Happy 725th birthday to Edward II today! I read a blog recently which noted Edward's date of birth, then asked 'I wonder what he's doing now'. Well, not a lot, I shouldn't imagine.
John Norton and John Redmere were Dominican friars who were involved in the Dunheveds' plot to free the former Edward II from Berkeley Castle in the summer of 1327. Edward's guardian Thomas, Lord Berkeley wrote a letter on 27 July 1327 naming the men who had attacked his castle and seized Edward from his custody, and also wrote that "two great leaders of this company have been arrested [literally 'taken'] by the community of Dunstable and are held there in prison, that is: Brother John Redmere, keeper of our lord the king's stud-farm, and John Norton." [Et sunt pris deux grant menors de cele compaignie par la comunalte de Dunestaple e illeosques sont tenuz en prison, c’est assavoir: frere Johan de Redemere, gardein del haras nostre seignor le roy, et Johan Nortone.] [1]
So I did a bit of digging into these two men, and discovered that John Redmere was indeed keeper of the king's stud-farm, a position he had held since at least 1317/18, the eleventh year of Edward II's reign. [2] John Norton was, I assume, the man of this name who was a clerk of Edward II's, and who for many years was "surveyor of the works of the king's palace at Westminster and of the Tower of London." He was responsible for purchasing provisions for Edward's coronation in February 1308, including lime and sea coal, and proved remarkably tardy in paying for the items: the unfortunate merchants were still pleading for their money as late as 1320. He was also responsible for buying planks and timber for Edward III's coronation in February 1327. In September 1312, Edward II appointed Norton as his attorney before the justices of King's Bench, and in December 1316, ordered him to provide ships at Bristol and Haverford for Roger Mortimer's journey to Ireland. [3] Norton's unwillingness to pay his debts got him into trouble with Edward: he was in prison in the Tower of London in December 1325, when Edward asked the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer for their advice in finding "means whereby the king may best and most quickly recover the debt" Norton and his associate Nicholas of Tickhill owed him. [4] Given his willingness to fight for the former king's release in 1327, I presume that Norton forgave Edward for imprisoning him.
(Assuming that all these entries relate to the same man; 'John Norton', after all, is not an uncommon name.)
The Dominicans were staunch supporters of Edward II, and many of them, according to the Brut, willingly helped Brother Thomas Dunheved's plot and "cast and ordained, both night and day" how they might release Edward from captivity. So it is hardly surprising to find that Norton and Redmere were among them; a Dominican from the Warwick convent, John of Stoke, was an important enough member of the conspiracy for his arrest to be ordered at the same time as Stephen Dunheved's in May 1327, and he was to be taken before the king. [5] On 3 March 1327, John Norton was accused with several other men of "carrying away the goods" of William Trussell, who had pronounced the death sentence on Hugh Despenser the Younger the previous November, although this crime may date to years before, after Trussell had fled the country following the Contrariants' defeat at the battle of Boroughbridge. [6] On 28 May 1327, Norton was sent to Cheshire and the marches of Wales "on business concerning Queen Isabella." [7] What's interesting is that the Dunheved brothers and some of their adherents were in Chester in June 1327 - did Norton join them then, or was he already a sympathiser to their cause, unbeknownst to Isabella? The attack on Berkeley Castle to free Edward had almost certainly taken place by 28 June - or, at the very least, was just about to take place - when Norton was given letters of protection, presumably to travel to Cheshire on Isabella's behalf. [8] He was an important member of the gang, at least according to Lord Berkeley, though evidently his participation was still unknown on 28 June when he received his letters of protection, and was discovered some time later by Lord Berkeley and 'the community of Dunstable'.
An entry of 11 August 1327 on the Close Roll confirms Berkeley's statement that Norton and Redmere were being held in prison at Dunstable - the prior of Dunstable's prison, in fact - when the bailiffs were ordered to send them to Wallingford Castle. [9] Another order was issued on 21 October, to send them and the men held with them, Robert of Ely and Nigel Mereman of Cornbiry, to the notorious Newgate prison in London. [10] Robert of Ely was Norton's servant, but I haven't been able to trace Nigel Mereman. Presumably they heard the news in late September 1327, while in captivity at Dunstable, that Edward II had died at Berkeley - allegedly.
I very much doubt if it is a coincidence that the writ to send the men to Newgate was issued three days after an order to the sheriff of Bedfordshire, on 18 October, to "take and keep in prison" four named men and unnamed, uncounted others, "who are riding about, as the king learns, armed in diverse parts of that county [Bedfordshire] with other malefactors, lying in wait by day and night for the prior of Donestaple and his men and other subjects of the king, committing many evils there." [11] This sounds to me as though these men were trying to free Norton, Redmere and their associates from prison, hence their removal to Newgate. The four named 'malefactors' were Philip de Wibbesnade (Whipsnade), John Salbot, Thomas atte Halle and Robert Duraunt. That these men were hostile to the regime of Isabella and Roger Mortimer and probably, therefore, sympathetic to Edward II is demonstrated by the fact that Wibbesnade, Duraunt, atte Halle and his brother William joined the earl of Lancaster's rebellion against Isabella and Mortimer in late 1328. They were among the men, many of them former allies of the queen and her favourite who had been imprisoned or exiled by Edward II or played an important role in his and the Despensers' downfall, such as William Trussell, Hugh Audley, Thomas Wake, Henry Leyburne, Thomas Roscelyn and Henry Beaumont, who rode to Bedford "against the king with armed power." [12] Of course they weren't riding 'against the king' at all, but against the pair ruling England in his name.
Thomas Berkeley's letter of 27 July 1327 also declared that "I have heard from certain people of my household, who have seen and heard of it, that a great number of people have made assemblies in Buckinghamshire and other adjoining counties, for the same cause"; that is, attempting to free Edward. [j’ai entendu par certeines gentz des meons, que le sevent de vue e de oie, que assembleez se fount a grant noumbre des gentz en counte de Bokyngham e es autres counteez joignauntz, por mesme la cause.] The existence of this plot is known only from Berkeley's letter, and nothing came of it, but Dunstable is in Bedfordshire, which borders Buckinghamshire.
Probably in September or October 1327, John Norton and John Redmere petitioned Edward III, who was not yet fifteen, saying that "when they were at Dunstable, to hear mass in the house of their [Dominican] order there, they were arrested by the Bailiffs and community and thrown into prison," accused of trying to rescue the lord king's father from Berkeley Castle.* Because this was such a sensitive matter, the bailiffs declared that "John and John can only be delivered before the king." Redmere and Norton asked "that they might be able to come before our lord the king to stand to right according to the law of the land, as they have been in prison first at Dunstable and now at Aylesbury, and are at point of death as a result." When they were in prison at Aylesbury, I don't know. [13]
* This is one of the very few direct references to the Dunheveds' plot to free Edward of Caernarfon, the others being: Lord Berkeley's letter; a writ to the sheriff of Oxfordshire in August 1327 concerning William Aylmer, another conspirator; brief accounts in various chronicles, the Brut (and several continuations of it), Annales Paulini and Lanercost.
John Redmere is one of the many men trying to free Edward II who vanishes from the pages of history after the summer/autumn of 1327. I have no idea what became of him. John Norton's petition, on the other hand, was successful, and he was still alive in the 1330s; in October 1333, he - again, assuming it's the same John Norton - was said to be "constantly attendant on the king's [Edward III's] business." [14] He was thus one of only a handful of the men who had tried to free the former king who certainly lived after 1327.
Sources
1) F. J. Tanqueray, ‘The Conspiracy of Thomas Dunheved, 1327’, English Historical Review, 31 (1916), pp. 119-124.
2) The National Archives E 101/100/12 and E 101/99/27; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1321-1324, p. 334, Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 297.
3) TNA SC 8/6/286, SC 8/6/287, SC 8/114/5675, SC 8/3/150, SC 8/4/153; Calendar of Chancery Warrants 1244-1326, pp. 274, 306; Cal Pat Rolls 1307-1313, p. 490; Cal Pat Rolls 1313-1317, pp. 574-575. There are numerous other mentions of Norton in contemporary records.
4) Calendar of Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 437.
5) Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, p. 99.
6) Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, p. 75.
7) Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, p. 107.
8) Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, p.133.
9) Cal Close Rolls 1327-1330, pp. 156, 179.
10) Cal Close Rolls 1327-1330, p. 179.
11) Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, pp. 232-233.
12) Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-1348, pp. 274-275.
13) TNA SC 8/69/3444.
14) Cal Pat Rolls 1330-1334, p. 470.
25 April, 2009
19 April, 2009
The Charges Against Hugh Despenser The Younger, November 1326
This is my translation of the charges against Hugh Despenser the Younger at his trial in Hereford on 24 November 1326, which are printed in the original Anglo-Norman in G. A. Holmes' 'Judgement on the Younger Despenser, 1326' (English Historical Review, 70, 1955). Investigating the accuracy of the charges would be a major undertaking, and although some of them are certainly true, some are utterly ludicrous. May McKisack (The Fourteenth Century 1307-1399) calls the charges "an ingenious tissue of fact and fiction," while Roy Martin Haines (in his biography King Edward II) points out that "it is an ingenious document, another piece of propaganda that puts the blame for all the ills of the reign on one man and his father," ignoring - for the time being, at least - Edward II's own manifold failings and that the earl of Lancaster and his followers were in armed rebellion against their king in 1322, and in treasonous correspondence with Robert Bruce to boot. The original text begins Hughe le despenser en parlement nostre seignur le Roi Edward qui ore est tenu a Westmonstre Lan de son regne xvme...
***
Hugh le Despenser, in the parliament of our lord King Edward who now is, held at Westminster in the fifteenth year of his reign [August 1321], by investigation of the prelates, earls and barons and all the community of the realm, it was found to be well-known that your father and you, Hugh [votre piere et vous hughe], were traitors and enemies of the realm, for which cause, by the assent and the command of our lord the king and all the baronage, your father and you, Hugh, were exiled from the realm never to return, which was done by the assent and permission of our lord the king and all the baronage and all those who were duly summoned to full parliament.
Against which judgement and exile, your father and you, Hugh, returned to the realm and were found at court without authorisation. And you, Hugh, in returning to the realm, feloniously robbed two dromonds of their goods to the value of £60,000 sterling, to the great dishonour of the king and the realm, and to the great peril of the merchants who often visit foreign countries. After this felony done by you, Hugh, you approached our lord the king and made him ride in arms against the peers of the realm and others of his faithful liegemen, to destroy and disinherit them contrary to Magna Carta [la grant chartre] and the Ordinances, and so riding in force and in arms, seizing royal power, you, Hugh, and your father and your adherents feloniously robbed the good men of the realm. With Andrew Harclay and other traitors, your adherents, you had the good earl of Hereford and Sir William Sully [Monsieur William suyllee] and Sir Roger Burghfield feloniously and maliciously murdered. [1]
You took the good earl of Lancaster [le bone Counte de Lancastre], who was the cousin-german of our lord the king and his brothers and uncle of the very noble king of France and his sister my lady the queen of England, and had him falsely imprisoned and robbed, and in his own hall in his castle, by your royal power which you had seized from our lord the king, had him judged by a false record contrary to law and reason and Magna Carta and also without response, and you had him martyred and murdered by hard and piteous death. And this wickedness and tyranny done to such an exalted person could not sate you of spilling the blood of Christians, and also on this same day, to further torment my said lord, before his vanquished eyes*, you had his barons and knights condemned to death by drawing and hanging. By this false record contrary to law and reason, you shamefully had them hanged without mercy: Sir Warin Lisle [Warin del yle], Sir William Tuchet, Sir Thomas Mauduit, Sir Henry Bradbourne, Sir William Cheney, Sir William Fitzwilliam the younger. At York, my lord Clifford, my lord Mowbray, Sir Jocelyn Deyville. At Canterbury, the lord Badlesmere and Sir Bartholomew Ashburnham. At London, Sir Henry Tyes. At Windsor, Sir Francis Aldenham [A Wyndesore monsieur franceys de Aldenham]. At Gloucester, the lord Giffard and Sir Roger Elmbridge. At Bristol, Sir Henry Wilington and Sir Henry Montfort. At Winchelsea, Sir Thomas Culpepper. [2]
[* sez oilz veintz - I'm not quite sure about that bit.]
Many other magnates you had sent to hard prison, to murder them without cause for covetousness of their lands, such as the lord Mortimer and Mortimer the uncle [le seignour le Mortimere et le Mortimere luncle], and the lord Berkeley and Sir Hugh Audley the father and son, and the children of Hereford who were the nephews of our lord the king, and great ladies, wives of these lords, and their children, you kept in prison and orphaned. And after the deaths of their barons, you pursued widowed ladies such as my lady Baret, and as a tyrant you had her beaten by your mercenaries [or rascals, or menials: ribaldes]** and shamefully had her arms and legs broken against the order of chivalry and contrary to law and reason, by which the good lady is forever more driven mad and lost [la bone dame est touz iours afole et perdue]. [3] And many other such people who should have been ladies of great honour, you made follow the court on foot in great poverty, without pity and without mercy, and every day they were held in such great ignominy that God by his mercy sent our good and gracious lady and her son [Isabella and Edward III] and the good men who have come in their company to the land, by which the realm is delivered.
[** that part is often mistranslated as 'making her the butt of his ribaldry']
Hugh, after this destruction of our noble liege lord [Lancaster] and of other men of the realm done falsely, shamefully and treacherously, you, Hugh, and your father and Robert Baldock [4], who between you treacherously embraced royal power, had our lord the king and his people led to Scotland to the enemies, where you, by your treacherous conduct, lost more than 20,000 of his [Edward II's] people who died piteously by your default, to the great dishonour and damage of our lord the king and of all his people, without gaining advantage. After returning, you, Hugh, your father, and Robert Baldock, falsely and treacherously counselled our lord the king to leave my lady the queen in peril of her person in the priory of Tynemouth in Northumberland. You had our lord the king led in flight to Blackhow Moor [la More de Blachou], where his enemies of Scotland [ses enemys descoce] by your treacherous conduct surprised him, to the great dishonour and damage of the king and his people. [5] And in such great misfortune and peril of her person, my lady who was your liege lady, by your treacherous deed might have been lost, to the perpetual dishonour and damage of the king and his realm, if God had not sent her deliverance by sea, thereby rescuing her from danger to her life and saving her honour, in such great grief of heart and body that no good lady of her estate and nobility should have at any time.
Hugh, neither this treason nor cruelty could suffice for you, but by the royal power which you had seized from our lord the king, you destroyed the privileges of Holy Church. The prelates Hereford, Lincoln, Ely, Norwich, you feloniously robbed of their goods inside Holy Church [seinte Eglise], and outside, you carried off their horses and their plate and their baggage, and made them go on foot [les faistes aler a pee]. And their lands and their possessions you seized by force, against law and reason. It did not only suffice for you to make war on the ministers of Holy Church, but also you plundered it, as a false Christian, renegade and traitor against God himself. And because you knew that God made miracles by my good lord [Lancaster] whom you murdered so cruelly against the law without cause, you, Hugh, as a false Christian [come faux cristiene], sent armed men into Holy Church and had the doors of monasteries shut down and closed so that no-one was bold enough to enter the Church and worship God or his saints, for which merit and in defiance of you, God made divine gifts and miracles. [6]
After this wickedness, you falsely and treacherously counselled our lord the king, to the disinheritance of his crown and his heirs, to give to your father, who was false and a traitor, the earldom of Winchester, and the earldom of Carlisle [Cardoile] to Andrew Harclay, who was a notorious traitor and criminal, and to you, Hugh, the land of Canteruaure [?], and other lands which belong to the crown. And also, Hugh, you, your father and Robert Baldock had my lady the queen ousted from her lands, which were given and assigned to her by our lord the king, and set her on her journey [to France in March 1325] meanly, against the dignity of her highness and of her estate. As a false and disloyal traitor, you daily abetted and procured discord between our lord the king and herself, by your complete royal power. And, Hugh, when my lady the queen and her son, by the command and assent of our lord the king, crossed the sea to save the land of Gascony, which was at point of being lost [pur la terre de Gascoigne sauuer que fuist en poynt destre perdue], by your treacherous counsel you sent over the sea a large sum of money to certain evil men, your adherents, to destroy my lady and her son, who was the rightful heir of the kingdom, and to prevent their return to this country, which would have been to their damage and their destruction, if you had succeeded in doing this [i.e., bribing people to murder Isabella and her son].
Hugh, your father and Robert Baldock and the other false traitors, your adherents, travelled around the kingdom by land and by sea, assuming royal power, making great and small people [les grantz et les petitz], by constraint, promise and assure you that they would maintain you in your false quarrels against all people, regardless of the fact that such confederations were false and treacherous and against the bond and estate of the king and his crown. By your royal power you had them put in arduous prison, such as Sir Henry Beaumont [7], who did not want to swear that they would assent to your wickedness. And when you, Hugh, and the other false traitors, your adherents [vous Hughe et les autres fauxes traitours vos aerdantz] knew that my lady and her son were returning to this land, you made our lord the king, by your treacherous counsel, remove himself from them, and led him out of the kingdom in great peril of his person. [8] And to the great dishonour of himself and of his people, you feloniously took the treasure of the realm and the great seal with you.
