Edward I 9780300146653

Citation preview

EDWARD I

Also in the Yale English Monarchs Series

ATHELSTAN by Sarah Foot EDWARD THE CO N FESSO R by Frank Barlow W ILLIAM THE C O N Q U ER O R by David Douglas* W ILLIAM RUFUS by Frank Barlow HENRY I by Warren Hollister K IN G STEPHEN by Edmund King HENRY II by W L. Warren* RICH ARD I by John Gillingham K IN G JO H N by W. L. Warren* EDWARD I by Michael Prestwich EDWARD II by Seymour Phillips RICH ARD II by Nigel Saul HENRY V by Christopher Allmand HENRY VI by Bertram Wolffe EDWARD IV by Charles Ross RICH ARD III by Charles Ross HENRY VII by S. B. Chrimes HENRY VIII by J. J. Scarisbrick EDWARD VI by Jennifer Loach M ARY I by John Edwards JAMES II by John Miller QUEEN ANNE by Edward Gregg GEORGE I by Ragnhild Hatton GEORGE II by Andrew C. Thompson GEORGE III by Jeremy Black GEORGE IV by E. A. Smith

* Available in the U.S. from University of California Press

EDWARD I Michael Prestwich

YALE U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS NEW HAVEN AND LONDON

First published in Great Britain in 1988 by Methuen London Ltd First published in paperback in 1990 by Methuen London This edition first published by Yale University Press in 1997 Copyright © 1988 Michael Prestwich New edition © 1997 Michael Prestwich All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Printed in Great Britain by St Edmundsbury Press Ltd Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-60218 0-300-07209-0 (hbk.) 978-0-300-07157-3 (pbk.)

isbn isbn

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

5 7 9 10 8 6 4

For Robin, Chris and K ate

CONTENTS

F O R E W O R D TO T H E Y A L E E D I T I O N P R E F A C E TO T H E F I R S T E D I T I O N ABBREVIATED

REFERENCES

N O T E ON MO N E Y

P A R T I The Heir to the Throne 1 The Green Tree, 1239-58

xi Xvii xi x Xxii

i 3

2 T he Leopard, 1258-70

24

3 T h e Crusader

66

P A R T I I The King in his Prime 4 Coronation and Consolidation

87 89

5 T he K in g and his family

108

6 The Royal Household

134

7 T h e Conquest o f Wales

170

8 Wales: Settlement and Rebellion

202

9 T he Government of England, 1278-86

233

10 The Statutes and the Law

267

11 The Duke of Aquitaine, 1273-94

298

12 Diplom acy, 1274-94

312

P A R T I I I The Later Years

337

13 Before the Storm, 1289-94

339

14 The Great Cause, 1291-2

356

15 The W ar with France, 1294-8

376

16 The Years o f Crisis, 1294-8

401

17 Council and Parliament

436

18 T he Scottish W ars, 1296-1307

469

19 T he Last Years, 1298-1307

517

20 Epilogue

556

CONTENTS

Vlll

appendix:

Financial Tables

568

GENEA LOGI CAL TABLES

571

BIBLIOGRAPHY

576

I NDEX

597

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS AND PLANS 1 2 3 4 5 6

T h e W elsh W ars o f 1277 and 1282-3 Edw ard I ’s Castles in W ales: ground plans T h e W elsh Rebellion o f 1294-5 G ascony Edw ard I ’s Invasions o f Scotland, 1296 and 1298 Edw ard I ’s Invasions o fS co tlan d , 1300, 1301and 1303

178 212 222 302 472 488

GENEALOGICAL TABLES 1 2 3 4

The The The The

English Royal Fam ily (1) English Royal Fam ily (2) R oyal Houses o f France, N aples and C astile Succession to the Scottish Throne

572 573 574 575

T h e maps, plans and genealogical tables were redrawn from the auth or’s roughs by Neil H yslop.

FOREWORD TO THE YALE EDITION

The difficulties of writing a biography of a medieval ruler are many, and I faced some particular problems in the case of Edward I. One was the weight of earlier scholarship, most notably the achievement of F.M. Powicke, whose powerful and sympathetic vision of the king was hard to avoid.1 The bulk of surviving evidence was another; medieval England was a precociously bureaucratic country, and in addition to the very substantial amount of printed material available to historians, there is even today a great quantity of unpublished records. Yet the quantity of evidence is not all in the right area for the biographer. The personality of Edward himself is often obscured rather than illuminated by the labours of the clerks of chancery and exchequer. Specific details from the household accounts about the king’s personal tastes may help to provide something of the flavour of the period, but can reveal nothing of his thoughts. At the time that I wrote this book, Edward’s reputation among historians had reached a cyclic low. Work on the king’s relationship with his earls had suggested that his dealings lacked integrity to an unacceptable degree, being marked by cynical manipulations of the law. Nor were they determined by any clear strategic vision.2 A focus on the latter years of the reign, when the king faced acute financial and political difficulties as a result of rebellion in Wales and more extended war with France and Scotland, rather than on the more constructive years up to 1290, showed the king in a much more unfavourable pose than Powicke’s portraiture had done.3 Whatever he was, he was not ‘a man of common sense and compassion’.4 Work on the history of Wales and Scotland had inevitably yielded a hostile interpretation of Edward, whose claims to lordship were seen as harsh, overbearing and unjustified. I did not embark on this book with any deliberate attempt to reverse what was becoming a historical orthodoxy. I was anxious to avoid, as far as possible, the application of the moral standards of a very different age to Edward’s reign. My aim was to try to reassess the king in the light of the contemporary evidence; this may have resulted, in some instances, in my adopting a more

1 F.M. Powicke, King Henry I I I and the Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947); The Thirteenth Century, 12 16 -1 jo y (2nd. ed., Oxford, 1962). * K.B. McFarlane, The Nobility o f Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), 248-67. 3 See, for example, my own War, Politics and Finance under Edward I (London, 1972). 4 Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 333.

Xll

F O R E W O R D TO T H E Y A L E E D I T I O N

favourable view of some of his actions than I had done in the past. He gained the benefit of the doubt. More significantly, a pragmatic approach such as this carries with it the danger of ignoring longer-term developments, and of reducing the influence of theoretical ideas on political developments. My belief, however, is that Edward was essentially an opportunist, and that his actions and policies are best explained in terms of their immediate circum­ stances. On the other hand there is no doubt that he was throughout imbued with a fierce determination to preserve, protect and enhance his rights as king. This new foreword provides me with a welcome opportunity to draw attention to the way in which work on the period has developed since the book first appeared. I did not intend this to be a definitive study; it would be far more pleasing to have opened up new avenues for research, but the extent to which that has happened has been limited. Important work on the reign has appeared since it was first published, but no radically new interpretation of Edward himself has been set out, though in a number of areas the picture that I provided has been filled out, given a different shading, or lit from a different angle. I should add that it was not my intention in writing this book to provide an histoire totale, and to examine the social, economic and intellectual history of England in Edward’s lifetime. Equally, therefore, this foreword does not extend to a discussion of the important recent work that has been done in these fields. The period of Edward’s youth has been illuminated by John Maddicott’s fine study of the future king’s uncle, Simon de Montfort.5 This sets out Edward’s relationship with the reforming leader with clarity and sympathy, and makes clear the importance of Edward’s role o f ‘sure-footed deviousness’ in de Montfort’s downfall. A full reassessment of Edward’s role in his father’s later years must wait for David Carpenter’s biography of Henry III, but the publication of Carpenter’s many papers in a single volume brings together his insights on the period in a most valuable way.6 There has been little further biographical study of the great figures of Edward’s reign, despite the growing popularity of such approaches. The one notable exception is his first queen, Eleanor of Castile, who is the subject of a fine book by John C. Parsons.7 This provides a picture of sophisticated surroundings and considerable luxury, and it is clear that the queen’s upbring­ ing in the highly literary ambience of the Castilian court meant that she brought with her to England intellectual interests which surely exceeded those of her husband. Eleanor remains, however, an ambivalent figure, with the harsh management of her estates contrasting with the traditional image of the queen. Scott L. W augh’s work on wardship in the thirteenth century appeared at about the same time as the original edition of this book; it contains much that is relevant to a reassessment of the king’s policies. To give a specific example, the 5 J.R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (Cambridge, 1994). 6 D.A. Carpenter, The Reign o f Henry H I (London, 1996). 7 J.C. Parsons, Eleanor o f Castile (New York, 1995).

F O R E W O R D TO T HE Y A L E E D I T I O N

Xl l l

experiment of appointing three stewards with responsibilities for royal demesne lands and for wardships in royal hands which began in 1275 ls dealt with more fully by Waugh than in this book. The way in which royal revenues from wardships increased in 1282-3, and rose again after 1296, provides a useful demonstration of the link between war and financial policy.8 In more general terms Waugh has done much to illustrate the way in which royal patronage operated, and its legal framework. The king’s relationship with the church has been examined by J.H. Denton in a paper which takes the establishment of Vale Royal Abbey as its starting point’.9 The foundation of what, had it been finished, would have been one of the greatest of Cistercian abbeys is compared with Royaumont, the work of Louix IX , and is set firmly and rightly in the context of royal status and aggrandisement. In more general terms, Edward’s use of ecclesiastical patron­ age is analysed as ‘an aspect of royal prestige and domination’. Here, as in other areas, Edward’s ideas of kingship were extending further than those of his predecessors. The king’s control over part of the English church is well set out by R.B. Dobson. The king’s dealings with six archbishops of York were not characterised by such dramatic clashes as those he had with Pecham and Winchesley of Canterbury, but demonstrate to the full his determination to exercise his royal will.10 R.R. Davies’s monumental work on medieval Wales appeared just in time to be taken into account to a limited extent in the final revision of Edward /.11 Since then much attention has been paid to the ‘British’ dimension of English medieval history; notice should in particular be drawn to Robin Frame’s work.12 In more detailed terms, reassessment of the role of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd suggests that J.G. Edwards was probably correct in arguing that the Welsh prince was indeed drawn into the rebellion of 1282 at the last minute, but the evidence is unfortunately very thin. Edward’s prevarications in his dealings with Llywelyn may not have been the result of a desire to humiliate him, but of the reverse. A definite rejection of the prince’s right to Welsh law would have precipitated a conflict which Edward may not have been seeking.13 8 S.L. Waugh, The Lordship o f England: Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics, 12 17-13 2 7 (Princeton, 1988), 137-41, 163-4; infra, 102-3. 9 J. H. Denton, ‘From the Foundation ofVale Royal Abbey to the Statute ofCarlisle: Edward I and Ecclesiastical Patronage’, Thirteenth Century EnglandIV, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1992), 123-37. 10 R.B. Dobson, ‘The Political Role of the Archbishops of York during the Reign of Edward I’, Thirteenth Century England I I I , ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge,

1990,47-64-

11 R.R. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales 1063-1415 (Oxford, 1987). 12 Robin Frame, The Political Development o f the British Isles, 1100-1400 (Oxford, 1990), 125-68. 13 Infra , 183-8; J.B. Smith, reviewing this book in Welsh Historical Review 15 (1991), 455-8. See also J.B. Smith, ‘Adversaries of Edward I: Gaston de Béarn and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’, Recognitions: Essays presented to E .B . Fryde, ed. C. Richmond and I. Harvey (Aberystwyth, 1996), 55-88. Those who, unlike me, can read Welsh should also see Smith’s Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Tywysog Cymru (Cardiff, 1986).

XIV

F O R E W O R D TO T HE Y A L E E D I T I O N

A very important detailed paper on the Process of Norham in 1291, by A .A .M . Duncan, has transformed understanding of the early stages of Edward I’s intervention in the succession dispute in Scotland. I did not give a precise date for the notarial record produced by John of Caen for Edward I, but Duncan argues that it was written not, as normally supposed, soon after the conclusion of the Great Cause, but in 1296-7, when Edward needed to justify his removal of John Balliol from the Scottish throne.14 It is clearly shown to have distorted or omitted points and events which did not support the English king’s claims to sovereign lordship in Scotland. The English campaigns in Scotland, and the nature of Edward’s rule there, have not received so much attention, but work in this area by Fiona Watson promises to remedy this deficiency.15 In general terms, there is no doubt that what Edward was attempting in both Wales and Scotland was to make effective his claims to overlordship, establishing their practical implications in a thorough-going fashion which proved unacceptable in both countries. There has been interest recently in military history, but concentration has been greater on the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and on the Hundred Years War, than on Edward I ’s reign. Indeed, in discussions of whether there was ‘a medieval military revolution’, Edward’s reign has received very little emphasis. The dismounting of men-at-arms and the use of mounted archers are seen as the vital tactical innovations which led to the great English triumphs at Crecy and Poitiers, and these had their origins in the AngloScottish wars following the English defeat at Bannockburn in 1314. There is, however, still a case to be made for the importance of Edward I ’s achievement in mobilising men, equipment and victuals on an unprecedented scale. His reign witnessed a revolution in the quantity if not the quality of English armies.16 The broader implications of war for government and society form one theme in this book, which has been developed by many historians. A valuable interpretation which compares England and France in this regard was produced by Richard W. Kaeuper; his study extends from about 1290 to 1360, and does much to set Edward I in a comparative context.17 The history of parliament is a topic of continued discussion and debate. The early development of parliament has been discussed by David Carpenter; his paper very usefully provides the context against which the changes of Edward 14 A.A.M. Duncan, ‘The Process of Norham, 1291’, Thirteenth Century England V (i995), 207-30; infra, 364. 15 F. Watson, ‘Settling the Stalemate: Edward I’s Peace in Scotland, 1303-5’, Thirteenth Century England VI (1997), indicates the direction in which her work is going. 16 I have discussed these issues at length in my Armies and Warfare in the M iddle Ages: The English Experience (New Haven and London, 1996), and in my ‘Was there a Military Revolution in Medieval England’, Recognitions: Essays presented to E . B . Fryde, 19-38. See also C.J. Rogers, ‘The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years War \ Journal o f Military History, lvii (1993), 249-57, and his ‘Edward III and the Dialectics of Strategy’, T R H S, 6th ser., 4 (1994), 83-102. 17 R.W. Kaeuper, War, Justice and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988).

F O R E W O R D TO T H E Y A L E E D I T I O N

XV

I’s reign should be seen.18 An interesting light on the way in which Edward attempted to control what took place in parliament was cast by Ruth Ingamells, who pointed out the startling increase in the number of household knights summoned to parliament in 1300. In March 1299 fourteen were asked to attend as barons; in May of the same year the figure was eleven. For the March parliament in 1300, however, the number rose to at least thirty. About a third, therefore, of those who received individual summonses to attend, were royal knights, in receipt of fees and robes.19 The financial history of the reign has not undergone any transformation, but it has been valuably placed in a wider setting by Mark Ormrod, in two important articles.20 One conclusion that he reached was that ‘The Edwardian fiscal achievement rested in what was probably the most effective mobilization of the available tax base at any time between the eleventh and the seventeenth centuries’. At a much more detailed level, two important local tax assessment rolls, giving full details of the assessed wealth of individuals, have been published for Shrewsbury, one for the ninth of 1297, and one for the twentieth of 1306.21 In the sphere of legal history, work by Paul Brand has made a strong case for seeing as one of the major develoments of the reign the way in which the law became more professional. In particular, a group of some thirty full time professional sergeants emerged, along with a much larger number of profes­ sional attorneys. This was not a direct consequence of any royal action, but it is an important part to the background of the legal changes of Edward’s reign.22 The question of how the law actually operated in terms of maintaining public order has been examined by Anthony Musson; his study looks at a much longer period, but his observations on the later years of Edward I are important, demonstrating a greater sense of purpose and initiative than I had suggested. Concentration on the Trailbaston enquiries at the end of the reign has perhaps obscured other achievements, such as the rationalisation of the assize circuits which took place in 1292.23 The term ‘foreign policy’ is a convenient shorthand; contemporaries did not, of course, think in the compartmentalised terms which suit historians. 18 D.A. Carpenter, ‘The Beginnings of Parliament’, The Reign o f Henry I I I (1996), 381-408. 19 R. Ingamells, ‘The Political Role of the Household Knights of Edward I’, Thirteenth Century England V (1995), 29-35. 20 M.W. Ormrod, ‘State-Building and State Finance in the Reign of Edward I’, Harlaxton Medieval Studies I: England in the Thirteenth Century, ed. M.W. Ormrod (Stamford, 1991); idem, ‘Royal Finance in Thirteenth-Century England’, Thirteenth Century England V (1995), 141-64. 21 The Wealth o f Shrewsbury in the Early Fourteenth Century, ed. D. and R. Cromarty (Shrewsbury, 1993). 22 P. Brand, The Origins o f the English Legal Profession (1992); see also his collected papers in The Making o f the Common Law (1992). 23 A. Musson, Public Order and Law Enforcement: The Local Administration o f Criminal Justice i2g4~ ij^ o (Woodbridge, 1996).

XVI

F O R E W O R D TO T HE Y A L E E D I T I O N

Here the most important work to have appeared is that of Malcolm Vale. His study of the origins of the Hundred Years War concentrates on the question of Gascony, and gives proper prominence to the history of the duchy under Edward I. His work is informed by a deep understanding of the history of France and of the duchy of Gascony, and his analysis of the war of 1294-8 is particularly important.24 The cultural dimension of the reign has been enhanced by Paul Binski’s work on Westminster Abbey, which provides an important commentary on the tombs and other works of the period, in the inimitable style of the practised art historian. For example, Edward’s burial in a plain Purbeck marble tomb ‘served to restate the sovereign stress on gravitas of materials and commemora­ tion in the face of a new current of showily complex self-representation’.252 6 Binski’s work is important in demonstrating that while the patronage of the court was of great significance, there was no single ‘court style’ that can be easily identified. The symbolism involved in the acquisition of the Welsh Cross Neith and the Scottish Crown of Arthur and the Stone of Destiny was important, and stresses the significance of physical objects in Edward’s conception of kingship. In this book I was somewhat critical of the extent to which Edward has been depicted as an ‘Arthurian enthusiast’. It is interesting that in Westminster, the central focus in physical terms of Edward’s kingship, there were no allusions made directly to Arthur. In Wales the symbolic elements in the building of Caernarfon castle were astonishing, but they looked to Constantinople, not to Camelot. The grand Feast of the Swans of 1306 was probably an elaborate allusion to the English royal family’s descent, through Eleanor of Provence, from the legendary Swan Knight.2 In one small respect, the achievement of Edward I has been diminished since I wrote this book. The Stone of Destiny, taken by Edward to Westmins­ ter Abbey, has been sent back to Scotland in a well-polished army Landrover. It remains to be seen whether this will amount to anything more than evidence of the desperation of a vote-hungry Conservative party. I am grateful to Yale University Press, and in particular to Robert Baldock, for agreeing to republish this book in this revival of the English Monarchs series. Michael Prestwich Durham, November igg6

24 M. Vale, The Origins o f the Hundred Years War. The Angevin Legacy, 1250-1340 (Oxford, 1990). 25 P. Binski, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets: Kingship and the Representation o f Power 1200-1400 (New Haven and London, 1995), 120. 26 I owe this suggestion to R.O. Dennys, Arundel Herald of Arms; infra, 121.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION In 1968, I decided not to w rite this book. T h e subject, E dw ard I, seemed altogether too large, and a book which concentrated on some aspects o f his com plex reign was, at that stage, a m ore attractive alternative. T h a t book, War, Politics and Finance under Edward /, duly appeared in 1972, and the m ajor task o f w riting a biography o f E dw ard was taken on by Professor H arry Rothw ell. He w ould undoubtedly have produced a superb volum e, but sadly he died when it was still at an early stage. Thanks to the kindness o f M rs R othw ell, I was privi­ leged to see his notes, from w hich I gained valuable insights. It was not possible, however, for me to produce the volum e as he had envis­ aged it: he had not written m uch o f it in final form. It w ould not have been fair to Professor Rothw ell to try to write his book: my E dw ard is not his. Edw ard I was sixty-seven when he died. H e lived a full life, and the range o f his activities presents the historian with considerable prob­ lems. He played a m ajor part in the political troubles o f the later years o f his father’s reign; went on crusade; governed England during a period particularly form ative for legal and parliam entary develop­ ment; conquered W ales, and cam e close, or so it seemed in 1304, to subjecting Scotland to his rule. H e was not a purely English ruler. He held the duchy o f G ascony in south-western France, and took a very considerable interest in its affairs. As befitted a ruler o f his stature, he played a m ajor part in European diplom acy and war. It would have been possible to adopt a narrative plan throughout this book, bringing out the chronological continuity o f events, and stressing the m any sim ultaneous pressures on the king. Some o f the aspects o f the reign can, however, be treated in an alm ost self-contained w ay, and in order to provide a clearer view o f the problem s that faced E dw ard, a them atic approach has been adopted for m uch o f the book. T h is means that the reader m ay have to w ait for a full explanation o f some elements o f the reign, such as parliam ent, until a later stage in the book; or that he or she m ay be faced, at an early point, with evidence taken from E d w ard ’s later years, as in the discussion o f the royal household. I hope that the disadvantages o f this approach are outweighed by the advantages, and that the constant inter-relationship o f the various aspects o f the king’s career remains apparent.

XV111

PREFACE

Such a book as this owes a great deal to the help o f others. Professor Lionel Stones took a great interest in it from the outset, and I owe him an immense debt. H e m ade m uch m anuscript m aterial available to me in m icrofilm, saving me a great deal o f time and trouble. H e also undertook the labour o f reading the entire typescript, correcting m any infelicities o f style, and, most im portantly, putting right m any mistakes and giving me m uch valuable advice. It is a m atter o f deep personal sadness that he did not live to see the book published. H e was a most generous scholar, and his encouragem ent was heartening throughout. D r A rnold T a y lo r has been extrem ely generous, providing me with transcripts o f m anuscripts in T u rin and m any references to items in the Public Record O ffice, London. D r D avid d ’A vra y is another who most kindly provided me with copies o f his transcripts. T h e various theses that I have consulted during the preparation o f this book are all acknow ledged in the footnotes, but I should make special m ention o f the work o f D r Robin Studd on E d w ard ’s acta prior to his accession, o f that o f D r H uw R idgew ay on the aliens and their role in the court politics o f the late 1250s and early 1260s, and o f D r P .C . Saunders on royal ecclesiastical patronage. Expert assistance in the selection o f pictures from m anuscript sources was given by Sally Dorm er. I have learned m uch from discussing E dw ard I with various friends, and would mention in particular D r D avid Carpenter, D r Robin Fram e and D r Paul Brand. T h e staff o f all the libraries and record depositories I have used have all been most helpful: I have been most reliant upon the Public Record O ffice in London, and the U niversity L ibrary and the L ib rary o f the D ean and C h ap ter in D urham . T h e financial assist­ ance o f the S taff T ravel and Research Fund o f the U niversity o f D urham was essential. T h e imm ense labour o f typing the whole book on to a word-processor was undertaken by W endy D uery, with exem p­ lary speed, accuracy and cheerfulness, which she m aintained even when constant corrections were being m ade to the original text. I am very grateful to Professor Scott W augh and the other anonym ous academ ics who read this book for the publishers: their suggestions have removed m any errors from the text, and have m ade for m any im prove­ ments. A t M ethuen, A nn W ilson, Sarah H annigan, H elen Everson and A nn M ansbridge have done all they could to make an author’s life an easy one. T h e original genesis o f this book probably lies in childhood visits to the great castles o f north W ales, when I was first introduced to E dw ard I by my father: his influence on my work has been o f central im portance ever since. Finally, my w ife’s role has been invaluable. She has patiently read and criticized countless drafts, and her help with the proofs and index has also been essential. I could not have written this book w ithout her help.

ABBREVIATED REFERENCES

T h e following abbreviations are used in the footnotes. For m any works, the full title is given only for the first reference, and thereafter short titles are used. T hese are fully extended in the bibliography. A ll m anuscript references are to docum ents in the Public Record O ffice, London, unless otherwise stated. A n n . D unstable

‘Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia, A .D . 1-12 9 7’ , A nnales ed. H .R. Luard (Rolls series, 1864-9), ü

M on a stici , A n n . London

‘Annales Londonienses’, Chronicles o f the Reigns o f Ed w ard I ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls series, 1882-3), 1

and E dw ard I f A n n . Osney

‘Annales Monasterii de Oseneia, 10 16 -13 4 7’, A nnales ed. H .R. Luard (Rolls series, 1864-9), iv

M on a stici , A n n . Tewkesbury

A n n . Waverley

‘Annales M onasterii de Theokesburia’, Annales M on a stici , ed. H .R. Luard (Rolls series, 1864-9), 1 ‘Annales M onasterii de W averleia, A .D . 1-12 9 1’ , A nnales ed. H .R. Luard (Rolls series, 1864-9), h

M on a stici , A n n. Winchester

‘Annales Prioratus de W intonia’, 5 19 -12 7 7 ’, A nnales ed. H .R. Luard (Rolls series, 1864-9), h

M on astici , A n n . Worcester

‘Annales Prioratus de W igornia, A .D . 1-13 7 7 ’ , A nnales ed. H .R. Luard (Rolls series, 1864-9), iv

M on astici , B IH R

B u lletin o f the Institute o f H istorical Research

BL

British Library

C a l. A n c. C o n . Wales C a l. A n c. Pet. Wales

Calendar o f A ncient Correspondence concerning W ales ,

ed. J .G .

Edwards (Cardiff, 1935) Calendar o f A ncient Petitions relating to W ales ,

(Cardiff, 1975)

CChR

Calendar o f Charter R o lls

CCR

Calendar o f Close R o lls

(1903-)

(1892-)

ed. W. Rees

XX CDI

ABBREVIATED REFERENCES Calendar o f Docum ents relating to Ireland,

ed. H.S. Sweetman,

5 vols (1877-86) CDS

i-iv , ed. J. Bain (1881-8); v, ed. G .G . Simpson and J.D. Galbraith (Edinburgh, 1986)

CFR

Calendar o f F in e R o lls

Chron. Bury S t Edm unds Chron. Lanercost

Calendar o f Documents relating to Scotland,

( 1911—)

The Chronicle o f B ury S t Edm unds,

1212-1301, ed. A. Grans-

den (1964) Chronicon de Lanercost,

ed. J. Stevenson (M aitland Club,

1839) (1916-)

CLR

Calendar o f Liberate R o lls

Cotton

Bartholom aei de Cotton, H istoria A nglicana ( A .D .

443-1238),

ed. H .R. Luard (Rolls series, 1859) (1891-)

CPR

Calendar o f Patent R o lls

CW R

‘Calendar of Welsh Rolls’, Calendar o f Chancery R o lls Various , 1277-1326 (1912)

Docum ents i 2 g y - 8

Documents Illustrating the C risis o f

EHR

E n glish H istorical Review

Flores

Flores H istoriarum ,

I2gy-g8 in E n glan d , ed. M .C . Prestwich (Camden Society, 4th series, xxiv, 1980)

ed. H .R. Luard, 3 vols (Rolls series,

1890) Foedera

Foedera, C on ven tion s, Litterae et A cta P u b lica ,

ed. T . Rymer

(Record Commission ed., 4 vols, 1816-69) Gervase of Canterbury Great Cause

H istorical Works o f Gervase o f Canterbury ,

ed. W. Stubbs, 2

vols (Rolls series, 1879-80) E dw ard I and the Throne o f Scotland. A n E dition o f the Record Sources f o r the Great Cause ,

ed. E .L.G . Stones and G .G . Simpson, 2 vols (Oxford, 1978)

Guisborough

KW

The Chronicle o f W alter o f Guisborough , ed. H. Roth well (Camden Society, 3rd series, lxxxix, 1957) The History o f the K in g 's Works, i, ii, The M id d le Ages,

ed.

R.A. Brown, H .M . Colvin, A.J. Taylor (1963) Langtoft

The Chronicle o f Pierre de Langtoft,

(Rolls series, 1886)

ed. T. W right, 2 vols

ABBREVIATED REFERENCES

Liber Quotidianus

XXÌ

Liber Quotidianus Contrarotulatoris Garderobiae, 129g-1300, ed. J. Topham et al ( 1787)

M atthew Paris,

Chron. Maj. Oxenedes

Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancii Albani, Chronica Majora, ed. H.R. Luard, 7 vols (Rolls series, 1872-83)

Chronica Johannis de Oxenedes, ed. H. Ellis (Rolls series, 1859)

Pari. Writs

Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons, ed. F. Paigrave, 2 vols in 4 (Record Commission, 1827-34)

Reg. Peckham

Registrum Epistolarum Johannis Peckham, ed. C .T . M artin, 3 vols (Rolls series, 1882-4)

RH Rishanger

Rotuli Hundredorum, 2 vols (Record Commission, 1812-18) WilleImi Rishanger, Chronica et Annales, ed. H .T . Riley (Rolls series, 1865)

Rot. Pari.

Rotuli Parliamentorum, 7 vols (Record Commission, 17831832)

SHR

Scottish Historical Review

TRHS

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society

Wykes

‘Chronicon vulgo dictum Chronicon Thom ae W ykes, 1066-1289’, Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls series, 1864-9), iv

NOTE ON MONEY

T h e m onetary system o f m edieval E ngland was based on that estab­ lished by the em peror Charlem agne. T h e bulk o f the currency consisted o f silver pennies; under E dw ard I, half-pennies and farthings were also put into circulation. T h e usual method o f accounting was in £ s d, with tw elve pennies to the shilling, and tw enty shillings to the pound. H ow ever, the m ark was also used as a unit o f account. It was worth 13s 4d, or two-thirds o f a pound. A ttem pts to render m edieval values in terms o f modern prices are pointless, and soon become dated, with the seem ingly inexorable inflation o f today. A s a very rough guide, a w ealthy earl m ight expect an incom e o f some £5,000 a year. A knight’s wages in w ar am ounted to 2s a day, a comm on infantrym an’s 2d. A good quality warhorse m ight be worth between £20 and £40. T h e value o f sterling as against other currencies fluctuated, but until the great French debasem ents o f the 1290s, the usual ratio o f the English cur­ rency with the livre tournois, the m ain French coinage, was about 1:4.

PART I

The Heir to the Throne

C h ap ter i

THE GREEN TREE, 1239-58

M atth ew Paris, the most notable chronicler o f the day, wrote in the late 1250s in despair as to w hat the future K in g E dw ard I would be like as king. He described a particularly unpleasant and w holly gratuitous attack by E dw ard and his followers on a young man, who at the prince’s orders had an ear cut off and an eye gouged out. M atth ew altered a quotation from St Luke to fit: ‘ I f he does these things when the wood is green, w hat can be hoped for when it is seasoned?’ 1 T h e chronicler’s fears were not justified, to ju d g e by reactions on E d w ard ’s death. T h e king was then described as a man o f great goodness, a ruler w ho did more than any other for his country, and as the flower o f ch ivalry.2 W as E dw ard a m an whose personality was transform ed by his accession to the throne in 1272, in the m anner o f Shakespeare’s H enry V ? In a strictly legal context it was indeed argued that as king E dw ard was ‘as if another person’ from the E dw ard who had been heir to the throne.3 T h e great law giver, the conqueror o f W ales, the constructive statesm an, m ay seem to have little in comm on with the unruly youth described by M atth ew Paris, or w ith the young m an com pared in the 1260s to the changeable and unreliable leopard.4 Y e t the trait o f violence that alarm ed M atth ew can be shown by solid docum entary evidence to have been present in m aturity, with such incidents as the king’s fierce assault on a squire at the w edding o f one o f the royal princesses, or his action in hurling the coronet belonging to another o f his daughters into the fire.5 T h e earls who in the late 1290s doubted, with considerable justification, the kin g’s promises to confirm M agn a C arta must have thought that there was still m uch o f the leopard in Edw ard. T h e king’s reign cannot be understood w ithout looking first at the experiences o f his early years. It is not only the king’s violent and unreliable tendencies that can be detected in his youth: it was then also that he learned m uch that was to be put to constructive effect when he succeeded to the throne. 1 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 598. 2 The Political Songs o f England , ed. T. Wright (Camden Soc., 1839), 241-2. 3 Placita de Quo Warranto (Record Commission, 1811), 429-30. 4 Political Songs, ed. Wright, 93. 5 Below, h i .

4

EDWARD I

Edw ard was born at W estm inster on the night o f 17 June 1239, the eldest child o f H enry I I I and his young queen, Eleanor o f Provence. T h e news was greeted w ith great jo y. T h e citizens o f London took to the streets and celebrated by torchlight: they felt that they could claim the young prince as one o f their own num ber, a feeling that later events were not to justify. In the royal chapel the king’s clerks sang Christus Vincit to m ark the event. Earl W aren n e’s delight at the news proved highly profitable to the m essenger w ho brought it, for he was promised land worth £10 a year. N ot everyone shared this view , however. A ccording to M atth ew Paris, the general pleasure did not last long, for H enry I I I m ade it plain that the messengers sent out to announce the event were to bring back gifts. O ne courtier’s sardonic com m ent was that ‘G od gave us this child, but the king is selling him to us’ .6 In the next year, when orders were given that all men should perform fealty to the young heir to the throne, there was trouble in Buckingham , where the hue and cry was raised against the officials appointed to perform the task.7 Baptism o f the infant quickly followed birth: it was hardly wise to delay in an age o f high infant m ortality. T h e cerem ony was conducted in W estm inster A b b ey by the papal legate O tto, in the presence o f the archbishop o f C an terbu ry, the bishops o f London and C arlisle, the bishop-elect o f N orw ich, and a distinguished body o f lay m agnates including the king’s brother, R ichard earl o f C orn w all, and his brotherin-law, Simon de M ontfort, w ho had recently been invested with the earldom o f Leicester.8 T h e language o f the court and nobility was French, yet the baby was given an English name. T h is was H enry 1 1 1 ’s personal choice, reflecting his devotion to the cult o f Edw ard the Confessor, who had been canonized in 1161. T h e feast o f the saintly king was alw ays celebrated with great pom p by H enry: in 1263 he hoped to feed no less than 100,000 poor men on the occasion. In 1220 he had laid the foundation stone for a new L ad y C h ap el in the C onfessor’s church, W estm inster A b bey, and in 1245 he was to begin a full-scale reconstruction o f the whole building in the latest French style.9 T h e cult was designed to add to the prestige o f the m onarchy, and to this extent the choice o f the nam e Edw ard had political im plications. Essentially, however, it was the product o f H en ry’s personal piety. Sim ilar motives, presum ably, were to lead to the selection o f another

6 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., iii, 539-40; C L R 1226-40, 406; C P R 1232-47, 417. 7 Close Rolls, 1237-42, 182. 8 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., iii, 540. According to Guisborough, 177, Edward was baptized by the archbishop of Canterbury. 9 C P R 1238-66, 282; K W , i, 130-1.

THE GREEN TRE E ,

1239-58

5

English name, Edm und, for H en ry’s second son, called after the A ngloSaxon m artyr k in g .10 Childhood, even when it was that o f a probable future king, was not particularly well-recorded in the m iddle ages, and the early years o f E dw ard I are no exception. T h e form al appointm ents o f those put in charge o f the boy are o f course preserved, but the few personal details that survive give little idea o f w hat Edw ard was like as a child. It is not known if the future builder o f great fortresses in W ales had a toy castle to play with, as his own son E dw ard o f Caernarfon did, nor are there accounts to show w hether, like his youngest sons Th om as and Edm und, he broke not only his own drum s, but also those o f visiting m instrels.11 M ore im portant, virtually nothing is known o f E d w ard ’s education. R oyal children did not then stay for long in the com pany o f their parents. E dw ard was very soon given his own household and his own staff. He was allocated a cham ber at W indsor as early as A ugu st 1239, and was entrusted to the care o f H ugh G iffard and his wife Sybil, who had acted as m idwife at his birth. In M arch 1240 a clerk, W alter de D ya, was appointed to assist G iffard, and orders were given that the boy could only be visited with his knowledge. Th ere were two wetnurses, A lice and Sarah, o f whom the former seems to have been the more im portant: the queen would hardly have been expected to feed her own ch ildren .12 T h e young prince’s household soon expanded, for it was decided that he should have the com pany o f other children. T h e most im portant was his cousin H enry o f A lm ain, son o f R ichard earl o f C ornw all, probably sent to W indsor when his m other died in 1240. T h ey were not all o f exalted status: in 1243 the two sons o f Ferrand, a former crossbowm an in royal service, were with E dw ard. Jam es, son o f Nicholas de M olis, was another o f the prince’s com panions.13 V arious orders issued by the king testify to his concern for his son. In O ctober 1242 he wrote to the constable o f W indsor, saying that he had heard that the children had no good wine to drink, and instructing him to present them with two tuns o f the best to be found in the castle. T h e age o f three m ay seem rem arkably young to drink wine, but at least it did not present the same health risks as w ater - not that this would have been realized at the time. In the same year the sheriff o f G loucester was asked to buy fifteen lam preys, and send them off one after the other to 10 At the time of his usurpation Henry IV attempted to make use of the legend that Edmund was in fact Henry 111’s eldest son, but that he was passed over, because of a deformity, in favour of Edward. This legend has no basis in fact. 11 K W , i, 202n; C. Bullock-Davies, Menestrallorum Multitudo (Cardiff, 1978), 136-7. 12 C L R 1226-40 , 409; Close Rolls, 1237-42, 236; C P R 1232-47 , 247. 13 Close Rolls, 1242 -7 , 30, 141; N. Denholm-Young, Richard o f Cornwall (Oxford, 1947)»32-

6

EDWARD I

Edw ard at W indsor. T h e king’s cham berlain was asked to buy scarlet robes with lavish fur trim m ings for Edw ard and his sister M argaret, younger by ju st over a year. Saddles were ordered for the two children, each equipped with two seats, as they could not be expected to ride u n aid ed.14 T h e personnel o f E d w ard ’s household did not rem ain stable. In 1245 W illiam le Brun, w ho had taken over from W alter de D ya, was him self replaced by Peter o f W akering. H ugh G iffard died in the next year, and his place was taken by B artholom ew Pecche, w ho was given a grant o f £20 a year from the exchequer, for as long as he should remain E d w ard ’s gu a rd ian .15 T h e prince was to grow to be a tall, strong adult, but his health in childhood seems to have been a constant worry. This was hardly surprising in those days: he had at least four brothers and sisters who died in infancy. H e him self was seriously ill in 1246 when the royal fam ily was at Beaulieu for the consecration o f the new abbey church. Q ueen Eleanor, who seems to have been devoted to her son, insisted on remaining in the abbey for some three weeks until he recovered, contrary to the m onastic rules. H e was again ill in the next year, when the king asked all the religious houses near London to pray for his recovery. Another illness, this time in 1251, is attested by a licence for Bartholomew Pecche and Eble des M ontz to take kids in W indsor Forest in 1251, for the prince to eat during convalescen ce.16 These m ay have been no more than the usual childhood ailments, but E d w ard ’s doctors, T hom as and A lexander, would not have had any very effective remedies at their disposal, and every illness must have been alarm ing. V e ry little is known o f E d w ard ’s education and early training, but it probably took a conventional form .17 None o f those placed in charge o f him cam e to exercise a m ajor influence in the w ay that Simon B urley was to do over the young R ichard II, though the friendships that E dw ard made with his contem poraries, especially his cousin H enry of A lm ain, were to be im portant. It is not known for certain whether Edw ard learned to read and write: the first English king whose hand­ w riting survives is Edw ard I I I . It is hard to im agine, however, that Edw ard I was illiterate. His main language was o f course French, more specifically the A nglo-N orm an dialect, but he had some understanding o f Latin, and could speak English. His mother possessed romances written in French, and E dw ard m ay have gained a taste for such works from her. T rain in g in the knightly skills was more im portant for a future king than scholastic attainm ents. H unting was both a sport and 14 15 16 17

Close Rolls, 1237-42, 476; Close Rolls, 1242-7, 45, 118; C L R , 1240-3, 174. Close Rolls, 1242-7, 326; C P R 1232-47, 495. Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., iv, 639; Close Rolls 1247-31, 27, 452; C L R 1244-31, 65. For a recent discussion of this topic, see N. Orme, From Childhood to Chivalry

(1984)-

THE GREEN T RE E ,

1239-58

7

a training for war, and as early as the age o f eight E dw ard had permission to hunt and disport him self in W indsor Forest. H orse­ m anship would have been learned early, and he must soon have been taught how to use sword and lance. T h e latter was a particularly difficult weapon to master. T o hold the point o f a long, heavy pole steady while galloping towards a target was no m ean task, and acquisi­ tion o f this skill must have involved m any hours at the quintain. It was not until he was alm ost seventeen, in 1256, that he was equipped with suitable weapons and arm our to try out his skills at a specially arranged tournam ent at Blyth. M an y o f those present were badly injured, but E dw ard, either through skill or the respect o f the participants for the heir to the throne, seems not to have suffered. T ravel was another part o f E d w ard ’s education. Like all noble households, his was itinerant, and by the early 1250s E dw ard was travelling regularly from one royal residence to another. H e possessed cham bers in such places as W oodstock, O xford, Silverstone, G uildford, H avering and G illingham in Dorset, and was beginning the task o f learning about the country he would one day go vern .18 In his early years E d w ard ’s household was largely financed by means o f grants from the exchequer. A dm inistrative convenience, however, meant that it was sim pler if the prince had his own sources o f revenue, and in 1244 E dw ard was granted h alf o f the lands w hich had recently been confiscated from the subjects o f the king o f France. T h e most im portant estate involved was the honour o fT ick h ill in Yorkshire, w hich had belonged to the countess o f Eu. E dw ard also received at this time the revenues o f the vacant bishopric o f C h ich ester.19 H e was not given custody o f any estates w hich m ight be regarded as form ing part o f the crow n’s patrim ony. W hen he was ten, however, Edw ard received w hat must have seemed to be a lavish grant from his father. In Septem ­ ber 1249 all o f G ascony, the duchy in south-western France held by the English, together with the Isle o f O leron was bestowed upon him .20 H enry had already shown that he did not regard the duchy o f G ascony as inalienable, for in 1242 he had granted it to his brother R ichard o f C ornw all, but shortly afterwards the two men quarrelled, and at the suggestion o f Q ueen Eleanor the deed was cancelled.21 It is possible that even at this early stage she was anxious that G ascony should go to her son: she appears to have been far more concerned than H enry I I I that he should be properly provided for. 18 H. Johnstone, Edward o f Caernarvon 1284-1307 Gascons, i, no. 149; Close Rolls 1247-31, 18; Matthew 1231-60, 3, 23, 92, 119, 193, 410. 19 C P R 1232-47, 418, 420; C L R 1243-31, 28. 20 C C hR 1226-37, 345. 21 Denholm-Young, Richard o f Cornwall, 48-9.

(Manchester, 1946), 18; Roles Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 557; C L R

8

EDWARD I

T h e grant o f 1249 proved to be little more than an em pty form ality. T h e English position in south-western France at this period was not an easy one. H enry I I I had an understandable desire to regain the lands in France lost by his father John. C am paigns in 1230 and 1242 achieved little: there was no prospect o f regaining N orm andy, and at T ailleb ou rg in 1242 H enry was ignom iniously deserted by the Poitevin nobles. H owever, G ascony, w hich had come to the English crown with the m arriage o f E leanor o f A qu itain e to H enry I I , rem ained in H en ry’s hands, though after his m ilitary failures it was unlikely that the English king would win the respect o f his unruly subjects there. T h e duchy was in a condition o f near anarchy, w ith the most powerful noble, G aston de Béarn, in alm ost perm anent rebellion. A s English control o f the duchy weakened, so the kings o f C astile and A ragon pressed their own claims to it.22 In 1248 H enry I I I had appointed his brother-in-law, Simon de M ontfort, to act as royal lieutenant in G ascony for seven years. T h e seriousness o f the situation was reflected in the unprecedented powers accorded to M ontfort. His firm techniques, first m aking peace with external enemies and then turning to the problem s o f internal order, had considerable success, though they also provoked numerous com ­ plaints to H enry I I I in England. A fter an initial policy o f neutrality towards the two factions w hich dom inated Bordeaux, the C olom b and Soler families, M ontfort sided with the former. T h e Soler protested to the king, as did G aston de Béarn, with whom M ontfort had a private dispute over the county o f Bigorre. T h e story o f M ontfort’s rule in G ascony is a com plex one: from E d w ard ’s point o f view , the fact that Earl Simon had been put in full control o f the G ascon revenues m eant that the grant o f 1249 am ounted to virtu ally nothing in practical terms. It is also relevant to note that there was little in M ontfort’s methods o f rule w hich presaged the role that he was to play in E ngland as the leader o f the baronial reform m ovem ent in the 1260s. Simon de M ontfort’s rule in G ascony did not last the intended seven years. T h e volum e o f com plaints reaching H enry I I I was such that in 1252, after royal comm issioners had been sent to G ascony, the case between Earl Simon and his G ascon opponents was heard at W est­ m inster before the king. T h e trial was a dram atic one. M atth ew Paris described a bitter exchange between H enry I I I and his brother-inlaw, in which M ontfort goaded the king, s a y in g 4W ho could believe that you are a Christian? H ave you ever been confessed?’ , a line o f attack w hich naturally infuriated the pious H en ry.23 A n unsatisfactory 22 For a recent brief account of Gascony in this period, see M. W. Labarge, Gascony, England's First Colony, 1204-1453 (1980), 17-28. 23 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 290.

THE GREEN T RE E ,

1239-58

9

com prom ise led to Sim on’s return to G ascony and a truce with his opponents. A final settlem ent was to be m ade when H enry and his son Edw ard went to G ascony early in the next year. T h e G ascons seem to have been enthusiastic about the prospect o f the grant to Edw ard being m ade a reality. T h e men o f Bayonne and Bazas petitioned for the rem oval o f Earl Simon and his replacem ent by E dw ard, and H enry I I I duly renewed the grant to his son o f G ascony and O léron, m aking a new condition that they should never be alienated from the English crown. But before this grant could be put into effect, M ontfort had to be removed from office, as his appointm ent still had three years to run. A n agreem ent was accordingly m ade between Edw ard and his uncle. In exchange for 7,000 m arks, M ontfort w ithdrew from G ascon y.24 Edw ard was no more than a pawn in these events. H e was only thirteen in 1252, and there was still no question o f giving him anything more than a nom inal position in G ascony. T h is was m ade very clear to him when H enry I I I eventually sailed for the duchy in A ugu st 1253, for E dw ard was left behind in England in the care o f his m other and his uncle Richard o f C orn wall. M atth ew Paris painted an affecting picture o f em otional farewells between father and son, w ith E dw ard finally left weeping on the shore as the ships set sail, refusing to leave until they were out o f sight. It has been plausibly suggested that his tears m ay have been as m uch the result o f his anger at the fact that he was not going to take over the duchy he had been promised, as o f his sadness at being parted from his father.25 T h e situation in G ascony when H enry I I I arrived was still critical, and m uch was m ade by the English governm ent o f the dangers o f im m inent war. G aston de Béarn was still in revolt, and there was a threat o f invasion from C astile, whose ruler, A lphonso X , had a claim to the duchy through descent from Eleanor, daughter o f H enry 1 1 . In fact, diplom acy trium phed and there was no war. A lthough in 1247 negotiations had taken place with B rabant for E d w ard ’s m arriage, they had come to nothing, and the English diplom ats were now free to offer A lphonso the prospect o f a m atch between the heir to the throne and his sister Eleanor. T here seem to have been few difficulties. A lphonso was understandably anxious to see Edw ard in person, to ensure that he was sufficiently handsom e and accom plished, and suggested that he should knight him .26 H enry I I I had intended that E dw ard should be knighted 24 CChR 1226-57, 386; C. Bémont, Simon de Montfort, translated by E.F. Jacob (Oxford, 1930), 108, 321-4; C L R 1251-60, 167. 25 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 383; F.M. Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947), i, 231. 26 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 397. For a discussion of Henry 11 Fs actions and policies during his stay in Gascony, see J.P. Trabut-Cussac, L ’administration anglaise en Gascogne sous Henry I I I et Edouard I de 1254 à 1507 (Paris, 1972), xxxi-xli.

IO

EDWARD I

in England in a grand cerem ony, along with a large num ber o f other young men, but he was prepared to abandon this p lan .27 A ccording to M atth ew Paris, the English king was reluctant to entrust his son to a foreign ruler w ho m ight lead him astray, but he was persuaded by the C astilian envoys o f the rectitude o f A lp h on so’s ch aracter.28 T h e Castilian’s concerns were rather more practical than H enry’s: Alphonso was clearly worried that his future son-in-law was insufficiently endowed with lands, and insisted that before m arriage he should receive estates worth 15,000 marks a year. T h e negotiations proceeded slowly, but sm oothly, and were concluded by the end o f M arch 1254, although H enry still feared that there m ight be w ar.29 A week before his fifteenth birthday Edw ard finally set sail for G ascony, accom panied by his m other, his brother Edm und, and the archbishop o f C an terbu ry. T h e men o f Y arm outh had provided him with a fine ship, but when the sailors from W inchelsea who had been preparing vessels for the queen saw it, they were so angry that it was larger and better than theirs that they attacked it, killing m any o f the sailors.30 T h is was one o f m any incidents in the long-running feud between the C in qu e Ports and Yarm outh: Edw ard w ould experience the problem again in a more acute form in 1297. T h ere were no further m ishaps, and the fleet reached B ordeaux on about 10 June. T h e final negotiations for the m arriage were concluded with no problem s, and the fitting date o f 13 O ctober, the feast o f the translation o f Edw ard the Confessor, was set for the cerem ony o f E d w ard ’s knighting.31 Events did not quite go according to plan. E d w ard ’s entourage was not as large and splendid as had been intended, and his departure from B ayonne was late, so that the ceremonies at Burgos could not take place until 1 N ovem ber, when both knighting and m arriage took place in the church o f the m onastery o f Las H uelgas. T h ree weeks later Edw ard and his bride were back in G ascony, at Bayonne. O n e o f his clerks cele­ brated his m aster’s position by describing him in a charter as ‘now reigning in G ascony as prince and lo rd ’ . H enry I I I had not stayed in the south for his son’s m arriage: he was already on his w ay north, and received the news only on 20 N ovem ber w hen he was at M arm outier.32 T h is year 1254 was o f prim e im portance in E d w ard ’s life. T h ere was no form al attainm ent o f an age o f m ajority for him, but the grant o f 27 Close Rolls 125 1-3, 37-8, 191, 442- 3. 465. 47 C 475. 5o8~928 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 397-8. 29 Trabut-Cussac, L 'administration anglaise en Gascogne, xxxvi-xxxviii. 30 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 446-7. According to Paris, Henry I I I issued instructions at the last minute forbidding the queen to sail, but she wisely ignored his worries. 31 Trabut-Cussac, L administration anglaise en Gascogne, 7. 32 Ibid., 7-8; C P R 1247-58, 382.

THE GREEN T RE E ,

1239-58

II

m assive estates, his knighting and his m arriage, all in the year o f his fifteenth birthday, am ounted to his achieving adult status. H e owed a substantial debt o f gratitude to Alphonso o f C astile, for it was clearly through his insistence that E dw ard obtained so m uch when still so young. K n igh tin g was perhaps little more than a form ality due to Edw ard by right o f birth, rather than because o f any achievem ent, but it was an im portant initiation into chivalric society. M arriage was obviously very im portant, and although personal details are few, every indication is that this m atch with Eleanor proved to be a thoroughly satisfactory one. T h e grants m ade to Edw ard by his father, as a result o f pressure from Alphonso, transform ed E d w ard ’s w ealth and position. T h e endowm ent was m ade on 14 February 1254, and was most impressive, at least on paper. It consisted o f all Ireland, apart from the cities and counties o f D ublin and Lim erick, A thlone, and lands promised to G eoffrey de Lusignan and Robert W alerand. In W ales Edw ard was to receive the king’s conquests in the north, the honour o f the Th ree Castles (Skenfrith, G rosm ont and W hite Castle) in south W ales, along with the castles o f M ontgom ery, C arm arthen, C ardigan and Builth. G ascony, the Isle o f O leron and the C hannel Isles were E d w ard ’s. In England he received the earldom o f Chester, the town and castle o f Bristol, Stam ford and G rantham in Lincolnshire, the m anor o f Freem antle in H am pshire, and all the lands which the count o f Eu had held. A ll were to be held on condition that they were not alienated from the English crow n.33 M atthew Paris considered that having m ade such lavish grants, H enry I I I had turned him self into ‘a m utilated kinglet’ . Sir M aurice Powicke wrote that ‘from this time E dw ard ruled his scattered fiefs in his own nam e’ . Y e t the reality o f E d w ard ’s power has been forcefully questioned. J.R . Studd has pointed to the king’s continued interference in his son’s affairs, and to E d w ard ’s lack o f a form al title, as evidence that the actual situation was very different from the apparent im plica­ tions o f the grant o f 1245, and he argued that far from giving up vast estates, H enry 111 in practice reinforced his royal authority in areas where it was weak, by em phasizing his overriding rights o f sovereignty.34 T h e first point to consider is E d w ard ’s lack o f a title. In his charters he was sim ply termed ‘E dw ard, first-born son and heir o f lord H enry, illustrious king o f E n glan d’ , or more sim ply ‘Lord E dw ard, first-born son o f the illustrious king o f E n glan d’ .35 H enry I I I , despite the grant o f 33 C P R 1247-58, 382. 34 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 450; Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, i, 233; J.R. Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and Henry III’, B IH R , xlx (1977), 4—19. 35 See for example C C hR 1226-57, 447-8.

12

EDWARD I

1254 to his son, did not abandon his titles o f lord o f Ireland or duke o f A quitaine. T o contem poraries, E dw ard was sim ply Dominus Edwardus, Lord Edw ard. T h e title Lord was a simple honorific, one w hich the heir to the throne shared with m agnates, bishops and even academ ics.36 H enry could have given his son a royal title: H enry 11 had had his eldest son crowned king during his own lifetime, in 1170, and there was also the precedent o f H enry I l l ’s brother-in-law , the em ­ peror Frederick 1 1 , who had organized the election o f his son H enry as king o f the Rom ans (a title w hich gave him rule in G erm any) in 1220. N either o f these exam ples could be counted as successes, however, for both young kings had rebelled against their fathers. Y e t if Edw ard was not to be given the rank o f king, surely he could have been perm itted to use a lesser title? R ichard I had been duke o f A qu itain e prior to his accession, and John lord o f Ireland, although R ichard and John had received these titles before they becam e heirs to the throne. Th ere was no precedent for the heir using a territorial title in the w ay that was to become usual in the fourteenth century. T h e fact that Edw ard did not bear such a title should not, however, be taken as evidence that his authority w as lim ited. Rather, the English were following the exam ple o f the French royal house, where the king’s eldest son was alw ays styled ‘first-born (primogenitus) o f the Lord K in g o f F ran ce’, or some variant on that style.37 E d w ard ’s position in his various lands and estates needs to be exam ined separately. T h e lands he received in England were not long-standing parts o f the royal dem esne, but were relatively recent acquisitions by the crown. Stam ford and G rantham , for exam ple, had belonged to a N orm an fam ily until K in g John granted them to Earl W arenne: it is not clear how the crown regained them. Bristol had been the centre o f the great honour o f G loucester, but in 1214 had been retained by John when he gave his former wife, the countess o f G louces­ ter, in m arriage to the earl o f Essex. O n the death o f the last earl o f C hester in 1237 H enry I I I bought out the four co-heiresses to the estates, and obtained the right to the title in 1242.38 In granting E dw ard these estates in E ngland H enry was not, therefore, dim inishing the crow n’s authority by abandoning control over long-standing royal estates. Rather, in insisting that these lands should not be alienated 36 As there is no definite article in Latin, there is no contemporary warrant for the common modern usage o f ‘the lord Edward’. In contemporary French, Edward was simply ‘Sire Edward’ (Political Songs, ed. Wright, 60). 37 A. W. Lewis, Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familiar Order and the State (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 166 and note. 38 S. Painter, The Reign o f King John (Baltimore, 1949), 149, 283; Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward , ii, 788-9; R. Stewart Brown, ‘The End of the Norman Earldom of Chester’, E H R , xxxv (1920), 26-54.

THE GREEN T RE E ,

1239-58

13

from the crown, he was adding in the long term to the crown’s demesnes. Th is provision can certainly be seen as a lim itation on E d w ard ’s authority, though it was not one o f w hich he took great notice, since he did in fact make various grants from his estates. N or was E dw ard in a m uch w eaker position than other m ajor landowners as a result o f this provision regarding alienation, for in 1256 a royal ordinance laid down that anyone who held land directly from the king could only grant it to another by special perm ission.39 It should also be noted that H enry I I I did not attem pt to lim it E d w ard ’s powers in Cheshire: the prince retained the palatine authority that the earls o f Chester had enjoyed, which provided for a rem arkable degree o f local autonom y, sim ilar to that in the great episcopal palatinate o f D urham . In Ireland E dw ard’s authority was not fully independent. T he country was not an easy one to rule. A nglo-N orm an conquest had begun in H enry I I ’s reign, but was still not com plete in the m id-thirteenth century. Some regions, such as the county o f D ublin and the lordships o f Leinster and M eath, were effectively colonized, but in others the A nglo-N orm an aristocracy only exercised a very tenuous authority.40 O ne royal official expressed him self very strongly in 1256, w riting that he would rather go to prison than return to Ireland, where he had recently been attem pting to raise m oney.41 Some o f the initial lim itations in the grant o f Ireland to E dw ard did not last long: w ithin four months D ublin, Lim erick and A thlone were entrusted to him. H enry I I I , however, retained his rights over the church, and m ade it clear that Ireland still owed him allegiance.42 It took a surprisingly long time for the grant to Edw ard to be fulfilled, probably because although it was intended that he should go in person to Ireland, he never in fact did so. H e was prom pt in appointing Richard de la Rochelle as his steward in Ireland, but it was not until 1256 that the royal ju sticiar, John FitzGeoffrey, relinquished his post. It is unlikely that there was any conflict between the two men, w ho were uncle and nephew. H enry I I I sometimes used his son’s adm inistration to im plem ent or sim ply duplicate orders that he him self issued. Th u s in late A ugust he told the ju sticia r to restore T rim to Geoffrey de G eneville, and in m id-Septem ber Edw ard gave sim ilar instructions to Richard de la Rochelle. Even after orders in M a y 1256 that E d w ard ’s seal should replace his own in the adm inistration o f Ireland, H enry still felt at liberty to intervene, on one occasion revoking a writ issued by his 39 J.M.W. Bean, The Decline o f English Feudalism (Manchester, 1968), 66-79. 40 The best recent brief account of Ireland in this period is R. Frame, Colonial Ireland 1169-1365 (Dublin, 1981). 41 Royal and other historical letters illustrative o f the reign o f Henry I I I , ed. W.W. Shirley (Rolls ser., 1866), ii, 119. 42 C D I 1252-1284, no. 371.

H

EDWARD I

son’s chancery on the grounds that it was contrary to norm al English legal form .43 T here were no m ajor clashes over Irish policies between H enry I I I and his son. T h ere were, however, considerable difficulties encountered in fulfilling the promise m ade by the king to his halfbrother Geoffrey de Lusignan o f £500 worth o f land in Ireland, with H enry on one occasion angrily w riting that, fit is not ju st or fitting that the king’s brother should be o f worse condition than any other but rather o f a better’ .44 T h e king failed to appreciate the problem s in­ volved in m aking over tracts o f land in C onnau gh t w hich were claim ed by a local king, Felim O ’C onnor, to a French m agnate, and eventually Geoffrey received instead estates in L outh and in E ngland .45 E d w ard ’s own m ain concern with Ireland was probably sim ply as a source o f funds and supplies. His attitude, both at this time and later in his career, is exem plified by orders issued in 1254 for all the revenues o f Ireland to be sent to him, and for 2,000 crannocks o f w heat in addition, the cost o f w hich was to be met out o f future revenue.46 G ascony was alw ays to be m uch more im portant to E dw ard than Ireland. H e visited the duchy several times before his accession, was there from A ugu st 1273 until A p ril 1274, and spent the period from 1286 to 1289 there as well. It was in G ascony that E dw ard had his first taste o f power, to some extent, for when H enry I I I returned north­ wards in the autum n o f 1254, he left his son there for a year. Edw ard had his own adm inistration, headed by his chancellor, M ichael de Fiennes.47 A roll o f letters issued in E d w ard ’s nam e while H enry was still in G ascony survives, and suggests that he had little real independ­ ence. H e did, it seems, take the initiative in ordering the destruction o f the church at L a Reole, w hich rebels had earlier defended against the English. H ow ever, H enry I I I intervened, and after arbitration by two bishops only the recent fortifications were rased.48 O nce H enry had left G ascony, E d w ard ’s adm inistration was left in charge. T h e m ain concern w as to continue the process o f pacification by means o f a com plex com bination o fju d icial judgem ent, negotiations o f truces, and some m ilitary action, as when Edw ard besieged G ram ont in J u ly 1255. T h is must have been a form ative period for the young prince, but details o f his policies are not as full as m ight be wished. It is 43 G.H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans 1216-1333 1232-1284, nos 391, 399, 457, 461, 529. 44 C P R 1247-38, 384. 45 Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, iii, 233-4. 46 C D I 1232-84 , nos 419, 446.

(Oxford, 1920), iii, 232; C D I

47 G.P. Cuttino, ‘A Chancellor of the Lord Edward’, B IH R , xlx (1977), 229-32. Cuttino’s assumption that he was the first to notice Fiennes’ appointment is incorrect: see N. Denholm-Young, Seigneurial Administration in England (Oxford, 1937), 12, n.6. 48 Trabut-Cussac, Uadministration anglaise en Gascogne, 8-9.

THE GREEN T RE E ,

1239-58

15

interesting to see that already E dw ard was experiencing financial problems, for he borrowed extensively, and was com pelled to levy a tax. T h is was, at least in part, presented by his officials as being a feudal aid that the G ascons were obliged to pay on the occasion o f E d w ard ’s being knighted. Some o f those now recruited into E d w ard ’s service were to form the nucleus o f his adm inistation in later years.49. In 1255 Edw ard returned to England, E leanor o f C astile preceding him by some weeks. He was still not his own m aster, for it was his father’s decision that he should come home. It was only after the prince’s return that signs o f division between father and son over the question o f G ascony began to appear. M atth ew Paris provides a highly coloured account o f a row between the two, resulting from the com ­ plaints put to Edw ard by G ascon m erchants who objected to the exactions o f royal officials. T h e y stated that they would rather trade with Saracens than with England. H enry was furious that they should have com plained to E dw ard, not him, and fulm inated that there was still only one king in England w ho could do justice. W hen E dw ard put the G ascon case to his father, H enry produced a tirade about fam ily ingratitude, recalling the w ay in w hich H enry I I ’s dearest sons turned against him. T h e dispute did not develop further, for H enry took sensible advice and met the grievances o f the Gascons: in D ecem ber 1255 he ordered his officials to take no more from them than was rightful and custom ary. A ccording to M atth ew Paris, Edw ard strengthened the size o f his household at this time so that he had a force o f two hundred horse, surely an exaggeration on the chronicler’s part.50 T h e records reveal a m uch more serious split than this between H enry and his son over the question o f G ascony. T h e king’s instincts were all in favour o f a policy o f m ediation between the two rival factions in Bordeaux, the Soler and C olom b. In contrast, E dw ard aimed to create a party in the city loyal to his interests, and with this in view determ ined on an alliance with the Soler fam ily. O n 9 Septem ber 1256 he m ade a treaty with G aillard del Soler, o f which H enry I I I was kept ignorant. Soler agreed to win control o f the m ayoralty o f B ordeaux for Edw ard, to build a new castle in the town, not to make peace with his rivals without the p rince’s consent, and not to make m arriage alliances prejudicial to his interests. For the time being little cam e o f this, as H enry pursued his policies o f reconciliation, giving the Soler and C olom b families permission to conclude m arriage alliances, and com pelling his son to confirm the status o f the B ordeaux comm une. G aillard del Soler foolishly boasted, on his return to G ascony, about his alliance with E dw ard, and was duly arrested. Y et eventually it was 49 Ibid., 8-15. 50 Matthew Paris, Chron. M a j ., v, 538-9; C P R 1247-58, 453.

i6

EDWARD I

E d w ard ’s policy w hich was to trium ph. In 1259 he renewed his treaty with G aillard del Soler, and in the following year the G ascon was acquitted by the king o f all charges m ade against him .51 A lthough there was evidently a m ajor disagreem ent over policy in G ascony between E dw ard and his father, the prince had little real opportunity to act in this period from 1254 to 1258. H e was ultim ately subordinate to H en ry’s authority, and the seneschal o f G ascony, Stephen Longespée, was the kin g’s nominee. He had to conduct his policy o f alliance with G aillard del Soler in a secretive, underhand m anner, and m ust have resented the position in w hich he had been placed. T h e last element o f the landed endowm ent that E dw ard received in 1254 which needs to be discussed is W ales. T h ere is little in E d w ard ’s policies and experiences in this period to suggest that he was to be the conqueror o f the principality. T h e mood when Edw ard received his grant o f lands in 1254 was more one o f post-w ar calm than o f pre-war tension. T h e highly successful W elsh ruler L lyw elyn the G reat had died in 1240, and in the confused dynastic situation o f the succeeding years the W elsh did not fare particularly well. L ly w ely n ’s son D afydd died in 1246, and the principality o f G w ynedd was then placed under the rule o f the two elder sons o f D a fy d d ’s half-brother G ruffydd, w ho had died when attem pting to escape from the T o w er o f London in 1244. H e had made a rope out o f his bedclothes, but as one modern historian has put it, ‘unfortunately, he did not allow for the w eight o f a particularly bulky body, m ade unw ieldy by the torpor o f a com fortable cap tivity’ .52 T h e two W elsh princes, L lyw elyn and O w ain , were forced to come to terms w ith the English at W oodstock in 1247. H enry I I I claim ed the right to receive hom age from all the W elsh nobility, and the princes had to abandon their claim s to the lands o f the Four C antreds o f Rhos, Rhufoniog, D yffryn C lw yd and T egeingl, land lying between the Dee and the C onw y. It seemed that the authority o f L lyw elyn the G reat was shattered, with the authority o f his descendants lim ited to Snow donia and A nglesey. T h e laws o f feudal inheritance, w hich kept an inheri­ tance intact in the hands o f the eldest son, did not apply in W ales, and G w ynedd appeared to be threatened with further fragm entation as lands were granted to another o f G ru ffyd d ’s sons, D afydd. It is only with hindsight that an alliance m ade in 1250 between L lyw elyn and G ruffydd ap M adog o f Brom field, and another in the next year between Llyw elyn and O w ain on the one hand, and two princes o f the south-west on the other, appear as pointers to the wide am bitions 51 Trabut-Cussac, L ’administration anglaise en Gascogne, 17-19; Gascon Register A , ed. G.P. Cutdno (Oxford, 1975), ii, 461, 544-5, 547-8. 52 J.E. Lloyd, A History o f Wales (2nd edn, 1912), ii, 701.

THE GREEN TREE,

1239-58

17

o f the man who was to be E d w ard ’s greatest W elsh opponent, Prince L lyw elyn .53 T h e com bination o f L ly w e ly n ’s am bitions, and the harsh m anner in which E d w ard ’s lands in W ales were ruled, m eant that the apparently peaceful situation o f 1254 was rapidly shattered. T h e policy o f E dw ard’s officials was to try to im pose English m ethods o f adm inistration and English law upon the W elsh, and also novel financial exactions. T h e policy was not new: the justice o f C hester appointed in 1251, A lan la Zouche, was extrem ely unpopular in the Four C antreds, but H enry I I I had been very w illing to hear com plaints against him. In 1252 a comm ission o f two W elshm en and two Englishm en was appointed to look into the grievances o f the W elsh against Zouche and his officials. H owever, under E d w ard ’s stew ard, Geoffrey de L an gley, no conces­ sions to the W elsh were m ade. T h e evidence o f the substantial landed estate that Geoffrey built up for himself, largely at the expense o f impoverished knightly fam ilies, strongly suggests that he was a corrupt and unscrupulous m an.54 H e was not E d w ard ’s choice as steward: he had been one o f the queen’s officials, and was nom inated for the post by the king, queen and royal council. W illiam de W ilton was another o f E d w ard ’s officials blam ed by the chroniclers, along w ith Lan gley, for their harsh rule in W ales. A ccording to M atth ew Paris, H enry 111 in 1257 disclaim ed all responsibility for W ales when his son appealed to him for help, saying ‘W h at has this got to do with me? It is your land by gift.’ Y e t it was H enry who appointed justices in 1255 to hear cases between L lyw elyn and his brother O w ain , and in the next year various W elshm en cam e to see H enry on L ly w e ly n ’s business.55 E dw ard him ­ self paid only a b rief visit to W ales, in the second h a lf o f J u ly 1256, and there is no indication o f his personal opinion o f the policies being undertaken in his nam e, although his short-lived presence probably only m ade m atters worse. These policies, particularly those o f anglicizing the law and adm in­ istration o f the Four C antreds and linking them ever more closely to the lordship o f C hester,56 provoked rebellion in 1256, w ith appeal being m ade to Llyw elyn for assistance. A fter a rapid and astonishing success 53 Littere Wallie, ed. J.G. Edwards (Cardiff, 1940), xxxviii. A convenient brief account of Gwynedd’s history is to be found in D. Stephenson, The Governance o f Gwynedd (Cardiff, 1984), xxii-xv. 54 A .J. Roderick, ‘The Four Cantreds: a study in administration’, Bull, o f the Board o f Celtic Studies, x (1940), 243-4; C P R 1247-58 , 171; P.R. Coss, ‘Sir Geoffrey de Langley and the Crisis of the Knightly Class in Thirteenth-Century England’, Past and Present, lxviii (1975), 3-37. 55 Matthew Paris, Chron. M a j ., v, 614; C P R 1247-58 , 432, 470. 56 J.R. Studd, ‘The Lord Edward’s Lordship of Chester, 1254-72’, Transactions o f the Historic Society o f Lancashire and Cheshire, cxxvii (1979), 18.

i

8

EDWARD I

in the north, L lyw elyn attacked M eirionydd in D ecem ber 1256 and then advanced on Builth in m id-W ales. In the excitem ent o f his tri­ um phal progress L lyw elyn did not confine his conquests to the lands held by Edw ard and his rival W elsh princes: he also took estates from Roger M ortim er, and early in 1257 advanced into South W ales, where he achieved considerable success against the M arch er lords, including the earl o f G loucester.57 T h e task o f dealing with the rebellion was too m uch for the limited forces at E d w ard ’s disposal. His accounts for this period show that his official John le Bretun paid various sm all bodies o f troops in South W ales and the M arches. T h e largest force consisted o f no more than 35 m en-at-arm s and 700 infantry, w ho were sent towards Llandovery. Edw ard him self does not appear to have taken part in the operations over the winter, w hich were largely directed by the earls o f G loucester and Hereford. A ccording to M atth ew Paris the dreadful rain and storms m eant that little was achieved.58 H enry I I I was not inclined to offer his son m uch help, initially offering only a paltry 500 marks. E d w ard ’s uncle R ichard o f C orn w all was o f more use, with a loan o f 4,000 marks. R ich ard ’s attem pts at m ediation were firm ly rebuffed by L lyw elyn, who wrote o f the injuries and oppression suffered by the W elsh at the hands o f E d w ard ’s men. In the early sum m er o f 1257 E d w ard ’s forces suffered a m ajor defeat in the T o w y valley. Stephen B auzan, w ho had also served E dw ard in G ascon y,59 was in com m and o f an operation intended to reinstate a W elsh noble, Rhys Fychan, who had lost his lands. Rhys deserted the English cause, and B auzan was defeated. It was alm ost certainly this news that im pelled H enry 111 to change his policy, and propose direct intervention in W ales. T h e English tenants-in-chief were sum moned to muster at Chester on 1 A ugust. T h e instructions were later modified, and some asked to go to B ristol.60 M atth ew Paris had it that Edw ard was extrem ely reluctant to jo in his father for the cam paign, even suggesting that W ales should be left to the W elsh. D oubtless the young prince deeply resented the fact that his father was now taking over an enterprise w hich should have been his to conduct, and for w hich he should have been provided with adequate resources.61 57 Lloyd, History o f Wales, ii, 717-22; M. Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 12 1J-13 14 (Baltimore, 1965), 78-9. 58 SC 6/1094/11; Matthew Paris, Chron. M a j., v, 539. 59 J.P. Trabut-Cussac, ‘Un role de lettres patentes emanees du Prince Edouard’, Receuil de travaux offert a M . Clovis Brunei (Paris, 1955), ii, 604-5. 60 Close Rolls 1256-9, 139. The date of the initial summons is not Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 639, 645-6, puts it before Bauzan’s defeat, but

evidence to support this. 61 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 640.

known. Matthew there is no record

THE GREEN TREE,

1239-58

19

T h e dispute between father and son cannot have been too serious, as E dw ard did take part in the royal cam paign. It proved to be as ineffective as most o f H enry I l l ’s m ilitary exploits. T h e arm y ad ­ vanced from C hester along the coast, reaching D egan w y in late A ugust. V ictu allin g arrangem ents were sadly deficient, an inevitable result o f the haste with w hich the expedition was organized. T h e English troops were forced to m ake a dejected w ithdraw al, faced by fam ine and harassed by the trium phant W elsh. Prom ised supplies from E d w ard ’s Irish lordship failed to m aterialize.62 T h e lessons o f the cam paign were obvious, and when, as king, E dw ard led expeditions along a very sim ilar route, he showed that he had learned well from the mistakes o f I2 57* B y the end o f 1257 the crisis in W ales was, for the English, very serious. It would be w rong to blam e E dw ard for the situation. T h ere is nothing to suggest that the harsh policies o f his officials had been adopted at his prom pting, and it is unreasonable to expect that one so inexperienced as E dw ard could have anticipated problem s not foreseen by the officials acting in his name. H enry I I I must bear some o f the blam e, for failing to give his son sufficient support at an early stage in the W elsh rising. T h e English were, quite sim ply, not in a position in the late 1250s to deal w ith the rising star o f L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, a man o f immense am bition and considerable ability. It was to take E dw ard at the height o f his powers to deal w ith him. W ith his great estates in England, Ireland and W ales, E dw ard was a landow ner o f the first rank after 1254. T h ere is unfortunately only one surviving account roll to show how the lands were adm inistered. It is the record o f an audit heard at E d w ard ’s exchequer at Bristol, and covers the year from M ichaelm as 1256. It is far from being a com plete record o f E d w ard ’s finances, for it provides no details o f the revenues received at the exchequers o f Dublin, Chester or Bordeaux, and much of it is in a very sum m ary form. It shows that E d w ard ’s estates were run in accordance with standard patterns o f thirteenth-century estate m an­ agem ent. T h e lands were grouped geographically: the T h ree C astles were linked with A b ergaven n y in South W ales: Stam ford, G rantham and several minor properties were subordinate to T ickh ill. T h e record shows how receipts were apportioned. V e ry little was retained by local bailiffs: o f the total receipts at G ranth am am ounting to alm ost £148, all save £5 12s 4d was sent to the constable o f T ickh ill. From there, m oney was sent in all directions: £80 was sent to R alph le D onjon, w ho was in charge o f the w ardrobe, the m ain household departm ent; £133 w ent to W illiam de M ohaut, constable o f Chester; £229 was directed to the treasury at Bristol. A t A b ergavenn y the constable, John le Bretun,

62 Ibid., v, 633, 648-9;

Close R olls 1 2 5 6 -g

, 90-1.

20

EDWARD I

received a total o f about £590: the situation in W ales required substan­ tial resources. It is hard to generalize about m anagem ent methods from a single account roll, but it is striking that court profits were at a high level, suggesting that E d w ard ’s lordship was severe. A t T ickh ill, court pleas and other perquisites raised £22, roughly double the revenue from sales o f grain. A t A bergavenn y, the honorial court produced an income o f £113, as against grain sales o f only £52. T h e indications are that the estates were efficiently run, with no substantial arrears, and with no signs that incom e was falling substantially behind expenditure.63 H owever, the situation was p robably deteriorating. John le B retun’s accounts for 1257-8 were never properly settled, and as late as 1274 his executors were dealing with the exchequer over this issue. B y 1258, according to M atth ew Paris, Edw ard was forced to hand over Stamford and G rantham to his uncle W illiam de V a len ce.64 M edieval accounts were not draw n up to show profit and loss in the m odern sense. T h eir prim e purpose was to ensure that officials were not guilty o f fraudulent practices. It is dangerous to try to calculate income from such docum ents as E d w ard ’s account for 1256—7. Denholm Y o u n g used it as the basis for an estim ate o f £7,800 for E d w ard ’s income, excluding G ascon receipts, but this figure includes revenue from Ireland, C hester and Bristol, none o f w hich featured in the docum ent. Th ere are considerable problem s with D en h olm -Y ou n g’s calculations, and a better figure w ould probably be about £6,000.65 It certainly seems most unlikely that E dw ard was ever in the position his father had intended him to be in, with an income from land o f £ 10,000 a year. E d w ard ’s financial difficulties are apparent from the fact that in 1257 he sold the great w ardship o f R obert Ferrers, w hich the king had granted him, to his m other and Peter o f Savoy for 6,000 marks. In the same year he borrowed £ 1,000 from the archbishop o f C an terbu ry, and gave the citizens o f Bristol the right to collect their own revenues for four years in return for 1,600 m arks, o f w hich 500 were paid im m ediately.66 Political independence would be hard to achieve for a young man whose financial resources scarcely m atched his status as the king’s eldest born. E d w ard ’s position in the years im m ediately following the grant o f lands to him in 1254 was not easy. M ost o f his officials were chosen for 63 SC 6/1094/11. 64 E 159/50, m.16; Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 679. 65 N. Denholm-Young, Seigneurial Administration in England, 9. The figure of £3,000 for Irish income is much too high, and it is not clear where the figure of £1,500 for T utbury comes from. Chester was farmed for 1,000 marks, not 700, as C P R 1247-58 , 182, shows. Only a very rough estimate of Edward’s income is possible from the surviving records. 66 C P R 1247-58, 554, 569-70, 572.

THE GREEN T RE E ,

1239-58

21

him by the king or queen, and he was certainly not fully independent. His lands were his to hold, but not to grant aw ay. H e could make appointm ents, but they were subject to royal scrutiny. T h e resources which he had been promised were not fully forthcom ing in financial terms. T h e seeds o f friction between H enry I I I and his son were germ inating, and in such incidents as the row over the com plaints o f the G ascon m erchants the shoots o f discord can be seen. T h e extent o f conflict between H enry and E dw ard should not, however, be exagger­ ated. E dw ard was frequently present at meetings o f the royal council,67 and in popular estim ation he was clearly regarded as being fully com m itted to a highly unpopular regime. T h ere are no signs that anyone hoped that the heir to the throne m ight lend his support to those who hoped for reform. T h e regim e itself was hardly a united one, and E dw ard was bound to become involved in the struggles between the various factions o f the court, even if he was not as yet a m ajor figure in national politics. Th ere were two m ajor groupings at H en ry’s court, both o f w hich were anxious to gain control o f the heir to the throne. T h e queen’s relations from Savoy were powerful, able and am bitious men. Peter o f Savoy was given the honour o f Richm ond in 1240, and in the next year his brother Boniface was elected as archbishop o f C an terbu ry. A third brother, W illiam , bishop-elect o f V alen ce, also played a significant role in English politics. In the wake o f these men there cam e a num ber o f lesser men, particularly in the course o f the 1250s. T h e other im portant group o f aliens at court was that o f the Poitevin, or Lusignan, half-brothers o f the king. T h e y were the children o f H enry I l l ’s m other Isab ella’s second marriage, to H ugh o f Lusignan. O ne o f them, W illiam de Valence, was through m arriage heir to the earldom o f Pem broke. G u y and G eoffrey de Lusignan were not as fortunate as W illiam , but received considerable favours from H enry I I I . T h e other brother, A ym er, was a cleric, and was elected to the see o f W inchester in 1250, three years after the Lusignans cam e to England. T h e Poitevins were not so substantial a group at court as the Savoyards, nor were they so able, but their am bition and ruthlessness m ade them extrem ely dangerous.68 From 1254 until 1257 Edw ard appears to have been largely under the influence o f the Savoyard faction, and o f certain respected Englishm en. 67 See for example C P R 1247-58 , 500; Close Rolls 1256-5, 46. 68 For a recent brief interpretation of Henry I l l ’s reign, which stresses the role of the aliens, see M.T. Clanchy, England and its Rulers, 1066-1272 (1983), especially 210-40. The part played by the Savoyards and Poitevins has been analysed in detail by H.W. Ridgeway in his doctoral thesis, ‘The Politics of the English Royal Court, 1247-65, with special reference to the role of the Aliens’ (Oxford D.Phil thesis, 1984). I am very grateful to Dr Ridgeway for letting me read this work, to which I am deeply indebted for much of what follows.

22

EDWARD I

E d w ard ’s m arriage was negotiated by the royal clerk John M ansel and the Savoyard bishop o f Hereford, Peter d ’A igueblanche. In 1255 it was Peter o f Savoy who was sent to G ascony to assist E dw ard, and to organize his return to E ngland .69 Peter was a frequent witness o f E d w ard ’s charters in this period, and must have been a m ajor influence on him. A very im portant figure in the prince’s entourage was Eble des M ontz, while other Savoyards in his service included Im bert de M ontferrand, G eoffrey de G eneville, and W illiam de Salines.707 1T h e greatest o f all the Savoyards who served E dw ard, O tto de G randson, was, however, yet to appear on the English scene. O ne o f the most important o f E dw ard’s English councillors was John FitzGeoffrey, a man o f im peccable curial background whose father, Geoffrey FitzPeter, earl o f Essex, had been ju sticiar under K in g John. H e had him self served as ju sticiar in Ireland from 1245.71 Peter de M ontfort, a M archer lord, was another im portant figure in E d w ard ’s entourage, as was the king’s steward Robert W alerand. These men, along with officials such as G eoffrey de L angley, were clearly chosen for Edw ard by H enry I I I . W illiam de W ilton was another o f E d w ard ’s officials who had consider­ able experience in royal service, in his case largely as a ju stice .72 A young man such as E dw ard was bound to be resentful to some degree o f the continued tutelage in w hich he was placed in these years. B y 1258 he was clearly linking him self not with the Savoyard faction at court, but with the Lusignans. T h e fact that he handed Stam ford and G rantham over to W illiam de V alen ce in return for a loan is one indication o f his changing alignm ent.73 By June 1258 E dw ard was planning to make Geoffrey de Lusignan seneschal o f G ascony, and his brother G u y keeper o f O leron and the C hannel Isles, very probably in return for further loan s.74 Edw ard had perhaps found a common interest in W ales with W illiam de V alen ce, who had substantial estates there, but the situation was also a reflection o f the fact that Poitevin influence was resurgent at court in 1257. O ne indication o f this was the return o f the veteran Poitevin adm inistrator Peter des R ivaux to the office o f keeper o f the w ardrobe at M ichaelm as 1257. Savoyard power was on the wane. E d w ard ’s changing position was not a reflection o f increasing independence from his father, who had no reason to be suspicious o f his son’s friendship with the Lusignans, but was rather a 69 Trabut-Cussac, L''administration anglaise en Gascogne, xxxvi, 13. 70 Ridgeway, ‘The Politics of the English Royal Court’, 175-6. 71 Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, iii, 230. 72 H.W. Ridgeway, ‘The Lord Edward and the Provisions of Oxford (1258): A Study in Faction’, Thirteenth Century England I, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1986), 92-3. 73 Matthew Paris, Chron. M a j ., v, 679. 74 R.F. Treharne, The Baronial Plan o f Reform (Manchester, 1932), 77.

THE GREEN T RE E ,

1239-58

23

natural consequence o f the rise o f one court faction at the expense o f another.75 W hat was im portant for the future, however, was the fact that by 1257 Edw ard was beginning to recruit men into his service who did not have a background in the royal court. Roger C lifford and H am o Lestrange, both M archer lords, em erged at this time in E d w ard ’s entourage, as did Earl W arenne and John de V a u x , and it was early in 1257 that Robert Burnell, who was to be E d w ard ’s greatest chancellor, first appeared in a witness-list along with other m embers o f his council.76 It was E d w ard ’s links with the notoriously unruly Lusignans that help to explain the stories told by M atth ew Paris about his m is­ behaviour at this period. T h e y form part o f a general criticism o f the court circle, and show that E dw ard shared in the unpopularity o f the king and his favourites. In addition to the unpleasant story o f the attack on the young man m entioned at the start o f this chapter, M atthew indignantly told o f the outrages com m itted at the local priory by members o f E d w ard ’s household w hile their m aster was visiting Richard o f C orn w all at W allingford. T h e monks were driven out, and an orgy o f destruction followed. Some corroboration for such tales comes from the com plaints put forward in 1258 by the men o f Southw ark, who objected in particular to the seizure o f foodstuffs by E dw ard’s m en.77 It would be w rong to make too m uch o f the activities o f a band o f high-spirited young men, but there was certainly nothing in E d w ard ’s behaviour during these years o f lim ited responsibility that suggested he would be a good king. He had not faced any severe test as yet. It was to be the next few years o f political turm oil w hich were to provide him with the first real challenges o f his life. 75 Ridgeway, ‘The Politics of the English Royal Court’, 271-7, does see Edward’s relationship with the Poitevins as an indication of political independence on the prince’s part. Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and Henry I I I ’, 8, argues that the appoint­ ments of Geoffrey and Guy de Lusignan were directly contrary to the king’s wishes: but Henry’s hostility to them only came after effective authority had been removed from the king at the Oxford parliament of 1258, and was in fact baronial rather than royal policy. 7° C D 1 1252-84, no. 564; C P R 1245-58, 589; Ridgeway, ‘The Lord Edward and the Provisions of Oxford’, 97. 77 Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 593-4, 598; JI 1/873, m-8d.

C h ap ter 2

THE LEOPARD, 1258-70

In a celebrated passage, the author o f the Song o f Lewes com pared Edw ard to a leopard. O n the one hand, he was a leo, a brave lion, proud and fierce. O n the other hand, he was a pard, inconstant and unreliable, m aking promises when he was in a tight corner, and then forgetting th em .1 E d w ard ’s career from 1258 until his departure on crusade in 1270 is certainly full o f contradictions. H e can be seen as acting in a wilful w ay, changing sides in the civil conflict between king and baron­ age in an irresponsible fashion, and also as the man who did most to salvage the m onarchy from an appallingly difficult situation. W hatever the truth, E dw ard during his twenties certainly served an extrem ely tough apprenticeship in politics and war, and there can be no doubt that he learned vital lessons from his experiences. A biography o f Edw ard I is not the place for a full exposition o f the reasons for the great crisis o f 1258. A com bination o f alm ost universal hatred for the king’s half-brothers, the Lusignans; the fantastic folly o f H en ry’s attem pt to gain the Sicilian throne for his second son Edm und; the disasters in W ales; a w idespread dissatisfaction with the conduct o f local governm ent in the shires; all these formed a potent m ixture. In part the crisis reflected paradoxical divisions w ithin the court, with curialists, such as Peter o f Savoy and the earl o f G loucester, siding with the baronial opposition, and a former favourite o f the king, the alien Simon de M ontfort, eventually em erging as the leader o f that opposi­ tion. A t the same time, it was a crisis on a national scale, with political difficulties aggravated by the acute econom ic distress resulting from an extrem ely bad harvest in 1257. A council was sum moned by H enry I I I in A pril 1258 to discuss papal dem ands for m oney and men to support the Sicilian venture, the problem o f W ales, and other urgent business. T h e m agnates, lay and clerical, were unco-operative. T h e prelates w ithdrew from the discus­ sions, and the lay m agnates, threatening the use o f force, dem anded the expulsion o f the hated alien favourites and the thorough reform o f the realm. Seven m ajor lords formed a sworn coalition for m utual assist­ ance on 12 A pril. T h ey were the earls o f G loucester, Leicester and Political Songs,

ed. Wright, 93-4; The Song o f Lewes, ed. C.L. Kingsford (1890), 14.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

25

Norfolk, H ugh Bigod, John FitzG eoffrey, Peter de M ontfort and Peter o f Savoy. A ll save Norfolk had strong court connections, the last three being closely linked to E dw ard. C om plaints against the king’s Lusignan half-brothers were vehem ent: at the beginning o f A pril men in the service o f one o f them, A ym er de V alen ce, had savagely attacked servants o fjo h n FitzG eoffrey, w ho duly protested to the king. T h e earls o f G loucester and Leicester were in bitter dispute w ith another o f them, W illiam de V alen ce. T h e king was forced to agree to the election o f a com m ittee o f twenty-four, twelve chosen by him self and twelve by the barons, to meet in O xford to begin the process o f reform. O n 30 A pril the king and his eldest son swore that they would accept w hat was decided. A lthough some o f E d w ard ’s leading councillors were com m it­ ted to the cause o f reform, he undertook the oath with the greatest reluctance, for he was at this stage closely linked to the Lusignan faction at court.2 M atters proceeded rapidly after this. T h e O xford parliam ent began on 11 June, after both sides had m ade some m ilitary preparations. A baronial petition, m uch o f it dealing with technical legal m atters, was presented as a basis for reform. H ugh Bigod, brother o f the earl o f Norfolk, was appointed justiciar. T h is had originally been a vice-regal post, but the position had become virtu ally that o f a chiefjustice. T here had been no ju sticiar since 1234, and revival o f the post reflected discontent with the quality o f H enry 1 1 1 ’s justice. N ew keepers o f royal castles were appointed, m aking it hard for H enry to engage in arm ed resistance. A council o f fifteen was selected by a com plex electoral process, in which the royal and baronial twelves each chose two elec­ tors. T h e four electors then appointed the fifteen. T h e attack on the king’s half-brothers, the Lusignans, continued: am ong other things, they were said to have encouraged E dw ard, with others, to subvert the w hole reform m ovem ent. T h e resum ption o f all lands and castles w hich had been granted out by the king was a m ove directed prim arily at them: H enry o f A lm ain, R ichard o f C o rn w a ll’s son and E d w ard ’s cousin, together with John de W arenne opposed this along with the Lusignans. T h ere was no option save flight for the Lusignans, who went to take refuge at W inchester.3 E dw ard provoca­ tively m ade his support for them public, by appointing Geoffrey de Lusignan seneschal o f G ascony, and granting the Isle o fO léro n and the Channel Isles to his brother G uy. These grants were p robably made

2 Documents o f the Baronial Movement o f Reform and Rebellion, 1258-1267, selected R.F. Treharne, ed. I.J. Sanders (Oxford, 1973), 4, 72-4; D.A. Carpenter, ‘What Happened in 1258’, War and Government in the Middle Ages, ed. J. Gillingham and J.C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1984), 106-119. 3 Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 90-4; Ann. Tewkesbury, 165.

26

EDWARD I

while negotiations were proceeding for the exile o f the Lusignans, and on 28 June the council retaliated with orders forbidding the G ascons and the Irish to obey anyone appointed w ithout royal consent.4 T h e pressure on the king’s Lusignan half-brothers was great. E d w ard ’s support for them could not counterbalance Simon de M ontfort’s threats: ‘Y o u must know w ithout a shadow o f doubt that you will lose your castles or your life’ , were his words to W illiam de V a len ce.5 By 10 J u ly E dw ard had abandoned his attem pt to resist the barons, and two days later letters were issued in his nam e cancelling G eoffrey de L usign an ’s appointm ent. C uriously, it was not until 26 O ctob er that H enry I I I wrote to the men o f O leron revoking the grant that had been m ade to G u y de Lusignan, and E dw ard did not cancel it him self until 4 Novem ber. O n ly by that time was he prepared to accept the nom ination o f D rogo de Barentin as seneschal o f G ascon y.6 T h e suggestion has been m ade that the row over the appointm ent o f G eoffrey de Lusignan to G ascony was for E dw ard ‘a bitter clash with his father’ .7 T h is seems unlikely. A t the O xford parliam ent all real power had been taken from the king, and letters written in his name were the work o f the council, and do not provide evidence o f the king’s private attitude. H e m ay very well have adm ired his son’s attem pt to resist the reformers, and the statem ent in the official correspondence that Edw ard had acted w ithout consulting him is not one w hich should necessarily be believed.8 E d w ard ’s support o f the Poitevins achieved little, but it did show the reformers that m easures were needed to curb his activities. A cco rd ­ ingly, it was decided to provide him with four councillors, John Balliol, Roger de M ohaut, John de G rey and Stephen Longespee.9 T h e first two were baronial supporters, the last two experienced servants o f Edw ard, who had acted for him in Cheshire, Ireland and G ascony: this council was obviously intended to be a balanced body. E d w ard ’s chancellor had to swear a sim ilar oath to that o f the king’s, and in particular he was not to seal any letters w ithout the advice o f the four councillors. E d w ard ’s household, like his father’s, was to be reformed. It is far from clear how m uch was achieved in practice. T h e councillors do not 4 Above, 22; C P R 1247-58, 639. 5 Matthew Paris, Chron. M a j ., v, 697-8. 6 Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 94 n.io; C P R 1247-58, 664-5; Gascon Register A , ed. Cuttino, ii, 503-5; Trabut-Cussac, L ’administration Anglaise en Gascogne, 16-17. 7 Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and Henry I I I ’, 10. 8 C P R 1247-58, 641. 9 Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 95. This Balliol was the father of the future king of Scots.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

27

appear to have been particularly effective, but the prince clearly abandoned any further attem pts to block the work o f the reformers. B y the autum n o f 1258 he was sufficiently in favour with the council for it to authorize an advance to him o f 2,000 marks (£1,333) or failing that £1,000, so that he could prepare for a threatened w ar with the W elsh .10 In late J u ly 1258, at W inchester, E dw ard breakfasted with the earl o f G loucester and his brother W illiam , an indication that he was ready to co-operate with the reform ing barons. T h e meal was a disastrous one, however, for both the de C lare brothers were extrem ely ill afterwards. W illiam never recovered, and died shortly afterw ards, and Earl R ich ard ’s hair fell out, as did his finger- and toe-nails. It was probably a simple case o f food-poisoning, but in the excited atm osphere o f the time rumours o f plots abounded, and G lou cester’s stew ard, W alter de Scoteny, was accused o f poisoning his masters. He was duly found guilty, draw n and hanged. H e was a tenant o f E d w ard ’s, and in the following year the prince was granted the proceeds o f his lan d s.11 T h e fateful breakfast did not, it seems, poison relations between Edw ard and the earl o f G loucester. A n im portant docum ent shows that on 14 M arch 1259 a form al alliance was made between E dw ard and his supporters on the one hand, and R ichard de C lare w ith his on the other. Richard promised to counsel E dw ard, to aid him in recovering his lands, and to back his supporters. T h e list o f these supporters shows that Edw ard had, in the later months o f 1258 and early in 1259, become the focus o f a new political grouping, whose creation was probably his work. Those concerned were H enry o f A lm ain, Earl W arenne, Baldw in de Lisle, Philip Basset, Stephen Longespee, Robert W alerand, Roger Clifford, Roger Leyburn, John de V a u x , W arin de Bassingbourne, H am o Lestrange and W illiam la Z o u ch e .12 T h e fact that, o f the coun­ cillors imposed on Edw ard in the previous year only Longespee was included, shows that the prince had effectively gained his independ­ ence, at least for a time. Several o f the names were o f great significance. H enry o f A lm ain, E d w ard ’s cousin and childhood com panion, was clearly very close to him, and would undoubtedly have played a m ajor part in E d w ard ’s career had it not been for his tragic m urder at the hands o f G u y de M ontfort in 1271. Earl W arenne was a solidly royalist figure, who had been to G ascony with Edw ard in 1254, and had stood with him in 1258 10 Ridgeway, ‘The Politics of the English Royal Court’, 339-40; Close Rolls 1256-g, 343 -

11 Ann. Tewkesbury, 165, 167; Guisborough, 186; Matthew Paris, Chron. M aj., v, 747-8; C P R 1258-67, 32. 12 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts o f Lord Middleton ( ig ii), 67-9.

28

EDWARD I

in resisting the reform ing m easures o f the O xford parliam ent. He was to be a loyal, if unim aginative, supporter o f the king until his death in 1304.13 Roger Leyburn, a K entish noble, was E d w ard ’s choice to replace W illiam de W ilton as his steward. Roger Clifford, a W elsh M archer lord, served E dw ard as his b ailiff in the Th ree Castles, and like Leyburn played a m ajor role in the events o f the 1260s. H am o Lestrange was another M archer, who with W arin de Bassingbourne was a close associate o f E d w ard ’s at this time, accom panying him abroad at tournam ents.14 E dw ard was very clearly surrounding him ­ self with like-m inded men, all laym en, whose prim e loyalty was to himself, in contrast to those w ho had served him before 1258 who owed their position to the king. N ot all o f E d w ard ’s allies in the treaty with G loucester fitted this pattern, however. Robert W alerand was a former royal steward, who co-operated with the reformers in 1258, and was transferred to E d w ard ’s service. T h e council nom inated him to be constable o f Bristol in J u ly 1259, and when, in the following Novem ber, E dw ard tried to replace him, he objected, as he had sworn not to leave his post w ithout royal consent.15 Philip Basset was one o f the baronial twelve, and on the council o f fifteen, but his allegiance shifted, and by 1261 he was appointed ju sticiar by the king. T h e group listed in the treaty was, therefore, a heterogeneous one, but it is very striking how m any members o f it were to prove loyal to E dw ard in the com ing civil war. A lread y the prince must have had the pow er to win and retain loyalty. V arious explanations are possible for the deal between E dw ard and the earl o f G loucester. O ne view has it that it was the result o f a dispute between the two men, but it is odd that if part o f its purpose was to resolve some question over the W elsh M arches, no mention was made o f this in the te x t.16 T h ere was provision for arbitration by H enry of A lm ain and H ugh Bigod, but this was only to come into effect should there be argum ents over the fulfilm ent o f the agreem ent, w hich appears to have been prim arily concerned with the question o f E d w ard ’s lands and his free enjoym ent o f them. It could be that the docum ent had some relation to the dispute o f the earl o f G loucester with Simon de M ontfort, w hich resulted from G loucester’s reluctance to see his own estates subjected to the same inquisitions as royal lands, but that quarrel was 13 Warenne’s career, like that of many others, is summarized in the Dictionary o f and G.E. Cockayne, The Complete Peerage (1910-59): see these works for biographical details of Edward’s supporters. 14 The Metrical Chronicle o f Robert o f Gloucester, ed. W.A. Wright (Rolls ser, 1887), ii,

National Biography

735 -

15 C P R 1258-67, 63-4; D.A. Carpenter, ‘The Lord Edward’s Oath to aid and counsel Simon de Montfort, 15 October 1259’, B IH R , lviii (1985), 234. 16 Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward , i, 398 and n.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

29

possibly settled by 22 February, although the ordinance dealing with the question was not form ally issued until 22 M a rc h .17 T h e most plausible explanation is that E dw ard was trying to protect his overseas lands from being affected by the peace negotiations being conducted with the French. B y 12 M arch arrangem ents had been finalized for the earls o f G loucester and Leicester, along with Peter o f Savoy, to go to France. In February E d w ard ’s brother E dm und had given his form al consent to proposals that the king should renounce all his rights to N orm andy, M aine, T ou raine and A njou, but he him self did not follow suit, though the treaty required the royal fam ily do so .18 It made good sense for E dw ard to win the support o f at least one o f the English negotiators. In fact, it was not G loucester, but Simon de M ontfort, earl o f Leicester, who obstructed the course o f negotiations, for his wife refused to abandon her claims in N orm andy, a m ove w hich aroused G loucester’s a n g e r.19 T h e work o f reform was continuing all this time. A fter control o f central governm ent had been gained by the barons at the O xford parliam ent o f 1258, attention had turned to the question o f m aladm ini­ stration in the counties. A full-scale process o f inquiry was begun. In the autum n o f 1258 detailed discussions took place about various legal questions. In February 1259 the council, acting w ith tw elve barons elected to represent the com m unity o f the realm , prom ised that the wrongs committed by the magnates and their bailiffs would be corrected ju st like those done by royal officials. T h e docum ent was confirm ed by the king on 28 M arch. A further stage o f reform was both needed and expected: it was necessary to provide proper legal remedies for the abuses which had been discovered, m any o f w hich were intended to provide protection for feudal sub-tenants, men o f knightly rather than m agnate status.20 In O ctober 1259 E dw ard was brought directly into the argum ents that were raging in the parliam ent then being held at W estm inster. A ccording to the annals o f Burton abbey, a body calling itself the C om m unity o f the Bachelors o f England told E dw ard, the earl o f G loucester and the others sworn as m embers o f the council at O xford that the king had done all that was required o f him by the barons, but that the barons themselves had done nothing o f w hat they had 17 Matthew Paris, Chron. 17-18; Powicke, H enry I I I 18

C P R 1258-66,

M a j .,

v, 744; D ocum en ts o f the B a r o n ia l M ov em en t , ed. Sanders, i, 406-7.

an d the L o r d E d w a r d ,

14-15, 26.

19 Matthew Paris, Chron. M a j ., v, 745. The countess of Leicester’s claim was a complex matter relating to her dower rights and subsequent claims against Henry III: see C P R 1258-66, 25-7. 20 The documents relating to these stages of the reform movement are given in D ocum ents o f the B a r o n ia l M ovem en t , ed. Sanders, 97-137.

30

EDWARD I

promised for the com m on good. I f they did not fulfil their promises, then reform would have to be imposed by other m ethods. Edw ard prom ptly replied that although he had sworn the oath at O xford unw illingly, he would stand by it, and was ready to expose him self to death on b eh alf o f the com m unity o f the realm and the comm on good. H e told the barons o f the council that he was prepared to stand with the Bachelors, and make the barons carry out their promised reforms. T h is, according to the chronicle, led the council to publish the reforms known as the Provisions o f W estm inster.21 T h e passage raises m any problem s o f interpretation, but as no other chronicler refers to the incident, it is not possible to reach any real certainty. T h e question o f w ho the Bachelors were is an insoluble one. T h e comm on view that they were young men o f knightly status attached to baronial households is not very plausible: on no other occasion did such men band together for a political purpose. T h e term bachelor was a fashionable one. M atth ew Paris wrote that in 1249 at a tournam ent, ‘m any o f the knights o f the com m unity o f the realm , who w anted to be called bachelors, were defeated’ . In 1262 H enry I I I was to describe the sheriffs as ‘king’s bachelors’ , and in 1263 bands o f low-born townsm en termed themselves bachelors.22 T h e nature o f the group who m ade their protest to E dw ard and G loucester in 1259 cannot be deduced from the label they gave themselves. Nor is it wholly clear w hat the Bachelors wanted. A lth ough the Burton chronicler considered that it was publication o f the promised reforms, it has been plausibly argued that it m ay have been the full extension o f the reform ­ ing measures to baronial estates, the question w hich had been at issue earlier in the year.23 W h y was the protest directed to Edw ard and Gloucester? O ne suggestion is that relations between the two had becom e increasingly strained in the sum m er o f 1258, but it could be that the Bachelors recalled the alliance that the two men had made earlier in the year. By early 1260 the two were certainly in dispute, but there is little evidence to show that they were already at loggerheads at the time o f the protest. Tension between them was likely, both over the question o f the peace negotiations with the French, and their rival claim s to B ristol.24 It m ay 21 ‘Annales Monasterii de Burton’, Annales Monastici, i, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls ser., 1864), 471. 22 y j Tout, ‘The “ Communitas bacheleriae Anglie” ’, E H R , xvii (1902), 89-95; Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward , i, 4070; Matthew Paris, Chron. M a j ., v, 83; Close Rolls 12 6 1-4 , 177; Wykes, 138. 23 Treharne, Baronial Plan o f Reform, 163. 24 Ibid., 164; Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 19; both stress the dispute between Edward and Gloucester, though the latter admits that ‘there is little direct evidence to explain the estrangement’.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

31

well be that the Burton annalist sim ply nam ed G loucester because he was the leading m agnate am ong those o f the council to whom the protest was directed: Simon de M ontfort was p robably abroad at the time. T h e fact that E dw ard was specifically m entioned is m uch more significant, however, for he was not a m em ber o f the council. It shows that he was considered to be an im portant political figure in his own right, and probably that he was now thought to be com m itted to the cause o f reform. His answer to the Bachelors could be read as a cynical attem pt to divide the ranks o f the reformers, but it is more likely that it represented genuine, if tem porary, conviction on the part o f a young man o f tw enty who had been fired w ith enthusiasm . C learer evidence o f E d w ard ’s changed political attitude in the autum n o f 1259 is provided by letters patent he issued on 15 O ctober. H e announced that he had sworn to do all in his pow er to give aid and counsel to Simon de M ontfort and his allies, and that he was bound with them to m aintain the baronial enterprise, saving his fealty to the king. He would not attack anyone w ho supported the barons, provided that they accepted the judgem ents o f the king’s court, and he would do all he could to enforce such judgem ents. A lon g with E d w ard ’s seal, the docum ent bore the seals o f H enry o f A lm ain , Earl W arenne and Roger Leyburn. T h e promise not to attack supporters o f the baronial enter­ prise probably relates to E d w ard ’s response to the B achelors’ protest, for it am ounted to a renunciation o f the threat he had m ade to support the Bachelors in im plem enting reform by some other m eans. T h e emphasis on judgem ents o f the king’s court is am biguous, but m ay refer to an expected verdict in favour o f Simon de M ontfort’s wife against the other co-heirs o f the M arshal inheritance. T h is was the case w hich caused her to obstruct the peace process with the F rench.25 O ne problem with this form al alliance o f E dw ard with Simon de M ontfort is that it seems unlikely that M ontfort was present at the time it was made, for he was certainly at E vreux in N orm andy a mere four days later.26 It m ay, therefore, have been a one-sided declaration by Edw ard o f his position. Edw ard had good reasons for this new alliance. Simon de M ontfort was the husband o f his aunt Eleanor, so there was a strong fam ily link. Further, Simon was the one m agnate who, although totally com m itted to the baronial reforms, was delaying the negotiations with France. I f Edw ard was bitterly opposed to the peace plan as it threatened his interests in G ascony, then an alliance with M ontfort m ade very good sense. M oreover, if E dw ard had quarrelled with G loucester, then it was 25

Carpenter, ‘The Lord Edward’s Oath to aid and counsel Simon de Montfort’,

226-37. 36 C .

Bemont, Simon de Montfort, tr. E.F. Jacob (Oxford, 1930), 173.

32

EDWARD I

natural for him to seek the support o f M ontfort, who had him self exchanged bitter words with G lou cester.27 E d w ard ’s new-found com ­ m itm ent to the baronial cause in the autum n o f 1259 was not particu­ larly surprising. T h e Poitevins had gone into exile, and no longer had influence over him. Several o f his other advisers, such as Peter o f Savoy, had given their support to the program m e o f reform set out at the O xford parliam ent o f 1258. W ith the king apparently acquiescing in w hat had taken place, there was no obvious future in opposing the reformers. It must have seemed sensible to E dw ard to link him self with the faction that was most likely to help preserve his interests in France, that o f Simon de M ontfort. T h e link with G loucester had not provided E dw ard with the full independence he sought: the witness list o f a charter he issued in A ugu st 1259 suggests that he had not been able to break free for long from the councillors imposed on him .28 T h eir control was still irksome in early N ovem ber, when E dw ard was finding it im possible to dismiss Robert W alerand from the custody o f Bristol castle.29 O n 15 N ovem ber 1259 H enry I I I crossed the C hann el to negotiate the final peace with the French. T h is gave E dw ard his chance. H e was now able to appoint his friend Roger L eyburn to Bristol castle, and Roger Clifford received the Th ree C astles in south W ales.30 H enry I I I was kept short o f detailed inform ation on events in England. A letter he wrote on 19 February shows that he had heard that the situation was peaceful, but by 1 M arch a note o f alarm can be detected in a letter to E dw ard. H e indicated that he was satisfied by the report he had received from his confessor, John o f D arlington, w hom he had sent to see E dw ard, but his conclusion that he intended to send another em issary to see w hether E d w ard ’s deeds m atched his words shows that he was w orried.31 A ccording to the chronicler T hom as W ykes, when H enry had reached St O m er on his return journey to England, at about Easter, he was told that his son was plotting with various m agnates to capture and depose him. It was only the intervention o f Richard o f Corn w all that persuaded H enry to return to England, for Richard sum moned the m agnates to London and had letters sent to the king, sealed by E dw ard and the m agnates, prom ising safe-conduct.32 T h e extent o f H en ry’s alarm at St O m er is indicated by the fact that he 27 Above, 28-9. 28 Ridgeway, ‘The Politics of the English Royal Court’, 343, citing BL Add. Ch. 20442. 29 C P R 1258-66, 63-4. 30 Ridgeway, op. cit., 345-6; J.R. Studd, ‘A Catalogue of the Acts of the Lord Edward, 1254-1272’ (Leeds Ph.D., 1971), no. 742; C 61/4. 31 Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 170, 172, 174, 176. 32 Wykes, 123-4.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

33

issued orders to a considerable num ber o f m agnates to assem ble at London with the m ilitary service which they ow ed.33 Th ere was m uch alarm in London, as both E dw ard and the earl o f G loucester descended on the city with substantial arm ed retinues. T h e two men were at loggerheads, and R ichard o f C orn w all, after discus­ sion with the civic authorities, prevented both from entering the city. W hen H enry appeared, late in A pril, he allowed G loucester to enter, but refused to let his son through the gates, saying that if he were to see him, he would be unable to prevent him self from kissing him .34 There were suggestions that E dw ard should undergo a formal trial, but he declared that the earls and barons were not his peers, and that he was not prepared to subm it to their judgem ent. Instead, Richard o f C ornw all, aided by the archbishop o f C an terbury, succeeded in reconciling father and son. E dw ard and the earl o f G loucester then agreed to accept the arbitration o f H enry I I I and R ichard o f C ornw all, and it was duly agreed that they should give up their claims against each other, and keep the terms o f the agreem ents that they had made. E d w ard ’s friend and supporter Roger de Leyburn was pardoned for his part in the events. C harges against Simon de M ontfort were not proceeded w ith .35 T h e crisis was averted, and H enry I I I was able to begin the work o f restoring royal authority. O n 18 M a y Leyburn was ordered to give up Bristol, which was entrusted to Philip Basset, and Clifford was told to hand over the T h ree Castles to G ilbert T albot. E dw ard’s independence was at an end.36 Edw ard had not distinguished him self in his first m ajor political venture, one which scarcely deserves to be called a rebellion. His alliance with G loucester had broken down disastrously, and he and M ontfort were quite unable to oppose the king once he returned to England. T h e D unstable annalist comm ented bitterly on the lavish patronage by E dw ard in this period.37 A ll the expenditure achieved little in the end. T h e prince did, however, m anage to keep the loyalty o f his im m ediate following: it is striking that H enry o f A lm ain, John de W arenne and Roger de L eyburn all backed him both in the treaty with G loucester, and in his declaration o f support for M ontfort. Edw ard should not be condem ned too swiftly for his behaviour at this time. Politics was not a simple question o f adherence to clear-cut principles: there was a welter o f personal friendships and obligations to be con­ sidered, w hich were com plicated by fam ily and tenurial relationships, 33 Close Rolls, i2 ^ g -6 j, 157. 34 Ann. Dunstable, 215. 35 Denholm-Young, Richard o f Cornwall, 103; Flores, ii, 448; Ann. London, 55; C P R 1258-66 , 79; Ann. Dunstable, 215. 36 Studd, ‘A Catalogue of the Acts of the Lord Edward’, nos 790-2; C 61/4. 37 Ann. Dunstable, 215.

34

EDWARD I

all m aking up a com plex pattern. W hile it is likely that Edw ard was attracted by the principles o f the reformers, it is also striking that m any o f the disputes o f the time were taking place within his own fam ily. T h e Lusignans were his uncles, as was R ichard o f C orn w all, and Simon de M ontfort was m arried to his aunt. T h e situation was obviously aggravated by rum our and gossip, notably when suggestions were made that Edw ard and M ontfort intended to depose the king. T h e D unstable annalist considered that the queen was a particularly evil influence in stirring up trouble.38 T o expect a young man to act con­ sistently in such a situation is too m uch. In one respect, however, E dw ard was consistent. He was concerned over the question o f the negotiations with the French, and clearly felt that his interests in the duchy o f G ascony were being ignored, both by his father and by the m ajority o f the baronial leaders. H ow ever understandable E d w ard ’s actions in 1259 and early 1260 were, he had undoubtedly given a poor account o f himself. He was duly sent abroad to exercise his talents at tournam ents. O ne m alicious account has it that he and the knights who were sent with him did very badly, and that he was often wounded, losing alm ost all his horses and arm our.39 B y 8 O ctob er E dw ard was back in England, for he was present when arrangem ents were m ade for H enry o f A lm ain to take Simon de M ontfort’s place as steward at a great feast held on St E d w ard ’s day. A grant o f the w ardship o f the lands and heirs o f W illiam de Forz, earl o f A um ale, showed that he had returned to favour: this act was ‘by the counsel o f the m agnates o f the council’ . E d w ard ’s connec­ tion with M ontfort was not broken, for it was now that he knighted the earl o f L eicester’s two elder sons.40 B y early N ovem ber 1260 E dw ard had returned to the continent, journeying to G ascony, and then once again taking part in tournam ents in France early in the new year. A m on g those with him were Robert Burnell, his future chancellor, and some o f his allies o f 1259, notably John de W arenne, W illiam la Zouche and W arin de B assingbourne.41 W hile abroad, E dw ard re-established his connection with the Lusignans. He met W illiam de V alen ce and his brother A ym er in Paris late in N ovem ber 1260, and appointed G u y de Lusignan as his lieutenant in G ascony. T h e governm ent in England, still under strong baronial influence, was alarm ed, and on 27 M arch orders were issued that E dw ard was not to bring W illiam de V alen ce back to England with 38 Ibid., 215. 39 Ibid., 216-17. 40 C P R 1238-66 , 96—7; Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, ii, 415. 41 C P R 1238-66, 126, 181. Close Rolls i2 3 g -6 i, 321, shows that on 28 December 1260 a royal writ was issued at Edward’s instance, but this is not adequate evidence to suggest that the prince was in England at the time.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

35

him .42 H enry I I I , however, was plotting to seize power back from the baronial council, and when V alen ce did return, he was swiftly restored to favour.43 E d w ard ’s behaviour in returning w ith W illiam de V alen ce suggests that he had lost all sym pathy for the baronial cause. H owever, one account implies the reverse. T h e Flores states that when the king obtained letters o f absolution from the pope, for him self and Edw ard, from the oath to observe the Provisions o f O xford, the prince in disgust renewed his own oath. It was this m atter which brought E dw ard back to England, and on his return he fulm inated against the king’s royalist councillors, siding firm ly with the barons. E dw ard, M ontfort and the earl o f G loucester all put aside their differences, and united against the king, threatening civil war. H enry, however, m ade his w ay to D over and secured control o f the south-east. He then em barked on a strikingly successful cam paign to restore his personal authority. A s for E dw ard, his resistance did not last long: the persuasions o f his m other led him to abandon the baronial cause very soon, according to the London A nnals which makes this addition to the story given in the Flores.44 No other chronicle has any m ention o f E d w ard ’s role in the political events o f 1261, and one recent historian, Treharne, has dismissed the whole tale as a fabrication, ‘an echo from the spring o f 1260’ .45 C ertainly, if E dw ard did make comm on cause with the earls o f Leicester and G loucester in the spring o f 1261, it was not for long. By 23 M ay H enry I I I was, at his son’s request, pardoning E d w ard ’s associ­ ate Robert U fford various debts owed to Jew s, and on 4 June Edw ard received a grant o f w ardship from his father.46 Indirect support, on the other hand, for the view that E dw ard did back the opposition for a time is provided by the fact that now for the first time H enry I I I raised the question o f his son’s behaviour in the argum ents he put forward against the baronial councillors. O ne clause stated that the councillors had allowed E dw ard to squander the possessions given him by the king, which should not be alienated, with one text adding a com plaint that Edw ard had appointed a seneschal in G ascony and other officials contrary to the king’s wishes. A second clause had it that ‘by the counsel o f a certain man, E dw ard had been seduced from his father’s friendship and obedience’ , with another version stating that it was ‘by the counsel and assent o f some members o f the council’ that he had been led astray. It is most unlikely that Henry I I I would have expressed 42 Ridgeway, ‘The Politics of the English Royal Court’, 373; Gascon Register A , ed. Cuttino, ii, 419; Close Rolls 1255-61, 467. 43 Treharne, Baronial Plan o f Reform, 256—7; C P R 1258-66, 150. 44 Flores, ii, 466-7; Ann. London, 57. 45 Treharne, Baronial Plan o f Reform, 258, n.i. 46 Close Rolls, 1255-61, 381; C P R 1258-66, 156.

