Medieval Easter

This will be my last post before I take a couple of weeks off to have a holiday and do a bit of research before returning with some new and (hopefully) interesting articles. Planned future posts will be about: Nicholas de Lytlington - the possible illegitimate son of Hugh the younger; Thomas of Lancaster; Roger de Mortimer and whatever else takes my fancy while I’m chomping on very un-Medieval chocolate.

Meanwhile, here’s a post on Easter


Easter Celebrations


After the strictures and fasting of Lent, the arrival of Easter Sunday must have been an occasion to be looked forward to. At last, everyone was allowed to eat meat, dairy and eggs again as well as enjoy music, dancing and especially Passion Plays - dramas about the Resurrection.

Of course, it was a religious day too - one of the three most holy days of the year (Christmas and Whitsunday being the other two). The faithful were expected to attend church - sometimes as the sun rose - to celebrate the Resurrection of Christ. This was a day when baptisms were carried out, clergy invested and kings crowned But it was also seen as a day of new beginnings in more secular terms. New clothes were worn, as well as being given as gifts, and people paraded them to show their new finery. It was also a tradition that servants gave their masters a small gift - such as a newborn animal, and in return they would be invited to a feast.

Eggs assumed a central role, possible a carry-over from ancient Pagan fertility traditions. Having been off the menu for Lent, they suddenly appeared everywhere. All those that had been laid over the fasting period had been hard-boiled to help preserve them and these were now coloured and painted and given as gifts. In 1265, Eleanor de Montfort, the Countess of Leicester bought a quantity of 3700 eggs for the Easter festivities. Later on in the year, of course, she would have far less to celebrate after her husband’s defeat and death at the Battle of Evesham. In 1307, Edward I is said to have given his household a total of 450 such eggs, some of them covered with gold leaf. It’s quite possible that the same thing carried on with Edward II too, although so far I have not found any record of it (still searching!).

Other royal traditions were also passed down from father to son. On Easter Monday, Edward II, like his father before him, allowed himself to be captured in bed by his Queen’s ladies who then held him ‘prisoner’ until a ransom was paid. You can imagine the hilarity this would have caused, not to mention the illicit nature of having so many women in the King’s chambers. I would like to bet that the Church would not have approved of such frivolity on a holy holiday!

After being meatless for some time (and probably thoroughly sick of fish!), households also ate more meat than usual on Easter Sunday. For example, the household of Richard de Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford in 1289 managed to get through 208 pigeons, three fatted deer, 1400 eggs and large amounts of chickens, beef and kid. Such feasts would have had many egg-based dishes but, obviously, not much fish. I have found it extremely difficult to track down any recipes that are specifically for Easter (as opposed to the several I found for Lent). However, I have found mention of a specific kind of pudding made with eggs and the newly-emerging leaves of the tansy herb. Not surprisingly this is called Tansy Pudding or Tansy cake. This is a recipe I found in an old herbal:

-'A Tansy-
'Beat seven eggs, yolks and whites separately; add a pint of cream, near the same of spinach-juice, and a little tansy-juice gained by pounding in a stone mortar; a quarter of a pound of Naples biscuit, sugar to taste, a glass of white wine, and some nutmeg. Set all in a sauce-pan, just to thicken, over the fire; then put it into a dish, lined with paste, to turn out, and bake it.'

Personally, I think I’d rather stick to my Easter eggs!

Have a Happy Easter all, and I’ll see you in a couple of weeks (with a couple of pounds extra in weight, I expect!)

The Battle of Boroughbridge and its Consequences

Another anniversary in the reign of Edward II - this time the Battle of Boroughbridge - fought on 16th March 1322. It was a small battle and probably didn't last very long, but its consequences for Edward and the Despensers - not to mention a number of England's nobility - were important and far-reaching. I've tried to explain it as simply as possible as well as look briefly at the possible reasons for the tyranny of the regime afterwards.

By the way this was put together (pics and text) at 1.23 am after a few glasses of wine (all in a good cause) so please excuse any typos that may have escaped. Also, apologies for the fuzzy battlefield diagram - it was my first attempt at doing something in Adobe Illustrator and I don't think I've quite got the hang of it yet!


Context

In 1321, after King Edward II had been forced to exile his favourites, the Despensers by Parliament, the rebellious baronial force who had been responsible began to fall apart. Edward, seeing an opportunity to profit by their lack of co-ordination and co-operation, started to pick his enemies off, one by one. He first turned his attention to the Welsh Marches and in particular Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore and his uncle, Roger de Mortimer of Chirk. The campaign was successful and both Mortimers were eventually forced to surrender to Edward at Shrewsbury on 22nd January 1322. They were guaranteed that their lives would be spared by Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, although he had had no authority to do so from the King.

The royal forces, led in the field by the Earls of Kent and Surrey, then turned their attention northwards, towards the earl of Lancaster, probably the biggest thorn in Edward’s side. By the time Edward and his army had reached Lichfield, his ranks had been swelled from men loyal to him from all over the country and from France as well. To complete his retinue, the Despensers returned from exile and joined him there. He now seemed unstoppable and Lancaster began to suffer the first desertions, including his steward Robert de Holand. Even so, the king’s cousin still refused to surrender.

The first clash came when Edward’s army besieged the rebel-held Tutbury Castle. It was here that Edward’s former favourite, now turned traitor Roger Damory sustained serious wounds. He was captured and Edward pardoned him, perhaps swayed by sentimental memories of their once close friendship. But Damory’s wounds were so severe that he died a few days later.

Lancaster was persuaded by his remaining allies that the only course of action left to him now was to flee north and seek sanctuary - and perhaps help - from the Scots. His best route, they told him was along the Great North Road via the town of Boroughbridge. However, Edward had spies within Lancaster’s ranks and one of these found out Sir Andrew de Harclay, sheriff of Carlisle and told him of Lancaster’s plans. De Harclay immediately summoned up a force of around 4000 men and marched south to head the rebels off at the bridge just north of the town of Boroughbridge.

Lancaster’s men numbered for certain about 700 knights as well as an unknown number of men at arms. Although at first glance Lancaster seemed outnumbered, 700 knights was still an impressive amount of heavy cavalry and if their retinues and foot soldiers were counted in it would have probably been much more. On the other hand, Harclay had fewer mounted knights and more archers and pikemen. However, the biggest factor in the battle was not the numbers but the terrain.

