a sensible precaution many women took while pregnant, given the manifold risks of childbirth. As a married woman, she needed her husband's permission to make a will.  Edward's writ begins "Because we know well that nothing is as certain as death [pour ceo que nous savoms bien qe nule chose n'est si certeine come la mort], and nothing less certain than the hour when it may come, we give and grant permission for our very dear consort Isabella, queen of England, lady of Ireland and duchess of Aquitaine, that she may make and draw up her will..."  [3]

Edward II left Windsor and travelled to Westminster for a few days in late October, returned to Windsor, and on 9 November left again and travelled to his palace of Sheen, twenty miles away. I wonder if this means that Edward III was a little premature, as it doesn't seem likely that Edward II would have left Windsor had his son's birth been believed to be imminent. Edward returned to Windsor on 12 November, maybe because he had been informed that the queen had gone into labour.  In December 1312, Edward granted the enormous sum of eighty pounds annually for the rest of their lives to Isabella's steward John Launge and his wife Joan, Isabella's damsel - which gave them a higher income than many knights - "upon the said John bringing news of the birth of Edward the king's firstborn." [4] Whether this means that Launge rode from Windsor to Sheen to tell Edward that Isabella's labour had begun, or merely that he walked from one part of Windsor Castle to another to say to Edward 'wonderful news, my lord king, you have a healthy son', I don't know. (If the latter, that's got to be the easiest enormously high income anyone's ever earned.)
Off-topic here, but interesting: on 27 September 1315, Edward issued a "mandate for the arrest of Joan, wife of John Launge, going without the realm, and her detention until further order. The king is, without delay, to be certified of her arrest." She was, however, released from Rochester Castle and her goods and chattels restored to her on 17 October. [5] I have no idea what that was about.

The little heir to the throne was baptised three days after his birth in the chapel of St Edward the Confessor at Windsor Castle by Arnaud Nouvel, cardinal-bishop of St Prisca, a papal envoy then in England to negotiate between Edward II and the earls of Lancaster and Hereford and the other men who had taken part in Piers Gaveston's death. The boy had no fewer than seven godfathers: Arnaud d'Aux, bishop of Poitiers, chamberlain of Pope Clement V and another papal envoy trying to establish peace in England; John Droxford, bishop of Bath and Wells; Walter Reynolds, bishop of Worcester and soon to be archbishop of Canterbury; Louis, count of Evreux, the boy's great-uncle; John of Brittany, earl of Richmond, Edward II's first cousin; Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, another close kinsman of the king; and Hugh Despenser the Elder, whom Edward of Windsor would see executed in his armour at Bristol a little less than fourteen years later. [6]

According to the St Albans chronicler, the French delegation wished the boy to be named Louis, but the English nobles forbade it, and he was named instead after his father, or perhaps his grandfather Edward I. [7]  Both the Vita Edwardi Secundi and the St Albans chronicler say that little Edward's birth "much lessened the grief which had inflicted the king on Piers' death" and "tempered the sorrow he had felt since the death of Piers. On that day his love of the boy began and the memory of Piers began to vanish." [8] Of course this is an exaggeration, as Edward was still faithfully remembering Piers in numerous prayers at numerous religious houses many years later and clearly cherished his memory, but no doubt the chroniclers are correct in saying that Edward's joy at his son's birth did go some way to assuaging his terrible grief over Piers' death.

The Vita expressed a wish that Edward of Windsor would grow up to "follow the industry of King Henry II, the well-known valour of King Richard [Lionheart], may he reach the age of King Henry [III], revive the wisdom of King Edward [I], and remind us of the physical strength and comeliness of his father." Evidently, Edward II’s good looks and magnificent physique were the only positive attributes the author could think of to describe him. A few months later, the chronicler added "our King Edward has now reigned six full years and has till now achieved nothing praiseworthy or memorable, except that by a royal marriage he has raised up for himself a handsome son and heir to the throne."  [9]

Isabella of France sent a letter (in French) to the city of London, announcing her son's birth: "Isabella, by the grace of God queen of England, lady of Ireland, and duchess of Aquitaine, to our well-beloved the mayor and aldermen and the commonalty of London, greeting. Forasmuch as we believe that you would willingly hear good tidings of us, we do make known to you that our Lord, of His grace, has delivered us of a son, on the 13th day of November, with safety to ourselves, and to the child. May our Lord preserve you." [10] The London annalist says that the city went wild with joy at the news, the inhabitants dancing in the streets and drinking huge amounts of free wine for a whole week. [11] Sounds like some party.  Edward II granted his son the earldom of Chester when he was only a few days old, set up a household for him with dozens of servants, and granted him numerous lands, castles and manors. The king also granted Isabella lands in Kent, Oxfordshire, Derbyshire and Northamptonshire in 1313 and 1314, probably in gratitude that she had borne him a son. [12] Little Edward of Windsor grew up in the care of his nurse Margaret, wife of Stephen le Chaundeler, and his parents visited him occasionally. [13]

