tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post635576427153683022..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: From Favourite To Rebel: The Career of Hugh AudleyKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-42719020950400720132020-10-12T07:13:48.659+01:002020-10-12T07:13:48.659+01:00Best of luck with the research, Dave! I'm a hu...Best of luck with the research, Dave! I'm a huge fan of local history and your project sounds fab.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-68099349068388938602020-10-11T17:46:02.864+01:002020-10-11T17:46:02.864+01:00Kathryn, many thanks and I share your frustration!...Kathryn, many thanks and I share your frustration! I am currently in the process of researching and writing the history of Gaddesby and its communities, it being the small village in Leicestershire where I grew up and home to five generations of my ancestors, hence my interest in Ralph de Gaddesby. Ralph obviously had a legal background as he later provided advocate services to the mayor of Leicester amongst other things. His son, Robert, followed him into civic duties, being successively Leicester receiver, keeper of the king's lands in Leicestershire following the Despenser War, steward of Leicester and finally its mayor. The search goes on!DaveLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443773800834757660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-1855650420280476202020-10-11T16:23:24.061+01:002020-10-11T16:23:24.061+01:00Hi Dave, thanks! I wrote a bit more about Hugh and...Hi Dave, thanks! I wrote a bit more about Hugh and the Audley family in my book about the Clare sisters, though of course they weren't the main focus. I vaguely recall the name Gaddesby, but afraid I can't think of anything I might know about him. Sorry! :/ There's so little extant evidence for anything relating to Hugh and Margaret's long marriage, the admin of their estates, etc. It's so frustrating.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-63580735560301372192020-10-11T15:38:14.716+01:002020-10-11T15:38:14.716+01:00Kathryn, an excellent piece of work and many thank...Kathryn, an excellent piece of work and many thanks for posting.<br /><br />I am currently researching Master Ralph de Gaddesby (aka Gadesby, Gatesbury) who in 1344 along with John de Gynewell (then canon of Salisbury, but later Bishop of Lincoln 1347-1362) appear to be keepers of Hugh d'Audley's lands in Northamptonshire. [Pat. Roll. vol.6 1343-1345, p.366 also TNA DL27/147] Both are mentioned in the ipm of Hugh D'Audely (taken at Kettering, Northants), 21 Edw III. [Cal. ipm, vol.9, p54]<br /><br />In the course of your research, did you find anything to explain the relationship, e.g. feofees or otherwise, between Gaddesby and Gynewell with the Audley estates? I am keen to establish why Ralph was styled 'Master'.<br />DaveDaveLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443773800834757660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-82211077347640082192013-11-10T12:49:17.087+00:002013-11-10T12:49:17.087+00:00This is fascinating. I've been interested in ...This is fascinating. I've been interested in the Audleys for a while, I knew lots of Audleys as a child in Ireland and always liked the name, sparking my interests in the medieval Audleys.<br />I'm sure this is out of date by now, but as far as opening Edward II's tomb goes, as far as I know the decision would be taken by the Bishop of Gloucester and Dean of Gloucester Cathedral. However, they would need the permission of the Queen to do so and I am almost 100% certain that she would refuse any such request. If the body in the tomb turned out not to be related to the present day royals it would open a potentially too big can of worms...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-39729674784149115232008-11-12T06:14:00.000+00:002008-11-12T06:14:00.000+00:00Thanks for all the info, Carla! Fascinating.Thanks for all the info, Carla! Fascinating.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-89830528523840260152008-11-11T17:26:00.000+00:002008-11-11T17:26:00.000+00:00DNA testing - the key question is whether it's pos...DNA testing - the key question is whether it's possible to get enough of a sample from an exhumed medieval body, and to be sure that it's not contaminated by modern/later DNA. Modern techniques like PCR are very very sensitive, but there are limits. I suspect that there wouldn't be that much DNA left in a usable state in a 700-year-old skeleton, but I'm not an expert.