Boroughbridge bridge was a narrow wooden structure - far too narrow for a mounted cavalry charge. This was to Harclay’s advantage and he knew it: as long as he could hold the bridge, he had the advantage. The only other possible way of crossing the river was at a ford (still not positively identified today) a short distance away. But Harclay was aware of this too and intended for it to be as well defended as the bridge.

It was late in the day on the 16th March when Lancaster came into the town of Boroughbridge, intending to rest for the night before pressing on. However, his intelligence had been less efficient than Edward’s and he hadn’t realised the threat that lay in front of him. It must have been a great shock therefore, when he arrived and found that he had already been out-manoeuvred.

The Battle

Once Lancaster realised that Harclay held the bridge in front of him, thereby blocking off his retreat from the armies of the earls of Kent and Surrey, he knew his situation was dire. He attempted negotiations to try and get Harclay to change sides but this failed and he was left in a desperate plight. He could not retreat yet, with the narrow bridge blocked in front of him, an all out attack - one that was tactically sheer madness - was the only course left open to him.

Harclay’s plan to hold the bridge was simple. He sent his horses to the back and employed his pikemen and knights on foot in a schiltrom (shield formation) to hold the bridge. Just in case Lancaster attempted to cross at the ford further along the river Ure, he sent more archers and pikemen to make a stand there.

The rebels left the town and headed for the river, forming two attack positions: one at the bridge led by Hereford and one at the ford led by Lancaster. It is just possible that Lancaster thought that if he could get his heavy cavalry across the Ure he could then perform a pincer movement, attacking Harclay’s troops from the back and allowing Hereford to take the bridge.

If Harclay had been waiting for the action to come to him, he didn’t have to wait long. Hereford and some of his knights charged the bridge on foot, in advance of the rest of his troops. Although an act of bravery, this was to prove a fatal - and foolish - mistake as they were immediately cut down by the pikes and archers on the other side. Hereford was killed, as were two other knights and his standard bearer. Another - de Clifford -(Hereford’s son-in-law) was seriously wounded but managed to get away. In a short time, Hereford’s men had lost their leader and, in effect, their morale.

Meanwhile, at the ford, Lancaster planned to charge across the width of the river, hoping to drive any resistance back through the sheer force and strength of the attack. However, Harclay’s archers let loose a tremendous arrow storm with their longbows, and Lancaster’s knights were forced to retreat even before they got to the water’s edge. The ensuing chaos prevented Lancaster from reforming for another attack and he had no choice but to negotiate a truce with Harclay before night fell. It was agreed that Lancaster would be allowed to retreat to Boroughbridge town for the night and in the morning he would decide whether to fight again or to surrender.

While it has been suggested that Harclay’s leniency in allowing the truce was due to his previous sympathies towards Lancaster and his cause, I think that this is unlikely in the circumstances. It was getting dark and Lancaster was, to all effects, trapped. Any further advance on Harclay’s part would not only have been un-necessary, but also foolhardy in that he would have risked more lives. He did not take a soft approach towards Lancaster: he took a soldier’s approach.

During the night, the rebel force’s numbers became depleted by deserters - particularly from Hereford and de Clifford’s ranks. On the other hand, Harclay was reinforced by Sir Simon de Ward, the High Sheriff of Yorkshire and his men. On the next morning, at first light, Harclay and Ward entered Boroughbridge and demanded Lancaster’s surrender. Despite the odds he still refused and attempted to seek refuge in Boroughbridge chapel. It was to no avail: he was captured, stripped of his armour and sent, by water, to York. Other rebels attempted to flee the town disguised as peasants, but, according to accounts no-one of any importance managed to escape. These prisoners of lesser value were sent to York by foot.

Aftermath

Edward ordered Lancaster to be brought to him at Pontefract Castle, which had recently surrendered. The King and both Despensers presided over a summary trial in which Lancaster was not allowed to speak in his own defence. Of course he was judged to be guilty and sentenced to be drawn, hung and beheaded. At this point Edward stepped in and changed the sentence to beheading, out of respect for Lancaster’s royal blood. The rebel lord was then dressed in a retainer’s surcoat, placed on an ass and taken a mile away, where the sentence was carried out in front of the King.

Lancaster’s was not the only execution. Thirty other rebels, including six northern barons were tried and executed, including: Bartholomew de Badlesmere; Sir Bartholomew Ashburnham; Sir Henry le Tyeys; Sir John de Mowbray; Sir Roger de Clifford; Sir Henry de Willington; Sir Henry de Montfort and Sir Francis Aldenham.

Consequences

Although it was a small battle, as far as battles go, Boroughbridge was extremely important to Edward II as it eliminated most of the opposition against him in one go. The rebel coalition had fallen apart at the seams: the two Mortimers were in prison, as was Audley; Damory was dead as was Hereford and de Clifford and Lancaster had been executed.

With their enemies wiped out there was now nothing to stop Edward and the Despensers carrying on as before. Except now, perhaps fuelled by revenge, the younger Hugh Despenser became even more ruthless, pursuing the widows and families of the rebels for land and enforcing recognizances designed to cause crippling debt. For example, he forced his own sister-in-law, Elizabeth Damory (Eleanor’s sister), to hand over her valuable lordship of Usk in return for the less valuable one of Gower. He consequently then confiscated Gower from her and gave it to William de Braose, it’s former owner, leaving her with nothing.

Strangely, the man who would eventually turn out as Edward’s deadliest enemy - Roger de Mortimer, was still alive. He and his uncle were eventually brought to trial in July 1322. There they were found guilty and condemned to death (despite the assurances given to them by Pembroke at their surrender). But for some reason, Edward decided to spare their lives - commuting the sentence to life imprisonment and forfeiture of their estates instead. Edward’s merciful change of heart was perhaps to prove one of his most serious mistakes, as he would soon realise when the younger Mortimer escaped from the Tower of London and, in four years time, pursued him and Despenser across England.

I often wonder about the decision of Edward to spare Mortimer. I’m sure that Despenser would have wanted him dead, especially because of the family blood feud between them (Mortimer’s grandfather killed Hugh’s in 1265). Oh to be a fly on the wall then when Edward decided on clemency: Hugh must have not been best pleased, to say the least. Historians have also been quick to criticise Edward for not taking the opportunity after Boroughbridge to make peace with his remaining barons. While it is true that he may have let Despenser get away with tyranny, it is also interesting to try and see things from his perspective. His execution rate could have been much, much higher - but instead he pardoned many of the lesser Contrariants (rebels) and some even changed sides, openly supporting the King and his favourites.

