A post about the wedding of Edward II's brother-in-law Charles IV of France and Navarre and his third wife Joan of Evreux. (5 July is also the anniversary of the birth of Edward II's and Isabella of France's youngest child Joan of the Tower, later the queen of Robert Bruce and Elizabeth de Burgh's son David II of Scotland, in 1321.)
Charles was born on 18 June 1294 as the third son of Philip IV, king of France, and Joan I, queen of Navarre and countess of Champagne, Bigorre and Brie, and was about eighteen months or so older than his sister Isabella, queen of England. He succeeded his brother Philip V as king of France and Navarre when Philip died on 2 January 1322 at the age of about thirty. Later that year, Charles' marriage to his first wife Blanche of Burgundy, who had been in prison for adultery since 1314, was finally annulled. On 21 September 1322, Charles married Marie of Luxembourg, daughter of Henry of Luxembourg, Holy Roman Emperor, and Margaret, sister of Edward II's brother-in-law Duke John II of Brabant. Queen Marie died on 26 March 1324, shortly after miscarrying the baby boy who would have been king of France if he had lived. Charles IV's two older brothers Louis X and Philip V had died without surviving male issue; Louis's posthumous son John I of France died when he was five days old in November 1316, and Philip left four daughters, Joan, Marguerite, Isabella and Blanche, his and Joan of Burgundy's two sons having died in childhood. Charles had a son with Blanche of Burgundy, who died as a child, as well as his stillborn son with Marie of Luxembourg.
Charles IV turned thirty in June 1324, and was desperate for a son to succeed him. He therefore married his first cousin Jeanne d'Evreux or Joan of Evreux; she was one of the daughters of his father Philip IV's half-brother Louis, count of Evreux (d. 1319). Joan, born c. 1310, was only about fourteen at the time of her marriage. Her eldest sister Marie was married to Edward II's nephew Duke John III of Brabant, and her brother Philip was married to their cousin, Louis X's daughter, who became Queen Joan II of Navarre on the death of her uncle Charles IV in 1328. (Yes, Philip of Evreux married his brother-in-law's niece.)
For some reason there is considerable confusion among historians as to the date of Charles IV and Joan of Evreux's wedding, and many of them wrongly place it in July 1325, even Elizabeth A. R. Brown, an expert on Philip IV and his sons. It is most unlikely, however, that Charles would have waited for as long as sixteen months to marry again after the death of Marie of Luxembourg in March 1324, and in fact, the exact date of the wedding is known from a letter sent to Edward II by his envoys to France on 10 July 1324: "we found him [Charles IV] at Annet [-sur-Marne] on the Thursday next before the feast of the Translation of St Thomas, where he had married on the same day the sister of the present count of Dreux [sic]." (lui trovasmes a Annet' le joedy prochein devant la feste de la Translacion de Seint Thomas, ou il avoit espouses mesmes le jour le soer le conte de Drews qore est.) The Translation of St Thomas Becket is 7 July, which fell on a Saturday in 1324. The letter to Edward is printed in The War of Saint-Sardos (1323-1325): Gascon Correspondence and Diplomatic Documents, ed. Pierre Chaplais, pp. 189-190, and cannot date to July 1325, as its contents - relating to Edward's failure to travel to Amiens to pay homage for his French possessions and Charles's confiscation of them - would make no sense if they'd been written a year later, by which time Charles and Edward had signed a peace treaty.
Queen Joan seems to have given birth to their first child in around late 1325, a girl who died about a year later and whose name is uncertain, either Joan or Isabella. Their second daughter, Marie, was born around late 1326, and outlived her father but died unmarried in 1341. The third daughter, Blanche, was born posthumously on 1 April 1328, exactly two months after Charles IV died at the age of thirty-five. Blanche of France, Charles IV's only child who lived into adulthood, married Philip, duke of Orleans, the second son of Charles IV's first cousin and successor Philip VI of France and the brother of John II. He was eight years younger than she, and the couple had no children. Philip VI had endured an anxious two-month wait after the death of Charles IV; had Queen Joan given birth to a boy, he would have become king of France immediately on birth.
Joan of Evreux, dowager queen of France, lived as a widow for forty-three years, and died on 4 March 1371 in her early sixties. Her daughter Blanche, duchess of Orleans, died on 8 February 1382 and was the second last survivor of the Capetian dynasty; her cousin Marguerite, countess of Flanders and the second daughter of Philip V, outlived her by three months.
28 June, 2015
The Siege of Carlisle – 22nd July to 1st August 1315 (guest post)
My thanks to Jerry Bennett for writing and providing this excellent account of Robert Bruce's siege of Carlisle in 1315!
*
*
On 22nd
July 1315, Robert Bruce attacked the English city of Carlisle, with an army
reputed to be 10,000 strong. Henry Summerson, in his excellent book on
mediaeval Carlisle, claims the siege actually started on the 14th
July, but the first attack was not launched until the 22nd, the date
stated in the Lanercost Chronicle. Given the size of the attacking Scottish
army, there were probably Scots sitting outside Carlisle’s walls well before
the 22nd July but whether Robert Bruce himself was present is open
to conjecture.
Whatever
the start date of the siege, the English commander, Andrew Harclay, had plenty
of time to prepare for it and had around 100 men at arms, 46 hobelars and 340
archers to defend the city (the figures vary slightly with different
historians, but not by much). The full circuit of Carlisle walls is nearly two
miles if you include the castle, so the defenders would be stretched quite
thinly. Robert Bruce probably thought he could take the city fairly easily,
which may explain the lack of siege machines that the Scots bought with them.
But ten days later he had to retreat back over the border, frustrated but
certainly not defeated.
The best
near-contemporary account of the siege comes from the Lanercost chronicler –
not surprising seeing as Lanercost Priory was situated only ten miles east of
Carlisle. Even so, that account is fairly brief, with just enough detail to
gain some idea of what actually happened. Almost inevitably some of the
comments are open to different interpretations, which shows through with variations
in history textbooks or papers. The siege took place just 13 months after the
Scottish victory at Bannockburn, with Scottish morale running high while the
government of England seemed paralysed by the disputes between king Edward II
and the earl of Lancaster. Earlier that year, James Douglas had led a raid deep
into County Durham and attacked the town of Hartlepool, forcing the inhabitants
to flee onto their ships. To quote Lanercost:
The
Scots, then, seeing that affairs were going everywhere in their favour, invaded
the bishopric of Durham about the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and
plundered the town of Hartle-pool, whence the people took to the sea in ships;
but they did not burn it. On their return they carried away very much booty
from the bishopric.
The
feast day in question is 29th June, only 15 days before Summerson’s
date for the start of the siege, which inclines me to believe that the Scottish
leaders would not have arrived at Carlisle much before the 22nd
July. If they could ignore the English garrisons, both royal and private, at
cities like Newcastle and Durham, or major castles like Alnwick and Berwick
(still in English hands at that time), they must have been very confident about
what they could achieve anywhere in the North of England. Hartlepool is just
short of a hundred miles south of the border at either Berwick or Norham, so Carlisle,
only ten miles from the border, must have been a near-certain target for the
Scots at some point.
Also,
a little later in the same year, on the feast of S. Mary Magdalene, the King of
Scotland, having mustered all his forces, came to Carlisle, invested the city
and besieged it for ten days, trampling down all the crops, wasting the suburbs
and all within the bounds, burning the whole of that district, and driving in a
very great store of cattle for his army from Allerdale, Copland, and Westmorland.
The
feast day of St Mary Magdalene is the 22nd July. I have no idea
whether Bruce summoned his army to gather at Carlisle, or to meet somewhere in
Scotland (probably Lochmaben) and then advance on Carlisle.
There
were some strong historical reasons why Carlisle could have been a tempting
target for Robert Bruce. Carlisle and the counties of Cumberland and
Westmorland (both now part of modern-day Cumbria) are isolated from the rest of
England, and were only incorporated into England mainly in the reign of king Henry
I. The Lake District Fells and the Howgill Fells cut those counties off from
the rest of England to the south, while the Pennines block easy access from the
east. The only easy route into the counties was the road from Newcastle, which ran
just south of Hadrian’s Wall and at the time was known as Stanegate. The main
road that connected Carlisle to most of England ran south to Penrith, then southeast
via the Eden valley and Robert Clifford’s castle and town of Appleby, over the
summit of Stainmore and then to eventually reach York – roughly the modern-day
A66. An even more difficult route ran south from Penrith to Kendal through the
Shap fells, while an old Roman road followed the top of the broad ridge now
called High Street, reaching 2,500 feet above sea level at its highest point.
Finally it was also possible to reach Lancashire via the long road down the
West coast through Cockermouth, Egremont and Millom before fording the sands of
the Duddon, Leven and Kent estuaries to reach Lancaster.
Not
an easy place to reach, and had Carlisle fallen in 1315, not an easy place to
retake either. Given the inability of Edward II to recapture Berwick in 1319,
if Carlisle had fallen it would have remained in Scottish hands for many years,
and from a Scottish viewpoint, justifiably so. Not only did the Scottish kings
have a historic claim on Carlisle, Cumberland and the northern half of
Westmorland, but the Scottish diocese of Glasgow also claimed religious
jurisdiction over Carlisle and Cumbria “as far as the Redecross of Stainmore”.
King Henry I had partially headed off this claim by elevating St Mary’s Priory
in Carlisle to the status of a cathedral in 1132, but the old beliefs almost
certainly still remained.
In
1135, king David I of Scotland occupied Carlisle, and it became one of his main
administrative centres, certainly on a par with Edinburgh and Stirling. It
remained part of Scotland for the next 22 years before being returned to the
England of Henry II. Henry the young king (son of Henry II) offered Carlisle
and “Cumbria” to the Scots as part of a reward for their support in his
rebellion against his father, and the Scots unsuccessfully attacked Carlisle in
1173 as a consequence of that agreement. The Scots again occupied Carlisle for
over a year in 1216, just after the death of king John, but surrendered it one
year later. The line of the England-Scotland border was finally settled at the
treaty of York in 1237, but the turbulent history of claim and counterclaim
must have had some bearing on the minds of both Scots and Northern English. I
wonder just how much it might have affected Andrew Harclay’s decision to try
and broker a peace with Robert Bruce on his own initiative after the English military
disasters of 1322?
When
war broke out again in 1296, Carlisle was attacked by those Scots who supported
king John Balliol, led by the Comyn earl of Buchan. One year later, William
Wallace also considered trying to capture Carlisle, but the defenders were
better prepared by then and Wallace turned away from the city. Such were the
conflicting alliances of the time that one of the leading defenders of the city
then was Robert Bruce, father of the victor of Bannockburn. Robert Bruce the
son would have known Carlisle, and to judge by the fact that he initially
attacked it only by escalade, probably thought it would be relatively easy to take.
He had surprised and almost captured it in 1311, when the city had to pay a
large amount of tribute to save itself. As Bruce still had to recapture Perth,
Stirling, Edinburgh and Dumfries (amongst other places in Scotland) he may not
have been too concerned about occupying Carlisle at that time.
Post-Bannockburn, that had changed. He may even have thought he could persuade
the city to surrender without a fight, but that would have to be wishful
thinking on his part. If there was one man anywhere in the North of England
prepared to fight back, it was Andrew Harclay who had been appointed constable
of the city and sheriff of Cumberland after the debacle of 1311.