Hugh, as a traitor you are found, and as such are judged by all the good people of the realm, great and small, rich and poor [graindres et mayndres, riches et poures]. By common assent you are found as a thief and a criminal, and for this you will be hanged. And because you are found a traitor, you will be drawn and quartered, and [the pieces of your body] sent throughout the realm. And because you were exiled by our lord the king and by common assent and returned to the court without authorisation, you will be beheaded. And because you were always disloyal and procured discord between our lord the king and our very honourable lady the queen, and between other people of the realm, you will be disembowelled, and then they will be burnt.
Withdraw, you traitor, tyrant, renegade; go to take your own justice, traitor, evil man, criminal!
[Retrees vous traitour, tyrant, Reneye, si ales vostre iuys prendre, traitour, malueys, et atteynt; malueys or malveis can also be translated as 'coward' or 'weakling' as well as 'evil man' or 'wicked man']
***
And with that, Despenser was dragged off to his grotesque execution. According to several chroniclers, he was also castrated (or emasculated), though that wasn't officially part of his sentence. Surprisingly enough, his tomb still exists in Tewkesbury Abbey; his remains were finally interred there in December 1330 after Edward III overthrew his mother and Mortimer and gave "the friends of Hugh" permission to bury him.
One of the men watching the proceedings, no doubt with enormous satisfaction, was Roger Mortimer, the next royal favourite, who, having decried Despenser's behaviour, then proceeded to act in much the same way himself over the next four years. The man who read out the above charges against Despenser was Sir William Trussell, who had fled the country after the battle of Boroughbridge and returned with Mortimer and Isabella. A mere two years after Despenser's execution, he and Thomas Wake, who had read out the charges against Hugh Despenser the Elder, joined the earl of Lancaster's rebellion against Isabella and Mortimer. Many of the pair's erstwhile allies fled abroad with Wake and Henry Beaumont, "fearing the cruelty and tyranny of the said earl of March," i.e. Mortimer, who had awarded himself a grandiose earldom - even Despenser never went that far - and "who at that time was more than king in the kingdom." They plotted an invasion of England in the summer of 1330. [9] Mortimer faced many of the same charges as Despenser at his own trial four years almost to the day later. Sometimes, I can't help thinking that none of these people had the sense God gave a sheep.
Notes
1) Hereford, Sully and Burghfield were killed at the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322.
2) This is a mostly complete list of the men executed in March/April 1322, though it omits Stephen Baret and William Fleming. I'll be looking at the executions of 1322 in a future post.
3) Presumably a reference to Joan de Gynes or de Mandeville, wife of Stephen Baret, who was probably executed in 1322. No chronicle, petition or inquisition, or other source, confirms that Despenser had Joan tortured. Her three manors were in Edward II's hands in July 1324: Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-1348, pp. 200-201.
4) Archdeacon of Middlesex and chancellor of England, a close ally of Despenser.
5) A reference to the battle of Byland on 14 October 1322 and Edward's near-capture by the Scots at Rievaulx Abbey.
6) Miracles were being reported at the site of Lancaster's execution and at his tomb within weeks of his death.
7) Henry Beaumont was imprisoned in the castles of Kenilworth, Warwick and Wallingford in 1326, supposedly because "he would not swear to the king and Sir Hugh Despenser the son to be of their part to live and die." [Le Livere de Reis de Britannie e Le Livere de Reis de Engletere, ed. J. Glover, pp. 354-355; Calendar of Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 593; Calendar of Fine Rolls 1319-1327, pp. 417-418]
8) A reference to Edward II and Despenser sailing from Chepstow in mid-October 1326, probably in an attempt to reach Ireland.
9) Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346, ed. H. Maxwell, pp. 265-266, for the quotations. Isabella and Mortimer's atttempts to raise troops and defend towns in order to repel the invasion are in Calendar of Patent Rolls 1327-1330, pp. 544, 563, 570-572; Cal Close Rolls 1330-1333, pp. 51, 147, 151.
***
Hugh le Despenser, in the parliament of our lord King Edward who now is, held at Westminster in the fifteenth year of his reign [August 1321], by investigation of the prelates, earls and barons and all the community of the realm, it was found to be well-known that your father and you, Hugh [votre piere et vous hughe], were traitors and enemies of the realm, for which cause, by the assent and the command of our lord the king and all the baronage, your father and you, Hugh, were exiled from the realm never to return, which was done by the assent and permission of our lord the king and all the baronage and all those who were duly summoned to full parliament.
Against which judgement and exile, your father and you, Hugh, returned to the realm and were found at court without authorisation. And you, Hugh, in returning to the realm, feloniously robbed two dromonds of their goods to the value of £60,000 sterling, to the great dishonour of the king and the realm, and to the great peril of the merchants who often visit foreign countries. After this felony done by you, Hugh, you approached our lord the king and made him ride in arms against the peers of the realm and others of his faithful liegemen, to destroy and disinherit them contrary to Magna Carta [la grant chartre] and the Ordinances, and so riding in force and in arms, seizing royal power, you, Hugh, and your father and your adherents feloniously robbed the good men of the realm. With Andrew Harclay and other traitors, your adherents, you had the good earl of Hereford and Sir William Sully [Monsieur William suyllee] and Sir Roger Burghfield feloniously and maliciously murdered. [1]
You took the good earl of Lancaster [le bone Counte de Lancastre], who was the cousin-german of our lord the king and his brothers and uncle of the very noble king of France and his sister my lady the queen of England, and had him falsely imprisoned and robbed, and in his own hall in his castle, by your royal power which you had seized from our lord the king, had him judged by a false record contrary to law and reason and Magna Carta and also without response, and you had him martyred and murdered by hard and piteous death. And this wickedness and tyranny done to such an exalted person could not sate you of spilling the blood of Christians, and also on this same day, to further torment my said lord, before his vanquished eyes*, you had his barons and knights condemned to death by drawing and hanging. By this false record contrary to law and reason, you shamefully had them hanged without mercy: Sir Warin Lisle [Warin del yle], Sir William Tuchet, Sir Thomas Mauduit, Sir Henry Bradbourne, Sir William Cheney, Sir William Fitzwilliam the younger. At York, my lord Clifford, my lord Mowbray, Sir Jocelyn Deyville. At Canterbury, the lord Badlesmere and Sir Bartholomew Ashburnham. At London, Sir Henry Tyes. At Windsor, Sir Francis Aldenham [A Wyndesore monsieur franceys de Aldenham]. At Gloucester, the lord Giffard and Sir Roger Elmbridge. At Bristol, Sir Henry Wilington and Sir Henry Montfort. At Winchelsea, Sir Thomas Culpepper. [2]
[* sez oilz veintz - I'm not quite sure about that bit.]
Many other magnates you had sent to hard prison, to murder them without cause for covetousness of their lands, such as the lord Mortimer and Mortimer the uncle [le seignour le Mortimere et le Mortimere luncle], and the lord Berkeley and Sir Hugh Audley the father and son, and the children of Hereford who were the nephews of our lord the king, and great ladies, wives of these lords, and their children, you kept in prison and orphaned. And after the deaths of their barons, you pursued widowed ladies such as my lady Baret, and as a tyrant you had her beaten by your mercenaries [or rascals, or menials: ribaldes]** and shamefully had her arms and legs broken against the order of chivalry and contrary to law and reason, by which the good lady is forever more driven mad and lost [la bone dame est touz iours afole et perdue]. [3] And many other such people who should have been ladies of great honour, you made follow the court on foot in great poverty, without pity and without mercy, and every day they were held in such great ignominy that God by his mercy sent our good and gracious lady and her son [Isabella and Edward III] and the good men who have come in their company to the land, by which the realm is delivered.
[** that part is often mistranslated as 'making her the butt of his ribaldry']
Hugh, after this destruction of our noble liege lord [Lancaster] and of other men of the realm done falsely, shamefully and treacherously, you, Hugh, and your father and Robert Baldock [4], who between you treacherously embraced royal power, had our lord the king and his people led to Scotland to the enemies, where you, by your treacherous conduct, lost more than 20,000 of his [Edward II's] people who died piteously by your default, to the great dishonour and damage of our lord the king and of all his people, without gaining advantage. After returning, you, Hugh, your father, and Robert Baldock, falsely and treacherously counselled our lord the king to leave my lady the queen in peril of her person in the priory of Tynemouth in Northumberland. You had our lord the king led in flight to Blackhow Moor [la More de Blachou], where his enemies of Scotland [ses enemys descoce] by your treacherous conduct surprised him, to the great dishonour and damage of the king and his people. [5] And in such great misfortune and peril of her person, my lady who was your liege lady, by your treacherous deed might have been lost, to the perpetual dishonour and damage of the king and his realm, if God had not sent her deliverance by sea, thereby rescuing her from danger to her life and saving her honour, in such great grief of heart and body that no good lady of her estate and nobility should have at any time.
Hugh, neither this treason nor cruelty could suffice for you, but by the royal power which you had seized from our lord the king, you destroyed the privileges of Holy Church. The prelates Hereford, Lincoln, Ely, Norwich, you feloniously robbed of their goods inside Holy Church [seinte Eglise], and outside, you carried off their horses and their plate and their baggage, and made them go on foot [les faistes aler a pee]. And their lands and their possessions you seized by force, against law and reason. It did not only suffice for you to make war on the ministers of Holy Church, but also you plundered it, as a false Christian, renegade and traitor against God himself. And because you knew that God made miracles by my good lord [Lancaster] whom you murdered so cruelly against the law without cause, you, Hugh, as a false Christian [come faux cristiene], sent armed men into Holy Church and had the doors of monasteries shut down and closed so that no-one was bold enough to enter the Church and worship God or his saints, for which merit and in defiance of you, God made divine gifts and miracles. [6]
After this wickedness, you falsely and treacherously counselled our lord the king, to the disinheritance of his crown and his heirs, to give to your father, who was false and a traitor, the earldom of Winchester, and the earldom of Carlisle [Cardoile] to Andrew Harclay, who was a notorious traitor and criminal, and to you, Hugh, the land of Canteruaure [?], and other lands which belong to the crown. And also, Hugh, you, your father and Robert Baldock had my lady the queen ousted from her lands, which were given and assigned to her by our lord the king, and set her on her journey [to France in March 1325] meanly, against the dignity of her highness and of her estate. As a false and disloyal traitor, you daily abetted and procured discord between our lord the king and herself, by your complete royal power. And, Hugh, when my lady the queen and her son, by the command and assent of our lord the king, crossed the sea to save the land of Gascony, which was at point of being lost [pur la terre de Gascoigne sauuer que fuist en poynt destre perdue], by your treacherous counsel you sent over the sea a large sum of money to certain evil men, your adherents, to destroy my lady and her son, who was the rightful heir of the kingdom, and to prevent their return to this country, which would have been to their damage and their destruction, if you had succeeded in doing this [i.e., bribing people to murder Isabella and her son].
Hugh, your father and Robert Baldock and the other false traitors, your adherents, travelled around the kingdom by land and by sea, assuming royal power, making great and small people [les grantz et les petitz], by constraint, promise and assure you that they would maintain you in your false quarrels against all people, regardless of the fact that such confederations were false and treacherous and against the bond and estate of the king and his crown. By your royal power you had them put in arduous prison, such as Sir Henry Beaumont [7], who did not want to swear that they would assent to your wickedness. And when you, Hugh, and the other false traitors, your adherents [vous Hughe et les autres fauxes traitours vos aerdantz] knew that my lady and her son were returning to this land, you made our lord the king, by your treacherous counsel, remove himself from them, and led him out of the kingdom in great peril of his person. [8] And to the great dishonour of himself and of his people, you feloniously took the treasure of the realm and the great seal with you.
Hugh, as a traitor you are found, and as such are judged by all the good people of the realm, great and small, rich and poor [graindres et mayndres, riches et poures]. By common assent you are found as a thief and a criminal, and for this you will be hanged. And because you are found a traitor, you will be drawn and quartered, and [the pieces of your body] sent throughout the realm. And because you were exiled by our lord the king and by common assent and returned to the court without authorisation, you will be beheaded. And because you were always disloyal and procured discord between our lord the king and our very honourable lady the queen, and between other people of the realm, you will be disembowelled, and then they will be burnt.
Withdraw, you traitor, tyrant, renegade; go to take your own justice, traitor, evil man, criminal!
[Retrees vous traitour, tyrant, Reneye, si ales vostre iuys prendre, traitour, malueys, et atteynt; malueys or malveis can also be translated as 'coward' or 'weakling' as well as 'evil man' or 'wicked man']
***
And with that, Despenser was dragged off to his grotesque execution. According to several chroniclers, he was also castrated (or emasculated), though that wasn't officially part of his sentence. Surprisingly enough, his tomb still exists in Tewkesbury Abbey; his remains were finally interred there in December 1330 after Edward III overthrew his mother and Mortimer and gave "the friends of Hugh" permission to bury him.
One of the men watching the proceedings, no doubt with enormous satisfaction, was Roger Mortimer, the next royal favourite, who, having decried Despenser's behaviour, then proceeded to act in much the same way himself over the next four years. The man who read out the above charges against Despenser was Sir William Trussell, who had fled the country after the battle of Boroughbridge and returned with Mortimer and Isabella. A mere two years after Despenser's execution, he and Thomas Wake, who had read out the charges against Hugh Despenser the Elder, joined the earl of Lancaster's rebellion against Isabella and Mortimer. Many of the pair's erstwhile allies fled abroad with Wake and Henry Beaumont, "fearing the cruelty and tyranny of the said earl of March," i.e. Mortimer, who had awarded himself a grandiose earldom - even Despenser never went that far - and "who at that time was more than king in the kingdom." They plotted an invasion of England in the summer of 1330. [9] Mortimer faced many of the same charges as Despenser at his own trial four years almost to the day later. Sometimes, I can't help thinking that none of these people had the sense God gave a sheep.
Notes
1) Hereford, Sully and Burghfield were killed at the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322.
2) This is a mostly complete list of the men executed in March/April 1322, though it omits Stephen Baret and William Fleming. I'll be looking at the executions of 1322 in a future post.
3) Presumably a reference to Joan de Gynes or de Mandeville, wife of Stephen Baret, who was probably executed in 1322. No chronicle, petition or inquisition, or other source, confirms that Despenser had Joan tortured. Her three manors were in Edward II's hands in July 1324: Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-1348, pp. 200-201.
4) Archdeacon of Middlesex and chancellor of England, a close ally of Despenser.
5) A reference to the battle of Byland on 14 October 1322 and Edward's near-capture by the Scots at Rievaulx Abbey.
6) Miracles were being reported at the site of Lancaster's execution and at his tomb within weeks of his death.
7) Henry Beaumont was imprisoned in the castles of Kenilworth, Warwick and Wallingford in 1326, supposedly because "he would not swear to the king and Sir Hugh Despenser the son to be of their part to live and die." [Le Livere de Reis de Britannie e Le Livere de Reis de Engletere, ed. J. Glover, pp. 354-355; Calendar of Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 593; Calendar of Fine Rolls 1319-1327, pp. 417-418]
8) A reference to Edward II and Despenser sailing from Chepstow in mid-October 1326, probably in an attempt to reach Ireland.
9) Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346, ed. H. Maxwell, pp. 265-266, for the quotations. Isabella and Mortimer's atttempts to raise troops and defend towns in order to repel the invasion are in Calendar of Patent Rolls 1327-1330, pp. 544, 563, 570-572; Cal Close Rolls 1330-1333, pp. 51, 147, 151.
14 April, 2009
Edward II Did Not Stupidly Fall Into A Trap, September 1325
In September 1325, Edward II sent his twelve-year-old son Edward of Windsor, earl of Chester and now duke of Aquitaine and count of Ponthieu, to France to perform homage to Charles IV for Edward's French lands. Queen Isabella seized control of their son and refused to allow him to return to England, arranged the boy's marriage to the count of Hainault's daughter and used the dowry to pay for ships and mercenaries, and invaded England in September 1326. This, of course, led to Edward II's forced abdication in favour of his son in January 1327.
Many writers on this subject have assumed that Edward's sending his son to France is proof that that he was stupid, that he sent his son blindly unaware of the dangers, and that he fell into the cunning trap his wife and her ally/lover Roger Mortimer had planned for him. Edward's behaviour in August and September 1325 in fact demonstrates that he was completely aware of the risks, as I will prove.