36

EDWARD I

him self in such terms at a time when E dw ard was loyally supporting him, and the com plaints therefore strongly suggest that the prince did indeed side with the barons for a time in the spring o f 1261.47 T h e king’s com plaints are w orth considering further. T h e squander­ ing o f E d w ard ’s possessions is surprisingly ill-docum ented, with com ­ m entators referring only to the grant o f Stam ford and G rantham to W illiam de V alen ce in 1258, and to that o f Elham in K en t to Roger L eyb u rn .48 G rantham had in fact been recovered from V alen ce, and the com plaint is more likely to have concerned the w ay in which E dw ard had pledged the estate to the abbot o f Peterborough, w ho had acted as surety for a loan he had received from some Italian m erchants. E dw ard certainly was in considerable financial difficulties at this time, partly as a result o f the need to repay a loan o f 4,000 livres tournois which he had received from the king o f France. In Ju ne 1261 the king con­ firmed the sale o f the w ardship o f Holderness by Edw ard for 3,000 marks. It is very likely that E dw ard had indeed been profligate with his lands, as the D unstable annalist alleged. T h e question o f Elham in K en t was certainly im portant, for H enry was to appear him self in the exchequer to announce, in connection with L eyb u rn ’s debts to E dw ard, that the prince had been granted his lands to sustain himself, and that they were not to be separated from the crow n.49 T h e charge relating to the appointm ent o f a seneschal o f G ascony could relate either to the appointm ent o f Geoffrey de Lusignan back in 1258, or to the more recent authority given to G u y de Lusignan. O th er contentious appointm ents were those o f L eyburn and Clifford to Bristol and the Th ree Castles. A s for the counsel by w hich Edw ard had been alienated from his father, this was surely a clear allusion to Simon de M ontfort, though one version o f the com plaints wished to put the blam e on several members o f the council. E d w ard ’s renewed sym pathy for the baronial cause in the spring o f 47 The texts of these complaints present complex problems. That of one of the Latin versions, and that of the French, are printed conveniently in Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 210-39. Another Latin version is in Durham, Muniments of the Dean and Chapter, Loc. I. 62. Both Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, ii, 421 n. 3, and Documents o f the Baronial Movement, 210, are incorrect in their statements about the Durham version, which is a separate text, related to the other two, but not identical to either. N. Denholm-Young, ‘Documents of the Barons’ Wars’, E H R , xlviii (1933), has argued that the Latin version dates from 9 March 1260, not 1261, partly on the grounds that the references to Edward would fit his position in 1260, but if it is the case that the prince renewed his connections with the opposition in 1261, as the story in the Flores, ii, 466-7, has it, that argument is considerably weakened. The dating problems are discussed in detail in Documents o f the Baronial Movement, 210-14. 48 Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 217, no. 9; Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and Henry I I I ’, n -1 2 . 49 Close Rolls, 12 5 5 -6 1 , 448; C P R 1258-66 , 161; Ann. Dunstable, 215; E 159/36, m.8d.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

37

1261 should not receive too m uch em phasis. It did not last long, and did little to bolster the w eakening position o f M ontfort and his allies in face o f a determ ined and ingenious royalist counter-offensive. Earl Simon, indeed, was forced to leave the country, and E dw ard did the same. In J u ly he left for G ascony. T h ere his m ain concern was with the long-running saga o f the feud between the C olom b and Soler families in Bordeaux. In O ctob er 1261 a new constitution for the city was prom ­ ulgated, which gave Edw ard full control o f the m ayoralty, ju st as he had planned at the time o f the secret treaty with G aillard del Soler. His policies were succeeding. H e reformed the coinage, did m uch to restore law and order, and gained some territory for the crown. T h ere were problems: com plaints over the violent seizure o f the tem poralities o f the archbishopric o f Bordeaux reached H enry I I I . E dw ard obviously did well, however, and a letter to the king in the autum n o f 1261 reported that ‘O u r lord E dw ard is in a good and prosperous state, and by G o d ’s grace his affairs in G ascony are going w ell’ .50 H e m ay have been fickle in his political alliances in E ngland, but in G ascony Edw ard showed m uch more o f the mettle o f the future king. H enry I I I expected his son to return to E ngland in time for the C hristm as festivities o f 1261, but he did not in fact come back until late February. T here was then m uch debate about the state o f E d w ard ’s finances. T h e man who had been largely in charge o f this aspect o f the prince’s affairs was Roger Leyburn. It was, according to one account, the m alicious tongue o f his m other w hich turned Edw ard against L eyburn, who was found guilty o f m isappropriating funds, and had all his lands taken from him. E xchequer records show that the sheriff o f K en t was ordered to raise no less than £1,820 from L eyb u rn ’s lands, this being the sum for w hich he had failed to account properly. Leyburn was ordered to restore the m anor o f Elham in K en t to E dw ard, and accusations were levied against him regarding the destruction o f woods there.51 H ow far Edw ard was a w illing participant in these proceedings is not clear. It m ay be that he was now sim ply in a position o f tutelage once again, in w hich he could not resist the king, or he m ay have turned against Leyburn as he was later to turn against other men w ho served him loyally, but against whom corruption was alleged, such as Jean de G railly and Ralph H engham . L eyb u rn ’s disgrace in the spring o f 1262 m eant that E dw ard parted com pany with H enry o f A lm ain, John de W arenne, Roger Clifford and others o f the group that had earlier provided him with his main 50 Trabut-Cussac, L'administration anglaise en Gascogne, 22-7; Royal and other Historical Letters illustrative o f the Reign o f Henry I I I , ed. W.W. Shirley (Rolls ser., 1862-6), ii, 163. 51 The Historical Works o f Gervase o f Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs (1879-80), ii, 22-1; E 159/36* m i T> Close Rolls 12 6 1-4 , 117, 171 ; C P R 1266-J2 , 727.

38

EDWARD I

backing. This did not mean, however, that the group lost coherence. A list o f Simon de M ontfort’s supporters early in 1263, given by the D unstable annalist, included the three men ju st nam ed, along with John de V a u x and H am o L estrange.52 T h is strongly suggests that it would be wrong to see Edw ard as the clear leader: H enry o f A lm ain, or perhaps Earl W arenne, m ay have been responsible for holding the group together, and providing a political consistency w hich Edw ard him self lacked at this stage o f his career.53 N ew arrangem ents had to be m ade for E d w ard ’s financing following L eyb u rn ’s fall. O n 4 June a radical step was taken, with H enry I I I granting to his son the receipts from the Jew ry in E ngland for a three-year period, and E dw ard in return handing over to the king the bulk o f his estates for the same period. T h e list o f lands included G rantham , T ickh ill, A bergavenn y and the Th ree C astles, along with lands in Norfolk and Suffolk, obtained by exchange with Peter o f Savoy, and the isles o f G uernsey and Jersey. In addition, the deal covered the lands E dw ard held by w ardship o f the heirs o f W illiam de C an tilu pe and John de Lungevilers. Such an arrangem ent severely limited E d w ard ’s freedom o f action: he could no longer grant out lands in a profligate fashion to his supporters, although he was still provided with an income which the king and council considered adequate for him. E dw ard in fact entrusted the Jew ry to some m erchants from Cahors, presum ably farm ing it out to them in return for a fixed annual render.54 In J u ly 1262 H enry I I I went abroad, for further negotiations with the French over the treaty o f Paris o f 1259, and hoping for arbitration of his dispute with Simon de M ontfort. E dw ard and his brother Edm und went as well, but little is known o f their activities. It could be that it was now that he attended tournam ents at Senlis and elsewhere, at which some o f his followers incurred losses for which they only received com pensation in 1285-6. T h e D unstable annalist has it that Edw ard was him self badly wounded in a tournam ent.55 Edw ard returned to England early in 1263 to face m ajor problem s in W ales. Late in the previous year L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd had achieved striking successes in the M arches. Letters from Peter de M ontfort, in com m and at A bergavenn y, reveal that the English felt their plight to be desperate. Despite some successes against W elsh foragers, M ontfort thought that if he received no assistance, he would be forced to abandon 52 Ann. Dunstable, 222. 53 Close Rolls 1261-4, 133, has a list of men ordered not to participate in tournaments in a writ issued on 25 August, which is effectively of the same group of men. It includes Roger de Leyburn, Roger Clifford, Hamo Lestrange and John Giffard. 54 C P R 1258-66 , 233, 283. 55 Records o f the Wardrobe and Household 1285-1286, ed. B.F. and C.R. Byerley (1977), 63; Ann. Dunstable, 219.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

39

his com m and. A ccordingly, an expedition was prepared, under E d w ard ’s leadership. O n 3 A pril, at H ereford, the prince made a treaty with L lyw elyn ’s brother D afydd. Y e t little was achieved in the cam paign which took place in A p ril and M ay. T h e Burton annals attributed the failure to resentm ent on the part o f the English m agnates that Edw ard had brought a force o f foreign knights with him; the Flores pointed to the successful W elsh tactics o f w ithdraw al into the woods and m ountains o f Snowdonia, but reported that E dw ard had at least m anaged to revictual the castles o f D yserth and D egan w y before being recalled to E ngland.56 T h e crisis in W ales was followed by a severe deterioration o f the dom estic situation. Simon de M ontfort had left E ngland in 1261, only returning very briefly in the next year. N ow, in the spring o f 1263, he cam e back to England, determ ined to re-establish the baronial reform movem ent, with him self as its undisputed leader. T h e widespread discontent in the W elsh M arches made it easy to recruit in that region. T h e death o f Richard de C lare, earl o f G loucester, in 1262 had removed one m ajor rival. T h e earl’s heir, G ilbert, was more radical than his father, as was shown when he refused to take an oath o f fealty to Edw ard when this was dem anded by H enry I I I . 57 T h e situation in the spring and early sum m er o f 1263 was confused. T h e M archers followed up private feuds, rather than cam paigning system atically: in particular they turned on the Savoyard bishop o f Hereford, Peter o f Aigueblanche. Simon de M ontfort m oved to K en t, where Roger Leyburn was active, for it was vital to prevent H enry I I I receiving help from abroad. Attem pts at m ediation by R ichard o f C orn w all failed. E dw ard was in agressive mood, and R ichard had to ask H enry 111 to order him not to attack the barons until the process o f negotiation had been given a chance.58 H enry I I I was forced to take refuge in the T ow er, while his son occupied the hospital at Clerkenw ell. T h e situation was desperate, not least because o f a lack o f funds. Edw ard determ ined on a desperate remedy, and went with Robert W alerand and others to the N ew Tem ple. T h ey obtained entry by a trick, asking to see Q ueen E leanor’s jew els which were deposited there. O nce inside, they broke open the treasure chests, and carried offlarge sums o f cash.59 T h is infuriated the 56 Royal and other Historical Letters, Henry I I I , ed. Shirley, ii, 230-1; C P R 1258-66, 261; Flores, ii, 478; Ann. Burton, 500. 57 Ann. Dunstable, 220. 58 Royal Letters, Henry I I I , ii, 247. 59 Ann. Dunstable, 222. Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, ii, 439, tries to condone this act by stating that the chests contained royal treasure, but there is no evidence of this. Treharne, Baronial Plan o f Reform, 304, argues on the basis of a later pardon to Robert Walerand that the action was ordered by Henry III, but the evidence is hardly strong.

40

EDWARD I

Londoners, who rose in rebellion, sacking the residences o f such royalist supporters as John de G rey. A ll Edw ard could do was to make his w ay to W indsor, which he garrisoned with his foreign m ercenary knights, while H enry in London determ ined on capitulation. T h e queen, tougher minded by far, tried to jo in E dw ard, but her boat was pelted by the mob on London Bridge, and she had to turn back.60 O n 16 Ju ly 1263 H enry I I I accepted the baronial terms, and four days later he ordered the m ercenaries to leave W indsor, even asking the feudal host which had been sum m oned for a W elsh cam paign to go to the castle.61 E dw ard was not prepared to capitulate as his father had done. H e m oved to Bristol, w here the conduct o f his men caused the townspeople to rise in arms and besiege him in the castle. T h e bishop o f W orcester m anaged to negotiate a truce, but E dw ard prom ptly ignored its terms, by returning to W indsor and his m ercenaries. His position there was weak, and he was forced to agree to surrender the castle, with the m ercenaries receiving safe-conduct to go to Staines.62 Simon de Montfort and his supporters appeared to be in an invincible position, but they were unable to force checkm ate. In part this was because o f the intervention o f Louis I X o f France, who sum moned H enry I I I and baronial representatives to Boulogne, in a move w hich the English king had probably planned. Simon refused to accept the judgem ent o f a French court, but the incident showed his weakness, and in the parliam ent w hich followed his and H en ry’s return from Boulogne, disputes were bitter, and the situation was evidently drifting into civil w ar.63 T h e royalist position was greatly strengthened by E d w ard ’s successes during the summer. O ne early sign o f E d w ard ’s attem pt to build up support cam e when on 15 J u ly 1263 he gave U lster to W alter de Burgh, lord o f C onnaught. T h is was a m ajor grant o f territory w hich had been in royal hands since 1242, and that such an alienation should take place ran counter to H enry 1 1 1 ’s policy. It m ade sense in Irish terms, for English authority in U lster was distinctly fragile at this time, but the grant should largely be seen in an English context, o f the lengths to which E dw ard was now prepared to go in order to obtain vitally needed help. H e was not him self in a position to make W alter earl o f Ulster: the title had come by 1266, and was perhaps conferred upon him by H enry I I I after the battle o f E vesham .64 60 Ann. Dunstable, 223; Flores, ii, 482. 61 C P R 1258-66, 269-71; Close Rolls, 126 1-5 , 308-9. 62 Flores, ii, 482-3; C P R 1258-66, 272. 63 For a detailed analysis, see Treharne, Baronial Plan o f Reform, 319-22. 64 R.F. Frame, ‘Ireland and the Barons’ Wars’, Thirteenth Century England I, 164-6: see also Handbook o f British Chronology, 3rd edn, ed. E.B. Fryde, D.E. Greenway, S. Porter and I. Roy (1986), 497; C D I 1252-84, nos 860, 1458, 1520.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

41

M ost im portantly, it was now that Edw ard succeeded in re­ establishing his position with his former supporters. O n 18 A ugu st 1263 Roger Leyburn, John de V a u x , R alph Basset, H am o Lestrange and John Giffard issued letters patent, which stated that they had agreed to give their full support to E dw ard, with such security as H enry o f A lm ain and Earl W arenne should think fitting. T h ey did not re­ nounce their oaths to the Provisions o f Oxford: there was a clause ‘saving the comm on oath, which is to the honour o f G od and the fealty o f the king and the profit o f the realm ’ . W hat argum ents Edw ard used to obtain the support o f these men this time is not clear. T w o chronic­ lers cynically considered that they were sim ply bribed by means o f offers o f lands, while the royalist W ykes wrote o f E d w ard ’s persuasive­ ness. O ne possible reason for their change o f heart m ay well have been the fact that Simon de M ontfort intended to seek alliance with L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, a policy unacceptable to men with m ajor interests in the W elsh M arch. T h e loss o f D yserth and D egan w y to L lyw elyn must have dem onstrated the dangers o f such an alliance.65 For his part, Edw ard must have agreed to abandon his reliance on foreign m ercenaries, and m ay have m ade other promises. T h e discussions in the O ctob er parliam ent o f 1263 achieved nothing, and E dw ard w ithdrew , seizing W indsor castle. H enry I I I soon joined him, and early in D ecem ber they tried unsuccessfully to take D over castle from its baronial custodian.66 O n ly the support o f the Londoners enabled Simon de M ontfort to escape capture by the king and prince.67 M eanw hile, negotiations for a settlem ent had been proceeding, and both parties gave their consent to French arbitration. A m on g those who sealed the king’ s agreem ent were E d w ard ’s allies, Earl W arenne, A lan la Zouche, Roger Clifford, H am o Lestrange, John de V a u x , W arin de Bassingbourne and Roger L eyb u rn .68 Edw ard accom panied his father to Am iens for the negotiations. T h e award, or mise, issued late in Jan u ary by Louis I X was a firm ju stifica­ tion o f H enry I l l ’s position. T h e only concession to his baronial opponents was that H enry was to pardon them for any offences com ­ mitted in defence o f the Provisions o f O xford, but those provisions themselves were now w holly annulled.69 T h ere was little hope that such 65 Foedera, i, 430; Flores, ii, 484-5; Ann. Dunstable, 225; Wykes, 137; Lloyd, History o f Wales, ii, 732. For the importance of the Welsh Marcher lords in this period, see T.F. Tout, ‘Wales and the March in the Barons’ Wars’, in his Collected Papers (Manchester, 1934). 47-100. 66 C P R 1258-66 , 294, 300, suggest strongly that Edward was present on the expedi­ tion to Dover. 67 Ann. Dunstable, 226; Flores, ii, 485. 68 Treharne, Baronial Plan o f Reform , 335. 69 Documents o f the Baronial Movement, ed. Sanders, 280-91.

42

EDWARD I

terms would settle matters: the drift into civil w ar was becom ing irresistible. Simon could hardly accept the M ise o f A m iens, but quite as im portant was the w idespread lawlessness in England, with a m ultiplicity o flo cal conflicts. So m any enmities had been aroused in the turbulent years since 1258 that the disorganized m achinery o f a dis­ illusioned governm ent had little hope o f preventing m ajor conflict. E d w ard ’s allies were deeply involved in the deterioration o f the situation. T h e seat o f trouble was in the W elsh M arches, where, at Christm as, John Giffard attacked and ravaged the lands o f Roger M ortim er. In Jan u ary Clifford, L eyburn, de V a u x , Basset, Giffard, Lestrange and others were singled out as blam ew orthy for the ‘injuries, dam ages and violences lately com m itted against the ch urch ’ by them, and the king promised that they would make am ends.70 T h e troubles in the M arch becam e far more serious when Simon de M ontfort, who was him self laid up w ith a broken leg, sent his sons Simon and H enry to join in the attack on M ortim er, in w hich L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd also partici­ pated. R ichard o f C orn w all set out with E dw ard to try to pacify the region. R ich ard ’s approach was, no doubt, conciliatory, but E d w ard ’s was not. H e took the Bohun castles o f H ay and H untingdon, and obtained the surrender o f Brecon, handing these lands over to M ortim er.71 M eanw hile the rebels had gained the city o f G loucester, but not the castle, by a trick, entering disguised as W elsh wool traders. T h e castle held out, and Edw ard cam e to assist the garrison. H e forced an entry by repairing a broken bridge over the Severn, and a good deal o f fighting took place. T h en with the appearance o f Earl Robert Ferrers, o f whom E dw ard was ‘o f no man so sore adread’ , the balance changed. E dw ard, with H enry o f A lm ain and others, cam e out o f the castle unarm ed, and negotiated a truce, with the bishop o f W orcester acting as intermediary. Ferrers and the baronial forces were satisfied and departed, w hereupon E dw ard ignored the terms o f the truce, im prisoned m any o f the citizens and imposed a heavy ransom on the city. H e then w ent to join his father at O xford, his skin safe and his reputation tarnished.72 O n 6 M arch 1264 H enry I I I sum moned the feudal host to meet him at O xford for an expedition against L lyw elyn o f W ales. T h e list o f those asked to attend ended with a curt note: ‘those w ho are against the king are not written to’ , and it is clear that in reality this was intended to be an arm y to fight a civil w a r.73 Further summonses on 18 M arch made 70 Ann. Tewkesbury, 179; C P R 1258-66, 378. 71 Close Rolls 1261-64, 334; Flores, ii, 486. 72 The Metrical Chronicle o f Robert o f Gloucester,

227-8. 73 Close Rolls 1261-4, 377-81.

ii, 740-6; Flores, ii, 487; Ann. Dunstable,

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

43

this quite clear. Attem pts at m ediation failed, and early in A p ril the host m arched out. H enry m ade w hat am ounted to a formal declaration o f w ar by raising his dragon standard, a splendid device with jew elled eyes, m ade so that its tongue appeared to flicker constantly.74 It had something o f the sym bolism o f the French O riflam m e, and was only used for m ajor cam paigns. T h e arm y did not have to m arch far, for baronial forces, led by Simon de M ontfort’s son Simon and the un­ related Peter de M ontfort, had gathered at Northam pton. T h e town walls were swiftly breached, and victory won. E dw ard played a leading part in the assault, displaying chivalric spirit in preventing the young Simon from being killed by the delighted royalist troops. T h e capture o f m any leading baronial supporters so early in the w ar was a m ajor trium ph, and it was swiftly followed up. H enry I I I and his son moved on to Leicester and N ottingham , w hich surrendered w ithout a fight. Edw ard then left the main arm y, and attacked the estates o f Earl Ferrers, taking T u tb u ry castle and ravaging the lan ds.75 T hese had, o f course, been in his hands earlier, during the earl’s minority, and it seems likely that it was as a result o f that m inority that a feud had developed between the two young men. Financing the cam paign was obviously something o f a problem for E dw ard, but he had few qualm s about exacting protection m oney, taking, for exam ple, £200 from the hundred o f W irksw orth. He initially refused a bribe from the abbot o f Peterbor­ ough, but this was at the request o f his friend W arin de Bassingbourne, who had his own private feud with the abbey. O nce W arin had been pacified with 60 marks, E dw ard w illingly took his share o f£ i 14 paid to himself, the king and Richard o f C o rn w a ll.76 T h e attack on Ferrers’ estates suggests that E dw ard was pursuing his own ends rather than those o f his father, but it perhaps m ade sense to try to pick ofTSimon de M ontfort’s supporters one by one. T h e royalists, despite their initial trium ph, did not have everything their own way. John Giffard captured the earl o f W arw ick, and the citizens o f London were firm in their support for the cause o f reform. M ontfort and his ally the earl o f G loucester concentrated their atten­ tions on the south-east, where they took the town o f Rochester, along with the outer bailey o f the great castle there. T h e keep, under the com m and o f Earl W arenne, held out. Roger Leyburn was am ong those beseiged: he was badly w ounded in the fighting. T h e garrison was a large one, as is suggested by the fact that there were no less than 164 74 Close Rolls 1242-y , 201. 75 Ann. Dunstable, 230; Flores, ii, 489. The events of the war are described by Powicke, Henry 111 and the Lord Edward, ii, 460 fT., though in many ways W.H. Blaauw, The Barons' War (2nd edn, 1871) is still the best account. 76 Ann. Dunstable, 230; Walter ofWhytleseye in Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Varii, ed.

J. Sparke (1724), 135-6.

44

EDWARD I

horses in the castle at the time o f the siege. Supplies were reasonably ample: E dw ard had earlier sent twenty-five tuns o f wine, so there was sufficient to drink. It was Lent, so the garrison’s diet w as confined to fish, and on the day the siege began they had m ackerel, m ullet, salmon and w h itin g.77. In the event, the siege did not last long. H enry cam e to relieve the castle, and M ontfort hurried back to London, where there were rum ours o f plots to hand the city over to E dw ard. H enry then moved to Tonbridge, where he took the earl o f G loucester’s castle. By this time E dw ard had rejoined his father, and their com bined forces moved on to receive the surrender o f W inchelsea. From there they went to Lewes. M eanw hile Simon de M ontfort had gathered his troops, and advanced from London, intent upon finally settling his dispute with the king. A ll was set for a decisive battle. C on trary to popular belief, battles were rare in m edieval warfare. It m ade more sense to ravage enem y territory, to reduce towns and castles by means o f sieges, and to conduct raids and counter-raids, than it did to risk all on the field o f battle. Edw ard I was to fight only three m ajor battles in his life; Lewes, Evesham and Falkirk. C ivil war, though, presented rather different problem s from other forms o f fighting. Here, battle offered a means o f resolving the conflict, for it could be con­ sidered as a w ay o f obtaining a divine verdict on the justice o f a particular cause. R oyal justice, in the form o f Louis o f F ran ce’s decision at Am iens, had failed Earl Simon: it remained to be seen w hat the result o f a trial by battle would be. T h e conflict at Lewes was certainly not the result o f a chance encounter between two armies. Both sides went through form al prelim inaries o f issuing letters o f defiance, and final, futile, attem pts at com prom ise were m ade. H enry I I I wrote in very form al terms, announcing that he considered the barons now to be his enemies, not his subjects, while Edw ard and R ichard o f C orn w all in a jo in t letter expressed themselves more strongly, objecting to the baronial accusation that they had given the king false counsel, and challenging M ontfort and the earl o f G loucester to justify themselves before their peers in the king’s court. O ne chronicler considered that it w as E dw ard and R ichard w ho were responsible for the failure o f the negotiations w hich preceded the b attle.78 From a royalist point o f view , to fight was a chance probably worth taking. T h e actual size o f the armies is not known, but the estim ate by one chronicler that the royalists had 1,500 cavalry as against M ontfort’s 500 is perhaps not far from the truth.79 M ontfort, however, was 77 Ann. Dunstable, 230-1; Guisborough, 192; E 101/3/3. 78 The Chronicle o f William de Rishanger o f the Barons’ Wars, ed. J.O . Halliwell (Camden Soc., 1840), 28-30; Flores, ii, 493-4. 79 Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 237.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

45

undoubtedly a more experienced com m ander than anyone on the royalist side, though historians’ estimates o f his ability owe som ething to his own gifts for publicity. O n this occasion he was ham pered in that he had not recovered fully from his broken leg, as well as by the fact that m any o f his troops were untrained, if enthusiastic, Londoners. M edieval battles are never easy to reconstruct. T h e participants themselves were in no position to ju d g e events as a whole, in the noise and confusion, and chroniclers were not m ilitary experts. Lewes presents particular problem s, with two divergent chronicle traditions o f w hat actually happened.80 T h e battle took place on 14 M ay, and Sim on’s arm y, no doubt encouraged by the pious exhortations o f its leader, was probably better prepared than that o f the royalists, though not too m uch credence should be given to the contrast, draw n by contem poraries, between the chaste m anner in w hich the baronial forces spent the night before the battle, and the uproarious, sacrilegious and adulterous conduct o f the royalists with their seven hundred w hores.81 H enry I l l ’s arm y was divided into three m ain battalions. T h a t on the right was com m anded by E dw ard, with W arenne and W illiam de V alen ce, that on the left by R ichard o f C orn w all and his son H enry, with the king controlling the centre. O th er troops had been left to guard Tonbridge. Edw ard was in bellicose mood. A n initial charge broke the line facing him: as they retreated, m any knights were drowned in the river and m arshy ground. T h e Londoners panicked and fled, with E dw ard in hot pursuit: he felt particularly vindictive towards them after the w ay they had treated his m other when she had attem pted to join him at W indsor and had been pelted by the mob. It is possible that E dw ard was lured aw ay from the main battlefield by a piece o f low cunning. M ontfort had come to Lewes in a cart, because o f his injury, and this had been left, with a substantial guard and standard flying, in the rear o f the arm y. Either at the start o f the rout o f the Londoners, or in returning from the chase, it was probably E dw ard and his men w ho seized the cart with delight, killing some unfortunate royalist Londoners who had been imprisoned in a sort o f iron cage built into it.82 For E dw ard, the battle appeared to go splendidly: a m agnificent charge, followed by a rout, with plenty o f enem y casualties must have been ju st w hat he had hoped for. B ut when he returned to the main

80 D.A. Carpenter, ‘Simon de Montfort and the Mise of Lewes’, B I H R , lviii (1985), 4“ 5 -

81 P o litic a l Songs, ed. Wright, 79; Chronicon de La n ercost , ed. J. Stevenson (Maitland Club, 1839), 74. 82 Wykes, 150-1; Guisborough, 195. Rishanger, 27, does not attribute the attack on the cart to Edward’s men.

46

EDWARD I

battlefield, it was to find that the other elements o f the royal arm y had fared very differently. Richard o f C ornw all’s battalion had been roundly defeated, and, after taking refuge in a w indm ill, R ichard him self surrendered. T h e troops with the king also failed to resist the baronial charge, and H enry’s own horse was slain. O ne tradition has it that he then surrendered to the earl o f G loucester; another that he took refuge in the nearby priory.83 Edw ard was alm ost certainly unaw are o f w hat exactly had happened as he and his men circled the town after their return to the battlefield. T h e y were attacked by baronial troops, and Earl W arenne with W illiam de V alen ce and G u y de Lusignan fled. A ccording to one account, E dw ard then went to look for his father in the castle, and when he failed to find him there, went to the priory. T h e barons besieged the castle, hoping to release the prisoners incarcerated there, and in the fighting m uch o f the town was set on fire. T h ey moved on to the priory, and Edw ard prepared to make a sortie and begin battle again. W iser counsels prevailed, however, and the night was spent in negotiation. T h e king and his son were threatened that if they did not come to terms, then R ichard o f C orn w all, Philip Basset and other prisoners o f the barons would be executed, and their heads stuck on the ends o f lances.84 T h ou gh he had won the battle o f Lewes, Simon de M ontfort was not in a position o f com plete dom inance, for the king and the heir to the throne were not in his hands. Precise details o f the agreem ent, known as the M ise o f Lewes, that was ham m ered out in the afterm ath o f the battle are not known, but it was evidently a com plex affair.85 T h e Provisions o f O xford were to stand, but there were procedures set up for m odifying them in detail, and there was a separate arrangem ent for French arbitration o f other outstanding questions. Im portantly, the M arch er lords and some others were allowed to leave Lewes, prom ising that they w ould return to parliam ent to stand trial before their peers. A m ong these men were Roger M ortim er, H am o Lestrange, Roger Clifford and Roger L eyburn. In order to guarantee this settlement, E dw ard and H enry o f A lm ain gave themselves up as hostages, not to be released until a perm anent settlem ent was achieved. From Sim on’s point o f view, the two young men were not particularly good hostages, for he hardly dared threaten them with execution in view o f their status.86 From E d w ard ’s own position, the fact that his M archer allies 83 A n n . Waverley, 357; Wykes, 151; Guisborough, 195. For a more detailed analysis of the opinions of the chroniclers, see Carpenter, ‘Simon de Montfort and the Mise of Lewes’, 4-5. 84 Guisborough, 195; F lo r e s , iii, 260-1. 85 For recent discussion, see J.R. Maddicott, ‘The Mise of Lewes, 1264’, E H R , xcviii (i 983), 588-603, and Carpenter, ‘Simon de Montfort and the Mise of Lewes’, 1 -11 . 86 Maddicott, op. cit., 600.

THE L E O P A R D ,

I258-7O

47

had gone free offered the best hope o f a reversal o f the defeat o f Lewes. T h e two hostages were not kept together. H enry o f A lm ain was imprisoned at his father’s castle o f Berkham pstead, and E dw ard was taken first to Dover, then to W allingford, and eventually K enilw orth. T h e royalist chronicler W ykes suggests that the conditions o f im prison­ ment were harsher than was proper, but there is no solid evidence o f this.87 T here was little hope o f an early release. Louis I X and the papal legate prevaricated over the question o f arbitration, the latter dem an­ ding as late as 12 A ugust the release o f the hostages, as the French had not received any copy o f the agreem ent m ade at L ew es.88 A tem porary scheme o f governm ent was draw n up, w ithout reference to the arbitra­ tors proposed in the M ise o f Lewes, but on 6 O ctob er it was m ade clear that this could not lead to the release o f E dw ard and H enry o f A lm ain while the M archer lords were still fighting. A n im portant group o f E d w ard ’s men, including W arin de Bassingbourne, Robert W alerand and Robert de T ibetot, held Bristol for him. A bold attem pt was m ade to rescue the prince from W allingford, but the constable threatened to hurl him out o f the castle by using a m angonel. Edw ard was then led up to the battlem ents, and instructed the attackers to go aw ay, ‘other he was d ead’ .89 E dw ard’s supporters were few in num ber, and in the autum n o f 1264 events drifted in Simon de M ontfort’s favour. T h e refusal o f the M archers to attend parliam ent was followed by a m ilitary expedition against them, and in D ecem ber they were forced to come to terms, agreeing to go into exile in Ireland for a year. M ortim er, Clifford and Leyburn received safe-conducts to go to see Edw ard at K enilw orth, in the hope that he would order them to accept the terms. H e requested that Bristol be given up, and as a further element in the settlement granted Simon de M ontfort the earldom o f Chester in exchange for other property o f the same value - though when in M ay 1265 Earl Simon did make over some estates to E dw ard, they were certainly not equal to C hester.90 T h e M archers constantly prevaricated, and never did sail for Ireland, but negotiations continued for the release of Edw ard and H enry o f A lm ain. T h is was the subject o f m uch discussion in the celebrated parliam ent sum moned by M ontfort, w hich opened late in Jan u ary 1265. A n agreem ent was concluded on 11 M arch 1265. The terms were harsh for Edward. T he agreement to hand over Chester, along with N ew castle-under-Lym e, was renewed. Bristol was to be

87 Wykes, 153. 88 Maddicott, op. cit., 595. 89 C P R 1 2 5 8 - 6 6 , 374, 397; Robert of Gloucester, ii, 752. 90 C P R 1 2 5 8 - 6 6 , 394-5, 397, 424. For a fuller discussion of the events of this period, see Powicke, H enry I I I and the L o r d E d w a r d , ii, 486-90.

48

EDWARD I

retained by Earl Simon as a pledge for the full im plem entation o f the agreem ent, and E dw ard prom ised to accept the new schem e o f govern­ ment. Five m ajor royal castles w ere to be handed over by H enry 111 to Edw ard, and he was then to entrust them to M ontfort as guarantees o f his good conduct for the next five years.91 Even then, E dw ard was still not free. He was kept under close surveillance, and Earl Sim on’s son H enry was given responsibility for w atching his m ovem ents.92 T h e release o f E dw ard from close custody m ight suggest that Simon de M ontfort was in a strong position, but this was far from true. His strength was being fatally w eakened by the defection o f the young earl o f G loucester, G ilbert the R ed .93 Earl G ilbert had fought for Simon in 1264, although his com m itm ent to him was p robably never total. A propaganda letter written in his interest early in 1264 had em phasized his support for the principles o f reform, but had expressed doubts about M ontfort, because o f the favour he showed to aliens, and because o f his age. A fter Lewes there was a dispute over a prisoner, and in more general terms G loucester challenged Earl Simon about the control he was dem anding over royal castles, and even over the m aintenance o f the Provisions o f O xford and the terms o f the M ise o f Lew es.94 W hen M ontfort had Robert Earl Ferrers arrested and im prisoned, G loucester felt threatened. B y F ebruary 1265 there were clear signs o f trouble when a tournam ent had to be cancelled because o f fears o f disturbances between M ontfort’s sons and the earl o f G loucester and his men. A nother element in the grow ing tension was the alliance m ade with L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, w hich threatened G lou cester’s m assive interests in the W elsh M arches. In the spring o f 1265 G loucester, along with John G iffard, abandoned the baronial cause, and joined with the M archers, w ho were still delaying their departure for Ireland. In M ay the baronial position was threatened still further, when Earl W arenne and W illiam de V alen ce landed in Pem broke, ready to join forces with the M arch ers.95 Simon de M ontfort m arched west to deal with this increasingly critical situation, and on 12 M a y reached a form o f agreem ent with G loucester. A few days later Stam ford was restored to Edw ard and other lands were granted to him; presum ably in an attem pt to meet criticism s levelled by G loucester. O ptim istic M ontfortian propa­ ganda declared that there was no discord.96 T h e situation was then 91

C P R 1 2 5 8 -6 6 ,

414;

F oed era ,

I.

92 T h e M e tr ic a l C h ron icle o f R obert o f G loucester , ii, 755. 93 Altschul, A B a r o n ia l F a m ily , 107-10. 94 A n n . Tew kesbury , 179-80; A n n . L o n d o n , 65-6; T h e M e tr ic a l C h ron icle o f R obert o f G loucester , ii, 753; L ib e r de A n tiq u is L e g ib u s , ed. T. Stapleton (Camden Soc., 1846), 73. 95 Wykes, 166; A n n . L o n d o n , 67; C P R 1 2 5 8 - 6 6 , 406, 409; A n n . D u n sta b le. 238. 96 C P R 1 2 5 8 - 6 6 , 424.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

49

transformed on T h u rsd ay 28 M ay, when E dw ard w ent out riding from Hereford in the com pany o f a num ber o f knights, including G loucester’s brother Th om as de C lare and H enry de M ontfort. T h e classic account o f w hat took place is that Edw ard asked to try all the horses in turn. H aving found the swiftest, he dug in his spurs and rode off, shouting ‘Lordings, I bid you good day. G reet m y father well, and tell him that I hope to see him soon, and release him from custod y.’ O ne o f m any elaborations o f the story is that the horse on w hich Edw ard escaped was sent to him in advance by Roger M ortim er. T h e official version, understandably reticent, has it that E dw ard escaped with two knights and four squires, w hich casts some doubt on the dram atic single-handed dash for freedom o f the chronicle accounts.97 T h e escape was clearly planned in advance by Edw ard and G loucester, and its execution certainly dem anded considerable bravery and some skill on E d w ard ’s part. A fter m aking his escape, Edw ard rode to R oger M ortim er’s castle o f W igm ore, and then to Ludlow , where he join ed forces with G loucester. He promised the earl that, should they be successful in battle, he would ensure that the good old laws would be observed, evil customs abolished, aliens expelled from the realm and the council, and that the governm ent w ould be entrusted to native-born Englishm en. T h is was the kind o f program m e that had been m usic to the ears o f the baronage in 1258. W hatever E d w ard ’s private views were, his associates had not lost their com m itm ent to the ideals o f the reform m ovem ent. G loucester certainly considered that Simon de M ontfort, with his evident self­ aggrandisem ent, the favours accorded to his own sons, and the lack o f further progress in the process o f legal and adm inistrative reform, had failed, and that a new solution was required to resolve the problem s o f a deeply troubled country. O nce the news o f E d w ard ’s release becam e known, men flocked to his standard. T h e M archers predom inated, o f course, and W arenne and V alen ce were swift to jo in forces with Edw ard. T h e first success was the surrender o f W orcester w ithout a fight. T h e bridge across the Severn there was then broken, so that Simon de M ontfort at Hereford would find it hard to jo in with forces mustered further east by his son Simon. From W orcester Edw ard m oved to G loucester. O n e section of the town w all was left undefended, and it was here that the attackers, headed by John Giffard, broke through. Grim bald Pauncefoot, who had earlier besieged E dw ard in G loucester castle, now found the position reversed. T h e garrison were forced to surrender, and G rim bald was most favourably treated, being knighted by E dw ard, and join in g 97 12 6 4 -8 ,

T h e M e tr ic a l Ch ron icle o f R obert o f G loucester , ii,

124-5.

756-7; Guisborough, 198;

C lose R o lls ,

50

EDWARD I

his forces. E dw ard was very ready to recognize the courage and ability o f his opponents, and was often ready to welcom e those who were prepared to change sides.98 T h e danger that E dw ard and G loucester would be caught in a pincer m ovem ent by Earl Sim on’s troops from the west and the young Sim on’s men from the east was averted. M ore bridges across the Severn were destroyed, and ships in w hich Earl Simon hoped to reach Bristol were intercepted by three galleys provided by the earl o f G loucester.99 Simon de M ontfort then turned for support to L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, with whom he m ade a form al alliance on 19 June, an action which was highly unpopular in England. T h e W elsh were themselves most reluctant to fight for M ontfort, whose troops were dem oralized by the weeks they spent in W ales, where victualling arrangem ents were quite inadequate. E ventually M ontfort and his men, still taking the captive H enry I I I with them, returned to Hereford. O n 2 A ugust he found a ford across the Severn that was still passable, and advanced eastw ards.100 W hile the elder M ontfort was w asting precious time in W ales, his son Simon advanced from the siege o f Pevensey, which had gone on since the previous September, through Winchester, Oxford and Northampton, to K enilw orth. Th ere his troops were billeted in the town and priory, as there was not room for so m any in the castle. E dw ard and G loucester had good intelligence, notably from a female transvestite spy called M argoth. T h e y m ade a rapid night m arch from W orcester, and prepared for battle in a deep hollow from which they could not be seen. W hen a bell sounded in the m orning, they thought they had been spotted, and quickly mounted and attacked. T h eir enem y was in fact totally unprepared: m any were slaughtered, with the notables am ong them being captured. B y one account, the young Simon escaped death because he was in the castle. A more dram atic account has him fleeing naked from his bed in the town, and rowing across the lake to take refuge within the castle walls. A slanderous tale, told m any years later by an Irish m agnate, had it that when E dw ard heard o f the scale o f the forces opposing him, he w anted to turn back, and was only dissuaded from doing so by Roger Clifford, who rode forward with his banner raised, giving him no option but to fo llo w .101 Th ere is no evidence to support this, but it is probably the case that E d w ard ’s force was still not a large one.

98 T h e M e tr ic a l C h ron icle o f R obert o f G loucester , ii, 758-9. 99 Wykes, 167. 100 R o y a l L e tters , H enry I I I , ii, 284-7; Tout, ‘Wales and the M arch’, 117-18; Wykes, 168. 101 R o t. P a r i i, 127; below, 354.

THE L E O P A R D ,

I258-7O

51

M eanw hile Earl Simon advanced towards E vesham , hoping to join forces with his son, and then go to London where he was sure o f support. H e did not m ove quickly, delaying at Evesham to hear mass. H enry I I I refused to go any further until he had eaten. E d w ard ’s intelligence was again good: R alph de A rdern is said to have betrayed the M ontfortian m ovem ents. L earnin g that the arm y was due to leave Evesham on 4 A ugust, E dw ard and his men m arched out o f W orcester on the previous evening. T h e y rode a few miles northw ards, to deceive their enemies, and then doubled back to Evesham . B attle w as join ed next m orn in g.102 A ccounts o f the battle o f Evesham inevitably differ. T o tal surprise was not possible, but E dw ard resorted to a devious stratagem . He ordered the banners captured at K en ilw orth to be carried in front o f his arm y, so that Earl Sim on’s herald told his m aster that the advancing troops were M o n tfo rtian .103 W hen they were properly recognized, M ontfort with typical arrogance declared ‘B y the arm o f St Jam es, they are advancing well. T h e y have not learned that for them selves, but were taught it by m e.’ 104 Sim on’s troops were draw n up in a defensive circular form ation, but this was not strong enough to resist E dw ard and G loucester’s charges. T h e W elsh fled like sheep, but there was no repetition o f the folly o f Lewes w ith a chase by E dw ard. T h e M ontfortian barons and knights fought with great bravery against an enem y consum ed w ith blood-lust. In most m edieval battles, casualties am ong the knightly class were low, as captured enemies were worth a substantial ransom , but at Evesham the casualty lists were long. Simon de M ontfort him self fought bravely, but was eventually overcom e and slain, as was his son H enry, though G u y de M ontfort was taken prisoner. H e n r y l l l him self was in the m idst o f the battle, and was indeed slightly w ounded, but he shouted out his nam e, and was duly recognized and reunited with his son. T h e mood o f E d w ard ’s troops was one o f savage revenge, epitom ized by the crude m utilation o f Simon de M ontfort’s corpse. His head and genitals were sent off in trium ph to R oger M ortim er’s wife at W igm ore, w ho was no doubt well pleased with the grisly p a rce l.105 T h e Evesham cam paign had been a trium ph for E dw ard. H ow far he was him self really responsible for the success is not clear: the im ­ pression given by the chroniclers is that G loucester should share the

102 Wykes, 171-2, is the fullest account, but the movements of the armies are hard to work out, and the sources not consistent. See Blaauw, Barons' Wars, 271-2. 103 Guisborough, 200. 104 Chronicle o f William de Rishanger, ed. Halliwell, 45. 105 Wykes, 172—5; Guisborough, 200-2; The Metrical Chronicle o f Robert o f Gloucester, ii, 764-5, all give some details of the battle.

52

EDWARD I

credit with the future king. T h e chronicler W ykes com m ented on the w ay that Edw ard had learned from his earlier mistakes, and now acted with proper wisdom as well as courage. He and his allies were well served by their spies and scouts, and did well to seize their opportunities when they were presented. A lthough the cam paign was as m uch lost by the M ontfortians as won by E dw ard and G loucester, the achievem ent was nonetheless considerable. In political terms, E d w ard ’s success was due above all to the links he had forged with the lords o f the W elsh M arch. H e was, o f course, a m ajor landow ner him self in W ales, and he had connections there stretching back a long w ay. Roger Clifford and H am o Lestrange had supported E dw ard at the time o f his treaty with G loucester in 1259. It was in 1263, how ever, that the real strength o f the link with the M archers was established. P articularly im portant was M ortim er’s decision to back E dw ard, the consequence, according to the D unstable annalist, o f a promise o f three o f Simon de M ontfort’s m an ors.106 T h e M archers were not, o f course, a united group, brought together by a com m on threat such as that which faced them in 1321 with the younger D espenser’s am bitions. M an y o f their num ber did support Earl Simon, but by the time o f Evesham E d w ard ’s supporters were dom inant, and provided him with the experienced forces he needed for success in war. M ention should also be m ade o f the fact that as lord o f Ireland E dw ard was able to sum mon several im portant A nglo-Irish m agnates to his assistance.107 G eoffrey de G eneville had very skilfully pacified Ireland. First he had raised an arm y against the pro-M ontfortian G eraldines, then he had secured the release o f the captured R ichard de la Rochelle, E d w ard ’s representative in the country, and finally he won the support o f all factions, by prom ising that all should hold their land on the same basis that they had held it before the w ar began. It was then possible for troops to be recruited in time to assist E d w ard ’s cause at the time o f E vesh am .108 It was rare, as Lewes had shown, for a single battle to be decisive. Evesham w as a different m atter, but although there can have been no real hope for the baronial cause after Simon de M ontfort’s death, resistance did not end on that day in early A ugu st 1265. Th ere was still the younger Simon to be dealt w ith, along with the garrison of Iob A n n . D u n s ta b le , 226. Powicke, H enry I I I and the L o r d E d w a r d , 498 n. 1, suggests that Edward escaped in 1265 into ‘a family circle of Marchers, bound together by the Braose connection’ . This is based on the fact that both Roger de Mortimer and Geoffrey de Geneville had married ladies called Matilda de Braose, but the argument is weak. One of Mortimer’s sisters-in-law had married the earl of Hereford, who was killed at Evesham, and his family connection with Geneville’s wife was not a strong one. 107 A n n . W averley , 365. 108 Frame, ‘ Ireland and the Barons’ W ars’, 161-4.

THE L E O P A R D ,

53

1258-70

K enilw orth, and m any M ontfortian supporters w ho had fought at Evesham . It was now obvious that Edw ard w ould play a m ajor part in the pacification o f England. A s the victor o f Evesham he had acquired the prestige appropriate to his status as heir to the throne, and it would no longer be possible for his father to deny him real power. Y et the evidence is not com pletely clear as to w hat E d w ard ’s own policies were in the years from 1265 until his departure on crusade in 1270, and it would certainly be dangerous to assum e that his was throughout the dom inant voice in the governm ent o f England. A fter Evesham , E d w ard ’s first move was northw ards to C hester to re-establish his authority there. W ider affairs than those o f his own earldom concerned him, and an im portant letter sent from C hester on 24 A ugust m ade arrangem ents for the security o f the realm . Roger Leyburn and N icholas de Lew knor, keeper o f the royal w ardrobe, were asked to see that Earl W arenne was properly em powered to receive the surrender o f the C in qu e Ports. H e was to prevent piracy, and control the entry o f foreigners to England. E dw ard then asked that letters be drafted inviting the garrison o f K enilw orth to surrender, under threat o f disinheritance and loss o f life.109 Pow icke saw this as ‘E d w ard ’s first recorded act o f state, done by him as a responsible adviser o f the crow n’ . 110 Th ere is little reason, however, to suppose that this letter represents a considered statem ent o f E d w ard ’s policy: the generous offer to the K enilw orth garrison was rather a device intended to induce them to surrender. T h e heir to the throne would not necessarily take so m oderate a line with those who no longer represented any threat to him. E dw ard probably offered sim ilar terms to the garrisons o f W allingford and Berkham pstead on his return from C hester, certainly prom ising at least four men that they could continue to hold their lands freely, but in more general terms he appears to have gone along w illingly in the harsh policies that were adopted in the afterm ath o f E vesh am .111 Im m ediately after the battle H enry gave permission for the seizure o f rebel lands. O n ly two days later, the earl o f G loucester ordered his tenants in three counties to assist two knights he had com m issioned to undertake this task.112 Parliament was summoned to meet at W inchester in Septem ber; in addition to the prelates and lay m agnates the wives o f those captured or killed at Evesham were asked to attend. It was decided to disinherit all who had rebelled against the king: one chronicler noted that this was in spite o f the fact that they had actually fought 109 R o y a l L etters, H enry I I I , ed. Shirley, ii, 289-90. 110 Powicke, H enry I I I and the L o r d E d w a r d , ii, 504. 1,1 R o y a l L etters, H enry I I I , ii, 291; C lose R o lls 1 2 6 4 - 8 , 131. 112 E.F. Jacob, Studies in the P e rio d o f B a r o n ia l R eform and R e b ellio n , 1925), 406.

12 5 8 -12 6 7

(Oxford,

54

EDWARD I

with Simon de M ontfort under the king’s banner. Com m issioners were appointed to help the sheriffs in the seizure o f lands, and the rents were to be collected. Lim ited provision was m ade for the wives and widows o f the reb els.113 T h e parliam ent was interrupted by news o f incursions by L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd into Cheshire. H am o Lestrange and the Irish m agnate M aurice FitzG erald were sent north, only to be roundly defeated by the W e lsh .114 Initially, the attitude o f the M ontfortians had been reasonably con­ ciliatory: they released the prisoners held since the battle o f Lewes w ithout condition. But no concessions were forthcom ing in return. H enry I I I moved from W inchester to W indsor, where forces were gathered for an attack on London. T h e citizens, in terror, sent the m ayor and forty others to W indsor, under royal safe-conduct, w hich had been negotiated with Roger Leyburn. In spite o f the safe-conduct, they were arrested, and the m ayor with four others was handed over to E d w ard ’s custody. H enry was then able to enter London, and an indiscrim inate confiscation and redistribution o f property began. Letters had been draw n up adm itting the Londoners to the king’s grace, but these were not handed over, and it was not until 5 D ecem ber that new ones were issued. O n ly on 10 Jan u ary 1266 was a pardon issued, in return for a fine o f no less than 20,000 m arks.115 E dw ard had his own reasons for w ishing to take revenge on the Londoners: they had insulted his mother, and had opposed him at Lewes. In O ctob er 1265 a large num ber o f grants o f forfeited London property were m ade, and m any o f the recipients were close adher­ ents and friends o f E d w ard ’s. A s well as such men as W arin de Bassingbourne, H am o Lestrange, Roger L eyburn and John de V a u x , the list included O tto de G randson, a Savoyard w ho was to prove one o f E d w ard ’s most loyal and devoted supporters. G rim bald Pauncefoot now found his change o f side well rewarded, and it is significant that the one m ajor m agnate to benefit was Earl W arenne. T h ere was certainly no m oderation in E d w ard ’s policy towards London: even in the pardon o f 10 Jan u ary it was specified that the hostages handed over to Edw ard were not to be released. It was also the case that the revenge taken upon London was indiscrim inate, with m any suffering w ho had in fact been loyal to H enry I I I and his so n .116 113 Liber de Antiquis Legibus, ed. Stapleton, 76; C P R 1258-65, 490-1; C.H. Knowles, ‘Provision for the Families of the Montfortians disinherited after the Battle of Evesham’, Thirteenth Century England , I, 124. 114 Ann. Waverley, 366. 115 The best account of events in London is provided by G.A. Williams, Medieval London from Commune to Capital (1963), 232-9. See also Liber de Antiquis Legibus, ed. Stapleton, 77-9; Wykes, 176-8; C P R 1258-66 , 469, 519, 530-1. 1,6 C P R 1258-65 , 463-8, 531.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

55

From London E dw ard went to D over, towards the end o f O ctober, to greet his m other and the papal legate O ttobuono, and to obtain the surrender o f D over castle, w here Simon de M ontfort’s w idow, Edw ard’s aunt Eleanor, was residing. Resistance did not last long: on 26 O ctober E dw ard asked the chancellor to issue writs for the restoration o f lands and goods to those w ho had surrendered. He had clearly made to the men in D over a sim ilar promise to that which he had suggested should be m ade to the K enilw orth garrison .117*19E dw ard then m arched north, to deal with the problem s posed by the younger Simon de M ontfort, who had gathered his forces in the Isle o f Axholm e: John d ’E yville and B aldw in W ake were two o f the more im portant o f those with him. Royalist forces were recruited in N ottingham shire and D erbyshire, and the isle, for all that it was surrounded by the dism al fens and marshes o f north Lincolnshire, did not prove to be the safe redoubt its defenders had hoped. Edw ard had wooden bridges built so that he could advance on the rebels, and they cam e to terms at a place called Bickerdyke, or B yca rr’s D yke, at C hristm as 1265.118 T h e text o f the agreem ent has not survived, but it promised that those who surrendered would not be im prisoned or executed, provided that they subm itted to the king’s judgem ent in parliam ent. Edw ard was perhaps too ready to accept the word o f the rebels at Bickerdyke. T h e young de M ontfort did come to parliam ent, but fled abroad rather than accept the terms set for him. B aldw in W ake delayed com ing to court, and received a pardon only in N ovem ber 1266, while Joh n d ’E yville cam e to terms only in 1267.119 M uch further cam paigning was to be needed. A fter the b rief A xholm e cam paign, the com plex m opping-up opera­ tions continued. Edw ard join ed Roger L eyburn in a cam paign against the C in qu e Ports, which culm inated in a com bined land and sea assault on W inchelsea. C ap itu lation soon followed, and in a peace concluded on 30 M a y the rebels were treated with m oderation, being pardoned in return for promises o f loyalty and obedient service in future. E dw ard received his reward with the custody o f D over castle, the w ardenship o f the Ports, and the cham berlainship o f Sandw ich. T h e latter appoint­ ment he then entrusted to Leyburn. Edw ard also received full authority over foreign m erchants com ing to E n g la n d .120 Follow ing the cam paign in K en t, Edw ard and L eyburn divided their 117 Wykes, 178; R o y a l L etters, H enry I I I , ii, 294-6. In fact, letters were enrolled only in favour of one former member of the garrison, John de la Have: the evidence may be incomplete, or Edward may have gone back on his word. 1,8 Powicke, H enry I I I and the L o r d E d w a r d , ii, 5190, discusses the location of Bicker­ dyke: it was near Haxey, in Axholme. 119 C P R 1266-72 , 6, 8, 73. 120 A Lewis, ‘Roger Leyburn and the Pacification of England, 1265-7’, E H R , liv (1939), 200-2; C P R 1258-66 , 574-6, 578.

56

EDWARD I

forces. T h e latter m arched to Essex, w hile E d w ard ’s next direct en­ counter with the increasingly desperate rebels was in H am pshire, in an incident w hich attracted m uch attention. A dam G urdon had been an im portant supporter o f the baronial cause. E dw ard encountered him in A lton forest, and boldy engaged him in single com bat. E d w ard ’s men w ere unable to assist him, as a ditch blocked their w ay. Despite A d a m ’s experience, E d w ard ’s skill and strength eventually prevailed. Several o f the rebels were slain, and others hanged after the skirmish, but A dam him self was taken prisoner to W indsor castle, where he could provide com pany for Robert Ferrers, earl o f D erby, recently captured at Chesterfield by royalist forces under H enry o f A lm a in .121 T h e tale of E d w ard ’s fight with A dam G urdon was later elaborated. O ne account had it that E dw ard ordered his men to stand aside while he and A dam exchanged blows, and so impressed was the prince with A d a m ’s valour that he promised him life and fortune if he surrendered, which he prom ptly did. T h e record evidence, however, shows that A dam was in fact given to the queen as a prisoner, and that he had to buy his estates back for a stiff price. H e was em ployed on various commissions by Edw ard during his reign, but there is no evidence that he was ever regarded with any special favour, though certainly his rebel past was not held against h im .122 T h e m ajor problem for the crown in 1266 was that presented by the rebel garrison in K enilw orth castle, one o f the most powerful fortifica­ tions in the land. T h e siege was the largest such operation so far to take place on English soil, and the w ay in which the garrison held out for m any months in face o f the feudal host, and the m obilization o f re­ sources from some ten counties, was rem arkable testim ony to their courage and the strength o f the castle defences. E dw ard, however, was not very m uch concerned in the siege. Initially, responsibility for tam ing the K enilw orth defenders lay with his brother Edm und, and not until the feudal host m ustered in late M a y 1266 did Edw ard appear on the scene, com m anding one o f the four battalions. T h e highly provocative behaviour o f the besieged, taunting and teasing their oppo­ nents, ensured that this was not to be an uneventful blockade. Various attem pts were m ade to bring m achines up to bom bard the castle, and one assault was attem pted across the lake, which formed an im portant defence. Special barges were brought at great cost from Chester for this purpose, but the ploy had no success.123 121 Wykes, 189-90.

122 Nicholai Triveti Annales, ed. T. Hog (1845), 269; F.M. Powicke, ‘Edward I in Fact and Fiction’, Fritz Saxl, Memorial Essays, ed. D.J. Gordon (1957), 120-35. 123 The best chronicle acounts of the siege are those in Wykes, 190-5; Ann. Dunstable, 242—3; The Chronicle o f William de Rishanger, ed. Halliwell, 51—2. Details of the massive supply operation are to be found in C L R 1260-y , 221-34.

THE L E O P A R D ,

I258-7O

57

It becam e clear that, given the imm ense strength o f the defences, a straightforward m ilitary solution o f the siege would take a long time. So at the end o f A ugust 1266 a com m ittee o f twelve was set up ‘to provide for the state o f the realm especially in the m atter o f the disinherited’ . In the event o f disagreem ents, H enry o f A lm ain and the papal legate were to arbitrate. Edw ard was given no part in the draw ing up o f the proposals, and was not strongly represented on the com m ittee, where only W arin de Bassingbourne and perhaps Robert W alerand could be relied upon to put his point o f view. T h e indications are, in fact, that Edw ard had little to do with the debates and decisions that led to the prom ulgation o f the D ictum o f K enilw orth on 31 O ctob er 1266.124 T h e central feature o f this was the principle that form er rebels should be allowed to buy back their lands from those who had received them in the orgy o f confiscations after the battle o f Evesham , the price varyin g according to their degree o f involvem ent in the rebellion. T h e level set m ight vary from as little as the annual value o f the land, to seven times as m uch. Some rebels had already been treated in this w ay: the system was now m ade general in a long and com plex docum ent. It did not win universal acceptance. M inor rebels accepted it, but the garrison at K enilw orth, along with those with John d ’E yville in the Isle o f Ely, continued their resistance, so high were the levels at w hich they would have been able to buy back their lan d s.125 In the end, cold and hunger forced surrender in m id-D ecem ber 1266. So appalling were the conditions within the castle that the besiegers were alm ost overcom e by the stench when they first entered the abandoned fortress.126 T h e final stages o f the siege o f K enilw orth had m erely been a m atter o f time, and E dw ard left the royal cam p at about the date that the D ictum was prom ulgated, or possibly even earlier. H e went to deal with the rising in the north o fjo h n de V escy. John had been captured at Evesham , and had rebelled again as a result o f the policy o f confiscation o f lands adopted by the victors. E dw ard forced his surrender at A lnw ick, and he had to pay 3,700 marks to redeem his lands. T h e chronicler Thom as W ykes com m ented on E d w ard ’s m ercy, and John de V escy certainly bore him no ill-will. Rather, he becam e one of E d w ard ’s most loyal associates.127 It was probably now that Edw ard took the opportunity o f going further north, to Scotland, where he met his sister, the queen o f Scots, at

124 C P R 1 2 5 8 - 6 6 , 671-2; D ocum ents o f the B a r o n ia l M ov em en t , ed. Sanders, 3 17-37. 125 C.H. Knowles, ‘The Resettlement of England after the Barons’ War, 1264-67’ , T R H S , 5th ser., xxxii (1982), 28-31. 126 Wykes, 195-6. 127 Ibid., 197-8; Knowles, ‘The Resettlement of England’ , 40-1.

58

EDWARD I

H addington. He also seerhs to have taken the opportunity o f recruiting troops in Scotland, for there was still cam paigning to be done in E n g la n d .128 T h e m ajor rem aining problem was that o f the final rebel stronghold, the Isle o f Ely, where John d ’E yville still held out. D is­ cussions at a parliam ent held at B ury St Edm unds in February were inconclusive, and naval forces recruited from the East A nglian ports were driven back in confusion. In A pril 1267 the situation was transformed by the decision o f the earl o f G loucester to lend his support to the cause o f the disinherited rebels, and to centre resistance upon L o n d o n .129 T h e earl o f G loucester had played a vital role in securing E d w ard ’s victory at Evesham , but he had good reasons to be resentful at the turn o f events since then. H e had received very little by w ay o f royal grants in recognition o f his services, and m ay have felt that Edw ard had not kept the bargain that had been made between the two men at Ludlow . Further, he was in dispute with Roger M ortim er over control o f the M archer estates o f H um phrey de Bohun, the young heir to the earldom o f Hereford, and he had a grievance against the crown which was preventing him from gaining control o f some im portant dow er lands held by his mother. Th ere is no reason to doubt, however, that G louces­ ter’s hostility to the governm ent was prim arily the result o f his pro­ found objections to the treatm ent o f the former rebels.130 In A p ril 1267 Earl G ilbert o f G loucester m arched on London, where he joined forces with John d ’E yville, and a popular rising took place in the city in their support. T h ere seemed a very real danger that civil war would break out again. E dw ard cam e rapidly south with troops to join the king, and it seems likely that he favoured a m ilitary solution o f the problem . Th is was hardly practical, however. T h e siege o f K enilw orth alone had exhausted the m idland counties, and an attack on London was too vast a task to be undertaken at short notice. Some preparations were certainly m ade, though some were o f a distinctly fraudulent character. T h e sheriff o f Essex succeeded in a confidence trick when he took, am ong other supplies, chickens to feed the wounded, and forty or 128 Chron. Lanercost, 81; Flores, iii, 15; Ann. London, 77. It is possible that these references do not all apply to the same visit to Scotland. Equally, it is likely that the story from the Barlings chronicle of Edward’s collecting an army in 1269 so as to rescue his sister, who had been imprisoned by her husband, may have been misplaced chronologically. It is in any case highly implausible. The text is given in Chronicles o f the Reigns o f Edward I and Edward I I ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls ser., 1883), ii, cxvi. 129 Wykes, 197; C P R 1266-72, 44-5. 130 Altschul, A Baronial Family , 110-21, provides a full discussion of Earl Gilbert’s role in this period. See also Knowles, ‘Resettlement of England after the Barons’ W ar’, 3 °-

THE L E OP A R D,

1258-70

59

more cocks, w hich, he said, were to be used as incendiaries, to be sent flying into London with com bustibles tied to their feet.131 In the event, m oderation prevailed. G ilbert de C lare, earl o f G lou ces­ ter, for all his dem ands on b eh alf o f the disinherited, was no Sim on de M ontfort, and there was strong pressure from the papal legate, im ­ m ured in the T o w er during the crisis, for a settlem ent. R ichard o f C orn w all, H enry o f A lm ain and Philip Basset were all involved in the negotiations, as was E dw ard. B y mid-June a settlem ent was reached, and G loucester left London. He pledged him self not to engage in further hostilities, and to accept papal arbitration, offering 10,000 marks as secu rity.132 T h ere was a return to the terms o f the D ictum o f K enilw orth, and the governm ent began to adopt a distinctly more m oderate attitude. O n 1 J u ly Joh n d ’E yville, N icholas Segrave, N orm an d ’A rcy and others were form ally readm itted into the kin g’s peace. Edw ard would later em ploy all three as bannerets in his house­ hold: indeed he bore few grudges as a result o f w hat took place in the course o f the B aron s’ W ars. It was now an easy m atter to obtain the surrender o f those who were still holding out in the Isle o f Ely. T h e approach was m uch sim pler in the dry sum m er months, and with skilled use o f archers and crossbow m en Edw ard protected his main troops as they advanced. B y threatening the rebels w ith execution if they did not surrender, E dw ard soon brought resistance to an en d .133 Peace was at long last achieved in England. T h e next step towards achieving stability was the issue o f the Statute o f M arlborough in N ovem ber 1267, a lengthy series o f legal provisions which in m any respects continued the work o f legislative reform begun in 1259. T h is was technical work, and it was well done. In m any w ays it presaged the great legal reforms o f E d w ard ’s reign, but there is no w ay o f knowing w hat part he took in the debates at M arlborough, though it is im possible to im agine that the statute was prom ulgated w ithout his a p p ro v al.134 W elsh affairs must have been a m ajor concern for E dw ard in 1267. O n 29 Septem ber the T rea ty o f M ontgom ery was m ade with L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd. In it, L lyw elyn was recognized as prince o f W ales, and as the feudal lord o f the other W elsh princes, w ith the exception o f M aredudd ap Rhys, who, like L lyw elyn himself, owed hom age directly to H enry I I I for his lands. T h e four C antreds in the north were 131 Williams, Medieval London , 239-40; H.M. Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls , (London, 1930), 101-2. Powick e , Henry 111 and the Lord Edward, ii, 544, is to be counted among those who fell for the sheriffs ruse. See below, 95. 132 Denholm-Young, Richard o f Cornwall, 143; C P R 1 2 6 6 - 7 2 , 73, 143-5. The pope raised Gloucester’s security to 20,000 marks. '33 Wykes, 207-10. 134 Statutes o f the Realm , i, 19-25.

6o

EDWARD I

form ally conceded to Llyw elyn. T h e English concessions were m ajor ones, for until now the kings o f England had claim ed that all W elsh princes and nobles owed them hom age. T h e loss o f lands in the north was a m ajor blow to E dw ard, but one he could for the present do little a b o u t.135 H e had already, in the autum n o f 1265, granted C arm arthen and C ard igan to his brother E dm und, w ho also received the lordship o f the T h ree C a stle s.136 He was therefore largely abandoning his former interests in W ales, but it is hard to im agine that he was content with the T rea ty o f M ontgom ery, for all that his form al assent to it was recorded. T h e agreem ent was in fact largely the work o f the papal legate O ttobuono, and it provides evidence that E d w ard ’s position at this time was not com pletely dom inant. In the relatively peaceful times that followed the agreem ent with the earl o f G loucester in 1267, E dw ard was able to devote some o f his attention once again to the sport o f tournam ents. He, with his brother E dm und and his cousin H enry o f A lm ain , was responsible for an edict allow ing tournam ents to be held, after years o f prohibitions, and it is very probable that he took a leading part on m any occasions. Tournam ents were not at this time the gentlem anly, ch ivalric jousting com petitions o f the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but could be violent contests, barely distinguishable from battle. M uch later, in 1292, E dw ard was to enact legislation in an attem pt to control the arm ed supporters and servants w ho often caused m uch trouble at the tournam ents, but if in the late 1260s he did anything to regulate w hat took place, the details o f it are not reco rd ed.137 T h e animosities o f the period o f civil w ar could not be com pletely forgotten. E d w ard ’s relations w ith the earl o f G loucester were not easy, and indeed were deteriorating in the late 1260s. T h ere was the m atter of Bristol. In 1268 Earl G ilbert asked E d w ard ’s permission to sue, reviv­ ing his old fam ily claim to the c ity .138 E dw ard agreed, only on condition that if the earl won, he w ould not actually receive Bristol, but other lands in com pensation. T h e case was delayed, and did not in fact come to court until 1276, when, hardly surprisingly, it went against the earl. W hen E dw ard was sent in 1269 to hear disputes between L lyw elyn, prince o f W ales, and the M arch er lords, his decisions further antago­ nized G loucester. Rum ours, probably untrue, that E dw ard was paying 135 Littere Wallie , xliii, 1-4. 136 C P R 1258-66, 513; C P R 1266-52, 299. 137 Wykes, 212; J.R .V . Barker, The Tournament in England, 1100-14.00 (Woodbridge, 1986), 56-9, 191-2. Dr Barker provides an important correction to N. DenholmYoung, ‘The Tournament in the Thirteenth Century’, Studies in Medieval History presented to F .M . Powicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W .A. Pantin, R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), 257—62, for it was argued there that the legislation of 1202 in fact dated from 1267. 138 Above, 30.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

6l

too m uch attention to the earl’s wife cannot have helped the situation. Earl G ilbert also had reason to be angry with H enry I I I . In 1269 a commission was appointed to investigate his alleged usurpation o f liberties in K en t during the civil w ar, and he was claim ing, according to one chronicler, no less than £20,000 from the king to com pensate him for losses incurred in the Evesham cam p a ig n .139 In 1269 there was also the problem o f the earl o f D erby, Robert Ferrers, who had played a violent if not a consistent role in the civil wars. Since the affair at G loucester in 1264 he had been a bitter opponent o f E dw ard, whose w ard he had been. H e was harshly treated under the terms o f the D ictum o f K enilw orth , being set a ransom o f seven times the value o f his lands if he wished to redeem them. H e was kept in prison until he cam e before the king’s council, in the early sum mer o f 1269, and acknow ledged a debt to E d w ard ’s younger brother Edm und o f £50,000. T h is was in effect a fine for his release. A lthough Ferrers found guarantors, Edm und doubted that the m oney would be paid, and forced the earl under duress to agree to grant his lands over to the guarantors. I f he did not m ake paym ent, then they were to make the estates over to Edm und. Inevitably, this is w hat took place. H ow far E dw ard was im plicated in the affair is not clear, but it seems im possible that Edm und could have acted in this extrem ely unsavoury m anner w ithout his brother’s connivance. W here Edw ard was really to blam e was to be in the future, when he consistently denied Robert Ferrers and his son their rights. His sense o f ju stice was con­ siderably dim inished when his fam ily interests were at stake.140 H ow extensive was E d w ard ’s authority in E ngland during these years? T h e W inchester annals contain an interesting story, that in parliam ent at W inchester in O cto b er 1268 E dw ard was m ade steward o f E ngland, and that at the follow ing C hristm as he w as given custody o f London and all royal castles in E ngland. For one historian, Denholm Y oun g, this statem ent ‘conceals the virtual abdication o f H enry I I I ’ . C ertainly, the stew ardship had been claim ed by Sim on de M ontfort, and the powers associated w ith the office threatened to give him great personal authority. T h e position should have gone to E d w a rd ’s brother Edm und, along with the earldom o f Leicester, but there must have been doubts about the wisdom o f reviving the office in the im m ediate afterm ath o f Evesham . Y e t in M a y 1269 E dm und did receive the stew ardship, and this casts considerable doubt on the W inchester annalist’s story. It seems very odd that it should have gone to E dw ard 139 Altschul, A Baronial Family , 126-7; S.D. Lloyd, ‘Gilbert de Clare, Richard of Cornwall and the Lord Edward’s Crusade’ , Nottingham Medieval Studies, forthcoming. 140 The story is given in most detail by R. Somerville, History o f the Duchy o f Lancaster ( 1953 ), f 3-8. See also K.B. McFarlane, ‘Did Edward I have a “ policy” towards the earls?’, The Nobility o f Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), 254-5.

62

EDWARD I

for some seven months, and the chronicler was perhaps confused both between the two brothers, and in his ch ron ology.141 London was certainly handed over to E dw ard, but in Lent 1269, not 1268. As for the castles, he certainly received Corfe, D evizes, C arlisle, Colchester, O xford, Portchester and Scarborough, along with the counties o f Lincoln, Norfolk, Suffolk, O xford and Bedford, w ith Staffordshire, Shropshire and H ereford for a one-year p eriod .142 T hese grants, how ­ ever, should probably be taken more as indicating E d w ard ’s financial needs than as demonstrating his political authority. T h e grant of the three counties for one year was specifically so that he could pay Roger Leyburn the debts he owed him, and the other grants were probably intended to assist Edw ard in m eeting the enorm ous costs o f his com ing crusade. Edw ard certainly took a leading role in the deliberations o f the royal council in the late 1260s. T h e pream ble to an ordinance m ade at H ilary 1269, w hich prevented Jew s from selling debts that they were owed to any C hristian, stated that it was m ade by the king, and by the counsel o f Edw ard and other wise m en .143 Peter de N eville was ordered to appear at W estm inster regarding various forest offences before the king and his eldest son. A s they were unable to be present at the time, the case was postponed until it could be heard before the king, E dw ard, or the constable o f the Tow er. A w rit, also from 1269, ordering a respite in a law suit between the countess o f D evon and her daughter the countess o f A um ale, was witnessed by the king, and draw n up on the advice o f E dw ard, H enry o f A lm ain and Philip B asset.144 Such references as these show that E dw ard was playing a m ajor part in the running o f the governm ent, but they certainly do not indicate that H enry I I I had abandoned all reality o f power to his son. T h ere is some evidence which shows that even at this period E dw ard had not fully escaped from the kind o f control that was exercised over him in the 1250s. Th ere seems to have been disagreem ent between E dw ard and his father over an issue w hich had caused problem s earlier: the inalienabil­ ity o f E d w ard ’s lands. In 1268 H enry o f A lm ain was com m issioned to go to Ireland to recover lands w hich E dw ard had granted out w ithout royal licence, and in the following year H enry I I I rebuked his son for restoring the castle and lands o f Belin in G ascony to G aillard del Soler, so disinheriting the king and his h eirs.145 It w ould be w rong to make too 141 Denholm-Young, Richard o f Cornwall, 145; Ann. Winton, 106. The unreliability of this source is suggested by the statement that Henry I I I granted the earldom of Richmond to his son Edmund, when in fact it went to the duke of Brittany. 142 C P R 1266-72, 397, 468, 470-1, 536, 616, 626, 642, 646. 143 C P R 1266-72 , 376; Close Rolls 1268-72 , 101. 144 Close Rolls 1268-72 , 54-5, 105-6. 145 Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and King Henry I I I 5, 11; C D I 1252-84 , no. 844; C P R 1266-72 , 246.

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

63

m uch o f this. E dw ard was not under any form o f tutelage, and this question o f the alienation o f land and its recovery was not one which caused an open breach between father and son. E dw ard was sim ply having to adhere to a principle which had been firm ly enunciated in the D ictum o f K enilw orth regarding crown lan d s.146 Edw ard was not in any w ay thw arted in his policies in this period after the B aron s’ W ars, but his interests were increasingly directed aw ay from England, and he was not anxious to establish him self as the de facto ruler at home. In 1268 he took the cross, and began to plan his crusading venture. It was increasingly this m atter w hich dom inated his actions, rather than the political troubles in England. He was not, o f course, the only powerful figure in English politics. U ntil his departure in 1268, the papal legate O ttobuono was in m any w ays the dom inant man in both lay and ecclesiastical affairs. Richard o f C orn w all also left England in 1268, to attend to m atters in G erm any, but he returned in the following year bringing with him a new bride, Beatrice o f Falkenburg, a wom an o f exceptional beauty to whom he was devoted. R ich ard ’s prestige was considerable. It was he w ho provided a settle­ ment for the dispute between Edw ard and the earl o f G loucester in 1270, and by 1271, when the king was in ill-health, he was exercising effective authority in England in a w ay that Edw ard had n o t.147 These years, from 1258 to 1270, were surely the most testing that Edw ard faced in his long life. For the historian R .F. T reharne, Edw ard in the late 1250s and early 1260s was no more than ‘an irresponsible, arrogant and headstrong boy, treacherously selfish in the heedless pursuit o f his own ends, indulging every whim at his own pleasure, and incapable o f self-discipline or obedience to external authority in an y­ thing that conflicted with the passions and hatreds o f the m om ent’ . 148 Such a view is understandable in view o f E dw ard’s changing allegiances in the early phases o f the baronial m ovem ent. Initial hostility to the Provisions o f O xford and support o f the king’s Lusignan halfbrothers was succeeded by agreem ent with the earl o f G loucester, then by support for the com m unity o f the Bachelors, and next by alliance with Simon de M ontfort. T h e ease with which Edw ard was brought back to heel by H enry 111 in the spring o f 1260 suggests that the young m an’s political convictions hardly ran deep. Some o f E d w ard ’s actions in the civil w ar o f the mid-1260s, notably those at G loucester, suggest that he was a man whose word could not be trusted. Even in the years between the royalist trium ph at Evesham and E d w ard ’s departure on 146 D ocum ents o f the B a ro n ia l M ov em en t , ed. Sanders, 320-2. 147 Denholm-Young, R ich a rd o f C o r n w a ll , 144-9. 148 Treharne, B a ro n ia l P la n o f R e fo r m , 163-4.

64

EDWARD I

crusade, his quarrel with the earl o f G loucester threatened the pre­ carious stability o f the land. Y e t to condem n E dw ard on such grounds is to fail to appreciate the difficulties in which he was placed, and to dim inish his very consider­ able achievem ents. In the late 1250s there were deep divisions within the court circle, between those w ho supported m oderate measures of reform and the Lusignan clique. T h e royal fam ily was itself divided: Simon de M ontfort was m arried to the king’s sister, and for a time after returning from G erm any in 1259 R ichard o f C orn w all, H enry I l l ’s brother, played a careful neutral role. In such circum stances it would have been rem arkable had E dw ard been consistent throughout in his political alignm ent. His career after 1258 was not characterized by further acts o f gratuitous violence, by either him self or his followers, such as those that had m ade him notorious earlier. Rather, it is possible to detect as early as 1259 a concern for justice w hich foreshadowed policies he would adopt after his accession to the throne. In a writ to the ju sticiar o f C hester in A ugust 1259 he stated in the pream ble that if 'com m on justice is denied to any one o f our subjects by us or by our bailiffs, we lose the favour both o f G od and man, and our lordship is belittled’ . 149 In spite o f his political inconsistencies, E dw ard built up a following o f loyal supporters, and by 1263 he was showing considerable skill when he recruited the lords o f the W elsh M arch to the royalist cause. A t Lewes he was headstrong, but in 1265 he displayed strategic ability and powers o f leadership in the cam paign w hich culm inated in the battle o f Evesham . Simon de M ontfort was a form idable enemy for a young man to face, and Edw ard acted with skill and courage. E d w ard ’s role in the five years after Evesham is not easy to assess. He certainly showed statesm anlike m oderation at times. He was alw ays ready to offer rebels reasonable terms if they would surrender, and it is to his credit that he did not show m uch personal vindictiveness. Some former rebels, indeed, such as John de V escy, becam e im portant friends and supporters o f E dw ard. W hile E dw ard saw to it that his friends gained from the confiscations o f lands that followed Evesham , he did not try to gain as m uch for him self as he m ight have done. It was his brother Edm und who profited from the fall o f Robert Ferrers, earl o f D erby, not E dw ard himself. His role in these years was not, however, as dom inant as m ight be expected. He was not involved in the final agreem ent o f the D ictum o f K enilw orth, and was not m uch concerned in the com plex process by which the disinherited gradu ally recovered some o f their lands. It was the active intervention o f the earl o f G loucester that forced the 149 235- 7-

Carpenter, ‘The Lord Edward’s Oath to aid and counsel Simon de Montfort’,

THE L E O P A R D ,

1258-70

65

governm ent to take a more conciliatory line, rather than any urgings from Edw ard. T h e T reaty o f M ontgom ery was not a part o f royal policy w hich met with E d w ard ’s approval. T h ere is little evidence to show that Edw ard was deeply involved in the legislative work o f this time. T h e only measures that can clearly be linked with him were not very notable: there was the provision for the holding o f tournam ents, and one dealing with Jew ish debts. T h e latter proved unsatisfactory, and a fresh enactm ent was needed in 1271 to provide clarification.150 Edw ard learned m uch in these years from 1258 to 1270: few kings o f England can have had such a testing apprenticeship. T h ere was no sudden transform ation in E d w ard ’s character, but he was forced to m ature quickly. B y the end o f H enry 1 1 1 ’s reign there can have been few who were as pessim istic as M atth ew Paris had been in 1259.151 Y et it is only with hindsight that the indications o f the great work o f reform and o f conquest that was to come can be detected. A s king, E dw ard was to be m uch more considerable than he had been in his position as primogenitus. 150 Denholm-Young, 151 Above, 3.

R ich a r d o f C o r n w a ll ,

143, 149.

C h ap ter 3

THE CRUSADER

E dw ard I occupies only a small place in the dram atic and often tragic history o f the crusaders, but his crusade was an episode o f great im portance in his own career. In it he experienced problem s which were to recur later, formed significant friendships and learned much. His reputation was greatly advanced by it. A lthough Edw ard went on only one expedition to the east, his am bition to lead a further crusade rem ained with him for the rest o f his life. It was with some justice that his death was mourned with the words ‘Jerusalem , you have lost the flower o f all ch ivalry’ . 1 E d w ard ’s crusade had little effect on the tenuous survival o f the kingdom o fjeru sa lem , but the great efforts that were needed to finance it had considerable dom estic im plications in England, and in political terms the m ovem ent to take the cross played a part in the settlement o f the issues raised by the civil war. T h e crusade is best rem em bered for the rom antic tale o f Eleanor o f C astile sucking the poison from the wound inflicted on her husband by a M oslem assassin, but that is alm ost certainly apocryphal. T h e reality o f E d w ard ’s stay in the east was one o f discom fort and frustration, not o f romance. Th ere was abundant need for a crusade in the 1260s. U nder the rule o f the powerful and able M am luk sultan Baibars, E gyptian power was in the ascendant. T h e M ongols, seen by some as a possible ally for the crusader states, had been routed by Baibars shortly before the coup w hich gave him the sultanate in 1260. In 1265 C aesarea and A rsu ffell to the M am luks, and the castle o f Safad followed in 1266. T w o years later Jaffa fell, and the principality o f A ntioch collapsed. T h e king­ dom o f Jerusalem was in a sorry state: the death o f the last o f the H ohenstaufen dynasty, Conradin, in 1268, put the throne nom inally in the hands o f the Lusignan king o f C yp rus, H ugh, but he exercised little real authority. N or did the kingdom possess the econom ic vitality of earlier periods. T h e m erchants o f V enice and G enoa were in bitter conflict. T h e Latin states o f the eastern shore o f the M editerranean had alw ays needed the assistance o f crusading expeditions, but the story o f the crusades o f the thirteenth century is a dism al one o f missed P o litic a l Songs,

ed. Wright, 249.

THE C R US A D E R

67

opportunities, and o f high motives applied all too often to base ends. In 1204 the fourth crusade had taken C onstantinople, not Jerusalem . T h e fifth becam e bogged down in the N ile D elta. St L ou is’s first crusade, which began in 1248, was again directed against D am ietta at the mouth o f the Nile, and saw the western arm y forced to surrender. Louis him self was ransom ed, and spent the years from 1250 to 1254 in w hat remained o f the kingdom o f Jerusalem , but he was able to do little to strengthen an enfeebled state. Louis felt his failure deeply, and was determ ined on a further crusade. None was possible for m any years, for the papacy was involved in its obsessive feud with the H ohenstaufen dynasty, and the French, under L o u is’s brother C harles o f A njou, were pursuing am bitions in southern Italy. French troops routed the illegitim ate H ohenstaufen M anfred o f Sicily in 1266, and two years later defeated C onradin. O nce C h a rle s’s position in southern Italy was assured, a fresh crusade becam e a real possibility. C rusades were, properly speaking, initiated by the papacy. U rb an I V had begun to organize an expedition in 1263, but little was achieved, although in E ngland the crusade was preached against the baronial rebels, in an attem pt to assist H enry I I I . O n ly with the establishm ent o f peace after the battle o f Evesham was the possibility o f an expedition to the east seriously raised. T h e legate O ttobuono was ordered to preach the crusade in the autum n o f 1266: this was part o f a E uropean-w ide m ovem ent, prom pted by the news o f the loss o f Safad earlier in the year.2 W hen St Louis decided, late in the year, that he would take part, and, with his sons, took the cross in M arch o f the following year, it becam e evident that a new crusade w ould at long last take place. Enthusiasm for the new crusade was not w idespread. In France the royal council was said to have been unanim ously opposed to the idea, and in England when O ttobuono raised the m atter in parliam ent at B ury St Edm unds in February 1267 he found no support. It was even suspected by some that he wished to use the crusade as a means o f removing Englishmen from the land, so that aliens could take their place.3 Y e t O ttobuono persisted, preaching through interpreters, and m aking m uch use o f friars to arouse popular enthusiam . T h is was not, however, to be a crusade borne along by a tidal w ave o f popular emotion. It was, rather, a carefully planned expedition, largely aristocratic in com posi­ tion. T h e decisive recruiting m eeting took place at M idsum m er in 2 L e s registres de Clem ent I V ( 1 2 6 5 - 6 8 ) , ed. E. Jordan (Paris, 1945), nos. 1145, 1146; S. Lloyd, ‘The Lord Edward’s Crusade, 1270-2: its setting and significance’, W ar and Governm ent in the M id d le A g e s, ed. Gillingham and Holt, 121. 3 Rishanger, 52-3.

68

EDWARD I

1268, when, in parliam ent at N ortham pton, E dw ard, along with his brother Edmund, Henry o f Alm ain, Earl W arenne, the earl of Gloucester, W illiam de V alen ce and m any others, agreed to go on crusade.4 E d w ard ’s motives in taking the cross can only be guessed at. It was hardly a prudent decision. In political terms, there was no case for his going: the country was not so settled that the leading royalist w arrior could easily be dispensed with. Also, financial resources were scarcely adequate to meet the demands o f the expedition. Edward had obviously been considering the m atter for some time, and had sought papal advice: a letter from Clem ent I V in Jan u ary 1268 showed that the pope was well aware o f the problem s in England. His view was that E dw ard should not go, and H enry I I I seems to have concurred in this. T h e English king had him self taken the cross in 1250, and had never fulfilled his vow, but it was not the case, as has sometimes been suggested, that he intended that E dw ard should act as his substitute. In 1268 he probably still hoped to go in person, while it was E dm und, not E dw ard, who was regarded by the pope as an acceptable substitute.5 T h e events o f the crusade were to show that E dw ard was very strongly com m itted to the concept o f a holy w ar in the east. His decision to take the cross was certainly not a cynical or self-interested one, as C harles o f A n jo u ’s alm ost certainly was, and it is perhaps a m istake to seek any more subtle m otivation than that o f the enthusiasm o f a conventionally religious young man to prove him self in the greatest adventure o f the day. E dw ard m ay well have w elcom ed the chance to escape from the preoccupations o f domestic politics, and the opportunity to exercise his m artial skills in a cause w hich had none o f the com plexities o f the recent civil w ar in England. A dm iration for St Louis m ay have played its part, and it is likely that R ichard o f C o rn w a ll’s advice was im portant. Edw ard certainly sought his counsel in 1269, and probably did so earlier, for R ichard had first-hand experience of the east and its problem s.6 E dw ard m ay, too, have felt that honour dem anded that he should go: if the sons o f the king o f France were to take part in the crusade, so too should those o f the king o f England. E dw ard could not rely sim ply on the preaching o f the crusade to provide him with an adequate force. T h e core o f his expedition was provided by the members o f his own household, and in J u ly 1270 contracts were made with eighteen men to provide a total o f 225 knights. T w o such contracts survive, one with a N orthum berland knight, A dam o fjesm o n d , and one with Payn de C haw orth and Robert Tibetot. T h e rate o f pay was 100 marks for each knight for a y ea r’s 4 Wykes, 217-18. 5 Lloyd, ‘The Lord Edward’s Crusade’, 122-3; R egistres de 6 L ib e r de A n tiq u is L e g ib u s , 110.

C lem ent I V ,

nos 609, 1288.

THE C R US A D E R

69

service, and in addition Edw ard promised to cover sea transport costs. Those who made such agreem ents included three great men, Edm und o f Lancaster, W illiam de V alen ce and H enry o f A lm ain, who headed w hat must have am ounted to virtually independent contingents. T h e others were m ostly close associates o f E d w ard ’s o f some standing, men such as Roger Clifford, Roger Leyburn, H am o Lestrange and R ichard de la Rochelle. T h e list included Thom as de C lare, w ho for all that he was a younger brother o f the earl o f G loucester, was a very close friend o f E d w ard ’s.7 Records o f the grant o f royal protections to those going on crusade reveal the names o f m any members o f the household w ho went with Edward: clerks such as A nthony Bek and Philip de W illoughby, knights such as H ugh F itzO tho, soon to be steward , and the Savoyard O tto de G randson, w ho had come to E ngland in the 1250s. O thers going on the crusade were members o f the king’s household, perhaps tem porarily seconded to E d w ard ’s service. For a m ilitary expedition, there was nothing novel in the nucleus being provided by the house­ hold. T here is, however, no earlier evidence for the use o f contracts in the w ay Edw ard used them in 1270. It is dangerous to argue from silence, but it m ay be that their use was an innovation, adopted in im itation o f techniques em ployed by St Louis, and perhaps intended as a means o f guaranteeing that E d w ard ’s contingent would be as large as he promised the French king it would be.8 A crusading expedition differed from other wars by the w ay in which the status o f the crusaders was carefully set out and defined in canon law. Not only were there the spiritual advantages o f remission o f sins to be gained, but the church also accorded protection to the lands and goods o f those who went on crusade. It has been suggested that such crusader privileges were particularly im portant in the case o f E d w ard ’s crusade. Royalists who had gained property in the afterm ath o f the civil w ar could expect their title to their gains to remain effectively unchal­ lenged while they were absent in the east. C ourt proceedings against them would be dropped, and lands safely leased or sold. O n the other hand, for former rebels, it is argued that crusading was hard to envis­ age, for not only was there a natural resentm ent against Edw ard and the papacy, but also there were the heavy costs o f redem ption o f property under the terms o f the D ictum o f K en ilw orth .9 Such argum ents have some force, but it is hard to see that the 7 Lloyd, ‘The Lord Edward’s Crusade’, 126-7; H.G. Richardson and G .O . Sayles, (Edinburgh, 1963), 464-5. 8 Lloyd, ‘The Lord Edward’s Crusade’ , 131-2; for lists of those who received protections to go on the crusade, see B. Beebe, ‘The English Baronage and the Crusade of 1270’, B I H R , xlviii (1975), 143-8. 9 These arguments are strongly put by Beebe, ‘The English Baronage and the Crusade’, 136-9. Th e Governance o f M ed ie v a l E n g la n d

70

EDWARD I

question o f crusading privileges was any more im portant in the case o f E d w ard ’s expedition than in other crusades. In practice, the protec­ tions granted to the w ould-be crusaders by the crown were at least as im portant as the privileges under canon law. Some royalists certainly received im portant advantages. E d w ard ’s brother Edm und was quit o f any court actions brought against him, m aking it im possible for Robert de Ferrers to take legal steps to recover his lands, and Luke de T a n y was given im m unity from prosecution for the execution o f various form er rebels. But it is hard to im agine that effective action could have been taken against such men even had they not been crusaders, and there is no evidence to show that protections were w idely appealed to. T h e bulk o f crusaders did not receive such lavish grants as Edm und o f Lancaster: most protections excluded pleas o f novel disseisin and various other action s.10 It has also been pointed out that only a dozen crusaders were definitely still in full possession o f rebel property when they received their protections: the rest had all begun the process of restitution.11 It is difficult to im agine that anyone seriously considered that there were real m aterial advantages to be gained from going on crusade. Some, such as H erbert de B oyvill, actually sold land in order to finance themselves on the expedition, and m any leased land to raise fund s.12 Those who wished to retain gains m ade in and after the civil w ar were surely better advised to stay at home. It certainly was the case that royalists greatly outnum bered former rebels in E d w ard ’s expedition. Th ere was no technique used such as that em ployed by St Louis for his first crusade, when he had insisted that former opponents jo in him, in order to prevent them fomenting trouble at home in his ab sen ce.13 Y e t the supporters o f Simon de M ontfort could, arguably, have had m uch to gain from obtaining crusader privileges, and for them the crusade could prove a route back into royal favour. T h is was certainly true o fjo h n de V escy, though he, like John de Segrave, another former rebel who w ent on crusade, had already established links with Edw ard before 1270.14 T h e main opponent o f E d w ard ’s who agreed to go on crusade was G ilbert de C lare, earl o f Gloucester. He took the cross at N ortham pton at the same time as E dw ard, and it m ay be that in this case there was a real expectation that the dissension between the two men would be ended if they could be brought together in a comm on cause. T h e earl, 10 Ibid., 139; C P R 1266-72, 442; Close Rolls 1268-72, 571 (this is a case of use being made of a writ of protection). 11 S. Lloyd, ‘English Society and the Crusades, 1216-1307’ (Oxford D.Phil. thesis,

*983)» 323-

12 C P R 1266-72, 425.

13 W.C. Jordan, Louis I X and the Challenge o f the Crusade (Princeton, 1979), 17—19. 14 Lloyd, ‘English Society and the Crusades’, 325-6.

THE CRUS ADER

71

however, becam e more and more obstinate, perhaps as it becam e increasingly clear that this was to be E d w ard ’s expedition, rather than a more general English crusade. Pressure was brought on him by St Louis, but this was in vain. It was only when R ichard o f C orn w all arbitrated between E dw ard and G loucester at the Easter parliam ent o f 1270 that agreem ent was reached. T h e earl was to follow Edw ard on crusade w ithin six months. I f he co-operated with Edw ard, he was to receive 8,000 marks; if not, only 2,000. Security was to be given, to ensure that the m oney was properly spent on the crusade. Th ere were some problems over the arbitration, w hich was extrem ely one-sided. G ilbert was particularly worried lest the castles and manors he was to hand over as surety w ould, in practice, be lost to him. His argum ents were strong ones, but the reply given by the earl o f C orn w all, though conciliatory, did not yield on the question o f giving sureties. In June, however, G ilbert appears to have come to terms, though some details still remained to be settled. In the event the earl did not go on crusade, nor did he hand over his castles. W elsh attacks on his lordship in South W ales made it im possible for him to set out, and provided an entirely adequate excuse for his failure to fulfil his crusading v o w .15 A lthough the agreem ent reached with him in June was not carried through, it was nevertheless im portant, for it cleared the final obstacle to E d w ard ’s departure. T here are no docum ents to show with any certainty how successful recruiting for the crusade had been. A b out 230 men received royal protections for the expedition, while the contractual arrangem ents suggest a force o f 225 knights. O bviously, m any lesser individuals would not trouble to obtain writs o f protection, and the knights would have brought servants and others with them, but even so, the force was clearly not large. W alter o f G uisborough has it that thirteen ships were needed to take E d w ard ’s men from T unis to Sicily in the course o f the crusade, while a contract to take them on to the H oly Land was made with a mere nine shipm asters. Even allow ing for the large size o f M editerranean ships, it seems unlikely that the expedition num bered as m any as the 1,000 men that G uisborough says arrived in the east with E d w a rd .16 Recruitm ent o f men was only one o f the problems facing E dw ard in preparing for the crusade. Finance was a m ajor difficulty. Th ere was no hope o f raising funds by means o f papal taxation o f the clergy, for 15 Altschul, A Baronial Family , 128-9; Denholm-Young, Richard o f Cornwall, 146-7; Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 249-50; Lloyd, ‘Gilbert de Clare, Richard of Cornwall and the Lord Edward’s Crusade’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, xxxi (1986), 46-66. 16 Guisborough, 207; R. Rohricht, ‘Etudes sur les derniers temps du royaume de Jerusalem. C. Les combats du Sultan Baibars’, Archives de VOrient Latin , ii (1884), 407- 9 -

72

EDWARD I

C lem ent I V had already imposed a clerical tenth for three years in 1266 in order to meet H enry I l l ’s debts and expenses.17 Some funds were raised by the church, through such techniques as redem ption of crusading vows for cash, sale o f indulgences, and obtaining gifts and legacies, but the sums involved were not substantial. So, in 1268 the governm ent began the business o f negotiating a tax with both church and laity. T h e latter had not m ade a grant o f taxation since 1237, and discussions did not go sm oothly. T h e final lay grant was m ade in the spring o f 1270, when the m agnates and knights agreed reluctantly to the collection o f a twentieth. It took even longer to obtain the consent o f all the clergy. T h ere were some difficulties in m aking the assessment, even though work on this had begun in 1269. A lth ough it was hoped to have the bulk o f the money in by M idsum m er 1270, with the rest by M ichaelm as, it is unlikely that Edw ard had actually received m uch o f the total yield o f some £31,000 by the time that he set o u t.18 A nother source o f funds was the French m onarchy. T h e crusade was throughout intended to be a French expedition, and E dw ard fully recognized St E ouis’s leadership. W hen E dw ard visited the French king, in the sum mer o f 1269, he set out his financial difficulties, and succeeded in negotiating a loan o f 70,000 limes tournois —about £ 17 ,5 0 0 - under severe terms. E dw ard promised to be at A igues-M ortes, on the M editerra­ nean coast, ready to em bark by 15 A ugu st 1270, and to hand over one of his sons as a hostage to Louis to guarantee the agreem ent. Repaym ent o f the loan was to begin in 1274. 25,000 limes out o f the total were to go to the G ascon m agnate, G aston de Bearn, though he did not, in the end, go on the crusade. H enry I I I , m oved to the tears w hich were probably quite norm al for him, gave his consent to the agreem ent. E dw ard was not in fact obliged to send one o f his sons to Paris, and Louis made no difficulties when he failed to meet the deadline for his arrival at AiguesM o rte s.19 By the sum m er o f 1270 all was at long last set. In parliam ent at W inchester in J u ly H enry I I I finally gave his blessing to E d w ard ’s fulfilm ent, on his behalf, o f his crusading vows. T h e proceeds o f the twentieth were form ally granted to the heir to the throne. A t the beginning o f A ugust a com m ittee was set up, headed by Richard o f C orn w all, to look after E d w ard ’s interests while he was aw ay, and to care for his children, for Eleanor was to accom pany her husband on the 17 W.E. Lunt, F in a n c ia l R ela tio n s o f the Pa pacy w ith E n g la n d to 13 2 J (Cambridge, Mass., 1939). 292-310. 18 Powicke, H enry I I I and the L o r d E d w a r d , ii, 564-8; S.K. Mitchell, T a xa tio n in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d (Yale, 1951), 47-8. 19 F o ed era , I. i, 481; L ib e r de A n tiq u is L e g ib u s , h i —14; J.P. Trabut-Cussac, ‘Le financement de la croisade anglaise de 1270’, B i b l. de l ’e'cole des C h a rtes , cxix (1961), 114, 123-4.

THE CRUS ADE R

73

crusade. T h e other members o f the com m ittee were the archbishop of Y ork, Philip Basset, Roger M ortim er, and Robert W alerand, though the last-nam ed was soon replaced by Robert B urnell.20 E d w ard ’s plan was to sail from Portsm outh for G ascony, to visit his brother-in-law A lphonso o f C astile, and then to go to A igues-M ortes. H owever, while the fleet was held up by contrary winds news came through o f the death o f Boniface o f Savoy, archbishop o f C an terbu ry, while on a visit to his hom eland. Edw ard wished to see his clerk Robert Burnell elected, and hurried to C an terbu ry, where his efforts at persuasion failed. For all B urn ell’s adm inistrative skills, he was not, there is little doubt, an ideal candidate for the highest ecclesiastical office. From C an terbu ry Edw ard went to D over, and probably crossed to France on 20 A ugust, abandoning his plans to visit G ascon y.21 T h e journey through France took a little over a month. A t about M ichaelm as the expedition arrived at the walled seaport o f AiguesM ortes. T h e m ain expedition under St Louis had long since departed, and the news which E dw ard must have received o f its progress cannot have pleased him. K in g L ouis’s fleet had gathered in Sardinia for final instructions after sailing from A igu es-M o rtes. O n ly then was the destination o f the crusade announced: Tunis. Louis had been persuaded that an attack on Tunis would weaken E gypt, w hich was dependent on food supplies from N orth A frica, and there was a hope that the emir m ight be persuaded to convert to C hristianity. C harles o f A njou had his own reasons for w ishing to attack Tunis, for the emir had given some support to his H ohenstaufen enemies, and had ceased paym ent o f annual tribute to Sicily since C h a rles’s success there.22 E dw ard was probably unaware o f this new plan for the crusade: certainly his agree­ ment with the French king had m erely spoken in vague terms o f a ‘pilgrim age over the seas’ .23 Hopes that Tunis would prove to be a soft target were in vain. T h e insanitary conditions o f siege warfare, in the heat o f a N orth A frican summer, led to the crippling o f the crusading force by disease, with Louis him self succum bing and dying on 25 A ugust. His successor, Philip I I I , was also stricken, though not fatally. C harles o f Anjou arrived only after St L o u is’s death, and, realist that he was, prom ptly 20 Liber de Antiquis Legibus, 125; Foedera, I. i, 484. 21 Ann. Winchester, 109. This is the most plausible version of Edward’s itinerary. Cotton, 145, has it that Edward had already reached Gascony when he heard of Boniface’s death, and that he then returned to England. Wykes, 236, has Edward return to Portsmouth from Canterbury, and continue with his original plan. 22 Wykes, 237-8; Liber de Antiquis Legibus, 111; J.R. Strayer, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives o f History (Princeton, 1971), 189. 23 Ibid., 190.

74

EDWARD I

entered into negotiations with the T u nisian emir, reaching agreem ent on i N ovem ber.24 E dw ard arrived about a week later, and was appalled to discover w hat had happened, expressing his horror that the enemies o f the cross were the subject o f a treaty, to which he refused to give his consent. H e rejected any share o f the w ar indem nity to be paid by the Tunisian emir, though it is not clear that he was in fact entitled to one. E dw ard then accepted the decision o f C harles o f A njou, and the other crusade leaders, to sail for Sicily where they would winter, prior to going on to A cre in the spring. English chroniclers tried to make the best o f these events: G uisborough has a tale displaying E d w ard ’s chivalry. A s the crusading fleet sailed from T unis, over two hundred men were left behind, in great distress, and only E dw ard, o f all the leaders, was prepared to turn his ships round to rescue them .25 Fortune appeared to smile on E dw ard when the fleet arrived in Sicily, for soon after m aking landfall, a violent storm w recked most o f the ships, still loaded with horses, victuals and treasure. E d w ard ’s vessels, however, had taken up a more secure anchorage than the rest, and were spared. T h e storm must have been the final disillusionm ent for most o f the crusaders, and in discussions it was decided to postpone the expedition to the east for three years. Edw ard agreed to this, though qualifying his consent by stipulating that he m ight be excused if he showed sufficient cause to the king o f France. He did not abandon his crusade plans, and unlike the other leaders, rem ained in Sicily. H e set down four conditions w hich m ight prevent his going to the east: if a new pope was elected w ho forbad him to go; if he was ill; if his father died; or if civil w ar broke out in E n glan d .26 Th ere were certainly good reasons w hy Edw ard should abandon the crusade. A letter sent to him by the governm ent in E ngland on 6 F ebruary 1271 informed him that his father had been gravely ill, and urged him to return home. Edw ard was not convinced, however, and m erely appointed H enry o f A lm ain to go to England via G ascony to see to affairs o f state. H e was obviously determ ined to fulfil his crusading vow: one chronicle records him as swearing by G o d ’s blood that he would go to A cre and carry out his oath even if all deserted him, save for his groom F o w yn .27 Even the appalling news o f the m urder o f H enry o f A lm ain at V iterbo by Simon and G u y de M ontfort, an act o f revenge for the death o f their father at Evesham , did not deter him from his objective. He had hired ships to take him to the 24 Ibid., 190. 25 Guisborough, 206. 20 L ib e r de A n tiq u is L e g ib u s , 131. 27 C lose R o lls 1 2 6 8 - 7 2 , 397-8; Rishanger, 68.

THE CRUS ADER

75

east in Janu ary, and at the beginning o f M ay he sailed from T ra p a n i.28 T h e fleet revictualled in C yp rus, where E dw ard was received with great honour and jo y by the populace, who were presum ably well aware o f the deeds on the island o f a greater English crusader, R ichard I, some eighty years previously. U nlike R ichard, Edw ard did not stay long on the island, and on 9 M ay, after a storm y voyage, he landed at the great crusading port o f A cre.29 A treatise written within the next twenty years, very possibly by O tto de G randson, implies that all was not well with the English forces when they dis­ em barked. W ith the knowledge o f hindsight, the treatise argued that it was best for crusaders to arrive in autum n, preferably in A rm enia, so that the arm y and in particular its horses could be ready to m arch on Jerusalem in the following spring. T o land at A cre in early sum mer had m ajor disadvantages, as the horses would be in bad condition after the sea voyage, and fodder was hard to obtain .30 A ccording to the English sources, had E dw ard not arrived when he did, A cre would have been surrendered to B aib ars’ M am luk troops. Baibars had certainly been conducting a most successful cam paign, taking C hastel Blanc, G ibelacar, and the greatest o f all crusader for­ tresses, C ra c des C hevaliers. In M a y he had set out with a field arm y for Tripoli. It does not seem from the A rab sources that a m ajor assault on either A cre or T ripoli was intended, as he had no siege train with him, but w hatever his intentions, it does seem that the news o f E d w ard ’s arrival caused him to change his plans, and to negotiate a ten-year truce with the ruler o f T rip o li.31 Edw ard spent frustrating weeks in A cre before m oving against the enemy. His men and horses had to be prepared, and diplom atic arrangem ents had to be made. A n English em bassy was sent to the M ongol II-K h a n A b agh a, to try to organize concerted action against the redoubtable B aib ars.32 Th ere were also m atters in A cre itself that needed attention. E dw ard was appalled to find that V enetian

28 Rohricht, ‘Etudes sur les derniers temps du royaume dejerusalem. C .’, A r c h iv e s de ii (1884), 407-9. There may have been more than the nine ships mentioned in this contract in Edward’s fleet. An Arab account, M a k r i z i , H is t o ir e des S u lta n s M a m lo u k s , ed. M. Quatremère (Paris, 1837), i, 86, states that Edward had eight large ships, and galleys and other vessels making a total of thirty in all. 29 ‘Gestes des Chiprois’. R e c e u i l d es H is t o r ie n s d es C r o is a d e s , D o c u m e n ts A r m é n ie n s , ii (Paris, 1906), 777. 30 C. Kohler, ‘Deux projets de croisade en terre-sainte composée à la fin du xiiie siècle et au debut du xive’, R e v u e de l ’ O r ie n t L a t i n , x (1903-4), 407-8, 427-8. 31 M a k r i z i , 86. I b n a l- F u r a t , A y y u b i d s , M a m lu k e s a n d C r u s a d e r s , ed. and tr. U. and M .C. Lyons, intr. J.S.C. Riley-Smith (Cambridge, 1 9 7 1 ) , 150, is derived from the same source. 32 L i b e r de A n t i q u i s L e g ib u s , 143. l ’ O r ie n t L a t i n ,

76

EDWARD I

m erchants there were trading with the Saracens in food and m ilitary supplies, though as their bailli was able to produce charters from the king o f Jerusalem perm itting this, he had to w ithdraw his objections. Traitors were found in the city, w ho were duly executed.33 E d w ard ’s patience was sorely tried when on 12 Ju ne the Sultan Baibars him self rode right up to the gates o f A cre, only to depart when no hostile moves were made against him .34 It was probably late in June that E dw ard decided he could w ait no more, and launched his first raid on the enemy. T h is was against St G eorges-de-Lebeyne, some fifteen miles east o f A cre. T h e troops were ill used to the conditions, and the com bined effects o f heat and food­ poisoning resulted in m any casualties. A ll that was achieved was the destruction o f some crops and houses.35 T h e raid must have m ade it clear to E dw ard that he could not achieve anything effective w ithout larger forces, and he spent m uch o f the following months trying to organize concerted action in w hich he would be joined by H ugh of C yprus and the forces o f the m ilitary orders. It w as probably in the sum m er o f 1271 that E dw ard becam e involved in a dispute between the king o f C yp rus and his barons over the question o f w hether or not they owed m ilitary service in the kingdom of Jerusalem . Edw ard was called in to arbitrate, but unfortunately, although we have the cogent argum ents put forward by the C yp rio t barons, neither H u g h ’s case nor E d w ard ’s decision have survived. A ccording to W alter o f G uisborough, E dw ard appealed to the barons with success, for they agreed that they were bound to obey his orders, as his ancestors had ruled their land, and they were bound in fealty to the kings o f England. T h is seems most im plausible, and E d w ard ’s arbitra­ tion was probably along the lines o f the eventual com prom ise, w hich provided that the C ypriots should serve the king on the m ainland for four months at his expense. It was long ago noted by the great historian Stubbs that the case closely paralleled that w hich was to occur in 33 F lo r e s , iii, 21; Rohricht, ‘Etudes sur les derniers temps du royaume de Jerusalem. A. La croisade du Prince Edouard d’Angleterre (1270-1274 ) ’ , A r c h iv e s de l ’ O r ie n t L a t in , i (1881), 622 n.33. 34 I b n a l - F u r a t , 151-2; R. Rohricht, ‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, A r c h iv e s de l ’ O r ie n t L a t i n , ii (1884), 45535 ‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, 455; Marino Sanudo, in G e s ta D e i p e r F r a n c o s , ed. J. Bongars (Hannover, 1611 ), ii, 224. ‘L ’Estoire de Eracles Empereur’, R e c e u i l d es H i s t o ­ rien s des C r o is a d e s , H is t o r ie n s O c c id e n ta u x , ii, 461, and I b n a l - F u r a t , 155, both place the raid in July. The main English source, Guisborough, 227, provides a very different account of Edward’s raids from those of the crusading chronicles, with first an attack on Nazareth, then one on 24 June against Qaqun, and a third on 1 August against St Georges. It seems likely that his account is confused. F lo r e s , iii, 23, is the only other chronicler to mention Nazareth, which, it states, Edward went through on the way to Qaqun.

THE C R U S A D E R

JJ

England in 1297, over the overseas m ilitary obligations o f the English baronage.36 In the autum n E d w ard ’s plans seemed to be succeeding. T h e M ongols advanced rapidly towards Syria, causing panic as they came. M uch o f the population o f D am ascus fled as they approached. In N ovem ber Edw ard was able to launch a m uch larger raid than that against St Georges earlier in the year. Reinforcem ents from England had arrived with his brother Edm und in Septem ber, and the C ypriots were now ready to join in the cam paign. M em bers o f the m ilitary orders, Tem plars, H ospitallers, and T eu tonic K nights also co­ operated, as did the men o f A cre itself. T h e force m arched on Q aqu n, forty miles south-east o f A cre, where they surprised a large force o f Turcom ans. O ne estim ate was that 1,500 were killed, and 5,000 ani­ mals taken as booty. T h e M oslem report was that one emir had been killed, another wounded, and the governor o f the castle forced to abandon his com m and. But the crusaders failed to take the castle itself, and when a M oslem force approached they retreated rapidly to A cre, losing some men and horses on the w ay. T h e raid had hardly been a glorious success: the Turcom ans who had been routed were no more than itinerant herdsmen. It was with some justification that Baibars is said to have remarked that if so m any men could not take a single house, then it was hardly likely that they could conquer a land such as the kingdom o fje ru sa le m .37 Baibars did nevertheless attem pt to retali­ ate, advancing from D am ascus upon A cre in Decem ber. H eavy rain m ade it im possible to carry through the attack, and the sultan w ith ­ drew to Egypt. It must have been obvious to the crusaders that continued hostilities held out little chance o f success, and Baibars and his men were prob­ ably w ar w eary. In M ay 12 72 a truce was agreed at C aesarea, to last for ten years, ten months, ten days and ten hours. It has been suggested that it was E dw ard who persuaded K in g H ugh that to accept a truce was the best course o f action, but the only support for this view is a letter o f 1275, the w ording o f which is scarcely conclusive.38 Both western and eastern narrative sources state that Edw ard was extrem ely angry at the decision, and such an attitude certainly fits with his earlier 36 Guisborough, 208; G. Hill,

A

H is to r y o f C y p r u s

(1948), ii, 168-70; W. Stubbs, (Oxford, 1887), 205-6; R e c e u il

S even teen L e c tu r e s on the S tu d y o f M e d i e v a l a n d M o d e r n H is to r y

ii, 427-34. 155-6; M a k r i z i , 101-2. 38 A H is to r y o f the C r u s a d e s , ed. K .M . Setton, R.L. Wolff, H.W. Hazard, ii (Phil­ adelphia, 1962), 582-3; C a r tu la ir e G é n é r a le de l ’ordre d es H o s p it a lie r s de S t J e a n de J e r u s a le m en T e rr e S a i n t e , ed. J. Delaville le Roulx (Paris, 1894-1906), iii, 170; C . Kohler and C . V . Langlois, ‘Lettres inédits concernant les croisades (1275-1307)’, B i b l . de l ’école des C h a r te s , lii (1891), 53.

des H is t o r ie n s des C r o is a d e s , L o i s ,

37 ‘Eracles’, 461;

Ib n a l-F u r a t,

78

EDWARD I

determ ination to proceed w ith the crusade at all costs.39 H e m ay have hoped that help would be provided by the M ongols, but B aibars soon entered into negotiations with them, and it becam e clear that they had no intention o f launching a m ajor cam paign in the H oly L an d .40 It was perhaps in the hope o f a renew al o f hostilities in spite o f the truce that E dw ard rem ained in the east until 24 Septem ber 1272. His brother Edm und, whose heart never seems to have been in the crusade, departed in M ay, and W illiam de V alen ce left in A u g u st.41 E d w ard ’s own departure was presum ably delayed by the need for him to con­ valesce, after the most celebrated incident o f his crusade, the attem pt by an assassin on his life in June. T h ere are m any accounts o f this, not entirely consistent. It is clear that one evening a M oslem cam e to see E dw ard, when he was alone in his cham ber, and attacked him with a poisoned dagger. E dw ard, a man o f swift reflexes, kicked out at the assassin, and in a b rief scuffle m anaged to kill him. Some have it that the assassin was sent by the O ld M an o f the M ountains, leader o f a heretical M oslem sect, but it is far more likely that responsibility lay with the emir o f Ram lah, perhaps acting at B aib ars’ instigation. M ost probably the attack was the result o f E d w ard ’s opposition to the truce. It seems likely that the assassin was no stranger to E dw ard, but had been a trusted m em ber o f his entourage for some tim e.42 T h e m ajor disagreem ent between the sources is not over the attack itself, though there are m inor contradictions over the date and the num ber o f wounds inflicted, but over the means used to cure E dw ard. T h e most famous story is o f how Eleanor o f C astile devotedly sucked poison from the wound inflicted by the assassin’s dagger, but that version only appeared in the work o f Ptolem y o f L ucca, a good century later.43 A n Y pres chronicler, again not contem porary, has a circum ­ stantial story o f O tto de G randson sucking the wound, after he alone had suggested that the weapon m ight have been poisoned.44 A nother version is that E dw ard was given a special jew el or stone by the M aster o f the Tem ple: it m ay be that this was ground up and given to him to drink, as was done to B aibars on his death-bed.45

39 I b n a l - F u r a t , 159; M e n k o n is Hannover, 1873), 558.

C h r o n ic o n

(Monumenta Germaniae Histórica, SS 23,

40 M a k r i z i , i0 3 ff.

41 42 for a 43

‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, 455-6. Wykes, 249; Guisborough, 208; Rishanger, 69-70; I b n a l - F u r a t , 159, and see 244 full list of sources for this incident. Ptolemy of Lucca, in Muratori, R e r u m I ta lic a r u m S c r ip to r e s , xi (Milan, 1727), 1168. 44 J o h n a n n is L o n g i C h r o n ic a S . B e r t i n i (Monumenta Germaniae Histórica, SS 25, 1880), 856. This author died in 1383. 45 C h r o n ic o n H a n o n ie n s e (Monumenta Germaniae Histórica, SS 25), 464; I b n a l - F u r a t , 168.