The persecution of the Contrariant families can also, to an extent, be understood in a political way. A family with rebel tendencies could possibly, after a time, have started new fires of rebellion. By taking away their land and fining them to the hilt, Edward and Despenser were also ensuring that any potential future rebellion would fail from lack of funds. In a nutshell, desperate times called for desperate measures (whether right or wrong), and in turn the desperate measures eventually had the opposite effect of what was intended and created another desperate time!

Nevertheless, it is tempting to speculate that if Mortimer had been executed instead of escaping, and if Isabella hadn’t gone to France, the policy of oppression might just have worked, and Edward and the Despensers would have stayed in power for much, much longer.

Pictures:
Top right: The arms of de Harclay (St Georges Cross with a martlet sable in the top corner.
Middle left: The Battle lines at Boroughbridge as envisaged by the Battlefields Trust. Note - Lancaster's line is not shown at the site of the Roman ford in this diagram but in another possible location.
Bottom Right: A Painting of Pontefract Castle as it was in the 17th Century - jusst before it was demolished.

Sources: UK Battlefields Resorce Centre - http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/medieval/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=7

King Edward II by Roy Martin Haines (Mc-Gill Queen's University Press, 2003)

The Greatest Traitor by Ian Mortimer (Pimlico , 2004)

Lent in the 14th century

As we are now slap bang in the middle of Lent, I felt a post on how this period was ‘celebrated’ in the Middle Ages was called for.

Lent then, like now, is a period of approximately 40 days, starting on Ash Wednesday and ending at Easter. (I shall talk in the past tense now even though some things are still relevant today) It was a time of penance and reflection so that people could prepare themselves for the celebration of the Resurrection. Forty days approximated to a tenth of the year (OK, not accurate, but close enough). A tenth was the amount that farmers gave to the church from the produce of their physical labour, and this was known as a tithe. Therefore the days of Lent were also known as Tithing days, when the faithful were expected to give a tenth of their year to God.

Lent was a time of fasting and prayer - or at least it was supposed to be. There were other fasting days too - the period of Advent, for example, and certain days of the week (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday) were allocated as days when no meat could be eaten. However Lent had stricter rules and must have been a pretty miserable time. For a start, as in the other fast days, no meat that came from either beast or fowl could be eaten. Fish however, because it came from the water and was therefore considered free of sin, could be partaken. Animal products, such as eggs, butter and milk were also banned; instead almond milk and olive oil was used in greater quantities than normal. And instead of the normal two main meals a day, there was supposed to only be one. You also need to bear in mind the time of the year - most of the stored fruit and vegetables were getting past their best and a great deal of flesh and fish left in the pantries were salted. Other activities were also meant to be curtailed during this time: music, dancing and sexual intercourse among them. However, as Edward III was conceived during Lent, obviously this was not always adhered to!

Certain persons were absolved of fasting because of their physical state: the very old, sick, children and pregnant women. Even then they had to obtain a dispensation from the church. It should be noted that dispensations could also be bought, and this proved quite a lucrative time of year for the papal coffers!

Of course, for those who observed the no-meat rule, fish, fish and nothing but fish could get pretty boring. Cooks became quite creative with spices to try and zest things up a bit, and, to be fair, there was quite a variety of fish on offer: herring; mackerel; conger eel; plaice; salmon; shellfish; cod; lamprey; mullet; dory; turbot; barbel; dace; pike; fresh water eel; whiting; haddock and ling could all have been on the menu in the 14th century. Nevertheless, some did try and get round the meat ban by claiming that the tail of the beaver could be counted as a fish because the beaver lived in water. Likewise, it was argued that the barnacle goose could be eaten because it developed out of a barnacle and was therefore of the sea!

Snacking on food outside of the ‘official’ meal was also supposed not to happen. Luckily, ‘snacks’ did not include comfits (for example, dates in sugar), raisins, dates and sugar candy, so the rich, at least, could stave off some hunger pangs. But even with all the inventive ways people found to bypass some of the Lenten strictures, they must all have been glad when it ended - and that, of course, was with the plentiful feast (with lots of meat and eggs!) of Easter.

And just so you can see the sort of food that was eaten here are a couple of recipes (ones that I could actually understand!) suitable for Lent from the late 14th century ‘cook book’ - The Forme Of Cury:


FOR TO MAKE A POTAGE OF RYS.

Tak Rys and les hem and wasch hem clene and seth hem tyl they breste
and than lat hem kele and seth cast ther'to Almand mylk and colour it
wyth safroun and boyle it and messe yt forth.

(Approximate translation:

Take rice, sort it and wash it and boil it until the grains burst. Then let them cool. In the meantime set some almond milk to boil, colouring it with saffron. When it has boiled, serve it forth (one assumes on top of the rice). )


CRÈME OF ALMAUNDES.

Take Almaundes blaunched, grynde hem and drawe hem up thykke, set hem
ouer the fyre & boile hem. set hem adoun and spryng [1] hem wicii
Vyneger, cast hem abrode uppon a cloth and cast uppon hem sugur. whan
it is colde gadre it togydre and leshe it in dysshes.

[1] spryng. sprinkle.

(Approximate translation:

Take some blanched almonds, grind them up and add a little water. Put this over the fire and bring to the boil (I would imagine this would also need constant stirring). Take off the heat (when thickened), sprinkle with vinegar and lay the mixture on a cloth (this absorbs the excess liquid). Spread sugar on it. When it is cold, gather it together and slice it into dishes.)

Taken from The Forme of Cury, A Roll of Ancient English Cookery, compiled about A.D 1390, by the Master-Cooks of King Richard II. By Samuel Pegge (circa 1780) and downloaded from The Project Gutenberg.

If you are interested in medieval cookery I have a found a couple of good sites on the web:

The Thorngrove Table: Personal Adventures, Discoveries and Disasters in Medieval and Modern Cuisine
http://thorngrove.typepad.com

and

Medieval Cookery

http://www.medievalcookery.com/index.shtm

Sources:
The Forme of Cury (see above)
Food and Feast in Medieval England by Peter Hammond (Sutton Publishing, 1993)
Medieval Cookery: Recipes and History by Maggie Black (English Heritage, 2003)
Living and Dining in Medieval Paris by Nicole Crossley-Holland (Cardiff University of Wales Press, 1996)
The Great Household in Late Medieval England by C.M. Woolgar, (Yale University Press, 1999)

and the websites mentioned above.