Edward was meant to perform homage for Gascony and Ponthieu at Beauvais on 29 August 1325 to his brother-in-law Charles IV, his overlord for these lands. If he failed to do so, the lands would be forfeit to the French king. Edward's great-great-grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine had brought the duchy of Aquitaine to the English Crown on her marriage to (the future) Henry II in 1152, while Ponthieu was Edward's inheritance from his mother Eleanor of Castile, countess of Ponthieu in her own right. He could not possibly allow these lands to pass under the king of France's control. On the other hand, there were several reasons why Edward was most reluctant to travel to France at this time. He was worried that he would be indicted in the French court for the 1322 death of his cousin Thomas of Lancaster, Charles IV's uncle. [1] His enemies, Roger Mortimer and other English exiles, were living on the continent, and Edward was afraid of assassination or capture. Edward was at war with France - the War of Saint-Sardos - from August 1324 to June 1325, so his relations with his brother-in-law Charles IV were a long way from cordial. Not to mention, Edward's ineptitude and tyranny meant that there was seething discontent in England, and he might have been worried that the country would erupt into rebellion during his absence.
Edward had other concerns. He could not take his favourite Hugh Despenser with him, as Despenser was loathed in France for his piracy of 1321; it was said that if he set foot there, he would be arrested and tortured. [2] But leaving Despenser behind was risky, too: he and his father Despenser the Elder, earl of Winchester, were also widely loathed in England, and feared that they would be put to death as soon as they lost the king's protection. As the Vita Edwardi Secundi says, they "realised that in the absence of the king they would not know where to live safely." [3]
So Edward could not go to France with Despenser, he could not go to France without Despenser, and he could not avoid performing homage. His only other choice, other than losing his French inheritance, leaving his friend behind to be murdered or taking him along and risking him being tortured, was to make his son Edward of Windsor duke of Aquitaine and count of Ponthieu in his place, and send him to perform homage instead. This had been suggested by the French at the end of 1324 or beginning of 1325, but Edward's counsellors rejected the proposal "with one voice." They did consent to send Queen Isabella to negotiate with her brother on Edward's behalf, but were understandably unwilling to send the twelve-year-old heir to the throne to an enemy country until peace had been established. (quant al point del aler nostre dame la royne et de mons' son filz, touz de une voice desconseillerent laler mons' le fitz quant a ore et si la qe la pees feust meux tretee et accordee: Regarding the journey of our lady the queen and Monsieur her son, they [Edward's advisers] with one voice counselled against the journey of Monsieur the son at present and until peace should be better negotiated and agreed; dated c. 13 January 1325.) [4]
Henry III had in 1253 been equally reluctant to send his fourteen-year-old son, the future Edward I, to Castile, as suggested by Alfonso X, then inciting a rebellion in Gascony with a view to invading and taking over the duchy, in case Alfonso took Edward as a hostage. And Edward II knew in September 1325 that sending his son to France also had serious drawbacks: he would lose control of his French lands and their income, and far more dangerously, the king was well aware that that his enemies could seize his son and use him as a hostage, not to mention the more general risks of sending the future king of England to a hostile country with whom he had only recently established a shaky peace (Edward signed a truce with Charles IV on 13 June 1325).
So in September 1325, Edward II was in an impossible position; every course of action open to him had serious risks and drawbacks. For this, of course, he only had himself to blame. If he had performed homage when Charles IV first invited him to do so, between Candlemas (2 February) and Easter (15 April) 1324, if he hadn't made himself so wildly unpopular, if he hadn't allowed the Despensers to make themselves so loathed, if he hadn't behaved so vindictively in 1322 and ensured that he and the Despensers had numerous enemies both at home and abroad, if he hadn't alienated Queen Isabella, and so on, he wouldn't have been in such a mess in the first place.
Edward's indecisiveness as to the correct course of action is painfully apparent. He spent the second half of August and early September 1325 hovering uncertainly in Kent prior to departure to perform homage, staying at Sturry, Langdon and Dover. Although some writers would have you believe that he was utterly and stupidly oblivious to the dangers of sending his son to France, this is in fact very far from being the case. Edward at first decided to go himself, then changed his mind, then decided to go himself, then changed his mind:
- Pope John XXII had heard by late June 1325 that Edward himself was going to France. [5]
- On 20 July, Edward appointed keepers of the truce between himself and Robert Bruce and ordered men to guard the coast of Northumberland during his absence overseas. [6]
- On 29 July, Edward told Robert Kendale, constable of Dover Castle, that he was going to France around the Assumption (15 August) "upon great and arduous affairs touching him and his realm," and ordered Kendale to provide as many ships as necessary for himself and the magnates accompanying him. [7]
- On 21 August, eight days before he was due to pay homage, Edward began issuing letters of protection for the retinue accompanying him to France. On the same day, he asked the Dominicans of Lincoln to pray for him, Isabella, Edward of Windsor, and their other children. [8]
- his Italian bankers the Bardi gave him over £3515 for his expenses, and silver plate worth £1768 to hand out as gifts at the French court. [9]
- on 24 August, Edward changed his mind about going, and told Charles IV that he had suddenly been taken ill and would not be able to come to France. This was almost certainly feigned; Edward was a healthy, strong and fit man who rarely suffered from illness. [10]
- on 30 August, the day after he should have performed homage at Beauvais, Edward changed his mind again and appointed his son regent of England while he went to France. [11]
-on 1 September, Edward told Louis Beaumont, bishop of Durham, that he was "shortly going to France" and had appointed his son as regent, and ordered Beaumont to keep the bishopric safe during his absence. [12]
- also on 1 September, Edward appointed Anthony Lucy and the earl of Arundel as wardens of Cumberland and Westmorland, and of the Welsh marches, during his absence overseas. [13]
- on 2 September, Edward changed his mind again and made his son count of Ponthieu. [14]
- evidently still unsure whether he was doing the right thing, Edward continued issuing letters of protection for the men accompanying him to France - him, not his son - on 3 and 4 September. [15]
- Edward began issuing letters of protection for the men accompanying his son on 5 September, but waited until 10 September before making young Edward duke of Aquitaine prior to sending him to the king of France. [16] The delay is a further indication of his uncertainty as to whether he was doing the right thing. But this remained his final decision, and the boy sailed from Dover on 12 September and performed homage to his uncle Charles IV at Vincennes on 24 September. [17]
- according to the chronicle of Adam Murimuth, who should know, because he was there, Edward and his advisers continued to discuss while he was staying at Langdon whether he should travel overseas. Edward was at Langdon from 24 August to 3 September. [18]
If Edward had been as oblivious to the consequences of his actions as many commentators have assumed and stated as fact, he would have blithely sent his son to France without a second thought, but as is apparent from his frequent changes of mind, he was most emphatically not oblivious; he was torn between the dangers of sending his son to France and going himself. He was also perfectly well aware of the dangers of sending his son unmarried, as proved by his injunctions to the boy both prior to his departure and in subsequent letters not to marry "without the king's consent and command." [19] Edward did not fall into Isabella and Roger Mortimer's cunningly-laid trap, and whether Isabella had ever even been in contact with Mortimer and his allies on the continent, men who had fled England after the battle of Boroughbridge in March 1322, is a matter for speculation. It is a possibility, but there is nothing to prove it.
In the end, it was Hugh Despenser who persuaded Edward not to go, and the Anonimalle says that the favourite "made a great sorrow, and lamented piteously to the king that if he passed beyond sea, he [Despenser] would be put to death in his absence," a story confirmed by Adam Murimuth and the Vita. [20] Edward must surely have remembered what had happened when he left Piers Gaveston at Scarborough Castle on 10 May 1312: his beloved was killed six weeks later.
And therefore, Edward made the decision for which he has unfairly been condemned as a stupid, blind fool ever since, and sent Edward of Windsor to France. He never saw his son again. (At least, not officially; unless the William the Welshman who met Edward III in 1338 was Edward II himself, but that's another story.)
In sending his son to France, Edward made a very bad decision, but that does not mean he made it blindly and unwittingly, and if he had gone to France himself and been assassinated or kidnapped, historians would no doubt ask how he could have been so stupid as to travel abroad himself when he could have sent his son instead. If neither he nor his son had paid homage and let Gascony and Ponthieu fall forfeit to the French Crown, he would of course be castigated for losing such an important part of his inheritance. If he had left Despenser behind, he would be sneered at for not caring if his friend was murdered. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it seems to me that whatever decision Edward II made in September 1325 would, in retrospect, have been the wrong one.
Sources
1) Mark Buck, Politics, Finance and the Church in the Reign of Edward II: Walter Stapeldon, Treasurer of England, p. 156, note 199.
2) Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N. Denholm-Young, p. 142.
3) Vita, p. 140.
4) Pierre Chaplais, ed., The War of Saint-Sardos (1323-1325): Gascon Correspondence and Diplomatic Documents, pp. 195-196.
5) Calendar of Papal Letters 1305-1342, p. 466.
6) Foedera, II, i, p. 603.
7) Calendar of Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 496.
8) Calendar of Patent Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 161-2, 166-8; Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 503.
9) Natalie Fryde, The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321-1326, p. 96.
10) Foedera, p. 606.
11) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 171.
12) Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 399.
13) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 171.
14) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 173-175.
15) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 167, 169-170.
16) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 168, 173-175.
17) Chaplais, War of Saint-Sardos, p. 243; Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 175; Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 507.
18) Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum, ed. E. Maunde Thompson, p. 44.
19) Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, pp. 577-578.
20) The Anonimalle Chronicle 1307-41, from Brotherton Collection MS 29, ed. W. R. Childs and J. Taylor, p. 120; Murimuth, p. 44; Vita, p. 138.
Many writers on this subject have assumed that Edward's sending his son to France is proof that that he was stupid, that he sent his son blindly unaware of the dangers, and that he fell into the cunning trap his wife and her ally/lover Roger Mortimer had planned for him. Edward's behaviour in August and September 1325 in fact demonstrates that he was completely aware of the risks, as I will prove.
Edward was meant to perform homage for Gascony and Ponthieu at Beauvais on 29 August 1325 to his brother-in-law Charles IV, his overlord for these lands. If he failed to do so, the lands would be forfeit to the French king. Edward's great-great-grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine had brought the duchy of Aquitaine to the English Crown on her marriage to (the future) Henry II in 1152, while Ponthieu was Edward's inheritance from his mother Eleanor of Castile, countess of Ponthieu in her own right. He could not possibly allow these lands to pass under the king of France's control. On the other hand, there were several reasons why Edward was most reluctant to travel to France at this time. He was worried that he would be indicted in the French court for the 1322 death of his cousin Thomas of Lancaster, Charles IV's uncle. [1] His enemies, Roger Mortimer and other English exiles, were living on the continent, and Edward was afraid of assassination or capture. Edward was at war with France - the War of Saint-Sardos - from August 1324 to June 1325, so his relations with his brother-in-law Charles IV were a long way from cordial. Not to mention, Edward's ineptitude and tyranny meant that there was seething discontent in England, and he might have been worried that the country would erupt into rebellion during his absence.
Edward had other concerns. He could not take his favourite Hugh Despenser with him, as Despenser was loathed in France for his piracy of 1321; it was said that if he set foot there, he would be arrested and tortured. [2] But leaving Despenser behind was risky, too: he and his father Despenser the Elder, earl of Winchester, were also widely loathed in England, and feared that they would be put to death as soon as they lost the king's protection. As the Vita Edwardi Secundi says, they "realised that in the absence of the king they would not know where to live safely." [3]
So Edward could not go to France with Despenser, he could not go to France without Despenser, and he could not avoid performing homage. His only other choice, other than losing his French inheritance, leaving his friend behind to be murdered or taking him along and risking him being tortured, was to make his son Edward of Windsor duke of Aquitaine and count of Ponthieu in his place, and send him to perform homage instead. This had been suggested by the French at the end of 1324 or beginning of 1325, but Edward's counsellors rejected the proposal "with one voice." They did consent to send Queen Isabella to negotiate with her brother on Edward's behalf, but were understandably unwilling to send the twelve-year-old heir to the throne to an enemy country until peace had been established. (quant al point del aler nostre dame la royne et de mons' son filz, touz de une voice desconseillerent laler mons' le fitz quant a ore et si la qe la pees feust meux tretee et accordee: Regarding the journey of our lady the queen and Monsieur her son, they [Edward's advisers] with one voice counselled against the journey of Monsieur the son at present and until peace should be better negotiated and agreed; dated c. 13 January 1325.) [4]
Henry III had in 1253 been equally reluctant to send his fourteen-year-old son, the future Edward I, to Castile, as suggested by Alfonso X, then inciting a rebellion in Gascony with a view to invading and taking over the duchy, in case Alfonso took Edward as a hostage. And Edward II knew in September 1325 that sending his son to France also had serious drawbacks: he would lose control of his French lands and their income, and far more dangerously, the king was well aware that that his enemies could seize his son and use him as a hostage, not to mention the more general risks of sending the future king of England to a hostile country with whom he had only recently established a shaky peace (Edward signed a truce with Charles IV on 13 June 1325).
So in September 1325, Edward II was in an impossible position; every course of action open to him had serious risks and drawbacks. For this, of course, he only had himself to blame. If he had performed homage when Charles IV first invited him to do so, between Candlemas (2 February) and Easter (15 April) 1324, if he hadn't made himself so wildly unpopular, if he hadn't allowed the Despensers to make themselves so loathed, if he hadn't behaved so vindictively in 1322 and ensured that he and the Despensers had numerous enemies both at home and abroad, if he hadn't alienated Queen Isabella, and so on, he wouldn't have been in such a mess in the first place.
Edward's indecisiveness as to the correct course of action is painfully apparent. He spent the second half of August and early September 1325 hovering uncertainly in Kent prior to departure to perform homage, staying at Sturry, Langdon and Dover. Although some writers would have you believe that he was utterly and stupidly oblivious to the dangers of sending his son to France, this is in fact very far from being the case. Edward at first decided to go himself, then changed his mind, then decided to go himself, then changed his mind:
- Pope John XXII had heard by late June 1325 that Edward himself was going to France. [5]
- On 20 July, Edward appointed keepers of the truce between himself and Robert Bruce and ordered men to guard the coast of Northumberland during his absence overseas. [6]
- On 29 July, Edward told Robert Kendale, constable of Dover Castle, that he was going to France around the Assumption (15 August) "upon great and arduous affairs touching him and his realm," and ordered Kendale to provide as many ships as necessary for himself and the magnates accompanying him. [7]
- On 21 August, eight days before he was due to pay homage, Edward began issuing letters of protection for the retinue accompanying him to France. On the same day, he asked the Dominicans of Lincoln to pray for him, Isabella, Edward of Windsor, and their other children. [8]
- his Italian bankers the Bardi gave him over £3515 for his expenses, and silver plate worth £1768 to hand out as gifts at the French court. [9]
- on 24 August, Edward changed his mind about going, and told Charles IV that he had suddenly been taken ill and would not be able to come to France. This was almost certainly feigned; Edward was a healthy, strong and fit man who rarely suffered from illness. [10]
- on 30 August, the day after he should have performed homage at Beauvais, Edward changed his mind again and appointed his son regent of England while he went to France. [11]
-on 1 September, Edward told Louis Beaumont, bishop of Durham, that he was "shortly going to France" and had appointed his son as regent, and ordered Beaumont to keep the bishopric safe during his absence. [12]
- also on 1 September, Edward appointed Anthony Lucy and the earl of Arundel as wardens of Cumberland and Westmorland, and of the Welsh marches, during his absence overseas. [13]
- on 2 September, Edward changed his mind again and made his son count of Ponthieu. [14]
- evidently still unsure whether he was doing the right thing, Edward continued issuing letters of protection for the men accompanying him to France - him, not his son - on 3 and 4 September. [15]
- Edward began issuing letters of protection for the men accompanying his son on 5 September, but waited until 10 September before making young Edward duke of Aquitaine prior to sending him to the king of France. [16] The delay is a further indication of his uncertainty as to whether he was doing the right thing. But this remained his final decision, and the boy sailed from Dover on 12 September and performed homage to his uncle Charles IV at Vincennes on 24 September. [17]
- according to the chronicle of Adam Murimuth, who should know, because he was there, Edward and his advisers continued to discuss while he was staying at Langdon whether he should travel overseas. Edward was at Langdon from 24 August to 3 September. [18]
If Edward had been as oblivious to the consequences of his actions as many commentators have assumed and stated as fact, he would have blithely sent his son to France without a second thought, but as is apparent from his frequent changes of mind, he was most emphatically not oblivious; he was torn between the dangers of sending his son to France and going himself. He was also perfectly well aware of the dangers of sending his son unmarried, as proved by his injunctions to the boy both prior to his departure and in subsequent letters not to marry "without the king's consent and command." [19] Edward did not fall into Isabella and Roger Mortimer's cunningly-laid trap, and whether Isabella had ever even been in contact with Mortimer and his allies on the continent, men who had fled England after the battle of Boroughbridge in March 1322, is a matter for speculation. It is a possibility, but there is nothing to prove it.
In the end, it was Hugh Despenser who persuaded Edward not to go, and the Anonimalle says that the favourite "made a great sorrow, and lamented piteously to the king that if he passed beyond sea, he [Despenser] would be put to death in his absence," a story confirmed by Adam Murimuth and the Vita. [20] Edward must surely have remembered what had happened when he left Piers Gaveston at Scarborough Castle on 10 May 1312: his beloved was killed six weeks later.