<BR/><BR/>If you want to test Y-chromosome DNA you need a male-line descendant for comparison. Y chromosomes go from father to son. Mitochondrial DNA requires female-line descendants from Edward II's mother. All children, boys and girls, get their mitochondrial DNA unchanged from their mother. If you're looking at DNA from the rest of the 23 chromosomes, this forms by far the largest proportion of DNA (i.e. your sample from the body is liable to be mostly this type), but the genes get rearranged every time they pass from parent to child, and you need complicated statistics to estimate the chance of two samples (the body and a mdern-day descendant of Edward II) being from unrelated individuals. <BR/><BR/>I suppose that if, by some miracle, one could extract Y-chromosome DNA from Edward II's body <I>and</I> Edward III's body and compare them, at least that would definitively despatch the <I>Braveheart</I> canard :-)Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-91574320509087446512008-11-07T08:38:00.000+00:002008-11-07T08:38:00.000+00:00Thanks, Anerje! I hoped you'd enjoy the bit about...Thanks, Anerje! I hoped you'd enjoy the bit about Piers' wardrobe being kept at Ironmonger Lane - I thought that was a lovely snippet of info.<BR/><BR/>Kevin: I really wish someone would test Ed's remains. I've no idea who would have to grant permission for that to happen, though, and I don't think it's very likely. :(<BR/><BR/>I know nothing at all about DNA testing, I'm afraid - would it be possible to compare samples with Ed I or Ed III? I preume you mention the Somersets because they're the only descendants of Ed II/Ed III in the male line?<BR/><BR/>I sympathise re the bastard secretary. ;)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-45305244482516769882008-11-06T20:07:00.000+00:002008-11-06T20:07:00.000+00:00Thoroughly enjoyed this post! Lots of intersting ...Thoroughly enjoyed this post! Lots of intersting thngs I never knew about Hugh. Am amazed by all his descendants. I wonder how Margaret felt about being married to 2 of Edward's favs? Quite an achievement for Audley to have survived through such turbulent times, considering he was a favourite of Ed's.Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-17666637026561801612008-11-06T19:03:00.000+00:002008-11-06T19:03:00.000+00:00I will be most interested to learn more about Joan...I will be most interested to learn more about Joan of the Tower.<BR/><BR/>I wonder: does anyone suppose that there is any shred of a possibility that the government of the United Kingdom would find some salient reason to exhume Ed's remains? One reason I can think of: prove that it's really him in that lead coffin. Of course, DNA needs comparison samples and the only living people I can think of who might qualify are the Somersets.<BR/><BR/>My own blog hasn't seen much attention. Would that I could be more prolific. But I spend too much time with a magnifying glass translating bastard secretary hand from A2A and Documents Online LOL.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-81827403639627771782008-11-06T18:41:00.000+00:002008-11-06T18:41:00.000+00:00Well, whether Hugh's nearest relationship to Ed wa...Well, whether Hugh's nearest relationship to Ed was second cousin twice removed or third cousin once removed is something I'll gladly leave to the genealogists! That's not my area of expertise, and ultimately it matters far less to me than Hugh's relationship with and influence over Ed and the political consequences. And you're absolutely right about non-fiction versus histfict. I'd love to write more about Ed and Hugh, but there's no way of knowing what kind of relationship they had, so not much point speculating about it here. If I was writing a novel, though...;)<BR/><BR/>Thanks a lot for the compliments! The next post will probably be on Ed's daughters.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-80614377119279874912008-11-06T18:33:00.000+00:002008-11-06T18:33:00.000+00:00Well, as far as I can see, I was actually keeping ...Well, as far as I can see, I was actually keeping things on target with a continuation of your discussion of the "king's kinsman" relationship between Hugh de Audley and Edward II, by bringing up salient family tie evidences that didn't seem off-topic to me (excepting the sudden appearance of Braose in the conversation) which suggest strong affinity between Hugh and Edward II. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, we will have to cordially shake hands and agree to disagree on the John Lackland/Audley kinship to Edward II. <BR/><BR/>Writers of historical fiction have an escape clause on the facts, but we historians and genealogists often bump up against evidences that challenge earlier assumptions. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I look forward to your next posts. Your ability to weave facts into a narrative is what makes your blog so interesting to read. Thank you for continuing to cite your sources.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-54420723081724956692008-11-06T18:06:00.000+00:002008-11-06T18:06:00.000+00:00Well, OK, maybe 'weird' was the wrong word. I mean...Well, OK, maybe 'weird' was the wrong word. I meant amusing, notable, and yes, eye-popping. I do think it's 'weird' that a man had an affair with his stepmother's mother/stepmother, like I think it's weird that later in the 13th century, the earl of Derby's daughter Eleanor married the father of her father's second wife, and thus became the stepmother of her own stepmother. None of this has anything to do with Hugh Audley, and wasn't intended to have. I certainly wasn't suggesting that William de Braose was related to Joan, or was the father of her children. But since we stopped discussing Hugh about 14 comments ago, it hardly matters!<BR/><BR/>I'm not exasperated, but my interest in all this is mostly limited to how it relates to Ed II and those close to him. I'm really interested too in how these people were related, and I have a lot of respect for Douglas - who was kind enough to share some of his research with me lately, without being asked - but I remain unconvinced that the questions of Gwladys's mother and Isolde Mortimer's parents have been definitively answered.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-79185859714133044742008-11-06T14:46:00.000+00:002008-11-06T14:46:00.000+00:00Alianore,Mr. Richardson, while personally unpopula...Alianore,<BR/><BR/>Mr. Richardson, while personally unpopular to many genealogists and historians (he can indeed rub the wrong way, I've had many differences with him myself), has produced, as a whole, some rather creditable findings.<BR/><BR/>The Wigmore Chronicles that you argue in this case were composed in the mid-14th century, over a century and a half after the death of the persons in question in this thread. Some writers (no, not Richardson!) state that the document was drawn up in 1385. The work is not comparable with other ancient copies of the genealogy of the Mortimers and was drafted for the purpose of proving the right of the earls of March to the throne of England. Political propaganda.<BR/><BR/>The bedchamber incident between William de Braose, son of Reginald, and the Princes Joan, was certainly eye-popping but not in any sense "weird" or out of character. I can't see a relevance here to the question of Hugh de Audley's descent from King John. The Princess Joan wasn't a near blood relative of William de Braose. The facts are that William was someone who went out of his way to commit cruel and despicable deeds. He didn't earn his moniker, "Black William," by accident. <BR/><BR/>As a genealogist, and a descendant of these folks, it matters to me how they were related to one another and thus I apologize for exasperating you with mentioning these documents. I had rather thought, due to your admirable devotion to citing particular facts and your attention to detail, that this information might be of interest. I'm not at all interested in modifying your opinion.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-70656165841988793872008-11-06T12:25:00.000+00:002008-11-06T12:25:00.000+00:00The Annals of Wigmore say that Llywelyn and Joan m...The Annals of Wigmore say that Llywelyn and Joan married at Ascensiontide 1206.<BR/><BR/>Gwladys married her first husband Reginald de Braose in 1215. The marriage was childless. He was in his 40s then, and, as far as I remember, the father (by his first wife, of course) of William de Braose who was hanged for his affair with Joan in 1230. Which makes things a tad, umm, weird!<BR/><BR/>Gwladys was Welsh, not English, and under Welsh law a man's illegitimate children were as much his heirs as his legitimate ones, so in Welsh eyes she was a lot more than 'daughter of a concubine'. Early Welsh genealogies said Gwladys was Tangwystl's daughter.<BR/><BR/>But as I said, all I care about is that Hugh Audley was certainly descended from Henry II. It doesn't bother me one way or the other whose daughter Gwladys was, Joan's or Tangwystl's, and we could debate it forever and not know for certain.