The turbulent reign of Edward II and its immediate aftermath - the first few years of his son's reign, before he took over the governance of his kingdom himself - saw no fewer than six earls executed in eighteen years. This is especially astonishing given that the last English earl executed before Edward II's time was Waltheof, way back in 1076 - although the Scottish earl of Atholl, John de Strathbogie, was executed in London in November 1306, near the end of Edward I's reign.
The six earls were:
- Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall at the time of his death on 19 June 1312 (at least, Edward II thought he was). Run through with a sword then beheaded on Blacklow Hill after his third return from exile. He was about twenty-nine or thirty.
- Thomas of Lancaster, earl of Lancaster, Leicester, Derby, Lincoln and Salisbury, executed on 22 March 1322, officially for treason - or for killing Piers Gaveston ten years earlier, depending on your point of view. He was taken out of his castle of Pontefract on a horse described as a "lean white jade without bridle" to a hill nearby - apparently because Edward II was deliberately arranging his execution as a parody of Gaveston's - and pelted with snowballs by a jeering crowd. He was made to kneel facing Scotland, as he'd been accused of treacherously conspiring with the Scots, and beheaded, Edward having respited the punishments of hanging, drawing and quartering in consideration of his royal blood. He was about forty-three or forty-four.
- Andrew Harclay, earl of Carlisle, hanged, drawn and quartered at Carlisle on 3 March 1323, for overstepping his authority by agreeing peace terms with Robert Bruce. Previously, he had been stripped of his earldom by having his sword ungirded and his spurs cut from his heels. His head was sent to Edward II at Knaresborough for inspection, then placed on London Bridge, while the quarters of his body were displayed in Carlisle, Newcastle, Bristol and Shrewsbury. In 1328, his sister finally received permission to bury his remains. The earldom of Carlisle, which Harclay had been granted slightly less than a year before his death, lay dormant until 1622. He was probably in his early fifties.
- Hugh Despenser the Elder, earl of Winchester, hanged, drawn and quartered at Bristol on 26 October 1326 at the orders of Roger Mortimer, Queen Isabella, Henry of Lancaster, and others. One of his crimes was complicity in the earl of Lancaster's execution; the fact that the earl of Kent, one of his judges, had also condemned Lancaster to death doesn't seem to have bothered anybody. His head was sent to Winchester, "where you were earl against law and reason," and his body thrown to dogs. He was sixty-five.
- Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, beheaded in Hereford on 17 November 1326 on the orders of Roger Mortimer, evidently without a trial. According to the Llandaff chronicle, a "worthless wretch" wielded the axe, and took twenty-two strokes to sever his head. Arundel's body was later moved to Haughmond Abbey near Shrewsbury, to lie with his ancestors, and his son restored to the inheritance by Edward III in late 1330. He was forty-one.
- Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, beheaded on 19 March 1330 at Winchester for attempting to rescue his half-brother Edward II from prison. He was kept around waiting all day, as the executioner fled, and nobody willing to perform the sentence on a king's son whose execution was nothing more than judicial murder could be found. Finally, a latrine cleaner under sentence of death himself beheaded him in exchange for his own freedom. Kent was twenty-eight.
- Roger Mortimer, earl of March, dragged from the Tower to Tyburn and hanged naked on 29 November 1330, having been accused of numerous crimes by Edward III. He was forty-three.
In addition to these six earls, two others died in battle: Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who fell at Bannockburn on 24 June 1314, and Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, who died a terrible death at Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322.
The earls of Edward II's reign who died a natural death, at least as far as we know - Lincoln in 1311, Warwick in 1315, Pembroke in 1324, Norfolk in 1338, Henry, earl of Lancaster and Leicester in 1345, Surrey in 1347 - could count their blessings!
30 July, 2008
24 July, 2008
Edward II's Possessions, 1326
Following the post on Edward II's treasure of 1312, here's one on the possessions he took to Wales with him in 1326.
In autumn that year, Edward fled to South Wales after Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer's invasion forces landed in Suffolk. He and Hugh Despenser spent some time at Despenser's castle of Caerphilly. After they left (and were captured) the castle held out under siege until March 1327, when the garrison finally surrendered on being promised pardons.
An inventory was made of Edward II and Hugh Despenser's possessions found within the castle, which is printed in full (translated into English) in William Rees's Caerphilly Castle and its Place in the Annals of Glamorgan. Here are some of the many thousands of things listed:
- 26 barrels, each containing £500, and another barrel containing £1000, which was Despenser's
- a counterpane of red sendal, lined with green sendal (a fine silk) for Edward's bed
- a coverlet lined with minver (expensive fur)
- a canopy and curtains of red sendal, for the bed
- 4 cushions of purple velvet and 4 of red samite (another kind of silk, heavier than sendal)
- 2 caps of white beaver, 1 lined with black velvet and powdered with gold trefoils, the other lined with green velvet
- a black cap lined with red velvet, powdered with butterflies and "diverse beasts" in white pearls
- Edward's red retiring-robe, decorated with threads of saffron, and bears (cuuuuute!)
- a silver-gilt goblet, enamelled, engraved with baboons
- the 4 gospels, painted (?), for use in Edward's chamber
- 3 pairs of Gascon spurs, gilt, with silk cords
- an ornamented chain for greyhounds
- a sword garnished with silver-gilt, with the arms of Castile, and a girdle and scabbard with the same pattern
- a fine sword with a girdle and scabbard of gold, embroidered with silver eaglets
- 7 sacks for clothes, of which 4 were worn and 2 of those 4 had no straps
- 2 rolls and 9 ells of worsted, in green, red and saffron
- 18 towels, of which 12 were very worn
- vast amounts of food, including: 64 new carcases of oxen and 14 old carcases, 14 score carcases of mutton, 20 new and 52 old hams, 1956 stockfish (they counted every one!), 71 and a half quarters of new beans and 41 quarters of old beans, 4 score and 11 salted ox-hides, 3 tuns of vinegar and 3 of honey
- 6 tuns of red wine and 1 of white, of which 10 inches were lacking, and 1 tun of raspay, of which 7 inches were lacking (wine from Raspay, not far from Alicante, on the south-eastern coast of Spain).
- a silver boat, with 4 silver wheels and 2 dragons' heads, at each end
- 44 silver goblets, 272 silver dishes and 279 silver saucers marked with a leopard
- 1 chest of hide (leather) for 2 urinals
- Many thousands of items of military clothing and equipment, including: 40 aketons, 1 of which was of green camaca covered with red kid; 35 hauberks; 1 pair of 'frettes' with 50 pewter eyelets; 2 pieces of white stag's hide for 1 sword girdle; 1130 bolts with hedgehog quills; 1 pair of large gauntlets of doeskin, lined with coney; and about 5 zillion other things that mean absolutely nothing to me. (Gisarmes? Ventails? Gasingales? Jazerants? Pisans? Bidowes? '4 sutturres, twisted, of red silk' and '9 Gascon sutturres'?)
Again, it's great that this detailed inventory has survived to give us an insight into fourteenth-century possessions! (Even though I'm admittedly clueless about lots of it.)
In autumn that year, Edward fled to South Wales after Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer's invasion forces landed in Suffolk. He and Hugh Despenser spent some time at Despenser's castle of Caerphilly. After they left (and were captured) the castle held out under siege until March 1327, when the garrison finally surrendered on being promised pardons.
An inventory was made of Edward II and Hugh Despenser's possessions found within the castle, which is printed in full (translated into English) in William Rees's Caerphilly Castle and its Place in the Annals of Glamorgan. Here are some of the many thousands of things listed:
- 26 barrels, each containing £500, and another barrel containing £1000, which was Despenser's
- a counterpane of red sendal, lined with green sendal (a fine silk) for Edward's bed
- a coverlet lined with minver (expensive fur)
- a canopy and curtains of red sendal, for the bed
- 4 cushions of purple velvet and 4 of red samite (another kind of silk, heavier than sendal)
- 2 caps of white beaver, 1 lined with black velvet and powdered with gold trefoils, the other lined with green velvet
- a black cap lined with red velvet, powdered with butterflies and "diverse beasts" in white pearls
- Edward's red retiring-robe, decorated with threads of saffron, and bears (cuuuuute!)
- a silver-gilt goblet, enamelled, engraved with baboons
- the 4 gospels, painted (?), for use in Edward's chamber
- 3 pairs of Gascon spurs, gilt, with silk cords
- an ornamented chain for greyhounds
- a sword garnished with silver-gilt, with the arms of Castile, and a girdle and scabbard with the same pattern
- a fine sword with a girdle and scabbard of gold, embroidered with silver eaglets
- 7 sacks for clothes, of which 4 were worn and 2 of those 4 had no straps
- 2 rolls and 9 ells of worsted, in green, red and saffron
- 18 towels, of which 12 were very worn
- vast amounts of food, including: 64 new carcases of oxen and 14 old carcases, 14 score carcases of mutton, 20 new and 52 old hams, 1956 stockfish (they counted every one!), 71 and a half quarters of new beans and 41 quarters of old beans, 4 score and 11 salted ox-hides, 3 tuns of vinegar and 3 of honey
- 6 tuns of red wine and 1 of white, of which 10 inches were lacking, and 1 tun of raspay, of which 7 inches were lacking (wine from Raspay, not far from Alicante, on the south-eastern coast of Spain).
- a silver boat, with 4 silver wheels and 2 dragons' heads, at each end
- 44 silver goblets, 272 silver dishes and 279 silver saucers marked with a leopard
- 1 chest of hide (leather) for 2 urinals
- Many thousands of items of military clothing and equipment, including: 40 aketons, 1 of which was of green camaca covered with red kid; 35 hauberks; 1 pair of 'frettes' with 50 pewter eyelets; 2 pieces of white stag's hide for 1 sword girdle; 1130 bolts with hedgehog quills; 1 pair of large gauntlets of doeskin, lined with coney; and about 5 zillion other things that mean absolutely nothing to me. (Gisarmes? Ventails? Gasingales? Jazerants? Pisans? Bidowes? '4 sutturres, twisted, of red silk' and '9 Gascon sutturres'?)
Again, it's great that this detailed inventory has survived to give us an insight into fourteenth-century possessions! (Even though I'm admittedly clueless about lots of it.)
18 July, 2008
Time Travelling, and Terrible Kings
My favourite historian, Ian Mortimer, has a new book coming out in October, called The Time-Traveller's Guide to Medieval England. It's a brilliantly original concept - a travel guide to fourteenth-century England as though it were a place you could visit, with tons of information on what to wear, what to eat and where to stay, how to greet people in the street, what you'll see when you enter a town or travel through the countryside, and loads more. It's available for pre-order on Amazon, and you should definitely buy it, because it's absolutely fantastic. There's more info on the author's website.
I've just finished reading Marc Morris's new biography of Edward II's dad, A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain, which I enjoyed a lot. Definitely recommended, it provides a thorough chronological overview of Edward's long and extremely eventful life, with his campaigns in Wales and Scotland, his survival of an assassination attempt in the Holy Land, his struggles against Simon de Montfort in the 1260s, and all the rest.
Finally, an article appeared in the British newspaper the Daily Mail a couple of days ago - the ten worst monarchs in British history. With his great-grandson Richard II, Edward II is only the joint fourth worst king ever! Yay! Disappointingly, but by no means unexpectedly, the article repeats the red-hot poker myth as fact, and describes Edward as "the utterly pathetic bisexual Edward II." It describes the red-hot poker method as "A nasty way to go, but if anyone deserved it, it was he." That's pretty horrible. How could anyone deserve to die in such a hideous manner? (It also gets Hugh Despenser's date of death wrong, she said pedantically.)
Hope the weather's better where you are. It's a whopping 16 degrees here, barely even 60F. In the middle of July!