And therefore, Edward made the decision for which he has unfairly been condemned as a stupid, blind fool ever since, and sent Edward of Windsor to France. He never saw his son again. (At least, not officially; unless the William the Welshman who met Edward III in 1338 was Edward II himself, but that's another story.)
In sending his son to France, Edward made a very bad decision, but that does not mean he made it blindly and unwittingly, and if he had gone to France himself and been assassinated or kidnapped, historians would no doubt ask how he could have been so stupid as to travel abroad himself when he could have sent his son instead. If neither he nor his son had paid homage and let Gascony and Ponthieu fall forfeit to the French Crown, he would of course be castigated for losing such an important part of his inheritance. If he had left Despenser behind, he would be sneered at for not caring if his friend was murdered. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it seems to me that whatever decision Edward II made in September 1325 would, in retrospect, have been the wrong one.
Sources
1) Mark Buck, Politics, Finance and the Church in the Reign of Edward II: Walter Stapeldon, Treasurer of England, p. 156, note 199.
2) Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N. Denholm-Young, p. 142.
3) Vita, p. 140.
4) Pierre Chaplais, ed., The War of Saint-Sardos (1323-1325): Gascon Correspondence and Diplomatic Documents, pp. 195-196.
5) Calendar of Papal Letters 1305-1342, p. 466.
6) Foedera, II, i, p. 603.
7) Calendar of Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 496.
8) Calendar of Patent Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 161-2, 166-8; Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 503.
9) Natalie Fryde, The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321-1326, p. 96.
10) Foedera, p. 606.
11) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 171.
12) Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 399.
13) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 171.
14) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 173-175.
15) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 167, 169-170.
16) Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, pp. 168, 173-175.
17) Chaplais, War of Saint-Sardos, p. 243; Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 175; Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 507.
18) Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum, ed. E. Maunde Thompson, p. 44.
19) Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, pp. 577-578.
20) The Anonimalle Chronicle 1307-41, from Brotherton Collection MS 29, ed. W. R. Childs and J. Taylor, p. 120; Murimuth, p. 44; Vita, p. 138.
09 April, 2009
Books, etc
Congratulations to Susan Higginbotham, whose excellent novel The Traitor's Wife, about Edward II's niece Eleanor (de Clare) Despenser, was published recently and has been garnering terrific reviews online. I'm delighted on Susan's behalf, as she's become a good friend since we met via the blog some years ago, and also because - yes, I admit it - it means people are reading a far more positive portrayal of Edward II than is usually seen, though Susan certainly doesn't skate over his many faults.
Paul Doherty's third Mathilde of Westminster murder mystery, The Darkening Glass, came out on 2 April, though I haven't bought it yet. It's set in March 1312, and features Edward and Piers Gaveston forced to flee to Tynemouth Priory to escape the earl of Lancaster - and one of their party being murdered.
The twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh instalments of Michael Jecks' popular Templar series are coming out on 11 June: The King of Thieves in paperback, and No Law in the Land in hardback and trade paperback. They're set near the end of Edward II's reign, as everything starts to go pear-shaped for the king when Queen Isabella refuses to return to England and keeps their son in France with her.
Ian Mortimer has two books coming out this year, in May and September: The Dying and the Doctors: the Medical Revolution in Seventeenth-Century England, and 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory.
The sheer number of books about the battle of Bannockburn coming out these days is astonishing. Chris Brown's excellent Bannockburn, 1314: A New History is due out in paperback this December - though it's definitely worth splashing out on the hardback - Michael Brown's Bannockburn: The Scottish War and the British Isles, 1307-1323 came out last July, and David Cornell's Bannockburn: The Triumph of Robert the Bruce was published in hardback on 30 March this year. I haven't read the latter two yet, but am hoping to very soon. In case that isn't enough Bannockburn for you, there's also Michael Sadler's Bannockburn: Battle for Liberty and David Simpkin's The English Aristocracy at War: From the Welsh Wars of Edward I to the Battle of Bannockburn, both published last year.
Melissa Mayhue's A Highlander of Her Own came out in late January: a romance novel set in present-day Texas and Scotland in 1304. I'm happy to say that I get a mention in the acknowledgements for helping Melissa with her research.
Blog searches from the last few days:
marriage under eighteen:poeple under the age of eighteen should not be allowed to mary?
was edward ii a selfish ruler
edward ii murder of twin nephews
where can i find the books on Edward II
Renaissance time--a noblewaoman with a reputation for poisoning enemies
the thing why king edward the 2nd is famous for kids
Queen Isabella's age of taking over the thrown
gaveston's affect on edward 2
hugh despenser the younger pic
Edward II murder lurid
edward the 2 death description
Hugh Despenser the Younger, genitals
hugh despenser penis The obsession with Despenser's private parts continues.
emasculated penis
visite roi edward in savoy
despenser patent made in sweden
cool sorcerer names
insulting nicknames for the french
Remember you are mortal Coronation
symbols of queen isabella of her favorite things
queen isabella and her spare time
queen Isabella gets married to Roger
why do you think when a guest makes a request the housemaid has to confirm and note it down
towcester brothel
blogspot nude tall men
When was Quenn Isabele first child born?
Paul Doherty's third Mathilde of Westminster murder mystery, The Darkening Glass, came out on 2 April, though I haven't bought it yet. It's set in March 1312, and features Edward and Piers Gaveston forced to flee to Tynemouth Priory to escape the earl of Lancaster - and one of their party being murdered.
The twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh instalments of Michael Jecks' popular Templar series are coming out on 11 June: The King of Thieves in paperback, and No Law in the Land in hardback and trade paperback. They're set near the end of Edward II's reign, as everything starts to go pear-shaped for the king when Queen Isabella refuses to return to England and keeps their son in France with her.
Ian Mortimer has two books coming out this year, in May and September: The Dying and the Doctors: the Medical Revolution in Seventeenth-Century England, and 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory.
The sheer number of books about the battle of Bannockburn coming out these days is astonishing. Chris Brown's excellent Bannockburn, 1314: A New History is due out in paperback this December - though it's definitely worth splashing out on the hardback - Michael Brown's Bannockburn: The Scottish War and the British Isles, 1307-1323 came out last July, and David Cornell's Bannockburn: The Triumph of Robert the Bruce was published in hardback on 30 March this year. I haven't read the latter two yet, but am hoping to very soon. In case that isn't enough Bannockburn for you, there's also Michael Sadler's Bannockburn: Battle for Liberty and David Simpkin's The English Aristocracy at War: From the Welsh Wars of Edward I to the Battle of Bannockburn, both published last year.
Melissa Mayhue's A Highlander of Her Own came out in late January: a romance novel set in present-day Texas and Scotland in 1304. I'm happy to say that I get a mention in the acknowledgements for helping Melissa with her research.
Blog searches from the last few days:
marriage under eighteen:poeple under the age of eighteen should not be allowed to mary?
was edward ii a selfish ruler
edward ii murder of twin nephews
where can i find the books on Edward II
Renaissance time--a noblewaoman with a reputation for poisoning enemies
the thing why king edward the 2nd is famous for kids
Queen Isabella's age of taking over the thrown
gaveston's affect on edward 2
hugh despenser the younger pic
Edward II murder lurid
edward the 2 death description
Hugh Despenser the Younger, genitals
hugh despenser penis The obsession with Despenser's private parts continues.
emasculated penis
visite roi edward in savoy
despenser patent made in sweden
cool sorcerer names
insulting nicknames for the french
Remember you are mortal Coronation
symbols of queen isabella of her favorite things
queen isabella and her spare time
queen Isabella gets married to Roger
why do you think when a guest makes a request the housemaid has to confirm and note it down
towcester brothel
blogspot nude tall men
When was Quenn Isabele first child born?
05 April, 2009
Andrew Harclay, Earl Of Carlisle
A post about a man who held the earldom of Carlisle for less than a year and suffered a terrible death by hanging, drawing and quartering.
Andrew Harclay or Hartley was born in about 1270, son of Michael Harclay, sheriff of Cumberland from 1285 to 1298, and Joan Fitzjohn of Yorkshire. Andrew's name in his own lifetime was usually written as Andreu de Ercla, Harcla, Hercla, Hercelay, Hartcla, Hertcla, Harkla, Harccla, Harklay, Harteclath or Artcla. He had a sister called Sarah and brothers named John and Henry, the latter (died 1317) chancellor of Oxford University.
Andrew was appointed sheriff of Cumberland in 1311, a position he held on and off for the next dozen years, and warden of Carlisle Castle in 1313. In the summer of 1315, he led the staunch defence of Carlisle against a Scottish attack, led by Robert Bruce in person, for which Edward II rewarded him with 1000 marks. Edward granted Carlisle a royal charter in 1316; the charter has an initial letter which depicts Andrew throwing a spear at a Scottish soldier. (See Gabriele's post for more information about the defence of Carlisle Castle.) Unfortunately, Andrew was captured by the Scots in late 1315 or early 1316, and begged Edward II to grant him two Scottish prisoners "in aid of his ransom, as he does not see how to deliver himself otherwise." He also asked Edward to hasten his deliverance, "that he may appear to answer the malicious charges made by some persons against him at court" - whatever that was about. Edward eventually paid 2000 marks towards his ransom. [1]
Andrew is probably best known for his defeat of the earls of Lancaster and Hereford at Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322: somewhat ironically, he won the battle by using the same tactics Robert Bruce had used to such great effect against Edward II at Bannockburn in 1314. In November 1318, Andrew and his brother John had been pardoned as adherents of Lancaster. [2] Edward II rewarded Andrew by making him earl of Carlisle on 25 March 1322 and girded him with the comital belt himself, promising him 1000 marks of land annually. [3] Andrew took part in Edward's doomed Scottish campaign of autumn 1322, though he was unable to come to Edward's aid when the king was almost captured at Rievaulx Abbey on 14 October. The Brut chronicle calls Andrew a traitor and says that he deliberately abandoned Edward at Rievaulx in exchange for "a great sum of gold and silver" from the Scots, for which reason "the king was towards him full wroth," while the Anonimalle claims that Andrew intended to allow the Scots to destroy the north of England. [4] These accounts are most unlikely to be true; the authors of the Brut and the Anonimalle were extremely pro-Lancastrian and therefore loathed Andrew for defeating their hero Thomas of Lancaster at Boroughbridge. The equally pro-Lancastrian author of the Flores Historiarum also called Andrew a traitor.
It might have been this disastrous campaign which finally forced Andrew to conclude that Edward II would never be able to make himself overlord of Scotland, defeat Robert Bruce, or protect the inhabitants of northern England from endless Scottish raids.
Therefore, he took desperate measures and met Bruce at Lochmaben on 3 January 1323, and concluded a treaty with him: that Edward would recognise Bruce as king of Scots and would be granted the marriage of Bruce’s son and heir, that Bruce would pay England 40,000 marks of silver over ten years, and that Scotland would be entirely independent of England. [5] By 6 January, Andrew had already been arrested by Sir Roger Horsele, and Edward rewarded him with the massive sun of fifty marks. Two days later on 8 January, Edward declared that truces with the Scots must not be made without his consent, "as that would be to his dishonour," and ordered Andrew to inform him of the terms of the treaty he had made and to come to him immediately. [6] I think it's highly likely that Andrew's rival Sir Anthony Lucy had prior knowledge of the meeting and informed the king, as Edward gave Lucy’s messenger a pound on 2 January for bringing Lucy's letters to him. [7] For only three days to pass between the Lochmaben meeting and Edward’s response to it, 3 to 6 January, is impossibly fast otherwise. Precisely how Andrew ever thought he could have been reconciled to Edward after making a treaty with Bruce against Edward's wishes is uncertain.
Andrew failed to obey Edward’s summons, and the king, "exceedingly put out (and no wonder!)" as the Lanercost chronicle puts it, ordered his arrest on 1 February 1323. [8] Lanercost gives a colourful account of Edward’s sending Anthony Lucy to "take him by craft," whereupon Lucy and a small group of knights and men-at-arms hid their weapons under their clothes to disguise their hostile intent, and arrested Andrew while he was dictating letters in the great hall of Carlisle Castle. The Brut says that Edward sent Lucy to arrest Andrew "and put him to death." [9] Edward sent several men on 27 February to "degrade" Andrew, "a traitor to the king and the realm": his half-brother the earl of Kent; Geoffrey le Scrope, chief justice of the King's Bench; John, Lord Hastings; and three knights, John Pecche, Ralph Basset and John Wisham. This involved tearing the spurs of knighthood from Andrew's boots and removing his belt of earldom, and, according to the Brut, breaking his sword over his head. [10] Edward had already on 12 February ordered the earls of Kent and Atholl and two others "to receive into the king's grace all persons misled or constrained by Andrew de Harcla," and the day after he sent Kent, Scrope and the others to "degrade" Andrew, offered a general pardon for all offences committed in the king's forest to one Ughtred de Geveleston, "in consideration of the good news which he brought to the king of the capture of Andrew de Harcla, a rebel." [11]
The outcome of Andrew's 'trial', at which he was not allowed to speak, was never in doubt. Anthony Lucy told him that he was "a traitor unto the lord the king," and said "our lord the king's will is that ye...be brought to nought, and thy state undone, that other knights of lower degree might after beware." Andrew's spurs were removed and his sword broken over his head, then Lucy "let him unclothe of his furred mantle and of his hood, and of his furred coats and his girdle," and told him "Now art thou no knight, but a knave." [12]
Andrew was condemned to the full horrors of the traitor’s death by hanging, drawing and quartering, his head to be set on London Bridge and the four quarters of his body publicly displayed in Carlisle, Newcastle, Shrewsbury and York. On 3 March 1323, Andrew died well and bravely at Carlisle: when he heard the sentence, he announced "You have divided my carcass according to your pleasure, and I commend myself to God," and gazed towards the heavens, hands clasped and held aloft, as horses dragged him through the streets of the town he had defended so staunchly for many years. [13]
Edward gave a mark to Ranulphus, the trumpeter of Anthony Lucy, who brought him a message on 15 March and returned to Lucy with Edward's letters; perhaps Ranulphus brought the news that Andrew was dead, though Edward must surely have already heard about it by then. [14] One account says that Andrew's head was sent to Knaresborough for Edward's inspection. [15] Edward was at Knaresborough Castle from 26 February to 16 March 1323, so the timing fits.
Lanercost points out that Andrew was "a single individual, none of whose business it was to transact such affairs," and certainly he had considerably overstepped his authority, but it is easy to sympathise with his growing frustration at Edward II's incompetence. The St Albans chronicler says that Andrew hated Edward's favourite Hugh Despenser, which would hardly be surprising – most people did – and his anger with Despenser may have contributed in some way to his decision to treat with Bruce, while his promotion to an earldom angered his rival Anthony Lucy, who grabbed his chance to bring about Andrew’s downfall and who was granted some of the late earl’s lands. [16]
Andrew, to some extent, only had himself to blame for Lucy's hostility: he had in 1322, high-handedly and almost certainly spuriously, accused Lucy of adherence to Thomas of Lancaster, and seized his lands. [17]
Edward II, with his usual vindictiveness towards family members of people who angered him, ordered the treasurer and barons of the exchequer to remove Andrew’s cousin Patrick Corewen or Culwenne from his position as sheriff of Westmorland in September 1323, and appoint instead "a successor of undoubted loyalty." [18] On the other hand, he didn't punish anyone except Andrew for the Scots treaty, and readily pardoned Andrew's supporters and adherents. Andrew had certainly committed treason, though he did not do so for his own benefit but to spare the inhabitants of northern England the endless suffering inflicted on them by Scottish raids. Although Edward had no choice but to punish Andrew, he thus destroyed a man who had always been loyal to him and who was one of the very few men of his reign to enjoy military success. Less than three months after Andrew's death, Edward signed a thirteen-year peace treaty with Scotland, though still refused to acknowledge Robert Bruce as king.
Andrew's sister Sarah Leyburn finally received permission in August 1328 to "gather the bones of Andrew and commit them to ecclestiastical sepulchre where she may wish." [19]
Andrew left no children, and his nephew and heir Henry Harclay petitioned, probably around the same time, to be restored to the Harclay inheritance on the grounds that Andrew "was never regularly convicted of treason." Henry said that Edward III should annul the proceedings "in deliverance of his royal father's soul from peril," but his petition was unsuccessful. [20] It is sometimes said, for example on Andrew's Wikipedia page, that his brother John - father of Henry - was executed with him in March 1323, but John had in fact died in November 1322, of natural causes. [21] (Wikipedia also says, incorrectly, that Andrew left a son, John.)* The earldom of Carlisle was dormant for almost exactly 300 years, until James VI and I revived it in 1622 for James Hay.
* Actually, it doesn't, as I've just corrected the page.
) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 1307-1357, pp. 98, 132.
2) Calendar of Patent Rolls 1317-1321, pp. 228-229.
3) Cal Pat Rolls 1321-1324, p. 93.
