Totally off-topic here, but I loved this search string from yesterday: what made edward II a god king. *Giggles*
Anyway, onto the real subject of the day: the second of Edward II's five elder sisters.
Joan of Acre was the seventh or eighth child of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, and the second to survive childhood. She was born in Akko in Syria sometime in the spring of 1272, while her parents were on crusade, and was known as 'Joan of Acre' to distinguish her from another daughter of Edward and Eleanor named Joan, who was born and died in 1265. Another daughter, name unknown, was born about a year before Joan, also in the Holy Land, and died as a baby. A few weeks after Joan's birth, on 17 June 1272, a would-be assassin stabbed her father with a poisoned dagger; the story that Eleanor of Castile sucked the poison out of the wound is, sadly, only a legend.
In September 1272, Edward and Eleanor left the Holy Land, with Joan, and travelled via Sicily and Rome to France and then Gascony; Joan's brother Alfonso was born in Bayonne in November 1273. Her grandfather Henry III had died in November 1272, when she was a few months old, and her father succeeded as king of England. In August 1274, Edward and Eleanor finally returned to England, after an absence of four years, and their coronation took place that month. A few weeks later, Joan's six-year-old brother Henry, whom she never met, died suddenly at Guildford, and Alfonso became heir to the throne.
Joan did not travel to England with her parents, but remained in France with her maternal grandmother, Jeanne de Dammartin, countess of Ponthieu and dowager queen of Castile. After Jeanne's death in 1279, she set foot in England for the first time, at the age of seven. There, she finally met her siblings: Eleanor, ten, Alfonso, five and a half, Margaret, four, and the baby Mary. Two sisters had died the year before: two-year-old Berengaria and a baby girl, name unknown. (Edward I and Eleanor of Castile had a lot of daughters.)
In 1277/78, Edward I arranged his daughter's betrothal to Hartmann von Hapsburg, the seventh child and second son of King Rudolf of Germany and Gertrud von Hohenberg. Hartmann was born in 1263, so was nine years older than Joan, and had previously been betrothed to Kunigunde of Bohemia. According to the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy site, their wedding was to take place on 8 September 1278 at Westminster Abbey, but was postponed - because Joan was still in Ponthieu, or because she was still only six years old! Unfortunately for the plans of King Edward and King Rudolf, Hartmann drowned in the Rhine, after his ship sank, on 21 December 1281, supposedly on his way to England to marry Joan. He was only eighteen.
Little is known about Joan's life in the 1280s. Her youngest (full) siblings Elizabeth and Edward of Caernarfon were born in 1282 and 1284, and Alfonso - the sibling closest to Joan in age - died in August 1284. In May 1286, when she was fourteen, her parents left for Gascony and didn't return for over three years. Joan is known to have quarrelled with a wardrobe clerk during this time, and refused to accept money from him to pay her expenses. On his return from Gascony, Edward set about organising his children's marriages - and paying Joan's debts.
On 30 April 1290, around the time of her eighteenth birthday, Joan married the rich, powerful and turbulent Gilbert 'the Red' de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who was nearly three decades older than she was, born in September 1243. Isabel, the elder of his daughters by his first wife Alice de Lusignan, was ten years Joan's senior. For her wedding, Joan wore a girdle and head-dress of gold, decorated with rubies and emeralds, bought for her in Paris at a cost of fifty pounds. She and Gilbert left court soon after the wedding to honeymoon at Tonbridge Castle in Kent, without her father's permission - to the king's great annoyance. Very expensive girdles and head-dresses notwithstanding, the ceremony was a quiet, family affair, unlike the wedding of her younger sister Margaret a few weeks later (see next post).
There's no way of knowing what kind of relationship Joan and Gilbert had, though they produced four children in five and a half years of marriage. Their eldest, Gilbert, was born a little over a year after the wedding, at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire. He was Edward I's eldest grandchild (Edward I was fifty-one at the time). Eleanor of Castile had died a few months previously, so never saw her grandson, though perhaps she knew before she died that Joan was pregnant.
Gilbert de Clare died in December 1295, aged fifty-two, a few weeks after the birth of their youngest child Elizabeth, leaving Joan a widow at the age of twenty-three. Edward I set plans in motion for Joan to marry Count Amadeus V of Savoy, who was also decades her senior, born in about 1249. However, she calmly informed him that she was already married, to Ralph de Monthermer, a squire of her late husband. Edward I was furious, seized Joan's lands, and imprisoned Ralph. However, there was little he could do. He could not unmarry the couple - only the Pope could do that - and released Ralph.
The date of Joan and Ralph's marriage is not known, but probably took place in about January 1297, and their first child, Mary, was born in October that year. Ralph de Monthermer's parentage is obscure, though apparently he was illegitimate - in 1304, the Annals of London called him 'the bastard Ralph de Monthermer'. He was born in about 1262, so was about ten years older than Joan. (His Inquisition Post Mortem of 1325 gives his age as sixty-three, which surprises me - I'd always pictured him as about Joan's age, or a little younger).
It took a very long time for Edward I's anger towards Ralph to cool, and for him to accept the marriage, but by 1304, Ralph had become earl of Gloucester by right of his wife. (He lost the title on her death.) A letter sent by Edward of Caernarfon to Ralph on 30 May 1304 says "it pleases us very much, and gives us great joy, that our dear sister has the consent of our dear lord the king, our father and yours." Finally! After more than seven years and four children! Edward called Ralph, in the eleven letters he sent him in 1304 and 1305, "our very dear brother", and it seems that he considered Ralph to be a member of his inner circle, and a trustworthy and reliable confidant.
Edward was also close to Joan of Acre, twelve years his senior. In 1305, during the period he had quarrelled violently with their father and had his income cut drastically, Joan lent him her seal, so that he could buy goods. As her secret marriage to Ralph amply demonstrates, Joan was not afraid of her harsh father, or the fact that he would likely be furious at her helping Edward (their sister Mary made sure she had the permission of the king before writing to Edward, whereas Joan didn't bother).
Joan bore Ralph four children, two daughters and two sons. All of her children were older than her youngest (half-) sibling Eleanor, born in May 1306, when Joan was thirty-four. Edward I's eldest grandchild was fifteen years older than his youngest child.
Joan of Acre, countess of Gloucester and Hertford, died on 23 April 1307, around the time of her thirty-fifth birthday, and was buried at the Augustinian friary at Clare, in Suffolk. Her death may have been pregnancy or childbirth-related, though it's not certain. A few weeks later, her father died, and her brother succeeded as Edward II.
Ralph de Monthermer remained a widower for eleven years, then married Isabel Hastings, one of the sisters of Hugh Despenser the younger - also without the king's permission. As I've said before, Ralph must really have had something, to persuade two ladies to marry him without royal consent.
Children of Joan of Acre:
Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, 1291-1314, married Maud de Burgh, no surviving children (Gilbert had a son John, born April 1312, who died young).
Eleanor de Clare, 1292-1337, married Hugh Despenser the younger and William la Zouche, about eleven children.
Margaret de Clare, 1294-1342, married Piers Gaveston and Hugh Audley the younger, two daughters.
Elizabeth de Clare, 1295-1360, married John de Burgh, Theobald de Verdon and Roger Damory, a son and two daughters.
Mary de Monthermer, 1297-after 1371, married Duncan MacDuff, earl of Fife, one daughter.
Joan de Monthermer, 1299-?, nun at Amesbury.
Thomas de Monthermer, 1301-1340, married Margaret, widow of Henry Tyes, one daughter. (Thomas's grandson John Montacute, earl of Salisbury, was beheaded in 1400 after taking part in the unsuccessful plot to restore Richard II to the throne.)
Edward de Monthermer, 1304-1340, never married.
28 May, 2008
21 May, 2008
Sisters of Edward II (1): Eleanor
A series of posts on the five of Edward II's eleven or twelve sisters who survived into adulthood, beginning with Eleanor, countess of Bar.