I've just finished reading Marc Morris's new biography of Edward II's dad, A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain, which I enjoyed a lot. Definitely recommended, it provides a thorough chronological overview of Edward's long and extremely eventful life, with his campaigns in Wales and Scotland, his survival of an assassination attempt in the Holy Land, his struggles against Simon de Montfort in the 1260s, and all the rest.
Finally, an article appeared in the British newspaper the Daily Mail a couple of days ago - the ten worst monarchs in British history. With his great-grandson Richard II, Edward II is only the joint fourth worst king ever! Yay! Disappointingly, but by no means unexpectedly, the article repeats the red-hot poker myth as fact, and describes Edward as "the utterly pathetic bisexual Edward II." It describes the red-hot poker method as "A nasty way to go, but if anyone deserved it, it was he." That's pretty horrible. How could anyone deserve to die in such a hideous manner? (It also gets Hugh Despenser's date of death wrong, she said pedantically.)
Hope the weather's better where you are. It's a whopping 16 degrees here, barely even 60F. In the middle of July!
13 July, 2008
Edward II and Piers Gaveston's Treasure, 1312
In early May 1312, Edward II and Piers Gaveston fled from Tynemouth to Scarborough - a distance of about ninety miles - in order to escape Edward's cousin, Thomas, earl of Lancaster, who was slowly making his way north in order to capture Piers after his return to England from his third exile. The Vita Edwardi Secundi says, poetically, about Lancaster's journey, "Thus Thomas flies by night and hides by day/And to check rumour slowly wends his way." (In the original Latin: Sic Thomas de nocte uolat, sub luce moratur/ Ut lateat, modicum cursum ne fama loquatur).
Lancaster's arrival took Edward and Piers completely by surprise, and they escaped him by only a few hours. In doing so, they were forced to leave behind their enormous baggage train, which Lancaster duly took possession of. Edward fumed over the loss of his many valuable belongings, and pointed out a few months later that "if any lesser man had done it, he could be found guilty of theft and rightly condemned by a verdict of robbery with violence." Lancaster made an inventory of the possessions and claimed that he fully intended to return them to the king, though Edward had to wait until the end of February 1313 before he received them.
The full list of Edward and Piers' possessions - most of them were Edward's - is given in Foedera, and is also printed (in the French original) in Pierre Chaplais' Piers Gaveston: Edward II's Adoptive Brother, and in English in J. S. Hamilton's Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall 1307-1312. Edward's possessions were finally returned to him on 23 February 1313, and four days later, he also received an inventory of everything Lancaster had taken.
The inventory includes many hundreds of splendid and costly items, including:
- sixty-three horses: forty-one destriers and coursers, one palfrey, nine pack horses and twelve cart horses.
- a gold cup, enamelled with jewels, bequeathed to Edward "with her blessing" by Eleanor of Castile, the mother he had barely known, which must have held great sentimental value for him.
- several items that Edward's sisters had given him: two "stones with enamelled sides" and a gold clasp from Margaret, duchess of Brabant; another gold clasp from Elizabeth, countess of Hereford; an enamelled silver mirror and relic from Eleanor, countess of Bar, who died in 1298 when Edward was fourteen.
- a buckle of gold with two emeralds, two rubies, two sapphires and eleven pearls, with a cameo in the middle, a present to Edward from the queen of Germany (I presume this means either Elisabeth of Görz-Tirol, wife of Albrecht I, or Margaret of Brabant, wife of Heinrich VII; Elisabeth attended Edward's wedding, and Margaret was the sister of Edward's brother-in-law Duke Jan II of Brabant).
- a gold ring containing a great ruby called 'the Cherry' (la cerise), belonging to Edward. The name gives a good indication of how big it must have been.
- another great ruby set in gold, worth a staggering £1000, which was found on Piers' body after his execution, I mean murder, and was probably a gift to him from Edward. Also found on Piers' body were "three large rubies in rings, an emerald, a diamond of great value, in a silver box," and "two vessels, a large and a small, and in the small a hanging key, a sterling cord and a chalcedony." (Whatever a 'sterling cord' is.)
- a belt "decorated with ivory, notched with a purse hanging down from it, with a Saracen face," a belt made of lion skin, decorated in gold with a cameo, one of silver with enamelled silver escutcheons, one with bands of silver and gold, and two of silk, covered with pearls.
- a gold crown encrusted with jewels, worth 100 marks.
- a gold ring with a sapphire, which St Dunstan (archbishop of Canterbury, died 988) supposedly "forged with his own hands."
- a gold eagle with rubies, emeralds, sapphires and pearls, containing relics of St Richard of Chichester (died 1253), and a gold dragon with enamelled wings.
- numerous silver salt cellars, spoons, cups, goblets, saucers and pots, numerous gold-plated silver pots and cups, and a pair of gold-plated silver basins, belonging to Piers, with his coat of arms on them.
-a silver ship with four gold oars, enamelled on the sides.
- three silver forks, for eating pears (trois furchestes dargent pur mangier poires; these belonged to Piers, and he was famous for them, a good 300 years before forks caught on in England!)
- 100 silver shields, marked with an eagle, a suit of armour belonging to Piers, and two pairs of iron leg-armour (jambers).
- various garments embroidered with Piers' arms, the shoulders decorated and embroidered with pearls, and twenty-five pieces of cloth from diverse garments, of diverse colours.
- a fur-backed altar frontal of green cloth, powdered (poudre) with gold birds and fishes.
And many hundreds of other luxurious and expensive items. The sheer number of rings and jewels is truly astonishing. Edward II must have walked around positively dripping with wildly expensive jewellery. However, the inventory also lists a handful of rather less desirable objects:
- a helmet, brown with neglect (un bacenet burny od surcils).
- a remnant of green silk.
- an old banner embroidered with Piers' arms (six eaglets).
- a plate of scrap silver.
- an old enamelled vessel, and three chaplets "of little value."
For all Edward II's annoyance with his cousin Lancaster for seizing his belongings, I can only say, thank goodness he did, or otherwise we wouldn't have this fascinating insight into the kinds of things very rich people of the fourteenth century owned and prized.
Lancaster's arrival took Edward and Piers completely by surprise, and they escaped him by only a few hours. In doing so, they were forced to leave behind their enormous baggage train, which Lancaster duly took possession of. Edward fumed over the loss of his many valuable belongings, and pointed out a few months later that "if any lesser man had done it, he could be found guilty of theft and rightly condemned by a verdict of robbery with violence." Lancaster made an inventory of the possessions and claimed that he fully intended to return them to the king, though Edward had to wait until the end of February 1313 before he received them.
The full list of Edward and Piers' possessions - most of them were Edward's - is given in Foedera, and is also printed (in the French original) in Pierre Chaplais' Piers Gaveston: Edward II's Adoptive Brother, and in English in J. S. Hamilton's Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall 1307-1312. Edward's possessions were finally returned to him on 23 February 1313, and four days later, he also received an inventory of everything Lancaster had taken.
The inventory includes many hundreds of splendid and costly items, including:
- sixty-three horses: forty-one destriers and coursers, one palfrey, nine pack horses and twelve cart horses.
- a gold cup, enamelled with jewels, bequeathed to Edward "with her blessing" by Eleanor of Castile, the mother he had barely known, which must have held great sentimental value for him.
- several items that Edward's sisters had given him: two "stones with enamelled sides" and a gold clasp from Margaret, duchess of Brabant; another gold clasp from Elizabeth, countess of Hereford; an enamelled silver mirror and relic from Eleanor, countess of Bar, who died in 1298 when Edward was fourteen.
- a buckle of gold with two emeralds, two rubies, two sapphires and eleven pearls, with a cameo in the middle, a present to Edward from the queen of Germany (I presume this means either Elisabeth of Görz-Tirol, wife of Albrecht I, or Margaret of Brabant, wife of Heinrich VII; Elisabeth attended Edward's wedding, and Margaret was the sister of Edward's brother-in-law Duke Jan II of Brabant).
- a gold ring containing a great ruby called 'the Cherry' (la cerise), belonging to Edward. The name gives a good indication of how big it must have been.
- another great ruby set in gold, worth a staggering £1000, which was found on Piers' body after his execution, I mean murder, and was probably a gift to him from Edward. Also found on Piers' body were "three large rubies in rings, an emerald, a diamond of great value, in a silver box," and "two vessels, a large and a small, and in the small a hanging key, a sterling cord and a chalcedony." (Whatever a 'sterling cord' is.)
- a belt "decorated with ivory, notched with a purse hanging down from it, with a Saracen face," a belt made of lion skin, decorated in gold with a cameo, one of silver with enamelled silver escutcheons, one with bands of silver and gold, and two of silk, covered with pearls.
- a gold crown encrusted with jewels, worth 100 marks.
- a gold ring with a sapphire, which St Dunstan (archbishop of Canterbury, died 988) supposedly "forged with his own hands."
- a gold eagle with rubies, emeralds, sapphires and pearls, containing relics of St Richard of Chichester (died 1253), and a gold dragon with enamelled wings.
- numerous silver salt cellars, spoons, cups, goblets, saucers and pots, numerous gold-plated silver pots and cups, and a pair of gold-plated silver basins, belonging to Piers, with his coat of arms on them.
-a silver ship with four gold oars, enamelled on the sides.
- three silver forks, for eating pears (trois furchestes dargent pur mangier poires; these belonged to Piers, and he was famous for them, a good 300 years before forks caught on in England!)
- 100 silver shields, marked with an eagle, a suit of armour belonging to Piers, and two pairs of iron leg-armour (jambers).
- various garments embroidered with Piers' arms, the shoulders decorated and embroidered with pearls, and twenty-five pieces of cloth from diverse garments, of diverse colours.
- a fur-backed altar frontal of green cloth, powdered (poudre) with gold birds and fishes.
And many hundreds of other luxurious and expensive items. The sheer number of rings and jewels is truly astonishing. Edward II must have walked around positively dripping with wildly expensive jewellery. However, the inventory also lists a handful of rather less desirable objects:
- a helmet, brown with neglect (un bacenet burny od surcils).
- a remnant of green silk.
- an old banner embroidered with Piers' arms (six eaglets).
- a plate of scrap silver.
- an old enamelled vessel, and three chaplets "of little value."
For all Edward II's annoyance with his cousin Lancaster for seizing his belongings, I can only say, thank goodness he did, or otherwise we wouldn't have this fascinating insight into the kinds of things very rich people of the fourteenth century owned and prized.
05 July, 2008
The Saint's Two Bodies
In which Edward II puzzles over the fact that St Alban appears to be buried in two places
In late March and early April 1314, Edward II spent a few days at St Albans Abbey, which was only eight miles from his childhood residence of (Kings) Langley and must have been a place he knew well. Edward made an offering to the abbey of a gold cross decorated with precious stones, supposedly containing relics of St Alban himself (he was the first British Christian martyr, and probably died in the early fourth century). While there, Edward learned that his father had intended to rebuild the choir, and gave the monks a hundred marks and quantities of timber for the purpose, ordering that no expense should be spared in honouring God and St Alban.
Edward then moved on the seventy miles to Ely near Cambridge, where he celebrated Easter Sunday, 7 April, at the cathedral. St Albans Abbey possessed the body of St Alban, but Ely Cathedral owned a reliquary which they described as ‘St Alban’s.’ According to the St Albans monks/chroniclers Trokelowe and Walsingham, a curious Edward ordered the monks to open the reliquary, telling John Ketton, bishop of Ely, "You know that my brothers of St Albans believe that they possess the body of the martyr. In this place the monks say that they have the body of the same saint. By God’s soul, I want to see in which place I ought chiefly to pay reverence to the remains of that holy body."