For all the contemporary criticism of Edward’s 'immoderate' and 'excessive' love for Piers Gaveston and all the opprobrium heaped on him nowadays for supposedly neglecting his poor tragic little wife (although the period from late June to early September 1312 was probably the longest time they'd ever spent apart since marrying in January 1308), by fathering a healthy, legitimate son Edward had done something only a handful of his earls had managed by November 1312. The obscure and insignificant earl of Oxford had a son, who was about the same age as Edward II, and the earl of Hereford had two, Edward’s nephews John and Humphrey de Bohun. According to one chronicle, Edward's nephew the earl of Gloucester had a son named John born in April 1312, but this is not confirmed by any other source, and if true, the boy must have died soon after, as Gloucester certainly died childless in June 1314. The earl of Arundel’s eldest son Richard was born in 1313 or the beginning of 1314 - he was said to be seven at the time of his wedding in February 1321 - and the earl of Warwick's in February 1314, even though Warwick was a dozen years older than Edward. The earls of Lancaster, Pembroke, Surrey and Richmond all died without legitimate children, and the earl of Lincoln, who died in early 1311, left only a daughter. (As did Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall.)

On 20 December 1312, Edward II paid the huge amount of 1249 pounds and 19 shillings for "cloth bought...for the liveries of the king, queen Isabel and Edward, the king's son, against the present Christmas." Edward, being perpetually skint thanks to the enormous debts left to him by his father and his own extravagance, had to borrow the money from his Italian bankers, the Bardi of Florence. [14] The king and queen of England, proud new parents, spent the festive season of 1312 at Windsor with the six-week-old baby who was already earl of Chester and one of the greatest and richest noblemen in the realm.

Further reading: Ian Mortimer, The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation (2006)

Sources

1) Constance Bullock-Davies, A Register of Royal and Baronial Domestic Minstrels 1272-1327, p. 32.
2) Ibid., pp. 31-32.
3) Calendar of Patent Rolls 1307-1313, p. 508; Foedera 1307-1327, p. 184.
4) Cal Pat Rolls 1307-1313, pp. 516, 519; Calendar of Close Rolls 1313-1318, p. 54; Cal Pat Rolls 1321-1324, p. 128.
5) Cal Pat Rolls 1313-1317, p. 353; Cal Close Rolls 1313-1318, p. 253.
6) Cal Close Rolls 1307-1313, p. 558; Foedera, p. 187.
7) H. T. Riley, ed., Johannis de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde Chronica et Annales, p. 79.
8) N. Denholm-Young, ed., Vita Edwardi Secundi Monachi Cuiusdam Malmesberiensis, p. 36; Trokelowe, pp. 79-80.
9) Vita, pp. 36-37, 39-40.
10) Cited in Alison Weir, Isabella, She-Wolf of France, Queen of England, p. 71.
11) Annales Londonienses 1195-1330, in W. Stubbs, ed., Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, vol. 1, pp. 220-221.
12) For example: Cal Pat Rolls 1313-1317, pp. 5, 38.
13) Calendar of Fine Rolls 1307-1319, p. 189.
14) Cal Fine Rolls 1307-1319, p. 158.

Friday Facts 3

More random Edward II stuff...

- Edward's wet-nurse for the first few months of his life in 1284, until she fell ill and had to leave his household, was the Welsh woman Mariota (or Mary) Maunsel.  In November 1307, Edward gave Mariota seventy-three acres of land in Caernarfon rent-free for life (she was then described as a "burgess of Carnarvan") and in March 1312 granted "the king's first nurse" an income of five pounds a year "out of the yearly issues of the king's mill at Karnarvan."  Mariota was replaced as Edward's nurse by an English woman, Alice de Leygrave, who in May 1313 was called "the king's mother...who suckled him in his youth."  [1]

- Edward in 1305/06 spent almost £1270 on minstrels and buying palfreys, which would seem to be a wildly excessive amount of money even by his extravagant standards.  [2]

- Edward owned a barge called La Petite Mariot, and his ships included La Isabele of Westminster, presumably named after the queen, La Alianore la Despensere, named after his niece Eleanor Despenser, La Jonette and La Cristofre. Edward sent John Sturmy to Norfolk in April 1315 to bring the latter two ships into port, as they were "lying outside port on the high sea, not without danger as the king hears."  This was probably a wise precaution: the king's ship La James of Caernarfon was stolen from Holyhead ('Haliheved') by Thomas Dun and "others, the king's enemies and rebels from Scotland," on 12 September 1315 and taken to Scotland.  Edward, at Fen Ditton near Cambridge, ordered John Gray, justice of North Wales, on 1 October to investigate the matter; the subsequent inquisition was held at Beaumaris, as Bertram de Cranemore, captain of La James, "is a burgess of that town."  [3]

- On 25 July 1326, Edward - then at Byfleet in Surrey - paid a messenger five shillings to take his letters to his daughters Eleanor (aged eight) and Joan (aged five) at Marlborough in Wiltshire.  On the same day, he gave a gift of two shillings to John of Waltham, "who sang before the king every time he passed through these parts by water, and today gave him [Edward] a bucket of loach."  [4]