Eleanor was the fifth or sixth child of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, and the eldest to survive childhood. (Her elder siblings were Katherine, Joan, John and Henry, and possibly a baby girl born very prematurely in 1255.) She was born shortly before 18 June 1269, when her grandfather Henry III granted John de Beaumes, yeoman of Eleanor of Castile, ten pounds worth of lands for bringing him news of the birth. Eleanor of Castile's daughter mentioned in the Patent Rolls in June 1264 was Katherine, not Eleanor, as often assumed. The confusion arises because, in 1302, Eleanor was called Edward I's primogenita. This literally means 'first born daughter', so it has often been assumed that the daughter of Eleanor of Castile and Edward I mentioned in 1264 - the first reference to a daughter of theirs - must be Eleanor. However, in practice primogenita meant 'eldest surviving daughter', and in 1302 Eleanor was meant, not Katherine. Other examples: Eleanor's brother Alfonso (1273-1284) was called Edward I's primogenitus after the deaths of his two elder brothers, and Edward II's queen Isabella was described as Philippe IV's primogenita in the early 1300s, although she had had two elder sisters who died young. Eleanor's date of birth in 1269 is not in doubt.
Eleanor barely saw her parents in early childhood. Edward I and Eleanor of Castile left England to go on crusade in August 1270, when she was a year old, and didn't return until August 1274. For the first fifteen years of Eleanor's life, Eleanor of Castile's almost yearly pregnancies meant that there were frequent additions to the royal nursery, most of whom did not survive (only six of Eleanor of Castile's sixteen children outlived her).
In childhood, Eleanor shared a household with her brother Henry, born in May 1268 and only thirteen months her senior, and their cousin John of Brittany, future earl of Richmond, born in 1266. John was the son of Edward I's sister Beatrice and the duke of Brittany, and was known by the nickname Brito. The fortunate survival of some of their household records gives us some nice information: on one occasion, partridges were bought for Eleanor and Henry, at a cost of four and a half pence each. Eleanor wa given almond and violet oil, "for her own special use" (wonder what she did with it). Young Henry died in October 1274 at the age of six, and their eleven-month-old brother Alfonso became heir to the throne.
Eleanor's next surviving sister, Joan of Acre, who was a little less than three years her junior, didn't arrive in England until 1279, having spent a few years living with their grandmother Jeanne de Dammartin, dowager queen of Castile, in Ponthieu. Eleanor's other surviving siblings were six, ten, thirteen and fifteen years younger than she was - respectively, Margaret, Mary, Elizabeth and Edward II.
Eleanor was a young child when her father Edward I betrothed her to Alfonso, grandson of King Jaime I of Aragon and eldest son of Pedro III, in 1273. Alfonso was a little older, born in November 1265. Although Eleanor must have grown used to thinking of herself as future queen of Aragon, sadly for her, this marriage was destined never to take place.
In June 1282, around the time of Eleanor's thirteenth birthday, Pedro III pressed Edward I to send his daughter to Aragon for the marriage to his son to go ahead. Edward refused, for a very interesting reason: he claimed that his mother Eleanor of Provence and his wife Eleanor of Castile had begged him not to send Eleanor (there are too many Eleanors!) as they thought she was too young. Both Queen Eleanors had been the same age, if not a little younger, when they themselves married - which implies that they thought they had been too young. Having said that, Alfonso was only sixteen himself, and as terribly young as thirteen is, it was a normal age for royal girls/women to marry, and at least Alfonso wasn't forty or fifty.
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy site says that Eleanor and Alfonso III married by proxy at Westminster Abbey on 15 August 1290, but I'm not sure if this is correct, as I've never seen it anywhere else, and I don't know of any evidence that calls Eleanor queen of Aragon. This was, however, the summer when several of her siblings married - Joan and Margaret, and Edward of Caernarfon was betrothed to Margaret, the Maid of Norway - so it may be correct.
In April that year, Edward I, with three of his four sons dead, faced up to the possibility that his eldest daughter Eleanor might succeed him. This never happened, as Edward II survived and Edward I fathered two more sons many years later, but it's a fascinating 'what if'.
Alfonso III succeeded his father as king of Aragon in November 1285, and was promptly caught up in the endless struggles with the papacy, and with his own nobles. It wasn't until the summer of 1291 that he was in a position to start making plans for his wedding, which he duly did. It was to take place in Barcelona. Sadly, Alfonso died suddenly in June 1291, at the age of only twenty-five, and was succeeded by his brother Jaime II. Eleanor, at twenty-two, had to face the fact that she would never be queen of Aragon.
Edward I arranged another alliance for his eldest daughter, and Eleanor finally married, at the very late age of twenty-four, on 20 September 1293. The wedding took place at Bristol, and the groom was Count Henri III of Bar. Her little brother, nine-year-old Edward of Caernarfon, attended, and Eleanor and Henri subsequently stayed with him for a month at Mortlake, Surrey. Bar lay in northeastern France and was part of the duchy of Upper Lorraine, with Bar-le-Duc as its capital. In May 1294, Count Henri arranged a jousting tournament in honour of his royal bride.
Eleanor bore two children: Édouard, count of Bar, born circa 1294/95, who married Marie of Burgundy. Marie's eldest sister Marguerite was the wife of Louis X and one of the women involved in the notorious adultery scandal of 1314, and another sister, Jeanne la Boiteuse (the Lame) married Philippe VI of France. Count Édouard drowned off the coast of Cyprus in 1336.
Eleanor's other child was Jeanne, circa 1295/96 to 1361, who was unsuccessfully married to John de Warenne, earl of Surrey.
Eleanor's Wiki page gives her a third child, yet another Eleanor, who married Llywelyn ap Owain, lord of Iscoed. I'm very dubious about that. (At least it gets the year of her birth correct. That's pretty unusual.)
At Christmas 1297, Eleanor sent her father a portable dressing-box with a comb, a silver-gilt enamelled mirror, and a silver bodkin, wrapped in a leather case. This was to be her last Christmas, and she died the following August, at the age of only twenty-nine. Her brother Edward of Caernarfon was fourteen. In the spring of 1306, Edward I brought his granddaughter Jeanne de Bar, aged nine or ten, to England and arranged her marriage to the earl of Surrey - which turned out to be a disaster. Count Édouard married in 1310, and had three children.
Eleanor was the fifth or sixth child of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, and the eldest to survive childhood. (Her elder siblings were Katherine, Joan, John and Henry, and possibly a baby girl born very prematurely in 1255.) She was born shortly before 18 June 1269, when her grandfather Henry III granted John de Beaumes, yeoman of Eleanor of Castile, ten pounds worth of lands for bringing him news of the birth. Eleanor of Castile's daughter mentioned in the Patent Rolls in June 1264 was Katherine, not Eleanor, as often assumed. The confusion arises because, in 1302, Eleanor was called Edward I's primogenita. This literally means 'first born daughter', so it has often been assumed that the daughter of Eleanor of Castile and Edward I mentioned in 1264 - the first reference to a daughter of theirs - must be Eleanor. However, in practice primogenita meant 'eldest surviving daughter', and in 1302 Eleanor was meant, not Katherine. Other examples: Eleanor's brother Alfonso (1273-1284) was called Edward I's primogenitus after the deaths of his two elder brothers, and Edward II's queen Isabella was described as Philippe IV's primogenita in the early 1300s, although she had had two elder sisters who died young. Eleanor's date of birth in 1269 is not in doubt.
Eleanor barely saw her parents in early childhood. Edward I and Eleanor of Castile left England to go on crusade in August 1270, when she was a year old, and didn't return until August 1274. For the first fifteen years of Eleanor's life, Eleanor of Castile's almost yearly pregnancies meant that there were frequent additions to the royal nursery, most of whom did not survive (only six of Eleanor of Castile's sixteen children outlived her).
In childhood, Eleanor shared a household with her brother Henry, born in May 1268 and only thirteen months her senior, and their cousin John of Brittany, future earl of Richmond, born in 1266. John was the son of Edward I's sister Beatrice and the duke of Brittany, and was known by the nickname Brito. The fortunate survival of some of their household records gives us some nice information: on one occasion, partridges were bought for Eleanor and Henry, at a cost of four and a half pence each. Eleanor wa given almond and violet oil, "for her own special use" (wonder what she did with it). Young Henry died in October 1274 at the age of six, and their eleven-month-old brother Alfonso became heir to the throne.
Eleanor's next surviving sister, Joan of Acre, who was a little less than three years her junior, didn't arrive in England until 1279, having spent a few years living with their grandmother Jeanne de Dammartin, dowager queen of Castile, in Ponthieu. Eleanor's other surviving siblings were six, ten, thirteen and fifteen years younger than she was - respectively, Margaret, Mary, Elizabeth and Edward II.
