19 May, 2018

19 May 1326: The Wedding of Sir Robert Wateville and Margaret Martin

Today, 19 May 2018, is the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. On 19 May 1326, 692 years ago, Edward II attended the wedding of Sir Robert Wateville and Margaret Martin née Hastings, niece of Hugh Despenser the Younger, at Marlborough in Wiltshire.

Sir Robert Wateville of Orton, Huntingdonshire was a Contrariant of 1321/22 who took part in the Marcher lords' rebellion against the king and the younger Despenser and was captured fighting against the royal army at the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322. Edward II pardoned him on 31 October 1322 for adherence to Roger, Lord Clifford, who had been hanged in York on 23 March 1322, at the request of Hugh Despenser the Younger. The king had in fact already given permission on 8 August 1322 for Robert to go overseas with his retinue and horses "for certain of his affairs," so unofficially at least he had already been forgiven by then. [CPR 1321-4, p. 210; CCR 1318-23, p. 675] Robert had also been close to the executed Contrariant Bartholomew, Lord Badlesmere, who until he switched sides in June 1321 had been Edward II's household steward and a close ally of Hugh Despenser the Younger (and was Roger, Lord Clifford's uncle-in-law): Robert was one of the godfathers of Bartholomew's son and heir Giles, born in October 1314. [CIPM 1327-36, no. 691] Robert Wateville went to Gascony on Edward II's service in 1324 during the War of St-Sardos, when the king went to war against his brother-in-law Charles IV of France, and exchanged many letters with Hugh Despenser the Younger over the next few months while he was there. He was accused of cowardice over his conduct in Gascony and Edward II ordered his arrest. Hugh spoke out on his behalf and Edward forgave him, and Hugh's pleas worked so well that the king showed Robert conspicuous favour throughout 1326: attending his wedding, giving him numerous large gifts of cash, playing cross and pile with him, playing an unspecified ball game with him at Saltwood Castle, and visiting him at his London house when he was ill and giving him yet more money for medicine, and so on. This generosity availed the king nothing when Robert Wateville joined the invasion force of the queen and the remnant of the Contrariant faction, his old allegiance, after they arrived in England in late September 1326.

Margaret Martin née Hastings was the only daughter of Hugh Despenser the Younger's second sister Isabella (c. 1290-1334) and her second husband John, Lord Hastings (1262-1313). Margaret was a much younger half-sister of John, Lord Hastings (1286-1325) and the aunt of John's son Laurence Hastings, later earl of Pembroke (1320-1348). Her date of birth is unknown, but her parents married in 1308 or 1309 (Isabella Despenser's first husband Gilbert de Clare, lord of Thomond died in November 1307), and she had brothers Thomas and Hugh Hastings who were probably older than she. Margaret lost her father in early 1313 when she was probably only a baby; her twice-widowed mother Isabella née Despenser married her third husband Ralph Monthermer, widower of Edward II's sister Joan of Acre, in 1318; and her maternal grandfather Hugh Despenser the Elder was made earl of Winchester in 1322. At an uncertain date, Margaret married her first husband, William, Lord Martin. He was much her senior, born around 1294, and was the heir of his father William, Lord Martin the elder when the latter died in 1324. [CIPM 1317-27, no. 563]

William Martin the younger died shortly before 4 April 1326, when the writ for his Inquisition Post Mortem was issued. He and Margaret née Hastings had no children from their probably rather brief marriage - it is likely that Margaret was too young for the marriage ever to have been consummated - so his heirs were his sister Eleanor Columbiers, aged either thirty and more or forty and more in 1326 (thanks, vague IPMs!) and his nephew James Audley, born in 1313 and the son of his deceased other sister Joan, dowager countess of Lincoln (d. 1322). [CIPM 1317-27, no. 710] Eleanor Columbiers née Martin had previously been married to William Hastings (1282-1311), eldest son of John, Lord Hastings (1262-1313) and the decades older half-brother of Margaret Martin née Hastings (William Hastings had no children and died before his father, so the Hastings heir was his younger brother John, b. 1286).

As William, Lord Martin died shortly before 4 April 1326, Margaret Martin née Hastings had only been a widow for a few weeks when she married her second husband Sir Robert Wateville on 19 May 1326. The haste implies that there was no possibility of Margaret bearing William Martin's posthumous child, further implying that her first marriage had never been consummated. She is unlikely to have been more than about sixteen in 1326 and was probably some years younger than that; her second brother and their mother's ultimate heir Hugh Hastings was born in 1310 or 1311, Thomas Hastings was older than Hugh (but died before their mother), and Margaret was probably the youngest of the three siblings, born around 1312 or so, not long before her father died in early 1313 or perhaps even afterwards. Robert Wateville must, like William Martin, have been a few years older than Margaret. One big problem with trying to illuminate the life and career of Sir Robert Wateville of Orton is that there were two men with the same name active in England in the 1320s, and it's very difficult to differentiate them. 'Robertus de Watervill' was knighted with Edward of Caernarfon on 22 May 1306, so if this means the man who married Margaret Martin in May 1326, he can't have have been born after 1290. A Robert Wateville was on Edward I's service in Scotland in June 1303 [Chancery Warrants 1244-1326, p. 179], so if this is our man, it pushes his date of birth back into the 1280s.

Margaret's mother Isabella, dowager Lady Hastings, who had been widowed for the third time in April 1325 when Ralph Monthermer died, organised her daughter's wedding with the aid of some of her household staff. Edward II gave cash gifts to four of her servants who had worked hard to ensure that the day was a success: forty shillings each to Walter the butler, Master Walter the cook and Walter Baret the marshal, and twenty shillings to Robert le Porter, vadlet des mestres (a difficult job title to translate, but basically an official in a noble household). In addition, Edward gave twenty shillings to Lady Hastings' servant Will Muleward, "who was for some time with the king and made him laugh greatly."

The marriage of the fairly obscure knight Robert Wateville to such an exalted person as the young Margaret Martin, granddaughter of the earl of Winchester, niece of the king's nephew-in-law Hugh Despenser the Younger, and daughter and sister of Lords Hastings, reveals how high Robert had risen in Hugh the Younger's favour. Hugh called Robert his "very dear friend and companion" and had told him in a letter of 1325 that he wished him to be married, and must have arranged Robert's match with his niece, with the consent of his sister Isabella Hastings. Hugh's wife Eleanor Despenser, Edward II's eldest niece, was almost certainly also present at the wedding. At Caversham on 22 May, three days after the wedding, Edward II lost eight shillings playing cross and pile (i.e. heads and tails) with Robert Wateville, and on 1 June went out into the park at Saltwood Castle with him, the steward of the royal household Sir Thomas Blount, and others to play a ball game. Presumably young Margaret accompanied her new husband, her uncle Hugh Despenser the Younger, and the king for at least part of this period. Margaret and Robert were given the dower from her marriage to William Martin on 8 June 1326, the same day as her uncle Hugh lent Robert 100 marks.

Sir Robert Wateville was in Bristol with Queen Isabella on 26 October 1326 a month after her invasion force arrived in England, when a list of her most important adherents appears on the Close Roll witnessing the appointment of Isabella and Edward II's son Edward of Windsor as custos regni. Robert must have witnessed the execution of his wife Margaret's grandfather Hugh Despenser the Elder, earl of Winchester, in the city the next day. I wonder how Margaret felt about that. Whether Robert Wateville saw the execution of his uncle-in-law Hugh Despenser the Younger in Hereford on 24 November 1326, I don't know, but given how much Hugh had done for him in the previous few years, it would be pretty startling if he did.

Sir Robert Wateville and Margaret née Hastings had no children, and he died shortly before 6 May 1330. [CFR 1327-37, p. 175] His will of 6 February 1330 still exists: he mentions his chere compaigne or 'dear consort' Margaret, his brother Roger Wateville and his nephew William Orketote, and left his 'houses without Alegate' (i.e. Aldgate) in London to John Pulteney, mayor of London. [Calendar of Wills Proved and Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London, 1258-1358] There's a reference in Edward II's chamber account of 1325/26 to Robert's house without Aldgate on 21 July 1326 when he was ill there, and the king visited him and gave him a gift of forty marks. [SAL MS 122] Margaret outlived him by nearly thirty years and died on 7 July 1359. Her heir was John Hastings, born 1347, grandson of her much older half-brother John, Lord Hastings (1286-1325) and son and heir of her half-nephew Laurence Hastings, earl of Pembroke (1320-48), and the dower lands she had held from her first husband William Martin passed to William's nephew James Audley. [CIPM 1352-60, no. 494]

09 May, 2018

This Week in Edward II News

Tomorrow, on Thursday 10 May, I'm flying to Cologne to be interviewed for a documentary about Edward II being made for the German-French TV channel Arte (see here). A couple of other British historians and several German historians are also taking part. More news here as and when!

My Hugh Despenser the Younger biography - the first ever of him, amazingly enough - will be published on 30 October in the UK. It's on Goodreads, though isn't available for pre-order yet - link here when it is! This is the cover:


And my sixth book Blood Roses will probably also be out this October - here's the cover! It's also on Goodreads now.


04 May, 2018

1315: An Eventful Year for Sir John Haudlo

The year 1315 for Sir John Haudlo involved 1) the illegal seizure of a castle, 2) marriage to a wealthy widow without Edward II's licence, 3) temporary confiscation of both his and her lands as punishment for marrying without royal permission, and 4) imprisonment by the earl of Arundel. Here's a post about it.

John Haudlo (or Hadlow in modern spelling) was probably born in the early to mid-1280s or thereabouts*, was one of the many men knighted with Edward of Caernarfon in May 1306, and was a long-term adherent of the Despensers: he went overseas with Hugh the Elder in October 1305, for example, and served him for many years. [CPR 1301-7, p. 382] By 3 August 1299, John Haudlo was married to his first wife Joan, daughter and heir of John FitzNigel. [CPR 1292-1301, p. 430] John had three sons, Richard, Nicholas and Thomas; Joan FitzNigel was the mother of Richard, and John's second wife Maud Lovel née Burnell, for whom see below, was the mother of Nicholas and Thomas. John's eldest son Richard died in December 1342 before his father and left a son Edmund Haudlo, born around 1339 and John's heir to many of his manors when he died in August 1346. [CIPM 1336-46, nos. 441, 667] John also had a daughter called Joan, almost certainly from his first marriage, and he and Maud Burnell had daughters called Elizabeth and Margaret.

* That's just my best guess. He's unlikely to have been born much before 1280, as he lived until 1346.