THE CRUS ADER

79

G uisborough provides the fullest account. T h e w ound began to putrefy after the rem edy provided by the M aster o f the T em p le failed, and Edw ard began to despair o f his life. A n English doctor said that he could cure him, though it would be painful, and E dw ard agreed to the treatment, which involved cutting the decayed flesh aw ay from the wound. His brother Edm und and John de V escy were asked to take the w eeping Eleanor from the room, telling her that it was better that she, rather than the whole o f E ngland, should weep. T h e story m ay ring true, but it has its flaws. T h e attack on Edw ard is placed before E dm und’s departure and the agreem ent to the ten-year truce, and the reported dialogue smacks o f literary artifice. In general G uisborou gh ’s account o f the crusade leaves m uch to be desired, and there is no reason to give his version o f E d w ard ’s cure more credence than any other.46 T h e various accounts are not in fact m utually exclusive: it is very likely that attem pts were m ade to suck the poison from the w ound, that m agical potions were tried, and that some surgery was needed. T here was widespread horror at the attem pt on E d w ard ’s life, but no retaliation took place. E dw ard, by one account, forbad acts o f revenge, lest the lives o f pilgrim s on their w ay to the holy places should be put in jeo p a rd y .47 But although there was no m ilitary activity, E dw ard did not hasten to leave A cre. His own recovery was slow, and Eleanor o f C astile had borne him a child, Joan, in the spring: it did not make sense to risk a sea voyage while the baby was in the first months o f life. Edw ard was also engaged in strengthening the defences o f the city, building a tower w hich was to be entrusted in 1278 to the custody o f the O rder o f St Edw ard o f A cre, an entirely obscure English order of knights.48 It m ay well have been formed from the few men left by Edw ard in the east to continue the struggle against the infidels. Finally, towards the end o f Septem ber 1272, E dw ard took ship for Italy, no doubt disappointed that he had been able to do so little to help secure the position o f the Latin K ingdom , let alone achieve the crusader’s goal, the recovery o f Jerusalem .49 E d w ard ’s crusade m ay have achieved little, and been m uch smaller than most expeditions to the east, but it was still extrem ely costly in financial terms. U nfortunately full accounts do not survive, though there is a sum m ary o f expenses on the return journey, but enough evidence remains to suggest that the total cost m ay well have approached £100,000. T h e contracts m ade with his followers totalled

46 Guisborough, 209-10. 47 Rishanger, 70-1. 48 C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 296. 49 According to ‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, 455-6, Edward left Acre on 24 Septem­ ber; ‘Eracles’, 462, puts his departure two days earlier.

8o

EDWARD I

22,500 m arks, but ran only for a year: they were presum ably renewed, and further paym ents made as the expedition was prolonged.50 T h e one text dealing with shipping arrangem ents does not, unfortunately, detail the paym ents due. It cost St Louis sums varyin g from 850 to 3,750 livres to charter ships for the voyage to Tunis: E d w ard ’s expenses in going both to Tunis and to A cre must have been m uch higher.51 In addition to the sums due by contract and to transport costs, there must have been heavy expenditure on victualling, equipm ent, purchase o f horses, and the whole range o f incidentals involved in m edieval warfare. A more accurate impression o f the costs o f the crusade is provided by details o f the m oney received by Edw ard. T h e French king provided a loan o f 70,000 livres, and the grant o f the twentieth in England eventu­ ally provided him with a total o f some £31,000.52 H enry I I I granted his son 6,000 marks from the English Jew ry, o f w hich 4,000 was paid over, with the rem ainder advanced by R ichard o f C o rn w a ll.53 In addition, Edw ard had his own revenues, m any o f which must have been diverted to pay for the expedition. Funds appear to have been sufficient until E dw ard reached A cre, w here he had to start borrow ing money on a large scale. O n 6 A pril 1272 he sent a letter to his representatives in England, asking them to send 3,000 marks to A cre, w hich he was pledged to pay to the H ospitallers by O ctober, and also to send 2,000 marks to pay to the same order in Paris. Edw ard had borrowed 5,000 marks from various m erchants, upon security provided by the H ospitallers. T h e m aster o f the order also stood surety for a loan o f 1,967 livres from some m erchants from N arbonne. A letter o f 12 Ju ly set out debts to Pisan m erchants o f 1,943 livres, and on 9 Septem ber orders were issued for repaym ent o f 1,526 livres borrowed from a V enetian m erchant.54 These surviving letters are probably only a small proportion o f the original number: the total borrowed by E dw ard at A cre cannot be calculated. Some funds were certainly sent to him there: the Italian firm o f the R iccardi shipped 2,000 marks out, but such sums were hardly adequate.55 N or did E d w ard ’s difficulties end when he returned to Europe. T h e R iccardi were acting as his m ain financiers, and an 50 Lloyd, ‘The Lord Edward’s Crusade’, 126. This sum includes 1,000 marks due to the earl of Gloucester, who did not of course go on the crusade. 51 Strayer, M e d i e v a l S t a te c r a ft , 185. 52 Above, 72. 53 C P R 1 2 6 6 - 7 2 , 545-6. 34 C a r tu la ir e G é n é r a le de V ord re d es H o s p i t a l li e r s , iii, 266; R o y a l L e t t e r s , H e n r y I l f ii, 347-5L SC 1/12/2. 55 R.W. Kaeuper, B a n k e r s to the C r o w n : the R ic c a r d i o f L u c c a a n d E d w a r d I (Princeton, 1973 ), 81.

THE CR US ADE R

8l

account made by them in 1276, for the period from his landing in T rap an i in Sicily in 1274 until his return to E ngland, showed loans totalling £22,364. In addition, the firm paid out £7,687 to Robert Burnell in England on E d w ard ’s behalf, the sum including £2,880 repaym ent to other Italian m erchants.56 Th ere are references to further loans: the com pany o f the Scoti lent Edw ard 3,000 marks at Rom e, and a Genoese m erchant 1,000 marks; 3,000 livres was lent to E dw ard at Paris. H eavy taxation was to be needed to assist the king in paying off the debts incurred on the crusade, and sim ply by totalling the m ain taxes allocated for this purpose, and adding the French loan w hich was secured upon the B ordeaux cus­ toms, it seems likely that the overall cost o f the expedition was o f the order o f £100,000.57 Such a sum represents only the cost to the crown, and takes no account o f the considerable efforts men m ade to raise funds themselves, by selling or leasing their estates. E d w ard ’s crusade m ay have achieved little for the kingdom o f Jerusalem, but it undoubtedly redounded to his credit. T h e future king of England had proved him self as a cham pion o f a cause to w hich almost all C hristian contem poraries paid at least lip-service, and the dram atic story o f the attem pt on his life helped to make him fam ous throughout Europe. T h e crusade was also o f great im portance in extending E d w ard ’s experience in m any w ays. His friendship with those who accom panied him must have been deepened by the close com panion­ ship o f the expedition: particularly noticeable is the em ergence o f O tto de G randson as one o f E d w ard ’s most trusted henchm en at this time. It was on the crusade, too, that Joseph de C h au n cy, prior o f the English H ospitallers, was recruited into E d w ard ’s service to be his treasurer.58 It is possible that it was at A cre that E dw ard took into his service the noted Italian law yer Francesco A ccursi, if he can be identified with the man called A ccursi d ’A rezzo known to have been there at the same time as Edw ard. Also at A cre E dw ard m ade the acquaintance o f T ed aldo V isconti, soon to be elected pope as G regory X . It is even possible that Edw ard met M arco Polo, who was in A cre with his father and uncle.59

56 C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 132. Curiously, the royal wardrobe account which covers a slightly longer period shows only £9,736 from the Italians, but there is no reason to doubt their account. See Kaeuper, B a n k e r s to the C r o w n , 82 n. 57 A much fuller attempt to calculate costs is made by B. Beebe, ‘Edward I and the Crusades’ (University of St Andrews, Ph.D., 1971), 326-90. 58 T.F. Tout, C h a p te r s in th e A d m in is t r a tiv e H is to r y o f M e d i e v a l E n g la n d , ii (Manchester, 1937), 12-13. Tout’s suggestion that Chauncy left office in 1280 through ill-health is not borne out by the fact that he was in Acre in 1282: Kohler and Langlois, ‘Lettres inédits’, 5m. 59 Stubbs, S e ve n tee n L e c t u r e s , 206; Lunt, F i n a n c i a l R e la tio n s o f the P a p a c y w ith E n g la n d , 158; Kohler, ‘Deux projets’, 417.

82

EDWARD I

John o f A cre, em ployed by Edw ard as a m aster o f works at the T ow er o f London, was surely recruited in the course o f the crusade.60 T h e future builder o f castles in N orth W ales must have been impressed by w hat he saw o f fortifications in the east. Y e t for all that the crusade was im portant for E dw ard, it did not show him in an entirely favourable light. H e showed little real states­ m anship. In the prelim inaries to the expedition he displayed a degree o f subservience to Louis o f France that was surprising in a future king, agreeing to go not as an independent com m ander, but as if he were a baron o f France. A fter the Tunis debacle, E dw ard showed rem arkable obstinacy in persisting in going on to the east with a totally inadequate force, rather than co-operating properly with plans to launch a really effective large expedition within a few years. In Palestine, E d w ard ’s diplom atic efforts to obtain the co-operation o f the M ongols achieved little, and in m ilitary terms his troops were too few to achieve much. E dw ard certainly showed full awareness o f his lim itations, confining his m ilitary actions to sm all-scale raids on vulnerable targets, but his obstinacy remained when it cam e to the question o f negotiating a truce with Baibars. T h e w hole expedition showed a lack o f sagacity in financial matters: E dw ard seems to have had no qualm s about m ort­ gaging future revenues, such as the Bordeaux custom s, and incurring huge debts with Italian m erchants. T h ere was in E dw ard a curious mix o f foolhardiness, in determ inedly carrying through his crusade plans against all the odds, with an ultim ate sense o f caution. Parallels can easily be draw n with his actions in 1297, when he persisted in m ounting a cam paign against the French with inadequate forces, while virtually bankrupt, and yet was wise enough in the end not to risk battle with his enemy. Soon after landing at T rap an i in Sicily on his return journey, Edw ard received sad news, firstly o f the death o f his son John, and then o f that o f his father H enry I I I , w ho had died on 16 Novem ber. C harles o f A njou was entertaining him at his court, and was surprised to find him unconcerned about his son, but extrem ely upset about his father. E dw ard explained that it was easy to beget sons, but that the loss o f a father was irredeem able.61 N ow that Edw ard was king, it m ight have been expected that he would hurry back to England, but in fact his journey was to be a leisurely one. A letter from the pope to Eleanor of C astile suggests that Edw ard was still recovering from the effects o f the assassination attem pt.62 O n 19 Jan u ary 1273 Edw ard was still in 60 C C R 1 2 7 2 - 9 , 444. bl Rishanger, 78. The chronicle names Henry, but John must be meant. 62 L e s registres de Grégoire X et J e a n X X I , ed. J. Guiraud and L. Cadier (Paris, 1892-1906), no. 817.

THE CRUSADER

83

southern Italy, from where he w rote a distinctly unhelpful letter to the citizens o f London, giving no clue as to when they m ight expect his return. B y 5 February he had reached Rom e, and a little over a week later arrived at O rvieto, where he was greeted by all the cardinals and led before the pope in grand cerem onial style.63 T h e pope was now G regory X , whom E dw ard already knew person­ ally. O ne m atter particularly concerned the two men in their discus­ sions: the m urder o f his cousin H enry o f A lm ain at V iterbo. A form al com plaint was put before the pope, w ho duly issued a citation ordering G u y de M ontfort to appear before the papal curia, but this had no effect. Excom m unication followed, but E dw ard was unable to obtain support for any more effective action. L ater in the year G u y was to appear in penitential garb before G regory, seeking absolution, and by the early 1280s he was restored to the favour o f both the p apacy and o f C harles o f A n jo u .64 From O rvieto E dw ard and his com pany rode north through Italy. His passage through L om b ard y was thought w orthy o f note by local chroniclers. H e travelled along the V ia Em ilia, and w as entertained in the episcopal palace at R eggio on 20 M ay. T h en he w ent on through Parm a and M ilan, aim ing next at the relatively easy A lp in e pass o f the M on t-C en is.65 T h is pass was controlled by the house o f Savoy, and E d w ard ’s stay in Savoy, particularly the days he spent at the castle o f St Georges d ’Esperanche (dép. Isère), not far from L yon , w as o f consider­ able significance for the future. T h e ruling dynasty o f Savoy was m uch m ore im portant in the thirteenth century than its w ealth, or the extent o f its lands, m ight suggest. Beatrice, daughter o f T h om as o f Savoy, had m arried the count o f Provence, and all her four daughters m arried kings: Louis I X o f France, H enry I I I o f E ngland, R ichard o f C orn w all (who w as elected K in g o f the Rom ans) and C harles o f A njou, king o f Sicily. T h e m ar­ riage o f Eleanor to H enry I I I had provided a means for m any Savoyards to come to E ngland to seek w ealth and power, and, as already shown, they had played a m ajor role in E d w ard ’s early years. O tto de G randson and Jean de G railly w ere two im portant Savoyards present on the crusade. In addition to this, there was a curious terri­ torial connection. A s long ago as 1173 four castles in Savoy had been handed over, at least in nam e, to H enry I I , as part o f a projected

158; Rishanger, 78. nos 209, 326, 814. The whole question of Guy de Montfort is fully discussed by Powicke, H e n r y I I I a n d th e L o r d E d w a r d , ii, 608-12. See also above, 27, 74. 65 ‘Memoriale Potestatum Regiensium’, Muratori, R e r u m I ta lic a r u m S c r ip to r e s , viii, 1135; ‘Chronicon Parmense’, ibid., ix, 786; ‘Annales Mediolanenses’, ibid., xvi, 672. 63 L i b e r de A n t i q u i s L e g ib u s ,

64 R e g is tr e s de G r é g o ir e X et J e a n X X J

84

EDWARD I

m arriage alliance, and a treaty o f 1246 provided for the count o f Savoy to do hom age to H enry I I I for four castles in return for 1,000 marks and an annual pension.66 E d w ard ’s visit to Savoy in 1273 provided an opportunity to renew these links. T h e ruler there was now Philip, youngest son o f T hom as, w ho had succeeded to the countship in 1268, after a rem arkable career in w hich he had accum ulated a great m any ecclesiastical offices, in­ cluding the archbishopric o f Lyon, w ithout ever actually being ordained. T h e accounts o f his officials show that m uch was m ade o f E d w ard ’s arrival in Savoy. T h e castellan o f Rivoli sent two messengers to meet him, and another to inform the count o f his arrival. E dw ard was then.presented with gifts o f wine, beef and other foodstuffs. T h e bailiff o f M ontm elian bought ten oxen and fifty-nine lam bs ready for a feast for E dw ard, and provided him with an escort.67 T h e m ain festivities took place at St Georges d ’Esperanche, the coun t’s new castle which was still uncom pleted. It was there on 25 Ju ne 1273 that C ou n t Philip did hom age for the four castles o f A viglian a, Bard, Susa and St M aurice d ’A gaune. E dw ard also, on the previous day, obtained the hom age o f W illiam lord o f T ournon, as part o f the settlem ent for an attack that W illiam had m ade on the crusaders as they m arched in the optim istic days o f 1270 towards A igues-M ortes. T h e witness list to this deed reveals that E d w ard ’s most im portant com panions at this stage o f his jo u rn ey were John de V escy, Roger Clifford and O tto de G randson. T h e last nam ed possibly stayed in Savoy to see to his own affairs, though he was soon to serve Edw ard again. T h e com pany was increased in num ber, how ever, as various English m agnates had come to Savoy in order to meet their new sovereign.68 It must have been on this visit to St G eorges that Edw ard first met the m an w ho was to be m aster architect for all his great castles in W ales, M aster Jam es o f St G eorge, a man whose im aginative solu­ tions to the problem s o f castle-building must place him am ong the ranks o f the greatest o f all m ilitary architects. Jam es did not return to England w ith E dw ard, but was to be sent for in the late 1270s.69 T h e final adventure o f E d w ard ’s expedition took place shortly after 66 T h e c o m p le x h is to r y o f th e H o u s e o f S a v o y in th e th ir t e e n th c e n t u r y is w e ll c o v e r e d b y E .L . C o x , T h e E a g le s o f S a v o y ( P r in c e t o n , 19 7 4 ). T h e r e is a c o n v e n ie n t g e n e a lo g y o n p p . 4 6 2 - 3 . 67 A r c h iv io d i S ta t o d i T o r in o , I n v e n t a r io S a v o ia 5 1 , f.2 5 7 , m a z z o 1, n o. 8; I n v e n ta rio G e n e r a le , a rt. 65, f . i , m a z z o 1 (I o w e th e se re fe r e n c e s to th e k in d n e s s o f D r . A .J . T a y lo r , w h o m o st g e n e r o u s ly g a v e m e tr a n s c r ip t s o f th ese d o c u m e n ts ) . S e e a ls o C o x , E a g le s o f S a v o y , 4 1 1 .

8 A .J . T a y lo r , ‘T h e C a s t le o f S t G e o r g e s - d ’ E s p e r a n c h e ’ , A n t i q u a r i e s J o u r n a l , x x x iii ( r 953)> 3 3 - 4 7 ; F o e d e r a , I. ii, 504. 69 A .J . T a y lo r , ‘ M a s t e r J a m e s o f S t G e o r g e ’ , E H R , lx v ( 1 9 5 0 ), 4 3 3 - 5 7 .

THE C R U S A D E R

85

he left Savoy. T h e count o f C halons, Peter, known as the O xherd, invited the English king to jo in him in a tournam ent, w hich took the form o f E d w ard ’s men against all-com ers. T h e chronicles suggest that the English were at a two-to-one disadvantage. T h e tournam ent was ill-m anaged, and from the outset was barely distinguishable from a full-scale battle. Infantry attacks upon the English were routed, but the count then charged. He attacked E dw ard in most unorthodox fashion. R ealizing that he was achieving nothing by sword-play, he threw down his weapon and grabbed E dw ard by the neck, trying to drag him from his horse. Edw ard was too tall and strong for such treatment: he spurred his horse, and the count was dragged from his saddle, falling to the ground. T h e conflict becam e still more unpleasant as the Burgundians saw their lord dism ounted, and Edw ard urged his men to retaliate in kind. T he count attacked again, but was forced to surrender. Edw ard ordered him to give him self up to an ordinary knight: he had disgraced him self too m uch to be the king’s prisoner. T h e 'L ittle w ar o f C h alo n s’ did not, fortunately, develop further, and the English eventually reached Paris in safety.70 Edw ard spent from 26 J u ly to 6 A ugust in Paris, where he did hom age to the French king Philip I I I for the lands he held in France. T hree letters from an English clerk who had gone to Paris to meet Edw ard reported briefly that the king had expressed his very great pleasure at the news o f the state o f affairs in England, that he was in good health, that hom age had been done to K in g Philip, and that there were still matters to be discussed with him. T h e clerk also told his correspondent that E dw ard was certainly going to go to G ascony before returning to E n glan d .71 Th ere was serious news from G ascony o f the rebellion o f G aston de Béarn, the great noble who, like the earl o f Gloucester, should have gone on crusade, but who had considered that his interests were better served by rem aining at home. It was not to be until 2 A ugust 1274 that E dw ard eventually set foot on English soil once more. He was not to go on crusade again, even though he did take the cross a second time in 1287, but it is hard to doubt that the enthusiasm which he had displayed in the course o f his expedition was one which would last the rest o f his life. It was only right that in the early fourteenth century Pierre D ubois should dedicate his book on the recovery o f the H oly Land to E dw ard, for he despaired o f the king o f France, but saw in the English m onarch the man w ho m ight yet provide salvation for the kingdom o f Jeru salem .72 70 The fullest account of the ‘Little war’ is in Guisborough, 210-12. There may be a measure of exaggeration involved. 71 SC 1/18/88, 89, 90, largely printed by Trabut-Cussac, L ’adm inistration anglaise en Gascogne , 41, n.3. 72 See below, 326-33, for discussion of Edward’s later policy towards the crusades.

P A R T II

The King in his Prime

C h ap ter 4

C O R O N A T I O N AND C O N S O L I D A T I O N

O n T h u rsd ay 2 A ugust 1274 Edw ard I at long last returned to England, landing at Dover. His journ ey back from the crusade had been a leisurely one, and matters in G ascony had taken longer than anticipated; m oreover the news he had received from E ngland had not suggested that there was any urgent need for his presence. T h e arrival o f the king was not treated at any length by the chroniclers, and the clerks o f the chancery m erely noted it in a terse m em orandum . E dw ard was greeted with great state, however, by the earls o f G loucester and W arenne, who entertained him at their respective castles o f Ton b ridge and Reigate, as he proceeded towards London for his coronation .1 D etailed questions o f governm ent policy were doubtless set aside in the days following E d w ard ’s return: the organization o f the coronation cerem ony must have been the prim e concern. Preparations had been long under w ay. A s early as F ebruary 1274 orders had gone out to a dozen countries for the collection o f the m assive quantities o f food needed for the feasting that would follow the actual act o f coronation. From G loucestershire alone 60 oxen and cows, 60 swine, 2 fat boars, 40 bacon pigs and 3,000 capons and hens were requested. T w o Londoners were appointed to make purchases o f food. Bishops, abbots and priors were asked to prepare as m any swans, peacocks, cranes, rabbits and kids as they could, and efforts were m ade to prevent fishmongers profiting unduly from the dem and for pikes, eels, salm on and lam preys.2 M uch work was needed to prepare W estm inster, where over £ 1,100 was spent on works. N ew lodges, kitchens and stables were built, and by the time that all was ready, every piece o f open ground had been used for tem porary buildings. Th ere was m uch redecoration, and new stone thrones were set up in the great hall. C overed w ays were erected between the palace and the abbey church.3 M an y decisions had to be m ade about the actual cerem ony. T here had been no coronation in E ngland since that o f E d w ard ’s mother, E leanor o f Provence, in 1236. O n that occasion, a special court had sat 1 2 3

C C R 12 7 2 -9 , C C R 12 7 2 -9 ,

97; C P R 68-71.

1 2 7 2 -8 1,

L ib e r de A n tiq u is L e g ib u s,

172-3;

55-6;

F lo res,

KW ,

i, 504.

iii, 43.

90

EDWARD I

to hear the various claims and counterclaim s regarding the hereditary functions performed by m agnates. A t issue were such questions as who should carry the three cerem onial swords and two sceptres, and who should bear the canopies over the king and queen. T here is no direct evidence as to w hat took place in these hearings in 1274, but the role to be played by the king’s brother, Edm und o f Lancaster, was clearly a m atter o f m ajor controversy. He claim ed the right to carry the great sword Curtana, but it seems that this was rejected. He probably based his claim on his tenure o f the stew ardship, and on the day after the cerem ony took place he renounced the hereditary grant o f the stewardship made to him by H enry I I I and instead accepted the position for life. A list o f m agnates present at the coronation omits his name, suggesting that he boycotted the ceremony. T h e sword was perhaps borne by the earl o f G loucester.4 A nother dispute was over the participation o f the archbishop o fY o rk , w hich was bound to reopen the perennial question o f the rivalry between C an terbu ry and York. W alter Giffard o f Y ork had carried his cross while he was in the province o f C an terbury, a very provocative act. As a result he was excluded from the coronation cerem ony, though one chronicler suggests that he was in fact present, but that he took no active part in the proceedings.5 Such argum ents prior to the coronation were inevitable, as they still are, and it is unlikely that they detracted m uch from the joyful occasion. O n the day before he was crowned, E dw ard m ade a trium phal entry into London, which was decorated in his honour. Coronation day, 19 A ugust, saw the conduit at C heapside running with red and white wine for all to drink.6 T h e service itself is not described in any detail by the choniclers. It clearly took a largely traditional form, but there was an innovation in the oath sworn by the new ly crowned king. T h is norm ally had a tripartite form. A ccording to the legal textbook ‘B racton ’ , the king should promise to work for the peace o f church and people, to prevent rapacity and oppression, and to do justice im partially and m ercifully. Edw ard m ay have agreed to m aintain the laws o f his predecessors, notably Edw ard the Confessor: this was certainly a fea­ ture o f the oath to be used in 1308. Furtherm ore, Edw ard also swore an 4 H.G. Richardson, ‘Early Coronation Records’, B I H R , xiii (1935-6), 130-1. 134—5; F oed era , I.ii, 515; H.G. Richardson, ‘The Coronation of Edward I’, B I H R , xv (i 937-8), 94-9. The tentative hypothesis made by Richardson, ibid., 98, that the sword might have been carried by Alexander I I I of Scotland is not very plausible, as if he had performed this duty, it is likely that this would have been used as evidence by Edward I later, in support of his claim of feudal suzerainty over Scotland. I am grateful to Professor E.L.G. Stones for this suggestion. 5 Richardson ‘Coronation of Edward I’, 99; A n n . D u n s ta b le , 263; Wykes, 260. 6 T h e French Ch ron icle o f L o n d o n , ed. G.J. Aungier (Camden Soc., 1844), 13.

C O R ON A T I O N AND CO NS O L I D A T I ON

91

oath to preserve the rights o f the crown. H e referred to this in a letter to the pope in 1275, and on some subsequent occasions. T h ere is also a chronicle story that once A rchbishop K ilw a rd b y placed the crown on E d w ard ’s head, the king prom ptly rem oved it, saying that he w ould not wear it again until he had recovered the lands belonging to the crown which had been granted aw ay by his father.7 A fter the cerem ony in w hich E dw ard and Eleanor were crowned, the feasting began. A later story has it that as the king was seated at the banquet, the king o f Scots and the earls o f Lancaster, C orn w all, Gloucester, Pem broke and W arenne all cam e before him, each w ith a retinue o f a hundred knights. A ll dism ounted, and the horses were then set free, for anyone to keep those that he m anaged to catch .8 T h e tale is an attractive one, and true or not, catches som ething o f the spirit o f the young men who surrounded the king, and o f the carefree optimism which accom panied his form al assum ption o f the crown. T h e cele­ bration must have been extraordinary, conducted on a scale far beyond anything in the memories o f those present. T h e business o f governm ent did not come to a com plete halt during the festivities, but it was not until late Septem ber that the reshaping o f the adm inistration began. E ngland had been governed with rem arkable success during the period between H enry 1 1 1 ’s death and E dw ard’s return to England, though there was undoubted nervousness that the issues o f the civil w ar m ight be revived. In 1273 orders had been issued that no one should enter London arm ed, and T hom as de C lare was appointed to advise the city authority about defences. A n order to the sheriffs for the keeping o f the peace, w hich it was said was inadequate, betrays a sense o f alarm , as do rum ours current in 12 74 o f a renewed attem pt to occupy the Isle o f E ly.9 T h ere had been some trouble when Edm und o f Lancaster, after his return from the crusade, tried to pursue his territorial am bitions against R obert de Ferrers to the bitter end. He besieged the Staffordshire m anor o f C h artley which Ferrers had been allowed to retain, but the earl o f G loucester protested firm ly to Robert Burnell, pointing out that ‘it does not seem that there can be tranquillity in the land, nor is the king’s lordship w orth anything if the people o f the land can assem ble forces like this in time o f peace’ . T h e protest was in vain: to ju d g e by a later pardon, Edm und carried the siege through to its conclusion. G lou cester’s pressure did result in the issue com ing before the council, and it was decided to take C h artley

7 H.G. Richardson, ‘The English Coronation O ath’, S p ecu lu m , xxiv (1949), 44-50; BL Cotton Vesp. B. xi (the Hagnaby chronicle), f.27. Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B. 414 is a shortened version of this chronicle. 8 Richardson, ‘Coronation of Edward T, 98. 9 C C R 1 2 7 2 - 9 , 10, 25; C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 52.

92

EDWARD I

into royal h an d s.10 O th er problem s the governm ent faced were those of the am bitions o f L lyw elyn o f W ales, and a serious com m ercial dispute with Flanders: both m atters w ould need E d w ard ’s intervention. Before questions o f policy could be resolved by E dw ard after his coronation, there were m atters o f personnel to be decided. T h e most urgent was that o f the appointm ent o f Robert Burnell as chancellor, replacing the veteran W alter de M erton. T h e king’s concern for Burnell was shown on 25 A ugu st when he appointed him to a church living at R ingw ood. T h en , on 21 Septem ber, Burnell took charge o f the great seal and with it the chancery. O n the sam e day the im portant post o f keeper o f the w ardrobe was entrusted to A nthony Bek, but he held it for less than a m onth, with his brother T h om as taking over on 18 O ctober. O n that day W illiam Louth began his term o f office as cofferer of the w ard ro b e.11 A t the exchequer there was no change: Joseph de Chauncy, who had become treasurer only a year previously, remained in office. These changes did not am ount to a political revolution, but were sim ply the result o f E d w ard ’s natural desire to see men well-known to him in the highest offices o f state. Surprisingly, there were no im m edi­ ate plans to hold a parliam ent in w hich the king could discuss affairs o f state with his m agnates: there had to be a m ajor inquiry into the state o f the realm before appropriate measures could be taken to reform abuses. E d w ard ’s reign was notable for the scale and frequency o f the inves­ tigations into the w ay in w hich the country was governed. T h e greatest inquest was that o f 1274-5 w hich produced the H undred Rolls: in m any w ays this can be seen as the starting point for the m ajor work of reform w hich was to characterize the first h alf o f the reign. T here survives only a fraction o f the total returns, but even that fraction is m onum ental in bulk. T h e inquiry had its im m ediate origins in the appointm ent o f two men in Jan u ary 1274 to investigate the loss o f royal rights in eleven coun ties.12 It seems that they never carried out their task in full, perhaps because their b rief was inadequate, and the governm ent then decided to adopt a m uch fuller procedure, and began investigations in the autum n. Inquiries into the feudal structure of G ascony during E d w ard ’s stay in the duchy m ay have provided a recent precedent, although the parallel was not very close.13 In broader terms, the H undred Rolls inquiry was firm ly in the traditions o f the m iddle years o f the thirteenth century. In 1255 investigations had taken place into the rights o f the crown and the question o f w hether they had 10 C C R 1 2 7 2 - 9 , 17-18; C P R 1 2 8 1 - 9 2 , 53; SC 1/22, 26. F lo res, iii, 31-2, refers to a rising in the north: this probably relates to the Chartley incident. 11 C C R 1 2 7 2 - 9 , 99; C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 54; Tout, Chapters, vi, 6, 26, 30. 12 C P R 1 2 7 2 -8 2 , 65. Returns for Somerset to this inquiry are printed in R H , ii, 118-24. 13 Below, 301-3.

C O R ON A T I O N AND C O N S O L I D A T I ON

93

been alienated or usurped, as well as into the conduct o f royal officials.14 In 1258 knights were appointed to exam ine all m anner o f ‘excesses, trespasses and acts o f injustice’ , particularly by royal officials, and the special eyre set up in 1259 provided for the investiga­ tion o f officials and o f the alienation o f royal rig h ts.15 Th ere was nothing radically new in w hat E dw ard I was attem pting in 1274. T h e speed and scale o f the inquiry was o f a different order to the earlier inquiries, but the nature o f the questions being asked was fam iliar. It is striking that E dw ard was using m ethods w hich had been em ployed, above all, by the opposition to the crown in his father’s reign: even the 1255 inquest had taken place when H enry I I I was abroad, and did not represent considered royal policy. E d w ard ’s own association with the opposition m ay have been short-lived, but he had picked up ideas about how the country should be governed w hich he was able to pursue when he cam e to the throne. T h e question o f how far he him self should be seen as the m otivating force behind the H undred Rolls inquiry is one incapable o f resolution, but at the least he must have given new urgency and im portance to an existing concept. It would not have been easy to investigate local governm ent w ithout changing those in charge, and it was surely as a necessary prelim inary to the inquiry that in Septem ber 1274 the two escheators and the m ajority o f the sheriffs were replaced. A new form o f oath to be sworn by the sheriffs and their bailiffs m ade the governm ent’s priorities clear. It stressed first o f all that they were to serve the king, and were to m aintain his rights. A n y usurpations o f royal rights were to be ended, and if the sheriffs could not do this them selves, the king or his council were to be informed. Paym ent o f debts due to the crown was to be enforced prom ptly w here possible. O n ly later in the oath were the sheriffs told to treat people loyally, and in accord w ith right, rich and poor alike. A n oath by itself, how ever, could achieve little; a cynical clerk termed it, in the m argin o f the official exchequer roll, ‘the sheriffs’ perju ry’ . 16 O n 11 O ctob er pairs o f com m issioners were appointed to put forty or more articles to local juries, each pair dealing with a group o f counties. T h e operation o f taking the inquests was rem arkably quick. It took only six days to hear the verdicts o f the various local juries in Shropshire. O ver the whole country, the process lasted between N ovem ber 1274 14 Cam, H u n d r e d a n d th e H u n d r e d R o l l s , 36-7; D o c u m e n ts o f th e B a r o n ia l M o v e m e n t , ed. Sanders, 112-13, 162. 15 C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 57; C F R 1 2 7 2 - 1 3 0 7 , 30-33. 16 E 159/49, m.ld; T. Madox, H is t o r y a n d A n t i q u i t ie s o f the E x c h e q u e r (1769), ii, 149m, gives a version of the oath from 1298 which, though rather shorter, does not differ fundamentally from that of 1274; R.J. Maddicott, ‘Edward I and the Lessons of Baronial Reform: Local government, 1258-80’, T h ir te e n th C e n tu r y E n g la n d , I, 20.

94

EDWARD I

and M arch 1275. E ach hundred had its own ju ry , as did boroughs, large vills and some manors. T h ere m ight also be juries o f knights o f the shire, and some individual com plaints were noted. T h e bulk o f the m aterial collected was imm ense, for each session w ith a ju ry was recorded in a separate roll, sealed w ith the seals o f the individ ualjurors. T hese becam e known as the R agm an Rolls. In time, extract rolls were com piled, bringing the evidence o f the inquisitions into slightly more m anageable form, though certainly not one so convenient as the eleventh-century D om esday B o o k .17 T h e purpose o f the inquest was explained succinctly in the heading given to the extract rolls. It was to investigate rights and liberties taken from the king, the excesses o f sheriffs and other royal officials, and the misdeeds o f private bailiffs. T h ere were some differences in the questions asked by the various commissioners: in the east M idlands six extra articles were added, and only in G loucestershire and W arw ickshire were forgers and clippers o f coin the subject o f inquiry. T h e total list o f questions provides im pressive evidence o f the very con­ siderable range o f opportunities available to m edieval officials to profit by abuse o f their position, though the prim e purpose o f the inquest was to discover w hat rights and lands had been lost by the crown. Some o f the returns were not particularly satisfactory. In C ain e and R am sbury, in W iltshire, the jurors produced a string o f no less than tw enty-five negative answers to the questions put to them. T h eju ro rs of W orcester reported that none o f the hundreds in the county was in the kin g’s hands: they nam ed those w ho held the hundreds, but stated that they did not know how long they had had them, nor by w hat right, nor how m uch they were w orth. T h irty-tw o ‘don ’t kn ow ’ answers were provided by th eju ro rs o f the m anor o f C ondover in Sh ropsh ire.18 T h e bulk o f the returns, however, were im pressively full. T h e jurors had considerable problem s with the questions relating to the alienation o f royal rights, for it was very rare for them to know w hat justification there was for a m agnate’s claim to hold lands or powers ofjurisdiction. It was no part o f the inquiry to ask for charters to be produced to justify claim s, and th eju rors were not in a position to know the details o f such evidence. In some cases they were able to provide a long history. For G rantham , in Lincolnshire, the story w ent back to the days o f Q ueen M atilda, and concluded with E d w ard ’s own grant o f the place to Earl W arenne, w ho held it, along w ith Stam ford, for the service o f four knights, according to th eju ro rs. It had, they said, an annual value o f 17 R H , i, 1; the articles of the inquiry are given by Cam. H u n d red and the H u n d red R o lls , 248-56. Ibid., 45, explains that the name Ragman derived from the many seals dangling from the rolls, which gave the appearance of a ragged fringe. r8 R H , ii, 93, 247, 266.

C O R ON A T I O N AND C O NS O L I D A T I ON

95

£ 11 o, but, for all their detailed knowledge, they had to say that they did not know by w hat w arrant it was h e ld .19 Some returns must have confirmed the governm ent’s fears, even if most were insufficiently specific. In N ortham ptonshire, for exam ple, the jurors o f H uxloe, Polebrook and W ym ersley hundreds all reported that the earl o f G loucester had removed his tenants from the hundredal jurisdiction, and had been exercising ju d icial rights for the past fifteen or sixteen years, though it was not known w hat right he had to do so.20 In Shropshire there was alarm ing evidence o f W elsh aggression: Peter Corbet was unable to perform his feudal service, as so m uch o f his land had been lost to the W elsh. M en who used to live under English law were now being forced to accept W elsh law .21 T h e jurors had few inhibitions in providing detailed inform ation about official wrongdoings. Cases where they were intim idated were rare, though G ilbert de Clifton, the earl o f L in coln ’s b ailiff at Staincliffe in Yorkshire, threatened one o f the comm issioners with the loss o f his lands should he proceed with the hearings. T h is was reported, but it m ay be that there were other instances where the inquiries were obstructed and which were not recorded. T h ere were considerable regional variations: in G loucestershire thirty officials were charged with various offences, but in Essex the figure stood m uch higher, at 188. This probably reflects the m uch greater authority o f private lords in G loucestershire.22 T h e Lincolnshire returns are particularly full. In the w apentake (the local equivalent o f the hundred) o f A sw ardhurn the jurors listed eleven recent sheriffs and eighteen lesser royal officials, along with five seigneurial officials, and accused them o f a range o f offences. Part o f the trouble was that the farm o f the w apentake had been increased from its true value o f about ten marks to over tw enty marks. C orruption and extortion had increased, as efforts were made to raise more revenue. Problem s seem to have been particularly acute at this time: when a m ajor ju d icial inquiry was held later in the reign, in 1298, only five local officials in A sw ardhurn were to be accused.23 T h e great m ajority o f accusations m ade in the H undred Rolls are monotonous. Few officials had the im agination o f the sheriff o f Essex who, in 1267, seized cocks which he claim ed would be sent flying into London carrying incendiary m aterial tied to their feet.24 T h ere were 19 R H , i, 288. 20 R H , ii, 7-8. 21 R H , i, 362-3. 22 Cam, Studies in the H u n d red R o lls , 188—90. 23 R H , i, 241-9; A L in co ln sh ire A s s iz e R o ll f o r I2g8, ed. W.S. Thomson (Lincolnshire Record Soc., xxxvi, 1944), 285. 24 Above, 58-9; R H , i, 148-9. It is odd that it was only in one hundred that these charges were made against the sheriff.

96

EDWARD I

some other odd stories. T h e constable o f Shrew sbury allegedly paid a boy 4d to run through a nearby village shouting ‘W ekare! W ekare!’ to insult the inhabitants. A scuffle broke out, the boy was shot and killed with an arrow, and the village fined a substantial sum by the sheriff.25 Some officials emerge very clearly as rogues. H ugh de D ignineton, constable o f O rford castle, was accused o f im prisoning a royal official for three days, and forcing him to swear to leave the place. He took unauthorized tolls and prises, and extended the bounds o f the castle liberty. O ne man was thrown into prison in O rford castle, where he was so badly treated that he died o f his wounds, and the coroner was then prevented from view ing the body, as he should have done.26 In general terms, a reading o f the surviving H undred Rolls suggests that there was a need both for new legislation and for ju d icial proceedings against m any local officials. By N ovem ber 1274 it was planned that parliam ent would shortly be held in London. T h e initial summons was for m id-February 1275, but ju st after Christm as the m eeting w as postponed until 25 A p ril.27 In this parliam ent m any m atters were considered, and in the first statute o f W estm inster various clauses dealt with matters covered in the H undred Rolls. C lause 15, for exam ple, dealt with the problems of bailing prisoners. The Hundred Rolls provided many specific examples. In Elloe hundred, in Lincolnshire, the jurors detailed nine cases of crim inals w rongly allowed to leave prison after m aking paym ents to an official, and one where the prior o f Spalding had unjustifiably detained a man in such conditions that his feet had com pletely rotted a w a y .28 The statute dealt with problems arising out of wardships, where those in w ardship m arried w ithout their lord’s consent, or where the lords refused to allow their w ards to m arry. T h e H undred Rolls gave various exam ples o f the abuse o f w ard sh ip.29 Y e t the evidence is far from clear that the statute was affected in its drafting by the returns com ing in from the inquiry. T h e crown had shown, in the questions put to the jurors, that it was well aware o f the problem s that existed, and it is inconceivable that the legislation could have been based on the huge mass o f returns that cam e in. In the case o f w ardship in particular, the statute did not deal with the main points w hich em erged from the inquiry, w hich related largely to the unlawful concealm ent o f royal rights. T h e H undred Rolls provided the crown with lengthy lists o f official

25 R H , ii, 92. The meaning o f ‘Wekare’ is not clear. 26 R H , ii, 188-9, 191. ' 99 27 C C R I 2 j 2 - g , 137, 229; P a r i. W rits , i, 1. 28 R H , i, 275; Sta tutes o f the R e a lm , I, 30. 29 Cam. H u n d red and the H u n d red R o lls , 254; Statutes o f

the R e a lm ,

I, 32-3.

CO R ON A T I O N AND C O NS OL I DA T I ON

97

wrongdoings, but the inquiry had done nothing to resolve the cases it had exposed, for the commissioners had no powers to give judgem ent. It was certainly intended to set up a special ju d icial comm ission to hear and determ ine cases against royal and private officials. A docum ent known as the Statute o f R agm an provided for this, referring specifically to matters raised in the H undred Roll inquiry. T h e date o f this is unfortunately not known, but it was probably draw n up not long after M ichaelm as 1276.30 Y et there is no evidence that any commissions were in fact set up, and it is most likely that, as a result o f the king’s preoccupation with the W elsh war, the m atter was put off. In London a ju d icial eyre did follow fairly swiftly upon the H undred Rolls, in 1276, and a com parison between the two records is interesting. T h e articles o f the eyre were not identical to those o f the H undred Roll inquiry, but m any cases do appear on both records. In the m ajority, the eyre roll provides more detail, but that is not so, for exam ple, in the interesting case o f Laurence Duket. H e killed a doctor, W illiam le Frem ound, and in the eyre roll it is sim ply recorded that he produced a royal charter o f pardon. No one cam e forward to im plead him for the offence, and he went free. T h e H undred Rolls record that this charter was obtained for D uket by the ch ief clerk o f the city, R alph C repyn, who took all D u k et’s lands and houses in paym ent, as a result o f w hich the crown, so the jurors alleged, lost w hat would have been a valuable forfeiture. T h e story is one o f the m any exam ples showing that officials charged in the H undred Rolls were rarely, in the end, prosecuted. D uket was him self to be the victim o f a crim inal assault in 1284.3 31 0 It does not seem that m uch use was m ade o f the H undred Rolls in the course o f the London eyre, but from 1287 it was laid down that the returns were to be used ju d icially. Instead o f appointing special com ­ missioners, as originally intended, the governm ent determ ined in the Statute o f G loucester that the whole m atter should be dealt with in the general eyres. This proved to be a very slow and laborious process: it was not until 1287 that hearings took place in Gloucestershire. In m any cases those accused in the 1274 inquiries died before the cases cam e to court.32 T h e justices had the returns to the H undred Roll inquiries with them, and annotations prove that they were used. R elatively few cases 30 Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls , 54, suggests that it may date only from the late summer of 1278, as it resembles the arrangements made in the Statue of Gloucester of that year, but an earlier date seems more likely. See D.W. Sutherland, Quo Warranto Proceedings in the Reign o f Edward I, 1278-1294 (Oxford, 1963), 24-5. 31 R H , i, 415; The London Eyre o f 1276 , ed. M. Weinbaum (1976), no. 207. See below, 265. 32 Statutes o f the Realm , i, 46; Sutherland, Quo Warranto, 193; Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls , 191 ; R H , i, 166-74 shows that in Gloucestershire the accused men had died in twenty cases before the matter came to court.

98

EDWARD I

were in fact determ ined, and in m any o f those the accused men were found innocent. A s for the specific case o f H ugh de D ignineton, he did lose office in 1275, but not because o f the charges against him, rather because the castle was granted for five years to Robert Ufford. H e was appointed as a keeper o f the customs in 1277, and also received custody o f the bailiw ick o f Southwark: he was clearly in no w ay disgraced.33 H istorians have made m uch o f the H undred Rolls; contem porary chroniclers, on the other hand, laid no stress on the great inquiry, the D unstable annalist rem arking that no good cam e o f it.34 C ertainly there was no im m ediate and successful drive against corruption, and there is little evidence to suggest that the returns inspired new legislation. T h e evidence provided by the jurors was to be more im portant with regard to the investigation o f lost or alienated royal rights in the Quo Warranto inquiries.35 M ore generally, the fact that the crown had instigated a m ajor inquiry must have helped dem onstrate that there was a new determ ination, a fresh approach, in the new king’s governm ent. T rad e and finance were m atters o f m uch concern at the outset o f E d w ard ’s reign. In 1270, years o f difficulty and disagreem ent between England and Flanders had reached a clim ax, with the dram atic arrest o f all goods held by English m erchants in Flanders. T h e order for this was inspired in part by the grievance o f the countess o f Flanders that an annual pension o f 500 marks due to her had not been paid, in part by the efforts o f the English to com pel overseas m erchants to keep to the regulations o f the A ssize o f C loth, and in part because o f the imposition o f the new customs duties. T h e situation was exacerbated by the arrest o f Flem ish goods at St Ives fair in H untingdonshire in 1270. In order to place pressure on the Flem ings, an em bargo was placed on the export o f wool from England. T h is proved hard to enforce. Licences were issued to export to places other than Flanders, and sm uggling was almost certainly widespread. W hen E dw ard returned from crusade, he was not pleased with w hat he learned about the situation, and dem anded that steps be taken to com pel the Flem ings to subm it. In A ugust and Septem ber 1273 new severe m easures were ordered. T rad in g vessels were to be searched for contraband. W ool exports were again forbidden, and all Flem ings were to leave E ngland by C hristm as. In A pril 1274 the king’s m erchant Luke o f L ucca, one o f the com pany o f the R iccardi, was appointed to investi­ gate violations o f the em bargo, and in M ay he was em powered to arrest 33 C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 89, 210, 240. 34 A n n . D u n s ta b le , 263. The inquest is also noted by the Hagnaby chronicle, BL Vesp. B. xi, f.27. 35 See below, 258-64.

C O R ON A T I O N AND CONS OLI DATI ON

99

wool ships in the H um ber and the northern ports. T h e governm ent were setting a thief to catch a thief, for the R iccardi had been deeply involved in attem pting to evade the regulations. T h e new severity, clearly inspired by E dw ard himself, proved effective, and in June and J u ly 1274 a new treaty with Flanders was negotiated. English m er­ chants and Flem ish m erchants whose goods had been seized would receive com pensation. T h is w ould be paid out o f the proceeds o f the goods that had been taken in E ngland and Flanders, but since more English goods than Flem ish had been seized, a balance was due to the English o f £ 4 ,7 5 5 , or so Edw ard claim ed. Paym ent was finally com ­ pleted in 1287. T h e crown was able to profit considerably from the violations o f the em bargo that had taken place. T h e R iccardi were em ployed to collect some £13,300 from alien m erchants, and m oney was also raised from English traders. Paym ents were m ade at the rate o ften shillings a sack, and the profitability o f the operation m ay well have contributed to the governm ent’s plan to introduce a system o f perm anent customs duties on the export o f w ool.3 T h e negotiation o f customs duties was one o f the prim e purposes o f the parliam ent w hich met in A p ril 1275. T h e financial position cannot be calculated with any precision, but was certainly very serious. T h e king’s crusading debts were massive, with large sums owed to Italian bankers. W hat was needed was a simple means o f repaym ent. T here was a precedent for a system o f customs duties in the so-called new aid o f 1266, when E dw ard had imposed a levy on imports and exports by alien m erchants in return for his protection, w hich yielded 6,000 marks a year. B y early 1274 this aid was in the hands o f the R iccardi o f L ucca, but the bankers were undoubtedly anxious to be provided with a more secure and perm anent means o f repaym ent.3 37 6 T h e com position o f the A pril parliam ent shows that it was from the first intended to negotiate a tax on the m ercantile w ealth o f the country. T h e sheriffs were ordered to obtain the attendance o f six or four men from every city, borough or m erchant town, as well as four knights from each shire. T h is m eant that the assem bly had, alm ost certainly, a m uch higher attendance o f urban representatives than any other m edieval parliam ent. Indeed, it was roughly twice the size o f a norm al parlia­ ment. In part, the scale o f this parliam ent is to be explained in terms o f the king’s desire to ensure that the reforms o f the first statute o f

36 R.H. Bowers, ‘English Merchants and the Anglo-Flemish Economic W ar’, S even S tu d ie s in M e d i e v a l E n g li s h H is to r y a n d O th e r H is t o r ic a l E s s a y s p r e s e n te d to H a r o l d S . S n e llg r o v e

(Jackson, Mississippi, 1983), 21—54; see also Kaeuper, B a n k e r s to the C r o w n , 142—4, and T.H. Lloyd, T h e E n g li s h W o o l T r a d e in the M i d d l e A g e s (Cambridge, 1 9 7 7 ) , 25-39. 37 Kaeuper, B a n k e r s to the C r o w n , 136—8, 141.

100

EDWARD I

W estm inster becam e w idely known, but the large num ber o f townsmen can only be explained by the plan to impose a new tax.38 T h e crown was in a strong bargaining position, for the em bargo on wool exports was still in force, at least form ally, and it could offer the m erchants abandonm ent o f the m easure in return for a grant o f customs duties. A ccording to the D unstable annals, the new scheme was thought to be the responsibility o f the treasurer, Joseph de C h au n cy, although its real author was an Italian, whose nam e is rendered as Poncius de Ponto.39 E xport duties were to be paid on wool, woolfells and hides, at the rate o f 6s 8d on each sack o f wool. M erchants would have little difficulty in passing this on, most p robably in the form o f higher prices to their overseas custom ers. T h e new custom was, according to the official form ula, ‘granted by all the great men o f the realm and at the request o f the com m unities o f m erchants o f all E n glan d 5, but a draft letter makes it clear that in reality it was the m erchant com m unity who m ade the grant, and that the m agnates then gave their consent to it.40 From the outset it was intended that the proceeds o f the custom s would be collected at the ports by the Italian bankers and used to repay them for their loans, rather than being paid straight into the exchequer. In each customs port — there were thirteen in all — there was to be one representative o f the Italians, with custody o f one h a lf o f the customs seal, the cocket, and two local men in charge o f the other half. T h e system was simple and effective. T h ere was no question o f farm ing out the customs for a fixed sum, as had been done with the earlier levy o f the new aid. T h e Italians had to account properly for all the m oney they received. T h e task o f collection was m ade m uch easier by the fact that duties were only payable on a very lim ited range o f goods, and for the Italians, the customs provided the solid security they needed if they were to continue to lend to the crown. T h e yield o f the new duties was substantial, averaging some £10,000 a year in the period up to 1279.41 A n im portant step had been taken towards achieving financial stability. T h e main achievem ents o f the spring parliam ent o f 1275 were the first statute o f W estm inster, and the agreem ent to grant the new customs duties. Some ju d icial business was also done, but the 38 M. McKisack, T h e P a rliam entary R epresentation o f the E n g lis h B oroug hs during the (Oxford, 1932), 4-6; C.H. Jenkinson, ‘The First Parliament of Edward I’, E H R , xxv (1910); Maddicott, ‘Edward I and the Lessons of Baronial Reform’, 14-16. 39 A n n . D u n s ta b le , 258. Who Poncius was is not clear: the chronicler may have meant Orlandino da Pogio, one of the heads of the Riccardi, and a man of great importance. 40 Kaeuper, B a n k ers to the C ro w n , 144-5; P a r i. W rits, i, 2; C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 90. 41 Lloyd, E n g lis h W ool T ra d e , 60-2; Kaeuper, B a n k ers to the C ro w n , 144-6. M id d le A g e s

C O R ON A T I O N AND C ONS OL I DA T I ON

IOI

parliam ent was cut short when Edw ard suddenly fell ill. T h e wounds he had received from the assassin’s blade in the east apparently began to fester again, giving him a fever. Discussion o f the paym ent o f an annual tribute to the papacy and various other m atters were put off until the next parliam ent, to be held in O ctober 1275.42 D uring the sum mer o f 1275 E dw ard and his entourage travelled slowly northwards to Chester, intending to hold talks with L lyw elyn o f W ales. In the event, L lyw elyn refused to attend. O n the w ay, Edw ard approached the town o f O xford at the end o f Ju ly. H e was met with great pomp, and the place was lavishly decorated in his honour, but the townspeople and students were disconcerted when Edw ard refused to enter the west gate. He w as, it seems, terrified o f w hat the chronicler W ykes called the derisoiy superstition about the curse o f St Frideswide. She was an A nglo-Saxon saint, whose excessive measures in defence o f her virginity were thought to have included the imposition o f a curse on any king who should enter O xford, where a church stood on the spot to which she had been pursued by a lustful M ercian prince.43 Edw ard returned to W estm inster for parliam ent in O ctober. W hat did not happen was very significant: L lyw elyn o f W ales refused to appear to perform hom age to the English king. T h ere was some legisla­ tion regarding the Jew s.44 A serious dispute between the bishop and prior o f N orwich, and the local com m unity was resolved by arbitration. T h e problem dated back to 1270, when a feud had culm inated in the sacking and burning o f the m onastery, and even the taking o f the city into royal hands had not quelled the trouble. By 1275 the ecclesiastical authorities were claim ing 4,000 marks in dam ages, with the citizens offering h a lf that sum. E d w ard ’s task was not a particularly difficult one: he set the figure at 3,000 m arks, ordered the local com m unity to pay for a gold vessel for the church costing £100, and arranged for sentences o f excom m unication and interdict to be lifted. W hat is striking is that E dw ard, unlike his father, was able to bring the m atter to a satisfactory conclusion.45 Further steps were taken, in this parliam ent, to solve the govern­ m ent’s financial problems. A tax o f a fifteenth, assessed on the value of m ovable goods, in practice largely foodstuffs and anim als, was granted 42 H.G. Richardson and G .O . Sayles, ‘The English Parliaments of Edward I’ , B IH R , v (1928), 136; C C R 1272-9 , 197-8, Wykes, 263. 43 Wykes, 263-4; Blaauw, Barons' Wars, 121. St Frideswide’s shrine is now in Oxford

cathedral. 44 Wykes, 266; Richardson and Sayles, ‘The English Parliaments of Edward I’, 137. 45 The Chronicle o f Bury St Edmunds, 1212-1301* ed. A. Gransden (1964), 59; Cotton, 146-9; C C R 1272-9, 217-18.

102

EDWARD I

to the king. T here were no urban representatives present, in contrast to the last parliam ent, but there were knights o f the shire to give a m easure o f popular assent to the decision. T h e dem and for the tax was put by the ch ief justice, who argued that E dw ard had spent his own and his father’s w ealth on the crusade, and that he therefore had to ask for assistance from his subjects. Th ere m ay also have been an argum ent that a tax had been promised to H enry I I I , but not collected. O ne chronicler saw the m atter in very cynical terms, describing the tax as a confiscation. He felt particularly strongly over the w ay in which it was to be levied on the tem poral goods o f churchm en as well as laym en. T h e tax was to be highly successful, with an assessment o f over £81,000, and a yield not far short o f that sum .46 Edw ard also approached the prelates directly for an aid to be paid on the value o f their spiritualities, but this was felt to be unreasonable, particularly since the clergy were already paying crusading tenths, imposed for six years by the council o f Lyons o f 1274. T h e m atter was put off, with the prelates prom ising a reply by the following E aster.47 In the autum n o f 1275 measures were also taken to im prove the financial adm inistration. A docum ent, known as the statutes o f the exchequer, set out the proper procedures to be adopted by the ex­ chequer and those with whom it dealt, all in considerable detail.48 T h e m ajor change that took place was in the running o f the king’s demesne lands, and o f the estates that cam e into royal hands under the system o f wardship. It is norm ally considered that there was little that could be done to increase royal income from land, and most recent historians have considered that crown estates were chiefly o f value as a source of patronage, particularly as a means o f providing for members o f the royal fam ily. T h is was an age when most landlords retained manors in their own hands, rather than leasing them out, but with the existing exchequer m achinery this would have been a difficult task for the governm ent to undertake. In N ovem ber 1275, however, in accordance w ith the new statutes o f the exchequer, three officials were appointed to the custody o f the royal demesnes, each with control o f a different region. R alph o f Sandw ich, a former M ontfortian adm inistrator, had the south and west, Richard de H olebrook the m idlands and east, and T hom as de N orm anville the north. Sm all manors were to be leased out; large estates m anaged directly. In addition to running the demesnes, these three stewards took over the functions of the escheators, dealing with the lands o f deceased tenants-in-chief, while at a more 46 Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 281; G.L. Harriss, K i n g , P a r lia m e n t a n d P u b l i c F in a n c e in (Oxford, 1975), 40, where it is wrongly stated that this was Edward’s first parliament. Tax assessments are tabulated in the appendix, below, ^6q. 47 Wykes, 265-6. 48 S ta tu te s o f th e R e a lm , i, 197-8. M e d i e v a l E n g la n d to 1 3 6 9

C O R O N A T I O N AND CO N S O L I D A T I O N

IO 3

local level the sheriffs performed the tasks form erly undertaken by escheators.49 T h e scheme was a radical one, but the accounts subm itted to the exchequer do not suggest that it was particularly successful. O ver a three-year period Thom as de N orm anville was able to show that he had made paym ents to the treasury o f £3,253, as against total receipts o f £6,538 with which he was charged. For the most part, manors con­ tinued to be farmed out, though there were exceptions, such as the manors o f W oodstock and W ootton in O xfordshire, and St B riavel’s in G loucestershire. T here were m any expenses to be met, and the fact that the system was not particularly lucrative provides one reason for its abandonm ent in 1282. A letter from R ichard de H olebrook written in that year reveals further problems. His w orkload was proving to be excessive, his health not up to it, and he was having considerable difficulty in obtaining the co-operation o f some sheriffs.50 T h e old system o f escheators proved, in the end, more effective than the experi­ ment o f 1275. Early in the new year, 1276, E dw ard was at W inchester, where, according to the local annalist, he held a parliam ent, though the proceedings were not honoured with that name in any o f the official records.51 It was at W inchester that the king m ade an agreem ent with Isabella de Forz, countess o f A um ale, w hich clearly shows his anxiety to increase the landed endowm ent o f the crown. Isabella had been widowed in 1260, and by 1276 all her children had died, the last, Aveline, in 1274. T he bargain that was now struck with her was that she should make over all her lands, apart from four manors, to the king, who would re-grant them to her for life, and would pay her 20,000 marks. O n her death the lands would come to the crown, with the rightful heir, H ugh de C ourtenay, losing his inheritance. T h e agree­ ment was not in fact carried through. Perhaps the sum offered was not large enough, perhaps protests from C ourtenay dissuaded the countess from her course o f action, or m aybe the state o f royal finances, with the costs o f the W elsh w ar o f 1277, was such that the king could not afford the substantial investm ent involved. T h e m atter was not one w hich was w holly abandoned, however, and the plan was to be revived in 1293.52 A lthough Edw ard failed to establish him self as Isab ella’s heir, he had more success in the case o f her daughter Aveline. She had m arried 49 C P R 1272-81, 112. These officials were to receive a grant of £50 a year. The new system is briefly discussed by Cam, Hundred and the Hundred Rolls, 202. The scheme is discussed by Maddicott, ‘Edward I and the lessons of Baronial Reform’ , 21-3. 50 E 372/124, mm.23-7; SC 1/10/157. 51 Ann. Winton, 120. 52 Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, ii, 708-9; McFarlane, Nobility o f Later Medieval England, 257-8; C C R 1272-9, 3 4 7 -9 .

104

EDWARD I

the king’s brother Edm und, and died childless, a fact w hich disqual­ ified Edm und from inheriting her estates. V arious claims to her sub­ stantial lands were put forward, m ostly from descendants o f W illiam le G ros, earl o f A um ale, w ho had died in 1 1 79. T h e successful claim ant was one John de Eshton, who claim ed descent from a daughter of W illia m ’s called A vice. His argum ents were fiercely contested, with assertions that A vice had never existed, or alternatively, that she had been illegitim ate, and born o f a nun. It is most unlikely that there was real substance to E shton’s claim , yet his was the one which succeeded. He was paid £ 100 by the crown to cover his expenses, and in 1278, soon after the conclusion o f the proceedings, he handed over all his rights to the A um ale inheritance to the king, receiving land w orth £100 a year in exchange. T h e whole affair reeks with suspicion, and it seems most likely that there was collusion between the crown and John de Eshton from a very early stage in the proceedings. £100 a year was a rem arkably small price to pay for a great inheritance, which included H olderness, Skipton and C ockerm ou th .53 Th ere were other land deals in E d w ard ’s early years on the throne which form part o f the same policy o f trying to extend the territorial strength o f the crown. Even before he had returned to England, an agreem ent was reached with John de Burgh w hereby John effectively m ade the king his heir, receiving in exchange the custody o f the T ow er o f London and Colchester castle. Th ere followed com plications when de Burgh sold the manors o f Banstead in Surrey and Saham in C am bridgeshire w ithout royal permission. T h e purchaser o f Banstead, W illiam de A ppletreefield, was bought out of his rights by the king in 1275 for 200 marks, and although de B u rg h ’s son was allowed to inherit some o f his father’s estates, the crown clearly benefited from a com plex affair, as also did Robert B urnell.54 Q ueen Eleanor, as well as E dw ard, was hungry for land. In about 1278 she acquired Leeds castle in K en t from W illiam Leyburn, whose father had obtained it ten years pre­ viously. W illiam was heavily in debt to a Jew ish m oneylender, and when the debt was acquired by the queen, she took Leeds in paym ent, handing over 500 marks as com pensation to its former ow ner.55 T h e reasons for E d w ard ’s desire to acquire more lands for the crown were not set out in any contem porary texts. It has been suggested that his acquisitions in the 1270s ‘were alm ost certainly prom pted by the

53 McFarlane, op. cit., 256-7; Early Yorkshire Charters, vii, ed. C .T . Clay (Yorks Arch. Soc., 1947), 23-7, 228. The Lucy family maintained their claim to Skipton: see Rot. P a r i, i, 170, 191; Select Cases in the Court o f King's Bench, Edward I, ed. G .O . Sayles, iii (Selden Soc., 1939), 191-2. 54 Liber de Antiquis Legibus, 163; C F R 1272-1907, 7, 18, 36, 41, 46; C P R 1272-81, 41. 55 K W . ii. 695; C C R 1272-9, 221, 499; C P R 1272-81, 335.

C O R O N A T I O N AND CO N S O L I D A T I O N

IO 5

prospective needs o f his then rapidly grow ing fam ily’ .56 H e had in fact only one son living at this time, Alphonso, born in 1273, and there was certainly no im m ediate pressure on E dw ard to build up his territorial position for fam ily reasons. G reed, rather than statesm anship, appears to be the most plausible explanation. Edw ard was reluctant to grant out his new acquisitions o f land, so it was not in order to increase royal patronage that he took the steps he did. It is possible that he quite sim ply w anted to increase the w ealth and power o f the crown, and there was no realization on his part as to how lim ited a contribution the royal estates actually m ade to governm ent finances. T h e m ethods he used did him little credit: he was devious and grasping. In the early months o f 1276 Edw ard must have felt that m atters were going his way. A nother o f his concerns at W inchester at that time was the case o f the rebellious Gascon, G aston de Bearn, who was brought before the king by Roger Clifford, and placed in com fortable captivity prior to his appearance in parliam ent at W estm inster. Eleanor de Montfort, the intended bride o f Prince Llywelyn o f W ales, was captured at sea along with her brother A m a u ry .57 Little is known o f the events of the parliam ent held at W estm inster in M ay. A chronicle tradition erroneously had it that a tax o f a fifteenth was granted, but this perhaps derived from a confused report o f the discussions about the assessment and collection o f the tax conceded in the previous year. G aston de B éarn’s case was considered, and there was doubtless m uch legal business to be attended to. T h e king extended his peace to all those who had fought against him in the civil wars o f his father’s reign, and ordered the m aintenance o f M agn a C arta and the C h arter o f the Forest. O nce again, L lyw elyn refused to attend.58 In mid-June E dw ard attended a grand cerem ony at Chichester, where the remains o f St R ichard, who had died in 1253, were translated to a new shrine. T h e king’s travels that sum mer extended from C an ter­ bury in the east to Bristol and W orcester in the west. B y O ctob er he was back at W estm inster for yet another parliam ent. T h ere were con­ tinuing problems over the fifteenth granted in the previous year, and in N ovem ber Ralph de Sandw ich and Thom as de N orm anville were appointed to hear com plaints about the assessment and collection o f it. A statute known as De Bigamis was draw n up. It took its title from a clause which put into effect a decision o f the Council o f Lyon concerning men who m arried twice. T h e statute also dealt with more im portant 56 McFarlane, N o b ility o f later M e d ie v a l E n g la n d , 264. 57 A n n . W inton, 120-1. For Gaston de Béarn, see below, 300-301, and for Eleanor de Montfort, see below, 175. 58 Cotton, 154; F lo r e s , iii, 47; A n n . Worcester, 469.

io6

EDWARD I

questions regarding the land law .59 A gain there was the problem o f L lyw elyn o f W ales’ continued refusal to attend. O n 17 N ovem ber it was announced, in most formal fashion, that the king’s tenantsin-chief were to appear, with all the m ilitary service that they owed, at W orcester, m ustering at M idsum m er 1277. From this time on, it was to be the com ing w ar with the W elsh that was to dom inate the govern­ m ent’s activities, and, no doubt, the king’s thoughts. T h e initial years o f E d w ard ’s rule in England had gone smoothly. T h e fact that he had been absent from the realm since 1270 m ay have been an advantage for him, m aking the transition from heir to the throne into king relatively easy. His subjects had perhaps forgotten his faults when he returned a hero from the crusade, and E dw ard was in a splendid position to make a fresh start. Such problem s as his dispute with the earl o f G loucester, w hich had been so threatening in the late 1260s, could be easily forgotten. A great deal was achieved by Edw ard in a short time. Th is was partly thanks to the very com petent w ay in which the country had been run during his absence, but the new vigour with which the problem s o f governm ent were approached from 1274 to 1276 dem onstrates the galvanizing effect o f his return. Long-running disputes, notably that with Flanders, were swiftly resolved. M uch was done to place the coun try’s finances on a sound footing, with the grant o f custom s duties and negotiation o f a tax o f a fifteenth. T h e Italian com pany o f the R iccardi provided royal finance with a flexibility that was badly needed. T h e m assive inquiry that produced the H undred Rolls m ay not have yielded the definitive inform ation about the alien­ ation o f royal rights that the king w anted, but it did provide a great deal o f valuable evidence, as well as dem onstrating the fact that E dw ard had not discarded the reform ing principles which had inspired him for a time as a young man. T h e prom ulgation o f the first statute o f W estm inster showed that the new governm ent was com m itted to a continuing process o f reform. O f course, not all the initiatives taken in this period had quite the results intended. M an y new ideas were considered and tried, and some were discarded. E d w ard ’s territorial acquisitiveness was prom pted to a considerable extent, it seems likely, by a desire to provide the crown with a sounder financial basis: the reorganization o f the m anagem ent of the royal demesnes under the three stewards is strongly suggestive. Y et if an increase in revenue was hoped for, the king must have been sadly disappointed, and the policy was fairly quickly abandoned. These were successful years, however. T h ere must have been fears that the old rivalries o f the civil w ar period would recur, particularly since Simon de 59

Chron. B ury S t E d m u n d s,

12 7 2 -8 1,

183.

62;

A n n . W orcester ,

471;

Statutes o f the R e a lm ,

i, 42-3;

CPR

C O R ON A T I O N AND CONS O L I D A T I ON

IO7

M ontfort’s sons were actively intriguing with the W elsh prince L lyw elyn, but they found no support in E ngland.60 W ith his frequent parliam ents, Edw ard had succeeded in w inning the co-operation o f his subjects in a most im pressive fashion. 60 Fears of a recurrence of the troubles of the 1260s lingered surprisingly long: C W R , 218, shows that as late as 1282 there were fears that the king’s enemies might once again seize the Isle of Ely, taking advantage of his absence on campaign in Wales.

C h ap ter 5

THE KING AND HIS FAMILY

In his old age Jean de Joinville wrote a m em oir o f his master, Louis I X o f France, which in its anecdotal style gives a splendid picture o f a king m uch adm ired by E dw ard I. It is very unfortunate that J e a n ’s brother Geoffrey, who served Edw ard long and loyally, did not feel inspired to follow his brother’s exam ple. T h ere is no really personal account o f Edw ard I. A stern, perhaps a rather distant figure, he com m anded m uch adm iration, but not the affection or concern w hich m ight have led someone to w rite about him in intim ate terms. T h e descriptions provided by the D om inican friar, Thom as T rivet, and by John o f London, are too conventional in their eulogistic phraseology to be very helpful: the latter’s w ork is little more than a m odification o f Peter of B lois’s account o f H enry I I . R oyal household accounts, however, do provide evidence o f the king’s tastes and habits, and a few letters help to illum inate his personality. E dw ard was an im pressive man in physical terms. He stood head and shoulders above ordinary men. L ong arms gave him an advantage as a swordsm an, long thighs one as a horsem an. In youth his curly hair was blond; in m aturity it darkened, and in old age it turned white. T h e regularity o f his features was m arred by a drooping left eyelid, an inheritance from his father. His speech, despite a lisp, was said to be persuasive, though few remarks by him were recorded. Even in old age E dw ard retained his physical presence: he did not develop a stoop, and his eyesight rem ained keen. H e could still readily m ount a horse. Such a m an did not need to em phasize his royal status by means o f ostenta­ tious dress: he apparently eschewed luxurious purple, or lavishly dyed cloth, in favour o f ordinary clothes. Entries in the household accounts such as that recording the m anufacture o f saddles decorated with gold, silver and pearls are rare, and there was certainly none o f the extrava­ gant display which E dw ard I I I was greatly to en joy.1 E dw ard I has to be set in the context o f the chivalric society o f his 1 Nicholai Triveti Annales, 281-3; Rishanger, 76-7; ‘Commendatio Lamentabilis in Transitu Magni Regis Edwardi’, in Chronicles o f the Reigns o f Edward I and Edward //, ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls ser., 1882-3), ii> 4-6; Records o f the Wardrobe and Household 1285-1286 , 44 -

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

IOg

day. T h e ideals o f that society were those o f honour, largesse, loyalty and courage. A late-thirteenth-century rom ance explained that ‘a knight must be hardy, courageous, generous, loyal, and o f fair speech; ferocious to his foe, frank and debonair to his friend’ .2 C h ivalric culture was a com plex blend o f different traditions, C hristian, G erm anic and C eltic, incapable o f simple analysis, and often representing an ideal towards which men m ight strive, rather than reflecting the reality o f their conduct. As a young man Edw ard threw him self into the chivalric world with enthusiasm , taking part in m any tournam ents, and with his crusade participating in the greatest chivalric adventure o f all. H onour was certainly im portant to him. In the most critical year o f the reign, 1297, he stressed that in undertaking an expedition to Flanders he was acting Tor the honour and comm on profit o f his realm ’ . H e feared dishonour if he failed to keep the terms o f the treaty he had m ade with the G erm an king: ‘in this affair our honour or our dishonour is at stake, as is that o f all who love u s.’3 O f course, E d w ard ’s enemies and opponents did not consider him to be an honourable man. T h ere were his changes o f side in the 1260s, and in the last years o f his reign there were well-justified suspicions that he had little intention o f keeping the promises he m ade in the resolution o f the crisis o f 1297. H istorians have, equally understandably, criticized some o f his actions during the Scottish wars. T h e im prisonm ent o f the countess o f B uchan and M ary Bruce in apparently inhum an conditions, caged at B erw ick and R oxburgh, m ay not appear the action o f an honourable man, but E d w ard ’s own subjects apparently did not condem n him for it, and it would be quite wrong to assume that honour was not a virtue which Edw ard valued.4 C ourage was most certainly displayed by Edw ard on m any occa­ sions, though sometimes it m ight be interpreted as foolhardiness. He showed his bravery in the tournam ent at C halons on his w ay home from crusade. In Flanders in 1297, although there was no fighting with the French, E dw ard courageously rode full tilt at a chain w hich his ostensible allies, the Flem ings, had stretched across a street in G hent. A t the siege o f Stirling, in 1304, he rode close in to the walls o f the castle, inspiring his troops, but also exposing him self to enem y fire. H e was neither hurt nor panicked when a crossbow bolt lodged in his saddle, or when his horse was felled when a stone from a siege engine landed ju st by it.5 In most o f his cam paigning E dw ard was not involved in direct 2 Cited by M.H. Keen, Chivalry (New Haven and London, 1984), 80. 3 Documents illustrating the Crisis o f 1297-8 in England ed. M.C. Prestwich (Camden Soc., 4th ser., xxiv, 1980), 125, 163. 4 Above, 27-37, below, 508-9, 517-18. 5 Chron. Bury St Edmunds, 146-7; Flores, iii, 317-18.

I IO

EDWARD I

com bat with his enemies, but that was m ore through their choice than his. T h e strange story o f his cow ardice at K enilw orth in 1265 is one w hich can safely be discarded: Edw ard w as certainly a m an o f courage.6 Largesse, or generosity, was a dangerous virtue for a king to possess in too great a measure. H ousehold accounts provide attractive exam ples o f E d w ard ’s generosity in small m atters. T h ere w as the poor English scholar in G ascony, singing in a church, and given a pound, the little W elsh boy given 2 id to buy him self a coat, or the poverty-stricken W elshm an who showed the king the w ay back to his lodging, and earned a shilling.7 O n a larger scale, E d w ard ’s patronage was lim ited. T h e chronicler Langtoft was in no doubt that the king’s largesse was inadequate. T h e problem s he had in putting down rebellion in W ales, the absence o f earls on the cam paign in Flanders in 1297, the difficulties faced in Scotland: these were all attributed by Langtoft to E d w ard ’s lack o f generosity towards the earls and other great m en.8 O f course, E dw ard did not attem pt to try to rule England w ithout exercising patronage, and the historian can point to such acts as the effective reconstruction o f the W elsh M arches by means o f m ajor grants to m agnates at the time o f the second W elsh w ar.9 Y e t it m ay be that E dw ard had a certain distaste for the business o f patronage. In the case o f one chancery clerk in search o f a benefice, instructions w ent out that he was to be given w hat he w anted, but that the king was not to be approached any more on the m atter.10 L o yalty is not an easy q uality to assess in the case o f a king: Edw ard expected his subjects to be loyal to him, rather than the other w ay round. Y e t he was consistently loyal to his close circle o f friends, with few exceptions. H e backed his chancellor, Robert B urnell, and w as not m oved by argum ents that his personal acquisitiveness and dubious m orals m ade him unsuitable for high church office. In the later years o f the reign he lent equally full support to W alter Langton, the treasurer, in face o f extrem ely unsavoury rum ours. It is no surprise that Edw ard gave, and received, full loyalty from the Savoyard knight O tto de G randson, a m an o f im peccable character. A nother Savoyard, Jean de G railly, did earn the king’s displeasure, but there were good reasons, it seems, for this. T h e same was true o f A nth ony Bek, bishop o f D urham , 6 Above, 50. 7 Records o f the Wardrobe and Household 1286-1289 , ed. B.F. and C.R. Byerley (1986), 90; A.J. Taylor, ‘Royal Alms and Oblations in the Later Thirteenth Century’, Tribute to an Antiquary: essays presented to Marc Fitch , ed. F.G. Emmison and R. Stephens (1976), 124. 8 Langtoft, ii, 216, 296, 326, 328. 9 Below, 204-5. 10

3

C C R I 02~ h

352 -

T H E K I N G A N D HIS F A M I L Y

III

a friend and com panion o flo n g standing, but whose direct challenge to royal authority, in the course o f his dispute with D urham C ath ed ral Priory in the last years o f the reign, was more than loyalty could take.11 Edw ard had a violent tem per, ju st as m any o f his A ngevin ancestors had. T rivet told a story o f his anger when one o f his hunting com ­ panions failed to control a falcon properly: the king forced his horse rashly across the river, and chased the man with draw n sword, but checked him self when he hum bly subm itted. O n the occasion o f his daughter M a rg a ret’s w edding he assaulted a squire with a stick, for no known reason, and later paid him the considerable sum o f £13 6s 8d in com pensation. A well-known entry in an account book records thé cost o f repairing his daughter E lizab eth ’s coronet in 1297, after E dw ard had hurled it into the fire. T rivet has a story o f how in the same year the king was alm ost thrown from his horse at W inchelsea, when the noise o f a windm ill m ade the anim al bolt. T h is alm ost certainly explains w hy he sold a horse to Robert de Bures for 50 marks, buying one in exchange valued at 100 marks: surely a transaction decided in a fit o f tem per.12 T h e accounts provide some glim pses o f a pleasanter side to E d w ard ’s character. T h e instance o f the king being caught in bed on Easter M onday by the queen’s ladies-in-w aiting, and o f his paying a ransom to them, testifies to a jocularity in court life. This is also reflected by the bet w hich E dw ard had with his laundress, M atild a de W altham , in w hich she won a w arhorse, subsequently bought back by the k in g .13 Th ere are indications o f his personal tastes. A letter reported his enjoym ent o f some w halem eat sent to him, and there are several references to the goats and cows kept specifically to provide him w ith dairy products in the later years o f the reign. A n inventory o f spices includes a mention o f a large box o f Indian preserved ginger kept for the king’s own use. References to fruit - apples, pears, pom egranates, figs, raisins and such like - bought by the royal fruiterer, N icholas o f G otham , probably reflect E d w ard ’s personal likes.14 T riv e t’s description o f E dw ard suggests that he was a man o f un­ sophisticated p ie ty .15 A lucky escape when a stone fell from the vaulted 11 Below, 234, 305, 541-6, 549-50. 12 Nicholai Triveti Annales, 281-3, 359; C 47/4/5, f.47v.; BL Add. MS 7965, ff.i5v, 18. It has been suggested by Adelaide Bennet, ‘The Windmill Psalter: the historiated letter E of Psalm On C , Journal o f the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xliii (1980), 65, that this illustration may refer to this incident, but this is unlikely. 13 C 47/4/1, f.27v; Records o f Wardrobe and Household 1286-g , 108; C 47/4/5, f.47v. 14 Documents i2 g j- 8 , 64; BL Add. MS 7965, f. i6v, Liber Quotidianus, 57, 81; BL Add. MS 8835, ff.7, 8, i8v; E 101/356/21; Records o f Wardrobe and Household 1285-6 , xxxiv. 15 The question of Edward’s piety is discussed more fully in my ‘The Piety of Edward T, England in the Thirteenth Century, ed. W.M. Ormrod (Harlaxton, 1985), 120-8. For what follows see also Taylor, ‘Royal Alms and Oblations’, and the almonry account in Liber Quotidianus, 16—47.

I 12

EDWARD I

ceiling on to the seat from w hich he had ju st m oved, when playing chess, was attributed by the king to the intervention o f the V irgin M ary and her shrine at W alsingham . T h e account o f his refusal to enter the gates o f O xford, for fear o f incurring the w rath o f St Fridesw ide, implies a degree o f credulity, and the only occasion when he displayed scepti­ cism was when a man appeared claiming to have been cured o f blindness by H enry I I I . A rchbishop Pecham on one occasion suggested that E d w ard ’s declarations o f allegiance to G od and the church were not adequately m atched by his actions, but there is no suggestion that he was anything other than conventionally religious in his attitudes. T h e accounts o f the king’s alm oners cast some light on E d w ard ’s religious practices, although they cannot reveal his inner thoughts. T h e first part o f such accounts deals with the regular paym ents m ade for the feeding o f paupers. Th is was a well-established custom o f the English m onarchy, but it is striking that the numbers rose from ju st over 200 paupers a week early in the reign to 666 a week by 1299. H enry I I I had, it is true, claim ed that it was his custom to feed 500 daily, but this cannot be tested by docum entary evidence. T h e figures for Edw ard I ’s reign suggest a m arked increase in royal generosity. In addition to these regular allocations, there were special provisions m ade in honour o f individual saints days and festivals. A gain, the num bers rose m arkedly, from some 11,090 men receiving alms on church festivals in 1283-4 to 75,000 in 1296-7. In the week w hich began on C hristm as D ay 1299, no less than 4,000 paupers were provided for. T h ere were surprising changes in the popularity o f individual saints, w hich m ay well reflect E d w ard ’s own changing views. In 1283-4 C hristm as D ay and St E d w ard ’s day were the most favoured festivals, but by 1300 as m uch was made o f the various feasts o f the V irgin as o f C hristm as. In addition, a very large distribution o f alms took place on the birthday o f the king’s eldest son. A n interesting indication o f E d w ard ’s own religious practices is provided by the grants o f alms m ade when he failed to attend chapel in the m orning. T h is was so unusual in 1289 that it prom pted the largest single distribution o f alms in the account, but as the king aged, so he found attendance more difficult, and in 1305-6 he did not go to chapel on at least tw enty-tw o days. T h e alm onry accounts reveal m uch more than the paym ents to paupers. O blations m ade by the king and his fam ily reveal a special concern for the cult o f Thom as Becket: in 1285 E dw ard m ade not only the custom ary offerings at C an terbu ry, but also presented four elabo­ rate statuettes in gold set with jew els, at a cost o f £347. Substantial offerings were m ade at B ecket’s shrine in 1297 and 1300. O n the latter occasion gold florins were placed on the altar, in the nam e o f ‘the foetus then existing in the queen’s b elly’ . Paym ents to friars occur with great regularity, though E dw ard showed no particular preference for any one

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

"3

order, unlike Q ueen Eleanor, a noted patron o f the D om inicans. T h e accounts suggest that E dw ard was not nationalistic in his devotional habits. H e had a chapel built in honour o f St Louis in 1301, and in 1305-6 he sent clerks to m ake offerings at the shrines o f St Denis in Paris, the T h ree K in gs at C ologne, and the pilgrim age shrine at Santiago de C om postella. T h e accounts also record m inor acts o f kindness, such as the grant o f 12s to a m an whose horse was blown off the bridge over the M ed w ay at Rochester, paym ents to Englishm en im prisoned in France, and contributions towards the m edical expenses o f m embers o f the royal household w ounded in the wars. T h ere is m uch evidence o f E d w ard ’s practice o f touching for the king’s evil. T h is reputed pow er to heal victim s o f scrofula was enjoyed only by the kings o f England and France, and there is no solid docum entary evidence o f it until the reigns o f E dw ard I and Philip I V : it has been plausibly argued that it was only established on a regular basis in France after St L o u is’s return from crusade in 1254, and that H enry I I I then copied him. T h e practice was w ell-established by the start o f E dw ard I ’s reign, for the earliest details, dating from 1276-7, show that at least 627 invalids were touched, or blessed, by the king. T h e numbers rose to 1,736 in 1289-90 - inflated because E dw ard had been out o f the realm since 1286 - stood at alm ost 1,000 in 1299-1300, and went as high as 2,000 in 1305-6. T h e figures for later reigns are unfortunately not as good, but E dw ard I p robably touched the sick on a greater scale than any other English m onarch, showing a rem arkable devotion to w hat cannot have been a particularly pleasant task.16 It was characteristic o f Edw ard that the abbey he founded at V a le R oyal in C heshire should have had the largest church o f any C istercian house in England. It is also characteristic o f the am biguities in his career that he should have suddenly and inexplicably dissociated him ­ self from the project, leaving the abbey in a sadly incom plete state. Edw ard showed no great haste to fulfil the vow to found a m onastery, which he m ade in 1262 or 1263. T h e first foundation charter was issued in 1270, significantly when E dw ard was preparing for his crusade. Four years later monks from D ore were recruited for the new house, w hich was initially planned to be at D arnhall. Dore was selected as some o f the brethren had shown kindness to Edw ard during his captivity after the battle o f Lewes. It was in A ugu st 1277 that the grand foundation cerem ony took place at V a le R oyal, attended by four earls and other m agnates. T h is was in part a propaganda move, intended to boost 1 For this question of the king’s curative powers, see M. Bloch, Les Rois Thaumaturges (Paris, 1924), and the recent discussion by F. Barlow, ‘The King’s Evil’, E H R , xcv (1980), 3-27. I have given fuller figures than those provided by Bloch in my ‘The Piety of Edward I’, 125.

I

14

EDWARD I

m orale for the com ing fighting against the W elsh. It was initially intended to pay for the building works out o f the revenues o f Cheshire, but this proved im practicable. In 1283 the substantial sum o f £1,000 a year was allocated to the abbey, but inevitably paym ent was not made in full, and although later tradition had it that Edw ard paid no less than £32,000 towards the building costs, he in fact paid out less than a third o f that su m .17 In 1290 it was announced that ‘the king has ceased to concern him self with the works o f that church, and henceforth will have nothing m ore to do with them ’ . O n e possibility is that financial peculation had been discovered; another that the death o f Q ueen Eleanor caused the king’s change o f heart. B y the late 1290s there were signs o f a very lim ited return to favour for the abbey: a grant o f one tun o f wine a year had not been im plem ented between 1291 and 1297, but in 1298 orders went out for the arrears to be m ade up. U nfortunately for the monks, E dw ard had not endowed the house generously with lands, and its revenues were never adequate for its needs. T h e building works were never finished, and in 1360 m uch o f the church was blown down in a g a le .18 E d w ard ’s piety was not such as to m ake him subservient to the church and the clergy. T h e reverse was the case: his faith gave him a conviction that he was right, and provided him w ith the confidence to challenge prelates such as A rchbishop W inchelsey. T h ere are no in­ dications that he took any interest in doctrinal m atters, or that he was m uch concerned w ith the spiritual qualities o f the clergy. Edw ard was not pious in the w ay that his father H enry I I I had been, and there was not the solid religious conviction behind his kingship that can be sensed in the case o f H enry V . Y e t he wore a piece o f the H oly Cross round his neck when going into battle, and although he had no reform ing zeal, there was never any question o f his being thought to be irreligious, as W illiam Rufus had been considered to b e .19 T h e chronicle descriptions o f E dw ard suggest chess-playing and hunting as his leisure pursuits. H ousehold accounts confirm that he played chess, for there are records o f his financial losses at the gam e in 1278, and o f the gift o f a board to him. T h e losses do not occur in later accounts - perhaps his gam e im proved, or possibly no one dared to beat him - but his continued interest is shown by an inventory o f his possessions from 1300, w hich includes one ebony chess set, and one o f 17 The Ledger Book o f Vale Royal Abbey, ed. J. Brownbill (Lancashire and Cheshire Record Soc., lxviii, 1914), vii-viii, 2-5; K W , i, 248-53; Victoria County History, A History o f the County o f Cheshire, ed. B.E. Harris, iii (1980), 156-9. 18 K W , i, 252, 256; C C R 1296-1302 , 180. 19 The relic of the Holy Cross was acquired in the Holy Land by Edward, who later presented it to Vale Royal Abbey: Ledger Book o f Vale Royal Abbey, 161-2.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

” 5

crystal and jasper. H is second queen, M argaret o f France, had two splendid sets worth £40 each. E dw ard does not, how ever, have a m ajor place in the history o f chess, unlike his brother-in-law A lphonso o f Castile, w ho com m issioned an im portant m anual about the gam e. Edw ard also played at ‘tables’ , some kind o f board gam e, and at dice, but there is no evidence that he gam bled on any scale.20 T rivet claim ed that stag-hunting was E d w ard ’s favourite sport, and that he preferred to go for the kill w ith his sword rather than relying on a hunting spear.21 T h e docum ents, however, suggest that the king’s real love was falconry. H e once explained in a letter to C harles o f Salerno that he had no expertise as far as greyhounds were concerned, but there is a considerable am ount o f surviving correspondence dealing with falcons and h aw ks.22 T h ere w as a large establishm ent to look after the royal birds, o f w hich the most prized were the gerfalcons. A splen­ did mews was built at C h arin g Cross, featuring a garden w ith a lead bath for the birds, supplied w ith running w ater from a grand fountain with four outlet spouts shaped like leopard’s heads, and a statuette o f a falcon in the m iddle.23 O th er birds w ere kept in a mews at Bicknor in K en t, the home o f the ch ief falconer Joh n de Bicknor, w hile yet more were placed in the charge o f men w ho held their land by the service o f looking after royal falcons. T h e birds were clearly pam pered: as a rule, one falconer or ‘ostringer’ (the latter for the hawks) w as in charge o f a single bird. T h ere are, however, no orders from E dw ard I sim ilar to that from K in g John, w ho com m anded that his favourite gerfalcon, G ibbon, should have plum p goats and good hens to eat, w ith hare once a w eek.24 Some o f E d w ard ’s falcons and hawks were given to him as presents. V a lu ab le gerfalcons w ere sent by the king o f N orw ay in the earlier part o f the reign, while the last account book, for 1305-6, shows that A ym er de V alen ce, W illiam de Braose, H ugh de St Philibert, Joh n o f Berw ick, and the prince o f W ales all gave birds to the king. T h e nam es o f certain birds suggest that they were presents: C lynton , Strathbogie, Droxford and d ’Engayne. O thers had names such as Skardebek, Parson, D urham and Blanchepoune. Some birds were bought: accounts for 20 C 47/4/1, ff.7, 8, 9, 16; Liber Quotidianus, 323, 350-1; BL Add. MS 7966a, attached schedule; D. Hooper and K. Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (Oxford, 1984), 9. 21 Nicholai Triveti Annales, 282. Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, ii, 689, has it that Edward ‘made no use of the trap of buckstall as a hunter’, but this is based on a mistranslation of the Latin venabulum, a hunting spear. I am grateful to Professor E.L.G. Stones for pointing this out to me. 22 Foedera, I. ii, 568. 23 K W . i, 559-61. 24 Documents i2gy-8, 52, 55; A.L. Poole, Obligations o f Society in the X I I and X I I I Centuries (Oxford, 1946), 68; Records o f Wardrobe and Household , ed. Byerley, xxxix.

116

EDWARD I

I3°3~4 show that a goshaw k and two gerfalcons were purchased, the latter from two B altic traders.25 A letter from the king to his falconer Robert Bavent, w ritten near the end o f the reign, is illum inating: You ask our wishes about the gerfalcon which Sir Philip Kyme wants to give us. We are sending you the letter which we have written to Philip, thanking him for the gerfalcon, and asking if he would present it to us. So, we order you to exercise it with a lure when you receive it on our behalf, and train it for taking herons and cranes, as we have ordered you to do with the other gerfalcons in your keeping. We are sending our huntsman Perkin to help you. And as for buying goshawks or gerfalcons for our use at Boston, which you ask about, you must know that we do not want you to take any of them, unless they are well tried, and the best and most beautiful of any. And if by chance you do find one or two such gerfalcons, tried and better and more beautiful than any others, take them for our use, and let us know quickly what they are, and how expensive, so that we can let you know about it.26 In another letter, Edw ard told B avent that he had sufficient gerfal­ cons and falcons, but that he could purchase a goshaw k, even if it had broken feathers, provided that it was extrem ely large and pow erful.27 A s in most things, E dw ard w anted the biggest and best for himself, but his criteria was not, it seems, the sophisticated ones advocated by the em peror Frederick I I , w ho in his book on falconry set out in great detail the precise colouration and build to look for in a bird. A nother of E d w ard ’s letters to B avent asked him to train a ‘lanner’ falcon (a M editerranean species) to fly after heron with two other birds, as the king had been advised that this was a good method. T h is was a technique that Frederick 11 had em phatically not approved in the case o f heron, though he considered it satisfactory for cranes. T h e use o f the noise o f drum s to put up w aterfow l was advocated by Frederick, and was certainly em ployed by E dw ard and his falconers.28 W here E dw ard differed most from the em peror, w ho had alw ays advocated scientific techniques, was in the means em ployed to cure his birds when they were ill. O n one occasion he had a w ax im age m ade o f an ailing falcon, w hich was then presented before the altar o f Th om as Becket at 25 BL Add. MS 8835, f.69; E 101/369/11. f. 157 fT. This account book contains falconry and hunting accounts from 1298 to 1306. 26 ‘Lettres du roi Edouard I à Robert de Bavent, King’s Yeoman, sur des questions de venerie’, ed. F.J. Tanquerey, Bull. John Rylands Library, xxiii (1939), 491-2. 27 Ibid., 499. 28 Ibid., 493, 497; BL Add. MS 8835, f.69; The Art o f Falconry, being the De Arte Venandi cum Avibus o f Frederick 11 o f Hohenstaufen, ed. C.A. Wood and F.M. Fyfe (Stanford, 1943), 298, 342. Arabic manuals provide even more detailed accounts of how to judge birds: see Moamin et G hatif traites defauconnerie et de chiens de chasse, ed. H. Tjerneld (Stockholm, I945)> 103-4, 106-8.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

H ?

C an terbury, in the hope o f obtaining a cure. A nother curious custom was that o f bending pennies over the head o f the sick bird; these were then sent as offerings to various shrines.29 T h ere is little justification for arguing that E dw ard I should have a place alongside Frederick I I in the history o f falconry. In com parison to the em peror, E dw ard was little more than an enthusiastic am ateu r.30 T h e w ardrobe accounts do not reveal m uch about the king’s personal hunting exploits, for by their very nature they provide details about the activities o f the royal huntsmen when they were aw ay from court, not when they were present. T h is is ju st as true o f stag and fox hunting as it is o f falconry. O n ly a m ention o f the purchase o f bows and arrows for the king’s use suggests that he did not alw ays choose to bring down gam e at close quarters, as T rivet suggested.31 H unting w ith hounds was more utilitarian than falconry, for the king’s huntsm en m ade an appreciable contribution towards providing the household with food. In 1304, for exam ple, one huntsm an, John o f Fulham , took eighty deer in Burstw ick, w hich were then salted down to aw ait the king’s return from Scotland, and the sheriff o f Lincolnshire had to arrange for twenty-four stags, or more p robably the venison from them, to be taken to Boston and then shipped to Berw ick for the king’s tab le.32 T h ere are no letters to the keepers o f the king’s hounds w hich can be com pared with those to Thom as Bavent, and it is reasonable to conclude that while Edw ard must have enjoyed the exhilaration o f the chase, he obtained the most pleasure from falconry. Edw ard was, inevitably for a m an in his position, a patron o f m in­ strels and heralds, the m ain publicists o f chivalric culture. In the mid 1280s he em ployed one K in g H erald, four minstrels and two trum ­ peters, and by the end o f the decade there were ten such men in his household. A t Christm as 1288 no fewer than 125 minstrels performed for E dw ard.33 A ccounts show that minstrels attached to various noble households sometimes played before the king, and that there were also entertainm ents presented by tum blers and acrobats, such as the aptly nam ed M atild a M akejoy. T h e greatest occasion was when the king’s eldest son was knighted, and hundreds o f minstrels attended, in 1306. Y e t the scale o f E d w ard ’s em ploym ent o f these professional enter­ tainers should not be exaggerated. T h e account book for 1299—1300 has scant reference to minstrels, m erely m entioning paym ent to one retained by the queen, and to two who performed before Prince 29 A.J. Taylor, ‘Edward I and the Shrine of St Thomas of Odinitrbury\Journal o f the cxxxii (1979), 26; BL Add. MS 7965, f. 115V. 30 The comparison is suggested by Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, ii, 687m 31 E 101/351/30. 30 April; above, 115. 32 BL Add. MS 8835, ff.69v, 70. 33 Records o f Wardrobe and Household 1285-6 , 167; ibid. 1286-9, 85; E 101/352/24.

British Archaeological Association,

118

EDWARD I

E d w ard .34 E dw ard obviously found some solace in m usic, for when he underw ent a blood-letting operation in 1297, a harpist was em ployed to take his mind off the p ain .35 T h ere is no evidence, however, to suggest that there was anything out o f the ordinary in his tastes in entertain­ ment. T o ju d g e by the scanty surviving evidence, E dw ard did not have a great enthusiasm for literature. W hen he was in Sicily, Rustichello o f Pisa borrowed a book or books o f A rthurian rom ance from him, and this served as the basis for R ustichello’s Meliadus. T h e epilogue suggests that the work was written at E d w ard ’s express com m and, but there is no other evidence o f his exercise o f literary patronage. B y 1300, the only work o f rom ance listed by the clerks o f the w ardrobe as belonging to the king was one with the opening line Cristiens se voet entremettre.36 In one letter E dw ard em ployed a literary quotation: it occurs when a coarse proverb about canine excrem ent was changed to ‘Q u an t la guerre fu finee, si trest A udegier sespee’ (O nce the w ar was over, A udegier drew his sword), a reference to the archetypal cow ardly knight o f thirteenth-century French literature.37 It could even be that this was the work o f a clerk, bow dlerizing the king’s initial words. Edw ard was no great patron o f intellectual learning. In 1277 he did pay £1 to a poor scholar, who was o ff to study in Paris, and he paid for the nephews o f one o f his G ascon officials, Stephen Lafitte, to study at O xford, along with one o f their com patriots, Jean de Bernadon. Such instances are rare, however, and certainly should not be read as im ­ plying any notable enthusiasm on the kin g’s part for the prom otion o f scholarly education.38 E d w ard ’s architectural and artistic patronage w as more noteworthy than his literary, though unfortunately there is none o f the detailed evidence o f the king’s own instructions to his builders and painters that survives for H enry I l l ’s reign. T h e most notable buildings for which E dw ard was responsible were, o f course, his m agnificent castles in W ales, w hich were in practice the achievem ent o f the Savoyard m aster m ason, Jam es o f St G eorge.39 T h e E leanor Crosses, constructed in

34 Bullock-Davies, Menestrallorum Multitudo , provides a full discussion of the minstrels at Edward’s court. For 1299-1300, see Liber Quotidianus, 162-3. 35 BL Add. MS 7965, f.54v. 36 M. Vale, Edward I I I and Chivalry (1982), 19—20. Liber Quotidianus, 349. This is identified by M.A.E. Green, Lives o f the Princesses o f England (1850), ii, 284, as a work dealing with the life of William the Conqueror. 37 P. Chaplais, ‘Some Private Letters of Edward I’, E H R , ixxvii (1962), 79-80. 38 E 101/350/24; E 101/352/21 (30 Nov.). I am grateful to Dr A.J. Taylor for drawing my attention to these references. For Stephen Lafitte’s nephews, see also C 47/4/4, ff.38, 41, 43. 39 Below, 208-9.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

"9

m emory o f E d w ard ’s first queen by masons such as R ichard o f C rundale and John o f B attle, are im portant in architectural history, as is St Stephen’s C h ap el, W estm inster, on w hich work began in 1292. E dw ard continued his father’s patronage o f the painter W alter o f D urham , and on the king’s return from G ascony in 1289 a new cham ber at W estm ins­ ter, painted green, was decorated with a C hrist in M ajesty and figures o f the four evangelists by W alter. It is highly probable that between 1292 and 1297 verY extensive additions were m ade to the pictoral schem e in the Painted C h am ber in the royal palace at W estm inster. These consisted o f a series o f paintings o f O ld Testam ent scenes, the most im portant showing the career o f Judas M accabeus. T h e cycle was a unique one, and had the cham ber not been destroyed by fire in 1834, these pictures would probably rank as one o f the most im portant o f English artistic achievem ents in the m iddle ages. T h e choice o f Judas M accabeus as a subject is very interesting, for by the late thirteenth century he was regarded as one o f the great chivalric heroes, along with such figures as K in g A rth u r and C harlem agne. T h is w as a natural choice for a w arlike king to make, though it has to be adm itted that there is little other evidence to dem onstrate E d w ard ’s interest in the book o f M accab ees.40 It is sometimes suggested that there was a clearly identifiable ‘court style’ in Edw ard I ’s day, for w hich the king him self was ultim ately responsible, and w hich had very considerable influence. T h e question is a difficult one, but the products o f E d w ard ’s patronage were not so distinct from other works, or so obviously in advance o f developm ents elsewhere, as to support such a hypothesis. Nor is there such uniform ity o f style between, for exam ple, the A lphonso psalter, m ade for E d w ard ’s eldest son, the fine effigies on the tombs o f H enry I I I and Eleanor o f Castile, the work o f the goldsm ith W illiam Torel, and the pictures in the Painted C ham ber, as w ould ju stify the concept o f a single court school. E dw ard was eclectic in his artistic tastes, but w hat can be said is that in patronizing men such as W alter o f D urham and W illiam Torel, he was em ploying artists o f the very highest calibre.41

40 K W , i, 207, 226-7, 483-5, 498-9, 505; P. Binski, The Painted Chamber at Westminster (1986), is responsible for the suggestion that much of the work in the Painted Chamber dates from the 1290s. Although the style of dress and armour shown in the pictures (of which copies were made in the early nineteenth century) is outmoded for such a date, the architectural detailing in particular fits the 1290s much better than the 1260s, the period to which they were previously assigned by historians. The subject matter, too, fits Edward I’s reign much better than Henry I l l ’s. It should be noted that some funeral orations for Edward I made use of texts from the book of Maccabees: see below, 558. M.H. Keen, Chivalry (1984), 119-21, discusses Judas Maccabeus. 41 P. Brieger, English Art 12 16 -1 jo y (Oxford, 1957), 200-26, discusses ‘the court school under Edward T, but see the wise comments of Binski, Painted Chamber, 108-11,

120

EDWARD I

E dw ard has been seen by some historians as a great enthusiast for the A rthurian past.42 His connection with R ustichello o f Pisa suggests this, and stronger evidence is provided by the events recorded when the king and queen visited G lastonbury, in the afterm ath o f the first W elsh war, in 1278. T h e tom b o f A rth u r and G uinevere, or w hat was thought to be their tomb, was opened, and two coffins found, with images o f the legendary king and queen on them. T h e remains were form ally re­ buried in front o f the great altar, in a cerem ony like that o f the translation o f a saint’s body. T h e tomb had first been ‘discovered’ in 1190, in w hat was probably an ingenious and successful attem pt to develop the lucrative pilgrim traffic to the abbey, but E dw ard was the first king to take an interest in it, though it is not clear w hat his purpose w as.43 Th ere was no overt connexion m ade between the exhum ation o f the most famous British king, and the recent cam paign in W ales, nor was the cerem ony accom panied by a tournam ent or other chivalric activity. E dw ard does not seem to have tried to develop an A rthurian cult o f kingship in the w ay that his father had developed a cult o f E dw ard the Confessor. E d w ard ’s foundation o f C aernarfon castle in 1283 certainly referred back to the m ythical past, though not to a specifically A rthurian one. There was a Welsh legend in the tales known as the Mabinogion o f M axen W ledig or M agnus M axim us, allegedly the father o f Constantine, who had a dream o f a beautiful maiden dwelling in a great castle, with multi­ coloured towers, at the m outh o f a river. His envoys found the castle, and he m arried the m aiden. E d w ard ’s castle m ade a reality o f the legend, with its dark coloured bands in the m asonry, and its polygonal towers echoing the walls o f C on stan tin e’s city o f Constantinople. E dw ard was clearly fascinated by the legendary British past, and the great castle o f C aernarfon betrays an unexpected rom antic aspect o f his character. T h e presentation to him by the W elsh o f w hat was known as A rth u r’s crown, was well calculated to appeal to him .44 In 1284 E dw ard celebrated his conquest o f W ales by holding a Round T a b le at Nefyn, in the L leyn peninsula, an act w hich has been seized on as further evidence o f his A rthurian interests. H e also held a R ound T a b le at Falkirk in Scotland in 1302. It is far from clear w hat took place at such gatherings: there is no English evidence that scenes from A rthurian romances were acted out, as was done at A cre in 1285 who points out, inter alia, that ‘we are hardly confronted by the development of a single coherent court idiom, let alone evidence for a single workshop, in this period’. 42 Notably R.S. Loomis, ‘Edward I, Arthurian Enthusiast’, Speculum, xxviii (1953), 114-27. 43 Historia de Rebus Gestis Glastoniensibus, ed. T. Hearne (1727), quoted by E.K. Chambers, Arthur o f Britain (1927), 280-1. 44 K W , i, 370; Ann. Waverley, 401.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

I2 I

under the patronage o f H enry I I o f C yprus. E d w ard ’s Round T ab les m ay have involved no more than jo ustin g with blunted w eapons, and some feasting. T h a t in 1284 certainly had som ething o f the character o f a tournam ent, with one side captained by E d w ard ’s friend the earl o f Lincoln, and the other by the earl o f U lster.45 T h e great chivalric occasion o f the knighting o f the king’s eldest son in 1306 does not appear to have had A rthurian overtones. T h e high point o f the cere­ m ony was the swearing o f oaths at a splendid banquet. T h is was done at the point w hen a m agnificent device, featuring two gilded swans, was brought in by a host o f minstrels: w hether the swans were real, or were artificial confections, is not clear. E qu ally unclear is the sym bolism involved. T h ere m ay have been a link with northern French practices: poems record vows m ade there to a peacock and to a sparrow -haw k, but the choice o f swans remains a m ystery. T h e chronicler Pierre Langtoft com m ented that no such festivities had been seen since A rth u r’s feast at Caerleon, but that does not prove any conscious im itation on E d w ard ’s part o f the legendary British ruler.46 T h e one description o f an E dw ardian feast in A rthurian terms is that given by a B rabançon chronicler o f a royal w edding, com plete with Round T a b le and acted interludes, which included the appearance o f a squire dressed as the L oathly D am zel. T h e chronicle is, unfortunately, un­ reliable in the extreme: the description o f E d w ard ’s conquest o f W ales is alm ost w holly fictional, culm inating as it does with the king’s descent into a cave containing K in g A rth u r’s bones. It cannot be taken seriously — although some historians have done so — and is best treated as evidence not o f E d w ard ’s attitudes, but o f the w ay in w hich foreigners viewed him .47 T h e A rthurian m yth was undoubtedly o f interest to E dw ard, but it was certainly not a dom inating influence. It could be o f use on occasion, as when he sent a letter to the pope in 1301 justifyin g English actions in Scotland. In the historical argum ent A rth u r featured: he had con­ quered Scotland and installed a subject king there, w ho did service at a court held at Caerleon. But this was m erely one o f a m assive list o f precedents cited by the clerks w ho drafted this letter, and it would be w rong to make too m uch o f it.48 Stories o f K in g A rthur, along with tales 45 Ann. Waverley, 402; Ann. Dunstable, 313; Flores, iii, 62; Annales Cestriensis, ed. R.C. Christie (Lancs, and Cheshire Record Soc., xiv, 1886), 114; N. Denholm-Young, ‘The Tournament in the Thirteenth Century’, Studies in Medieval History presented to F .M . Powicke, 353-5; Hill, History o f Cyprus, ii, 181. 46 Bullock-Davies, Menestrallorum Multitudo, xxvii-xxxviii; Langtoft, ii, 368. 47 Lodwijk van Velthem, Voortzetting van den Spiegel Historiael (1248-1311), ed. H. Van der Linden and W. de Vreese (Brussels, 1906), i, 295-321. See also Vale, Edward I I I and Chivalry, 14-15, 18, where this evidence is taken seriously. 48 Anglo-Scottish Relations 1174-1328, ed. E.L.G. Stones (1965), 98.

122

EDWARD I

o f other chivalric heroes such as Judas M accabeus (whose exploits were featured in the Painted C h am ber at W estm inster), were part o f the comm on currency o f the knightly culture o f the day, in which Edw ard participated eagerly. Pierre Langtoft certainly described E dw ard in strongly A rthurian terms, at one m oment claim ing that the king had united Britain more effectively than A rthur, at another com paring him very unfavourably with the legendary figure.49 W hat is m uch less clear is the extent to w hich Edw ard saw him self in A rthurian terms: it was probably no more than a conceit he toyed with occasionally. M edieval chroniclers did not have the inquisitive concern for the fam ily affairs o f the m onarchy that is a feature o f the popular press o f the present day. His fam ily, however, was o f imm ense im portance to E dw ard I. His devotion to his first queen, Eleanor o f C astile, has becom e som ething o f a legend, and the evidence suggests that his mother, Eleanor o f Provence, exercised an influence over him which should not be ignored. T h e need to provide for his m any children m eant that for a king such as Edw ard, fam ily affairs becam e a m atter o f national politics and international diplom acy. E d w ard ’s mother, Eleanor o f Provence, was a strong-m inded wom an, w ho did not believe that she should retire gracefully from public affairs on the death o f her husband.50 She was a m em ber o f a rem arkable fam ily, with widespread connexions throughout Europe: the im portant link with Savoy cam e through her, and she and her sister M argaret, w idow o f Louis I X o f France, consistently supported Savoyard interests. H er correspondence with her son shows that she felt it was her task to advise E dw ard on matters o f foreign policy, as when in the late 1270s she told him that it would dam age English interests should a planned m arriage between C harles M artel, son o f C harles o f Salerno, and d e m e n tia o f H absburg take p lace.51 E dw ard, understandably, seems not to have consulted his mother as m uch as she wished. H er letters to him were usually prefaced with a request that she should at least hear from him: ‘K n ow , dear son, that we are in good health, after our fashion, but we will be m uch better when we hear good news from y o u ’ , was how one such dem and ran. W hen she wrote to E dw ard on b eh alf o f M argaret N evill, who had not seen her son for a long time, Eleanor pointedly laid great stress on the strong desire o f any m other to see her son, and have the solace o f his com pany. She could be humorous: a thank-you letter for two cranes 49 Langtoft, ii, 266, 326. 50 For an account of her career, see M. Biles, ‘The Indomitable Belle: Eleanor of Provence’, Seven Studies in Medieval English History, ed. Bowers, 113—31. 51 SC 1/16, no. 180.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

123

Edw ard sent her made m uch, in a rather laboured w ay, o f the fact that she liked the bodies, but not the heads. She was concerned not m erely for her son, the king, but also for her grandson, suggesting on one occasion that E dw ard o f Caernarfon should not be taken north, as the clim ate would m ake him ill.52 T h e queen m other was not, o f course, present in E d w ard ’s household. She had her own entourage, and her own dow er estates, and from 1276 resided at A m esbury, in the nunnery there. She took the veil herself in 1286, dying in 1291. H er influence over E dw ard is hard to assess, but he him self once wrote to C harles o f Salerno that since the death o f his father, he was more closely bound to Eleanor than to any other living person. She was an indom itable figure, from whom Edw ard probably inherited m uch o f his own strength o f character. Edw ard was undoubtedly devoted to his first queen, Eleanor o f Castile, yet hers is not a personality that stands out from the pages o f the records or the chronicles. Eleanor was the daughter o f Ferdinand I I I o f C astile and Jeanne o fD a m m a rtin , and it seems that she valued her connections with France more than those with C astile. She did not bring a large num ber o f kinsmen and com patriots to E ngland in the w ay that her m other-in-law had done, but some o f her French relations were given places in her household. She was probably only tw elve at the time o f her m arriage, and her death in 1290 cam e when she was only forty-nine. H er main activity was the production o f children, probably fifteen in all, but she did m anage to share E d w ard ’s career to a rem ark­ able extent, accom panying him on crusade, and going to W ales and G ascony with him .53 Eleanor was a cultured wom an. She possessed a library o f rom ances, presum ably m any o f them o f the A rthurian type. O n e at least was copied in France for her, and G irard o f Am iens dedicated one o f his Arthurian works to her. She em ployed a couple o f scribes to write books, and a painter to illum inate them. In the last year o f her life, she sent a messenger to O xford with letters for a m aster there about one o f her books. It is entirely in character that she should, as it seems likely, have comm issioned a translation o f V eg etiu s’ work on the art o f w ar for E dw ard while on crusade. She is also known to have persuaded no less a figure than A rchbishop Pecham to w rite a brief scholarly work for her in French, described by his biographer as ‘unfortunately rather a dull and uninspired little treatise’ . Eleanor was fond o f tapestries, and even engaged in w eaving them herself. She was probably not as fond o f chess and sim ilar games as her husband, though there is a reference to her 52 SC 1/16, nos 151, 152, 170, 172. 53 Eleanor’s career is discussed by J.C. Parsons, The Court and Household o f Eleanor o f Castile in i2go (Toronto, 1977).