The monks went pale, assuming that either they would be accused of deceit, or forced to give up the relics, which brought in large revenues from pilgrims, to St Albans Abbey. Edward raised the lid of the reliquary himself, and discovered that it was full of rough cloth, spattered with blood that appeared fresh, as if spilt only the day before, and declared that it was the clothes worn by the saint at the time of his maryrdom, a millennium earlier. All the spectators fell to their knees at this miracle, including Edward, presumably - though he was the only one who had the nerve to close the lid.
Edward spent the remainder of his stay at Ely in high spirits, talking much of St Alban and praising the divine providence that had allowed two locations to possess relics of the famous martyr. On his departure, he gave the monks of Ely many gifts and told them, "Rejoice in the gift of God, rejoice in the sanctity and merits of so great a martyr; for if, as you say, God does many miracles here by reason of his garment, you may believe that at St Albans he does more, by reason of the most holy body that rests there."
For all the contemporary criticism of him - that he lost Bannockburn because he didn't spend enough time hearing Mass, and the odd comment by the Lanercost chronicler in 1314 that he "did and said things to the prejudice and injury of the saints" - there's no doubt that Edward II was sincerely and genuinely pious. He and Queen Isabella especially venerated St Thomas Becket, and often went on pilgrimage to Canterbury. In May 1300, when he'd just turned sixteen, Edward and his father stayed at Bury St Edmunds Abbey in Suffolk. Edward I soon left, but Edward stayed on a week longer, enjoying the peace and solitude. According to the St Edmundsbury Chronicle, "He became our brother in chapter. The magnificence of the place and the frequent recreations of the brethren pleased him greatly. Every day, moreover, he asked to be served with a monk's portion such as the brothers take in refectory."
The statement "The magnificence of the place and the frequent recreations of the brethren pleased him greatly" sums up the contradictory Edward nicely - a man who loved costly and luxurious clothes, jewels and surroundings and was described by the chronicler Ranulph Higden as "bountiful and splendid in living," yet who also loved rustic pursuits like digging and thatching, and who built himself a hut to live in at Westminster.
In December 1308, when he was twenty-four, Edward founded the Dominican priory at Langley where he later buried Piers Gaveston, and endowed it generously. Apparently, the foundation was "in fulfilment of a vow made by the king in peril" (Patent Rolls), whenever that might have been. In 1326, he founded a college of Carmelite friars at Oxford, supposedly in gratitude for escaping from the field of Bannockburn (according to the fourteenth-century chronicler Geoffrey le Baker), which became Oriel College.
Edward strongly favoured the Dominicans (the Friars Preacher or Blackfriars), who reciprocated his support in full measure, and often stayed at one of their houses when attending parliament, for example at Stamford in the summer of 1309 and in London in the autumn of 1311. It was of course the Dominicans of Oxford who took care of Piers Gaveston's body between June 1312 and his burial in January 1315. This is not a coincidence.
Edward often asked the Dominicans to pray for himself, "our very dear consort" the queen, and their children, for example on 30 August 1316, fifteen days after the birth of their second son John of Eltham: "To the prior-provincial of the order of the friars preacher of England...Request for their prayers on behalf of the king, his very dear consort queen Isabella, Edward de Wyndesore [Windsor], the king's eldest son, and John de Eltham, his youngest son, especially on account of John." (Close Rolls/Foedera; I find that last bit really sweet!)
In April 1317, Edward even asked the Dominicans of Pamplona, for some reason, to pray for the royal family: "To the master and diffinitores of the chapter-general of the Friars Preacher about to assemble in Pampeluna in Arragon. Request for their prayers for the good estate of the king, his very dear consort queen Isabella, Edward de Wyndesore his eldest son, and John de Eltham his youngest son, and that they will cause them to be commended in like wise by the other friars of their order."
Edward II also enjoyed excellent relations with the papacy throughout his reign, and several of his bishops, William Melton, archbishop of York, Stephen Gravesend of London, John Ros of Carlisle, and Hamo Hethe of Rochester, had a genuine and long-lasting affection for him - not to mention all the clerics of various orders who gladly joined the Dunheved gang in 1327 and Kent's conspiracy in 1330 to fight (and die) for him. I do wonder sometimes how Edward reconciled his deep and sincere religious beliefs with the fact that he loved men, which the Church of course considered sinful and evil. Maybe it caused him a great deal of emotional pain and torment. Given how many churchmen served Edward faithfully, I can only suppose that they were willing to overlook his 'sin' - and it's worth pointing out that one of the men most dedicated to helping Edward in 1327 was Thomas Dunheved, his former confessor.
In late March and early April 1314, Edward II spent a few days at St Albans Abbey, which was only eight miles from his childhood residence of (Kings) Langley and must have been a place he knew well. Edward made an offering to the abbey of a gold cross decorated with precious stones, supposedly containing relics of St Alban himself (he was the first British Christian martyr, and probably died in the early fourth century). While there, Edward learned that his father had intended to rebuild the choir, and gave the monks a hundred marks and quantities of timber for the purpose, ordering that no expense should be spared in honouring God and St Alban.
Edward then moved on the seventy miles to Ely near Cambridge, where he celebrated Easter Sunday, 7 April, at the cathedral. St Albans Abbey possessed the body of St Alban, but Ely Cathedral owned a reliquary which they described as ‘St Alban’s.’ According to the St Albans monks/chroniclers Trokelowe and Walsingham, a curious Edward ordered the monks to open the reliquary, telling John Ketton, bishop of Ely, "You know that my brothers of St Albans believe that they possess the body of the martyr. In this place the monks say that they have the body of the same saint. By God’s soul, I want to see in which place I ought chiefly to pay reverence to the remains of that holy body."
The monks went pale, assuming that either they would be accused of deceit, or forced to give up the relics, which brought in large revenues from pilgrims, to St Albans Abbey. Edward raised the lid of the reliquary himself, and discovered that it was full of rough cloth, spattered with blood that appeared fresh, as if spilt only the day before, and declared that it was the clothes worn by the saint at the time of his maryrdom, a millennium earlier. All the spectators fell to their knees at this miracle, including Edward, presumably - though he was the only one who had the nerve to close the lid.
Edward spent the remainder of his stay at Ely in high spirits, talking much of St Alban and praising the divine providence that had allowed two locations to possess relics of the famous martyr. On his departure, he gave the monks of Ely many gifts and told them, "Rejoice in the gift of God, rejoice in the sanctity and merits of so great a martyr; for if, as you say, God does many miracles here by reason of his garment, you may believe that at St Albans he does more, by reason of the most holy body that rests there."
For all the contemporary criticism of him - that he lost Bannockburn because he didn't spend enough time hearing Mass, and the odd comment by the Lanercost chronicler in 1314 that he "did and said things to the prejudice and injury of the saints" - there's no doubt that Edward II was sincerely and genuinely pious. He and Queen Isabella especially venerated St Thomas Becket, and often went on pilgrimage to Canterbury. In May 1300, when he'd just turned sixteen, Edward and his father stayed at Bury St Edmunds Abbey in Suffolk. Edward I soon left, but Edward stayed on a week longer, enjoying the peace and solitude. According to the St Edmundsbury Chronicle, "He became our brother in chapter. The magnificence of the place and the frequent recreations of the brethren pleased him greatly. Every day, moreover, he asked to be served with a monk's portion such as the brothers take in refectory."
The statement "The magnificence of the place and the frequent recreations of the brethren pleased him greatly" sums up the contradictory Edward nicely - a man who loved costly and luxurious clothes, jewels and surroundings and was described by the chronicler Ranulph Higden as "bountiful and splendid in living," yet who also loved rustic pursuits like digging and thatching, and who built himself a hut to live in at Westminster.
In December 1308, when he was twenty-four, Edward founded the Dominican priory at Langley where he later buried Piers Gaveston, and endowed it generously. Apparently, the foundation was "in fulfilment of a vow made by the king in peril" (Patent Rolls), whenever that might have been. In 1326, he founded a college of Carmelite friars at Oxford, supposedly in gratitude for escaping from the field of Bannockburn (according to the fourteenth-century chronicler Geoffrey le Baker), which became Oriel College.
Edward strongly favoured the Dominicans (the Friars Preacher or Blackfriars), who reciprocated his support in full measure, and often stayed at one of their houses when attending parliament, for example at Stamford in the summer of 1309 and in London in the autumn of 1311. It was of course the Dominicans of Oxford who took care of Piers Gaveston's body between June 1312 and his burial in January 1315. This is not a coincidence.
Edward often asked the Dominicans to pray for himself, "our very dear consort" the queen, and their children, for example on 30 August 1316, fifteen days after the birth of their second son John of Eltham: "To the prior-provincial of the order of the friars preacher of England...Request for their prayers on behalf of the king, his very dear consort queen Isabella, Edward de Wyndesore [Windsor], the king's eldest son, and John de Eltham, his youngest son, especially on account of John." (Close Rolls/Foedera; I find that last bit really sweet!)
In April 1317, Edward even asked the Dominicans of Pamplona, for some reason, to pray for the royal family: "To the master and diffinitores of the chapter-general of the Friars Preacher about to assemble in Pampeluna in Arragon. Request for their prayers for the good estate of the king, his very dear consort queen Isabella, Edward de Wyndesore his eldest son, and John de Eltham his youngest son, and that they will cause them to be commended in like wise by the other friars of their order."
Edward II also enjoyed excellent relations with the papacy throughout his reign, and several of his bishops, William Melton, archbishop of York, Stephen Gravesend of London, John Ros of Carlisle, and Hamo Hethe of Rochester, had a genuine and long-lasting affection for him - not to mention all the clerics of various orders who gladly joined the Dunheved gang in 1327 and Kent's conspiracy in 1330 to fight (and die) for him. I do wonder sometimes how Edward reconciled his deep and sincere religious beliefs with the fact that he loved men, which the Church of course considered sinful and evil. Maybe it caused him a great deal of emotional pain and torment. Given how many churchmen served Edward faithfully, I can only suppose that they were willing to overlook his 'sin' - and it's worth pointing out that one of the men most dedicated to helping Edward in 1327 was Thomas Dunheved, his former confessor.
01 July, 2008
Books
Some great news - a new novel on Edward II and Piers Gaveston, The Ruling Passion by David Pownall, is coming out very soon. The blurb says "England, 1303: When Edward, prince of Wales, met Piers Gaveston, it was the start of a passionate and defiant relationship that was to bring England to the brink of civil war." Yay! There can never be enough books on Edward and Piers, in my opinion. I'm dying to read this one.
A book I strongly recommend is Leslie Carroll's Royal Affairs, which was published a few weeks ago. It's a look at English royal adultery down the centuries, beginning with the Angevins and ending with Prince Charles and Camilla - the kind of book you can either read cover to cover, or dip in and out of. Royal Affairs is one of those rare history books that manages to be both impeccably researched and historically accurate, and wildly entertaining. I loved it.
Another good book I've read recently is D. J. Birmingham's The Queen's Tale, published by Xlibris, which tells the story of John de Bermingham, earl of Louth, in Edward II's reign. A very well-written and interesting novel, which helpfully includes genealogical tables, and portrays Edward II rather sympathetically. I don't want to give the story away, but let's just say that the author doesn't follow the traditional narrative of Edward's death...Definitely recommended.
I read another novel recently, which shall remain nameless, wherein Edward II is not the biological father of Edward III. This, unfortunately, led to a book-wall interface. That's at least six novels/films now that claim Edward was not his son's father, and I AM SICK TO DEATH OF IT. In this one, Isabella conceives her son while she and Edward are apart for months on end. Are we supposed to believe that people in the fourteenth century were so ignorant they wouldn't have noticed? And if anyone else is thinking of including this incredibly unlikely scenario in a novel, can they please read this post first?