4) The Brut, ed. F. W. D. Brie, p. 227; The Anonimalle Chronicle 1307-41, from Brotherton Collection MS 29, ed. W. R. Childs and J. Taylor, p. 112.
5) Foedera, II i, p. 502; Cal Docs Scotland, p. 148.
6) J. C. Davies, 'The First Journal of Edward II's Chamber', English Historical Review, 30 (1915), p. 678; Calendar of Close Rolls 1318-1323, p. 692; Cal Pat Rolls 1321-1324, p. 234.
7) J. C. Davies, 'The First Journal of Edward II's Chamber', English Historical Review, 30 (1915), p. 678.
8) The Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346, ed. H. Maxwell, p. 242; Foedera, p. 504.
9) Lanercost, pp. 243-244; Brut, p. 227.
10) Cal Pat Rolls 1321-1324, p. 260; Foedera, p. 509; Brut, pp. 227-228; Lanercost, p. 245.
11) Cal Pat Rolls 1321-1324, pp. 240-241, 265.
12) Brut, pp. 227-228.
13) Lanercost, p. 245. Accounts of Andrew's execution also appear in Bridlington, Flores Historiarum, Annales Paulini, Trokelowe etc.
14) Richard Rastall, ‘Secular Musicians in Late Medieval England’ (PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 1968) vol 2, p. 70.
15) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 'Andrew Harclay'.
16) Lanercost, p. 242; Johannis de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde Chronica et Annales, ed. H. T. Riley, p. 127; Foedera, p. 527.
17) ODNB.
18) Cal Docs Scotland, p. 152.
19) Cal Close Rolls 1327-1330, p. 404.
20) Cal Docs Scotland, p. 170.
21) Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-1348, p. 265; Calendar of Fine Rolls 1319-1327, p. 187.
30 March, 2009
Law and Order in Edward II's Reign
Some random examples of murder, assault and candidates for Darwin awards, etc, in Edward II's reign that I found amusing or noteworthy, taken from the patent and close rolls, inquisitions miscellaneous, petitions, records of parliament, chancery warrants and so on.
On Sunday 25 September 1323 in Nottinghamshire, Henry de Mustiers and Hugh de Whassyngbourn, chaplain, went walking in the fields between Elston and Syerston with a woman called Jonetta de Staunton. They encountered three brothers, Robert, Nicholas and Thomas de Sireston, "who politely saluted Jonetta. And Robert embraced her, upon which Henry angrily put away Robert's hands and whispered to Hugh to go to his [Henry's] home and bring his men with arms." Hugh returned with three named men and unnamed, uncounted others, "who met Robert and his brothers and bade them 'Stand' and abused them. Hugh attacked them with an iron-pronged fork wounding Robert, who then killed him with a knife. No man received Robert or his brothers. Nicholas and Thomas are in no way guilty." Robert de Sireston was pardoned in April 1325 for Hugh's death and "any consequent outlawry."
A salutary lesson on the perils of embracing strange women in fields and carrying pitchforks around, I suppose.
On 1 August 1324, Robert Anlek of Jersey (Channel Islands) was pardoned for the death of Joan Hamond, "on his petition showing that, as he was passing through the town of Haumouns, he threw a stone at a dog that was following to bite him, and the stone by accident struck the said Joan and killed her."
In May 1311, William Bereford, chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas, claimed that Sir John Somery had "obtained such mastery in the county of Stafford that no one can obtain law or justice therein; that he has made himself more than a king there; that no one can dwell there unless he buys protection from him, either by money or by assisting him in building his castles; and that he attacks people in their own houses with the intention of killing them, unless they make fine for his protection." Somery accused Bereford of defamation.
An inquisition taken at Stratford-on-Avon on 30 October 1320 found that Andrew le Frank "threw his knife at a wall" on 4 June 1319 at his house in 'La Whiteparosshe', wherever that is, and "Agnes his wife came in the way and was wounded in the leg, and so died by misadventure."
About Newgate Prison in London: James de Galduches, formerly imprisoned there, complained in September 1314 that Richard de Honewyk, keeper of the gaol, handed him over to his sergeant John le Parker, and "although the complainant for such cause ought not to have been placed in the depths of the gaol as a felon or thief, [Parker] did so immure him so that he might extort money from him, and detained him there, placed with notorious felons and thieves and horribly laden with iron fetters." Parker forced Galtuches to promise to pay him sixty pounds, an astonishingly large sum, and when he failed to pay it, Parker "procured grievous distresses" upon his goods.
My hero Stephen Dunheved was not the only man to escape from Newgate: a John Bourt of Mendham was pardoned in November 1310, on account of good service in Scotland, for "breaking Neugate prison and for abjuring the realm," and two men named Robert le Bakere and Stephen de Thresk also escaped from there before January 1325. In March 1315, Newgate was said to contain "certain chambers which are in a ruinous state to the injury of the city of London, and danger of the escape of prisoners who are in that gaol."
In June 1309, Ralph Bedel of Old Sarum in Wiltshire was released from prison, having "made a distress by a cow" on Nicholas Cope and John Smart, "sub-keepers of the peace in the town of Bradelegh."
Bertrand le Vylar, merchant of Bayonne, complained in December 1323 that "whereas he laded a ship of the parts of Malogret called a 'Galey' at La Skluse in Flanders with diverse wares to take to Spain, and ran towards Sandwich to take refuge from pirates,"* men of the Cinque Ports entered his ship while it was at anchor, assaulted him and stole his goods.
* Not Hugh Despenser the Younger. :-)
Inquisition taken at York, the Tuesday after Trinity Sunday 1324: "Dionisia Ketel fled for diverse larcenies imputed to her...and entered the sheepfold of Maud, late the wife of William Amyson of Hemmyngburgh, and killed two ewes; on hearing which the said Maud came to her sheepfold and found the said Dionisia skinning the ewes; when the said Dionisia perceived the approach of the said Maud, she attacked her with the knife with which she was skinning the ewes, and the said Maud, seeing the knife, fled to Clyff by Hemmyngburgh, and there the said Dionisia cornered her in a house to kill her, and the said Maud, seeing she could not escape death, found an axe lying at her feet with which she struck the said Dionisia on the head, whereby she died. The said Maud immediately journeyed to the king's court to seek the king's peace."
She just happened to find an axe lying at her feet? How convenient. Maud was pardoned for the death on 26 June 1324.
Nicholas Gest was pardoned in November 1309 for the death of Emma Chappere, "killed by him before he had completed his seventh year."
Edward II ordered the treasurer and chancellor in December 1323 to make a visitation of the chapel of St Martin le Grand in London, "as it has come to the ears of the king that the ornaments and books are often wanting, officers and other ministers neglect their duties although they receive their stipends, and raise brawls, contentions and scandals amongst themselves; and that some carry on dissolute lives in other places."
An inquisition taken at Stafford on 21 August 1320 found that Sir Roger Swynnerton, Stephen Swynnerton, parson, and Thomas Ace of Newport killed Henry le Salt in Stafford "for insulting language." The same inquisition found that Richard Swynnerton killed Henry le Persons "on account of an old quarrel," and Stephen Swynnerton the parson killed Thomas de Vernay for the same reason. Those Swynnerton brothers were pretty murderous.
A fight broke out in a London tavern one Sunday in March 1326, during which a clerk, Luke Walram, hit a skinner called Robert de Aynesham on the arm with a stick and broke it (Aynesham's arm, not the stick), and Thomas de Popelingecherche hit another skinner called John de Arnhale and wounded Arnhale's right hand. A third skinner, Laurence de Lenne, was felled to the ground when Thomas de Haselhegh hit him with a stick, and stabbed Robert de Haselhegh's chaplain Richard in the thigh with his knife.
John Dunheved, brother of Stephen and Thomas Dunheved from my last post, murdered Oliver Dunheved, a rent-collector and presumably the brothers' cousin, on 9 February 1325. Oliver was staying at the house of William Mori in Dunchurch, when John, "designing Oliver's death, came by night with others unknown and attacked the house and would have set it on fire. This frightened William Mori so that he opened the door that Oliver might escape; but thereupon John shot Oliver to the heart with a bow and a barbed arrow, so that he died."
On 27 September 1324, the ship of one Richard de Wodehouse was floating in the river Ouse at Selby in Yorkshire, with Richard's son William sitting on the gunwale, when a post in the water struck William and threw him into the water, and he drowned.
On 1 March 1308, at Weybourne in Norfolk, it was found that William son of Thomas de Wabrone "wickedly slew William Bright with a dung fork, because he found him idling in his service."
After the execution of Bartholomew Badlesmere in April 1322, he was accused of having prevented Simon and Margery de Kinardsle from entering a messuage in London: "by his great power as the steward of the king's household, he would not allow them to enter, wherefore they brought the king's writ against him; whereupon the said Bartholomew grievously threatened them, and seized the said Simon by the beard, and otherwise vexed them."
On 18 May 1319, Edward II sent a letter to the chancellor, ordering him to write letters of pardon for Hugh le Smale regarding the death of Robert Spendelove: Hugh and Robert were together at the house of Robert atte Watre "about the hour of vespers at table, and Robert raised strife against Hugh and attacked him to kill him, and Hugh [words missing] caused the windows of the house to be closed to avoid his malice, and Robert [words missing] returned and broke the doors and entered the house and chased Hugh from corner to corner and got him in a corner towards the east, and Hugh in self-defence drew [words missing] struck Robert on the right shoulder and so killed him but not of malice or felony aforethought." Smale was pardoned the same day, and the letters say that he killed Spendelove "in the presence of the king."
May 1315: Edward II's garrison of Builth Castle, "maliciously seeking occasion against the said commonalty [of Builth] went forth by night from the castle, and feigned to besiege the castle and shot arrows at it; and afterwards, having secretly re-entered the castle, wickedly laid such attack upon the burgesses of the town, and on that account imprisoned very many of the burgesses in the castle and maliciously detained them in the prison there until they were delivered therefrom by the king's escheator."
In other words, they attacked the castle themselves and pretended that the inhabitants of the town were responsible as an excuse to arrest them. To add insult to injury, they "took away diverse kinds of victuals and other things of the same burgesses and men found in their houses against their will and carried the same away, [and] maliciously killed the swine of the said burgesses and men casually coming near the castle."
On Sunday 25 September 1323 in Nottinghamshire, Henry de Mustiers and Hugh de Whassyngbourn, chaplain, went walking in the fields between Elston and Syerston with a woman called Jonetta de Staunton. They encountered three brothers, Robert, Nicholas and Thomas de Sireston, "who politely saluted Jonetta. And Robert embraced her, upon which Henry angrily put away Robert's hands and whispered to Hugh to go to his [Henry's] home and bring his men with arms." Hugh returned with three named men and unnamed, uncounted others, "who met Robert and his brothers and bade them 'Stand' and abused them. Hugh attacked them with an iron-pronged fork wounding Robert, who then killed him with a knife. No man received Robert or his brothers. Nicholas and Thomas are in no way guilty." Robert de Sireston was pardoned in April 1325 for Hugh's death and "any consequent outlawry."
A salutary lesson on the perils of embracing strange women in fields and carrying pitchforks around, I suppose.
On 1 August 1324, Robert Anlek of Jersey (Channel Islands) was pardoned for the death of Joan Hamond, "on his petition showing that, as he was passing through the town of Haumouns, he threw a stone at a dog that was following to bite him, and the stone by accident struck the said Joan and killed her."
In May 1311, William Bereford, chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas, claimed that Sir John Somery had "obtained such mastery in the county of Stafford that no one can obtain law or justice therein; that he has made himself more than a king there; that no one can dwell there unless he buys protection from him, either by money or by assisting him in building his castles; and that he attacks people in their own houses with the intention of killing them, unless they make fine for his protection." Somery accused Bereford of defamation.
An inquisition taken at Stratford-on-Avon on 30 October 1320 found that Andrew le Frank "threw his knife at a wall" on 4 June 1319 at his house in 'La Whiteparosshe', wherever that is, and "Agnes his wife came in the way and was wounded in the leg, and so died by misadventure."
About Newgate Prison in London: James de Galduches, formerly imprisoned there, complained in September 1314 that Richard de Honewyk, keeper of the gaol, handed him over to his sergeant John le Parker, and "although the complainant for such cause ought not to have been placed in the depths of the gaol as a felon or thief, [Parker] did so immure him so that he might extort money from him, and detained him there, placed with notorious felons and thieves and horribly laden with iron fetters." Parker forced Galtuches to promise to pay him sixty pounds, an astonishingly large sum, and when he failed to pay it, Parker "procured grievous distresses" upon his goods.
My hero Stephen Dunheved was not the only man to escape from Newgate: a John Bourt of Mendham was pardoned in November 1310, on account of good service in Scotland, for "breaking Neugate prison and for abjuring the realm," and two men named Robert le Bakere and Stephen de Thresk also escaped from there before January 1325. In March 1315, Newgate was said to contain "certain chambers which are in a ruinous state to the injury of the city of London, and danger of the escape of prisoners who are in that gaol."
In June 1309, Ralph Bedel of Old Sarum in Wiltshire was released from prison, having "made a distress by a cow" on Nicholas Cope and John Smart, "sub-keepers of the peace in the town of Bradelegh."
Bertrand le Vylar, merchant of Bayonne, complained in December 1323 that "whereas he laded a ship of the parts of Malogret called a 'Galey' at La Skluse in Flanders with diverse wares to take to Spain, and ran towards Sandwich to take refuge from pirates,"* men of the Cinque Ports entered his ship while it was at anchor, assaulted him and stole his goods.
* Not Hugh Despenser the Younger. :-)
Inquisition taken at York, the Tuesday after Trinity Sunday 1324: "Dionisia Ketel fled for diverse larcenies imputed to her...and entered the sheepfold of Maud, late the wife of William Amyson of Hemmyngburgh, and killed two ewes; on hearing which the said Maud came to her sheepfold and found the said Dionisia skinning the ewes; when the said Dionisia perceived the approach of the said Maud, she attacked her with the knife with which she was skinning the ewes, and the said Maud, seeing the knife, fled to Clyff by Hemmyngburgh, and there the said Dionisia cornered her in a house to kill her, and the said Maud, seeing she could not escape death, found an axe lying at her feet with which she struck the said Dionisia on the head, whereby she died. The said Maud immediately journeyed to the king's court to seek the king's peace."
She just happened to find an axe lying at her feet? How convenient. Maud was pardoned for the death on 26 June 1324.
Nicholas Gest was pardoned in November 1309 for the death of Emma Chappere, "killed by him before he had completed his seventh year."
Edward II ordered the treasurer and chancellor in December 1323 to make a visitation of the chapel of St Martin le Grand in London, "as it has come to the ears of the king that the ornaments and books are often wanting, officers and other ministers neglect their duties although they receive their stipends, and raise brawls, contentions and scandals amongst themselves; and that some carry on dissolute lives in other places."
An inquisition taken at Stafford on 21 August 1320 found that Sir Roger Swynnerton, Stephen Swynnerton, parson, and Thomas Ace of Newport killed Henry le Salt in Stafford "for insulting language." The same inquisition found that Richard Swynnerton killed Henry le Persons "on account of an old quarrel," and Stephen Swynnerton the parson killed Thomas de Vernay for the same reason. Those Swynnerton brothers were pretty murderous.
A fight broke out in a London tavern one Sunday in March 1326, during which a clerk, Luke Walram, hit a skinner called Robert de Aynesham on the arm with a stick and broke it (Aynesham's arm, not the stick), and Thomas de Popelingecherche hit another skinner called John de Arnhale and wounded Arnhale's right hand. A third skinner, Laurence de Lenne, was felled to the ground when Thomas de Haselhegh hit him with a stick, and stabbed Robert de Haselhegh's chaplain Richard in the thigh with his knife.
John Dunheved, brother of Stephen and Thomas Dunheved from my last post, murdered Oliver Dunheved, a rent-collector and presumably the brothers' cousin, on 9 February 1325. Oliver was staying at the house of William Mori in Dunchurch, when John, "designing Oliver's death, came by night with others unknown and attacked the house and would have set it on fire. This frightened William Mori so that he opened the door that Oliver might escape; but thereupon John shot Oliver to the heart with a bow and a barbed arrow, so that he died."
On 27 September 1324, the ship of one Richard de Wodehouse was floating in the river Ouse at Selby in Yorkshire, with Richard's son William sitting on the gunwale, when a post in the water struck William and threw him into the water, and he drowned.
On 1 March 1308, at Weybourne in Norfolk, it was found that William son of Thomas de Wabrone "wickedly slew William Bright with a dung fork, because he found him idling in his service."
After the execution of Bartholomew Badlesmere in April 1322, he was accused of having prevented Simon and Margery de Kinardsle from entering a messuage in London: "by his great power as the steward of the king's household, he would not allow them to enter, wherefore they brought the king's writ against him; whereupon the said Bartholomew grievously threatened them, and seized the said Simon by the beard, and otherwise vexed them."