What
manner of problems would Bruce have faced when he attacked Carlisle? The
accompanying map shows that the city was roughly triangular in shape, with the
castle in the Northwest corner and three gates through the city walls. The one
facing North was known as the Scots Gate, or Rickert’s Gate, while that facing
west was the Irish or Caldew Gate. At the south end of the city, shown here
with a double tower, was the English gate, or Botcher’s Gate, although this part
of the city defences was heavily rebuilt in the Tudor period. Although this is
a copy of John Speed’s map of 1610, the walls were still intact at that time
and it gives a reasonable impression of what the city must have been like three
hundred years before. I can but apologise for the lack of clarity, but the
castle, the cathedral and the three gates stand out fairly well. The layout of
the streets behind the East wall and the market square has barely changed and
can be easily recognised today.
The
city stood on a low ridge of sandstone, surrounded by rivers on three sides.
The largest was the Eden, flowing east to west some 300 yards north of the
Scots gate, with the bridge over it carrying the main road to Scotland. The
Caldew flowed below the west wall of the city, with the road to Cockermouth and
West Cumberland crossing it just west the Irish gate, either by a bridge or a
ford (the accounts are contradictory here). Finally the smallest of the three,
the Petteril, flowed past the east side of Carlisle, but some half a mile from
the East wall. It is difficult to envisage what the land was really like
immediately outside Carlisle’s walls, but there was almost certainly a fair
amount of low-lying, waterlogged land, particularly alongside the rivers Eden
and the Petteril. When the Scots eventually built a siege tower or “berefrai”
to overtop the height of the city’s gates, it became stuck in mud when they tried
to move it. The suburbs that the Scots “wasted” were either outside the English
gate or just across the Caldew on the west bank in what is now Shaddongate,
Denton Holme and Caldcotes. There was even a church somewhere there, the church
of the Holy Trinity. There was also a community of fishermen living outside the
walls and close to the Eden, according to Henry Summerson, although given the
propensity of that river to flood, one has to wonder where it was located.
Possibly alongside the road to the Eden bridge, as shown on the map above.
Speed’s
map resorts to wishful thinking once he goes outside the walls. The impression given
is that the Caldew gate is roughly level with the river Caldew, when in fact
the ground there was quite steep. Mediaeval Carlisle stood on its ridge between
50 and 70 feet above the Caldew, with a fairly steep slope dropping towards the
river. Any modern day visitor to Carlisle can get en excellent impression of
this height if they choose to park on the West Walls car park. (Just follow the
road past the front of the railway station, under Victoria Viaduct, and
suddenly you are in the car park directly below the cathedral. The climb up the
old sandstone steps to the top of the walls, then through the arch into the
cathedral close, is one of the most atmospheric ways to enter old Carlisle.) Images
of the city from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries show this land as
being quite steep, with a few trees and a lot of bushes, probably gorse,
hawthorn or bramble, and it is how I imagine it at the time of the siege. It is
still like that below the castle walls at the extreme Northern tip of the old city.
But all trace of that hillside was wiped out in Victorian times. This became railway
country. Seven different companies ran into Carlisle, and although they
co-operated by sharing just one passenger station, they all had their own goods
depots and engine sheds, and a network of avoiding lines running either side of
the Caldew to prevent any congestion in the station caused by the huge number
of goods trains. The Caldew was diverted between high retaining walls and
bridged in several places as a result.
The
north wall, running from the castle to the Scots gate, would also have been
well above the level of the river Eden. Any visitor today can get a good
impression by standing at the Northern end of Scotch Street, just where it
intersects with West Tower Street which is almost certainly the site of the
former Scots gate. The road drops down a short hill and past the front door of
Debenhams before leveling out as it runs past the offices of the city council
and on towards the giant modern roundabout called Hardwick Circle lying immediately
south of the Eden Bridge. You get the same impression as you look towards the
castle along West Tower Street, or across Bitts Park just below the castle
walls; steep ground at first then leveling out closer to the river. Not
particularly easy ground across which to launch an escalade.
John
Speed allowed his imagination to really get the better of him by showing hills south
of the Eden and east of the bridge. The land here is as flat as a pancake, and
was for many years the site favoured for horse racing. Some 250 years after the
siege, the famous rescue of “Kinmont Willie” Armstrong from Carlisle castle was
almost certainly plotted at one of these horse races. Today it is given over largely
to sports fields. The slope of the land below the east wall and running south
from the English gate is pretty gentle, so it is almost imperceptible, but it
is there. Possibly the best indication of the lie of the land can be gained
from the map of the 2005 Carlisle floods, showing the streets closest to the
Eden and the Petteril submerged under flood water while it remained dry closer
to the old city walls. The problem for the Scots would be that this dryer land
was almost certainly within easy arrowshot of the defenders.
On
every day of the siege they assaulted one of the three gates of the city,
sometimes all three at once; but never without loss, because there were
discharged upon them from the walls such dense volleys of darts and arrows,
likewise stones, that they asked one another whether stones bred and multiplied
within the walls.
Andrew
Harclay must have been preparing his defences well. I suspect he had every
blacksmith, fletcher and wood-turner in the city preparing arrows and javelins
by the thousand in the weeks before the Scots arrived, while piles of rocks
must have been stacked every few yards around the parapet behind those walls.
Recent excavations suggest that the city walls were about 20 feet high, not too
difficult to escalade either side of the one of the gates, and once the Scots
reached the foot of the walls the defenders would have to rely more on stones
and javelins to repel them. I also suspect that there were reserve piles of
rocks stacked against the inside of the walls at ground level, ready to
replenish those on the parapet. Given his relatively small number of defenders,
Harclay would have wanted to move men swiftly around the walls to reinforce any
particular crisis point and huge piles of rocks on the parapet itself would
have slowed that movement.
Now
on the fifth day of the siege they set up a machine for casting stones next the
church of Holy Trinity, where their king stationed himself, and they cast great
stones
continually
against the Caldew gate and against the wall, but they did little or no injury
to those within, except that they killed one man. But there were seven or eight
similar machines within the city, besides other engines of war, which are
called springalds, for discharging long darts, and staves with sockets for
casting stones, which caused great fear and damage to those out-side.
The
fact that it took the Scots five days before they set up any siege machines
suggests to me that they expected to take the city by escalade. (The same was
true of the English attempt to recapture Berwick in 1319). Perhaps Bruce had a
trebuchet prepared, and it just took time to carry it all the way from
Lochmaben and assemble it, but it also suggests that the Scots were forced to
improvise after the initial round of escalades had failed. The church of the
Holy Trinity is thought to have been just west of the Caldew crossing in the old
manor of Caldcotes. Excavations in 1959 found a number of burials with the
bodies laid neatly on an east-west axis, suggesting church burial. There is a Holy
Trinity church a few hundred yards further west, but it is Victorian in age.
One of the historical manuscripts also suggests that there was a tannery
alongside the Caldew, which may have provided some useful shelter for the
Scots, both from bad weather and English archers.
But
the positioning of the trebuchet beside the Caldew makes good sense in one way.
Although the steep ground below the west wall would have made the Caldew gate
the most difficult to attack by escalade, the riverbed supplied a huge amount
of ammunition. The Eden at Carlisle has eroded its way down to near sea level –
it is tidal almost all the way up to Carlisle – but the Caldew is still cutting
its way between the heights of Carlisle’s ridge and Denton Holme, and its bed
and banks are far more rock-strewn than the meadow-fringed Eden.
I
think the weather was most likely to have been typical of a Northern summer,
with some dry days interspersed with wet ones. Although 1315 was the first of
the famine years, when bad weather wreaked the harvest right across England, I
get the impression from Lanercost that the really heavy, continuous rain that
ruined what little harvest remained after the Scots had left, did not arrive
until September. Regular downpours would still mean that the ground around the
city was pretty swampy. But if it had been heavy, continuous rain would the
Scots have been able to conduct any sort of effective siege? The arrow-storms from
both sides described by Lanercost would have been near impossible in continuous
heavy rain, so I suspect there were some intervals of dryer weather. One other
factor which suggests the existence of a lot of wet weather is that the Scots
appear to have made no effort to burn any of the gates, something they had
successfully done elsewhere. Or perhaps they tried but Lanercost never
mentioned it.
Meanwhile,
however, the Scots set up a certain great berefrai like a kind of tower, which
was considerably higher than the city walls. On perceiving this, the carpenters
of the city erected upon a tower of the wall against which that engine must
come if it had ever reached the wall, a wooden tower loftier than the other;
but neither that engine nor any other ever did reach the wall, because, when it
was being drawn on wheels over the wet and swampy ground, having stuck there
through its own weight, it could neither be taken any further nor do any harm.
Moreover
the Scots had made many long ladders, which they brought with them for scaling
the wall in different places simultaneously; also a sow for mining the town
wall, had they been able; but neither sow nor ladders availed them aught. Also
they made great numbers of fascines of corn and herbage to fill the moat
outside the wall on the east side, so as they might pass over dry-shod. Also
they made long bridges of logs running upon wheels, such as being strongly and
swiftly drawn with ropes might reach across the width of the moat. But during
all the time the Scots were on the ground neither fascines sufficed to fill the
moat, nor those wooden bridges to cross the ditch, but sank to the depths by
their own weight.
The
“berefrai” must have been built somewhere to the east of the city, as it could
never have been moved up the slope to attack the west wall. It was probably built
close to the Petteril but had to be in wetter ground in order to remain beyond
arrow range. I suspect the sow would have been built in the same place,
possibly with the intention of undermining part of the east wall through the
side of the moat. Lanercost does not state on which tower the defenders
extended their own defences, and it could have been either the English or the
Scots gate. I think the Scots gate was smaller, and so a more tempting target,
but the English gate might have been closer. I also suspect that the moat would
have been more of a dry ditch in any period of sunny weather, as it would not
have been easy to divert a river to fill it. It was too high above either the
Eden or the Petteril, and the wrong side of the ridge for the Caldew.
Howbeit
on the ninth day of the siege, when all the engines were ready, they delivered
a general assault upon all the city gates and upon the whole circuit of the
wall, attacking manfully, while the citizens defended themselves just as
manfully, and they did the same next day. The Scots also resorted to the same
kind of stratagem whereby they had taken Edinburgh Castle; for they employed
the greater part of their army in delivering an assault upon the eastern side
of the city, against the place of the Minorite Friars, in order to draw thither
the people who were inside. But Sir James of Douglas, a bold and cautious
knight, stationed himself, with some others of the army who were most daring
and nimble, on the west side opposite the place of the Canons and Preaching
Friars, where no attack was expected because of the height [of the wall] and
the difficulty of access. There they set up long ladders which they climbed,
and the bowmen, whereof they had a great number, shot their arrows thickly to
prevent anyone showing his head above the wall. But, blessed be God! They met
with such resistance there as threw them to the ground with their ladders, so
that there and elsewhere round the wall some were killed, others taken
prisoners and others wounded; yet throughout the whole siege no Englishman was
killed, save one man only who was struck by an arrow (and except the man above
mentioned), and few were wounded.
The
holdings of the different orders of friars lay just inside the English gate,
set against the east and west walls respectively. The Scottish archers down somewhere
near the Caldew would not have found it easy to aim directly at the defenders,
as they would have been shooting quite steeply uphill, probably with
arrow-flight affected by crosswinds. I suspect they were loosing arrows over
the wall to fall on defenders from above. Accurate shooting at English
defenders would also have been too close to Douglas’s “daring and nimble”
escaladers on their ladders.
Here
we have some variation in accounts. Lanercost infers that Douglas was already
waiting somewhere below the west wall, possibly hidden in trees and bushes,
waiting for a key moment to attack. Henry Summerson suggests his men left the
main attack and ran round the south end of the city, while yet another account
has them running round the north end of the city, and the alarm being raised by
the men manning the higher castle walls. They certainly did try to take the
west wall, and succeeded for a while before the defenders managed to regain
control.