- Piers Gaveston's first cousin Pierre Caillau, whose mother Miramonde was the sister of Piers' mother Claramonde de Marsan, served as mayor of Bordeaux from 1308 to 1310.  Pierre married a woman with the excellent name of Navarre de Podensac, and died in 1335.  He and his brother Bertrand were accused in 1308 of committing various unpleasant crimes against Amanieu and Jean Colomb, in the gorgeous Gascon French of the era: So son los actes, murtres, plaguas, arraubarias feyt par la man de Peyre Calhau, maior de Bordeu, e de Bertran Calhau, son frayre, e deus Soleyrenx e de lor companha e per lor viladors a Namaneu Colom e a Johan Colom e a lur companha e a lurs amies...[5]

- Edward II gave twelve pence to three "small children, brothers" (petitz enfauntz freres), for singing for him in a garden in Surrey on 15 August 1325.  [6]

- 17 October 1325: "Paid to Jack Fisher [Jak Ffissher] for a pike, two barbel and a trout bought from him by the king himself when he passed from Walton to Cippenham on this day, seven shillings."  [7]

- On 23 May 1313, just before he and Isabella travelled to Paris for the knighting of her brothers, Edward ordered the constable of Dover Castle to pay "six Saracens" six pence a day each for their expenses "until the king's return from parts beyond sea."  Who these people were and what subsequently happened to them, I don't know.  [8]

Sources

1) Calendar of Patent Rolls 1307-1313, pp. 21, 448; Calendar of Close Rolls 1307-1313, p. 581.
2) Constance Bullock-Davies, A Register of Royal and Baronial Domestic Minstrels 1272-1327, p. 119.
3) For La James, Patent Rolls 1313-1317, p. 421; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-1348, p. 61; Calendar of Chancery Warrants 1244-1326, p. 426.  For the other ships, too many sources to list here!
4) Society of Antiquaries Library MS 122, p. 78.
5) G. P. Cuttino and J.-P. Trabut-Cussac, eds., Gascon Register A (Series of 1318-1319), vol. 2, pp. 374-379; Malcolm Vale, The Origins of the Hundred Years War: The Angevin Legacy 1250-1340, p. 280.
6) SAL MS 122, p. 20.
7) Ibid., p. 29.
8) Close Rolls 1307-1313, p. 537.

O calamity! To see authors quoting a primary source out of context!

"O calamity! To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains!"  (O monstrum! uidere uiros purpura et bisso nuper indutos nunc attritis uestibus incedere, et uinctos in compedibus recludi sub carcere!)

The above quotation comes from the Vita Edwardi Secundi (Life of Edward II, a contemporary chronicle written by a very well-informed man who was frequently critical of the king) and is often cited in modern works. The quotation is usually interpreted as the author harshly criticising the tyranny of Edward II and his friends the Despensers in and after 1322, following his execution of twenty-two(ish) Contrariants and the imprisonment of several dozen others, as for example:

- "The chroniclers are unanimous in their condemnation of what took place after 1322. 'O calamity,' the anonymous biographer of Edward II wrote, 'To see men, so recently clothed in purple and fine linen, now tied in rags bound and imprisoned in chains.'"  (Note that 'attired in rags' is changed to 'tied in rags'.)

- "The chroniclers, like most of the King's subjects, were horrified by the violence. 'Oh calamity!' cried the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi. 'To see men, so recently clothed in purple and fine linen, now tied in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains. The harshness of the king has increased so much that no one, however great or wise, dares to cross his will. The nobles of the realm are terrified by threats and penalties. The king's will has free play. Thus today might conquers reason, for whatever pleases the king, though lacking in reason, has the force of law.'"

(Although this is cited as one continuous text, the part beginning 'The harshness of the king...' actually appears in the Vita no fewer than eleven pages after the rest, and some of it is inaccurately quoted, including 'tied in rags'. See the end of this post.)

- "'Oh Calamity. To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains', wrote the author of Vita Edwardi at the sight of men imprisoned after Boroughbridge."

(For more info about the events of 1321/22, see here, here, here and here.)

Let's look at the quotation in its proper context.  The author of the Vita is discussing the aftermath of the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322, when Andrew Harclay defeated the earls of Lancaster and Hereford and the other Contrariants, of whom the Vita says "puffed-up by the earl of Lancaster's protection, they killed those who opposed them, plundered those who offered no resistance, sparing no one," a quotation missing from most accounts of events in 1321/22.  A narrative portraying the Contrariants as innocent whiter-than-white freedom fighters bravely resisting a tyrannical king and his nasty favourite, who are unfairly and unjustly executed or imprisoned despite committing no real crimes, is favoured these days, and apparently we can't have the black and white moral certainties of the Bad Edward and Bad Despensers/Good Contrariants story messed up by accounts of Our Brave Heroic Lads killing and plundering non-combatants. The Vita's statement is in fact confirmed by numerous petitions and inquisitions of the early 1320s.