124

EDWARD I

playing the gam e o f Four K ings, p robably a four-handed variant o f chess. A touching note in the accounts records that her clerks were sent to buy fruit from a Spanish ship w hich cam e to Portsm outh - even late in life she missed the figs, pom egranates, oranges and lemons o f her childhood.54 Th ere is a discordant element in E leanor’s career, concerning the running o f her estates. Investigations after her death into the activities o f her estate m anagers produced an unattractive picture o f high­ handed and extortionate behaviour. O ne charge, w hich was upheld, was that one o f E leanor’s reeves had seized a house from its owners, falsely procuring their im prisonm ent, and dum ping their baby in its cradle in the m iddle o f the road. V e ry m any years later, the men o f H avering recalled the w ay in which the queen had arbitrarily limited local hunting rights by extending her warren. A ju ry o f twelve leading tenants resisted her claim s, only to suffer im prisonm ent for three days, after w hich they conceded defeat. O ne o f the queen’s stewards was H ugh Cressingham , fat and unpopular, a man with no reputation for probity. G eoffrey o f A spale, keeper o f her w ardrobe for a period, was a notorious pluralist, whose nephew m arried C ressingham ’s daughter. Geoffrey, though his official career suggests that he was sim ply another o f the efficient yet grasping clerks who flourished in the royal households o f the later thirteenth century, was also a scholar o f some reputation, an authority on A ristotle’s scientific w orks.55 In em ploying harsh officials and building up her estates Eleanor was argu ably doing no more than other land­ lords. U nlike the king, she was reliant upon her landed income, and although the accounts w hich survive from the end o f her life seem to show that she was well off, it is very possible that it was the inadequate scale o f her assignm ent o f lands, to a value o f £4,500 a year, which necessitated her adoption o f unpopular policies. For unpopular they certainly were. A brief rhym e given in some versions o f G uisborou gh ’s chronicle includes the couplet: The king he wants to get our gold The queen would like our lands to hold.56 54 Ibid., 12-3; D. Douie, Archbishop Pecham (Oxford, 1952), 52; E 101/352/27 pro­ vides the name of a further illuminator, Richard du Marche, and another scribe, Hugh of Ireland, to be added to those given by Parsons. For the translation ofVegetius, see L. Thorpe, ‘Mastre Richard, a thirteenth-century translator of the “ De Re Militari” of Vegetius’, Scriptorium, vi (1952), 39-50. 55 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, v, 236-7, 27 m.; Parson, Court and Household o f Eleanor o f Castile, 75n, 93n; M.K. McIntosh, Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor o f Havering 1200-1500 (Cambridge, 1986), 57-8. 56 Guisborough, 2i6n. The translation is that given by Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls , 237.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

!25

T h e allusion to the Q u ee n ’s land-grabbing policies is very clear. Pecham wrote in very direct terms to Eleanor, telling her that the king’s harshness was attributed to her influence, and that her use o f Jew ish debts to acquire lands am ounted to usury and m ortal sin.57 Th ere is no doubt that the character o f E d w ard ’s reign changed m arkedly after E leanor’s death in 1290, but how far the change can be attributed to the loss o f her influence on Edw ard is debatable, for there were m any other factors at work. W hat is very evident is the extent o f Edw ard’s grief for his queen, attested by his building the most elaborate series o f m onuments ever constructed for an English king or queen. Eleanor died at H arby, in N ottingham shire, and not only did she have three separate tombs, one at Lincoln for the entrails, one at Blackfriars in London for the heart, and the main one in W estm inster A b bey, but also the celebrated series o f Eleanor crosses were built, tw elve in all; one at each stopping point o f the funeral cortege. T h e practice o f dividing corpses was quite usual at this time, though it was to be condem ned by the pope in 1299, while the com m em orative crosses had a recent precedent in those set up to m ark the jo u rn ey o f St L o u is’s bones from Paris to St Denis. T h e speed and cost o f the works on E leanor’s memorials were very rem arkable: all was largely com plete by 1294, and the tombs and crosses cost alm ost £2,200. T h e superb gilt bronze effigy o f Eleanor in W estm inster A b b ey alone cost about £100. T h e achieve­ ment was o f great im portance in artistic terms, and it provided a visible expression o f the m onarchy’s prestige, but above all it shows how im portant Eleanor was to E d w ard .58 T h e problem s involved in w orking out how m any children Eleanor had are considerable, even when the fifteenth-century invention o f a daughter called A lice is ignored. C hildren who died in infancy have left little record: all that is known o f one is that she died on 29 M a y and was buried in Bordeaux, but it is not known on w hich o f the royal couple’s visits to G ascony this took place. It has generally been assumed that the eldest daughter to survive, Eleanor, was born in 1264, for there was an order issued by H enry I I I asking Eleanor o f C astile to leave W indsor castle with her daughter in June o f that year. In fact, this is alm ost certainly a reference to K ath erin e w ho died as a baby, and a w rit o f June 1269 giving a reward to the m essenger w ho brought H enry I I I the news o f E leanor’s birth is good evidence that she was in fact born in 1269. T h e following table lists those children for whom there is a reasonable evidence.59 57 Douie, Pecham, 52. 58 K W , i, 479-85. The question of separate heart and entrail burials is considered by E.A.R. Brown, ‘Death and the Human Body in the Later Middle Ages: the legislation of Boniface V I I I on the division of the corpse’, Viator, xii (1981), 221-70. 59 The problems of listing Eleanor of Castile’s children are ably set out by J.C.

126

EDWARD I

1. Katherine 2. Joan 3* John 4. Henry 5. Eleanor 6. Unnamed daughter 7. Joan 8. Alphonso 9. Margaret 10. Berengaria 11. Unnamed child 12. Mary 13. Elizabeth 14. Edward

Born

Died

1261-3 Jan. 1265 July 1266 May 1268 June 1269 c. 1271 1272 Nov. 1273 March 1275 May 1276 J a n .1278 March 1279 Aug. 1282 April 1284

Sept. 1264 Sept. 1265 Aug. 1271 Oct. 1274 Aug. 1298 c. 1271-2 April 1307 Aug. 1284 c- 1333 1277-8 1278

!332 13*6

!327

Edward does not seem to have been much concerned with his children when they were young, partly because from a very early age they were placed in their own household, and taken from parental care. Joan o f A cre, born on crusade, was for m uch o f her childhood looked after by her m aternal grandm other, Jeanne o f D am m artin, in Ponthieu.60 T h e elder children were entrusted to R ichard o f C orn w all while Edw ard and Eleanor were in the east. T h e practice o f sending children to be brought up in other households was a normal one among the aristocracy o f the period, and does not im ply any lack o f parental feeling. Y et it is rem arkable that the king, and even more so the queen, should have left their son H enry to be ill and die at G uildford w ithout m aking the short journ ey from London to visit him .61 T h e alm onry accounts show that little attention was paid by the king to the anniversaries o f the deaths o f his children, and indeed, in 1284, there is no m ention o f masses for the soul o f A lphonso, w ho died that year, in contrast to the lavish oblations m ade for H enry o f Brittany, son o f the duke o f Brittany, whose death took place about a month after A lp h o n so ’s.62 E d w ard ’s first three sons all died young. T h ere was w idespread popular g rief at J o h n ’s death, for he was apparently a handsom e child. H enry died in 1274, aged six. T h ere must have been more hope for A lphonso, w ho survived until he was ten. A rchbishop Pecham wrote to

Parsons, ‘The Year of Eleanor of Castile’s Birth and her Children by Edward I’, (1984), 249-65, whose conclusions I have accepted. Parsons notes the probable existence of at least two more children, in addition to those in the table. 60 Parsons, Court and Household o f Eleanor o f Castile, 39m 61 H. Johnstone, ‘Wardrobe and Household of Henry, son of Edward I’, Bulletin o f the John Rylands Library, vii (1922-3), 397. 62 Taylor, ‘Royal Alms and Oblations’, 122.

Medieval Studies, xlvi

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

127

the king expressing obviously sincere condolences on the news o f the death o f ‘the child who was the hope o f us a ll’ , but the king’s own reaction is not recorded.63 All these three died before it was felt necessary to provide them with an independent landed endowm ent. T h ey had their own households, H enry and A lp h on so’s p robably being separate establishm ents. A fter H en ry’s death there was sim ply one for all the children. A ccounts survive for H en ry’s household, but they are not particularly revealing. He lived together with his sister Eleanor and his cousin John o f Brittany, and the expenses show that he was clearly a sickly child, and suggest that he had a sweet tooth, to judge by the consumption o f sugary confections. T h e household was not particularly lavish, with annual expenses o f only some £350 a year, a considerable contrast with the elaborate later establishm ent o f E dw ard o f C aernarfon, with its costs o f about £4,000 a year.64 For obvious reasons, m uch more is known about Edw ard o f C aernarfon than any o f E d w ard ’s other sons, and there is little need to sum m arize his w hole career before he cam e to the throne. W ith his substantial household, already costing over £2,000 a year by 1288-9, his upbringing largely took place aw ay from the im m ediate supervision o f his father. T h e most im portant influence on him was probably that o f his ‘m aster’ , the G ascon knight G u y Ferre, w ho had been steward to Eleanor o f Provence. His cannot have been an easy or a rew arding task: all that E dw ard excelled in was horsem anship, and perhaps also those m echanical arts, such as hedging, ditching and rowing, w hich he was to be so criticized for practising when he cam e to the throne. Edw ard I was to quarrel bitterly with his son at the end o f his reign, even on one occasion physically assaulting him and tearing out his hair, but there are no signs that the father took against his son in childhood.65 It m ay well be, however, that m uch o f E dw ard I I ’s personal inadequacy was the result o f his relationship with his form idable father, w ho must have been a hard man to live up to. Personal details about the king’s relationship with his sons are very scant, but it is tem pting to see his hand in the choice o f toy castles for A lphonso and Edw ard to play with, the former having a m iniature siege engine as well. H enry, more prosaically, had a small cart w hich cost 7d.66 Edw ard appears to have been fonder o f his daughters than o f his sons. Five girls survived the perils o f infancy and childhood: Eleanor, Joan, M argaret, M ary and Elizabeth. T h e story o f their m arriages is 63 Reg. Pecham, iii, 819. 64 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 43, 366; Johnstone, ‘Wardrobe and Household of Henry, son of Edward I’, 1-37. 65 Edward of Caernarfon’s career prior to his accession is fully discussed by H. Johnstone, Edward o f Caernarvon; Guisborough, 382-3. 66 K W , i, 202n.; Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 43n.

128

EDWARD I

part o f the diplom atic and o f the dom estic history o f the reign, but it is striking that none w as wed at a very young age. T h ere was resistance on the part o f the queen and the queen m other to Eleanor being sent off to Spain after she was m arried by proxy to A lphonso o f A ragon in 1282, and in the event she did not m arry until 1293, when she was twentyfour. A m arriage was planned for Joan at a young age, but nothing cam e o f it, and she was eighteen when she was wed to the earl o f Gloucester. E lizabeth was fifteen when she m arried the count o f H olland, but the king was reluctant even after the cerem ony to see her leave the court. Some nine months later her husband wrote to the king in anxious tones: We have previously asked you if it would please you to send our dear companion to her own land. Dear sire, we beg you humbly again, for her own well-being and for ours, and of our land and people, who are desperate to see their lady, our dear companion, that it may please you to tell us a specific date and place where we can meet, and that it would please you to bring our dear companion into her own land in as honourable a way as she merits.67 E lizabeth was a frequent visitor at court, even after her second m arriage to the earl o f Hereford. So also was the daughter who left the court at the youngest age. T h is was M ary, who was sent to A m esbury, at her grandm other’s insistence, at the age o f five, and w ho becam e a nun in 1285. Her religious profession did not prevent her from frequently returning to court, with the largest cortege o f any o f the princesses. H er extravagance, and her gam bling debts, suggest that she did not take her vocation very seriously, and this is supported by the later claim o f Earl W arenne to have had an affair with her, presum ably in the course o f one o f her visits to court.68 T h e most independent o f the daughters was Joan o f A cre. She displeased her father by leaving court very soon after her m arriage to the earl o f G loucester in 1290, and angered him m uch more in 1297 by her clandestine second m arriage to a squire in her household, Ralph de M ontherm er.69 Y e t E d w ard ’s anger did not last long: his relationship with his daughters, if occasionally stormy, appears to have been a happy one. E d w ard ’s affection for his daughters is evident from his extravagance towards them. H e bore with M a rg a ret’s tantrums when early in 1297 she rejected some jew ellery m ade for her in London, buying other fine 67 Documents i2gy-8, ed. Prestwich, 152. 68 Green, Lives o f the Princesses o f England , ii, 405-29; F.R. Fairbank, ‘The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the distribution of his possessions’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, xix (1907), 244-5. 69 Green, Lives o f the Princesses o f England , ii, 331, 343-8.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

129

pieces for her, and paying for a splendid carriage. W hen Elizabeth returned from H olland after the death o f her husband late in 1299, Edw ard met the costs o f her dresses, am ounting to some £100 a year. H e also bought her a fine carriage when she went to France, which cost £50.70 T h e most notable signs o f E d w ard ’s strong fam ily feelings were perhaps the lavish paym ents he m ade to messengers w ho brought him news o f the birth o f his grandchildren. H e gave no less than £126 13s to the man who brought him news o f the birth o f a son to M argaret, though news o f a daughter to Joan o f A cre was not met with sim ilar enthusiasm. T h e messenger who brought news o f a son for Elizabeth, after her m arriage to the earl o f H ereford, received £26 13s 4d in 1304: news o f a second son two years later was better rewarded with £40.71 In 1299, as part o f the peace process between England and France, Edw ard m arried for a second time. His bride was M argaret o f France, half-sister o f Philip I V . She has left only a slight im print on history: it was hardly to be expected that the king would be m uch influenced by a queen some forty years his junior. E dw ard is said to have been delighted with his new wife, succum bing to a ‘fervour o f love’ once the w edding took place, so that M argaret at once conceived a child. M argaret m ade a good impression when she visited St A lbans in 1299, with generous gifts o f alms, and a decision to join the fraternity o f the m onastery. T h e chronicler, however, clearly felt that her stay o f some three weeks was too long, and her entourage too b ig.72 She was extravagant: by 1302 it w as necessary for the king to promise her £4,000 out o f wardships and m arriages, so that she m ight repay her debts. These included a sum o f £1,000 to the Italian firm o f the Ballardi o f Lucca, probably incurred through purchases o f fine cloths and other luxuries. In 1305 her landed endowm ent was increased by £500, presum ably because she was still in financial difficulties.73 D espite her youth, M argaret had some influence. A traditional role for the queen was to intercede with the king on b eh alf o f the people seeking pardons. Som etim es she did this by herself, and on other occasions she acted together with other m embers o f the royal fam ily, such as her step-daughter Elizabeth. It was through M a rg a ret’s in­ tervention that a certain w idow was able to obtain royal permission to rem arry, and some grants o f a minor character were m ade at her request. She must have needed more than norm al powers o f persuasion to obtain a pardon for the man who hid the crown used by Robert Bruce 70 71 72 73

Ibid., iii, 14; E 101/369/11, ÌT.I04V-I05V. 156, 170; BL Add. MS 8835, f.43; E 101/369/11, f-95v. Rishanger, 194, 397. C P R 13 0 1 - 7 , 60, 368-9, 372.

Liber Quotidianus,

130

EDWARD I

at his enthronem ent in 1306. In 1301 E dw ard was faced w ith a prob­ lem, when he was not sure w hether the earl o f Lincoln or the treasurer, W alter Langton, had proper authorization to agree to a truce with the Scots. T h ey were therefore asked to approach the queen, as Edw ard him self was in Scotland, and show her the letters o f authority they had been given, so that the proper am endm ents could be m ade if necessary. T h e most im portant problem that M argaret was able to help resolve was the bitter dispute between the king and his son E dw ard in 1305. It was she who persuaded the king to release a ban he had imposed on the Londoners to prevent them lending m oney to the prince, and it was through her intervention that he was allowed to keep most o f his cham ber staff.74 A curious story told m any years later by Sir Th om as G rey in his Scalacronica had it that on one occasion E dw ard had a letter forged, in w hich it stated that he had bribed a num ber o f men in the French arm y to seize Philip I V . T h e letter was addressed to the civic authorities o f G hent, and the king deliberately left it on the queen’s bed when he arose from it. She read it, and prom ptly told Philip about it, and as a result he prom ptly abandoned the siege o f L ille.75 It is highly im plaus­ ible that this actually happened, but the story m ay be right in pointing to the difficulties M argaret faced as a result o f the continued suspicion that existed between France and England. Some privy seal letters from the king indicate som ething o f his concern for his young queen in the final stages o f his reign. W hen M a rg a ret’s physician wrote to him for his permission to bleed his charge, Edw ard wrote back firm ly stating that he should do it as soon as possible, and a letter to M argaret herself m ade the same point. T h e unfortunate queen then went down with measles, and E dw ard told her physician in no uncertain terms that on no account was she to travel until she was fully recovered, otherwise, ‘By god ’s thigh’ , he would pay for it. E d w ard ’s concern was shown by orders that he be informed quickly and frequently how M argaret was progressing. A letter to M a rg a ret’s confessor asked him to break the news o f the death o f her sister, Blanche, as gently as possible to her, by com forting and consol­ ing her. I f she grieved excessively, Edw ard suggested that it m ight be pointed out to her that Blanche had been as good as dead ever since she had m arried the duke o f A u stria.76 T h is m ay sound ill-considered and callous, but the king’s concern was clearly genuine. 74 C P R 130 1-7, 503; C C R 1302-7, 342; Calendar o f Chancery Warrants, 1244-1326, 146-7; Johnstone, Edward o f Caernarvon, 101. 75 Scalacronica by Sir Thomas Grey o f Heton, Knight, ed. J. Stevenson (Maitland Club, 1836), 128. 76 Chaplais, ‘Some Private Letters of Edward I’, 82-5.

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

131

M argaret bore Edw ard three children: T hom as o f Brotherton in 1300, Edm und o f W oodstock in 1301, and Eleanor in 1306. A n indenture survives giving some o f the details o f the preparations m ade for T h o m as’s birth. V a st quantities o f cloth were needed: T h o m as’s first cradle and bed used thirteen ells o f fine Lincoln scarlet, his second the same quantity o f dark blue cloth. Fur coverlets were also provided, with sheets m ade from fifty-five ells o f Rheim s linen. Th ere were hangings with heraldic arms, and at E d w ard ’s orders the young prince’s cham ber was draped with striped cloth. T h e birth itself clearly occurred rather earlier than was expected: plans had been m ade for the confinement to take place at the archbishop o f Y o r k ’s m anor o f C aw ood, but M argaret went into labour before reaching it, and gave birth at Brotherton. A ccording to Rishanger, Thom as was a patriotic baby, who rejected the milk o f his French wet-nurse, and began to thrive only when he received good English milk. T h ere is docum entary evidence w hich suggests that there is a grain o f truth behind the story: one o f T h o m as’s wet-nurses died, and the queen certainly em ployed a doctor on one occasion to exam ine and approve the milk o f another.77 M arg aret’s three children were o f course m uch too young to play any significant part in the events o f E d w ard ’s final years. T h ey, like E leanor’s children, had their own household: little more is known o f their early years than the fact that their toy drum had to be repaired, and that they were given an iron bird-cage by their m other.78 T h e one respect in which they were im portant was that the king fully appreci­ ated that in time it w ould be necessary for them to be provided w ith a proper landed endowm ent, a fact w hich undoubtedly influenced his patronage policies. E dw ard appears to have been rem arkably faithful to his queens. T h e only breath o f scandal contained in contem porary narrative is the suggestion that he becam e too friendly with the countess o f G loucester in the late 1260s, but there is no evidence to support the charge.79 T h e later tale given by the Italian chronicler V illan i, that E dw ard fell in love with a lady sent by his m other to help him escape from D over castle during the B arons’ W ar, has little plausibility. T h en there is the curious inclusion o f John Botetourt in a genealogical table in a H ailes A b b ey chronicle. His nam e appears to be written over an erasure, and there is nothing in B otetourt’s career to suggest that he was an illegitim ate son o f the king. He first appeared in royal service as a falconer, but rose to 77 K. Staniland, ‘Welcome, Royal Babe! The Birth of Thomas of Brotherton in 1300’, Costume, 1085, 1-13. 78 E 101/368/12, 4. 79 Above, 60-61.

132

EDWARD I

high rank, becom ing a banneret in 1298. H e was o f East A nglian gentry origin, and becam e lord o f M endlesham through m arriage. It is possible that the scribe intended to put the nam e o f E d w ard ’s daughter E lizab eth ’s husband w here B otetourt’s now features.80 T h is evidence places no more than a question m ark against E d w ard ’s fidelity. E d w ard ’s grandfather John and his great-grandfather H enry I I had not been faithful husbands, but attitudes and expectations changed in the thirteenth century. H enry I l l ’s reputation had been im peccable, as o f course had that o f Louis I X . It w ould have been surprising had E dw ard not followed the precedent set by two kings whom he greatly adm ired. In m any w ays E dw ard was fortunate with his im m ediate fam ily. N either o f his queens im ported a host o f greedy relations and hangerson, as Eleanor o f Provence had done, and neither attem pted to play an active political role in the w ay that Eleanor o f A qu itain e had done in H enry I I ’s reign. A lthough E dw ard had an im pressive num ber o f children, the fact that only one son grew to adulthood during his lifetime m eant that he did not have to m ake elaborate arrangem ents to provide for his sons, as E dw ard I I I was to have to do. N or was he faced by the political problem s presented by a brood o f unruly sons, as H enry 11 had been. It was no disadvantage to have m any daughters, for they were a positive asset in international diplom acy, enabling E dw ard to create a network o f m arriage alliances. A t home, by m arrying them into the English aristocracy the king could hope to increase the loyalty o f his nobles. W here Edw ard was unfortunate was that his son Edw ard o f C aernarfon proved so lacking in ability. It was not possible to rely on him as a m ilitary com m ander, and he could not be sent to rule G ascony. It was the kin g’s nephew, John o f B rittany - whom in m any w ays Edw ard treated as if he were his son - who was appointed as royal lieutenant both in G ascony and in Scotland, rather than E dw ard o f C aernarfon .81 It was unfortunate too for E dw ard that in the decade that proved most difficult for him, both in m ilitary and in political terms, the 1290s, he did not have the support o f a loyal queen. He had been fortunate to have Eleanor by his side during the really constructive years o f the reign. T h e history o f the royal fam ily in this period is not a 80 N. Denholm-Young, History and Heraldry (Oxford, 1965), 38-9; BL Cottonian MS Cleop. D.III, f.51; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance under Edward 7, 57-8; C47/4/1, f. 15V; Handbook o f British Chronology, ed. Fryde, Greenway, Porter and Roy, 39. In general terms, the Hailes chronicle is a reliable source, but in the absence of any corroborative evidence, it is difficult to credit the evidence of this genealogical table. It is worth noting that Edward I I ’s bastard son was duly acknowledged as such in a royal record, there is no such evidence in the case of John Botetourt. 81 For John’s career, see I. Lubimenko,J^flw de Bretagne, comte de Richmond. Sa vie et son activité en Angleterre, en Ecosse et en France (1266-1334) (Lille, 1908).

T H E K I N G A N D HI S F A M I L Y

J33

dram atic one, filled with scandals such as that in France in 1314 when the king’s daughters-in-law were found to have com m itted adultery. N ot all the details o f personal relationships em erge clearly from the sources, but there can be little doubt that E d w ard ’s fam ily was a source o f stability and strength.

C h ap ter 6

THE ROYAL HOUSEHOLD

T h e structure o f governm ent in m edieval England is frequently described as com plex and sophisticated. In the exchequer, the king had a long-established office w hich oversaw the finances o f the realm and w hich followed well-w orn bureaucratic procedures. T h e chancery issued charters and letters under the great seal, transm itting royal instructions to the kin g’s subjects. A t the heart o f the governm ental system, however, lay the king’s household, a m uch more flexible and personal instrum ent. T h e household, on one level, was quite sim ply the king’s dom estic entourage. D epartm ents such as the kitchen, the pantry and the scullery saw to E d w ard ’s day-to-day needs. H owever, one departm ent, the w ardrobe, developed in the thirteenth century a central role in governm ent, taking the place w hich had earlier been occupied by another household departm ent, the cham ber. T h e w ard ­ robe had, in practice, very considerable financial autonom y, and was capable o f expanding to meet the dem ands created by w ar in a w ay that the exchequer could not m atch. It becam e the ch ief spending depart­ m ent o f the central governm ent. In addition, the privy seal was kept by one o f the w ardrobe officials: it was by means o f letters authenticated w ith this seal that instructions were sent to the exchequer and the chancery, and indeed to royal officials and others throughout the realm . T h e officials o f the household, and above all those o f the w ardrobe, performed vital functions both in peace and war. W ithout them, Edw ard would not have been able to organize the affairs o f his realm , conduct negotiations w ith other rulers, or lead cam paigns. T h e household also provided the core o f the royal arm y, in the form o f the corps o f royal household knights, paid through the wardrobe. T h is picture o f governm ent through the royal household is made abundantly clear in the account books o f the w ardrobe from the later years o f E d w ard ’s reign. T h e y show that the bulk o f royal expenditure was channelled through the w ardrobe. A large corps o f cavalry, along with all the infantry troops and the entire navy, were paid by w ardrobe clerks, and supplied by them with foodstuffs. Surviving writs o f privy seal show the w ay in w hich the king’s instructions were transm itted. As one historian, T o u t, put it, ‘T h e w hole state and realm o f E ngland were

THE R O Y A L HOUS E HOL D

135

the appurtenances o f the king’s household.’ 1 T o u t considered that there had been a very extensive developm ent o f the household, and in particular the w ardrobe, in E dw ard I ’s reign, for an ordinance o f 1279, which set out the organization o f the household, did not suggest that at that early stage o f his rule, it had m uch more than a purely dom estic function. T h e ordinance stressed the role o f such household depart­ ments as the kitchen, the buttery and the pantry, and it did not im ply that the officials had duties w hich extended m uch beyond the provision o f food, drink, clothing and transport. Th ere was no suggestion in the docum ent that the household played a m ajor role in m ilitary affairs: it im plied that only tw enty m en-at-arm s were retained. T h e total num ber o f officials was no more, apparently, than about fifty. T h e contrast with the later establishm ent o f at least 500, and often more, is striking. T h e ordinance o f 1279, however, is a m isleading docum ent, for it was very lim ited in scope, and did not purport to provide a full description o f the whole familia. It was sim ply concerned w ith the domus, the dom estic establishm ent, and in particular with those officials w ho had accounting responsibilities. T h e officers o f the various departm ents were nam ed, and details provided o f their wages and allowances. Th u s R alph de W aterville, clerk o f the kitchen, was paid 7 1/?d a day and received £3 a year for robes. T h e nightly exam ination o f the officials before the stewards, the treasurer and one o f the m arshals was outlined. T h e records o f the kitchen, pantry and buttery were to be checked against the num ber o f dishes actually known to have been served, and the am ount o f w ine drunk. It was not any part o f the purpose o f the docum ent to list the m ilitary establishm ent o f the household, the knights and squires, nor did it provide details o f the royal huntsmen and messengers. It was probably intended to reduce the scale o f the royal establishm ent: it lists nine men w ho were entitled to sleep in the w ardrobe, and the im plication is that m any others had been in the habit o f taking up residence there. ‘R ib ald s’ , or scoundrels, were to be cleared from the household every m onth.2 T here are parallels to this text. T h e Constitutio Domus Regis o f the 1 1 30s likewise suggests that the household was a housekeeping organization on a fairly modest scale, yet there is ample evidence to show that the royal household under the Norman kings was a vital institution, whose members played a central role in the organization o f the state, and w hich could be expanded rapidly in time o f w ar to form the central core o f the king’s arm y.3 T h e household ordinance o f 1318 was 1 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 59. 2 The ordinance is printed by Tout, op. cit ., ii, 158-63. 3 J.O. Prestwich, ‘The Military Household of the Norman Kings’, E H R , xcvi (1981), ' - 35-

136

EDWARD I

in the same tradition: although it gives a better impression o f the scale o f the household, it was not concerned with the knights and squires.4 For these, it is necessary to turn to the w ardrobe account books. A s E dw ard I ’s reign proceeded, these becam e better organized and more com plex, but they show that from the 1270s the royal household was a large body, containing a very substantial m ilitary element, which was concerned w ith far more than dom estic affairs. In the m id -1280s, lists o f those entitled to receive household robes run to some 570 names, ranging from high-ranking bannerets to mere kitchen boys.5 T h rough out E d w ard ’s reign, the household had two aspects. Th ere was the purely dom estic establishm ent w ith its departm ents such as the saucery, scullery and kitchen, and there was the larger organization, dom inated by the departm ent o f the w ardrobe, w hich was o f central im portance to the state in financial, adm inistrative and m ilitary terms. T h e household certainly changed and developed in the course o f Edw ard’s reign, but its transform ation was not as dram atic as a com parison o f the 1279 O rdinance with the later account books m ight suggest. T h e adm inistrative significance o f the w ardrobe resulted in large part from the fact that one o f its officials, the controller, had charge o f the privy seal. W ardrobe clerks w rote the letters and writs that were sent out under this seal. A lth ough enrolled or registered copies o f this privy seal correspondence were m ade, none o f these records survives, so only a lim ited impression is today yielded by the sources o f the overall range o f privy seal activity. It is clear that this seal was used for the king’s own most personal and im m ediate correspondence. I f Edw ard wanted letters m ade out by the chancery under the great seal, written in Latin, then he w ould norm ally send relatively inform al instructions in French to the chancellor, using the privy seal. In the years after the death o f the great chancellor R obert Burnell, in 1292, there was a considerable increase in the num ber o f such privy seal w arrants to the chancery. D uring B urnell’s period o f office they had been comm on only when king and chancellor were separated, as during cam paigns in W ales. In the later years o f the reign the post o f chancellor was not held by men who enjoyed the kin g’s trust in the w ay that Burnell had done, and there was a m uch greater separation o f the chancery from the king and his household. A s a result, it was necessary to make m uch more use o f the privy seal, and the controller o f the w ardrobe becam e a m uch more influential figure, acting as E d w ard ’s private secretary and alm ost certainly exercising a considerable influence on policy.6 T h e privy seal was also used to transm it royal orders to the exchequer, and 4 T.F. Tout, The Place o f Edward I I in English History (Manchester, 1914). 270-314. 5 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 164-7. 6 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 60-84, discusses this more fully.

THE R O Y A L HOUSEHOLD

137

again it is from the later years o f the reign that the records show extensive use being m ade o f this technique, notably w ith a series o f angry letters from the king in Scotland to the exchequer officials at Y ork, w ho were struggling with E d w ard ’s incessant dem ands for funds for his cam p aigns.7 M an y orders were issued directly to the king’s other officials, and to his subjects, but here the evidence is sadly deficient. A num ber o f draft letters survive, but there is no means o f know ing w hat proportion o f the total output they form .8 It again appears probable that there was a considerable increase in this use o f the privy seal in the later years o f the reign: it even becam e w orthw hile for crim inals to forge the privy seal.9 T h e great seal was not superseded, nor was the chancery replaced by a privy seal office developing w ithin the w ardrobe, but for m any pur­ poses, when great form ality was not required, the use o f privy seal letters offered a quick and convenient means o f com m unicating royal orders. Th ere was certainly no conflict between privy seal and ch an­ cery, for the two formed interlocking parts o f the sam e adm inistrative m achine. T h e financial functions o f the w ardrobe are m uch better recorded than the secretarial. It was the m ain spending departm ent o f the governm ent, used above all for financing war. In the case o f the second W elsh war, in 1282-4, a separate account o f m ilitary expenditure was kept, but in other cases, the general w ardrobe accounts include m ajor items o f expenditure, such as soldiers’ w ages and paym ents to overseas allies, in the same account book as details o f the expenditure on the king’s hunting establishm ent. T h e m ain reason for the w ard robe’s dom inance over crown expenditure was quite sim ply the fact that it was present with the king, whereas even m oving the exchequer from W estm inster to be near cam paigning areas, for exam ple at Shrew sbury or Y ork, did not achieve this. Further, as T o u t argued, the w ardrobe was far more flexible than the exchequer, less bound by rules and conventions. It had a freedom in times o f financial difficulty to issue debentures and bills (promises o f future paym ent) to C row n creditors in a w ay w hich the exchequer could not do. In the first h a lf o f the reign m uch w ardrobe receipt cam e in quite independently o f the exchequer, notably in the form o f loans from Italian bankers, but from the 1290s w ardrobe receipts were accounted as com ing through the exchequer. In practical terms this w as little more than a technicality,

7 Below, 514. 8 Chaplais, ‘Some Private Letters of Edward I’, E H R , lxxvii (1962), 79-86, prints some privy seal drafts: others are to be found in the class of Ancient Correspondence (SCi). 9 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 79.

138

EDWARD I

and the increasing deficits o f the w ardrobe in the later years o f the reign testify to the inadequacy o f exchequer control o f the household.10 T h e careers o f m any household officials have been worked out in some detail, but in all too m any cases all that the historian can provide is a dull catalogue o f official appointm ents, records o f grants and lists o f land-holdings, w ith no real personal detail. T h e clerical officials, par­ ticularly those who served as keepers and controllers o f the w ardrobe, were o f the very greatest importance in E dw ard’s system o f government. It was in the household that most o f the men on whom the king really relied received their training, and there that they first gained E d w ard ’s confidence. Robert Burnell, by far the most influential and im portant m inister in the first h a lf o f the reign, was not o f course an official o f the royal household, but before his prom otion to the chancery he had been in the household o f E dw ard as prince. W alter Langton, who although he was treasurer not chancellor, held a position analogous to B urnell’s in the later years o f the reign, rose in royal service w ithin the household before he took over at the exchequer. The first keeper o f E dw ard’s wardrobe as king was Philip W illoughby, w ho held office until O cto b er 1274. His functions as keeper during the crusade expedition m ust have been very different from those o f later holders o f the office. H e m oved from the w ardrobe to a more settled existence as a baron, and then eventually chancellor, o f the exchequer. H e never rose to the highest office in either church or state: he becam e dean, not bishop, o f Lincoln, and acted as deputy treasurer, never becom ing treasurer in his own right. It is hard to im agine him as other than a colourless civil servant, although in truth the sources do not perm it such a character judgem ent to be m ad e.11 W illou gh b y w as succeeded, very briefly, as keeper by A nthony Bek, one o f the grand personalities o f the reign. H e held office for only a month, and was followed by his brother Thom as. T h e Bek brothers were o f a knightly fam ily, a fact w hich led T o u t to suppose that they w ere ‘perhaps too “ baronial” in their outlook to be altogether men after E d w ard ’s heart’ . 12 Such a verdict smacks too m uch o f the traditional view o f king and barons in inevitable opposition, and there is nothing to suggest any difference in opinion betw een E dw ard and T hom as Bek, w ho gave up office in 1280 w hen he becam e bishop o f St D a v id ’s. T en ure o f that position w ould obviously have been hard to com bine with the constant attendance in the household required o f the keeper. 10 Tout, op. cit., ii, 85-130; M.C. Prestwich, ‘Exchequer and Wardrobe in the Later Years of Edward I’, B IH R , xlvi (1973), 1-10. 11 There is much biographical detail on all these clerical officials in Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii. For Willoughby in particular, see ii, 5-7, 108. 12 Ibid., ii, 14.

THE R O Y A L HOUS E HOL D

*39

A fter Thom as Bek, the keepership o f the w ardrobe was held by men who, in the best civil service tradition, had risen through the ranks o f the departm ent. W illiam o f Louth had been cofferer, in charge o f the w ard robe’s cash, standing third in the hierarchy o f the departm ent under Bek, and took over from him as keeper. T h e controller, Thom as G unneys, nom inally at least the second most im portant w ardrobe official, was on this occasion passed over. Louth was in charge o f the w ardrobe for a decade. H e held a university degree, and appears to have been o f great ability and even integrity. He was w arm ly praised by one chronicler for his honest and praisew orthy tenure o f office. His most difficult tasks were the organization o f the finances o f the second W elsh war, and his role in G ascony in 1287-8, when he acted as constable o f Bordeaux in addition to his household duties, and did m uch to put the finances o f the duchy in order. H e was also em ployed, in 1286, as an am bassador to the French court. A m on g his rewards was the deanery o f St M artin-le-G rand in London, a church closely associ­ ated with the w ard ro b e.13 L outh left office in 1290, not in disgrace like m any who departed from royal service at that time, but because he was elected to the see o f Ely. It is rather surprising that he w as not prom oted to becom e treasurer, for his predecessor at E ly was John K irk b y, who had held that office. Instead, the king turned to W illiam M arch. W illiam M arch was another m ajor w ardrobe official. H e had been cofferer from 1280 until 1283, when he rose to the controllership. It has been suggested that he m ay have played a m ajor part in the develop­ ment o f the w ardrobe accounting system , on the basis o f his responsi­ bility for the surviving account book o f 1285—6, but as this does not show any m ajor advances on the account book o f 1276-7, the argum ent is not a strong o n e.14 H e was, however, probably responsible for im portant changes at the exchequer in 1290, after his prom otion to the treasurership, and it m ay well be that by the late 1280s, he was in practice a more im portant figure in the w ardrobe than his m aster W illiam o f Louth. In 1293 he succeeded Burnell as bishop o f Bath and W ells, but his official career cam e to an abrupt end when he was dismissed as treasurer in 1295. H e was then able to devote him self to his diocese, gaining a certain reputation for sanctity w hich was not shared by m any o f the king’s servan ts.15 T o succeed W illiam o f Louth as keeper o f the w ardrobe in 1290, the king turned to another w ardrobe clerk, W alter Langton. Langton was the most colourful o f all E d w ard ’s officials. H e was a man o f great 13 Ibid., ii, 14-15; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, xvi-xvii; TrabutCussac, L ’administration anglaise en Gascogne, 90, 202; Ann. Osney, 325. 14 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, ix. 15 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 13, 16-17, 2I-

140

EDWARD I

ability and little principle. His greed for lands and livings exceeded B urn ell’s, and w hile he was to be described later in life as ‘conspicuous for the m aturity o f his counsel and full o f discretion’ , he was also accused o f strangling his m istress’s husband with her assistance, and o f doing hom age to the devil. His early career in the w ardrobe suggested nothing out o f the ordinary. H e first appeared as a clerk in 1282, but his abilities w ere soon noticed, for when the king was in G ascony, Langton took over the post o f cofferer from the sick H enry o f W heatley. In 1290 he first becam e controller, and then keeper. H e stayed in that office until M a rch ’s dism issal from the treasurership in 1295, when he was the obvious candidate to take over from him. It seems very likely that it was he w ho was responsible for the developm ent o f the w ardrobe account books into the com plex and w ell-organized form that they had by the later years o f the reign, but it was to be as treasurer o f the exchequer, not as keeper o f the w ardrobe, that he was really to leave his m ark .16 L an gto n ’s successor as keeper o f the w ardrobe in 1295 was, predict­ ably, the m an who had earlier succeeded him both as cofferer and controller, John Droxford. D roxford was to rem ain keeper for the rest o f the reign. For a m an w ho occupied a very central place in the royal adm inistration, he remains a curiously obscure figure. U nlike Louth, he attracted no praise from chroniclers. His actions were not disavow ed by the king as M a rc h ’s were, nor did he gain any reputation for sanctity, like M arch. E qually, he did not attract the hostility that was directed at Langton. H e cam e from D roxford, in H am pshire, and was, along with John Benstead, controller from 1295 until 1305, rather an exception am ong the w ardrobe officials in being a southerner: a large num ber o f his colleagues derived from south Yorkshire and north L in co ln sh ire.17 Droxford had some affection for his birthplace, for he built a tom b for his m other in the church, and undertook some work o f restoration th ere.18 A s keeper o f the w ardrobe, D roxford does not seem to have initiated any m ajor changes in the running o f the departm ent. H e was the least com petent o f all E d w ard ’s keepers, to ju d g e by his failure to produce his accounts for audit at the exchequer, but this is explained by the 16 Langton’s career is fully discussed by A. Beardwood, ‘The Trial of Walter Langton, bishop of Lichfield, 1307-1312’, Transactions ofthe American Philosophical Society, n.s. liv (1964). 17 Among the northerners can be counted Philip Willoughby, John Sandale, John Swanland, Robert Cottingham and William Thorntoft: see J.L. Grassi, ‘The Clerical Dynasties from Howdenshire, Nottinghamshire and Lindsey in the Royal administra­ tion’ (Oxford D.Phil. thesis 1959). 18 N.G. Brett-James, John de Drokensford, Bishop of Bath and Wells’, Transactions o f the London and Middlesex Archaeological Soc., n.s. x (1951), 283.

THE R O Y A L HOUS EHOLD

141

im m ense pressure put on the w ardrobe as a result o f the Scottish wars, rather than by personal inefficiency. A s keeper, D roxford, like his predecessors in office, received robes to a value o f 16 marks a year, the sam e as the bannerets o f the household. T h e keepers did not receive a fee, for they could expect rewards in the form o f ecclesiastical livings. D roxford was in 1293 granted the church o f C hild w all in L ancashire, in 1296 that o f K ingsclere in H am pshire, in 1297 a prebend in Salisbury cathedral, and in 1304 one in St M a ry ’s, Southwell. H e was also able to secure livings for m embers o f his fam ily, such as his brother Roger, who received C hild w all in 1299. His efforts, however, on R oger’s b eh alf at the end o f the reign, when he tried to obtain a position at Y ork for him over the head o f his w ardrobe subordinate W alter Bedw in, cam e to n o th in g.19 Droxford did not enter the land m arket with the guile and enthusiasm o f the treasurer, W alter Langton, nor did he lend m oney on the scale o f the chancery official W illiam H am ilton .20 Y e t his w ealth and status were such that he was able to cam paign with a very substan­ tial retinue. In 1300 he had six knights and tw enty-tw o squires in his com pany, a larger following than that o f his secular counterpart in the household, the steward W alter de B eau cham p .21 T h e records suggest that D roxford was a man o f enormous energy. N ot only did he have the w ardrobe to organize, but he also frequently had to leave court to try to raise money, and to collect supplies needed for Scotland. H e deputized for the treasurer, Langton, when he was abroad. O ne exam ple o f his travels is typical. O n 10 O ctob er 1300, he left the court at H olm coltram to go to N ew castle, to arrange for victuals to be sent north. H e returned to the court at D um fries, and prom ptly w ent to Skinburness, near C arlisle, again to see to victualling. T h en he returned to N ew castle, went back to court, by now at C arlisle, and then set out with W alter Langton to see to the provisioning o f the castles at L ochm aben, Dum fries and C aerlaverock. H e then hurried south, to try to put off the king’s G ascon creditors, w ho had appeared at Y ork dem anding paym ent. O n 24 N ovem ber he cam e back to court.22 It was hard work to serve a m aster such as Edw ard I. T h ere were m any other im portant clerks serving E dw ard in the w ardrobe adm inistration, such as the cofferer, R alph M anton, who held office from 1297 until 1303, when he was killed at Roslin in Scotland. He was harshly rebuked ju st before he died by Simon Fraser, who, before he joined the Scottish cause, had been a household knight, 19 C P R 1292-1301 , 7-8, 200, 228, 254, 429; C P R 1301-y , 263; below, 546-7. 20 Beardwood, ‘The Trial of Walter Langton’; R.H. Bowers, ‘From Rolls to Riches: King’s Clerks and Moneylending in Thirteenth Century England’, Speculum, lviii (1983), 60-71. 21 Liber Quotidianus, 195-6, 202-3. 22 Ibid., 82.

142

EDWARD I

for w earing an iron hauberk rather than priestly robes, and for defraud­ ing the king by failing to pay out w ages.23 T h e first charge was de­ served, the second not. M anton rarely had sufficient funds to meet the dem ands m ade on him for cash, and had to resort to the use o f bills and tallies. H e was succeeded by W alter Bedw in, another highly com petent official. John Benstead was one o f the most active o f all E d w ard ’s clerks. He began his career in the w ardrobe in 1292, in the low ly position o f usher, becam e controller in 1295, and performed the vital task o f keeping the privy seal, being thus in charge o f the secretarial aspect o f the house­ hold. H e was described as the king’s secretarius, and p robably did perform m any o f the functions o f a m odern secretary. O n one occasion E dw ard termed him ‘our clerk w ho stays continually by our side’ , and he w as one o f the king’s closest advisers. In 1305 he left the w ardrobe to becom e chancellor o f the exchequer, and early in E dw ard I I ’s reign he abandoned his clerical orders, becom ing a knight and a royal justice. H e had earlier accepted the full w ar w ages o f a banneret, unlike the other clerks w ho took pay for their retinues, but not them selves, on cam p aign .24 A nother w ho should be m entioned is John Sandale, whose career shows the flexibility o f w hich E d w ard ’s clerks were capable. H e acted as paym aster in W ales in 1294-5, then performed a sim ilar task in G ascony, and after a period in charge o f the royal mints, becam e cham berlain o f Scotland at the end o f the reign, a position w hich was effectively within the w ardrobe adm inistration.25 E dw ard was well served by his w ardrobe clerks. A ll o f them re­ m ained totally loyal to the king, even at times when church and state w ere in conflict, notably during the crisis o f 1297. T h ey were, o f course, all ecclesiastics themselves. A lthough M arch was dismissed from his post o f treasurer in 1295, there were no instances o f m ajor household officials being dismissed from positions w ithin the household for reasons o f incom petence or corruption. T h e w ard rob e’s closeness to the king perhaps m ade it less vulnerable to purges o f adm inistrative per­ sonnel, such as that w hich took place on a wide scale after the kin g’s return from G ascony in 1289, but the evidence is that the w ardrobe clerks were rem arkably efficient in perform ing a wide range o f tasks, often under severe pressure. T h ey served as paym asters to the king’s arm ies, and were frequently em ployed to bring cash from the ex­ chequer to headquarters. T h e y were inevitably also m uch concerned 23 Langtoft, ii, 344. 24 C.L. Kingsford, ‘John de Benstede and his Missions for Edward I’, Essays in History presented to R .L . Poole , ed. H.W.C. Davis (Oxford, 1927), 332-44; Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 19, 69, 141, 225-6. 25 The Registers o f John de Sandale and Rigaud de Asserio, bishops o f Winchester, 1316-23 , ed. F.J. Baigent (Hants Record Soc., 1897), xvii-xlvii.

THE R O Y A L HOUSEHOLD

H3

with the business o f providing sufficient victuals for the arm ies. Some had more specialized activities than others: the controller had the privy seal, and other clerical responsibilities, w hich in 1300 included m aking copies o f papal bulls for the king. Some clerks had diplom atic duties: Bonet de St Q uentin was a w ardrobe clerk, but spent most o f his time dealing with the French over problem s concerning G ascony, while Stephen o f St G eorge acted as E d w ard ’s proctor in Rom e. T h e notary John o f C aen was retained by the king as w ardrobe clerk.26 T h e w ardrobe clerks were responsible for draw ing up the accounts o f the household, and the surviving records show both how m uch was done in the course o f E d w ard ’s reign to im prove the system, and also how the increasing pressures o f the later years proved to be too great for the handful o f royal adm inistrators to cope with. A lth ough the surviv­ ing evidence for accounting is all in the form o f rolls and books, the actual process o f calculation was not done with pen and parchm ent. A ccou nting tables were an im portant part o f the equipm ent o f the wardrobe: one, bound with iron, was specially m ade for the Flanders expedition o f 1297, and another was m ade in 1301 and taken on a special cart to Scotland. Counters were used for the actual process o f calculation, in the form o f copper tokens, or jettons. M oney was often w eighed out rather than counted: the burden o f counting out vast num bers o f small silver pennies would have been intolerable, and in 1297 a balance was bought for w eighing them .27 T h en the transactions would be noted down in w riting, and according to the household ordinance o f 1279, accounts were draw n up every night. These would have been sim ply the accounts o f the various dom estic departm ents, the kitchen, buttery, pantry and so forth.28 In fact, the great expansion o f w ardrobe business in E d w ard ’s reign necessitated a m uch more com plex accounting procedure than the O rdinance envisaged. Each household departm ent would keep its own records, o f receipts and expenditure. U ntil 1290, account rolls were presented to the exchequer for audit, probably one for receipts, one for household dom estic expenses and one for the w ide-ranging costs o f the w ardrobe.

26 Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 151-67; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, xxi, 165; Liber Quotidianus, 327. John of Caen’s career is summarized in Great Cause i, 79-Bo. 27 BL Add. MS 7965, ff. 19V, 20v; Add. MS 7966a, f.39. There have been suggestions that the jettons, coin-like objects, were used as small change, but the evidence of the wardrobe accounts is quite unambiguous, that they were counters: Edwardian Monetary Affairs (1279-1344) , ed. N.J. Mayhew (British Archaeological Reports, 1977), 88—9. 28 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 160-1. For an example of a household roll, which gives details of day-by-day expenditure by the domestic depart­ ments, see Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 117-63. This is perhaps the dullest of the various types of household record.

I

44

EDWARD I

A t the sam e time, a different sort o f record was kept by the wardrobe; account books in jou rn al form, listing, on a chronological basis, receipts and expenses in no very system atic w ay. T h e earliest w ardrobe account book dates from 1277-8. B y 1286 there were two types o f account book kept. T h e controller’s book still took the form o f a jou rn al, by now with a degree o f subdivision, and there was also, probably, a book o f prests, detailing cash advances m ade by the w ardrobe. T h ese books were p robably still internal records, but by the early 1290s account books were being presented to the exchequer at audit. U nd er W alter L an gto n ’s guidance, separate books o f receipts and expenditure were kept, and by the end o f the century, if not earlier, a single account book, w ith details both o f expenditure and receipts, was subm itted for audit. Both the keeper and the controller kept copies. T hese were system atically organized into sections, dealing with such matters as the alm onry, necessary expenditure o f a m iscellaneous type, gifts and restoration o f the cost o f horses lost in w ar, fees and wages o f bannerets and knights, w ages o f squires and sergeants, wages o f infantry, wages o f sailors, and the costs o f the royal messenger service, and o f the hunting establishm ent. L yin g behind this final account book was a range o f other books, o f receipts and prests, and sm aller account rolls for the various different m ain heads o f expenditure. Journals o f daily incom e and expenditure were kept, in book form, and books o f debts owed by the w ard robe.29 T h e impression given by the vast range o f surviving record m aterial, particularly from the later years o f E d w ard ’s reign, is o f immense efficiency. Y et, in fact, the logical and clear system w hich was developed in the 1290s was too elaborate, and above all could not cope when national m ilitary expenditure was included along w ith the vari­ ous dom estic elements o f household costs. T h e business o f converting the raw m aterial o f the initial accounts into the form o f the elegant final account books took an increasingly long time. T h e account books for 1296-8 were draw n up reasonably prom ptly, for a paym ent was made for their binding in 1298—9, but the later books took m uch longer. T h a t for 1300-1 shows that A dam de B ray, an official in charge o f the royal stable, did not make his account w ith his superiors until 13 14 -15 , and the final account book was not therefore written until that date, at the earliest. T h e book for 1305-6 cannot, to ju d g e by internal evidence, have been written before 13 15 -16 . T h e last accounts o f the w ardrobe to be audited in Edw ard I ’s reign were those for 1295-8. A n entry in the 29 These conclusions are based on a study of the surviving records, which are too numerous to be listed here. See also Book o f Prests, 7294-5, ed. E.B. Fryde (Oxford, 1962), ix-xxvi; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, ix-xv, though my views are not identical with those set out there.

THE R O Y A L HOUS E HOLD

I45

1305-6 account suggests that it was exam ined at the exchequer, and some corrections m ade in it, but only at some date after 1334.30 Y e t although the impression o f order and efficiency given by such account books as the Liber Quotidianus o f 1300 is a rather spurious one, reflecting the hard work o f clerks o f E dw ard I I ’s reign rather than the energies o f John Droxford and his clerks, it w ould be w rong to conclude that the w ardrobe altogether failed Edw ard I. T h e com plexity o f the accounting m ethods that had evolved in the course o f the reign was certainly too m uch for the lim ited num ber o f clerks w ho had m any more pressing concerns than the w riting up o f their records. T h e work o f paying the troops, organizing provisioning, assisting in recruiting, raising m oney as well as running the household on a day-to-day basis was all done, and w hat is rem arkable is not that the accounts were left in some confusion, but that a small staff o f a dozen or so men should have achieved so m uch. Th ere was no need for the household to be provided with a hierarchy o f secular officials to m atch that o f the clerks. T h e ch ief lay position was that o f steward, or seneschal, o f the household, and there were also two m arshals. T h en there was a varyin g num ber o f bannerets, knights, squires and sergeants, w ho were not allocated specific offices, but who m ight be called upon to undertake a wide variety o f tasks. T h e stew ard’s only duty, according to the O rdinance o f 1279, was to be present along with the other household officials when the accounts were checked every evening.31 H e also presided over the household court, and alm ost certainly played a leading part in w hatever ceremonies took place. A b ove all, he was in charge o f the household’s m ilitary forces, and when it was necessary to make arrangem ents for the garrisoning and victu alling o f castles, it was the stew ard who sat together with the keeper, and perhaps one or two other officials, to decide w hat should be done. U ntil the early 1290s there were, in fact, two stewards holding office at the same time. H ugh F itzO th o had been E d w ard ’s steward before his accession, and went w ith him on crusade: he rem ained in office until his death in 1283. In 1278, however, Robert F itzjo h n was appointed to serve alongside F itzO th o , serving until he died in 1286. John de M ontalt was a steward for a decade, from 1284 to 1294, and the Savoyard Peter de C hau ven t held office from the late 1280s until 1292. T h en W alter de B eaucham p, who had been appointed in 1289, becam e sole steward, serving until early in 1303. His successor was Robert de la W arde, 30 C. Johnson, ‘The System of Account in the Wardrobe of Edward I’, T R H S , 4th ser. vi (1923), 53; BL Add. MS 7966a, 646V; E 101/369/11, f.50. 31 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 160.

I 46

EDWARD I

and for the last six weeks o f the reign the office was held by John T h o rp e .32 Th ese stewards were not men o f the highest baronial rank. It would indeed have been surprising had a m ajor territorial m agnate been prepared to devote the am ount o f time to affairs at court that the stew ard had to do. E qually, these stewards should not be thought o f as the royal equivalents o f the stewards o f great baronial estates. T h e latter were professional m anagers, experts in the com plex business o f auditing accounts, farm ing out manors and so forth, whereas the household stewards were men whose prim e responsibilities were ju d icial and above all m ilitary. T h e y all held the rank o f banneret, a position above that o f the ordinary knights in the m ilitary hierarchy, and were senior and respected men, though their position evidently laid them open to criticism . T h e author o f the Song o f Caerlaverock described W alter de B eaucham p as ‘a knight who would have been one o f the best o f all, according to my opinion, if he had not been too proud and rashly insolent, but you w o n ’t hear anyone talk o f the steward w ithout a “ b u t” ’ .33 T h e office did not bring m uch more by w ay o f rewards than went to the other bannerets. F itzO tho, according to the O rdinance o f 1279, was to receive nothing by w ay o f fees or wages, as the king had given him wardships worth £50 a year. His colleague F itzjoh n was to have an annual fee o f 10 marks a year, with 8 marks for robes, and land in w ardship worth £25 a year. N ear the end o f the reign, W alter de B eaucham p received the same am ount in fees and robes as the other bannerets o f the household, £24 a year. H e also received £200 in lieu o f food, for him self and his retinue in the royal hall, following a reform ing ordinance o f 1300 known as the Statute o f St A lb a n s.34 T h e ordinance o f 1279 listed two m arshals o f the household, R ichard du Bois and Elias de H auville. T h eir prim e responsibility w as the m aintenance o f discipline in the household, while the 1318 household ordinance suggests that they took turns to arrange the seating at dinners in the king’s h all.35 T h ey assisted the steward in giving judgem ents in the household court, and must also have helped him in the task o f organizing the household for war. U nfortunately, 32 The exact chronology of these stewards remains uncertain: see Tout, op. cit., vi, 42, and Handbook o f British Chronology, 73, 76. The latter includes as a steward in 1306, Thomas Hide, on the basis of a reference in C C R 1302-7, 372, but this man does not appear in the list of household knights in E 101/369/11, ff. 106V-107, and was surely an estate steward, not steward of the household. 33 The Siege o f Carlaverock, ed. N.H. Nicolas (1828), 30. 34 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 49-50, 158; Liber Quotidianus, 92, 188, 311. 35 Ibid., 158; Tout, Place o f Edward I I , 283.

THE R O Y A L HOUS E HOLD

147

the lists o f knights and bannerets in the household accounts do not distinguish the m arshals in any w ay, and it is not possible to provide lists o f the holders o f this office. T h ere was a connection between the office o f m arshal in the household and the position o f m arshal o f E ngland held by the earl o f Norfolk, though it does not seem that the earl actually appointed any o f the household m arshals in E d w ard ’s reign. A later treatise on the duties o f the m arshal o f England had a curious item, in w hich it was stated that the m arshal should have tw elve ladies at court, who were to swear to his representatives that they knew o f no other whores at court apart from themselves. T h is fits w ith some evidence o f the service by w hich the m anor o f Sheffield in C am bridgeshire was held, described in about 1280 as ‘by finding a sergeant to keep the whores in the kin g’s a rm y’, and under E dw ard 11 as ‘by being m arshal o f the whores in the kin g’s household, and dism em bering condem ned m alefactors and m easuring gallons and bushels there’ . A nother sergeanty was described in terms o f acting as ‘m arshal o f the tw elve girls w ho follow the kin g’s court’ .36 T h is was surely antiquarian m aterial already in E dw ard I ’s day, reflecting a som ew hat m ythical past. T h e evidence o f the household accounts provides no support for these statem ents o f the m arsh al’s duties, and the twelve whores have to be consigned to the realm s o f fantasy. T h e bannerets and knights o f the royal household varied consider­ ably in num ber, in accordance w ith the scale o f the king’s m ilitary needs, and the state o f his financial position. T h e evidence becomes fuller as the reign proceeds, but an account from 1277, the year o f the first W elsh war, suggests that there were then alm ost fifty household knights, and an account book o f the following year also gives about fifty names, noting that six men were serving with com panions. A b ou t thirty names are in com m on between the two lists.37 T h ere is no accurate list o f those retained as bannerets and knights at the time o f the second W elsh w ar o f 1282-4, but there seem again to have been at least fifty.38 From 1285 there survives a roll o f paym ents for robes for the knights, squires and sergeants o f the household, w hich provides m uch better evidence than the earlier lists. T h ere were fourteen bannerets 36 J.H. Round, The K in g ’s Serjeants and Officers o f State (1911), 97-8; BL Cottonian MS, Vesp. B. V I I , f.107. 37 E 101/3/21; C 47/4/1, f.52. 38 C 47/2/6. Some of the major household names, such as those of Otto de Grandson and Robert Tibetot, do not feature on the accounts, although they are listed as household members on a pay account, E 101/3/6. It may be that it was thought that they were in receipt of sufficient patronage not to need fees and robes: C 47/4/5. f.33, shows that Alexander de la Pebree was deprived of fees and robes when he was granted lands in Gascony.

148

EDWARD I

listed singly, and then eight noted as having commilitones, or com panions. T h e list continues with forty-seven ordinary knights. D enholm -Y oung suggested that the commilitones were some kind o f corps d ’elite, but this is most unlikely. It was quite comm on for men to enter into partnerships to share in the profits and bear the losses o f w ar, but it is only at this period that the accounts show this arrangem ent existing w ithin the household. T h e total strength in 1285 was seventy-seven.39 W hen E dw ard went to G ascony, num bers fell: in 1288—9 there were sixteen bannerets and only tw enty-seven knights in the household, rising in the next year with the king’s return to England to tw enty-three bannerets and thirty-five knights.40 T h e num bers did not rise in the 1290s, as m ight have been expected from the m ilitary situation: although tw enty-tw o men were recruited in 1297, the year o f the Flanders expedition, they were an addition to a household that contained only ten bannerets and tw enty-six knights. In 1300 there were tw enty-eight bannerets and forty-nine knights, but in 1301 the equivalent figures were eighteen and thirty-six. A t the end o f the reign the figures were m uch the same: seventeen bannerets and tw enty-eight knights.41 T h e figures for squires and sergeants followed a sim ilar pattern. In the m id -1280s there were about a hundred squires and seventy sergeants, falling to eighty and fifty respectively in the later part of the decade. In 1300 there were about sixty squires and forty-five sergeants, with num bers falling in the last years o f the reign to fifty squires and some thirty sergeants.42 N ot all o f these sergeants were described as sergeants-at-arm s: about h alf their num ber were allocated to the various household departm ents, and had largely dom estic duties.43 In this period, it was becom ing increasingly com m on for nobles to retain knights in their service by means o f written indentures, w hich promised fees, robes, food when they were present in the household, recom pense for horses lost on service and other benefits. Edw ard him self had retained men by means o f fees long before he cam e to the throne: in the autum n o f 1259, for exam ple, D rogo de Barentin was promised, in w riting, £20 a year for his service with two other

39 E 101/351 /17; Denholm-Young, History and Heraldry, 31-2. 40 E101/352/24; E 101/352/31. 41 Prestwich, War. Politics and Finance, 46-7, with some adjustments to the figures given there. 42 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 164-72; E 101/352/24; E 101/352/ 31 ; Liber Quotidianus; E 101/369/11. 43 The Latin term serviens did not have the almost exclusively military implications of the modern ‘sergeant’.

THE R OY A L HOUS EHOLD

H9

knights.44 T h e precise terms o f the indentures recording the agree­ ments he m ade with those w ho accom panied him on crusade are recorded.45 In the case o f the royal household knights and squires, how ever, there do not appear to have been such w ritten agreem ents. Th ere was nothing novel in retaining substantial num bers o f men in the king’s household, and it seems likely that E dw ard I sim ply followed past custom .46 A w ell-established system did not need reinforcem ent with written docum ents. T h e accounts show that the knights and bannerets received fees and robes - the latter in the form o f a cash paym ent for the most part — to a value o f £24 for a banneret and £12 for a knight. Sergeants-at-arm s and squires received m uch less, with £2 6s 8d or £2 a year. In addition they were entitled to eat in the king’s hall (at least until econom y m easures taken in 1300) received wages while on active duty, and were aw arded com pensation for horses lost while cam paigning in the royal arm ies.47 T here was no single avenue for recruitm ent to the royal household under Edw ard I. O b viously, those w ho had served him as prince tended to continue in his household after his accession, but the evidence does not perm it any detailed analysis o f this type o f continuity. T h ere were some who had been E d w ard ’s enemies in the B aron s’ W ars who becam e loyal household knights. John d ’E yville headed the list o f bannerets in a docum ent in 1284-5, and served the king loyally until his death in 1291. John de V escy was another such, and N icholas de Segrave was also a M ontfortian w ho becam e a household knight.48 Th ere were some men whose careers in the household extended virtually throughout the reign. T h e Y orkshire knight W illiam L atim er is a splendid exam ple o f a long-serving and talented household knight. H e went on crusade w ith E dw ard, served him in W ales, and accom panied him to G ascony in 1286-9. He assisted in the defence o f G ascony against the French in the 1290s, and last saw active service in Scotland in 1300, when he was described in the Song o f Caerlaverock: 44 C61/4, m.4. Roger de Stokes, Thomas de Ippegrave, Henry de Burn’, and the distinguished judge, Henry de Bath, are all also recorded as receiving fees of £20, while Ralph de Aubigny had one of £10. On the dorse of this roll, Hugh Despenser, Roger Clifford, Fulk and Thomas de Orreby, John le Breton and unspecified others are described as being knights of Edward’s fam ilia. 45 Above, 68-9. 46 Prestwich, ‘The Military Household of the Norman Kings’, E H R , xcvi (1981), i-3 5 -

47 These terms can be deduced from the wardrobe books, such as the Liber Quoti-

dianus.

48 E 101/351/17; E 101/352/24; Complete Peerage, iv, 50-1, ix, 603—4; xii (ii), 278—80.

15o

EDWARD I

V a lo u r and Sir W illiam Latim er Fast and firm friends were they; His banner red bore a simple charge A cross o f red patee. It was with justice that W alter o f G uisborough described Latim er as miles strenuissimus, but he performed diplom atic and legal duties as well as m ilitary ones. His son W illiam followed him into household service, his career beginning in 1294. W illiam ju n io r was knighted on the W elsh cam paign that year, and then w ent to fight in G ascon y.49 W illiam L eyburn was another household knight whose service lasted m uch o f the reign: he was the son o f Roger Leyburn, who played so im portant a part in E d w ard ’s early career.50 Eustace H atch was a man w ho rose from being a squire in the household in 1276 to the status o f a banneret in the later years o f the reign. H e served Q ueen Eleanor as well as the king, and was in charge o f the king’s daughters during the period when E dw ard was in G ascony in the late 1280s: like so m any household knights, he had abilities w hich extended well beyond the m ilitary sphere.51 Such long service as these men gave was rather exceptional: there was a m arked change in the com position o f the household knights in the 1290s, as age took its toll. O n ly fourteen o f those retained in the 1280s appear in later lists, and conversely, o f those in receipt o f fees and robes in 1297, only four had featured in the accounts o f the previous decade.52 T h ere was some continuity in fam ily terms: the Latim ers and Leyburns were far from unique in providing fathers and sons as household knights. W alter B eau cham p ’s son followed in his father’s footsteps; less auspiciously, the traitor Thom as T u rberville was son o f a household knight, H ugh T u rb erv ille.53 T h e tradition o f service m ight go back into H enry 1 1 1 ’s reign, or even earlier, with such names as Rivers, T regoz, G rey, O ddingseles and Gorges recurring frequently. T h e names of T urberville, Lestrange, M ortim er, de la Pole and M old am ong the bannerets o f the 1280s reflect the im portance o f the W elsh M arch in the period o f the W elsh wars, but there is no sim ilar bias to the north to be 49 Complete Peerage, vii, 461-5; Guisborough, 244; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, xlii; Book o f Prests, i2gp-g, ed. E.B. Fryde (1962), 150; The Siege o f Carlaverock, ed. Nicholas, 44. 50 Complete Peerage, vii, 634—7; above, 27—47. 51 Ibid., vi, 387—9; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, xxxvii, where the evidence of Liber Quotidianus, 188, is ignored; Court and Household o f Eleanor o f Castile, ed. Parsons, 63. 52 Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 48; BL Add. MS 7965, if.6o-i; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 164-5. 53 See below, 383.

THE R O Y A L HO US E HO L D

I5 I

detected in the lists for the later years o f the reign, when the kin g’s attentions were directed towards Scotland.54 T h ere was a significant foreign element am ong the household knights. It was only to be expected that Edw ard w ould em ploy some G ascons, given the affection w hich he clearly developed for G ascony from the time o f his first visit there in 1254. T w o o f the G ascons who cam e to fight for Edw ard in W ales, during the second W elsh war, A rnold G uillaum e and A rnold de M onteny, were recruited into the household, and when the king went to G ascony in 1286, he naturally took on a num ber o f G ascons, including A rnold de G avaston, father o f the notorious Piers, Elie de C aupenne and A lexand er de la Pebree.55 Few o f these men cam e back to England with E dw ard, and by 1297 there were only four G ascons am ong the household knights, one o f them a new recruit. In the last years o f the reign there was a handful o f G ascon household knights, including A rnold G avaston, A rnold de C aupenne, G u y Ferre and A rnold G uillaum e du Puy. T h ey doubtless found the Scottish clim ate far from congenial when they cam paigned in the north.56 T h e other im portant group o f foreigners in E d w ard ’s service were the Savoyards. O tto de G randson was the most im portant o f the Savoyards, and his nam e does not, rather surprisingly, feature in the lists o f household knights. It was probably considered that he was in receipt o f sufficient other rem uneration, and did not need fees and robes from the king. His im portance in the household is attested by m uch evidence: at Easter 1287, for exam ple, O g er M ote jun ior, a G ascon, was knighted and adm itted to the household by O tto de G randson acting on the king’s behalf.57 Peter de C h a u va n t was steward o f the household and then cham berlain, and was clearly a figure o f great significance.58 John de Bonvillars, killed at D ryslw yn in 1287, was a distinguished Savoyard knight in the household, and W illiam C icon and Eble des M ontz were am ong the other m embers o f w hat seems to have been a close-knit group.59 E dw ard I ’s very considerable reputation brought other foreigners 54 See Prestwich, op. cit., 44-5. 55 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 164-5; for the names of further Gascon household knights, see Trabut-Cussac, L ’administration anglaiseen Gascogne, 79m Piers Gaveston was Edward I I ’s favourite. 56 BL Add. MS 7965, ff.60-61; BL Add. MS 7966a, ff-78v-79. 57 E 36/201, f. 79. Otto’s career is fully discussed by Clifford, A Knight o f Great Renown, and more briefly by C.L. Kingsford, ‘Sir Otho de Grandison, 1238?-!328’, T R H S, 3rd ser., iii (1909), 125-95. 58 He was still listed as a banneret of the household in 1301: BL Add. MS 7966a, f. 135. For his career, see Complete Peerage, iii, 154-5. 59 A.J. Taylor, ‘Who was “John Penardd, leader of the men of Gwynedd” ?’, E H R , xci (1976), 79-97.

152

EDWARD I

into his service. In the m id -i 280s two G erm ans, Eustace de Jardin and R ainald M acere, were am ong the household knights, along with an Italian, Bonvassal o f Genoa. In the later years o f the reign, the cosm o­ politan tradition was continued, with the Spanish knights Jaim e, señor de G erica, and Pascual o f V alen cia, known as the adalid. W ithin the British Isles W ales was not a fruitful recruiting ground: the social structure m eant that there were relatively few men o f knightly status, and O w en de la Pole, banneret o f the household in the 1280s, was an exceptional figure. Scotland was a different m atter. In the first h a lf of the reign the Scot A ndrew le R at was a household knight, and then the kin g’s involvem ent in Scottish affairs in the last decade o f his life brought such men as Simon L indsay, Simon Fraser, and Thom as and H erbert de M orham into the household. T h e fact that these men accepted the king’s fees and robes did not, however, ensure their loyalty, as the cases o f Fraser and H erbert de M orham were to show only too clearly.60 T h e squires formed the rank below the knights in the king’s service. T h ey were a very heterogenous group: in 1285—6 the list included the future knight, G rim bald Pauncefoot, and the royal tailor, A dam Bydik. A gain, in 1300 the royal goldsm ith, harpist, surgeon and tailor were included alongside such aristocratic names as A lan Plugenet, W illiam M ontague and Peter M aulay. T h ose o f high birth could expect in due course to be knighted and to rise, if they stayed in household service, to the rank o f banneret, while others were never to rise higher in status. T h e sergeants, a num ber o f w hom were Gascons, com prised profes­ sional soldiers, sergeants-at-arm s and men with particular expertise, such as the king’s arm ourer and his saddler.61 T h e m ilitary function o f the knights, squires and sergeants o f the household was obviously o f prim e im portance. T h ey provided the king with a force w hich could be readily and swiftly deployed in w ar, long before the elaborate process o f recruiting the host as a whole had been com pleted. T h e num ber o f men that could be raised by deploying the knights and others was very considerable, for each banneret and knight would bring his own retinue with him on cam paign. In the W elsh wars, some squadrons solely m ade up o f household men can be identified, though some household knights served alongside men w ho were only tem porarily in royal pay. In the second W elsh w ar, o f 1282-3, it seems likely that the household provided as m uch as a third o f the total cavalry strength o f the English arm y. In Flanders in 1297 there were few cavalry w ho were not o f the royal household, and in 1298 the 60 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, xl, 165; Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 46; E 101/3/13; C 47/4/5, f.32; Liber Quotidianus, 188-95. 61 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 166-7; Liber Quotidianus, 321-3.

THE R O Y A L HO US E HO L D

J53

household provided 800 cavalry for the Falkirk cam paign, out o f a total strength o f perhaps 3,000. T h e heraldic poem w hich describes the siege o f C aerlaverock in 1300 shows that the household men formed one out o f the four battalions in the arm y.62 N or was the household confined to fighting on land. W illiam L eyburn was nam ed as captain o f the king’s sailors in 1294, and in the following year he was entitled adm iral, the first English bearer o f the title, along w ith his household colleague, John Botetourt. T hese men were not appointed because they had particular experience o f naval m atters, as was G ervase A lard o f W inchelsea, adm iral in 1300, but L eyburn in particular was a seasoned com m ander who had the king’s trust, while Botetourt was rising rapidly to prom inence, having begun his household career as a falconer in the 1270s.63 T h e household knights were m uch more than soldiers. T h ey m ight be used on diplom atic missions: in the 1280s John de V escy accom panied A nthony Bek to Bayonne, to the L ow Countries and to Paris. In 1301 Robert de la W arde was sent to France to negotiate an extension o f the truce between Philip I V and the count o f Bar, E d w ard ’s son-in-law. A m anieu d ’A lbret, and other members o f the household, were with the earl o f Lincoln on an em bassy to Rom e in the same year, and A rnold de C aupenne was sent to treat with members o f the French king’s council.64 A t home, household knights m ight be given adm inis­ trative duties: in the later years o f the reign Robert Clifford was keeper o f the tem poralities o f the bishopric o f D urham . T h e y were m uch used in the preservation o f law and order. In 1286 household knights and squires were engaged in the pursuit o f crim inals. W illiam Latim er served on two comm issions to inquire into official m alpractices, includ­ ing the m ajor ju d icial investigation that took place on E d w ard ’s return from G ascony in 1289, in w hich Joh n de St John, another household banneret, also took part. John Botetourt served on four comm issions o f oyer and term iner in as m any m onths late in 1298 and early in 1299, and was a man o f considerable ju d icial experience.65 T h e political im portance o f these men is hard to quantify, but a good proportion o f the bannerets - two-thirds in 1300 - received summonses to attend parliam ent as barons, and their support o f the king must have been valuable in discussions and debates. Edw ard did not, o f course, rely exclusively on the household to 62 hold 63 64

Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 50-8, provides a fuller account of the house­ at war. Handbook o f British Chronology, 1 3 5 ; C 47/4/1, if. 15V, 36V. Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, xli; BL Add. MS 7966a, ff.29v, 34,

42V.

65 Prestwich, ‘The Military Household of the Norman Kings’, E H R , xcvi (1981), 3; 458, 460-1.

C P R i2 g 2 ~ ijo i,

J54

EDWARD I

provide knights who could perform political, ju d icial and diplom atic tasks. In some cases, household knights were not used as m uch as m ight have been expected. O n ly three household bannerets were appointed to the m any commissions set up in 1297 to receive fines from the clergy in return for the king’s protection.66 Im portant local men were frequently given commissions to act as justices o f oyer and terminer, and some o f the appointm ents o f this nature given to household men were probably due very largely to their position in county, rather than court, society. John Botetourt alm ost certainly received some o f his commissions o f oyer and terminer because he was an East A nglian landow ner o f some im portance.67 In 1301 it was two m inor knights w ith no known house­ hold connections, T hom as W ale and Thom as Delisle, w ho were sent to the papal curia with the im portant mission o f putting E d w ard ’s case with regard to Scotland to the pope.68 It is certainly not the case that all the household knights were kept busily em ployed on royal affairs in times o f peace: the reason w hy E dw ard retained so m any was because o f their m ilitary function, and in peacetim e it was more for reasons o f status and prestige that a large establishm ent was m aintained, rather than because the needs o f state required a lavish household. Edw ard I was never a notably generous master, and the rewards for serving him do not com pare with those given out by his grandson Edw ard I I I . T h e clerks probably did best out o f all E d w ard ’s house­ hold servants, w ith the benefices that cam e their w ay. T h e list o f the w ardrobe clerks w ho eventually becam e bishops - though not all in E dw ard I ’s lifetime - is indeed an im pressive one, consisting o f Louth, Langton, D roxford, Sandale, M elton, Bek, Bicknor, M arch and Reynolds. T h ere was a considerable increase in royal ecclesiastical patronage in E d w ard ’s reign, an increase probably inspired to a great m easure by his clerks, who were the ch ief beneficiaries o f it.69 T h e lay m embers did not benefit from royal patronage to the same extent, even though there were some men who rose strikingly in social status in the household. T h e king was most reluctant to make any perm anent grants o f land to his knights: to have done so w ould have run counter to the policy enunciated in his coronation oath, to m aintain royal rights and recover past losses. W ardships and m arriages were a different matter, and the household knights were in an excellent position to lay claim to these as they becam e available. T h u s in 1292, John 66 C P R i 2 g 2 - ij o i , 239-40. The number could perhaps be raised to four, for William de Leyburn was one of the commissioners, but curiously, he was not included in the wardrobe book, BL Add. MS 7965, ff.6ov-62, as receiving fees and robes this year. 67 As for example C P R i 2 g 2 - ijo i, 458, 460-1. 68 E.L.G. Stones, ‘The Mission of Thomas Wale and Thomas Delisle from Edward I to Boniface V I I I in 130T, Nottingham Medieval Studies, xxvi (1982), 8-28. 69 Below, 546-7.

THE R O Y A L HOUS EHOLD

*55

de St John gained control o f the Som ery lands, John Botetourt the D rayton estate, and John de Felton, though only a squire, acquired the M iddleton w ardship. In the sam e year W illiam F itzW a rin ’s daughter m arried John de D agw orth, as a form o f reward for her father’s services.70 It was through m arriage that John Botetourt becam e an East A nglian landow ner, not through any grant o f lands from the king. Eustace H atch, w ho rose from the rank o f squire in 1276 to banneret status, cam e to hold land in nine counties, but was never a tenant-in­ ch ief o f the king. T h e lim ited scale o f E d w ard ’s generosity is shown by the fact that E ustace’s executors had to petition in parliam ent for paym ent o f the debts owed him by the king, so that his legacies to the H oly Land m ight be p a id .71 W illiam L eyburn even lost Leeds C astle in K en t, acquired by his father in 1268, to the king and queen in 1278, as part o f a com plex deal w hich saw his debts to a Jew ish m oneylender paid off.72 M inor gifts m ight come the w ay o f household knights, as when in 1280 Clifford and L eyburn each received ten bucks and ten does to stock their parks, but it w ould be w rong to suppose that men served E dw ard for the sake o f m aterial rew ards.73 A king such as E dw ard did not need to buy loyalty on a lavish scale: there m ust have been m any who felt it a privilege to serve a king o f such prestige. T h ere were some signs o f discontent at the scant returns for loyalty: in 1305 the senor de G erica and Pascual de V a len cia were given £200 and £100 respectively, on condition that they cease m aking any further dem ands for m oney owed to them. Jean de L am ouilly, whose expertise enabled E dw ard to use gunpow der at the siege o f Stirling in 1304, was so discontented with his treatm ent at the hands o f the English crown that he was later to kidnap and hold to ransom the earl o f Pem broke. Such exam ples were rare, however, and Edw ard appears to have had no difficulty in recruiting men to serve him. A letter from K ath erine Paynel to the chancellor John Langton shows that positions at court were not easy to obtain. She asked for L an gto n ’s assistance in placing her son in the king’s household, ‘where he could learn good sense and m anners’ , and from the fact that she offered to cover his expenses as far as she could, it seems that she was not expecting m aterial rewards to come easily.74 I f E dw ard was to exercise good lordship, then he had to provide for his servants in their old age. T h ere was no problem as far as those o f knightly status were concerned, for they had sufficient w ealth to 70 C P R 1281-92, 465, 472, 487, 498. 71 Rotuli Parliamentorum, i, 199; M.C. Prestwich, ‘Royal Patronage under Edward I’, Thirteenth Century England /, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1986), 43. 72 K W . ii, 695; C C R 1279-88 , 80. 73 Ibid., 33-4. 74 Prestwich, ‘Royal Patronage under Edward I’.

156

EDWARD I

m aintain themselves, but it was not so easy for the sergeants. U nder H enry I I I , exchequer pensions had been provided, but this practice was not followed by E dw ard. T h ose pensions in existence at the time o f his return to E ngland in 1274 were rapidly com m uted for lum p sums. Th ere were obvious disadvantages in giving men a direct call on the lim ited cash resources o f the crown, and Edw ard preferred a method o f rew arding men w hich cost him nothing. Th ere was a traditional royal right to dem and corrodies, allowances o f food and clothing, from m onasteries, particularly royal foundations.75 Thus in the hectic month o f A ugu st 1297, when E dw ard was both preparing to sail to Flanders and dealing with intense political argum ents, he found time to dem and a corrody in B ury St Edm unds for his sergeant W illiam de Ponte, and one in M alm esbury for Robert le Despenser. Th ere was some difficulty at A bbotsbu ry, where the monks had to be requested to restore the corrody earlier provided for H enry Lom bard. M an y other exam ples could be given: in M arch 1293 the king dem anded no less than seven corrodies in seven different religious houses.76 O ne further elem ent w as necessary for the household, and in particu­ lar the w ardrobe, to serve effectively as a central part o f the m achinery o f governm ent. It had to possess an effective means o f com m unication, and the household messengers were far more im portant than their relatively hum ble status suggests. T h e history o f the king’s messengers has been very fully investigated, and m any detailed accounts o f their activities survive.77 T h ere was a sm all core o f men w ho were retained on a perm anent basis as messengers. T h e y were form ally adm itted to the household, ju st as knights were: one record notes that on 15 M arch Geoffrey o f B ardney, who had been a m em ber o f the English garrison o f Edinburgh, was so adm itted, and given a box with the royal arms on it in w hich he could carry writs and letters. T h e total num ber o f such messengers varied, in the course o f the reign, from ten to seventeen. T hese regular messengers w ent about their duties on horseback, but there were rarely enough o f them for the am ount o f w ork that needed to be done, so cokini (unm ounted couriers) were hired in addition. As m any as forty m ight be used in any one year, and although not retained on a perm anent basis, m any served the king very frequently. T h e messengers were busy men: in 1300 the picturesquely nam ed Little Robin went on at least eleven separate missions, including one to G ascony. It was not only the privy seal letters, w ritten in the w ardrobe, 75 127; 76 77

M.C. Hill, The K in g ’s Messengers, u g g -ig y y C C R i288-g6 , 279. C C R i2g6-igo2 , 122-3, 127; C C R i288-g6, Hill, K in g ’s Messengers.

(1961), 61-85, C C R I2 g 6 -ij0 2 , 122-3, 279.

THE R O Y A L HO US E HO L D

*57

that they delivered: m any chancery writs, such as the summonses to parliam ent o f 1300, were also carried by household m essengers.78 M essengers had to be reliable, and in the two known cases where they failed E dw ard, those concerned were alm ost certainly not m em ­ bers o f the household staff. In 1299 when the English garrison at Stirling were in dire straits, they deluded the Scots into thinking that they had am ple supplies, by throw ing out a quarter carcase o f beef and a m easure o f wheat. H ow ever, a m essenger they sent to the king, requesting victuals and aid, w ent to the Scots and revealed their true plight. T h e castle was therefore blockaded and fell in three days. L ater, the treacherous m essenger got his due deserts. T h e other exam ple is o f a W elsh messenger, w ho drunkenly offered to reveal all he knew o f the king’s secrets to the constable o f a besieged Scottish castle. So appalled was the constable by such conduct that he refused to open the letters offered to him, and sent the W elshm an back to the English to be han ged.79 T h e im portance o f the household, and the w ardrobe in particular, as the nerve-centre o f E d w ard ’s governm ent cannot be over-em phasized. Y e t at the same time as providing a personal secretariat w ith the privy seal, serving as the m ain spending departm ent o f state, financing armies, and providing a good m any o f the troops deployed in those armies, the household still performed its dom estic functions. It was a m ajor undertaking to provide for a body com prising up to some 600 people, excluding the inevitable mass o f hangers-on, particularly as the household was, for m uch o f the time, itinerant. Food, horses, carts, accom m odation, royal alm sgiving, even the m aintenance o f order w ith ­ in the household, all had to be carefully organized. T h e dem ands m ade by the household in terms o f food and drink were very impressive. A contem porary estim ate m ade near the end o f the reign, for a six-m onth period from A p ril to Septem ber, put the daily requirem ent o f grain at ten quarters o f w heat and ten o f m alt - the latter for brewing purposes. O ver the whole six m onths, 1,500 cattle, 3,000 sheep, 1,200 pigs and 400 bacon carcases would be required, and the horses would need 3,000 quarters o f oats.80 In addition, o f course, great quantities offish, poultry and wine w ould be consum ed. Some im pres­ sion o f the needs o f the household is given by the preparations m ade for the royal visit to Lenton, near N ottingham , at Easter 1303. A s early as February the sheriff was ordered to purvey 100 quarters o f w heat and 78 Liber Quotidianus, 280-303. 79 Hill, K in g ’s Messengers, 119-20; Flores, iii, 310, 320; Chronicon de Lanercost, ed. S te v e n s o n , 1 7 7 - 9 .

80 E 101/13/36, no. 220.

158

EDWARD I

600 o f oats. E arly in M arch a royal clerk, W illiam Barton, was sent on ahead o f the household to collect the grain together. L ater that month orders were issued for ten live oxen, thirty beef carcases, tw enty live sheep and eighty m utton carcases, along with pots and baskets, to be provided. Peter o f C hichester, another household clerk, was sent to obtain forty tuns o f ale.81 T h e task o f the royal officials was simplified by the fact that they could make use o f the royal right o f prise, which enabled them to com pel men to sell their produce to the crown, at arbitrarily fixed prices. For the most part they were not even paid in cash, but received w ardrobe bills, or tallies, w hich promised future paym ent, a promise w hich was all too often not fulfilled. O n ce the foodstuffs had been collected together, the business o f preparation was divided between various departm ents. T h e m eat was stored in the larder, then cooked in the kitchen. Bread was the province o f the pantry, and there was also the poultry and the saucery. Utensils and equipm ent were looked after by the scullery, and table-linen by the napery. W ine was the concern o f the buttery. A full kitchen account survives for 1291—2, w hich gives some impression o f the household diet. T h e staple items were beef, pork and m utton, with herring and cod on fast days. M ost o f these w ould have been preserved by salting, though some was eaten fresh. C hicken and duck were the m ain items of poultry, and eggs were consum ed by the thousand. O n special feast days, more luxurious items feature: at C hristm as there was veal, and alongside the 1,742 chickens were tw enty-tw o pheasants, seventeen dozen partridges, sixteen dozen m allard duck and six dozen plover. R ab b it m ight feature occasionally, but it was an expensive item, at no less than 8s gd for h a lf a dozen on one occasion. Fish days m ight be enlivened with lam preys, sturgeon, salm on and eels. V in egar, verjuice and m ustard were provided by the gallon to add flavour to w hat must have been a monotonous diet. Beside all this, o f course, there would have been a great deal o f bread eaten. There were two kitchens in the household, according to the Ordinance o f 1279: one for the king, and one for his following. T h e accounts show that E dw ard ate only rarely in the hall with all his household, going there on such special occasions as the feast o f the N ativity o f the V irg in .82 For most o f the time he must have eaten in his cham ber, and presum ably, as a result, usually did better than the general throng. O n one occasion, however, in Septem ber 1300, the bread was found to be unsatisfactory in both cham ber and hall, and the officials concerned were duly fined.83 Th ere were expensive items in the store o f spices kept 81 E 101/12/4. 82 E 101/353/2; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, xxx-iv. 83 E 101/357/16.

THE R O Y A L HO US E HO L D

X59

by the great w ardrobe, and these were obviously destined for the royal table: one inventory lists alm onds, rice, ginger, galingale (an East Indian spice), pepper, saffron, caraw ay, cum in, sugar and other luxuries. 4 A le was easily supplied by local brewers, or was produced by the household staff, but wine presented greater problem s. Feast days m ight see a great deal consumed: on C hristm as D ay 1286 thirteen tuns were needed, though norm ally the level was m uch lower, varyin g consider­ ably in accordance w ith the num ber o f people present. It could be a costly business to provide sufficient wine: in 1289-90 M atth ew de Colum bers, the royal butler, bought 1,858 tuns for £3,827. N o doubt he was restocking, after the royal expedition to G ascony. T h e crown did have a right to take one tun o f wine from before the m ast, and one from abaft, from every ship that cam e to England, and this was an im portant source o f supply. T h e procedure was o f course unpopular, and one royal cham berlain com plained that he had been threatened w ith the am putation o f both arms when one m erchant forcibly repossessed the two tuns taken from him. O n occasion the crown accum ulated enough wine to be able to sell some off: in 1285—6 Colum bers obtained alm ost £300 in this w ay, and in 1299-1300 his successor as butler, A dam de Rokesle, accounted for alm ost £500 received from the sale o f 172 tuns o f w ine.8 85 4 T h e scale o f the provisioning operations for the royal household was vast, and in 1300 an attem pt was m ade to reduce the burden on the clerks, cooks and others w ith the ordinance known as the Statute o f St A lbans. Th is aim ed to cut down the num bers o f those entitled to meals in the king’s hall. T h e text does not survive, but the accounts provide some hints o f its nature. T h e steward o f the household, the keeper, and certain bannerets and knights were allocated cash allowances in lieu o f taking m eals.86 I f the purpose o f the m easure was econom y, then it achieved little. In 1297-8 expenses o f the dom estic establishm ent stood at £12,608. In 1299-1300, the year o f the Statute o f St A lbans, they fell to £10,926, and in the following year to £9,570, but they then rose to £12,021 in 130 1-2.87 H owever, the ordinance must have simplified the task o f the household adm inistrators, and it m ay well have m eant that the dem ands for foodstuffs, m ade as the household m oved about the country, were not so excessive. T h e m easure could indeed have had some political purpose, to ease criticism o f the crow n’s use o f the right o f prise. 84 E 101/356/21. 85 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, xxxi-ii, 121; Liber Quotidianus, 15; E 101/352/10; E 101/352/22. 86 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 49-51. 87 E 372/144; Liber Quotidianus, 360; BL Add. MS 7966a; E 101/360/25.

i6o

EDWARD I

T h e arrangem ents for feeding the household appear to have been very efficient, to ju d g e by the scarcity o f indications o f com plaint and trouble. T here were considerable problem s at C on w y early in 1295, when the king was virtu ally besieged by the W elsh after suffering the loss o f his baggage train, but those were exceptional circum stances.88 Th ere was trouble when E dw ard was in Flanders. A t G hent early in 1298 the pantry failed to provide enough bread, forcing the knights o f the household to go out into the town to buy their supplies. It was held to be an action in contem pt o f the king when they m arched into the hall, each followed by a servant carrying his food. M aster Robert, the official in charge o f the pantry, said that he could not supply bread, as the w ardrobe had not given him sufficient funds: after an angry scene, he was deprived o f his wages for a month. T h ere were some difficulties in Scotland in the last years o f the reign, as when the poulterer bought poultry, and shipped it north from B erw ick in 1304, only for the ship to be driven off course to N orw ay. T h e birds died from the effect o f the long voyage.89 In general, however, it is rem arkable how well the household adm inistration coped with a difficult task. T h e provision o f more specialized com m odities for the household was the concern o f the rather confusingly nam ed great w ardrobe. A b ove all, the keeper o f this office bought supplies o f cloth, some o f it o f very high quality, furs and spices. T h e costs incurred by the king’s tailor were m ostly included in the great w ardrobe accounts. T h e house­ hold ordinance o f 1279 laid down that the keeper o f the great w ardrobe should buy goods at three fairs a year, and that he should have the assistance o f the w ardrobe usher, to act as his controller. T h e depart­ ment was to be firm ly under the ultim ate control o f the keeper o f the wardrobe. These provisions were obviously intended to bring the great w ardrobe under closer supervision: it had been developing into an office virtually independent o f the household. It could never be fully integrated, however, for the nature o f the great w ard robe’s business was such that it needed to have a perm anent base, where the cloth and other goods could be stored, and where work could be done on m anu­ facturing robes. T h e keeper could not rem ain perm anently in the household, and he had to travel in order to buy goods. T h e T ow er of London provided w hat am ounted to a perm anent headquarters, and early in the reign a house in London was hired by A dam Bydik, the king’s tailor, as a storehouse.90 C lose relations were established between the great w ardrobe and the 88 Below, 221. 89 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 3211; Green, Lives o f the Princesses o f England , ii, 313; BL Add. MS 8835, f.29v. 90 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 161-2; iv, 370-1, 394, 398.

THE R O Y A L H O U S E H O L D

16 1

m erchant com m unity. T h e bulk o f furs were supplied by Londoners, while a wide range o f com m odities in the later years o f the reign were provided by the Italian firm o f the B allardi.91 It is a m easure o f the continuing relative independence o f the great w ardrobe that it pre­ ferred to deal with this firm, rather than with the kin g’s main bankers, the R iccardi in the first h alf o f the reign and then the Frescobaldi. T h e accounts o f the great w ardrobe give some impression o f the luxury and ostentation o f the court. W hile there was m uch ordinary cloth bought, striped Stam ford woollens, worsted and serge, along with plain blue cloth, there were also the cloths o f gold, samite, purple, cindon and other high quality items, and a wide variety o f furs. T h e lists o f spices, m any o f them from the east, have an exotic character o f their ow n.92 T h e hunting establishm ent, like the great w ardrobe, had its perm a­ nent base, as well as form ing a part o f the itinerant household. T h e mews at C harin g provided a centre for operations, while hawks and falcons were also sent to m any different places, often to be looked after by men who held their lands by perform ing this particular service.93 T h e scale o f the royal hunting operations increased considerably in the course o f the reign: in 1275-6 the cost was only £378, and in 1279—80 £482. In the next decade it rose as high as £1,002 in 1285-6, with as little as £77 being entered in 1299-1300. T h is reflects the fact that this was the most inefficient o f all sections o f the household when it cam e to accounting, not an actual decline in hunting activity. M an y items in the last decade o f the reign were not entered in the annual account books, until they cam e to be included in that for 1305-6, so causing an otherwise inexplicable ju m p in the total for that year to £ 1,155.94 In the m id -1280s there were tw enty falconers in the household, and ten ‘ostringers’ (who saw to the haw ks), with ten ‘braconers’ in charge o f the hounds, three huntsmen, six berners or kennel-men, two keepers o f harriers, and one each o f foxhounds and bercelets (another type of hound). L ater numbers stayed at roughly this level.95 T h e falconers and huntsmen were not em ployed m erely because the king enjoyed his sport: theirs was also a very practical function, for they were able to supply the royal kitchens with a good deal o f game, particularly venison. The almonry was a small and specialized department, whose functions have already been discussed.96 Its accounts fall into two sections, the provision m ade for paupers, some on a regular basis, and some on 91 Williams, Medieval London, 159; E 101/127/7. 92 See for example the fullest printed great wardrobe account, in Records o f Wardrobe and Household , ed. Byerley, 246-8. 93 Above, 115. 94 E 372/123, 124, 130, 136, 144; E 101/369/11. 95 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 168. 96 Above, 112-13.

1 62

EDWARD I

special saints days and festivals, and the more personal oblations made by the king. These could include some very m iscellaneous items along­ side the offerings at various altars and gifts to friars: in D ecem ber 1299 the alm onry paid £45 2s to the b ailiff o f D arlington for repairs to the bridge there, so that the royal carts could cross safely, and a m onth later £1 4s was paid in alms to a D urham w om an w ho had followed the king to Berw ick, so as to bring an appeal against certain crim inals arrested at the royal court. It was from the royal alm onry that a stable boy, kicked and injured by one o f the royal w ar horses, received 5s by w ay o f com pensation.97 T h e king and his household were frequently on the move. Lengthy sessions o f parliam ent, the need to take up w inter quarters, illness near the end o f his life: such circum stances m eant that the king would have to take up residence in one place for some time, but for the most part it was rare for him to be more than a few days in any one place. Transport o f the household was therefore a m ajor undertaking. T h e household ordinance o f 1279 laid down that the w ardrobe should have three long carts, the pantry, buttery and kitchen one long and one short each. A n account o f 1285—6 shows that some other departm ents, such as the scullery and the larder, also had carts, and that the total then stood at seven long and five short carts. A t the end o f the reign there were six long and seven short carts, each looked after by one carter and one fore-rider. Th ere were also forty-one packhorses: the king’s personal plate, his robes and bed were all transported in this m anner, as was the furniture o f the royal chapel.98 T h e provision o f sufficient horses for draw ing the carts, carrying equipm ent and riding was a com plex m atter, even though m any members o f the household would have had their own mounts. T h e m arshalsea was the departm ent in charge o f the royal horses, and it organized not only those actually w ith the household, but also the various studs and farms where they were bred and kept. W oodstock and H ertford were two favourite stables, and O dih am was m uch used. In the north, royal horses were kept at M acclesfield and the Peak. Other places included Chertsey, St A lbans and Bream ore, and there was even a royal stud at A rd u d w y in W ales. A stable for 200 horses was built at C lipstone in N ottingham shire in 1282-3. T h a t was an exceptional num ber to envisage accom m odating: more typical were the figures for 1296-7, when there were some thirty horses at Chertsey, under the charge o f Richard Fohun, a sim ilar num ber in various places entrusted to John G ylem yn, and about fifty with A dam de B ray at Hertford. 97 Liber Quotidianus, 26-7, 43. 98 Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, ii, 163; Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 168; E 101/369/11, f. 158.

THE R O Y A L HOUS E HOLD

163

Earlier, an account by W illiam de Perton o f the royal horses at C hester in 1284, at the close o f the second W elsh war, shows the largest num ber to have been seventy-three. A stable account for 1292-3, when the king was in Scotland, gives a better idea o f the num ber o f horses required by the itinerant household. In N ovem ber 1292 there were eighteen royal horses at Berw ick, and 164 at N orham . B y M a y o f the following year the total num ber had risen to 269. O f these, thirty-four were specified as being for the king, with others allocated to John o f B rabant and the royal children. Fifty were for pulling carts, and forty-five were p a ck h o rses." O n occasion it proved necessary to buy additional horses. Th ere were some im ported from France at the time o f the first W elsh war, and in 1297 alm ost a hundred were purchased for the household, presum ably because o f the needs o f the cam paign in Flanders that y e a r.9 100 I f the horses privately 9 owned by members o f the household are included, the total num ber in the royal entourage becomes very impressive: in 1286 it was estim ated that sufficient shipping would be needed to take 1,000 horses across the C h a n n e l.101 There was a considerable difference between the ‘great’ chargers used in war, and the carthorses and pack anim als. T h e former could cost up to 100 marks, like the one bought by Edw ard at W inchelsea in 1297, while an ordinary rouncy, or a sum pter horse, m ight be worth no more than £2. T h e warhorses had splendid names, such as B ayard de la T u che, B ayard de C ham pagne, G reyley or, slightly more prosaically, L yn d h u rst.102 T h e citizens o f London considered in 1304 that a good w ay to curry favour with the king w ould be to present him with a fine horse, and a Spanish charger was duly bought for the purpose. E dw ard was a little suspicious, and sent Peter de C olingbourn to inspect the anim al, but his opinion o f it is unfortunately not record ed.103 T h e care o f the household horses was a specialized business, and those involved in it, men such as John G ylem yn and A dam de B ray, did not m ove on to higher positions in other departm ents. Looking after sick horses, to m ention sim ply one aspect o f their overall responsibility, dem anded particular expertise. A ilin g horses were allocated 3d a day for their expenses, while their groom s received only 2d. M edicines used on them included vinegar, honey, pork grease, olive oil, sulphur and iron sulp hate.104 99 E 101/97/3; E 1o 1/13/97; BL Add. MS 7965, ff. 26-7; K W , ii, 919. 100 J.E. Morris, The Welsh Wars o f Edward I (Oxford, 1901), 115; BL Add. MS 7965, ff.

2 1

V— 22V.

101 102 103 104

Records o f Wardrobe and Household,

ed. Byerley, 46.

E 101/97/12. BL Add MS. 8835, f.7v. Records o f Wardrobe and Household,

ed. Byerley, 31; E 101/97/3.

1 64

EDWARD I

W hen the household was travelling, it was a m ajor undertaking to arrange billetting, particularly since there must have been m any people who were not actually retained by the king - m erchants, petitioners, paupers - accom panying the royal entourage. H arbingers and ushers would be sent on ahead o f the m ain party to m ake w hat arrangem ents they could. Edw ard did, o f course, possess a substantial num ber o f castles and manors where he m ight stay. Castles were not in fact much favoured: he seems to have preferred to stay at the m anor in W indsor park, rather than in the castle there. T h e residences on w hich he was most prepared to spend m oney were hunting lodges, such as Clipstone in N ottingham shire or W oolm er in H am pshire. A t Banstead in Surrey, acquired from John de Burgh, E dw ard spent about £200 on repairs, new buildings and decoration, though in contrast the established royal lodge at Freem antle in H am pshire was abandoned by the king, and its buildings dem olished.105 Repairs were frequently needed in advance o f the arrival o f the king and his household. In 1300 a w rit was sent to the b ailiff o f G eddington in N ortham ptonshire w arning him that the king was com ing, and carpenters were duly em ployed to repair the hunting lodge there, at a cost o f £1 12s 3d. In the next year repairs at Brigstock in Rockingham Forest cost £3 is n V k i. A t N ortham pton castle that year, m uch work was done because the king was due to visit: a new cham ber w as built, along with a w ardrobe and a chim ney, and a partition was set up for the queen in the chapel, all at a cost o f £22 13s i d .106 W hen the king and queen stayed at W olvesey castle at Winchester, in 1302, there was a serious fire, the result o f a blocked chim ney, from w hich they were lucky to escape alive. A s a result, when they next visited the castle, in 1306, a new cham ber was built for the queen, and various repairs done. N ew glass was fitted to the w indow s, and the paintw ork renewed. A n elaborate painted and upholstered chair was m ade for the queen, and a garden with a stream running through created for her to take her ease in .107 M an y as the royal castles and houses were, the king and his house­ hold frequently had to find hospitality in m onasteries, and even houses belonging to his subjects. Som etim es, indeed, this was preferable to using a royal castle: in 1306, at Y ork, the archiepiscopal palace was used as a tem porary royal residence rather than C lifford’s T o w e r .108 E d w ard ’s second queen, M argaret o f France, had a strong preference for staying in monasteries: late in 1299 she spent three weeks at St

105 K W , ii, 919, 1007, 1017. 106 Liber Quotidianus, 62; BL Add. MS 7966a, f.3ov. 107 E 101/369/11, f.4.6v. 108 Ibid., f.49. Repairs to the palace came to over £63; BL Add. MS 8835, f.20v, shows that a chamber for the king was built there in 1304 for just over £47.

THE R O Y A L HOUS EHOLD

1 65

A lbans, and resisted the king’s dem ands that they should spend Christm as at Clipstone, though in the end she had to com prom ise on W in d so r.109 A royal visit to a m onastic establishm ent must in m any w ays have been unwelcom e to the monks, but in A p ril and early M ay 1291 the king cam e to B ury St Edm unds, dividing his time between the abbey itself and the a b b o t’s nearby m anor o f Culford, and the house received a useful reward, in the form o f a promise that royal justices w ould not in future sit w ithin the liberty o f B ury, w hich was some com pensation for the inconvenience caused. O n a later visit to Bury, in 1296, Edw ard chose not to stay in the m onastery, but in the house o f one H enry de Lynn: the monks considered that this was som ething o f an affront, and that the accom m odation was not really w orthy o f a kin g .110 T h ere certainly m ight be difficulties in staying in ordinary m anor-houses. E arly in 1297 the king was at Ipsw ich, and stayed in W illiam F ran k’s m anor, but there was not room for the w ardrobe staff there, and they were put in another house, w here they did dam age assessed at 6s 8 d .111 Such entries, detailing com pensation in the wake o f a visit from the royal household, are a comm on feature o f the accounts. O n cam paign there was frequently nowhere com fortable to stay, and the royal household was well equipped in time o f w ar with tents and pavilions, but for norm al travel around the country little seems to have been done to provide canvas to sleep under, should insufficient accom ­ m odation be available. Even when E dw ard was travelling through France, on his w ay to G ascony in 1286, curiously the only tents that appear to have been provided were some for the use o f a few W elshm en in the royal entourage. M an y o f the m enial servants must often have had to sleep where they could, in the open, or perhaps sheltered under the long carts that carried the equipm ent. It would certainly be w rong to assume that life in the king’s household was luxurious for any but a very few. W ith the king’s large entourage, there were bound to be problem s in keeping order. T h ere were also inevitably argum ents with those who lived on the route taken by the household, about dem ands for provi­ sions. T h ere had to be special jurisdiction, for the crown could hardly be expected to rely on local courts. E d w ard ’s reign was very im portant for the developm ent o f the jurisdiction o f the household, but the process is not an easy one to trace. T h e legal treatise known as Fleta, written in the 1290s, provides some help, for it states, after m entioning the court in parliam ent, that ‘the king also has his court in his hall before his 109 Rishanger, 401. 110 Chron. Bury St Edmunds, 134. 111 BL Add. MS 7965, f. i4r&v.

166

EDWARD I

steward, who now occupies the place o f the king’s ch ief ju sticia r’ . T h e jurisdiction o f this court was confined to the verge, an area twelve miles around the king’s person. T h e court was obviously concerned with breaches o f the peace in this area, and Fleta states that the steward also had the power to receive and determ ine plaints, w ithout any writ initiating the action, and irrespective o f any privileges or franchisal rights that m ight be claim ed. A n exam ple is provided o f a w rit in which the steward o f the household com m ands the sheriff o f a county about to be visited by the king, to bring all assizes and pleas, all prisoners in custody and all men on bail, to appear before the household court. T h e only lim itation suggested for this rem arkably wide jurisdiction was that the steward should not m eddle in cases concerning freeholds, w ithout a writ. It is even suggested that the jurisdiction o f the court was still valid when the king was in a foreign country, and a case is cited to prove the point. W hen E dw ard was in Paris in 1286, some o f the royal plate was stolen. A fter long discussions in the French kin g’s council, it was decided that the case against the th ief should be heard before E d w ard ’s steward. T h e author o f Fleta was obviously well-inform ed on these m atters, and clearly had access to the court records: he m ay even have sat as a m em ber o f the household co u rt.112 Financial records provide valuable inform ation about the workings o f household jurisdiction. T h e y make it clear that there were effectively two courts, that o f the hall, supervised by the steward and m arshal, and that o f the m arket, where the clerk o f the m arket im posed fines for transgressions against trading regulations within the verge. In most years the latter provided more revenue that the former: often local com m unities would sim ply pay a lum p sum, as in the case o f N orth­ am pton w hich was charged £10 in 1301, so that there was no need to hear a large num ber o f petty cases.113 In 1285-6 the accounts show that it was only the pleas o f the m arket that raised any revenue at all, and that was no more than ju st over £50.114 U nfortunately, in the earlier years o f the reign the sum m ary accounts o f w ardrobe receipts do not distinguish between the incom e from the two aspects o f household jurisdiction, so it is not clear how it was that the high figure o f £343 was achieved in 1275-6: in the next year income fell to £106. T h ere were startling variations in the 1290s. In 1296-7 m arket fines were at a norm al level, but receipts from the court o f the stew ard and m arshal were staggeringly high at £232. T h is perhaps reflects in some w ay the fact that this was a year o f political crisis. A roll o f fines levied in the 112 Fleta, ed. H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, ii (Selden Soc., 1955), io g -i^ .F o r a discussion of the dating and authorship of this work, see Fleta, iii (Selden Soc., 1984), xii—xxv. 113 BL Add. MS 7966a, f. 12. 114 Records o f Wardrobe and Household, ed. Byerley, 192-3.

THE R O Y A L H OUS E HOL D

167

court shows that a great m any men sim ply failed to attend, incurring penalties o f between one and two shillings. In the next year, 1297-8, when the Scottish cam paign w hich culm inated in the trium ph at Falkirk took place, m arket fines rose to £111, but only ju st over £5 was raised in the court o f the h a ll.115 T h ere were no such rem arkable fluctuations in the final years o f the reign, but the record o f the profits made by the court o f the steward and m arshal in 1299-1300 shows how m uch m ight depend on a very few cases. O u t o f a total o f ju st over £70, £21 cam e from the silver and plate found in the possession o f one Robert Sallowe, arrested for felony within the verge by the bailiffs o f M orpeth, and £38 from the forfeiture o f the goods o f three crim inal brothers at N ew castle upon T y n e .116 A n em inent legal historian, G .O . Sayles, has suggested that ‘the evidence at our disposal scarcely justifies a belief in the existence o f a stew ard’s court before 1290’ , and that it was perhaps the experience gained when the king was in France, between 1286 and 1289, that led to the effective creation o f the court o f the steward and m arsh al.117 T h e financial evidence is to the contrary, and although the accounts for the early part o f the reign do not distinguish between the profits o f the hall and those o f the m arket, it seems most unlikely that the jurisdiction o f the steward and m arshal evolved only in the m iddle years o f the reign. O ne extension o f the court’s function that undoubtedly did take place was its developm ent as a place where recognisances, or acknow ledge­ ments, o f debts m ight be enrolled. In cases where the debtors defaulted, it m ay have been easier to get speedy action in the household court than elsewhere. T h e system was not entirely satisfactory, however, for in 1302 m erchants asked that they should be allowed to use the m achinery o f the exchequer to recover debts that had been enrolled before the steward and m arsh al.118 Surprisingly, not all cases that arose within the household were determ ined in the court over w hich the steward and m arshal presided. In 1291 N icholas de Lovetot struck another man in the king’s hall at W estm inster, but it was before the king’s bench, not the household court, that he was to be convicted. T w o years later, Eustace de Paries and his brother insulted the kin g’s justice, W illiam Bereford, accusing him o f corruption and other offences, doing so in the king’s hall. Th is m atter was regarded very seriously, and so the case was heard in 115 See the enrolled wardrobe accounts in E 372/124, 130, 136, 144; E 101/356/3. 116 Liber Quotidianus, 4—5. 117 Select Cases in the Court o f King ’,s Bench, ed. Sayles, iii, lxxxiii-lxxxviii. Writing later, however, Sayles pointed to evidence for the jurisdiction of the steward and marshal dating from 1272, and he also suggested that the plea rolls of the household court began much earlier than 1286: Select Cases in the Court o f K in g ’s Bench, ed. Sayles, vii, xliv-xlv. 118 Select Cases in the Court o f K in g ’s Bench, ed. Sayles, iii, lxxxvii, cxxii-cxiii.

168

EDWA RD I

p arliam en t.119 N or did the authority o f the court extend over the royal arm y in time o f w ar, as m ight have been expected, given the fact that the troops were paid through the w ardrobe, and that m uch o f the arm y must have been within the verge. In fact, m ilitary discipline was the responsibility o f a quite separate court, under the authority o f the m arshal o f England. O n ly one court roll o f this m ilitary tribunal survives, for the Scottish cam paign o f 1296, but it is quite clear from it that the ‘pleas o f the king’s arm y’ were quite distinct from the cases that cam e before the household court o f the steward and m arsh al.120 It was obviously essential, with an itinerant household, that there should be some convenient means o f hearing and determ ining cases as it m oved about the country. A t the same time, the operations o f a prerogative court, w hich acted upon plaint rather than upon writ, and whose activities were closely connected with the dem ands m ade upon the local inhabitants by the household, were bound to create some resentment. In 1300 it was agreed, in the Articuli super Cartas, that the jurisdiction o f the court should be confined to cases o f trespass w hich occurred within the verge, and in w hich action could be started before the king had m oved on elsewhere, and also to cases regarding debt and other agreem ents between m embers o f the king’s household. T h e coroner o f the household was not to act alone, but in co-operation with local coroners, to obtain indictm ents o f felons w ithin the verg e.121 Com plaints along sim ilar lines were to continue in E dw ard I I ’s reign, and it seems unlikely that the Articuli changed much. E dw ard was not attem pting to develop a w ide-ranging novel type o f jurisdiction for the steward and m arshal, and the issue o f the limits o f the courts functions was not one o f m ajor constitutional concern. In m any respects Edw ard I ’s governm ent o f England saw the adop­ tion o f new or revitalized approaches. T h e techniques w hich led to the great inquiries, and the production o f the statutes, or to the develop­ ment o f consultation through parliam ent, could hardly be applied to the royal household. Y e t, in some respects, fresh attitudes did serve to change this most central o f the institutions o f governm ent. T h e very existence o f the household ordinance o f 1279, unsatisfactory as it is, shows that it was felt that there was a need for some reorganization to take place. It is in the m ake-up o f the records that a transform ation is most evident, with a change from the ill-ordered journals o f the early years to the w ell-organized and beautifully written volum es o f the final decade o f the reign. 119 E 159/65. m. 1 1; R o t u l i P a r lia m e n to r u m , i, 95. 120 E 3 9 / 9 3 /15 ; partially calendared in C D S , ii, no. 822. 121 S ta tu te s o f th e R e a lm , i, 138. See also W.R. Jones, ‘The Court of the Verge: the Jurisdiction of the Steward and Marshal of the Household in Later Medieval England5, J o u r n a l o f B r i t i s h S t u d i e s , x (1970-1), 27.

THE R O Y A L HOUS E HOLD

1 69

T h e financial position o f the household, and in particular o f the wardrobe, changed m arkedly in the course o f the reign. In the early years m uch o f the w ard robe’s revenue was received quite indepen­ dently o f the exchequer, whereas in the closing years the bulk o f it was allocated by means o f block grants through the exchequer. But these adm inistrative changes did not o f themselves mean that the fundam ental role and character o f the household underw ent a thoroughgoing transform ation. T h e fine account books o f the later years are som ewhat deceptive, for they conceal a state o f considerable confusion, with accounts subm itted years in arrears, and debts m ounting up as expenditure far exceeded income. T h e block alloca­ tions o f income, through the exchequer, did not m ean that in practice the exchequer exercised any effective control over the w ardrobe, which was quite as independent as it had been in the early part o f the reign. T h e pressures o f w ar in the years after 1294, rather than a deliberate policy adopted by the crown, do m uch to explain this. T h ere was certainly no question o f E dw ard attem pting to develop the household as a basis for autocratic governm ent, and no w ay in w hich it was, or indeed was seen to be, a threat to the established constitutional structure o f the realm. T h ere were naturally m ajor changes in the personnel o f the household in the course o f the reign, with a m arked shift taking place in the 1290s, but the new men o f the later years o f the reign, John Droxford, John Benstead and W alter de B eaucham p am ong others, were well schooled in the established traditions o f the household. T h is was an institution w hich evolved gradually, rather than undergoing any sudden, cataclysm ic changes.

