18 September, 2017

Fourteenth Century England X

The tenth edition of the excellent series Fourteenth Century England*, a collection of academic essays which comes out every two years, will be published in April 2018, and it's on the Boydell and Brewer website now. I'm delighted to announce that the latest edition features an article by me, titled ''Bought by the King Himself': Edward II, his Chamber, his Family and his Interests in 1325/26'. I gave a paper based on my research for this article at the International Medieval Congress at Leeds in 2016. There are lots of insights into Edward and his household in his last chamber account of 1325/26, now held by the Society of Antiquaries in London, which I used to write the article.




Can't wait to see it in print! Also really looking forward to the rest of the articles, especially the one by Professor Seymour Phillips.

* I have to admit that the missing hyphen irritates me. Mentally I insert one every time I type the name.

08 September, 2017

The Murder of Sir Robert Holland, October 1328

Sir Robert Holland or de Holand was a knight of Upholland, Lancashire, born sometime around 1280. He was the steward of Edward II's first cousin Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and his close ally and perhaps friend, for many years. Thomas gave Robert lands and arranged his marriage to Maud la Zouche, one of the two daughters and co-heirs of Alan la Zouche (d. 1314). Robert and Maud's eldest son Robert the younger was born around 1312, and their second son Thomas, who married Edward II's niece Joan of Kent, in about 1314. They had a third son, Sir Otto Holland, a Knight of the Garter, and several daughters including Isabella, mistress of John de Warenne, earl of Surrey (d. 1347).

Robert Holland's long and close association with Thomas of Lancaster did not include following him into treason during the Contrariant rebellion in 1322, and instead he joined Edward II on or before 4 March, bringing men, horses and arms. To be fair to Robert, the king was holding one of his daughters - not named - at the Tower of London by 26 February 1322, almost certainly as a hostage. [CCR 1318-23, 525; CPR 1321-4, 75] By joining Edward before the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322, Robert saved himself from execution, but was imprisoned at Dover Castle and "charged with diverse excesses." He remained in prison for most of the rest of Edward II's reign, though at some point escaped from Northampton. [CPR 1327-30, 17] Robert was pardoned in 1327 by the new regime and restored to his lands, despite protests by Thomas of Lancaster's brother and heir Henry, now earl of Lancaster.

On 15 October 1328, a group of Lancastrian knights and adherents including Sir Thomas Wyther, John Tebbe, John le Irissche, John le Walsshe, Thomas Polgrom and Thomas de la Panetrie encountered Sir Robert Holland at Borehamwood in Essex, quarrelled with him, and decapitated him.They sent the severed head to Henry, earl of Lancaster, at Waltham Abbey before fleeing to High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire. It is not impossible that Henry ordered Robert Holland's execution – he was only fifteen miles away at Waltham when it happened – though it is perhaps more probable that the death occurred during an angry and violent row with Lancastrians furious at Robert's betrayal of Earl Thomas and that they had not planned to kill him. Still, there seems little doubt that Henry protected and sheltered the killers, and the macabre gift of the head sent to him suggests his men knew he would be pleased at the death of the man who had abandoned and betrayed his brother. Jurors appointed to inquire into the murder claimed rather suspiciously and implausibly not to know anything whatsoever about the circumstances of it or who had promoted it ("We dunno nuffin, guv, honest"). Henry was surely an accessory after the fact if not before, and the jurors likely did not think it wise to point a finger at the wealthy, powerful and royal earl of Lancaster or to investigate too closely a murder he was apparently condoning. John Tebbe was imprisoned for Robert's murder, but escaped, and went on campaign to Gascony with Thomas of Lancaster's nephew and Henry of Lancaster's son Henry of Grosmont in 1345/6 before he had been pardoned for the murder and his escape. [CPR 1345-8, 87] I suppose that means that Henry of Grosmont didn't exactly shed a tear over the death of the man who had abandoned his uncle.