On or a little before 20 May 1315, utterly disgruntled at Edward II's pretence that the dowager countess of Gloucester was pregnant by her husband eleven months after his death at Bannockburn and his refusal to order the partition of the de Clare inheritance among Gloucester's three sisters and heirs, Hugh Despenser the Younger seized Tonbridge Castle in Kent. See here for more info. Sir John Haudlo was one of the men who took the castle with Hugh. Neither he nor Hugh himself was ever punished for this illegal seizure, though a Robert Haudle, presumably a relative of John Haudlo, and a John Clerk had their goods confiscated "for the seizing of the castle of Tonbrugge and other enormities" ('enormities' not specified). Hugh Despenser, John Haudlo and the other adventurers gave up the castle on 23 May 1315, and Hugh, presumably accompanied by John, rode to see Edward II at Hadleigh in Essex and to explain himself in person. I bet that was an interesting conversation. Assuming Hugh's motive was to shame Edward II into admitting that Maud de Clare née de Burgh was not pregnant and to begin the partition of the Clare lands, his escapade failed.

One lady related to the Despensers by marriage was Maud Burnell. Maud was born around 1290/91; she was said to be twenty-four or twenty-five, or "twenty-five and more," in September 1315. [CIPM 1307-17, no. 611] She was the daughter of Philip Burnell (d. 1294), the niece of Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel (d. 1302), and the great-niece of Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells and chancellor of England (d. 1292). Maud's elder brother Edward Burnell, born on 22 July 1287 - not 1286 as often stated, not least by me on previous occasions - married Hugh Despenser the Elder's eldest daughter Alina Despenser in or soon after May 1302. Edward died in August 1315 aged twenty-eight, and as he was childless, his sister Maud was his heir. Maud married her first husband Sir John Lovel(l) of Titchmarsh (b. 1288/89) sometime before 1312; their daughter Joan Lovel was born that year. Sir John Lovel was killed at the battle of Bannockburn on 24 June 1314, and his and Maud's two-year-old daughter Joan was named as his heir in his Inquisition Post Mortem of October 1314. [CIPM 1307-17, no. 520] Unbeknownst to the jurors, however, Maud née Burnell was pregnant, and gave birth to John's posthumous son John Lovel around December 1314. Maud Burnell and John Lovel (1288/89-1314) were, via their son John the younger, ancestors of Richard III's friend Francis, Lord Lovel(l): his great-great-great-great-grandparents, if I've worked it out correctly.

On 15 January 1315, Maud Lovel née Burnell vowed not to marry again without the king's licence (standard procedure for the widows of tenants in chief). [CCR 1313-8, p. 208] She broke this vow mere months later when she married her second husband Sir John Haudlo without Edward II's permission. (John's first wife Joan FitzNigel was obviously dead by then, but I haven't been able to find the date of her death.) News of their marriage had reached Edward II's ears by 4 December 1315 when he ordered all their lands to be taken into his hands as punishment (also standard procedure). The lands were restored to the couple on 16 February 1316. [CFR 1307-19, pp. 268, 271] As Maud's late brother Edward had married into the Despenser family, and as John Haudlo was a long-term Despenser retainer, the couple must have known each other for a long time. They had two sons together called Nicholas and Thomas, who used their mother's maiden name and were called Burnell, and two daughters Elizabeth and Margaret, plus they each had two children from their first marriages. Nicholas Burnell, younger half-brother of John Lovel (b. 1314) and Richard Haudlo, was said to be twenty-three when his father died in 1346, which would put his date of birth around 1323 (though I suspect he was somewhat older than that). When Edward Burnell's widow Alina née Despenser finally died in 1363, Nicholas Burnell was vaguely and most unhelpfully said to be "thirty years and more." [CIPM 1361-5, no. 489] His brother Thomas Burnell, and their mother Maud, were dead by 17 May 1341 when their father John Haudlo arranged "divine service daily" for Maud's and Thomas's souls, and the souls of Edward II and Hugh Despenser the Elder. [CPR 1340-3, p. 194] Maud Burnell died on 18 July in an uncertain year. [Complete Peerage, vol. 6, p. 400 note h]

Most probably, John Haudlo and Maud Lovel née Burnell married after the death of her brother Edward on 23 August 1315. Edward Burnell's death left Maud a substantial landowner in eleven counties, and she was therefore a very attractive proposition as a wife. John himself was also a fairly important landowner, especially in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and they were something of a power couple. Doubtless both parties were attracted to the other's lands and income, and it's hardly likely to have been a marriage based solely or even mostly on romance and fine feelings, but I don't know, something about them makes me think that there was physical attraction and lust, perhaps love, as well. See here for a previous post of mine about Maud, and about her frankly rather unpleasant legal manoeuvres to settle the bulk of her estates on her children with John Haudlo and her shunting her Lovel son behind them. Her mother Maud née Fitzalan, incidentally, also married without royal licence around the same time, when she wed her third husband Simon Criketot sometime before June 1316. Maud née Fitzalan was the sister of the earl of Arundel (d. 1302), whereas Criketot wasn't even a knight, so it must have been a love or lust match.

So, Sir John Haudlo and Maud Lovel née Burnell almost certainly married after 23 August 1315, and they must have married before 9 October 1315, as on that date John was captured by Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel and three of his men - Roger de Cheygne, Thomas de Wynesbury and Thomas le Jay - in the village of Clun, Shropshire (which belonged to Arundel himself).* "With force and arms," so John stated later, they captured him, took him from Clun to Winsbury, from there to Arundel's castle at Oswestry, from there to Arundel's castle at Shrawardine, from there back to Clun, and from there to Bridgnorth. He was imprisoned until 26 December 1315, and forced to acknowledge a staggeringly massive fine of £4,000 to Arundel (in modern terms, a good few million) in order to secure his release.

[* Source for what follows: Year Books of Edward II, vol. xxv, Part of Easter, and Trinity, 1319, ed. for the Selden Society by John P. Collas (London, 1964), pp. 130-132.]

What on earth that was all about, I have no idea, but it's surely significant that Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, was Maud Burnell's first cousin: her mother Maud and his father Richard were brother and sister, and they were both grandchildren of John Fitzalan and Isabella Mortimer. As far as I can work out, after Maud's brother Edward died in August 1315, Arundel was her nearest adult male blood relative. John Haudlo was captured in Clun, which was one of Arundel's possessions, so perhaps John and Maud had gone there to visit the earl shortly after their wedding. Clearly Arundel did not react to the news ("Surpriiiiiiiise, we got married! We can haz pressie?") anything like as well as they'd hoped. To put it mildly. In the Trinity term of 1319, Edmund, earl of Arundel was attached to answer John Haudlo concerning John's capture and imprisonment, but the matter was complicated by the fact that Clun lay in the March, where the king had no jurisdiction and where "the earl has the keeping of the law." Arundel did not deny what he had done, but stated via his attorney that he had no case to answer because the king's writ did not run in the March. And "John [Haudlo] says that his writ ought not to be quashed for the aforesaid reason, because he says that he is the lord king's man, and not the man or tenant of the aforesaid earl; whereupon, seeing that the aforesaid town of Clun is within the crown of England and the lord king's domain, he asks judgement." The two men were given a date to appear in court again and to get John's complaint settled. Unfortunately I don't have Edward II's year books for 1320 and I can't find the matter in the chancery rolls, so I don't know how, or if, it was resolved, or why the earl of Arundel thought it was a good idea to seize and imprison his cousin's new husband for about ten weeks, and drag him halfway round Shropshire.

27 April, 2018

The Abduction of Margaret Multon by Ranulph Dacre, c. 1316

The following entry appears on the Patent Roll on 28 October 1317 (CPR 1317-21, p. 39):

"Pardon to Ranulph de Dacre for abducting by night Margaret, the daughter and heiress of Thomas de Multon of Gillesland [Gilsland], tenant in chief, a minor in the king's custody, from the castle of Warrewyk [Warwick]."

There were two branches of the Multon family: the Multons of Gilsland in Cumberland and the Multons of Egremont, also in Cumberland. Piers Gaveston's daughter and heir Joan (1312-25) was betrothed in 1317 to John Multon (b. 1308), son and heir of Thomas, Lord Multon of Egremont and a grandson of the earl of Ulster. Thomas, Lord Multon of Gilsland was born on or around 19 September 1281. [CIPM 1291-1300, no. 285; CCR 1296-1302, p. 560] He was one of the 266 men knighted with Edward of Caernarfon, prince of Wales, duke of Aquitaine, earl of Chester and count of Ponthieu, on 22 May 1306, and married a daughter of Piers, Lord Mauley, who was granted his marriage on 21 August 1297. [CPR 1292-1301, p. 304] Sadly, his wife's name is not recorded. Thomas Multon died shortly before 14 January 1313 when the writ for his Inquisition Post Mortem was issued. [CIPM 1307-17, no. 452] According to the Complete Peerage, citing a record of the King's Bench, Thomas's daughter and heir Margaret Multon of Gilsland was born at Mulgrave Castle on 20 July 1300 when her father was still only eighteen, and was baptised four days later. Margaret was given livery of her lands on 30 October 1317 "as she has proved her age before the king," which was just two days after Ranulph Dacre was pardoned for abducting her. [CCR 1313-8, p. 504] Margaret Multon's birthplace, Mulgrave Castle, lay in Lythe near Whitby, Yorkshire, and belonged to her maternal grandfather Piers Mauley.

So there was Margaret, minding her own business in Warwick Castle, when along came Sir Ranulph or Randolf or Ralph Dacre. He was a few years Margaret Multon's senior, born around 1290 or 1294: he was said to be twenty-eight when his father William died in August 1318 and thirty when his mother Joan died in December 1324. [CIPM 1317-27, nos. 155, 574] (Yes, according to that evidence he only aged two years in six years! That's a useful trick!). According to the chronicle of Lanercost Priory, which is an extremely useful source for events in the north of England in the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, when Thomas de Multon of Gilsland died his daughter and heir Margaret was already married to Robert son of Robert de Clifford, and they married near Appleby when Margaret was in her seventh year. [Chronicle of Lanercost, ed. Maxwell, p. 205] This is somewhat puzzling. I assume this means the Robert Clifford who was born in 1305 and later succeeded his elder brother Roger (b. 1299/1300, executed as a Contrariant in March 1322). Their father Robert, Lord Clifford was killed at Bannockburn on 24 June 1314, and the Cliffords certainly were an influential family in Cumberland, Westmorland and Yorkshire so it's not unlikely that they would have married into another influential northern family. The Lanercost chronicle goes on: "and in the life of the said Robert [de Clifford], Ralph de Dacre, son of William de Dacre, married the same Margaret, having a right to her through a contract concluded between Thomas de Multon, father of the said Margaret, and William de Dacre, before her former marriage." [Ibid.] The bit I really don't get is how Magaret Multon can have married Ranulph Dacre if she was already married to young Robert Clifford.