C h ap ter 7

THE CONQUEST OF WALES

O n 12 N ovem ber 1276 E dw ard I form ally decided to w age w ar on L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, prince o f W ales. T h e decision was taken in a council o f prelates and m agnates, and followed L ly w ely n ’s repeated refusal to come to perform hom age to the English king. T h e conquest of W ales, w hich was not com pleted until 1295, was one o f E d w ard ’s most notable achievem ents. T h e princely dynasty o f G w ynedd was des­ troyed, and the most rem arkable chain o f castles ever constructed stands as a perm anent rem inder o f the pow er w hich E dw ard brought to bear on the W elsh. It is tem pting to assume, with the aid o f hindsight, that E dw ard aim ed from the outset at the total subjection o f the W elsh principality. H e had had little success with regard to W ales prior to his accession: the policies o f his ministers had led to revolt in the 1250s, and the T re a ty o f M ontgom ery o f 1267 had shown that Simon de M ontfort’s W elsh ally, L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, w as still very m uch a force to be reckoned with. A s king, however, Edw ard was in a m uch stronger position, and it m ight be supposed that he em barked on his series o f W elsh wars in order to avenge his earlier lack o f success. Th is m ay have been an element in the English kin g’s policy, but it was L ly w ely n ’s attitude, not E d w ard ’s, that explains w hy w ar broke out in 1276. T h e survival o f L ly w ely n ’s rule depended on his achieving notable success against the English: E dw ard, in contrast, did not need to bolster his prestige by means o f a struggle w ith the W elsh. L ly w e ly n ’s career before the 1270s had been astonishingly success­ ful. H e had played his hand with great skill in the course o f the B aron s’ W ars, and in the T rea ty o f M ontgom ery o f 1267 the strength o f his position was evident. H e was form ally acknow ledged by H enry 111 as prince o f W ales. T h e W elsh barons were to hold their lands as fiefs from him, and m any o f the territorial gains he had m ade were accepted by the English. H e did, it is true, accept that he owed fealty and hom age to H enry I I I , but the nature o f the service that he owed as a result was not set out. T h e treaty was not, perhaps, as clear-cut in all particulars as m ight have been hoped, especially in some o f its territorial terms, but it showed that his authority in W ales was fully recognized by the

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

171

E n g lish .1 Significantly the treaty shows the w ay in which L lyw elyn ’s pow er was seen by the English. T hose responsible for drafting it could not appreciate that the character o f L ly w ely n ’s rule was in fact very different from that o f an English king, or even an English territorial m agnate, and that to describe it in essentially feudal terms was to give a very false impression. A lthough W ales had long been exposed to English influence, with English lordship being exercised in the M arches, it was a very different country from England in countless w ays. T h e basic unit o f English agrarian life, the manor, had m ade little progress into W ales, save w ithin the M archer lordships. A fter the E dw ardian conquest, the earl o f Lincoln was to create a brand-new m anor at K ilford in his honour o f D enbigh, for there had been none there before.2 T ow ns had barely begun to appear in the areas not under English influence: it has been estim ated that less than two per cent o f the population o f M erioneth lived in towns. M uch o f north W ales was rem arkably remote, reliant on self-sufficiency rather than on the workings o f a m arket econom y. A n ordinance o f E dw ard I ’s, which required one person from every house­ hold to come to m arket once a week, would cause considerable prob­ lems, and men had to be allowed to deal in such foodstuffs as cheese, butter and milk as they wished. T h e constable o f H arlech castle was to com plain that he had to go as far as M ontgom ery, or O sw estry, to buy the victuals he needed.3 T h e use o f m oney was m uch less comm on than in England: in 1318 the men o f west W ales were to argue that ‘they were never accustom ed to have m oney in the W elsh ry’ .4 Lordship was o f great im portance in W elsh society, but it was not feudal lordship in the English sense. O n ly to a lim ited extent were the W elsh adjusting themselves in the thirteenth century to system o f grants o f land m ade in return for service. T h e rules o f succession were quite different to those that operated in E ngland, for lands m ight be divided between sons, rather than descending by a system o f prim ogen­ iture. T h e old bonds o f kindred were still present, and the legal system took account o f the possibility o f paying sums o f m oney as recompense for m urder, galanas, a practice w hich the law yers o f E dw ard I ’s England 1 Littere Wallie, 1-4. For the most recent account of Edward’s conquest of Wales, which appeared too late to be fully taken into account when this chapter, and Chapter 8 were written, see R.R. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales 1063-1415 (Oxford, 19 % 7 ) >

3 3 3 -8 8 .

2 R.R. Davies, Lordship and Society in the March o f Wales, 1282-1400 (Oxford, 1978), 109. 3 Registrum vulgariter nuncupatum ‘ The Record o f Caernarvon ’, ed. H. Ellis (1838), 212, 224. 4 The Merioneth Lay Subsidy Roll, 1232-3 , ed. K. Williams-Jones (Cardiff, 1976), xxiii.

172

EDWARD I

w ere bound to find illogical and repellent.5 T h ere was a grow ing tendency to determ ine legal cases by an anglicized procedure o f inquisi­ tions, but the ancient hereditary position o fju dge, or eneyt, still survived in the north, and there is mention o f one eneyt in C yfeiliog, in Powys, so termed because he went to north W ales to learn W elsh law, though he did not, in fact, practice.6 Llyw elyn ap G ruffydd was the most powerful m em ber o f the most im portant o f the W elsh ruling dynasties. He did not, however, face an easy task in establishing his power in face o f rivalries, both within his own fam ily and with other W elsh lords. His task resem bled that o f some M erovingian ruler more than it did that facing a king o f the late thirteenth century, such as E dw ard I. T w o o f L ly w ely n ’s brothers presented no m ajor threats: the eldest, O w ain , had been taken prisoner by him as long ago as 1255, and he rem ained in custody until 1277. Rhodri was persuaded, in 1272, to hand over his rights to lands in W ales in return for a promise o f 1,000 marks. D afydd, the youngest brother, provided the gravest problem . H e opposed L lyw elyn in 1255, and in the mid-1260s backed H enry I I I against his brother. R econ­ ciliation followed, until in 1274 D afydd becam e involved in a plot with G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn o f Powys, directed against L ly w ely n .7 N o doubt L lyw elyn wished to extend his power over other W elsh rulers by means o f feudal techniques, but the terms o f the agreem ents w hich he m ade suggest that this was possible to only a very lim ited extent. W hen G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn did hom age for lands to L lyw elyn in 1263, the agreem ent reads in m any w ays like a treaty between two rulers o f equal authority. It does specify that, provided his own lands were not threatened with invasion, he was bound to join L ly w e ly n ’s arm y, but there was no definition o f the nature o f this service in norm al feudal term s.8 O ne means frequently em ployed by L lyw elyn to retain the allegiance o f W elsh rulers is evidence o f their reluctance to accept his lordship. In 1261 he dem anded that M aredudd ap Rhys should hand over twenty-four hostages, and in 1274 G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn gave his son O w ain to him as hostage. T h e same technique was used on a wide scale in 1271, when L lyw elyn was reinforcing his authority in m id-W ales.9 T h e use o f such methods is testim ony to the fragility o f the political edifice that L lyw elyn was 5 R.R. Davies, ‘The Survival of the Bloodfeud in Medieval Wales’, History, liv

(*969). 338-57-

* C W R , 208. 7 Littere Wallie, xxxviii-xl, liii; D. Stephenson, The Governance o f Gwynedd (Cardiff, 1984), 138-65, provides a fuller analysis of the problems caused by the uncertainty of succession in Wales. 8 Littere Wallie, 77-80, m - 1 3 . 9 Ibid., xliv-xlv.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

l 73

trying to construct, and it is small w onder that Edw ard I was to have little difficulty in gaining support from some o f those who had been subjected to L ly w e ly n ’s arbitrary techniques o f rule. Llywelyn did not have the same kind of administrative resources as did the English king. His central government was scarcely departmentalized, and the custom o f rewarding ministers and officials with hereditary grants o f land was a drain on already inadequate princely estates. There were various traditional renders which could be commuted into cash, and although there was an occasional levy, taken on the basis of the number of cattle owned, there was not the tradition of taxation which existed in England. Llyw elyn’s expenses were very considerable. M ilitary service beyond forty days appears to have been at his expense.10 Castles had to be strengthened: Llywelyn appears to have engaged in extensive building works at Ewloe, Dolwyddelan, Criccieth and Castell y Bere, and in 1273 a new castle was started at D olforw yn.11 In addition, the financial cost of the Treaty o f M ontgom ery of 1267 was heavy. The W elsh prince agreed to pay the English 25,000 marks, in instalments, and to that was added a further 5,000 marks in 1270, when Henry I I I conceded feudal lordship over M aredudd ap Rhys, o fY stra d T y w i in south W ales, to L ly w e ly n .12 R em arkably, in the years up to 1272 L lyw elyn kept up with his p ay­ ments, which were set at 3,000 marks a year. G iven that the income available to Edw ard prince o f W ales in 1304-5 from north W ales was ju st over £3,000, it is evident that Llyw elyn must have placed his subjects under enormous pressure.13 A list o f com plaints against his rule, draw n up after his death and presented to E dw ard I, makes it plain that his regim e was aggressive and unpopular. H e overrode traditional custom s, and imposed con­ siderable increases in traditional obligations. T h e census annuus in the L leyn peninsula was doubled, and units o f m easure were m anipulated to his ad va n tag e.14 It was only by engaging in a policy o f further expansion o f his dom inions that L lyw elyn could hope to retain the loyalty o f his officials and his subjects: only by w inning lands and booty could he provide them with sufficient rewards. C onflict began in the early 1270s between L lyw elyn and the M archer lords. In 1270 the W elsh seized the earl o f G lou cester’s new fortress at 10 Stephenson, Governance o f Gwynedd, provides a full discussion of Llywelyn’s government. 11 R. Avent, Cestell Tywysogion Gwynedd (Cardiff, 1983), 21-2. 12 Littere Wallie, xliii, li, 1-4; Calendar o f Ancient Correspondence concerning Wales, ed.J.G. Edwards (Cardiff, 1935), 207-8; C P R 1266-J2. 457. 13 Merioneth Lay Subsidy R oll , xviii-xx. 14 L. Beverley Smith, ‘The Gravamina of the Community of Gwynedd against Llywelyn ap Gruffydd’, Bull. Board o f Celtic Studies, xxxi (1984), 158-76.

*74

EDWARD I

C aerffili in G lam organ, though by 1274 it appeared that the earl had regained the upper hand. T h ere was also fighting between L ly w ely n ’s men and the earl o f H ereford, whose lordship o f Brecon was under a tta ck .15 Th ere was trouble between the W elsh prince and Roger M ortim er. L lyw elyn claim ed that M ortim er’s castle-building activities in M aelienydd went beyond w hat was perm itted by the T rea ty o f M ontgom ery, and that his own claim s to the land, acknow ledged in the treaty, had not been heard. In these circum stances, L lyw elyn was not prepared to continue paym ent o f the m oney under the terms o f the treaty. H e asked E dw ard in 1273 or 1274 (the letter is undated) to ‘com pel the earl o f G loucester, H um phrey de Bohun and the rest o f the M archers to restore to L lyw elyn the lands by them unjustly occupied and m ore unjustly detained’ . I f this was done, then paym ent w ould be resum ed.16 T h e building o f D olforw yn castle in M ontgom eryshire was also at issue in this period. In June 1273 the English governm ent forbad the construction o f the castle, and the creation o f an associated borough and m arket. Llyw elyn responded firm ly, arguing that he had full power to build castles and set up markets on his own land, and that although he held his principality from the king, the rights o f that principality w ere quite distinct from the laws o f the English realm . H e suggested that the prohibition had been issued w ithout E d w ard ’s know ledge (the king was in G ascony at the time), and im plied that he would not have taken such action himself. B uilding continued: in the year up to A p ril 1274, £174 6s 8d was paid to the constable o f the new castle to pay for the w o rk s.17 T h e question o f L lyw elyn prom ising fealty to E dw ard I was raised soon after H enry I l l ’s death, but the W elsh prince did not answer a sum mons to come to M ontgom ery at the end o f Jan u ary 1273. N or did he appear at E d w ard ’s coronation in 1274, but arrangem ents were m ade for him to come to Shrew sbury in N ovem ber o f that year, so that he could perform hom age. E dw ard, unfortunately, was struck by illness and could not attend: it is conceivable that had the m eeting taken place, the course o f events m ight have taken a very different turn. In June 1275 L lyw elyn was asked to come before Edw ard at Chester in late A ugu st. T h is time E dw ard attended - a few days late - but the W elsh prince did not. H ow ever, he claim ed in proclam ations to his own people that peace had been made, and raised a tax, on the pretext that he needed the m oney to pay Edw ard w hat was due to him. T h is alarm ed some o f the W elsh, and it must be suspected that L lyw elyn was 15 Altschul, A Baronial Family , 129-33. 16 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 92-4. 17 Ibid., 86; Littere Wallie, 23-4; C C R 12 72 -9 , 51; M.W. Beresford, New Towns o f the Middle Ages (1967), 44, 239-40.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

*75

in fact collecting funds with a view to war. Further summonses were issued by E dw ard, requesting L ly w e ly n ’s presence at W estm inster in O cto b er 1275, at W inchester in Ja n u ary 1276 and finally again at W estm inster in A pril 1276. L lyw elyn steadfastly refused to attend, and the sums due under the terms o f the T re a ty o f M ontgom ery rem ained u n p aid .18 L lyw elyn had strong reasons for acting as he did. H e considered that the English had not kept to the treaty o f 1267, and worries about the efficacy o f E d w ard ’s offers o f safe-conducts m ade him very reluctant to undertake a journ ey into England. M ore serious was the plot hatched early in 1274 between G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn o f Powys and L ly w e ly n ’s brother D afydd, which aim ed at the assassination o f the W elsh prince. T h e conspiracy was discovered, but both G ruffydd and D afydd m anaged to escape to E ngland, where they were well received by E d w a rd .19 Further provocation cam e over L ly w ely n ’s m arriage plans. H e had long been betrothed to Simon de M ontfort’s daughter E leanor, and it seems that he thought, quite m isguidedly, that it would be possible to reawaken the rivalries o f the 1260s in England. H e was in league with Earl Sim on’s surviving sons, G u y and A m au ry, and one o f the executors o f their m other’s w ill, N icholas de W altham , was acting as his secret agent at the English court.20 T hese links were strengthened by the proxy m arriage cerem ony between L lyw elyn and Eleanor which took place in 1275. D isaster struck when Eleanor and her brother A m au ry tried to come to W ales by sea, for they were captured in the Bristol C hann el, probably by a Cornish knight, T hom as Larchdeacon. Some chroniclers considered that this incident was w hat drove L lyw elyn to make w ar upon the English, but it seems unlikely that the W elsh prince would have persisted in his m arriage plans had he not in fact already been determ ined on settling his disputes with Edw ard by force. It is certainly the case, however, that E d w ard ’s refusal to release Eleanor aggravated an already tense and difficult situation.21 In 1276 m atters continued to deteriorate. In M a y Llyw elyn com ­ plained about Roger M ortim er’s activities in the M arch , and about raids by G ruffydd ap G w en w yn w yn ’s men. Payn de C haw orth was also attacking W elsh territory. In the autum n, Bogo de K n oville told the king that the area around O sw estry and M ontgom ery was being con­ stantly harried by the W elsh, and that he was powerless to resist. A n

18 Littere Wallie, lvi; Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 64, 105; C P R 12 72 -8 1 , 72. 19 Littere Wallie, liii-lv. 20 D. Stephenson, ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffydd and the Struggle for the Principality of Wales, 1258-1282’, Trans, o f the Honourable Society o f Cymmrodorion, (1983), 44; F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, The History o f English Law (2nd edn, Cambridge, 1898), ii, 507. 21 Chron. Bury St Edmunds, 60; C C R 1272-g , 292.

176

EDWARD I

offer by L lyw elyn to come to do hom age to Edw ard at either o f these two places was not acceptable to the English king. T h e conditions placed on the offer included the receipt o f elaborate safe-conducts, the confirm ation o f the treaty o f 1267 and the release o f Eleanor de M ontfort.22 Edw ard no doubt considered that the question offealty and hom age was not negotiable: it was L ly w ely n ’s duty to fulfil his obligation to appear before him, and if he would not do so, he would be treated as a rebel. Edw ard was determ ined on war. He must have considered that he had been patient long enough, although in practice, the length o f time needed to make m ilitary preparations would allow the W elsh one last opportunity to try to achieve a peaceful settlement. T h e m ain m uster o f the English feudal host was ordered to take place at W orcester on 1 J u ly 1277. I t was essential to make arrangem ents for the defence o f English-held lands m uch more im m ediately than that, in view o f the prospect o f further W elsh raids. A ccordingly, in the council at W estm inster where the decision to m ake w ar on L lyw elyn was taken, appointm ents were m ade to provide for the protection o f the M arches. T h e earl o f W arw ick was to be captain at Chester, R oger M ortim er at M ontgom ery, and Payn de C haw orth in west W ales.23 R oyal household knights were m oved swiftly westwards: in N ovem ber and D ecem ber they received pay successively at London, W indsor and Cirencester. In Jan u ary 1277 John de B eaucham p was appointed to the custody o f the castles o f C ard igan and C arm arthen, and by the end o f the m onth he had a force o f over a hundred cavalry. In the next month the earl o f Lincoln had a sim ilar sized troop at O sw estry. W arw ick ’s force at C hester was clearly substantial, costing £1,094 in wages between Jan u ary and M ay. U np aid service was provided by the men o f Shropshire and H erefordshire.24 These forces did m uch more than hold their own against the W elsh. Lincoln retook B auseley in M ontgom eryshire, and the men o f G orddw r surrendered to the M arch er lord Peter C orbet. G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn, loyal to E dw ard, won over m any W elshm en to his side. Bogo de K n oville also reported to the king that the three most powerful men in the cantred o f A rw ystli had come to terms, provided that Edw ard would agree to m aintain their rights. Further south, Payn de C haw orth succeeded in negotiating the surrender o f two im portant lords, Rhys ap M aredudd and G ruffydd ap M aredudd ap O w ain , in M arch, and although they failed to appear later that month to perform 22 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 27-8, 86-7; C C R 1272-Q, 360. 23 Pari. Writs, i, 193; C C R 12J2-9 , 358. 24 E 101/3/12, 13, 21; Morris, Welsh Wars o f Edward /, 118-22.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

I 77

fealty to E dw ard as they had prom ised, peace with Rhys was concluded on 11 A pril, while G ruffydd finally m ade his full surrender on 2 M ay. L lyw elyn ’s pow er received a direct blow when, at the end o f M arch , the garrison o f D olforw yn prom ised that they would surrender on 8 A p ril if they had not been relieved by then. T h e castle w as duly handed over to Roger M ortim er, w ho appointed G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn to be in charge o f it. T h e full extent o f the success achieved by the English forces must have been very clear to E dw ard when, on 1 Ju ly, five im portant W elsh rulers, R hys ap M aredudd, R hys W yndod, G ruffydd and C yn an ap M aredudd ap O w ain , and Rhys Fychan, all appeared before him and performed hom age.2 *25 3 T h e extent o f English success in the M arches, and in the south, before the m ain expedition had even m ustered, must have m ade L lyw elyn think hard about the wisdom o f offering arm ed resistance to E dw ard I. E arly in the year attem pts had been m ade to negotiate an agreement: the bishop o f Bangor, with a clerk, had been sent to E dw ard, and some m ediation was attem pted by the archbishop o f C an terbury. L lyw elyn argued that the English had more to gain from him than from ‘those w ho now by the king’s w ar seek their own profit and convenience rather than the king’s honour’ .26 T h is met with no response from E dw ard. In w hat was in m any w ays a civil w ar in W ales, it must have been obvious to the English king that it was to his advantage to give full encouragem ent to Prince D afydd, G ruffydd ap G w enw ynw yn and those W elsh rulers w ho were ready to throw off their allegiance to L lyw elyn. M an y preparations had to be m ade for E d w ard ’s expedition into W ales. T h e form al feudal summonses were issued on 12 D ecem ber 1276, asking all those w ho owed service to m uster at W orcester on 1 J u ly .27 Th ere was a shortage o f suitable cavalry horses in England: the bailiffs o f the French port o fW issa n t were asked, also on 12 D ecem ber, to allow the passage o f seventy-five horses. In February 1277 M atth ew de C olum bers, a royal sergeant, was sent to France to buy twenty mounts for the king, and in June he returned there for another forty.28 A bbeys and priories were asked to provide carts to transport the king’s tents and pavilions from London to W ales: at least nineteen such carts were used.29 Arrangem ents were m ade for the recruitm ent o f infantry, and some steps were taken to ensure that there w ould be sufficient 23 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 30-2, 55-6, 71-2, 81; Littere Wallie, 36-7, 41; Brenhineddy Saesson, ed. T. Jones (Cardiff, 1971), 255; R.A. Griffiths, The Principality o f Wales in the Later Middle Ages, i (Cardiff, 1972), 3; Morris, Welsh Wars o f Edward 1, 120-1, 124-3. 26 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 87, 91. 27 Pari. Writs, i, 193, 193-6. 28 C P R 1272-81, 184, 193, 212. 29 E 101/3/15.

i. The Welsh Wars of 1277 and 1282-3

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

179

supplies o f food and w eapons. In February, the ju sticia r o f Ireland was asked to send 600 quarters o f w heat and 1,000 o f oats to C hester by M idsum m er. In the next m onth there m ust have been frenzied activity at St B riavel’s castle, in G loucestershire, w here E dw ard requested the m anufacture o f 200,000 crossbow bolts.30 M oney was needed as well as men, equipm ent and victuals. In F ebruary, arrangem ents were m ade to borrow ju st over £3,700 from Italian m erchant com panies operating in England, and in M ay, the stew ard o f U lster was asked to take all the issues o f his county to C hester at M idsum m er, ‘the king being in great need o f m oney for the furtherance o f arduous affairs in W ales’ .31 In com parison to the m assive efforts m ade for E d w ard ’s later wars in W ales and in Scotland, all this activity was on a sm all scale, but the vital precedents for the future were now being set. T h e records o f the feudal m uster show that a total service o f 228 knights and 294 sergeants w as provided by the kin g’s tenants-inchief.32 T h is was not, o f course, the total cavalry force at E d w ard ’s disposal: m any men served for pay, and some M archers at their own expense. From W orcester, some men were sent to jo in an arm y under the com m and o f the king’s brother, E dm und o f Lancaster, operating from C arm arthen. B y 25 J u ly they had reached L lanbadarn, the future A berystw yth . T h e activities o f this force thoroughly alarm ed Rhys Fychan, w ho had earlier surrendered to E dw ard. H e now fled to join L lyw elyn, and his lands were seized by the E nglish.33 T h e m ajority o f those w ho m ustered at W orcester in J u ly moved swiftly northw ards, to C hester, w hich was to be the base for the king’s own advance against L lyw elyn. T h e fleet o f the C in qu e Ports, w hich also owed feudal service and consisted o f tw enty-six ships, cam e to C hester as well. T h e cam paign was a surprisingly uneventful one. T h e arm y, consisting o f perhaps 800 cavalry and some 2,500 infantry, advanced swiftly from C hester to Flint by 25 Ju ly, cutting a w ide road through the forest. Edw ard him self then returned to C heshire, to supervise the collection o f supplies and equipm ent needed to set up a strong base. G reat quantities o f tim ber were brought from the W irral and elsewhere; picks, axes and other equipment were bought in Chester. By m id-A ugust, E dw ard was back at Flint, where a great ditch had been dug to provide defence against the W elsh: the ditchers were given a reward o f 8s gd for their good work. C arts brought crossbow bolts along the newly m ade road and, no doubt most w elcom e to the troops, five barrels full o f silver pennies for their pay. T h e m ain arm y moved on 30 31 32 33

E 101/3/15; C C R 1272-9, 373. C P R 1272-81, 209. Morris, Welsh Wars, 45. Ibid., 136-8; Brenheniddy Saesson, 255; Griffiths, Principality o f Wales, i, 4.

i8o

EDWARD I

to R huddlan by late A ugust, its num bers building up rapidly. A t the end o f the month there were some 15,000 infantry in pay, o f whom about 9,000 were W elshm en draw n from the M arches and the south. B y that time they had reached D egan w y, and a substantial force under the com m and o f John de V escy and O tto de G randson was sent off by sea to occupy Anglesey. A total o f 360 harvesters were taken across, to collect the harvest in the island: at one and the same time victuals would be provided for the English troops, and pressure put on the W elsh by threatening them with starvation.34 M edieval w arfare was rarely an affair o f gaily caparisoned knights riding out to defeat a chivalrous foe in battle, w inning fame and glory. L lyw elyn did not have the forces to oppose the English in open battle. A lthough there are reports from the early 1260s that he could m uster up to 300 cavalry, these were alm ost certainly not fully equipped as knights, and there are no sim ilar references from the 1270s or 1280s.35 T h e W elsh infantry, m ostly spearm en in the north, were adept at guerilla warfare, and E dw ard was too cautious a com m ander to risk an advance into the heartland o f L ly w e ly n ’s dom inions, Snow donia. T h e chronicler Bartholom ew C otton described the operations o f this first W elsh w ar as a siege o f Snow donia, and they certainly had som ething o f that character, w ith the W elsh being steadily encircled and their food supplies cut off.36 O n 12 September Edward withdrew from D eganwy back to Rhuddlan, to aw ait events.37 T h ere was no im m ediate settlem ent, but on 2 N ovem ber O tto de G randson, A nth ony Bek, Robert T ib etot and others o f the kin g’s council were authorized to negotiate on E d w ard ’s behalf.38 T h e y went to C on w y, and on 9 N ovem ber terms were agreed with L lyw elyn. T h e W elsh prince cam e, according to one account, to seek the king’s m ercy, rather than judgem ent. T h e terms im posed on him were far from merciful. He was to pay an indemnity o f £50,000, abandon his claim s to the Four C antreds and all other lands seized by E dw ard, with the exception o f A nglesey, w hich he was perm itted to retain in return for 1,000 marks a year. His brother O w ain was to be released 34 Morris, Welsh Wars, 126-35, provides a detailed account. See also E 101/3/11, 15 for further details. 35 Merioneth Lay Subsidy Roll, cxxiv. 36 Cotton, 155. 37 Morris, Welsh Wars, 136, suggests that Edward left Rhuddlan in mid-October, going as far as Shrewsbury. This he appears to have deduced from the chancery rolls, but the evidence of the enrolments is not reliable as far as the king’s own whereabouts are concerned, and the dating of writs from Shrewsbury probably indicates no more than the transfer, for a time, of the chancery from Rhuddlan to Shrewsbury. Cal. Chancery Warrants, 4, shows that the king was at Rhuddlan for at least some of the time that writs were being dated at Shrewsbury. 38 E 101/3/15.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

18 1

from captivity, and the hostages he had taken from various W elsh lords returned. H e was to retain the hom age o f only five W elsh m agnates. Surprisingly, he was allowed to keep his brother D a fy d d ’s hereditary lands: E dw ard prom ised to com pensate D afydd with lands elsewhere. Llyw elyn was to swear fealty to E dw ard at R huddlan, and then come to London to do hom age. T en hostages were to be handed over, to ensure that the terms o f the treaty would be m aintained.39 O ne clause o f the treaty was im possible for L lyw elyn. T h ere was no w ay in which he could have paid out £50,000, even though he did hand over 2,000 marks at the time o f the negotiations, and later m ade the paym ents for A nglesey. It was not uncom m on for heavy fines to be imposed in legal cases, w ith no real expectation that paym ent would ever be m ade in full, and it was perhaps sufficient for E dw ard that Llyw elyn should concede that he was guilty o f offences w hich merited so huge a fine. A ccordingly, on 11 N ovem ber the fine was pardoned. Eleven months later E dw ard w ent further and freed the ten hostages he had taken, in recognition o f L ly w e ly n ’s good faith since the treaty had been agreed.40 T h e w ar o f 1277 has, very reasonably, been described as a disaster for L lyw elyn, and the treaty as a hum iliation.41 Y e t was this all that E dw ard had hoped for from the war? O n 23 A ugu st 1277 he had promised D afydd that, in the event o f his defeating L lyw elyn, he would restore h alf o f Snow donia, A nglesey and Penllyn, with the Lleyn peninsula, to D afydd and his brother O w ain. A ltern atively, should Edw ard decide to keep the w hole o f A nglesey, all the rest o f L ly w ely n ’s territory would be divided between the brothers. T h e continuing grants o f protections to men in the king’s service, m ade in Septem ber and O ctober, and in some cases lasting until Easter 1278, suggest that E dw ard was still envisaging a lengthy cam paign.42 It is likely that E dw ard faced difficulties, not on the scale o f L ly w ely n ’s, but sufficient to persuade him that it was better to m ake terms than to continue with the w ar until the W elsh prince was totally annihilated. V ictu als were probably running short in the autum n o f 1277: though royal clerks and knights had been sent to six counties to buy up supplies, the operation had cost only £416, and cannot have produced m uch. A m essenger was sent on 19 Septem ber to hasten the process o f collecting supplies, an indication o f difficulties.43 T h e grain 39 Littere Wallie, 118-22. The terms I I I and the Lord Edward , ii, 649-51. 40 C W R , 157, 159, 169. For further

are conveniently summarized by Powicke, Henry

evidence of payment of the money for Anglesey, see William de Perton’s account for 7-8 Edward I, in E 372/124. 41 Stephenson, ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffydd’, 44. 42 C P R 1272-82, 222, 225. 43 E 101/3/15, 16.

l82

EDWARD I

harvested in A nglesey m ust have eased the position in the English arm y, but it is unlikely that E dw ard could have kept a large force together for m uch longer. Finance, too, w as a problem . T h e w ar was not particularly expensive, w ith the accounts show ing a total cost o f only ju st over £23,000, but the prospect o f continued cam paigning cannot have been an attractive one to the king’s financial advisers.44 T h ere was no prospect o f obtaining further unpaid feudal service, and large num bers o f troops w ould have been required, at great cost, if L lyw elyn was to be directly challenged in Snowdonia. I f E d w ard ’s fullest hopes for the w ar were not fulfilled, he must nevertheless have been well satisfied w ith his achievem ent. Llyw elyn had fully acknow ledged his authority, and had seen his own power radically reduced. N ew castles were built to hem the W elsh in: A berystw yth and Builth from the south, Flint and Rhuddlan from the north-east, threatened the lands o f the prin cip ality.45 Y e t W ales was not conquered, and E d w ard ’s problem s there had hardly begun. His cam paign o f 1277 had been little more than a b rief m ilitary prom enade, followed by successful negotiations. T h e second W elsh war, w hich began in 1282, was to be a very different m atter. T h e second w ar began, for the English, quite unexpectedly. Prince D afydd, expected as a guest at R oger C lifford ’s castle o f H aw arden for Easter, appeared instead on the night before Palm Sunday w ith an arm ed band, and stormed the castle. Clifford was dragged from his bed, and m any o f his com panions were slain.46 T h e attack w as not an isolated incident. O sw estry was attacked on the sam e day, 22 M arch, and two days later the constable o f A b erystw yth w as taken by a ruse. H e was invited to dine with G ruffydd ap M aredudd, w ho took him prisoner. O n 26 M arch the castles o f C arreg C ennen and Llandovery were taken. L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd him self was not slow to jo in in w hat was rapidly becom ing a nationw ide rebellion, and took part in attacks on Flint and R h u ddlan.47 T o explain the rising, it is first necessary to exam ine D a fy d d ’s grievances: he had, after all, supported E dw ard in 1277, and it was his action at H aw arden w hich m arked the start o f hostilities in 1282. D afydd had not been the easiest o f allies in 1277. T h ere had been 44 Morris, Welsh Wars, 140-1. 45 See below, 207-15, for a discussion of Edward’s castle-building in Wales. 46 C W R , 212, gives an official account of events at Hawarden, which are also dealt with by most of the chroniclers. An account printed in Historical M S S Commission, Various Collections, i (1901), has it that shortly before the attack Dafydd sent Clifford two salmon as a sign of friendship. 47 The Welsh Assize Roll, 12JJ-1284 , ed. J. Conway Davies (Cardiff, 1940), 352; Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 44-5.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

183

problem s when he refused to hand over the due share o f booty taken to the king or his officials, and he had been disappointed in the territorial settlement. H e had, certainly, been granted the land o f H ope, and two o f the Four C antreds, D yffryn C lw yd and Rhufuniog, but he had not recovered his share o f his fam ily lands.48 A n am bitious m an, D afydd attem pted to increase his pow er by building a new castle at H ope, the last purely W elsh castle to be constructed. H e found, how ever, that he was thw arted in m any w ays by the ju sticia r o f Chester, R eginald de G rey, and claim ed that he had been told o f a plot to capture him, or take his sons hostage, destroy his castle, and cut dow n his forests. H e resented the w ay in w hich he had been forced to appear at the shire court o f C hester to answer a plea brought by W illiam de V enables, regarding his tenure o f H ope and Estyn: D a fy d d ’s claim was that this was W elsh land, not subject to English law .49 D afydd was not the only W elsh noble to feel that E dw ard had not displayed sufficient gratitude to him in the afterm ath o f the w ar o f 1277. G ruffydd ap M aredudd had presented a petition in parliam ent in 1278 com plaining that he had lost h a lf o f his lands, despite his labours on the king’s behalf, fighting at his own expense in C ard ig an .50 T h e lack o f a satisfactory response does m uch to explain the events at A b erystw yth at Easter 1282. M an y o f those lords o f south W ales w ho had surren­ dered early to the English in 1277 clearly found E d w ard ’s lordship no more to their liking than L ly w e ly n ’s, and certainly gained nothing from their abandonm ent o f the W elsh cause. G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn o f Powys, and Rhys ap M aredudd o f Y strad T y w i, were exceptional am ong W elsh m agnates in not jo in in g in the great rising o f 1282.51 A central problem in determ ining the origins o f the rising is that presented by Prince L lyw elyn himself. H e argued that he knew nothing o f the attack on H aw arden until it had taken place, and one argum ent has it that his decision to jo in in the rebellion ‘was not m ade until the twelfth hour had already struck’ .52 Y e t L lyw elyn m ore than anyone had his grievances against E dw ard, and although he w as punctilious in perform ing his obligations to the English king after 1277, it appears that he was, at the sam e time, w orking to restore his pow er and authority in Wales. He, more than anyone else, was capable o f organizing nationwide resistance to the English, and it is hard to im agine that he was m erely draw n into the rebellion at the last minute. 48 C P R 1272-82 , 227, 231. The grant of Dyffryn Clwyd and Rhufuniog was in fact a renewal of one made by Edward prior to his accession. 49 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 72-3; Reg. Peckham, ii, 445-7. 50 Rot. Pari., i, 5. 51 The allegiance of the Welsh magnates at this time is discussed by D. Stephenson, The Last Prince o f Wales (Buckingham, 1983), 26-30. 52 J.G. Edwards, in Littere Wallie, lxiv.

184

EDWARD I

Initially, E dw ard I ’s behaviour towards L lyw elyn, after the agree­ ment o f the treaty o f C o n w y in 1277, was reasonable. W hen he cam e to R huddlan in Septem ber 1278, there was considerable argum ent when the W elsh p rince’s brother Rhodri appeared, dem anding his share o f the fam ily inheritance, on the grounds that he had not been paid the 1,000 marks promised him by L lyw elyn. E dw ard could have used the case to deprive L lyw elyn o f some o f his lands, but instead it was agreed that he should sim ply m ake full paym ent to his brother.53 It was not long, however, before problem s becam e evident. Some relatively minor m atters were a source o f obvious irritation. Before the w ar o f 1277, L lyw elyn had exercised right o f w reck when an English m erchant, Robert o f Leicester, lost his ship in a storm. Robert later obtained royal writs ordering th eju sticiar ofC h ester to obtain restitution for his losses, and when L lyw elyn sent men to C hester to buy honey, this, with their horses, was seized. E dw ard w rote to L lyw elyn in J u ly 1280 prom ising that he would order release o f the goods seized, but later orders to the justiciar confirmed that they were to be confiscated. Llyw elyn’s surprise at this contradiction o f w hat he had been told is very understandable.54 O th er issues included the hanging o f two men, who Llyw elyn claimed were members o f his household, under a royal safe-conduct. His huntsmen were m altreated, and their prey taken from them when they trespassed on royal land, ‘a thing alm ost unheard o f ’ .55 T h e m ajor issue w hich saw L lyw elyn increasingly frustrated by the English and E dw ard in particular w as the case o f A rw ystli. In 1274 he had seized this land, lying to the south o f G w ynedd, from his enemy G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn o f Powys. N ow , in the afterm ath o f the w ar o f 1277, the question o f right to this land was to be determ ined in the courts. O ne im m ediate problem was, w hich courts? L lyw elyn held that the m atter should be determ ined under W elsh law; G ruffydd that, as he was a M arch er baron, the law o f the M arch should apply. T h e roll o f pleas held before royal justices began with a case brought by A dam de M ontgom ery against G ruffydd. A dam was a former constable o f O sw estry castle, and his case was alm ost certainly not a genuine one, but brought collusively, sim ply w ith the intention o f proving that E d w ard ’s justices had rights o f jurisdiction over A rw ystli.56 Llyw elyn was not going to be convinced by such m achinations, and when the m atter was put before Edw ard at R huddlan in Septem ber 1278, it was adjourned. T h e treaty o f 1277 had provided sim ply that ‘controversies and 53 54 55 56

C C R i2y2-g, 506. Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 60, 62, 78, C W R , 165; Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, Welsh Assize Roll, 125-9.

89. 88-9.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

1 85

disputes moved or to be m oved between the prince and anyone w hat­ soever, shall be determ ined and decided by M arch law when they arise in the M arches, and according to W elsh law when they arise in W ales’ .57 Llyw elyn dem anded from E dw ard a declaration that in this case, W elsh law should apply, and by 1280 was w riting w ith under­ standable im patience that ‘it seems that three years should suffice for the settling o f one article’ .58 E d w ard ’s position was that he was bound by his coronation oath to root out bad laws and customs: he could not allow any W elsh laws to be observed, other than those w hich were ju st and reasonable. It was therefore necessary to set up a comm ission, to find out ju st w hat the laws and custom s o f W ales were. It seems that a decision to do this was taken in M a y 1280, although it was not until 4 D ecem ber that the appointm ents to the com m ission were in fact m ade. T h e comm ission did not proceed w ith any sense o f urgency. It was not until June 1281 that E dw ard finally informed L lyw elyn that his case against G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn could go ahead before royal justices. T h e writ, couched in D elphic terms, failed even now to make it clear w hich law should apply, though a letter from L lyw elyn to the king suggests that he understood it to be in fact W elsh law. Further delays followed. G ruffydd argued that, as a baron, he should not have to answer w ithout a royal w rit being brought against him. L ly w ely n ’s attorney stated that there had been such a w rit issued, but, either through incom petence or deliberate prevarication, it proved im poss­ ible for E dw ard and his officials to locate it. T h e case never reached a final conclusion, for the rebellion o f 1282 brought the proceedings to an end.59 Historians have laid great stress on the A rw ystli case, for it provides perhaps the best test o f E d w ard ’s intentions and good faith with regard to W ales. His view that the only laws and customs w hich he could accept in W ales were those w hich he and his predecessors had been accustom ed to exercise there has been condem ned as ‘an outrageous exam ple o f special pleading, w hich could only issue from a distorted legalistic m ind’ .60 Y e t E d w ard ’s case was not quite so unreasonable. He could not be expected to concede points as a result o f the treaty o f 1277 which he would not have been prepared to countenance pre­ viously. W hile an inquisition held by Reginald de G rey and W illiam H am ilton, in 1278, had found that in cases between W elsh lords, the W elsh laws o f H yw el D da should apply, this did not cover the point in the A rw ystli case, where one o f the litigants, for all his W elsh ancestry, 57 58 59 60

Ibid., 8; Littere Wallie, 120. Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 89. Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 61-2; CW R , 188, 210-11. Welsh Assize Roll, 142.

186

EDWARD I

claim ed to hold as a M archer lord. N or did it m eet the argum ents being put forcibly by A rchbishop Pecham that W elsh laws were in m any cases unreasonable and contrary to the teachings o f the B ible.61 M uch obviously depended on the findings o f the comm ission set up in D ecem ber 1280. Edw ard has been accused o f giving it a biased composition, but its effective head, W alter de Hopton, was not obviously any worse than most o f the English justices o f his day. T h e evidence is certainly not adequate to characterize him as a m an ‘both greedy and avaricious: he was false and am bitious. H e could be relied upon to work the king’s will irrespective ofju stice or eq u ity.’62 It is not surprising that two o f the W elshm en associated w ith H opton were men w ho had taken the English side in the w ar o f 1277, but G oron w y ap H eilyn had been one o f L ly w ely n ’s negotiators in that year and, for all that he m ay have had English connections, took the W elsh side in 1282.63 T h e com m ission’s task was not an easy one, but there is nothing to suggest that its findings were dishonest. T h e findings revealed a com ­ plex situation. N o adequate answ er was forthcom ing from A rw ystli itself, where only four men gave evidence. Elsew here it appears that the disputes were settled either by W elsh legal procedures, or by inquest. O ne W elsh witness indicated that the preference o f the country was for the latter method: significantly, a m arginal note in the roll drew atten­ tion to this. It was o f course the case that L lyw elyn and his predecessors had themselves been turning aw ay from traditional W elsh law and had begun to im itate their English neighbours to an increasing extent. It is hard not to sym pathize w ith the W elsh lord whose unhelpful reported evidence on these thorny legal m atters concluded: ‘O f the other articles he knows nothing, because he gives m ore attention to hunting than to the discussion o f la w .’64 W hile Edw ard was not being deliberately dishonest in denying L lyw elyn an im m ediate recourse to W elsh law in the A rw ystli case, he can be considered guilty o f excessive delay in reaching a resolution in w hat was certainly a difficult m atter. T h is was surely not the result o f any distorted legalism on his part, but because the case presented an insoluble political difficulty. G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn was his ally o f 1277, a m an who expected a ju st reward for his service, and a man content, unlike Prince D afydd, with a new status as a M arch er lord. T o deny him A rw ystli, w hich he and his ancestors had held for forty-two years, would very p robably drive him into rebellion. Y e t equally, a

61 Welsh Assize Roll, 143; Reg. Peckham, i, 135-6. 62 Welsh Assize Roll, 142. See ibid., 97ff., for a detailed examination of the composi­ tion of the commission. 63 Stephenson, Governance o f Gwynedd, 104. 64 The report of the Hopton commission is printed in C W R , 190-210.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

j 87

decision in G ru ffyd d’s favour m ight well have disastrous consequences. T here was a very obvious tem ptation to rely on the inertia o f the law, and leave the m atter unresolved for as long as possible. In the event, E dw ard’s calculations failed, but it is hard to see that he had any better option than prevarication. It is hardly surprising to find signs, as early as 1278, that L lyw elyn was attem pting to revive his political authority in W ales. In M a y o f that year, he received the hom age and fealty o f a southern lord, Trah aearn ap M adog o f Brecon, with sureties provided by a num ber o f influential south W elsh m agnates, including Rhys Fychan, and G ruffydd and C yn an ap M aredudd ap O w ain. In A ugu st o f the same year, he reached an agreem ent with G ruffydd ap G w en, steward o f no less a man than G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn o f P ow ys.65 In 1281 he made a treaty with the English M arch er lord Roger M ortim er, in w hich the two men m ade promises o f m utual support, saving their fealty to Edw ard I. T h is was taken by J .G . E dw ards as evidence that L lyw elyn was not planning a w ar against the English, but equally it does strongly suggest that he had finally lost patience with the legal proceedings in the A rw ystli case, and that he was intending to take m ilitary action against G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn, whose lands lay between his own and M ortim er’s. H e must have been aw are that such action m ight very well develop into a conflict on a m uch larger scale, into w hich E dw ard I would inevitably be draw n.66 T h e grievances o f the two princes, D afydd and L lyw elyn, are o f central im portance in exam ining the causes o f the rebellion o f 1282, but it is also clear that the English had been provocative in a great m any other cases. O ne chronicle singled out, w ith some cause, the activities o f Reginald de G rey as causing the w ar.67 H e had been appointed ju sticiar o f Chester in N ovem ber 1281, and had m ade every effort to introduce English m ethods o f law and adm inistration into north W ales. H e was accused o f bringing cases involving offences com m itted as long ago as the reign o f H enry I I I , o f threatening to decapitate G oron w y ap H eilyn over a dispute he had w ith R obert de C reuker, and o f m aking sim ilar threats to some W elsh messengers. T h e men o f Y strad A lu n in Flintshire com plained o f the w ay in w hich Roger Clifford had forced them to purchase their rights and privileges for tw enty m arks, and had imposed on them the English custom o f using juries o f tw elve men. C om plaints were not confined to the north: the constable o f O sw estry cam e in for criticism , as did his colleague at W hitch urch .68 65 66 67 68

Stephenson, ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffydd’, 45-6. Edwards, in Littere Wallie, lxii, 99-100; Stephenson, op. cit., 45. The Hagnaby chronicle, BL Vesp. B. xi, f.27v. Reg . Peckham, ii, 455-8, 459, 463.

I 88

EDWARD I

T h e evidence for the grievances o f the W elsh comes prim arily from bills presented to A rchbishop Pecham , when he attem pted m ediation in 1282. Th ere is a consistent thread running through them, o f a deep hostility to the introduction o f English laws and custom s into a W elsh environm ent. T h e sim ilarity o f the argum ents put forward by the W elsh shows that there was a deliberate policy o f m aking use o f the law as a sym bol o f national identity, and it is very likely that it was Llyw elyn him self w ho determ ined w hat this policy should be.69 In one significant statem ent, he argued that every province o f E d w ard ’s imperium had its own laws and customs: G ascon in G ascony, Scottish in Scotland, Irish in Ireland, English in England, and that accordingly the W elsh prince should have the right to use W elsh la w .70 T h e sons o f M aredudd ap O w ain put it more dram atically: cA ll C hristians have laws and customs in their own lands; even the Jew s in E ngland have laws am ong the English; we had our im m utable laws and customs in our lands until the English took them aw ay after the last w ar.’ 71 Prince D afydd used the argum ent: ‘Since the king is, by grace o f G od, lord o f divers countries and o f divers tongues, and divers laws are adm inis­ tered in them and are not changed, let the laws o f W ales, if it please the king’s reverence, be unchanged like the laws o f the other peoples.’ 72 T h e claim that the English were threatening the national identity of the W elsh provided a unifying theme to the various grievances, and elevated the argum ent to a high plane. T h ere were difficulties with the argum ent, for not all the evidence goes to show the unpopularity o f English law in W ales. A t C arm arthen, in 1280, the county court was ordered to sit twice a week, not once as in the past, ‘by reason o f the m ultitude o f suitors, both Englishm en and W elshm en’ .73 But the em o­ tional appeal o f L ly w e ly n ’s case overrode such problem s, with powerful propaganda suggesting that the W elsh were being treated by the king’s bailiffs worse than if they had been Saracens or J ew s.74 Y e t for all the im portance o f the legal issue, the fact remains that the m ain question was one o f power, and o f w ho was to exercise it in W ales. T h e w ar w hich began in 1282 was a far greater undertaking for the English than that o f 1277 had been. T h is was not a cam paign intended sim ply to deal with a recalcitrant vassal: it was a w ar o f conquest. T here 69 R.R. Davies, ‘Law and National Identity in Thirteenth Century Wales’, Welsh ed. R.R. Davies, R.A. Griffiths, I.G. Jones and K.O. Morgan (Cardiff, 1984), 57. 70 Welsh Assize R oll , 266. 71 Reg. Peckham, ii, 454. 72 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 73. 73 C W R , 184. 74 Reg. Peckham, ii, 439.

Society and Nationhood ,

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

189

was no time for a steady build-up tow ards the cam paign, as there had been in 1276-7: Edw ard had to respond quickly to the news o f the E aster uprising in W ales. O n 25 M arch , three days after H aw arden was attacked, he appointed Reginald de G rey to com m and at Chester, Roger M ortim er in the central M arches, and R obert de T ib etot in west W ales. A council was rapidly sum m oned to meet at D evizes on 5 A pril. O n the next day, writs were issued asking the m agnates to m uster at W orcester on 17 M ay. H ousehold knights were rapidly deployed: the pay roll for the w ar starts as early as 7 A pril, w ith A m adeus o f Savoy leading a force off to reinforce G re y ’s men at C hester, and then to relieve R huddlan. B y late M a y there were probably over 200 cavalry in royal pay, divided between the various com m ands.75 W hen the troops m ustered at W orcester, as ordered, plans were rapidly changed. Edw ard had dem anded paid service, but now issued new com m ands on 20 M ay, w hich required feudal, unpaid service, with a m uster at R huddlan on 2 A u g u st.76 T h e change to R huddlan was obviously dictated by m ilitary considerations, E dw ard deciding to repeat his strategy o f 1277. It is less clear w hy he adopted a feudal summons at such short notice. J .E . M orris suggested that the m agnates m ay have brought pressure on him. T h e evidence o f the pay roll does not suggest that recruiting was going badly in M ay, but m any m ag­ nates m ay have resented the subordination involved in accepting pay, and m ay have insisted on perform ing their traditional feudal duties. T h is could have been im portant in a w ar o f conquest, w here those doing feudal service m ight have expected a better share o f the spoils than those in receipt o f pay. Y e t they could have sim ply served volun­ tarily at their own expense, w ithout insisting on a feudal sum mons, as m any m agnates were to do, later in the reign, in Scotland. Possibly the earl o f H ereford, as C onstable o f E ngland, dem anded a feudal sum ­ mons: he was certainly insistent upon receiving the rights due to his office.77 T h e evidence is sim ply not adequate to explain the change in the method o f recruitm ent, and it m ay be that E dw ard had all along intended to issue a feudal summons: he did request, as early as 1 o A pril, the men o f the C in qu e Ports to provide their service.78 E d w ard ’s advance to C hester, and then on to Flint and R huddlan, went sm oothly. Reginald de G rey conducted operations against Prince D afydd, to ensure that no attack should be m ade from the flank on E d w ard ’s arm y. H e and his men took H ope castle, w hich the W elsh had themselves slighted, and Richard de G rey captured Ewloe. 75 76 77 78

Morris, Welsh Wars, 154-6. Pari. Writs, i, 224-5. Morris, Welsh Wars, 155, 157-8; C W R , 247.

Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 71-2.

190

EDWARD I

E d w ard ’s arm y at R huddlan was rapidly built up in strength: by the end o f A ugu st he had at least some 750 cavalry in his com m and, and about 8,000 foot.79 T h e next objective, as in 1277, was A nglesey. A naval force was sent there, and on 18 A ugust Luke de T a n y was appointed to com m and the troops on the island. T h e most am bitious part o f the plan was to link A nglesey to the m ainland by means o f a bridge o f boats, so establishing a new invasion route into Snowdonia and outflanking L ly w ely n ’s defences.80 T h e operation was not easy: the pontoon boats, forty in num ber, that had originally been proposed were too large and heavy for the ships o f the C in qu e Ports to transport, and ships had to be purchased specially at Chester. Team s o f carpenters were set to work, and by N ovem ber the bridge was com plete.81 In the second h alf o f O ctober, Luke de T a n y , Roger Clifford, W illiam A ud ley and others sailed for A nglesey to prepare for their attack on the W elsh .82 M eanw hile, the forces under E d w ard ’s com m and were steadily consolidating their position. Ruthin was taken in early Septem ber, and in O cto b er D enbigh and Dinas Bran fell. T h e W elsh were steadily pushed back into their fastness o f Snow donia.83 In the south, the English were less successful. In June, the earl o f Gloucester had been roundly defeated, probably in an ambush; W illiam de V alen ce the younger was killed. His father replaced G loucester in com m and on 6 Ju ly, and in A ugu st and Septem ber he conducted a lengthy raid, reaching A berystw yth , but failing to engage the W elsh on any scale. T h e kind o f w arfare that the English were able to engage in is illustrated by a letter from one o f their ablest com m anders, Robert Tib etot, announcing that the garrison o f C ard igan had recently been able to take ‘a great b ooty’ , though they had lost eighteen men captured in the process. T h en spies had reported the w hereabouts o f G ruffydd ap M aredudd ap O w ain and his brother; a dram atic night m arch by T ibetot, and his W elsh ally Rhys ap M aredudd, alm ost succeeded in taking them, and did result in the release o f the eighteen men captured earlier. Some horses were lost, but they took a great m any cattle, put by T ib etot at 3,000, a clear exaggeration.84 W ith the onset o f autum n, the position o f the English in the M arches worsened. In O ctob er Roger M ortim er, lord o f W igm ore, died o f natural causes, and the loss o f so great a lord had its inevitable effect on morale. In N ovem ber the sheriff o f Shropshire reported that he found the inhabitants o f M ortim er’s lordship ‘very fickle and haughty, as they 79 Morris, Welsh Wars, 160-1, 174. 80 C W R , 235. 81 K W , i, 354-7. 82 E 101/4/1. 83 Morris, Welsh Wars, 177-8. 84 Morris, Welsh Wars, 165-6; Cal . Anc. C o n . Wales, 131-2.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

*9 *

were on the point o f leaving the king’s peace, because they have no definite lord’ , and he begged that the business o f handing over the lands to R oger’s heir Edm und be hastened. In the sam e m onth, Roger Lestrange reported that he could not attack the enem y in his district, as they had retreated into the ‘difficult and repellent’ m ountains. H e was doing his best to prevent any supplies from reaching the W elsh, but it was clear to him that a good deal was getting through.85 T h e w ar was evidently not reaching a point o f resolution, and in w hat m ay have seemed a situation o f stalem ate, A rchbishop Pecham decided to try to m ediate. His task was a hopeless one. E dw ard was determ ined that the status o f the Four C antreds in the north should not be altered: he m ade lavish grants o f conquered lands in the north to Reginald de G rey, earl W arenne, and the earl o f Lincoln in O ctob er 1282, and would not go back on his action. N or was he prepared to bring A nglesey into discussion.86 Edw ard was ready to countenance an extraordinary offer to L lyw elyn, o f an English earldom with lands w orth £1,000 a year, provided that he hand over Snow donia to E dw ard. Should D afydd go to the H oly Lan d, E dw ard w ould provide for him. Such offers were hardly attractive to the W elsh, and their distrust o f Edw ard is very clear from the reply m ade on D a fy d d ’s behalf, referring to fear o f death, im prisonm ent or perpetual disinheritance. T h e w ar, it was argued, was a ju st one, and it ill behoved Pecham to issue excom ­ m unications against the W elsh when the English were engaged in the destruction o f churches and the slaughter o f babies at the breast.87 T h e W elsh took the opportunity o f P echam ’s peace mission to put their case as strongly as they could, for it was the only chance they had to obtain any kind o f hearing, but little can have been expected o f a prelate whose view o f the W elsh was apparently quite as hostile as was E d w ard ’s own. E dw ard him self had expected that the assistance o f the church, with its spiritual weapons o f excom m unication, would help to bring about a rapid end to the rising, but he sought victory, not m ediation, and Pecham ’s peace mission did not meet with his approval. B y 14 N ovem ber the archbishop had returned to R huddlan, despairing that any solution could be found.88 T h e hope o f reaching a settlem ent had indeed been com pletely dashed on 6 N ovem ber, w ith the dram atic defeat o f an English force under Luke de T a n y , w hich gave the W elsh new heart, and m ade E d w ard ’s men determ ined on revenge. T h ere are various accounts o f the defeat, w hich are unfortunately not entirely consistent. O ne is that 85 86 87 88

Ibid., 84, 131. 436. For grants, see below, 204. ii, 467, 471-3. Pecham’s mission is discussed more fully by Douie, Pecham, 235-53.

Reg. Peckham , Reg. Peckham ,

192

EDWARD I

de T a n y and his men crossed the bridge from A nglesey and advanced inland. W hen they returned, their route to the bridge was cut o ffb y the rising tide. T h e W elsh swooped, and drove them into the sea, where m any drow ned.89 A n alternative tradition is that the English force was retreating back to the bridge, having been surprised by the W elsh, and that in their haste to get to safety, the structure was overloaded, perhaps breaking with the force o f the tide. A s the barges sank, so the men drow ned.90 T h is seems the more plausible story, but w hatever the truth o f the m atter, the disaster was a m ajor one. K n ig h tly casualties were, as a rule, low in m edieval warfare, and now, at one blow, at least sixteen were lost, along with m any lesser men. W illiam Latim er was fortunate indeed in that his charger had the strength to swim to safety through the waves. O tto de G randson was another w ho apparently had a narrow escape from death.91 V ariou s explanations were given for the disaster. O ne chronicler, W alter o f G uisborough, thought that Luke de T a n y acted incautiously, in the hope o f w inning glory; the H agnaby w riter blam ed the younger Roger Clifford, for a move prim arily intended to rescue his father from captivity. W ykes thought that the English were deliberately attacking during Pecham ’s peace negotiations, in an attem pt to catch the W elsh off guard.92 Th ere is no evidence that there was any ‘cease-fire’ in operation during P echam ’s mission, but it is easy to see that the men in A nglesey could have felt very frustrated at the thought that a negotiated peace was possible early in Novem ber. T h ey had not received any grants o f lands in W ales, and must have seen their hopes o f gain, as well as glory, receding rapidly. T h e raid across the bridge was prem ature, and m ay well have been m eant either to thwart Pecham ’s mission, or to achieve m ajor gains before the negotiations were concluded. W hatever the truth o f the m atter, one chronicler, Pierre Langtoft, was surely correct when he blam ed the English com m anders for not em ploying spies, or scouts, to w arn them o f the m ovem ents o f the W elsh .93 E dw ard was determ ined to continue the fight. O n 12 N ovem ber he ordered thirty-nine magnates to go to join V alence’s force at Carmarthen, along with a levy o f knights from the south-western counties. O n 24 Novem ber, and again on 6 D ecem ber, orders to recruit fresh infantry were issued. Powerful reinforcements appeared in Novem ber, to give fresh heart to the English: G ascon troops began to reach E d w ard ’s 89 Guisborough, 219-20. For problems in this account, see Morris, Welsh Wars, 180. 90 Rishanger, 101-2; Langtoft, ii, 179; Ann. Dunstable, 292; Flores, iii, 57. 91 Guisborough, 219-20; Annales Cestrienses, 110-12. This latter source provides the fullest casualty list. 92 Guisborough, 291; BL Cotton. Vesp. B. xi, f.28; Wykes, 290. 93 Langtoft, ii, 178.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

*93

headquarters, and by D ecem ber there were in the arm y 21 knights, 52 mounted crossbowm en and 533 ordinary footsoldiers from G ascon y.94 But Edw ard was w ary o f m aking any fresh moves. H e was a cautious com m ander, and he must have known that time was on his side. H e had the resources for a long war, w hich the W elsh did not. It was L lyw elyn w ho m ade the unexpected move in Novem ber, m arching out o f Snow donia towards the central M arches and then to Builth. H e clearly hoped to profit from the confusion resulting from M ortim er’s death, and appreciated that in the end, if he stayed in Snowdonia, he would be starved out. But, ju st as in the gam e o f chess a king which is forced out o f its own territory in the m iddle gam e is liable to be hunted down, so Llyw elyn met with disaster, and was killed on 11 D ecem ber. T h e unreliability o f m edieval news reporting is m ade very clear by a com parison o f the chronicle accounts o f the events w hich led to L ly w ely n ’s death, and it is unfortunately not possible to provide a reliable reconstruction o f w hat took place. Possibly the W elsh arm y were taken by surprise when the English arm y attacked them, having avoided the bridge over the river Irfon, w hich was well guarded, but m aking their crossing over a ford. By this account, L lyw elyn was not with his men at the time, but hurried back on hearing noise o f battle. O ne Stephen de Frankton saw him, but did not recognize him. H ad he done so, he would surely have taken him prisoner: as it was, he ran him through with his lance. T h is is G uisborou gh ’s account. A Peterborough chronicle has it that L lyw elyn and the W elsh were surprised by forces under Roger Lestrange (not com m anded by John Giffard and Roger M ortim er the younger, as G uisborough has it). A fierce battle took place late in the day, during w hich L lyw elyn was killed. A related source names the man who decapitated L lyw elyn as Robert Body. T h is is not necessarily in conflict with the evidence that the slayer was Frankton, for in G uisborou gh ’s account, it was only when the body was found and recognized that the head was cut off. Both Frankton and B ody are known to have had connections with Lestrange. T h e H agnaby chronicle however, describes a long battle, with casualties on both sides, which saw the English victorious. L lyw elyn fled into the woods with his squire, but was discovered. He fought bravely, but fell, shouting his name, thereupon to be prom ptly decapitated.95 D ocum entary sources are not o f very m uch assistance in 94 Morris, Welsh Wars, 188-9; E 101/3/27. 95 Guisborough, 220—1; Chronicon Petroburgense, ed. T. Stapleton (Camden Soc., i849), 57-8; BL Cotton. MS Vesp. B.xi, f.28. For a full discussion of the sources, see the important article by L. Beverley Smith, ‘The death of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd: the narrative reconsidered’, Welsh History Review, xi (1982), 200-13. Although this article is surely correct in casting doubt on the accuracy of Guisborough’s version of events, it is a little far-fetched to suggest that the chronicler somehow conflated the battles of Irfon

194

EDWARD I

resolving the conflict between the chronicles, though a letter from Lestrange makes it quite clear that it was he who was in com m and o f the force, and reported the really significant facts: ‘Llyw elyn ap Gruffydd is dead, his army defeated, and all the flower o f his army dead.’96 C onspiracy theories have alw ays had their attractions, and it is not surprising to find that L ly w e ly n ’s death was attributed by some contem poraries to a plot. T h e H agnaby chronicle is the most circum stantial, alleging that Roger M ortim er the younger sent word to Llywelyn, asking him to come to receive his homage and that of his men. M ortim er and other m agnates then arranged to am bush the W elsh prince, and it was this that resulted in his death. The Dunstable chronicle and various others refer to the same tale, which finds some corroboration in two letters from A rchbishop Pecham . It seems that a letter was found on L ly w ely n ’s body, ‘expressed in obscure words and with fictitious nam es’ , im plying treasonable intentions towards Edw ard on the part o f some o f the M archer lords.97 T h e link with M ortim er is given added force by the fact that the prince had o f course m ade an agreem ent with the elder Roger in 1281, and it is conceivable that he could have been persuaded that this was to be renewed late in 1282.98 L ly w ely n ’s death was a disaster for the W elsh. He was the one man who could perhaps have succeeded in uniting W ales against the English invader, a man who, for all his m istakes, had the prestige and experience to provide E dw ard I with w orthy opposition. Y et the events near Builth did not end the war. Prince D afydd sent Roger Clifford and his wife to Edw ard to plead for peace, but this proposal was abruptly refused, and Clifford returned into cap tivity.99 D afydd held a meeting o f his followers, and decided on resistance.100 T h e English did not choose to w ait for a W elsh surrender: instead, once E dw ard had built up his forces, he took the w ar to the enemy. T h e men recruited by means o f orders issued in N ovem ber and D ecem ber were ready by m id-January, and in a bold move Edw ard m arched inland from his base at R huddlan. By 18 Jan u ary he was at Bettws-yC oed on the upper C onw y, and on the same day his troops entered Bridge and Stirling Bridge. See also the discussion in Stephenson, The Last Prince o f Wales, 75-8. 96 Cal. Anc. Corr. Wales, 83-4. 97 BL Cotton. MS Vesp. B.xi, f.28; Ann. Dunstable, 292-3; Reg. Peckham, ii, 489-90; Cal. Anc. Corr. Wales, 129; Receuil des lettres Anglo-Françaises, 1265-1399 ed. F. Tanquerey (Paris, 1916), 32-3. 98 Above, 187. 99 BL Cotton. MS Vesp. B.xi, f.29v. 100 Langtoft, ii, 181. Morris, Welsh Wars, 185, plausibly suggests that if this meeting did take place after Llywelyn’s death, it must have been at Dolwyddelan rather than Denbigh, as the chronicle has it.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

J95

D olw yddelan castle, a key strategic p o in t.101 It does not seem that there was any resistance, and it is very likely that Edw ard had in advance secretly negotiated the surrender o f the castle. It is unlikely that he would have risked so hazardous an adventure as a push into Snow donia in Jan u ary w ithout prior assurance o f success. Further, an entry in the royal accounts shows that the constable o f D olw yddelan stayed at the court for twelve days, receiving double the wages his rank entitled him to, at about this tim e.102 T h is is very suggestive o f some deal between the English and the defenders o f the castle. O nce it had surrendered, Dolwyddelan was given an English garrison, which was hastily equipped with cam ouflage clothing o f white tunics and stockings, suitable for winter w arfare in the m ountains. A new siege engine was m ade at Bettws, and carried to D olw yddelan, to reinforce the defences.103 Follow ing this success, a garrison was soon established on the coast, at Bangor, and the forces from A nglesey were sent along the coast o f the m ainland, towards H arlech. In M arch the royal headquarters were moved from R huddlan to C onw y. B y A p ril the m ain activity recorded in the royal pay rolls was the sending out o f parties to seek Prince D afydd. A small group o f a dozen men was sent to M eirionydd and A rdud w y, and a larger troop o f fifty to A rd u d w y and Penllyn. O thers were engaged in a hunt for b o o ty .104 Y et even with Snow donia secure, Edw ard did not consider that his task was done. H e was con­ tem plating a m ajor cam paign in m id-W ales, and in M arch writs to nine earls and seventy-seven other m agnates ordered them to m uster at M ontgom ery, in M ay. Infantry was to be recruited as well, and arrangem ents were m ade for victualling the troops.105 In the event, these elaborate preparations proved not to be needed. T h e forces o f Roger Lestrange, based on M ontgom ery, and those o f W illiam de V alen ce, m oving up from A berystw yth , converged on the last rem aining substantial W elsh castle, C astell-y-B ere, and forced its surrender on 25 A pril, after a ten-day siege.106 D afydd still evaded capture, but the chase finally ended on 21 June. T h e W elsh prince had only a few men with him, and his seizure was not a m ajor m ilitary undertaking. H e was taken by W elshm en, probably through treachery: 101 E 101/3/30 testifies to the king’s presence at Bettws-y-Coed; for the entry to Dolwyddelan, K W , i, 336, no.i. 102 E 1o 11\ l 1, in an entry which starts on 5 December, but clearly covers a fairly long period, refers to the presence at court of Tudor ap Gruffydd, constable of Dolwyddelan. The scribe has possibly given the name wrongly, and intended Gruffydd ap Tudor, later given command of Dolwyddelan by the English: see D. Stephenson, Governance o f Gwynedd, m - 1 2 , 132; C W R , 288. 103 K W , i, 336, no. 1; E 101/359/9. 104 E 101/4/1, 30; Morris, Welsh Wars, 190-2. 105 Pari. Writs, i, 245-7. 106 Morris, Welsh Wars, 192-5; C 47/2/4.

196

EDWARD I

there was a struggle in w hich he was wounded, and he was then taken o ff to ca p tiv ity .107 Resistance was now at an end. Peace was ensured by taking large num bers o f W elsh hostages, w ho were m arched off, under escort, to England. T h e w ar o f 1282—3 had involved an im m ense effort on the part o f the English. T h e surviving records do not, unfortunately, allow a complete reconstruction o f the num bers o f English troops involved in the war, one difficulty being that the forces were split up to such an extent, and another being that m any m agnates served at their own expense, so that the crown had no need to record the size o f their contingents. T h e feudal sum mons yielded a force o f at least 123 knights and 190 sergeants, w ho served at their own expense for a forty-day period: not a very substantial contribution, in view o f the total scale o f m anpower, and long duration o f the cam p aig n .108 T h e crown appears to have been satisfied w ith the response to the summons: only N icholas de Stuteville was later charged with neglecting it. H e subm itted to the king’s will, and was fined 100 marks for each knight’s fee he held: a substantial sum, as he was in possession o f tw en ty.109 M ost o f the feudal quotas were very small, because o f a m ajor reduction in the levels o f service which had taken place in the first h a lf o f the thirteenth century. T h e num ber o f men actually owed bore little relationship to the num ber o f knight’s fees held, and even so great a m agnate as the earl o f G loucester only owed ten knights for the host. In practice no m an o f standing would come on cam paign w ithout bringing an adequate retinue with him, and there is no doubt that the earls and barons appeared with far more men than they were technically obliged to bring, and that they served for m uch longer than the required forty days. None o f the English earls on the cam paign was paid wages - Robert Bruce, earl o f C arrick, father o f the future king o f Scots, did accept pay - and the sums paid as prests, or cash advances, to the earls o f W arw ick (£65), Lincoln (£1,655) and Norfolk (£410) were most probably for the wages o f the infantry under their com m and, and not for themselves or their kn igh ts.110 J.E . M orris, in his classic study o f the W elsh wars o f Edw ard I, m ade various calculations o f the strength o f the paid forces em ployed by the king. A t Chester there were some 276 heavy cavalry, according to the main pay roll, but this figure excludes Reginald de G re y ’s men. In the 107 BL Cotton. MS Vesp. B.xi, f.2gv; Ann Dunstable, 293. Guisborough, 221, puts Dafydd’s capture in the autumn, another example of this chronicler’s unreliability. 108 Morris, Welsh Wars, 45. This is the number of those at headquarters only: others may have performed feudal service elsewhere. 109 E 159/57, m-7°"° E 101/4/1.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

*97

south, there was a paid force o f alm ost exactly ioo cavalry available to reinforce the unpaid levies o f the M arch er lords. L ater in the war, there are no detailed accounts for the detachm ent sent to A nglesey, but wages am ounted to £3,761 for cavalry, and £3,540 for infantry, suggest­ ing a substantial force.111 A full pay roll survives for the G ascon contingent: at its peak, early in 1283, this num bered some 40 knights, 120 other horsemen, m ostly mounted crossbowm en, and up to 1,300 in fan try.112 T h e central element o f the paid cavalry was, o f course, provided by the royal household. O ne list details 36 bannerets and knights, who, with their retinues, provided a force o f 173 horse. T here were also 72 squires, m aking the total strength 245.113 It would probably be reasonable to estim ate the total strength o f the paid cavalry em ployed by E dw ard in this w ar at 700 or 800, if not more. T h e feudal summons no doubt served as a general invitation to men to come and serve the king in his W elsh war. O ne problem , as in 1277, was that there was apparently a considerable shortage o f suitable war-horses in the realm. O n 26 M a y 1282 writs ordered everyone in possession o f £30 worth o f land or more a year, to provide themselves with a suitable horse and m ilitary equipm ent. In June a concession had to be m ade, and anyone ow ing service who did not have an adequate horse was perm itted to pay a fine in lieu o f attending the m uster at Rhuddlan. T h e M a y order is particularly significant, in that it shows that E dw ard was beginning to think in terms o f a system o f m ilitary obligation dependent sim ply upon w ealth, and not on position in the feudal hierarchy. Summ onses issued on 20 N ovem ber took the prin­ ciple further: all those who had at least £20 worth o f land, and were fit to bear arms, but were not fighting in W ales, were sum moned to meet in regional assemblies at N ortham pton and York. Th ere was clearly some idea o f encouraging them - or forcing them - to go and fight, while county representatives were also sum moned to these assem blies, so that a grant o f taxation m ight be m ade. A t N ortham pton it looks as if a straightforw ard grant o f a tax was m ade, but the form o f the grant at Y ork appears, in the first instance, to have been o f m ilitary service, with paym ent o f fines as an alternative available to those who did not wish to fight. T h is was then abandoned in favour o f the same type o f tax that had been conceded in the so u th .114 In general, the recruitm ent o f cavalry forces for the w ar caused no great problems: there was sufficient 111 Morris, Welsh Wars, 159, 163, 176. 112 There were some notable men among the Gascon leaders, such as Elie de Caupenne and Arnold de Gavaston, who both served Edward later. Guitard de Bourg had been mayor of Bordeaux, and Auger de Mauleon headed a large contingent: E 10173/27; Trabut-Cussac, L 'administration Anglaise en Gascogne, 69-70. 113 Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance under Edward /, 51, citing C 47/2/6. 114 Pari. Writs, i, 10-11, 14.

198

EDWARD I

enthusiasm for the kin g’s policies, or for the chance o f fighting, on the part o f the m agnates to ensure that he had sufficient men at his disposal. Infantry were required for the w ar in large num bers, as well as cavalry. T h ere is m uch less inform ation available on the process o f recruitm ent than there is for the later w ars o f E d w ard ’s reign, but the pay rolls suggest that at any one time up to 8,000 foot were em ployed. A s in 1277, it proved possible to recruit substantial num bers o f W elsh­ men from the M arches. Shropshire and C heshire w ere obvious areas to draw from, because they were so close to the cam paigning areas: L ancashire also provided a good m any men. O n e select troop o f 100 archers from M acclesfield were paid 3d a day, rather than the norm al 2d, perhaps because they were better equipped or trained than the m ajority o f the troop s.115 A s well as foot soldiers, workm en were needed in large quantities, partly so that roads m ight be cut through the W elsh forests, and partly for the w ork o f fortification that was a necessary and vital elem ent in the king’s policy in W ales. It was as early as 15 A pril that writs were issued, calling for 1,010 diggers and 345 carpenters from 28 counties: no other evidence dem onstrates so w ell the system atic planning that w ent into the w a r .116 Considerable thought went into the com plex business o f victualling for the arm y. M uch was done to encourage m erchants to come to W ales, or to such English centres as O sw estry and C hester, and there w ere stern prohibitions on trading with the enem y. M arkets were prohibited in the M arches, so as to com pel m erchants to take their goods to the armies. Safe-conducts and protections were o f course provided for them. Private enterprise could not be w holly relied upon, and the crown sent its officials to buy up food supplies. O n 14 A pril 1282 the sheriffs o f Essex, Surrey, Sussex, K en t and H am pshire were each ordered to assist John de M aidstone in collecting 1,500 quarters o f w heat and 2,000 quarters o f oats from each county for shipm ent to W a le s.117 T h e bishopric o f W inchester, in the king’s hands through episcopal vacancy, provided 1,000 quarters o f wheat, 300 quarters o f barley and 600 quarters o f oats, all o f w hich was sent to C h ester.118 In J u ly 1282 royal clerks were sent to buy up victuals in Staffordshire, D erbyshire, N ottingham shire and L an cash ire.119 E dw ard also called upon his overseas dom inions. Ireland was to provide 2,000 quarters o f 115 E 101/3/11; Morris, Welsh Wars, 174. 116 K W , i, 182-3, 33 ^ A.J. Taylor, ‘Castle-Building in Wales in the later thirteenth century: the prelude to construction’, Studies in Building History, ed. E.M. Jope (1961), 105-6, h i . 117 C W R , 217, 235, 248, 257-8. 118 M. Howell, Regalian Right in Medieval England (1962), 151. 119 E 101/351/9.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

1 99

w heat, 4,000 quarters o f oats, 400 quarters o f beans and peas, 500 quarters o f barley, 600 tuns o f w ine and 1,000 salt salm on. Ponthieu was assessed at 2,000 quarters o f w heat, the same quantity o f oats, and 300 quarters o f beans and peas. From G ascony the king requested 2,000 quarters o f w heat, 1,000 quarters o f oats, 300 quarters o f beans and peas, 500 tuns o f wine, 1,000 bacon pigs and other com m odities.120 T h e accounts o f the w ardrobe, the household departm ent w hich took on the immense task o f organizing the w ar effort, show that a great central victualling depot was set up at C hester, under the charge o f W illiam de Perton, R alph the clerk o f the m arket, and various other officials. A t Rhuddlan a new royal m ill was constructed, and m uch flour was laboriously ground using the m any hand-m ills supplied to the arm y. A special w ar account shows that 5,741 quarters o f w heat and flour were sold to the arm y, along w ith a sm aller quantity o f oats and other foodstuffs. T h e ordinary w ardrobe account for 1282-4 includes mention o f large quantities o f victuals, totalling some 23,000 quarters o f grain. N ot all o f this was for household consum ption: some supplies were handed out gratis to the soldiers, and the king’s favoured com ­ m anders received substantial gifts o f wine: twenty casks to O tto de Grandson, and tw enty-six to John de V e s c y .121 In addition to the great efforts m ade by the crown to provide food­ stuffs for the cam paign, the m agnates also m ade their own arrange­ ments. Th ere is little docum entation on this, but in the case o f R oger Bigod, earl o f Norfolk, there is a list o f the victuals supplied to him from two o f his Irish manors. It details about 100 quarters o f w heat, 200 quarters o f oats, 77 beef cattle, 120 sheep, 57 pigs and 28 tuns o f wine. T h is proved more than could be sent across the Irish Sea, and some o f the meat and wine was kept back, but the grain, and m uch o f the rest, was transported to R huddlan early in 1283. T h e whole operation cost the earl the substantial figure o f £ 176, one indication o f the fact that the figures o f crown expenditure on the w ar should not be taken as an indication o f the total cost to the co u n try.122 It was not only victuals that were supplied to the arm y. T h e various accounts dealing with the w ar give a vivid impression o f the m ultiplicity o f supplies that were needed. Th ere were carts, collected by M atthew C heker from various abbeys and priories at the start o f the cam paign; constant expenditure on the tents and pavilions used by the king and his entourage; cloth bought to provide arm bands with the Cross o f St G eorge on them to serve as a kind o f uniform for the infantry 120 CW R , 214-16. 121 Chronica Johannis de Oxenedes, ed. H. Ellis (Rolls ser., 1859), 332; E 101/3/29; E 101/4/6. 122 E 101/4/3.

200

EDWARD I

(and as an indication, perhaps, o f the holy character w hich A rchbishop P echam ’s excom m unications o f the W elsh gave the w ar); lances to carry the royal banners; even bran used to polish the king’s armour. R eady-m ade hurdles, or bretasches, to form palisades were shipped from Chester; iron and lead were provided for the smiths in the arm y. Sheaves o f arrows and crossbow bolts were bought in London, and sent to W a le s.123 T h e costs o f the w ar o f 1282—3 were indeed heavy. J.E . M orris m ade careful calculations from the accounts, and reached a total o fju st over £60,000, w hich excluded the expenditure on castle-building. I f this was added, a grand total was reached o f £98,421.124 H ow ever, M orris did not use the enrolled account o f the w ardrobe, w hich provides some additional figures, notably for the purchase o f victuals, com pensation paid for horses lost in the war, and some w age paym ents. V ariou s other accounts also include expenditure on the war, such as that for the vacant bishopric o f Hereford, w hich includes £80 given to G rim bald Pauncefoot for purchase o f victuals, in the M arch , and £240 paid to the troops based at O sw estry. A n entirely accurate total o f royal expenditure on the w ar cannot be worked out, but a figure o f about £120,000, including costs o f castle-building incurred up to 1284, is indicated by the eviden ce.125 Such a total is im pressive enough, but does not give m uch impression o f the practical difficulties involved in financing a w ar in w hich the m ilitary impetus had to be m aintained over a long period in hostile terrain. Th ere was constant activity, as knights, and above all clerks, were sent to various parts o f England to raise m oney, and bring it to W ales. O n one occasion even the kin g’s tailor, A dam Bydik, was em ployed on this task. T h e largest single paym ent into the royal wardrobe was one o f £4,000, delivered at Devizes when the cam paign was being planned: thereafter cash deliveries varied from between 1,000 marks to £3,000. Records show that by the time o f D afyd d ’s death in 1283 at least £38,000 in cash had been carried to Chester for the use o f the king’s forces in the north, while further sums were taken to the troops operating further so u th .126 Details o f the transport o f one 123 E 101/351/9. 124 Morris, Welsh Wars, 196-7, provides a very convenient tabulation. 125 Oxenedes, 326-36; E 372/128, m.34d; E 372/130, 136 (wardrobe accounts). In my War, Politics and Finance under Edward /, 170, I gave a higher total, of £150,000. It is hard to distinguish military from ordinary expenditure, but the main reason why that estimate was higher was that I included in it, as part of military expenditure, £20,000 that the wardrobe account included as repayment of loans. These had been received in 1282-3, and were repaid in the next year, and should not be counted as true military expenditure. 126 E 101/351/9.

T H E C O N Q U E S T OF W A L E S

201

sum o f 1,000 marks taken from Boston in Lincolnshire to C arm arthen reveal som ething o f the problem s that m ight be encountered. It took six days for the money to reach C hepstow , from where a dozen footsoldiers escorted it to N eath. From N eath a substantial force offou r cavalrym en and 400 foot brought it to Swansea: the W elsh were thought to be in force in the T a w e valley. A sm aller troop o f sixty infantry then took the money on to K id w elly, and then it was not far to the final destination. It is noticeable that not very m uch use w as m ade o f the Italian bankers in these operations, though they were no doubt busily engaged in raising funds for the king in London and elsewhere. O n ly one substantial paym ent at C hester was m ade by the Italians, w hile in the south two m embers o f the R iccardi firm cam e with a royal clerk, V in cen t de H ulton, when he took £833 6s 8d, w hich they had lent the crown, to C arm arth en .127 B y the sum m er o f 1283 E dw ard had destroyed the pow er o f the princes o f G w ynedd. His victory was considerable, yet hardly surpris­ ing in view o f the scale o f the resources he could pour into the war. T h e W elsh achievem ent, in resisting for as long as they did, was also notable. T h e w ar had been o f their m aking, but L lyw elyn and D afydd did not rule a united principality. In view o f the rivalries and divisions within W ales, and the m assive scale o f English influence in the country, it was astonishing to have achieved as m uch as they did. T h eir eventual failure presented Edw ard I w ith a new set o f problem s, in a w ay more difficult than that o f organizing the war: a proper settlem ent o f W ales now had to be devised, a real test o f the English king’s statesm anship. 127 Kaeuper, Bankers to the Crown, 184—5; C 47/2/4.

C h ap ter 8

WALES: SETTLEMENT AND REBELLION

T h e settlem ent o f W ales follow ing the English trium ph in the w ar o f 1282-3 presented E dw ard I w ith m any problem s. T h e defeated W elsh leaders had to be dealt with. T h e English m agnates w ho had served in the w ar needed to be rewarded. A new adm inistrative and legal system had to be created in the conquered territory, and English m ilitary dom inance had to be assured by means o f castle-building. T h e pro­ gram m e was a considerable one. C lem ency towards his enemies was not in E d w ard ’s character. A fter L ly w e ly n ’s death the p rince’s head had been sent to the king at R huddlan, and far from showing respect for a gallant opponent, E dw ard had it sent to London, where it adorned the T ow er o f London for m any years on the end o f a pike. A lm ost as soon as the king knew o f D afyd d ’s capture, he had writs issued for a parliam ent to be held at Shrew sbury, at M ichaelm as 1283, to discuss w hat should be done with him. Both m agnates and representatives o f shires and boroughs were asked to attend, the latter presum ably to be there as w itnesses.1 Signifi­ cantly, no clergy were asked, as from the outset it was envisaged that a judgem ent o f blood would be given, in which they could not participate. T h e parliam ent was not intended to be the occasion for any general settlem ent o f W ales: it was, rather, a celebration o f victory. T h e judgem ent on the unfortunate D afydd was a fourfold one, though the sources vary as to the precise details. T h e D unstable annals, in w hat seems the most plausible version, have it that he was sentenced to be dragged by horses to the scaffold, because he was a traitor. H e was to be hanged alive for hom icide, to have his bowels burned because he had com m itted his crimes at Easter, a holy period, and because he had plotted the king’s death his body was to be q uartered.2 T h e sentence was com prehensive and savage, if not unprecedented in its viciousness: a m an w ho tried to kill the king had been draw n, hanged, beheaded and quartered in 1238.3 D a fy d d ’s executioner, one Geoffrey o f Shrewsbury, 1 Pari. Writs, i. 2 Ann. Dunstable, 294. 3 Pollock and Maitland, History o f English Law , ii, 501, n. 1, where the theory of these multiple punishments is briefly discussed.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

203

was paid a pound for his labours. T h ere then followed some un­ seemly squabbling over the distribution o f the pieces o f the body: the Londoners carried off the head in trium ph, but the citizens o f Y o rk and W inchester disputed possession o f the right shoulder. T h e men o f L incoln refused to accept any part, and as a result incurred royal displeasure, only remitted once a substantial fine had been p aid .4 No general bloodbath took place after the English victory. O ne W elsh knight was draw n and hanged at Shrew sbury, but im prison­ ment, rather than death, was the general rule.5 D espite the obvious danger involved in leaving any m embers o f the W elsh princely fam ily alive, D a fyd d ’s sons were sent into captivity at Bristol. T h e elder, L lyw elyn, died in 1287, but the younger, O w ain , lived until at least 1325. T h o u gh he received a financial allow ance, and had servants to provide for his needs, he was kept in w hat seem unduly harsh condi­ tions. A round 1305 he was put into a w ooden cage at night, for reasons o f security, and rather later asked pathetically ‘that he m ay go and play w ithin the w all o f the castle’ . L ly w ely n ’s baby daughter G w enllian, and D a fy d d ’s daughters, were banished to various nunneries in England. G w enllian, by her own account, was promised £100 a year in land or rent by E dw ard, but in practice only received £20 from the exchequer.6 T h e lesser W elsh leaders m ostly languished long in prison. A few were released to serve E dw ard in Flanders in 1297, but at least one o f them, Rhys Fychan, returned to captivity at W indsor, where he died in 1302. E dw ard at least directed the constable to have the body properly and courteously buried, and agreed to meet the costs him self.7 From Shrew sbury Edw ard w ent on a leisurely progress through England, going to Y o rk in Jan u ary 1284 for the consecration o f his friend and servant A nthony Bek as bishop o f D urham . H e returned to W ales via Chester in M arch, and em barked on a tour o f W ales, plainly as a means o f consolidating his conquest o f the previous year. H e concentrated his time in the north, only m oving into south W ales in N ovem ber. H e stayed for quite lengthy periods at Caernarfon, spent about three weeks at a m anor near Lake B ala, and went into the L leyn peninsula as well as to C riccieth and H arlech .8 W hen he was at C on w y, a presentation sym bolic o f conquest took place, when a group o f W elshm en presented him with ‘that part o f the most holy wood o f the 4 Ann. London., 92; BL Vesp. B. xi (the Hagnaby chronicle), f.2gv; E 101/359/9. 5 BL Vesp. B. xi, f.29v. 6 Accounts o f the Constables o f Bristol Castle in the thirteenth and earlyfourteenth centuries, ed. M. Sharp (Bristol Record Soc., 1982), xxx; Calendar o f Ancient Petitions relating to Wales, ed. W. Rees (Cardiff, 1975), 458, 521; Powicke, Heniy 111 and the Lord Edward, ii, 684-5. 7 Stephenson, The Last Prince o f Wales, 17-18; Cal. Anc. Corr. Wales, 261-2. 8 Edward’s itinerary is given in Itinerary o f Edward I,part 1: i2 j2 -i2 g o (List and Index Soc., 103, 1974).

204

EDWARD I

cross w hich is called by the W elsh “ C royssen eyh t” , w hich L lyw elyn son o f Griffin, late Prince o f W ales, and his ancestors, princes o f W ales, ow ned’ . It was a form er clerk o f L ly w e ly n ’s, H ugo ap Y th el, who was responsible for this action: he was rewarded w ith a robe worth 20 shillings, and sufficient funds to enable him to study at O xford. T h e Cross N eith was later taken regularly by E dw ard on his travels: his esteem for it is dem onstrated by the considerable sum o f £104 spent in 1293-4 on adorning its pedestal w ith gems set in gold .9 N ot only did E dw ard worship at L ly w ely n ’s cross, he also dined off plate m ade from L ly w e ly n ’s treasure. A London goldsm ith, W illiam de Farndon, was entrusted w ith £57 w orth o f silver for this purpose. From the seal m atrices o f L lyw elyn, his wife and D afydd, E dw ard had a chalice m ade, w hich he ordered to be given to V a le R oyal A b bey. It has been tem ptingly suggested that the D olgellau chalice, found in 1890, is that very piece. Edw ard is also said to have been presented w ith w hat was claim ed to be A rth u r’s crown, a further sym bol o f his success.10 W ith clear deliberation, E dw ard had rem oved from W ales the regalia o f L ly w e ly n ’s dynasty. T h e business o f territorial settlem ent was a very im portant one. T h e m ajor grants to the king’s followers had all been m ade in the initial phase o f the war. In O ctob er 1282 Earl W arenne was granted D inas Bran, w ith the lands o f Brom field and Y ale. D yffryn C lw yd , with R uthin castle, w ent to Reginald de G rey. T h e cantreds o f Rhos and Rhufoniog, with the com m ote o f D inm ael, went to the earl o f Lincoln, form ing the great lordship o f D enbigh. T h e M ortim ers were well rewarded for their part in the war. In June 1282 the younger R oger was granted L lyw elyn F ych an ’s lands, and he also received the land o f C hirk. T h e sheriff o f Shropshire, Roger Springhose, received lands in M echain Iscoed, though he never developed his pow er there to any real extent. John G iffard o f Brim psfield was given the com m ote o f Iscennen in N ovem ber 1283, but in the south there was not the territorial revolution in the M arch that took place in the north. It is very striking that the earls o f G loucester and Hereford received no m ajor territorial rewards for their w ar service. W illiam de V alen ce was another who m ay well have felt that he deserved more from E dw ard, w ho seems to have resented his territorial am bitions.11

9 CW R , 274; Taylor, ‘Royal Alms and Oblations’, 119-20; E 101/352/21. 10 E 372/138, wardrobe account; A.J. Taylor, ‘A Fragment of a Dona account of 1284’, Bull, o f the Board o f Celtic Studies, xxvii (1976-8), 256-8; Rishanger, 107. 11 C W R , 223, 240-1, 243, 265, 283; Cal. Charter Rolls, 125J-1300, 262; R. Morgan, ‘The Barony of Powys, 1275-1360’, Welsh History Review, x (1980-1), 41; Davies, Lordship and Society in the March o f Wales, 26-9.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

205

G rants to those W elshm en w ho supported the English were not m any, but in J u ly 1282 the king granted Rhys ap M aredudd the cantreds o f M aw bynion and G w ynionydd, and some other lands in the hands o f rebels.12 G ruffydd ap G w en w ynw yn was no doubt content to see his claim s in Powys upheld by Edw ard against L ly w ely n ’s am bitions. H e had served E dw ard well in the war, even though his physical powers were probably failing. A story has it that his son O w ain surrendered his lands to E dw ard in 1283, receiving them back as an English barony; this m ay not be true, as it lacks docum entary corroboration, but it expresses neatly the process that saw Powys transformed at this time from a W elsh to a M archer lordship. O w ain becam e O w en de la Pole o f W elsh p o o l.13 T h e precise status o f the lands granted out by Edw ard was not m ade very clear at the outset, w ith the charters m erely indicating that they w ere to be held in traditional m anner, ‘as freely and w holly as other neighbouring cantreds are h eld’ . 14 In practice, however, they becam e M arch er lordships, even though they lacked the traditions o f the oldestablished lordships on the border, and even though they were held in ch ief o f the principality o f W ales after 1301, rather than being held directly from the cro w n .15 It is surprising that at a time when E d w ard ’s law yers were very m uch concerned with the precise status o f baronial rights, investigated in the Quo Warranto inquiries, there should not have been absolute clarity about the status and rights o f these newly created lordships. Th ere rem ained the question o f the lands that E dw ard him self retained in W ales. No grants o f L ly w e ly n ’s territories o f Snow donia or A nglesey were made, as they were retained for the crown, like Flintshire, and also Carm arthen and Cardigan in the south. T h e Statute o f W ales, issued at R huddlan on 19 M arch 1284, set out the provisions for the king’s lands in north W ales, including Flintshire. It began with a splendidly grandiloquent pream ble, explaining how W ales, feudally dependent on E ngland, was now ‘w holly and entirely transferred under our proper dom inion’ , united and annexed to England. W elsh laws and customs had been duly considered and some were to continue, while others were corrected or added to. T h e king appealed to divine provi­ dence as justifying his actions, and good governm ent was promised to the W elsh who, by im plication, had not enjoyed this in the p a st.16 T h e body o f the Statute o f W ales had a precision and a m atter-of-fact

12 C W R , 233-4, 236-7. 13 Davies, Lordship and Society in the March o f Wales, 31, n.56. 14 C W R , 243. 15 Davies, Lordship and Society in the March o f Wales, 27-8. 16 Statutes o f the Realm, i, 55-68.

2o6

EDWARD I

q uality som ewhat at odds w ith the style o f the pream ble. It was m ore an adm inistrative provision than a new legal code. It set out the new structure o f local governm ent, w ith the creation o f the new shires o f Flint, A nglesey, C aernarfon and M erioneth. W ithin these, the old organization o f cantreds and com m otes was m aintained: there was no intention o f com plete anglicization. T h ere was to be a ju sticia r o f north W ales, w ith sheriffs, coroners and bailiffs under him in the shires. C o u n ty courts were to be held m onthly, and the sheriff w as to conduct his tourn twice a year, holding sessions in the com m ote courts. A long list o f offences to be tried in these courts ranged from treason, rape and hom icide to breach o f the assize o f bread and ale. W elsh law still m ight apply in m atters regarding debts, sureties, contracts and so forth, but in crim inal questions, English law should be used. T h e statute provided exam ples o f the writs to be used in W ales in the future. A lth ough they w ere based on English practice, the num ber o f writs was very small, for an attem pt was m ade to sim plify the incredible com plexity o f the English w rit system. A single w rit o f right was devised to cover w hat in E ngland needed perhaps some fifteen different form ulae, and it can be argued that E dw ard, or rather his legal advisers, succeeded in creating legal processes w hich were a distinct im provem ent on English p ractice.17 W hile m uch was done to bring the adm inistration o f W ales into line w ith that o f E ngland (a continuation o f a policy w hich E d w ard ’s officials had been engaged in as early as the 1250s), the statute did not seek to create unity between English and W elsh law. N or did it suggest any particularly novel solution to the question o f the status o f W ales under the English crown. N either in the pream ble, nor in the main body o f the text, is there, for exam ple, any echo o f im perial concepts o f rule, or ofjustification for E d w ard ’s policy expressed in terms o f Rom an law . Y e t for all that the statute was lim ited in geographical scope, and inadequate in that it did not anticipate all the legal com plexities that m ight arise in the future, it does represent a most statesm anlike attem pt to resolve m any o f the problem s posed as a result o f the E dw ardian conquest o f north W ales. It did not, however, bring together all the aspects o f E d w ard ’s policies in W ales, and it is not sufficient evidence on w hich to ju d g e the king. T h e appointm ents w hich E dw ard m ade to positions o f power in his new ly conquered W elsh lands show that he intended the W elsh them ­ selves to play only a m inor part. He appointed O tto de G randson as ju sticia r o f north W ales. O tto, how ever, was to spend little time in the country after 1284, being more concerned with affairs in France and the 17 L. Beverley Smith, ‘The Statute of Wales, 1284’, Welsh History Review, x (1980-1), 127-54, provides a detailed and important analysis of the statute.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

207

H oly L a n d .18 His personal deputy was a Savoyard com patriot, John de Bonvillars, appointed as constable o f the new castle o f H arlech in 1285.19 O n J o h n ’s death in 1287 W illiam de G randson took over, but it is striking that the Savoyards did not attem pt to establish themselves as a new aristocracy in W ales, being content with official positions rather than with grants o f lands. A s deputy ju sticia r in north W ales, E dw ard appointed John de H avering, who held office until 1287, when he becam e seneschal o f G ascony. H e returned to W ales as royal lieuten­ ant, following the revolt o f 1294-5. Englishm en were appointed as sheriffs in the new ly formed counties, and the finances were in the hands o f English clerks holding the offices o f chamberlain and controller. T h e English and Savoyard constables o f the castles also played an im portant part in the adm inistration o f north W ales. Below these exalted ranks, local office was largely the preserve o f the W elsh. T h e introduction o f anglicized methods o f rule seems to have resulted in a considerable increase in the num ber o f such positions as those o f rhaglaw and rhingyll, roughly equivalent to English bailiffs. T h e old W elsh aristocracy was in rapid decline, but through office-holding a w ay was open for the advancem ent o f the gentry. Y e t only one W elshm an, G ruffydd ap T u dor, was constable o f a castle, and only one, G ruffydd ap D afydd, rose to be a sheriff.20 In physical terms, the English consolidated their hold on north W ales by means o f the construction o f a m agnificent series o f castles, w ith their associated towns. W ales was not a country w ithout castles prior to E d w ard ’s wars: both Llyw elyn the G reat and Llyw elyn ap G ruffydd had seen a program m e o f castle-building as one means o f increasing their power and prestige. T h e W elsh castles, such as Ewloe or D olw yddelan, were not, however, well suited to English strategy. T h e y were built prim arily for defensive purposes, perched on relatively inaccessible sites to serve as places o f refuge. T h ey were not designed to be easily supplied, to serve as bases for the operation o f large arm ies, to act as adm inistrative headquarters, or to protect m ercantile settle­ ments, and this was w hat the English needed. T h ey did make use o f C riccieth , Castell-y-B ere and D olw yddelan, but after the rising o f 1294-5 it was only the first nam ed o f these that continued to be o f any im portance.21 T h e English program m e o f castle-building began w ith the w ar o f 18 W.H. Waters, The Edwardian Settlement o f North Wales (1935), 9—11. 19 A.J. Taylor, ‘Who was “John Penardd” , leader of the men of Gwynedd’, E H R , xci (1976), 79-9720 For the appointment of officials, see CW R , 283-4; Morris, Welsh Wars, 199; Waters, Edwardian Settlement o f North Wales, 5-30. 21 The Welsh castles are discussed by Avent, Cestell Tywysogion Gwynedd (convenient­ ly, the text is in English as well as Welsh).

208

EDWARD I

1277, when Builth, A berystw yth , Flint and R huddlan were founded. M uch the most im portant were Flint and R huddlan, w hich served as bases for the royal advance into north W ales. T h e second W elsh w ar saw the start o f work at the m ajor sites o f C on w y, Caernarfon and H arlech, w hile the rebellion o f 1294-5 prom pted the king to order the building o f Beaum aris, in A nglesey. T h e strategy o f castle-bu ilding altered and developed w ith the changing circum stances o f the wars. W hen R huddlan was begun in 1277, it was d e a rly intended to become the m ajor royal centre in north W ales, the adm inistrative capital o f a shire and the seat o f the bishopric, w hich Edw ard hoped to transfer from St A saph. T h e creation o f the new M arch er lordships with the grants to the m agnates o f 1282 changed the position, and the shire adm inistration w ent to Flint, the bishopric stayed at St A saph, while the function o f a forward m ilitary base was taken over by Caernarfon and the other new castles to the w est.22 Y e t there was a consistency in w hat E dw ard was doing. In contrast to the seigneurial castles built in W ales, such as the earl o f L in coln ’s Denbigh, the royal castles in the north were all designed to be victualled and reinforced by sea. So m uch stress was laid on this that at Rhuddlan the river C lw yd was diverted so that it would be navigable right up to the castle walls. C onventional wisdom would have had the castle built on some rocky em inence, as H enry I l l ’s nearby fortification o f D yserth had been, but such sites could be blockaded, and the garrison forced to surrender. T h ere was consistency, too, in the w ay in w hich the castles were linked to new urban foundations. It w as not alw ays possible to provide these with town w alls, but at C on w y E dw ard built one o f the finest o f all m edieval w alled towns in conjunction w ith the castle. T h e part played by the king him self in the planning o f the new castles is unfortunately far from clear. A letter from Bogo de K n oville about the poor state o f affairs at A b erystw yth in 1280 makes it clear that the problem s were to be explained to the king himself, but the surviving records do not reveal in E d w ard ’s case the kind o f detailed orders about architectural m atters that survive from H enry 1 1 1 ’s reign. It is only in the case o f Linlithgow , in Scotland, that there is a surviving agreem ent between the king and his ch ief m ason.23 E d w ard ’s orders would norm ally have been given either by word o f m outh, or by means o f writs under the privy seal, and these have unfortunately not survived. It is, however, inconceivable that so great a building program m e could have been undertaken had the king him self not taken a deep interest in it. T h e m an w ho is known to have dom inated the whole enterprise was 22 K W , i, 323; A.J. Taylor, Rhuddlan Castle (Official Guide, 1956). 23 K W , i, 302-3, 413.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

209

E d w ard ’s great m aster mason, Jam es o f St George. H e was a Savoyard, who must have met Edward when he stayed at St Georges d ’Esperanche on his return from the crusade. B y early 1278 he had been recruited by Edw ard, for he was then in W ales, ‘to ordain the works o f the castles there’ . H e was em ployed throughout the second W elsh w ar, and stayed in W ales as m aster o f the king’s works until he was sum m oned to G ascony in 1287. In the 1290s he was responsible for Beaum aris castle, and he played an im portant part in Scotland during E d w ard ’s last years.24 O th er Savoyards assisted M aster Jam es. John de B onvillars, a knight, was paid late in 1283 to go to W ales ‘to supervise the king’s works there’ , and the accounts o f building work at C on w y show that he was involved in the details o f allocating work to teams o f masons. W illiam C icon, a Savoyard household knight, constable at R huddlan and then at C on w y, was p robably influential, and O tto de G randson doubtless had a part to play. T h ere were other masons from Savoy serving under M aster Jam es, along with other craftsmen. O n e G u y de V ergers, for exam ple, appears alongside M aster Jam es in accounts both in Savoy and in W ales. M aster G iles o f St G eorge was em ployed at A berystw yth, and another Savoyard mason, John Francis, worked at C onw y. It m ay even be that the painter sim ply called Stephen who decorated the royal cham ber at R huddlan had earlier performed the same task for the count and countess o f Savoy at St L aurent-du-Pon t.25 Th ere were, o f course, some im portant English masons, such as W alter o f Hereford w ho worked at C aernarfon from 1295 until 1309, but it was the Savoyards w ho were the elite o f the men em ployed in castle­ building. B y the late thirteenth century castle design had progressed far beyond the deceptively sim ple m otte-and-bailey forms o f the N orm an period. K eeps were not universally em ployed, m any castles relying on the strength o f curtain w alls and flanking towers. W hite C astle in M onm outhshire is a good exam ple o f such a castle, built by E dm und o f Lancaster, and consisting o f a polygonal enclosure w ith a high curtain w all flanked by circular towers. T w o such towers were brought together to form a gatehouse in characteristic English style, copied by the W elsh at C riccieth castle.26 Square towers were hardly ever used; 24 A J. Taylor, ‘Master James of St George’, E H R , lxv (1950), 433-57; K W , i, 203-5. My debt to Dr Taylor’s work is immense: his studies have transformed knowledge of Edward’s castles. Many of his articles have been collected together in his Studies in Castles and Castle-Building (1985). 25 A.J. Taylor, ‘Some notes on the Savoyards in North Wales, 1277-1300, with special reference to the Savoyard element in the construction of Harlech castle’, Genava, ns, xi (1963), 289-315. 26 There is some argument over the Criccieth gatehouse. The Official Guide by C.N. Johns (1970) claims that it is Edwardian work, but the level of expenditure at Criccieth

2 10

EDWARD I

perhaps because they were vulnerable at the corners to m ining and battering, or perhaps sim ply because fashions had changed since the twelfth century. T h e W elsh preference was for a D -shaped plan for the towers, the English for a round one. In E d w ard ’s new castles, the existing elements o f keeps, towers, gatehouses and curtain w alls were all em ployed, being developed in more com plex w ays w ithout the adoption o f any totally radical innovations. T h e castles built by Edw ard I in north W ales fall, in terms o f their ground plans, into clear groups. Flint, like Builth in m id-W ales, has a true keep. In the later castles only C aernarfon possesses, in the Eagle T o w er, anything like a keep. R huddlan, H arlech and Beaum aris were all built on fairly level ground, w hich did not dictate any obvious plan. T h ese castles show the developm ent o f the concept o f a concentric castle, w ith an outer ring o f relatively slender defences, constructed so as to provide m assive fire-power from arrow-loops and crenellations. A t R huddlan the inner w ard was trapezoidal in plan, w ith twin towers at two corners form ing gatehouses. A t H arlech a square inner w ard featured round corner towers, and a m assive twin-towered gatehouse in the centre o f one wall. T h is was developed on the courtyard side into w hat looks more like a m ansion than a fortification. A t Beaum aris, last o f the castles, additional flanking towers were added to the plan, and two great gatehouses built rather than one, m aking for com plete sym ­ metry. T h e outer defences, too, were far more elaborate than those at Rhuddlan or H arlech. A t C o n w y and C aernarfon the sites com pelled M aster Jam es to adopt an elongated rather than a concentric plan. Both castles have two w ards, intended to be separated by a cross w all, though this no longer stands at C aernarfon. A t C on w y, the entrances are protected by barbicans, w ith no true gatehouse, but Caernarfon features two m assive gatehouses. U nlike the other castles, it has multiangular towers. T h e south curtain is most ingenious, for it is tunnelled through, in order to provide a gallery for archers, w hile the design o f the w all-head is such that any attacker was faced with triple banks o f arrow-loops. It is not so m uch in the overall conception o f the castles, as in the details o f the architecture, that the Savoyard connection is shown most clearly, though the castle o f St G eorges d ’ Esperanche itself, w ith a sym m etrically planned inner w ard and octagonal towers, has some obvious general resem blance to the E dw ardian castles. St Georges has one very precise link with H arlech, for the form and m easurem ent o f a latrine chute, at the abutm ent o f curtain w all and corner tower, are ju st the sam e in both castles. T h e design o f the window s, with shallow by Edward was not such as to suggest he built so massive a structure, and Avent’s view, Cestyll Tywysogion Gwynedd, 31, that it is Welsh work seems preferable.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

21 I

curved heads, is also very sim ilar, though here the exact parallel in terms o f m easurem ent is with the Savoyard castle o f C hillon. Fullcentred round arches elsewhere at H arlech are also o f Savoyard design. T h e building technique o f using inclined or sloping scaffolds w as one com m on to the W elsh and Savoyard castles, and w as not norm ally em ployed by English m asons.27 M edieval m aster m asons were not afraid to copy other m en’s work, and m any influences lay behind the north W elsh castles. T h e king’s own travels, particularly to the east, m ay well have provided some o f the inspiration for the building program m e. T h e crusader port o f A igues M ortes, built by St Louis, provides some possible precedents. A form ally planned town with its own port, A igues M ortes m ay w ell have been in E d w ard ’s mind when such stress was laid on the ease o f access from the sea to his new castles and their associated boroughs. T h e great circular tower, the T o u r de C onstance, at A igues M ortes has been suggested as one possible inspiration for one o f the most puzzlin g features o f any o f the W elsh castles, the keep at Flint. T h is consists, in effect, o f two concentric drum towers, one inside the other, and the circular galleries o f the T o u r de C onstance have som ething o f the same effect. A nother possibility is that Flint parallels C astel del M onte in A p ulia, which E dw ard could have visited on his return from the east. T h e difference in scale between the celebrated A p u lian castle and Flint makes this connection rather u nlikely.28 A closer connection w ith an A pulian castle is L ucera, w hich, although not circular, did have w hat am ounted to one tower built w ithin another. T h e purpose o f the design at Flint was probably to provide com fortable, w ell-lit accom m odation in the upper levels o f the keep, the inner drum being open to the sky, form ing a kind o f sm all open courtyard. It w ould be a gross error to assume that all the architectural features o f the castles are to be explained in terms o f purely m ilitary need. T h a t com fort was a consideration is shown by the provision at R huddlan, o f a garden for the queen, w hich featured a pleasant fishpond surrounded by seats.29 T h e most intriguing origin o f any o f the architectural features adopted by E d w ard ’s m asons is that o f the rem arkable m ulti-angular towers and dark stripes in the stonework at Caernarfon. T h is has been 27 Taylor, ‘Some notes on the Savoyards in North Wales’, 309-12; ‘The castle of St Georges d’Esperanche’, 42-6. 28 R.A. Brown, English Castles (3rd edn, 1976), no; Flint Castle (Official Guide, reprinted 1971), 2. 29 K W , i, 324. For an absurd ‘military’ explanation of the design of Flint, see W.D. Simpson, Castles in England and Wales (1969), 283, where it is suggested that attackers would be forced down into the basement of the inner drum, and then picked off at leisure by the defenders, from the circular gallery.

10

50 'Mrtrts

0 COVHWOM 50«lc

CONWY

213

w

0

50 Metres

Mo a

f

Moat

Common scale

HARLECH B E A U M A R IS

2. Edward I’s Castles in Wales: ground plans

214

EDWARD I

convincingly dem onstrated by A.J. T a y lo r.30 Strong traditions linked C aernarfon with the Rom an past, and in 1283 E dw ard was involved in re-burying the body o f w hat was thought to be M agnus M axim us, ‘father o f the noble em peror C on stan tin e’ . T h e style o f the castle is very clearly derived from the walls o f the im perial city o f Constantinople. Im perial links were further em phasized by placing eagles on the tops o f the triple turreted Eagle Tow er: conveniently, these also provided a link with Savoy, for the eagle was the coun t’s sym bol. T h ere was perhaps less Savoyard influence in the architecture o f C aernarfon than in the other castles. T h e man initially in charge o f the w hole building operation was the English knight Eustace H atch, and later the main responsibility for the building works lay on the shoulders o f W alter o f H ereford. Y e t there is little doubt that M aster Jam es o f St G eorge was the man prim arily responsible for the design o f the castle, and in 1288 the Savoyard knight W illiam de G randson was sent to supervise the works at C aern arfon .31 T h e organization o f a building program m e on the scale o f that under­ taken in W ales was a trem endous task. D iggers, masons, carpenters and other workm en were needed in great numbers: by m id-A ugust 1277, 1*845 diggers, 790 sawyers and 320 masons had assem bled at C hester and Flint. A t H arlech, in 1286, there were some 950 men labouring on the castle in the sum m er, though in w inter when short days reduced w orking hours, there were a mere 60 on the site. In 1295 M aster Jam es o f St G eorge and his clerk calculated that they would need 400 m asons, 200 quarry men, 30 smiths and no less than 2,000 labourers at Beaum aris. Skilled w ork was expensive: stone dressing m ight cost 1 lA d or 1 V2& per stone, and at H arlech the cost o f building the two seaw ard towers was 45s per foot, each tower being some fifty feet high. Stone could not alw ays be quarried on site: that for Flint was taken from Shotw ick and ferried to the new castle. Lim estone for H arlech had to be shipped from C aernarfon or A nglesey. T im ber, sand and coal also had to be brought considerable distances.32 A ll this m anpow er and m aterial m eant that the castles were very costly. Between 1277 and 1304, Edw ard I spent some £80,000 on his works in W ales. H arlech, w hich took seven and a h a lf years to com plete, p robably cost about £9,500, though precision is not possible, as some accounts com bine the costs o f the different castles. A s time wore on, m oney becam e increasingly short. A letter from Jam es o f St G eorge and his clerk, w orking at Beaum aris in 1296, pointed out that ‘the work we are doing is very costly and we need a great deal o f m oney’ , 30 K W ', i, 369-71; above, 120. 31 C P R 1281-92 , 302. 32 K W , i, 313, 359-61, 399.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

215

and concluded with a desperate postscript: ‘A nd, sirs, for G o d ’s sake be quick with the m oney for the works, as m uch as ever our lord the king wills; otherwise everything done up till now will have been o f no ava il.’33 In the last years o f the reign m atters becam e more difficult still, and it is the lack o f funds w hich explains the incom plete character o f the works, particularly at C aernarfon and Beaum aris. A t the latter, the towers never rose up above the level o f the curtain walls. Y e t incom plete as they were, the castles ringing north W ales must have been astonishingly im pressive in about 1300. T h ey gleam ed with w hite plaster or w ash, their crenellations were capped w ith pinnacles, their towers with w atch turrets, and they were a most form idable sym bol o f the English conquest. Y e t to understand their im portance, it is not enough to study m erely the physical appearance and m ilitary strength o f the castles. T h eir institutional place in society w as, in m any w ays, quite as im portant. M an y o f the men appointed as constables o f the castles were, like their builders, Savoyards. W illiam C ico n at Flint and then C on w y, John de Bonvillars at H arlech, Jam es o f St G eorge him self at the same castle, and O tto de G randson at Caernarfon: the list is an im pressive one. T h e Englishm en w ho served in the W elsh castles were not men o f such note, with the exception o f W illiam L eyburn at C riccieth from 1284. It is striking that few o f the constables had m uch territorial interest in W ales: H ugh T u rberville w ho com m anded Castell-y-B ere for a time, was the only real M arch er lord am ong them. N or did becom ing a constable give a man direct control over W elsh estates, for E d w ard ’s technique was to allocate fees at the exchequer, rather than linking lands w ith the office. C icon received £190 for C on w y, Leyburn £100 for Criccieth, T u rberville 200 m arks for C astell-y-B ere.34 Such an arrangem ent was obviously not w holly satisfactory to the constables, and in 1305 the com m anders at H arlech and C riccieth both petitioned for the grant o f local offices, only to have their dem ands refused.35 These castles were not the centres ofcastleries in the traditional English m anner, and only Caernarfon, as the m ain seat o f the ju sticia r o f north W ales, and Flint as the centre o f its county, had a full adm inistrative role to play. Nor, for all their splendour, were the castles heavily garrisoned. In 1284 thirty or forty men to each was regarded as appropriate. In the rebellion o f 1294-5 H arlech had tw enty men, o f whom two died during the siege, until reinforcements cam e from Ireland. W ith some townsm en w ho had taken refuge in the castle, the 33 K W , i, 399. 34 CW R , 291-2, 296, 302, 325-6. 35 Record, o f Carnarvon, 224.