So that was the end of Sir Robert Holland, though his widow Maud née la Zouche outlived him for many years, and went through a legal battle with Henry of Lancaster over the manor of Melbourne in 1330 (a battle won, not surprisingly, by Henry). Robert and Maud's second son Sir Thomas Holland (c. 1314-1360) really raised the family to greatness via his marriage to Joan of Kent: his sons, Robert's grandsons Thomas, earl of Kent (1350/51-1397), and John, earl of Huntingdon and duke of Exeter (c. 1352/55-1400), were half-brothers of King Richard II. Thomas, earl of Kent, married Henry, earl of Lancaster's granddaughter Alice Fitzalan in about 1364 when they were both still very young, and they were the parents of the duke of Surrey, the duchess of York and the countesses of March, Somerset and Salisbury, among others, and the ancestors of Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII. When Henry of Lancaster received Robert Holland's severed head in October 1328, he can hardly have have imagined that one day his granddaughter would marry Robert's grandson, and Robert surely cannot have imagined that he would be the ancestor of kings.

Sources
Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous 1308-1348, no. 1093
Annales Paulini, p. 342
Knighton's Chronicle 1337-1396, vol. 1, p. 449
The Brut, vol. 1, p. 257.

31 August, 2017

The Tale That Edward II Removed Isabella's Children From Her

I've written before about the deeply unpleasant tale invented in the late 1970s that Edward II cruelly removed his wife Isabella's three younger children John of Eltham, Eleanor of Woodstock and Joan of the Tower from her care in September 1324 when he confiscated her lands. See here and here. Search for this notion in vain in any primary source from the fourteenth century or any work whatsoever written before 1977; you won't find it, because it was made up by Paul Doherty in his doctoral thesis about Isabella that year. Since then, numerous other historians and novelists have repeated the tale as though it's certain fact: a prime example of how what we might call 'fake news' can spread and spread and be seen as 'truth' even though there is no evidence whatsoever in support of it.

Here's Doherty's claim repeated in his 2003 book Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (he insists on spelling the name Despenser as 'de Spencer' for some reason):



Here's the footnote, number 26, near the bottom of the page. See how Doherty cites 'E 403/201, mem[brane]s 14-15'.


I have gone to the National Archives and looked at this document (the E stands for Exchequer, incidentally). Here it is - that number looks a bit like an 8 but is actually a 3. The documents in series E 403 are Issue Rolls from the Exchequer of Receipt; see here and here.



Firstly, notice the date on the document: '16 Edw II, Michaelmas'. Michaelmas is 29 September and the period of the year following it; '16 Edw II' means Edward II's sixteenth regnal year, which ran from 8 July 1322 to 7 July 1323 (his father Edward I died on 7 July 1307, so Edward II's first regnal year ran from 8 July 1307 to 7 July 1308). So already we see that Doherty's claim must be wrong; this document belongs to September 1322, not September 1324. Therefore it cannot possibly relate to Edward II taking his children away from the custody of their mother at the time he confiscated her lands when he was at war with her brother Charles IV of France, which occurred on 18 September 1324. The Issue Rolls dating to the relevant time period, Michaelmas/September 1324, are E 403/210, 211 and 212, not E 403/201.

Secondly, there are no 'membranes 14-15' in this document; there are eight membranes in total, written in Latin, much of it in double columns, stitched together to make one longish roll. Here's a pic of what it looks like.



Below is the end of the document. It's clear from the photo that this is the end of the document. It has the number 8 written on it in pencil at the bottom (next to my fingers), because it's the eighth and last membrane. So where are the 'membranes 14-15' Doherty cited in his endnote?



As I pointed out recently, Edward II's niece Eleanor Despenser née de Clare was looking after Edward and Isabella's second son John of Eltham (b. 15 August 1316) by 3 July 1322 at the latest and perhaps earlier. This alone proves that John at least was not 'removed' from his mother in September 1324. This information is in plain sight in the Calendar of Memoranda Rolls, which have been translated into English and printed into a nice easy-to-read book. As far as I've seen up to now, E 403/201 doesn't even mention the king and queen's children, or the women (Eleanor Despenser and her sister-in-law Isabella Hastings) into whose custody the children were given supposedly against Queen Isabella's wishes. Seeing as the cited membranes do not actually exist, I don't know where this alleged evidence of 'the king cruelly removed Isabella children from her!' is supposed to be, or what the evidence itself is meant to consist of. Even if there is a payment somewhere to Isabella Hastings for looking after Eleanor of Woodstock and Joan of the Tower, I'm not sure how that would prove the children were 'removed' from the queen anyway. Or should we think there's some entry that records a payment to soldiers for 'going to the queen's household and cruelly ripping her children out of her arms'? I really don't think so. And the issue that the document dates to September 1322, not September 1324, remains.