Candidates for for the father of Edward III, born 13 November 1312:
- William Wallace, in that Hollywood film, you know the one I mean, executed 23 August 1305.
- Edward I, died 7 July 1307, from this page, where it's stated "most historians DO believe it was Edward Longshanks that fathered the child, and not Edward II." Yes, because they had the technology to freeze sperm 700 years ago.
- Roger Mortimer, in a 1982 novel, and the self-published novel mentioned above: this would be pretty miraculous, as he was in Ireland when Edward III was conceived. And also in the page linked above, "At the time of Edward III's birth, she [Isabella] was pretty much exclusive with Roger Mortimer." Funny, I didn't know Isabella and Mortimer were American teenagers. The problem is, this kind of uninformed and ignorant crap stays online forever, and goodness knows how many people read it and believe it.
- an unnamed Scotsman, in a 2006 novel, when Isabella was abandoned in Scotland by her husband: Isabella was nowhere near Scotland when she became pregnant.
And finally, on a lighter note, here are some recent blog searches:
causes of elibeth 1s reighn
knights templar arrested 1307 o'clock Philip IV checked his watch and said "Right lads, it's just after 1pm. Time to go get 'em."
last bishop strangled entrails tyrant
queen isabella and her gay.. Gay what?
Did queen isabella have an affair will william wallece Again!!!
letter from a wife to husband blaming him to be impartial to his own relatives a
king john's penis entrails Eeeewwww!!
Meet your 27th cousin, once removed, - Edward William Fitzalan-Howard, current and 18th Duke of Norfolk.
after a few minutes he died suffocating to death
facts on edwand from life with derek
Which Princess was sent by her father to live in the castle of the Marcher Lords?
A book I strongly recommend is Leslie Carroll's Royal Affairs, which was published a few weeks ago. It's a look at English royal adultery down the centuries, beginning with the Angevins and ending with Prince Charles and Camilla - the kind of book you can either read cover to cover, or dip in and out of. Royal Affairs is one of those rare history books that manages to be both impeccably researched and historically accurate, and wildly entertaining. I loved it.
Another good book I've read recently is D. J. Birmingham's The Queen's Tale, published by Xlibris, which tells the story of John de Bermingham, earl of Louth, in Edward II's reign. A very well-written and interesting novel, which helpfully includes genealogical tables, and portrays Edward II rather sympathetically. I don't want to give the story away, but let's just say that the author doesn't follow the traditional narrative of Edward's death...Definitely recommended.
I read another novel recently, which shall remain nameless, wherein Edward II is not the biological father of Edward III. This, unfortunately, led to a book-wall interface. That's at least six novels/films now that claim Edward was not his son's father, and I AM SICK TO DEATH OF IT. In this one, Isabella conceives her son while she and Edward are apart for months on end. Are we supposed to believe that people in the fourteenth century were so ignorant they wouldn't have noticed? And if anyone else is thinking of including this incredibly unlikely scenario in a novel, can they please read this post first?
Candidates for for the father of Edward III, born 13 November 1312:
- William Wallace, in that Hollywood film, you know the one I mean, executed 23 August 1305.
- Edward I, died 7 July 1307, from this page, where it's stated "most historians DO believe it was Edward Longshanks that fathered the child, and not Edward II." Yes, because they had the technology to freeze sperm 700 years ago.
- Roger Mortimer, in a 1982 novel, and the self-published novel mentioned above: this would be pretty miraculous, as he was in Ireland when Edward III was conceived. And also in the page linked above, "At the time of Edward III's birth, she [Isabella] was pretty much exclusive with Roger Mortimer." Funny, I didn't know Isabella and Mortimer were American teenagers. The problem is, this kind of uninformed and ignorant crap stays online forever, and goodness knows how many people read it and believe it.
- an unnamed Scotsman, in a 2006 novel, when Isabella was abandoned in Scotland by her husband: Isabella was nowhere near Scotland when she became pregnant.
And finally, on a lighter note, here are some recent blog searches:
causes of elibeth 1s reighn
knights templar arrested 1307 o'clock Philip IV checked his watch and said "Right lads, it's just after 1pm. Time to go get 'em."
last bishop strangled entrails tyrant
queen isabella and her gay.. Gay what?
Did queen isabella have an affair will william wallece Again!!!
letter from a wife to husband blaming him to be impartial to his own relatives a
king john's penis entrails Eeeewwww!!
Meet your 27th cousin, once removed, - Edward William Fitzalan-Howard, current and 18th Duke of Norfolk.
after a few minutes he died suffocating to death
facts on edwand from life with derek
Which Princess was sent by her father to live in the castle of the Marcher Lords?
24 June, 2008
Bannockburn
Today is the 694th anniversary of the second day of the battle of Bannockburn, fought near Stirling Castle on 23 and 24 June 1314. I don't have a lot to say on the battle itself - my brain is incapable of understanding military tactics and battles, and besides, there are lots of books and websites about it - so here are some lesser-known facts about the event.
Edward mustered a great army at Berwick, of between 15,000 and 20,000 men. It wasn't entirely an English army - there were archers from Wales, Irish soldiers, and knights from all over Europe. Some of Robert Bruce's Scottish enemies fought for Edward II too, including the young John Comyn, whose father John the Red Comyn had been stabbed to death by Robert Bruce in 1306. Comyn was killed. It's not clear if the earl of Ulster fought at Bannockburn, but he was with Edward II a month before the battle when Edward was mustering his army. Ulster was in a dificult position, as the father-in-law of Bruce, but also of Edward's nephew the earl of Gloucester.
Only three of Edward's earls fought for him at Bannockburn - his brother-in-law Hereford, who had drawn close to the king since his presence at Piers Gaveston's death, his nephew Gloucester, and his cousin Pembroke. Gloucester was killed, as he forgot to put on the surcoat identifying him as an earl. If the Scottish soldiers had known who he was, they would have captured him for ransom. Robert Bruce treated Gloucester's body with the utmost respect, and personally kept an overnight vigil over it. Although the men had never met (as far as I know), they were second cousins - Bruce's grandmother was a de Clare - and were married to sisters, Elizabeth and Maud de Burgh. Bruce sent Gloucester's body back to England with full honours and without demanding payment, as he had every right to do.
Many English barons fought for Edward II, however: Roger Mortimer, twenty-seven, and his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk, in his late fifties and a veteran of Edward I's Welsh wars of the late 1270s and early 1280s. Thomas, Lord Berkeley, who was almost seventy (he was born in 1245), his son Maurice, grandsons Thomas and Maurice, and grandson-in-law John Maltravers - yes, the Thomas Berkeley and John Maltravers of 1327 - Edward's French cousin Henry Beaumont, Hugh Despenser the Elder and Younger, Robert Clifford (who had besieged Piers Gaveston at Scarborough Castle in 1312), and Edward's steward Edmund Mauley, were some of the others. Clifford and Mauley were killed, the earls of Hereford and Angus taken prisoner.
Edward marched into Scotland with a baggage train that stretched back twenty leagues, including jewellery, napery, costly plate, and ecclesiastical vestments for celebrating the victory. He also ordered ships to Edinburgh with more things, and the personal possessions of the earl of Hereford alone required an entire ship. Edward, and others, acted as though all they had to do was turn up and they would win. This, of course, was a horrible mistake. The Lanercost Chronicle says that Edward marched with great pomp and elaborate state, purveying goods from monasteries as he passed, and, oddly, that he "did and said things to the prejudice and injury of the saints."
For all Edward's incompetence as a general, his personal courage in the battle is beyond question, and the chronicler Trokelowe says that he fought like a lion. At one point, his horse was killed beneath him, and Scottish soldiers rushed forward to capture him. Edward’s knights surrounded him, beating them off, and Edward managed to mount another horse, from the many running around the battlefield. Again, Scottish soldiers pressed forward to try to capture him, grabbing hold of his horse’s trappings. Edward "struck out so vigorously behind him with his mace there was none whom he touched that he did not fell to the ground" according to the Scalacronica of Sir Thomas Gray, whose father was captured at the battle.
After some hours, the ground wet with blood, dead bodies of horses and men underfoot, the earl of Pembroke realised the battle was lost. He grabbed Edward's reins and dragged, him, protesting, from the field. 500 knights, including Henry Beaumont and the younger Despenser, surrounded him, their only thought: protect the king. Philip Mowbray, the constable of Stirling Castle (Scottish but on Edward's side) refused to let them enter, sensibly, as Edward would be trapped there, surrounded by the Scottish army. All they could do was gallop the fifty miles to Dunbar, which must have taken many hours. Bruce's friend Sir James Douglas followed them all the way, picking off stragglers, so close that it was said the men had no time even to stop and pass water.
Edward and his men reached Dunbar, where his ally Patrick, earl of Dunbar, opened up the castle drawbridge for them. Edward and his knights jumped off their horses, leaving them outside, and ran inside the castle. Earl Patrick found a fishing boat, and Edward made his way to Bamburgh with a handful of attendants. From there, he made his way to Berwick overland. His remaining knights were forced to ride to Berwick, with James Douglas and his men close behind them, shedding their armour to speed their way. Edward was incredibly lucky to escape capture by Douglas, and in gratitude, founded Oriel College at Oxford some years later, according to Geoffrey le Baker.
And so the king returned to Berwick not at the head of a victorious army, but in flight, forced to travel by fishing boat. Queen Isabella supported Edward with her usual loyalty, and lent him her seal so that government business could continue, Edward's having been lost on the battlefield (Bruce returned it). She tended to his wounds herself, and even cleaned his armour.
The Vita says this about the defeat of Bannockburn: "O day of vengeance and disaster, day of utter loss and shame, evil and accursed day, not to be reckoned in our calendar; that blemished the reputation of the English."
As utterly humiliating as Edward's flight from the battlefield was, it was infinitely preferable to the two alternatives, his capture or his death. Being captured would have meant a cripplingly huge ransom, and the commentators who castigate him for his lack of military ability and cowardice would instead castigate him for his lack of military ability and his reckless stupidity. In fact, accusations of cowardice are grossly unfair, as even men who had no reason to like Edward admitted his bravery during the battle.
Edward's death in battle would have brought his nineteen-month-old son to the throne, which meant a regency of many years standing. And as events were shortly to prove, the men who replaced Edward in power were not one whit more competent than he was. A regency would have meant struggles for power, jockeying for position, while Bruce took advantage of the chaos.
Still, for the king of England, galloping away in ignominious flight from a battle he fully expected to win, the realisation that he had at least spared his country a crippling ransom or the perils of a long regency was probably no consolation whatsoever.
Edward mustered a great army at Berwick, of between 15,000 and 20,000 men. It wasn't entirely an English army - there were archers from Wales, Irish soldiers, and knights from all over Europe. Some of Robert Bruce's Scottish enemies fought for Edward II too, including the young John Comyn, whose father John the Red Comyn had been stabbed to death by Robert Bruce in 1306. Comyn was killed. It's not clear if the earl of Ulster fought at Bannockburn, but he was with Edward II a month before the battle when Edward was mustering his army. Ulster was in a dificult position, as the father-in-law of Bruce, but also of Edward's nephew the earl of Gloucester.
Only three of Edward's earls fought for him at Bannockburn - his brother-in-law Hereford, who had drawn close to the king since his presence at Piers Gaveston's death, his nephew Gloucester, and his cousin Pembroke. Gloucester was killed, as he forgot to put on the surcoat identifying him as an earl. If the Scottish soldiers had known who he was, they would have captured him for ransom. Robert Bruce treated Gloucester's body with the utmost respect, and personally kept an overnight vigil over it. Although the men had never met (as far as I know), they were second cousins - Bruce's grandmother was a de Clare - and were married to sisters, Elizabeth and Maud de Burgh. Bruce sent Gloucester's body back to England with full honours and without demanding payment, as he had every right to do.