The author of the Vita, by the way, although he hated the Despensers and their behaviour, hated the Contrariants and theirs even more.  He strongly condemned the Despensers' greed, brutality and harshness, but pointed out that in August 1321 they had been "exiled [from England] out of malice" (Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N. Denholm-Young, 1957, p. 121) and that the Contrariants "had disgracefully destroyed the manors of both father and son; and further because they had taken for their own use and wasted the goods of the exiles, which ought rather to have gone to the treasury..."  He also declared that "in the judgement of some worthy persons the barons went too far in their persecution [of the Despensers]. For even if they found just reasons for banishment, they did not justly seize their goods. Why did they destroy their manors, for what reason did they extort ransoms from their retinues? Though formerly their cause had been just, they now turned right into wrong." (pp. 115-116)

Here's the 'O calamity!' quotation as it appears in its proper context, the end of the battle of Boroughbridge (Vita, pp. 124-125):

"...the earl of Lancaster made a truce with Andrew Harclay to keep the peace until the morrow; and when this was done each returned to his lodging. On that same night the sheriff of York came with a large force to attack the king's enemies; relying on his help, Andrew Harclay entered the town very early, and taking the earl of Lancaster and almost all the other knights and esquires scatheless, led them off to York and imprisoned them. Some left their horses and putting off their armour looked round for ancient worn-out garments, and took to the road as beggars. But their caution was of no avail, for not a single well-known man among them all escaped.
O calamity! To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags, bound and imprisoned in chains!  A marvellous thing and one indeed brought about by God's will and aid, that so scanty a company should in a moment overcome so many knights. For the earl's side were more than seven times as numerous as their adversaries." 

See the bit where the author calls the royalist victory over the Contrariants a 'marvellous thing' which happened with the will and aid of God? That's not quite the impression given in the secondary sources quoted above, is it?  The author is describing the desperate actions of noblemen and knights trying to flee from justice after rebelling against their king and committing numerous crimes against non-combatants, by throwing away their fine clothes and possessions and dressing as beggars - a story confirmed by numerous entries in the Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous. Other men who had fought at Boroughbridge or otherwise rebelled against Edward "put on the habit of religion and other diverse habits in order to leave the realm or to hide more securely within the realm."*  John, Lord Mowbray, whose many acts of theft and extortion in 1321/22 are recorded in petitions of his indignant victims - he even robbed the church of Laughton-en-le-Morthen in Yorkshire, and imprisoned the parson of Rossington until he agreed to give Mowbray £200** - rid himself of "a coat of armour of great price, and a pack with robes and good fur" in an attempt to disguise himself and escape.  It didn't work, and he was hanged in York on 23 March with his fellow church-robber Sir Jocelyn Deyville and Roger, Lord Clifford.  Stephen Baret was another of the men who helped Mowbray steal the possessions of the people and church of Laughton, and was captured by the constable of Knaresborough Castle after Boroughbridge and subsequently executed in South Wales; he must have been another of the men who threw away his clothes, as he and four of his men were "taken bare."
[* Calendar of Close Rolls 1318-1323, pp. 534-535;  ** The National Archives SC 8/7/301, SC 8/106/5274]

The author of the Vita was not, as some secondary sources claim, condemning Edward II for executing or imprisoning noblemen and knights and their families or saying that the king himself forced people to wear rags (or 'tied' them in rags, whatever that means) or that things in England were so bad in the 1320s that even noblemen could not afford to buy clothes. Far from being "horrified by the violence" of the 1322 executions, he was clearly out of sympathy with the rebels - and this from a man with a pretty low opinion of Edward II. To use the 'Oh calamity...' quotation as evidence that the author was condemning Edward's tyranny and the supposedly pitiful condition of his subjects, to use it without ever mentioning that the sentence immediately following it begins 'A marvellous thing' and that the author strongly disapproved of the actions of the Contrariants, is selective quotation at its worst.

Postscript: Returning to the other part cited above about Edward II's 'harshness', here's the quotation also in its proper context (Vita Edwardi Secundi, p. 136).  The author is now describing Edward's war with France in 1324 and his unwillingness to pay his soldiers, who were forced to pillage the Gascon countryside for food (which is borne out by letters sent to Edward and Hugh Despenser in 1324 from several men on the ground in Gascony):

"All were astonished that the king did not satisfy the treasury, since they could not live properly without wages, and the king had plenty of treasure. Many of his forbears amassed money; he alone has exceeded them all. Howbeit, the king's meanness is laid at Hugh [Despenser the Younger]'s door, like the other evils that afflict the court. Hence, many conspired to kill him, but the plot was discovered, some were captured and the rest fled.
Then the king ordered all the infantry to board their ships and stand out to sea, until the time should come for crossing to Gascony; and he put in command the Earl Warenne, John de St John, and other great men of the land, who likewise went on board not daring to resist. The king also sent letters to every county commanding and ordering that all who had returned from the army to their homes without leave should be arrested, and hanged forthwith without trials. The harshness of the king has today increased so much that no one, however great and wise, dares to cross his will. Thus parliaments, colloquies, and councils decide nothing these days. For the nobles of the realm, terrified by threats and the penalties inflicted on others, let the king's will have free play. Thus today will conquers reason. For whatever pleases the king, though lacking in reason, has the force of law."

The Trial and Execution of Thomas of Lancaster

A post about Thomas, earl of Lancaster's trial and execution on 22 March 1322, as described in several chronicles of the fourteenth century. (Edward II executed around twenty other baronial rebels, whom he called the Contrariants, at the same time.)