According to the Complete Peerage citing a King's Bench record, Ranulph Dacre and Margaret Multon were already married at Easter in Edward II's ninth regnal year, which was 11 April 1316. Warwick Castle, from where Dacre abducted Margaret, belonged to Guy Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who died on 12 August 1315. As his son and heir Thomas was then only eighteen months old, all Guy's lands and castles passed into the king's hands, which presumably was why Edward II accommodated Margaret Multon at Warwick Castle (as she was the heir of a deceased tenant in chief, by the rules of the era he was her legal guardian). When Dacre took Margaret from Warwick Castle, it was in the custody of the late earl of Warwick's executors. [CPR 1313-7, p. 664]

Evidently, Ranulph Dacre went to Warwick Castle at night and abducted Margaret, and presumably married her shortly afterwards; yet another abduction and forced marriage of a fourteenth-century noble heiress, along with Elizabeth de Burgh, her sister Eleanor Despenser, their niece Margaret Audley, and Alice de Lacy, countess of Lincoln. As with all the others, Margaret Dacre née Multon basically had no choice but to live with her abductor, now her husband, and to make the best of the situation. She gave birth to her first son William Dacre, named after his paternal grandfather, around 1319 (William was said to be twenty years old at Ranulph's IPM in June 1339), and had younger sons Ranulph (born in or before 1322), who was a parson, Hugh, who was the ultimate Dacre heir, Peter, and Thomas. William the eldest Dacre son inherited his parents' lands but died childless, whereupon they passed to the second son Ranulph and then to Hugh. As far as I can tell, Hugh was the youngest Dacre son but his older brothers Peter and Thomas died before he did, and it was Hugh who carried on the Dacre line; he died in 1383 when his son and heir William was twenty-six. [CIPM 1336-46, no. 229; CIPM 1361-5, nos. 60, 317; CIPM 1374-7, no. 119; CIPM 1377-84, nos. 971-3] Horribly, Hugh Dacre was suspected of murdering his elder brother Randolph the parson, whose heir he was, and sometime before 2 July 1376 was imprisoned in the Tower of London. [CCR 1374-7, p. 433] Margaret Dacre née Multon died on 10 December 1361 at the age of sixty-one, having outlived her abductor and husband by twenty-two years, her eldest son William Dacre by some months, and her younger sons Peter and Thomas as well.

20 April, 2018

The Abduction of Eleanor Despenser, 1329

Recently I wrote a post about the abduction of Edward II's niece Elizabeth de Burgh née de Clare from Bristol Castle in February 1316, and a while ago, one about the abduction of Elizabeth's niece Margaret Audley from Thaxted, Essex, c. February 1336. Margaret Audley was the sole heir of her mother, Margaret de Clare, Elizabeth's sister. Their rich inheritance from their brother Gilbert, earl of Gloucester, proved a poisoned chalice for the three de Clare sisters. Elizabeth was abducted, Margaret's daughter and heir was abducted, and Eleanor Despenser née de Clare was abducted, and like the others, forcibly married. Here's a post about it.

Eleanor de Clare married Hugh Despenser the Younger on 26 May 1306, and they had been married for twenty and a half years and had had at least ten children together when Hugh was executed on 24 November 1326. Eleanor was still only thirty-four when she was widowed, and was imprisoned at the Tower of London until February 1328. She was restored to her own lands that year, including the rich lordship of Glamorgan. Little is known about Eleanor's life for the next few months, but shortly before 26 January 1329 she was living at Hanley Castle in Worcestershire (her own castle) when she was abducted by the Leicestershire baron William la Zouche, lord of Ashby. The abduction reached the ears of the chancery clerks by 26 January 1329, when they recorded it on the Patent Roll. Eleanor and William married, though whether Eleanor consented to the marriage is, as with her sister Elizabeth thirteen years later, unknown.

William la Zouche used the name of his mother, Joyce la Zouche; his father was called Robert Mortimer and his elder brother (d. 1304) was Hugh Mortimer of Richard's Castle, Herefordshire. William's date of birth is not known but was probably in the 1270s, so he was quite a bit older than Eleanor Despenser, born October 1292. His first wife was Alice Beauchamp née Toeni, dowager countess of Warwick (d. 1324), widow of Sir Thomas Leyburne (d. 1307) and Guy Beauchamp, earl of Warwick (d. 1315). Guy Beauchamp was the maternal uncle of Eleanor's first husband Hugh Despenser the Younger. By her first marriage Alice Toeni was the mother of the great Kent heiress Juliana Hastings née Leyburne, countess of Huntingdon (1303/4-67), and by her second the mother of the earl of Warwick, Thomas Beauchamp (1314-69) and of several other children. She had two children with William la Zouche, Alan and Joyce, as well. Eleanor Despenser and William la Zouche had one child together, William the younger, born around 1330 and a monk of Glastonbury Abbey, and still alive in 1381. (Three of Eleanor's Despenser children, Joan, Gilbert and Elizabeth, also lived into the 1380s.) Eleanor was in her late thirties when her youngest child William was born, and the elder William was in his fifties.

The really strange thing about William la Zouche's abduction of Eleanor Despenser in early 1329 is that a baron called John Grey of Rotherfield began claiming her as his wife as well, and persisted in this claim for more than four years. In fact, Eleanor Despenser's abduction from Hanley Castle was recorded twice on the Patent Roll, once as Hugh Despenser's widow and once as Grey of Rotherfield's wife, the chancery clerks evidently not realising that what seemed to be two women abducted from the same place at the same time was in fact just one person. John Grey was born in October 1300 and was eight years Eleanor's junior, and already a widower with one son. He took his claim to be married to Eleanor to the papal court in Avignon but lost and finally gave up, but not before his quarrel with William la Zouche over Eleanor became so acrimonious that he came close to drawing a dagger on la Zouche in Edward III's presence and was arrested. He later became a Knight of the Garter and steward of Edward III's household, and married his second wife and had two more sons, so in the end didn't do too badly despite missing out on marriage to the wealthy and partly royal Eleanor Despenser. I don't know why he claimed to be Eleanor's husband: perhaps she'd had an affair with him, or they'd made an informal arrangement to wed which was foiled by William la Zouche.

I doubt there was much if any romance involved in la Zouche's abduction of Eleanor. (Or in John Grey of Rotherfield's determination to be married to her, for that matter.) While Eleanor's lands were in the king's hands during her imprisonment in the Tower, la Zouche had been appointed as keeper of Glamorgan, and by marrying her he would become Glamorgan's outright owner. He was firmly on Queen Isabella's side in 1326/27 and was one of the men who captured Eleanor's husband Hugh and her uncle Edward II in South Wales on 16 November 1326, and was appointed as the leader of the siege of Caerphilly Castle in 1326/27 with Eleanor's son Huchon Despenser inside. I'm not sure that "hi honey, it's la Zouche of Ashby, the man who besieged your teenage son for months with a view to handing him over to the woman who had your husband disembowelled and three of your little daughters forcibly veiled, so that she could have him executed. Will you marry me?" was likely to go down particularly well with Eleanor. Numerous large debts acknowledged by William la Zouche recorded on the Close Roll in the early 1330s indicate that, despite having forced himself into a share of the vast de Clare wealth, he was living well beyond his means, and despite being appointed keeper of the peace in Wales and the Marches that decade, Edward III had to warn la Zouche to cease his bitter quarrel there with Hugh Audley (husband of Eleanor's sister Margaret and father of Margaret Audley, abducted and forcibly married to Ralph Stafford in 1336). Eleanor's first husband Hugh Despenser the Younger had a supreme talent for quarrelling with people, and it seems that her second shared the same quality.

Whatever the private nature of Eleanor Despenser and William la Zouche's relationship after he abducted her, she had no way to stop being married to him, so had to find some way of living with him and accepting what he had done. By the time they both died in 1337, it seems that Eleanor had at least come to terms with her second marriage, whether she had consented to it or not. Zouche appointed her as one of the executors of his will before he died in February 1337, though as it was the norm for men to do so, I'm not sure this necessarily tells us anything about his feelings for his wife. Eleanor buried la Zouche at Tewkesbury Abbey, where her first husband, brother, father, grandfather and numerous other de Clare ancestors were interred and which stood on her own lands, and this probably does give more insight into her feelings and might indicate that she and William la Zouche had made a decent stab at things over the previous eight years. But the abductions and forced marriages of two of the three de Clare sisters and the daughter and heir of the third had nothing to do with romance and everything to do with an opportunistic grab for wealth and influence by three men with few scruples. The abducted women basically had no comeback; even if their abductors were temporarily imprisoned, they were now their husbands and the women had no way to stop them being their husbands, so ultimately had little choice but to accept the situation. Being a woman of means in the Middle Ages was, in many ways, an unenviable position, and Eleanor Despenser, Elizabeth de Burgh and Margaret Stafford née Audley were far from being the only women abducted for their wealth in the fourteenth century.

15 April, 2018

The Abduction of Elizabeth de Burgh, February 1316

The third and youngest of Edward II's de Clare nieces, who were the daughters of his second eldest sister Joan of Acre and her first husband Gilbert 'the Red' de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, was Elizabeth de Burgh, born in September 1295. Elizabeth married her first husband, the earl of Ulster's eldest son and heir John de Burgh, at the end of September 1308 just after her thirteenth birthday. She stayed in England for just over a year after her wedding before travelling to join her husband in Ireland, evidently considered too young to live with her husband until she turned fourteen. She bore her only child with John, William de Burgh, future earl of Ulster, the day after her seventeenth birthday on 17 September 1312, and was widowed nine months later. Elizabeth remained in Ireland with her father-in-law the earl, Richard de Burgh, until her uncle Edward II ordered her back to England; her son William was three years old when she left Ireland, and seems to have spent the next few years travelling between Ireland and England.