Lanercost’s
account suggests growing frustration within Scottish ranks. Their “berefrai”
was stuck in mud, their trebuchet had made little or no impression on the
Caldew gate, and their sow might take a long time to undermine the walls. After
Douglas’s failure to capture the west wall, they made their minds up fairly
quickly, to cut their losses and return to Scotland.
Wherefore
on the eleventh day, to wit, the feast of S. Peter ad Vincula, whether because
they had heard that the English were approaching to relieve the besieged or
whether they despaired of success, the Scots marched off in confusion to their
own country, leaving behind them all their engines of war aforesaid. Some
Englishmen pursuing them captured John de Moray, who in the aforesaid battle
near Stirling had for his share twenty-three English knights, besides esquires
and others of meaner rank, and had taken very heavy ransom for them. Also they
captured with the aforesaid John, Sir Robert Bardolf, a man specially
ill-disposed to the English, and brought them both to Carlisle Castle; but they
were ransomed later for no small sum of money.
Carlisle
had survived, but I suspect only narrowly. The west wall was almost over-run on
the final day, and had the Scots taken the city they may well have gone on to
take the castle as well. There was an English relieving force, marching from
Newcastle, but how large it was is unknown, at least to me. Given that the
Scots had ridden unhindered past Newcastle only a month before to launch their
raid on Hartlepool, I doubt it would have discomforted them too much. Had they
launched two or three more general assaults against the walls, they may have
won through at some point by sheer weight of numbers. Although the English
defenders had lost hardly any men, by the end of day ten they would have been
out on their feet with exhaustion. They must have spent the whole of the siege
sleeping by their posts, constantly on alert for a night attack, and surviving
largely on cold rations. The weather almost certainly played some part in the
Scots’ decision to abandon the siege, but I suspect the main reason for that
decision could really be summed up in two words.
Andrew
Harclay!
Harclay
fascinates me. He was a minor knight from Hartley, near the Westmorland town of
Kirkby Stephen, which must have been one of the poorest and smallest manors in
England. His father had been sheriff of Cumberland for a number of years, but
the family was not notable. A better description might even be notorious. His
brother Michael had been accused as an accessory to murder in 1292, but was acquitted.
On the other hand Robert, another of Andrew’s brothers, became a Dominican
friar and Chancellor of Oxford University, so they weren’t all bad.
Historians
tend to be divided about him, with some condemning him as nothing more than a
thug who got lucky by being in the right place at the right time. Others
consider him to be gallant, honourable and brave, but ultimately mis-guided
because of his attempt to broker a treaty between himself and Robert Bruce. I’m
inclined towards the second opinion because what he achieved would have been
beyond the capabilities of a mere, lucky thug, and eventually England benefited
from it. I think of him as being similar to William Wallace and Bertrand du
Guesclin in coming from a comparatively lowly background and rising to high
honour on the basis of his ability as a leader. Fair enough, they both had
their thuggish tendencies as well, but all three could inspire soldiers in ways
utterly alien and probably largely incomprehensible to most of their supposed
superiors.
Much
of what I know of him comes from papers published by the Cumberland and
Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (CWAAS). He was born
sometime in the 1270s, and he and his younger brother John are recorded as
serving in Scotland in the 1290s, probably as squires. He was supposedly
knighted by the earl of Lancaster in1307, not long after the death of king
Edward I, so his early experience of war was most likely to be in leading small
patrols in the hostile country of southwest Scotland. He would probably have
served under Robert Clifford, and the two men would know each other well. He
was promoted in 1311, to become constable of Carlisle city, probably in the
wake of Bruce’s raid. Clifford would have needed a reliable man in command of
Carlisle and promoted Andrew on the basis of his ability. That would almost
certainly have angered many other knights who considered themselves more senior
to this little known Westmorlander. By 1313 he was also constable of Carlisle
castle.
His
unorthodox military education made him the ideal man to have defending
Carlisle. He almost certainly oversaw every detail of Carlisle’s defences, but
probably discussed them with other knights and his senior sergeants and most
experienced soldiers or archers. His early experience in Scotland would have
taught him to trust the men under his command – if he hadn’t he probably would
never have survived. I can envisage him at the siege, fighting alongside his
men on the walls, walking around them when the fighting eased, encouraging them
and praising them. By the end of the siege he probably knew every single one of
them by name. There was no chance of Bruce finding the Carlisle equivalent of
Peter of Spalding (who supposedly betrayed Berwick in 1318) guarding any part
of Carlisle’s walls.
This
might sound like a very twenty-first century model of leadership, but the
basics of trust, upwards from soldiers to their commander and downwards from
the commander to sergeants, section leaders or even individual soldiers, is as
old as the history of organised warfare. Any army in which it broke down was
usually defeated. With Andrew it showed up again in the speed with which he marched
to Boroughbridge to confront Lancaster. It certainly took Lancaster by
surprise, while the tactics he used to defeat Lancaster caught the whole of
England by surprise to judge by the reactions of the chroniclers. They were
also widely misunderstood. He dismounted his men to fight on foot “in the
Scottish manner” according to one writer (the Bridlington chronicler I think).
But with the benefit of 680 years of hindsight one has to ask if Robert Bruce
would have defended the ford at Boroughbridge primarily with archers? My
impression is that Andrew fought Boroughbridge in his own way, adopting some
Scottish tactics because they seemed appropriate at the time. There were other
innovations that can be attributed to him, including far more extensive use of
hobelars for border warfare, and almost certainly developing the idea of archers
mounted for speed of travel to better intercept Scottish raiding parties. Some
historians have suggested Boroughbridge as being a sort of “prototype” for Crecy
and Agincourt, and there were a lot of similarities between them. But it took a
younger generation of English commanders under king Edward III, to truly
appreciate what he had done.
Can
I make one final, personal comment on the siege of Carlisle? My over-riding
impression is that the strength of the city’s resistance took the Scots completely
by surprise, and contributed to their comparatively early abandonment of the
siege. That strength almost certainly reflected the character and example of Andrew
Harclay.
Jerry
Bennett
June
2015
21 June, 2015
Isabella of France was not asked to take an oath to the Despensers
One very curious claim in Paul Doherty's Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003), p. 79, is that in the 1320s Isabella of France was asked to take an oath of loyalty to Edward II's chamberlain and 'favourite' Hugh Despenser the Younger and his father Hugh the Elder, earl of Winchester. Doherty claims:
"De Spencer [sic], meanwhile, was strengthening his control over the King. Nobles like Henry Beaumont were being forced to take great oaths on the Gospels, 'to live and die with the de Spencers'. [Queen] Isabella was offered such an oath but refused to take it."
For the astonishing statement that the queen of England was asked to take an oath to two noblemen, her social inferiors - which really made me think 'Heh??' when I first saw it - Doherty cites the Livere de Reis de Britannie e Le Livere de Reis de Engletere, ed. John Glover, p. 354. This is a continuation of the annals of Sempringham Priory; p. 354 is the original French text, with an English translation on p. 355, and what it actually says is (I've read it in French and the translation is correct):
"The same year [1326], in the month of February, Sir Henry de Beaumont was arrested by the king, and sent under guard to Kenilworth Castle, because he would not swear to the king and Sir Hugh de Spencer to be of their part to live and die. Wherefore the king caused possession to be taken of all his lands and possessions, which he had previously given to his sister, the lady Isabel de Beaumont." (Usually called nowadays by her married name, Isabella Vescy.)
Hmmmm. As we see, Isabella of France is nowhere mentioned in this passage, and in February 1326 she was in France anyway and had been since March 1325, and therefore could not possibly have been asked to take an oath to Hugh Despenser the Younger (and notice the passage says that Beaumont was asked to take an oath to Edward II and the younger Despenser; his father the elder Despenser is not mentioned, so it's not an oath to 'the de Spencers' as Doherty claims). I really don't understand how Doherty got Queen Isabella being asked to take an oath out of that passage. Assuming that he's not deliberately lying to his readers, and genuinely thinks it says that the queen refused to take an oath - even though she wasn't even in England at the time - it has to be the most careless and sloppy misreading of a chronicle ever. And the Livere is translated into English so there's not even the excuse of misunderstanding the French. Maybe he saw the name of Isabella Beaumont/Vescy, didn't read it properly, and assumed it meant Queen Isabella, even though it doesn't say that Isabella Beaumont was asked to take an oath but that she was given her brother's lands and goods temporarily.
Henry Beaumont accompanied Edward II and Queen Isabella's son Edward of Windsor to France on 12 September 1325, and was present when the boy performed homage for Gascony and Ponthieu to his uncle Charles IV at Vincennes on 24 September. A few weeks later Isabella refused to return to England, but Beaumont did, and had been imprisoned at Warwick Castle (not Kenilworth as the Livere de Reis says) sometime before early August 1326 when he was moved from there to Wallingford Castle, according to various entries in the chancery rolls. On 30 September of that year he was still imprisoned at Wallingford. [Close Rolls 1323-7, p. 593; Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 418] I assume he was released shortly afterwards, as Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer's invasion force had already arrived in England by then.
The French Chronicle of London says that Henry Beaumont and other magnates, not named, were imprisoned "because they would not agree to do the bidding of Hugh Despenser [the Younger]." [Croniques de London depuis l’an 44 Hen III jusqu'à l'an 17 Edw. III, ed. G. J. Aungier, p. 49] One of the charges against Despenser the Younger at his trial in Hereford on 24 November 1326 states "By your royal power you had them ["great and small people"] put in arduous prison, such as Sir Henry Beaumont, who did not want to swear that they would assent to your wickedness." So the idea that Beaumont and unnamed others were imprisoned for refusing to swear some kind of oath to Hugh Despenser in 1326 seems to have been fairly widely known, and Beaumont certainly was in prison that year, though the reason for his imprisonment is not stated in the chancery rolls.
I'm still baffled how this bizarre claim of the queen of England refusing to swear an oath to the Despensers appeared in print, and how any historian could have misread and misinterpreted a chronicle as much as Doherty did. I simply cannot make sense of it at all. Doherty provides an endnote citing a primary source, and his readers have absolutely no reason to doubt that the source says what he claims he does. Even though it doesn't in any way whatsoever. Hmph. But this is far from being the only time when Doherty misrepresents a primary source or just plain makes something up. Particularly egregious examples include his claims that (p. 109) Isabella prompted her counsellors to call for her husband's execution at the meeting in Wallingford at Christmas 1326 which met to discuss Edward II's fate (the queen of England calling for her husband's death in front of half the bishops and magnates of England? What the hell?), and that Pope John XXII was unhappy about Edward II's executions of twenty or twenty-two Contrariants in 1322, which Doherty emotively describes as 'a reign of terror,' 'blood-letting,' 'these horrors' and 'dreadful events,' and "begged the King to show some restraint." Actually John XXII advised Edward to ascribe his victory to God, and, far from showing any sympathy to those whom Edward had executed and imprisoned, excommunicated "those nobles and magnates who attack the king and his realm." [Calendar of Papal Letters 1305-41, p. 448; The National Archives SC 7/25/14] Making stuff up might be fun, but it sure as heck ain't history.