A quick recap: Thomas and his allies lost the battle of Boroughbridge to Andrew Harclay on 16 March 1322 - Edward II, a few miles away at Doncaster, informed Pope John XXII of the victory on 18 March* - and the earl was taken via York to his own castle and favoured residence of Pontefract, whose constable surrendered without a fight to Edward on 19 or 20 March. Lancaster was condemned to death in the great hall of the castle, following a so-called trial in which he was not allowed to speak, and executed on 22 March. The official indictment appears in Foedera*, and comprises the many charges and accusations Edward II summoned up against his cousin, including treason, as Lancaster and other Contrariants had invited several of Robert Bruce's liegemen to England in 1322 to ride with them against their king. The charges also included Lancaster's and his household's jeering at Edward as the king passed through Pontefract on his way from York to London in the late summer of 1317**, and Lancaster's blocking of the roads in an attempt to prevent Edward's travelling through Yorkshire earlier a few weeks previously; Edward II, not a man to forget an insult, had never forgiven Lancaster for preventing his passage through his own kingdom or for his appallingly rude lèse-majesté. The death of Piers Gaveston in June 1312 was not mentioned, but few contemporary chroniclers failed to point out that Edward had revenge for Piers' murder much on his mind.
[* Foedera 1307-1327, pp. 477-479.]
[** Et cum dominus Rex a partibus Eboracum se divertisset versus partes australes, & venisset cum familia sua, transeundo juxta Pontem Fractem, dictus Thomas comes & homines sui exierunt castrum praedictum, & ad despiciendum dominum Regem, acclamaverunt in ipsum Regem vilissime & contemptibiliter cum magno tumultu, in maximum contemptum ipsius domini Regis]

Although the sole blame for Lancaster's execution was heaped on the two Hugh Despensers at their own so-called trials in October/November 1326, the two men and Edward II were not the only ones who condemned Lancaster to death: the earls of Pembroke, Richmond, Kent, Arundel, Surrey, Atholl and Angus also sat in judgement on him, as did the royal justice Robert Malberthorpe. Edward II, Kent and Richmond were Lancaster's first cousins; Pembroke his first cousin once removed; Surrey, Atholl and Angus had once served in his retinue.  (As, indeed, had several of the knights who fought against Lancaster at Boroughbridge.)

The Chronicle of Lanercost: Edward "sent for the earl to come to Pontefract, where he remained still in the castle of the earl; and there, in revenge for the death of Piers de Gaveston (whom the earl had caused to be beheaded), and at the instance of the earl's rivals (especially of Sir Hugh Despenser the younger), without holding a parliament or taking the advice of the majority, caused sentence to be pronounced that he should be drawn, hanged and beheaded. But, forasmuch as he was the queen's uncle and son of the king's uncle, the first two penalties were commuted, so that he was neither drawn nor hanged, only beheaded in like manner as this same Earl Thomas had caused Piers de Gaveston to be beheaded. Howbeit, other adequate cause was brought forward and alleged, to wit, that he had borne arms against the king of England in his own realm; but those who best knew the king's mind declared that the earl never would have been summarily beheaded without the advice of parliament, nor so badly treated, had not that other cause prevailed, but that he would have been imprisoned for life or sent into exile. This man, then, said to be of most eminent birth and noblest of Christians, as well as the wealthiest earl in the world, inasmuch as he owned five earldoms, to wit, Lancaster, Lincoln, Salisbury, Leicester and Ferrers [Derby], was taken on the morrow of St Benedict Abbot in Lent and beheaded like any thief or vilest rascal on a certain hillock outside the town..."

Scalacronica: "Thomas, earl of Lancaster, was beheaded at Pontefract in revenge for Piers Gaveston ['Peris de Gauirstoun'], and for other offences which he had often and habitually committed against the king, and at the very place where he had once heckled, and made others heckle, at the king as he [Edward] was travelling to York."

Anonimalle: "...the king sent him [Lancaster] to Pontefract, which place the said earl loved more than any other town in the world. And there the king entered the said earl's castle, and with Sir Hugh [Despenser the Younger] met him and degraded him by malicious and contemptuous words in his face, in mockery of him. The which Sir Hugh, Sir Edmund earl of Arundel and Sir Robert Marbelthorpe made themselves his justices...they sentenced him to be beheaded on the 20th day of March, that is, St Cuthbert's Day, in a place which the said earl much loved to visit to amuse himself, and this decapitation was done because of Sir Piers Gaveston ['Pieres de Gavastoun'] aforementioned, whom the king much loved."

Vita Edwardi Secundi: "On the fourth or fifth day after the capture of the earl of Lancaster, the king coming to Pontefract ordered him to be brought up without delay.  He was at once brought up by the king's command, and for that night he was shut up in a certain tower.  It is said that the earl had recently built that tower, and determined that when the king was captured he should be imprisoned in it for life, and so to have made the prince a lion after the manner of the Lombards.  This was the common story, but I have not heard evidence of its truth.
On the morrow the earl was led into the hall before the justices assigned for the purpose, and charged one by one with his crimes, and to each charge a special penalty was attached, namely, that first he should be drawn, then hanged, and finally decapitated.  But out of reverence for his royal blood the penalty of drawing was remitted, as also that of hanging, and one punishment was decreed for all three.  The earl, however, wishing to speak in mitigation of his crimes, immediately tried to make some points; but the judges refused to hear him, because the words of the condemned can neither harm nor be of any profit.  Then the earl said "This is a powerful court, and great in authority, where no answer is heard, nor any excuse admitted."  Here was a sight indeed!  To see the earl of Lancaster, lately the terror of the whole country, receiving judgement in his own castle and home.  Then the earl was led forth from the castle, and mounted on some worthless mule was led to the place of execution.  Then the earl stretched forth his head as if in prayer, and the executioner cut off his head with two or three strokes...
...Perhaps a hidden cause, not immediate but remote, brought punishment upon the earl.  The earl of Lancaster once cut off Piers Gaveston's head [caput Petri de Gauestone], and now by the king's command the earl has himself has lost his head. Thus, perhaps not unjustly, the earl received measure for measure, as it is written in Holy Scripture."