It's entirely typical of Paul Doherty's work that he doesn't even appear to realise that Isabella Hastings, who had the care of Edward II and Isabella's daughters at some point, was not merely 'another court favourite' as he calls her, but Hugh Despenser the Younger's sister. This would have strengthened his argument. Isabella Hastings also had the care of at least one of Hugh the Younger's and Eleanor née de Clare's daughters in 1325, and their fourth daughter Margaret was raised in the household of one Thomas Houk. Are we supposed to believe that Hugh was also being 'cruel' to his wife by giving the custody of two or more of their daughters to his sister and someone else? Or do we think that maybe royal and noble women of the early fourteenth century weren't full-time primary carers of their children and that handing over their care to others was entirely normal and usual? And does giving custody of young royal or noble children to others only count as 'cruel' when the children are Queen Isabella's and we're desperate to peddle the false narrative of her endless tragic suffering victimhood at the hands of her nasty gay husband? Isabella herself never claimed, or even hinted, that her children had ever been 'removed' from her and given into the care of others against her will. She was in a good position to be clear on this point, no?

I am actually kind of appalled that a historian could think or pretend that a document of September 1322 dates to September 1324 in order to make up a fake story. I am appalled that someone was prepared to make up a tale that Edward II was so lacking in any humanity or decency that he would remove young children - his own children! - from their mother and primary carer solely to hurt and punish her. I am shocked that other, vastly better historians have repeated this tale and not even bothered to check the document being cited as 'proof' to make sure it really does say what Doherty claims it says, or even to check that the part of the document being cited actually exists in the first place. Or to question and think 'hang on, are we sure that the queen of England in 1324 was looking after her children? How could her children be 'removed' from her in the first place?' This is the same writer who gets Margaret de Clare's name wrong and calls her 'Joan of Gloucester', who gives Isabella three different ages in one short book, and who claims that Isabella refused to take an oath of loyalty to Hugh Despenser when the chronicle cited clearly states that it was Henry, Lord Beaumont who was imprisoned for refusing to take this oath. How incompetent do you actually have to be to mix up the queen of England and Lord Beaumont? You can't, is the answer; you can't be that incompetent. That must have been done deliberately, because no-one could possibly read a chronicle which has been translated into modern English and think that 'Henry Beaumont' means 'Queen Isabella'. There seems to be an astonishingly cavalier disregard for any kind of historical truth or accuracy and a wish to make up silly stories as melodramatic and salacious as possible. If this was being done in fiction, that's one thing, but the claim has been made in a university thesis and in a popular book published as non-fiction. The notion that Edward II was cruel to his own wife and his own children has been repeated as 'fact' for nearly forty years, and it is grossly unjust.

27 August, 2017

Dates of Birth in the Fourteenth Century

With the exception of royal children, whose dates of birth were usually, though not invariably, recorded - we don't know exactly when Edward II's queen Isabella of France or her brother Philip V were born, for example - dates of birth in the fourteenth century were mostly only recorded when someone inherited land. So if a person didn't inherit land, we don't know when they were born, and even when they did inherit land, we still don't always know when they were born. Edward II's first cousins Thomas and Henry of Lancaster, for example, were the greatest landowners in the realm and royal on both sides of the family, but we don't know their dates of birth: 1277/78 and 1280/81 respectively are the best guesses. And they were the sons and heirs of Edward I's brother Edmund and the brothers-in-law of Philip IV of France, hence pretty important. Henry's son Henry of Grosmont, first duke of Lancaster was probably the richest man in England in the fourteenth century, or at least the second richest after his brother-in-law the earl of Arundel, but his date of birth can only be estimated as sometime between about 1308 and 1314. Ish. Sometimes you get lucky and an important noble person's date of birth was written down by a local chronicler or monk - the chronicle of Wigmore Abbey is pretty useful for the Mortimer family, for example.