17 June, 2015
Blanche of Brittany (c. 1270-1327)
Blanche of Brittany somehow seems to keep popping up in the book I'm writing about Queen Isabella, and is a prime example of how hopelessly, horrendously confusingly the European nobility of the early fourteenth century was inter-married and inter-related. Blanche was Edward II's first cousin and Isabella's second cousin, she was the mother-in-law of Isabella's uncle Louis, count of Evreux, her son Robert of Artois was the son-in-law of Isabella's other uncle Charles, count of Valois, she was the grandmother of Joan and Marie of Evreux who were, respectively, Isabella's sister-in-law and Edward's niece-in-law, her niece Mahaut of St Pol, countess of Valois, was Isabella's aunt-in-law, and her sister-in-law Mahaut, countess of Artois was the mother-in-law of two of Isabella's brothers. She was also the grandmother of a king and two queens. Confused?? Yep, me too. If your brain hasn't raised a white flag of surrender, or exploded, read on :-)
Blanche of Brittany's mother Beatrice of England (1242-1275) was the second daughter of King Henry III and Eleanor of Provence, and her father was John II, duke of Brittany (1239-1305). Blanche was thus a niece of Edward I and of Margaret of England, queen of Scotland (1240-1275), and a first cousin of Edward II. Her brothers included Arthur II, duke of Brittany (1262-1312) and John of Brittany, earl of Richmond (1266-1334), who spent most of his life in England. Blanche also had two sisters: Eleanor, abbess of Fontevrault, and Marie of Brittany, who married Guy de Châtillon, count of St Pol (d. 1317). Marie and Guy's children, Blanche's nephews and nieces, included Marie, countess of Pembroke (d. 1377), and Mahaut (d. 1358), who married Queen Isabella's uncle Charles, count of Valois, as his third wife and was the mother of Blanche of Valois, Holy Roman Empress and the grandmother of Joan I, queen of Naples. Blanche of Brittany's paternal grandmother Blanche of Navarre/Champagne, duchess of Brittany, after whom she was presumably named, was the daughter of Thibaut or Theobald I 'the Troubadour', king of Navarre and count of Champagne: Thibaut was the great-grandfather of both Blanche of Brittany and Isabella of France, making them second cousins.
In 1280/81, Blanche of Brittany married Philip of Artois, who was about the same age as she, born in 1269 as the only son of Robert, count of Artois (born 1250), the posthumous son and heir of Louis IX's younger brother Robert, count of Artois (1216-1250, killed during a reckless attack on Mansourah in Egypt during Louis's first crusade). Philip of Artois was thus a great-grandson of Louis VIII of France and his queen Blanche of Castile, and was the nephew of Blanche of Artois, queen of Navarre and countess of Lancaster (who was Isabella of France's maternal grandmother and Edward II's aunt by marriage). Philip of Artois died in 1298 in his late twenties from wounds sustained at the battle of Furnes, predeceasing his father Robert, who was killed at the battle of Courtrai or the Battle of the Golden Spurs in July 1302. The county of Artois passed to Philip's sister Mahaut (c. 1268-1329), Blanche of Brittany's sister-in-law, who married Othon IV, count of Burgundy and was the mother of Joan and Blanche of Burgundy, the wives of Isabella of France's brothers Philip, count of Poitiers and later King Philip V, and Charles, count of La Marche and later King Charles IV. Blanche of Brittany's son Robert of Artois (1287-1342) is famous as one of the main characters of Maurice Druon's The Accursed Kings series of novels, and for the unsuccessful battles he waged against his aunt Mahaut for control of Artois, which he felt should have passed to him.
Robert of Artois, Blanche's only son (or only surviving son anyway), moved to England and supported Edward III in the early years of the Hundred Years War. He died there in 1342 and was buried at St Paul's Cathedral. Robert married the much younger Joan of Valois (b. c. 1304), the second daughter of Queen Isabella's uncle Charles, count of Valois and his second wife Catherine Courtenay, titular empress of Constantinople. Joan's elder full sister Catherine of Valois inherited the title of empress. Her elder half-brother was King Philip VI of France, and one of her elder half-sisters was another Joan of Valois, who married William III, count of Hainault and Holland and was the mother of Philippa of Hainault, Edward III's queen.
Blanche of Brittany and Philip of Artois's eldest child was Marguerite of Artois, born in about 1285 when Blanche was only about fifteen, who married Louis, count of Evreux (b. 1276), Queen Isabella's uncle, half-brother of Philip IV of France and of Charles of Valois. Marguerite and Louis's eldest child Marie of Evreux, who married Edward II's nephew Duke John III of Brabant, was probably born in 1303, so that Blanche of Brittany became a grandmother when she was still in her early thirties. Another daughter of Marguerite of Artois and Louis of Evreux, Joan or Jeanne of Evreux, married her widowed first cousin Charles IV of France in 1324 and became queen-consort of France and Queen Isabella's sister-in-law, and Louis and Marguerite's elder son and heir Philip of Evreux married his cousin Queen Joan II of Navarre (daughter of Louis X, and Queen Isabella's niece). Marguerite of Artois, countess of Evreux, died in 1311 at the age of about twenty-six.
In 1280/81, Blanche of Brittany married Philip of Artois, who was about the same age as she, born in 1269 as the only son of Robert, count of Artois (born 1250), the posthumous son and heir of Louis IX's younger brother Robert, count of Artois (1216-1250, killed during a reckless attack on Mansourah in Egypt during Louis's first crusade). Philip of Artois was thus a great-grandson of Louis VIII of France and his queen Blanche of Castile, and was the nephew of Blanche of Artois, queen of Navarre and countess of Lancaster (who was Isabella of France's maternal grandmother and Edward II's aunt by marriage). Philip of Artois died in 1298 in his late twenties from wounds sustained at the battle of Furnes, predeceasing his father Robert, who was killed at the battle of Courtrai or the Battle of the Golden Spurs in July 1302. The county of Artois passed to Philip's sister Mahaut (c. 1268-1329), Blanche of Brittany's sister-in-law, who married Othon IV, count of Burgundy and was the mother of Joan and Blanche of Burgundy, the wives of Isabella of France's brothers Philip, count of Poitiers and later King Philip V, and Charles, count of La Marche and later King Charles IV. Blanche of Brittany's son Robert of Artois (1287-1342) is famous as one of the main characters of Maurice Druon's The Accursed Kings series of novels, and for the unsuccessful battles he waged against his aunt Mahaut for control of Artois, which he felt should have passed to him.
Robert of Artois, Blanche's only son (or only surviving son anyway), moved to England and supported Edward III in the early years of the Hundred Years War. He died there in 1342 and was buried at St Paul's Cathedral. Robert married the much younger Joan of Valois (b. c. 1304), the second daughter of Queen Isabella's uncle Charles, count of Valois and his second wife Catherine Courtenay, titular empress of Constantinople. Joan's elder full sister Catherine of Valois inherited the title of empress. Her elder half-brother was King Philip VI of France, and one of her elder half-sisters was another Joan of Valois, who married William III, count of Hainault and Holland and was the mother of Philippa of Hainault, Edward III's queen.
Blanche of Brittany and Philip of Artois's eldest child was Marguerite of Artois, born in about 1285 when Blanche was only about fifteen, who married Louis, count of Evreux (b. 1276), Queen Isabella's uncle, half-brother of Philip IV of France and of Charles of Valois. Marguerite and Louis's eldest child Marie of Evreux, who married Edward II's nephew Duke John III of Brabant, was probably born in 1303, so that Blanche of Brittany became a grandmother when she was still in her early thirties. Another daughter of Marguerite of Artois and Louis of Evreux, Joan or Jeanne of Evreux, married her widowed first cousin Charles IV of France in 1324 and became queen-consort of France and Queen Isabella's sister-in-law, and Louis and Marguerite's elder son and heir Philip of Evreux married his cousin Queen Joan II of Navarre (daughter of Louis X, and Queen Isabella's niece). Marguerite of Artois, countess of Evreux, died in 1311 at the age of about twenty-six.
Blanche of Brittany's second daughter was Joan of Artois, who married Gaston I, count of Foix, a nobleman of Gascony and thus a vassal of Edward II, and her third was Marie of Artois, who married John, marquis of Namur. It was probably on account of Marie that Edward II borrowed one thousand pounds from Queen Isabella in 1310 to give to Blanche of Brittany "in aid of marrying a certain daughter of hers." Marie of Artois and John of Namur were the parents of Blanche of Namur, who married Magnus IV, king of Sweden and Norway (as Magnus VII). Blanche of Brittany was thus the grandmother of a queen-consort of France, a queen-consort of Sweden and Norway, and a king-consort of Navarre. Another of her granddaughters, Joan of Foix, married James II of Aragon's son Peter, count of Ribagorza, and was the mother of Eleanor of Aragon, queen of Cyprus and titular queen of Jerusalem. Blanche of Brittany's fourth daughter was Catherine, who married John of Ponthieu, count of Aumale; his father, also John of Ponthieu, count of Aumale, was Edward II's first cousin, son of Eleanor of Castile's brother Fernando of Castile, and who was killed at the battle of Courtrai in 1302. Finally, Blanche's fifth daughter Isabella became a nun at Poissy. Her daughter Joan, countess of Foix, was imprisoned for many years by her son Gaston II, count of Foix on the grounds of her scandalous conduct and bad governance.
12 June, 2015
The People's Book Prize, And Edward II Goes Rowing
My book Edward II: The Unconventional King has been nominated for the People's Book Prize! If you've read and enjoyed it, please do considered voting for it here. You just need to register on the website with an email address (it's extremely easy - just type in your name and email address, they'll send you a password via email, and back on the site you just enter your email address and the password and of course click on 'vote for this book'. Done!). You can vote for one book in the non-fiction category (and I'd be ever so grateful if you voted for mine...:), one in the fiction category and one in the children's category.
The Unconventional King will be released in paperback in the UK on 28 November 2015 or thereabouts, available on Amazon UK here, and in the US on 19 January 2016, available here on Amazon or here via the Book Depository. We don't have a publication date for my book about Isabella of France yet, but round about early spring next year, most probably.
And finally, Tim Koch, who specialises in the history of the excellent sport of rowing, has just written a great blog post (citing my work extensively) about Edward II's love of rowing in particular and the outdoors in general. Tim had always believed that rowing as a hobby (as opposed to doing it out of necessity) began in the 1760s, until he found my book and my blog and discovered that Edward was rowing for pleasure all the way back in the 1310s! You see, I always told you that Edward II was centuries ahead of his time. :-)
The Unconventional King will be released in paperback in the UK on 28 November 2015 or thereabouts, available on Amazon UK here, and in the US on 19 January 2016, available here on Amazon or here via the Book Depository. We don't have a publication date for my book about Isabella of France yet, but round about early spring next year, most probably.
And finally, Tim Koch, who specialises in the history of the excellent sport of rowing, has just written a great blog post (citing my work extensively) about Edward II's love of rowing in particular and the outdoors in general. Tim had always believed that rowing as a hobby (as opposed to doing it out of necessity) began in the 1760s, until he found my book and my blog and discovered that Edward was rowing for pleasure all the way back in the 1310s! You see, I always told you that Edward II was centuries ahead of his time. :-)
05 June, 2015
5 June 1316: Death of Louis X of France
699 years ago today, Edward II's brother-in-law Louis X, king of France and Navarre, count of Champagne, died at Bois de Vincennes. He was only twenty-six, born on 4 October 1289. The cause of his death at such a young age is unknown, but has been variously suggested as a sudden illness or infection (probably the likeliest explanation), overheating while playing jeu de paume, an early form of tennis, drinking chilled wine after overheating while playing jeu de paume, or even poison. He had been king of France for a little over eighteen months, since the death of his father Philip IV on 29 November 1314 - Philip told Louis on his deathbed 'I love you above all others'* - and Louis I, king of Navarre and count of Champagne since the death of his mother Joan I in April 1305, when he was fifteen.