On 18 May 1319, Edward II sent a letter to the chancellor, ordering him to write letters of pardon for Hugh le Smale regarding the death of Robert Spendelove: Hugh and Robert were together at the house of Robert atte Watre "about the hour of vespers at table, and Robert raised strife against Hugh and attacked him to kill him, and Hugh [words missing] caused the windows of the house to be closed to avoid his malice, and Robert [words missing] returned and broke the doors and entered the house and chased Hugh from corner to corner and got him in a corner towards the east, and Hugh in self-defence drew [words missing] struck Robert on the right shoulder and so killed him but not of malice or felony aforethought." Smale was pardoned the same day, and the letters say that he killed Spendelove "in the presence of the king."
May 1315: Edward II's garrison of Builth Castle, "maliciously seeking occasion against the said commonalty [of Builth] went forth by night from the castle, and feigned to besiege the castle and shot arrows at it; and afterwards, having secretly re-entered the castle, wickedly laid such attack upon the burgesses of the town, and on that account imprisoned very many of the burgesses in the castle and maliciously detained them in the prison there until they were delivered therefrom by the king's escheator."
In other words, they attacked the castle themselves and pretended that the inhabitants of the town were responsible as an excuse to arrest them. To add insult to injury, they "took away diverse kinds of victuals and other things of the same burgesses and men found in their houses against their will and carried the same away, [and] maliciously killed the swine of the said burgesses and men casually coming near the castle."
25 March, 2009
The Dunheved Brothers
A post about the Dunheved brothers, Stephen and Thomas, fanatical supporters of Edward II and leaders of the group of men who temporarily freed the former king from Berkeley Castle in 1327. You can also read about them, their allies and their plot to free Edward here, here and here.
Stephen Dunheved
Stephen was the eldest son of John Dunheved of Dunchurch, Warwickshire, though I have no idea when he and his siblings were born - presumably between 1275 and 1295. Stephen's paternal grandmother Christiane, daughter of Jordan Butler, was born before 1223, and his father John Dunheved was born sometime before 1260 and died between May 1305 and March 1309, leaving a widow Eustachia, Stephen's mother or stepmother. [1] Stephen inherited the manor of Dunchurch, on Dunsmore Heath near Rugby, on his father's death. He was certainly not a Dominican friar and Edward II's confessor, as stated in Paul Doherty's The Darkening Glass and in the author's note at the end.
Stephen is extremely difficult to trace before 1322, unlike his younger brother John, who was frequently in trouble with the law and was accused of rape and assault, pardoned for outlawry, and murdered a man with a crossbow in 1325. At some date, probably in 1321, Stephen committed a serious felony (murder?) and abjured the realm, that is, voluntarily exiled himself from England for life to avoid execution. He had returned by mid-February 1322, when he is found as a 'valet' of Edward II's chamber, and Edward appointed him custodian of Lyonshall Castle and ordered him to make inquisition into the goods and chattels of four of the king’s baronial enemies. [2] I have a theory about Stephen: Hugh Despenser the Younger, banished from England by the Marcher lords in August 1321, became a pirate in the English channel, and I think Stephen may have joined him. I can't prove it, but the pardon for the felony and permission to return to England after abjuring the realm could only have been granted by Edward II, and as Stephen not only returned to England but entered Edward's household, this suggests royal favour. Stephen also appeared as a member of Edward's household at about the same time that Despenser returned to England, and it may be that Despenser asked Edward to give Stephen the pardon and a position in the royal household. That's only speculation, though. Maybe I'm just being imaginative.
Stephen only acted as constable of Lyonshall Castle for a couple of months, and thereafter, is pretty obscure for the rest of Edward's reign. I presume, however, from later events, that he must have remained close to the king. Stephen's brother Thomas was with Edward when the king was wandering around Wales at the end of his reign, and it may be that the 'Stephen Dun' pardoned in March 1327 as one of the garrison who held out at Caerphilly - stronghold of Hugh Despenser and the only centre of resistance to the new regime - was in fact Stephen Dunheved. (Or maybe not.) [3] Other men who joined the brothers in freeing the former king in 1327 were still in Wales with Edward in late 1326, for example Roger atte Watre, another member of the Caerphilly garrison, and Thomas de la Haye, one of Edward's sergeant-at-arms.
It was probably in mid or late June 1327 that the Dunheved brothers and their allies attacked Berkeley Castle and succeeded, temporarily at least, in taking the former Edward II. Lord Berkeley wrote a letter to the chancellor John Hothum on 27 July, saying that the Dunheveds and their allies ravi Edward from his custody, which can be translated as 'abducted', 'seized' or 'snatched away'.
Either the gang were forced to flee without Edward or they got him out of the castle but he was recaptured shortly afterwards, and the men scattered; there are many entries on the calendared rolls in the summer and autumn of 1327 ordering the arrest of 'malefactors' and those who helped them evade capture in places as far apart as Cheshire, Dorset and Bedfordshire, and references to 'enemies of the realm' who had escaped abroad and were 'betraying the secrets of the realm'. Stephen Dunheved fled to London, and on 1 July, the mayor and sheriffs of the city were ordered to arrest him. [4] The Annales Paulini confirms that he was captured in the city. [5] Stephen was sent to Newgate prison, but managed to escape shortly before 7 June 1329, when an entry on the Close Roll says that he "wanders at large against the king's will." [6] Perhaps in response to this, Newgate was ordered to be strengthened and repaired some months later, as it was "so weak and threatened with ruin that the prisoners therein cannot be kept safely." [7] Stephen is next found on 31 March 1330, when his name appears on a list of dozens of men to be arrested for aiding the earl of Kent in his attempts to free the supposedly dead Edward II and restore him to the throne. [8]
I haven't been able to trace Stephen at all after this date. In a way, this is positive, in a 'no news is good news' kind of way, as it implies that he went into hiding or fled the country, because if he had been found and arrested, there would probably be references to it somewhere. Other men who joined the Dunheveds in 1327 - Peter de la Rokele and Roger atte Watre - disappear from the records between the summer of 1327 and late 1330 and crop up again in early 1331, which perhaps implies that they had fled abroad and returned after Edward III overthrew Roger Mortimer in October 1330, or had been imprisoned and were released. (More speculation, but given the secrecy of the Dunheveds' plot to free Edward and the subsequent disappearance of most of the men who took part in it, there's not much else I can do.) But Stephen doesn't appear again in any record that I've found. I hope he had gone overseas and decided to stay there and make a new life for himself. I hope he thrived.
Thomas Dunheved
Thomas, one of Stephen's three brothers, was a Dominican friar, an order much favoured and patronised by Edward II. Several secondary sources claim that he was Edward's confessor, but I haven't found any evidence to confirm that (Edward had three confessors during his reign: John Lenham, Robert Duffield and Luke Woodford). Thomas was made a papal chaplain in September 1325, which evidently went to his head, as John XXII wrote to the prior provincial of the Dominicans in July 1326 asking him to "keep under obedience and correct" Thomas, who, since becoming papal chaplain, "considers himself thereby freed from observance of the rule." [9] The Lanercost chronicle calls Thomas "a man of religion, acting irreligiously." [10] Given that Thomas was heavily involved in the attack on Berkeley Castle in 1327 and that the pope chastised him for disobeying the rule of his order, that seems a reasonable enough comment.
Edward sent Thomas with letters to the pope in 1325, and Lanercost and Annales Paulini report an improbable rumour that the king had sent him to persuade John XXII to annul his marriage to Isabella. [11] I'm not going to go into the many reasons why it is almost impossible to believe that Edward would have done this in 1324 or 1325, not least because there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever, and John XXII's own letter to Edward makes it clear that the king had in fact sent Thomas to the pope with letters spelling out his grievances against Alexander Bicknor, archbishop of Dublin. [12]
Thomas remained with Edward II in Wales in late 1326, and was paid for carrying the king's letters to Hugh Despenser (the Younger) - which itself is interesting, as it obviously means that Edward and Despenser were apart at least some of the time shortly before their arrest and downfall. [13] After Edward's deposition, Lanercost says that Thomas "travelled through England, not only secretly but even openly, stirring up the people of the south and north to rise for the deposed and imprisoned king and restore the kingdom to him." The Brut says that the "Friar Preachers [Dominicans] to him [Edward] were good friends evermore, and cast and ordained, both night and day, how they might bring him out of prison," and that Thomas "ordained and gathered a great company of folk for to help at that need." [14]
According to the Annales Paulini, Thomas was captured at Budbrooke in Warwickshire after the attack on Berkeley, though the date the annalist gives for his capture, c. 11 June 1327, cannot be correct, as Thomas was still at liberty when Thomas Berkeley wrote his letter on 27 July naming him as one of the attackers, and 11 June probably predates the attack on Berkeley Castle anyway. Thomas was taken to Queen Isabella, then sent to prison at Pontefract, where he tried to escape and was thrown into a dungeon and died in misery. Several other chronicles noticed his demise and the reasons for it: Lanercost, Croniques de London and the Brut, though the Croniques says he and many of his co-conspirators were "put in hard prison" at York (mis en dure prisoun a Everwik), thirty miles from Pontefract. [15] Although Lanercost says that Thomas,"that foolish friar," died in prison, it also claims that he played a role in Kent's conspiracy of 1330, by raising a devil who told Kent that Edward II was still alive. [16] Plausibility of devil-raising aside, I think it's highly likely - unfortunately - that Thomas was in fact dead by 1330. Thomas and Stephen's brother John was still alive in February 1338, when he acknowledged a debt of 200 pounds to Henry Beaumont. He had played no role in their plot to free Edward, and in fact was pardoned, probably for his 1325 murder of (his cousin?) Oliver Dunheved, on 5 May 1327, the day after Stephen was to be arrested and taken to Isabella. [17]
Sources
1) http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57101; Calendar of Close Rolls 1302-1307, p. 269; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1307-1313, p. 97.
2) Calendar of Fine Rolls 1319-1327, pp. 95, 101.
3) Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, p. 38.
4) Cal Close Rolls 1327-1330, p. 146.
5) Annales Paulini, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. W. Stubbs, vol. 1, p. 337.
6) Cal Close Rolls 1327-1330, p. 549.
7) Cal Close Rolls 1330-1333, pp. 1, 47.
8) Cal Fine Rolls 1327-1337, p. 169.
9) Calendar of Papal Letters 1305-1342, pp. 253, 479.
10) The Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346, ed. Herbert Maxwell, p. 249.
11) Annales Paulini, p. 337; Lanercost, p. 249.
12) Cal Papal Letters, p. 474.
13) SAL MS 122, folio 34.
14) Lanercost, pp. 258-9; The Brut, ed. F. W. D. Brie, p. 249.
15) Annales Paulini, p. 337; Lanercost, p. 259; Croniques de London Depuis L'an 44 Hen. III. Jusqu' à L'an 17 Edw. III, ed. J. G. Aungier, p. 58; Brut, p. 249.
16) Lanercost, pp. 264-5.
17) Cal Close Rolls 1337-1339, p. 383; Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, pp. 51, 99.
Stephen Dunheved
Stephen was the eldest son of John Dunheved of Dunchurch, Warwickshire, though I have no idea when he and his siblings were born - presumably between 1275 and 1295. Stephen's paternal grandmother Christiane, daughter of Jordan Butler, was born before 1223, and his father John Dunheved was born sometime before 1260 and died between May 1305 and March 1309, leaving a widow Eustachia, Stephen's mother or stepmother. [1] Stephen inherited the manor of Dunchurch, on Dunsmore Heath near Rugby, on his father's death. He was certainly not a Dominican friar and Edward II's confessor, as stated in Paul Doherty's The Darkening Glass and in the author's note at the end.
Stephen is extremely difficult to trace before 1322, unlike his younger brother John, who was frequently in trouble with the law and was accused of rape and assault, pardoned for outlawry, and murdered a man with a crossbow in 1325. At some date, probably in 1321, Stephen committed a serious felony (murder?) and abjured the realm, that is, voluntarily exiled himself from England for life to avoid execution. He had returned by mid-February 1322, when he is found as a 'valet' of Edward II's chamber, and Edward appointed him custodian of Lyonshall Castle and ordered him to make inquisition into the goods and chattels of four of the king’s baronial enemies. [2] I have a theory about Stephen: Hugh Despenser the Younger, banished from England by the Marcher lords in August 1321, became a pirate in the English channel, and I think Stephen may have joined him. I can't prove it, but the pardon for the felony and permission to return to England after abjuring the realm could only have been granted by Edward II, and as Stephen not only returned to England but entered Edward's household, this suggests royal favour. Stephen also appeared as a member of Edward's household at about the same time that Despenser returned to England, and it may be that Despenser asked Edward to give Stephen the pardon and a position in the royal household. That's only speculation, though. Maybe I'm just being imaginative.
Stephen only acted as constable of Lyonshall Castle for a couple of months, and thereafter, is pretty obscure for the rest of Edward's reign. I presume, however, from later events, that he must have remained close to the king. Stephen's brother Thomas was with Edward when the king was wandering around Wales at the end of his reign, and it may be that the 'Stephen Dun' pardoned in March 1327 as one of the garrison who held out at Caerphilly - stronghold of Hugh Despenser and the only centre of resistance to the new regime - was in fact Stephen Dunheved. (Or maybe not.) [3] Other men who joined the brothers in freeing the former king in 1327 were still in Wales with Edward in late 1326, for example Roger atte Watre, another member of the Caerphilly garrison, and Thomas de la Haye, one of Edward's sergeant-at-arms.
It was probably in mid or late June 1327 that the Dunheved brothers and their allies attacked Berkeley Castle and succeeded, temporarily at least, in taking the former Edward II. Lord Berkeley wrote a letter to the chancellor John Hothum on 27 July, saying that the Dunheveds and their allies ravi Edward from his custody, which can be translated as 'abducted', 'seized' or 'snatched away'.
Either the gang were forced to flee without Edward or they got him out of the castle but he was recaptured shortly afterwards, and the men scattered; there are many entries on the calendared rolls in the summer and autumn of 1327 ordering the arrest of 'malefactors' and those who helped them evade capture in places as far apart as Cheshire, Dorset and Bedfordshire, and references to 'enemies of the realm' who had escaped abroad and were 'betraying the secrets of the realm'. Stephen Dunheved fled to London, and on 1 July, the mayor and sheriffs of the city were ordered to arrest him. [4] The Annales Paulini confirms that he was captured in the city. [5] Stephen was sent to Newgate prison, but managed to escape shortly before 7 June 1329, when an entry on the Close Roll says that he "wanders at large against the king's will." [6] Perhaps in response to this, Newgate was ordered to be strengthened and repaired some months later, as it was "so weak and threatened with ruin that the prisoners therein cannot be kept safely." [7] Stephen is next found on 31 March 1330, when his name appears on a list of dozens of men to be arrested for aiding the earl of Kent in his attempts to free the supposedly dead Edward II and restore him to the throne. [8]
I haven't been able to trace Stephen at all after this date. In a way, this is positive, in a 'no news is good news' kind of way, as it implies that he went into hiding or fled the country, because if he had been found and arrested, there would probably be references to it somewhere. Other men who joined the Dunheveds in 1327 - Peter de la Rokele and Roger atte Watre - disappear from the records between the summer of 1327 and late 1330 and crop up again in early 1331, which perhaps implies that they had fled abroad and returned after Edward III overthrew Roger Mortimer in October 1330, or had been imprisoned and were released. (More speculation, but given the secrecy of the Dunheveds' plot to free Edward and the subsequent disappearance of most of the men who took part in it, there's not much else I can do.) But Stephen doesn't appear again in any record that I've found. I hope he had gone overseas and decided to stay there and make a new life for himself. I hope he thrived.
Thomas Dunheved
Thomas, one of Stephen's three brothers, was a Dominican friar, an order much favoured and patronised by Edward II. Several secondary sources claim that he was Edward's confessor, but I haven't found any evidence to confirm that (Edward had three confessors during his reign: John Lenham, Robert Duffield and Luke Woodford). Thomas was made a papal chaplain in September 1325, which evidently went to his head, as John XXII wrote to the prior provincial of the Dominicans in July 1326 asking him to "keep under obedience and correct" Thomas, who, since becoming papal chaplain, "considers himself thereby freed from observance of the rule." [9] The Lanercost chronicle calls Thomas "a man of religion, acting irreligiously." [10] Given that Thomas was heavily involved in the attack on Berkeley Castle in 1327 and that the pope chastised him for disobeying the rule of his order, that seems a reasonable enough comment.