Brut (modernised spelling): "And now I shall tell you of the noble Earl Thomas of Lancaster.  When he was taken and brought to York, many of the city were full glad, and upon him cried with high voice "Ah, Sir Traitor! Now shall you have the reward that long time you have deserved!" and cast upon him many snowballs, and many other reproofs did him.  But the gentle earl suffered that, and said nothing to another.
And in that same time the king heard of that discomfiture [the battle of Boroughbridge], and was full glad, and in haste came to Pontefract; and Sir Hugh the Spenser, and Sir Hugh his son, and Sir John [sic], earl of Arundel, and Sir Edmund of Woodstock the king's brother, earl of Kent, and Sir Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, and Master Robert Baldock, a false pilede clerc, that was dwelling in the king's court; and all they came thither with the king...And Sir Hugh the Spenser the father and Sir Hugh his son cast and thought how and in what manner the good Earl Thomas of Lancaster should be dead, without judgement of his peers; wherefore it was ordained through the king's justices that the king should put upon him points of treason [traitery].
And so it befell that he was led to the bar before the king's justices, bare-headed as a thief, in a fair hall within his own castle, that he had made therein many a fair feast, both to rich and also to poor...and Sir Robert [Malberthorpe] accused him in this manner: "Thomas!  At first, our lord the king and this court excludes you of all manner of answer. Thomas!  Our lord the king puts upon you that you have in his land ridden with banner displayed, against his peace, as a traitor."  And with that word, the gentle Earl Thomas with a high voice said "Nay, lords!  Forsooth, and by Saint Thomas, I was never traitor."  The justice said again "Thomas!  Our lord the king also puts upon you that you have robbed his folk, and and murdered his folk, as a thief.  Thomas!  The king also puts upon you that he discomforted you and your people with his folk in his own realm; wherefore you went and fled to the wood as an outlaw, and also you were taken as an outlaw."

Thomas is sentenced to hanging, drawing and quartering, which Edward II commutes to beheading "for the love of Quene Isabell," then:
"The gentle knight, when he had heard all these words, with a high voice he cried, sore weeping, and said "Alas, Saint Thomas, fair father!  Alas!  Shall I be dead thus?  Grant me now, blissful God, answer!" but all it availed him nothing; for the cursed Gascon [cursede Gascoignes, i.e. Piers Gaveston] put him hither and thither...They set upon his head in scorn a chaplet, all rent and torn, that was not worth a halfpenny; and after, they set him upon a lean white palfrey, full unseemly, and also all bare, with an old bridle; and with a horrible noise they drew him out of the castle to his death, and cast on him many snowballs [balles of snowe]. And as the tormentors led him out of the castle, he said these piteous words, and his hands held up in high towards heaven: "Now the king of Heaven give us mercy, for the earthly king has forsaken us!"...The gentle earl set him upon his knees, and turned him towards the east; but a Ribaude that men called Hugon of Moston set hand upon the gentle earl, and said in despite of him "Sir Traitor, turn thee toward the Scots, thine foul death to receive [vnderfonge]"; and turned the earl toward the north.  The noble Earl Thomas answered with a mild voice, and said "Now, fair lords, you shall do all your own will."  And with that word the friar went from him full sore; and a ribaude went to him, and smote off his head."

Friday Facts 2

Stuff!  Random stuff!  About Edward II!

- I wrote last Friday that Edward twice escaped from fire, in 1306 and 1313.  His parents Edward I and Eleanor of Castile also had a narrow escape in August 1283, when they had to flee from their burning bedchamber.  [1] Note the date of this: it must have been shortly after Edward II, born on 25 April 1284, was conceived.  Talking of which, Edward I and Queen Eleanor were in Caernarfon from 12 to 31 July 1283 and back there on 12-13 and 18-21 August, so it is entirely possible that Edward II was conceived in Caernarfon as well as born there.

- While staying at the priory of Newburgh near York in November 1316, Edward gave five pounds to the violist Robert Daverouns for "making his minstrelsy before the king."  [2]  Daverouns had been sent to England by Philip of Taranto (1278/80-1331), titular emperor of Constantinople, king of Albania, prince of Achaea and Taranto and despot of Epirius, who was Edward's second cousin, grandson of Eleanor of Provence's sister Beatrice.  (Philip's brothers included Charles, king of Hungary, Robert the Wise, king of Jerusalem and Naples and duke of Calabria, and St Louis, bishop of Toulouse.)