NEWSFLASH - THE DESPENSERY is OPEN!

At last, after weeks of fiddling about, changing templates and going cross-eyed with HTML code (no, I really don't know what I'm doing!), my other blog site THE DESPENSERY is up and running - or at least warming up for action.

THE DESPENSERY is the (colourful)place for the lighter side of Medieval life and includes funnies, extracts from my fiction and amateur art. Coming soon - Lady Despenser's Diary (a tongue-in-cheek behind the scenes account of court life with Hugh and Ed) as well as reviews.

There is still a bit of construction work going on so please ignore any strange fonts, colours or unexpected things that shouldn't be there. Can't get the builders these days!

Please come over and visit, kick off your shoes and grab a beer or three!

Hugh the Elder (Hugh the younger's dad)

Another fairly long post on Hugh the younger's father, a man who is quite fascinating in his own right.


His Father’s Career and the Early Days

The life and career of Hugh the elder is often overlooked due to historians’ far greater interest in his son’s exploits. Yet, it could be argued, that without his ambition, and that of his own father, Hugh the younger would never have attained such prominence.

Hugh was born on 1st March 1261. His mother was Aline Basset, Countess of Norfolk, daughter of Philip Basset. His father, yet another Hugh Despenser was a close friend and ally of Simon de Montfort and fought alongside him, against King Henry III in the Barons’ War of the 1260s. During the few years when de Montfort held power in England, he was awarded the post of Justiciar of England no less than three times and was renowned for his skills as an administrator and a diplomat. His downfall - and death - came at the Battle of Evesham in 1265 - the last stand of de Montfort against the royalist forces. De Montfort, who valued his service and friendship, offered him the chance to escape but Despenser refused, saying: ‘My lord, my lord, let it be. Today we shall all drink from one cup, just as we have in the past.’ 1

At the time of his father’s death and burial in Evesham Abbey, Hugh the Elder was only four years old. As the son of a traitor it might have been expected that he would have lost any chance of inheriting his father’s lands and would therefore have disappeared into the historical abyss. Luckily for him, his grandfather on his mother’s side (Philip Basset), was a staunch royalist and had friends in high places. Because of this, although the Despenser lands had been forfeited to the Crown, Hugh would be allowed to inherit them when he came of age.

Hugh the elder then disappears from the records until 1278, when he is recorded at a tournament in Compiègne in France. Three years later his mother died and Hugh was allowed to take hold both of her lands and also his father’s. Technically, though, he was still considered under-age, and because he was now a young man of wealth, his marriage was awarded to the Earl of Warwick, William Beauchamp. A year later he bought back the right for 1,600 marks. It is tempting to speculate that Despenser and Warwick became well acquainted and that Despenser was a regular visitor to Warwick’s home for in 1286 Hugh married his daughter, Isabelle. Unfortunately though, this marriage was not sanctioned by Edward I and the young couple found themselves facing a fine of 2000 marks (later to be returned) and the confiscation of their land for eleven months. Although these punitive measures must have been inconvenient to say the least, for Despenser it meant that he had married into titled nobility and had also gained financially. Before Despenser, Isabelle had been married to (and widowed by) Patrick Chaworth, a landowner in Gloucestershire and south Wales and it was these lands that she now brought into the Despenser family.

Through the marriage, Hugh the elder also gained a step-daughter - Maud - who went on to marry Henry of Lancaster - brother to Thomas and nephew to Edward I. Hugh and Isabelle went on to have children of their own: two boys - Hugh (the younger) and Philip, and four daughters: Aline, Isabelle, Margaret and Elizabeth. All were later married to spouses that furthered the Despenser vision of greater wealth, power and connections.

Service at the Court of Edward I

In the meantime, Hugh the elder was also carefully fostering his position at court. Aware of his father’s treachery against the Crown, Despenser seemed determined to prove his loyalty to the king all the more. Some of that loyalty was displayed on the battlefield - with Edward I being such a warlike king, military service was inevitable for someone seeking to rise in his estimation. It appears that Hugh first saw battle under the earl of Cornwall in 1283 against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd in Wales, but he also joined Edward in his campaigns in Scotland in 1296, 1298, throughout 1299-1300, in 1301, 1302, 1305 and 1307. Although he has never been credited with being a great warrior on the field, it is notable that he was at Edward’s side even when others refused the summons to arms, as at Flanders in 1297.

But there was another side to Hugh the elder that made him particularly indispensable to Edward: like his father before him, Hugh was a skilled administrator and diplomat. His first opportunity to demonstrate this talent came in 1294 when Edward sent him to Europe to drum up support for his war against France. The trip was a success, gaining support for England from a variety of sources: Adolf of Nassau, king of the Romans, the count of Bar, the duke of Brabant, and Florence V, count of Holland. Having such a competent and loyal servant as Despenser must have been a great blessing to Edward and from then on, Despenser seemed to be permanently at Edward’s beck and call, whether on military service or diplomatic missions overseas.

Despenser proved particularly invaluable, however, between 1296 and 1298, when Edward was facing crises both abroad and at home. In 1297 he was part of a delegation sent to Paris to seek peace with Philip IV, as well as to request assistance with the mediation from as many nobles as possible. Unfortunately the main aims of the talks could not be met, but they did succeed in securing a permanent alliance with count Guy of Flanders through a proposed marriage between his daughter Isabella (not to be confused with the later Queen Isabella, daughter of Philip IV) and Edward of Caernarfon, Edward’s son and heir.

As well as these negotiations, Despenser was also involved in helping the king over domestic matters - namely raising money to fill the crown’s depleted coffers. He re-enforced demands upon the clergy to pay the clerical tenth, as was expected of them and also took control of policies regulating the wool trade in England. This consisted of a tax, called the maltort, levied on all exports of wool, as well as an enforced sale of wool in April and July of 1297. As many of Edward’s magnates depended on the wool trade for their own incomes, this made Despenser extremely unpopular and it was something that he was never forgiven for.

Edward, however, was putting greater and greater trust in him. For example, in 1302 he was once again sent to France as part of a delegation to discuss peace terms with Philip IV. In 1305 his name is recorded on the ordinance for the governance of Scotland, and almost straight after he was sent to the Pope at Avignon to obtain an annulment of the Confirmation of Charters that Edward was forced to sign in 1297. It was just this sort of loyalty and distinguished service that earned Hugh rich rewards, in particular the marriage of his son, Hugh the younger to Eleanor de Clare, the king’s favourite grand-daughter.