Many English barons fought for Edward II, however: Roger Mortimer, twenty-seven, and his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk, in his late fifties and a veteran of Edward I's Welsh wars of the late 1270s and early 1280s. Thomas, Lord Berkeley, who was almost seventy (he was born in 1245), his son Maurice, grandsons Thomas and Maurice, and grandson-in-law John Maltravers - yes, the Thomas Berkeley and John Maltravers of 1327 - Edward's French cousin Henry Beaumont, Hugh Despenser the Elder and Younger, Robert Clifford (who had besieged Piers Gaveston at Scarborough Castle in 1312), and Edward's steward Edmund Mauley, were some of the others. Clifford and Mauley were killed, the earls of Hereford and Angus taken prisoner.
Edward marched into Scotland with a baggage train that stretched back twenty leagues, including jewellery, napery, costly plate, and ecclesiastical vestments for celebrating the victory. He also ordered ships to Edinburgh with more things, and the personal possessions of the earl of Hereford alone required an entire ship. Edward, and others, acted as though all they had to do was turn up and they would win. This, of course, was a horrible mistake. The Lanercost Chronicle says that Edward marched with great pomp and elaborate state, purveying goods from monasteries as he passed, and, oddly, that he "did and said things to the prejudice and injury of the saints."
For all Edward's incompetence as a general, his personal courage in the battle is beyond question, and the chronicler Trokelowe says that he fought like a lion. At one point, his horse was killed beneath him, and Scottish soldiers rushed forward to capture him. Edward’s knights surrounded him, beating them off, and Edward managed to mount another horse, from the many running around the battlefield. Again, Scottish soldiers pressed forward to try to capture him, grabbing hold of his horse’s trappings. Edward "struck out so vigorously behind him with his mace there was none whom he touched that he did not fell to the ground" according to the Scalacronica of Sir Thomas Gray, whose father was captured at the battle.
After some hours, the ground wet with blood, dead bodies of horses and men underfoot, the earl of Pembroke realised the battle was lost. He grabbed Edward's reins and dragged, him, protesting, from the field. 500 knights, including Henry Beaumont and the younger Despenser, surrounded him, their only thought: protect the king. Philip Mowbray, the constable of Stirling Castle (Scottish but on Edward's side) refused to let them enter, sensibly, as Edward would be trapped there, surrounded by the Scottish army. All they could do was gallop the fifty miles to Dunbar, which must have taken many hours. Bruce's friend Sir James Douglas followed them all the way, picking off stragglers, so close that it was said the men had no time even to stop and pass water.
Edward and his men reached Dunbar, where his ally Patrick, earl of Dunbar, opened up the castle drawbridge for them. Edward and his knights jumped off their horses, leaving them outside, and ran inside the castle. Earl Patrick found a fishing boat, and Edward made his way to Bamburgh with a handful of attendants. From there, he made his way to Berwick overland. His remaining knights were forced to ride to Berwick, with James Douglas and his men close behind them, shedding their armour to speed their way. Edward was incredibly lucky to escape capture by Douglas, and in gratitude, founded Oriel College at Oxford some years later, according to Geoffrey le Baker.
And so the king returned to Berwick not at the head of a victorious army, but in flight, forced to travel by fishing boat. Queen Isabella supported Edward with her usual loyalty, and lent him her seal so that government business could continue, Edward's having been lost on the battlefield (Bruce returned it). She tended to his wounds herself, and even cleaned his armour.
The Vita says this about the defeat of Bannockburn: "O day of vengeance and disaster, day of utter loss and shame, evil and accursed day, not to be reckoned in our calendar; that blemished the reputation of the English."
As utterly humiliating as Edward's flight from the battlefield was, it was infinitely preferable to the two alternatives, his capture or his death. Being captured would have meant a cripplingly huge ransom, and the commentators who castigate him for his lack of military ability and cowardice would instead castigate him for his lack of military ability and his reckless stupidity. In fact, accusations of cowardice are grossly unfair, as even men who had no reason to like Edward admitted his bravery during the battle.
Edward's death in battle would have brought his nineteen-month-old son to the throne, which meant a regency of many years standing. And as events were shortly to prove, the men who replaced Edward in power were not one whit more competent than he was. A regency would have meant struggles for power, jockeying for position, while Bruce took advantage of the chaos.
Still, for the king of England, galloping away in ignominious flight from a battle he fully expected to win, the realisation that he had at least spared his country a crippling ransom or the perils of a long regency was probably no consolation whatsoever.
19 June, 2008
The Death of Piers Gaveston
Today is the 696th anniversary of the death of Piers Gaveston, run through with a sword and beheaded at Blacklow Hill, Warwickshire, on 19 June 1312.
The story of Piers' death - abducted from the earl of Pembroke's custody by the earl of Warwick and killed in the presence of the earls of Lancaster, Hereford and Arundel - has been told so often I'm not going to bother repeating it here. Instead, I'll look at some lesser-known aspects of the whole sordid business.
According to the Vita Edwardi Secundi, Piers is meant to have said before being killed:
"Oh! Where are the presents that bought me so many intimate friends, and with which I thought to have sufficient power? Where are my friends, in whom was my trust, the protection of my body, and my whole hope of safety; whose lusty youth, unbeaten valour, and courage was always aflame for hard tasks? They had promised to stand by me in war, to suffer imprisonment, and not to shun death. Indeed my pride, the arrogance that one single promise of theirs has nourished, the king’s favour and the king’s court, have brought me to this sorry plight. I have no help, every remedy is in vain, let the will of the earls be done."
To me, this sounds far more like something the author – who strongly disapproved of Piers – thinks he should have said, rather than anything the courageous and bitingly witty Gascon really would say. Except possibly the ‘lusty youth’ part.
On the day of Piers' death, Edward II was at Burstwick near Hull with Queen Isabella, who was about four months pregnant. The king and queen stayed at Burstwick until 21 June, and were in Beverley on the 22nd, Pocklington on the 23rd, and York on the 24th. It is not known when Edward heard the news of Piers' death, or which poor messenger had the unfortunate task of telling him. I'd imagine that the earl of Pembroke sent the message, rather than the earls present at Piers' death ("Dear Ned, we've killed your best friend. Hope you're well. Love, Tom, Guy, Humph and Edmund.")
Warwick to York/Beverley is around 150 miles, a journey a fast rider could have made in three, or maybe only two days (given that the hours of daylight are extremely long in June, when it's light by 4am and still light enough to ride at 10.30 or 11pm).
The fact that Isabella was with Edward when he received the news has been missed by almost every writer on the subject (but is certainly true, as a quick glance at The Itinerary of Edward II and The Household Book of Queen Isabella proves). The queen's reaction is not recorded, but whatever her private feelings might have been, it is unthinkable that she would have gloated to Edward about the death, and we can probably assume that she did her best to comfort him, and expressed her sympathy and support. If nothing else, she was clever enough to know that Edward would never forgive her if she openly demonstrated any pleasure at the killing of his beloved. It goes without saying that she had nothing whatsoever to do with Piers' death.
As for Edward, from his later actions it is clear that his primary reaction to Piers' murder was utter rage. His grief at the loss of his beloved must have been shattering. He had loved Piers for at least twelve years, and been emotionally reliant on him to an extraordinary degree. Losing him must have been like losing part of himself.
Not that you'd guess it from his first words on the subject, which, according to the ever-useful Vita, were:
"By God’s soul, he acted as a fool. If he had taken my advice he would never have fallen into the hands of the earls. This is what I always told him not to do. For I guessed that what has now happened would occur. What was he doing with the earl of Warwick, who was known never to have liked him? I knew for certain that if the earl caught him, Piers would never escape from his hands."
('By God's soul' was Edward's favourite oath.)
This is such an odd thing for Edward to say, it rings true. I can only imagine that shock and grief do not lend themselves to eloquence, or that he managed to control his emotions in public for once, however much he mourned and raged and howled in public.
The Vita goes on to say, with notable compassion for a man who wasn't a great fan of Edward II, "when this light utterance of the king was made public it moved many to derision. But I am certain the king grieved for Piers as a father grieves for his son. For the greater the love, the greater the sorrow." That Edward loved Piers as a son is stated again in the Vita: "they put to death a great earl whom the king had adopted as brother, whom the king cherished as a son, whom the king regarded as friend and ally." I think it's safe to say that whatever Edward II felt for Piers, it wasn't paternal, but then, the author of the Vita could hardly write 'whom the king loved as his lover...'
Edward swore revenge on the men responsible. At first, he mostly blamed the earl of Warwick, and the Vita says that Edward swore either to have Warwick's head, or to banish him from the kingdom. Later on, though, the earl of Lancaster became the main focus for Edward's rage and need for revenge. Oddly, Edward did not blame the earl of Arundel, who was certainly present when Piers was killed. In October 1313, Edward finally pardoned everyone involved in "all causes of anger, indignation, suits, accusations etc arisen in any manner on account of Piers Gaveston..." Over 350 men were pardoned (all the names are listed in the Patent Rolls and Foedera), but Arundel was not one of them. Maybe Arundel spoke up for Piers, or tried to save him - or at least, persuaded Edward that he did.
Edward left York on 28 June and travelled to London, via Lincolnshire. He left Queen Isabella behind, probably to keep his pregnant wife out of the way of danger - for a while, it seemed as though the country would slide into war. The day after Edward left York, Isabella sent him a letter, the contents of which are unknown, unfortunately. In late July, Edward sent Isabella an escort to bring her south, but she had to travel very slowly because of her pregnancy, and didn't reach London until 9 September. A few days later, she and Edward retired to Windsor Castle and spent most of the next eight months there together. Two chronicles, the Vita and Trokelowe, say that Edward's joy at the birth of his son on 13 November went some way to assuaging his terrible grief.
Many people in England rejoiced at the death of the flamboyant favourite. A contemporary song reads:
"Celebrate, my tongue, the death of Piers who disturbed England,
Whom the king in his love placed all over Cornwall
Hence in his pride he would be called earl and not Piers…
Now he no longer behaves himself as an earl, or a king;
The unworthy man, worthy of death, undergoes the death he merits…
Glory be to the Creator! Glory be to the earls
Who have made Piers die with his charms!
Henceforth may there be peace and rejoicing throughout England!"
And according to the Vita:
"When Piers had met his end, and the voice of the people had dinned his death into the ears of all, the country rejoiced, and all its inhabitants were glad. I may assert with confidence that the death of one man, unless he had been a burden upon the state, had never before been acceptable to so many. The land rejoices, its inhabitants rejoice that they have found peace in Piers' death..."
To say that 'all the inhabitants' rejoiced is an exaggeration. Many did, but others were horrified at the earls’ brutal act and the violent illegality of it, and a groundswell of sympathy for the king swept the country. Piers' death strengthened Edward’s position, especially as the earls of Surrey and Pembroke came back to his side, appalled by the murder. Edward did not blame Pembroke for his role in the death of his friend; several months later, he gave his cousin some of Piers' falcons. The reaction of Piers' widow Margaret de Clare is, inevitably, not recorded, but she and Edward paid for two clerks to watch over his embalmed body, which was dressed in cloth-of-gold.
On 3 January 1315, Edward finally buried Piers. At the time of his death, Piers could not be buried, as he died excommunicate. This must have been lifted, which probably happened in September 1312, when Piers' elder brother Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan visited Pope Clement V at Avignon. (Arnaud-Guillaume was Piers' full brother, but used the name of their mother, Claramonde de Marsan.)