2 l6

EDWARD I

total strength cam e to thirty-eight men, and in addition there were seven wom en and five children o f the castle, and tw elve women, with twenty-one children, o f the tow n.36 T h e castles were a part o f an English colonizing process, for they were linked with the establishm ent o f new towns in W ales. A rchbishop Pecham advised E dw ard that the W elsh should be encouraged to live in towns, as a means o f civilizing them .37 H e had perhaps picked up, and m isunderstood, discussions at court, for the purpose o f the new towns was not to convert the W elsh to an English w ay o f life, but to create English enclaves, protected by the castles, and provide them with some econom ic viability. U rb an settlements were associated with the castles o f the first W elsh war, as well as with those o f the second, but it was not until Septem ber and N ovem ber 1284, that the im portant step was taken o f granting charters to Flint, R huddlan, C on w y, Caernarfon, Bere, C riccieth and H arlech .38 T h e most striking o f the new towns were C on w y and Caernarfon, both carefully planned, and provided with superb town walls. In contrast, H arlech and C riccieth were little more than huddles o f houses sheltering under the castle walls. Th ere was little enthusiasm to settle in remote Bere, or H arlech, but by the early 1290s there were 74 taxpayers at Flint, and 75 at H arlech. A rental o f 1298 recorded the names o f 110 burgesses at C on w y, and there were 62 at C aernarfon .39 T h e success o f the towns is shown by the fact that they were soon imitated: three more towns were founded in Flintshire in the early 1290s, at C aerw ys, O verton and N ew M ostyn, though none o f these was linked with castles. T h e m agnates created towns as well: the earl o f Lincoln at D enbigh, earl W arenne at H olt, and R eginald de G rey at R uthin.40 E d w ard ’s policy was an im aginative one, w hich in time was to do m uch to transform the econom ic and social structure o f north W ales. In the king’s own day, however, the new English boroughs were isolated outposts, separated by language, as well as by fortifications, from the surrounding W elsh. T h e English settlers were none too com fortable in an alien land. Prior to receiving their charter in 1284, the men o f Rhuddlan had com plained bitterly that they had to use W elsh law, and they threatened to move out if the king did not keep his promise to allow 36 C W R , 291-2, 296; J. Griffiths, ‘Documents relating I 2 9 4 ~ 5 ’j Bull, o f the Board o f Celtic Studies, viii (1 9 3 5 -7 ), 37 Receuil des lettres Anglo-Françaises, ed. Tanquerey, 47.

to the Rebellion of Madoc,

38 The charters are conveniently printed together by E.A. Lewis, The Medieval (1912), 279-83. 39 A.J. Taylor, ‘The earliest burgesses of Flint and Rhuddlan’, Flintshire Historical Society Publications, xxvii (1975-6), 152-60; Merioneth Lay Subsidy R oll , lxiv. 40 Beresford, New Towns o f the Middle Ages , 547-51. Caerwys was exceptional in that most of its inhabitants were Welsh.

Boroughs o f Snowdonia

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

217

them to use the customs o f Hereford. T h e y objected on another occa­ sion to the fact that ‘so m any W elsh are lodged near to the town on the outside that they disturb the profit and the m arket o f the English, and give voice to m uch treason am ong them ’ .41 It was hardly to be expected that the W elsh would be well treated by their new masters after the conquest. Strenuous efforts were m ade by E d w ard ’s officials to increase the paltry revenues that cam e their way. A concern with the valuation o f new ly conquered lands cam e very early, for in A ugu st 1283 G uncelin de Badlesm ere and Peter de Lek, along with a W elsh friar, were engaged on this task.42 O fficials such as Roger de Pulesdon, sheriff o f A nglesey, found themselves in a difficult position. His accounts for 1291-2 show outgoings o f alm ost £400, m ounting to nearly £600 if arrears from previous years are included. His incom e cam e to only £341, and it is hardly surprising that he was destined to be accused o f unjust practices in his attem pts to make ends m eet.43 T h e queen had been granted the lands o f H ope and M aelor Saesneg after Prince D a fy d d ’s execution, and her officials, notably Roger de Bures, behaved in a very high-handed m anner. It is very clear that every opportunity had been taken to raise rents, and m any custom ary rights were overridden. W hen the king had ordered the w idening o f the roads, Bures had gone to excessive lengths, clearing large tracts o f land, turning it into arable, even w here the queen had no rights in the area.44 In the lordship o f D enbigh there was w holesale expropriation o f W elshm en, and the lands granted to them in com pensation were infertile and inadequate. T h e W elsh o f D yffryn C lw yd com plained, m any years later, about Reginald de G re y ’s actions, driving men ‘from their wood, pasture, m ountains and mills; and this o f his own w ill’ .45 A docum ent draw n up after E d w ard ’s reign m ade note o f various ordinances issued by the king, described in it as the conqueror. These possibly date from the mid-1290s, and provide a telling contrast to the statesm anship indicated by the Statute o f W ales. W elshm en were prohibited from holding gatherings w ithout royal permission, and in the absence o f royal officials. W elshm en m ight not hold lands in the newly founded towns. T h e y were not to bear arms in the towns, and could not give hospitality to strangers for more than one night. T h ey

41 Cal. Anc. Pet. Wales, 461, 491. 42 E 101/359/9. 43 Waters, Edwardian Settlement o f North Wales, 16-17; Record o f Carnarvon, 216. 44 N.M. Fryde, ‘A royal enquiry into abuses by Queen Eleanor’s ministers in north-east Wales, 1291-2’, Welsh History Review, v (1970-1), 366-76. 45 R.R. Davies, ‘Colonial Wales’, Past and Present, 65 (1974). 11; Cal. Anc. Pet. Wales, 168.

2

l8

EDWARD I

could only sell their goods in m arket towns. T h e traditional custodians o f the peace, known as keys, were to be removed from office.46 It is hardly surprising that there were two rebellions against English rule in the years following the conquest. Both took place when the king was distracted with overseas affairs. T h e first, in 1287, was the product o f E d w ard ’s lack o f generosity towards those W elsh w ho had served him in the w ars, while the second, in 1294, was a m uch more serious general rising against the English, w hich had extensive popular support. Rhys ap M aredudd, lord o f D ryslw yn, had been conspicuously loyal to the English, both in 1277 and in 1282-3. Y e t had not been able to extend his lordship in south W ales by acquiring D inefw r castle as he wished, and at the conclusion o f the second W elsh w ar he suffered the hum iliation o f trial in parliam ent at A cton Burnell, for entering lands he had been granted prior to their being form ally handed over by the justiciar. H e becam e entangled in legal disputes w ith the ju sticiar o f west W ales, Robert T ib etot, and had considerable difficulties with some o f his own tenants. T h e crisis cam e in 1287, following repeated refusals by Rhys to attend the ju sticia r’s court at C arm arthen. He had done all he could to obtain E d w ard ’s support, and in the previous year had even been to France in person, to put his case.47 In a letter to E dm und o f C orn w all, his lieutenant in England, the king stated that he did not wish Rhys to be m olested, and asked that his grievances be seen to. H owever, there was no sym pathy in England for Rhys: a clerk noted at the foot o f E d w ard ’s letter that ‘the whole world knows Rhys stands against the English allegiance’ .48 A lth ou gh in A p ril 1287 the king forbad any action for two months after the end o f the legal proceedings, should they go against Rhys, there was little hope o f avoiding conflict. T h e rising began when Rhys seized L landovery castle on 8 June 1287. D inefw r and C arreg C ennen soon fell to the W elsh. Edm und o f C orn w all m ade elaborate plans for four armies to converge on the rebels, and by 13 A ugu st he had reached the W elsh stronghold o f D ryslw yn. D isaster struck the English when a mine dug by them collapsed prem aturely while it was being inspected by a group o f knights, including the im portant Savoyard John de Bonvillars. Y e t the 46 Record o f Carnarvon, 131—2. There is no contemporary version of such an ordinance issued by Edward, and so there are doubts about this document. Yet it does fit in well with much of what is known of Edward’s policy in Wales. 47 This visit is noted by the Hagnaby chronicler, BL Vesp. B. xi., f.32. Rhys may have brought back with him the letters of protection given in Littere Wallie, 169-70. 48 J. Beverley Smith, ‘The Origins of the Revolt of Rhys ap Maredudd’, Bull. Board o f Celtic Studies, xxi (1964-6), 163.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

219

siege continued, with the attackers using a great stone-throwing trebuchet, rather than continuing with underm ining the walls. In Septem ber the castle fell, but R hys, his wife and most o f the garrison escaped. In N ovem ber he took N ew castle Em lyn by surprise, and it was not until the following Jan u ary that it was recaptured. A gain Rhys escaped, and the rest o f his life was spent as a fugitive in the hills and woods o f W ales. H e was eventually betrayed by his own men in 1292, and suffered a sim ilar fate to that o f Prince D afyd d .49 T h e revolt was costly to suppress, perhaps because the governm ent over-reacted in the early stages, and ordered up far more troops than were really needed. T h e Italian bankers provided at least £8,288 out o f the total o f over £10,000.50 Edm und o f C orn w all had to make extensive use o f them, as the norm al adm inistrative m achinery o f the w ardrobe was not available for the organization o f the w ar, since it was in G ascony with the king. Im provisation was highly successful, how ever, and the revolt never threatened the central features o f the E dw ardian settlem ent o f W ales. O ne striking aspect o f it, indeed, was the degree o f support that Edm und o f C orn w all was able to obtain in W ales itself, even from R h ys’s own men. T h e next rising was to be very different. T h ere is no statem ent o f the specific grievances o f the W elsh in 1294, but it is not hard to see w hy rebellion took place in that year. In addition to the generally harsh character o f English adm inistration, there was the m atter o f the tax w hich was imposed on the country in 1292. A massive tax o f a fifteenth was granted in England in 1290, but as W ales was not part o f the parliam entary m achinery w hereby county representatives gave their consent to taxation, it was necessary for the various M archer lords to be approached separately for their agree­ ment. T h is all took time. T h e tax in W ales was a fifteenth, ju st as in England, but in practice the assessment was m uch heavier than it was there. M erioneth, for exam ple, was to pay £566, as com pared with, for exam ple, £1,604 f° r the m uch w ealthier English county o f Essex. T h e average M erioneth taxpayer was asked for 4s 3d, whereas his Colchester counterpart owed only is 9d. T h e total assessment for the whole o f W ales was probably in the region o f £10,000, and although only ju st over £3,000 is recorded as being paid into the English exchequer, there can be little doubt that the tax was generally regarded as insup­ portable by the W elsh. M uch was probably paid to local officials, and never reached the exchequer. T h e final instalm ent o f the tax was due to be paid in the autum n o f 1294. A further dem and on W ales was for soldiers to go and fight in G ascony, and it was surely no coincidence 49 The fullest account of the rising is given by R.A. Griffiths, ‘The Revolt of Rhys ap Maredudd’, Welsh History Review, iii (1966-7), 121-43. 50 Kaeuper, Bankers to the Crown, 195-9.

220

EDWARD I

that the outbreak o f rebellion at the end o f Septem ber coincided both with the date for paym ent o f the last instalm ent o f the tax and with the muster o f the W elsh troops at Shrew sbury. T h e m ilitary preparations provided an opportunity for rebellion, as well as an inducem ent, for they m eant that m any m ajor English m agnates were due to leave W ales to sail for G asco n y.51 T h e leadership o f the revolt was not taken by men who had played a leading role in earlier resistance to E dw ard. M adog ap L lyw elyn in the north was the son o f a lord o f M eirionydd who had been dispossessed by L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd. H e had probably spent some time in England, and received paym ent from Edw ard in 1277. H e must have been resentful that in the afterm ath o f the conquest o f 1282-3 he was not restored to M eirionydd, but had to be satisfied with a small estate in A n glesey.52 C yn an ap M ared u d d ’s identity is not w holly clear, but he m ay have been o f noble origins. It is not even certain w here he was operating. M aelgw yn ap Rhys in C ardigan shire and M organ ap M aredudd in G lam organ were not men o f great distinction.53 Edw ard had destroyed the pow er o f the house o f G w ynedd so effectively that leadership had to be found elsewhere. T h e rising was alm ost certainly prem editated, with attacks on English castles throughout W ales. A t C aernarfon the half-built castle was overrun, and Roger de Pulesdon was put to death in a m anner w hich recalled the savagery o f D a fy d d ’s execution. T h e new royal castles w hich were reasonably com plete, Flint, R huddlan, C on w y and H arlech, all held out, though at Flint the English deliberately set fire to the town. A t Builth an English official was killed. Baronial castles fared less well. A num ber o f those belonging to the earl o f G loucester in the south fell, as did D enbigh, Ruthin, M old and H aw arden .54 T h e fact that preparations were far advanced for a G ascon cam paign m eant that it was a relatively easy, if bitter, task for E dw ard to divert troops, m oney and m aterial to W ales. O n 15 O ctob er writs were issued to the leading m agnates to meet the king at W orcester on 21 Novem ber. M usters were planned at Brecon, C a rd iff and C hester, the king’s own forces assem bling at the latter venue. Some o f the provisions collected for G ascony were transferred to W ales, and further supplies were 51 Merioneth Lay Subsidy R oll, xxiv—xxxv and passim. 52 J.G. Edwards, ‘Madog ap Llywelyn, the Welsh Leader in 1294-5’, Bull. Board o f Celtic Studies, xiii (1950), 207-10; Stephenson, Governance o f Gwynedd, 143-4. 53 Brenhineddy Saesson, 261; Book o f Prests, xxviii. 54 Morris, Welsh Wars, 241-2; Altschul, A Baronial Family, 154; M.C. Prestwich, ‘A New Account of the Welsh Campaign of 1294-5’, Welsh History Review, vi (1973-4), 89-94. f ° r a fuller commentary, with corrections, on the chronicle account printed there, see R.F. Walker, ‘The Hagnaby Chronicle and the Battle of Maes Moydog’, Welsh History Review, viii (1976-7), 125-38.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

221

collected.55 W hile these m easures were being taken, m atters were deteriorating in W ales. O n 11 N ovem ber, the earl o f Lincoln was attacked by his own tenants as he advanced towards D enbigh, and was forced to flee.56 A n expedition, w hich seems to have failed, was m ounted to relieve C astell-y-B ere. A rchaeological evidence o f destruc­ tion by fire at about this period is highly suggestive o f disaster there. T h e one success was that John G iffard did m anage to relieve the beleaguered garrison at B uilth.57 W hen the English armies m ustered in D ecem ber, the original plan was modified. T h e king’s forces assem bled at C hester as planned, but W arw ick’s troops mustered at M ontgom ery, and a third arm y, under W illiam de V alen ce and the earl o f Norfolk, gathered at C arm arthen. In all, the English forces were larger than ever before. Some 21,000 infantry were engaged in operations in north W ales, 10,700 were serving under W arw ick in late D ecem ber, and there were at least 4,000 in the south. T h e size o f the cavalry forces cannot, unfortunately, be calculated, but it must have been considerable.58 Edw ard him self m arched from C hester to W rexham , then on through D enbigh, to reach C on w y by C hristm as. O th er troops, under Reginald de G rey, took the more usual coastal route. A t some point a large num ber o f W elshm en cam e to the king, w ho pardoned them their rebellion, on condition that they agreed to serve him in France. T h ey promised to capture M adog, but when they went to the W elsh leader, he m ade a powerful speech, w hich m ade them change their m inds.596 0 T h e English suffered a m ajor setback when the baggage train was attacked and destroyed by the W elsh, and E dw ard found him self effectively besieged in C o n w y castle. W alter o f G uisborough has a touching story o f how the king refused the small quantity o f wine that had been kept back for him, and insisted that it be shared out between his troops. Th ere certainly was for a time an acute shortage o f victuals. In Jan u ary the king undertook an astonishing m arch, leav­ ing C on w y on the 7th, advancing through Bangor, and riding right on to Nefyn in the Lleyn peninsula, where he stayed on the 12th and 13th. By 20 Jan u ary he was back at C o n w y, apparently w ith little to showTor this raid. T h e long stay at C o n w y which followed was a tedious one, 55 CW R, 359-61. 56 Guisborough, 251. 57 Morris, Welsh Wars, 252, argues ex silentio that the relief of Castell-y-Bere must have been successful, but the evidence cited in K W , i, 368-9 points to a different conclusion. 58 Book o f Prests, xxix-xxxi. 59 Prestwich, ‘A New Account of the Welsh Campaign’, 89-94; Walker, ‘The Hagnaby Chronicle and the Battle of Maes Moydog’, 126-7. 60 Guisborough, 251-2; Book o f Prests, xxxii-iii.

3- The Welsh Rebellion of 1294-5

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

223

and in M arch the infantry begged the king for action. T h ey m ade a sortie, accom panied by some cavalry, surprised their enemies, killing some 500, and recovered some o f the baggage lost earlier. In A p ril the king mounted an attack on A nglesey, recrossing the M enai straits to Bangor on 6 M ay. H e then advanced southw ards towards A berystw yth and C ard ig an .61 Events elsewhere in W ales were more dram atic. In the south the earl o f G loucester’s forces had little success against M organ ap M aredudd, but on 5 M arch W arw ick’s troops achieved a notable trium ph against M adog. T h e W elsh leader had evidently copied Prince L ly w ely n ’s strategy o f 1283, and broken out o f Snowdonia. A newsletter in the H agnaby chronicle gives the following account o f events: Know that the Montgomery army went to Oswestry to take some plunder. Then the prince came into Powys with the elite of his Welshmen, and our spies came by night to Oswestry, and told us that the prince had gone as far as Cydewain. They [the English] went as quickly as they could to Montgomery, on the Friday and Saturday, 5 March. The prince’s host awaited our men on open ground and they fought together, our men killing a good six hundred. Then our men from Llystynwynnan joined battle with those who were transporting the prince’s victuals, and killed a good hundred, and took from them, over six score beasts laden with foodstuffs. And we lost only one esquire, the tailor of Robert FitzWalter, and six infantrymen, but a good ten horses were killed. For the Welshmen held their ground well, and they were the best and bravest Welsh that anyone has seen.62 T h e force involved at this battle o f M aes M oydog was sm all, consisting o f only about 119 horse and 2,500 infantry. A nother account o f the engagem ent suggests that the earl o f W arw ick em ployed novel tactics, interspersing crossbowm en with the cavalry, but the fact that there were a mere thirteen crossbowm en and archers listed in the pay roll for the arm y casts considerable doubt on this version o f events.63 A t all events, an im portant victory w as achieved, even though M adog him self was neither killed nor captured. In the south, H ereford’s men defeated a W elsh force w hich had been lured into a trap. Reginald de G rey, m arching south-west from Rhuddlan, had considerable success in routing out M adog’s men from the

61 Book o f Prests, xxxii-iv, xxxix-xli, and see 222-5 for the royal itinerary; Prestwich, ‘A new account of the Welsh Campaign’, 89-94. 62 Prestwich, ‘A New Account of the Welsh Campaign’, 91; Walker, ‘The Hagnaby Chronicle and the battle of Maes Moydog’, 128-30. 63 Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance under Edward /, 107-8. For this campaign and battle, see alsoJ.G. Edwards, ‘The Battle of Maes Moydog and the Welsh Campaign of 1294-5’, E H R , xxxix (1924), 1-12; J.G. Edwards, ‘The Site of the Battle of “ Meismeidoc” , 1295 (Note)’, E H R , xlvi (1931), 262-5.

224

EDWARD I

forests where they had taken shelter.64 Even w ithout the capture o f the leaders o f the rebellion, the collapse was rapid. M organ ap M aredudd m ade his peace with the king in the south, claim ing that he was only fighting against the earl o f G loucester. It was possibly as a result o f a dispute over M o rga n ’s surrender that the king took G lam organ into his custody for a tim e.65 E ventually the leaders were, for the most part, caught. T h ere was some argum ent as to who was responsible for taking M adog: John de H avering claim ed the 500 m ark reward offered by the king, but Enyr Fychan o f M eirionydd was to claim that he held the rhaglaw ry of T a lyb o n t as a result o f capturing the north W elsh leader. He was, surprisingly, not put on trial and executed, but was im prisoned in the T o w er o f London, where he probably rem ained for the rest o f his life. C yn an ap M aredudd and two o f his associates were brutally executed for treason at Hereford, but within a couple o f years M organ ap M aredudd would be serving Edw ard as a squire o f the household on various business, in Flanders and elsewhere. M aelgw yn was killed in the fighting at the close o f the rebellion. L arge num bers o f hostages were taken to England, as a means o f ensuring future peace in W ales.66 E d w ard ’s clem ency to M ad o g in particular is surprising: perhaps he considered that he was not o f sufficiently exalted social status to be worth a show trial and execution, or perhaps he was sim ply in m erci­ ful mood when M a d o g ’s subm ission took place. H e was certainly not benevolent in all cases. W hen he was on his trium phal journey round W ales in the afterm ath o f the rebellion, the abbot o f Strata Florida unwisely promised that he would bring the leading men o f C ardiganshire to E dw ard to receive his peace. W hen they failed to appear, the king angrily ordered ‘Burn it! Burn it!’ . T h e abbey was duly fired, along with all else in sight.67 A study o f the cam paign o f 1294-5 shows a well-oiled w ar m achine in operation. T h e system o f recruiting was well established: men such as T hom as de Berkeley, O sbert de Spaldington and A lan Plugenet had am ple experience, and seem to have had little difficulty in bringing together the large num bers o f infantry the king required. W hen Robert de R ye went to C hester to get 300 ditchers, 30 carpenters and 20 masons to come to C on w y, he was on a mission fam iliar to m any of 64 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 108-9. 65 Altschul, A Baronial Family , 155. 66 J- Griffiths, ‘The Revolt of Madog ap Llywelyn, 1294-5’, Trans. Caernarvonshire Historical Society (1955), 21-3; Book o f Prests, xliii-iv; Flores, iii, 277; J. Beverley Smith, ‘Edward 11 and the Allegiance of Wales’, Welsh History Review, viii (1976-7), 142. The story in Guisborough, 252, that Madog surrendered and was admitted to the king’s peace on condition that he captured Morgan makes no sense. 67 Ann. Worcester, 520

w a l e s

:

settlement and rebellion

225

E d w ard ’s officials. Jam es o f St G eorge prepared bridging equipm ent in the W irral: it was probably not used, but the form ula adopted in 1282 must have been in his mind. V ictu als were brought from the south coast where they had been stockpiled ready to go to G ascony, w hile clerks collected additional supplies from various English counties. Ireland too was an im portant source. R ichard de H avering went there to organize the revictualling o f H arlech and C riccieth castles, an im portant opera­ tion carried out early in A pril 1295.68 Finance was no great problem , as large reserves o f cash had been accum ulated by the crown for the French war, and it proved possible to send consignments o f up to £4,000 at the rate o f two or three a month to W ales from W estm inster. A total o f £ 5 4 ,4 5 3 was sent in this w ay between the outbreak o f the rebellion and the following O ctober, with a further £1,000 from Ireland. T h is sum does not, o f course, represent the total cost o f putting down the rebellion, but it is unfortunately not possible to isolate all the W elsh items in the royal accounts from the broader entries, and an accurate total cannot be calculated.69 T h e chronicler Pierre Langtoft provides an interesting explanation for the length o f time that it took to put down the rebellion in W ales. He argued that had Edw ard been prepared to reward his followers with the lands that they took, to hold o f him in feudal service, the w ar would have been won virtually at a stroke.70 Th ere is no other evidence to suggest any reluctance on the part o f the m agnates to serve Edw ard in W ales, but L an gto ft’s view alm ost certainly reflects the views o f men who found themselves largely unrewarded for their services, save for the paym ent o f wages, w hich alm ost certainly did not cover their costs in full. E dw ard did not choose to use the opportunity presented by the rising to make any radical changes in the landholding structure or governm ent o f W ales: his policy was to perm it the heirs o f W elshm en who had fought against him to retain their lands, under severe threat o f w hat would happen if there was further rebellion.71 T h ere was a commission appointed to investigate w hat had taken place in W ales, but it is unlikely that those appointed to it, John de H avering and W illiam C icon, had any degree o f sym pathy with the W elsh point o f view .72 N or did the king draw the obvious lesson from the rebellion, and lighten the financial burden placed on the W elsh. In 1300 he even

68 Book o f Prests, 54-6, 61-5, 76; J. Griffiths, ‘Documents relating to the rebellion of Madoc, 1294-5’, 149-55. 69 The finances of the war are fully discussed in Book o f Prests, 1-liii, and tabulated 226-7. 70 Langtoft, ii, 216. 71 Ann. Dunstable, 386-7. 72 C P R i 2 g 2 - ijo i , 165.

226

EDWARD I

collected a tax o f a fifteenth in W ales, raising £2,776, not including w hat was raised in the M arch es.73 T h e m ajor change in the governm ent o f W ales cam e in 1301, not as a result o f M a d o g ’s rebellion, but because o f the need to provide for the king’s son Edw ard. In the sixteenth century the story was that Edw ard, after defeating Llywelyn and Dafydd, promised to give the W elsh a prince born in W ales, who could not speak a word o f English. A ccordingly, he presented to them in 1284 his son E dw ard, born at Caernarfon on 25 A p ril 1284, a baby then incapable o f any speech at all. It is an attractive tale, but there is little plausibility to it. In 1284 Alphonso, not E dw ard, was the king’s heir, theprimogenitus, and it is most unlikely that W ales would have been promised to a younger son at a time when no landed endowm ent had been provided for the elder. It is possible that Caernarfon was deliberately selected as the b a b y ’s birthplace, because o f its legendary im perial past. It would certainly have been more sensible to leave Q ueen Eleanor in the relative comfort o f Rhuddlan, than bring her to give birth in the building-site that was Caernarfon in 1284. W hatever the truth o f the m atter, there are no indications o f any link between the young prince and W ales until 1301.74 A t the Lincoln parliam ent o f 1301, on 7 February, E dw ard I granted the royal lands in W ales, together with the earldom o f Chester, to his son.75 T h is was obviously rem iniscent o f the grant m ade to Edw ard him self forty-seven years before, although it was less generous. T h e act is surely better explained in terms o f past tradition than in terms o f any possible promise to the W elsh in 1284. It was consistent with the precedent o f 1254, in that it did not give the heir to the throne any specific title: it was not until M ay 1301 that he began to be termed Prince o f W ales. T h e young man was sent to W ales very prom ptly: he spent some five weeks there in A p ril and M ay, receiving the homage o f his W elsh tenants. H e did not, however, visit his birthplace o f Caernarfon, where the building works were virtually in abeyance and the castle in a sadly incom plete condition.76 T h e transfer o f control from Edw ard I to his son in 1301 was not m arked by any change o f policy. T h e prince was not a man to challenge his father over im portant affairs o f state, how ever m uch the two m ay have quarrelled over such m atters as the prince’s questionable rela­ tionship with Piers G aveston. T h e young E dw ard never in fact visited W ales after 1301, though evidence suggests that he did intend to do so.

73 List o f Welsh Entries in the Memoranda Rolls, 1282-1343, ed. N.M. Fryde (Cardiff, 1974), xviii-xix. 74 H. Johnstone, Edward o f Carnarvon, 6-7; K W , i, 371. 75 C C hR 1300-26 , 6. 76 Johnstone, Edward o f Carnarvon, 62; K W , i, 382.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

227

T h e grants he m ade were solidly in line with E dw ard I ’s policies, and the responses to a great num ber o f petitions from W ales presented to him at K ennington reveal that nothing new was to be done w ithout consultation with the king.77 T h e prin ce’s attitude towards W ales is indicated by a frivolous letter he sent to Louis o f E vreux in 1305: We send you a big trotting palfrey which can hardly carry its own weight, and some of our bandy-legged terriers from Wales, which can well catch a hare if they find it asleep, and some of our running dogs, which go at a gentle pace; for we well know that you take delight in lazy dogs. And, dear cousin, if you want anything from our land of Wales, we can send you plenty of wild men if you like, who will know well how to teach breeding to the young heirs or heiresses of great lords.78 Edw ard II was, in fact, to receive substantial support from W ales during the political problem s o f his reign, but this was a reflection not o f any skill he exercised during his rule as prince, but o f a grow ing preference by m any W elshm en for royal rule, in place o f the harsh exercise o f authority by the lords o f the M arch. T h e conquest and settlem ent o f W ales by Edw ard I were undoubtedly great achievem ents. H e has received m uch praise. J.E . M orris con­ sidered that his real skill lay in the organization o f his w ars, the w ay in w hich English armies were steadily im proved and their equipm ent brought up to date, w ith a new em phasis on archery. ‘T h e conquest o f W ales was effected by patience and resolution, w hich are not so interesting to record or read, but w hich are more serviceable in w ar than dashing bravery in the open battlefield.’79 T h e fact that E d w ard ’s methods o f w arfare were successful means that there is a tendency to assume that they were indeed the most effective that could have been em ployed, but for H .G . Richardson, ‘how ever good a tactician he m ay have been, he was a pitiable strategist. His capacity was on a level w ith that o f Sir Redvers B u ller.’8° T h e policies adopted by Edw ard in W ales have been described by F .M . Pow icke as ‘wise and equitable’ , and ‘in closer accord with previous tendencies in W elsh law and governm ent than national feeling in W ales has usually realized’ .81 M ore recently R .R . D avies has pointed to E d w ard ’s failing in W ales: ‘he had not the im agination to enter into other m en’s sensitivities; his pride in his own status and dignity as king o f England was such that it blinded him 77 Waters, Edwardian Settlement o f North Wales, 31-44. The Kennington petitions are printed in Record o f Carnarvon, 212-25. 78 Johnstone, Edward o f Carnarvon, 64. 79 Morris, Welsh Wars, 105. 80 H.G. Richardson, reviewing K W , i and ii, E H R , lxxx (1965), 555. 81 Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 437.

228

EDWARD I

entirely to the status and dignity o f others.’ H e has also written o f the ‘extortionate and unim aginative rule o f English officials’ .82 Th ere is no simple answer. T o take first the question o f E d w ard ’s m ilitary skill, it m ay be frivolous to look back to the Rom an general Suetonius Paulinus as an early exponent o f the strategy o f m arching along the coast o f north W ales and then crossing to A nglesey, but it is certainly true that E d w ard ’s troops were tram ping on a very well-worn route.83 In 1157 H enry 11 had advanced his arm y from C hester along the coast, and organized a naval attack on A nglesey. H enry I I I adopted a sim ilar strategy in 1245 and, as his son was to do, m ade use o f supplies brought by sea from Ireland. O f course, Edw ard did not rely solely on the advance o f royal armies from Chester: there were precedents for attacks on several fronts, such as H enry I ’s three-pronged assault on G w ynedd in 1114. Even the scale o f recruitm ent o f workm en w hich is such a striking feature o f E d w ard ’s careful w ar preparations was not new. In 1212 K in g John had sum moned no less than 8,000 labourers to assist in the task o f forest clearance and fortification, w hich was an im portant part o f his W elsh strategy.84 T here w as nothing w rong, o f course, in taking a fam iliar strategy and adapting it to new circum stances. T h e use o f other routes by the English had not been particularly successful. H enry I I ’s 1165 expedi­ tion, w hich had mustered at Shrew sbury, then advanced to O sw estry and m arched on to the upper stretches o f the Dee, had been frustrated by geographical obstacles and bad w eather. John had more success in 12 11, when he drove through from O sw estry to the coast at Bangor, but under H enry I I I the cam paigns o f 1228 and 1231 showed that it was hard indeed to launch a m ajor expedition into m id-W ales.85 E dw ard’s strategy was certainly a cautious one, but the wisdom o f caution was shown only too clearly in 1282, when Luke de T a n y and his men paid such a heavy price for their rashness. O n two occasions E dw ard did display boldness; in 1283 with the m arch into Snow donia, and in 1295 with the rem arkable Jan u ary raid as far as the Lleyn peninsula. O n neither occasion was any signal trium ph achieved, but this is not to E d w ard ’s discredit. H e was probably well aw are o f the sensible teachings o f the classical theorist V egetius, whose advice was that every 82 R.R. Davies, ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales’, Journal o f the Merioneth Historical and Record Society, ix (1983), 270, 275. 83 M.C. Prestwich, The Three Edwards: war and state in England 1272-1377 (1980), 17. 84 W.L. Warren, Henry I I (1973), 161; Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 399; A.L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta 108 7-1216 (Oxford, 1955), 287; S. Painter, The Reign o f King John (Boston, 1949), 266. 85 Warren, Henry I f 163-4; Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 299; Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 3 9 5 -7 .

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

229

conceivable resort should be tried before incurring the inevitable risks involved in battle.86 Further, the W elsh were themselves sim ply not prepared to challenge the king in open conflict, and this is one reason w hy it was E d w ard ’s com m anders in m id-W ales, not he himself, who won victories in battle in 1282 and 1295. T w o o f the most com m on elements o f m edieval w arfare were largely lacking from E d w ard ’s cam paigns in W ales. In 1173 the count o f Flanders is said to have advised the Scots on their w ar against the English: they should ravage and w aste the countryside, and then besiege the castles. M uch m edieval m ilitary strategy can be explained in these term s.87 E d w ard ’s arm ies do not seem to have engaged in burning and plundering W elsh territory on a large scale. N o doubt this was in part because there were not quite the sam e opportunities for ravaging as there would be in more prosperous and densely populated countries, but such techniques would have created great problem s in the afterm ath o f conquest. It was possible for E dw ard to bring considerable econom ic pressure on the W elsh sim ply by blockading Snowdonia, harvesting rather than burning the grain crop in A nglesey, and capturing the enemy stores o f victuals.88 Some destruction certainly did take place, but it was not as system atic and extensive as m ight have been expected. A s for sieges, E dw ard was not faced with the problem o f strong castles held by the enem y. T h e w ar o f 1287, with the siege o f D ryslw yn, was exceptional, as for the most part the W elsh did not try to hold out w ithin fortifications. In 1282 Prince D afydd abandoned H ope, slighting the w alls before the English arrived at the castle, and in general the W elsh castles were sim ply not strong enough to resist E d w ard ’s forces. O ne aspect o f E d w ard ’s m ilitary planning that seems o f doubtful wisdom is that o f recruitm ent. T h ere was m uch attention paid to providing the heavy cavalry that were the backbone o f English thirteenth-century armies. Horses o f sufficient size, strength and stam i­ na to carry heavily arm oured knights w ere in short supply, and m uch was done to rem edy this deficiency. Y e t the type o f w arfare that was w aged by the W elsh m eant that it was never possible to m ake use o f the heavy cavalry to their best advantage, in a massed charge such as had dom inated the battlefields o f Lewes and Evesham . T h e terrain w as not suitable, nor were the W elsh prepared to face the English on such

86 For Edward’s copy of Vegetius, see above, 123. 87 For a recent valuable discussion, see J.B. Gillingham, ‘Richard I and the Science of War in the Middle Ages’, War and Government in the Middle Ages , ed. J.B. Gillingham and J.C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1984), 78-91. 88 See Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 172, for evidence of the capture of Welsh food stores in Edeyrnion in 1282-3.

230

EDWARD I

terms. E qually, the value o f the enormous contingents o f infantry em ployed by Edw ard seems dubious. It was never possible to put them all into battle at one time, and to have over 30,000 men engaged in a cam paign m ade for immense logistical problem s. It is certainly true that the rising proportion o f archers am ong the foot was a considerable advance, but the crown could have done m uch more to ensure that its troops were properly equipped. W hat was surely needed were relatively small forces o f w ell-equipped men, capable o f the same kind o f swift m ovem ent that characterized their enemies. L igh tly arm ed cavalry were alm ost com pletely lacking from the E dw ardian armies in W ales, but such troops would surely have been ideal for W elsh conditions. It is striking that both in 1282 and 1295 it was the small armies that achieved the victories over the W elsh, rather than the large and unw ieldy hosts that the king him self led into north W ales. A most impressive aspect o f E d w ard ’s m ilitary enterprises was the organization o f supplies. T h e provision o f victuals and transport was very com petently organized, especially from 1282 onwards. A m em or­ andum draw n up at D evizes in A p ril 1282 shows how concerned the king’s officials were with these matters. A t the very start o f the process o f organizing the cam paign, they were w orking out the num bers o f workmen needed, promising to refund merchants for any losses incurred through com ing to Chester, noting the quantities o f grain needed from particular officials, and even including a note that salt meat should be obtained in G ascon y.89 It was only when the baggage train had been attacked by the W elsh, early in 1295, that m ajor difficulties were faced by the English troops in W ales. H ow far Edw ard in person concerned him self with these questions o f supplies is not very clear, but his return to Cheshire from Flint in the early stages o f the 1277 cam paign suggests that he w as very well aware o f the necessity o f ensuring that his forces were properly supplied. T h e contrast between the efficiency o f the logistics o f w ar under Edw ard I, and the severe problem s that had been faced in his father’s reign by English armies in W ales strongly points to the im portance o f the king’s own personal leadership. T h e strategy o f castle-building adopted by Edw ard has obvious clear logic. T h e W elsh heartland o f G w ynedd was to be surrounded by strong fortresses, easily supplied by sea. In any future conflict, Snow donia would be m uch easier to isolate than had been the case in 1277 or *282. Y et for all the magnificence o f M aster James o f St George’s creations, the wisdom o f the castle-building can be questioned. T h e new castles were capable o f holding out in the face o f the most up-todate siege equipm ent, yet there is no evidence that either Llyw elyn 89 Taylor, ‘Castle Building in Wales in the later thirteenth century’, 112-13.

w a l e s

:

settlem ent and rebellion

231

or D afydd was capable o f launching the kind o f operation that had eventually com pelled the garrison o f K enilw orth to surrender at the end o f the B aron s’ W ars, or w hich was to be successful at Stirling in 1304. Th ere was no im m ediate need to build on the scale o f C aernarfon or Beaum aris, and the English can hardly have expected the W elsh, once conquered, to develop m ilitary capabilities they had not had when independent. M aster Jam es o f St G eorge certainly appreciated the political im portance o f his work: in 1296 he wrote: ‘B ut as you know, W elshm en are W elshm en, and you need to understand them properly.’90 T h e ever increasing ambitiousness o f the castles is best explained not by m ilitary or political need, but by the determ ination o f M aster Jam es to make each creation more splendid than the last, and to build everlasting sym bols o f his m aster’s success. In practice, the value o f the castles in future w arfare proved m ixed. In the w ar o f 1294-5, while Flint, R huddlan and C o n w y all had their value as bases for m ilitary operations, H arlech and C riccieth served no such purpose. T h e need to organize a difficult and costly revictualling program m e for them from Ireland was a diversion o f valuable resources, and it is doubtful whether the existence o f the castles distracted m any W elsh troops from more im portant objectives. Further, the very fact that there was such a m ajor rebellion as that o f 1294-5, shows that the castle-building pro­ gram m e had not cowed the W elsh into total subm ission. It is certainly far from clear that the expenditure o f some £80,000 on the castles, in the course o f the reign, was the best use that could have been m ade o f such a large sum. In the longer term, E d w ard ’s failure to provide the new castles with their own financial resources, such as an allocation o f land to the castles could have provided, m eant that they were to fall rapidly into a sorry state o f disrepair. T h e conquest o f W ales was a m atter o f politics as well as o f w ar­ fare. N either E dw ard, nor his greatest W elsh adversary, L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, displayed any sym pathy for, or understanding of, each other’s position. L lyw elyn faced serious internal problem s, and he m ay have felt that if he showed weakness towards the English king, his dom estic enemies m ight find encouragem ent in his conduct. T h e essential dynam ic o f his rule was one o f expansion. H e clearly failed to appreciate the im portance for Edw ard I o f the question o f homage: his initial failures to respond to E d w ard ’s requests that he appear before him did not result in any dire consequences. E dw ard, for his part, probably did not think that L lyw elyn would resort to arms in the late 1270s, and failed to appreciate the im portance for the W elsh prince o f his various grievances over the im plem entation o f the T rea ty o f

9°

KW ,

i,

399-

232

EDWARD I

M ontgom ery o f 1267. E dw ard must, however, have felt well satisfied with the w ay matters went in 1277. It was after the first W elsh war that he m ade political errors. T o have driven two men w ho had been such bitter rivals as L lyw elyn and D afydd into the same cam p was rem arkably inept. T h e king’s handling o f the legal difficulties in W ales that resulted from the peace treaty o f 1277 was insensitive and unwise, and it is rem arkable that he and his officials failed to be aware o f the degree o f resentment that was building up, and w hich caused rebellion to break out in 1282. A sim ilar insensitivity led to Rhys ap M ared u d d ’s rebellion in 1287, though here the king was less blam ew orthy than his officials. T h e rising o f 1294-5 was not the result o f the m ishandling o f indi­ vidual W elsh m agnates, in the same w ay as those o f 1282 and 1287, and was m uch less possible to foresee. T h e fact o f that rebellion, however, does suggest that the settlement o f W ales in the afterm ath o f the w ar o f 1282-3 was not quite so capable as has sometimes been suggested. T h e statute o f W ales o f 1284 was certainly a skilled piece o f work, w hich testifies to the ability o f the law yers on E d w ard ’s council. T h e system o f governm ent it set up in G w ynedd was in m any w ays a reasonable one, for all that the officials that were placed in charge were ju st as overbear­ ing and intolerant as ever. Y e t an opportunity was surely missed after L lyw elyn ’s death. M uch more could have been done to provide redress for the grievances that abounded against the late p rince’s rule. T h e virtues and advantages o f E d w ard ’s legal innovations were consider­ able, but were not stressed. A lthough it is possible to criticize m uch that E dw ard did in W ales, the fact remains that he w as in the end thoroughly successful. O f course his resources were im m easurably greater than those o f the W elsh, but the W elsh had succeeded in retaining a considerable degree o f inde­ pendence in the face o f powerful English kings ever since the N orm an Conquest. E dw ard had now taken a m ajor step towards the eventual political unification o f the British Isles, though in his later years he was to find that he could not repeat in Scotland w hat he had achieved in W ales.

C h ap ter 9

THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND, 1278-86

T h e process o f adm inistrative change w hich had begun in 1274, when Edw ard I returned to England, was only briefly halted in 1277 by the first W elsh war. T h e years from 1278 until 1286, when E dw ard sailed for G ascony, did not witness dram atic political crises at home, and did not provide m uch for the chroniclers to w rite about. T h is was, however, a period o f constructive and im portant achievem ent in finance, adm inistration and law. E dw ard him self was forty in 1279, and these years saw him in his prime. H e still had m any o f the associates o f his youth around him, both m agnates and officials, and w as in a good position to put into effect all he had learned by hard experience. T h e dom inant figure, after E dw ard himself, in the governm ent was the chancellor, Robert Burnell. H e w as alm ost constantly at the king’s side, except when he was sent on an im portant mission to G ascony in 1278, or on such occasions as that in 1280, when the king went hunting in the N ew Forest and Burnell went to W estm inster to see to the business o f ch an cery.1 T h e fact that the two men were so close means that there is little surviving correspondence to show w hat kind o f advice Burnell was giving to E dw ard, but there is no doubting his influence. W hat does survive in profusion are letters and petitions addressed to Burnell, and these, though often routine in character, certainly indicate the extent o f his power. M an y requests concerned patronage o f various sorts. Roger Lestrange, seeking a grant o f M aelor Saesneg or other lands in W ales, approached B urnell and A nthony Bek, rather than putting his dem and directly to the king.2 T h e bishop o f Exeter sought the chancellor’s assistance when he was involved in a dispute w ith the ch iefju stice o f the king’s bench, R alph H engham . W illiam de V alen ce wrote in support o f one o f his retainers w ho was charged w ith rape, and whose accuser seemed to be prepared to bring the case in every county in succession. T h e letters suggest that B urnell was thoroughly approachable. O n e from the earl o f G loucester explained that w hen he had returned from London to G lam organ , he had found that one o f his 1 Below, 304; Ann. Waverley, 393. 2 Cal. Anc. Con. Wales, 124.

234

EDWARD I

children was ill, and that, as a result, he would be delayed in com ing to the royal court. H e did not w ant the reason for this delay to be made public, and asked the chancellor to m ake excuses for him. A wide range o f adm inistrative questions was put to Burnell. T h e escheator in C orn w all suggested that a survey o f lands held directly from the king should be made in his county. T h e bishop o f W orcester asked that the city o f Worcester should be allowed to pay a lump sum as its contribution to a tax. T h e bishop o f N orw ich com plained that by some error both he and R ichard de H olbrook had been given sim ilar commissions to keep the peace.3 O th er sources give a less favourable picture o f Robert Burnell. He was described as being affable, but slippery. His accum ulation o f m any church benefices was a scandal, but not as m uch as was his sexual life. A lthough he was a bishop, he had a mistress called Juliana, who claim ed that she had borne him five sons. G ossip also had it that he had m any daughters, whom he m arried off into the nobility.4 Burnell denied the accusations against him, but the rum ours m eant that advancem ent to the sees first o f W inchester, and later o f C an terbury, w hich Edw ard w anted to secure for him, was blocked. T h e king him self was apparently not concerned about questions o f personal m orality, provided that the business o f governm ent was conducted efficiently and energetically, and there could be no faulting o f Burnell on that score.5 T h ere was not the same stability at the exchequer as there was in the chancery. Joseph de C h au n cy had been treasurer since 1273. H e was prior o f the H ospital o f St John in E ngland, and resigned his office in 1280, when he left for the H oly L an d .6 T h ere are no indications that he was anything m ore than com petent in office. His successor was Richard W are, abbot o f W estm inster, not a m an o f any great significance. He w as followed in 1284 by John K irk b y, a protégé o f Burnell, and an im portant figure, who was alm ost certainly the driving force behind m ajor im provem ents in the financial adm inistration. T h e chronicler Bartholom ew C otton quoted some L atin lines about him, suggesting that he was greedy, bitter and quarrelsom e, but the D unstable annalist saw some good in him, arguing that, for all his contentiousness, he was invariably truthful and ju st. Like m any o f E d w ard ’s clerks, he was a pluralist, and it was because o f this that A rchbishop Pecham quashed his election to the see o f Rochester in 1283, although no objections were 3 SC 1/22, 156; SC 1/23, 97, 99; SC 1/24, 14, 64, 163, 199. 4 Reg. Peckham, i, 46-7; Ann. Dunstable, 373. 5 For a fuller discussion of Burnell, see Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 335-9, and U.W. Hughes, ‘A Biographical Sketch of Robert Burnell, with materials for his life’ (Oxford B.Litt thesis, 1936). b Tout, Chapters in Mediaeval Administrative History, ii, 13, assumed that Chauncy resigned because of illness, but SC 1/12/118 shows that he went to the Holy Land.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

235

raised to his becom ing bishop o f E ly three years later.7 T h e other office o f m ajor im portance in the adm inistration was that o f keeper o f the w ardrobe, w hich has already been discussed in C h ap ter 6. T h e post was held by T hom as Bek from 1274 until 1280, when the able and upright W illiam o f Louth took over.8 T h e business o f governm ent was not the concern sim ply o f the king and his officials. T h e participation o f the m agnates, both form ally and inform ally, was vital if an effective consensus was to be achieved. T h e m echanisms o f council and parliam ent provided for this, and they are discussed later, in C h ap ter 17. U nfortunately, there is no good evidence from these years to show w ho was in regular receipt o f summonses to parliam ent. H owever, the lists o f those w ho witnessed royal charters show that the earls were very regular in their attendance on the king: it was only during E d w ard ’s jo u rn ey round W ales in 1284 that his charters were not witnessed by a good num ber o f earls. T h e most frequent witness was the earl o f Lincoln, a man whose loyalty to E dw ard was consistent and striking, and after him cam e the earl o f Gloucester. T h e names to appear rarely were those o f Richm ond and O xford. T h e former was duke o f Brittany, and rarely in England, while the latter was a nonentity, whose w ealth was not equal to his com ital status. T h e 1290s would not see such a consistent presence o f earls round the king, and while this is not necessarily evidence that they were critical o f his policies - those fighting in G ascony could hardly witness charters in E ngland - it does suggest that there was not the sam e unity o f purpose that had existed in the first h alf o f the reign.9 T h e inquiry which had yielded the H undred Rolls had provided a starting point for the reforms o f the m id-1270s, and the pattern o f detailed investigation at a local level was continued. L ate in 1278 most o f the sheriffs were replaced, an essential prelim inary. In M arch 1279 a new, w ide-ranging inquiry was set up, w hich produced w hat must have been the most com prehensive survey o f E ngland ever m ade in the m iddle ages. It has unfortunately never been given a convenient nam e for ready reference. Returns survive for only five counties. A ccordin g to 7 Cotton, 167; Ann. Dunstable, 358; Reg. Peckham, ii, 575-6. 8 Above, 138-41. Convenient lists of officials are given by Tout, Chapters in Mediaeval Administrative History, vi. 9 Between January 1278 and Edward’s departure for France in May 1286 the earls appeared as witnesses of royal charters with the following frequency: Lincoln, 129; Gloucester, 114; Lancaster, 106; William de Valence, 76; Cornwall 76; Norfolk, 71; Warenne, 67; Hereford, 53; Warwick, 51; Oxford, 8; Richmond, 4. These figures are derived from the Charter Rolls, C 53. 1 am extremely grateful to Miss Elizabeth Davies for lending me her tabulation of the witness lists on these rolls, and my addition is reliant on the data she collected.

236

EDWARD I

the Russian historian K osm insky, w ho studied them in great detail, the inquiry was intended ‘to provide the com pletest possible picture o f the division o f rent and the tangle o f feudal relationships’ . 10 T h a t, however, is the purpose for w hich historians have used these rolls, and it was not necessarily that o f Edw ard and his advisers. In the first place, the inquiry was set up to investigate a recent order that all those with lands w orth at least £20 a year should becom e knights. T h e commissioners were also asked to investigate encroachm ents on dem esne lands, knights’ fees, feudal rights and liberties, which had resulted in losses both to the king and to o th e rs.11 In contrast to the 1274-5 inquiry, there was now no investigation o f official m alpractices. Rather, the com m is­ sioners concentrated on the question o f who held w hich land, and by w hat services. R em arkably full details were given about such matters as how m uch land was held in dem esne by lords, how m uch by free tenants, and how m uch by villeins, as well as about rents and labour services. It is not easy to discover w hat use was m ade o f the returns to this inquest.12 It had been intended that they should be put together in book form, but this was never done, probably because they were far too bulky. T h e sections dealing with the rights o f jurisdiction exercised by m agnates m ay have been o f some value in the crow n’s legal investiga­ tions known as Quo Warranto, but there is no clear evidence for this. O ne possibility is that the returns were, in part, intended to provide a basis for future taxation. T h e evidence they contained would have m ade the introduction o f an effective land tax possible. O ne chronicle records a dem and m ade by the king in 1280, at a m eeting in London, o f four pence from every bovate, or oxgang. T h is the m agnates rejected, and they then declined to attend a subsequent assem bly at O xford, so that nothing was achieved. T h e story is not confirm ed by other sources, but such a request for a tax could have been related to the 1279 return s.13 Some other uses were doubtless found for these m assive rolls, but it must be suspected that they were in practice too vast to be o f m uch v a lu e .14 T h e next m ajor inquiry was to be o f m uch more long-term use than that o f 1279. I n I2 ^5 exchequer officials under the leadership o f John K irk b y conducted w hat becam e known as K irk b y ’s Q uest. T h ere was a long list o f questions put to local juries. D ebts to the crown were one 10 E.A. Kosminsky, Studies in the Agrarian History o f England in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1956), 14. ;; cpr 1272-83,342-3. 12 Kosminsky, op. cit., 23, commented ‘I am not clear what was the practical application of the 1279 survey.’ 13 BL Vesp. B.xi (the Hagnaby chronicle), f.27v. 14 The surviving rolls are printed in R H , ii.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

237

m ajor concern, and there were further inquiries about dues and rents. T h e status o f vills, w hether they were in royal or private hands, was investigated, but the m ajor task proved to be that o f finding out w hat knights’ fees were held in ch ief from the crown, and by whom . Ju risd ic­ tional liberties were also the subject o f inquiry. T h ere are few full returns that survive: the bulk o f the evidence for K irk b y ’s Q uest consists o f later abridgem ents, w hich concentrated upon the question o f knights’ fees, though in 1285 that was only one elem ent o f a wideranging investigation. T h e context o f this inquiry was that o f recent reforms in exchequer procedure, but the officials chose to broaden its scope con siderab ly.15 W hat both K irk b y ’s Q uest and the 1279 inquest show is that E d w ard ’s officials had a rem arkable desire for inform ation on a wide range o f m atters. Th en, as in more recent times, full knowledge o f the country was essential for good governm ent. N ot since D om esday Book had royal officials discovered so m uch about England as they did under E dw ard I. M ajor steps had been taken in 1275 to provide financial stability. T h e customs duties had been instituted, a tax granted, and a new system o f m anagem ent for royal estates set u p .16 Y et, im portant as those measures were, there were still financial problem s. T h e accounts for the first W elsh w ar suggest a total cost o f only about £23,000, but the w ar o f 1282-3 involved the crown in expenditure o f some £120,000. T h e ordinary revenues o f the crown were quite inadequate for such dem ands. A ccording to an estim ate m ade in 1284, the traditional sources o f royal income, such as the farms o f the counties, profits o f justice, vacant bishoprics and so forth, brought in under £ 19,000 a year, with a further £8,000 com ing from the customs d u ties.17 T h is was scarcely sufficient for the norm al peacetim e needs o f the crown; the w ardrobe accounts show that the dom estic household o f the king cost some £8,000 a year in the early part o f the reign, while in the period between the two W elsh wars, total w ardrobe expenditure varied from £19,302 to £30,992 a y e a r .18 It was evidently necessary to raise fresh taxes, to borrow m oney, and to im prove the adm inistration o f the main financial departm ent o f state, the exchequer. W ar provided the crown with a good reason for asking for the grant o f a tax, but the laity were not asked for a tax for the first W elsh w ar. It

15 Feudal Aids, 1284-1431 de Kirkby, ed. R.H. Skaife

(1899), i, viii-xxii; The Survey o f the County o f York taken byJohn (Surtees Soc., xlix 1867), v-xi.

16 Above, 99-103. 17 Above, 182, 200; below, 242-3. ,8 The wardrobe accounts are conveniently tabulated by Tout, Chapters in Mediaeval Administrative History, vi, 78-9.

238

EDWARD I

m ay be that it was felt that the fifteenth o f 1275 had been conceded so recently that to ask for a new grant would not be politic. O ne chronicler does state that a twentieth was granted in 1277, but there is no confirm ation from any other source for this, and it does not even seem very likely that the report reflects some abortive negotiations for a ta x .19 T h e clergy, however, had not m ade a grant in 1275, and in 1279 the C an terbu ry clergy were persuaded to pay a fifteenth for three years, and their Y o rk brethren agreed to a tenth for two years in 1280.20 These taxes were paid on the assessment m ade for papal taxation in 1254, which was a low one, putting the total w ealth o f the church at only about £102,000. The* yield o f these taxes was therefore lim ited, but the w ardrobe accounts show that between 1280 and 1284 a useful £13,225 was received from clerical taxation. O f this sum, £2,451 cam e from the northern province and was handed over to the royal paym aster at C hester.21 T h e onset o f w ar at Easter 1282 was so sudden that there was no time to sum mon a parliam ent w hich could make a conventional grant o f taxation. O th er means had to be adopted, and in Ju ne 1282 the king sent John K irk b y to negotiate financial assistance from local com m uni­ ties, particularly towns. M oney was sought in the form o f both loans and gifts, and in all £16,535 was raised, £4,000 o f it from London. Not surprisingly, places near the W elsh border were more co-operative than those w hich were in no im m ediate danger from the enem y.22 M uch more m oney was needed than this, however, and in N ovem ber it was decided to negotiate a tax on a more general basis. T w o assem blies were sum moned to meet in Jan u ary, one at N ortham pton and one at Y ork. These appear to have discussed both m ilitary service and taxa­ tion, and a grant o f a thirtieth was m ade. T h e tax had, to some extent, the aspect o f an alternative to active service in the field. T h e m ajor m agnates fighting in W ales were exem pted from paym ent, and the sums already paid to K irk b y were set against the new tax. T h e tax was assessed at £42,765, but the sums paid to K irk b y should be added to that figure, since they were, in effect, advance paym ents o f tax. A statem ent o f w ardrobe revenue put the income from the tax, together with the m oney received by K irk b y, at £55,358. T axes upon m oveable goods were obviously one o f the most effective means o f raising money

19 Rishanger, 92. 20 Below, 252-3; H.S. Deighton, ‘Clerical Taxation by Consent, 1272-1301’, E H R , lxviii ( I953), 163. 21 E 372/128, 130; C P R 1281-92, 151-2. The figures given by Deighton, op. cit., 165, are not reliable. 22 E 372/136, m.31; Lancashire Lay Subsidies, i, 12 16 -1 jo y , ed. J.A.C. Vincent (Record Society for Lancashire and Cheshire, 1893), 169.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

2 39

available to the crow n .23 T h e grant from the laity was followed by a dem and for further clerical taxation. E d w ard ’s dem and in 1283 for a triennial twentieth was rejected by the C an terbu ry clergy, who promised in its place a twentieth for two years, w hile the northern clergy delayed their grant o f a triennial thirtieth until 1286.24 Th ere were some m iscellaneous sources o f revenue w hich helped to ease E d w ard ’s difficulties during this period. T h e vacan cy in the bishopric o f W inchester, w hich lasted from F ebruary 1280 until A ugu st 1282, provided the appreciable sum o f £11,332.25 T h e sale o f the w ardship o f B aldw in W ak e’s heir to the earl o f C orn w all in 1282, yielded a useful 7,000 m arks, and in the next year John de Bohun paid 2,500 marks for the w ardship o f Joh n le M a rsh a l’s heir.26 In M arch 1283, E dw ard ordered the seizure o f the proceeds o f a crusading tenth which were stored in churches and m onasteries, totalling about £40,000, but protests at this action had some effect, and the bulk o f the m oney was returned in its original sacks, the seals untouched. £4,125 was kept by the crown, to be repaid out o f the tax o f the thirtieth.27 T h e various sources o f incom e available to the crown were not sufficient to meet the needs created by the w ars in W ales. It was necessary to borrow m oney, and the assistance o f the Italian bankers proved to be vital. E d w ard ’s involvem ent w ith the Italians w ent back a long w ay. T h eir help had been essential during the crusading expedi­ tion, and the firm o f the R iccardi, in particular, were owed substantial debts at the outset o f the reign. I f the bankers were to have any hope o f obtaining repaym ent, then they had to retain the king’s favour, and the best w ay to do that was to continue to advance money. In all, the crow n’s aggregate debt to the R iccardi by 1294 w as to am ount to some £392,000. T h rough their involvem ent in the wool trade, and their role in collecting royal custom s duties and papal crusading taxes, they had substantial deposits from w hich they could m ake loans. T h e R iccardi also acted as agents for the king, borrow ing m oney on his b eh alf from other Italian com panies. A t the time o f the first W elsh w ar the R iccardi paid £22,476 into the w ardrobe, and in 12 77 -8 they advanced a further £18,233. O u t ° f the proceeds o f the fifteenth granted in 1275, 375°°° marks went to repay

23 Above, 101-2; E 101/4/2. The tax assessments are tabulated in Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 179. 24 Councils and Synods, I I , 1205-1313,

ed. F.M. Powicke and C.R. Cheney (Oxford, 1964), Ü, 828-51. 25 Howell, Regalian Right in Medieval England , 241. 26 C P R 128 1-32 , 40, 65. 27 Lunt, Financial Relations o f England with the Papacy, 336-7, and see also the account for the thirtieth in E 359/4A.

240

EDWARD I

the Riccardi, and there was an additional 17,250 marks repaid to other Italian firms, w ho had lent m oney to the crown using the R iccardi as interm ediaries.28 T h e R iccardi did not play quite such a dom inant part in the financing o f the second W elsh war, perhaps because the firm was rather hard-pressed at the time. T h e record o f receipts in the special w ar account shows nothing paid over by them, but this gives a rather false impression, for it includes £22,916 from the custom s, w hich were in their hands, and £37,432 from the tax o f the thirtieth, alm ost £16,000 o f which passed through their hands. B y one estimate, the R iccardi were concerned in nearly two-fifths o f the w ar account, and contributed m uch to the ordinary w ardrobe account as well. H a lf o f the cost o f the force o f G ascon m ercenaries in the w ar was met by the R iccardi. It was necessary to look to other com panies as well, and some £20,000 was raised by means o f forced loans from other Italian com panies operating in England. Such was the pressure that the king put on the m erchant com m unity that by the end o f the w ar period, in 1284, the R iccardi could not raise £1,000 requested by the treasurer im m ediately, but wrote to him to say that they w ould have to ask their partners overseas to send them m oney.29 T h e services o f the R iccardi were not confined to the em ergencies o f w artim e. In the period following the first W elsh w ar, the w ardrobe account book shows that most o f the departm ent’s income cam e in the form o f advances from the m erchants. A lthough this was not the case by the 1280s, the Italians continued to provide valuable services, such as m aking funds available to English am bassadors to the papal curia, and arranging other transfers o f funds. T h e norm al disadvantage o f relying on bankers to the extent that Edw ard I obviously did is that interest paym ents are needed to service the loans. Y et, although historians have usually assumed that the R iccardi received rewards in the form o f interest paym ents, the evidence for this is very inadequate. Payment o f interest was forbidden under canon law, and this Edward accepted, as his father had done. T h e terms o f the Statute o f Jew ry o f 1275 are testimony to his determ ination to stam p out u sury.30 Th ere were means o f evading the prohibition on usury, however, such as the technique o f m anipulating exchange rates, lending one currency and paying back in another, but the crow n’s accounts with R iccardi do not suggest that this was being done. T h ere is only one recorded grant to the com pany to make up losses incurred as a result o f their loans: this was o f 5,000 marks, Tor their services in the court o f R om e’ , but there 28 Kaeuper, Bankers to the Crown, 178, 202; E 372/123, account of the fifteenth; E 372/124, wardrobe account. 29 Kaeuper, Bankers to the Crown, 182-90; E 159/163, m.14. 30 Statutes o f the Realm , i, 220-1.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

241

m ay well have been other sim ilar paym ents for w hich no evidence survives. O n two occasions, in 1276 and 1293, E dw ard m ade promises o f repaym ent in an im possibly short period o f time, and this m ay have been a device to make the im position o f an additional charge for ‘dam ages’ legitim ate in the eyes o f the church. T h e evidence as a whole, however, indicates that the R iccardi received little by w ay o f financial reward for their services from the king. T h eir loans were not expensive for E dw ard.31 W hy, if they did not profit from it, did the Italians lend to Edw ard? In part it must have been to protect their original investment: if they were to receive repaym ent in time, they needed to keep the king sweet with continuing loans. Th ere w ere also very significant indirect benefits that cam e their w ay. A s early as 1274 the exchequer officials were ordered to treat debts ow ing to Luke o f L ucca, head o f the Riccardi, ju st as if they were crown debts, and throughout their association with the crown the m erchants were able to use the m achinery o f the exchequer to collect m oney due to them from other debtors. T h ey received exem p­ tions from local tolls and duties, and their offences against currency and trading regulations were generally overlooked or pardoned. O rlandino da Pogio, one o f the most im portant members o f the R iccardi p art­ nership, was am ong the few men nam ed in the household ordinance o f 1279 as having the right to sleep in the kin g’s w ardrobe. He had the ear o f governm ent officials, and as an acute businessm an must have been able to put his position to financial advantage. Y e t the R iccardi did not receive m any open favours from Edw ard. Th ere were no grants o f English estates to them, no ecclesiastical livings on a grand scale for their dependants, and it cannot be shown that they exercised any political influence over the king or his m inisters.32 T h e debt that the king owed them generally stood in the region o f £25,000, not an im possibly large sum .33 Reliance on the bankers in the first h alf o f E d w ard ’s reign did not therefore mean that the king was running his finances in an im provident m anner, accum ulating large debts w hich could not be repaid. In the afterm ath o f the second W elsh w ar, m ajor efforts were m ade to overhaul the financial adm inistration, and the exchequer in particular. It is very likely that the appointm ent o f the energetic John K irk b y as treasurer was responsible for the fresh approach that was adopted. T h e 31 C P R 1 2 8 1 - 9 2 , 394; Riccardi account in E 372/143; Kaeuper, B a n k ers to the Crow n, 120. 32 E 159/49, m.3v; Kaeuper, B a n k ers to the Crow n , 121-4; Tout, C h apters in M ed ia ev a l A d m in istra tive H istory, ii, 163. 33 C P R 1 2 7 2 —8 1 , 355, and E 101/126/1 show a debt in December 1279 of £23,000, almost the same sum as was owing in 1290, as shown by the customs account for 17-18 Edward I in E 372/134.

242

EDWARD I

book-keeping methods o f the exchequer were reform ed, the sources of royal income were analysed, and a cam paign was launched to try to recover unpaid debts, a cam paign w hich involved yet another nation­ wide inquiry. T h e first step was the issue o f a statute at Rhuddlan in M arch 1284. O ne aim o f this was to clear the large num ber o f old and largely unrecoverable debts from the m ain exchequer records, the pipe rolls. A ttem pts had been m ade to deal w ith this problem in the past, most recently in 1270. It had then been laid down that such old debts were to be m arked with a ‘d ’ , and not copied in the accounts for subsequent years. T h e y would only be entered later if they were cleared. In practice, however, m any old debts were left on the pipe rolls, particularly if they concerned large sums or im portant m en.34 N ow, in 1284, it was decided that unrecoverable debts should be placed in a separate roll. Further, the first part o f the county entries, w hich gave the details o f the county farm and did not change from year to year, was also to be rem oved from the pipe into another roll. This system was m aintained until 1298, when it was decided that the county farms should once more be entered on the pipe, where they remained until 1311. T h e statute o f 1284 set out arrangem ents for men w ho had paid off debts, and who had tally receipts as evidence o f this, w hich for some reason had not been accepted in the past by the exchequer, to hand the tallies over to the sheriffs so that the debt could be duly cancelled. T h is met the com plaints that had been m ade in 12 74 -5 about the w ay in w hich the crown often attem pted to collect the same sum over and over again. In order to speed up the operation o f the exchequer, the hearing o f pleas there was lim ited to m atters specifically concerning the king and his officials. Com m issioners were to be sent round the country to inquire into the whole m atter o f debts owed to the crow n.35 A fter the statute o f R huddlan was issued, the exchequer officials m ade a calculation o f crown revenues. T h eir estim ate m ade depressing reading. T h e county farms, due every M ichaelm as from the sheriffs, were valued at only £10,168 a year, and the only other m ajor source o f incom e was the customs, assessed at £8,000 a year. Profits from the central courts, and the justices in eyre, were put at £1,100. V a ca n t abbeys and priories were expected to yield £666, and w ardships only £333. T h e value o f the chancery was given as £666 a year. Paym ent o f debts in instalm ents was expected to raise an annual £1,414. T here w ere m any other m iscellaneous sources o f income, but the total am ounted to no more than £26,828 3s . 9d. A m em orandum for 34 C.A.F. Meekings, Studies in Thirteenth-Century Justice and Administration (1982), chapter XX. 35 Statutes o f the Realm , i, 69-70.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

243

discussion shows that the m ain priority was to put the provisions o f the statute o f R huddlan into effect. Procedures were outlined to speed the collection o f ju d icial fines: the justices were to list and assess such fines, and send lists o f them to the chancellor before M ichaelm as. A s an inducem ent, they w ould not receive their own fees until this was done.36 T h e next step in the process o f reform was the inquiry into crown debts at a local level, w hich formed one element o f K irk b y ’s Q u est.37 It proved to be a difficult m atter to collect these debts, and the new drive by the exchequer soon aroused protests. A s a result, a royal w rit was sent to the exchequer in J u ly 1285, pointing out that m any men sim ply could not afford to pay w ithout severe hardship, and officials were ordered to try to recover debts in future by setting reasonable terms for paym ent in instalm ents.38 T h ere are m any exam ples o f this being done. John de V a u x owed the crown £213 8s 8d. H e was pardoned £80 o f this (due from the time when he had been sheriff o f Norfolk and Suffolk), and the rem ainder was to be paid off at the rate o f £20 a year.39 T h e abbot o f A bin gdon had been fined £133 for various offences, and instalm ents o f £20 a year were arranged. Roger Bigod, earl o f Norfolk, was m uch encum bered by debt throughout his career. A t this stage, he owed the crown £1,052, and he was allowed to pay in annual instal­ ments o f £100.40 T h e num ber o f such instructions issued in 1284 and 1285 shows that the exchequer officials were pursuing the question o f crown debts with assiduity, but it is also clear that this cam paign barely altered the crow n’s financial position. L ittle was done to recover the large sums that were owed by some m agnates. W hen the barons o f the exchequer were ordered to raise 400 marks from the earl o f G loucester, he pro­ tested that he was due more from the king than he owed him, and the m atter was accordingly postponed. V ariou s sums were later set against the earl’s debts. T h e dem and for paym ent o f debts m ade in the case o f the earl o f C orn w all was put off, for he claim ed that he was quit o f the bulk o f them .41 In the case o f the great men, at least, political considera­ tions proved more im portant than financial need. A n exam ination o f the receipts at the exchequer does suggest that the overhaul o f the adm inistrative m achinery did, how ever, achieve results in terms o f revenue. O n e index o f the efficiency and activity o f the 36 M. Mills, ‘Exchequer Agenda and Estimate of Revenue, Easter Term 1284’, xl (1925), 229-34. 37 See above, 236-7. 38 E 159/58, m. 1 iv. 39 E 159/58, m.58. 40 C F R 1272-1307 , 214, 217; E 159/58, m .n . 41 E 159/57» m-7°; E 159/58, m.5v; E 159, m.i6v.

EH R,

244

EDWARD I

financial bureaucracy is that o f the sums o f m oney paid by the sheriffs, when they m ade their annual appearance at the exchequer. T h e figures for the earliest part o f the reign are very low, but they rose in 1275, fell back, and by 1285 had again risen sharply, as the following table shows. S h e r i f f s ’ P a y m e n t s t o t h e E x c h e q u e r 42

1 27 3

£ 2 ,4 1 9

CO Cl

1274

£ 3 ,2 2 3

1279

!275 1276

£ 4 ,5 2 9

1280

£ 3 ,4 0 5

1281

1 27 7

£ 2 ,5 6 7

1 282

£ 3 ,4 4 9

1 28 3

£ 4 ,3 6 0

£ 3 ,4 6 3 £ 4 ,7 1 7

1284

£ 4 ,7 8 0

1285

£ 4 ,6 4 3 £ 5 ,0 1 6

1286

£ 7 ,4 3 5 £ 6 ,8 4 6

1 28 7

£ 8 ,2 1 0

These figures, it must be stressed, in no w ay represent total royal income. M uch m oney collected by the sheriffs was disbursed locally: m uch m oney was brought to the exchequer by other officials. Y e t the change that took place in 1285 is striking, and surely shows the effects of the new attitude created by the reforms o f that year. A nother w ay in w hich the financial system o f the 1280s contrasted with that o f the 1270s was the degree to w hich the w ardrobe, the main financial departm ent o f the household, becam e dependent for its in­ come on the exchequer. W hen Bek was keeper o f the w ardrobe, the most that cam e in from the exchequer was £6,861 in 1279-80. T h e bulk o f w ardrobe incom e was derived at that time from loans m ade by Italian bankers. W hen W illiam o f Louth succeeded Bek, the pattern changed, and save for the exceptional period o f the second W elsh war, exchequer allocations to the w ardrobe usually ran at about £20,000 a year. T h e independent receipts o f the w ardrobe were still substantial, representing over h a lf the total income o f the departm ent, but there was a greater integration o f the household financial system with the house­ hold than had been the case earlier.4 43 2 A nother financial necessity was the reform o f the currency. Th ere had been no full recoinage since 1247, and inevitably m uch o f the m oney in circulation had deteriorated through w ear and tear, as well as through clipping. G resh am ’s law operated: the bad coins drove out the good. Thom as W ykes, no doubt exaggerating, claim ed that the coinage weighed only h alf w hat it should, and that foreign m erchants were not com ing to E ngland as m uch as in the past because o f the poor state o f the currency. Prices had risen, he argued, as a result. T h ere is some evidence to support this: the trend o f both livestock and grain prices in the 1270s was steadily upw ards, and in certain cases very m arked rises 42 M. Mills, ‘ “ Adventus Vicecomitum” , 1272-1307’, E H R , xxxviii (1923), 340. 43 Tout, Chapters in Mediaeval Administrative History, ii, 88—9; vi, 76—9.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

245

were taking place at the end o f the decade.44 T h e escheator in C orn w all com plained that the coinage was in such a poor state that collection o f taxes ‘is not only difficult, but alm ost im possible’ .45 T h e first decision was taken at a council m eeting at W indsor in O ctober 1278. A ll Jew s and goldsm iths were to be arrested, for they were the prime suspects as coin-clippers. T h is was done, in so far as it was possible to carry out such a drastic m easure, on two separate days in Novem ber. N ext, in Jan u ary 1279, comm issions were set up to hear the charges against coin dealers and clippers, and the officials o f the exchanges and m ints.46 T h e chroniclers are agreed that a bloodbath followed, two suggesting that in London alone the death toll am ong the Jew s was 293. Record evidence, however, suggests that only nineteen Jew s were executed in south-eastern England. O n e o f the king’s m oneyers, Philip de C am bio, was found guilty o f issuing coin with more copper in the alloy than was perm itted, and he, along with one o f the assayers o f the mint, was hanged. It is not clear w hether this drive against coin-clippers was intended as a preparatory step for the intro­ duction o f a new coinage, but it is most probable that the evidence produced by the inquiries m ade the governm ent aw are that the only effective rem edy for the situation was to order a total recoinage. It was conceivably hoped that the action against the Jew s and goldsm iths would bring in enough bullion to provide the mints with sufficient silver to start the work o f recoinage, but in fact the operation yielded only £10,815, some o f w hich went on expenses.47 B y Jan u ary 1279, the king had decided on a recoinage. It m ay be that he was influenced by the exam ple o f the count o f Savoy, for not long before E d w ard ’s visit to Savoy, on his return from crusade, Count Philip had reformed his coinage, producing new coins o f heavy weight and high q u ality.48 E dw ard appointed G regory de Rokesle, a Londoner, and O rlandin o da Pogio, one o f the R iccardi banking house, as wardens o f the exchanges at London and C an terbury. In M arch two m oneyers from M arseilles, W illiam de Turnem ire and his brother Peter, were recruited.49 Loans from Italian merchants totalling £20,300 44

Wykes, 278; M. Mate, ‘Monetary Policies in England, 1272-1307’, B r itis h N u m ­ xli (1972), 41; D.L. Farmer, ‘Some Livestock Price Movements in Thirteenth-Century England’, E conom ic H istory R e v ie w , 2nd ser., xxii (1969), 3, 5, 7-8, ism atic J o u r n a l ,

C3 -

43 SC 1/24, 199. C P R 1 2 7 2 - 8 1 , 338. 47 Mate, ‘Monetary Policies in England’, 42-3; The French Ch ron icle o f L o n d o n , ed. G.J. Aungier (Camden Soc., 1844), 16; A n n . L o n d o n , 88. 48 Cox, E a g le s o f Savoy , 398. 49 Mate, ‘Monetary Policies in England’, 44; in addition, Hubert Alion of Asti was hired, but he does not seem ever to have taken up office as a royal moneyer.

46

246

EDWARD I

were the m ain source o f bullion in the initial stages o f producing the new currency: once the mints were well in operation, men would bring in old coins to be exchanged for new, and there would be a steady supply o f bullion. Large num bers o f w orkm en were recruited from abroad: some did not find conditions to their liking, and tried to leave, either back to the continent, or to Scotland. M uch work had to be done to make new dies, refurbish buildings, and buy necessary equipm ent. T h e m ain mints were those at London and C an terbu ry, w hile there were also the bishop’s mint at D urham and the a b b o t’s at B ury St Edm unds. Th is was not sufficient, and in 1280 five provincial mints were opened, at Bristol, Lincoln, Y ork, N ew castle upon T yn e and Chester. In the same year the recoinage was started in Ireland .50 T h e new coinage was issued at a slightly lower standard than the old had been originally, although as so m uch o f the coin in circulation was worn and clipped, the new m oney was in practice considerably superior. T he number o f pennies (the only coins hitherto current) struck from each pound o f silver was 243 rather than the original 240, and for a period in 1280 this went up to 245. T h e proportion o f copper in the alloy was slightly raised. T h e most obvious change was the introduction o f new coins alongside the traditional pennies. T h ere were groats, each worth 4d, w hich did not prove to be very successful, and round half­ pennies and farthings, w hich obviated the need to cut pennies to make small change. A stylized bust o f the king was featured on the obverse, while on the reverse there was a cross extending to the edge o f the design, as in the previous ‘long-cross’ coinage. A new method o f m anu­ facture was introduced by W illiam Turnem ire. T h e blank coins were cut from a silver rod, rather than being stam ped out from a sheet, and this method appears to have been highly efficient.51 T h e scale o f the recoinage was most im pressive. T h e absence o f accounts for the provincial mints makes it im possible to give any precise figure for the output o f coin, but by 1281, at a conservative estimate, £500,000 worth had been m inted. T h e bulk o f the old ‘longcross’ coins that had been in circulation had by then been reminted, but the mints continued to be very active for the rest o f the decade. A considerable, though varying, proportion o f the silver acquired by the mints cam e from abroad, particularly from the L ow C ountries, and all the indications are that the coun try’s stock o f silver was rising fast in the 1280s. English mints offered a better price for silver than those in France or in the L ow C ountries, and it seems likely that, despite a royal prohibition in 1283, some o f the new good-quality sterling coinage was 50 Mate, ‘Monetary Policies in England’, 47, 49-51. The enrolled accounts for the recoinage are to be found in E 372/132. 51 Mate, ‘Monetary Policies in England’, 49-51.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

247

exported to the continent. A n estim ate o f the late 1280s put the level of English coin circulating in France at £50,000. T h is means that it is not possible to calculate the total size o f the currency in England sim ply by adding up the figures for the mint output. W hat is clear is that E d w ard ’s recoinage was a resounding success.52 Edw ard I, there can be little doubt, reformed the coinage because by 1279 it was in a bad state. H e m ay have been influenced by a natural desire to m ark his rule o f E ngland by producing a new coinage with his head on it, but it is also the case that there were substantial m aterial gains for the crown from a recoinage. T h e king was entitled to take a deduction from each pound o f silver minted, partly to cover the expenses o f rem inting, but also as seignorage, a traditional due. In 1279 the deductions totalled igd , o f w hich seignorage cam e to 9d, but in 1280 this went up to 12d, falling again in 1281. It is not easy to calculate the profits made by the crown from the recoinage, but by the end o f 1281 the London mint alone had yielded £18,219. In all, profits in this period probably stood at a substantial £25,000. T h e accounts o f the w ardrobe alone show receipts from the mints o f £9,424 in 1279—80, and o f £10,620 in 1281-3. M int profits were also paid out for a variety o f m iscellaneous purposes: a repaym ent o f a loan from Florentine m erchants to the king when he was at A m iens, works on the T o w er o f London, and even a small sum to the friars at O xfo rd .53 T h e mints were, during the period o f the recoinage, a valuable addition to the range o f royal financial resources, and it would not be safe to dismiss profit as one o f the motives for the change in the currency ordered by the king. In most cases, when m edieval rulers instituted a recoinage, men were induced to exchange their old m oney for the new because, through debasem ent, the new coins were offered at an apparently attractive price. E dw ard I, however, did not need to persuade his subjects to bring their old money to his mints. H e had, in A ugu st 1280, sim ply dem onetized the previous ‘long-cross’ coinage, forbidding its use. T h e recoinage does not seem to have been unpopular: the new coins were not very different from the old, and the price that the m int gave for silver was an attractive one. Further, and significantly, there were no adverse econom ic consequences that resulted from the introduction o f the new coinage. 52 Ibid., 53, 56, and see 75, 78, for tables of mint purchases of silver; M.C. Prestwich, ‘Edward I’s Monetary Policies and their Consequences’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., xxii (1969), 407-8. 53 Profits are discussed by Mate, ‘Monetary Policies in England’, 50-1, 54, with tables at 76, 79. The wardrobe accounts are in E 372/124, 128. The figures in my ‘Edward I’s Monetary Policies and their Consequences’, where they are derived from Sir James Ramsay’s work, are not reliable.

248

EDWARD I

T h e effects o f the change in the currency are hard to assess. T h e one indication that can be used is that o f price changes: if the coinage was in bad condition, prices would be high, whereas a sound coinage implies low prices. Y e t if the reforms were highly successful, and the mints turned out a great deal o f new coin, the quantity o f it in circula­ tion would tend to drive prices up. T h e m ajor difficulty in m aking deductions from price m ovem ents is, o f course, that the main determ i­ nants o f prices were those o f supply and dem and, not the volum e o f the currency. T h e quality o f harvests was o f prime im portance. T h e very considerable fluctuations that took place in the prices o f grain and anim als in the 1270s and 1280s make it hard to discern the effect o f the m onetary reforms, to such an extent that one historian has been led ‘to conclude that Edw ard achieved very little with his recoinage because w heat prices rose far more in those years o f reform than they should have done5.54 Y e t a com parison o f two seven-year periods does suggest that the recoinage had a clear effect. T h e average price o f w heat from 1268-75 was 6.70 shillings per quarter, and the average yield from one bushel sown was 3.6 bushels. T h e yield was exactly the same in the period 1283-90, yet the average price was m arkedly lower, at 5.14 shillings.55 T h e evidence o f livestock prices, not as subject to sudden fluctuations as those o f grain, also strongly suggests that the effect o f the new coinage was to bring down prices. O xen fell in price from about 14 shillings each in 1278, to less than 10 shillings by 1282.56 E dw ard had intended to provide the country with a sound and stable currency, and in that aim he was, by m edieval standards, very successful. T h e financial reforms o f the late 1270s and the 1280s were not characterized by startling, radical initiatives. Indeed, one o f the in­ novations o f 1275, the appointm ent o f the three stewards to supervise royal estates, was abandoned in 1282, in favour o f the old m ethods.57 T h e m ajor inquiries o f 1279 and 1285 did not yield dram atic results, and led to no fundam ental reforms. T h e changes that took place in exchequer procedures were m ostly technical in character, and the innovations in record-keeping did not result in any reduction in the ever-increasing size and com plexity o f the pipe rolls. M uch was done, however, to im prove and sim plify procedures, and it is striking that efforts were m ade to provide for every eventuality. O ne ordinance, early in 1286, laid out in detail the procedure to be followed should someone lose the tallies given to him as receipts, before he cam e before 54 A.R. Bridbury, ‘Thirteenth Century Prices and the Money Supply’, Agricultural xxxiii (1985), 17. 55 Prestwich, ‘Edward I’s Monetary Policies and their Consequences’, 415. 56 D.L. Farmer, ‘Some Livestock Price Movements in Thirteenth-Century England’, 12. 57 Above, 102-3.

History Review ,

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

249

the barons o f the exchequer in the final accounting process.58 T h e cam paign to collect crown debts was not as effective as the officials had doubtless hoped, but the rise in receipts from the sheriffs shows that the general tightening up o f procedures was effective. T h e recoinage was in the tradition o f the past: it proved to be the last full rem inting o f the currency to take place in E ngland .59 T h a t it was not possible ever again to conduct a total recoinage is testim ony to the scale o f E d w ard ’s achievem ent. W hat E dw ard and his officials could not do was provide complete financial stability. Th ere was no w ay in w hich the crow n’s revenues could be raised sufficiently to meet the needs o f such em ergen­ cies as the W elsh wars w ithout obtaining grants o f taxation, and borrowing from Italian bankers. T h e first h alf o f E dw ard I ’s reign did not see any m ajor political crisis in which the king’s authority was challenged in the w ay it would be later, notably in 1297. T h e dem ands m ade by the governm ent on the people were not excessive. M easures were taken to curb abuses by officials. T h e king’s am bitions in W ales met with no opposition at home. Y et affairs did not go sm oothly throughout, and in particular there was a succession o f argum ents between church and state. Th ere was little danger o f a com plete breakdow n o f relations, but in the archbishop o f C an terbury, John Pecham , E dw ard found a form idable opponent. In 1278 the see o f C an terbu ry unexpectedly becam e vacant, when Robert K ilw a rd b y was nom inated by the pope to become cardinal bishop o f Porto, near Rom e. N om inally a prom otion, this was in reality nothing o f the kind. N icholas I I I was probably angry at the w ay in which K ilw a rd b y had encouraged resistance to the collection o f a papal tenth, and at the lim ited progress that had been m ade in England towards carrying out the reforms o f the C ouncil o f Lyons o f 1274. Edw ard naturally wished to see his friend Robert Burnell succeed K ilw ard b y, but although the C an terbu ry monks did not object, such an appointm ent was hardly in line with papal policy. A n eloquent plea by E d w ard ’s Bolognese law yer Francesco A ccursi to the pope was in vain, and a further em bassy achieved nothing. E arly in 1279 N icholas I I I nom inated the distinguished scholar John Pecham as archbishop o f C anterbury: conveniently for him, he was present in the C u ria at the time that the m atter was under discussion.60 Pecham ’s first encounter with Edward was on his journey to England, 58 E 159/59, m.22v. 59 Even when the currency was decimalized in the 1970s, some old coins, 2s and 6d pieces, remained in circulation, though with a new nominal face value. 60 Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 47-8; Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 469-71; G.L. Haskins and E. Kantorowicz, ‘A Diplomatic Mission of Francis Accursius and his Oration before Pope Nicholas I I I ’, E H R , Iviii (1943), 424-47.

250

EDWARD I

when the two men met at Am iens. A ll went well: the new archbishop gave E dw ard his full support in the negotiations with Philip I I I , and in return he was at once granted the tem poralities o f his see, and m ade a royal councillor.61 O nce arrived in England, Pecham sum moned a church council to meet at R eading on 29 July: he had a sense o f urgency about the need for reform. A t the council, past ecclesiastical legislation was renewed, and new measures, especially concerning pluralism and non-residence by ecclesiastics, were agreed. Pecham claim ed that the pope had personally com m anded him to rid E ngland o f the evil o f pluralism , though on non-residence he was prepared to compromise, so that clerks m ight be allowed to leave their livings in order to study. Pecham then turned to M agn a C arta. T h is was read out in the council, and sentences o f excom m unication were issued against anyone who dared to interfere with the liberties o f the church, or do anything against the terms o f the great charter.62 T h e interests o f the crown were affected in various ways by the decisions taken at Reading. T h e cam paign against pluralism was bound to affect the king’s clerks, for a standard means o f rewarding them for their services was to grant them church livings. Few were quite as notorious as H enry de B ray, escheator south o f the T ren t and justice o f the Jew s. H e was not even in priestly orders, but between 1275 and 1277 he had been presented to four churches in south W ales. He attended an ordination service conducted by Pecham , provocatively dressed in secular clothes.63 O thers were less blatant, but even more successful, in accum ulating livings. A list o f pluralists draw n up in 1280 credited A dam Stratton with twenty-three benefices, and G eoffrey o f A spale w ith fifteen. It also included Bogo de C lare, brother o f the earl o f Gloucester, not him self a royal clerk, but a man o f great im portance, and holder o f at least thirteen churches.64 Such men bitterly resented the plan to curb pluralism . O ne royal clerk argued that it was beneficed clerks who effectively ruled the country, and he suggested that they m ight respond to extrem e m easures by seceding from papal authority, w ith disastrous results. H e pointed to the sufferings o f royal clerks earlier at the hands o f the M ontfortian rebels, and to the burden o f paying crusading taxes. T h e m easures against pluralism would be like death following upon w ounds.65 O ne o f the R eading proposals was directed against the crow n’s use o f writs of prohibition. These were used to remove cases from ecclesiastical

bl 62 63 64 65

Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 51. Councils and Synods, II, ii, 828-51. Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 105; C P R 1272-81, 75, 160, 166, 234. Altschul, A Baronial Family , 178. Councils and Synods, II, ii. 853-4.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

25I

jurisdiction, and Pecham w ent m uch further than his predecessors in attacking their use. Edw ard was bound to resent such an attack on his jurisdiction, and to ju d g e by a rather garbled account o f the proceed­ ings, sent emissaries to the council o f R eading to oppose P echam ’s plans. As a result, the offending clause was rem oved. In more general terms, the king was angry at the im plications behind P echam ’s ostenta­ tious appeal to M agn a C arta, w hich were that royal officials were acting in contravention o f its terms. T h e arch bish op’s action on 24 O ctober, when in the hall o f his palace at Lam beth he solem nly excom m unicated the ‘Sons o f B elial’ allegedly plotting against him, with a pointed exclusion o f the royal fam ily and the bishops, m ade matters even w orse.66 In parliam ent at W estm inster in N ovem ber 1279 A rchbishop Pecham was forced to retreat. He was m ade to w ithdraw his sentences o f excom m unication on those seeking writs o f prohibition. He conceded that there were adequate penalties in the royal courts for dealing with those who seized church lands, and he agreed not to excom m unicate royal officials who had, for exam ple, released excom m unicates from prison. Copies o f M agn a C arta that had been posted in church entrances were to be rem oved. T h e king and his successors were not to be prejudiced in any w ay by the legislation o f the council o f R eading. T h e king even stepped into the long-running dispute between the archbishops o f C an terbu ry and Y ork, and stated that Pecham was not to hinder his fellow m etropolitan by forbidding people to sell food to him when he was in the province o f C an terb u ry.67 It is usually argued that P echam ’s surrender on so m any issues resulted from the king’s enactm ent o f the statute o f M ortm ain in this same parliam ent. T h is statute forbad the grant o f land to the church, and looks very like a m easure intended to bring the archbishop to heel. As so often with legislative m atters, the situation was not so simple. D em ands for measures against such grants were nothing new, and the question had been dealt with in the Provisions o f W estm inster o f 1259. T h e clause had not been re-enacted in the statute o f M arlborough in 1267, but the courts still treated it as valid, as cases in 1277 and 1279 show. In one o f these the m aster o f the T em plars argued that there was no royal legislation dealing with the question, and he asked for a postponem ent until the king’s will was known. It looks very m uch as if the statute o f 1279 was, at least in part, drafted in response to this request. It seems that P echam ’s subm ission was m ade before the statute o f M ortm ain was published, and it is odd that it should have 66 Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 113-18; Wykes, 285-6; Councils and Synods, Councils and Synods,

II, ii, 856-7.

11, ii, 829-315

252

EDWARD I

been thought necessary to put into effect threats made with the inten­ tion o f forcing him to come to terms with the king, after he had done so. Even so, while there were good legal reasons for issuing the statute in parliam ent in the autum n o f 1279, ^ ls unlikely that Edw ard would have done so had his relations with Pecham not been at a low ebb.68 I f the statute o f M ortm ain was not the instrum ent used to compel Pecham to retract, w hy then did he do so? Pressure from the king’s clerks, threats o f appeals to Rom e against him, and perhaps even requests from the papal curia to take a more m oderate line m ay all have been im portant. P echam ’s own financial position m ay have played its part as well. He had borrowed 4,000 marks from the R iccardi to cover the costs o f his journ ey to E ngland and o f his inauguration. T h e banking firm had the ears o f both pope and king, and soon after his arrival in E ngland Pecham was him self under threat o f excom m unica­ tion if he did not repay the loan. His problem s increased with a further loan o f 2,000 m arks, but he was rescued by the king in D ecem ber 1279 with an advance o f £1,000. A man in such a state o f indebtedness was not in a good position to conduct an effective cam paign against the power o f the crow n.69 I f Pecham was in a w eak financial position, so too was the king. T h e archbishop was soon able to use E d w ard ’s need for a grant o f taxation to obtain concessions in exchange. T h e king had been anxious for a grant from the clergy for some time: his request for one in 1275 had been turned down on the grounds that a tenth was being paid to the papacy. Letters to the bishops in N ovem ber 1279 asked for a subsidy, w hich was obviously intended to be the clerical counterpart to the lay tax con­ ceded in 1275. T h e Y o rk clergy obliged early in 1280, with a grant o f a tenth for two years, but from the fact that it was not until later that the diocese o f C arlisle and the archdeaconry o f Richm ond made their grants it seems likely that there was some argum en t.70 Pecham sum ­ moned his clergy to a council in Jan u ary, which proved inconclusive. Further meetings were held at London in M ay, and Lincoln in O ctober, and consent was finally given to a grant o f a fifteenth for three years. A t the same time a m assive list o f clerical grievances was drawn up, which was presented in parliam ent in N ovem ber 1280. A lthough the grant o f taxation was not m ade conditional upon the redress o f these

68 Statutes o f the R e a lm , i, 51; P.A. Brand, ‘The Control of Mortmain Legislation in England, 1200-1300’, L e g a l R ecords and the H is to r ia n , ed. J.H. Baker (1980), 29-40. 69 Douie, A rch b ish op P e ch a m , 49, 65-7; Kaeuper, B a n kers to the C ro w n , 25-6. 70 R eg . P e ck h a m , i, 78-80; C o u n cils and Synods , 11, ii, 868-70; H.S. Deighton, ‘Clerical Taxation by Consent, 1279-1301’, E H R , lxviii (1953), 163. Douie, A rch b ish op P e ch a m , 121, and Powicke, Thirteenth Century , 478, are wrong in thinking that a lay tax was also granted.

T H E G O V E R N M E N T OF E N G L A N D ,

1278-86

253

grievances, there was no doubt an expectation that the king would give the clergy a sym pathetic h earing.71 T h e list o f com plaints was long, and for the most part technical. M ost o f them covered fam iliar ground, though there was naturally a new dem and for the repeal o f the recent statute o f M ortm ain. Th ere was a lengthy discussion, with answers given by the king to the grievances. Edw ard m ade it clear that these were only prelim inary, and would not put them in writing. Pecham , however, had them recorded, and they were to be im portant in the future, providing precedents for the division between lay and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. E dw ard was certainly not w holly unsym pathetic towards the clergy. O ne com plaint was that the sheriffs were negligent in arresting excom m unicates, and in reply Edw ard told a story o f how he had ordered a sheriff to bring eighteen named individuals before him. T h e right num ber o f men were pro­ duced, but only two o f those actually requested were am ong them. T h e prelates, suggested the king, should not be surprised at the m isdeeds o f sheriffs, but he promised to do all he could to punish them. E dw ard was fully prepared to negotiate, and was w illing to make changes, where there were obvious abuses. O n the im portant issue o f writs o f prohibi­ tion, it was suggested that doubtful writs should be exam ined by a comm ittee o f suitable royal clerks. Fines or im prisonm ent were to be imposed where writs were sought for incorrect purposes, and the prelates could bring w rongful writs before the king and council in parliam ent for correction. W h at Edw ard was not prepared to do, was to enter into any fundam ental reassessment o f the relationship between church and state, and he w ould not accept any infringem ent o f w hat he regarded as his royal rights.72 It was clear that P echam ’s clim b-dow n in 1279 had not m arked the end o f the argum ents between church and state. He was issuing excom ­ m unications at a most rem arkable rate, and the sentences he issued against the kin g’s bailiffs o f Southw ark in M ay 1280 showed that he had not, in reality, retreated far from the position he had adopted at the council o f R eadin g.73 In 1281 another council, this time at L am beth, was held, to continue the work o f reform. R oyal orders forbad the clergy from doing anything adversely affecting royal rights, but one clause o f the canons o f the council dealt with the excom m unication o f those who

C ou n cils and Synods , II, ii, 865-8, 870-1. 72 Ibid., II, ii, 872-82; Douie, A rch b ish o p P e ch a m , 121-7. 73 C C R i 2 ? g - 8 8 , 56. F.D. Logan, E xcom m un ication and the S ecu la r A r m in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d (Toronto, 1968), 67-8, shows that at this period Pecham was issuing far more significations of excommunications than was the case at any other period. For 1275-9 the total was 1,443, an 253,

DIPLOMACY,

I274-94

327

real seriousness until the 1280s. G regory X had hoped to revitalize the crusading m ovem ent at the C ouncil o f Lyons in 1274, where a tax o f a tenth payable for six years was agreed. T h e only opposition cam e from the English: the dean o f Lincoln handed the pope a m em oran­ dum , pointing out the w ay in w hich the English church had suffered as a result o f previous papal taxation, and the civil war. H e was deprived o f his post for three days for his pains.38 G regory promised that any king w ho took the cross could receive the proceeds o f the tax. This was very tem pting, and in 1276 E dw ard wrote to the pope, prom ising that he would either go on the next crusade, or send Edm und o f Lancaster on his behalf. In 1278 he sent John o f D arlington to the pope - by now N icholas I I I - to ask for the proceeds o f the tenth, but the response was a m eagre one. H e was offered 25,000 marks once he actually took the cross, and provided he promised to pay it back should he not go. N egotiations continued, with Edw ard seeking in 1280 and 1281 to have the grant paid to his brother Edm und. E d w ard ’s policy seems to have been a cynical one, aim ed at the acquisition o f the tax. In 1282 he gave orders that none o f the money was to be allowed to leave the country, and in the next year, when he had to pay for the W elsh war, he ordered his officials to seize the deposits from churches and m onasteries.39 E dw ard’s conduct was not as outrageous as m ight seem. Th ere was every reason to suspect that the papacy would itself misuse crusading funds in 1282, in an attem pt to reinstate C harles o f A njou in Sicily: the French pope M artin I V certainly lent C harles large sums out o f the tenth. Further, E dw ard returned most o f the confiscated money in its original sacks, untouched: only about £4,000 had been used, and that was rapidly repaid.40 M artin I V ’s fury at w hat had happened soon abated, and discussions began about the projected crusade. T h e negotiations were lengthy and com plex. T h e long journey between England and Rom e was an obstacle in itself, and matters were com plicated by the successive deaths o f M artin I V in 1285, and Honorius I V in 1287. Edw ard w anted adequate financial provision from the papacy. His suspicions about the corrupt practices o f papal tax collectors were not well received at Rom e, nor was his suggestion that he should appoint a nominee o f his own to act join tly with the papal nuncio. English envoys failed to provide the papacy with clear answers to the question o f how m any men he intended to take to the East, or o f how long he intended to stay there. Edw ard was anxious to 48 Guisborough, 214-15. 39 Lunt, Financial Relations o f England with the Papacy to 1327, 334-6; above, 239; Foedera, I, ii, 357. 40 Strayer, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives o f History, 150-1; above, 239.

328

EDWARD I

ensure that all those w ho took the cross actually w ent on crusade: the papacy had been perm itting the w idespread com m utation o f crusad­ ing vows. T h e situation in the East w as relevant: the papal view was that there was little point in E dw ard organizing a general crusade, if there was a truce between the rulers o f the kingdom o f Jerusalem and the M am luks.41 Both sides were responsible for delays in the negotiations, but the indications are that, in spite o f the various conditions he tried to impose, Edw ard was in earnest about going on a new crusade. T h ere is no justification for any accusations that he was m erely attem pting to acquire the proceeds o f crusade taxation for his own ends. E d w ard ’s determ ination to go to the East once again is best attested, o f course, by his taking the cross in 1287. Y e t the w ay in w hich he did this was curious. H e did not take the crusading vow in a m ajor public cerem ony, as he had done at N ortham pton in his youth, and it is not even quite certain exactly when the promise was m ade, or where. It seems that the king was ill when staying at Blanquefort, and that he took the crusading oath when he recovered, either there, or at Bordeaux. It m ay be that his illness was connected with an unfortunate accident, w hich took place when the floor o f the room that he was in collapsed, and E dw ard fell, breaking his collar-bone. It was alm ost certainly in the spring o f 1287 that he m ade the crusading promise, for in J u ly he m ade gifts to some o f his household, w ho had agreed to go with him to the E ast.42 It is also unlikely that he would have taken the cross after hearing news o f the death o f Honorius I V , w hich took place ju st before Easter, for to do so during a papal vacancy would create com plex problem s. A s it was, the archbishop o f Ravenna, who conducted the cerem ony, and the archbishop o f C an terbu ry, and others w ho granted crusading privileges in England w ere not properly authorized to do so, and their actions had to receive retrospective approval from the p ap acy.43 T h e election o f a new pope, N icholas I V , and the consequent need for new negotiations about the crusade, certainly delayed matters. T h e expedition was high on the agenda o f the em bassy, led by W illiam de H otham and O tto de G randson, to the papal curia in 1289 and 1290. N icholas I V proved co-operative, renewing the grant o f papal taxation to Edw ard, and m aking over financial provisions. T h e 41 Calendar o f Papal Registers, Papal Letters, i, 1198-1304, 473-4, 479-80; Foedera, I, ii, 642,652-3,663,674-5.

42 Trabut-Cussac, L 'administration anglaise en Gascogne, 85; Lunt, Financial Relations o f the Papacy with England to 1327, 33811; Oxenedes, 269-70. It may be that Edward took the cross in a private ceremony at Blanquefort, and this was followed by a more public one at Bordeaux. 43 Calendar o f Papal Registers, i, 552.

DIPLOMACY,

1274-94

329

pope set the date for departure to the East at June 1292, but Edw ard changed this to June 1293, dem anding that h a lf o f the new crusading tax should be paid to him before he set out. In 1291 the king at last obtained the financial concessions he had long sought, when the pope agreed to his terms. A series o f bulls expressed N icholas’s pleasure at E d w ard ’s decision to go to the E ast.44 B y that time, the situation in the East was changing radically, and the com placency that had existed in the W est in the 1280s was proving to have been entirely unjustified. In 1289 the port o f T rip oli had been lost to the E gyptian M am luks, and in the next year a small force o f galleys was sent to A cre, with a small, badly disciplined force o f crusaders. T h e y all prom ptly disregarded the truce that had been agreed with E gypt, and m assacred all the A rab traders they could find, along w ith a good m any local C hristians. T h is gave the M am luks the excuse to renew their attacks. T h e death o f their sultan, K a la vu n , provided a b rief respite, but in M arch 1291 the M oslem arm y set out. T h ere was a sm all English force under the valiant O tto de G randson present in Acre: his arrival had given the defenders a false sense o f optim ism , for it was thought that E dw ard w ould soon follow with a full expedition. T h e siege did not last long. A fierce bom bardm ent from m angonels and catapults took place, and on 18 M a y the final assault was launched. O tto de G randson and Jean de G railly distinguished themselves in the fighting, the latter being badly w ounded before the two men reached a V enetian ship, and sailed off to safety in C yprus. T h e unkind pun on O tto ’s nam e, that he should change his nam e as he had m ade little noise (‘G ran d son ’ m eaning ‘large noise’ ), was certainly not ju stified.45 T h e news o f the fall o f A cre reached the pope in late A ugu st 1291, and spread rapidly through the C hristian world. T h e shock was immense. T h e need for a m ajor initiative to recover the lost lands o f the C rusader states in the East was now obvious, but at the same time, the fact that the last rem aining outpost, A cre, had fallen m eant that there was no longer any im m ediate urgency to organize a new crusade. T h e m ain evidence o f debate in England about the new situation comes from the reports o f a church council, held in F ebruary 1292, under A rchbishop P echam ’s leadership. T h e king was not involved in these discussions, and would not have been flattered by the view put forward that there should be an im m ediate im perial election, so that an em peror could impose peace in Europe and, very 44 Lunt, Financial Relations o f the Papacy with England to 1327, Nicholas I V , ed. E. Langlois (Paris, 1886-1905), 889-92. 45 Guisborough, 228-9; The Later Crusades 1 18 3 -1 3 11 , ed. Hazard (Philadelphia, 1962), 592-8.

339-40; Les Registres de R.L. Wolff and H.W.

330

EDWARD I

probably, provide leadership for the crusade. T h e French clergy, in their parallel debates, em phasized the need for a powerful leader, and m ay have been thinking in terms o f E dw ard, but the English church appears to have laid no stress on the part their king m ight play in the forthcom ing expedition.46 E dw ard was certainly still determ ined to go on crusade. He m ade this clear in a letter to the king o f H un gary w ritten in Ju ne 1292, and one sent to N orw ay bears the sam e im plication.47 T h e em bassy that he sent under Geoffrey de L an gley to the Persian Il-K h an , in the same year, was an im portant part o f the diplom atic preparations for the crusade. E dw ard had first opened relations with the M ongol rulers at the time o f his expedition to the East, when he had sent an em bassy to the Il-K h an A b agh a, and it is clear that he regarded an alliance w ith the M ongols as the best hope for the salvation o f the H oly L an d .48 T h is was not as far-fetched an idea as it sounds. A t this stage the M ongol rulers had not been converted to Islam , and there was a substantial N estorian C hristian element in their courts. T h ey were themselves anxious to find allies against M am luk Egypt. Contacts between the M ongols and the W est continued in the 1270s and 1280s. W hen E dw ard was in G ascony in 1287, he received an em bassy sent by the M ongols. A n account o f this mission survives, w ritten by one o f its leaders, a N estorian monk o f Chinese origin, called R abban Saum a. U nfortunately he was so impressed with the w ealth o f relics, particularly in Constantinople, Rom e and Paris, that he recorded little else. H e did, however, record E d w ard ’s speech to the em bassy: ‘W e, the king o f these cities, have taken the sign o f the cross upon our body, and have no other thought than this affair. M y heart swells when I learn that w hat I am thinking is also being thought by K in g A rgh u n .’49 In 1289 a further M ongol em bassy arrived, this time headed by an adventurous Genoese traveller and trader, Buscarello de Gisolfo, who had taken service with the Il-K h an s. He brought letters from the Il-K h an A rgh un for Philip I V and Edw ard I: unfortunately only the former survives, but the two were probably identical in their terms. H e declared his intention o f being outside D am ascus in the spring o f 1291, and even offered to supply the crusaders with horses, to ease their transport problem s. Edw ard in his reply thanked A rgh un for this

46 Councils and Synods, II, ii, 1104-1113; Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 333-6. 47 Foedera, I, ii, 760, 788. +8 Above, 75, 78. 49 N. McLean, ‘An Eastern Embassy to Europe in the years 1287-8’, E H R , xiv (1899), 299-318; J.B. Chabot, ‘Histoire du Patriarche Mar Jabalaha I I I ’, Revue de l ’orient Latin , xi (1894), 110.

DIPLOMACY,

I274-94

331

offer, congratulated him on his intention o f attacking the E gyptian sultan, and informed him that he intended to set out, as soon as he obtained papal perm ission.50 Y e t another M ongol em bassy arrived in 1290, led by a C hristian noble called Zagan , and including Buscarello. T h e pope was som ewhat sceptical o f M ongol claims to support the C hristian cause, and was dubious o f the orthodoxy o f the Nestorians, but he w rote to E dw ard, asking that he should see this new m ission.51 It was the M ongols who took most o f the initiatives in this long-range diplom acy, but E d w ard ’s decision to send Geoffrey de L an gley to the East, at a cost o f perhaps £6,000 shows that he took them very seriously. U nfortunately, the U -K h an A rgh un died in 1291, and his successor G aikh atu was a man o f w eak character, who had great difficulty in m aintaining his position. M arco Polo, w ho was returning westwards from G aik h a tu ’s court at about this period, wrote that ‘G aikhatu was not the legitim ate lord, and therefore the people had less scruple to do m ischief than if they had a lawful prince’ .52 Geoffrey de L an gley must have returned from his long journey with pessim istic reports for E dw ard. T h e prospects for the crusade were undoubtedly dim inished in the absence o f the hoped-for M ongol alliance. E d w ard ’s belief in an alliance with the M ongols, so different in culture and customs from the rulers o f the W est, m ay suggest a rem arkable gullibility on his part. Y e t the Il-K h a n ’s armies would not have had to travel as far as the crusader host; there was a C hristian element in the M ongol courts; and there was a genuine desire to jo in in a comm on enterprise. T h e proof, at least as far as contem poraries were concerned, that the concept o f a jo in t operation was not w holly fantastic cam e in 1300. In that year the W est rejoiced at news that a M ongol arm y under a new Il-K h an , G hazan, had retaken Jerusalem , w hich was now thought to be safe for C hristianity. T h e news was, o f course, a considerable exaggeration o f the facts, for G h a za n ’s control o f the H oly Land only lasted a few months, and he was the first o f the Il-K h an s to accept the M oslem faith, a piece o f inform ation his envoys withheld from the W est.53 H ad there been a 50 J.B. Chabot, ‘Notes sur les relations du roi Argoun avec l’occident’, Revue deVorient xi (1894), 592-3, 610-13; T.H. Turner, ‘Unpublished Notices of the Times of Edward I’, Archaeological Journal, viii (1851), 48-9; B. Spuler, History o f the Mongols (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), 141-2. 51 Chabot, op. cit., 616-23; J-D. Ryan, ‘Nicholas IV and the Evolution of the Eastern Missionary Effort’, Archivum Historiae Pontificum, xix (1981), 79-95. 52 Howarth, History o f the Mongols, iii, 367. 53 S. Schein, ‘Gesta Dei per Mongolos 1300. The genesis of a non-event’, E H R , xciv

Latin ,

(1979)» 8 0 5 -1 9 .

332

EDWARD I

crusader arm y in the East at the time o f G h a za n ’s invasion, it m ight have been able to re-establish a C hristian outpost in Palestine, and E d w ard ’s policy w ould have been vindicated. T h e failure o f the M ongol alliance was but one o f the m any obstacles in the w ay o f E d w ard ’s crusade in the early 1290s. Finance was an im portant problem . It had been agreed w ith the p apacy that the proceeds o f the crusading tenth, w hich had been imposed as long ago as 1276, should be paid to E dw ard in two instalm ents in 1290 and 1291. H e seems to have received very little o f the m oney, for the Italian bankers, with whom the m oney had been deposited, found great difficulty in suddenly paying it over. T h ey had, quite naturally, used these funds to finance their trading activities, and, under­ capitalized as they were, could not meet the unexpected dem and m ade o f them .54 A new tenth was also imposed on the church in 1291 by N icholas I V , but collection took time. In 1293 E dw ard borrowed £10,000 from the collectors for expenses in G ascony, but he certainly did not receive sufficient funds from this tax to finance a crusade.55 T h e political problem s w hich faced Edw ard in the early 1290s also made a crusade virtu ally inconceivable. In 1291 and 1292 the affair o f the Scottish succession dom inated his thoughts, and by 1294, a year after he had promised to set out, his w ar with France m eant that any plans to go to the East had to be postponed. A further factor was the death o f Pope N icholas I V in 1292. T h ere followed a long vacancy, and when agreem ent was eventually reached in 1294, the m an selected was the elderly, and entirely unsuitable, C elestine V . H e was rem oved from office in the year o f his election. Boniface V I I I then accepted the papal tiara. H e w as a w holly different figure, w ho m ight in other circum stances have been capable o f organizing a crusade, but as w ar broke out between England and France in 1294, he never had the opportunity. E dw ard did not altogether abandon his dream o f leading a successful crusade. In June 1294 he w rote to Florence, prince o f A ch aea in G reece, expressing his firm hope that he would be able to go on crusade, and to visit Greece. H e explained, how ever, that the course o f events at home, w hich greatly displeased him, m eant that he 54 Lunt, Financial Relations o f the Papacy with England to 1327, 339-41. Lunt argued that Edward did receive money from the Italian merchants from the crusading tenth, but Kaeuper, Bankers to the Crown, 211-12, 219-20, suggests otherwise. The fact that a receipt for 100,000 marks was issued by the chancery on 13 June 1292 does not mean that the money was paid over: the document was prepared in the expectation that the funds would be forthcoming, but the lack of any indication of such a massive influx of funds in the financial records suggests that the Italians failed to produce the cash. See C P R 1281-92, 494-5. 55 Lunt, op. cit., 361.

DIPLOMACY,

1274-94

333

did not know when he would be able to set out.56 T h ere is no reason to disbelieve the chronicler L an gto ft’s sum m ary o f E d w ard ’s plans, once affairs in Scotland appeared to be settled in 1296: ‘N ow all he has to do is arrange his expeditions against the king o f France, to conquer his inheritances, and then bear the cross to where Jesus C hrist was born.’57 In practice, the circum stances o f E d w ard ’s last years, with political troubles at home, and w ar with the Scots, m eant that there was no real hope o f the king’s em barking on a crusade. Y e t the French crusade propagandist thought that Edw ard was the right person to whom to address his tract on the recovery o f the H oly L and, rather than Philip I V . A ccording to one account, E dw ard expressed the desire on his deathbed that his heart should be sent to the East, and that eighty knights should be sent w ith it.58 E d w ard ’s diplom acy had failed by the early 1290s to achieve the king’s m ain aims. He had hoped to bring peace to Europe and then to proceed with a m ajor, successful crusade. E dw ard planned various m arriage alliances, but those with N avarre, A ragon and the H absburgs all failed for various reasons, and it was only the m arriage o f his daughter M argaret to the heir o f the duke o f B rabant that was actually carried through. Edw ard had secured the release o f C harles o f Salerno from captivity, but only at great cost to himself, and w ithout securing the lasting peace between A ragon and the A ngevins that he sought. T h is period saw the final collapse o f the crusader states in the East, and all E d w ard ’s efforts to organize a fresh crusade cam e to nothing. It had been argued that ‘his long deferm ent o f his second vow o f crusade . . . had a disastrous effect on the possibility o f a vigorous crusade in the final years o f the C ru sad er states’ .59 T h is is an extreme point o f view: E d w ard ’s delays were not o f his m aking, and there is no justification for taking a cynical view o f his intentions. It could be argued, however, that he should have realized that his hopes o f a m ajor expedition m ounted from a peaceful Europe, in which the crusaders would co-operate w ith the M ongols, were over-am bitious. T h e men o f A cre and T rip oli would have been better served, perhaps, by sm aller and more m anageable expeditions. E d w ard ’s concern to prom ote peace in Europe m eant that, in his relations with the kings o f France, he did less than he m ight have done to lim it French claim s to jurisdiction over the English possessions in G ascony, so arguably

56 SC 1/13/66, 67. 57 Langtoft, ii, 266. 58 Pierre Dubois, De Recuperatione Terrae Sanctae, ed. C.V. Langlois (Paris, 1891), 1; Wright, Political Songs, 247. 59 M. Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy I244~i2gi (Leyden, 1975), 113.