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-30482226631176148522008-11-06T11:59:00.000+00:002008-11-06T11:59:00.000+00:00Alianore,Actually, Joan and Llewyelyn were married...Alianore,<BR/><BR/>Actually, Joan and Llewyelyn were married sometime *before* 23 Mar. 1204/05 and Gwaldys was wed to Ralph de Mortimer by 26 Oct. 1230, so objections to the link must be argued by something other than the chronology. <BR/><BR/>By dint of a convincing argument, it's doubtful in the extreme that Princess Joan's maritagium would be passed to the daughter of her husband's concubine, and that this same child would later sue for it.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-38702384125454818562008-11-06T10:37:00.000+00:002008-11-06T10:37:00.000+00:00I'm not entirely convinced by Douglas's argument, ...I'm not entirely convinced by Douglas's argument, given that Gwladys married her first husband Reginald de Braose in 1215, and Joan didn't marry Llywelyn till 1205 or 1206. But anyway, we'll never know for sure, and the important thing is that Hugh Audley was definitely descended from Henry II, certainly via the Longespees and perhaps via King John, Joan and Gwladys, and was Ed II's distant cousin.<BR/><BR/>Carla: he did have an element of luck, in that his wife, unlike the wives of other Contrariants (Ed II's baronial enemies in 1321/22) had enough influence with Ed to plead successfully for his life.<BR/><BR/>And I've noticed an error in a previous comment: Gilbert Middleton's attack on the cardinals took place on 1 Sept 1317, not May.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-83210429008164310492008-11-05T23:48:00.000+00:002008-11-05T23:48:00.000+00:00Alianore wrote, "I always thought Roger Mortimer S...Alianore wrote, <BR/><BR/>"I always thought Roger Mortimer Sr's mother was Gwladys, daughter of Llwelyn the Great by his mistress Tangwystl, not King John's daughter Joan. Has some new research indicated that she was in fact Joan's daughter?"<BR/><BR/>Yes. Richardson, in his Plantagenet Ancestry (p. 520), has found proof which indicates that Gwladys Ddu ("Dark-Eyed") was one of the Princess Joan's daughters. The relationship is indicated by the transfer of Knighton and Norton Castles in Shropshire, from Llewelyn to Gwaldys' 2nd husband, Ralph de Mortimer. These properties earlier formed the maritagium of the Princess Joan. As further proof of Gwladys' personal involvement in the properties, she is named with her husband in a 1237 lawsuit regarding them. He cites CCR 1234-1237 (1908) 539-40 for the lawsuit, and J.G. Edwards Cal. of Ancient Corr. Concerning Wales (1935):23 for Gwladys' maritagium.<BR/><BR/>So, without belaboring the subject too much futher (as I think this may be straying a bit from your central focus on Edward II), but Hugh de Audley's "king's kinsman" status probably would have been a reference to this particular branch of Ed 2's family tree, as it provides an Audley descent from King John and would, ostensibly, be a quicker frame of reference for the royal family to recall.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-90361724491843218642008-11-05T17:45:00.000+00:002008-11-05T17:45:00.000+00:00What an amazing amount of detail! I hadn't realis...What an amazing amount of detail! I hadn't realised Hugh Audley was the only favourite to survive Edward's reign. That suggests he was more savvy the most - or just luckier?Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-35546150662465018472008-11-05T12:59:00.000+00:002008-11-05T12:59:00.000+00:00Kevin: Douglas seems to have changed his mind abou...Kevin: Douglas seems to have changed his mind about Isolde's parentage several times: he also stated in 2002 that she was Edmund Mortimer's daughter by an unknown first wife: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-01/1010917362<BR/><BR/>Then changed his mind to make her Hugh Mortimer's daughter: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-01/1011951167<BR/><BR/>I always thought Roger Mortimer Sr's mother was Gwladys, daughter of Llwelyn the Great by his mistress Tangwystl, not King John's daughter Joan. Has some new research indicated that she was in fact Joan's daughter?