- Edward wrote to his brother-in-law Louis X of France and Louis's queen Clemence of Hungary - niece of Philip of Taranto above - on 17 May 1316, less than three weeks before Louis's sudden death at the age of only twenty-six.  He asked them to strive to continue their friendly relationship with him and mentioned the great affection and sincere bond of fraternity between himself and Louis. Edward's clerk, presumably baffled by Clemence's unusual name, addressed her as "The most excellent lady, Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God queen of France and Navarre."  [3]

- On 3 August 1309, an obviously deeply annoyed Edward wrote to his father-in-law Philip IV of France, having discovered that Philip had acknowledged Robert Bruce as king of Scots in letters sent to Bruce, and had tried to conceal the fact from Edward.  He usually began letters to Philip with "To the very excellent and very noble prince, our very dear and beloved father, Lord Philip, by the grace of God illustrious king of France, greetings and very dear affection."  This one began abruptly "To the king of France, greetings."  [4]

- Isabella of France, in a letter to Walter Reynolds, archbishop of Canterbury, on 5 February 1326 - after her refusal to return to England and Edward - called her husband "our very dear and very sweet lord and friend" (nostre treschier et tresdouche seignur et amy).  Even if you believe that Isabella hated Edward by 1326 - which I certainly don't - and felt "profound revulsion" for him as one writer states as though it's a fact, 'friend' is a very interesting choice of word.  It was entirely conventional for women of this era to refer to their husband as their 'lord' or their 'very dear lord'.  As their 'friend'?  As 'very sweet'?  Definitely not conventional.  In a letter to Edward of 31 March 1325, shortly after she arrived in France to negotiate with her brother Charles IV, Isabella called her husband "my very sweet heart" (mon tresdoutz coer) five times.  [5]

- On 14 December 1308, Edward ordered his sheriffs to pay the imprisoned Knights Templar in England their wages, four pence a day, with arrears from the first day of their imprisonment that January. [6]

- Edward's Household Ordinance of 1318 stated that four of his thirty sergeants-at-arms would sleep outside his chamber (as close to the door as possible) every night, with the usher of the chamber and and a sergeant porter "who will guard the door of there where the king sleeps, so that no-one will enter except those who have the right to do so."  [7]

- The Scalacronica says that Edward in and after 1322, "after his [Hugh Despenser the Younger's] example, did everything that wholly unfitted him for chivalry, delighting himself in avarice and in delights of the flesh [delitz du corps], disinheriting his subjects who had rebelled against him, and enriching himself with their great property in lands." [8] Unfortunately, the 'delights of the flesh' are not specified!

 Sources

1) John Carmi Parsons, Eleanor of Castile: Queen and Society im Thirteenth-Century England, p. 33.
2) Thomas Stapleton, 'A Brief Summary of the Wardrobe Accounts of the tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth years of King Edward the Second', Archaeologia, 26 (1836), p. 342; Constance Bullock-Davies, A Register of Royal and Baronial Domestic Minstrels 1272-1327, p. 39.
3) Foedera 1307-1327, p. 290.
4) Ibid., p. 79.
5) Seymour Phillips, Edward II, p. 491 (my translation differs slightly from Professor Phillips'); Pierre Chaplais, ed., The War of Saint-Sardos (1323-1325): Gascon Correspondence and Diplomatic Documents, pp. 199-200.
6) Calendar of Close Rolls 1307-1313, p. 90.
7) T.F. Tout, The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History, pp. 281-282, 297.
8) Herbert Maxwell, ed., Scalacronica: The Reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III as Recorded by Sir Thomas Gray of Heton, knight, p. 70.

Friday Facts 1

Some random facts about Edward II...

- Edward twice survived a fire: at Windsor Castle in April 1306, when he gave a gift of ten shillings each to the watchmen Richard de Windsor and Richard de Burghardesle who roused him from his bed, evacuated members of his household and others and helped to extinguish the flames; and at Pontoise in June 1313, when a fire broke out in his and Isabella's lodgings and he gathered his wife up in his arms and rushed outside, both of them naked. The couple lost many possessions in this fire. The watchman Richard de Windsor had other talents: the month after he saved Edward from the fire, Edward summoned him to Byfleet in Surrey to "make his minstrelsy in the presence of the lord prince [of Wales] and his nobles." [1]

- Edward's youngest sibling was his half-sister Eleanor, third child of Edward I and his second wife Marguerite of France, following Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk (born 1 June 1300) and Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent (born 5 August 1301). Eleanor was born on 4 May 1306 - and named perhaps in honour of Edward I's first queen Eleanor of Castile, or Edward's eldest surviving daughter Eleanor, countess of Bar - when Edward I was almost sixty-seven and the future Edward II twenty-two. Eleanor was fifteen years younger than her nephew the earl of Gloucester, Edward I's eldest grandchild. The little girl was a mere four days old when her father opened negotiations on 8 May 1306 for her marriage to Robert (b. 1300), son and heir of Othon IV, count palatine of Burgundy, and Mahaut, countess of Artois. (Robert's elder sisters Jeanne and Blanche married Philippe V and Charles IV of France.) Edward of Caernarfon bound himself on 31 August 1306 "to settle upon her [Eleanor] 10,000 marks sterling for her marriage, and 5,000 marks for her trousseau, to be paid to her within seven years, and to find her proper sustenance according to her estate until she is married."