Generally, when a tenant-in-chief died and his or her heir was underage, the heir's age was recorded, either in the tenant's Inquisition Post Mortem or in the heir's proof of age when they reached 14 or 15 (women)* or 21 (men) and could take over their own lands, or both. For example: Henry, Lord Percy died in October 1314, and in his IPM his son Henry was said to have turned 13 at the last Feast of the Purification, which is 2 February (though the jurors of some counties thought he was as old as 15). The younger Henry proved his age after he turned 21, and there his date of birth was specifically recorded as 6 February 1301 - or rather, to be completely accurate, it was recorded as 6 February in Edward I's twenty-ninth regnal year.

We don't know the date of birth of Hugh Despenser the Younger even though he was the most powerful man in the country for much of the 1320s, because he never inherited his father's lands (the Despensers being executed within a month of each other in 1326), but we do know the date of birth of his older half-sister Maud Chaworth because she was the heir of her father Patrick and he died when she was a baby: on or around 2 February 1282. This, again, is the Feast of the Purification. Jurors on IPMs generally just gave the nearest major feast day to the heir's actual birthday, so as with Henry Percy above, Maud Chaworth may not have been born exactly on 2 February. The date of birth of Hugh the Younger's nephew Philip Despenser is known, ditto that of another nephew of his, Amaury St Amand, as their fathers died when they were underage and they inherited their lands. Hugh Despenser the Elder's date of birth is also known, 1 March 1261, because he was the heir of his mother Aline Basset and his father's cousin John Despenser, and they died in 1281 and 1275 respectively before he turned 21. Edward I's eldest grandchild Gilbert de Clare, heir to his father the earl of Gloucester and Hertford, was born between 23 April and 11 May 1291, according to his parents' IPMs.

* 14 if they were already married, 15 if not.

Some other examples: Isabella Verdon, daughter of Edward II's niece Elizabeth de Burgh née de Clare, was born on 21 March 1317, and proved her age on 20 February 1332; she was one of the four daughters and co-heirs of Theobald Verdon. Her older half-sister Margery Verdon was born on 10 August 1310 and proved her age on 10 March 1327. Philippa of Clarence, only child and heir of Edward III's second son Lionel and the great heiress Elizabeth de Burgh the younger, was born on 16 August 1355 and proved her age on 24 August 1369. Henry Percy, above, was born on 6 February 1301 and proved his age on 26 February 1323. John, Lord Mowbray was born on 29 November 1310 and proved his age on 31 July 1329 (he was allowed to take over his lands several years early as a special favour). Thomas Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, was born around 2 or 14 February 1314: the IPM of his father Guy in August 1315 stated that he had turned one at the Purification or the feast of St Valentine last past. Edmund Mortimer, third earl of March, was born around 25 January or 2 February 1352.

Edward II's half-brother Edmund, earl of Kent, had three or possibly four children: Edmund, John, Joan and perhaps (or perhaps not) Margaret. The younger Edmund died in infancy in 1331 and never inherited his father's title and lands, and hence his date of birth was never recorded. John the younger son proved his age when he was 21 in 1351 and demonstrated that he was born on 7 April 1330, nineteen days after his father's execution. He died on 27 December 1352, childless, and his heir was his elder sister Joan, later the mother of Richard II. The jurors on John's IPM stated that Joan had turned either 25 or 26 at the feast of St Michael in 1352, i.e. she was born around 29 September in 1326 or on the same date in 1327. She was not born in 1328; this was a mathematical miscalculation someone made decades ago when looking at John's IPM, which has been repeated ever since. This does at least give an indication as to which historians actually bother to look at the primary source evidence and work out Joan's correct date of birth rather than just endlessly repeating the error or wrongly claiming that there is no evidence for when she was born - in short. Even a new biography of her states that her date of birth is not known. Errrrrm. Joan was either the eldest or the second Kent child, and if she was born in September 1326 she was certainly the eldest and born almost exactly nine months after her parents' wedding. Somewhat curiously, though, Edward II's other half-brother Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk, left his two daughters Margaret and Alice as his heirs when he died in 1338, but their dates of birth were not recorded. Margaret gave birth to her first child in 1338, so is unlikely to have been born after 1322 or 1323. It's always a bit of a lottery with dates of birth and whether we know them or not. Mostly we don't. We do know when Thomas and Edmund were born as they were sons of a king: 1 June 1300 and 5 August 1301.