Edward sent Thomas with letters to the pope in 1325, and Lanercost and Annales Paulini report an improbable rumour that the king had sent him to persuade John XXII to annul his marriage to Isabella. [11] I'm not going to go into the many reasons why it is almost impossible to believe that Edward would have done this in 1324 or 1325, not least because there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever, and John XXII's own letter to Edward makes it clear that the king had in fact sent Thomas to the pope with letters spelling out his grievances against Alexander Bicknor, archbishop of Dublin. [12]
Thomas remained with Edward II in Wales in late 1326, and was paid for carrying the king's letters to Hugh Despenser (the Younger) - which itself is interesting, as it obviously means that Edward and Despenser were apart at least some of the time shortly before their arrest and downfall. [13] After Edward's deposition, Lanercost says that Thomas "travelled through England, not only secretly but even openly, stirring up the people of the south and north to rise for the deposed and imprisoned king and restore the kingdom to him." The Brut says that the "Friar Preachers [Dominicans] to him [Edward] were good friends evermore, and cast and ordained, both night and day, how they might bring him out of prison," and that Thomas "ordained and gathered a great company of folk for to help at that need." [14]
According to the Annales Paulini, Thomas was captured at Budbrooke in Warwickshire after the attack on Berkeley, though the date the annalist gives for his capture, c. 11 June 1327, cannot be correct, as Thomas was still at liberty when Thomas Berkeley wrote his letter on 27 July naming him as one of the attackers, and 11 June probably predates the attack on Berkeley Castle anyway. Thomas was taken to Queen Isabella, then sent to prison at Pontefract, where he tried to escape and was thrown into a dungeon and died in misery. Several other chronicles noticed his demise and the reasons for it: Lanercost, Croniques de London and the Brut, though the Croniques says he and many of his co-conspirators were "put in hard prison" at York (mis en dure prisoun a Everwik), thirty miles from Pontefract. [15] Although Lanercost says that Thomas,"that foolish friar," died in prison, it also claims that he played a role in Kent's conspiracy of 1330, by raising a devil who told Kent that Edward II was still alive. [16] Plausibility of devil-raising aside, I think it's highly likely - unfortunately - that Thomas was in fact dead by 1330. Thomas and Stephen's brother John was still alive in February 1338, when he acknowledged a debt of 200 pounds to Henry Beaumont. He had played no role in their plot to free Edward, and in fact was pardoned, probably for his 1325 murder of (his cousin?) Oliver Dunheved, on 5 May 1327, the day after Stephen was to be arrested and taken to Isabella. [17]
Sources
1) http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57101; Calendar of Close Rolls 1302-1307, p. 269; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1307-1313, p. 97.
2) Calendar of Fine Rolls 1319-1327, pp. 95, 101.
3) Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, p. 38.
4) Cal Close Rolls 1327-1330, p. 146.
5) Annales Paulini, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. W. Stubbs, vol. 1, p. 337.
6) Cal Close Rolls 1327-1330, p. 549.
7) Cal Close Rolls 1330-1333, pp. 1, 47.
8) Cal Fine Rolls 1327-1337, p. 169.
9) Calendar of Papal Letters 1305-1342, pp. 253, 479.
10) The Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346, ed. Herbert Maxwell, p. 249.
11) Annales Paulini, p. 337; Lanercost, p. 249.
12) Cal Papal Letters, p. 474.
13) SAL MS 122, folio 34.
14) Lanercost, pp. 258-9; The Brut, ed. F. W. D. Brie, p. 249.
15) Annales Paulini, p. 337; Lanercost, p. 259; Croniques de London Depuis L'an 44 Hen. III. Jusqu' à L'an 17 Edw. III, ed. J. G. Aungier, p. 58; Brut, p. 249.
16) Lanercost, pp. 264-5.
17) Cal Close Rolls 1337-1339, p. 383; Cal Pat Rolls 1327-1330, pp. 51, 99.
20 March, 2009
Edward II's Claim to Castile and Provence
A newsletter of late 1306, describing the visit of a Spanish cardinal to England, made the astonishing claim that the magnates of Castile had agreed that they would offer the Castilian throne to (the future) Edward II, should his cousin Fernando IV die without a son. And in 1323, Edward tried to claim a share of the county of Provence, as his inheritance from his grandmother Eleanor of Provence. Here's some more information.
Castile
As far as I can work out, Edward II is one of only two English monarchs with a Spanish parent, Mary Tudor being the other. In December 1306, a papal nuncio named Pedro, Castilian by birth and cardinal-bishop of Santa Sabina, visited England, and Edward I remarked to him that "he should have a special affection for our dear son Edward, as he [Edward] is of Spanish descent." According to a contemporary newsletter, Pedro had entered into an indenture with the magnates of Castile that Edward, as the son of King Alfonso X’s half-sister Eleanor, would succeed as king of Castile should his cousin Fernando IV die without a male heir.
This story, if true, strikes me as extraordinary; Edward II's mother Eleanor (or Leonor) had seven older half-brothers, and surely there must have been many more candidates for the throne than Edward, through the male line. But there had been a lot of conflict in Castile regarding the succession to the throne. Eleanor's eldest half-brother Alfonso X fathered five sons. The eldest, Fernando de la Cerda ('of the bristle'), predeceased him, leaving two young sons, Alfonso and Fernando. Alfonso X wished his throne to pass to his elder grandson Alfonso, but his second son Sancho demanded that he be made heir to the throne, and precipitated a bloody civil war in 1282. When Alfonso X died in April 1284 - the month his nephew Edward II was born - Sancho seized the throne as Sancho IV. He died in April 1295, leaving a nine-year-old son, Fernando IV. Sancho's brother Juan, the fourth son of Alfonso X, claimed the throne, claiming that his nephew Fernando was illegitimate. The kings of Portugal and Aragon took advantage of the chaos and invaded Castile in 1296, intending to divide the country between them, and the de la Cerda brothers, grandsons of Alfonso X, also continued to claim the throne.
Only Fernando's redoubtable mother Queen Maria de Molina - another close relative of Edward II - saved his throne, and in 1301, when Fernando turned sixteen, the pope finally declared that he was indeed legitimate. Fernando was, however, or at least was perceived by his nobles to be, a weak and ineffectual king, and they were unremittingly hostile to him. He compounded his faults by failing to father a son until he'd been married for ten years.
Given all this, maybe it isn't surprising that the Castilian magnates preferred the thought of the prince of Wales acceding to the throne (assuming the newsletter was correct). Whether Edward would ever have become king of Castile is a fascinating 'what if?', but Fernando IV finally fathered a son, Alfonso XI, in 1311, and thus spared Castile the trauma of being ruled by Edward II.
Provence
In February 1323, Edward II suddenly took it into his head to try to claim a share of Provence, and wrote several letters to this effect to Pope John XXII, asking for his help. His grandmother Queen Eleanor was the second of the four daughters of Count Raymond-Berenger V of Provence, while the third sister, Sanchia, married Richard of Cornwall, brother of Edward’s grandfather Henry III; Edward was also her heir. Maybe Edward thought that as the heir of two of the four sisters, he had a good claim. In fact he didn't, as Raymond-Berenger had left the entire county to his fourth daughter Beatrice in his will - to the fury of her sisters, who spent many years asserting their rights to Provence.
Edward also wrote to Beatrice’s grandson Robert, titular king of Jerusalem and Sicily, count of Provence and Edward's second cousin, asking him to "restore to the king amicably" the portions of the county that Edward said fell to him by inheritance. Thomas of Lancaster, another grandson of Eleanor of Provence, had also tried to claim part of the county, and John XXII rebuked him in early 1322 for failing to write courteously enough of Robert of Sicily. Queen Eleanor had transferred her claim to Provence to her Lancaster grandsons Thomas and Henry in May 1286, with reversion to Eleanor’s heirs, i.e. Edward I and Edward II, and Edward confirmed the Lancasters’ rights in the county in June 1319.
Although Edward wrote again to the pope and Robert of Sicily in August 1323, nothing came of it - John XXII politely informed him that he was unable to use his influence with Robert regarding the matter - and he abandoned his efforts. Oh well, it was worth a try, I suppose.
Sources
Peter Linehan, ‘The English Mission of Cardinal Petrus Hispanus, the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, and news from Castile at Carlisle (1307)’, English Historical Review, 117 (2002), pp. 615-20; Hilda Johnstone, Edward of Carnarvon 1284-1307 (1946), pp. 118-121.
Calendar of Close Rolls 1318-1323, p. 697; Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 136; Foedera II, i, pp. 396, 507, 531, 534; Calendar of Papal Letters 1305-1342, pp. 447, 455-456; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1281-1292, p. 243; Cal Pat Rolls 1317-1321, p. 341; Nancy Goldstone, Four Queens: The Provençal Sisters Who Ruled Europe (2007), pp. 106-8, 111-12, etc.
Castile
As far as I can work out, Edward II is one of only two English monarchs with a Spanish parent, Mary Tudor being the other. In December 1306, a papal nuncio named Pedro, Castilian by birth and cardinal-bishop of Santa Sabina, visited England, and Edward I remarked to him that "he should have a special affection for our dear son Edward, as he [Edward] is of Spanish descent." According to a contemporary newsletter, Pedro had entered into an indenture with the magnates of Castile that Edward, as the son of King Alfonso X’s half-sister Eleanor, would succeed as king of Castile should his cousin Fernando IV die without a male heir.
This story, if true, strikes me as extraordinary; Edward II's mother Eleanor (or Leonor) had seven older half-brothers, and surely there must have been many more candidates for the throne than Edward, through the male line. But there had been a lot of conflict in Castile regarding the succession to the throne. Eleanor's eldest half-brother Alfonso X fathered five sons. The eldest, Fernando de la Cerda ('of the bristle'), predeceased him, leaving two young sons, Alfonso and Fernando. Alfonso X wished his throne to pass to his elder grandson Alfonso, but his second son Sancho demanded that he be made heir to the throne, and precipitated a bloody civil war in 1282. When Alfonso X died in April 1284 - the month his nephew Edward II was born - Sancho seized the throne as Sancho IV. He died in April 1295, leaving a nine-year-old son, Fernando IV. Sancho's brother Juan, the fourth son of Alfonso X, claimed the throne, claiming that his nephew Fernando was illegitimate. The kings of Portugal and Aragon took advantage of the chaos and invaded Castile in 1296, intending to divide the country between them, and the de la Cerda brothers, grandsons of Alfonso X, also continued to claim the throne.
Only Fernando's redoubtable mother Queen Maria de Molina - another close relative of Edward II - saved his throne, and in 1301, when Fernando turned sixteen, the pope finally declared that he was indeed legitimate. Fernando was, however, or at least was perceived by his nobles to be, a weak and ineffectual king, and they were unremittingly hostile to him. He compounded his faults by failing to father a son until he'd been married for ten years.
Given all this, maybe it isn't surprising that the Castilian magnates preferred the thought of the prince of Wales acceding to the throne (assuming the newsletter was correct). Whether Edward would ever have become king of Castile is a fascinating 'what if?', but Fernando IV finally fathered a son, Alfonso XI, in 1311, and thus spared Castile the trauma of being ruled by Edward II.
Provence
In February 1323, Edward II suddenly took it into his head to try to claim a share of Provence, and wrote several letters to this effect to Pope John XXII, asking for his help. His grandmother Queen Eleanor was the second of the four daughters of Count Raymond-Berenger V of Provence, while the third sister, Sanchia, married Richard of Cornwall, brother of Edward’s grandfather Henry III; Edward was also her heir. Maybe Edward thought that as the heir of two of the four sisters, he had a good claim. In fact he didn't, as Raymond-Berenger had left the entire county to his fourth daughter Beatrice in his will - to the fury of her sisters, who spent many years asserting their rights to Provence.
Edward also wrote to Beatrice’s grandson Robert, titular king of Jerusalem and Sicily, count of Provence and Edward's second cousin, asking him to "restore to the king amicably" the portions of the county that Edward said fell to him by inheritance. Thomas of Lancaster, another grandson of Eleanor of Provence, had also tried to claim part of the county, and John XXII rebuked him in early 1322 for failing to write courteously enough of Robert of Sicily. Queen Eleanor had transferred her claim to Provence to her Lancaster grandsons Thomas and Henry in May 1286, with reversion to Eleanor’s heirs, i.e. Edward I and Edward II, and Edward confirmed the Lancasters’ rights in the county in June 1319.
Although Edward wrote again to the pope and Robert of Sicily in August 1323, nothing came of it - John XXII politely informed him that he was unable to use his influence with Robert regarding the matter - and he abandoned his efforts. Oh well, it was worth a try, I suppose.
Sources
Peter Linehan, ‘The English Mission of Cardinal Petrus Hispanus, the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, and news from Castile at Carlisle (1307)’, English Historical Review, 117 (2002), pp. 615-20; Hilda Johnstone, Edward of Carnarvon 1284-1307 (1946), pp. 118-121.
Calendar of Close Rolls 1318-1323, p. 697; Cal Close Rolls 1323-1327, p. 136; Foedera II, i, pp. 396, 507, 531, 534; Calendar of Papal Letters 1305-1342, pp. 447, 455-456; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1281-1292, p. 243; Cal Pat Rolls 1317-1321, p. 341; Nancy Goldstone, Four Queens: The Provençal Sisters Who Ruled Europe (2007), pp. 106-8, 111-12, etc.
16 March, 2009
Aftermath of the Battle of Boroughbridge, 1322
Today marks the 687th anniversary of the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322, when Andrew Harclay, sheriff of Cumberland, defeated the earls of Lancaster and Hereford and Edward II's other baronial enemies, whom the king had taken to calling the 'Contrariants'. I'm not writing an account of the battle itself - I'm pretty rubbish at describing military tactics and battles, and besides, accounts of Boroughbridge can be found all over the internet (here's an excellent one) and in numerous books. So instead, a look at a little-known aspect of the battle: the capture of the rebel combatants and the seizure of their possessions.
The Vita Edwardi Secundi gives an account of how the knights and noblemen who fought at Boroughbridge tried to escape:
"Some left their horses and putting off their armour looked round for ancient worn‑out garments, and took to the road as beggars. But their caution was of no avail, for not a single well‑known man among them all escaped. O calamity! To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags and imprisoned in chains!"
The bit beginning "O calamity!" is one of the misused quotations of Edward II's reign; I've seen too many secondary sources pretend that the author was referring to Edward's tyranny from 1322 onwards, and I've never seen any book quote the sentence that immediately follows, where the chronicler - who hated the Contrariants even more than he hated the Despensers - describes the royalist victory as "A marvellous thing, and one indeed brought about by God’s will and aid, that so scanty a company should in a moment overcome so many knights." The Vita also says that in 1322 the Contrariants "killed those who opposed them, plundered those who offered no resistance, sparing no one." [1]
Other Boroughbridge combatants tried to flee the country or to hide by donning religious habits. [2] Edward II sent men of his household to round up the fleeing Contrariants and seize their goods, and many inhabitants of Yorkshire joined in the hunt. [3] Here are a few details of the men who were arrested and their possessions:
- Stephen Baret, John Haunsard and 3 of their men, captured by the constable of Knaresborough Castle, must have been among those who threw away all their possessions, as they were "taken bare." Baret was executed in South Wales shortly afterwards; Haunsard was still in prison in 1326.
- 11 men were captured 35 miles away at Selby the day after the battle ("on the morrow of the discomfiture at Boroughbridge"), and their goods were sent to the king. They included: a pair of silk garters adorned with silver and red enamel with a cross bar of silver, a "great silver chain containing twelve links with a pipe at the end," 12 buttons of green glass adorned with silver gilt, 8 buttons of silver wire and 5 of white silver, 7 pearls the size of peas, 2 great chains, "one containing 31 links with a silver tirret, and the other 25 links with a silver tirret," a purse of silk worth a mark, a book worth 10 shillings, 8 horses, 6 silver dishes, 2 "worn swords" and 23 shillings in coin. "No other goods of the said prisoners were found except a worn dagger and such things as were stolen by thieves and were of no value."
- the villagers of Luttrington took 60 shillings from the Contrariants, and the men of four other villages found "arms, coats and overcoats" worth 40 shillings.
- The excellently-named Nogge of Luttrington found unspecified "arms and goods" of the rebels in the local wood.
- William de Lascy, vicar of Sherburn, and Nicholas atte Tounhend of Luttrington took "2 grooms of the house" of Sir Henry Tyes (executed in London shortly after the battle), 3 horses, a pack and 2 closed coffers.
- "John de Barnebi and Hugh de Pontefracto took 3 prisoners with 2 horses and 9s 6d and a bacinet, and allowed the prisoners to escape."
- 7 combatants were captured at Ripon 2 days after the battle, by 7 men who seem to have been inhabitants of the town rather than members of Edward II's household, and imprisoned in the archbishop of York's gaol in Ripon. They gave up 7 horses, 4 haketons, 6 bacinets, gauntlets, "swords, bucklers and other small arms," 9 ells of striped cloth and a bed belonging to William Dautery (one of the men captured), to a total value of 10 pounds. A man named James Dautery, presumably a relative, was also imprisoned at Ripon and handed over a hackney worth 6 shillings and 8p.
- the possessions the earl of Hereford had stored at Fountains Abbey were sent to Andrew Harclay, including a gold cup, a silver cup, 40 dishes and 2 horses worth 3 pounds.
- William Comine fled to the church of Escrick, where "acknowledging himself to be a felon" he gave himself up to the rector, Simon de Munketon, and handed over to him the 7 shillings, 2 and a half pence he was carrying, and his sword and a horn.