However, Edward still waited more than two years to bury his friend, partly because (I assume) he couldn't bear to commit the body to the ground, but also because he had sworn "first to avenge Piers, and then consign his body to the grave", according to the Vita.
Revenge would have to wait a while longer. But Edward never forgot his promise. In September 1319, during the siege of Berwick, he said "When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers." Ominous words, and in March 1322, three months short of ten years after Piers' death, he finally had the earl of Lancaster beheaded.
Piers Gaveston was about twenty-nine or thirty when he died, father of a five-month-old daughter and, apparently, an illegitimate daughter, age unknown. So many centuries later, it's hard to see exactly what he did that merited death. But the murder of this flamboyant, charismatic, handsome and aggravating young man on 19 June 1312 was to have the most profound impact on political events for the rest of Edward II's reign.
The story of Piers' death - abducted from the earl of Pembroke's custody by the earl of Warwick and killed in the presence of the earls of Lancaster, Hereford and Arundel - has been told so often I'm not going to bother repeating it here. Instead, I'll look at some lesser-known aspects of the whole sordid business.
According to the Vita Edwardi Secundi, Piers is meant to have said before being killed:
"Oh! Where are the presents that bought me so many intimate friends, and with which I thought to have sufficient power? Where are my friends, in whom was my trust, the protection of my body, and my whole hope of safety; whose lusty youth, unbeaten valour, and courage was always aflame for hard tasks? They had promised to stand by me in war, to suffer imprisonment, and not to shun death. Indeed my pride, the arrogance that one single promise of theirs has nourished, the king’s favour and the king’s court, have brought me to this sorry plight. I have no help, every remedy is in vain, let the will of the earls be done."
To me, this sounds far more like something the author – who strongly disapproved of Piers – thinks he should have said, rather than anything the courageous and bitingly witty Gascon really would say. Except possibly the ‘lusty youth’ part.
On the day of Piers' death, Edward II was at Burstwick near Hull with Queen Isabella, who was about four months pregnant. The king and queen stayed at Burstwick until 21 June, and were in Beverley on the 22nd, Pocklington on the 23rd, and York on the 24th. It is not known when Edward heard the news of Piers' death, or which poor messenger had the unfortunate task of telling him. I'd imagine that the earl of Pembroke sent the message, rather than the earls present at Piers' death ("Dear Ned, we've killed your best friend. Hope you're well. Love, Tom, Guy, Humph and Edmund.")
Warwick to York/Beverley is around 150 miles, a journey a fast rider could have made in three, or maybe only two days (given that the hours of daylight are extremely long in June, when it's light by 4am and still light enough to ride at 10.30 or 11pm).
The fact that Isabella was with Edward when he received the news has been missed by almost every writer on the subject (but is certainly true, as a quick glance at The Itinerary of Edward II and The Household Book of Queen Isabella proves). The queen's reaction is not recorded, but whatever her private feelings might have been, it is unthinkable that she would have gloated to Edward about the death, and we can probably assume that she did her best to comfort him, and expressed her sympathy and support. If nothing else, she was clever enough to know that Edward would never forgive her if she openly demonstrated any pleasure at the killing of his beloved. It goes without saying that she had nothing whatsoever to do with Piers' death.
As for Edward, from his later actions it is clear that his primary reaction to Piers' murder was utter rage. His grief at the loss of his beloved must have been shattering. He had loved Piers for at least twelve years, and been emotionally reliant on him to an extraordinary degree. Losing him must have been like losing part of himself.
Not that you'd guess it from his first words on the subject, which, according to the ever-useful Vita, were:
"By God’s soul, he acted as a fool. If he had taken my advice he would never have fallen into the hands of the earls. This is what I always told him not to do. For I guessed that what has now happened would occur. What was he doing with the earl of Warwick, who was known never to have liked him? I knew for certain that if the earl caught him, Piers would never escape from his hands."
('By God's soul' was Edward's favourite oath.)
This is such an odd thing for Edward to say, it rings true. I can only imagine that shock and grief do not lend themselves to eloquence, or that he managed to control his emotions in public for once, however much he mourned and raged and howled in public.
The Vita goes on to say, with notable compassion for a man who wasn't a great fan of Edward II, "when this light utterance of the king was made public it moved many to derision. But I am certain the king grieved for Piers as a father grieves for his son. For the greater the love, the greater the sorrow." That Edward loved Piers as a son is stated again in the Vita: "they put to death a great earl whom the king had adopted as brother, whom the king cherished as a son, whom the king regarded as friend and ally." I think it's safe to say that whatever Edward II felt for Piers, it wasn't paternal, but then, the author of the Vita could hardly write 'whom the king loved as his lover...'
Edward swore revenge on the men responsible. At first, he mostly blamed the earl of Warwick, and the Vita says that Edward swore either to have Warwick's head, or to banish him from the kingdom. Later on, though, the earl of Lancaster became the main focus for Edward's rage and need for revenge. Oddly, Edward did not blame the earl of Arundel, who was certainly present when Piers was killed. In October 1313, Edward finally pardoned everyone involved in "all causes of anger, indignation, suits, accusations etc arisen in any manner on account of Piers Gaveston..." Over 350 men were pardoned (all the names are listed in the Patent Rolls and Foedera), but Arundel was not one of them. Maybe Arundel spoke up for Piers, or tried to save him - or at least, persuaded Edward that he did.
Edward left York on 28 June and travelled to London, via Lincolnshire. He left Queen Isabella behind, probably to keep his pregnant wife out of the way of danger - for a while, it seemed as though the country would slide into war. The day after Edward left York, Isabella sent him a letter, the contents of which are unknown, unfortunately. In late July, Edward sent Isabella an escort to bring her south, but she had to travel very slowly because of her pregnancy, and didn't reach London until 9 September. A few days later, she and Edward retired to Windsor Castle and spent most of the next eight months there together. Two chronicles, the Vita and Trokelowe, say that Edward's joy at the birth of his son on 13 November went some way to assuaging his terrible grief.
Many people in England rejoiced at the death of the flamboyant favourite. A contemporary song reads:
"Celebrate, my tongue, the death of Piers who disturbed England,
Whom the king in his love placed all over Cornwall
Hence in his pride he would be called earl and not Piers…
Now he no longer behaves himself as an earl, or a king;
The unworthy man, worthy of death, undergoes the death he merits…
Glory be to the Creator! Glory be to the earls
Who have made Piers die with his charms!
Henceforth may there be peace and rejoicing throughout England!"
And according to the Vita:
"When Piers had met his end, and the voice of the people had dinned his death into the ears of all, the country rejoiced, and all its inhabitants were glad. I may assert with confidence that the death of one man, unless he had been a burden upon the state, had never before been acceptable to so many. The land rejoices, its inhabitants rejoice that they have found peace in Piers' death..."
To say that 'all the inhabitants' rejoiced is an exaggeration. Many did, but others were horrified at the earls’ brutal act and the violent illegality of it, and a groundswell of sympathy for the king swept the country. Piers' death strengthened Edward’s position, especially as the earls of Surrey and Pembroke came back to his side, appalled by the murder. Edward did not blame Pembroke for his role in the death of his friend; several months later, he gave his cousin some of Piers' falcons. The reaction of Piers' widow Margaret de Clare is, inevitably, not recorded, but she and Edward paid for two clerks to watch over his embalmed body, which was dressed in cloth-of-gold.
On 3 January 1315, Edward finally buried Piers. At the time of his death, Piers could not be buried, as he died excommunicate. This must have been lifted, which probably happened in September 1312, when Piers' elder brother Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan visited Pope Clement V at Avignon. (Arnaud-Guillaume was Piers' full brother, but used the name of their mother, Claramonde de Marsan.)
However, Edward still waited more than two years to bury his friend, partly because (I assume) he couldn't bear to commit the body to the ground, but also because he had sworn "first to avenge Piers, and then consign his body to the grave", according to the Vita.
Revenge would have to wait a while longer. But Edward never forgot his promise. In September 1319, during the siege of Berwick, he said "When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers." Ominous words, and in March 1322, three months short of ten years after Piers' death, he finally had the earl of Lancaster beheaded.
Piers Gaveston was about twenty-nine or thirty when he died, father of a five-month-old daughter and, apparently, an illegitimate daughter, age unknown. So many centuries later, it's hard to see exactly what he did that merited death. But the murder of this flamboyant, charismatic, handsome and aggravating young man on 19 June 1312 was to have the most profound impact on political events for the rest of Edward II's reign.
14 June, 2008
Sisters of Edward II (5): Elizabeth
Elizabeth, the fourteenth or fifteenth child of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, and the fifth to survive childhood, was born at Rhuddlan in North Wales sometime in August 1282. She was three and half years younger than her closest sibling, Mary, and just twenty months older than Edward II. The name Elizabeth was unknown in the royal family before her birth, none of her relatives bore the name, and evidently Edward and Eleanor chose the name just because they liked it - very unusual!
Elizabeth was present at Caernarfon when her brother Edward was born in April 1284. The siblings spent much time together in childhood, sharing a household and attendants, and travelled everywhere together. In 1290, when Elizabeth and Edward were eight and six respectively, she gave him a silver cup (on what occasion, I don't know).
In April 1285, Elizabeth, aged two years and eight months, was betrothed to Jan, son and heir of Count Floris V of Holland. Jan was born sometime in 1284, so was a little younger than Elizabeth, and a baby at the time of his betrothal. Jan was sent to live in England at some point, in the late 1280s or beginning of the 1290s, and presumably was a companion of Edward of Caernarfon, who was the same age. His father was murdered in June 1296, and Jan, aged eleven or twelve, succeeded as Count Jan I of Holland. He returned to his homeland, leaving his fiancée behind in England.
Jan returned to England in early 1297 to marry Elizabeth, and their wedding took place in Ipawich on 18 January 1297. Elizabeth was fourteen and a half, Jan twelve. Her brother Edward, also twelve, gave them a gold cup as a wedding gift. Jan returned to Holland ten days after the wedding, but Elizabeth refused to leave England - taking a leaf out of her sister Margaret's book, as she had refused to depart for Brabant with her husband in 1294. Margaret sailed with her brother-in-law to finally join her husband Duke Jan II in Brussels, after more than two and a half years apart.
It was probably on this occasion that Edward I, sick of his daughters' wilfulness - two who refused to travel abroad with their husbands, and, soon after, another who married a squire without the king's consent - tore the jewelled coronet from Elizabeth's head and threw it on the fire. It was hurriedly retrieved, and Edward paid for the stones to be replaced. Elizabeth must have looked pretty spectacular at her wedding anyway - thirty-five tailors worked for four days and four nights to make her gown.
Elizabeth spent the next few months with her brother Edward, mostly at Windsor and Langley, and received a visit from her sister Mary in July. She finally departed for Holland on 23 August 1297, accompanying her father on one of his numerous military campaigns. Thirteen-year-old Edward remained behind as the (nominal) regent of England in their father's absence. Elizabeth was still in no rush to join her youthful husband, however, and stayed with her father until Christmas 1297.
Little is know about Elizabeth's life as countess of Holland and Zealand and lady of Friesland, except that she mostly lived in the Hague. Her husband was, of course, too young to rule in his own right, and died on 10 November 1299 at the age of fifteen. He was always a sickly boy, and given his ill health and his youth, it's quite probable that their marriage was never consummated.
Elizabeth was a widow at seventeen, and returned to England in 1300, visiting her sister Margaret in Brabant on the way. She travelled to Cawood in Yorkshire in August, to meet her stepmother Queen Marguerite, who had recently given birth to Elizabeth's half-brother Thomas of Brotherton. Marguerite had married Edward I the previous September, and the two women were around the same age. Elizabeth must also have seen her brother Edward, who sent her a sorrel horse for Christmas/New Year 1300/1301.