Little Eleanor died shortly before 28 August 1311, at the age of five; her half-brother Edward II paid 113 pounds "for the expenses and preparations made for the burial of the body of the Lady Eleanor, the king’s sister" at Beaulieu Abbey, Hampshire. Her fiancé Robert of Burgundy died unmarried in 1315, aged fifteen, and his vast inheritance passed to his sister Jeanne, then queen of France. [2]

- Talking of Mahaut, countess of Artois in her own right and heroine of Maurice Druon's Les Rois Maudits/The Accursed Kings series of novels, Edward II and Isabella of France visited her at Hesdin (in the modern Pas-de-Calais department in northern France) on or about 11 July 1313, on their way back to England after their extended visit to the French court. Mahaut took pains to ensure that her castle looked at its absolute best during the king and queen's visit: she paid a group of painters to clean and otherwise repair the paintings in the 'Indian hall', the 'hall of shields', the oddly-named 'chamber of pigs in the Marais', the great chapel and the vaunted chapel, "against the coming of the king of England" (contre le venue du roy Dengleterre). [3]

- On Edward of Caernarfon's nineteenth birthday, 25 April 1303, he gave a gift of a penny each to 300 poor people. [4]

- Whether Edward saw them or not I don't know, but the Sempringham annalist says, rather oddly, that in England in 1317 "there issued from the earth water-mice with long tails, larger than rats, with which the fields and meadows were filled in the summer and in August." [5]

- On his way to fight at Bannockburn in June 1314, Edward took a travelling wine cellar with him, and Isabella of France, who accompanied him as far as Berwick-on-Tweed, took a wooden altar "bound with iron bands in the manner of a coffer," which could be packed up and carried by a sumpter-horse. [6]

- An anonymous cleric told Edward's confessor during the great famine in 1315 that "our king as he passes through the country takes men’s goods and pays little or nothing or badly…Formerly, indeed, the inhabitants used to rejoice to see the face of the king when he came, but now, because the king’s approach injures the people, his departure gives them much pleasure and as he goes off they pray that he may never return." The correspondent added that Edward II too often visited religious houses, which presumably (the remainder of the letter is missing) was intended as a criticism of the huge costs the houses had to bear in accommodating the king and his large retinue. This is a fair point: Edward stayed for five weeks with the Franciscans of York in the late summer of 1316 and only gave them ten pounds for the expenses of himself and his household. [7]

- Among the possessions which Edward left with the London draper (and future mayor) Simon de Swanland in the autumn of 1326, when he fled the capital following the arrival of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer's invasion force, were: a cushion cover of vermilion sendal (a fine silk); a cloth-of-gold mantle edged with white pearls and silver; a green coverlet with three matching tapestries; four ells of Tarsus cloth (a kind of felt cloth, from the home town of St Paul) with golden stripes. [8]

- After Piers Gaveston's wedding to Edward's niece Margaret de Clare at Berkhamstead on 1 November 1307, Edward paid a local resident named Richard le Kroc five shillings in compensation for "damages done to his property by the king's party." [9]

- On 21 May 1321, Edward (then aged thirty-seven) gave ten pounds to the messenger who brought him news of the birth of his latest great-nephew, the future Count Henri IV of Bar, son of Edward's nephew Count Edouard I of Bar and Marie of Burgundy (whose sister Marguerite, died 1315, was the first wife of Edward II's brother-in-law Louis X of France). Three days later, the king paid Robert le Fermor, bootmaker of Fleet Street, thirty shillings for six pairs of boots "with tassels of silk and drops of silver-gilt." [10]

Sources

1) Constance Bullock-Davies, Menestrellorum Multitudo: Minstrels at a Royal Feast, p. 51; Constance Bullock-Davies, A Register of Royal and Baronial Domestic Minstrels 1272-1327, p. 165; Roy Martin Haines, King Edward II: His Life, His Reign, and Its Aftermath, 1284-1330, pp. 41 and 374, note 84.

2) Calendar of Patent Rolls 1301-1307, pp. 431, 460; Frederick Devon, Issues of the Exchequer: Being A Collection of Payments Made Out of His Majesty’s Revenue from King Henry III to King Henry VI Inclusive, p. 124.

3) Malcolm Vale, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe, pp. 229, 280.

4) Seymour Phillips, Edward II, p. 64.

5) John Glover, ed., Le Livere de Reis de Britanie e le Livere de Reis de Engletere, p. 333.

6) Aryeh Nusbacher, Bannockburn 1314, p. 89; Vale, Princely Court, pp. 221-222.

7) N. Denholm-Young, ed., Vita Edwardi Secundi, p. 75; Thomas Stapleton, 'A Brief Summary of the Wardrobe Accounts of the tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth years of King Edward the Second', Archaeologia, 26 (1836), p. 320.

8) J. Harvey Bloom, 'Simon de Swanland and King Edward II', Notes and Queries, 11th series, 4 (1911), p. 2.
9) J.S. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall 1307-1312: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of Edward II, pp. 38 and 140, note 13.
10) Stapleton, 'A Brief Summary', pp. 338, 344-345.