Eleanor was a young child when her father Edward I betrothed her to Alfonso, grandson of King Jaime I of Aragon and eldest son of Pedro III, in 1273. Alfonso was a little older, born in November 1265. Although Eleanor must have grown used to thinking of herself as future queen of Aragon, sadly for her, this marriage was destined never to take place.
In June 1282, around the time of Eleanor's thirteenth birthday, Pedro III pressed Edward I to send his daughter to Aragon for the marriage to his son to go ahead. Edward refused, for a very interesting reason: he claimed that his mother Eleanor of Provence and his wife Eleanor of Castile had begged him not to send Eleanor (there are too many Eleanors!) as they thought she was too young. Both Queen Eleanors had been the same age, if not a little younger, when they themselves married - which implies that they thought they had been too young. Having said that, Alfonso was only sixteen himself, and as terribly young as thirteen is, it was a normal age for royal girls/women to marry, and at least Alfonso wasn't forty or fifty.
The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy site says that Eleanor and Alfonso III married by proxy at Westminster Abbey on 15 August 1290, but I'm not sure if this is correct, as I've never seen it anywhere else, and I don't know of any evidence that calls Eleanor queen of Aragon. This was, however, the summer when several of her siblings married - Joan and Margaret, and Edward of Caernarfon was betrothed to Margaret, the Maid of Norway - so it may be correct.
In April that year, Edward I, with three of his four sons dead, faced up to the possibility that his eldest daughter Eleanor might succeed him. This never happened, as Edward II survived and Edward I fathered two more sons many years later, but it's a fascinating 'what if'.
Alfonso III succeeded his father as king of Aragon in November 1285, and was promptly caught up in the endless struggles with the papacy, and with his own nobles. It wasn't until the summer of 1291 that he was in a position to start making plans for his wedding, which he duly did. It was to take place in Barcelona. Sadly, Alfonso died suddenly in June 1291, at the age of only twenty-five, and was succeeded by his brother Jaime II. Eleanor, at twenty-two, had to face the fact that she would never be queen of Aragon.
Edward I arranged another alliance for his eldest daughter, and Eleanor finally married, at the very late age of twenty-four, on 20 September 1293. The wedding took place at Bristol, and the groom was Count Henri III of Bar. Her little brother, nine-year-old Edward of Caernarfon, attended, and Eleanor and Henri subsequently stayed with him for a month at Mortlake, Surrey. Bar lay in northeastern France and was part of the duchy of Upper Lorraine, with Bar-le-Duc as its capital. In May 1294, Count Henri arranged a jousting tournament in honour of his royal bride.
Eleanor bore two children: Édouard, count of Bar, born circa 1294/95, who married Marie of Burgundy. Marie's eldest sister Marguerite was the wife of Louis X and one of the women involved in the notorious adultery scandal of 1314, and another sister, Jeanne la Boiteuse (the Lame) married Philippe VI of France. Count Édouard drowned off the coast of Cyprus in 1336.
Eleanor's other child was Jeanne, circa 1295/96 to 1361, who was unsuccessfully married to John de Warenne, earl of Surrey.
Eleanor's Wiki page gives her a third child, yet another Eleanor, who married Llywelyn ap Owain, lord of Iscoed. I'm very dubious about that. (At least it gets the year of her birth correct. That's pretty unusual.)
At Christmas 1297, Eleanor sent her father a portable dressing-box with a comb, a silver-gilt enamelled mirror, and a silver bodkin, wrapped in a leather case. This was to be her last Christmas, and she died the following August, at the age of only twenty-nine. Her brother Edward of Caernarfon was fourteen. In the spring of 1306, Edward I brought his granddaughter Jeanne de Bar, aged nine or ten, to England and arranged her marriage to the earl of Surrey - which turned out to be a disaster. Count Édouard married in 1310, and had three children.
15 May, 2008
Catalogue Card
Courtesy of the Catalogue Card Generator...
Blog searches from the last couple of days:
Did William Wallace father a child with a future Queen of England? Nope.
"gold bikini" -ebay -leila -star -wars -leia -jedy -amazon -preise, -price
Montfort-l'Amaury porn
quartered hugh penis
pirate torture entrails
free medieval torture stories
medieval torture porn
forbidden when edward 3 was around because it wasn't war like
what queen isabella did at home during the late middle ages
insulting nicknames for small people
roger mortimer was of dark complexion
can you marry your cousin in cornwall
what role did queen isabella have in the castle?
10 May, 2008
Eleanor of Castile
Here's a post on the mother Edward II barely knew. Much of the information comes from John Carmi Parsons, who knows more about Eleanor than anyone else on the planet - see especially his biography of her, Eleanor of Castile, and his posts in the archives of soc.genealogy.medieval.
Eleanor was born as doña Leonor de Castilla, twelfth of the fifteen children of King Fernando III of Castile and León, by his second wife Jeanne de Dammartin, countess of Ponthieu. Her date of birth is often given as 1244, following Agnes Strickland, in her Lives of the Queens of England (volume 2, 1841), who states that Eleanor was "about ten" at the time of her marriage in the autumn of 1254. But Strickland cites no primary source for this statement, and in fact, Eleanor was older than that.
In his work De Rebus Hispaniae Libri IX, finished on 31 March 1243, don Juan Ximenez de Rada, Fernando III's chancellor and archbishop of Toledo, gives the names of Fernando and Jeanne's three children: Fernando, Eleanor (Leonor) and Luis, in that order of birth. If Eleanor had a younger brother born before 31 March 1243, she can't have been born any later than early 1242, and in fact, the likeliest date of her birth is late 1241. Fernando III and Jeanne were apart from the beginning of 1240 to February 1241 (Fernando was on military campaign).
Eleanor died on 28 November 1290. Edward I paid for forty-nine candle-bearers during her funeral. Why forty-nine, and not fifty? This implies that she was forty-nine at the time of her death, or close to it, and thirteen or almost when she married the future Edward I on or around 1 November 1254 - certainly not ten.
Eleanor's elder brother Fernando (1238/39 to circa 1264) and younger brother Luis (1242/43 to circa 1276) lived to marry and have children. Her youngest brothers Ximen and Juan, born about 1244 and 1246, died in infancy. Eleanor was the only one of Jeanne de Dammartin's five children to outlive her, and duly inherited the county of Ponthieu on her mother's death in 1279. In 1290, it passed to her six-year-old son, the future Edward II.
Eleanor bore at least fourteen, and perhaps sixteen, children. Historians and genealogists have made a right mess of them, adding children who never existed - Alice, confused with Alfonso, a name contemporary English scribes struggled with and often spelt in very odd ways; Juliana, never mentioned before about 1600; Blanche and Beatrice, supposedly the younger siblings of Edward II, who never existed (Edward was certainly Eleanor's youngest child); and getting the dates of birth and death of some of the others wrong. For example, Eleanor's eldest surviving daughter Eleanor, countess of Bar, was born in 1269, not 1264 as often stated, as this entry in the Patent Rolls proves. Eleanor's third surviving daughter Margaret, duchess of Brabant, is often said to have died in 1318, but she was certainly still alive in 1333, when she sent a letter to her nephew Edward III.
Later historians portrayed Eleanor as a noble, virtuous, and just queen beloved of her subjects. For example, Thomas Costain in his The Three Edwards 1272-1377 says: "Edward's queen was greatly loved in the country...[there was] a warmth and sweetness about her which won all hearts...She was generous and thoughtful in the extreme..." However, the mother of all idealised depictions of Eleanor is to be found in Strickland's Lives of the Queens of England: "What heart, however, does not warm at the name of Eleanora of Castile?...Foreigner as she was, Eleanora of Castile entirely won the love and goodwill of her subjects..."
Strickland's work is a masterpiece of Victorian moralising, which divides the queens of England into the 'good ones', such as Eleanor of Castile and Philippa of Hainault, and the 'bad ones', such as Eleanor of Provence and Isabella of France. Poor Isabella is condemned thusly: "Since the days of the fair and false Elfrida, of Saxon celebrity, no Queen of England has left so dark a stain on the annals of female royalty, as the consort of Edward II, Isabella of France...Now [1326] the evil nature of Isabella of France blazed out in full view." Isabella was many things, but she sure as heck wasn't evil!