The young prince Edward of Caernarfon seemed to think well of Despenser too, and there are several letters between them which attest to this fact. Of course, it is tempting to speculate that Hugh the elder may well have been grooming the young Edward into continuing his service when the prince eventually became king, but that is hard to know, It is just as possible that there was a genuine affection between them and Edward may have seen Hugh as a fatherly figure.

Service in Edward II’s Court

And that affection certainly paid off in 1308 at Edward’s coronation. Hugh the elder was one of those who were chosen to carry the square of cloth upon which were laid the ceremonial coronation robes. Of course, his inclusion caused more bitterness against the titled nobility, who felt they had more right to the task than an upstart who had recently climbed the social ladder. During Edward II’s reign, Hugh remained loyal to the crown, sticking by Edward throughout the period of opposition to Piers Gaveston. He also refusewd to sign Lancaster’s Ordinances, therefore creating even more friction between him and the barons.

Edward did not send Hugh on foreign missions as much as his father had, instead preferring to keep him at home, by his side. As confirmation of the trust Edward had in him, the king granted him the custody of Chepstow, Devizes, Strigoil and Marlborough Castles in 1309 and also created him Justice of the Forests south of the Trent for life. He was granted the wardship and marriage of Sir John Moriet, even though the king’s favourite, Piers Gaveston had asked for it a few days later. It is interesting to note that Gaveston did not get his way on this occasion; Edward instead honoured his earlier promise to Despenser, showing how much he valued him.

After Gaveston’s execution, the king called upon Despenser’s services as a negotiator between himself and the rebel barons. During the same period, Despenser was also chosen to act as a godfather to Edward’s newborn son, Edward (the future Edward III). Once again the exclusion of some of those who felt entitled to such a role caused an undercurrent of bitterness. Lancaster, in particular, was furious with Despenser’s position and from then on there was a feud between the two men.

The way that Despenser served Edward II seems, certainly up until 1318 at least, to be equal to the way that he served Edward I - as a trusted, competent advisor, administrator and statesman. Yet from 1312, when he fell out with Lancaster, there are hints from the chronicles of the time that the perception of his character was changing. The Vita Edwardi Secundi states that ‘Sir Hugh Despenser, who was perhaps even less deserving than Piers, lurked with the king’.2 Could this have been the beginning of his later notoriety? And if so, it also begs the question of how much of it was deserved. Could a man of such loyal and skilful service to the crown suddenly turn into a power-crazed villain caring only of the desires of himself and his son? It certainly seems to be a drastic change if so. I think that the answer may lie somewhere between the two extremes.

Hugh the elder was undoubtedly ambitious and struggled to get himself into a position of importance, but this does not exclude the possibility that his commitment to both kings was genuine, and not just a means to an end. He may also have been capable early on of obtaining lands by underhand means - for example by bolstering claims to properties on the edges of his estates. However, because he was still viewed (by most anyway) as an important, trustworthy man, and because Edward I was a strong king, these went for the main part un-noticed. Later on, when he and his son became hated by the magnates (and many of the chroniclers), every misdeed was noted, and a few were made up for good measure too. One interesting case, about the inheritance of Elizabeth Comyn, which discusses how misdeeds can be twisted to seem even worse, can be read here.

After 1318, when Hugh the younger started his rise to power and infamy, both men became a team. They seemed to share retainers and household staff and more or less worked together in garnering wealth and lands; in addition they practically ruled the country. Hugh the younger’s aggressive pursuit of lands in south Wales triggered the civil war known as the Despenser Wars (1321/1322), after which the king was forced to agree to terms set by Lancaster and the other contrariants. One of these was the exile of both Despensers. Hugh the younger took the opportunity to try out a bit of piracy in the channel but Hugh the elder followed a quieter path, seeking refuge in Bordeaux.

After their return in 1322, Hugh the younger took centre stage, but his father was not forgotten. Edward created him earl of Winchester; at last he had a title - something he must have dreamed about when he was younger but never thought he’d achieve. At this point, Hugh the elder seems to slip out of the action a little, but there is no doubt that he continued to collect land and wealth by nefarious means, as later petitions show (there are so many of these allegations that I’m saving them for a later post - when I’ve had a chance to look at some primary sources).

Revenge of the Barony

The actions of both Hughs did nothing to endear them to the country. When Isabella and Mortimer invaded in 1326, any tangible support that Edward and the Despensers might have hoped for just faded away or switched sides. Hugh the elder surrendered at Bristol castle on 27th October (hoping, in vain, for some clemency) and was tried in the presence of the earls of Lancaster (Henry, Thomas’s brother), Norfolk and Kent. Roger Mortimer was also present and William Trussell presided as the judge. The charges against him, according to the Pauline annalist were as follows:

That he had made a law that men could be condemned without right of reply.
That as a traitor he had been banished by the assent of the king and the barons and he had not been reconciled.
That he had accroached power and counselled the king to disinherit and to break the laws, as in the case of Thomas of Lancaster, whom he had caused to be put to death for no reason.
That he had been such a robber that all the people demanded vengeance.
That he had counselled the king to deprive the prelates of the church, not allowing their customary franchises. 3

Hugh the elder was found guilty on all charges - he was not even allowed to speak in his own defence. His sentence, despite his age (65), was that he be drawn to his place of execution by horses. There he was to be hung in his armour, with his coat of arms reversed, beheaded and his body fed to the dogs. Afterwards his head was carried on a spike to Winchester.

It was such an ignominious end for a man who, at the beginning of his career at court, showed so much potential: a man who was considered faithful and consummate (and indeed continued to be so throughout his service) but ended up as a detested tyrant. That he committed some nasty acts for his own ends is without doubt, but the question remains - how many? How many misdeeds that he was accused of, both at the time and afterwards in petitions, actually took place? Probably the majority, but it must also be borne in mind that in such a torrent of complaints, some people just jumped on the bandwagon, hoping for some compensation or other reward for their troubles. Another question that needs to be asked is whether Hugh was greedy and manipulative from the start (in that case why don’t we know more about it?) or whether he became that way - corrupted by power and influenced by his son. Unfortunately, like so many historical questions we shall probably never know the answers.