On 24 June 1314, Elizabeth's brother Gilbert, earl of Gloucester, was killed at the battle of Bannockburn, and she and her elder sisters Eleanor and Margaret were heirs to his vast landholdings in three countries, though matters were complicated by the claims of Gloucester's widow Maud de Burgh - daughter of the earl of Ulster and thus Elizabeth's sister-in-law twice over - to be pregnant with his posthumous child. Edward II ordered Elizabeth to return to England around the end of 1315 or beginning of 1316, obviously realising that she was one of her late brother's three co-heirs despite pretending in public that he believed in the dowager countess of Gloucester's pregnancy more than eighteen months after Gloucester's death. Elizabeth arrived at Bristol on 4 February 1316 ("Wednesday after the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the ninth year of his [Edward II's] reign"), where her uncle the king would pay for her expenses at the castle there. Bristol Castle was under the command of Bartholomew Badlesmere, a baron of Kent who had once been in the retinue of Elizabeth's brother the earl of Gloucester, and was alleged to have abandoned the young earl at Bannockburn; a contemporary poet stated venomously that he was a Judas figure who deserved to be "put to the rack" for his actions. Badlesmere was married to the Clare sisters' first cousin Margaret de Clare. Despite what strikes me as his endless gross incompetence* he was an important figure in English politics from 1316 until 1321, was appointed steward of the king's household in 1318, and has an excellent reputation among some modern historians which, I have to admit, I find difficult to understand.

[* Allegedly abandoning his lord to die on the battlefield. Allowing the king's niece to be abducted from the castle for which he was accountable. Provoking a full-scale rebellion against himself in Bristol in the 1310s which went on for years. Refusing to give up custody of Bristol Castle despite several direct orders from the king to do so. Changing sides to the Marcher lords in 1321, for which he was grotesquely executed in 1322. Conspiring with Hugh Despenser the Younger to free one John Lashley from prison in Colchester in 1319 or 1320 and gaining control of Lashley's Essex manor, then hypocritically blaming Despenser alone for it in August 1321. Committing blatant fraud and trickery in trying to get the younger Despenser accused of treason at the same time, a trick which was soon spotted and which backfired completely. Etc.]

Along came Theobald de Verdon, former justiciar of Ireland and an important English nobleman, whom I wrote about in a recent post. Verdon had been a widower for more than three years since the death of Maud Mortimer in September 1312, and oh so conveniently just happened to find himself in Bristol when Elizabeth de Burgh arrived there. Or not. What happened next is uncertain, but on 4 February 1316 immediately after Elizabeth's arrival in England - on the same day - she married Verdon without the knowledge or consent of her uncle the king. Her biographer Frances Underhill, in her 1999 book For Her Good Estate: The Life of Elizabeth de Burgh, states that Elizabeth was not forcibly abducted and most probably consented to the marriage as she had surely known Verdon in Ireland in his capacity as justiciar there, and that it is 'unlikely' that the marriage took place against Elizabeth's will. She offers no real explanation for why it is 'unlikely,' and I disagree. Elizabeth had only just returned to England for the first time (as far as is known) since she left to join her husband in October 1309. I find it hard to believe she was so desperate to marry Verdon that she would have done so before she had even met or had any contact with her elder sisters Eleanor and Margaret and her uncle the king, or had even settled into her homeland for the first time in more than six years. I find it hard to believe she would have married Verdon without obtaining her uncle's permission. Edward II treated Elizabeth callously in later years, but in early 1316 he had done nothing at all wrong to her that might have made her wish to defy him. Tenants in chief required permission from the king to marry, and Edward II was not only Elizabeth's liege lord to whom she owed obedience and allegiance, he was her nearest male relative. Verdon was appointed justiciar of Ireland in April 1313 ten months after Elizabeth's first husband John de Burgh died and fourteen months before the earl of Gloucester fell at Bannockburn, and could have married Elizabeth at any point if he'd so wished. Interesting that he was only overcome by the strong urge to marry her after her wealthy brother died and she was one of his co-heirs, and as soon as she was no longer under the protection of her powerful father-in-law the earl of Ulster and her uncle the king was 170 miles away.

I find Frances Underhill's attitude towards Theobald de Verdon and his abduction of Elizabeth surprisingly indulgent, and she treats Elizabeth's third husband Sir Roger Damory far more harshly and, to my mind, unfairly. She calls him "a grasping, reckless mediocrity with a petty crook's mentality." Ouch! Whatever Damory's numerous faults, he did at least seek Elizabeth's consent to their marriage, and yes, he only married a great noblewoman because her uncle the king was currently infatuated with him, but none of his contemporaries would have turned down marriage to the king's wealthy niece. Underhill considers that Edward II "pursued his heavy-handed tactics" by taking Damory to visit Elizabeth at Amesbury Priory in the spring of 1317 a few weeks before her wedding to him, but somehow Verdon taking Elizabeth out of Bristol Castle on the very day of her return to her homeland and either forcing her or at the very least strongly encouraging her to defy and disobey her liege lord and uncle isn't 'heavy-handed'? Abducting the king's rich niece and marrying her without his permission isn't "reckless" and "grasping"? Perhaps Damory wished to get to know Elizabeth better and to make sure that she was marrying him of her own free will. I don't know. Maybe he didn't, but I've never seen anything that makes me think Theobald de Verdon gave a damn about Elizabeth's feelings, but somehow he's judged far more indulgently than Damory. Would it somehow have been preferable if Edward II hadn't taken Damory to meet Elizabeth, or would there then be the criticism that he forced his niece to marry a man she'd never met or talked to? I just think sometimes that absolutely everything Edward II ever did is castigated by modern writers and it's not always entirely fair, and there seems to be this assumption that everyone he loved, e.g. Roger Damory, must have been irredeemably bad and have only ever done bad things whereas anyone opposed to Edward and his 'favourites' must necessarily have had purer and nobler motives.

Verdon went to the parliament then being held at Lincoln and claimed to Edward II that Elizabeth had voluntarily come out of Bristol Castle to marry him and that they had been betrothed in Ireland. This is merely a case of "he would say that, wouldn't he?" and should not be taken too seriously. Given that Elizabeth's eldest sister Eleanor was abducted and forcibly married to William la Zouche in January 1329, and their niece Margaret Audley was abducted and forcibly married to Ralph Stafford in February 1336, and their second cousin Alice de Lacy, countess of Lincoln was abducted and forcibly married to Hugh Frene also c. February 1336, and Margaret Multon, the  daughter and heir of Thomas Multon of Gilsland, was abducted from Warwick Castle in c. 1315 and married to Ranulph Dacre, I'm not sure why it's so 'unlikely' that Elizabeth de Burgh would be as well. Not that I want to turn her into a victim - that's the last thing she was - but abductions and forced marriages did happen to noblewomen in her lifetime, and not infrequently either.

In the end, Verdon never benefited from his abduction of the king's niece as he died on 27 July 1316 long before the Clare lands were partitioned, leaving Elizabeth a month pregnant with his daughter Isabella de Verdon, born on 21 March 1317. He never paid a fine for marrying without royal licence, though was deprived of some of his liberties on one of his Shropshire manors. Theobald's daughter Elizabeth (his second daughter with Maud Mortimer) and her husband Bartholomew Burghersh later claimed rather disingenuously that Edward II had only done this because of his "rancour of mind" against Theobald, as though there was not an excellent reason for the king's "rancour." For sure some people disagree with me, but I don't see anything pleasant or even romantic in the marriage of Elizabeth de Burgh and Theobald de Verdon, and nothing I've read on the subject convinces me that Elizabeth was a willing party to it.

08 April, 2018

Edward II and Mitochondrial DNA: Can you help?

A couple of days ago, my blog was mentioned on the popular Go Fug Yourself website, as part of its weekly Royals Round-Up section: see here. My friends at the Auramala Project in Italy and I are still hoping to find a modern descendant with Edward II's DNA, so that maybe one day we can determine once and for all if Edward really is buried in Gloucester. See also my book Long Live the King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II for more details, especially Ivan Fowler of the Project's call to action at the end. A modern descendant with Edward II's mitochondrial DNA would have to come from one of his sisters or one of his female ancestors, entirely through the female line, and that's very tricky to find. If you're of English origin you're almost guaranteed to be descended from Edward, but finding an all-female line back to the thirteenth century is really hard. See this post from last year by the Auramala Project...we got so close!

Edward II had five sisters. The fourth, Mary, was a nun and had no children, so she's out. The eldest, Eleanor, had only one daughter, Joan countess of Surrey, who herself had no children, so she's out. The third, Margaret, had only one son, so she's out. That leaves Edward's second and fifth sisters: Joan of Acre, countess of Gloucester (1272-1307) and Elizabeth, countess of Hereford (1282-1316), who both had daughters who had daughters who had daughters. I found a promising line from Joan of Acre's third daughter Elizabeth de Clare and her daughter Isabella de Verdon, which resulted in the post by the Auramala Project linked above, as a professional genealogist took over. If you know of any other female lines from either of these two women, please get in touch! You can either leave a comment here, or at the Auramala Project, or email me at: edwardofcaernarfon(at)yahoo.com.

Edward II's mother Eleanor of Castile (c. 1241-90) had no sisters of the full blood from the same mother, so there are no possible lines there. Eleanor's mother Joan of Ponthieu, or Jeanne de Dammartin as she's sometimes called, had three younger sisters, so there may be some descendants there, though I didn't get very far when I tried to look into it a while ago (maybe you'll have more luck?). Joan's mother was Marie of Ponthieu (no sisters), whose mother was Alais of France (no sisters of the full blood who had descendants), whose mother was Constance of Castile, whose mother was Berenguela of Barcelona, whose mother was Dulcia of Provence, whose mother was Gerberga of Provence, and so on. This is the line of Edward II's maternal ancestors, who carried his mitochondrial DNA down the female line. Are there any female lines of descent from any of these women? Can you help?

30 March, 2018

Proofs Of Age: I Know How Old You Are Because That Day I Saw A Man Arrested For Giving My Neighbour's Horse The Evil Eye...

...and by the way, your godfather has a huge stomach. Oh and no, I can't be your daughter's godfather, because one day you'll die and I might want to marry your widow.

One of my absolute favourite things of all time: fourteenth- and fifteenth-century proofs of age, when those people who held land directly of the king and whose parent/grandparent/uncle/whatever died when they were still under age, proved that they were now fourteen (married women) or fifteen (unmarried women) or twenty-one (men) years old and were thus old enough to receive their lands. A dozen or so jurors stated the heir's date of birth and gave reasons why they remembered the date. See also here, here, here and here.

Sir Edward Hastings, born 24 May 1382, proved his age 9 June 1403.

Edward was born just outside Doncaster in Yorkshire, and William Dawson, one of the jurors, remembered the date because he "was in Pontefract on the day that Edward was born, and there saw a man unknown to him, who had been arrested for casting the evil eye on the horse of his neighbour, John de Hirn, and he then heard that Anne Hastings had been delivered of a male child, whom he afterwards heard called Edward."

John, Lord Beaumont, born at Folkingham, Lincolnshire on 14 August 1409; proved his age 21 October 1430.