Louis's nickname was le Hutin, which translates as 'the Quarrelsome', the 'Headstrong' or 'the Stubborn'. He was the eldest son and probably the eldest child of King Philip IV of France and Queen Joan I of Navarre, born when Philip was twenty-one and Joan sixteen, and was about six years older than his sister Isabella, queen of England, who was probably born in late 1295. His other two siblings who survived childhood were Philip V, king of France and Navarre and count of Poitiers, born in about 1291, and Charles IV, king of France and Navarre and count of La Marche, born on 18 June 1294; three other siblings, Marguerite, Blanche and Robert, died young. In September 1305, shortly before he turned sixteen, Louis married Marguerite of Burgundy, who was probably born in 1290 and thus was slightly younger than he. She was the daughter of Duke Robert II of Burgundy and Agnes of France, the youngest child of King/Saint Louis IX, and was thus Louis's first cousin once removed (Louis IX was Marguerite of Burgundy's grandfather and Louis X's great-grandfather). Louis and Marguerite had only one child, Jeanne or Joan of Navarre, born on 28 January 1312. Marguerite sent her usher Jeannot de Samoys to England to inform Edward II and Isabella of France, then in York with the newly returned Piers Gaveston, of the birth, and Edward rewarded Jeannot for bringing them the news on 5 March 1312.**
In March/April 1314, while Queen Isabella was visiting Paris and possibly, or possibly not, on her information, Marguerite of Burgundy was arrested on suspicion of committing adultery, and imprisoned at Château-Gaillard in Normandy. (I'll look at the adultery scandal of Philip IV's daughters-in-law in greater detail in a future post.) At his accession as king of France at the end of November 1314, Louis X was still married to the imprisoned Marguerite, but she died, rather conveniently, on 14 August 1315, either murdered or (more likely) as a result of poor treatment during her captivity and consequent illness. Five days later on 19 August 1315, Louis X married his third cousin Clemence of Hungary or Clemence of Anjou as she is sometimes called, granddaughter of Charles 'the Lame', king of Naples, Sicily and Albania and of Rudolf I, king of Germany, and daughter of Charles Martel, titular king of Hungary. On 24 August 1315, Louis and Clemence were crowned king and queen of France at Rheims.
When Louis X died on 5 June 1316, Queen Clemence was about four months pregnant. If she gave birth to a boy, he would immediately become king of France. Meanwhile, Louis was buried at Saint-Denis - the great necropolis of the kings of France - two days after death, and another funeral was held somewhat later when his brother Philip, count of Poitiers, returned to Paris from Lyons (where he was trying to force the cardinals to elect a new pope, the office having been vacant since the death of Clement V on 20 April 1314). On 15 November 1316, Queen Clemence gave birth to Louis's posthumous son, King John I of France, but sadly the baby king died when he was only five days old. A succession crisis thus arose: next in line was John I's older half-sister, Louis X and Marguerite of Burgundy's four-year-old daughter Joan of Navarre. Few people in France, however, wished Joan to be their queen, other than her maternal grandmother Agnes, dowager duchess of Burgundy and Philip IV's aunt (one of Louis IX's three surviving children), and her uncle Duke Eudo or Odo V of Burgundy, who pressed her rights. As Marguerite had committed adultery, Joan's paternity was under some doubt, though Louis X had accepted her as his daughter. In the end, Joan was deprived of France and Navarre, her uncle Philip of Poitiers becoming king of both, and her uncle Eudo IV married Philip V's eldest daughter Joan of France. Joan of Navarre later married her cousin Philip of Evreux, son of Philip IV's half-brother Louis, count of Evreux.
Philip V died at the beginning of 1322, aged thirty, and was succeeded by his and Louis X's brother Charles IV. When Charles died on 1 February 1328 at the age of thirty-five, he also left his widow Joan of Evreux (his first cousin and sister of Philip of Evreux) pregnant, and she gave birth exactly two months later to his posthumous daughter Blanche, later duchess of Orleans. As none of the three brothers left surviving sons, the throne of France passed to their first cousin Philip of Valois, son of Philip IV's brother Charles, count of Valois and the first Valois king of France. Philip of Valois had no claim to the kingdom of Navarre, as he was not a descendant of Joan I, and thus Louis X and Marguerite of Burgundy's sixteen-year-old daughter acceded as Queen Joan II of Navarre. She and Philip of Evreux were the parents of the notorious Charles 'the Bad', king of Navarre and count of Evreux, born in 1332, Louis X's grandson. Louis X also left an illegitimate daughter, Eudeline, abbess of the Franciscan house of Saint-Marcel near Paris between 1334 and 1339.
* Jim Bradbury, The Capetians: Kings of France 987-1328 (London: Continuum, 2007), p. 278.
** Elizabeth A. R. Brown, 'The King’s Conundrum: Endowing Queens and Loyal Servants, Ensuring Salvation, and Protecting the Patrimony in Fourteenth-Century France', in Medieval Futures: Attitudes to the Future in the Middle Ages, ed. J. A. Burrow and Ian P. Wei (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), p. 134 note 45.
Louis's nickname was le Hutin, which translates as 'the Quarrelsome', the 'Headstrong' or 'the Stubborn'. He was the eldest son and probably the eldest child of King Philip IV of France and Queen Joan I of Navarre, born when Philip was twenty-one and Joan sixteen, and was about six years older than his sister Isabella, queen of England, who was probably born in late 1295. His other two siblings who survived childhood were Philip V, king of France and Navarre and count of Poitiers, born in about 1291, and Charles IV, king of France and Navarre and count of La Marche, born on 18 June 1294; three other siblings, Marguerite, Blanche and Robert, died young. In September 1305, shortly before he turned sixteen, Louis married Marguerite of Burgundy, who was probably born in 1290 and thus was slightly younger than he. She was the daughter of Duke Robert II of Burgundy and Agnes of France, the youngest child of King/Saint Louis IX, and was thus Louis's first cousin once removed (Louis IX was Marguerite of Burgundy's grandfather and Louis X's great-grandfather). Louis and Marguerite had only one child, Jeanne or Joan of Navarre, born on 28 January 1312. Marguerite sent her usher Jeannot de Samoys to England to inform Edward II and Isabella of France, then in York with the newly returned Piers Gaveston, of the birth, and Edward rewarded Jeannot for bringing them the news on 5 March 1312.**
In March/April 1314, while Queen Isabella was visiting Paris and possibly, or possibly not, on her information, Marguerite of Burgundy was arrested on suspicion of committing adultery, and imprisoned at Château-Gaillard in Normandy. (I'll look at the adultery scandal of Philip IV's daughters-in-law in greater detail in a future post.) At his accession as king of France at the end of November 1314, Louis X was still married to the imprisoned Marguerite, but she died, rather conveniently, on 14 August 1315, either murdered or (more likely) as a result of poor treatment during her captivity and consequent illness. Five days later on 19 August 1315, Louis X married his third cousin Clemence of Hungary or Clemence of Anjou as she is sometimes called, granddaughter of Charles 'the Lame', king of Naples, Sicily and Albania and of Rudolf I, king of Germany, and daughter of Charles Martel, titular king of Hungary. On 24 August 1315, Louis and Clemence were crowned king and queen of France at Rheims.
When Louis X died on 5 June 1316, Queen Clemence was about four months pregnant. If she gave birth to a boy, he would immediately become king of France. Meanwhile, Louis was buried at Saint-Denis - the great necropolis of the kings of France - two days after death, and another funeral was held somewhat later when his brother Philip, count of Poitiers, returned to Paris from Lyons (where he was trying to force the cardinals to elect a new pope, the office having been vacant since the death of Clement V on 20 April 1314). On 15 November 1316, Queen Clemence gave birth to Louis's posthumous son, King John I of France, but sadly the baby king died when he was only five days old. A succession crisis thus arose: next in line was John I's older half-sister, Louis X and Marguerite of Burgundy's four-year-old daughter Joan of Navarre. Few people in France, however, wished Joan to be their queen, other than her maternal grandmother Agnes, dowager duchess of Burgundy and Philip IV's aunt (one of Louis IX's three surviving children), and her uncle Duke Eudo or Odo V of Burgundy, who pressed her rights. As Marguerite had committed adultery, Joan's paternity was under some doubt, though Louis X had accepted her as his daughter. In the end, Joan was deprived of France and Navarre, her uncle Philip of Poitiers becoming king of both, and her uncle Eudo IV married Philip V's eldest daughter Joan of France. Joan of Navarre later married her cousin Philip of Evreux, son of Philip IV's half-brother Louis, count of Evreux.
Philip V died at the beginning of 1322, aged thirty, and was succeeded by his and Louis X's brother Charles IV. When Charles died on 1 February 1328 at the age of thirty-five, he also left his widow Joan of Evreux (his first cousin and sister of Philip of Evreux) pregnant, and she gave birth exactly two months later to his posthumous daughter Blanche, later duchess of Orleans. As none of the three brothers left surviving sons, the throne of France passed to their first cousin Philip of Valois, son of Philip IV's brother Charles, count of Valois and the first Valois king of France. Philip of Valois had no claim to the kingdom of Navarre, as he was not a descendant of Joan I, and thus Louis X and Marguerite of Burgundy's sixteen-year-old daughter acceded as Queen Joan II of Navarre. She and Philip of Evreux were the parents of the notorious Charles 'the Bad', king of Navarre and count of Evreux, born in 1332, Louis X's grandson. Louis X also left an illegitimate daughter, Eudeline, abbess of the Franciscan house of Saint-Marcel near Paris between 1334 and 1339.
* Jim Bradbury, The Capetians: Kings of France 987-1328 (London: Continuum, 2007), p. 278.
** Elizabeth A. R. Brown, 'The King’s Conundrum: Endowing Queens and Loyal Servants, Ensuring Salvation, and Protecting the Patrimony in Fourteenth-Century France', in Medieval Futures: Attitudes to the Future in the Middle Ages, ed. J. A. Burrow and Ian P. Wei (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), p. 134 note 45.
31 May, 2015
Some Of The New Knights Of 22 May 1306 (1)
Edward of Caernarfon, prince of Wales, duke of Aquitaine, earl of Chester and count of Ponthieu, who succeeded as King Edward II of England a little over a year later, was knighted at Westminster on 22 May 1306. With him were knighted more than 250 other men, in an event described by the contemporary chronicler Piers Langtoft as the greatest event in Britain since King Arthur was crowned at Caerleon. For more info, see here and here.
The list of the men knighted on 22 May 1306 is very helpfully given in Constance Bullock-Davies' fab book Menestrellorum Multitudo: Minstrels at a Royal Feast (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1986), pp. 185-7, in the Latin spelling as it appears in the original document. Edward of Caernarfon's name is given as Dominus Edwardus Princeps Walliae, 'Lord Edward, prince of Wales'. In this post, I'm looking at some of the new knights, who also included Piers Gaveston ( 'Petrus de Gavaston'), Roger Mortimer ('Rogerus de Mortuomari') and his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk, Hugh Despenser the Younger ('Hugo filius domini Hugonis le Despenser'), and the earls of Surrey and Arundel. I'm going to make this an occasional series and write about more of the men in the future; there are certainly plenty to choose from! In this post, I'm looking at Roderick of Spain, John Comyn, John Maltravers the elder, Robert de Kendale, Nicholas Kyriel, Thomas de Vere, Fulk Fitzwarin and John Somery.