Endnotes
1. Cited in ‘The Early Career of Hugh Despenser the Elder’, by Martyn Lawrence in The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives, (York Medieval Press, 2006), p.208
2. Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. Wendy Childs (Oxford University Press, 2005)
3. Cited in King Edward II, by Roy Martin Haines, (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003)

Other Sources:
Thomas of Lancaster 1307-1322 by J.R. Maddicott (Oxford University Press, 1970)

Eleanor de Clare, Lady Despenser

And now a post about a remarkable woman, without whom Hugh’s rise to power (and later notoriety) would probably have never happened.

This is a very, very long post (which is why it took so long to write!), so you might want to grab a cup of coffee (or something stronger) before you read it. I have divided it into sub-sections to make it a bit easier to digest.

Girlhood and Marriage


Eleanor de Clare came into the world in November 1292 at Caerphilly castle in south Wales. Her father was the tempestuous Gilbert ‘the Red’ de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford and her mother was Joan of Acre, the second eldest surviving daughter of Edward I. Eleanor already had an elder brother - another Gilbert - the heir to the Gloucester Earldom, and she was soon to be joined by her younger sisters Margaret (who was two years younger), and Elizabeth (three years younger).

In 1295, Eleanor’s father died at the age of 52. A year later Joan was given Bristol Castle in which to live and bring up her children. However in early 1297, her mother created a royal scandal when she married a squire from her late husband’s household - Ralph de Monthermer - without her father, the King’s consent. He had wanted to marry her to the Count of Savoy, but instead she defied him and married for love. One account says that when Joan went to father to plead her case, she took her young children with her to try to soften his mood. However, this still did not stop him from being furious and throwing Monthermer into prison for a few months. After a great deal of pleading by Joan (who was pregnant), he eventually relented, realising that the deed was done and couldn’t be reversed. Monthermer was freed and pardoned.

Eleanor married Hugh Despenser the younger on May 26th 1306 at Westminster. She was just thirteen and a half - young to us now but a normal age for a girl of noble birth to marry then. It was also just a few days after Hugh had been knighted along with 266 others at the Feast of the Swan, so it had been a pretty big week for him. The king was present, as was probably Joan of Acre and Ralph de Monthermer. Her step-grandmother, Queen Margaret was, in all likelihood, absent as she had not long given birth to a baby daughter (another Eleanor who sadly died in 1311). The future Edward, Eleanor’s uncle, was also there as was his dearest friend, Piers Gaveston who was also knighted on this day.

Eleanor’s marriage to Hugh Despenser was in lieu of a repayment of a debt the king owed to Hugh’s father, Hugh Despenser the Elder. It meant that now the Despensers had married into the royal circle - not that that necessarily gave Hugh the younger any immediate advantages. Although from a noble family, Hugh was at that point, a zero in terms of being a good catch. His father had no titles to pass on to him, and until he died, no lands either. In a time when position and wealth mattered, Hugh seemed destined to fade into obscurity. Eleanor’s position wasn’t much better, even though she was the daughter of an Earl and grand-daughter of the king, it was her brother who stood to inherit the de Clare lands, not her. Therefore their early life must have been quite impoverished compared with other nobility. In 1309 the new king Edward II granted them the manor of Sutton in Norfolk and in 1310 Hugh the elder gave his son a few more manors (he had quite a few so I’m sure he could have spared them quite easily!). It was just as well, for Eleanor had now borne their first child - a son, and they called him….. Hugh.

At this stage, despite her lack of position, Eleanor was still often at court as one of the new Queen’s attendants. She was also a great favourite of Edward’s and he paid for her upkeep at court as well as sometimes giving her gifts of money. In fact, at this stage, it could be argued that it was Eleanor who had all the royal favour, leaving Hugh somewhat in her shadow.

Her sisters and the de Clare Inheritance

Her sisters also did well, although neither of them was as favoured by Edward as Eleanor. Margaret was married to Edward’s beloved companion Piers Gaveston in 1307 while Elizabeth was wed a year later to John de Burgh, heir of the Earl of Ulster. The younger Gilbert de Clare also married at this time, taking as his wife John’s sister Maud. However, this arrangement did not last long: Gaveston was executed in 1312 and John de Burgh died in 1313 - both sisters were widowed before they had even reached 20 years of age. They did not remain alone for long, however; Elizabeth - after a brief wedding without consent to Theobald de Verdon in 1316 (he died six months later!) - was given in marriage to one of Edward’s current favourites, Sir Roger D’Amory. And at about the same time, in early 1316, Margaret was married to the second of his current favourites, Hugh Audley.

Death seemed to stalk the de Clare family at that time. The new Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, the young Gilbert de Clare (brother to Eleanor, Elizabeth and Margaret - just to make things really clear!) was killed at the Battle of Bannockburn without producing an heir. This meant that the three sisters were now co-heirs to the vast Gloucester estates. However, before they could claim their shares, there was one fly in the ointment, namely Maud de Clare, their sister in law, who claimed that she was pregnant. While there was any chance of an heir of Gilbert’s body being produced, the lands could not be touched. This was all very well, except that the ‘pregnancy’ lasted a record-breaking three years!!

I don’t know how Maud got away with it for so long, but by 1317 even Parliament had become fed up with the on-going situation and ordered the lands to be partitioned. For her portion, Eleanor received Glamorgan, which Hugh then held in right of his wife. Eleanor and Hugh now suddenly found themselves very wealthy and at last had some influence at court. In 1318 this was consolidated by Hugh’s appointment as Edward’s chamberlain, a key position in the royal household. They had risen from near-obscurity to the inner royal circle in manner of years. It must have made a welcome change from the early years of their marriage, when they had to ask Hugh’s father for more land. Now they had just about everything. But, for Hugh, even this was not enough.


Court Favourites

Although Hugh had not been in high favour with the King to begin with, somehow he managed to turn Edward’s indifference, if not dislike, into infatuation. Soon Hugh had displaced Audley and Damory from the King’s side and found himself in a place of power from which he could do almost anything he liked. One of his first acts was to force his brother-in-law, Audley to exchange some of his Welsh lands for English manors of far less worth. Thus began a career of avarice, corruption and tyranny.

The rest of Hugh’s land-grabbing exploits and the consequential civil war of 1321/22 are well known and receive a bit more attention in my post ‘Who Was Hugh?’ and the ‘Despenser Wars’ article on Alianore’s Edward II Blog. What Eleanor thought of Hugh’s exploits or of his relationship with Edward is not known. It would also be really interesting to glimpse the relationship dynamics between her and her sisters at this time as Hugh’s ruthlessness must have made things difficult. She certainly could not have been unaware of his political machinations, however, and it’s not impossible that she could even have encouraged him to some extent.