334

EDWARD I

creating problem s for his later years. Y e t his conciliatory approach to the French did mean that the difficult question o f the A genais was settled in his favour in 1279, and that no problem s were raised as a result o f the English acquisition o f Ponthieu. It is very doubtful whether a more aggressive attitude towards Philip I I I and Philip I V would have achieved more. T h e fact that few o f E d w ard ’s schemes in these years achieved the results he wished was because the task he set him self was too great. E dw ard should not be condem ned because his aspirations extended so far: peace in Europe followed by a crusade was an ideal w hich was w idely shared, and it is only with hindsight that it appears as an im possible dream . E dw ard was an international figure, and it was right that his policies should have been aim ed at m uch more than the im m ediate protection o f English interests. T h is was, however, an age when national concerns were becom ing more and more im portant, and in his later years Edw ard was to be forced to play a very different role in European affairs. E dw ard m ay not have achieved all he hoped for in international affairs in the first h a lf o f his reign, but nevertheless he had been astonishingly successful in the 1270s and 1280s. T h ere had been few problems resulting from any continuing bitterness caused by the civil conflicts o f the 1260s: as king, E dw ard showed a statesm anship towards his former opponents that had not alw ays been evident in his conduct as prince. He was never prepared, however, to extend forgiveness to the Ferrers fam ily. Part o f the reason for E d w ard ’s success in these years o f his prim e must be the fact that he was prepared to adopt some elements o f the baronial reform m ovem ent o f the 1250s and 1260s. M an y features o f the legislative program m e o f E d w ard ’s statutes can be traced back to such docum ents as the Provisions o f W estm inster o f 1259. T h e tech­ nique o f holding thoroughgoing inquiries into local affairs was one w hich Edw ard took over and developed, to considerable effect. Edw ard was also, o f course, very conscious o f his position as king, and as custodian o f royal rights. T h is m ight on occasion cause him to go too far, most notably perhaps in his policy o f land acquisition, but it also provided a driving force for a thorough reassessment or revision o f m uch o f the m achinery o f governm ent. His defence o f his rights as he saw them, com bined with an insensitivity towards the rights o f others, led him into w ar against the W elsh. O f course, E d w ard ’s resources were vastly greater than those o f his opponent, L lyw elyn ap G ruffydd, but nevertheless, the English king’s achievem ent in m obilizing and in m aking use o f those resources was very considerable. Th ere was no single m otive behind E d w ard ’s m any achievem ents in these years, no one ideal. Th ere must, undoubtedly, have been a

DIPLOMACY,

1274-94

33 5

m easure o f genuine idealism . T h e cultural world o f chivalry was im portant to Edw ard, and his construction o f C aernarfon C astle along the lines suggested by the W elsh legend in the Mabinogion suggests w hat would now be interpreted as rom anticism . E dw ard was also surely m otivated by a desire to do ju stice as a king should. A t the same time, he was a hard-headed ruler, determ ined to uphold his rights as he saw them, and ruthless in the methods he adopted to achieve his ends. T here was for him no inconsistency between his pursuit o f such ideals as the crusade, and the determ ined practicality o f the w ay in which he ruled in England. C ircum stances undoubtedly favoured him in the 1270s and 1280s, thought it also has to be said that he used those circum stances well. T h e rem aining years o f E d w ard ’s reign, however, were to see him put to a sterner test. T h e pressures o f w ar were to become far greater, and the king would be less in control o f events. T h e dem ands he would make o f his subjects were to lead to political crisis o f a sort that he had not had to face since succeeding to the throne. Edw ard had showed that he could rule well in good times: it was now to be seen how he would respond under m uch greater pressure.

PART III

The Later Years

C h a p ter 13

BEFORE THE STORM, 1289-94

O n 12 A ugu st 1289 E dw ard returned to England after his lengthy stay in G ascony. A lth ough the country had been ruled w ith reasonable efficiency during his absence, there was m uch for the king to do. H e was convinced that m ajor abuses had been prevalent, and that a purge o f the justices, and other officials, was required. T h e financial situation, due largely to the debts E dw ard had incurred in G ascony, was pre­ carious. A lthough the W elsh rebellion o f 1287 had been successfully put down, trouble was threatening in the M arches, as a result o f the rivalry between the earls o f G loucester and H ereford. T h e king w ould also have to deal with the problem s caused by the Quo Warranto cam paign, with its m assive arrears o f cases. Edw ard showed no great urgency on his return to go to W estm inster and see to affairs o f state there. H e spent some time in K en t, notably at Leeds castle, and crossed the Th am es into Essex, w here he hunted at R ayleigh. H e visited B ury St Edm unds, and the shrine at W alsingham in Norfolk, before arriving at W estm inster for the Feast o f St E dw ard on 13 O c to b e r.1 Even then, no parliam ent was held until after C hristm as. T h e first scandal, however, had broken in Septem ber. T h e ch iefju stice o f Com m on Pleas, T h om as de W eylan d, had protected two o f his men from justice after they had com m itted a m urder. It is not clear exactly when the case against him w as heard, but by 19 Septem ber officials were appointed to take charge o f his confiscated estates. W eylan d escaped from custody, and took refuge in a friary at B ury St Edm unds. T h is was blockaded on royal orders, and after two months, during w hich the friars were allow ed to leave, W eylan d was starved out and taken to the T ow er. W hen parliam ent met, he w as given the choice o f standing trial, perm anent im prisonm ent, or exile, and not surprisingly chose the last o f these.2 W hether the W eylan d case alerted the king to the possibility o f more w idespread corruption, or w hether m any com plaints began to reach him, is not clear. O n 13 O ctob er, how ever, the sheriffs were informed 1 Itinerary o f Edward /, i, 274-7. 2 Cotton, 171, 173; Chron. Bury St Edmunds, 92-3.

340

EDWARD I

that a comm ission, consisting o f the bishop o f W inchester, Robert Burnell, the earl o f Lincoln, John de St John, W illiam Latim er, W illiam Louth and W illiam M arch, had been appointed to hear com plaints against royal officials, and to report on them in parliam ent. A nyone w ho wished to make a com plaint was to come to W estm inster on 12 N ovem ber.3 In practice, com plainants p robably cam e forward over a long period o f time, and the task o f hearing and then determ ining the cases lasted until 1293. In all, about 1,000 defendants were nam ed, in some 670 actions. T h e most im portant were tried before a comm ission headed by the bishop o f W inchester, w ho was succeeded by Peter o f Leicester, an exchequer official, in 1291. M inor offenders w ent before the archdeacon o f N orw ich .4 T h e view o f the chroniclers, that the justices had been responsible for widespread corruption and subversion o f the law , is hardly borne out by the records. T h e greatest o f those brought dow n in the proceedings was R alph H engham , ch ief ju stice o f the K in g ’s Bench. H e faced nine charges, and escaped unscathed on five. T h e one w hich led to his being fined 8,000 marks involved the issue o f a w rit ordering an arrest, prior to an inquisition w hich had been ordered. T h e crucial question was the dating o f the w rit, and part o f the defence was that ‘in the chancery on one and the same day one clerk w ould put one date, and another a different one’ .5 T h is was not convincing, but the offence was hardly com m ensurate w ith the fine, and it must be suspected that the king had other reasons for w anting to be rid o f H engham . O n e possibility is that E dw ard found him too independent, particularly w here Quo Warranto cases were concerned.6 W illiam de Saham , H en gham ’s colleague on the Bench, was found guilty in the same case, and was fined 2,500 marks. W illiam de Brompton, a ju stice o f C om m on Pleas, was p robably one o f the most culpable o f those against whom prosecutions were brought. H e was accused o f taking bribes, forcing a ju r y to change its mind, adjourning cases incorrectly, and a range o f other offences, in tw enty-eight actions. He was fined 6,000 marks. John de Lovetot, also a ju stice o f C om m on Pleas, was fined 2,000 marks: his worst offence w as concealm ent o f m urder. Som e o f the justices w ere convicted on w hat now appears to have been slender evidence, or m erely technicalities. W alter o f H opton and T h om as o f Siddington were both found guilty only in one case. 3 C C R i288-g6 , 55. 4 The cases are analysed in State Trials o f the Reign o f Edward /, ed. Tout and Johnstone, 100-253. Their conclusions, however, have been substantially modified in an important article by P.A. Brand, ‘Edward I and the Judges: the “ State Trials” of 1289-93’, Thirteenth Century England /, ed. Cross and Lloyd, 31-40. 5 State Trials o f Edward /, ed. Tout and Johnstone, 35. 6 Above, 293.

B EFORE THE STORM,

1289-94

341

H opton later argued convincingly that he was in fact innocent, while Siddington’s responsibility was little m ore than form al.7 T h e purge extended far beyond the ju d icial benches. T h e infam ous A dam Stratton, cham berlain o f the exchequer, was a notable victim . He had already experienced sim ilar ju d icial proceedings, when in 1279 the king had sought querelae, plaints, against him. H e had then been pardoned, on the intercession o f Isabella de Forz, on paym ent o f a substantial fine. It is possible that the case against Stratton now preceded the m ain hearings: one account has it that he was tried by some o f the justices against w hom action was taken. H e was convicted o f forging a deed relating to Berm ondsey Priory, a house from w hich he had acquired five m anors, and w hich, he claim ed, owed him £6,000. O n his arrest, a vast fortune was found in his house in London, consisting o f £11,333 m new m oney, and £1,317 in old coins. In addi­ tion, according to B artholom ew C otton, a silk-lined chest was discov­ ered, w hich contained fingernail and toenail clippings, w om en’s pubic hair, the feet o f toads and moles, and other items used in w itchcraft. T h is was sealed up by royal officials, but Stratton broke the seals, and threw it down a latrine. Even Stratton was not found guilty o f all charges: an apparently circum stantial story, o f how he had torn the seal from an acquittance for a debt and then thrown the docum ent into the Tham es, was not found to be true.8 H enry de B ray, escheator south o f the T rent, was another im portant official to be arrested. H e tried to drown him self when being taken by boat to the T ow er, and then attem pted suicide again, by dashing his head against a brick w all. T h e trial records show that he was charged w ith m isappropriating estates, rather than the rape o f virgins, as the chronicler C otton would have it.9 T h e proceedings provided excuses for m any men w ho had been disappointed in legal proceedings to reopen cases, and in a good m any it is far from clear that the king’s justices and officials had behaved as im properly as was alleged. Robert, son o f Simon o f Staunton, com ­ plained that although his father was a lunatic, in the habit o f visiting ladies when he was w earing only a sword, he had been allowed to sell one o f his manors. T h e m atter was investigated, and the unfortunate Simon was found im prisoned, in irons, in his chapel, but there was no evidence o f his insanity. No guilt in this case was attached to the justice involved, W illiam de Saham . In other cases, justices had behaved in a biassed and unreasonable m anner. T h om as de G oldington and his wife

7 Brand, ‘Edward I and the Judges’, 36-8; State Trials o f Edward /, ed. Tout and Johnstone, xxxi—xxxii; Select Cases in the Court o f K in g ’s Bench, ed. Sayles, i., li, lvi. 8 Ann. London, 98; Cotton, 171-2; R.H. Bowers, ‘From Rolls to Riches: King’s Clerks and Moneylending in Thirteenth-Century England’, Speculum, lviii (1983), 69. 9 Cotton, 176; State Trials o f Edward /, ed. Tout and Johnstone, 17-18, 208.

342

EDWARD I

had failed to obtain ju stice in a m urder case, as after bribery, the judge, N icholas de Stapleton, had held the inquiry secretly, in N ewcastleupon-Tyne, even though the offence had been com m itted in W estm or­ land. R ichard de B oyland, another ju d g e, had com pelled W illiam de Derneford to pay 200 marks to the earl o f G loucester, by detaining him and threatening h im .10 T h e dow nfall o f so m any judges met w ith general approval, to go by the reaction o f the chroniclers, but this was followed by dism ay at the punishm ents imposed. For the most part, Edw ard was content to take fines from the guilty men, and, as C otton put it, ‘the iniquity o f M am m on intervened, and peace was m ade between them [the judges] and the king, though he did rem ove them from his service’ . 11 T h e author o f the Mirror ofJustices provided a long list o f judges allegedly executed by K in g Alfred, to contrast with E d w ard ’s len ien cy.12 Some o f the fines were certainly very heavy, but it does not seem that H engham , for exam ple, paid his in full. N icholas de Stapleton was fined 2,000 marks, but in O ctob er 1290 he received a pardon in return for only 300 marks. A dam S tratton’s friends successfully offered the king 500 marks to obtain his release in 12 9 1.13 Even so, the king m ade substantial financial gains from these proceedings. Exchequer receipt rolls show receipts by 1293 o f over £15,500 from ten o f the ch ief offenders. I f allow ance is m ade for the m oney found in A dam Stratton’s house, and the fines on lesser offenders, then the overall total m ay well have reached £30,000.14 It w ould be quite w rong to think that the king had started these proceedings with the aim o f m aking m oney out o f them, but once they had begun, it m ade sense to profit from them. T h e trials must have had a salutary effect on the new judges appointed in 1290, but it was also thought necessary to introduce a new oath for them to swear, forbidding bribery, and preventing the taking o f fees w ithout royal consent. A ll that they m ight law fully accept was food and drink on a daily b asis.15 B y the spring o f 1290 there was an urgent need to replenish the royal coffers. A n attem pt to negotiate a tax w hile Edw ard was in G ascony had failed, as G loucester and the other m agnates had refused to m ake a grant in the king’s ab sen ce.16 N o steps were taken to obtain a grant in the parliam ent held early in 1290, but in that w hich began in A pril, 10 State Trials o f Edward /, ed. Tout and Johnstone, 5—11, 71-7, 81-4. 11 Cotton, 173. 12 Mirror o f Justices, ed. Whitaker and Maitland, 166-9. 13 C F R 12y2 - 1 jo y , 284, 292. 14 State Trials o f Edward /, ed. Tout and Johnstone, xxxviii. 15 E 159/64, m.io; Oxenedes, 276. 16 Wykes, 316. There is no evidence to support the chronicler’s view that an attempt was made to collect a tallage, once the tax grant had been refused.

B EFORE THE STORM,

1289-94

343

Edw ard obtained agreem ent for the levy o f a feudal aid. H e was quite entitled to take this tax, as his daughter Joan was m arrying the earl o f Gloucester, and feudal custom entitled him to an aid on such an occasion, but he obviously considered it more politic to have the agreem ent o f the m agnates. H ow ever, a feudal aid was unlikely to raise m uch money, and the plan was shelved, not to be revived for ten years. Instead, knights o f the shire w ere sum m oned to W estm inster, to appear on 15 Ju ly. W hether parliam ent was still in session is not clear, but the knights gave their consent to the collection o f a tax o f a fifteenth, to w hich the m agnates had already agreed .17 T h is grant o f a fifteenth was not prom pted by the usual argum ents o f national em ergency or m ilitary need. N o canon or Rom an law yer would have recognized the reason for the tax as legitim ate in terms o f the theories o f the day, though churchm en no doubt approved w holeheartedly o f w hat was done. T h e chroniclers were quite clear that the grant o f the tax was m ade in exchange for the expulsion o f the Jew s from England: the edict for this was issued on 18 Ju ly, im m ediately after the tax was conceded. Som e other reasons for the tax were put forward: the debts incurred in releasing C harles o f Salerno, and the defence o f the H oly Lan d were two, but it was probably the expulsion which persuaded E d w ard ’s subjects to be so generous. T h e tax was astonishingly successful, w ith an assessment o f £i 16,346, and a yield not far short o f that sum. It is not surprising that the O seney annalist considered that it was m uch heavier than any in the past, and that ‘ the people groaned inconsolably’ . 18 T h e clergy were also asked for a tax, and in the autum n and w inter o f 1290, tenths for one year were granted by those o f both C an terbu ry and Y o r k .19 T h e treasurer for the past six years, John K irk b y, died early in 1290, following an unsuccessful operation to bleed him ,20 and his successor W illiam M arch m ade im portant changes in the adm inistration o f the new taxes. For the first time, tax incom e was recorded on special exchequer receipt rolls, and the exchequer officials took a m uch more active part in the business o f assessment and collection. M arch also cut back, at least in form al terms, the financial independence o f the w ard ­ robe, and the bulk o f this departm ent’s income was now channelled through the exchequer. D uring W alter L an gto n ’s keepership o f the w ardrobe, from 1290 to 1295, the exchequer contributed over eighty-

17 Pari. Writs, i, 21; Select Charters, ed. W. Stubbs (9th edn, Oxford, 1921), 472-3; Richardson and Sayles, The English Parliament in the Middle Ages , V, 144. 18 Guisborough, 227; Ann. Dunstable, 362; Ann. London, 99; C C R 1288-96 , 95-6; Wykes, 326. 19 Deighton, ‘Clerical Taxation by Consent’, 169-71. 20 Cotton, 174.

344

EDWARD I

four per cent o f the total w ardrobe receipt. In practice, tax-collectors and others still paid m oney into the w ardrobe, but the sums involved were now entered on exchequer rolls, and the whole process was subject to greater supervision.21 N o novel sources o f revenue were found in 1290, and it proved necessary to take substantial loans from Italian m erchants, totalling £18,900, as it was not for some time that the tax receipts began to come in. H owever, the grants o f taxation, com bined with the changes in exchequer practices, m eant that in the early 1290s royal finances were in a healthier state than they had been for m any years. Part o f the price for financial stability was the expulsion o f the Jew s from England. Th is action met with alm ost universal approval from contem poraries, although to modern eyes it does not appear creditable. T h e Jew s in E ngland were not many: by this time there were probably no more than about fifteen com m unities, with a total population esti­ m ated at some 3,000. T h e y were m oneylenders and traders, with a unique role in the econom y that was made possible by the fact that their law perm itted them to lend money to G entiles at interest. C an on law forbad Christians to take interest. In legal theory, they were the prop­ erty o f the king, and they were alw ays subject to his will. In particular, they could be taxed arbitrarily. T h e y had been tallaged heavily in the 1270s, and had suffered during the cam paign against coin-clipping that was associated w ith the recoinage.22 T h e scale o f royal profits in this period from the Jew ry is indicated by the fact that the account o f the king’s Italian bankers, the R iccardi, for 1272-9 includes receipts o f £2,758 from the Jew s, w hile the w ardrobe account for 1279-80 includes £1,356 from the sale o f confiscated Jew ish goods. In 1282-4, however, w ardrobe incom e from the Jew s stood at only £222.23 For m uch o f the 1280s the Jew s were spared arbitrary tallages, but that policy was dram atically reversed in 1287. T h e chronicle tradition is that on 2 M ay 1287 all the Jew s in England were im prisoned, and released only after agreeing to pay £12,000. T h is sum was an exaggeration: the receipt rolls show that £4,023 was actually p aid .24 T h e extent o f royal dem ands on the Jew s had been such that their 21 J.F. Willard, ‘An Exchequer Reform under Edward I’, The Crusades and other ed. LJ. Paetow (New York, 1928), 326-40. 22 H.G. Richardson The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (i960), 19, 214-20. 23 Riccardi account, E 101/126/1; wardrobe accounts in E 372/124, E 372/130. 24 Ann. London, 96; Oxenedes, 268; Richardson, English Jewry under Angevin Kings, 227. Richardson finds the story of universal imprisonment implausible, but there was a precedent in 1273, when all Jews had been ordered to go to Canterbury from December until the following Easter. It may be that expulsion was being considered even then: E Historical Essays presented to Dana C. Munro,

159/48, m.4.

B E F O R E T HE S TORM,

1289-94

345

financial resources had been severely depleted, and in expelling them from the country E dw ard was hardly depriving him self o f a substantial source o f future revenue. He was, indeed, providing him self with funds, for he took over the debts that had been due to the Jew s, and collected as much as he could from them, though interest payments were remitted. He also gained the property left behind by the Jew s, raising about £2,000 from the sale o f their houses. T h ere was a precedent for all this, for it was only three years before that he had expelled the Jew s from G ascony, and had confiscated their debts and goods.25 A n argum ent has been put forward suggesting that Edw ard was able to expel the Jew s because the part that they had played in royal finance could be filled by the Italian m erchants, but this is valid to only a lim ited extent. T h e role o f the Italians, as bankers providing loans, was very different from that o f the Jew s, from w hom m oney was taken by means o f taxation .26 O ne reason that was given at the time for the expulsion o f the Jew s was that they had not fulfilled the terms o f the statute o f Jew ry o f 1275. T h is was a rem arkable enactm ent w hich provided for the com plete abolition o f usury, and perm itted Jew s to becom e m erchants and artisans, and even to lease land so that they could farm it. T h e Jew s were set a fifteen-year period in w hich to adjust to their new role in life, and this they had clearly not done by 1290. In fact, papal intervention would have m ade it difficult to integrate the Jew s even in the lim ited m anner suggested in the statute.27 In about 1285 a proposal was m ade that, since the Jew s had not abandoned their practice o f usury, but had m erely disguised interest paym ents, the crown should legitim ize such paym ents, and regularize them at about forty-three per cent a year.28 T h is was not done, and expulsion must have appeared to be a m uch more satisfactory means o f dealing with the question o f usury. T h e expulsion o f the Jew s should not be analysed solely in financial or economic terms. There was undoubtedly very considerable prejudice against the Jew s in England. T h ere were stories o f ritual childm urder and torture, which, although they now appear groundless on the basis o f the recorded evidence, were generally believed. T h e most famous was that o f the death o f L ittle St H ugh o f Lincoln in 1255, but there were others. T h e chronicle o f B ury St Edm unds recorded the 25 E 159/64, m.4; Richardson, English Jewry under Angevin Kings , 225-6; 230. 26 P. Elman, ‘The Economic Causes of the Expulsion of the Jews in 1290’, Economic History Review, vii (1936), 145—54. 27 Statutes o f the Realm , i, 221; B.L. Abrahams, The Expulsion o f the Jews from England in i2go (1895), 75, provides full discussion. 28 Select Pleas, Starrs, and other Recordsfrom the Exchequer o f the Jews, 1220-1284., ed. J.M. Rigg (Selden Soc., xv, 1901), liv-lx.

346

EDWARD I

crucifixion o f a boy by the Jew s at N ortham pton.29 E d w ard ’s mother, Eleanor o f Provence, was anti-Sem itic, and obtained E d w ard ’s perm is­ sion in 1275 to lay down that in future no Jew s should live on her estates.30 Q ueen Eleanor o f C astile, in contrast, had m any dealings with Jew s, from w hich she profited considerably, though this does not reveal w hat her personal attitude to them w as.31 A s for the king himself, he appears to have been very interested in Jew ish m atters, giving verbal instructions to his officials and justices about their dealings with the Jew ry. W hile he does not seem to have been virulently hostile to the Jew s, Edw ard showed them little sym pathy. In 1276 he had intervened in a case dating from H enry I l l ’s reign, in w hich an apparently unjustified case o f child m urder was levied against some London Jew s, but he was eventually persuaded o f the truth o f the charges. W hen a Jew petitioned the king in parliam ent in 1290, com plaining that a Jew ish boy had been forcibly baptized, his reply was uncom prom ising: ‘T h e king does not w ant to revoke the baptism . No inquiries are to be m ade o f anyone, and nothing is to be don e.’32 Edw ard cannot have had m any doubts about the wisdom o f the decision to expel the Jew s. T h e expulsion itself went surprisingly sm oothly, and was not the occasion for m assacres, as it m ight well have been. R oyal safe-conducts were given to the Jew s m aking their w ay to the C in qu e Ports, and the sailors were ordered to charge m oderate rates for the C hannel crossing. T h e chroniclers reported one horror story. A shipm aster anchored in the Tham es as the tide was going out, and when the ship grounded, he persuaded the Jew s on board to go for a w alk on the sands. H e led them far from the vessel, and m anaged to get back on board him self in time as the tide rose, leaving his passengers to drow n.33 In another incident, a ship containing Jew ish refugees drifted ashore near Burnham -onC rouch, and all were robbed and killed. T h e sheriff put the rem aining cargo on sale, but three cartloads were rem oved by his brother, who was tried for this offence at the exchequer.34 Such occurrences fortu­ nately seem to have been rare, and the exodus proceeded quietly. O n ly a few converted Jew s rem ained in E ngland, and it was not until 1656 that E dw ard I ’s action was reversed. T h e year 1290 was im portant for the king’s relationship with the m agnates. T h e question o f the Quo Warranto inquiries into the rights 29 C. Roth, History o f the Jews in England (Oxford, 1941), 56-7; Chron. Bury St Edmunds, 69. 30 C P R 1272-8 1 , 76. 31 The Court and Household o f Eleanor o f Castile, ed. Parsons, 18. 32 C C R 1272-9, 271-4; Rot. Pari., i, 46. 33 Guisborough, 226-7; Cotton, 178, reports what is probably the same story. 34 E 13/16, m.5d.

BEF ORE THE STORM,

1289-94

347

that men had to exercise franchisal jurisdiction reached a point o f crisis. W ith the dism issal o f R alph H engham , G ilbert de T h ornton becam e chief justice o f the K in g ’s Bench. He had been one o f the most aggressive o f the royal attorneys in the Quo Warranto proceedings, and it seems that thejudgem ents he now delivered in cases that had been adjourned from previous hearings were firm. Ten ure from time out o f mind was not now adequate w arrant for the exercise o f rights o f jurisdiction which properly belonged to the king. T h e D unstable chronicle reports two cases, those o f Robert FitzW alter o f D aventry and H enry de G rey o f N ew bottle, which caused w idespread concern am ong the m agnates. In parliam ent at Easter 1290 pressure was clearly put on the king, and on 21 M ay the statute o f Quo Warranto was issued. T h e terms o f the statute allowed anyone who could show continuous use o f a franchise by him self and his ancestors since 1189 to have his position confirm ed by means o f royal letters patent. In cases w hich had gone against defen­ dants since Easter 1290 - presum ably those o f F itzW alter and G rey cam e into this category - those concerned could go to the king and have their franchises restored. Quo Warranto actions were rem oved from W estm inster, where Thornton and his colleagues had been hearing them, and sent back into the eyres.35 T h e statute o f Quo Warranto was an ingenious com prom ise, which both preserved the theory that all liberties were delegations o f royal authority, and also perm itted tenure since 1189 as a sufficient w arrant for the exercise o f rights o f jurisdiction. It would, however, have been an extraordinarily tim e-consum ing task to issue letters patent to all those who claim ed tenure from time out o f mind, and w hat was put into effect was not the statute itself, but a sum m ary o f it. T h is sim ply stated that anyone w ho could show that a given liberty had been held since 1189 could continue to hold it. Should he be challenged in his right, then the king would confirm it. T h is was a simpler, more convenient procedure. T h e issue was not finally settled in 1290, however, for when eyres started once again in 1292, some royal attornies continued to challenge claims ju st as they had done in the past. O n ce again, m any cases were postponed, and the w hole cam paign at long last cam e to a halt. W hen w ar broke out with France in 1294 the king abandoned it, ‘as a favour to his people’ .36 T h e Quo Warranto proceedings had shown the king to be som ething o f a paper tiger as far as baronial liberties in England were concerned. Y et, in the early 1290s, E dw ard showed that he was a tiger with sharp claws and teeth, when it cam e to the great liberties o f the W elsh M arch, w hich Quo Warranto had not touched. 35 Ann. Dunstable, 360; Sutherland, Quo Warranto Proceedings, 94-6, the Realm , i, 107. 36 Sutherland, Quo Warranto Proceedings, 93-4, 99-110, 213.

203-4; Statutes o f

348

EDWARD I

It was a feud between the earls o f G loucester and Hereford which prom pted royal interference in the M arch . T h e trouble had broken out while E dw ard was in G ascony, but the roots o f it w ent back to 1265, when G loucester had been granted rights o f w ardship over Hereford. W hen Hereford cam e o f age in 12 70, he purchased his right o f m arriage from his fellow earl for £1,000, and G loucester claim ed in 1290 that he had received only 390 marks. T h ere was a territorial dispute between the two men: in the afterm ath o f the 1287 cam paign against Rhys ap M aredudd, G loucester began to build a castle at M orlais, which Hereford claim ed lay within his territory. A n order in 1286 from Edm und o f C orn w all, as regent, ordering construction to cease had no effect, and the efforts o f the archbishop o f C an terbu ry to settle the dispute were o f no a va il.37 T h e traditional method o f resolving disputes in the M arch was, firstly, by negotiation w hich took place on the boundaries between lordships, and secondly, if that failed, by means o f private war. T h a t sounds drastic, but there were w ell-recognized conventions for the conduct o f such war, w hich should be seen as an extension o f legal procedure, not a substitute for it. T h e earl o f H ereford, however, was not very powerful in the M arches, and lacked allies: he was already in dispute with another neighbour, John G iffard, over territorial claims. H e refused to play the gam e according to the M arch er rule-book, and presented his com plaints to the crown. H e received a sym pathetic hearing, and Edw ard prom ptly ordered hostilities to cease. G loucester ignored this. In F ebruary 1290 his bailiffs raided H ereford’s land o f Brecon, and the fact that the earl received the custom ary third part o f the booty indicated his com plicity.38 A t this junctu re, G loucester was in a strong position, for his longplanned m arriage to the king’s daughter Joan o f A cre was about to take place. T h is m atch had been agreed in 1283, about eighteen months after the death o f H artm ann o f H absburg, whom Joan had originally been intended to m arry. T h ere were delays, as G lou cester’s first m ar­ riage had to be annulled by the pope, and a dispensation obtained for his second, but these obstacles had been overcom e late in 1289. Both E dw ard I and the earl had, potentially, m uch to gain from the m ar­ riage. G loucester agreed to surrender all his lands to the king, to receive them back, jo in tly with his bride, with the provision that they should pass to his heirs by Joan, or in the absence o f such heirs, to her children by a later m arriage. T h e earl ensured that any children o f his m arriage 37 Altschul, A Baronial Family , 146-7; KB 27/130, m.iov. 38 For the details of the dispute between the earls, see Morris, Welsh Wars o f Edward /, 225-38; Altschul, A Baronial Family , 147-52. In addition to the sources cited there, a version of the trial is enrolled in KB 27/130, mm. 17-20.

B E F O RE THE STORM,

1289-94

349

to Joan would be close to inheriting the throne, w hile the king m ade an excellent provision for his daughter in territorial terms, and ensured that future earls o f G loucester would be closely tied by blood to the throne.39 T h e regranting o f the lands to G loucester did not affect the earl’s enjoym ent o f his liberties, or his status as a M arch er lord. T h e m arriage took place early in M a y, at the time that parliam ent was in session, and in June G loucester showed that his new relationship to the king had not curbed his independence, and he m ounted a further raid on H ereford’s lands. In O ctober 1290 G loucester suffered a defeat in a dispute with the crown, over his claim to the custody o f the bishopric o f L la n d aff during vacancies. H e was forced to surrender his rights to E dw ard, and received them back for life only.40 His response to this was to send his men once more into H ereford’s estates. H ereford’s case against Gloucester, m eanwhile, appeared to be getting nowhere, for G loucester sim ply failed to appear in court, causing a series o f adjournm ents. In Jan u ary 1291, however, the king appointed a powerful ju d icial com ­ mission to investigate, and it was m ade clear that even if the earls failed to take the case forward (a hint that M arch er pressure m ay have been m aking Hereford think o f w ithdraw ing his plaint), it should be con­ tinued by the king, as it concerned m atters prejudicial to the crown. G loucester continued his tactics o f failing to appear and his fellow M archers made it plain that they would co-operate with the king only if M archer customs were respected. E ventually a ju ry o f tw enty-four was assem bled, and the story o f the raids rehearsed. Before the king could hold further hearings at A bergavenn y, in Septem ber 1291, news reached him o f yet more disturbances in the M arch , in w hich H ereford’s men had retaliated and raided G lou cester’s estates. Now, both Hereford and G loucester were tried at A bergavenn y before king and council. H ereford’s case was a sim ple one: he had, he claim ed, done his best to obey the king’s orders. H owever, according to the ju ry , he retained the cattle taken by his men from G lou cester’s estates, and had appropri­ ated the disputed land even though the issue was not yet determ ined in court. It was therefore decided that he, and his constable o f Brecon, should be imprisoned. G lou cester’s argum ents were more com plex, and rested on a num ber o f legal technicalities. He argued, for exam ple, that the royal prohibition on further hostilities had been rendered

39 McFarlane, Nobility o f Later Medieval England , 259-60. In the event, the earl’s son by Joan, Gilbert de Clare, died in a suicidal charge at Bannockburn in 1314, and after a protracted feigned pregnancy by his widow, the estates were partitioned between his three sisters. 40 For this matter, see Altschul, A Baronial Family , 274-5; Rot. Pari ., i, 42-3.

350

EDWARD I

invalid by his surrender o f his lands to the king, and their subsequent regrant to himself and Joan o f Acre. This was all to no avail: Gloucester, like H ereford, was sentenced to im prisonm ent, ‘because all these things were done by the earl and his men o f G lam organ most boldly and presum ptuously, believing that they would escape by their liberty o f the M arch from the penalty and peril that they would deservedly have incurred if they had com m itted such an excess elsewhere in England outside the M a rc h ’ .41 T h e proceedings at A bergavenn y did not conclude the case. T h e two earls were prom ptly bailed, and their liberties restored to them until they should appear before king and council at W estm inster. T h e next stage took place in O tto de G ran d son ’s house in W estm inster, where the case was adjourned, as the king had not had time to take proper advice about it. Finally, the earls appeared in parliam ent in Janu ary 1292, and subm itted themselves to the king’s will. G lou cester’s liberty o f G lam organ was declared forfeit, but as the earl was m arried to the king’s daughter, this forfeiture was to last only for his lifetime. H ereford’s liberty o f Brecon was to be treated in the same w ay, for he was m arried to a relative o f the queen. Both earls were imprisoned, but they were prom ptly released, with a fine on G loucester o f 10,000 marks and one on Hereford o f 1,000 m arks.42 T h e eventual outcom e o f the case against the two earls was an anti-clim ax. In M a y 1292, a mere four months after sentence was passed, G loucester received G lam organ back from the king, and in Ju ly Hereford regained Brecon. T h e fines were not paid. It could be ‘that the king knew when to stop’ , or that he gave in to pressure from other m agnates, who were sym pathetic to the two earls. T h e support they received is shown by the lists o f those who guaranteed that they would appear in court. For G loucester, there were the earl o f Lancaster, W illiam de V alen ce, the earl o f Lincoln and John de H astings, and for H ereford, Reginald de G rey, Robert Tib etot, Robert FitzW alter and W alter de B eau cham p.43 Both men, therefore, had substantial backing from men close to the king. Edw ard had gone as far as he could in attacking the position o f two o f his greatest m agnates, and he had em phasized his authority in very definite terms. Y e t in the end the M archer liberties were returned intact, though clearly no one would dare to try to settle his disputes by means o f private w ar in the future. T h e hum bling o f the two earls has received m uch attention from modern historians, and deservedly so, for it provides a splendid 41 C W R , 346. 42 The case is summarized ibid., 334-9, and conveniently printed in Rot. Pari., i, 70-7. 43 Rot. Pari., i, 77.

B E F O RE THE STORM,

1289-94

351

example of Edw ard’s masterful policies in operation. Y et contemporary chroniclers did not give it m uch attention: B artholom ew C otton noted the birth o f a son to the earl o f G loucester and Joan o f A cre, but m ade no mention o f the dispute between the earls, and the royal intervention.44 T h e disaster o f the loss o f A cre, and then the disputed Scottish succes­ sion, dom inated the attention o f the chroniclers to the exclusion, to a great extent, o f dom estic affairs. T h e case o f the two earls was not the only M arch er affair in which Edw ard intervened in the early 1290s. In 1290 Bogo de K n oville, royal bailiff o f M ontgom ery, com plained that Edm und M ortim er had im ­ prisoned, tried and executed a crim inal in spite o f B ogo’s requests that he be handed over. In parliam ent, in the autum n o f 1290, Edm und placed him self at the king’s w ill, and was sentenced to lose the liberty o f W igm ore. H owever, ju st as in the case o f G loucester and H ereford, the sentence was then substantially reduced. Edm und was to pay a fine o f only 100 marks, and a rem arkable instruction given that he should hand over an effigy to Bogo, to be hanged by him in lieu o f the already executed felon. In fact, Edm und failed to do this, and the liberty was confiscated for a second time, but it was eventually given back to him, and his powers o f jurisdiction were left unaltered.45 A nother M archer m agnate who was tried before E dw ard was Th eobald de V erdu n, who had been involved in disputes with the prior o f Llantony. His stewards had used a substantial arm ed force, allegedly 600 strong, to prevent the sheriff from taking an inquisition at Ewyas L acy.46 Theobald appeared before the king and council at Abergavenny, in the same session as Gloucester and Hereford, and was duly sentenced to im prisonm ent and loss o f his liberty o f E w yas L acy. Follow ing the pattern o f the other cases, he in fact paid a fine, o f £500, and his liberty was restored, possibly in return for services he perform ed in G ascony. A catalogue o f further cases includes royal intervention in a private w ar in 1293 between the earl o f A rundel and Fulk FitzW arin , the royal seizure o f the lordship o f Elfael from R alph de T on y, and o f the hundred o f Purslow from A rundel. Y s tlw y f was recovered from W illiam de V alen ce, and incorporated into the county o f C arm arthen. T h e grant o f a fifteenth, to which the M archers gave grudging consent during 1292 and 1293, led to a further extension o f royal authority into the W elsh border lands.47 E d w ard ’s dealings with the M archers were very different from the

44 45 46 47

Cotton, 199. i, 45. KB 27/129, m.54. Davies, Lordship and Society in the March o f Wales, 260-1 ; Rot. Pari., i, 81-2; Morris, Welsh Wars, 238-9. Rot. Pari .,

352

EDWARD I

Quo Warranto inquiries. Th ere was no concern with the specific terms o f charters, or argum ents over tenure from time out o f mind. T h e king was not concerned to recover allegedly lost royal rights, and was not deter­ mined to reduce w hat he recognized as the legitim ate jurisdictional rights o f the M archers. H e was quite firm, however, that his preroga­ tive should not be limited: it was argued, in the course o f the case between G loucester and H ereford, that the prerogative m ight override any local privileges and customs. W here possible, Edw ard based his actions on direct refusals by M archer lords to obey royal instructions, for these provided him with clear-cut, and indeed unanswerable, cases. O nce the king had proved his point, he was quite prepared to allow the M archers to continue to exercise their rights, so long as they did not engage in private war, disobey further royal orders, or infringe royal rights. T h e M archers were not challenged as a group, and as E d w ard ’s actions did not threaten their collective position, he did not face united opposition from them in these years.48 His actions were to be rem em ­ bered, however, in 1297 when he faced his greatest political crisis. In 1291 and 1292, the affair o f the Scottish succession m eant that E dw ard had little time for political matters at home. T h e only English parliam ent held in 1291 took place in Jan u ary at A shridge in Hertfordshire, and in 1292 the only one was in London, again at the start o f the year. In 1293 a lengthy parliam entary session began in the spring at London, m oved to C an terbu ry, and ended in J u ly .49 There was m uch legal business to be done. O n e im portant case was brought against the archbishop o f Y ork. H e had excom m unicated A nthony Bek, bishop o f D urham , because he had perm itted the arrest and im prisonm ent o f two clerks in D urham . Bek was under royal protection at the time, as he was in royal service in Scotland. It was argued on b eh alf o f the king that Bek had acted in his capacity as an earl palatine, not as a bishop, and that the archbishop o f Y ork had, by his action, attem pted ‘to occupy and usurp upon the royal crown and d ign ity’ . As in the case o f the earls o f G loucester and H ereford, great em phasis was placed on the royal prerogative. It was decided that the archbishop should be im prisoned, but before sentence was pronounced, he subm itted to E dw ard, and a fine o f 4,000 marks was agreed.50 L ater in 1293, in N ovem ber, Edw ard was presented with a rare opportunity to acquire substantial estates. He had long had designs upon the lands o f Isabel de Redvers, the m other o f A veline de Forz, but his attem pts to purchase the reversion o f her inheritance in 1276 had 48 Davies, Lordship and Society in the March o f Wales, 262-9, provides a full discussion. 49 For the sessions of parliament at this time, see Handbook o f British Chronology, 549. 50 C C R i288-g6 , 330-4; Rot. P a ri i, 102-5.

B E F O RE THE S TORM,

1289-94

353

been unsuccessful. Th ere were further discussions, but the m atter suddenly becam e urgent when it becam e clear that Isabel was dying. A nthony Bek, accom panied by W alter Langton, hastened to her d eath­ bed, and a charter was rapidly draw n up in which the Isle o f W ight and three manors were promised to Edw ard in return for 6,000 marks. Bek was only ju st in time: the charter was dated 9 Novem ber, and Isabel died in the early hours o f the next m orning. T h e money was duly paid on the next day to her executors, and the king acquired the lands. T h e affair was undoubtedly suspicious: for seventeen years Isabel had not acceded to royal requests, and for her to agree during her last hours, when she can hardly have expected to be able to make use o f the 6,000 marks, was surprising. It is true that her rightful heir, H ugh de Courtenay, was under age, and not particularly closely related to her, but it was expected that he would inherit her lands. Indeed, a contem ­ porary letter reported that the lands had m erely been taken into royal hands until he should come o f age. T h e truth o f w hat had taken place was not w idely known for some time. W hen H ugh achieved his m ajority in 1297, he began a long and fruitless struggle to gain w hat he felt was his rightful inheritance. He was at least to receive from E dw ard 1 1 1 , in 1335, the title o f earl o f D evon which should have been his under Edw ard 1 .51 T h e story is a shabby one, but the king’s own part in it is far from clear. T h e initiative for draw ing up the charter so soon before Isabel’s death is more likely to have come from Bek or Langton than from the king himself, and when C ourtenay cam e to press his claim , Edw ard could hardly have disavow ed their actions. T h e acquisition o f the Isle o f W igh t and the three manors was, it has to be said, o f a piece with other questionable deals by means o f which E dw ard increased his landed endowm ent. Edw ard was never very m uch concerned with affairs in Ireland, but events there developed in these years in a w ay which was potentially em barrassing for the king. In 1290 W illiam de V escy was appointed ju sticiar o f Ireland, and in the same year he inherited, through his mother, the lordship o f K ild are. He had not previously spent m uch time in Ireland, and he appears to have behaved in a high-handed and autocratic m anner when he took up his post there. In particular, he aroused the hostility o f John F itzThom as, baron o f O ffaly and head o f the powerful fam ily grouping o f the G eraldines. In 1293 a feudal summons to muster at K ild are was issued, and it is very likely that de 51 N. Denholm-Young, ‘Edward I and the Sale of the Isle of Wight’, E H R , xliv (1929), 433-8; Powicke, Henry I I I and the Lord Edward, ii, 710-11; McFarlane, Nobility o f Later Medieval England , 257-9. I have largely followed McFarlane’s interpretation. The letter concerning this matter is in SC 1/48, 165. It also reveals that Warin de Lisle claimed the inheritance, and that the council would not hear him until Hugh de Courtenay came of age.

354

EDWARD I

V e scy was planning a cam paign against F itzThom as, but when com ­ plaints about the ju sticia r’s conduct reached the king, Edw ard acted quickly, and the summons was cancelled.52John F itzT h om as’ revenge took a rem arkable form. A ccording to W illiam de V escy, he first com plained to the king and council in England that de V escy had tried to persuade him to enter into a sworn alliance against the king. John denied this, and when pressed produced a written statem ent o f w hat he alleged de V escy had said to him about the king. T h e statem ent was explosive: de V escy had argued that the Irish were the most m iserable people he knew, for if they had anything about them, they would be well able to do w ithout the king. I f they knew w hat de V escy knew, they would realize that E dw ard was the most cow ardly and idle knight in the realm. T h e statem ent went on to detail E d w ard ’s alleged cowardice at K enilw orth, shortly before the battle o f Evesham . W illiam de V e s c y ’s response to this was to offer to prove him self in battle, and F itzThom as also agreed to a trial by com bat. T h e case was adjourned several times, and an inquest into the m atter was ordered by Edw ard. A ll parties were ordered to W estm inster to receivejudgem ent, and on the appointed day in A ugust 1294 W illiam de V escy appeared there in full arm our, claim ing judgem ent in his favour by default in his opponent’s absence. T h e affair was, however, adjourned again. D elays continued, for E dw ard claim ed that other business was too pressing. H e could not let the trial by battle go ahead, lest the result be seen as justifying the slander against him. C onveniently, it was finally settled in parliam ent in 1295, when it was decided that the whole case had been contrary to the law and custom o f the land from the very outset, and both parties were dismissed. It had taken a long time to reach this conclusion: the case must have caused heart-searching among Edw ard’s legal advisers, as to how best to deal with such a troublesom e m atter which brought the kin g’s own reputation into question.53 It had, hardly surprisingly, brought de V e s c y ’s dism issal from the justiciarship o f Ireland in June 1294. As for F itzThom as, he was involved in another feud, this time with the earl o f U lster whom he imprisoned for a time, finally surrendering him self to the king’s will in A ugust 1295. Edw ard did not break his power, however, but in time he m anaged to curb the aggressive instincts o f this powerful A nglo-N orm an m agnate.54 It is to E d w ard ’s credit that he did not autom atically take the side o f his nominee, W illiam de V escy, and that he understood the im portant role that men such as F itzThom as had to play in Ireland. *

*

*

52 C D I i2 g g -ijo i, nos 62-4; Otway-Ruthven, History o f Medieval Ireland, 205, 20911.

53 Rot. Pari., i, 127-8, 132-4; C D I i 2 g j - i j o i , no. 147. See also above, 50. 54 Otway-Ruthven, History o f Medieval Ireland, 211.

B E F O R E THE STORM, 1 2 8 9 - 9 4

355

Im portant changes in the personnel surrounding the king took place in the early 1290s. Eleanor o f C astile died in 1290, and the king’s mother, Eleanor o f Provence, ended her days in the next year. Both wom en had a strong influence on E dw ard, though that o f his m other had declined in her last years. Th ere was a m arked change in the corps o f household knights, as a new generation began to take the place o f those who had served Edw ard through the W elsh wars o f the 1270s and 1280s.55 T h e appointm ent o f W alter Langton as keeper o f the w ardrobe in 1290, and o f John D roxford as his controller, m arked the advent to high office o f two o f the dom inant adm inistrators o f E d w ard ’s later years. O utside the household, there were m ajor changes. K irk b y ’s death in 1290, and his replacem ent by W illiam M arch , has already been discussed. T h e death o f Robert Burnell, in O ctob er 1292, removed from the scene the most im portant o f all E d w ard ’s advisers in the first h alf o f the reign. John Langton, who replaced him in the chancery, was not a man who began to approach Burnell in pow er and influence. Further, the dism is­ sal o f so m any o f the justices transform ed the senior personnel o f the courts, and o f the king’s council. G ilbert de Thornton and the m an who succeeded him as ch ief justice o f the K in g ’s Bench, Roger Brabazon, arguably lacked the com m itm ent to reform that R alph H engham had possessed. T h is pattern o f change in personnel was not universal. T h e only change am ong the earls was the addition to their num ber o f Richard F itzA lan, whose claim to the earldom o f A rundel was recog­ nized by Edw ard early in 1291. H e did not, however, witness any royal charters until 1296, and was never a man on whom E dw ard relied to any great extent.56 T h e continued presence o f such men as H enry de L acy, earl o f Lincoln, in E d w ard ’s circle was not sufficient to m aintain continuity o f policy with that o f the 1270s and 1280s, given the changes in the ranks o f the king’s officials. C hanged international circum stances, in addition, m eant that E dw ard’s governm ent o f his country was to be very different in the 1290s. There was some concern in 1293 at the deteriorating relationship with France, and that concern was soon to turn to alarm . Instead o f Edw ard being able to play the role o f the peace-m aker in Europe, and the leader o f a future crusade, the English king found him self facing the prospect o f fighting Philip I V o f France in defence o f G ascony. W elsh rebellion in 1294, and Scottish hostility to E dw ard in 1296, m eant that the governm ent had to direct most o f its energies towards w ar and its organization. T h e king’s achievem ent in giving his realm stability and unity was perhaps not to be a lasting one.

55 Above, 150. 56 Complete Peerage, i; C53/82.

C h ap ter 14

THE GREAT CAUSE, 1291-2

A ccording to the annals o f W averley A b bey, Edw ard I gathered his m agnates and councillors together in 1291, and announced that he intended to bring Scotland under his control, ju st as he had subjugated W ale s.1 W ith hindsight, this sounds very plausible. It suggests that from the outset o f his involvem ent in Scottish affairs, the king had a consistent policy aim ed at extending his rule over all o f Britain. By 1296, the chronicler Langtoft was able to com pare E dw ard favourably with K in g A rthu r for his achievem ent in creating one realm out o f two kingdoms. Y e t in discussing the events o f 1291 and 1292, Langtoft had suggested that at that stage all Edw ard had wished to do was to establish who had the proper right to rule as king in Scotland, and that he had sim ply exercised his rights as feudal lord o f Scotland so that a tricky succession dispute m ight be resolved.2 M ore recent com m enta­ tors have also produced very varied verdicts on E d w ard ’s actions. For Sir M aurice Powicke, E dw ard was a man who ‘respected w ithout question the customs and institutions o f Scotland’ , while at the same time being determ ined ‘to m aintain order and ju stice ’ . In contrast, G .W .S . Barrow has suggested that E dw ard took undue advantage o f the Scots when they had no leader, extracting such recognition o f his authority as he could, and im posing ‘his own prejudiced and highly questionable view o f the relationship between the English and Scottish crow ns’ .3 T h ere was nothing in the relations between Scotland and England in the first h a lf o f E d w ard ’s reign that presaged the conflicts that were to dom inate the second half. A lexand er I I I , king o f Scots, had m arried E d w ard ’s sister M argaret in 1251, and although she died in 1275, letters from both A lexand er and his elder son and daughter testify to a 1 Ann. Waverley, 409. As the chronicle breaks off, with the final pages being lost, it is not clear how much hindsight the author had. Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 603, no. 1, discounts this passage as being ‘casual and isolated’. 2 Langtoft, ii, 192, 264-6. 3 Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 610; G.W.S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community o f the Realm o f Scotland (1965), 44, 70. There has, of course, always been a difference between English and Scottish writers.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

I29I-2

357

continued fam ily affection towards the English king.4 T h e issue o f homage, which proved so divisive in the case o f W ales, does not appear to have been raised by E dw ard when A lexander cam e south in 1274 for the English coronation. T h e m atter was brought up in 1278, and A lexander clearly had considerable reservations: his dem and for a most impressive escort, to consist o f the archbishops o f C an terbu ry and Y ork, and the earls o f G loucester, W arenne and Lincoln, shows that he did not expect to be treated by his brother-in-law as an ordinary feudal tenant-in-chief. T h e problem s were smoothed over, however, and in the autum n parliam ent o f 1278 A lexander did hom age to E dw ard. It is clear, even though the English and Scottish texts are not in full agree­ ment, that this was for the lands that A lexander held in England. T h e Scottish king was not prepared to concede that his realm was held as a fief from E dw ard, and although the English reserved their position, the m atter was not pressed.5 E dw ard did not adopt an aggressive attitude towards A lexander. W hen, for exam ple, A lexan d er’s liberties in C um berland were taken into the king’s hands in the course o f Quo Warranto inquiries in the late 1270s, E dw ard firm ly ordered them to be restored. A lexan d er’s attitude towards E dw ard was a friendly one, as is shown by a letter he sent, along with a present o f four gerfalcons, inquiring after the English king’s health.6 In addition to the links between the English and Scottish royal families, there were also im portant connections between E ngland and Scotland am ong m agnates. M an y families o f N orm an and French origins had m ajor landed interests on both sides o f the A nglo-Scottish border. Roger de Q u in cy, earl o f W inchester, had rem arkably w ide­ spread estates in the m id-thirteenth century in both E ngland and Scotland. T h e U m fraville fam ily was another whose concerns were shared between both countries. O f great significance for the events w hich were to unfold in the 1290s was the case o f the Balliols, w ho had a strong power-base at B arnard castle in C oun ty D urham , as well as other English estates, and w ho also acquired m uch land in G a llo w a y.7 T h e Bruce fam ily, too, possessed lands in England. Robert Bruce, earl o f C arrick, father o f the future king, was lent m oney by Edw ard I, served him in W ales, and was appointed constable o f C arlisle castle, 4 Anglo-Scottish Relations, ed. Stones, xxiv, 42-3; C D S , ii, nos 185, 204, 253. There was also a great deal of correspondence of a more official character: see, for example, the letters in SC 1/20, nos 142-68. 5 Anglo-Scottish Relations, ed. Stones, 38-41; C D S , ii, no. 120. 6 C D S , ii, nos 146, 253. 7 G.G. Simpson, ‘The Familia of Roger de Quincy, earl of Winchester and Constable of Scotland’, Essays on the Nobility o f Medieval Scotland, ed. K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), 103; G. Stell, ‘The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-2’, ibid., I5I-7-

358

EDWARD I

and sheriff o f C u m berlan d .8 M an y other Scottish nobles had interests in E ngland, and these cross-border links, it appears, tended to promote harm ony between the realms. T h e situation that had existed for m uch o f the thirteenth century was transform ed by the extraordinary succession o f tragedies w hich over­ took the Scottish royal house. A lexander I I I had two sons. T h e younger, D avid, died in 1281, and the elder, A lexander, in 1284. A letter from the king o f Scots to E dw ard thanked him for his sym pathy over the death o f his heir: he could not have known that E d w ard ’s alm onry account reveals that only is 5d was spent by the king on offerings for the young A lexan d er’s soul, and that the queen and her ladies gave only 2s.9 K in g A lexan d er’s daughter, M argaret, died in 1283, but she had m arried Eric, king o f N orw ay, and left a daughter, also called M argaret. She thus becam e the sole heiress to the Scottish kingdom. It was obviously prudent in these circumstances for Alexander to rem arry, and this he did in O ctob er 1285. Hopes that the new queen, Y olan d e o f D reux, a French noblewom an, would produce a new male heir were in vain. In M arch 1286 A lexander rode out from Edinburgh in ferocious weather, to rejoin his queen whom he had left at K inghorn in Fife. H e crossed the Forth successfully, and then insisted on riding on through the night. H e was found dead on the seashore the next m orning, killed in a fall from his h orse.10 A lexan d er’s death left M argaret o f N orw ay as the heir to the king­ dom , once it becam e clear that Q ueen Y olan d e was not pregnant. M argaret was only seven when she left N orw ay for Scotland in 1290: she fell ill on the voyage, and died in O rk n e y .11 T h e dynastic situation that resulted from her death was com plex. Th ere was no obvious heir, and no less than thirteen claim ants to the throne were to appear. Some, such as N icholas de Soules, W illiam de Ros and W illiam de V escy, claim ed through illegitim ate lines o f descent from A lexander I I , who had died in 1249. M uch more powerful were the claim s through descent from H enry, earl o f N orthum berland, who had died in 1152. H e was the son o f D avid I o f Scots, and father o f both M alcolm I V and W illiam the Lion, but it was through his youngest son, D avid, earl o f H untingdon, that the claim s o f John B alliol, Robert Bruce and John H astings were derived, all through daughters o f the earl. A s the principle o f prim ogen­ iture did not apply in feudal law to daughters, all three had justifiable claims. In addition, there were claim s put forward by Florence, count o f H olland, and Robert de Pinkeney, based on their descent from 8 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 32-3; C D S , ii, nos 200, 236-7; above, 196. 9 C D S , ii, no. 250; Taylor, ‘Royal Alms and Oblations’, 114. 10 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 3-4, 19-20; Chron. Lanercost, 116-17. " See below, 362.

THE GR E A T CAUSE,

I2g i -2

359

daughters o f H enry, earl o f N orthum berland. O ne claim , that o f John C om yn, went back even further, to the younger son o f K in g D uncan, D onald Ban, who had died in 1099. T h e king o f N orw ay also put in a claim , as M a rg a ret’s father. Despite the num ber o f claim ants, however, it was clear that the central issue was in practice between John Balliol and Robert B ru ce .12 Edward I showed no immediate desire to become involved in Scottish affairs when he heard the news o f A lexander 1 1 1 ’s death in 1286. T w o Scottish friars were sent to him on b eh alf o f those present at the late king’s funeral, but no English em bassy was sent to Scotland. T h ere was no English participation in the process by which six G uardians were chosen - two bishops, two earls, and two barons - to govern the kingdom .13 Edw ard was not to be diverted from his expedition to G ascony, and it was on his journey through France that two Scottish embassies found him in the spring and sum m er o f 1286. T h e bishop o f St Andrew s was the first to reach him; the bishop o f Brechin with other envoys caught up with him in G ascony. L ater tradition has it that the Scots were seeking E d w ard ’s advice and protection, and it has even been suggested that he m ay have replied that he would only provide assistance if his rights o f lordship over Scotland were recogn ized.14 Such an attitude would certainly have been consistent with his later policy, but the only clue to the nature o f the negotiations in the English records is an order issued in m id-Septem ber delaying legal proceedings in the M arch between England and S co tlan d .15 T here was no haste shown by E d w ard ’s subjects to take advantage o f the problems facing the Scots. T h e earl o f U lster and T hom as de C lare did make an agreem ent with an im portant group o f Scottish nobles, including Jam es, steward o f Scotland, the earls o f M enteith and D unbar, Robert Bruce o f A nnandale and his son, the earl o f C arrick, in Septem ber 1286. T h e docum ent is a puzzling one. Some historians have seen it as evidence o f some Irish project by the Scots, but it could also represent an unsuccessful attem pt by the Bruces and their suppor­ ters to gain allies in case civil w ar broke o u t.16 T h ere was a brief Bruce

12 The various claims to the Scottish throne are very conveniently summarized in Edward I and the Throne o f Scotland i2go-i2g6. An Edition o f the Record Sources fo r the Great Cause, ed. E.L.G. Stones and G.G. Simpson (Oxford, 1978), i, 13-21. My debt to this important work, elsewhere in this book referred to as Great Cause, is very considerable

indeed. 13 Documents illustrative o f the History o f Scotland, ed. J. Stevenson (1870), i, 4-5. 14 A.A.M. Duncan, ‘The Community of the Realm of Scotland and Robert Bruce’, SH R , xlv (1966), 189. 15 Documents, ed. Stevenson, i, 21-2. 16 Ibid., i, 22-3. For comment on this text, Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 597-8; Barrow, Robert Bruce, 25-6; Duncan, ‘Community of the Realm of Scotland’, 188.

360

EDWARD I

rising in south-western Scotland, probably in the w inter o f 1286-7, but it achieved little.17 B y then, it was clear that Y olan d e was not pregnant. Th ere was no doubt that the heiress was M argaret o f N orw ay, and this presented a new avenue by w hich E dw ard could gain effective control o f Scotland, if that was his intention. M argaret, born in 1283, had been accepted as the rightful heir to the throne in 1284, so there was no problem about her right, even though a wom an had never ruled as queen o f Scots. In view o f her age, however, her father, Eric o f N orw ay, was reluctant to see her leave N orw ay for an uncertain future in Scotland. T h e obvious solution was to arrange for her m arriage, and a plan duly em erged for M argaret to be wed to E dw ard o f Caernarfon, E dw ard Ts heir. It is, unfortunately, far from clear who conceived this schem e.18 Edw ard was certainly active in prom oting it, for he sent an em issary to N orw ay in A p ril 1290, and one o f the aims o f O tto de G rand son’s em bassy to Rom e w hich set out in the next m onth was to obtain papal dispensation for the m arriage.19 T h e original initiative, however, could well have come from the G uardians o f Scotland, or even from the N orw egian king. From the G u ard ian s’ point o f view , the m arriage would give E dw ard I a direct interest in preserving the peace in Scotland, and it would rem ove one reason for K in g E ric’s reluctance to send M argaret to Scotland. From the latter’s standpoint, a m arriage alliance with the English was plainly desirable. N egotiations between the English, Scots and N orw egians took place at Salisbury early in 1289. It was agreed that M argaret should come to Scotland, or E ngland, by 1 N ovem ber 1290. Assurances were given that she would not be m arried w ithout E d w ard ’s consent, and that o f the king o f N orw ay. T h e Scots agreed that she was the true heiress, and conceded that unsuitable G uardians or officials m ight be rem oved from office, with the consent o f English and N orw egian envoys. Should the Scots and the N orw egians differ, the English m ight settle matters. T h e agreem ent was ratified by the Scots, at B irgham , on 14 M arch 1290.20 It is possible that E dw ard was not being entirely open in his dealings, for a curious entry on the C lose Rolls noted that certain docum ents concerning N orw ay were sealed in secret, in February 1290, at Robert 17 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 25; Formulary E , Scottish Letters and Brieves 1286-1424, ed. A.A.M. Duncan (University of Glasgow, Scottish History Department, Occasional Papers, 1976), 41, provides evidence that a feudal summons may have been issued to recruit troops to deal with this rising. 18 G.W.S. Barrow, Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000-1306 (1981), 159, implies that Edward I was responsible, but the same historian in his Robert Bruce, 38-9, suggests that it was the Guardians who took the initiative. 19 C D S, ii, no. 368; Documents, ed. Stevenson, i, 134. 20 Ibid., i, 105—11, 129-31. The modern‘Birgham’ is often given a s‘Brigham’ in the records.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

1291-2

361

B urnell’s house in London, and were then enrolled in the w ardrobe, rather than the ch an cery.21 In M a y an English em bassy set out to fetch M argaret, the M aid o f N orw ay. E laborate preparations were m ade, with the ship m ade ready at Y arm outh , lavishly provisioned with wine, beer, salt m eat and fish, and a stock o f luxuries to tem pt the young heiress, such as sugar, spices, alm onds, figs and raisins. T h ere was even an organ for her am usem ent, and banners and pennons so that the vessel could be decked out in splendour.22 U nfortunately, not all the diplom atic problem s had been overcom e, and the envoys returned in June em pty-handed. Further negotiations were needed, and on 18 J u ly the T rea ty o f Birgham was agreed between the English and the Scots. It was con­ firmed by E dw ard at N ortham pton at the end o f the following month. Th is dealt with the arrangem ents to be m ade once the young Edw ard had m arried M argaret. Scotland w ould rem ain ‘separate, free in itself w ithout any subjection to E ngland, and divided by its proper frontiers and m arches as in the p ast’ . T h e Scottish adm inistration w as to be kept quite separate from the English, and the relics and m unim ents o f the Scottish kingdom were to be kept under seal in Scotland until M argaret had come there, and had given birth to an heir.23 T h ese guarantees on Scottish independence show that the G uardians were extrem ely cau ­ tious in their dealings with E dw ard I. T h e English king, however, was not pressing hard any claim s to his feudal rights over Scotland at this stage. A letter prepared for use by A nthony Bek in the negotiations, which was not apparently needed, om itted a phrase dem anded by the Scots, which stressed that Scotland should not be subject to England. T h e phrase, however, was duly included in the final treaty. E dw ard, hardly surprisingly, resisted a Scottish request that no work o f fortifica­ tion should take place in the M arch on the English side, and he ensured that his rights in the M arch were not prejudiced.24 A t this stage the issue o f any possible claim s to overlordship o f Scotland by Edw ard was not, perhaps, very significant, for if the crown were to be linked by m arriage, then the English w ould not need any other justification for intervention in Scottish affairs. A lthough E dw ard did not press any theoretical claim s to his over­ lordship o f Scotland in the sum m er o f 1290, his actions showed no respect for Scottish traditions o f independence. O n 4 June he appointed

21 C C R 1288-96, 149. 22 Documents, ed. Stevenson, i, 149, 186-92; C D S, ii, no. 464; C 47/4/5, ff.9v-io. As the ship made two voyages to Norway, it is not clear what supplies were provided on each occasion. 23 Documents, ed. Stevenson, i, 162-73. 24 Documents, ed. Stevenson, i, 160, 167.

362

EDWARD I

W alter de H untercom be to the custody o f the Isle o f M an, claim ing that the earl o f U lster had surrendered it to him, and ignoring the strong Scottish claim to the island. H e then gave authority, on 20 June, to A nth ony Bek, bishop o f D urham , to adm it the w arring inhabitants o f the W estern Isles to his peace. H ow ever justified this was by conditions there, it was a surprising intervention in the affairs o f another realm. Th en, on 28 Ju ly, the very day that he confirm ed the treaty o f Birgham , Edw ard nom inated Bek to act on b eh alf o f Edw ard o f Caernarfon and the young queen M argaret in Scotland, ‘to adm inister ju stice and set that realm in order’ . Bek w as to act in conjunction with the Scottish G uardians, and E dw ard asked them to be obedient to him .25 T h e evidence does not suggest that Scotland was in so serious a state as E dw ard im plied, and B ek’s appointm ent was a rem arkable step to take before M argaret had even come to Scotland. W hatever his motives were, it is plain that Edw ard had decided that he should exercise power in Scotland. T h e situation was transformed in the autumn o f 1290, with M argaret’s death in O rkney, w here her ship put in on its w ay from N orw ay.26 T h e thread on which the future security o f Scotland depended had snapped. Bishop Fraser o f St A ndrew s w rote to Edw ard I on 7 O ctober, reporting the rum our o f M a rg a re t’s death, which he still hoped m ight prove to be false. H e feared that civil w ar m ight break out, for Robert Bruce the elder had come to Perth, w here the m agnates had assem bled to w ait for M argaret, with a considerable following and uncertain intentions. T h e bishop asked E dw ard to come north to the Scottish border, so that, if M argaret had died, he m ight prevent trouble, and place the rightful claim ant on the throne. H e added, tactfully, ‘as long as he is ready to accept your counsel’ . Bishop Fraser did not explicitly state w ho the heir should be, but he im plied that his candi­ date was John Balliol. I f B alliol cam e to see E dw ard, then he should be treated, said the bishop, in such a w ay that the English king’s own honour and position should not be prejudiced.27 It is likely that E dw ard also received approaches from a different faction in Scotland. A n undated docum ent, known as the A ppeals o f the Seven Earls, asked for his help against Bishop Fraser and John C om yn, both o f w hom were G uardians. It claim ed that the Seven Earls o f Scotland had the right to m ake the king, and to place him on the throne,

25 Ibid., i, 156-7, 161-2; C P R 128 1-92 , 386; Barrow, Robert Bruce, 41-2. 26 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 42; Foedera, I, ii, 741. 27 Great Cause, i, 5-6; ii, 3-4. There are considerable problems in translating the terms used by Bishop Fraser. The phrase regarding Edward’s position should Balliol come to him is that honor vester et commodum should be preserved. The rightful claimant should be enthroned dum tamen ille vestro consilio voluerit adherere.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

I2 g i-2

363

and com plaints were m ade against subordinates o f the G uardians who had been ravaging M o ra y .28 John B alliol, m eanwhile, was describing him self as heir to the Scottish kingdom . His promise to A nthony Bek o f land worth 500 marks a year in Scotland shows a ready awareness o f the im portance that the English were bound to have in the settlem ent o f the succession.29 E dw ard probably intended to go north in the autum n o f 1290, but the death o f his queen, Eleanor, on 28 N ovem ber put an end to any such plans. He spent C hristm as at the religious house at Ashridge, founded by his cousin Edm und o f C orn w all, and it was perhaps at the parliam ent held there in Jan u ary that he began to consider the Scottish question again. A nthony Bek, possibly with others, was sent to Scotland, and attem pts were alm ost certainly made to persuade the Scots to subm it the question o f the succession to E dw ard.30 Edw ard and his advisers decided that the dispute over the Scottish throne should be resolved by the English king acting as feudal overlord o f Scotland. Invitations from the Scots to E dw ard to arbitrate as an influential outsider, if such were received, which is uncertain, were not acceptable to him. O n 8 M arch 1291 the abbot o f Evesham , and probably some thirty other heads o f m onastic houses, were asked to provide inform ation from chronicles ‘touching in any w ay our realm and the rule o f Scotland’ . Presum ably some research had been under­ taken in the royal archives, with insufficient results. In most cases, the replies from the monasteries were also unhelpful, but in a few instances, such as that o f Tew kesbury, useful m aterial was found. Some monks were asked to bring their chronicles to N orham , where E dw ard was to meet the Scots.31 T h is was a rem arkable procedure. A lthough appeals to past history were comm on in the m iddle ages, this was the first time that the king had tried to use the accum ulated knowledge o f the monasteries. T here is a striking contrast with the methods used by Edw ard in his dealings with the French m onarchy. In that case, argum ent could largely proceed from the T reaty o f Paris o f 1259, so there was not the same degree o f uncertainty about the central facts o f the relationship between the two countries that existed with regard to A nglo-Scottish affairs. Further, E dw ard used trained law yers, men such as Bonet de St Q uentin, in his dealings with the French, and the argum ents accordingly reached a high level o f legal sophistication. As far as the Scots were concerned, A nthony Bek was particularly 28 Anglo-Scottish Relations, ed. Stones, 44-50. For other possibly related documents, see Great Cause, ii, 185-7. 29 Documents, ed. Stevenson, i, 203-4. 30 Great Cause, i, 7. 31 Ibid., i, 137-48, for a full discussion.

364

EDWARD I

influential in advising Edw ard: one usually well-inform ed chronicler said that the appeal to the m onastic chronicles was his idea.32 T h e hearings which were to determ ine the issue o f the Scottish succession began at N orham , w here English and Scottish m agnates had gathered, on i o M a y 1291. A rem arkably full record o f the proceed­ ings was draw n up on b eh alf o f Edw ard I by a notary, John o f C aen, and another version m ade, in Edw ard I I ’s reign, by A ndrew T a n g e .33 It was not usual for court or parliam entary proceedings to be recorded by public notaries, but it must have been felt that on so sensitive a question as the succession to the Scottish throne, it was essential that the author o f the record should have a standing and a reliability that ordinary royal clerks did not possess. A notary’s reputation depended on his accuracy. Y e t there are problem s. T h e record was not produced absolutely contem poraneously: the earliest reference to it dates from 31 M a y 1297. John was an em ployee o f the English king, and in 1303 he was prepared to make a very significant em endation to his roll, ‘in the most significant part o f the w hole process’ .34 C areful selection by John o f C aen o f w hat to include could bias the record in E d w ard ’s interest, and unfortunately there is no equivalent Scottish source which can be set against his roll. N or could such an official record be expected to reveal the com plex undercurrents o f political dealing that undoubtedly existed, but are often no more than hinted at by scraps o f evidence. T h e first stage o f the hearings was dom inated by argum ents over E d w ard ’s rights ofjurisdiction. A t N orham , on 10 M ay 1291, the ch ief ju stice o f the K in g ’s Bench, Roger B rabazon, asked the Scots to recog­ nize E d w ard ’s overlordship, so that he m ight do justice, and bring peace. It is likely, though the English sources do not reveal this, that R obert W ishart, bishop o f G lasgow , protested firm ly that Scotland was not under feudal subjection to E n glan d .35 A n adjournm ent was re­ quired so that the Scots could consider the English dem ands, and the proceedings reopened on 2 June. It was probably then that the Scots presented a careful w ritten statem ent, pointing out that in the absence o f a king o f Scots, they were not em powered to give an answer to E d w ard ’s claim . O n ly a king could deal with such a m atter.36 O ne view is that E dw ard rejected this argum ent ‘out o f h an d’ , but the procedure that he adopted suggests that he and his advisers took the logical view,

32 Langtoft, ii, 190; above, 314-15; below, 376. 33 John of Caen’s roll, and Andrew Tange’s, are discussed in Great Cause, i, 40-52. 34 Ibid., i, 50. 35 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 48; P.A. Linehan, ‘A Fourteenth Century History of AngloScottish Relations in a Spanish Manuscript, B IH R , xlviii (1975), 120. 36 Great Cause, ii, 30-1; Anglo-Scottish Relations, ed. Stones, 53-4.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

I 2Q I - 2

36 5

hinted at in the Scots’ reply, that if there was no king, then the best step would be to obtain the necessary recognition o f his overlordship and jurisdiction from the candidates for kingship.37 John o f C a e n ’s record set out in considerable detail, with m uch repetition, two speeches m ade by the chancellor, Robert Burnell, and one by E dw ard himself, m ade on 2 and 3 June. E d w ard ’s speech was originally given in French, though for the record it was translated into Latin. It is by far the longest he is known to have m ade, but as given by John o f C aen, it has an im plausibly literary flavour and too close a resem blance to B urnell’s speeches to be regarded as authentic.38 T h e solution to the im passe that the Scots had placed E dw ard in was for the various com petitors to acknow ledge the English king’s right to lordship and jurisdiction. T h e y conceded that he m ight take the realm o f Scotland into his hands, with the proviso that he agreed to grant it to the successful claim ant. A n ingenious fiction got round the problem that the com petitors themselves did not have seisin o f Scotland, and the initial refusal o f the keepers o f the royal castles in Scotland to hand them over to the English. T h e castles were handed over to Edw ard in his capacity as a com petitor (he had reserved his own right to claim the throne), and to the other candidates for the throne. T h e latter then entrusted the castles to E dw ard in his role as feudal overlord o f Scotland, a position w hich they, though not the Scots as a whole, were prepared to concede he h eld.39 Th ere have, inevitably, been doubts cast upon the propriety o f E d w ard ’s actions in obtaining recognition o f his overlordship, and seisin o f Scotland, from the com petitors, when this had been refused by the G uardians and the assem bled Scottish m agnates. Pope Boniface V 111 in 1299, echoing argum ents put to him by the Scots, im plied that E dw ard had used im proper force, and the charge was m ade explicit by 1321.40 C ertainly, on 16 A pril, Edw ard had asked sixty-seven northern m agnates to attend at N orham , with their feudal quotas o f arm ed men. T h ere was also a small force o f crossbowm en and archers present from 2 Ju ne until 6 A ugust, and an English fleet lurking off H oly Island. Y et such a force was hardly sufficient for purposes o f conquest, and was perhaps recruited to provide the king with a substantial form al retinue, 37 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 47; Duncan, ‘The Community of the Realm of Scotland’, 191. I follow Duncan’s interpretation here. It should be noted that the reply by the Scots to Edward was not included in the English record of the proceedings, though it was, it seems, inserted by Edward’s clerks into the Exchequer register called Liber A\ Great Cause, i, 116. 38 Great Cause, ii, 32-41, 46-65. 39 Ibid., ii, 68, 100, 112-13; Barrow, Robert Bruce, 50-1; Duncan, ‘The Community of the Realm of Scotland’, 192. 40 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 70, 85-6.

36 6

EDWARD I

or sim ply to assist in the preservation o f public order.41 E d w ard ’s rejection o f the Scots’ refusal to acknow ledge his overlordship has been described as ‘the first thoroughly discreditable action in his dealings with the Scottish nation’ .42 Y e t, from the English point o f view , if the succession to the Scottish throne was to be resolved w ithout bloodshed, it was essential that Edw ard should hear the case, and it was im possible for him to act unless those concerned recognized his right o f ju risd ic­ tion. Sim ply to have acted as an arbitrator w ould have m eant E dw ard neglecting w hat he regarded as his right o f feudal overlordship. It is plain that he was determ ined to use the opportunity presented by the disputed succession to establish that overlordship, as the elaborate arrangem ents that were m ade for him to receive fealty from as m any Scots as possible in J u ly and A ugu st 1291 show. O verlordship for Edw ard was not a mere legal fiction that would allow him to hear the case, but a right that he was anxious to establish and exercise, by obtaining seisin o f Scotland. O n ce the com petitors had agreed to accept E d w ard ’s jurisdiction, a court was set up, com posed o f 104 auditors. Forty were nom inated by Bruce, forty by Balliol and twenty-four by Edw ard. T h e division be­ tween Bruce and Balliol does not necessarily reflect the fact that they had the strongest claim s, but m ay have been a recognition o f the factional split in Scottish politics at this time. T h e attractive idea that the court was based on the classical Rom an tribunal o f the centumviri is im plausible. E d w ard ’s court did not adopt procedures based on Rom an law, and the main function o f the auditors appears to have been to investigate the various claims put forward, and to answer questions on specific legal points.43 Final judgem ent was to be the work, it appears, o f E dw ard and his council. It was decided to hold the hearings at Berw ick, starting early in A ugu st 1291. T h e y proved to be extraordinarily protracted. T h e first stage took little more than a week, and was largely devoted to the subm ission by the various com petitors o f their petitions. A n adjourn­ m ent until 2 June 1292 followed, when the problem o f deciding w hat

41 Anglo-Scottish Relations, ed. Stones, 84; Pari. Writs, i, 256; Documents, ed. Stevenson, 204-5. The document printed by Stevenson states that the fleet was stationed so as ‘to prevent victuals coming to Scotland’, which suggests an economic blockade, but it goes on to list the substantial quantities of foodstuffs sent to the king on the border, and it seems likely that the entry was garbled by the clerk. The question of this military force is discussed further in Great Cause, i, 175-6. 42 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 47. 43 Great Cause, i, 33, 221; ii, 371-2. The suggestion that the court was based on the centumviri was made by G. Neilson, ‘Bruce versus Balliol’, S H R , xvi (1919), 1-14. Rishanger, 238, states that the auditors were selected ‘ad jus dictorum petentium difliniendum’.

THE G R E A T C AUS E,

I2g i -2

36 7

law should apply to the case dom inated m atters, though it was also decided that the vital issue to be determ ined was that between Bruce and Balliol. A nother adjournm ent followed, and the case was finally concluded in a session w hich began in m id-O ctober 1292, and ended when final judgem ent was given on 17 N ovem ber.44 T h ere can be no doubt that the decision in favour o f John Balliol was a fair one: he had the best claim by the principles o f prim ogeniture. H e was the closest hereditary heir to the late queen, M argaret, and to her grandfather, A lexander I I I . W hat has to be decided, however, is w hether Edw ard reached the decision in favour o f Balliol in the right w ay, or w hether he was throughout attem pting to m anipulate the legal process in his own interests, delaying matters so that Scotland would remain for as long as possible in his hands, and ensuring that the new king would start his reign at a considerable disadvantage. T h e long adjournm ent between A ugust 1291 and June 1292 was intended, according to the record, to give time for one o f the claim ants, Florence, count o f H olland, to find a docum ent vital to his case. This allegedly showed that D avid, earl o f H untingdon, had surrendered his rights, and those o f his descendants, to the Scottish throne. I f this was so, then the claim s o f John B alliol, Robert Bruce and John H astings would all fail. It was obviously right that this question should be resolved at an early stage o f the hearings, but it is odd that so long was allowed for the adjournm ent. T h e count was not able, even so, to produce the docum ent in court, and claim ed that it had been removed from the Scottish treasury by the prior o f Pluscardine, who still retained it. Y e t the D utch national archives contain two copies o f the deed in question, both dated in N ovem ber 1291, one o f them authenticated by the prior himself. T h e count’s attorney appears to have had a good knowledge o f the text. It is certainly a forgery, but it is not clear who was responsible for it, or w hy Florence was unable to produce it in court.45 Florence’s claim may seem rather frivolous, but it did have important im plications. These were, G .W .S . Barrow has persuasively argued, well appreciated by Robert Bruce, who saw in it the best means o f defeating the Balliol claim. C ount Florence and Robert Bruce m ade a rem arkable agreem ent, on 14 Ju ne 1292, which provided for each to help the other. I f either were successful, then he would com pensate the other. O f course if Florence’s argum ent was successful against Balliol, it would also invalidate B ru ce’s hereditary claim , but Bruce m ight still succeed, on the grounds that he had been designated as future king by 44 The chronology of the hearings is conveniently set out in Great Cause, i, 236-85. 45 G.G. Simpson, ‘The Claim of Florence Count of Holland to the Scottish Throne, 1291-2’, SH R , xxxvi (1957), 111-23; Great Cause, i, 122-5; ii, 150-1, 325.

368

EDWARD I

A lexander 1 1 , or so he alleged, and that he was the choice o f the Seven Earls. Interestingly, G ilbert de C lare, earl o f G loucester, was am ong the witnesses to the agreem ent. H e had a fam ily connection by m ar­ riage with Bruce, but his appearance in this witness list suggests that Bruce was looking for influential English allies, m uch as Balliol had looked to A nthony Bek for support.46 T h ere was, no doubt, m uch political m anoeuvring, and m any deals struck, during the long adjournm ent. W hen the sessions resum ed in the sum m er o f 1292, a vital question to be decided was that o f w hat system o f law should be em ployed. In his argum ents, Robert Bruce suggested that his claim was the strongest ‘by the natural law , by w hich kings reign’ , and he flattered E dw ard by appealing to him ‘as his sovereign lord and em peror’ . John Balliol argued that for the case to be heard under im perial law would be prejudicial to the rights o f the English crown, and he dem anded the application o f the custom s o f E ngland and Scotland.47 Rom an law favoured a claim by proxim ity (Bruce); the feudal custom o f prim ogeni­ ture favoured a claim by prim ogeniture (Balliol). A further question was w hether the kindom was partible, as an earldom was, in w hich case Scotland could be divided between the claim ants descended from the earl o f H un tin gdon’s daughters. E dw ard acted m eticulously in reaching a decision on these points. Representatives had been sum m oned from O xford and C am b ridge to N orham , evidently to provide legal expertise.48 In the sum m er o f 1292 the king w ent further, and m ade extensive inquiries from legal experts overseas. T h e question put to them assum ed that Scotland was held by hom age from the king o f England, and that it was im partible. T h e issue was whether proximity or primogeniture should be preferred. In general, the surviving replies, from law yers in Paris, suggested that local custom should be followed. A n exam ination o f the problem , however, in the light o f the L om bard Libri Feudorum suggested the elim ination o f all the candidates, w hich would have m eant the kingdom escheating to E dw ard I. R em arkably, T h om as W eylan d, the recently disgraced ch ief justice, proffered his advice. Ignoring the instruction that the kingdom should be regarded as im partible, he suggested its division between Balliol, Bruce and H astings, as this would be to E d w ard ’s greatest advan tage.49 Escheat or partition m ust have been tem pting to E dw ard, and it is to his credit that there are no indications that he considered 46 Ibid., ii, 162-4; Barrow, Robert Bruce, 63-7. 47 Great Cause, ii, 167, 170, 179, 183. 48 Ibid., i, 8; ii, 5. 49 Ibid., ii, 358-65; G.J. Hand, ‘The Opinions of the Paris Lawyers upon the Scottish Succession c. 1292’, The Irish Jurist , n.s. v (1970), 141-55.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

I2g i -2

369

such solutions seriously.50 H e m ay well have considered, o f course, that partition would be a dangerous precedent, as it m ight be applied to England should he die w ithout leaving a m ale heir. T h e final stages o f the case w ent quickly in the autum n o f 1292, with only brief adjournm ents. E d w ard ’s councillors unanim ously agreed, on 3 N ovem ber, that a candidate descended from a younger sister, even if closer in degree to the throne (Bruce), should not be preferred to one descended from the elder sister (Balliol). O n 6 N ovem ber the Scots auditors concurred with this view , and judgem ent was given against Bruce. T h en the dem ands m ade by Bruce and H astings that the kingdom should be divided were considered, and after the Scottish auditors were consulted, the decision was that they had no case. B y then, the rest o f the com petitors had either w ithdraw n, or been told that their claim s were invalid as they had not been properly pursued. T h e final judgem ent, on 17 N ovem ber, accordingly w ent to John B alliol.51 T h ere can be little doubt that this was an entirely proper outcom e to the proceedings. O nce judgem ent was pronounced in favour o f John B alliol, E dw ard did not hesitate to hand the kingdom over to its new ruler. Instructions for Balliol to be given seisin o f Scotland were issued on 19 N ovem ber.52 E arly in the proceedings, on 12 June 1291, E dw ard had form ally promised to m aintain the laws and custom s o f Scotland, and to restore the realm to the rightful claim ant, w ithin two m onths o f judgem ent being given. I f he failed to do so, he would be liable to a penalty o f £100,000 in aid o f the H oly Land. A saving clause preserved E d w ard ’s rights in the M arches, and he m ade it clear that he had the right to receive hom age from the new king, and the rights that w ent with it, and that ‘sovereign lordship’ was his. H e renounced, however, any claim s to exercise rights o f w ardship or m arriage over the rulers o f Scotland.53 N ow that Scotland had a new king, in the form o fjo h n Balliol, E dw ard had the opportunity to establish in practice w hat was entailed in his sovereign lordship, and w hat obligations towards him w ould ensue from the act o f hom age. T h e judgem ent in B allio l’s favour was im m ediately followed, accord­ ing to the insertion m ade in the roll in 1303 by John o f C aen , by a w arning that if he did not govern ju stly, Edw ard w ould have to intervene.54 O n the same day that seisin o f Scotland w as granted to Balliol, the seal that had been used by the G uardians in the

50 51 52 53 54

Pollock and Maitland, History o f English Law , ii, 265. Great Cause, i, 127-35; ii> 19S-247. Ibid., ii, 250-1. Ibid., ii, 98-9. Ibid., ii, 248-9; above, 364.

370

EDWARD I

interregnum was broken, and the pieces sent to England, as evidence o f E d w ard ’s rights over Scotland.55 W hen Balliol was enthroned at Scone, the cerem ony was performed by A nthony Bek and John de St John. T h e latter was deputizing for the infant earl o f Fife, whose hereditary task this was, but the fact that two English m agnates played such a role em phasized the new subjection o f the Scottish crown to E ngland .56 If there were any doubts about B alliol’s position, they must have been largely resolved on 26 D ecem ber, when the new king did hom age to Edw ard I in unam biguous terms, w hich recognized the English king’s sovereign lordship, and acknow ledged that hom age was owed in respect o f the whole realm o f Scotland.57 E dw ard did not live in an age when a man could be content with a mere recognition o f his authority: he had to exercise his rights in order to establish them. T h e first issue arose so quickly that some have suspected that it m ay have been engineered by the English. O n 7 D ecem ber 1292 a B erw ick burgess, Roger Bartholom ew , appealed to E dw ard against three judgem ents delivered in the court o f the G uardians. It was decided, very properly, that Scottish law should be followed, but the appeals were heard by E dw ard and his council, sitting at N ew castle-upon-Tyne. In one o f the three cases, the previous ju d g e ­ ment against Roger was overthrow n, in a ruling m ade on 22 D ecem ber.58 Five days later the Scots protested that E dw ard had not kept his promise, m ade in the T rea ty o f N ortham pton, that Scottish cases w ould not be heard outside Scotland. In reply, Roger Brabazon argued that E dw ard was keeping his promise not to delay in doing ju stice in Scottish cases, that he had a right to hear m atters concerning officials w ho had acted under his authority as overlord during the interregnum , and lastly, and this was the sinister note, that Edw ard was not obliged to keep promises m ade when the throne o f Scotland was vacant, now that there was a king. Four days later the m atter was discussed in a w ell-attended m eeting in the king’s cham ber. E dw ard him self explained in unam biguous terms that he intended to hear any cases brought to him as superior lord o f Scotland, when and where he chose, and that if need be, he would even summon the king o f Scots to appear before him in E ngland .59 This was going well beyond the issues raised by Roger B artholom ew ’s case, which had not been concerned with the relationship o f Balliol with

55 Great Cause, ii, 252-3. 56 Ibid., 259; Guisborough, 239. 57 Great Cause, ii, 260-3. 58 Stevenson, Documents, i, 377-89. Barrow, Robert Bruce, 71-2, argues that this was a deliberately organized test case. 59 Great Cause, ii, 264—8.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

12g i ~2

371

E dw ard I, and must cast some doubt on the view that this was an arranged test case. It could be that R oger’s com plaints were seen by the English as providing a welcom e opportunity for clarifying the legal position. John Balliol was clearly put under considerable pressure by E dw ard at N ew castle, and on 2 J an u ary 1293 he acquitted the English king o f all the promises he had m ade, and annulled the terms o f the T rea ty o f N ortham pton, w hich had provided for the independence and freedom o f Scotland. T h e only promise E dw ard was prepared to renew was his agreem ent that he w ould not dem and w ardship or m arriage from any future heir to the Scottish realm .60 Edw ard had now got w hat he wanted: it rem ained to be seen how he w ould treat John Balliol. It was rarely easy in the m iddle ages for a m agnate to undergo the m etam orphosis into kingship successfully, as the career o f K in g Stephen in the twelfth century showed. John Balliol was certainly not the man to be able to m ake the change effectively, although, o f course, Robert Bruce was to show that it was certainly not im possible. Balliol was the fourth son o f a w ealthy A nglo-Scottish m agnate, w ho had held various official positions in England. John had probably been intended for the church, and does not appear to have had the training in w ar and politics that would have been needed for him to becom e an effective king. His connections were largely with England: his wife was a daughter o f Earl W arenne, and he was a landow ner on a substantial scale in the north o f E ngland.61 Like so m any m agnates, he was in debt to the crown, ow ing £1,223, w hich he was told, in M a y 1293, that he could pay off in instalm ents o f £40 a year.62 It was the question o f appeals to the English king’s court that was the first test o f E d w ard ’s strength, and o fjo h n B alliol’s weakness. Records exist o f nine appellants in all, o f whom two, the abbot o f R eading and the bishop o f D urham , were English, one a G ascon, and the rest Scots. T h e most im portant case was that o f M acduff, younger son o f M alcolm , earl o f Fife. H e claim ed that he had been unjustly deprived o f his inheritance and then im prisoned by John Balliol. T h e Scottish king was sum moned to appear in the English parliam ent to answer the charge, and the procedure to be used in such cases was set out in an ordinance. It was m ade clear that Balliol had to attend in person, and this he did at M ichaelm as 1293. Initial defiance did not last long when he was threatened with forfeiture o f his three most im portant castles and towns. H e acknow ledged E d w ard ’s lordship, and obtained an

60 Ibid., ii, 270-4. 61 G. Stell, ‘The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-2’, Essays on the Nobility o f Medieval Scotland, 150-65. In addition to the evidence cited there, the song quoted by Langtoft, ii, 258, suggests that Balliol had a scholarly education. 62 C D S , ii, no. 671.

372

EDWARD I

adjournm ent in the case, w hich was never concluded.63 Balliol did at least succeed in establishing his rights to the lands that A lexander I I I had held in Scotland, in face o f a renewed claim from John H astings, but Edw ard missed few opportunities o f dem onstrating w hat were the practical im plications o f the superior lordship he claim ed. Edw ard asked, for exam ple, that Balliol should pay £20 to the cham berlain, for the fee due to him on the occasion o f the perform ance o f hom age.64 Th ere are hints, too, that Edw ard was intervening actively in Scottish affairs. He paid the travel and other expenses o f the sheriff o f Fife, and ordered him to hand over some lands in Fife to the bishop o f G lasgow . In 1294 E dw ard granted a weekly m arket at C rail in Fife to Isabella de V e sc y .65 A ll this m ight have been tolerated by the Scots. In the sum m er o f 1294, however, Edw ard took a new step. He sum moned John Balliol and eighteen Scottish m agnates to perform feudal service against the French. E dw ard had dem anded — and received - service from Scots before, during his W elsh wars, but this had been for the lands they held in England. Now , he was using his claim to superior lordship over Scotland to ask for m ilitary aid. John Balliol had been in parliam ent at W estm inster shortly before this summons was issued, and according to G uisborou gh ’s chronicle, he and the Scots with him had promised aid, saying that they would be ready to m uster when given sufficient w arn­ ing, but it seems most unlikely that even Balliol would have been prepared to concede that this w arning should take the form o f a feudal sum m ons.66 T h e W elsh rebellion in the autum n o f 1294 m eant that this feudal m uster never in fact took place, and a m ajor crisis in relations between E ngland and Scotland was tem porarily averted. E d w ard ’s w ar with France, w hich began in 1294, injected a new and dangerous element into A nglo-Scottish relations. N ot only did it pro­ voke Edw ard into m aking unprecedented dem ands on the Scots, but also it gave the Scots a potential ally against the English. Before this time, it would have been foolhardy to try to resist E dw ard. Now , they could seek the assistance o f Philip I V . O ne interpretation o f the im m ediate origins o f the w ar against the Scots, w hich broke out in 1296, has as a central element the political revolution in Scotland o f 1295, when power was taken from Balliol by a council o f twelve, and a treaty o f alliance m ade with the French. T h e ratification o f this treaty in February 1296 was tantam ount to a declaration o f w ar against Edw ard 63 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 78-83; Rot. Pari., i, 112-13; Anglo-Scottish Relations, ed. Stones, 65-7. 64 Rot. Pari , i, 114-16; C C R i288-g6 , 317. 65 C D S, ii, nos 701, 704, 708. 66 Foedera, I, ii, 804; Guisborough, 243.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

I29I-2

373

I, and the Scottish host was accordingly called out. T h e English arm y had already been sum m oned to m uster at N ew castle upon T yn e. T h is is the version o f events ably set out by G .W .S . Barrow . A n alternative view, however, sees the English invasion o f Scotland in 1296 as the culm ination o f legal process. Balliol had refused to come to court to conclude the M a cd u ff case, and had refused to hand over the three castles and towns as security. E dw ard therefore prepared his arm y to take them by force, and the w ar was, therefore, the final stage o f the argum ents over appeals from Scottish courts to E dw ard 1 .67 T h e official version o f events, prepared by English notaries and appended, twenty years later, to the record o f the G reat C ause, was that the M a cd u ff case was continually postponed, because o f E d w ard ’s other preoccupations, until a parliam ent held at B ury St Edm unds after M artinm as 1295. M a cd u ff appeared at this parliam ent, and pressed his case. Balliol did not attend, but sent the abbot o f A rbroath and others, who excused their king, and com plained about the injuries done by the English to the Scots. E dw ard prom ised rem edy according to the law, and announced a further delay in the M a cd u ff case until 1 M arch 1296, when the parties were asked to come to N ew castle-uponT yne. News then reached Edw ard o f the alliance m ade by the Scots with the French. E dw ard dem anded the surrender o f certain border castles, and reminded Balliol that he was to appear at N ew castle. Instead, the Scots invaded England, com m itting ‘notorious atrocities’ : infanticide, cutting off w om en’s breasts, and burning two hundred schoolchildren alive at C orbridge. E d w ard ’s invasion o f Scotland was therefore fully justified. It was only a later version o f the text that laid any stress on the alliance with the French: the first account m ade only one b rief allusion to it. T h is evidence has been, at least in part, discredited, because o f its reference to a M artinm as parliam ent at B ury St Edm unds, but it is likely that there was only a small m easure o f confusion, and that a m eeting at B ury in Jan u ary 1296 was intended.68 C ertainly, the w ar can be seen as the final outcom e o f the legal disputes in w hich E dw ard and Balliol were involved. It would not be right, however, to ignore the Scottish treaty with the French. Edw ard was certainly well aw are o f the possibility o f such an alliance, for the French spy, T hom as T u rberville, advised his masters to send an influential em bassy to Scotland, ‘for if they get there, you will benefit forever’ .69 Edw ard issued orders on 16 O ctob er 1295 f° r the 67 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 87-96; W.C. Dickinson, Scotland from the Earliest Times to 3rd edn, revised by A.A.M. Duncan (Oxford, 1977), 151—2. 68 Great Cause, ii, 284-91. The safe-conduct issued on 23 January 1296 to the abbot and prior of Arbroath, for their return to Scotland, lends some credence to the official record: C P R 1232-1301, 183. 69 Cotton, 305. 1603,

374

EDWARD I

seizure o f all the lands and goods held by Scotsm en in England, and for R oxburgh, Jed bu rgh and B erw ick to be handed over to him. T h is was clearly related to the French situation, for it was expressly stated that the three castles were not to be returned until the w ar w ith France was over.70 T h e M a cd u ff case m eant that E dw ard was able to argue that John Balliol was a contum acious litigant, w ilfully refusing to accept the jurisdiction o f his superior lord, but to see the origins o f the w ar purely in legal terms would not be correct. It was also a part o f the wider m anoeuvrings o f the conflict between E dw ard I and Philip I V o f France. I f Edw ard I had done no more with regard to Scotland than hear and determ ine the succession dispute, his reputation w ould have been high indeed. T h e Scots faced an extraordinary situation after the death o f M argaret, the M aid o f N orw ay, and the best means o f resolving it was undoubtedly the proper hearing o f the various claim s in a court o f law. E d w ard ’s conduct o f the case itself is hard to fault. T h e claim ants were given am ple opportunity to present their argum ents, the question o f w hat law should apply was carefully considered, and the final outcom e, in legal terms, was em inently satisfactory. T h e G reat C ause, however, was only a part o f a w ider story o f a deepening involvem ent in Scottish affairs by Edw ard, and he has been charged with taking ‘advantage o f the leaderless state o f Scotland to extract som ething like the admissions he required’ , and then hum iliating the new king, John B alliol, in a thoroughly merciless fashion.71 T h e question o f how far E d w ard ’s claim s to lordship over Scotland were justified can probably never be properly answered. T h ere were certainly precedents to be found in the twelfth century: an effective English overlordship had existed from 1 1 74 until 1189, and there were five exam ples o f Scottish kings serving in English arm ies, on one occasion in France. T h ere is, however, no clear evidence as to the precise nature o f the feudal relationship in that period between the English and Scottish kings.72 E dw ard I did, therefore, have a case, though not an unansw erable one. D uring A lexander 1 1 1 ’s reign, there was little purpose in pursuing the m atter, and Edw ard had other preoccupations, notably in W ales. W ith A lexan d er’s death, Edw ard had the opportunity o f extending his influence in Scotland by means o f the proposed m arriage o f his son to M argaret o f N orw ay. In order to ensure the success o f that plan, Edw ard was quite prepared to make extensive promises o f independence to the Scots in the treaty o f 70 Rotuli Scotiae (Record Commission, 1814-19), i, 22. 71 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 44. 72 Warren, Henry I I , 177-9.

THE G R E A T CAUSE,

I29I-2

375

Birgham , w hich he confirm ed at N ortham pton. M a rg a ret’s death changed the situation com pletely. It becam e necessary for E dw ard to press his claims to overlordship, firstly so that he could hear the succession dispute, and then so that he could exercise some control over the new king. It is hardly reasonable to expect a ruler, because there was little opposition to him, to abstain from pressing home his case. E dw ard was presented with a splendid opportunity to establish w hat he saw as his rights, and m any o f his own subjects m ight well have felt that he was in dereliction o f his duties had he not done so. Th ere is no doubt that, on B allio l’s accession, E dw ard went back on promises that he had m ade previously. T h e English records o f the hearings o f the G reat C au se carefully om itted the concessions, and did not include the rejection by the Scots o f E d w ard ’s dem and that they acknow ledge his overlordship. B ut that rejection had m ade it clear that an answer could be given once there was a new king o f Scots, and Edw ard certainly felt justified in regarding the situation once Balliol had been enthroned as entirely new. T h ere was a case for regarding promises m ade when circum stances had been very different as no longer binding. A parallel is often draw n between Philip I V o f F ran ce’s treatm ent o f Edw ard as duke o f A quitain e, and E d w ard ’s own treatm ent o f John Balliol. In both cases, the issues o f legal appeals and o f m ilitary service were very im portant.73 T h ere is no means o f know ing w hether E dw ard him self was influenced by the exam ple o f Philip I V ’s policies in determ ining his attitude towards the Scots, and John Balliol in p articu lar.74 Q uestions o f jurisdiction and service were part o f the essence o f the feudal relationship, and the precise circum stances o f G ascony and Scotland were very different. W hat E dw ard should have appreciated from his knowledge o f G ascon affairs was the sensitivity o f a feudal vassal to oppressive claim s by an overlord. His own resentm ent at being sum moned to appear in th zparlement o f Paris should have made him appreciate the problem s that faced John Balliol. E dw ard, however, was not a man to draw such lessons. H e was very well aw are o f his own honour and his own rights, but invariably lacked awareness o f the susceptibilities o f others. In W ales his policies drove the W elsh to rebellion, and in Scotland the story was a sim ilar one. T h ere is m uch that can be criticized in E d w ard ’s policies towards the Scots, but perhaps the most serious failing was that his unsym pathetic treatm ent o fjo h n Balliol drove the Scots into alliance with the French, so divert­ ing the king’s attention and resources aw ay from the conflict with Philip I V . 73 For Edward’s relations with Philip IV , see above, 323-4 and below, 376-81. 74 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 74-5.

C h ap ter 15

THE WAR WITH FRANCE, 1294-8

T h e outbreak o f w ar with France in 1294 must have been a bitter blow for E dw ard I. In personal terms, it dashed his hopes o f a second m arriage, but far more seriously, it m eant that there was now no longer a realistic possibility that he m ight m ount a crusading expedition. T h e conflict with Philip I V o f France gave hope to the Scots, and in 1296 E dw ard found him self at the head o f an invasion o f Scotland. T h e wars m eant that burdens o f a new order o f m agnitude were placed on the English people, with dem ands for m oney, men and food supplies. E dw ard found him self faced by political opposition at home o f a kind he had not had to deal with since his accession. M an y o f the achievem ents o f the first h alf o f the reign were seriously threatened. T h e central problem in A nglo-French relations was the fact that, by reason o f the T rea ty o f Paris o f 1259, the king o f England now held G ascony as a vassal o f the king o f France. T h e French considered that they were now entitled to hear, in the parlement o f Paris, appeals against Edw ard’s jurisdiction in Gascony, and even claimed the right to military service. From the point o f view o f the French rulers, G ascony was a great fief, in ju st the same w ay as was Flanders. T h ere was a clear royal policy, especially under Philip I V , o f asserting sovereignty over such fiefs beyond any possible doubt, and o f m aking that sovereignty effec­ tive. Y e t in the first h a lf o f E d w ard ’s reign, relations between England and France had not approached a point o f crisis. Several difficulties were resolved, and none apparently created, when E dw ard performed hom age to Philip I V in 1286.1 T h e im m ediate issue w hich led to the breakdow n o f relations between Edw ard I and Philip I V in the early 1290s was unexpected. For reasons w hich are unclear, rivalries between the sailors o f England and G ascony, and those o f other nations, reached new heights. Initially, in 1292, the problem was one o f hostility directed against the Flem ings by the men o f the C in qu e Ports in south-eastern England and Bayonne. A greem ent was reached with C oun t G u y o f Flanders, how ­ ever, without much difficulty. In the next year there were problems over Above, 323.

THE WA R WITH F R A NC E ,

1294-8

377

the m altreatm ent o f sailors from Bayonne in the port o f Lisbon, and there was also trouble involving C astilian ships.2 T h e m ajor conflict, however, was that between E d w ard ’s subjects and N orm an sailors, subjects o f Philip I V . T h e feud seems to have begun in 1292, when there was a scuffle in N orm andy when some men from the C in qu e Ports and the crew o f a ship from Bayonne went ashore. In response, there was a N orm an raid up the G ironde estuary, and attacks upon English and Irish ships at sea. In 1293 m atters becam e worse. A ccording to one account, Philip I V sent a knight to B ordeaux to proclaim peace, and to announce that he had forbidden any attacks on English shipping. Trade, w hich had slackened to a negligible level, duly picked up, but the Norm ans prom ptly attacked the English fleets. W hen a large English convoy sailed from Portsm outh, it was attacked by a N orm an fleet, with banners o f w ar flying, off C a p Saint-M athieu on 15 M a y .3 T h is was followed by another battle, and it was perhaps on this occasion that the encounter was carefully planned in advance, by join t agreem ent, with an em pty ship moored to m ark the location o f the fight. D espite heavy losses, the English eventually won the day. E dw ard was careful not to im plicate him self in w hat was a private w ar conducted by some o f his subjects, and although m uch booty was taken, he refused to accept any o f it for him self.4 T here is nothing to suggest that Edw ard was in any w ay responsible for the w ar at sea, despite the assertions o f some modern French historians to the contrary.5 He had shown an anxiety to settle the m atter from an early stage, agreeing, in A ugust 1292, that an investiga­ tion be made, in co-operation with the French authorities. In one case that cam e before the royal courts at this period, m erchants from L a Rochelle seem to have received reasonable treatm ent when they pro­ tested at the dem ands o f an English shipm aster that they pay full freightage charges, when ow ing to a shipw reck and subsequent robbery he had not fulfilled his promises to them. In another case, in which some D utch m erchants accused English sailors o f robbery, it was noted by the crown that if redress was not given in the courts, because o f the delaying tactics o f the defendants, the realm m ight be placed in real danger o f war. T h a t E dw ard did not want. A fter the naval battles o f 1293, Edw ard ordered his subjects to cease hostilities. A dm ittedly, the first writ which he issued afterwards noted, som ewhat provocatively, o f the English that ‘G od has given them victory over the m alice o f their

2 Foedera, I, ii, 759, 760, 789-90. 3 Lettres des rois, reines et autres personnages, ed. M. Champollion-Figeac, i (Paris, 1839), 392-8; Guisborough, 240-1. 4 Chron. Bury St Edmunds, 117; Flores, iii, 84-5. 5 As, for example, J. Favier, Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1978), 210.

378

EDWARD I

enem ies’ , but when the order was repeated, no such phrase was included.6 In M ay 1293, a high-ranking em bassy was sent to Paris, to consult Philip I V and to try to arrange a truce. It was headed by Edm und, earl o f Lancaster, Edw ard I ’s brother, and H enry de L acy, earl o f Lincoln. In J u ly a further em bassy, with greater legal expertise, was sent, made up o f the bishop o f London, Roger B rabazon and W illiam Greenfield, later to be archbishop o f Y ork. T h e y suggested three solutions. O ne was that E dw ard would do ju stice to any Frenchm en w ho had suffered loss at the hands o f the English. I f that w ould not do, then a commission o f two Englishm en and two Frenchm en m ight be set up, and the third option was to place the dispute in the hands o f the papacy. Philip I V laid particular stress on the involvem ent o f the men o f Bayonne, and treated the affair largely as a Franco-G ascon one. A lthough the English envoys conceded that Philip had rights o f sovereignty in G ascony, they also pointed to his failure to observe the agreem ent that he had reached with Edm und o f Lancaster, and concluded that Edw ard was no longer bound by feudal ties to P h ilip.7 The French were intransigent. Philip I V ordered the English lieuten­ ant in G ascony to surrender the civic officials, and a hundred leading citizens o f Bayonne, into custody at Perigueux, a com m and which, not surprisingly, was disobeyed. It was seen as a flagrant violation o f the custom ary methods o f resolving disputes. E dw ard was duly summoned to appear before the parlement o f Paris soon after C hristm as.8 It seems doubtful whether even a prom pt offer by E dw ard to pay full restitution for all French losses in the naval conflict would have prevented Philip from taking such a step: it looks as if the French king was determ ined to use the issue o f the w ar at sea as a pretext for a dem onstration that his lordship over G ascony was effective, rather than nom inal. It could be that Philip was influenced by knowledge o f the w ay in which Edw ard had been sum m oning John Balliol to appear in his parliam ent, and his attitude was probably hardened by his brother, C harles o f V alois, who was regarded as being partly responsible for the naval w ar.9 Early in 1294, Edm und o f Lancaster, assisted by the experienced (> Rot. Pari. , i, 125-6; Placita Parlamentaria, ed. G. Ryley (1661), 184-6, 188, 207-9; C P R 1232-1301 , 16, 30-1. 7 C P R 1232-1301 , 15; Lettres des rois, ed. Champollion-Figeac, i, 404, 426-9; Chaplais, English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, I, i, 394-6. A convenient summary of the negotiations is provided by M.C.L. Salt, ‘List of English Embassies to France, 12721307’, E H R , xliv (1929), 263-78. 8 Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy, IX, 271-9; Foedera, I, ii, 793. 9 Guisborough, 241. Charles of Valois may well have been strongly anti-English because Edward’s policies helped to prevent him from acquiring the Aragonese throne in the aftermath of the Sicilian Vespers.

THE WA R WI TH F R A N C E ,

1294-8

379

clerk John de L acy, m ade a final attem pt to negotiate a settlement. W hen progress seemed im possible, the French queen Jeanne, and M arie, the w idow o f the late K in g Philip I I I , intervened with Philip I V on E dm und’s behalf. A n agreem ent was reached by w hich various fortresses and towns would be handed over to the French, and twenty G ascon notables given as hostages. Philip would revoke the sum mons to Edw ard to appear in the parlement o f Paris, w hich had been issued in the previous O ctober, and he agreed to meet the English king at Am iens. Further, E dw ard was to m arry Philip I V ’s sister M argaret. Edw ard was told o f the plan, and gave his agreem ent: he w ould have considered that it would prom ote peace, and bring nearer the day when he could set off on crusade. T h e agreem ent was a secret one. T o satisfy opinion in France, it was to be announced in public that E dw ard would surrender all o f G ascony, and letters patent to this effect were issued by the English king. T h e private understanding was that these letters would not be put into effect, and it was also agreed that the G ascon towns and fortresses that were handed over to Philip would be rapidly restored to Edw ard. Edm und was satisfied by Philip I V ’s statements o f intent, which were m ade before witnesses, and John de L acy w as sent to arrange the surrender to the French. T h is duly took place in M arch, and effectively the w hole duchy, including B ordeaux, was handed over to the French. W hen Edm und asked Philip to provide E dw ard with a safe-conduct to go to Am iens, he was told not to be alarm ed if the French appeared to be taking a hard line in public. T h en, before his councillors, Philip announced that G ascony was not to be restored to the English, and the summons to E dw ard to appear before the parlement, instead o f being w ithdraw n, was renew ed.10 E d w ard ’s reaction was inevitable. He rejected the sum mons to the parlement, and was duly condem ned by the French to lose his fief o f G ascony. E dw ard appointed four friars to go to Philip to renounce his hom age form ally, and to protest at the w ay in w hich the terms o f the secret treaty had been ignored. N ow , with the feudal tie dissolved, Edw ard could challenge Philip on equal terms, one crowned and anointed king against another, rather than appearing as a rebellious vassal turning on his lord. T h e letters o f credence given to the friars were dated 20 June, the same day that letters were issued to envoys sent to arrange an alliance with the G erm an king Adolf. In fact, the friars probably did not set out until early A ugust, and it m ay be that their letters were deliberately backdated, so as to prevent any accusations that Edw ard had conspired against the French king while he was still his vassal. T h e choice o f friars for this mission is interesting: 10 Foedera, I, ii, 793-6. Chaplais, English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, I, ii, 42811. provides an excellent summary of these events.

380

EDWARD I

presum ably the English feared that lay envoys m ight be captured and imprisoned in w hat had now become hostile territory. A s it was, the friars suffered a few days incarceration before their status as diplom atic envoys was accepted by the F ren ch .11 These events were quite extraordinary. T h e diplom atic failure o f the English in 1293 and 1294 must rank with the appeasem ent policies before the Second W orld W ar as am ong the most dism al episodes o f English foreign policy. O ne contem porary explanation was that E dw ard was so overcom e by his lust for the king o f F ran ce’s sister that he acted w ithout counsel. T h e chancellor, John Langton, in particular, opposed the plan. T h e stum bling block to the agreem ent with the French was, according to this explanation, the French princess’s reluctance to m arry someone as old as E d w a rd .12 Th ere are m any im plausibilities in all this. T h e chroniclers all nam e the object o f E d w ard ’s desires as Blanche, though the actual schem e was for him to m arry her sister M argaret. Lust seems unlikely, as E dw ard could not have seen the French princess since 1286. He had, it is true, been sent a portrait o f her, according to one chronicler, yet even if he obtained from his envoys in addition such rem arkable details as those requested by H enry V I I about his intended bride, w hich extended to the size o f her nipples,13 it is not conceivable that his acceptance of what was essentially his brother E dm und’s schem e was dictated by sexual rather than political considerations. W hat is m uch more likely is that, as the chronicler W alter of G uisborough suggests, Edm und o f Lancaster was sim ply duped by the French. Som eone with such strong connections with the French court as he had through his wife, the queen o f N avarre, could well have been too trusting in w hat was said to h im .14 A s far as E dw ard was concerned, the secret treaty offered m ajor attractions. Points at issue with the French would be settled, and a m arriage alliance such as this was likely to reduce the possibility o f future disagreem ents. It is likely, however, that it was the prospect o f advancing the cause o f the crusade that weighed most heavily with him. W here E d w ard ’s envoys, and indeed the king as well, failed, was in their assessment o f Philip I V ’s inten­ tions. T h is was not surprising, as the French king was one o f the most taciturn and im penetrable o f men, an enigm a to both contem poraries 11 Ibid., I, ii, 417-19; Foedera, I, ii, 807; Treaty Rolls, i, 92; Guisborough, 243; Langtoft, ii, 204-10. 12 Chron. Bury St Edmunds, 118-20; Langtoft, ii, 196-8; Cotton, 232; Ann. Worcester,

5 I 5-

13 Chaplais, English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, I, i, 92-3; Langtoft, ii, 196-8. It is not quite clear whether the envoys brought back an actual picture, or merely provided the king with a description. 14 Guisborough, 242; above, 315.

THE WAR WITH F R ANCE ,

1294-8

381

and historians. It could be that his abandonm ent o f the plan in the secret treaty was the result o f factional infighting in the French court, or it could be that Philip harboured some long-standing resentm ent against the successful E dw ard I. W hatever the truth o f the m atter, the war, when it came, was o f P hilip’s choice, not E d w ard ’s. T h e w ar with the French w hich began in 1294 was the last o f the series o f thirteenth-century m ilitary failures on the continent. It was a com ­ plicated and ultim ately futile conflict. E d w ard ’s strategy was to con­ duct a holding operation in G ascony, while creating a m assive alliance o f continental princes that could be directed against Philip I V . T h e king aimed to cam paign in person in the north, fighting side by side with the Flem ings and others against the French. T h is all took time to organize, and the W elsh rebellion o f 1294-5, followed by the need to act against the Scots in 1296, delayed the full operation o f the plan until 1297. Therefore, contrary to w hat was probably intended, it was in fact in G ascony that most o f the m ilitary activity took place: the cam paign that Edw ard him self led in Flanders in 1297 proved to be sadly anticlim actic. It took some time before E dw ard was in a position to send m ilitary aid to his G ascon subjects. A m uster was ordered to take place at Portsm outh on 1 Septem ber 1294, but it had to be postponed until the end o f the month. Even then, it seems that few responded to the king’s request, very probably because there was considerable reluctance to perform feudal service overseas.15 It was not until about 9 O ctob er that the first contingents finally set sail, under the com m and o f the king’s inexperienced nephew, John o f B rittany, and o fjo h n de St John. These were paid troops, for the attem pt to obtain unpaid feudal service had been quietly abandoned. O n 10 O ctober paym ent o f alm ost £2,000 was authorized to the next planned force, which was to have been headed by Edmund o f Lancaster. Large numbers were clearly assem bled at Portsm outh: one account shows that there were no less than 1,537 horses w aiting there for shipm ent to G ascony, and letters o f protection show that L an caster had at least 278 men in his own retin u e.16 T h e num ber o f infantrym en is not known, but one striking feature about their recruitm ent was that this was the first time that E dw ard em ployed the technique o f pardoning crim inals in return for service. A t least three hundred men were taken on in this w a y .17 In the event, however, the news o f the W elsh rebellion 15 Pari. Writs, i, 259-63; below, 406. !b Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 75-6; C 62/71; E 101/4/30; Roles Gascons, iii, cxxxiv, cxlvi-cxlvii. 17 Ibid., cxxxviii; Hurnard, The K in g ’s Pardon for Homicide, 311 —12.