- Roderick or Rotheric of Spain (Rethericus de Ispannia)
Known as Roderick de Ispan(n)ia, which translates as 'of Spain', and means Castile in this context. In early 1325, Roderick was said to have "dwelt longtime in the king's company during his minority" (Patent Rolls 1324-7, p. 83), and indeed there are references to him on the Patent Roll as early as April 1299, the month Edward of Caernarfon turned fifteen, as Edward's valletus, valet or yeoman. Roderick was granted a wardship in October 1297, so must have been at least twenty-one then, which would place his date of birth in or before 1276. I don't know anything about his family; there was also a clerk named James de Ispannia active during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, who was said to be a kinsman of Eleanor of Castile (in some entries in the chancery rolls he's said to have been her nephew), but Roderick himself was never described as such. In January 1307, Roderick went on pilgrimage to Santiago in northern Spain on Edward of Caernarfon's behalf, or at least, received permission from Edward I to do so. (Close Rolls 1301-07, p. 482) Roderick of Spain died sometime before 6 April 1312, when Edward II asked his cousin Fernando IV of Castile to "exhibit his favour" to Roderick's widow Mary and their children, who evidently were returning home, "in consideration of the said Rotheric's service to the king during the minority of the king." (Close Rolls 1307-13, p. 457)
- John Comyn
A Scottish nobleman, son of John 'the Red Comyn', who was lord of Badenoch and one of the Guardians of Scotland, and killed by his great rival Robert Bruce in the Greyfriars church in Dumfries on 10 February 1306. John 'the Red Comyn' was the nephew of John Balliol, king of Scotland from 1292 to 1296, and married Joan de Valence, which means that his son the younger John was a maternal nephew of Henry III's nephew Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke (died 1324). (There was also, confusingly, yet another John Comyn, earl of Buchan, a cousin of John the Red Comyn, who lost the battle of Inverurie to Robert Bruce in 1308 and died in England that year; his wife Isabel MacDuff crowned Bruce as king in 1306.) John the younger married Margaret Wake, and with her had a son Aymer, named after his uncle. He fought for Edward II at Bannockburn against the man who had killed his father, and fell in battle. His little son Aymer Comyn died young and thus his heirs were his sisters Joan, countess of Atholl, and Elizabeth, Lady Talbot, while his widow Margaret Wake married Edward II's half-brother Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, in December 1325 and became the maternal grandmother of Richard II.
- John Maltravers (or Mautravers) the elder
Father of the John Maltravers (c. 1290-1364) who was Edward of Caernarfon's joint custodian in 1327 and who was also knighted on 22 May 1306, and son of John Maltravers who died in 1297; actually he was the sixth in a line of eight men named John Maltravers. John the elder married Eleanor de Gorges, the mother of his son John born in c. 1290, and secondly Joan Foliot. He was born in about 1266 and died in 1341; like his son, who was well into his seventies when he died in 1364, he lived a long time. The Maltravers were a Dorset family and gave their name to three villages in that county: Lytchett Matravers, Langton Matravers and Worth Matravers. Father and son both fought for Edward II at Bannockburn in June 1314, and the younger John was captured. The younger John took part in the Contrariant rebellion against Edward in 1321/22, and was one of the few noblemen who managed to flee the country and evade execution or imprisonment after the battle of Boroughbridge in March 1322. The elder John may also have played some small part in the rebellion, it's hard to tell sometimes which John Maltravers is meant in the chancery rolls of this period, but Edward declared him in July 1322 to have "remained faithful to the king," and his lands and goods were restored to him, having apparently been accidentally seized instead of his son's. (Close Rolls 1318-23, p. 474). In October 1325, the elder John was the first named in a long list of men accused of assaulting one Ralph son of John de Chidiok, and of attacking an annual fair held in the Dorset town of Bere. (Patent Rolls 1324-7, p. 232).
- Robert de Kendale
The long-term constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports, appointed to the office by Edward II at the beginning of his reign in 1307 and still there in 1324 (though occasionally replaced temporarily by other men). Robert was, with Piers Gaveston, Roger Mortimer and Giles Argentein, one of the new young knights whose lands and goods were temporarily seized by Edward I in October 1306 for going abroad to attend jousting tournaments without his permission. (Fine Rolls 1272-1307, pp. 543-4; Close Rolls 1302-7, pp. 481-2.) Kendale means the town of Kendal in modern-day Cumbria, presumably Robert's home town, which means that to me he's a local boy, as that's close to where I grew up. By June 1308 he was married to a woman called Margaret (Patent Rolls 1307-13, p. 79), but otherwise I know nothing about his family or about him personally except that he had sons called Robert and Edward, though he appears in the chancery rolls many dozens of times in his capacity as constable of Dover. In 1317, twenty-eight of his horses and eight of his carts were stolen at 'la Lee' in Hertfordshire, and his servants assaulted. (Patent Rolls 1317-21, pp. 86, 474). In February 1321, Robert de Kendale was appointed mayor of London. (Ibid., p. 562). He died shortly before 2 April 1330, leaving his son Edward 'aged 21 years and more' as his heir; his widow Margaret was still alive in October 1345. (Fine Rolls 1327-37, p. 170; Inq. Post Mortem 1327-36, pp. 209-10; Patent Rolls 1343-5, p. 569).
- Nicholas Kyriel (or Kryell or Cryel or Criol or Criel or Crioill, etc...)
It's a tad tricky to find Nicholas in the records as his family name can be spelt in so many ways! His mother was called Margery, his father, also Nicholas, died in September 1303 and his grandfather, also Nicholas, in 1273. (Fine Rolls 1272-1307, pp. 9, 483) Nicholas was born at the beginning of 1283, so was fifteen or sixteen months older than Edward of Caernarfon: he was said at his father's IPM in Kent in November 1303 to be then aged 20 years and 45 weeks. (Inq. Post Mortem 1300-07, pp. 102-3). He married a woman named Roesia - 'Rose' in modern English - and their son and heir John was born at Walmer in Kent on 29 September 1307. On 8 December 1325, Edward II appointed Nicholas "as captain and admiral of the king's fleet of ships as well of the Cinque Ports as of other ports and places on the coast from the mouth of the Thames westwards; with power of chastising and punishing the mariners and others of the fleet." (Patent Rolls 1324-7, p. 197) Nicholas was still alive on 12 September 1326 when he's mentioned on the Close Roll as Edward II's admiral, but died sometime before 29 January 1327. His son John proved his age in August 1329, and his widow Roesia was given permission to marry whomsoever she wished of the king's allegiance in September 1334. (Close Rolls 1323-7, p. 647; Patent Rolls 1334-8, p. 6; Fine Rolls 1327-37, p. 1; Inq. Post Mortem 1327-36, pp. 191-2)
- Thomas de Vere, son of the earl of Oxford
Thomas was the son and heir of the obscure Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford (1257-1331), the only earl who played no part whatsoever in Edward II's reign, and Margaret Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer, lord of Wigmore (d. 1282). This makes Thomas a first cousin of Roger Mortimer, first earl of March (1287-1330), and he was also a first cousin of John de Warenne, earl of Surrey (1286-1347), whose mother was Joan de Vere. Thomas was born in the early 1280s or thereabouts and thus was slightly older than Edward of Caernarfon, and died childless in 1329, predeceasing his father the earl by about two years. Robert de Vere's successor as earl of Oxford was therefore his nephew John, born in 1311 or 1312, son of Robert's curiously-named younger brother Alphonse de Vere (named in honour of Eleanor of Castile's brother Alfonso X, perhaps?). Earl John married Maud Badlesmere, and they were the parents of Thomas and Aubrey de Vere, earls of Oxford, and the grandparents of Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford and Richard II's notorious 'favourite'.
- Fulk Fitzwarin ('Fulcius filius Warini')
A Marcher lord, latest in a long line of noblemen named Fulk Fitzwarin, and a descendant of the famous outlaw Fulk Fitzwarin of the early thirteenth century immortalised in a well-known medieval romance and in Elizabeth Chadwick's novel Lords of the White Castle. This Fulk was born in about 1285, so was more or less the same age as Edward of Caernarfon, and married a woman named Eleanor. His father, inevitably also called Fulk Fitzwarin, died shortly before 28 December 1315. (Fine Rolls 1307-19, pp 264, 268). Fulk served in the retinue of Edward II's first cousin and deadliest enemy Thomas, earl of Lancaster, but switched sides, and joined Edward in his 1321/22 campaign against the Contrariants and Lancaster. (J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster 1307-1322, pp. 46-7, 55-6, 304-5). I did a lot of research on Fulk for my article 'The Adherents of Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, in March 1330', as he joined Kent's plot to free Edward of Caernarfon and was ordered to be arrested on 10 March 1330, nine days before Kent's execution. Fulk fled the country; his wife Eleanor was granted forty marks annually for her sustenance, and his sons Fulk (of course!) and Ivo were held in some form of captivity 'safely and honourably without duress' in Shrewsbury, where they remained until at least 8 October 1330. Fulk and his sons' lands and goods were taken into the king's hands in April 1330, but after Isabella and Roger Mortimer's downfall a few months later, Edward III invited him to return to England and restored his property. ('Adherents', pp. 782, 801-2).
- John Somery
Lord of Dudley in Worcestershire, son of Sir Roger Somery who died in 1291 and grandson of another Sir Roger Somery who died in 1273, and born in about 1280; his mother Agnes died in November 1308, and he was said to be twenty-eight then. (Inq. Post Mortem 1307-27, p. 57; Fine Rolls 1307-19, p. 32). The fact I like most about John Somery is that in 1311 Edward II ordered a commission of oyer et terminer regarding the alleged defamation of John by Sir William Bereford, chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas, who claimed that John "has 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." (Patent Rolls 1307-13, p. 369) Another great fact, at least as far I'm concerned: John held the manor of Dunchurch in Warwickshire for life, demised to him by the one and only Stephen Dunheved. (Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 185)
John Somery was a household knight of Edward II, and was loyal to him throughout his reign, being appointed, for example, to seize Thomas of Lancaster's great castle of Kenilworth during the Contrariant campaign of 1321/22. (Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 107). John was summoned on 21 July 1322 to attend the king's disastrous final campaign in Scotland due to take place in the autumn of that year, but in fact had already died, shortly before 2 July 1322. (Patent Rolls 1321-4, pp. 186, 196; Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 147). John left a widow Lucy, but no children, and his heirs were his sisters Margaret and her husband John Sutton, and Joan, the widow of Thomas Botetourt. (Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 188).
The list of the men knighted on 22 May 1306 is very helpfully given in Constance Bullock-Davies' fab book Menestrellorum Multitudo: Minstrels at a Royal Feast (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1986), pp. 185-7, in the Latin spelling as it appears in the original document. Edward of Caernarfon's name is given as Dominus Edwardus Princeps Walliae, 'Lord Edward, prince of Wales'. In this post, I'm looking at some of the new knights, who also included Piers Gaveston ( 'Petrus de Gavaston'), Roger Mortimer ('Rogerus de Mortuomari') and his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk, Hugh Despenser the Younger ('Hugo filius domini Hugonis le Despenser'), and the earls of Surrey and Arundel. I'm going to make this an occasional series and write about more of the men in the future; there are certainly plenty to choose from! In this post, I'm looking at Roderick of Spain, John Comyn, John Maltravers the elder, Robert de Kendale, Nicholas Kyriel, Thomas de Vere, Fulk Fitzwarin and John Somery.