Unfortunately, this rosy picture of Eleanor of Castile is very wide of the mark. In fact, she was widely disliked in her own lifetime, viewed as greedy and grasping and willing to use quasi-legal methods to get hold of any lands she fancied. As this contemporary rhyme put it, Le Roy cuvayte nos deneres/Et la Rayne nos beaus maners ('the king covets our money/and the queen our lovely manors'). John Carmi Parsons' biography of Eleanor has a great chapter on opinions and depictions of her from her own lifetime until today, if anyone's interested in reading more on the subject.
Edward I and Eleanor left England for Gascony in May 1286 and didn't return until August 1289, that is, from when Edward of Caernarfon was two years and one month old to when he was five and four months. Fifteen months later, Eleanor was dead, and in the meantime, little Edward had barely seen her anyway. Devoted to each other Edward I and Eleanor undoubtedly were, but they were no great shakes as parents; on learning that their eldest son John, and his father Henry III, were dead, Edward is said to have lamented that he could have more sons, but he'd never have another father. (You could argue that this remark came back to bite him on the behind when three of his four sons died in childhood, and the only survivor, Edward II, proved to be manifestly unsuited to his position.) When their second son Henry was dying in the autumn of 1274, Edward and Eleanor didn't bother to ride thirty miles to see him - although Eleanor's Wikipedia page - scroll down to near the end - tries to justify this and their all-round performance as parents. (Unconvincingly, in my opinion, though you may disagree.)
Losing his mother very young was something Edward II had in common with Piers Gaveston, whose mother Claramonde de Marsan died in 1286 or 1287, when Piers was about four or five. Incidentally, there's no truth to the often-repeated story that Claramonde was burned alive as a witch; it was invented in the sixteenth century.
It's doubtful that Edward had many, if any, happy memories of his mother. I sometimes wonder what he thought of her, how much he knew of his Spanish origins, if he could speak any Castilian, if he took pride in his Spanish ancestry...
Eleanor was born as doña Leonor de Castilla, twelfth of the fifteen children of King Fernando III of Castile and León, by his second wife Jeanne de Dammartin, countess of Ponthieu. Her date of birth is often given as 1244, following Agnes Strickland, in her Lives of the Queens of England (volume 2, 1841), who states that Eleanor was "about ten" at the time of her marriage in the autumn of 1254. But Strickland cites no primary source for this statement, and in fact, Eleanor was older than that.
In his work De Rebus Hispaniae Libri IX, finished on 31 March 1243, don Juan Ximenez de Rada, Fernando III's chancellor and archbishop of Toledo, gives the names of Fernando and Jeanne's three children: Fernando, Eleanor (Leonor) and Luis, in that order of birth. If Eleanor had a younger brother born before 31 March 1243, she can't have been born any later than early 1242, and in fact, the likeliest date of her birth is late 1241. Fernando III and Jeanne were apart from the beginning of 1240 to February 1241 (Fernando was on military campaign).
Eleanor died on 28 November 1290. Edward I paid for forty-nine candle-bearers during her funeral. Why forty-nine, and not fifty? This implies that she was forty-nine at the time of her death, or close to it, and thirteen or almost when she married the future Edward I on or around 1 November 1254 - certainly not ten.
Eleanor's elder brother Fernando (1238/39 to circa 1264) and younger brother Luis (1242/43 to circa 1276) lived to marry and have children. Her youngest brothers Ximen and Juan, born about 1244 and 1246, died in infancy. Eleanor was the only one of Jeanne de Dammartin's five children to outlive her, and duly inherited the county of Ponthieu on her mother's death in 1279. In 1290, it passed to her six-year-old son, the future Edward II.
Eleanor bore at least fourteen, and perhaps sixteen, children. Historians and genealogists have made a right mess of them, adding children who never existed - Alice, confused with Alfonso, a name contemporary English scribes struggled with and often spelt in very odd ways; Juliana, never mentioned before about 1600; Blanche and Beatrice, supposedly the younger siblings of Edward II, who never existed (Edward was certainly Eleanor's youngest child); and getting the dates of birth and death of some of the others wrong. For example, Eleanor's eldest surviving daughter Eleanor, countess of Bar, was born in 1269, not 1264 as often stated, as this entry in the Patent Rolls proves. Eleanor's third surviving daughter Margaret, duchess of Brabant, is often said to have died in 1318, but she was certainly still alive in 1333, when she sent a letter to her nephew Edward III.
Later historians portrayed Eleanor as a noble, virtuous, and just queen beloved of her subjects. For example, Thomas Costain in his The Three Edwards 1272-1377 says: "Edward's queen was greatly loved in the country...[there was] a warmth and sweetness about her which won all hearts...She was generous and thoughtful in the extreme..." However, the mother of all idealised depictions of Eleanor is to be found in Strickland's Lives of the Queens of England: "What heart, however, does not warm at the name of Eleanora of Castile?...Foreigner as she was, Eleanora of Castile entirely won the love and goodwill of her subjects..."
Strickland's work is a masterpiece of Victorian moralising, which divides the queens of England into the 'good ones', such as Eleanor of Castile and Philippa of Hainault, and the 'bad ones', such as Eleanor of Provence and Isabella of France. Poor Isabella is condemned thusly: "Since the days of the fair and false Elfrida, of Saxon celebrity, no Queen of England has left so dark a stain on the annals of female royalty, as the consort of Edward II, Isabella of France...Now [1326] the evil nature of Isabella of France blazed out in full view." Isabella was many things, but she sure as heck wasn't evil!
Unfortunately, this rosy picture of Eleanor of Castile is very wide of the mark. In fact, she was widely disliked in her own lifetime, viewed as greedy and grasping and willing to use quasi-legal methods to get hold of any lands she fancied. As this contemporary rhyme put it, Le Roy cuvayte nos deneres/Et la Rayne nos beaus maners ('the king covets our money/and the queen our lovely manors'). John Carmi Parsons' biography of Eleanor has a great chapter on opinions and depictions of her from her own lifetime until today, if anyone's interested in reading more on the subject.
Edward I and Eleanor left England for Gascony in May 1286 and didn't return until August 1289, that is, from when Edward of Caernarfon was two years and one month old to when he was five and four months. Fifteen months later, Eleanor was dead, and in the meantime, little Edward had barely seen her anyway. Devoted to each other Edward I and Eleanor undoubtedly were, but they were no great shakes as parents; on learning that their eldest son John, and his father Henry III, were dead, Edward is said to have lamented that he could have more sons, but he'd never have another father. (You could argue that this remark came back to bite him on the behind when three of his four sons died in childhood, and the only survivor, Edward II, proved to be manifestly unsuited to his position.) When their second son Henry was dying in the autumn of 1274, Edward and Eleanor didn't bother to ride thirty miles to see him - although Eleanor's Wikipedia page - scroll down to near the end - tries to justify this and their all-round performance as parents. (Unconvincingly, in my opinion, though you may disagree.)
Losing his mother very young was something Edward II had in common with Piers Gaveston, whose mother Claramonde de Marsan died in 1286 or 1287, when Piers was about four or five. Incidentally, there's no truth to the often-repeated story that Claramonde was burned alive as a witch; it was invented in the sixteenth century.
It's doubtful that Edward had many, if any, happy memories of his mother. I sometimes wonder what he thought of her, how much he knew of his Spanish origins, if he could speak any Castilian, if he took pride in his Spanish ancestry...
07 May, 2008
Return
Just come back from a very relaxing holiday, and, amazingly, the weather was much better than expected. After an Edward II-free few days - a very odd state of affairs, because believe me, it's extremely seldom that Edward is not taking up lots of space rent-free in my head - I'm not exactly in the right frame of mind to be writing a proper post, and one will follow at the weekend, I hope. In the meantime, some more search strings that have hit the blog in the last few hours....
king edward ii of europe and edward 2 europe king
the reign of william the secondfor child
game+rank+forbidden+Edwardii+not war like
edward the second love quotes
King Edward I fan sight Love that misspelling.
why was king edwards nickname edward confession
Emasculation as torture and medieval torture and emasculation
SANDWICH SALVAGE
what kind of society would noblewomen live in Umm, noble society?
Pictures A Noble Women
what did a noblewoman do on a normal day
vindictive women of the fourteenth century
edward III isabellas point of view
thomas waite regicide what happened to his children
Normal blog service to be resumed asap!
king edward ii of europe and edward 2 europe king
the reign of william the secondfor child
game+rank+forbidden+Edwardii+not war like
edward the second love quotes
King Edward I fan sight Love that misspelling.
why was king edwards nickname edward confession
Emasculation as torture and medieval torture and emasculation
SANDWICH SALVAGE
what kind of society would noblewomen live in Umm, noble society?