As I've pointed out here before, IPMs are incredibly helpful evidence, but they are also often annoyingly vague: Edward I's cousin Aymer de Valence was, according to the evidence of his mother's IPM, somewhere between 24 and 37 in 1307. Haha. He was over the age of 21, so to the jurors, it didn't matter a great deal. Thomas of Lancaster's IPM was belatedly held in 1327 five years after his execution, and his brother and heir Henry was said to be '30 and more' or '40 and more'. He was actually about 46 then. Often jurors would just say that the heir was 'of full age', which ultimately was really all that mattered. The Staffordshire jurors on the IPM of Henry of Grosmont, duke of Lancaster, said confidently in 1361 that his younger daughter Blanche had turned nineteen at the last Feast of the Annunciation, i.e. she was born on or around 25 March 1342, but a year later at the IPM of Blanche's sister Maud said that Blanche was '22 and more' in 1362 and thus contradicted themselves. Oh thank you. (It is impossible for Blanche to have been 22 or more in 1362.)

For the overwhelming majority of the population, dates of birth didn't matter a great deal or make much difference to anything and were never recorded. I love fourteenth-century proofs of age - see here, here, here and here - for the lovely insights into how people remembered things. 

25 August, 2017

Sleeping Arrangements

As I wrote recently, Edward II had six chamber vadletz/portours who slept inside his bedchamber, perhaps not every night (I assume they left when he wanted to be intimate with someone?), but often.

In January 1325, the six were: Will Shene, Henry Lawe, Roger aka 'Hogge' May, Walter aka 'Watte' Pramtout, John Petman and John Goez or Goetz or Gos.

In July 1326, they were almost the same: Will Shene, Henry Lawe, Roger May, Walter Pramtout, Henry Hustret and John Joctyman.

Will Shene married his wife Isode at Henley-on-Thames, where he came from, on 17 October 1325; Roger May's wife was called Anneis or Anneys, i.e. Agnes, sometimes nicknamed Annote, who also joined the king's chamber as a vadlet and sometimes stitched shirts for Edward; Henry Lawe's brother Syme was also a valet of the chamber, and their sister Alis Coleman brewed ale for the king; Henry Hustret's father Richard or Hick was also a valet of the chamber.

Edward rewarded the six men with a gift of cash in the summer of 1326 because they woke up at night whenever he himself woke. In January 1325, they were named as the men veillauntz e trauaillauntz oue le Roi. Veiller can mean staying awake, or staying up late, or working late and being diligent, so this means 'staying up late and working with the king'. As the men were lowborn and of low rank, I assume they didn't speak French, and that Edward communicated with them in English.

Here's the bit about 'working with the king', in all its glory. I love Edward's chamber accounts. Just wished more of them survived...


20 August, 2017

La Rosere, London: Edward II's House

In Edward II's chamber account of 1324/25, there are a few references to a house in London which he had recently bought or leased and was called La Rosere. It stood opposite the Tower of London in Southwark, on the other side of the River Thames. On 7 March 1325, Hugh Despenser the Younger gave a gift of twenty shillings to a group of carpenters working on the residence. In 1324/25, there are also references to a house called La Cage, near or next to La Rosere, which Edward also purchased.

There's an article about La Rosere here. Not a great deal is known about it (hence the shortness of this post!). Edward II also owned a cottage within the precincts of Westminster Abbey which he called Borgoyne or Burgundy, and according to the disapproving Westminster chronicler - who loathed Edward - jocularly called himself 'king of Burgundy'. Edward spent a lot of time in 1325 and 1326 at Burgundy. In July 1326, he personally supervised a group of twenty-seven workmen digging a ditch around the cottage - isn't that just sooooo Edward? - and bought drinks for them. Some months earlier at the beginning of December 1325 - the day after he rowed himself along the Thames from Westminster to visit his heavily pregnant niece Eleanor Despenser née de Clare at the palace of Sheen and two days after he sent his last-ever letter to his queen - Edward had personally supervised the purchase of carthorses at Burgundy. Because that was you did when you were a king of England called Edward II, obviously. You watched workmen digging ditches and servants buying carthorses. Ah, my unconventional Edward.

18 August, 2017

Three Letters from Edward of Caernarfon, 1305

Hundreds of Edward of Caernarfon's letters from the year 1304/05 fortuitously survive, as they do not for any other year before his accession in 1307, and were printed by Hilda Johnstone in the 1930s. Here are three of them; translations are mine, from the original French.