- William Puncy surrendered to the abbot of Fountains and gave him his silver cups, dishes and saucers. His 2 horses, each worth 30 shillings, were seized at Fountains, as well as a haketon worth 10 shillings, a horn and 14 shillings in cash, and he was imprisoned at Ripon. "Hugh fiz Ivon had of the said enemy a cup and ewer of silver of the price of 40s; Thomas de Doncaster and James de Stow had a little hackney of the price of 5s."
- 10 men of Boroughbridge, including John de Schirwod, Nicholas de Scalton and Richard de Tanfeld, rode out of the town "and pursued the enemy," each receving spoils of 6 marks and more.
- Matthew atte Halyat of Sherburn seized a red doublet worth 40 marks which belonged to Sir John Giffard, and John Ryther took possession of a "coat of armour of great price, and a pack with robes and good furs" belonging to John, Lord Mowbray. He also captured Mowbray's clerk Richard. Mowbray himself was hanged in York on 23 March.
- 2 men found "a beast with diverse arms" in the wood of ‘Bolwelwod’.
- John de Roucestre and his companions "took a knight and a lady with 2 palfreys and goods."
- "Laurence de Ledewodhouses found 2 coffers and the whole harness for a knight with a barehide."
- John son of William de Quixlay took 2 empty chests and "venison of unknown quantity" from Richard le Walays, and Geoffrey Braban took Walays' 2 bacon pigs and a white hackney.
- 2 horses belonging to the Lancastrian knight John Eure were found "at the park of Helagh" and "forcibly taken away by the men of Tadecastre" (Tadcaster), and his 4 other horses were found in the woods at Catherton. Eure's shield, lance, habergeon, leg-guards and plate shoes were found at Bilton. Eure himself was beheaded in Bishop's Auckland by 14 of Edward II's supporters, without Edward's knowledge or consent. Edward fumed that "malefactors" had killed Eure "while he was in the king's faith and peace," asserting "that he was the king's enemy, which he was not" (though he did pardon the killers). [4]
- men of Merston found 7 horses, armour and weapons, including a pair of plate gloves, a pair of cuisses, a pair of leg-guards, 4 swords, 3 lances and 2 pikes, and also a pair of shoes and a silver spoon. 1 of the horses belonged to the minstrel John le Boteler, called 'Burning King'.
- Alan, Robert and William le Pakker found 2 "empty chests with torches of wax." William of Sherburn found a bay horse and 2 empty chests.
- "Certain grooms, alleging themselves to be with the esquires of the king's chamber," found 2 pairs of leg guards, 2 pairs of shoes with cuisses, 2 bacinets with adventails, a coat of armour, a "saddle for a pack," a tunic, a barrel and a bridle.
- John del Grene found a horse and a lance belonging to Thomas Ughtred.
- "Fr. de Ledgraunge took a hackney in the park of Heselwod."
- John de Fenton took a rouncy worth 20s, a a habergeon and a haketon worth 10s, and John son of Emma of Sherburn found 2 horses, 1 bay worth 20s, and 1 iron-grey worth 2s - perhaps belonging to Adam Everyngham, below.
- Edward II's sergeant-at-arms Roger atte Watre - one of the Dunheved gang who temporarily freed the former king from Berkeley Castle in 1327 - seized a destrier and 2 rouncies of the Lancastrian knight Nicholas Stapelton at Drax Abbey. Stapelton himself was handed over to the custody of the bailiffs of York, and imprisoned there "with a bed and a robe." Other men imprisoned in York included Sir Robert Ryther, with a bed and 2 robes; Nicholas de Burgh, "with a sorel hackney, a seal, a sword, a trunk and the clothes he was wearing"; Edmund de Ryvers with a haketon and a black cloak; Sir Adam Everyngham with "a bed, 2 robes and 2 horses, one bay and other iron-grey"; Robert de Puntfrayt with a sword and the clothes he was wearing; Thomas de Stretford, groom, with an iron-grey courser.
- "Robert de Bretton and Denys de Mareis and others, their companions, took a man at arms and 8 other rebels at Athelsay and a horse of the price of 40s, and 6 pieces and dishes of silver."
- Sir Peter de Midelton found at Sherburn a black rouncey worth 100s, a white horse worth 40s, a 'pomel horse' worth 40s, and a bay horse worth 4s.
Sources
1) Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N. Denholm-Young (1957), pp. 121, 124-125.
2) Calendar of Close Rolls 1318-1323, pp. 534-535.
3) Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (Chancery) 1308-1348, pp. 129-134.
4) Cal Close Rolls 1318-1323, pp. 430, 474; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1321-1324, pp. 127-128.
The Vita Edwardi Secundi gives an account of how the knights and noblemen who fought at Boroughbridge tried to escape:
"Some left their horses and putting off their armour looked round for ancient worn‑out garments, and took to the road as beggars. But their caution was of no avail, for not a single well‑known man among them all escaped. O calamity! To see men lately dressed in purple and fine linen now attired in rags and imprisoned in chains!"
The bit beginning "O calamity!" is one of the misused quotations of Edward II's reign; I've seen too many secondary sources pretend that the author was referring to Edward's tyranny from 1322 onwards, and I've never seen any book quote the sentence that immediately follows, where the chronicler - who hated the Contrariants even more than he hated the Despensers - describes the royalist victory as "A marvellous thing, and one indeed brought about by God’s will and aid, that so scanty a company should in a moment overcome so many knights." The Vita also says that in 1322 the Contrariants "killed those who opposed them, plundered those who offered no resistance, sparing no one." [1]
Other Boroughbridge combatants tried to flee the country or to hide by donning religious habits. [2] Edward II sent men of his household to round up the fleeing Contrariants and seize their goods, and many inhabitants of Yorkshire joined in the hunt. [3] Here are a few details of the men who were arrested and their possessions:
- Stephen Baret, John Haunsard and 3 of their men, captured by the constable of Knaresborough Castle, must have been among those who threw away all their possessions, as they were "taken bare." Baret was executed in South Wales shortly afterwards; Haunsard was still in prison in 1326.
- 11 men were captured 35 miles away at Selby the day after the battle ("on the morrow of the discomfiture at Boroughbridge"), and their goods were sent to the king. They included: a pair of silk garters adorned with silver and red enamel with a cross bar of silver, a "great silver chain containing twelve links with a pipe at the end," 12 buttons of green glass adorned with silver gilt, 8 buttons of silver wire and 5 of white silver, 7 pearls the size of peas, 2 great chains, "one containing 31 links with a silver tirret, and the other 25 links with a silver tirret," a purse of silk worth a mark, a book worth 10 shillings, 8 horses, 6 silver dishes, 2 "worn swords" and 23 shillings in coin. "No other goods of the said prisoners were found except a worn dagger and such things as were stolen by thieves and were of no value."
- the villagers of Luttrington took 60 shillings from the Contrariants, and the men of four other villages found "arms, coats and overcoats" worth 40 shillings.
- The excellently-named Nogge of Luttrington found unspecified "arms and goods" of the rebels in the local wood.
- William de Lascy, vicar of Sherburn, and Nicholas atte Tounhend of Luttrington took "2 grooms of the house" of Sir Henry Tyes (executed in London shortly after the battle), 3 horses, a pack and 2 closed coffers.
- "John de Barnebi and Hugh de Pontefracto took 3 prisoners with 2 horses and 9s 6d and a bacinet, and allowed the prisoners to escape."
- 7 combatants were captured at Ripon 2 days after the battle, by 7 men who seem to have been inhabitants of the town rather than members of Edward II's household, and imprisoned in the archbishop of York's gaol in Ripon. They gave up 7 horses, 4 haketons, 6 bacinets, gauntlets, "swords, bucklers and other small arms," 9 ells of striped cloth and a bed belonging to William Dautery (one of the men captured), to a total value of 10 pounds. A man named James Dautery, presumably a relative, was also imprisoned at Ripon and handed over a hackney worth 6 shillings and 8p.
- the possessions the earl of Hereford had stored at Fountains Abbey were sent to Andrew Harclay, including a gold cup, a silver cup, 40 dishes and 2 horses worth 3 pounds.
- William Comine fled to the church of Escrick, where "acknowledging himself to be a felon" he gave himself up to the rector, Simon de Munketon, and handed over to him the 7 shillings, 2 and a half pence he was carrying, and his sword and a horn.
- William Puncy surrendered to the abbot of Fountains and gave him his silver cups, dishes and saucers. His 2 horses, each worth 30 shillings, were seized at Fountains, as well as a haketon worth 10 shillings, a horn and 14 shillings in cash, and he was imprisoned at Ripon. "Hugh fiz Ivon had of the said enemy a cup and ewer of silver of the price of 40s; Thomas de Doncaster and James de Stow had a little hackney of the price of 5s."
- 10 men of Boroughbridge, including John de Schirwod, Nicholas de Scalton and Richard de Tanfeld, rode out of the town "and pursued the enemy," each receving spoils of 6 marks and more.
- Matthew atte Halyat of Sherburn seized a red doublet worth 40 marks which belonged to Sir John Giffard, and John Ryther took possession of a "coat of armour of great price, and a pack with robes and good furs" belonging to John, Lord Mowbray. He also captured Mowbray's clerk Richard. Mowbray himself was hanged in York on 23 March.
- 2 men found "a beast with diverse arms" in the wood of ‘Bolwelwod’.
- John de Roucestre and his companions "took a knight and a lady with 2 palfreys and goods."
- "Laurence de Ledewodhouses found 2 coffers and the whole harness for a knight with a barehide."
- John son of William de Quixlay took 2 empty chests and "venison of unknown quantity" from Richard le Walays, and Geoffrey Braban took Walays' 2 bacon pigs and a white hackney.
- 2 horses belonging to the Lancastrian knight John Eure were found "at the park of Helagh" and "forcibly taken away by the men of Tadecastre" (Tadcaster), and his 4 other horses were found in the woods at Catherton. Eure's shield, lance, habergeon, leg-guards and plate shoes were found at Bilton. Eure himself was beheaded in Bishop's Auckland by 14 of Edward II's supporters, without Edward's knowledge or consent. Edward fumed that "malefactors" had killed Eure "while he was in the king's faith and peace," asserting "that he was the king's enemy, which he was not" (though he did pardon the killers). [4]
- men of Merston found 7 horses, armour and weapons, including a pair of plate gloves, a pair of cuisses, a pair of leg-guards, 4 swords, 3 lances and 2 pikes, and also a pair of shoes and a silver spoon. 1 of the horses belonged to the minstrel John le Boteler, called 'Burning King'.
- Alan, Robert and William le Pakker found 2 "empty chests with torches of wax." William of Sherburn found a bay horse and 2 empty chests.
- "Certain grooms, alleging themselves to be with the esquires of the king's chamber," found 2 pairs of leg guards, 2 pairs of shoes with cuisses, 2 bacinets with adventails, a coat of armour, a "saddle for a pack," a tunic, a barrel and a bridle.
- John del Grene found a horse and a lance belonging to Thomas Ughtred.
- "Fr. de Ledgraunge took a hackney in the park of Heselwod."
- John de Fenton took a rouncy worth 20s, a a habergeon and a haketon worth 10s, and John son of Emma of Sherburn found 2 horses, 1 bay worth 20s, and 1 iron-grey worth 2s - perhaps belonging to Adam Everyngham, below.
- Edward II's sergeant-at-arms Roger atte Watre - one of the Dunheved gang who temporarily freed the former king from Berkeley Castle in 1327 - seized a destrier and 2 rouncies of the Lancastrian knight Nicholas Stapelton at Drax Abbey. Stapelton himself was handed over to the custody of the bailiffs of York, and imprisoned there "with a bed and a robe." Other men imprisoned in York included Sir Robert Ryther, with a bed and 2 robes; Nicholas de Burgh, "with a sorel hackney, a seal, a sword, a trunk and the clothes he was wearing"; Edmund de Ryvers with a haketon and a black cloak; Sir Adam Everyngham with "a bed, 2 robes and 2 horses, one bay and other iron-grey"; Robert de Puntfrayt with a sword and the clothes he was wearing; Thomas de Stretford, groom, with an iron-grey courser.
- "Robert de Bretton and Denys de Mareis and others, their companions, took a man at arms and 8 other rebels at Athelsay and a horse of the price of 40s, and 6 pieces and dishes of silver."
- Sir Peter de Midelton found at Sherburn a black rouncey worth 100s, a white horse worth 40s, a 'pomel horse' worth 40s, and a bay horse worth 4s.
Sources
1) Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N. Denholm-Young (1957), pp. 121, 124-125.
2) Calendar of Close Rolls 1318-1323, pp. 534-535.
3) Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (Chancery) 1308-1348, pp. 129-134.
4) Cal Close Rolls 1318-1323, pp. 430, 474; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1321-1324, pp. 127-128.
12 March, 2009
Inspirational Blog Searches
Edward II's inspirational poster, from Motivator, via Susan Higginbotham:
kind edward II Actually, Edward was extremely kind and generous when he felt like it. Also extraordinarily vindictive, of course.
Edward II in sympathetic terms
what good things did edward ii do for england Abdicate?
the ghost of the King Edward who was horrificly died in the Berkely Castle
Edward II sop dancer
Hugh Despenser the Younger got his c*ck cut off (Without the asterisk.) The number of people who hit this blog looking for information about Hugh Despenser's genitals is quite astonishing.
hugh le despenser 2006 bones
queen isabella 1 rein spain
what was spain like in 1326?
Did William Wallace and the Queen of Edward 2 of England have a child together Here we go again.
lord brother marries sister england
are elizabeths sometimes called margaret?
altogether how many men were killed during corfe castle
what happened when caernarfon castle was burnt in 1294 Umm, it burnt?
why was eynsford castle not used after 1312
"poor alice" dumped
cool names for quake
insulting nicknames for men from Herefordshire
insulting names for tall people
what is queen isabella a lover of? Money, jewellery and Roger Mortimer, not necessarily in that order.
isabella the she wolf carpet plantagenet I assume 'carpet' was meant to be 'Capet'.
what crimes is Queen Isabella of france charged with
anyone think queen isabella of castile was horrible/
isabella tart
queen isabellas inventions
queen isabella's mom and dad
What is an interesting story on queen isabella
piers gaveston soap opera
Gloucester Cathedral nicknamed king of games
what are some interesting facts about polled herefords? I don't even know what 'polled herefords' are.
Ferrando Valentin is the king of England
1332 god v ispaniq
la grace de dieu lamps how much are they worth
in 1296 to 1327 between england and scotland what happend
medieval execution of women pictures
when does Edward first bite Isabella Clearly a reference to Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series about vampires (the main characters are called Edward and Bella), but that one certainly gave me a vivid mental image.
Some blog searches from the last few days:
Edward II really deformed?
was edward ii selfish? Yup, probably.
why was king II edward week
Edward II really deformed?
was edward ii selfish? Yup, probably.
why was king II edward week
kind edward II Actually, Edward was extremely kind and generous when he felt like it. Also extraordinarily vindictive, of course.
Edward II in sympathetic terms
what good things did edward ii do for england Abdicate?
the ghost of the King Edward who was horrificly died in the Berkely Castle
Edward II sop dancer
why was edward second's reign a disaster in 1323 Only in 1323?
FACKS ON EDWORD 5
Eleanor of Woodstock naked
DAMSELS, NUDE STARKERS
Eleanor of Woodstock naked
DAMSELS, NUDE STARKERS
marguerite de valois + obesity
Hugh Despenser the Younger got his c*ck cut off (Without the asterisk.) The number of people who hit this blog looking for information about Hugh Despenser's genitals is quite astonishing.
hugh le despenser 2006 bones
queen isabella 1 rein spain
what was spain like in 1326?
Did William Wallace and the Queen of Edward 2 of England have a child together Here we go again.
lord brother marries sister england
are elizabeths sometimes called margaret?
altogether how many men were killed during corfe castle
what happened when caernarfon castle was burnt in 1294 Umm, it burnt?
why was eynsford castle not used after 1312
"poor alice" dumped
cool names for quake
insulting nicknames for men from Herefordshire
insulting names for tall people
what is queen isabella a lover of? Money, jewellery and Roger Mortimer, not necessarily in that order.
isabella the she wolf carpet plantagenet I assume 'carpet' was meant to be 'Capet'.
what crimes is Queen Isabella of france charged with
anyone think queen isabella of castile was horrible/
isabella tart
queen isabellas inventions
queen isabella's mom and dad
What is an interesting story on queen isabella
piers gaveston soap opera
Gloucester Cathedral nicknamed king of games
what are some interesting facts about polled herefords? I don't even know what 'polled herefords' are.
Ferrando Valentin is the king of England
1332 god v ispaniq
la grace de dieu lamps how much are they worth
in 1296 to 1327 between england and scotland what happend
medieval execution of women pictures
when does Edward first bite Isabella Clearly a reference to Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series about vampires (the main characters are called Edward and Bella), but that one certainly gave me a vivid mental image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)