Pictures A Noble Women
what did a noblewoman do on a normal day
vindictive women of the fourteenth century
edward III isabellas point of view
thomas waite regicide what happened to his children
Normal blog service to be resumed asap!
23 April, 2008
Blog Break and Searches
This will be the last post for a while, as I'm off on holiday on Thursday, to visit my parents in the Lake District. I would say 'Yay!' except that it's 20 or 22 degrees here (low 70s F) and sunny, and about 10 and raining in the Lakes. Typical.
Here's a post on weird blog searches. After a few weeks of really dull ones (I mean, hitting this blog by searching for 'Edward II' - where's the fun in that?) here are a few more interesting, recent ones that found this site. I think the prize for weirdness, though, goes to the search string that Ian Mortimer told me hit his website a couple of days ago: queen isabella - eaten by dogs. Poor Isabella!
queen isabella forced humiliation pics Please! This is a family blog.
queen isabella sex stories A pattern is emerging here. Honestly, the number of people who hit this blog searching for something sex-related is staggering. Most of them are not repeatable here. What do people expect from the blog - fourteenth-century porn?
pictures of murdered poeple I've said it before and I'll say it again: some people, oops, poeple, worry me.
junior does me
mistress hanging victims
emasculation by horses
King Edward II what kind of man was he?? I find the two question marks amusing.
wedding confession-how to conduct it "Before we exchange vows, there's something I have to tell you. I've always fancied your sister."
Did Edward II have a good look out of England In 1325, he took a good look over the Channel towards France and said "soddit, I'm not going over there."
some novels Gee, could you be a bit vaguer?
"laws that queen isabella's" Yes, that's exactly how it was typed.
MAGNA CARTA MONTFORT L AMAURY WATCH
"The Marches"+ what was built around them?
donees hair grees ???
gaveston's head in a basket
aura photos in gloucestershires
Sicily's Alfonso the Disparaging Was there really a king called 'the Disparaging'? What a great name. I can just see him walking around court belittling his courtiers, going "that surcoat you're wearing? It's crap. And your haircut? Crap, mate."
noble men of great character in history Remember, this search hit an Edward II blog. :-)
forty eight and knackered
john castile castille is common for virginia Umm, huh?
rules that queen isabella gave her "presents" They had to cost at least a hundred times most people's annual income?
10 Good things that Edward II did in his reign Ten?? You want ten?
examples of the bad things that Edward II did That's more like it.
was Edward II good with the country's money Does spending it all on Piers Gaveston count as 'good'?
Did edward II look after his empire
what were brothel tokens Don't think I want to know.
kid facts about queen isabella
the most important character in edward the second is gaveston Don't tell Isabella.
Steven Waddington naked
fun facts about what people eat in london
what did Joan of Kent's attire look like?
does Joan e. Higginbotham have any brothers or sisters?
methods of address how to called princess or greeting
how many different way can you spell Aleyse
Events with queen isabel changing us
1330s treatments for mental illnesses
mother marrying brother in law during middle ages
insulting nicknames for sarah
how to determine insulting nicknames If you're the earl of Warwick or Lancaster, and the man talking to you is Piers Gaveston, then it's an insulting nickname.
what king got killed by a hot poker up the butt
mediaeval king who died of poker up bottom
queen isabella pregnant with william wallace baby Here we go again. *Sighs*
Last but not least, I'd like to wish Edward II and Roger Mortimer whatever the opposite of 'Happy Belated Birthday' is - Friday 25 April is the day Edward turns 724, and Roger 721.
The next post will be on or about 7 May. See you then!
Here's a post on weird blog searches. After a few weeks of really dull ones (I mean, hitting this blog by searching for 'Edward II' - where's the fun in that?) here are a few more interesting, recent ones that found this site. I think the prize for weirdness, though, goes to the search string that Ian Mortimer told me hit his website a couple of days ago: queen isabella - eaten by dogs. Poor Isabella!
queen isabella forced humiliation pics Please! This is a family blog.
queen isabella sex stories A pattern is emerging here. Honestly, the number of people who hit this blog searching for something sex-related is staggering. Most of them are not repeatable here. What do people expect from the blog - fourteenth-century porn?
pictures of murdered poeple I've said it before and I'll say it again: some people, oops, poeple, worry me.
junior does me
mistress hanging victims
emasculation by horses
King Edward II what kind of man was he?? I find the two question marks amusing.
wedding confession-how to conduct it "Before we exchange vows, there's something I have to tell you. I've always fancied your sister."
Did Edward II have a good look out of England In 1325, he took a good look over the Channel towards France and said "soddit, I'm not going over there."
some novels Gee, could you be a bit vaguer?
"laws that queen isabella's" Yes, that's exactly how it was typed.
MAGNA CARTA MONTFORT L AMAURY WATCH
"The Marches"+ what was built around them?
donees hair grees ???
gaveston's head in a basket
aura photos in gloucestershires
Sicily's Alfonso the Disparaging Was there really a king called 'the Disparaging'? What a great name. I can just see him walking around court belittling his courtiers, going "that surcoat you're wearing? It's crap. And your haircut? Crap, mate."
noble men of great character in history Remember, this search hit an Edward II blog. :-)
forty eight and knackered
john castile castille is common for virginia Umm, huh?
rules that queen isabella gave her "presents" They had to cost at least a hundred times most people's annual income?
10 Good things that Edward II did in his reign Ten?? You want ten?
examples of the bad things that Edward II did That's more like it.
was Edward II good with the country's money Does spending it all on Piers Gaveston count as 'good'?
Did edward II look after his empire
what were brothel tokens Don't think I want to know.
kid facts about queen isabella
the most important character in edward the second is gaveston Don't tell Isabella.
Steven Waddington naked
fun facts about what people eat in london
what did Joan of Kent's attire look like?
does Joan e. Higginbotham have any brothers or sisters?
methods of address how to called princess or greeting
how many different way can you spell Aleyse
Events with queen isabel changing us
1330s treatments for mental illnesses
mother marrying brother in law during middle ages
insulting nicknames for sarah
how to determine insulting nicknames If you're the earl of Warwick or Lancaster, and the man talking to you is Piers Gaveston, then it's an insulting nickname.
what king got killed by a hot poker up the butt
mediaeval king who died of poker up bottom
queen isabella pregnant with william wallace baby Here we go again. *Sighs*
Last but not least, I'd like to wish Edward II and Roger Mortimer whatever the opposite of 'Happy Belated Birthday' is - Friday 25 April is the day Edward turns 724, and Roger 721.
The next post will be on or about 7 May. See you then!
16 April, 2008
Edward II is Extraordinarily Exasperating, and Intensely Annoyed
Rather a hotch-potch of a post today, but I was just thinking recently how even seemingly dry and dull letters and other primary sources of the fourteenth century can give us an insight into Edward II's character, attitudes and knowledge. Here are some examples...
Edward asked Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, to meet him at Westminster in late February 1310, to discuss a letter the Pope had recently sent him. Winchelsey duly arrived for the meeting, which Edward promptly postponed until 15 March. The day came and went, and Edward failed to summon Winchelsey to him for the meeting. Forced to hang around at Westminster waiting for Edward's summons, Winchelsey sent a messenger to the king, asking him for another appointment to discuss the letter. Edward sent his confessor John de Lenham to tell the archbishop that he needed more time to think about it. Finally, at the end of March, he sent word to Winchelsey that he would write to the Pope directly, and had no need to meet the archbishop after all. [Source: Winchelsey's Register]
Edward had kept Winchelsey hanging around fruitlessly at Westminster for an entire month. I bet the good archbishop muttered a few ungodly curses under his breath at his exasperating monarch.
In a letter to Philippe IV of France on 3 August 1309, Edward showed his intense annoyance with his father-in-law. Edward I and Edward II refused to acknowledge Robert Bruce as king of Scots (Popes Clement V and John XXII didn't either), but one of Philippe's messengers showed Edward letters in which Philippe referred to Bruce as 'king of Scots' in letters to Bruce himself, but as 'earl of Carrick' - Bruce's previous title - in letters to Edward.