Juror Ralph Oudeby remembered the date because he saw "William, late Lord Ros, John’s godfather with a huge stomach, raise him from the font at baptism." (William, Lord Ros of Helmsley in Yorkshire, was born c. 1368 and died in 1414.)

Thomas Stokes of Folkingham, 60 and more, was sent at the command of Elizabeth [Willoughby] mother of John, late Lady Beaumont, to tell Henry Beaumont, chevalier [knight], father of John, the good news of John’s birth on the day of the birth.

William Ledbeter of Sleaford, 60 and more, sold a white palfrey on the day of the birth at Folkingham for £10 to Henry Beaumont, chevalier, father of John.

Robert son of Thomas son of Robert of Sussex was born on 15 March 1363, and proved his age on 8 September 1384.

John Thomasson, the elder, aged 47 years and more, agrees and says that on the third day after the birth he was struck in the back with a knife by John Casteleyn.

Miles son of James son of Robert of Windsor was born on 10 June 1353, and proved his age on 12 July 1374. 

Richard Pinneys says that he was at Winchester with Miles's father and led three greyhounds, and the greyhounds strangled three swans of the abbess of Romsey, whereupon the abbess purchased the king's writ of trespass and recovered 100 shillings therefor at the time of Miles's birth.

John Arundell son and heir of John Arundell of Bideford was born on 9 June 1421 and proved his age on 25 May 1443.

Simon Paschlewe, aged 44 and more, carried a basin and ewer to the church for the godfathers and godmother to wash their hands after the baptism.

Walter Heyne, aged 46 and more, knows because there was a great deal of rain that day.

William Orchard, aged 63, rode to Barnstaple on the same day with John’s godfather John Waryn.

John Blacaller, aged 40 and more, knows because on the same day Bretons entered Ifracombe and there took two men and set out to sea with them, and nearly took a ship of the above William Orchard.

William Blynche, aged 41 and more, knows because there was a strong wind on that day, which threw him to the ground from his horse when he was riding to Exeter, so that he badly wounded his head.

William, Lord Ferrers of Groby, was born at the manor of Hoo on 25 April 1371, and proved his age a few days before his birthday in 1394.

John Spayne, aged 59 years and more, John Mytton, aged 56 years and more, and William Stratle, aged 60 years and more, agree, and say that they remember because at that time they were journeying on pilgrimage to St Thomas [Becket] of Canterbury, and during their pilgrimage they were told in London of the birth of the said heir by Robert de Hoo, the heir’s godfather.

John Bastard [!!], aged 58 years and more, agrees, and says that he remembers because at that time a hall of his was burnt down.

John de Wyderyngton, son and heir of Roger de Wyderyngton, was born on 2 February 1372.

William de Lylburne, aged 40 years, says that on the same day he rode to Wyderyngton and broke his horse’s leg.

William de Schaftow, aged 50 years, says that he was staying with the heir’s father and for joy at the heir’s birth became so drunk that he fell down and broke his leg in the hall of Wyderyngton.

Gilbert de Babynton, aged 50 years, says that on the following night he was taken by the Scots and led away to Scotland, where he stayed for the next six weeks.

Ralph son and heir of Ralph Bulmer was born on 7 December 1340, and proved his age on 7 October 1362.

Richard de Belewe of Scalby, aged 38 years and more, agrees and says that on Monday before Ascension day after the birth Alan Belewe his father was drowned in the mill-pond of Caysthorp in coming from Caysthorp manor to Scalby.

Peter del Spitell, aged 46 years, and Richard son of John of the same, aged 53 years, agree and say that on Tuesday before Ascension day after the birth they were sworn upon the view of the body of the aforesaid Alan Belewe, drowned at Caysthorp, before Robert de Grenefeld, coroner in the West Riding of Lincolnshire.

Walter Mous, aged 58 years, and William de Barton of Glaunfordbrig, aged 48 years, agree and say that at the feast of SS. Peter and Paul after the birth there was a great flood of the water of Ancoln and a mighty tempest of wind, which broke the bridge and causeway of Glauntfordbrig and carried away stacks of peat and the fish in the stews in the gardens of many people living there.

Joan daughter of Thomas Chasteleyn was born on 12 March 1348 and proved her age on 17 September 1362.

William Welde, aged 40 years and more, says that she is of full age, to wit, 14 years and more...and that he was present at the baptism, and that, on being asked by Thomas Chasteleyn, her father, to be her godfather, he flatly refused because it was possible that he might survive the said Thomas and marry Isabel, the latter’s wife.

John Leddred, aged 38 years and more, agrees and says that on the Monday after the birth of the said Joan he held a court at Dunynton, and after holding the court he visited Isabel, the mother, in her childbed, and she gave him a silk purse that he might bear witness and remember the age of her daughter.

Nicholas Cadebury, aged 35 years and more, agrees and says that on the Sunday after the birth he came to the house of Thomas the father and was making a plan for the building of his hall, and the said Thomas gave him an axe with a cord to bear witness and remember the age of his daughter Joan.

John Bruyn, aged 30 years and more, agrees and says that on the day of the baptism he went into the park of Donyate with Thomas Chasteleyn, and there they killed a doe with their bows and arrows, and Thomas gave him the skin of the same doe to bear witness to the truth of the age of his daughter.

Walter Danseye brother and heir of William Danseye brother and heir of John Danseye was born on 5 December 1340 and proved his age on 6 December 1362.

John Durewyne, aged 41 years and more, agrees and says that in crossing the road in the said town he saw the said Walter being carried in a woman’s arms past the cemetery to the house of Richard Danseye his father, and the woman told him that he had been baptized.

Richard atte Grove, aged 50 years and more, agrees and says that on the same day he was at the house of Richard Danseye the father very early in the morning, and Margaret, daughter of the same Richard, came from her chamber and told him that ‘she had a brother then born, for which God be thanked.’

John Everard, John Jaunes, Thomas Reynald and Richard de Pounde, all 43 years of age and more, agree and say that on the aforesaid day Richard Danseye hunted the fox at la Holte in the same county, and they were there to clip the hedges for the hunt, and there came one William Workman and said to the aforesaid Richard ‘My lord, do you wish to hear news?’ and he answered ‘Friend, what news?’ and William related to the whole company that Richard the day before had a son born at Dulton and baptized on the same day, and that he had seen him. And Richard gave him 40d for his account.

Philip son and heir of Philip Despenser was born at Gedney, Lincolnshire on 18 October 1342 and proved his age on 14 November 1363 (the Philip Despenser born in 1342 was the great-grandson of Hugh Despenser the Elder, earl of Winchester (1261-1326) and great-nephew of Hugh the Younger; his father Philip was born in 1313 and was the son of another Philip, who died in 1313 months after his son's birth and was the younger son of Hugh the Elder and brother of Hugh the Younger).

Robert Athelard of Quappelade, aged 60 years and more, Gilbert de Blakwell of the same, aged 57 years and more, William Kytwyld of the same, aged 54 years and more, and Alexander Male of the same, aged 48 years and more, agree and say that at the feast of St. Peter’s Chains before the feast of St. Peter’s Chains before the birth there was a great inundation of the sea, which broke the banks of the sea-wall at Gedenay and within the bounds of Quappelade, of which sea-wall they were keepers and surveyors.

William Coke of Gedenay, aged 46 years and more, John Pertre of the same, aged 49 years and more, William de Halden of the same, aged 52 years and more, and Thomas Wryght of the same, aged 43 years and more, agree and say that they were with Philip the father at the abbey of Nusum on the day of the birth, and on the morrow they came with him to Gedenay on account of a letter which William Hode of Flete sent to him at Nusum on the day of the birth.

William Savage, aged 44 years and more, and Richard Deye of Flete, aged 49 years and more, agree and say that at the time of the birth they were building for Philip the father a hall and chamber in his manor at Gedeneye.

Robert son and heir of Edmund Coleville was born on 21 October 1304 and proved his age on 17 September 1326.

Alexander de Oxeney, aged 48, says the like, and knows it because he gave the said heir lying in his cradle a buckle of gold.

Ranulph Skot, aged 52, agrees, and knows it because he was sitting in a certain tavern with other companions when the birth of the heir was made known.

William Nichole, aged 41, agrees, and knows it because he was in a garden and heard the cries of the said heir’s mother labouring in childbirth.

William Haskes, aged 58, and others, agree, and know it because they were present at the banquet when the said heir’s mother rose from childbed.

Edward le Hauberger son and heir of John le Hauberger was born on 31 January 1315 at Feltham in Middlesex, and proved his age on 27 March 1338.

John Martyn, knight, aged 40 and more...knows because on the same day that the said Edward was baptized he saw king Edward II come to the said church at Feltham to lift the said Edward from the sacred font, and to place his name upon him.

Geoffrey Pellam, aged 56 years and more, agrees, and knows it because, in the said church on the same day, after the baptism of the said Edward, at the request of certain of his friends he had pardon from king Edward II for a certain outlawry for the death of John le Ferour, for which he was indicted.

John Cosyn, aged 50 years and more, agrees, and knows it because on the same day he was at Westminster before Sir William de Bereford, then a justice [words missing document] common bench, in an inquisition between Gilbert Binorth and John Bile, and then in the night, when he had come to his house, he heard from [his] wife that John le Ha[uberger] had a son, to whom king Edward II had given his name.

[This one was particularly interesting to me as I'd never known before that Edward II was the godfather of a man called Edward le Hauberger. His itinerary that day places him at Westminster and I'd had no idea he rode out the few miles to Feltham.]

Edward de Wodeham, brother and heir of William de Wodeham, proved his age on 20 October 1336, and was born in Chigwell, Essex (exact date not given).

John de Wytonville, aged 50 years and more, agrees, and knows it because he was at the house of the said Edward’s mother on the day of his birth, and in going towards his own house fell among thieves, and was robbed and badly wounded.

John de Purlee, aged 44 years and more, agrees, and knows it because on the same day he was at the castle of Hagelehe with the father of the said Edward, when news came to him of the birth of the said Edward; and King Edward II, in the 8th year of his reign [8 July 1314 to 7 July 1315], lifted the said Edward from the sacred font, and he (the said John) was present.

[Another godson of Edward II!]

Katherine one of the daughters and heirs of Thomas Hildeyard was born on 31 March 1322 and proved her age on 12 February 1337.

...this he remembers after the lapse of such a time, because the said 31 March was Easter day that year, on which day he was in the said church at the resurrection, and immediately after the resurrection the said Katherine was baptized, whose godfather was Alan Ligard, and Beatrice Coleville and Christiana wife of John Ligard her godmothers, and there was a question amongst those in the church how she could be called Katherine, as neither of her godmothers was so called, and to this it was replied that for love of St. Katherine she was so named; thus he well remembers that the said Katherine will be 15 years of age on 31 March next.