On 14 November 1302, at Westminster Abbey, twenty-year-old Elizabeth married Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, who was about twenty-six. This would prove to be a very fruitful union: Elizabeth bore ten children in thirteen and a half years.
Fortunately for posterity, Edward of Caernarfon's letters for 1304 and 1305 happen to survive - over 700 of them. He sent six to Elizabeth, and wrote another four concerning her affairs, addressing her as 'very dear sister' (treschere soer) which was merely conventional, and also as 'fair sister' (bele soer), which wasn't. In 1304, Edward sent Elizabeth two 'beautiful mares' from his stud, and their foals. Around this time, he also asked Elizabeth to send him her white greyhound bitch to mate with Edward's greyhound, as 'we greatly wish to have puppies from them'.
The following year, Edward asked her to ask Queen Marguerite to intercede with their father to return Piers Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare to him; along with most of the rest of his household, they had been ordered away from him at the orders of his father, with whom he had quarrelled passionately.
Elizabeth, as is usually the case with women, especially married ones, mostly disappears from the records after the early 1300s. In February 1308, she was present at Dover to welcome her brother and new sister-in-law Isabella to England after their wedding, and presumably attended their coronation a few weeks later. In June 1312, her husband Hereford was present at Piers Gaveston's murder. How Elizabeth felt about her husband's role in the death of her brother's great love can only be surmised. What kind of relationship she had with her brother after his accession, what she thought about his infatuation with Piers and the terrible conflict it caused, can only be surmised. Considering she was the sister closest to him in age, and had been his companion for much of their childhood, it's a real shame that we don't know more about their relationship as adults.
Elizabeth, as dowager countess of Holland, was entitled to a large dower, which should have been paid by Jan I's successors - his father's cousin Jan II and Jan II's son Willem III (father of Philippa of Hainault, who married Edward III). They proved most reluctant to pay it, and Edward II spent years chasing it up. As late as July 1315, nearly sixteen years after Jan I's death, a frustrated Edward was still sending letters to Willem, asking for his sister's rights, invoking Willem's sister Alicia, widow of the earl of Norfolk. The letters say, in effect, "You wouldn't like it if I withheld your sister's dower, so why are you withholding my sister's?"
Elizabeth died on 5 May 1316, at the age of thirty-three, shortly after giving birth to her tenth and youngest child Isabel, who also died. Her Wikipedia page says, oddly, "During Christmas 1315 Elizabeth, who was pregnant with her 10th child, was visited by her sister-in-law Isabella of France. This was a great honour, but the stress of it may have caused unknown health problems that later contributed to Elizabeth's death in childbirth." I really doubt that. Giving birth in the Middle Ages was somewhat akin to playing Russian roulette, and there's no need to blame poor Isabella for Elizabeth's death!
Elizabeth's children:
- Margaret, born late September 1303, died before 1 February 1304.
- Eleanor, countess of Ormond, born 17 October 1304, died 7 October 1363. Married James Butler and Thomas Dagworth, two sons and two daughters (and a son who died young).
- Humphrey, born about 20 October 1305, died 28 October 1305.
- John, earl of Hereford, born 23 November 1306, died 20 January 1336, married the earl of Arundel's daughter Alice in 1325 and Margaret Basset in 1331, died childless.
- Humphrey, earl of Hereford, born 6 December 1309, died 15 October 1361, unmarried and childless.
- Margaret, countess of Devon, born 3 April 1311, died 16 December 1391, married Hugh Courtenay and had about 94 children. (OK, about seventeen.) Margaret was the last-surviving grandchild of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile.
- William, earl of Northampton, born 1312 or 1313, died 16 September 1360. Married Elizabeth Badlesmere, widow of Roger Mortimer's son Edmund, and had one son and one daughter. His son Humphrey (1342-1372) succeeded his uncle Humphrey as earl of Hereford and Essex and his father as earl of Northampton, and was the half-brother of Roger Mortimer, second earl of March (1328-1360).
- Edward, born 1312 or 1313 (twin of William), married Margaret Ros, drowned on campaign in Soctland in 1334 while trying to rescue a drowning man-at-arms, died childless.
- Aeneas, born 1314 or 1315, oddly named and oddly obscure, still alive at his father's death in 1322, died before 20 September 1331.
- Isabel, born 5 May 1316, and died that day or shortly after.
Elizabeth was present at Caernarfon when her brother Edward was born in April 1284. The siblings spent much time together in childhood, sharing a household and attendants, and travelled everywhere together. In 1290, when Elizabeth and Edward were eight and six respectively, she gave him a silver cup (on what occasion, I don't know).
In April 1285, Elizabeth, aged two years and eight months, was betrothed to Jan, son and heir of Count Floris V of Holland. Jan was born sometime in 1284, so was a little younger than Elizabeth, and a baby at the time of his betrothal. Jan was sent to live in England at some point, in the late 1280s or beginning of the 1290s, and presumably was a companion of Edward of Caernarfon, who was the same age. His father was murdered in June 1296, and Jan, aged eleven or twelve, succeeded as Count Jan I of Holland. He returned to his homeland, leaving his fiancée behind in England.
Jan returned to England in early 1297 to marry Elizabeth, and their wedding took place in Ipawich on 18 January 1297. Elizabeth was fourteen and a half, Jan twelve. Her brother Edward, also twelve, gave them a gold cup as a wedding gift. Jan returned to Holland ten days after the wedding, but Elizabeth refused to leave England - taking a leaf out of her sister Margaret's book, as she had refused to depart for Brabant with her husband in 1294. Margaret sailed with her brother-in-law to finally join her husband Duke Jan II in Brussels, after more than two and a half years apart.
It was probably on this occasion that Edward I, sick of his daughters' wilfulness - two who refused to travel abroad with their husbands, and, soon after, another who married a squire without the king's consent - tore the jewelled coronet from Elizabeth's head and threw it on the fire. It was hurriedly retrieved, and Edward paid for the stones to be replaced. Elizabeth must have looked pretty spectacular at her wedding anyway - thirty-five tailors worked for four days and four nights to make her gown.
Elizabeth spent the next few months with her brother Edward, mostly at Windsor and Langley, and received a visit from her sister Mary in July. She finally departed for Holland on 23 August 1297, accompanying her father on one of his numerous military campaigns. Thirteen-year-old Edward remained behind as the (nominal) regent of England in their father's absence. Elizabeth was still in no rush to join her youthful husband, however, and stayed with her father until Christmas 1297.
Little is know about Elizabeth's life as countess of Holland and Zealand and lady of Friesland, except that she mostly lived in the Hague. Her husband was, of course, too young to rule in his own right, and died on 10 November 1299 at the age of fifteen. He was always a sickly boy, and given his ill health and his youth, it's quite probable that their marriage was never consummated.
Elizabeth was a widow at seventeen, and returned to England in 1300, visiting her sister Margaret in Brabant on the way. She travelled to Cawood in Yorkshire in August, to meet her stepmother Queen Marguerite, who had recently given birth to Elizabeth's half-brother Thomas of Brotherton. Marguerite had married Edward I the previous September, and the two women were around the same age. Elizabeth must also have seen her brother Edward, who sent her a sorrel horse for Christmas/New Year 1300/1301.
On 14 November 1302, at Westminster Abbey, twenty-year-old Elizabeth married Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, who was about twenty-six. This would prove to be a very fruitful union: Elizabeth bore ten children in thirteen and a half years.
Fortunately for posterity, Edward of Caernarfon's letters for 1304 and 1305 happen to survive - over 700 of them. He sent six to Elizabeth, and wrote another four concerning her affairs, addressing her as 'very dear sister' (treschere soer) which was merely conventional, and also as 'fair sister' (bele soer), which wasn't. In 1304, Edward sent Elizabeth two 'beautiful mares' from his stud, and their foals. Around this time, he also asked Elizabeth to send him her white greyhound bitch to mate with Edward's greyhound, as 'we greatly wish to have puppies from them'.
The following year, Edward asked her to ask Queen Marguerite to intercede with their father to return Piers Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare to him; along with most of the rest of his household, they had been ordered away from him at the orders of his father, with whom he had quarrelled passionately.
Elizabeth, as is usually the case with women, especially married ones, mostly disappears from the records after the early 1300s. In February 1308, she was present at Dover to welcome her brother and new sister-in-law Isabella to England after their wedding, and presumably attended their coronation a few weeks later. In June 1312, her husband Hereford was present at Piers Gaveston's murder. How Elizabeth felt about her husband's role in the death of her brother's great love can only be surmised. What kind of relationship she had with her brother after his accession, what she thought about his infatuation with Piers and the terrible conflict it caused, can only be surmised. Considering she was the sister closest to him in age, and had been his companion for much of their childhood, it's a real shame that we don't know more about their relationship as adults.
Elizabeth, as dowager countess of Holland, was entitled to a large dower, which should have been paid by Jan I's successors - his father's cousin Jan II and Jan II's son Willem III (father of Philippa of Hainault, who married Edward III). They proved most reluctant to pay it, and Edward II spent years chasing it up. As late as July 1315, nearly sixteen years after Jan I's death, a frustrated Edward was still sending letters to Willem, asking for his sister's rights, invoking Willem's sister Alicia, widow of the earl of Norfolk. The letters say, in effect, "You wouldn't like it if I withheld your sister's dower, so why are you withholding my sister's?"
Elizabeth died on 5 May 1316, at the age of thirty-three, shortly after giving birth to her tenth and youngest child Isabel, who also died. Her Wikipedia page says, oddly, "During Christmas 1315 Elizabeth, who was pregnant with her 10th child, was visited by her sister-in-law Isabella of France. This was a great honour, but the stress of it may have caused unknown health problems that later contributed to Elizabeth's death in childbirth." I really doubt that. Giving birth in the Middle Ages was somewhat akin to playing Russian roulette, and there's no need to blame poor Isabella for Elizabeth's death!
Elizabeth's children:
- Margaret, born late September 1303, died before 1 February 1304.
- Eleanor, countess of Ormond, born 17 October 1304, died 7 October 1363. Married James Butler and Thomas Dagworth, two sons and two daughters (and a son who died young).
- Humphrey, born about 20 October 1305, died 28 October 1305.
- John, earl of Hereford, born 23 November 1306, died 20 January 1336, married the earl of Arundel's daughter Alice in 1325 and Margaret Basset in 1331, died childless.
- Humphrey, earl of Hereford, born 6 December 1309, died 15 October 1361, unmarried and childless.
- Margaret, countess of Devon, born 3 April 1311, died 16 December 1391, married Hugh Courtenay and had about 94 children. (OK, about seventeen.) Margaret was the last-surviving grandchild of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile.
- William, earl of Northampton, born 1312 or 1313, died 16 September 1360. Married Elizabeth Badlesmere, widow of Roger Mortimer's son Edmund, and had one son and one daughter. His son Humphrey (1342-1372) succeeded his uncle Humphrey as earl of Hereford and Essex and his father as earl of Northampton, and was the half-brother of Roger Mortimer, second earl of March (1328-1360).
- Edward, born 1312 or 1313 (twin of William), married Margaret Ros, drowned on campaign in Soctland in 1334 while trying to rescue a drowning man-at-arms, died childless.
- Aeneas, born 1314 or 1315, oddly named and oddly obscure, still alive at his father's death in 1322, died before 20 September 1331.
- Isabel, born 5 May 1316, and died that day or shortly after.