- Roderick or Rotheric of Spain (Rethericus de Ispannia)
Known as Roderick de Ispan(n)ia, which translates as 'of Spain', and means Castile in this context. In early 1325, Roderick was said to have "dwelt longtime in the king's company during his minority" (Patent Rolls 1324-7, p. 83), and indeed there are references to him on the Patent Roll as early as April 1299, the month Edward of Caernarfon turned fifteen, as Edward's valletus, valet or yeoman. Roderick was granted a wardship in October 1297, so must have been at least twenty-one then, which would place his date of birth in or before 1276. I don't know anything about his family; there was also a clerk named James de Ispannia active during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, who was said to be a kinsman of Eleanor of Castile (in some entries in the chancery rolls he's said to have been her nephew), but Roderick himself was never described as such. In January 1307, Roderick went on pilgrimage to Santiago in northern Spain on Edward of Caernarfon's behalf, or at least, received permission from Edward I to do so. (Close Rolls 1301-07, p. 482) Roderick of Spain died sometime before 6 April 1312, when Edward II asked his cousin Fernando IV of Castile to "exhibit his favour" to Roderick's widow Mary and their children, who evidently were returning home, "in consideration of the said Rotheric's service to the king during the minority of the king." (Close Rolls 1307-13, p. 457)
- John Comyn
A Scottish nobleman, son of John 'the Red Comyn', who was lord of Badenoch and one of the Guardians of Scotland, and killed by his great rival Robert Bruce in the Greyfriars church in Dumfries on 10 February 1306. John 'the Red Comyn' was the nephew of John Balliol, king of Scotland from 1292 to 1296, and married Joan de Valence, which means that his son the younger John was a maternal nephew of Henry III's nephew Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke (died 1324). (There was also, confusingly, yet another John Comyn, earl of Buchan, a cousin of John the Red Comyn, who lost the battle of Inverurie to Robert Bruce in 1308 and died in England that year; his wife Isabel MacDuff crowned Bruce as king in 1306.) John the younger married Margaret Wake, and with her had a son Aymer, named after his uncle. He fought for Edward II at Bannockburn against the man who had killed his father, and fell in battle. His little son Aymer Comyn died young and thus his heirs were his sisters Joan, countess of Atholl, and Elizabeth, Lady Talbot, while his widow Margaret Wake married Edward II's half-brother Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, in December 1325 and became the maternal grandmother of Richard II.
- John Maltravers (or Mautravers) the elder
Father of the John Maltravers (c. 1290-1364) who was Edward of Caernarfon's joint custodian in 1327 and who was also knighted on 22 May 1306, and son of John Maltravers who died in 1297; actually he was the sixth in a line of eight men named John Maltravers. John the elder married Eleanor de Gorges, the mother of his son John born in c. 1290, and secondly Joan Foliot. He was born in about 1266 and died in 1341; like his son, who was well into his seventies when he died in 1364, he lived a long time. The Maltravers were a Dorset family and gave their name to three villages in that county: Lytchett Matravers, Langton Matravers and Worth Matravers. Father and son both fought for Edward II at Bannockburn in June 1314, and the younger John was captured. The younger John took part in the Contrariant rebellion against Edward in 1321/22, and was one of the few noblemen who managed to flee the country and evade execution or imprisonment after the battle of Boroughbridge in March 1322. The elder John may also have played some small part in the rebellion, it's hard to tell sometimes which John Maltravers is meant in the chancery rolls of this period, but Edward declared him in July 1322 to have "remained faithful to the king," and his lands and goods were restored to him, having apparently been accidentally seized instead of his son's. (Close Rolls 1318-23, p. 474). In October 1325, the elder John was the first named in a long list of men accused of assaulting one Ralph son of John de Chidiok, and of attacking an annual fair held in the Dorset town of Bere. (Patent Rolls 1324-7, p. 232).
- Robert de Kendale
The long-term constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports, appointed to the office by Edward II at the beginning of his reign in 1307 and still there in 1324 (though occasionally replaced temporarily by other men). Robert was, with Piers Gaveston, Roger Mortimer and Giles Argentein, one of the new young knights whose lands and goods were temporarily seized by Edward I in October 1306 for going abroad to attend jousting tournaments without his permission. (Fine Rolls 1272-1307, pp. 543-4; Close Rolls 1302-7, pp. 481-2.) Kendale means the town of Kendal in modern-day Cumbria, presumably Robert's home town, which means that to me he's a local boy, as that's close to where I grew up. By June 1308 he was married to a woman called Margaret (Patent Rolls 1307-13, p. 79), but otherwise I know nothing about his family or about him personally except that he had sons called Robert and Edward, though he appears in the chancery rolls many dozens of times in his capacity as constable of Dover. In 1317, twenty-eight of his horses and eight of his carts were stolen at 'la Lee' in Hertfordshire, and his servants assaulted. (Patent Rolls 1317-21, pp. 86, 474). In February 1321, Robert de Kendale was appointed mayor of London. (Ibid., p. 562). He died shortly before 2 April 1330, leaving his son Edward 'aged 21 years and more' as his heir; his widow Margaret was still alive in October 1345. (Fine Rolls 1327-37, p. 170; Inq. Post Mortem 1327-36, pp. 209-10; Patent Rolls 1343-5, p. 569).
- Nicholas Kyriel (or Kryell or Cryel or Criol or Criel or Crioill, etc...)
It's a tad tricky to find Nicholas in the records as his family name can be spelt in so many ways! His mother was called Margery, his father, also Nicholas, died in September 1303 and his grandfather, also Nicholas, in 1273. (Fine Rolls 1272-1307, pp. 9, 483) Nicholas was born at the beginning of 1283, so was fifteen or sixteen months older than Edward of Caernarfon: he was said at his father's IPM in Kent in November 1303 to be then aged 20 years and 45 weeks. (Inq. Post Mortem 1300-07, pp. 102-3). He married a woman named Roesia - 'Rose' in modern English - and their son and heir John was born at Walmer in Kent on 29 September 1307. On 8 December 1325, Edward II appointed Nicholas "as captain and admiral of the king's fleet of ships as well of the Cinque Ports as of other ports and places on the coast from the mouth of the Thames westwards; with power of chastising and punishing the mariners and others of the fleet." (Patent Rolls 1324-7, p. 197) Nicholas was still alive on 12 September 1326 when he's mentioned on the Close Roll as Edward II's admiral, but died sometime before 29 January 1327. His son John proved his age in August 1329, and his widow Roesia was given permission to marry whomsoever she wished of the king's allegiance in September 1334. (Close Rolls 1323-7, p. 647; Patent Rolls 1334-8, p. 6; Fine Rolls 1327-37, p. 1; Inq. Post Mortem 1327-36, pp. 191-2)
- Thomas de Vere, son of the earl of Oxford
Thomas was the son and heir of the obscure Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford (1257-1331), the only earl who played no part whatsoever in Edward II's reign, and Margaret Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer, lord of Wigmore (d. 1282). This makes Thomas a first cousin of Roger Mortimer, first earl of March (1287-1330), and he was also a first cousin of John de Warenne, earl of Surrey (1286-1347), whose mother was Joan de Vere. Thomas was born in the early 1280s or thereabouts and thus was slightly older than Edward of Caernarfon, and died childless in 1329, predeceasing his father the earl by about two years. Robert de Vere's successor as earl of Oxford was therefore his nephew John, born in 1311 or 1312, son of Robert's curiously-named younger brother Alphonse de Vere (named in honour of Eleanor of Castile's brother Alfonso X, perhaps?). Earl John married Maud Badlesmere, and they were the parents of Thomas and Aubrey de Vere, earls of Oxford, and the grandparents of Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford and Richard II's notorious 'favourite'.
- Fulk Fitzwarin ('Fulcius filius Warini')
A Marcher lord, latest in a long line of noblemen named Fulk Fitzwarin, and a descendant of the famous outlaw Fulk Fitzwarin of the early thirteenth century immortalised in a well-known medieval romance and in Elizabeth Chadwick's novel Lords of the White Castle. This Fulk was born in about 1285, so was more or less the same age as Edward of Caernarfon, and married a woman named Eleanor. His father, inevitably also called Fulk Fitzwarin, died shortly before 28 December 1315. (Fine Rolls 1307-19, pp 264, 268). Fulk served in the retinue of Edward II's first cousin and deadliest enemy Thomas, earl of Lancaster, but switched sides, and joined Edward in his 1321/22 campaign against the Contrariants and Lancaster. (J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster 1307-1322, pp. 46-7, 55-6, 304-5). I did a lot of research on Fulk for my article 'The Adherents of Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, in March 1330', as he joined Kent's plot to free Edward of Caernarfon and was ordered to be arrested on 10 March 1330, nine days before Kent's execution. Fulk fled the country; his wife Eleanor was granted forty marks annually for her sustenance, and his sons Fulk (of course!) and Ivo were held in some form of captivity 'safely and honourably without duress' in Shrewsbury, where they remained until at least 8 October 1330. Fulk and his sons' lands and goods were taken into the king's hands in April 1330, but after Isabella and Roger Mortimer's downfall a few months later, Edward III invited him to return to England and restored his property. ('Adherents', pp. 782, 801-2).
- John Somery
Lord of Dudley in Worcestershire, son of Sir Roger Somery who died in 1291 and grandson of another Sir Roger Somery who died in 1273, and born in about 1280; his mother Agnes died in November 1308, and he was said to be twenty-eight then. (Inq. Post Mortem 1307-27, p. 57; Fine Rolls 1307-19, p. 32). The fact I like most about John Somery is that in 1311 Edward II ordered a commission of oyer et terminer regarding the alleged defamation of John by Sir William Bereford, chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas, who claimed that John "has 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." (Patent Rolls 1307-13, p. 369) Another great fact, at least as far I'm concerned: John held the manor of Dunchurch in Warwickshire for life, demised to him by the one and only Stephen Dunheved. (Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 185)
John Somery was a household knight of Edward II, and was loyal to him throughout his reign, being appointed, for example, to seize Thomas of Lancaster's great castle of Kenilworth during the Contrariant campaign of 1321/22. (Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 107). John was summoned on 21 July 1322 to attend the king's disastrous final campaign in Scotland due to take place in the autumn of that year, but in fact had already died, shortly before 2 July 1322. (Patent Rolls 1321-4, pp. 186, 196; Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 147). John left a widow Lucy, but no children, and his heirs were his sisters Margaret and her husband John Sutton, and Joan, the widow of Thomas Botetourt. (Fine Rolls 1319-27, p. 188).
26 May, 2015
Yolande de Dreux, Queen of Scotland, Duchess of Brittany and Countess of Montfort (c. 1263-1322)
A post today about a French noblewoman whose father was the the count of Dreux, who succeeded her mother as countess of Montfort in her own right, and who was both queen of Scotland and duchess of Brittany by marriage. She married firstly the widower of Edward I's sister Margaret, and secondly the son of Edward I's other sister Beatrice. (My eye has improved enough so that I've been able to write a blog post! Woooo!)
Yolande (or Joleta or Violante or Violette) de Dreux was born in about 1263, or perhaps as late as 1267, as the daughter of Robert IV. count of Dreux (d. 1282) and Beatrice de Montfort, countess of Montfort l'Amaury in her own right and great-niece of the famous Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, killed at the battle of Evesham in 1265. (Just to clarify, Earl Simon was the younger brother of Yolande de Dreux's great-grandfather Amaury de Montfort.) Yolande was one of five children, four girls and a boy; her brother was named Jean or John, and her sisters were Marie, Jeanne or Joan and Beatrice, an abbess. John succeeded their father Robert as count of Dreux, and passed the title on to his only surviving child, a daughter Joan; he was also the great chamberlain of France, and died in 1309. Yolande's mother Beatrice de Montfort, countess of Montfort, died in 1311 or 1312, and because her brother John was already dead and she was Beatrice's eldest surviving daughter, Yolande succeeded her as countess in her own right. Yolande de Dreux was a first cousin of Margaret Fiennes, mother of Roger Mortimer, first earl of March, and Joan Fiennes, mother of Margaret Wake, countess of Kent; Yolande and the Fiennes sisters were all granddaughters of Jeanne de Châteaudun, lady of Château-du-Loir.