Edward's letters to Philippe usually begin along the lines of "To the most excellent and most puissant prince, the noble king of France, our very dear and beloved lord and father, greetings and very dear affection". This one, about Philippe's letters to Bruce, opens abruptly with "To the king of France, greetings." (Al Roy de France, saluz). Quite a difference! Rather snippily, Edward tells his father-in-law "Regarding this matter, sire, kindly have regard for the honour of yourself and us." His letters to Philippe usually close with something like "very dear sire and father, may our lord grant you a good and long life", but this one contains no closing line at all. Edward couldn't express his displeasure with Philippe as directly as he would have liked, but all the same, his annoyance is as obvious as if he'd screamed it from the rooftops. [Source: Foedera]
For all his irritation with the French king, however, Edward himself was not averse to offering to acknowledge Bruce as king of Scots, when it served Piers Gaveston's interests. And in October 1311, Edward wrote to Philippe after Piers had been ordered into exile for the third time, asking for his support. This letter, not at all surprisingly, opens with flowery declarations of Philippe's all-round wonderfulness and Edward's great and undying affection for his beloved father. Hehehe. [Foedera]
On 11 June 1312, Edward sent Philippe a letter, declaring, amusingly, that he was "grievously annoyed by his subjects". Not, however, as annoyed as he would be a few days later, when the earls of Lancaster, Warwick, Hereford and Arundel killed Piers Gaveston. And probably not half as grievously annoyed as his subjects were with him. [Foedera]
On 16 October 1307, Edward sent a letter to the ruler of the Tartars, calling him "the most excellent prince, Dolgietus, illustrious king of the Tartars". Six weeks later, however, when he sent another letter, the ruler was upgraded to 'emperor' and not named: "To the most serene prince, the most puissant lord, emperor of the Tartars". Apparently, Edward and his advisers were uncertain of the current political situation in distant Tartary - not unreasonably. At the same time, he sent a letter to the king of Armenia, and although said king is called Edward's "dearest friend" (amico suo karissimo), he isn't named either. This is probably because King Leo and his predecessor and regent Hetoum were murdered in August 1307, and no-one at Edward's court knew who their successor was. (It was Oshin.)
[Foedera]
(Google brings up zero results for 'Dolgietus', except this post, presumably.)
When it came to Castilian politics, however, Edward was on much firmer ground. His cousin Fernando IV died in 1312, and was succeeded by his baby son Alfonso XI. For the next few years, a variety of regents battled it out for control of the kingdom, including doña María de Molina, don Pedro, don Juan, don Felipe, don Juan Manuel, don Juan el Tuerto, and doña María Díaz de Haro. All of these people were close relatives of Edward, one way or another, and his letters to Castile show a good knowledge of their relationships, positions and titles, and who was in power at any one time.
On 6 February 1325, Edward sent a letter to doña María Díaz de Haro, Lady of Biscay, who was his second cousin and the widow of his first cousin don Juan, regarding the planned marriage of his daughter Eleanor of Woodstock to Alfonso XI. The letter states:
"The king is cognisant of her good will towards him and that she is prepared to further the king's honour, as experience of the past has shown...He [Edward] rejoices greatly at the clinging together of such progeny sprung from his and her common stock, whilst they applaud each other with mutual honours and cherish each other with mutual counsel and aid." [Close Rolls]
It's the Edward II and Lady of Biscay Mutual Appreciation Society!
Edward asked Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, to meet him at Westminster in late February 1310, to discuss a letter the Pope had recently sent him. Winchelsey duly arrived for the meeting, which Edward promptly postponed until 15 March. The day came and went, and Edward failed to summon Winchelsey to him for the meeting. Forced to hang around at Westminster waiting for Edward's summons, Winchelsey sent a messenger to the king, asking him for another appointment to discuss the letter. Edward sent his confessor John de Lenham to tell the archbishop that he needed more time to think about it. Finally, at the end of March, he sent word to Winchelsey that he would write to the Pope directly, and had no need to meet the archbishop after all. [Source: Winchelsey's Register]
Edward had kept Winchelsey hanging around fruitlessly at Westminster for an entire month. I bet the good archbishop muttered a few ungodly curses under his breath at his exasperating monarch.
In a letter to Philippe IV of France on 3 August 1309, Edward showed his intense annoyance with his father-in-law. Edward I and Edward II refused to acknowledge Robert Bruce as king of Scots (Popes Clement V and John XXII didn't either), but one of Philippe's messengers showed Edward letters in which Philippe referred to Bruce as 'king of Scots' in letters to Bruce himself, but as 'earl of Carrick' - Bruce's previous title - in letters to Edward.
Edward's letters to Philippe usually begin along the lines of "To the most excellent and most puissant prince, the noble king of France, our very dear and beloved lord and father, greetings and very dear affection". This one, about Philippe's letters to Bruce, opens abruptly with "To the king of France, greetings." (Al Roy de France, saluz). Quite a difference! Rather snippily, Edward tells his father-in-law "Regarding this matter, sire, kindly have regard for the honour of yourself and us." His letters to Philippe usually close with something like "very dear sire and father, may our lord grant you a good and long life", but this one contains no closing line at all. Edward couldn't express his displeasure with Philippe as directly as he would have liked, but all the same, his annoyance is as obvious as if he'd screamed it from the rooftops. [Source: Foedera]
For all his irritation with the French king, however, Edward himself was not averse to offering to acknowledge Bruce as king of Scots, when it served Piers Gaveston's interests. And in October 1311, Edward wrote to Philippe after Piers had been ordered into exile for the third time, asking for his support. This letter, not at all surprisingly, opens with flowery declarations of Philippe's all-round wonderfulness and Edward's great and undying affection for his beloved father. Hehehe. [Foedera]
On 11 June 1312, Edward sent Philippe a letter, declaring, amusingly, that he was "grievously annoyed by his subjects". Not, however, as annoyed as he would be a few days later, when the earls of Lancaster, Warwick, Hereford and Arundel killed Piers Gaveston. And probably not half as grievously annoyed as his subjects were with him. [Foedera]
On 16 October 1307, Edward sent a letter to the ruler of the Tartars, calling him "the most excellent prince, Dolgietus, illustrious king of the Tartars". Six weeks later, however, when he sent another letter, the ruler was upgraded to 'emperor' and not named: "To the most serene prince, the most puissant lord, emperor of the Tartars". Apparently, Edward and his advisers were uncertain of the current political situation in distant Tartary - not unreasonably. At the same time, he sent a letter to the king of Armenia, and although said king is called Edward's "dearest friend" (amico suo karissimo), he isn't named either. This is probably because King Leo and his predecessor and regent Hetoum were murdered in August 1307, and no-one at Edward's court knew who their successor was. (It was Oshin.)
[Foedera]
(Google brings up zero results for 'Dolgietus', except this post, presumably.)
When it came to Castilian politics, however, Edward was on much firmer ground. His cousin Fernando IV died in 1312, and was succeeded by his baby son Alfonso XI. For the next few years, a variety of regents battled it out for control of the kingdom, including doña María de Molina, don Pedro, don Juan, don Felipe, don Juan Manuel, don Juan el Tuerto, and doña María Díaz de Haro. All of these people were close relatives of Edward, one way or another, and his letters to Castile show a good knowledge of their relationships, positions and titles, and who was in power at any one time.
On 6 February 1325, Edward sent a letter to doña María Díaz de Haro, Lady of Biscay, who was his second cousin and the widow of his first cousin don Juan, regarding the planned marriage of his daughter Eleanor of Woodstock to Alfonso XI. The letter states:
"The king is cognisant of her good will towards him and that she is prepared to further the king's honour, as experience of the past has shown...He [Edward] rejoices greatly at the clinging together of such progeny sprung from his and her common stock, whilst they applaud each other with mutual honours and cherish each other with mutual counsel and aid." [Close Rolls]
It's the Edward II and Lady of Biscay Mutual Appreciation Society!
09 April, 2008
The Death of Edward II
Ian Mortimer has recently added an article on the alleged death of Edward II to his website. Please, please read it!! Even if you're really sceptical about Edward's survival after 1327 - especially if you are - give it a read. You might be surprised that what you've always 'known' to be true isn't! If you can, read Dr Mortimer's biography of Edward III, The Perfect King, which goes into all this in more detail, or at least read this article. If you can get hold of English Historical Review, he's written a great piece, 'The Death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle', volume 120, number 489, from 2005. There's an abstract here.