[The problem with this is that Easter Sunday fell on 11 April in 1322, so the juror got the date wrong. Easter Monday did fall on 31 March in 1320.]

Robert son and heir of Sir Robert Burdet was born on 26 October 1345 and proved his age on 5 November 1366.

John Asshebrok, aged 46 years, agrees and says that he was at the time in the service of the heir’s father and was charged with divers letters into the counties of Wilts, Stafford, Northampton and Leicester to divers of the father’s friends for joy at the birth of the said heir.

John Mokke, aged 46 years, agrees and says that he was with a certain priest in the church aforesaid when the said Robert was baptized, so that, counting up the years spent in divers dwellings, he is sure that the heir is of full age.

Walter son of Richard, aged 48 years, agrees and says that in the same year, in the summer following, he was in a quarrel where he was grievously wounded.

Richard Adam, aged 60 years, agrees and says that he was on pilgrimage to Santiago about the feast of St. Gregory the Pope after the birth, and suddenly fell sick with fever and so remained weak for a long time after.

John de Kent, aged 50 years, agrees and says that he was serving a man in the county of Oxford, and on his return home he found his wife at church with Robert’s mother making offerings on the day of her churching, and because she was away on his arrival he beat her so that she feared for her life.
[!!!!!]

22 March, 2018

March Anniversaries

Important Edward II-related events that happened in the month of March.

1 March 1261: Birth of Hugh Despenser 'the Elder', made earl of Winchester by Edward II in May 1322, and father of the king's notorious chamberlain and favourite Hugh the Younger. Hugh the Elder was only four years old when his father - inevitably also called Hugh, the justiciar of England - was killed at the battle of Evesham fighting for Simon de Montfort in August 1265.

2 March 1297, or a little earlier: Wedding of Edward's first cousin Henry of Lancaster, second son of Edward I's younger brother Edmund of Lancaster and Blanche of Artois, and Maud Chaworth. Much later, Henry succeeded his elder brother Thomas as earl of Lancaster and Leicester. Five of his and Maud's seven children had children of their own, and the couple were the ancestors of much of the English nobility by the second half of the fourteenth century.

2 March 1316: Death of Robert Bruce, king of Scotland's eldest child Marjorie, who died giving birth to the first Stewart king of Scotland, Robert II.

3 March 1322: Hugh Despenser father and son openly re-joined the king and took part in the campaign against the Contrariants, only six months after they had been sent into supposedly perpetual exile from England.

3 March 1323: Execution of Sir Andrew Harclay, earl of Carlisle (see also below) after negotiating with Robert Bruce without Edward II's permission. Andrew was hanged, drawn and quartered in the town of Carlisle.

4 March 1309: Edward II sent a letter to his father-in-law Philip IV, stating that Philip's daughter, his wife Isabella, was "in good health and will, God willing, be fruitful." Given Isabella's extreme youth - she was then thirteen - it is highly unlikely that they were regularly sleeping together yet.

5 March 1324: Birth of Robert Bruce's son the future King David II of Scotland, born when Robert was almost fifty (he was born on 11 July 1274). David married Edward II's youngest daughter Joan of the Tower in July 1328 when he was four, and became king of Scotland the next year. David's mother was the earl of Ulster's daughter Elizabeth de Burgh. He was the decades-younger half-brother of Marjorie, above, and his half-nephew Robert II was eight years older than he was.

9 March 2325: Departure of Queen Isabella for her native France to arrange a peace settlement with her brother Charles IV. Contrary to the daft witterings of Jean Froissart decades later, too often repeated since as though they're in any way accurate, Isabella left the country with a large retinue and, of course, her husband's knowledge and consent, and did not secretly flee from cruel persecution after pretending to go on pilgrimage to Canterbury.

10 March 1310: Edward gave half a dozen manors in Essex, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk back to Hugh Despenser the Elder, their owner. He had seized them on hearing that Hugh Despenser the Younger had gone overseas to joust contrary to the king's prohibition, believing them to be the younger Hugh's, but it transpired that the elder Hugh owned them and had given their revenues to his son. (Yet another example of many which reveals that Edward II did not much like Hugh Despenser the Younger before 1318/19.)

11 March 1326: Edward gave two and a half pounds to his painter Jack of St Albans for dancing on a table and making him laugh, "in aid of him, his wife and his children."

12 or 13 March 1322: Death of Edward's nephew-in-law and former infatuation Sir Roger Damory, whom Edward had married to his niece Elizabeth de Clare née de Burgh in 1317. The date of Roger's death is not totally clear; chroniclers give 13 or 14 March, but Roger's widow Elizabeth kept it as 12 March, the feast day of St Gregory. Roger died of wounds sustained fighting against the royal army at Burton-on-Trent during the Contrariant rebellion.

14 March 1318: Edward attended the funeral of his stepmother Queen Marguerite at the Greyfriars church in London. His sister Mary the nun of Amesbury was also there, as was the king's current infatuation Sir Roger Damory, for whom Edward purchased cloth for the occasion. (As I type that, I wonder if Edward brought Damory along deliberately as a kind of 'up yours' gesture to the late Marguerite, who had financially supported the opposition to his beloved Piers Gaveston in 1308?)

15 March 1314: Philip IV had Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, burned alive on an island in the Seine in Paris, the day before his daughter Isabella arrived in the city to discuss certain matters with her father on her husband's behalf.

16 March 1310: Edward was forced to consent to the formation of the Lords Ordainer, a group of earls, bishops and barons, who appointed themselves to reform the royal household and government.

16 March 1322: Edward II's first cousin and enemy Thomas, earl of Lancaster, was defeated at the battle of Boroughbridge in Yorkshire by Sir Andrew Harclay, sheriff of Cumberland. The king's brother-in-law Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford, widower of Edward's sister Elizabeth (1282-1316), was killed during the battle.

16 March 1322: Edward ordered his newly-widowed niece Elizabeth de Burgh, days after the death of her husband Damory, not to leave the gates of Barking Abbey, and kept her incarcerated there for some months.

18 March 1326: Edward II sent a letter to his thirteen-year-old son Edward of Windsor, in France with his mother Isabella, ordering him home.

19 March 1286: Death of Edward's uncle-in-law King Alexander III of Scotland, widower of Edward's aunt Margaret of England (1240-75). From 1289 until her death in 1290, Edward was betrothed to Alexander's granddaughter and heir Margaret of Norway.

19 March 1330: Execution of Edward II's twenty-eight-year-old half-brother Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, for the 'crime' of trying to free the supposedly dead Edward from captivity.

20 March 1327: End of the four-month or longer siege of Caerphilly Castle, when Queen Isabella finally agreed not to execute Hugh 'Huchon' Despenser, eldest son and heir of the late Hugh Despenser the Younger. He was imprisoned until July 1331.

21 March 1317: Birth of Edward's great-niece Isabella de Verdon, second child of his niece Elizabeth de Burgh née de Clare. Edward sent a silver cup as a christening gift, and Queen Isabella was the chief sponsor or godmother of the infant, who was named after her.

22 March 1322: Execution of Thomas, earl of Lancaster, outside his own castle of Pontefract.

23 March 1322: Execution in York of the Contrariants John, Lord Mowbray, Roger, Lord Clifford, and Sir Jocelyn Deyville.

23 March 1361: Death of Henry of Grosmont, first duke of Lancaster, earl of Derby, Lincoln and Leicester, only son and heir of Edward II's first cousin Henry of Lancaster and Maud Chaworth/

25 March 1306: Coronation of Robert Bruce as king of Scotland at Scone Abbey.

25 March 1322: Sir Andrew Harclay was made earl of Carlisle as a reward for his defeat of the Contrariant army at Boroughbridge nine days earlier.

25 March 1342: According to the evidence in the Inquisition Post Mortem of Henry of Grosmont, first duke of Lancaster and son and heir of Henry of Lancaster and Maud Chaworth, above, his younger daughter and ultimate heir Blanche was born on this date. Blanche married Edward II's grandson John of Gaunt and was the mother of Henry IV.

26 March 1324: Death of Marie of Luxembourg, second wife of Queen Isabella's brother Charles IV and sister of John 'the Blind', king of Bohemia, after prematurely giving birth to a son who also died.

27 March 1316: Edward paid gave twenty pounds to John Fleg, horse dealer of London, for a bay horse "to carry the litter of the lady the queen" during her pregnancy with their second son John of Eltham.

27 March 1321: Edward sent letters to the disaffected Marcher lords, and also Hugh Despenser the Younger in an obvious attempt to look like he wasn't taking sides, ordering them "not to permit any assemblies to be made whereby the king’s peace or the tranquillity of the king’s people of those parts may be disturbed." It was much too late; the Despenser War began a few weeks later.

31 March 1325: Queen Isabella, in France negotiating a peace settlement with her brother Charles IV, sent Edward a letter calling him "my very sweet heart" five times.

16 March, 2018

Did Edward II and Isabella of France Meet in November 1326?

As far as the evidence from English sources goes, Edward II and Isabella of France never saw each other again after early March 1325. The couple were together at the Tower of London at that time, then the queen set off for Dover and sailed to her native France on 9 March 1325 to negotiate a peace settlement between her husband and her brother Charles IV. Isabella remained overseas for eighteen months, and her invasion force arrived in England on 24 September 1326. Edward II, the two Hugh Despensers and a handful of other allies set off from London to South Wales on 3 October, pursued at some distance by the invasion force. There is no possibility that the royal couple could have met until after 16 November 1326, when Edward and the younger Despenser were captured in South Wales. Officially, Edward II was placed in the custody of his cousin Henry of Lancaster and taken, via Henry's castle of  Monmouth, to Kenilworth in Warwickshire, where he arrived on or before 5 December.

Hugh Despenser the Younger, meanwhile, was taken to Hereford and executed on 24 November, and one of his judges was Henry of Lancaster. It seems possible, therefore, though no source places him there, that Edward II was also in Hereford in Henry's custody when his chamberlain and 'favourite' was grotesquely executed. Given that no chronicle mentions his presence during Hugh's trial (or rather, 'trial' in inverted commas) and execution, if the king was indeed there, presumably he was kept hidden away and was not seen in public. Edward's last chamber account ends on 31 October 1326 at Caerphilly Castle when his clerks gave up writing it (or fled from Caerphilly and abandoned Edward, perhaps), and after that date it becomes much trickier to ascertain his whereabouts. If he was not in Hereford in Henry of Lancaster's custody, then the question arises as to who was deputed to take care of him while Henry went to take part in Hugh's trial. It must have been someone important, as you wouldn't give custody of the king of England himself to just anybody, but assuming this was done, there is no known record of it.