I find this first one, sent to his first cousin Thomas, earl of Lancaster on 22 September 1305, extremely poignant given that they later became deadly enemies and loathed each other. Edward never forgave Thomas for having Piers Gaveston killed in 1312, and in March 1322 had him executed.

"To the earl of Lancaster, greetings and dear affection. Very dear cousin, we hold you well excused that you have not come to us, and your illness weighs heavily on us, and if we can come to you we will do it gladly, to see and to comfort you. Very dear cousin, may our lord etc [have you in his keeping]. Given as above [in Windsor park, 22 September 1305]."

*

Another was sent to Edward's sister Joan of Acre, countess of Gloucester and Hertford, who was twelve years his senior, on 6 August 1305. This one came during a period of about a month when Edward I and his son had quarrelled badly, and Edward of Caernarfon was banished from court and most of his household dismissed. Joan had evidently invited her little brother to come and stay with her.

"To the noble lady his very dear sister, my lady Johanne, daughter of the noble king of England, countess of Gloucester and Hertford, from Edward her brother, greetings and dear affection. Very dear sister, we have well understood what Bartholomew du Chastel told us on your behalf, and we have give him our reply, which he will tell you. And know, very dear sister, that we would gladly see you, but our lord the king our father has ordered that we remain in the parts around Windsor between now and parliament, and until he orders something else, we wish to obey his commands in all things, without doing anything to the contrary. Very dear sister, may our lord have you in his keeping. Given as above [6 August]."

*

And the third to Hugh Despenser the Elder, on 19 September 1305. Hugh was then forty-four, and his son Hugh the Younger about sixteen or seventeen. Hugh the Younger is not mentioned at all in any of Edward's surviving letters this year; Edward more or less ignored his existence until many years later. Hugh the Younger married Edward's eldest niece Eleanor de Clare a few months after this letter, on 26 May 1306.

"Edward etc, to his dear friend Sir Hugh Despenser, greetings etc. We thank you dearly for the raisins which you sent us via your servant, which came to us [quickly, in time? I'm not sure what tot en temps means] this Sunday in broad daylight, before we went to eat, and could not have arrived at a better time. And please do not take it amiss that we are sending you such meagre..."

My photo of the next two lines of the letter is blurred and I can't read it very well, but he finishes by promising to write more as soon as he can, and the ending is "May our lord etc. Given as above."

04 August, 2017

Win a FREE copy of my new book!

I'm offering a free, signed hardback copy of my new book Long Live the King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II! All you have to do to win is leave a comment with your email address, either here or on my Edward Facebook page, or if you prefer, you can send me an email at: edwardofcaernarfon(at)yahoo(dot)com. It doesn't matter where in the world you are, as long as you have a postal address I can send the book to! You can ask for any dedication you like as well.

The closing date is Wednesday 16 August, midnight Central European Time. The following day, I will randomly select a winner and notify you via email, at which point you can give me your postal address and any special dedication you'd like me to write in the book.

Long Live the King is a thorough investigation of both a) Edward II's murder in 1327, what chronicles say about it, the fate of his alleged murderers, his funeral in Gloucester, etc, and b) his possible survival after that date, citing all the evidence in its favour. There's a long section called 'Arguments For and Against' both his murder and his survival, Appendices quoting the Fieschi and Melton Letters and other evidence in both English and the original French and Latin, and an Afterword and appeal for help by my friend Ivan Fowler of the Auramala Project. (Please check out their website; they're doing fab research into the possibility of Edward's survival in Italy.) My aim was to provide readers with all the wealth of evidence both for and against Edward's murder in 1327, and let you make up your own minds. It's intriguing that there's so much evidence for both. Will we ever be able to establish for certain whether Edward died at Berkeley Castle in 1327 or not?

Best of luck!

30 July, 2017

Edward II Goes Swimming?

There is evidence that Edward II thoroughly enjoyed swimming: in February 1303, for example, when he wasn't yet nineteen and was prince of Wales, he had to pay compensation to his fool Robert Buffard or Bussard for playing a trick on him in the river in Windsor (they were swimming in *February*), and in October 1315 the king spent a congenial month swimming and rowing in the Fens with lots of 'common people'.