She certainly seemed to have enjoyed a close relationship with her husband, both in the bedroom and out of it. She bore Hugh nine, possibly ten children - certainly more than the required ‘heir and a spare’, and several of these were conceived during the time when Hugh was probably having a sexual affair with Edward. She was also involved with her husband’s business affairs. A letter from Eleanor to John Inge, Sheriff of Glamorgan in March 1322 reads thus:

Eleanor Despenser sends greetings and love to our well-loved lord, John Inge, Sheriff of Glamorgan. Because we know well that you are always pleased to hear good news from us, we are letting you know that on the writing of these letters we were in very good health, thanks be to God, and we always want very much to hear the same of you. And we thank you very much and are very grateful because you are so industrious on our behalf in these parts. And we ask you, as far as we can, that you will aid and help Lessam d’Avesne, bearer of these letters, in the matters he will put to you; may the rights of my dear lord in every way be safe, so that we may be grateful to you. And send us your news in the meanwhile as soon as you can, for love of us. May the Lord protect you.
Written at Canterbury on 6 March

(PRO SC 1/37/3;Tanquerey, no. 108; French) taken from Letters of Medieval Women edited by Anne Crawford (Sutton publishing Ltd., 2002)

This charming letter shows a certain diplomatic flair - somethi ng which she must surely have had in the circles she moved in, particularly as her own star had a brightness of its own, and was not wholly dependent on her husband’s position. She was appointed at the head of Isabella’s household attendants, a position she retained until the Queen deserted Edward for France. Edward continued to dote upon her, at one point sending her 13 pieces of sturgeon as a gift while he was on campaign in Scotland in 1322 (luckily he had the tact to send Isabella 20 pieces!).

However his constant gifts (jewels, money, and 47 goldfinches) and the fact that he often dined alone with Eleanor set a few tongues wagging. There are also wardrobe accounts for 1319/20 which show that medicine was bought for them both ‘when they were ill’ - a strange entry that suggests the two were very close indeed. Two chronicles (the Chronographica Regum Francorum 1322/23 and the writings of Willelmi Cappellani, 1326), both from Hainault allege that Edward was in fact having an affair with his niece. However, it must be noted that there are no contemporary English chronicles that state the same thing so boldly, and they may be attempts to discredit Edward’s suitability as a King.

There are, however, a couple of English sources that seem to allude to something scandalous going on, although the allusions are, in themselves, pretty vague. Robert of Reading, a chronicler who was extremely hostile to Edward, wrote that the King had ‘wicked and forbidden sex’, and that he ‘rejected the sweet conjugal embraces of Queen Isabella.’ Of course, the wicked and forbidden sex could refer anything outside of marital relations - from possible homosexual acts with Hugh or else adulterous incest with his niece. In other words, Edward was being naughty, but it is not clear who he was being naughty with. And Henry Knighton, writing from a later viewpoint, stated that when Isabella had decamped to France, Eleanor was treated like a queen. Again, this is ambiguous and it could mean either that Eleanor shared the King’s bed, or else just that his affection for her was far beyond what he showed to others (apart from Hugh, of course). Such an argument could go round in circles forever, and I’m not even going to go into some modern historians’ fantasies of threesomes and wife-swapping!

Eleanor and the Queen

Eleanor’s relations with the Queen were bound to be rather less affectionate. After all, Eleanor was the wife of the man Isabella hated (and supposedly feared) the most. One of the first flashpoints must have come when the Queen and her ladies (including Eleanor) were stranded at Tynemouth Abbey, between the advancing Scots under Robert the Bruce and the defeated and retreating English army, led by Edward. Isabella managed to get away by boat, but in the process, two of her ladies-in-waiting died. She was later to accuse Hugh at his trial of encouraging the King to abandon her, but records from the time show that the truth was very different.

At the time that Isabella received word that she was in a perilous position, Edward was over 80 miles away at Rievaulx. The Scots were advancing fast and for Edward to have attempted a rescue himself - risking capture or death - would have been extremely foolish (and if he had, he would probably been condemned throughout history for that). But that did not mean that he didn’t care about Isabella’s safety: he did all that was within his power at the time to affect her safe return to him. To begin with he sent a messenger to Thomas Grey, the constable of Norham castle to shelter Isabella in the event of the Scottish forces reaching Tynemouth. Next, he commanded the earls of Atholl and Richmond, as well as his steward to raise a force of troops to ride to her rescue, The troops contained an element of the younger Hugh Despenser’s men - after all, his wife was trapped with the Queen too, and he would have been hoping for a successful outcome as much as Edward. However, when Isabella heard that Hugh was sending troops, she sent a message back to Edward that she would not accept any help if it came from Despenser (even though he wouldn’t have been present himself). Edward then had to find some different troops, this time commanded by Isabella’s countryman Henri de Sully to take up the task - all wasting valuable time. Unfortunately for Isabella, de Sully never arrived: he was captured by the Scots at the battle of Byland. It was at this point that Isabella and her ladies were forced to take to the sea.

I am sure that from that point, relations between Isabella and Eleanor weren’t the best they could be, to say the least. Isabella’s foolhardy refusal of the first offer of help had probably been, in part, to blame for the deaths of her ladies. And yet she never accepted any responsibility, preferring instead to hit out and blame someone else - Despenser. Perhaps she just couldn’t admit to her guilt, or to making a mistake.

A far worse breakdown between the Queen and Eleanor came in 1324. With war looming between England and France, Isabella was treated - rightly or wrongly - as a possible French spy. Her properties were taken away and her French servants dismissed. She was also relieved of any control over her children or their households. The household and care of Edward’s younger son, John of Eltham, was subsequently given over to Eleanor. There have also been suggestions, that Eleanor was given permission to intercept and read all of Isabella’s correspondence. With so many responsibilities outside of her usual ones, she must have been a very busy lady!

Downfall

Things were to change dramatically, however, after Isabella and Mortimer’s invasion of England in 1326. From existing records we know that, just before Despenser and the King fled London before the invading armies, Eleanor was made constable of the Tower of London. With the threat of a foreign army approaching as well as the ever-present restless mob in London, it was deemed safest for her to stay there with her ward, the ten-year-old John. It is also possible that she was either pregnant or nursing at this time. Despenser and Edward had probably expected (over-optimistically) that they would reach safety and raise an army against the rebellion, or else the country would eventually, turn and support them against Isabella. If the King had stayed in London and been captured all would have been lost. Despenser knew that if he was captured, it would mean certain death, so personally, I think their flight had less to do with cowardice and more with the hope that they would live to fight another day. And of course, Eleanor in her state would not have been able to travel. It is interesting to speculate what her last conversation with her husband would have been!