Last year, I read a chronicle from Flanders*, written in French, which gives an intriguingly different take on events in England in 1326 after the queen's invasion. The chronicle states that Isabella went to see Edward in his chamber after his capture, and fell to her knees in front of him. She begged him to "cool his anger" with her, but, obviously in an unforgiving and furious mood, Edward refused to talk or even to look at her. The chronology in the chronicle is not clear, and it is not stated where or when this alleged meeting took place. Presumably, it was before Hugh Despenser the Younger's execution on 24 November 1326; Isabella was hardly likely - in my opinion - to ask her husband to "cool his anger" with her after she had had his beloved chamberlain, companion and perhaps lover torn apart in public. The chronicle gives an otherwise correct and quite full account of what happened in England in the autumn of 1326.

Whether this meeting ever actually happened cannot be conclusively proved; no English chronicler states that the king and queen met in November 1326, and as noted above, Edward II's itinerary after the end of October 1326 is difficult to piece together accurately. Did he remain in Henry of Lancaster's custody the whole time from the time of his capture on 16 November 1326 onwards, or not? If the royal couple did meet, Isabella's falling to her knees in front of her husband and begging him not to be angry with her puts quite a different complexion on events of that momentous year than we usually read (i.e. the story of the poor tragic neglected queen falling desperately in love with Roger Mortimer and dying for revenge on the nasty hateful gay husband she loathed and despised). The Anonimalle chronicle (ed. Childs and Taylor, pp. 124-7, 129-30) says that in the autumn of 1326 "the king would not leave the company of his enemies," and that Isabella pursued him to make him leave the Despensers and because she wanted "to re-join her lord [husband] if she could." This implies that Isabella pursued her husband not out of any hatred or desire for vengeance or a wish to capture him and make him give up his throne to their son, but because she wished to capture Hugh Despenser and his father. In this reading, Edward refuses to abandon the two Hugh Despensers, and it is the Despensers rather than the king whom Isabella and her allies are pursuing. It does make me wonder what would have happened if Edward had left the Despensers and gone to meet Isabella without them.

Isabella had been stating for months that her argument was with Hugh Despenser the Younger, not with her husband, and that she wished above all else to return to Edward but dared not because she felt in physical danger from Hugh. Her famous speech to the French court in c. late October 1325 recorded by the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi states outright that a third party had come between her husband and herself and that she would not return to Edward until this 'intruder' was removed, nor allow their young son Edward of Windsor to do so. Basically, assuming the Vita is reporting Isabella's speech accurately (and unfortunately there's no other record of it), Isabella was giving Edward II an ultimatum: choose between me and Hugh Despenser. Edward refused to send Hugh away from him, and so chose Hugh over his wife. Isabella wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury on 5 February 1326 in which she repeated that she wished very much to return to her husband but dared not because Hugh Despenser might harm her physically if she did so, and stated that the whole situation was causing her great distress. 

It's often assumed nowadays that Isabella was lying, or, in stating her distress about the destruction of her marriage and her inability to be in her husband's company because the person who had intruded into her marriage would do her harm, was defying her husband and declaring her love for Roger Mortimer. (No, that interpretation doesn't make any sense to me either.) Here's a hot take: what if Isabella wasn't lying, and wasn't using any old excuse she could think of not to go back to her husband so that she could stay in the arms of her manly virile lover, but meant every word? After all, she didn't have to write that letter to the archbishop of Canterbury explaining herself, and it was for the archbishop's eyes, not for public consumption so that she could present herself to her husband's subjects as a loyal but wronged wife while sneakily having an affair with Roger. Perhaps the speech to the French court means exactly what it says: Edward, send Hugh Despenser away from you, because he frightens me and he has damaged our relationship, and I want to come back to you and resume the happy marriage we used to have till he stuck his oar in. Perhaps her letter of February 1326 means exactly what it says: Hugh Despenser frightens me, but now I know that my husband has refused my ultimatum and I can't go back to him even though I want to more than anything, and it's causing me great distress. Maybe we should do Isabella the respect of listening to what she actually said?

Logistically at least, it seems plausible that Edward II and Isabella of France met in Hereford in mid-November 1326. Hereford is only twenty miles more or less directly north of Monmouth where Henry of Lancaster took Edward on their way to Kenilworth. Edward was captured probably near Llantrisant on 16 November, and was at Kenilworth by 5 December, maybe a little before. Llantrisant to Kenilworth is about 115 miles, and we know that Henry of Lancaster detoured to Hereford to be present at Hugh Despenser's trial, so it's not impossible that he took Edward with him. Nor does the timing make it impossible that Edward was in Hereford for a day or several, and had the chance to see his wife there. Llantrisant is only fifty-five or so miles away from Hereford. Hugh Despenser the Younger was taken on that journey deliberately slowly - it took as much as a week or even eight days - to show off the hated royal favourite to as many people as possible. Henry of Lancaster could have taken Edward to Hereford a few days before Hugh himself arrived there, tied on a shabby little nag and refusing all food and drink, and pelted with rubbish by the populace. Chronicler Jean le Bel, who was there, says that Hugh was executed in the main town square of Hereford - he was dragged there through the streets by four horses and presumably his trial had taken place outside the castle - and does not mention that the king was present. It's a little curious that neither le Bel nor any English chronicler mentions that Edward II was in Hereford at this time, but perhaps if he was there, his presence was deliberately concealed and kept secret.

Ultimately, I don't know whether Edward II met his wife Isabella after his capture in November 1326, and I don't imagine that we ever will know for sure, but it doesn't seem impossible. One chronicler certainly thought it was plausible that Isabella knelt before her husband and begged his forgiveness. At the very least, the chronicler's story is a reminder that events of 1326 were complex as well as momentous, and the people involved were complex, and we shouldn't reduce them and their actions to overly simplistic narratives or assume we understand all their emotions and thoughts and motivations.

Extraits d'une Chronique Anonyme intitulée Ancienne Chroniques de Flandre; full details in my book Long Live the King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II. It says la royne...entra dans la chambre ou il estoit et s'agenoulla devant lui, et lui request que pour Dieu il voulaist reffroidier son yre; main oncques le roy ne lui vault faire responce ne regarder sur elle.

11 March, 2018

Book Review: 'The Pearl of France' by Caroline Newark

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I'm often pretty harsh on novels which feature Edward II and Isabella of France as characters, and I tend to approach them with extreme caution. (At the library recently, I picked up a novel published in 2016 which described Piers Gaveston as "effeminate," at which I sighed loudly and put it back on the shelf. Can we really not get past such prejudiced, stereotypical nonsense well into the second decade of the twenty-first century?). Conversely, I'm also truly delighted on the rare occasions when I find novels about Edward which I enjoy, and was thrilled to come across Caroline Newark's recently-published The Pearl of France, which is narrated in the first person by Edward II's stepmother Marguerite of France. She married sixty-year-old Edward I as his second wife in September 1299 when she was twenty, and was younger than many of his children, though was about five years older than his fourth but only surviving son the future Edward II. It's an excellent novel with likeable, very well-depicted main characters, and thoroughly researched. (This blog is listed at the end of the book as one of the author's sources.) I've read far too many Edward II novels with absurdly one-sided and biased characterisation or where all the characters are horrible, malicious, ugly and uninteresting *cough Maurice Druon cough*. The Pearl of France is a novel in which the author has succeeded in making all her main characters complex and sympathetic, yet also flawed and very human. I felt strongly that she respected, cared about and liked all the historical figures she was writing about, which I appreciated very much.

We meet Marguerite in her youth at the court of her almost inhumanly cold half-brother Philip IV of France, and see the negotiations for her marriage to Edward I of England, a man forty years her senior, as a way of making peace between England and France (Marguerite's niece Isabella is betrothed to Edward's son Edward of Caernarfon at the same time). When Marguerite arrives in England in the late summer of 1299, she meets her stepchildren Ned (Edward of Caernarfon), who's fifteen, Joan of Acre who's a few years her senior, Mary the nun, and, a little later, Elizabeth of Rhuddlan after she's widowed from her first husband the count of Holland. Edward I's nephew Henry of Lancaster (b. 1280/81) also appears briefly, which I really enjoyed; I'm a big fan of Henry, and can't remember ever seeing him as a fictional character before. His sister-in-law Alice de Lacy appears more often and is a confidante of Queen Marguerite, as does Elizabeth of Rhuddlan's second husband, the good-looking and charming Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford. Joan of Acre's three Clare daughters Eleanor, Margaret and Elizabeth, Marguerite's step-granddaughters, briefly appear, and Joan says proudly that Eleanor is "as sharp as a needle." Robert Bruce, king of Scotland from 1306, is also a character. The novel takes us through the eight years of Marguerite's marriage, and the narrative ends soon after the death of Edward I and the accession of Marguerite's stepson Edward II in 1307. A brief epilogue after the dowager queen's death in 1318 closes the novel.

Both Edward I and his son Ned are vividly drawn, complex and fascinating characters. I loved the scene with the king and Marguerite shortly after their wedding where Edward I asks her to "look at me as a man," a man she can desire. Marguerite expects to find an elderly and frail dotard, and instead meets a fearsome and powerful warrior. Edward I is still mourning for his first, beloved wife Eleanor of Castile, and often talks of her and even sometimes calls his second wife by his first wife's name. I felt much sympathy for Marguerite, who never really feels like Edward's true wife, and who often struggles to know how to behave around Edward. He's capable on occasion of the most affectionate tenderness towards her - which was lovely, actually - but also often capable of taking her innocently-meant words and actions the wrong way and snapping at her. He never hurts her physically, but she often feels she has to tread on eggshells around him, and feels that she cannot compete with his amazing first wife. We see both the stern and terrifying warrior and the loving husband, and I felt I saw a side of 'Longshanks' I'd never seen before.