<BR/><BR/>Lady D: yes, in May 1317, Gilbert kidnapped the new bishop of Durham, Louis Beaumont, his brother Henry (they were the brothers of Isabella, Lady Vescy), and two cardinals in England at the time, Gaucelin D'Eauze and Luca Fieschi - who was another distant cousin of Ed II. Gilbert and his brother John were excommuincated, then hanged, drawn and quartered in Jan 1318. If he'd still been alive after Hugh's rise to power, I can well believe Hugh would have found a place for him in his household. :-)Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-9788662388414775672008-11-05T12:15:00.000+00:002008-11-05T12:15:00.000+00:00Alianore,Regarding the descent of Hugh de Audley f...Alianore,<BR/><BR/>Regarding the descent of Hugh de Audley from Henry II, what follows is the exact lineage you mentioned in your blog entry.<BR/><BR/>In addition to third cousin, once removed, Hugh de Audley is also the second cousin, twice removed, of Edward II. <BR/><BR/>In my first calculation, I put the incorrect Hugh (his father) into my database relationship calculator. After doing the correct Hugh, the calculator STILL insisted on another relationship so I was forced to take another look.<BR/><BR/>Here is the Audley connection via Longespee:<BR/><BR/>I. Henry II +<BR/>"Countess" Ida<BR/>II. William Longespee, E. of Salisbury + <BR/>Ela Fitz Patrick<BR/>III. William Longespee, Knt. +<BR/>Idoine (Idonea) de Camville<BR/>IV. Ela Longespee +<BR/>James de Audley<BR/>V. Hugh de Audley, Knt. +<BR/>Isolde (Iseult) de Mortimer<BR/>VI. Hugh, Earl of Gloucester <BR/><BR/>I. Henry II<BR/>II. John<BR/>III. Henry III<BR/>IV. Edward I<BR/>V. Edward II<BR/><BR/>Hugh's relationship as 2nd cousin, twice removed, is via his descent from Roger Mortimer to King John's bastard daughter, Princess Joan.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-29470662781340056912008-11-05T12:01:00.000+00:002008-11-05T12:01:00.000+00:00That Gilbert de Middleton is very good at cropping...That Gilbert de Middleton is very good at cropping up whenever some nedfarious deed has been done! In fact I'm surprised Hugh D. never took him on the payroll!<BR/><BR/>He was involved in the kidnap of some papal envoys too wasn't he? And some other murder I can't remember off the top of my head.Jules Frusherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207281934232383811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-27018256173666599322008-11-05T11:48:00.000+00:002008-11-05T11:48:00.000+00:00Hi Alianore,Richardson, in his Magna Charta Ancest...Hi Alianore,<BR/><BR/>Richardson, in his Magna Charta Ancestry, indicates Iseult (Isolde) as the daughter of Roger de Mortimer, not Hugh, in his Magna Charta Ancestry (Gen. Pub. Co., 2004).<BR/><BR/>The Countess Ida, frequently misquoted as "de Toni" in some secondary sources, has no proven parentage.<BR/><BR/>See both The Complete Peerage and the newsgroup, Soc.Gen.Medieval, for further details.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10517047979325639047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-15338893614756962592008-11-05T07:46:00.000+00:002008-11-05T07:46:00.000+00:00Hi Kevin! That's great that you're descended from...Hi Kevin! That's great that you're descended from Hugh via all his granddaughters.<BR/><BR/>I also thought for ages that Isolde was the daughter of Roger Mortimer Sr and Maude de Braose, but Douglas Richardson seems sure she was the daughter of Hugh Mortimer (Roger Sr's brother).<BR/><BR/>Hugh was the gr-gr-gr-grandson of Henry II: Henry II (and Ida de Toeni) - William Longespee d. 1226 - William Longespee d. 1250 - Ela Longespee d. c. 1299 - Hugh Audley d. 1325/26 - Hugh Audley d. 1347. So he was Ed II's (half-) 3rd cousin once removed.<BR/><BR/>I didn't know Alice's first husband was poisoned! She married Neville shortly after 14 Jan 1327, after Hugh requested a licence for them to marry - Calendar of Patent Rolls 1324-27, p. 345.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-37877672844925876982008-11-05T07:39:00.000+00:002008-11-05T07:39:00.000+00:00Gabriele: LOL, no, life certainly wasn't boring ar...Gabriele: LOL, no, life certainly wasn't boring around Ed II. ;)<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Christy! Glad to hear you visited Stratton Audley - I've never been there, unfortunately. And you're right, these people's lives are fascinating.<BR/><BR/>Ceirseach: yes, Hugh does tend to get passed over rather a lot, poor man! I love discovering new letters, etc, which shine a bit more light on people's lives - I was well chuffed to read the names of Hugh's horses. Little details like this really bring the people to life.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.com