After Hugh’s capture and terrible execution, Eleanor was imprisoned in the Tower for two years. Of her children, Hugh, the eldest who had been defending Caerphilly Castle for his father, was also imprisoned to finally be released in 1331. Not much is known what happened to Edward, the second eldest son at this time other than that he survived to become a celebrated soldier under Edward III. The other two sons - Gilbert and John are also obscure at this time but they would have been very young and were most probably put into the custody of one of Mortimer and Isabella’s supporters.

Of the daughters, more is known about their fate. The eldest, Isabella, was already married to Richard Fitzalan, the son of the earl of Arundel and so was lucky enough not to share the fate of the others. Joan, Eleanor and Margaret were forcibly veiled by Isabella and sent to separate nunneries. As they were all very young - ten and under - it must have been a terrifying experience for them. The fact that they were cruelly and forcibly veiled, instead of just being boarded at nunneries and kept out of the way (as Edward had done with Mortimer’s daughters), perhaps shows the extent of Isabella’s vitriol against her former lady-in-waiting. The youngest, Elizabeth, escaped the Queen’s wrath - perhaps because she was just a baby, or not even born at that point. All in all, Eleanor must have suffered dreadfully in those two years - imprisoned, disinherited, widowed and deprived of her children.

Two years later in 1328, after the issue of Eleanor’s imprisonment was brought up in a Parliament at York, she was released and her dower lands reinstated. But Eleanor was now a single, rich heiress and at 36 was still of child-bearing age - a rich prize for any suitor. In 1329 she was abducted from Hanley Castle in Worcestershire by William de la Zouche, one of the men who had captured her husband and also led the siege against her son at Caerphilly Castle. Although abductions were technically illegal, it was often the case that the abductee was in on the scheme. In other words, a ‘forced’ marriage often masked a consensual elopement. It is not known whether Eleanor consented or not, but I think, on balance that she probably did.

However, consent or no, the marriage caused further trouble. Her lands were confiscated again and in a strange twist, she was accused of stealing some jewels from the Tower. Of course, if the accusation was true, it is possible that the jewels she ‘stole’ may have been hers in the first place and had been taken by Isabella after the invasion! Whatever the case, Eleanor was imprisoned in the Tower yet again in the spring of 1329 before being moved to Devizes Castle. Luckily her stay at Mortimer and Isabella’s pleasure did not last as long this time. In January 1330 she was released and pardoned, but on one condition: that she hand over her lands in Glamorgan to the Crown. These lands formed the richest part of her inheritance and it must have been with great reluctance that she let them go. There was a chance for her to recover them but in order to do so she would have to pay a fine of fifty thousand pounds in one day. That was a massive, in fact impossible, amount of money for her to find and the whole thing must have seemed like a twisted joke designed to cause her further distress.

Eleanor’s Last Years

After Edward III’s coup against Mortimer and his mother in 1330, Eleanor’s fortunes changed for the better. Claiming that Mortimer had threatened her into signing away her lands, she petitioned Edward for their return. He agreed and the fine was reduced to ten thousand pounds. This was later reduced still to five thousand and it seemed that Edward was in no rush for his money for most of it was still unpaid at Eleanor’s death.

Eleanor was once again reunited with Zouche. It is noticeable that she made no petition to Edward to have this ‘forced’ marriage annulled, as she would have been within her rights to do. This puts further credo to that fact that it was a consensual abduction. However, not everyone was happy with her nuptial bliss: a Sir John Grey protested, claiming that he had married her first. What grounds he had for this strange claim have been lost to us, but he was still chasing it in 1333 when he made an appeal to the Pope. It didn’t do much good though because it was dismissed and Eleanor and William were left alone to enjoy their life together.

They had two children: William, who became a monk; and Joyce, who married John de Botetourt. Eleanor died on 30th June 1337: her cause of death is not known although there has been some speculation that she died in childbirth. Her place of burial is also, strangely, unknown, but is assumed to be at Tewkesbury Abbey along with her husbands and descendants.

Tewkesbury Abbey

Tewkesbury Abbey had been the resting place for generations of de Clares, and after them, Despensers. It is little surprise then, that Eleanor, Hugh Despenser the younger, and their son, Hugh Despenser the even younger, were patrons of the Abbey and its community of Benedictine monks. Much rebuilding was done during Hugh and Eleanor’s glory years from 1318-1326 and is attributed to their financial gifts. After Hugh’s execution, parts of his body were displayed around the country as was usual for a ‘traitor’, but in 1330, Edward III gave Eleanor permission to gather them together and bury them within the Abbey. She did so and constructed a fine tomb, which can still be seen on the south ambulatory (the coffin and sarcophagus top is not Hugh’s however, but a later addition of an Abbot John Coles).

Eleanor and her son also commissioned stained glass windows of both her husbands and de Clare ancestors, which can still be seen above the choir. In the corner of the east window is a praying, naked woman, kneeling down in what appears to be a scene from the Last Judgement. This has been described as being a portrait of Eleanor, although positive identification, is, unfortunately, impossible. Sadly, Eleanor died before the windows could be finished, so she never lived to see her creation completed. As mentioned above, it is almost certain that she was buried at Tewkesbury, but there are no records as to where and no monument exists, an ironic twist to the end of the tale of one of Tewkesbury’s greatest patronesses.

Sources:
Tewkesbury Abbey: History, Art and Architecture, edited by Richard K Morris and Ron Shoesmith (Logaston Press 2003)

Letters of medieval Women, edited by Anne Crawford (Sutton Publishing Ltd, 2002)

King Edward II by Roy Martin Haines (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006)

Edward II Blog (various articles) - Alianore

Susan Higginbotham (various articles)

Notes on sources: To ensure the validity of facts, I have cross-checked references on certain events wherever possible. Although Alianore and Susan Higginbotham both seem like unacademic references, I have found their research to be of the highest quality and have therefore included it here. Obviously, when I complete the biography, it will contain my own research of the primary sources - which I hope to access soon and will be more ‘academically’ referenced. My aim with the blog, though, is to make it as unstuffy as possible!