Edward of Caernarfon or 'Ned' is portrayed exactly as he really was, a far cry from the caricatured feeble, camp court fop inept writers so frequently resort to: he's hugely strong and handsome, and loves taking part in pastimes such as rowing, swimming, digging and thatching that baffle and annoy his family. His swim at Windsor with his Fool Robert Bussard in February 1303 (historical fact!) appears here, with Marguerite having to tear her eyes away from the pleasant spectacle of her nearly naked and extremely attractive teenage stepson. On another occasion, she sees Ned digging at his palace of Langley, and is again baffled at the overly familiar manner he allows his low-born fellow workers to adopt towards him. Piers Gaveston also appears in the novel, not that often, but it's clear how much Ned adores him. Edward I exiles Piers from England in 1307 after Ned asks permission to give him his county of Ponthieu, and Ned gets hopelessly drunk and tells his stepmother exactly how the loss of Piers makes him feel. It's an incredibly moving scene that brought me to tears. Ned is immensely likeable, but it's clear how unsuited he is to his position as prince of Wales and heir to the throne, and the tensions between him and his barons which will come to the fore a little later when he's king are also made apparent. Whatever pleasant characteristics he has, the novel makes it clear that he's entirely unlike his father and not a man who can make his barons respect and fear him. All in all, a very accurate and very fair depiction of the future Edward II, as far as I'm concerned, and it's not often I say that. I have to admit that I'm not particularly a fan of the real Queen Marguerite, but The Pearl of France made me like her a heck of a lot more than I did before.

A very well-written and compelling novel with some really excellent characterisation. Highly recommended!

04 March, 2018

The Four Daughters of Theobald de Verdon (1278-1316)

Theobald de Verdon or Verdun (8 September 1278 - 27 July 1316) was the second son of Theobald de Verdon the elder (d. 1309), and became his father's heir when his elder brother John died in June 1297. His mother was Margery de Bohun, and he was a first cousin of Edward II's brother-in-law Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford (c. 1276-1322). Edward I sent a letter to the elder Theobald de Verdon which was callous and remarkably unsympathetic even by his standards in July 1297, stating that he was "much displeased" with him for failing to attend him as ordered, owing to Verdon's "infirmity" and the death of his eldest son John. The elder Theobald's Inquisition Post Mortem was held in September 1309, and his heir the younger Theobald was said to be "aged 31 at the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary last," i.e. Theobald was born on or around 8 September 1278. (The jurors of Buckinghamshire thought he was "22 and more," and Oxfordshire "24 and more." Ahhhh, IPMs.)

 Theobald de Verdon's main seat was Alton in Staffordshire, and he also inherited lands in Shropshire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Theobald married firstly Maud Mortimer (d. 1312), daughter of Edmund Mortimer and Margaret Fiennes and sister of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, later the first earl of March, and secondly Edward II's niece Elizabeth de Burgh née de Clare (d. 1360), whom he abducted from Bristol Castle in early February 1316. Maud Mortimer was the mother of Theobald's three eldest daughters, Elizabeth de Burgh of the fourth and youngest. All four de Verdon daughters shared their father's inheritance jointly and equally, a fact which was to lead to much ill-tempered squabbling and legal wrangles among them and their husbands in the early 1330s after all the women had come of age.

Theobald died a few weeks before his thirty-eighth birthday on 27 July 1316 - Elizabeth de Burgh's biographer Frances Underhill speculates that he died of typhoid, which is possible but unprovable - leaving his widow Elizabeth about one month pregnant. He was buried at Croxden Abbey in Staffordshire just a couple of miles from Alton, and thirty-nine years later Elizabeth de Burgh left the abbey money in her will. Theobald's Inquisition Post Mortem was held in October 1316 in all the counties where he had held lands. Jurors in some counties knew that his widow Elizabeth was pregnant with his posthumous child, while others did not. The ones who did pointed out correctly that Theobald's three living daughters were his heirs only if Elizabeth did not bear a son (which she did not). I'm really going to have to write a post sometime about Theobald's abduction of Elizabeth. Frances Underhill considers that Elizabeth was probably a willing participant and had arranged it with Theobald beforehand, but I find it hard to agree.

1) Joan de Verdon

Joan de Verdon, Theobald and Maud Mortimer's eldest daughter, was born at Wootton in Stanton Lacy, near Ludlow in Shropshire, on 9 August 1303. She was baptised at St Mary's Church in nearby Onibury, a village near Stokesay Castle. Her maternal grandmother Margaret Mortimer née Fiennes stayed at Stanton Lacy four miles from Onibury from around 29 September 1303 until 24 June 1304 (the feast of St Michael until the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist), presumably to be near and to support Maud de Verdon née Mortimer after the birth of her first child. Maud's date of birth is not known, but her brother Roger Mortimer of Wigmore was born in April 1287, and Maud was probably only in her mid-teens or thereabouts when she bore her first child Joan and was a few years younger than her husband, who was almost twenty-five when his eldest daughter was born. Joan de Verdon's maternal grandfather Edmund Mortimer of Wigmore died on 17 July 1304, and perhaps the knowledge that her husband was very ill was the reason for Margaret's departure from Stanton Lacy around 24 June 1304.

Joan was nine when she lost her mother, and twelve and a half when her father abducted and married the king's niece in early 1316. She herself married John Montacute, born in 1299 as the eldest son and heir of Sir William Montacute (d. 1319), in Edward II's presence at Windsor on 28 April 1317. This was just over a month after her half-sister Isabella was born, and William Montacute knew that Joan was one of her father's four heirs; if Elizabeth de Burgh had borne a boy, this would have disinherited Joan and her two sisters, Montacute might have married her to one of his younger sons, William or Edward, instead. Joan was widowed when John Montacute died unexpectedly in August 1317, the month she turned fourteen, and six months later married her second husband Thomas Furnival. Their only son William Furnival was born at Alton eight and a half years after their wedding on 23 August 1326 (as Theobald's eldest daughter, Joan inherited his main seat). Joan died in October 1334 aged thirty-one, having outlived her maternal grandmother Margaret Mortimer by only a few months. Like her father, she was buried at Croxden Abbey.

2) Elizabeth de Verdon

I haven't been able to find Elizabeth's proof of age which would gave her exact date of birth; apparently it is no longer extant. She was the second of Theobald and Maud's three daughters and her sisters were born in 1303 and 1310, and her father's IPM, taken in October 1316, states that Elizabeth was either ten or twelve then. A letter dated 11 June 1320 states that she had already proved her age, and as she was already married, 'proving her age' means proving that she had turned fourteen. Elizabeth was therefore certainly born before 11 June 1306, late in Edward I's reign, and probably not too long before as her coming of age appears to have been the major factor in prompting her husband to petition Edward II complaining about Alton being given to Joan de Verdon and Thomas Furnival, which the king responded to in the letter of 11 June 1320.

Edward II gave the marriage rights of Elizabeth and her younger sister Margery to his court favourite and nephew-in-law Sir Roger Damory in 1318. Sometime before 11 June 1320, Elizabeth married Bartholomew, Lord Burghersh, whose mother Maud Badlesmere was the sister of Bartholomew Badlesmere, executed by Edward II as a Contrariant in April 1322. Elizabeth de Verdon and Bartholomew Burghersh's daughter Joan Mohun née Burghersh lived until 1404 and was the mother-in-law of William Montacute, earl of Salisbury (d. 1397) and Edward of York, second duke of York (d. 1415), and their granddaughter Elizabeth Burghersh (d. 1409) married Edward, Lord Despenser (1336-75) and was the mother of Thomas Despenser, earl of Gloucester (1373-1400). Elizabeth Burghersh née de Verdon died in May 1360.

3) Margery de Verdon

Maud Mortimer's youngest daughter, Margery was born at Alton, Staffordshire on 10 August 1310 (the feast of St Laurence in Edward II's fourth regnal year) and named after her paternal grandmother Margery de Verdon née de Bohun. Unlike her two elder sisters, she was born after the death of her paternal grandfather Theobald the elder in 1309 and therefore after her father had inherited the Verdon lands. Margery was baptised at Alton on the day of her birth, and a John de Hodinet announced her birth to her father at Croxden, two miles away; a Henry de Athelaxton was in Theobald's presence at the time and also heard the announcement, as he stated when Margery proved her age in February 1327. Later on 10 August 1310, Theobald de Verdon went hunting near Alton with a Richard de Dolverne, and Dolverne shot a buck. Possibly the hunt was intended for Theobald to celebrate his daughter's birth, or perhaps, given the general attitude of the time, to commiserate with himself that he now had three daughters but no son. Margery de Verdon was only two years old when she lost her mother, and five and a half when her father abducted his second wife.

Margery married firstly Sir William le Blount, an adherent of Henry, earl of Lancaster and Leicester (d. 1345) and his attorney, secondly Sir Mark Husee, and thirdly Sir John Crophull. She might have lived until as late as 1377. William le Blount witnessed a charter of Henry, earl of Lancaster on 1 July 1332, and had gone overseas in the earl's company in 1329/30 with Henry Ferrers of Groby, husband of Margery's younger half-sister Isabella de Verdon. He was dead by November 1337, apparently (going by a couple of entries on the Patent Roll which I assume is him) killed in Liverpool while he was sheriff of Lancashire. Otherwise, I know very little about Margery's husbands, or about her life.

4) Isabella de Verdon

Theobald's youngest daughter, born on 21 March 1317 eight months after his death, to his second wife Elizabeth de Burgh née de Clare. Isabella de Verdon was born at Amesbury Priory in Wiltshire and named after her godmother Queen Isabella, who was escorted the few miles to the priory from the royal palace of Clarendon to attend the christening on the same day as the birth. Isabella's other godmother was her great-aunt, Edward II's sister Mary the nun of Amesbury, and her christening was conducted by Roger Martival, bishop of Salisbury. Edward II himself sent a silver cup as a christening gift. As well as her three older de Verdon half-sisters, Isabella was also the younger half-sister of William de Burgh, earl of Ulster (1312-1333), and the older half-sister of Elizabeth, Lady Bardolf, née Damory (1318-1361/62), the only (surviving) child of her mother's third marriage.

Isabella married Henry, Lord Ferrers of Groby in the late 1320s or 1330. Like her brother-in-law William le Blount, Henry was a staunch Lancastrian adherent. Their son and heir was William, Lord Ferrers (1333-71) and they had daughters Elizabeth, titular countess of Atholl, and Philippa, who would have been countess of Warwick but her husband Guy Beauchamp died in 1360 in his father's lifetime. Henry Ferrers of Groby presented a petition at an unknown date complaining that Roger Mortimer, first earl of March, had engineered an unfair division of the Verdon estate, benefiting his three nieces Joan, Elizabeth and Margery to the exclusion of their half-sister Isabella, who was not his niece. Isabella Ferrers née de Verdon died in July 1349 at age thirty-two, possibly a victim of the Black Death. Her mother Elizabeth de Burgh outlived her by more than eleven years.

Sources

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem 1307-17, no. 187.
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem 1317-27, no. 54.
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem 1327-26, no. 83-86, 389, 395.