I've been looking recently through one of Edward's chamber accounts, and there's more evidence of his enjoyment of swimming. In June 1324, at Thundersley in Essex, the royal valet Thomas Bower was paid for "what he did" (which sadly isn't specified) "when the king went into the water at Thundersley." I'm not at all familiar with Essex so am not sure which water this means. Maybe it was a hot summer and Edward was cooling off by plunging into the nearest body of water. Unless 'went into the water' means that the king fell off a barge or boat and Thomas Bower saved him, and he wasn't going swimming at all. I know I've seen another reference to Edward going into the water in the same chamber account, but darned if I can find it now. I'll post it here if and when I ever do.

Three rather intriguing entries from the same account record payments from Edward II to "the women of Lambeth, singing in the water of the Thames in the company of Burgeys de Till." Burgeys was one of Edward's chamber vadletz, and came from Gascony. Women of Lambeth and a man from the south of France singing in the water of the Thames? The mind boggles. At Christmas 1324, Edward played something called rafle, no idea what that is, with Burgeys and two of his chamber squires called Giles of Spain and Garsy Pomit. Garsy was also a Gascon. What I love about Edward's chamber accounts is that the same servants pop up over and over, so that after a while you get to know who they are, and I know from another chamber account that Garsy had an adult son. Burgeys de Till and Giles of Spain appear in another entry: they were performing some kind of act with fire for Edward at his Westminster cottage of Burgundy in February 1325, but it went horribly wrong, and they burned their arms. Ouch.

And some more nice little snippets from the same source:

On Edward's fortieth birthday, 25 April 1324, at his favourite residence of King's Langley in Hertfordshire, the king rewarded two young members of his household with five shillings because they had "found and arrested three thieves." The two young men were called Janekyn and Jakynet, both nicknames for men called John. Well done, the Johns!

Two days later, Edward gave forty shillings to a married couple going on pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela.

In May 1324, Edward's painter Jack of St Albans - who crops up a fair bit in the records - received forty shillings for painting scenes from the life of Edward's father Edward I in the painted hall of Westminster Palace (I've heard of the Painted Chamber but this definitely says 'hall'. though I assume it was the same place).

There are references to Edward's house La Rosere, which was in London on the opposite side of the Thames to the Tower, which he was building or renovating in 1324/25. Hope to look at La Rosere again in a future post.

23 July, 2017

The Lancaster Brothers

A quick post about Edward II's first cousins Thomas and Henry, brothers of the house of Lancaster.

Thomas and Henry were the sons of Edmund, earl of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby, second son of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence and the younger brother of Edward I. Edmund was born in January 1245, and in about late 1275 married his second wife Blanche of Artois, dowager queen of Navarre and niece of Louis IX of France. Blanche had a daughter from her first marriage, Joan I, queen of Navarre in her own right, born in 1273. Joan married Philip IV of France and was the mother of Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV, kings of France and Navarre, and of Isabella of France, Edward II's queen. It's amazing how many people miss the fact that Thomas and Henry of Lancaster were Isabella's uncles, the younger half-brothers of her mother, as well as the first cousins of her husband Edward II.

The dates of birth of the Lancaster brothers are not known, but Thomas was probably born in late 1277 or 1278, and Henry in 1280 or 1281. There was a third brother John, born before May 1286 when he is mentioned on the Patent Roll, who is almost entirely obscure as he lived his whole life in France and died there in 1317, childless; his elder brother Henry was his heir. Thomas of Lancaster married Alice Lacy in 1294, and via her inherited the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to add to the three he already had; she was abducted by the earl of Surrey in 1317, or more probably left of her own accord, and the couple had no children. Henry married Maud Chaworth on or before 2 March 1297 when she was fifteen or almost and he about sixteen. She was also an heiress, though not nearly as grand as Alice Lacy, and brought Henry lands in the south of England and Wales. Henry and Maud had seven children, six daughters and one son, the great and magnificent Henry of Grosmont, first duke of Lancaster. (If you've ever gained the impression here that I'm madly in love with Duke Henry, you'd be entirely correct.) Henry and Maud were the ancestors of much of the English nobility of the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries - and also, probably, of numerous people alive today.