Yolande de Dreux married comparatively late, when she was in her late teens or early twenties: on 14 October 1285 at Jedburgh Abbey, she married Alexander III, king of Scotland, the widower of Edward I's sister Margaret of England and then aged forty-four. The match had probably been arranged with the aid of Alexander's mother Marie de Coucy, also a French noblewoman who died this year. Queen Marie's second marriage, after her first husband Alexander II of Scotland died in 1249, was to John de Brienne, son of the titular emperor of Constantinople and the king of Jerusalem, and a first cousin of Edward I's queen Eleanor of Castile; John de Brienne had previously been married to Jeanne de Châteaudun, Yolande de Dreux's maternal grandmother from Jeanne's first marriage to John de Montfort. (Which, if I've worked this out correctly, means that John de Brienne was both the stepfather of Alexander III and the step-grandfather of Alexander's second wife Yolande de Dreux. John and Jeanne de Châteaudun were also great-grandparents of Roger Mortimer, first earl of March.) Alexander III's three children Alexander, David and Margaret of Scotland, queen of Norway, were all dead by 1285, and his only heir was his two-year-old granddaughter Margaret 'the Maid of Norway'. He desperately needed a son, but it was not to be: only five months after his wedding to Yolande, on 19 March 1286, Alexander III rode his horse off a cliff during a storm and was found the next morning with a broken neck. It is possible, though not certain, that Queen Yolande was pregnant with Alexander's child; it wasn't until some months later that the Guardians of Scotland acknowledged the little Margaret of Norway as the late king's heir, and it may be that Yolande had suffered a miscarriage or even a phantom pregnancy. Had she given birth to a boy, he would have become king of Scotland immediately on birth, but sadly, Yolande de Dreux was not destined to be the mother of a king. Had she given birth to a girl, that leads to an interesting 'what if?' scenario - presumably Alexander III's posthumous daughter would have taken precedence over his granddaughter Margaret of Norway, and become queen of Scotland, even though the granddaughter was some years older? Not totally sure.
Queen Yolande remained a widow for some years, and in 1292 or 1294 married Arthur, the future Duke Arthur II of Brittany, born in 1262 as the eldest son of Duke John II and Beatrice (d. 1275), one of the two sisters of Edward I and thus also the sister of Alexander III of Scotland's first wife Queen Margaret. Arthur had previously been married to Marie, viscountess of Limoges (d. 1291), with whom he had his son and heir John III, born in 1286, and a younger son Guy. Arthur attended Edward II - his first cousin, both of them being grandsons of Henry III - and Isabella of France's coronation at Westminster on 25 February 1308, having succeeded his father as duke of Brittany in 1305 when the unfortunate John II died in the strangest freak accident of the era: a wall fell on him as he led the new pope Clement V's horse around Avignon. Yolande de Dreux, having been queen-consort of Scotland for a mere five months, was duchess of Brittany for seven years: Duke Arthur II died on 27 August 1312, just past his fiftieth birthday, to be succeeded by his son John III, Yolande's stepson. In the same year as her husband's death, Yolande's mother died, and she succeeded as countess of Montfort. Arthur and Yolande had half a dozen children: one son John, born in about 1295, and daughters Beatrice, Jeanne, Alix, Blanche and Marie. John, who inherited his mother and grandmother's county of Montfort, is often known as John de Montfort to distinguish him from his older half-brother Duke John III.
John III was married three times, to Charles de Valois's eldest daughter Isabella, to King Sancho IV of Castile's eldest daughter Isabel, and to Joan, countess of Savoy, but left no children on his death in 1341. His half-brother, Yolande's son John de Montfort, would reasonably have expected to inherit the duchy, but John III had disliked him, and favoured the succession of his niece Jeanne de Penthièvre, only child of his full brother Guy (d. 1331) and married to Charles of Blois, nephew of Philip VI of France. This led to the War of the Breton Succession, and the involvement of Edward III of England. John de Montfort, Yolande's son, was the father of Duke John IV of Brittany (d. 1399), who was briefly married to Edward III's daughter Margaret and whose third wife the decades-younger Joan of Navarre later married Henry IV of England as his second wife.
Yolande de Dreux, dowager queen of Scotland, dowager duchess of Brittany, and countess of Montfort, died on 2 August 1322, probably in her late fifties. On 30 October 1323, an entry on the Patent Roll in England records a "[s]afe-conduct until Christmas for Theobald de Denysi, knight of France, going to Scotland for the dower of the duchess of Brittany for the time that she was queen of Scotland, and to treat of the deliverance of John de Brytannia, earl of Richmond, a captive of the Scots." (Calendar of Patent Rolls 1321-4, p. 347) John of Brittany, earl of Richmond, was Edward II's first cousin and Yolande de Dreux's brother-in-law, being the younger brother of Duke Arthur II, and had been captured by Robert Bruce at the battle of Byland on 14 October 1322. Yolande was already dead, so I'm not sure why the Scottish dower to which she was entitled from her brief marriage to Alexander III was being sought at this time. It was due to her for her lifetime only and her entitlement to it didn't pass to her son and heir John de Montfort, unless John was claiming back-payments on it from during Yolande's lifetime from Robert Bruce.
Yolande (or Joleta or Violante or Violette) de Dreux was born in about 1263, or perhaps as late as 1267, as the daughter of Robert IV. count of Dreux (d. 1282) and Beatrice de Montfort, countess of Montfort l'Amaury in her own right and great-niece of the famous Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, killed at the battle of Evesham in 1265. (Just to clarify, Earl Simon was the younger brother of Yolande de Dreux's great-grandfather Amaury de Montfort.) Yolande was one of five children, four girls and a boy; her brother was named Jean or John, and her sisters were Marie, Jeanne or Joan and Beatrice, an abbess. John succeeded their father Robert as count of Dreux, and passed the title on to his only surviving child, a daughter Joan; he was also the great chamberlain of France, and died in 1309. Yolande's mother Beatrice de Montfort, countess of Montfort, died in 1311 or 1312, and because her brother John was already dead and she was Beatrice's eldest surviving daughter, Yolande succeeded her as countess in her own right. Yolande de Dreux was a first cousin of Margaret Fiennes, mother of Roger Mortimer, first earl of March, and Joan Fiennes, mother of Margaret Wake, countess of Kent; Yolande and the Fiennes sisters were all granddaughters of Jeanne de Châteaudun, lady of Château-du-Loir.
Yolande de Dreux married comparatively late, when she was in her late teens or early twenties: on 14 October 1285 at Jedburgh Abbey, she married Alexander III, king of Scotland, the widower of Edward I's sister Margaret of England and then aged forty-four. The match had probably been arranged with the aid of Alexander's mother Marie de Coucy, also a French noblewoman who died this year. Queen Marie's second marriage, after her first husband Alexander II of Scotland died in 1249, was to John de Brienne, son of the titular emperor of Constantinople and the king of Jerusalem, and a first cousin of Edward I's queen Eleanor of Castile; John de Brienne had previously been married to Jeanne de Châteaudun, Yolande de Dreux's maternal grandmother from Jeanne's first marriage to John de Montfort. (Which, if I've worked this out correctly, means that John de Brienne was both the stepfather of Alexander III and the step-grandfather of Alexander's second wife Yolande de Dreux. John and Jeanne de Châteaudun were also great-grandparents of Roger Mortimer, first earl of March.) Alexander III's three children Alexander, David and Margaret of Scotland, queen of Norway, were all dead by 1285, and his only heir was his two-year-old granddaughter Margaret 'the Maid of Norway'. He desperately needed a son, but it was not to be: only five months after his wedding to Yolande, on 19 March 1286, Alexander III rode his horse off a cliff during a storm and was found the next morning with a broken neck. It is possible, though not certain, that Queen Yolande was pregnant with Alexander's child; it wasn't until some months later that the Guardians of Scotland acknowledged the little Margaret of Norway as the late king's heir, and it may be that Yolande had suffered a miscarriage or even a phantom pregnancy. Had she given birth to a boy, he would have become king of Scotland immediately on birth, but sadly, Yolande de Dreux was not destined to be the mother of a king. Had she given birth to a girl, that leads to an interesting 'what if?' scenario - presumably Alexander III's posthumous daughter would have taken precedence over his granddaughter Margaret of Norway, and become queen of Scotland, even though the granddaughter was some years older? Not totally sure.
Queen Yolande remained a widow for some years, and in 1292 or 1294 married Arthur, the future Duke Arthur II of Brittany, born in 1262 as the eldest son of Duke John II and Beatrice (d. 1275), one of the two sisters of Edward I and thus also the sister of Alexander III of Scotland's first wife Queen Margaret. Arthur had previously been married to Marie, viscountess of Limoges (d. 1291), with whom he had his son and heir John III, born in 1286, and a younger son Guy. Arthur attended Edward II - his first cousin, both of them being grandsons of Henry III - and Isabella of France's coronation at Westminster on 25 February 1308, having succeeded his father as duke of Brittany in 1305 when the unfortunate John II died in the strangest freak accident of the era: a wall fell on him as he led the new pope Clement V's horse around Avignon. Yolande de Dreux, having been queen-consort of Scotland for a mere five months, was duchess of Brittany for seven years: Duke Arthur II died on 27 August 1312, just past his fiftieth birthday, to be succeeded by his son John III, Yolande's stepson. In the same year as her husband's death, Yolande's mother died, and she succeeded as countess of Montfort. Arthur and Yolande had half a dozen children: one son John, born in about 1295, and daughters Beatrice, Jeanne, Alix, Blanche and Marie. John, who inherited his mother and grandmother's county of Montfort, is often known as John de Montfort to distinguish him from his older half-brother Duke John III.
John III was married three times, to Charles de Valois's eldest daughter Isabella, to King Sancho IV of Castile's eldest daughter Isabel, and to Joan, countess of Savoy, but left no children on his death in 1341. His half-brother, Yolande's son John de Montfort, would reasonably have expected to inherit the duchy, but John III had disliked him, and favoured the succession of his niece Jeanne de Penthièvre, only child of his full brother Guy (d. 1331) and married to Charles of Blois, nephew of Philip VI of France. This led to the War of the Breton Succession, and the involvement of Edward III of England. John de Montfort, Yolande's son, was the father of Duke John IV of Brittany (d. 1399), who was briefly married to Edward III's daughter Margaret and whose third wife the decades-younger Joan of Navarre later married Henry IV of England as his second wife.
Yolande de Dreux, dowager queen of Scotland, dowager duchess of Brittany, and countess of Montfort, died on 2 August 1322, probably in her late fifties. On 30 October 1323, an entry on the Patent Roll in England records a "[s]afe-conduct until Christmas for Theobald de Denysi, knight of France, going to Scotland for the dower of the duchess of Brittany for the time that she was queen of Scotland, and to treat of the deliverance of John de Brytannia, earl of Richmond, a captive of the Scots." (Calendar of Patent Rolls 1321-4, p. 347) John of Brittany, earl of Richmond, was Edward II's first cousin and Yolande de Dreux's brother-in-law, being the younger brother of Duke Arthur II, and had been captured by Robert Bruce at the battle of Byland on 14 October 1322. Yolande was already dead, so I'm not sure why the Scottish dower to which she was entitled from her brief marriage to Alexander III was being sought at this time. It was due to her for her lifetime only and her entitlement to it didn't pass to her son and heir John de Montfort, unless John was claiming back-payments on it from during Yolande's lifetime from Robert Bruce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)