07 June, 2008
Sisters of Edward II (4): Mary
Mary was the twelfth or thirteenth child of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, and the fourth to survive childhood. She was born at Woodstock on 11 or 12 March 1279, fourteen months after her closest sibling, a girl whose name name is unknown, born in January 1278 and died soon after, and three years younger than Berengaria, born May 1276 and died June 1278 (Edward I and Eleanor lost two daughters in 1278). After Mary's birth, however, Eleanor of Castile had a well-deserved break from her almost yearly pregnancies, and there was a gap of three and a half years to the next child, Elizabeth. (There's a theory, which I don't believe, that Eleanor gave birth to a son in 1280 or 1281.) In the ten years between June 1269 and March 1279, Edward I and Queen Eleanor had eight children, of whom only one (Alfonso) was male.
Mary's grandmother Jeanne de Dammartin, countess of Ponthieu and dowager queen of Castile and Leon, died five days after her birth. In 1285, her other grandmother Eleanor of Provence, widow of Henry III, retired to the priory of Amesbury in Wiltshire, and decided to take two of her granddaughters with her for company. One was Mary; the other was Eleanor of Brittany, daughter of Edward I's sister Beatrice and Duke John II of Brittany, and sister of Arthur, duke of Brittany and John, earl of Richmond. Young Eleanor later became abbess of Fontevrault, the mother house of Amesbury. Unfortunately, Mary had no vocation whatsoever, and her mother Eleanor of Castile was most reluctant for her to become a nun. However, Eleanor of Provence prevailed.
Mary went to live at Amesbury in 1285, and was veiled as a nun in late 1291, aged twelve, in the presence of her father and siblings, including seven-year-old Edward of Caernarfon. For most of her life, Mary spent almost as much time away from Amesbury priory as she spent in it, visiting family, the courts of her father and brother, and going on pilgrimage. This was tolerated by the abbess, because of Mary's high birth - as daughter and sister of kings, she could wield a great deal of influence. Her father granted her an income of £100 a year, later raised to £200.
Mary lived the life of a great lady, not that of a nun. She had private rooms at Amesbury, with a magnificent bed hung with velvet and tapestry, and sheets of linen. On one occasion, her father sent her over two hundred ells of fine cloth via the bishop of Chester, and at another time, two thousand stock-fish. Mary travelled to court with damsels, attendants, and between twenty-four and thirty horses and grooms for them. Her father and brother often paid her gambling debts. She also owned hunting dogs.
Mary had a strong sense of family. In a period of just over three months in 1305, she visited her little half-brothers Thomas and Edmund (sons of Edward I and Marguerite of France, twenty-one and twenty-two years her junior) no fewer than eleven times, staying for up to five days each time. On at least one occasion, her brother Edward of Caernarfon accompanied her. Mary also had the chance to enjoy the company of many of her female relatives at Amesbury. Her niece Joan de Monthermer, Joan of Acre's daughter, and her cousin Isabel, daughter of Henry of Lancaster, were also veiled as nuns at Amesbury (Isabel of Lancaster later became the abbess). In addition, some royal girls not destined to become nuns grew up at Amesbury: Mary's little half-sister Eleanor, who died in 1311 at the age of five, her niece Eleanor de Bohun, daughter of her sister Elizabeth, and her great-niece Joan Gaveston, Joan of Acre's granddaughter. (It's also possible that other royal girls grew up at Amesbury, but evidence is lacking). Mary seems to have been especially close to her niece Elizabeth de Clare, another daughter of Joan of Acre. In late 1316 or early 1317, Elizabeth retired to Amesbury and gave birth to her daughter Isabella de Verdon there. A few weeks later, Mary, Elizabeth and Isabel of Lancaster went on pilgrimage to Canterbury together.
There is much evidence of great affection between Mary and her brother Edward II, five years her junior, and they visited each other often in childhood and adolescence. In 1304, Edward sent Mary a gift of a greyhound - evidently his favourite breed of dog - and in 1307, she sent him a falcon. A nice letter of Edward's survives from 1304, where he apologises to Mary for not sending gifts of several tuns of wine and an organ to her as promised, but the only wine his agents could find to buy was not of sufficiently high quality, and the organ had arrived broken and he was sending it for repair. In 1305, when Edward quarrelled with his father and had his income cut drastically, Mary invited him to stay with her - though unlike her feistier elder sister Joan of Acre, she made sure she got their father's permission first.
After Edward's accession in 1307, Mary continued to visit court often, with her numerous attendants. He often sent her gifts, too; in 1318, he bought expensive Lucca cloth for three people, himself, his current favourite Roger Damory, and Mary. For New Year 1317, he sent her a ring worth ten pounds (and also sent rings to his nieces Margaret and Elizabeth de Clare, his great-niece Joan Gaveston, and his sons Edward and John - rather oddly in the last case, as John was only a few months old).
Queen Isabella corresponded with Mary fairly often, and in 1316, they went on pilgrimage to Canterbury together, offering cloth of gold, saffron and other spices at the shrine. Edward II paid all the expenses of his wife and sister. Edward took a keen interest in Mary's welfare, and paid her expenses when she came to visit him. For example: in January 1313 he ordered the sheriff of Wiltshire to pay her twelve pounds, seven shillings and sixpence "which the king owes her for hay, oats, litter, farriery, and the wages of her grooms" when she stayed with him at Windsor the previous Christmas. He also granted her the manor of Ludgershall (not sure whether that's the Wiltshire one or the Buckinghamshire one) and sent her ten tuns of wine (9540 litres, or about 2510 US gallons) every year.
The only letter I've been able to find from Mary to Edward concerns the election of a new abbess of Amesbury, and begins "To the very high and noble prince, her dearest lord and brother, my lord Edward, by the grace of God king of England, his sister Mary wishes health, and all manner of honour and reverence." It ends "May Jesus Christ grant you a long life, my very dear brother."
Mary, the great lady forced to live as a nun, died at Amesbury on 29 May 1332 at the age of fifty-three, and was buried there. In 1344, John de Warenne, earl of Surrey, renewing his long-term efforts to divorce Jeanne de Bar, his wife of the last thirty-eight years, claimed to have had an affair with Mary before his marriage - his wife's aunt, thus making the marriage incestuous. The story is most unlikely to be true, not least because Mary was seven years older than Surrey. No doubt he chose her because she was so closely related to his wife, was dead, and had no children or surviving siblings to take offence at his claims. But it's pretty damn amusing anyway.
Mary's grandmother Jeanne de Dammartin, countess of Ponthieu and dowager queen of Castile and Leon, died five days after her birth. In 1285, her other grandmother Eleanor of Provence, widow of Henry III, retired to the priory of Amesbury in Wiltshire, and decided to take two of her granddaughters with her for company. One was Mary; the other was Eleanor of Brittany, daughter of Edward I's sister Beatrice and Duke John II of Brittany, and sister of Arthur, duke of Brittany and John, earl of Richmond. Young Eleanor later became abbess of Fontevrault, the mother house of Amesbury. Unfortunately, Mary had no vocation whatsoever, and her mother Eleanor of Castile was most reluctant for her to become a nun. However, Eleanor of Provence prevailed.
Mary went to live at Amesbury in 1285, and was veiled as a nun in late 1291, aged twelve, in the presence of her father and siblings, including seven-year-old Edward of Caernarfon. For most of her life, Mary spent almost as much time away from Amesbury priory as she spent in it, visiting family, the courts of her father and brother, and going on pilgrimage. This was tolerated by the abbess, because of Mary's high birth - as daughter and sister of kings, she could wield a great deal of influence. Her father granted her an income of £100 a year, later raised to £200.
Mary lived the life of a great lady, not that of a nun. She had private rooms at Amesbury, with a magnificent bed hung with velvet and tapestry, and sheets of linen. On one occasion, her father sent her over two hundred ells of fine cloth via the bishop of Chester, and at another time, two thousand stock-fish. Mary travelled to court with damsels, attendants, and between twenty-four and thirty horses and grooms for them. Her father and brother often paid her gambling debts. She also owned hunting dogs.
Mary had a strong sense of family. In a period of just over three months in 1305, she visited her little half-brothers Thomas and Edmund (sons of Edward I and Marguerite of France, twenty-one and twenty-two years her junior) no fewer than eleven times, staying for up to five days each time. On at least one occasion, her brother Edward of Caernarfon accompanied her. Mary also had the chance to enjoy the company of many of her female relatives at Amesbury. Her niece Joan de Monthermer, Joan of Acre's daughter, and her cousin Isabel, daughter of Henry of Lancaster, were also veiled as nuns at Amesbury (Isabel of Lancaster later became the abbess). In addition, some royal girls not destined to become nuns grew up at Amesbury: Mary's little half-sister Eleanor, who died in 1311 at the age of five, her niece Eleanor de Bohun, daughter of her sister Elizabeth, and her great-niece Joan Gaveston, Joan of Acre's granddaughter. (It's also possible that other royal girls grew up at Amesbury, but evidence is lacking). Mary seems to have been especially close to her niece Elizabeth de Clare, another daughter of Joan of Acre. In late 1316 or early 1317, Elizabeth retired to Amesbury and gave birth to her daughter Isabella de Verdon there. A few weeks later, Mary, Elizabeth and Isabel of Lancaster went on pilgrimage to Canterbury together.
There is much evidence of great affection between Mary and her brother Edward II, five years her junior, and they visited each other often in childhood and adolescence. In 1304, Edward sent Mary a gift of a greyhound - evidently his favourite breed of dog - and in 1307, she sent him a falcon. A nice letter of Edward's survives from 1304, where he apologises to Mary for not sending gifts of several tuns of wine and an organ to her as promised, but the only wine his agents could find to buy was not of sufficiently high quality, and the organ had arrived broken and he was sending it for repair. In 1305, when Edward quarrelled with his father and had his income cut drastically, Mary invited him to stay with her - though unlike her feistier elder sister Joan of Acre, she made sure she got their father's permission first.
After Edward's accession in 1307, Mary continued to visit court often, with her numerous attendants. He often sent her gifts, too; in 1318, he bought expensive Lucca cloth for three people, himself, his current favourite Roger Damory, and Mary. For New Year 1317, he sent her a ring worth ten pounds (and also sent rings to his nieces Margaret and Elizabeth de Clare, his great-niece Joan Gaveston, and his sons Edward and John - rather oddly in the last case, as John was only a few months old).
Queen Isabella corresponded with Mary fairly often, and in 1316, they went on pilgrimage to Canterbury together, offering cloth of gold, saffron and other spices at the shrine. Edward II paid all the expenses of his wife and sister. Edward took a keen interest in Mary's welfare, and paid her expenses when she came to visit him. For example: in January 1313 he ordered the sheriff of Wiltshire to pay her twelve pounds, seven shillings and sixpence "which the king owes her for hay, oats, litter, farriery, and the wages of her grooms" when she stayed with him at Windsor the previous Christmas. He also granted her the manor of Ludgershall (not sure whether that's the Wiltshire one or the Buckinghamshire one) and sent her ten tuns of wine (9540 litres, or about 2510 US gallons) every year.
The only letter I've been able to find from Mary to Edward concerns the election of a new abbess of Amesbury, and begins "To the very high and noble prince, her dearest lord and brother, my lord Edward, by the grace of God king of England, his sister Mary wishes health, and all manner of honour and reverence." It ends "May Jesus Christ grant you a long life, my very dear brother."
Mary, the great lady forced to live as a nun, died at Amesbury on 29 May 1332 at the age of fifty-three, and was buried there. In 1344, John de Warenne, earl of Surrey, renewing his long-term efforts to divorce Jeanne de Bar, his wife of the last thirty-eight years, claimed to have had an affair with Mary before his marriage - his wife's aunt, thus making the marriage incestuous. The story is most unlikely to be true, not least because Mary was seven years older than Surrey. No doubt he chose her because she was so closely related to his wife, was dead, and had no children or surviving siblings to take offence at his claims. But it's pretty damn amusing anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)