And if you're in the mood to learn more about the oddities surrounding Edward's death, I've written a few posts on the subject, collected in the sidebar on the left under the heading 'Aftermath of Edward II's Reign'.
Over 1000 people have voted in my poll 'What happened to Edward II in September 1327?'. Fully 28% of you believe in some version other than the traditionally accepted one that Edward was murdered in Berkeley Castle in September 1327. And belief in the 'red-hot poker' story is down to 57%, which I'm really pleased about, considering that it's still often depicted as a certain fact, in published books and about nine zillion websites. A very heartening result.
And if you're in the mood to learn more about the oddities surrounding Edward's death, I've written a few posts on the subject, collected in the sidebar on the left under the heading 'Aftermath of Edward II's Reign'.
Over 1000 people have voted in my poll 'What happened to Edward II in September 1327?'. Fully 28% of you believe in some version other than the traditionally accepted one that Edward was murdered in Berkeley Castle in September 1327. And belief in the 'red-hot poker' story is down to 57%, which I'm really pleased about, considering that it's still often depicted as a certain fact, in published books and about nine zillion websites. A very heartening result.
05 April, 2008
A Bannockburn Book, And Some Novels
I've just started reading - and am thoroughly enjoying - Chris Brown's Bannockburn 1314: A New History, which came out a few days ago. It's a source-based work, with some great insights into Edward II, Robert Bruce and the events that led to the battle, very well-written and extremely informative. Highly recommended! Dr Brown has also written about William Wallace and Robert Bruce - more books to add to my ever-expanding TBR pile.
On the subject of Robert Bruce, I've recently discovered a series of novels about him called Rebel King, by Charles Randolph Bruce and Carolyn Hale Bruce. So far, three novels of a planned five-book series have been published - more information on the authors' very informative website. I ordered the Bannockburn one an age ago, from the US, and it's taking so long to arrive I can only assume some unfortunate postman is having to swim across the Atlantic to bring it to me. I'm dying to read it - all the novels have great reviews on Amazon.com.
And a couple of new(ish) novels of Edward II's reign, kind of, to tell you about...
Firstly, there's The Ravenous by W. B. Baker, set in Wales in 1316. Here's the synopsis from Amazon:
"Centuries of warfare had barely encroached upon Glamorgan's boundaries and any who dared its conquest met with bold resistance. Warriors lurking in the mountains of Wales invited all unwary trespassers to come and taste of death. Such was the case in 1316, when Edward II attempted to resurrect a United Kingdom after the execution of William Wallace. As Edward and his Nobles would all too soon discover, the rage that English garrisons uncovered across the valleys of Wales would prove to rival any fury of the Scots. Events and surroundings that would reveal the determination and true nobility of humankind."
I really enjoy histfict set in Wales (yay for Sharon Penman's Welsh trilogy!) so I'm definitely looking forward to reading this one. There's more information on the author here.
Secondly, there's The Queen's Tale by D. J. Birmingham, a novel of John de Bermingham. Bermingham is one of the men of Edward II's reign I always feel I don't know a lot about. He was an associate of Roger Mortimer in Ireland, and was made justiciar of that country in 1320. He's mostly known for defeating Robert Bruce's brother Edward at the battle of Dundalk in 1318, and sending his head to Edward II (Edward Bruce was a member of Edward II's household before he became king, a little-known fact). Edward II made Bermingham earl of Louth the following year in gratitude, and he ended up joining the retinue of the younger Despenser. Bermingham, one of the many sons-in-law of the earl of Ulster - Robert Bruce was another, as was Edward II's nephew the earl of Gloucester - was killed in 1329.
You can read an excerpt of Queen's Tale here - poor Isabella! :-)
On the subject of Robert Bruce, I've recently discovered a series of novels about him called Rebel King, by Charles Randolph Bruce and Carolyn Hale Bruce. So far, three novels of a planned five-book series have been published - more information on the authors' very informative website. I ordered the Bannockburn one an age ago, from the US, and it's taking so long to arrive I can only assume some unfortunate postman is having to swim across the Atlantic to bring it to me. I'm dying to read it - all the novels have great reviews on Amazon.com.
And a couple of new(ish) novels of Edward II's reign, kind of, to tell you about...
Firstly, there's The Ravenous by W. B. Baker, set in Wales in 1316. Here's the synopsis from Amazon:
"Centuries of warfare had barely encroached upon Glamorgan's boundaries and any who dared its conquest met with bold resistance. Warriors lurking in the mountains of Wales invited all unwary trespassers to come and taste of death. Such was the case in 1316, when Edward II attempted to resurrect a United Kingdom after the execution of William Wallace. As Edward and his Nobles would all too soon discover, the rage that English garrisons uncovered across the valleys of Wales would prove to rival any fury of the Scots. Events and surroundings that would reveal the determination and true nobility of humankind."
I really enjoy histfict set in Wales (yay for Sharon Penman's Welsh trilogy!) so I'm definitely looking forward to reading this one. There's more information on the author here.
Secondly, there's The Queen's Tale by D. J. Birmingham, a novel of John de Bermingham. Bermingham is one of the men of Edward II's reign I always feel I don't know a lot about. He was an associate of Roger Mortimer in Ireland, and was made justiciar of that country in 1320. He's mostly known for defeating Robert Bruce's brother Edward at the battle of Dundalk in 1318, and sending his head to Edward II (Edward Bruce was a member of Edward II's household before he became king, a little-known fact). Edward II made Bermingham earl of Louth the following year in gratitude, and he ended up joining the retinue of the younger Despenser. Bermingham, one of the many sons-in-law of the earl of Ulster - Robert Bruce was another, as was Edward II's nephew the earl of Gloucester - was killed in 1329.
You can read an excerpt of Queen's Tale here - poor Isabella! :-)
30 March, 2008
Gaveston's Return to England, 1312
Before I begin this post, about Piers Gaveston's return to England in early 1312 after his third exile, I have to get something out of my system. I feel like grabbing Edward II by the shoulders and shaking him and screaming "What are you doing, man?? You're tearing your kingdom apart! You're going to get him killed! I know you love him, but COME ON!!!" But that's often the effect Edward II has on me. I'm torn between wanting to hug him and wanting to smack him round the head.
Anyway...
As I wrote in my last post, Piers was sent into exile in early November 1311, and from the evidence available, seems to have accepted that it would last for at least a few years. However, in January 1312, he returned to England.
Why he did this is not clear. It may be that he only intended to slip into England for a little while, to see his wife Margaret de Clare, who was pregnant when he left, and their newborn child - then leave again once he knew they were well. It may also be that Edward recalled him, as the Vita suggests: "out of hatred for the earls he recalled Piers, swearing as he was wont on God’s soul that he would freely use his own judgement."
Unfortunately, as regular readers of this blog will know, Edward II had no judgement whatsoever.
The chronology of events is murky, but what seems to have happened is this. Edward spent Christmas 1311 at Westminster with Queen Isabella, and left a few days later, leaving her behind. He spent New Year at Windsor, and Isabella sent him 'precious gifts' there. Sometime in early January 1312, Edward left Windsor and headed north to Yorkshire, collecting his niece Margaret de Clare from Wallingford on the way. From Wallingford to York is 200 miles, a dreadful journey for the very pregnant Margaret, especially on winter roads.
Presumably, Edward knew that Piers was on his way back, and wanted to get Margaret out of the way of the Ordainers, who, furious at Piers' return, might use her as a hostage - or to ensure that Margaret gave birth far away from the Ordainers, so that Piers could slip into the country to see her and his child.
Margaret gave birth to Piers' daughter Joan, named after her mother and Edward II's sister Joan of Acre, on or around 12 January (so she was close to nine months pregnant when dragged on the long journey north, poor thing, and the timing suggests that they travelled very fast). Edward seems to have met Piers at Knaresborough on 13 January, and the two men rushed the seventeen miles to York that same day, almost certainly so Piers could see his wife and baby. (I'm following the interpretation of Pierre Chaplais from his book Piers Gaveston: Edward II's Adoptive Brother here.) A contemporary newsletter, undated, says that the king arrived in York 'this Thursday', and 13 January is the only Thursday that makes sense. When Piers returned to England, where he landed, and how he made his way to Knaresborough, is not known, except that he spent two nights in Nottingham on the way (J. S. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall 1307-1312).
Possibly, Piers intended to leave England once he had seen Margaret and Joan - this interpretation is not at all certain, but I do like the idea of Piers promising his wife that he'd be with her when she gave birth, despite the danger. But Edward II took the decision out of his hands. On 18 January 1312, Edward revoked his friend’s exile: Gaveston, "who was lately exiled contrary to law and custom, in which exile he was named as other than good and loyal, has returned to the kingdom by the king’s order and is ready to justify himself before the king, wherefore the king holds him good and loyal." (Close Rolls/Foedera). The bit "by the king's order" does, of course, suggest that Piers' return was Edward's idea.
Edward had his sheriffs proclaim the (good?!) news, and two days later, ordered them to restore Gaveston’s lands to him. Two memoranda were added: "this form [revoking the exile] was made by the king himself, and he took the writs as soon as they were made and put them on his bed" and "these writs were made in the king’s presence by his order under threat of grievous forfeiture" (Close Rolls). Evidently Edward's chancery clerks were reluctant to write out the writs - understandably - and he lost his temper and threatened them, typical Edward behaviour. The reference to putting the writs on his bed is further proof that he didn't trust his clerks, and wanted to keep the writs himself, just in case.
On 26 January, Edward tried to mollify his barons by ordering that the Ordinances, published the previous autumn, should be observed, "so far as they are not prejudicial to the king". (Close Rolls). However, according to the contemporary but undated newsletter, Edward met knights and other 'good men' (bone gentz) of Yorkshire, and "told them that what he had done and granted in London [agreeing to the Ordinances] was against his will and that he has revoked everything which the earls have done and ordained". Edward was playing a dangerous double game.
The Ordainers met in London in early February. Despite their fury with Edward, they were reluctant to make war on him, a thing not lightly done. To cut a very long story short, they made plans to capture Piers, and the earl of Lancaster slowly made his way north, organising jousting tournaments en route as a way of raising a large force of armed men. The task of arresting Piers was given to the earls of Pembroke and Surrey - two of Piers' least hostile opponents - as well as Robert Clifford and Henry Percy.
Meanwhile, Queen Isabella left Westminster and joined her husband in the north; Edward gave her £400 for her expenses on the journey, which took just under three weeks (to travel 200 miles!) Isabella send letters and gifts to Edward during her journey, including a basket of lampreys, via her messenger John Moigne. (Household Book of Queen Isabella). She reached York on or just after 21 February, whereafter she and Edward conceived Edward III.
Incredibly, Edward made overtures to Robert Bruce, and offered to acknowledge him as king of Scots if Bruce would agree to protect Piers. This is just incredible. I don't even have the words to describe what an incredible offer that was. And did I mention that this is totally incredible? Bruce refused, exclaiming "How shall the king of England keep faith with me, since he does not observe the sworn promises made to his liege men?…No trust can be put in such a fickle man; his promises will not deceive me." (Vita). Oops. Further proof that Edward II would do anything, anything, for Piers Gaveston. I wonder why he didn't just hand over the keys of his kingdom to the Ordainers while he was at it.
Edward and Piers, and their respective wives, remained in the north, unaware that the Ordainers were coming to capture Piers, and that he didn't have much longer to live...
Anyway...
As I wrote in my last post, Piers was sent into exile in early November 1311, and from the evidence available, seems to have accepted that it would last for at least a few years. However, in January 1312, he returned to England.
Why he did this is not clear. It may be that he only intended to slip into England for a little while, to see his wife Margaret de Clare, who was pregnant when he left, and their newborn child - then leave again once he knew they were well. It may also be that Edward recalled him, as the Vita suggests: "out of hatred for the earls he recalled Piers, swearing as he was wont on God’s soul that he would freely use his own judgement."
Unfortunately, as regular readers of this blog will know, Edward II had no judgement whatsoever.
The chronology of events is murky, but what seems to have happened is this. Edward spent Christmas 1311 at Westminster with Queen Isabella, and left a few days later, leaving her behind. He spent New Year at Windsor, and Isabella sent him 'precious gifts' there. Sometime in early January 1312, Edward left Windsor and headed north to Yorkshire, collecting his niece Margaret de Clare from Wallingford on the way. From Wallingford to York is 200 miles, a dreadful journey for the very pregnant Margaret, especially on winter roads.
Presumably, Edward knew that Piers was on his way back, and wanted to get Margaret out of the way of the Ordainers, who, furious at Piers' return, might use her as a hostage - or to ensure that Margaret gave birth far away from the Ordainers, so that Piers could slip into the country to see her and his child.
Margaret gave birth to Piers' daughter Joan, named after her mother and Edward II's sister Joan of Acre, on or around 12 January (so she was close to nine months pregnant when dragged on the long journey north, poor thing, and the timing suggests that they travelled very fast). Edward seems to have met Piers at Knaresborough on 13 January, and the two men rushed the seventeen miles to York that same day, almost certainly so Piers could see his wife and baby. (I'm following the interpretation of Pierre Chaplais from his book Piers Gaveston: Edward II's Adoptive Brother here.) A contemporary newsletter, undated, says that the king arrived in York 'this Thursday', and 13 January is the only Thursday that makes sense. When Piers returned to England, where he landed, and how he made his way to Knaresborough, is not known, except that he spent two nights in Nottingham on the way (J. S. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall 1307-1312).
Possibly, Piers intended to leave England once he had seen Margaret and Joan - this interpretation is not at all certain, but I do like the idea of Piers promising his wife that he'd be with her when she gave birth, despite the danger. But Edward II took the decision out of his hands. On 18 January 1312, Edward revoked his friend’s exile: Gaveston, "who was lately exiled contrary to law and custom, in which exile he was named as other than good and loyal, has returned to the kingdom by the king’s order and is ready to justify himself before the king, wherefore the king holds him good and loyal." (Close Rolls/Foedera). The bit "by the king's order" does, of course, suggest that Piers' return was Edward's idea.
Edward had his sheriffs proclaim the (good?!) news, and two days later, ordered them to restore Gaveston’s lands to him. Two memoranda were added: "this form [revoking the exile] was made by the king himself, and he took the writs as soon as they were made and put them on his bed" and "these writs were made in the king’s presence by his order under threat of grievous forfeiture" (Close Rolls). Evidently Edward's chancery clerks were reluctant to write out the writs - understandably - and he lost his temper and threatened them, typical Edward behaviour. The reference to putting the writs on his bed is further proof that he didn't trust his clerks, and wanted to keep the writs himself, just in case.
On 26 January, Edward tried to mollify his barons by ordering that the Ordinances, published the previous autumn, should be observed, "so far as they are not prejudicial to the king". (Close Rolls). However, according to the contemporary but undated newsletter, Edward met knights and other 'good men' (bone gentz) of Yorkshire, and "told them that what he had done and granted in London [agreeing to the Ordinances] was against his will and that he has revoked everything which the earls have done and ordained". Edward was playing a dangerous double game.
The Ordainers met in London in early February. Despite their fury with Edward, they were reluctant to make war on him, a thing not lightly done. To cut a very long story short, they made plans to capture Piers, and the earl of Lancaster slowly made his way north, organising jousting tournaments en route as a way of raising a large force of armed men. The task of arresting Piers was given to the earls of Pembroke and Surrey - two of Piers' least hostile opponents - as well as Robert Clifford and Henry Percy.
Meanwhile, Queen Isabella left Westminster and joined her husband in the north; Edward gave her £400 for her expenses on the journey, which took just under three weeks (to travel 200 miles!) Isabella send letters and gifts to Edward during her journey, including a basket of lampreys, via her messenger John Moigne. (Household Book of Queen Isabella). She reached York on or just after 21 February, whereafter she and Edward conceived Edward III.
Incredibly, Edward made overtures to Robert Bruce, and offered to acknowledge him as king of Scots if Bruce would agree to protect Piers. This is just incredible. I don't even have the words to describe what an incredible offer that was. And did I mention that this is totally incredible? Bruce refused, exclaiming "How shall the king of England keep faith with me, since he does not observe the sworn promises made to his liege men?…No trust can be put in such a fickle man; his promises will not deceive me." (Vita). Oops. Further proof that Edward II would do anything, anything, for Piers Gaveston. I wonder why he didn't just hand over the keys of his kingdom to the Ordainers while he was at it.
Edward and Piers, and their respective wives, remained in the north, unaware that the Ordainers were coming to capture Piers, and that he didn't have much longer to live...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)