382

EDWARD I

m eant that L an caster’s force had to be diverted, and it was not until early 1296 that he was able to go to G ascony. T h e full responsibility for defending w hat was left o f the English possessions in south­ western France fell upon w hat had been intended as no more than an advance-guard, the force under John o f B rittany and John de St John. T h e small expedition w hich sailed in O ctob er 1294 achieved more than could have been anticipated. O n the w ay south, C a p St M athieu and the lie de Re were raided. T h e fleet then sailed up the G ironde, taking C astillon and M acau , then B ourg-sur-M er and Blaye. A n attack on Bordeaux failed: one ship was holed by a stone hurled from a siege engine. T h e fleet m oved on up river, receiving the surrender o f Podensac and V irelade, and then o f Riom s. O n ly then were the horses disem barked from the ships where they had been for seventeen weeks. John o f B rittany and W illiam Latim er remained with part o f the force at Riom s, while John de St John with the rem ainder m arched to Bayonne, where the citizens gladly handed the town over to them. T h e French were com pelled to surrender the castle, and two fine galleys were cap tu red .18 T h e m obility w hich the fleet provided had enabled the English to move against French garrisons with speed and surprise. It rem ained to be seen w hat would happen once a m ajor French arm y was put into the field. T h e fact that B ordeaux was still in enem y hands posed a m ajor problem. T h e French counter-attack cam e at Easter 1295, when C harles of V alois invaded G ascony with a large arm y. Riom s was besieged, and when a sortie was attem pted, the English were driven back dike sheep into the fold’ . 19 D isaster cam e as a result o f the news o f the surrender of Podensac by the elderly John G iffard. He agreed terms which allowed the English to go free, and left the G ascon inhabitants to the far from tender mercies o f the French. Some fifty were duly hanged. T h e m ar­ shal o f the English arm y, Ralph G orges, tried to pacify G ascon anger by putting Giffard and others on trial, but this m erely provoked a riot am ong the English troops. John o f B rittany and m any other knights fled by ship, and the French were able to enter the town w ithout much difficulty. T h e y captured a dozen English knights, including T hom as Turberville, who was soon to turn traitor. Further south, the English did not fare quite so badly. A lth ough H ugh de V ere was forced to surrender St Sever after a gallant defence, once the French arm y left the English were able to recapture the place w ithout m uch difficulty. B y the sum m er o f 1295, though, the English were hard-pressed in G ascony. T h e y held Bourg and B laye, beleaguered and isolated in the r8 Ann. Worcester, 519-20; Guisborough, 244-5; Roles Gascons, iii, cxlvii. 19 Guisborough, 246.

THE WA R WI TH F R A N C E ,

I294-8

383

north o f the duchy, and B ayonne with its outposts in the south. T h e rest was largely in French hands. T h e news from G ascony was doubtless depressing, but yet more alarm ing for the English was the fact that in the sum m er o f 1295, the French began to raid English seaports. Philip I V had brought ship­ builders from G enoa to build galleys in M arseilles and in N orm andy, and in 1295 a squadron sailed from the M editerranean to fight the English. In A ugust, a raid was m ounted on Dover. Part o f the town was set on fire, the priory was attacked, and two monks killed. A n assault on W inchelsea was foiled by a fleet from Y arm outh and a French galley which attem pted to attack H ythe was captu red.20 Th ere was w ide­ spread public alarm . E dw ard m ade m uch o f the threat o f invasion in a summons asking the clergy to come to parliam ent. He even suggested that the French aim ed to destroy the English nation itself.21 T h e atm osphere o f hysteria was heightened by the discovery o f Thom as T u rb erville’s treason. He had appeared in England, claim ing to have escaped from prison in France. H e had in fact been released on condi­ tion that he spied for the French. A letter he wrote to the provost o f Paris was discovered by the English. In it, he reported, am ong other things, on the defenceless state o f the Isle o f W ight, on the troops to be despatched to G ascony, and on the king’s diplom atic efforts. O n 22 Septem ber, men were sent to seek T u rberville out, and he was soon taken, tried and executed for treason. T h e affair must have shaken the king, for Tu rberville had been a household knight, and therefore in a trusted position.22 Edw ard had anticipated the danger o f attack by French naval forces, and late in 1294 had ordered the building o f thirty galleys, each with 20 Flores, iii, 94-5; Cotton, 295-6; A.Z. Freeman, ‘A Moat Defensive: the coast defense scheme of 1295’, Speculum, xlii (1967), 446. 21 Stubbs, Select Charters, 480. The Latin word used for nation in this writ is lingua, which can, of course, mean ‘tongue’ or ‘language’, and it may be that it should be read here with the implication that language was a element in the English national identity. In a lawsuit of 1297, it was alleged that in 1295, shortly before the issue of this writ, the prior of St Neots had expelled all who used the English tongue (linguam anglicanam) from his service: Select Cases in the Court o f K in g ’s Bench, iii, 50-1. Earlier, however, in 1283, lingua was used by the English chancery in referring to the Welsh nation: Stubbs, Select Charters, 460—1. The term could also be used in a geographical sense. A document of slightly later date refers to Languedoc as Linguam Occitanam in such a way: Chronicles o f the Reigns o f Edward l and Edward //, ed. Stubbs, ii, cv. It should, of course, be observed that the English upper classes spoke French, or rather the Anglo-Norman dialect of that language, rather than English. I am grateful for suggestions on this point received from Professor E.L.G. Stones and Professor J.S. Roskell. 22 J.G. Edwards, ‘The Treason of Thomas Turberville, 1295’, Studies in Medieval History presented to F .M . Powicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin, R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), 296-309. E 404/1/5 provides the additional information that William Wither was paid £1 to spy on Turberville in Gloucestershire, on 23 September.

EDWARD I

384

120 oars. T h e plan was a very am bitious one, and G rim sby and H ull, at least, were told that vessels o f 100 oars would suffice. H ow m any galleys were in fact built is not known, but the orders were certainly obeyed at London, N ew castle-upon-Tyne, Southam pton, L ym e Regis, G rim sby, K in g ’s Lynn and Y o rk .23 In addition, m erchant ships were taken into royal service, and by 1295 a system w hereby separate naval squadrons each guarded a section o f coast was instituted. A rrangem ents were also m ade for the recruitm ent and organization o f defence forces on land. In 1296, perhaps in part because o f the revelations o f the Turberville affair, these becam e more com plex. T h e Isle o f W igh t was now de­ fended by seventy-six cavalrym en, and large naval forces prevented any repetition o f the raids o f the previous year.24 N ot m any troops were sent to G ascony in 1295. Some forces were sent there in J u ly under John Botetourt, but in A ugust a group o f m agnates, headed by the earl o f A rundel, resisted the king’s dem ands that they go to G ascony. T h e y eventually agreed to go only after they had been put under severe financial pressure, by means o f threats to collect all the debts they owed to the crown. It was not until O ctober that orders were issued for the recruitm ent o f 25,000 infantry. Ships were gathered at W inchelsea and Plym outh, but departure was de­ layed until late Jan u ary 1296 by the illness o f the com m ander o f the force, Edm und o f Lancaster. H e was accom panied by H enry de L acy, earl o f Lincoln, and both men served under contract, being paid at the rate o f 4,000 marks and 2,000 marks a year respectively.25 T h e 1296 expedition followed the exam ple o f that o f 1294, and sailed up the G ironde to Bourg and Blaye. T h e y were not as successful as their predecessors: the French had now had time to prepare. Bordeaux proved im pregnable: after m aking a feigned retreat, a few o f the English forced an entry to the city, but the gates were closed behind them, and they were captured. A n attem pt to bribe some citizens into handing the city over to the English was discovered. A t St M acaire a gallant defence o f the castle by a French garrison culm inated in the relief o f the siege by Robert o f A rtois.26 A ccording to one account, the English arm y was saved from com plete disaster as a result o f a prem onition o f danger which the earl o f Lincoln had. A search took place, and three French spies were discovered. A fter two were executed, the third revealed that a French attack was im m inent.27 M oney ran short, and the arm y was 23 Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, 138; E 159/68, m.77; E 159/69, m.4d; E 368/69, m.4 ! 957 > >9 7 0 -

Select Cases of Procedure without writ, ed. G .O . Sayles and H .G . Richardson (Selden Society, lx, 1940).

Select Charters, ed. W. Stubbs (9th edn, Oxford, 1921). Select Pleas in Manorial and Other Courts, ed. F.W . M aitland (Selden Society, i. 1889).

Select Pleas, Starrs, and other Records from the Exchequer of the Jews, 1220-1284, ed. J.M . Rigg (Selden Society, xv, 1901).

The Siege of Carlaverock, ed. N.H . Nicolas (1828). The Song of Lewes, ed. C .L . Kingsford (1890). State Trials of the Reign of Edward I, 1289-93, ed. T .F . Tout and H. Johnstone (Camden Society, 3rd series, ix, 1906).

Statutes of the Realm i (Record Commission, 1810). The Survey of the County of York taken byJohn de Kirkby, ed. R.H . Skaife (Surtees Society, xlix, 1867).

Treaty Rolls, i, 1234-1323, ed. P. Chaplais (1955). The War of Saint-Sardos, (1322-1323), ed. P. Chaplais (Camden Society, 3rd series, lxxxvii, 1957). The Welsh Assize Roll, 1277-1284, ed. J. Conw ay Davies (Cardiff, 1940).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

582

II. S E C O N D A R Y S O U R C E S ,

a b r a h a m s

b

,

a l t s c h u l

(B altim o re, a

v

e n t

,

. l ., T h e E x p u ls io n o f the J e w s fr o m E n g la n d in i 2 g o ( 1 8 9 5 ) . . , T B a r o n ia l F a m ily in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d : T h e C la r e s , 1 2 1 J - 1 3 1 4

m

1965).

. , C e s te ll T yw ysogion G w y n ed d , C a s tle s o f the P r in c e s o f G w y n ed d ( C a r d i f f ,

r

1983), j.,

a y l o f f e

‘A n

A c c o u n t o f the B o d y

of K in g

Edw ard

t h e F i r s t , a s it

a p p e a r e d o n o p e n i n g h i s T o m b i n t h e y e a r 1 7 7 4 ’ , A r ch a e o lo g ia , iii ( 1 7 8 6 ) .

Ba

l d w i n

, J . F . , T h e K i n g 's C o u n c il in E n g la n d d urin g the M id d le A g e s ( O x f o r d ,

1913),

b a r k e r

. r . v . , T h e T ourn am ent in E n g la n d , 1 1 0 0 - 1 4 0 0 ( W o o d b r i d g e , 1 9 8 6 ) .

j

,

b a r l o w

f

., ‘T h e K i n g ’s E v i l ’ , E H R , x c v (19 8 0 ).

b a r r a c l o u g h

,

g

. , ‘ E d w a r d I a n d A d o l f o f N a s s a u ’ , C a m b rid g e H is to r ic a l

J o u r n a l, v i ( 1 9 4 0 ) . ,

b a r r o n

e

,

b a r r o w

. m . , T h e S co ttish W a r o f Independence ( 2 n d e d n , I n v e r n e s s ,

19*34).

. w . s . , K in g s h ip a n d U n ity : S co tla n d 1 0 0 0 - 1 3 0 6 ( 1 9 8 1 ) .

g

-------- , ‘ L o t h i a n i n t h e F i r s t W a r o f I n d e p e n d e n c e ’ , S H R , l v ( 1 9 7 6 ) . -------- , R o b er t B r u ce a n d the C om m u n ity o f the R e a lm o f S co tla n d ( 1 9 6 5 ) . b a z e l e y

,

m

. , ‘ T h e E x t e n t o f t h e E n g l i s h F o r e s t in t h e T h i r t e e n t h C e n t u r y ’ ,

T R H S , 4 t h series, iv ( 1 9 2 1 ) . b e a n

,

j

. m . w . , T h e D e c lin e o f E n g lis h F e u d a lis m ( M a n c h e s t e r ,

b e a r d w o o d

,

a

1968).

., ‘T h e T r i a l o f W a l t e r L a n g t o n , b i s h o p o f L ic h f ie l d , 1 3 0 7 -

1 3 1 2 ’ , T ra n sa ction s o f the A m er ic a n P h ilo s o p h ic a l S o ciety , n e w s e r i e s l i v ( 1 9 6 4 ) . b e e b e

,

b

thesis,

., ‘ E d w a r d I a n d t h e C r u s a d e s ’ ( U n i v e r s i t y o f S t A n d r e w s P h . D .

1971).

-------- , ‘ T h e E n g l i s h B a r o n a g e a n d t h e C r u s a d e o f 1 2 7 0 ’ , B I H R , x l v i i i ( 1 9 7 5 ) .

b e m o n t , c . , S im o n de M o n tfo r t , t r a n s l a t e d b y E . F . J a c o b ( O x f o r d , 1 9 3 0 ) . b e n n e t t , a . , ‘T h e W i n d m i l l Psalter: th e h is to r ia te d letter E o f P s a lm O n e ’ , J o u r n a l o f the W arburg a n d C o u r ta u ld I n s titu te s , x l i i i ( 1 9 8 0 ) .

b e r e s f o r d , m .w

.,

N e w T o w n s o f the M id d le A g e s ( 1 9 6 7 ) .

b i l e s , m ., ‘ T h e I n d o m i t a b l e B e l l e : E l e a n o r o f P r o v e n c e ’ , Seven S tu d ies in M e d ie v a l E n g lis h H isto ry an d O th er H is to r ic a l E s sa y s P resen ted to H a r o ld S . S n e llgrove ( J a c k s o n , M i s s i s s i p p i , 1 9 8 3 ) .

binski, blaauw

p. , T h e P a in te d C h a m b er at W estm in ster ( 1 9 8 6 ) . , w . h ., T h e B a r o n s ' W a r ( 2 n d e d n , 1 8 7 1 ) .

b l a c k , J . g ., ‘ E d w a r d I a n d G a s c o n y in 1 3 0 0 ’ , E H R , x v i i ( 1 9 0 2 ) . b l o c h , m ., L e s R o is T ha u m a tu rg es ( P a r i s , 1 9 2 4 ) . b o w e r s

,

r

. h . , ‘ F r o m R o l l s t o R i c h e s : K i n g ’ s C l e r k s a n d M o n e y l e n d i n g in

T h i r t e e n t h C e n t u r y E n g l a n d ’ , S p e cu lu m , l v i i i ( 1 9 8 3 ) . -------- , ‘ E n g l i s h m e r c h a n t s a n d t h e A n g l o - F l e m i s h E c o n o m i c W a r ’ , Seven S tu d ies

in M e d ie v a l E n g lis h H isto ry a n d O th er H is to r ic a l E ssa y s P resen ted to H a r o ld S . S nellg ro v e ( J a c k s o n , M i s s i s s i p p i , 1 9 8 3 ) . b r a n d

,

p

. a .,

‘T h e

C o ntrol o f M o rtm a in

L egislation

in E n g l a n d ,

1200-

1 3 0 0 ’ , L e g a l R ecord s a n d the H is to r ia n , e d . J . H . B a k e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) . -------- , ‘ E d w a r d

I a n d t h e J u d g e s : t h e “ S t a t e T r i a l s ” o f 1 2 8 9 - 9 3 ’ , T hirteen th

C en tu ry E n g la n d / , e d . P . R . C o s s a n d S . D . L l o y d ( W o o d b r i d g e , 1 9 8 6 ) , 3 1 - 4 0 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

583

-------- , ‘ H e n g h a m M a g n a : a t h i r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E n g l i s h c o m m o n l a w t r e a t i s e a n d its c o m p o s i t i o n ’ ,

The Irish Jurist,

xi (1976).

-------- , ‘ “ Q u o W a r r a n t o ” l a w in t h e r e i g n o f E d w a r d I: a h i t h e r t o u n d i s c o v e r e d o pin ion o f C h i e f J u stic e H e n g h a m ’ , b r e t t

-j

a m e s

,

n

. g .,

‘J o h n

The Irish Jurist,

n e w series x i v ( 1 9 7 9 ) .

de D roken sford, B ish o p o f B a th

Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, ( 1951) • ,

b r id b u r y

. r .,

a

‘T h i r t e e n t h

C en tury

Prices

Agricultural History Review, x x x i i i ( 1 9 8 5 ) . b r i e g e r , p . , English Art 1216-1307 ( O x f o r d , b r o o k s

xix

,

and

the

W e lls ’ , series x

M oney

S u p p ly’,

1957).

. w . , ‘T h e C i n q u e P o r t s ’ F e u d w i t h Y a r m o u t h ’ ,

f

and new

Mariners’ Mirror,

0 9 3 3 )-

b r o w n

,

. a . r . , ‘ D e a t h a n d t h e H u m a n B o d y in t h e L a t e r M i d d l e A g e s : t h e

e

111 o n t h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e c o r p s e ’ , Viator, x i i

legisla tio n o f B o n ifa c e V

-------- , ‘ R e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d A g e n c y L a w in t h e L a t e r M i d d l e A g e s ’ ,

(1981).

Viator,

iii

(1972).

English Castles

b r o w n

,

r

. a ,,

b r o w n

,

r

. a .,

Works,

i,

b u l l o c k b u r t o n

c o l v i n

,

h

(3rd ed n , 1 9 76 ).

. m .,

t a y l o r

,

a

. j .,

The Middle Ages ( 1 9 6 3 ) . - d a v i e s , c . , Menestrallorum Multitudo

,

The History of the King’s

(C ardiff,

1978).

. w ., ‘ P o litic s , P r o p a g a n d a a n d P u b l i c O p i n i o n in th e R e i g n s o f

d

H enry I I I

a n d E d w a r d I ’ ( O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y D . P h i l . thesis,

1985).

c a m , h . m ., The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls ( L o n d o n , 1 9 3 0 ) . ----- , Studies in the Hundred Rolls: some aspects of thirteenth-century administration

(O xfo rd ,

1921). ,

c a r p e n t e r

d

H enry I I I ,

. a ., ‘ K i n g , M a g n a t e s , a n d S o c ie ty : the P e r s o n a l R u l e o f K i n g

12 3 4 -12 5 8 ’,

Speculum,

lx (1 9 8 5 ).

-------- , ‘ T h e L o r d E d w a r d ’ s O a t h t o a i d a n d c o u n s e l S i m o n d e M o n t f o r t , O cto b er 1259’,

BIHR ,

15

lviii ( 1 9 8 5 ) .

BIHR , l v i i i ( 1 9 8 5 ) . War and Government in the Middle Ages, e d . J . B .

-------- , ‘ S i m o n d e M o n t f o r t a n d t h e M i s e o f L e w e s ’ , -------- , ‘ W h a t H a p p e n e d i n 1 2 5 8 ? ’ ,

G illin g h a m an d J .C . H o lt (W o o d b rid g e, c h a b o t

Latin,

1984).

, J . B . , ‘H isto ire d u P a triarch e M a r J a b a la h a I I I ’ ,

-------- , ‘ N o t e s s u r les r e l a t i o n s d u ro i A r g o u n a v e c l ’ o c c i d e n t ’

Latin,

Revue de TOrient

xi (1894).

Revue de Torient

xi (1894).

Arthur of Britain ( 1 9 2 7 ) . English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, I, i, ii ( 1 9 8 2 ) . -------- , Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration ( 1 9 8 1 ) . -------- , ‘ S o m e P r i v a t e L e t t e r s o f E d w a r d I ’ , EHR, l x x v i i ( 1 9 6 2 ) . c h e w , h . m ., The English Ecclesiastical Tenants in Chief and Knight Service c h a m b e r s

,

c h a p l a i s

(O xford,

,

e

p

. k .,

.,

1932).

EHR, x x x v i i ( 1 9 2 2 ) . England and its Rulers 1066-1272 ( G l a s g o w , 1 9 8 3 ) . ----- , From Memory to Written Record ( 1 9 7 9 ) . -------- , ‘ T h e F r a n c h i s e o f R e t u r n o f W r i t s ’ , TRHS, 5 t h s e r i e s , x v i i ( 1 9 6 7 ) . -------- , ‘ M o d e r n i in e d u c a t i o n a n d g o v e r n m e n t in E n g l a n d ’ , Speculum, 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . -------- , ‘ S c u t a g e u n d e r E d w a r d I ’ , c l a n c h y

,

m

. t .,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

584

Cl i f f o r d ,

e .r

.,

A K n ig h t o f G rea t R en o w n

(Chicago, 1961).

c o k a y n e , g . e ., C o m p lete P eera g e o f E n g la n d , S co tla n d , Ir e la n d , G rea t B r ita in a n d the U n ite d K in g d o m , ed. V. Gibbs and others, 12 vols (1912-59). c o s s , p . r ., ‘Sir Geoffrey de Langley and the Crisis of the Knightly Class in thirteenth-century England’, P a s t a n d P r e se n t , lxviii (1975). c o u L S O N , c . l . h ., ‘Rendability and Castellation in Medieval France’, C h â tea u G a illa r d , vi (1972). c o x d . c ., ‘Peace-Keeping without Frankpledge: Shropshire Claims in 1307’, T ra n sa ctio n s o f the S hrop shire A r ch a e o lo g ic a l S o ciety , lx (1975-7). c o x , e . l ., T h e E a g le s o f Savoy (Princeton, 1974). CUTTINO, g . p ., ‘A chancellor of the Lord Edward’, B I H R , xlx (1977). ------, E n g lis h D ip lo m a tic A d m in is tr a tio n 1 2 5 9 - 1 3 3 9 (2nd edn, Oxford, 1971). dalrymple, d,

( l o r d h a i l e s ), A n n a ls o f S co tla n d f r o m the A ccessio n o f

1 ( 1799). lxv (1974). ----- , C o n q u est, C oexisten ce a n d C h a n g e: W a les 1 0 6 3 - 1 4 1 5 (Oxford, 1987). ----- , ‘Law and national identity in thirteenth century Wales’, W elsh Society an d N a tio n h o o d , ed. R.R. Davies, R.A. Griffiths, I.G. Jones and K .O . Morgan (Cardiff, 1984). ----- , ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales \ J o u r n a l o f the M erio n eth H is to r ic a l a n d R eco rd S o ciety , ix (1983). ----- , L o rd sh ip a n d Society in the M a r c h o f W a les, 1 2 8 2 - 1 4 0 0 (Oxford, 1978). ----- , ‘The survival of the bloodfeud in Medieval Wales’, H is to r y , liv (1969). d e e l e y , a ., ‘Papal Provision and Royal Rights of Patronage in the Early Fourteenth Century’, E H R , xliii (1928). DEiGHTON, h . s., ‘Clerical Taxation by Consent, 1272-1301’, E H R , lxviii (• 953 )De n h o l m - y o u n g , n ., ‘Edward I and the Sale of the Isle of Wight’, E H R , xliv (1929). ----- , H isto ry a n d H era ld ry (Oxford, 1965). ------, R ic h a r d o f C o r n w a ll (Oxford, 1947). ------, S e ig n eu ria l A d m in is tr a tio n (Oxford, 1937). ----- , ‘The Tournament in the Thirteenth Century’, S tu d ies in M e d ie v a l H isto ry p resen ted to F . M . P o w ic k e , ed. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin, R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948). d e n t o n , j . h ., ‘The Clergy and Parliament in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, T h e E n g lis h P a r lia m e n t in the M id d le A g e s , ed. R.G. Davies and J.H. Denton (Manchester, 1981). ----- , ‘The Crisis of 1297 from the Evesham Chronicle’, E H R , xciii (1978). ----- , E n g lis h R o y a l F re e C h a p e ls 1 1 0 0 - 1 3 0 0 (Manchester, 1970). ----- , R o b er t W inchelsey a n d the C ro w n 1 2 9 4 - 1 3 1 3 (Cambridge, 1980). ----- , ‘A Worcester Text of the Remonstrances of 1297’, S p ecu lu m , liii (1978). de s t u r l e r , j., ‘Deux comptes “ enrôlés” de Robert de Segre, receveur et agent payeuer d’Edouard 1er, roi d’Angleterre, aux Pays-Bas (1294-1296)’, B u lle t in de la com m ission royale d 'h isto ire, cxxv (i960). ----- , ‘Le paiement à Bruxelles des allies franc-comtois d’Edouard 1er, roi d’Angleterre (Mai 1297)’, C a h ier s B r u x e llo is , v (i960). M a lc o lm I I I su rn am ed C anm ore to the R esto ra tio n o f J a m e s

d a v i e s , r . r .,

‘Colonial Wales’,

P a s t a n d P r esen t ,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

5 85

----- , Les relations politiques et les échanges commerciaux entre le duché de Brabant et VAngleterre au moyen âge (Paris, 1936). Di c k i n s o n , w .c ., Scotland from the earliest times to 1603, 3rd edn revised by A.A.M . Duncan (Oxford, 1977). Dictionary of National Biography, ed. L. Stephen (1885-1900). DOUiE, d ., Archbishop Pecham (Oxford, 1952). d u n c a n , a . a . m., ‘The Community of the Realm of Scotland and Robert Bruce’, SHR, xlv (1966). J.G., ‘The Battle of Maes Moydog and the Welsh Campaign of 1294-5’ EHR, xxxix (1924). ----- , ‘ Confirmatio Cartarum and Baronial Grievances in 1297’, EHR, lviii (1943)----- , ‘Justice in Early English Parliaments’, Historical Studies of the English Parliament, i, ed. E.B. Fryde and E. Miller (Cambridge, 1970). ----- , ‘M adogap Llywelyn, the Welsh Leader in 1294-5’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, xiii (1950). ----- , ‘The Personnel of the Commons in Parliament under Edward I and Edward 11 ’, Historical Studies of the English Parliament, i, ed. E.B. Fryde and E. Miller (Cambridge, 1970). ----- , ‘The Plena Potestas of English Parliamentary Representatives’, Historical Studies of the English Parliament, i, ed. E.B. Fryde and E. Miller (Cambridge, edwards,

I97°)----- , ‘The site of the Battle of “ Meismeidoc” , 1295 (Note)’, EHR, xlvi (■ 931) ----- , ‘The Treason of Thomas Turberville, 1295’, Studies in Medieval History presented to F.M. Powicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin, R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948). e l m a n , p., ‘The Economic Causes of the Expulsion of the Jews in 1290’, Economic History Review, vii (1936). ‘The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey’, Yorkshire Archaeo­ logical Journal, xix (1907). f a r m e r , d . l ., ‘Some Grain Price Movements in Thirteenth Century England’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, x (1957). ----- , ‘Some Livestock Price Movements in Thirteenth-Century England’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, xii (1969). f a v i e r , j., Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1978). f a w t i e r , r ., L ’Europe occidental de 1270 a 1380 (Paris, 1940). f r a m e , r ., Colonial Ireland 116^-136^ (Dublin, 1981). ----- , ‘Ireland and the Barons’ W ar’, Thirteenth Century England 1, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1986). f r a s e r , c . m., A History of Anthony Bek (Oxford, 1957). f r e e m a n , a . z ., ‘A Moat Defensive; the coast defense scheme of 1295’, Speculum, xlii (1967). f r y d e , n . m., ‘A royal enquiry into abuses by Queen Eleanor’s ministers in north-east Wales, 1291-2’, Welsh History Review, v (1970-1). f a i r b a n k , f . r .,

586 Ga

BIBLIOGRAPHY

l b r a i t h

, v .H ., ‘Statutes o f E d w a r d

I: H u n t i n g t o n L i b r a r y M S

Essays in Medieval History presented to Bertie Wilkinson,

2578 2 ’,

P o w ick e a n d T . A

S a n d q u ist (T oron to,

H .M .

ed.

M .R .

1969).

, j . , Les Châteaux du Moyen Age dans la France du sud-ouest: la Gascogne Anglaise de 1216 à 1327 ( G e n e v a , 1 9 7 2 ) .

g a r d e l l e s

Gi

l l in g h a m

, j.

b

., ‘ R i c h a r d I a n d t h e S c i e n c e o f W a r i n t h e M i d d l e A g e s ’ ,

War and Government in the Middle Ages, (W o o d b rid g e,

ed. J . B . G i l l i n g h a m

and J .C .

H olt

1984).

Glamorgan County History, iii, The Middle Ages, e d . T . B . P u g h ( C a r d i f f , , a ., Historical Writing in England, C.330-C. 1307 ( 1 9 7 4 ) .

1971).

g r a n s d e n

, J .L ., ‘T h e cle rica l d y n a s t ie s fr o m H o w d e n s h i r e , N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

g r a s s i

a n d L i n d s e y in t h e r o y a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ’ ( O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , D . P h i l . t h e s i s , r

959),

g r a v e s g r e e n

G

,

EHR , x l i i i ( 1 9 2 8 ) . Lives of the Princesses of England ( 1 8 5 0 ) .

. b ., ‘ C i r c u m s p e c t e A g a t i s ’ ,

e

. a . e .,

m

r if f it h s

, j.,

‘D o c u m e n ts

relating

Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies,

to t h e

rebellion

of M adoc,

12 9 4 -5 ’,

viii ( 1 9 3 5 - 7 ) .

Transactions of the Caernarvon­ shire Historical Society ( 1 9 5 5 ) . G r i f f i t h s , r . a ., The Principality of Wales in the Later Middle Ages, i ( C a r d i f f ,

-------- , ‘ T h e r e v o l t o f M a d o g a p L l y w e l y n , 1 2 9 4 - 5 ’ ,

1972).

Welsh History Review,

-------- , ‘ T h e r e v o l t o f R h y s a p M a r e d u d d ’ , f

.,

g u ir a u d

,

,

g r o s e

Military Antiquities f

. f .,

‘M u n icip a l

Archaeologia Cantiana, Gw

y n n

,

edn,

A rch ive s

of

Faversham

A .D .

h a n d

,

j

130 4-24’,

x iv (1882).

,

TRHS,

5 t h series, x ( i 9 6 0 ) .

. f ., ‘ T h e L a s t R o y a l T a l l a g e s ’ ,

j

EHR,

xcvi (1981).

-------- , ‘ T h e M e d i e v a l L a y S u b s i d i e s a n d E c o n o m i c H i s t o r y ’ ,

Review,

iii ( 1 9 6 6 - 7 ) .

1 8 0 1 ).

., ‘ E d w a r d I a n d t h e p r o p o s e d p u r c h a s e o f E n g l i s h l a w fo r t h e I r i s h ,

a

c. 1 2 7 6 - 8 0 ’ ,

h a d w i n

(2 n d

Economic History

2 n d series, x x x v i ( 1 9 8 3 ) . . g .,

-------- , ‘ T h e

English Law in Ireland, 1230-1324

O p in ion s

o f the

Paris

The Irish Jurist, n e w Handbook of British Chronology, c. 1 2 9 2 ’ ,

Law yers

(C a m b rid ge , upon

the

1967).

Sco ttish

S u ccessio n

series v ( 1 9 7 0 ) . 3 r d e d n , e d . E . B . F r y d e , D . E . G r e e n w a y , S.

P o r t e r , I. R o y ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Ha

,

r d i n g

a

., ‘ E a r l y T r a i l b a s t o n P r o c e e d i n g s f r o m t h e L i n c o l n r o ll o f 1 3 0 5 ’ ,

Medieval Legal Records, -------- , ‘ T h e

ed. R . F . H u n n is e t t a n d J . B . P o st (1 9 7 8 ).

O r ig in s o f the C r i m e o f C o n s p i r a c y ’ ,

TRHS,

5 t h series, x x x i i i

(1983)-------- , ‘ P l a i n t s a n d B i l l s in t h e H i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h L a w , m a i n l y in t h e p e r i o d 12 5 0 -13 5 0 ’, h a r r is s

,

g

(O xfo rd , h a s k in s

,

Legal History Studies, e d . D . J e n k i n s ( C a r d i f f , 1 9 7 2 ) . King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1363

. l .,

1975). g

. l ., a n d K A N T O R O W i c z ,

e

., ‘ A D i p l o m a t i c M i s s i o n o f F r a n c i s

A c c u r s i u s a n d his O r a t i o n b e fo r e P o p e N i c h o l a s I I I ’ , H iG O U N E T , h i l l

, G.,

c., ‘B a s tid e s et F r o n tiè r e s ’ ,

A History of Cyprus,

ii ( 1 9 4 8 ) .

Le Moyen Age,

EHR,

lviii ( 1 9 4 3 ) .

liv (1 9 4 8 ).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

587

(1961). (1976). A H isto ry o f the C ru sa d es , ed. K .M . Setton et a l . , ii, T h e L a te r C ru sa d es , ed. R.L. Wolff and H.W. Hazard (Philadelphia, 1962). h o l t , j.c ., ‘The Prehistory of Parliament’, T h e E n g lis h P a r lia m e n t in the M id d le A g e s , ed. R.G. Davies and J.H. Denton (Manchester. 1981). h o o p e r , d ., and w h y l d , k ., T h e O x fo r d C om p a n ion to C h ess (Oxford, 1984). h o w a r t h , h . h ., H isto r y o f the M o n g o ls , iii (1888). h o w e l l , m., R e g a lia n R ig h t in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d (1962). h u g h e s , u .w ., ‘A Biographical Sketch of Robert Burnell, with materials from his life’ (Oxford University B.Litt. thesis, 1936). h u r n a r d , n . d ., ‘Did Edward I reverse Henry I I ’s policy upon Seisin?’, E H R , lxix (1954). ----- , T h e K i n g ’s P a rd o n f o r H o m ic id e (Oxford, 1969). h i l l , m . c ., T h e K i n g ’s M essen g ers, 1 i g g - 1 3 7 7

h i l l g a r t h , j . n ., T h e S p a n ish K in g d o m s

i l l s l e y , j . s .,

‘Parliamentary Elections in the Reign of Edward I’,

B IH R ,

xlix (1976). Itinerary o f E d w a r d I , p a r t 1 : i 2 7 2 - i 2 g o

Ja c o b ,

(List and Index society, ciii, 1974).

e . f ., S tu d ies in the p e r io d o f B a r o n ia l R efo r m a n d R e b e llio n , 1 2 3 8 - 1 2 6 7

(Oxford, 1925). ‘The First Parliament o f Edward I’, E H R , xxv (1910). J o h n s , g . n ., C ric cieth C a s tle (Official Guide, 1970). J o h n s o n , c., ‘The System of Account in the Wardrobe of Edward I’, T R H S , j e n k i n s o n , c . h .,

4th series, vi (1923). ‘Archbishop Pecham and the council of Lambeth of 128T, E s sa y s in M e d ie v a l H isto ry presen ted to T .F . T o u t, ed. A.G. Little and F.M. Powicke (Manchester, 1925). ----- , E d w a r d o f Carnarvon 1 2 8 4 - 1 3 0 7 (Manchester, 1946). ----- , ‘The County of Ponthieu, 1279-1307’, E H R , xxix (1914). ----- , ‘Wardrobe and Household of Henry, son of Edward I’, B u lle tin o f the J o h n R y la n d s L ib ra r y , vii (1922-3). j o l i f f e , j . e . a ., ‘Some Factors in the beginning of Parliament’, H is to r ic a l S tu d ies o f the E n g lis h P a r lia m e n t, i, ed. E.B. Fryde and E. Miller (Cambridge, j o h n s t o n e , h .,

I9 7°)-

‘The Court of the Verge: the Jurisdiction of the Steward and Marshal of the Household in Later Medieval England’, J o u r n a l o f B r itis h S tu d ies, x (1970-1). J o r d a n , w .c ., L o u is I X a n d the C h a lle n g e o f the C ru sa d e (Princeton, 1979). j o n e s , w . r .,

kaeuper,

R.w., B a n k e r s to the C ro w n : the R icc a r d i o f L u cca a n d E d w a r d I

(Princeton, 1973). ----- , ‘The Frescobaldi of Florence and the English Crown’, S tu d ies in M e d ie v a l a n d R en a issa n ce H isto ry , x (1973). ----- , ‘Law and Order in Fourteenth-Century England: the evidence of special commissions of oyer and terminer’, S p ecu lu m , liv (1979).

588

BIBLIOGRAPHY . h ., C h iv a lry ( N e w H a v e n a n d L o n d o n ,

k e e n

,

k e r n

, F., ‘ E d o u a r d I v o n E n g l a n d u n d P e t e r v o n A r a g o n ’ , M itte ilu n g e n des

m

1984).

In stitu ts f u r ö s ter reic h isc h e G esch ich tsfo r sc h u n g , x x x ( 1 9 0 9 ) . Kin

, c . L . , ‘J o h n d e B e n s t e d e a n d h i s M i s s i o n s f o r E d w a r d I , E ssa y s in

g s f o r d

H isto ry p resen ted to R . L . P o o le , e d . H . W . C . D a v i s ( O x f o r d , 1 9 2 7 ) . K iR A L F Y , Kn

. k ., T h e A c tio n on the C a se

a

(1951).

, c . H . , ‘ P r o v is io n for th e F a m i li e s o f th e M o n t f o r t i a n s d is in h e r ite d

o w l e s

a f t e r t h e B a t t l e o f E v e s h a m ’ , T hirteen th C en tu ry E n g la n d / , e d . P . R . C o s s a n d S .D . L lo y d (W o o d b rid g e,

1986).

-------- , ‘ T h e R e s e t t l e m e n t o f E n g l a n d a f t e r t h e B a r o n s ’ W a r , 1 2 6 4 - 6 7 ’ , T R H S , 5 t h series, x x x i i ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Ko

, c . , ‘ D e u x p r o j e c t s d e c r o i s a d e e n t e r r e - s a i n t e c o m p o s é e à l a fi n d u

h l e r

x i i i e s i è c l e e t a u d é b u t d u x i v e’ , R ev u e de T O r ie n t L a t i n , x ( 1 9 0 3 - 4 ) . , c., a n d

k o h l e r

l a n g l o is

, c . v . , ‘ L e t t r e s i n é d i t s c o n c e r n a n t le s c r o i s a d e s

( 1 2 7 5 - 1 3 0 7 ) , B ib lio th è q u e de l'é c o le des cha rtes , lii ( 1 8 9 1 ) . K O S M iN S K Y ,

e

. a ., S tu d ie s in the A g r a r ia n H isto ry o f E n g la n d in the T hirteen th

C en tu ry ( O x f o r d , 1 9 5 6 ) .

l a b a r g e , m . w ., G ascony , E n g la n d 's F ir s t C o lo n y , 1 2 0 4 - 1 4 5 3 , c .v .,

l a n g l o is

‘ P r o je c t for T a x a t i o n

presented

( 1978).

to E d w a r d

I ’ , E H R , iv

(1889). PS

l a

,

l e y

g

. t ., ‘J o h n d e W a r e n n e a n d t h e Q u o W a r r a n t o p r o c e e d i n g s in

1 2 7 9 ’ , C a m b rid g e H is to r ic a l J o u r n a l, ii ( 1 9 2 6 - 7 ). La

,

w t o n

r

. p ., ‘ H e n r y d e L a c y , E a r l o f L i n c o l n ( 1 2 7 2 - 1 3 1 1 ) , a s locum tenens et

capitan eus in t h e d u c h y o f A q u i t a i n e ’ ( L o n d o n

U n iversity

P h .D ,

thesis,

1974),

l é o n a r d

e

. g ., L e s A n g e v in s de N a p le s

(Paris, 1954).

, a ., ‘ R o g e r L e y b u r n a n d t h e P a c i f i c a t i o n o f E n g l a n d , 1 2 6 5 - 7 ’ E H R , l i v

l e w is

(1939). w ., R o y a l S uccession in C a p etia n F r a n c e : S tu d ie s in f a m i l i a l order a n d the

, a

l e w is

sta te ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1 9 8 1 ) . . a ., T h e M e d ie v a l B o ro u g h s o f S n o w d o n ia ( 1 9 1 2 ) .

l e w is

,

e

l e w is

,

n

. b ., ‘ T h e

E n glish

F o r c e s in F l a n d e r s , A u g u s t - N o v e m b e r

1297’,

S tu d ies in M e d ie v a l H isto ry presen ted to F . M . P o w ic k e , e d . R . W . H u n t , W . A . P a n tin , R .W . So u th ern (O x fo r d ,

1948).

L I N E H A N , p . a . , ‘A f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y h i s t o r y o f A n g l o - S c o t t i s h r e l a t i o n s in a S p a n is h M a n u s c r i p t ’ , B I H R , xlviii (1 9 7 5 ). L

l o y d

, J . E . , A H isto ry o f W a les ( 2 n d e d n , L o n d o n ,

L

l o y d

,

s

. d .,

‘E n glish

So ciety

and

the

1922).

Crusades,

12 16 -13 0 7 ’,

(O xfo rd

U n i v e r s i t y D . P h i l . thesis, 1983). -------- ,

‘G ilb ert

de

C lare,

R ich ard

o f C o rn w a ll

and

the

Lord

E d w a r d ’s

C r u s a d e ’ , N o ttin g h a m M e d ie v a l S tu d ie s , x x x i ( 1 9 8 6 ) . -------- , ‘ T h e L o r d E d w a r d ’ s C r u s a d e , 1 2 7 0 - 2 : its s e t t i n g a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e ’ , W ar

and

G overnm ent in

(W o o d b rid g e , L

l o y d

------ ,

,

t

the M id d le A g e s , e d . J . B .

G illin g h a m

and J .C .

H olt

1984).

. h ., T h e E n g lis h W o o l T ra d e in the M id d le A g e s

(Cam bridge, 1977).

T h e M o v em en t o f W o o l P r ic e s in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d ( E co n o m ic H isto ry R ev iew

S u p p lem en t no. 6 ,

1973).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

58 9

(1926).

l o d g e

,

e

. c ., G ascony under E n g lis h R u le

l o g a n

,

f

. d ., E x co m m u n ica tio n a n d the S ecu la r A r m in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d

i 968)l o o m is

R.s., ‘Edward I, Arthurian Enthusiast’,

,

,

l u b im e n k o

l

S p e cu lu m ,

(Toronto,

xxviii (1953).

, J e a n de B reta g n e , com te de R ich m o n d . S a vie et son a c tiv ité en

A n g leter re , en E co sse et en F ra n ce ( 1 2 6 6 - 1 3 3 4 )

(Lille, 1908).

(Cambridge, Mass., 1939). ----- , ‘William Testa and the Parliament of Carlisle’, E H R , xli (1926). l y d o n , j . f ., ‘Edward I, Ireland and the War in Scotland, 1303-1304’, E n g la n d a n d Ir e la n d in the L a te r M id d le A g e s , ed. J.F. Lydon (Dublin, 1981). ----- , ‘Irish Levies in the Scottish Wars, 1296-1302’, T h e Ir ish S w o r d , v (1962). lu n t

,

w

. e ., F in a n c ia l R e la tio n s o f the P a p a cy w ith E n g la n d to 1 3 2 7

, b . d ., ‘Un compte de l’échiquier relatif aux relations d ’Edouard I d ’Angleterre avec le duc Jean 11 de Brabant’, B u lle t in de la com m ission royale d 'h is to ir e , cxx (1955).

l y o n

,

mc f a r l a n e

Mc In

,

t o s h

130 0

m

k

. b ., T h e N o b ility o f L a te r M e d ie v a l E n g la n d

(Oxford, 1973).

. k ., A u to n o m y a n d C om m u n ity : T h e R o y a l M a n o r o f H a v erin g 1 2 0 0 -

(Cambridge, 1986).

m c k is a c k

,

m

M id d le A g e s m c l e a n

,

n

.,

., T h e P a rlia m en ta ry R epresen ta tion o f the E n g lis h B o ro u g h s d urin g the

(Oxford, 1932). ‘An Eastern Embassy to Europe in the years 1287-8’, E H R , xiv

(1899)-

J.R., ‘Edward I and the Lessons of Baronial Reform: Local Government, 1258-80’, T hirteen th C entury E n g la n d /, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1986).

MADDicoTT,

-------- , T h e E n g lis h P ea sa n try a n d the D e m a n d s o f the C ro w n 1 2 3 4 - 1 3 4 1

P resen t S u p p lem en t ,

(P a s t a n d

1975).

-------- , L a w a n d L o r d sh ip : R o y a l J u s tic e s as retainers in thirteen th- a n d fou rteen th -cen tu ry

E n g la n d (P a s t a n d P resen t S u p p lem en t , 1978). ----- , ‘The Mise of Lewes, 1264’, E H R , xcviii (1983). ----- , ‘Parliament and the Constituencies’, T h e E n g lis h P a r lia m e n t in the M id d le A g e s , ed. R.G. Davies and J.H. Denton (Manchester, 1981). m a d o x , t ., T h e H isto ry a n d A n tiq u itie s o f the E x ch e q u e r (1769). m a i t l a n d , f . w ., ‘The “ Praerogativa Regis’” , E H R , vi (1891). m a t e , m ., ‘High Prices in early fourteenth-century England: causes and consequences’, E co n o m ic H isto ry R e v ie w , 2nd series, xxviii (1975). ----- , ‘The Impact of War on the Economy of Canterbury Cathedral Priory, 1294-1340’, S p e cu lu m , lvii (1982). ----- , ‘Monetary Policies in England, 1272-1307’, B r itis h N u m ism a tic J o u r n a l , xli (1972). m a y h e w , n . j ., and w a l k e r , d . r . , ‘Crockards and Pollards: imitation and the problem of fineness in a silver coinage’, E d w a r d ia n M o n eta ry A f f a i r s (1273-1344), ed. N.J. Mayhew (British Archaeological Reports, 1977). m e e k i n g s , c . a . f ., S tu d ies in T h ir teen th -C en tu r y J u s tic e a n d A d m in istr a tio n ( 1982). m i l l e r , e ., ‘War, taxation and the English economy in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries’, in W a r a n d E co n o m ic D ev elo p m en t , ed. J.M . Winter (1975).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

590 m il l s

,

. h ., 4 “ A d v e n t u s V i c e c o m i t u m ” , 1 2 7 2 - 1 3 0 7 \ E H R , x x x v i i i ( 1 9 2 3 ) .

m

---------, ‘ E x c h e q u e r A g e n d a a n d E s t i m a t e o f R e v e n u e , E a s t e r T e r m 1 2 8 4 ’ , E H R , xl (1925)m it g h e l l

,

s

. k ., T a x a tio n in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d ( N e w H a v e n ,

m o o r m a n

,

j

. r . h ., ‘ E d w a r d

r

., ‘ T h e

I at L a n erco st

Priory,

1951).

1 3 0 6 - 7 ’ , E H R , lxviii

(1952). Mo

,

r g a n

Barony o f Powys,

1 2 7 5 - 1 3 6 0 ’ , W elsh H isto ry R e v ie w , x

(19 8 0 -1). ,

m o r r is

Nic

. e ., T h e W elsh W ars o f E d w a r d I ( O x f o r d ,

j

,

h o l s o n

,

n e il s o n

o r p e n

., S co tla n d : T h e L a te r M id d le A g e s ( E d i n b u r g h ,

n

., F ro m C h ild h o o d to C h iv a lry ( 1 9 8 4 ) . g

-

o t w a y

1974).

., ‘ B r u c e versus B a l l i o l ’ , S H R , x v i ( 1 9 1 9 ) .

g

,

,

o r m e

r

1901).

. h ., Ir e la n d under the N o r m a n s , iii, 1 2 1 6 - 1 3 3 3 ( O x f o r d ,

r u t h v e n

,

j

1920).

., ‘ T h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P o s i t i o n o f t h e G r e a t L o r d s h i p s

o f S o u t h W a l e s ’ , T R H S , 5 t h series, viii ( 1 9 5 8 ) . -------- , A H isto r y o f M e d ie v a l Ir e la n d ( 1 9 6 8 ) .

,

p a i n t e r

T h e R e ig n o f K i n g J o h n ( B a l t i m o r e , 1 9 4 9 ) .

s .,

,

p a l m e r

. c ., T h e C ou n ty C o u rts o f M e d ie v a l E n g la n d 1 1 3 0 - 1 3 3 0 ( P r i n c e t o n ,

r

i9 8 2 ). , J . c ., ‘ T h e Y e a r o f E l e a n o r o f C a s t i l e ’ s B i r t h a n d h e r C h i l d r e n b y

p a r s o n s

E d w a r d I ’ , M e d ie v a l S tu d ie s , x l v i ( 1 9 8 4 ) . p a s q u e t

!

,

., A n E s sa y on the O r ig in s o f the H o u se o f C om m o ns ( C a m b r i d g e ,

d

925),

p e l h a m

r

. a .,

‘T h e

P rovision in g

o f the

Lin coln

P a rliam e n t

of

1301’,

U n iv ersity o f B ir m in g h a m H is to r ic a l J o u r n a l , iii ( 1 9 5 2 ) . p e t e r s

Ph

,

e

il l ip s

,

., T h e S h a d o w K in g ( N e w H a v e n , j

1970).

. r . s ., A y m er de V alence, earl o f P em b ro k e 1 3 0 7 - 1 3 2 4 ( O x f o r d , 1 9 7 2 ) . ,

p l u c k n e t t

t

. f . t ., L e g is la tio n o f E d w a r d I ( O x f o r d ,

1949).

-------- , ‘ P a r l i a m e n t ’ , H is to r ic a l S tu d ies o f the E n g lis h P a r lia m e n t , i, e d . E . B . F r y d e an d E. M iller (C a m b rid g e , p o l l o c k

,

f

., a n d

C am b rid ge, p o o l e

,

a

1970).

m a i t l a n d

,

f

. w ., H isto ry o f E n g lis h L a w , 2 v o l s ( 2 n d e d n ,

1898).

. l ., F ro m D o m esd a y B o o k to M a g n a C a r ta , 1 0 8 7 - 1 2 1 6 ( O x f o r d , 1 9 5 5 ) .

-------- , O b lig a tio n s o f Society in the X I I a n d X I I I centuries ( O x f o r d , ., S tu d ies in M e d ie v a l L e g a l T h o u g h t ( P r i n c e t o n ,

1946).

p o s t

,

p o s t

, J.B ., ‘R a v is h m e n t o f W o m e n a n d the S ta tu te o f W e s tm in s te r ’ , Legal

g

1964).

R eco rd s a n d the H is to r ia n , e d . J . H . B a k e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) . p o w i c k e

,

f

. m ., ‘ E d w a r d I i n F a c t a n d F i c t i o n ’ , F r i t z S a x l M e m o r ia l E s sa y s , e d .

D.J. G o r d o n , -------- ,

--------

(1957).

H en ry I I I a n d the L o r d E d w a r d , 2 v o l s ( O x f o r d , 1 9 4 7 ) . T h e T hirteen th C en tu ry , 1 2 1 6 - 1 3 0 7 ( 2 n d e d n , O x f o r d , 1 9 6 2 ) . . r ., M ilit a r y O b lig a tio n in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d ( O x f o r d ,

p o w i c k e

,

m

,

j

. e ., a n d

p o w e l l

p r e s t w ic h

,

xcvi (1981).

J.o.,

w a l l i s

,

k

1962).

. , T h e H o u se o f L o rd s in the M id d le A g e s ( 1 9 6 8 ) .

‘T h e M i l i t a r y H o u s e h o l d o f th e N o r m a n K i n g s ’ , E H R

,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

591

p r e s t w i c h , m . c .,

‘C avalry Service in Early Fourteenth Century England5, ed. J.B . Gillingham and J .C . Holt (Woodbridge, 1984). ------, ‘Colonial Scotland5, S co tla n d a n d E n g la n d 1 2 8 6 - 1 8 1 5 , ed. R.A. Mason (Edinburgh, 1987). ------, ‘The Crown and the Currency. The Circulation o f M oney in late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century England5, N u m ism a tic C h r o n icle , cxlii (1982). ------, ‘Early Fourteenth-Century Exchange Rates’, E co n o m ic H isto ry R e v ie w , W a r a n d G overnm ent in the M id d le A g e s ,

2nd series, xxxii (1979). ------, ‘Edward I ’s M onetary Policies and their Consequences5, E co n o m ic H isto ry R e v ie w , 2nd series, xii (1969). ------, ‘Edward I ’s W ars and their Financing, 1294-13075, (Oxford University D.Phil. thesis, 1968). ------, ‘The English Cam paign in Scotland in 1296 and the surrender o f John Balliol: some supporting evidence5, B 1H R , xlix (1976). ------, ‘Exchequer and W ardrobe in the Later Years of Edward I 5, B I H R , xlvi (*973)------, ‘ Isabella de Vescy and the Custody of Bam burgh C astle5,

B IH R

, xliv

(i9 7 0 ------, ‘ Italian Bankers in late thirteenth and early fourteenth century England5, T h e D a w n o f M o d ern B a n k in g , ed. Center for Medieval and Renaiss­

ance Studies (New Haven, 1979). ------, ‘ M agnate Summonses in England in the Later Years o f Edward I 5, P a r lia m e n ts , E s ta te s a n d R ep resen ta tio n , v (1985). ------, ‘A New Account of the Welsh Cam paign of 1294-5’, W elsh H isto ry R e v ie w , vi (1973-4). ------, ‘ Parliament and the community o f the realm in fourteenth century England5, P a r lia m e n t a n d C o m m u n ity , ed. A. Cosgrove and J .I. M cGuire (Belfast, 1983). ------, ‘The Piety of Edward I 5, E n g la n d in the T hirteen th C en tu ry , ed. W .M . Orm rod (Harlaxton, 1985). ------, ‘Royal Patronage under Edward I 5, T hirteen th C entury E n g la n d /, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1986). ------, T h e T hree E d w a r d s : w a r a n d state in E n g la n d 1 2 J 2 - 1 3 J J (1980). ------, W ar , P o litic s a n d F in a n ce under E d w a r d I (1972). p u g h , r . b ., Im prison m en t in M e d ie v a l E n g la n d (Cam bridge, 1968). ------, L o n d on T ra ilb a sto n T r ia ls (1975). p u r g e l l , m ., P a p a l C ru sa d in g P o lic y 1 2 4 4 - 1 2 5 1 (Leyden, 1975). Rh o d e s ,

w . e .,

‘Edmund earl o f Lancaster5, E H R , x (1895). ., ‘The Coronation of Edward I 5, B I H R , xv (1937-8). ------, ‘Early Coronation Records’ , B I H R , xiii (1935-6). ------, ‘The English Coronation O ath 5, S p e cu lu m , xxiv (1949). ------, T h e E n g lis h J e w r y under the A n g e v in K in g s (i960). ------, Review o f T h e H isto ry o f the K i n g ’s W o rk s , E H R > lxxx (1965). r i c h a r d s o n , h . g ., and s a y l e s , g . o ., T h e E n g lis h P a r lia m e n t in the M id d le A g e s (1981). r ic h a r d s o n , h .g

BIBLIOGRAPHY

592

------ , T h e Governance o f M e d ie v a l E n g la n d (Edinburgh, 1963). ------ , T h e Ir is h P a r lia m e n t in the M id d le A g e s (Philadelphia, 1952). R i d g e w a y , h . w ., ‘T he Lord Edward and the Provisions o f Oxford (1258): a Study in Faction’, T hirteen th C en tu ry E n g la n d 1 , ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (W oodbridge, 1986). ------ , ‘The Politics o f the English Royal Court, 1247-65, with special reference to the role o f the aliens’ (Oxford U niversity D.Phil. thesis, 1984). R o d e r i c k , a .j ., ‘The Four Cantreds: a study in adm inistration’, B u lle t in o f the B o a r d o f C e ltic S tu d ie s , x (1940). R ö h r i c h t , R., ‘Etudes sur les derniers temps du royaume de Jérusalem. A. La croisade du Prince Edouard d ’Angleterre (1270-1274), A r ch iv e s de T O r ie n t L a tin , i (1881). ------ , ‘Etudes sur les derniers temps du royaume de Jérusalem. C . Les combats du Sultan Baibars’ , A r c h iv e s de l'O r ie n t L a t in , ii (1884). r o s k e l l , J. s., ‘The Problem o f the Attendance o f the Lords in M edieval Parliam ents’, B I H R , xxix (1956). r o t h , c ., H isto ry o f the J e w s in E n g la n d (Oxford, 1941). r o t h w e l l , h ., ‘The Confirmation o f the Charters, 1297’ , E H R , lx (1945)------, ‘The Disgrace o f Richard o f Louth, 1297’, E H R , xlviii (1933). ------ , ‘Edward I ’s case against Philip the Fair over G ascony’ , E H R , xlii (1927). ------ , ‘Edward I and the Struggle for the Charters, 1297-1305’, S tu d ies in M e d ie v a l H isto ry p resen ted to F . M . P o w ic k e , ed. R.W . Hunt, W .A . Pantin, R.W . Southern (Oxford, 1948). r o u n d , j . h ., T h e K in g 's S ergea nts a n d O fficers o f S ta te ( 1911 ). RUNCIMAN, s., T h e S ic ilia n Vespers (Harmondsworth, i960). R y a n , J.D., ‘Nicholas I V and the Evolution o f the Eastern Missionary Effort’, A r ch iv u m H is to r ia e P o n tific u m , xix (1981). s a l t , m.c . l

., ‘List o f English Embassies to France, 1272-1307’ ,

EH R,

xliv

(1929)s a l z m a n , l . f ., E d w a r d I

(1968). p .c ., ‘Royal Ecclesiastical Patronage in England, 1199 -13 56’ (Oxford University D.Phil. thesis, 1978). s a y l e s , g . o ., ‘T he dissolution o f a guild at Y ork in 1306’, E H R , lv ( 1940). ------ , T h e K i n g 's P a r lia m e n t o f E n g la n d (1975). ------ , ‘ M edieval Judges as Legal Consultants’ , L a w Q u a rterly R e v ie w , liv (1940). s c h e i n , s ., ‘Gesta Dei per M ongolos 1300. The genesis o f a non-event’ , E H R , xciv (1979). s i m p s o n , a . b . w . j A wIntro du ctio n to the H isto ry o f the L a n d L a w (Oxford, 1961). s i m p s o n , g . g ., ‘T he Claim o f Florence count o f Holland to the Scottish Throne, 12 9 1-2 ’, S H R , xxxvi (1957). ------ , ‘The F a m ilia o f Roger de Q uincy, earl of W inchester and Constable o f Scotland’ , E s sa y s on the N o b ility o f M e d ie v a l S co tla n d , ed. K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985). s i m p s o n , w . d ., C a s tle s in E n g la n d a n d W a les (1969). s m a l l e y , B., E n g lis h F r ia r s a n d A n tiq u ity in the E a r ly F o u rteen th C en tu ry (Oxford, 196°). sa u n d er s,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

593

smith, j. b e v e r l ey ,

‘The Legal Position o f W ales in the M iddle A ges’, L a w ed. A. H arding (1980). ------, ‘Edward I I and the allegiance o f W ales’, W elsh H isto ry R e v ie w , viii M a k in g a n d L a w M a k e r s ,

(1976-7)------, ‘The Origins o f the Revolt o f Rhys ap M aredudd’ , B u lle t in o f the B o a r d o f C e ltic S tu d ie s , xxi (1964-6). s m i t h , l . b e v e r l e y , ‘The death o f Llywelyn ap Gruffydd: the narratives reconsidered’, W elsh H isto ry R e v ie w , xi (1982). ------, ‘The Gravam ina of the Com m unity o f Gwynedd against Llywelyn ap Gryffudd’ , B u lle t in o f the B o a r d o f C e ltic S tu d ie s , xxxi (1984). ------, ‘The Statute o f Wales, 1284’ , W elsh H isto ry R e v ie w , x (1980-1). So m e r v i l l e , r ., H isto ry o f the D u c h y o f L a n c a ster , i (1953). s p i t z e r , a . l ., ‘The Legal Careers o f Thom as o f W eyland and Gilbert o f Thornton’, J o u r n a l o f L e g a l H is to r y , vi (1985). s p u f f o r d , p., H a n d b o o k o f M e d ie v a l E x c h a n g e (1986). s p u l e r , b ., H isto ry o f the M o n g o ls (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972). s t a i n e s , d ., ‘Havelock the Dane: a thirteenth century handbook for princes’, S p e cu lu m , li (1976). s t a n i l a n d , k ., ‘Welcome, Royal Babe! T he Birth o f Thom as ofBrotherton in 1300’ , C o stu m e , (1985). s t e l l , g ., ‘The Balliol Family and the Great Cause o f 12 9 1-2 ’ , E ssa y s on the N o b ility o f M e d ie v a l S c o tla n d , ed. K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985). St e p h e n s o n , d ., T h e G overnance o f G w y n ed d (Cardiff, 1984). ------, T h e L a s t P r in c e o f W a les (Buckingham, 1983). ------, ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffydd and the struggle for the principality o f Wales, 1258-1282’, T ra n sa ctio n s o f the H o n o u ra b le Society o f Cym m rodorion (1983). s t e w a r t b r o w n , r ., ‘T he end o f the Norman earldom o f Chester’ , E H R , xxxv (1920). s t o n e s , e . l . g ., ‘English Chroniclers and the Affairs o f Scotland, 12861296’, T h e W ritin g o f H isto ry in the M id d le A g e s , ed. R .H .C . Davis and J.M . W allace-H adrill (Oxford, 1981). ------, ‘The mission o f Thom as W ale and Thom as Delisle from Edward I to Boniface V I I I in 1301’, N o ttin g h a m M e d ie v a l S tu d ie s , xxvii (1982). ------, ‘The T ext o f the W rit “ Q uod Omnes T an git” in Stubbs’s Select Charters’, E H R , lxxxiii (1973). s t o n e s , e . l . g ., and b l o u n t , m . n ., ‘The Surrender o f K in g John of Scotland to Edward I in 1296: some new evidence’, B I H R , xlviii (1975). s t r a y e r , j . r ., ‘The Costs and Profits o f War: the Anglo-French conflict o f 1294-1303’ , T h e M e d ie v a l C ity , ed. H .A. Miskimin, D. Herlihy, A .L . Udovitch (New Haven, 1977). ------, M e d ie v a l S ta tecr a ft a n d the P ersp ectives o f H isto ry (Princeton, 1971). ------, T h e R e ig n o f P h i lip the F a i r (Princeton, 1980). s t u b b s , w ., T h e C o n stitu tio n a l H isto ry o f E n g la n d , ii (4th edn, Oxford, 1906). ------ , Seventeen lectures on the S tu d y o f M e d ie v a l a n d M o d ern H isto ry (Oxford, 1887). s t u d d , j . r ., ‘A Catalogue o f the Acts o f the Lord Edward, 1254-1272’ (Leeds University Ph.D. thesis, 1971). ------, ‘The Lord Edward’s lordship o f Chester, 1254 -72’, T ra n sa ction s o f the H is to r ic Society o f L a n c a sh ire a n d C h e sh ir e , 128 (1979).

594

BIBLIOGRAPHY

------, ‘The Lord Edward and K in g Henry I I I , B I H R , 1 (1977). S u t h e r l a n d , d . w ., T h e A s s iz e o f N o v e l D is s e is in (Oxford, 1973). ------, Q u o W arranto P roceed in g s in the R e ig n o f E d w a r d I , I 2 j 8 - i 2 g 4 (Oxford, 1963)s u m m e r s o n , h .r .t

., ‘The early development o f Peine Forte et D ure’ , L a w , ed. E.W . Ives and A .H . Manchester

L itig a n ts a n d the L e g a l P r o fe s s io n ,

(1983)s w i f t , f . d .,

‘M arriage Alliance o f the Infanta Pedro o f Aragon and Edward I o f England’ , E H R , v (1890). s w i n n e r t o n , c ., ‘Tw o ancient petitions from the Public Record O ffice’, T h e A n ce sto r , vi (1903). t a y l o r , a .j

., ‘T he castle o f St-Georges d ’Esperanche’ , A n tiq u a r ie s J o u r n a l, xxxiii (1953). ------, ‘Castle-Building in Wales in the later thirteenth century: the prelude to construction’ , S tu d ies in B u ild in g H is to r y , ed. E.M . Jope (1961). ------, ‘Documents concerning the K in g ’s Works at Linlithgow, 1302-3’, S tu d ies in S co ttish A n tiq u ity p resen ted to S tew a rt C ru d en , ed. D.J. Breeze (Edinburgh, 1984). ------, ‘The Earliest Burgesses o f Flint and Rhuddlan’, F lin ts h ir e H is to r ic a l Society P u b lic a tio n s , xxvii (1975-6). ------, ‘Edward I and the Shrine o f St Thom as of Canterbury’, J o u r n a l o f the B r itis h A r ch a e o lo g ic a l A s s o c ia tio n , cxxxii (1979). ------, ‘A fragment o f a dona account of 1284’, B u lle tin o f the B o a r d o f C e ltic S tu d ie s, xxvii (1976-8). ------, ‘M aster James o f St G eorge’ , E H R , lxv (1950). ------, R h u d d la n C a s tle (Official Guide, 1956). ------ , ‘Royal Alms and Oblations in the Later Thirteenth C entury’ , T rib u te to an A n tiq u a r y : essays presen ted to M a r c F itc h , ed. F.G. Emmison and R. Stephens

( I976)-

------, ‘Some notes on the Savoyards in north W ales, 1277-1300, with special reference to the Savoyard element in the construction of Harlech castle’, G enav a, new series, xi (1963). ------, S tu d ies in C a stle s a n d C a s tle - B u ild in g (1985). ------, ‘W ho was “John Penardd, leader of the men o f G w ynedd” ?’ , E H R , xci (1976). t h o r p e , l ., ‘M astre Richard, a thirteenth-century translator o f the “ de Re M ilitari” of Vegetius’ , S crip to riu m , vi (1952). t o u t , t . f ., C h a p ters in the A d m in is tr a tiv e H isto ry o f M e d ie v a l E n g la n d , ii, vi (Manchester, 1920, 1933). ------, C o lle c te d P a p ers , iii (Manchester, 1934). ------ , ‘Communitas bacheleriae A nglie’, E H R , xvii (1902). ------ , T h e P la c e o f E d w a r d I I in E n g lis h H isto r y (Manchester, 1914). t r a b u t - c u s s a c , J. P. , L ’a d m in istra tio n a n g la ise en G ascogn e sous H en ry I I I et E d o u a r d I de 1 2 5 4 a 1 3 0 J (Paris, 1972). ------, ‘Bastides ou Forteresses?’, L e M o y en A g e , lx (1954). ------, ‘Date, fondation et identification de la bastide de B aa’, R ev u e H isto r iq u e de B o rd e a u x , new series, x (1961).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

595

-------- , ‘ L e f i n a n c e m e n t d e l a c r o i s a d e A n g l a i s e d e 1 2 7 0 ’ , B ib lio th è q u e de l'é c o le des

C h a rte s , c x i x ( 1 9 6 1 ) . 1 2 8 6 -8 9 ’, B IH R , x x v (1952).

-------- , ‘ I t i n é r a i r e d ’ E d o u a r d I e n F r a n c e ,

-------- , ‘ U n r ô l e d e l e t t r e s p a t e n t e s é m a n é e s d u p r i n c e E d o u a r d p e n d a n t s o n p r e m i e r s é j o u r e n G a s c o g n e ( M a i - O c t o b r e 1 2 5 4 ) ’ , in R e c e u il des travaux o ffer t

à M . C lo v is B r u n e i ( P a r i s , 1 9 5 5 ) .

F.,

,

t r a u t z

D i e K ö n ig e von E n g la n d u nd das R e ic h , 1 2 7 2 - 1 3 7 7

(H eid e lb e rg ,

i9 6 0 .

R.F.,

,

t r e h a r n e

T h e B a r o n ia l P la n o f R efo r m ( M a n c h e s t e r , 1 9 3 2 ) .

, T . h ., ‘ U n p u b l i s h e d n o t i c e s o f t h e t i m e s o f E d w a r d I ’ , A rchaeolog ical

t u r n e r

J o u r n a l, v i i i ( 1 8 5 1 ) . ,

u l l m a n n

w .,

‘T h e

C u rial

E xeq u ies

fo r

Edw ard

I

and

Edw ard

I I I ’,

E c c le s ia s tic a l H isto ry R e v ie w , v i ( 1 9 5 5 ) . v a l e

, j . , E d w a r d I I I a n d C h iv a lry ( 1 9 8 3 ) .

v a l e

,

. g . a ., ‘T h e G a s c o n N o b i l i t y a n d t h e A n g l o - F r e n c h W a r ,

m

12 9 4 -8 ’,

W a r a n d G overnm ent in the M id d le A g e s , e d . J . B . G i l l i n g h a m a n d J . C . H o l t (W o o d b rid ge,

1984).

Victoria C ou nty H isto r y , A H isto ry o f the C ou n ty o f C h e sh ir e , e d . B . E . H a r r i s , iii (1980). v i n o g r a d o f f

,

p

., ‘ R a l p h o f H e n g h a m

as C h i e f J u s t ic e o f the C o m m o n

P l e a s ’ , E s sa y s in M e d ie v a l H isto ry presen ted to T . F . F .M . P o w ick e (M a n ch este r,

T o u t, e d . A . G . L i t t l e a n d

1925).

,

a

. r ., C a ta lo g u e o f E n g lis h M e d ie v a l R o lls o f A r m s ( H a r l e i a n S o c i e t y ,

,

r

. f ., ‘ T h e H a g n a b y C h r o n i c l e a n d t h e B a t t l e o f M a e s M o y d o g ’ ,

w a g n e r

1948). w a l k e r

W elsh H isto ry R e v ie w , v i i i ( 1 9 7 6 - 7 ) . ,

w a r r e n w a t e r s

W

,

a u g h

. l ., H en ry I I

w

,

w

(1973).

. h ., T h e E d w a r d ia n S ettlem en t o f N o r th W a les ( 1 9 3 5 ) .

. l ., ‘ T h e F i s c a l U s e s o f R o y a l W a r d s h i p s i n t h e R e i g n o f E d w a r d

s

T , T hirteen th C en tu ry E n g la n d / , e d . P . R . C o s s a n d S . D . L l o y d ( W o o d b r i d g e , 1986).

Wi l k i n s o n , -------- , S tu d ies in !

937)-

w i l l a r d

b

.,

J.F .,

,

C o n stitu tio n a l H isto ry o f E n g la n d 1 2 1 6 - 1 3 3 3 ,

i ( 1948).

the C o n stitu tio n a l H isto ry o f the 13 th a n d 1 4 th centuries ( M a n c h e s t e r , ‘A n E x c h e q u e r R e f o r m u n d e r E d w a r d T ,

T h e C ru sa d es a n d

other H is to r ic a l E s sa y s p resen ted to D a n a C . M u n r o , e d . L . J . P a e t o w ( N e w Y o r k , 1928). -------- , P a rlia m en ta ry T a x e s on P e r so n a l P rop erty , 12 3 0 to 1 3 3 4 ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , 1934)w il l ia m s

Wi l s o n , w o l f f e

y o u n g

,

,

. a ., M e d ie v a l L o n d o n fr o m

g

C om m u ne to C a p ita l ( 1 9 6 3 ) .

r . m ., T h e L o s t L itera tu re o f M e d ie v a l E n g la n d

,

b

(1952).

. p ., T h e R o y a l D em esn e in E n g lis h H isto ry ( 1 9 7 1 ) .

G.R.,

z u c k e r m a n

,

T h e R o y a l F o rests o f M e d ie v a l E n g la n d c

(Leicester, 1979).

. ‘T h e e n d i n g o f F r e n c h in te r fe r e n c e in t h e p a p a l f in a n c ia l

s y s t e m in 1 2 9 7 : a n e g l e c t e d e p i s o d e ’ , V ia to r , x i ( 1 9 8 0 ) .

INDEX Abbreviations: abp (archbishop) abt (abbot) bp (bishop) dau. (daughter) e. (earl)

jun. (junior) qu.(queen) k. (king) s. (son) sen. (senior)

Abagha, Il-Khan of Persia, 75, 330 Abbotsbury (Dorset), 156 Aberdeen (Grampian), 499, 501 Abergavenny (Gwent), 19, 20, 38, 349, 351 Aberystwyth (Dyfed), 179, 182-3, 190, 2°8, 223 Abingdon (Oxon), abt of, 243 Abingdon, Edmund of, abp of Canterbury, 4 Accursi d’Arrezzo, 81 Accursi, Francesco, 81, 249, 269 Acre (Israel), 74-7, 79-80, 120, 305, 329, 333, 35 i, 567; see fl/jojoan Acre, John of, 82 Acton Burnell (Salop), 218, 443; a n d see Parliament, Statutes Adolph of Nassau, k. of Germany, 379, 387, 390 - I >393? 4 I2 >422

Agenais (France), 304, 306, 316, 321, 334, 553 Aguylon, Robert, 262 Aigueblanche, Peter d’, bp of Hereford, 22, 39 Aigues-Mortes (d e p . Gard), 72-3, 84, 211 Aimery, Pierre, 396 Aixe (d ep . Haute-Vienne), 303 Alard, Gervase, 153 Albret, Amanieu d’, 153, 299 Albret, sire d’, 553 Alemaunt, Ralph le, 313 Alexander 1 1 , k. of Scots, 358, 368 Alexander 1 1 1 , k. of Scots, 91, 356-9, 367, 372, 374, 444, 49«, 500-1

Alexander, s. of Alexander III, 358 Alfred, k. of England, 342 Alice, alleged dau. of Edward I, 125 Almain, Henry of, 34, 60, 62; brought up with Edward, 5-6; supports Edward (1258-9), 25, 27-8, 31, 33; parts company with Edward (1262), 37-8; rejoins Edward (1263), 41; in Barons’ Wars, 42, 45-7, 56; at Kenilworth, 57; takes cross, 68-9; murder, 74, 83, 300, 319

Almsgiving, 4, 112-13, 129, 161-2 Alnwick (Northumb.), 57 Alphonse of Poitiers, 303, 309 Alphonso 1 1 1 , k. of Aragon, 128, 323-6 Alphonso X, k. of Castile, 9-11,73, 115, 270, 316, 318-19, 321 Alphonso, s. of Edward I, 105, 119, 126-7, 226 Alton Forest (Hants), 56 Amadeus, count of Savoy, 298, 389, 391, 3967 , 4 4 0 , 45 2 Amersham, Walter of, 474, 546 Amesbury (Wilts), 123, 128 Amiens (d é p . Somme), 247, 250, 323, 379; m ise of, 41-2, 44; treaty of, 304, 316, 319 Amiens, Girard of, 123 Anglesey, 16, 180-2, 190-2, 195, 197, 205-6, 208, 214, 220, 223, 228-9, 3^7 Angoulême, Itierd’, 307, 390 Angus, e. of, see Umfraville, Gilbert d’ Angusel, k. of Scots, 492 Anjou, 29, 314, 318; a n d see Charles Annandale (Dumfries & Galloway), 479, 482-

3,505

Antioch (Turkey), 66 Antrim (N. Ireland), 482 Appletreefield, William de, 104 Aquitaine, see Gascony Aragon, 8, 305, 317, 321-3, 326, 333, 387; k.s of, see Alphonso 1 1 1 , James 1 1 , Peter II I Arbroath, abt of, 373 Arcy, Norman d’, 59 Ardern, Ralph de, 51 Ardudwy, cantred of, 162, 195 Arghun, Il-Khan of Persia, 314, 330-1 Aristotle, 124 Arles (d ép . Bouches-du-Rhône), kingdom of,

317

Armagnac, count of, 553 Armenia, 75 Arnaud-Loup of Estibeaux, 309 Arras (d ép . Pas-de-Calais), 440 Arsuf (Israel), 66 Arthur, k. of Britain, 118-21, 204, 356, 492 Arthurian literature, 118, 123, 559 A r t ic u li s u p e r C a r t a s (1300), 168, 523-4, 526-7, 547 ?553

598

INDEX

Artois, Robert of, 384-5, 392 Arundel, e. of, see FitzAlan Arwystli, cantred of, 176, 184-7 Ashridge (Herts), 363, 443 Asnières, truce of, 496 Asphale, Geoffrey of, 124, 250 Aston, Thomas de, 286 Aswardhurn Hundred (Lines), 95 Athlone, 11,13 Atholl, earldom of, 512; e. of, see Strathbogie Atrocities, by English, 191,202-3, 471, 5089; against English, 220, 373, 478, 503 Audenarde, Giles of, 546 Audley, Hugh, 325 Audley, William, 190 Aumale, countess of, e. of, see Forz, Gros Auxerre (d é p . Yonne), 324 Avice, dau. of William le Gros, e. of Aumale, 104 Avigliana (Italy), 84 Axholme, Isle of (Lines), 55 Aylesford, Peter of, 399 Ayr (Strathclyde), 481-2, 494, 506, 510, 513, 5 L5 Baa {dép. Gironde), 308 Bachelors, community of, 29-31, 63 Badlesmere, Guncelin de, 217 Baibars, sultan of Egypt, 66, 75-8, 82 Bakewell, John, 397, 503 Bala, Lake (Gwynedd), 203 Ballardi, of Lucca, 129, 161, 534 Balliol, family, 357 Balliol,John (d. 1268), 26 Balliol, John, k. ofScots; claim to throne, 3589, 362-3, 366-9; becomes k., 369-70; relationship as k. to Edward I, 301, 370-5, 378, 469; alliance with France, 388, 469; in war of 1296, 471,473; forced abdication, 473-4, 476, 492; supported by French after 1296, 396, 490, 495-6, 515; in papal custody, 490; return demanded, 489; lands, 545

Bamburgh (Northumb.), 550 Bamburgh, Thomas of, 544 Bangor (Gywnedd), 195, 221, 223, 228; bp of, 177 Banners, 43, 51,487, 541 Banstead (Surrey), 104, 164 Bar, count of, see Henry Bard (Savoy), 84 Bardney, Geoffrey of, 156 Barentin, Drogo de, 26, 148 Barnard Castle (Co. Durham), 357, 545 Barons, letter to the pope (1301), 492 Barons’ Wars, 42-58, 518 B a r r o w , G . W . S . , 356, 367, 373 Bartholomew, Roger, 370-1 Barton, William, 158

Basset, Philip, 27-8, 46, 59, 62, 73 Basset, Ralph, 41-2 Bassingbourne, Warin de, 27-8, 34, 41,43, 47 , 54 , 57 B a s t id e s , 304, 306, 308-11 Bath and Wells, bp of, see Burnell, March Battle, John of, 119 Battles: Lewes (1264), 44-6; Evesham (1265), 51-3; Irfon Bridge (1282), 193-4; Maes Moydog (1295), 223; Bellegarde (1297), 385; Stirling Bridge (1297), 478; Falkirk (1298), 481; Methven (1306), 507; see a lso in d iv id u a l entries

Bauseley (Powys), 176 Bauzan, Stephen, 18 Bavent, Robert, 116-17 Bayonne {dép. Pyrénées-Atlantiques), 9-10, 299, 305, 376-8, 382-3, 386, 398-9 Bazas {dép. Gironde), 9, 304 Béarn, Constance de, 300, 304 Béarn, Gaston de, 8-9, 72, 85, 105, 298, 3001,3 T5 , 325, 463 Beauchamp, Guy de, e. of Warwick, 447, 495, 5 2 L 5 4 L 557 Beauchamp, John de, 176 Beauchamp, Walter de, sen., 141, 145-6, 150, i69 , 35 ° Beauchamp, Walter de, jun., 150 Beauchamp, William de, e. of Warwick, 176, 196,221, 223, 413, 419-21,433, 478, 483 Beaufoy, Roger de, 287 Beaulieu (Hants), 6 Beaumaris (Gwynedd), 208-10, 214-15, 231 Becket, Thomas, abp of Canterbury, 112, 116, 255

Bedfordshire, 62, 410 Bedminster (Avon), 285 Bedwin, Walter, 141-2, 541, 546-7 Bek, Anthony, bp of Durham, 69, 110, 154, 233, 352-3, 394, 420, 521; conducts k.’s funeral, 558; consecration, 203; as councillor, 437, 440; dispute with Durham Cathedral Priory, 111,517, 541-5; as diplomat, 153, 180, 321, 387, 390, 404; dispute with k. (1300-7), 541-6; failure to return library books, 544; keeper of wardrobe, 92, 138; role in 1297, 541; and Scotland, 361-3, 368, 370, 473, 480-1; swears on k.’s behalf (1298), 482, 518 Bek, Thomas, bp of St Davids, keeper of wardrobe, 92, 138, 154, 235, 244 Belin {dép. Gironde), 62 Bell, William, 284 Bellegarde {d ép . Landes), battle of, 385 Benedict X I, pope, 540 Benstead, John, 69, 142, 439 Bereford, William, 167, 270, 273, 284, 290, 544

Berengaria, dau. of Edward I, 126

INDEX

Berkeley family, 285 Berkeley, Thomas, 224, 420 Berkhampstead (Herts), 47, 53, 281 Bermingham, Peter de, 554 Bermondsey Priory (Gtr London), 341 Bernadon, Jean de, 118 Bernwood (Oxon), 518 Berwick, John of, 115, 391, 445 Berwick upon Tweed (Northumb.), 163, 370, 374, 474, 489, 497, 501, 503, 506; Great Cause hearings at, 366, 463; captured (1296) , 470-1, 475; rebuilding, 310; besieged and relieved, 478-9; imprisonment at, 109, 508; musters at, 483, 493; mutiny at, 514; as victualling base, 117, 160, 486-7; paymaster at, see Weston Bettws-y-Coed (Gwynedd), 194-5 Bevercotes, William of, 504 Bickerdyke (Lines), 55 Bicknor (Kent), 115 Bicknor, John de, 115 Bigod, Hugh, 25, 28 Bigod, Roger, e. of Norfolk (d. 1270), 25 Bigod, Roger, e. of Norfolk, marshal of England (d. 1306), 196, 199, 221, 243, 262, 281,410, 521, 541; and opposition in 1297, 4 13 , 4 i6>4 i 9 _2°, 4 2 4 ?426-7, 429-3°, 4 3 3 , 435, 452, 467, 562; contract of service (1297) , 478; on Falkirk campaign, 481-3, 511,518; opposition in 1300, 522; agreements with k. (1302 & 1305), 537-9; estates, 546 Bigorre, county of (France), 8, 304 Birgham (Borders), treaty of, 360-2, 374 Bisset, Baldred, 495 Bisset, Thomas, 482 Blamont, Henry de, 391 Blanche, duchess of Austria, 130, 380 Blanche of Navarre, 315, 380 Blanquefort (d e p . Gironde), 328 Blaye {dep. Gironde), 308, 382, 384, 386 Blois, Peter of, 108, 559 Blyth (Notts), 7 Boat of Garten (Highlands), 499 Body, Robert, 193 Bohun, Humphrey de, e. of Hereford (d. 1275), 18, 42 Bohun, Humphrey de, e. of Hereford, constable of England (d. 1298), 58, 174, 189, 204, 223, 262; dispute with Gloucester, 339, 348-52, 461; and opposition in 1297, 413, 416, 419, 421-2, 424-7, 429-30, 433, 435, 467, 562; contract of service (1297), 478; on Falkirk campaign, 481-3, 511,518 Bohun, Humphrey de, e. of Hereford (d. 1322), 128-9, 437, 489, 502, 521,538 Bohun, John de, 239 Bois, Richard du, 146 Bolton Priory (N. Yorks), 411

599 Boniface V III, pope, 332, 495, 540; arbitrates between k. and Philip IV, 395-6; arguments against k.’s actions in Scotland, 365, 397, 490-1; gives up support of Scots, 497; imposes tax (1301), 532; letters to (1301), 121, 492;suspends Bek, 543; suspends Langton, 549 Boniface of Savoy, abp of Canterbury, 10, 20L 3 3 ? 7 3 ?254, 3 9 i Bonnegarde (d ep . Landes), 306, 309, 386 Bonvassal of Genoa, 152 Bonvillars, Edmund de, 313 Bonvillars, John de, 151, 207, 209, 215, 218, 272 Bordeaux (d ep . Gironde), 125, 264, 306, 31011, 321, 328, 377, 379; abortive trial by battle at, 320; appeal to p a rle m e n t, 308; attacks on, 382, 384; constable of, 139, 299; customs at, 81-2, 307; Edward at (1254), 10; exchequer, 19; factions in, 8, 15, 37, 304; parliament at, 304, 463; rebels against French, 397; supports French, 386 Borry, Isabella, 285 Bosham (Sussex), 413 Boston (Lines), 116-17, 201, 281,419, 556 Botetourt, John, 131-2, 153-5, 384, 4 3 7 ?5 ° 7 ? 510 Bothwell (Strathclyde), 493-4, 512 Boulogne (d ep . Pas-de-Calais), 40 Bourg-sur-Mer (d ep . Gironde), 382, 384, 386 Box, Juliana, 431-2 Boyland, Richard of, 342 Boys, Thomas de, 508 Boyvill, Herbert de, 70 Brabant, 9, 317, 419; duke of, s e e } o h n Brabazon, Roger, 284, 355, 364, 370, 378, 459,

525

‘Bracton’, 90, 259, 292 Braose, William de, 115, 538-9 Bray, Adam de, 144, 162-3 Bray, Henry de, 250, 291,341,410-11 Breaumore (Hants), 162 Brechin (Tayside), 473, 499, 501; bp of, 359 Brecon (Powys), 42, 220, 348-50 Breton, John le, 430 Bretun,John le, 18-20 Brigstok (Northants), 164 Bristol (Avon), 18, 40, 47, 105, 203, 278, 285, 508; appointment of constables, 28, 32-3, 36; fined, 266; granted to Edward, 11—12; exchequer at, 19-20; mint at, 246; and Montfort, 48, 50; Edward’s rivalry with Gloucester over, 30, 60 Brittany, see Henry, John Brometoft, William de, 543 Bromfield and Yale, 16, 204 Brompton, William de, 340 Bromsgrove, Richard de, 512 Bruce, Alexander, 510

6oo

INDEX

Bruce, Marjorie, 509 Bruce, Mary, 109, 508-9 Bruce, Neil, 508 Bruce, Robert I, k. ofScots, 371,476, 516-17, 545, 566; in 1297, 477; agreement with Edward (1302), 496-7; supports English, 500-1, 505-6; murders Comyn, 505; enthronement, 129, 506, 528; defeated at Methven (1306), 507; success in 1307, 51 o11; misjudged by Edward I, 516 Bruce, Robert, lord of Annandale, the Competitor, 358-9, 362, 366-9 Bruce, Robert, e. ofCarrick (d. 1304), 196, 357>359

Bruce, Thomas, 510 Bruges (Belgium), 389, 393, 396 Brun, William le, 6 Brussels, 389 B r u t , chronicle, 557 Brutus, 492, 558 Buchan, countess of, see Isabel of Fife Builth (Powys), 11, 182, 193-4, 2°8, 210, 220-1 Bures, Robert de, 111 Bures, Roger de, 217 Burgh, John de, 104, 164 Burgh, Richard de, e. of Ulster, 354, 359, 362,

499, 50S

Burgh, Walter de, e. of Ulster, 40, 121 Burgh-by-Sands (Cumbria), 511, 556-7 Burgos (Spain), 10 Burgundians, 389, 394-5 Burgundy, count of, 387 Burnell, Robert, bp of Bath & Wells, chancellor, 23, 91, 138, 292, 294, 310, 360i, 550, 560, 563; abroad with Edward (1260-1), 34; acquisitiveness, 104, 140; as chancellor, 92, 136, 233-4; character, 110, 551; and clerical grievances, 256-7; as councillor, 269, 440; death, 293, 355, 528; and Edward’s affairs during crusade, 73, 81; in Gascony, 301, 305, 311; hears complaints (1289), 340; promotion to sees, 73, 324; and quo w a r r a n to , 262; speeches,

323,365

Burnham-on-Crouch (Essex), 346 Burstwick (Lines), 117, 508 Burton Abbey (Staffs), annals of, 29-31, 39 Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk), 156, 165, 246, 373; abt of, 291, 293, 339; chronicle of, 345, 416, 457, 519; a n d see parliament Bush, John, 439, 445, 547 Buttery, 135, 158 Bydik, Adam, 152, 160, 200 Bywell (Northumb.), 478 Caen, John of, 143, 364-5, 369, 445, 542,

546

Caerlaverock (Dumfries & Galloway), 141,

483, 487, 489; campaign, 487-90, 544; S o n g o f, 146, 149-50, 153, 484, 487 Caerleon (Gwent), 121,492 Caernarfon (Gwynedd), 121, 203, 206, 20811, 214-16, 220, 226, 231, 335, 460 Caerwys (Clwyd), 216 Caesarea (Israel), 66, 77 Cages, 508-9 Cahors (d ép . Lot), 38 Caine (Wilts), 94 Cambio, Philip de, 245 Cambridge (Cambs), 368, 491 Cambridge, Thomas of, 399 Cambridgeshire, 289 Canfranc (Spain), 325-6 Canon law, 69, 240, 344 Canterbury, 73, 105, 112, 116, 246, 249, 2656, 443, 460, 463, 495, 521; cathedral, 426; cathedral priory, 411,416; clergy of province, 239, 252, 255, 403, 414-15, 4295 abpric of, 90, 234, 251 ; abps of, see Abingdon, Becket, Boniface, Kilwardby, Pecham, Winchelsey Cantilupe, Thomas, bp of Hereford, 436-7 Cantilupe, Walter, bp of Worcester, 40, 42 Cantilupe, William de, 38 Cantreds, the Four (Dyffryn Clwyd, Rhos, Rhufoniog, Tegeingl), 16-17, 59, 180, 183, 191,204 Cap Saint-Mathieu (d ép . Finistère), 377, 382 Capella, Thomas de, 413 Cardiff (S. Glam.), 220 Cardigan (Dyfed), 11,60, 176, 183, 190, 205, 223

Cardiganshire, 224 Carlisle (Cumbria), 62, 141,357, 407, 507, 556-7; armies return to, 482, 490, 494; diocese of, 252; musters at, 483, 485, 487, 493, 506, 511 ; Scots attack (1296), 470; victualling from, 480, 486-7, 512-13; bp of, see Halton; see a lso parliament Carmarthen (Dyfed), 11,60, 176, 179, 188, 192, 201, 205, 218, 221, 351 CarregCennen (Dyfed), 182, 218 Carrick, earldom of, 496, 512; e. of, see Bruce C a r ta M e r c a to r ia , 530 Case, 276-7, 296 Cashel (Tipperary), abp of, 288 Castel del Monte (Italy), 211 Castell-y-Bere (Gwynedd), 173, 195, 207, 215-16, 221 Castile, see Alphonso X, Eleanor, Ferdinand, Sancho Castles; English, 25, 48, 61-2; Savoyard, 84, 2 1 0 - 1 1; Scottish, 365; Welsh, 82, 118, 170, 173, 200, 207-16, 405, 565; a n d see under in d iv id u a l nam es

Caumont, sire de, 553 Caupenne, Arnold de, 151, 153

INDEX

Caupenne, Eliede, 151 Cavalry; in Barons’ Wars, 44-5; in Gascony, 385; in Flanders (1297), 392; household, 152-3, 484-5, 498; in Scottish wars, 47980, 484-5, 493, 498, 506; in Welsh wars, 179, 196; see a lso Horses Cawood (N. Yorks), 131 Celestine V, pope, 332 Chalon-Arlay, Jean de, 389 Châlons (d ép . Marne), 85, 109; count of, see Peter Chamber, 134, 422 Champagne (France), 315 Chancery, 89, 134, 136-7, 234, 267, 299-300, 406, 466, 475, 561; memorandum of 1280, 459-60; see a lso writs Channel Isles, 11, 22, 25, 38 Charles of Anjou, 67-8, 73-4, 82-3, 315-20,

327

Charles Martel, 122 Charles ofSalerno, 115, 122-3, 3°5> 318-19, 321,323-6, 333, 343, 390 Charles of Valois, 378, 382 Charter Rolls, 524 Charters, see C o n firm a tio C a rta ru m , Magna Carta, Forest Charter Chartley (Staffs), 91,438 Chastel Blanc (Syria), 75 Chauncy, Joseph de, treasurer, 81,92, 100,

234

Chauvent, Peter de, 145, 151,444 Chaworth, Payn de, 68, 175-6 Cheker, Matthew, 199 Chepstow (Gwent), 201 Chertsey (Surrey), 162 Cheshire, 13, 26, 179, 198, 230 Chess, 112, 114-15, 123-4 Chester (Cheshire), 53, 56, 101, 163, 174, 203, 214, 228, 230, 246; advance from (1257), 18-19; earldom of, 11—13, 47, 226; exchequer at, 19-20; shire court, 183; and Welsh wars, 176, 179, 189-90, 196, 198— 201, 220-1, 224; bp of, see Langton; justice of, 17, 64, 187; see a lso Grey, Reginald de Chesterfield (Derbs), 56 Chesterton, Gilbert, 400 Chichester, 105; bishopric of, 7 Chichester, Peter of, 158 Childwall (Lancs), 141 Chillon (Switzerland), 211 Chirk (Clwyd), 204 Chivalry, 108-9, 312, 3 3 5 >5 ° 3 >5 ° 7 Cicon, William, 151, 209, 215, 225 Cinque Ports (Kent), 10, 53, 55, 179, 189-90, 278, 346, 376-7, 392, 486; see a lso Dover, Hythe, Sandwich, Winchelsea Cirencester (Glos), 176 Clare (Suffolk), 275 Clare, Bogo de, 250, 462

6oi

Clare, Gilbert de, e. of Gloucester (d. 1295), 89-9L 95> 106, I28>233, 235, 250» 275, 281, 295, 342>357? 368, 4°4> 562; conflicts of 1260s, 39, 43-4, 46, 48-53, 58-61,63-4; and crusade, 68-71,85; debts, 243; dispute with Hereford, 339, 348-52, 413, 461; marriage, 128, 343, 348-9, 538; and quo w a r r a n to , 259, 261-3; tax negotiations (I29 4 )>4 5 7 5 and Wales, 173-4, 190, 196, 204, 220, 223-4 Clare, Richard de, e. of Gloucester (d. 1262), 18,24-5, 27-33, 35, 39 Clare, Thomas de, 49, 69, 91, 359 Clare, William de, 27 Clement IV, pope, 68, 72 Clement V, pope, 517, 532, 540, 545, 547, 558 Clergy, fines paid by, 1297, 154; grievances of, 250-8, 522, 526-7; see a lso Canterbury, councils, parliament, York C le r ic o s L a ic o s , 406, 414-15, 417, 527, 562 Clifford, John de, 282 Clifford, Robert, 153, 477, 479, 483, 499, 510, 544- 5 ,5 5 7 Clifford, Roger, sen., 22, 27-8, 32-3, 36-7, 41-2, 46-7, 50, 52, 69, 84, 105, 155, 182, i 8 7 , J9 2 , 1 9 4 , 4 3 8 Clifford, Roger, jun., 190, 192 Clifton, Gilbert de, 95 Clipstone (Notts), 164-5, 4 4 3 Clwyd, river, 208 Clyde, Firth of, 494 Cobham, John, 431 Cockermouth (Cumbria), 104 C o g S t E d w a r d , 125 Coinage, 94, 142-3, 171, 179, 244-8, 436, 464, 522, 530-2; see a ls o pollards & crockards Colchester (Essex), 62, 104, 219 Coldstream (Borders), 475 Colingbourne, Peter de, 163 Cologne (Germany), 113; abp of, 387 Colomb, family, 8, 15, 37, 299 Columbers, Matthew de, 159, 177 C o m m ilto n e s , 148 Committee of 26 (1301), 526; of 35 (1302), 528 Common Pleas, court of, 267, 289, 294, 405 Community of Realm, 29, 457, 465, 467, 551— 2 Comyn, John, 359, 362, 498, 500, 505, 509,

55i

Condom, 306, 309, 463, 504 Condover (Salop), 94 C o n firm a tio C a rta ru m (1297), 427-30, 434-6, 518-19, 524, 547 Connaught (Ireland), 14 Conradin, 66-7 Conspiracy, 284, 523 Constable of England, office of, 413, 416, 420,

482-3

Constantine, emperor, 120, 210

6o 2

INDEX

Constantinople, 67, 210 C o n s titu t io D o m u s R e g is , 135, 482 Contracts, military, 68-9, 71, 79-80, 148-9,

478-9,485,494 Conwy, river, 16 Conwy (Gwynedd), 160, 180, 184, 194-5, 203, 208-10, 215-16,220-1,224, 231,413 C o ra m illo fa t e m u r , 423 Corbet, Peter, 95, 176 Corbridge (Northumb.), 373, 471 Corbridge, Thomas, abp of York, 131,540, 542 , 547 Corfe Castle (Dorset), 62 Cornwaleys, Hugh le, 284 Cornwall, 245, 289; earldom of, 552; e. of, see Edmund, Richard Coronation (English), 89-91, 490 Cotton, Bartholomew, 180, 234, 341-2, 351, 4 ° 7 , 4 !5 , 448 Coucy (d ep . Aisne), 493 Council, baronial (1258-65), 25, 27-9, 35, 437

Council, royal, 62, 77, 176, 180, 269, 349-51, 386-7, 436-40, 452, 520, 531, 535, 539; clerk of, 444; oath of, 437-8; in parliament,

445, 459,461

Councils of clergy; Reading (1279), 250—4; Lambeth (1281), 253-4; Westminster (1294), 403-4; St Pauls’ (1297), 406, 41415; New Temple (1297), 417, 423, 429-30; New Temple (1298), 519 Courtenay, Hugh de, e. of Devon, 103, 353 Courtrai, battle of, 397, 497, 515 Coventry and Lichfield, bp of, see Lan^ton, Walter; diocese of, 254, 549 Crac des Chevaliers (Syria), 75 Crail (Fife), 372 Craon, Maurice de, 307 Craucombe, John de, 542 Cree estuary (Dumfries & Galloway), 489, 510 Crepyn, Ralph, 97 Cressingham, Hugh, 124, 407, 474, 476-8 Creuker, Robert de, 187 Criccieth (Gwynedd), 173, 203, 207, 209, 215-16, 225, 231 Cromwell, John, 461 Cross Neith, 204 Crown lands, 12, 36, 102-4, 352—3 Crown rights, 92, 258, 261,263, 347, 524; see a lso quo w arran to

Crundale, Richard of, 119 Crusade, 62-4, 66-82, 109, 123, 459, 564; financing of, 71-2, 79-82, 99, 102; plans for another, 326-33, 376, 379-80; return from, 81-5, 123; taxation, 239, 402-3, 527, 532-3 Culford (Suffolk), 165 Cumberland, 287, 358 Customs duties, 98-100, 106, 239-40, 402,

409, 421,428-9, 434, 530, 534, 553, 561; see Wool Cuthbert, St, 541-2, 544-5 Cuyck, John of, 388, 391, 393 Cydewain (Powys), 223 Cyfeiliog (Powys), 172 Cynan ap Maredudd, 220, 224 Cynan ap Maredudd ap Owain, 177, 187-8 Cyprus, 75-6, 329 a lso

Dafydd ap Gruffydd, 16, 177, 188, 191,204, 226, 232; early career, 39, 172, 175; inadequately rewarded by Edward I, 181, 183, 186-7, 5°6; rebels (1282-3), 182, 189, 195, 229; offers peace, 194; captured, 196; tried, 202, 458, 462; execution, 200, 202-3, 217, 219,220 Dafydd ap Llywelyn, 16 Dagworth, John de, 155 Dalilegh, James, 512 Dairy (Strathclyde), 507 Dalswinton (Dumfries & Galloway), 506 Damascus (Syria), 77, 330 Damietta (Egypt), 67 Darcy, Philip, 543 Darlington (Co. Durham), 162 Darlington, John of, 32, 327 Darnhall (Cheshire), 113 Dartmouth (Devon), 486 David, e. of Huntingdon, 358, 367-8 David, s. of Alexander 1 1 1 , k. of Scots, 358 D a v ie s , R . R . , 227 Dax {dep. Landes), 304, 385 Dean, Forest of (Glos), 518 Debts, of crown, 99, 460, 517, 521-2, 535-7, 55T 565; to crown, 93, 98, 242, 511 Dee (river), 16 Deganwy (Clwyd), 19, 39, 41, 180 Delisle, Thomas, 154, 492, 495 Denbigh (Clwyd), 171, 190, 208, 216-17, 220-1 D e n h o lm - Y o u n g , N 20, 61, 148 Derby, e. of, see Ferrers; earldom of, 540 Derby, John of, 439 Derbyshire, 55, 198, 485 Derneford, William de, 342 Desertion, 438, 461,483, 486, 489, 494, 500,

5 i3

Despenser, Hugh, sen., 260, 387, 391,418, 437, 484, 491 Despenser, Hugh, jun., 52 Despenser, Robert le, 156 D e T a lla g io , 427-8, 433, 519 Devil, homage performed to, 140, 548 Devizes (Wilts), 62, 189, 200, 230 Devon, dowager countess of, 277; e. of, see Courtenay Dignineton, Hugh de, 96, 98 Dinas Bran (Powys), 190, 204

INDEX

Dinefwr (Dyfed), 218 Dinmael, commote of, 204 Dirleton (Lothian), 480 Doctors, 6, 79, 97, 118, 130, 507, 556 Dolforwyn (Powys), 173-4, ! 7 7 Dolgellau chalice, 204 Dolwyddelan (Gwynedd), 173, 195, 207 Domesday Book, 94, 237, 524 Donjon, Ralph le, 19 Dordrecht (Netherlands), 390 Dore (Hereford & Worcs), 113 Douai (d e p . Nord), 389 Dover (Kent), 35, 41,47, 53-4, 7 3 >89, 13L 383, 541; constable of, 523; see a lso Pencester Drayton, Roger de, 281,462 Droxford (Hants), 140 Droxford, John, keeper of the wardrobe, 145, 154, 169, 512, 534; origins, 140; made controller of wardrobe, 355; made keeper, 405; and council, 418, 438; as deputy treasurer, 535; his church livings, 141,541,

546-7

Droxford, Roger, 141 Dryslwyn (Dyfed), 151, 218, 229 Dublin, 11, 13, 19, 539, 554; abps of, see Hotham; Sandford Dubois, Pierre, 85 Duket, Laurence, 97, 256, 265, 281 Dumbarton (Strathclyde), 504 Dumfries (Dumfries & Galloway), 141,490,

497, 505- 6, 508,512

Dunaverty (Strathclyde), 507 Dunbar, battle of, 471-2, 474-5, 514; e. of, see Patrick Dunblane (Central), 501 Dunfermline (Fife), 499, 501 Dunstable, annals, 33-4, 36, 38, 52, 98, 100, 194, 202, 234, 347 Dunwich (Suffolk), 281 Durham, h i , 162,246, 352, 541; bishopric of, 13, 153; cathedral priory, h i , 541-5; palatinate of, 267, 540, 543-4, 554; bp of, see Bek, Anthony Durham, Walter of, 119 Dya, Walter de, 5, 6 Dyffryn Clwyd, cantred of, 204, 217; see a lso Cantreds, the Four Dyserth (Clwyd), 39, 41 Eastham, Richard of, 308 Edinburgh, 156, 358, 474, 480, 493, 497,

504

Edmund, e. ofCornwall, 91, 239, 281, 290, 319, 363, 413, 443; debts, 243; estates, 410; and Rhys’ rebellion, 218-19; royal lieutenant, 218, 348; served writ in parliament, 462; wealth, 522; death, 546 Edmund e. of Lancaster, 10, 24, 29, 38, 56, 60-1,64, 179, 209, 262, 290, 315, 327, 350,

603

566; at coronation, 90-1; and crusade, 6870, 77-9; embassy to France (1293-4), 378-80, 390, 392, 401,497; and Ferrers estates, 61,64, 91,438; Gascon campaign, 381-2, 384; marriages, 104, 315; and quo w a rra n to , 262; death, 385 Edmund of Woodstock, e. of Kent, 5,131 Edward the Confessor, k. of England, 4, 10, 34, 90, 112 EDWARD I, k. of England; birth and upbringing, 4-7; unpleasantness in youth, 3, 23; sails to Gascony (1254), 10; marriage and knighting, 9-11,15; landed endowment, 10-14, 5535 role (1254-8), 1623; in period of reform (1258-65), 24ff; disputes with father, 15, 21, 32-3, 35-7; at Lewes, 45-6; escape from custody, 49; attack on Kenilworth, 50; at Evesham, 512; policies after Evesham, 53ff; and crusade, 62ff; crowned, 89-91; domestic policies (1274-6), 101-7; and Hundred Rolls, 92-6; land acquisitions, 103-4; first Welsh war, 176ÌT; second Welsh war, i82ff; disputes with abp Pecham, 249ff; legislation, 267^6; and quo w a rra n to , 258ff; and diplomacy (1274-94), 312ÌT; in Gascony (1286-9), 174, 298ff, 324-5; plans for a further crusade, 262!!; return to England (1289), 339; and trial ofjustices, 339-42; explusion ofjews, 344-6; and Marcher lords, 346-52; and Scottish succession (Great Cause), 356ÌT; relations with Balliol as k. of Scots, 369-75; Welsh revolt (1294-5), 218fT; French war (1294-8), 376^6; Scottish campaign ( 1296), 473-4; domestic crisis (1294-8), 40iff; arguments about the Forest, 518-19; prevaricates over confirming charters (1299), 520-1; on Falkirk campaign (1298)5480-1; marries Margaret, 483, 521 ; on 1300 expedition, 487-90; in parliament (1300), 524, (1301) 526-7; on 1301 campaign, 493-5; agreement with Bruce (1302), 496-7; agreements with Bigod, 537-8; acts against Winchelsey, 540-1; dispute with Bek, 5416; on 1303-4 campaign, 498-502; disputes with his son, 549-50, 552; goes north in 1306, 506-7; death, 515, 556-7; burial, 558, 566; eulogies, 558-9; exhumation, 566-7 Character, 24, 108-122, 469; council, 436-40; cultural interests, 117-22; children, 125-9, 131—2, ¿wa/jo individual names; descriptions, 108; and falconry, 115-17; fidelity, 131—2; generalship, 22731,515, 565; household as prince, 7, 15, 23, 26, 68-9; household as king, 134ÌL; health, 6, 101,480, 507, 520, 556-7; and hunting, 115, 117; insomnia, 517; and law, 294-7; and parliament, 442; patronage, 546-7,

604

INDEX

Edward I - con t. 562; piety, 111—14; policy towards towns, 264-6; political skills, 432-3; see a lso p a ssim Edward 1 1 , k. of England, 5, 115, 123, 126, 132, 173j 557; born, 226; campaigns in Scotland, 485, 501,506-9; character, 127; and clergy (1298), 519; created Prince of Wales, 226-7; disputes with Edward I, 127, 1 3 °> 5 4 9 - 5 °, 5 5 2; granted Gascony, 553; in 1297, 420, 425-6; homosexuality, 552; as king, 168, 462, 553, 566; knighted, 117, 121, 455, 5I25marriage plans, 360, 362, 388, 398, 4 5 2, 5 5 15 supports Ferrers (1307), 550 Edward 1 1 1 , k. of England, 6, 132, 353, 398, 469,486 E d w a r d s , J . G . , 187, 454, 456 Egypt, 66, 73, 77, 330 Eleanor of Aquitaine, qu. of Henry II, 132 Eleanor of Castile, qu. of Edward I, 15, 82, 91, 112, 117, 120, 132, 226, 312, 567; character, 123-5; on crusade, 66, 72, 78-9; death, 114, 3 5 5 , 3 % effigy, 5 67 ; and Jews, 346; lands, 104, 124-5, 217,316-17; marriage, 9—11; memorial crosses, 118-19; officials, 17, 124, 150, 217; tomb, 119, 125 Eleanor of Provence, qu. of Henry III, 4, 6— 10, 20-1, 34-5, 37, 39-40, 45, 54-6, 83, 89, 122-3, I27 , i 3 2, 3 4 6 , 3 5 5 Eleanor, dau. of Edward I (d. 1297), 125-8, 315,320, 325, 389 Eleanor, dau. of Edward I (d. 1311), 131 Elections, 448-9 Elfael, lordship of, 351 Elgin (Grampian), 473 Elham (Kent), 36-7 Elizabeth, dau. of Edward I, h i , 126-9, 132,

368, 538 Elloe hundred (Lines), 96 Ely, bishopric of, 522, 533; bps of, see Kirkby, Louth Ely, isle of, 57-9,91 Enyr Fychan, 224 Eric, k. of Norway, 358-60 Erk, 4 9 5 Eshton, John de, 104 Essex, 56, 58, 95, 198, 219, 260, 339; e. of, see FitzPeter Eston, Thomas de, 432 Estyn (Clwyd), 183 E t s i d e s t a tu , 423, 430 Eu, count of, 11 Evenwood (Co. Durham), 542-4 Everard, John, 432 Evesham (Hereford & Worcs), battle of, 40, 44.5 i-3 .57-8, 6i, 63-4,67, 74, 229, 354, 479; abbot of, 363; chronicle, 420 Evreux (d e p . Eure), 31 Ewloe (Clwyd), 173, 189, 207 Ewyas Lacy (Hereford & Worcs), 351

Exchange rates, 535 Exchequer, 6-7, 134, 136-8, 140, 143, 203, 219,256,267,299,399,405,413,533;

changes of 1284 at, 241-4, 248-9; changes of 1290 at, 343-4; in crisis of 1297, 417-18, 422-5, 512; harsh attitude taken by, 407, 511 ; procedural changes, 1299 and 1301, 535; records, 536, 561; and Scottish receipts, 476; and tallage, 529; officials of, 234, 405, 430, 434, 514; relations with wardrobe, 137-8, 169, 535-6; at York, 137 Exeter, 256; bp of, 233 Eyville, John d’, 55, 57-9, 149 Eyville, John d’, of Egmanton, 286 Falconry, 115-17, 161 Falkenburg, Beatrice of, 63 Falkirk (Central), 120; battle of, 44, 392, 4803,518; campaign, 153, 167,486,511,514 Farndon, William de, 204 Faversham (Kent), 458 Felton, John de, 155 Ferdinand 1 1 1 , k. of Castile, 123 Ferdinand of Castile, 318 Ferrand, 5 Ferre, Guy, sen., 127 Ferre, Guy, jun., 151 Ferrers, John de, 414, 427, 429, 433, 438, 540, 55° Ferrers, Robert, e. of Derby, 20, 42-3, 48, 56, 61,64, 70, 91,414 Ferrière, Raymond de la, 395 Feudal aid, see Taxation Feudal service and armies, 95; (1263), 40; (1264), 42; (1266), 56; (1277), 106, 176, 179; (1282), 189, 196; (1291), 365; (1294), 372, 381,406,413; (1300), 484, 533; (1303), 498; (1306), 506, 533; (1307), 5i i \ see a lso writs Fiennes, Michael de, 14 Fife, 372, 481; e. of, 370 Finances, royal; at start of reign, 98-100; in late 1270s and 1280s, 237-49; in 1290s, 342-5, 401-6; in final years, 521-2, 529-37; see a lso exchequer, taxation, wardrobe Fines, on clergy (1297), 415-18, 440; for military service, 533 FitzAlan, Brian, 447, 477 FitzAlan, Richard, e. of Arundel, 351, 355, 384, 407, 413, 419-21, 426, 433 FitzGeoffrey, John, 13, 22, 25 FitzGerald, Maurice, 54 FitzHeyr, Hugo, 484 Fitzjohn, Edward, 28 Fitzjohn, Robert, 145-6 FitzMarmaduke, John, 480 FitzOtho, Hugh, 69, 145-6 FitzPeter, Geoffrey, e. of Essex, 22 FitzReginald, John, 291

INDEX

FitzRoger, Robert, 512 FitzThomas, John, 353-4, 461 FitzWalter, Robert, 223, 347, 350 FitzWarin, Fulk, 351 FitzWarin, William, 155 Flanders, 92, 98-9, 106, 385, 388, 394, 396-8, 419, 421; campaign of 1297, 109-10, 148, 152-3, 156, 160, 163, 203, 224, 392-3, 400, 423-6, 429, 433, 490, 534; countess of, 98; Edward I’s return from (1298), 480; French ambitions in, 396-7, 497; count of, see Guy F l e t a , 65-6, 259, 461 Flint (Clwyd), 179, 182, 189, 208, 210-11, 214-16, 220, 230-1 Flintshire, 205-6 Florence (Italy), 247 Florence of Achaea, 332 Florence, count of Holland, 358, 367, 388 F lo r e s H is to r ia r u m , 35, 39 Flote, Pierre, 496 Fohun, Richard, 162 Foix, count of, 553; county of, 315 Fontevrault (de'p . Maine-et-Loire), 324 Food, 5, 41,44, 84, 89, h i , 117, 124, 157-9, 303, 3*3* 36 i>443» 55°; see a lso prise, victualling Forest Charter, 105, 422, 426-7, 429, 518, 520, 524-5 Forest, ordinance of, 548; perambulation and boundaries of, 428, 455, 518-19, 524-7, 548,554

Forth, river, 478, 506, 514; Firth of, 477, 494,

499,515

Forz, Aveline, 103, 296, 352 Forz, Isabella, countess of Aumale, 103, 268, 292-4, 3 4 F 3 5 2 - 3 Forz, William de, e. of Aumale, 34 France; English relations with, 153, 314, 31617, 322-4, 376-81, 395-8, 440; Scottish alliance with, 372-3, 469, 490, 497; war with (1294-8), 381-95; see a lso Gascony; Philip III; Philip IV Franchises, investigation of, see Q u o W a rra n to Francis, John, 209 Frank, William, 165 Frankton, Stephen de, 193 Fraser, Simon, 141, 152, 462, 498, 501,507-8 Fraser, William, bp of St Andrews, 359, 362 Frederick 1 1 , emperor, 12, 116-17,270, 403 Freemantle (Hants), 11, 164 Freemound, William, 97 Frescobaldi, 161,403, 521-2, 534-5* 553

Frideswide, St, 101, 112 Friskeney, Ranulph de, 286 Froissart, Jean, 557 Fulham, John of, 117 Gaikhatu, Il-Khan of Persia, 314, 331 Gainsborough, William of, 394

605

Galleys, 50, 383-4, 486 Galloway, 357, 474, 483-90, 496, 506, 510-11 Gascony, 298^; granted to Edward, 7-11; Edward’s policies in, as prince, 14-15, 212, 25-6, 34-7; his visit (1273-4), 85, 89, 92, 300-3; his visit (1286-9), 139-40, 148, 165, 3°5~7> 324-5; his return (1289), 119, 263, 267, 292; French seizure (1294), 378-9; recruitment for war (1294), 219-20, 274, 284; war in (1294-8) ,142, 381-6, 398-9, 406-8; in last years of reign, 553; Feudal status, 314-15; k.’s absence in, 218-19, 258, 261; k.’s affection for, 151; law in, 188, 289; parliament in, 304, 463; troops from, 192-3, 197; and victualling, 199, 225, 230, 408; royal lieutenants in, s e e C r a o n , John of Brittany; seneschals of, see Grailly, Havering, Tany Gavaston, Arnold, 151 Gaveston, Piers, 151, 226, 552, 557 Gayl, 495 Geddington (Northants), 164 Geneville, Geoffrey de, 13, 22, 52, 108, 263, 298, 420, 539 Genoa, 66, 81, 383 Germany, k. of, see Adolph of Nassau Ghazan, Il-Khan of Persia, 331-2 Ghent (Belgium), 109, 130, 160, 393-4, 396,

429

GifFard, Godfrey, bp of Worcester, 437 GifFard, Hugh, 5-6 GifFard, John, 41-3, 48-9, 193, 204, 221,348, 382 Giflard, Osbert, 256, 270 Giflard, Sybil, 5 GifFard, Walter, abp of York, 73, 90, 357 Gillingham (Dorset), 7 Gironde, river, 377, 382, 384, 398 Gironde, Arnaud de, 325 Gislingham, William of, 260 Gisolfo, Buscarello de, 330-1 Glamorgan, 224, 350, 538 Glasgow, 493-4, 502, 506; bp of, see Wishart Glastonbury (Somerset), 120 Gloucester, 12, 42, 49, 61,63; countess of, 131, 277; see a lso Parliament; e. of, see Clare; Monthermer Gloucester, William of, 435 Gloucestershire, 89, 94-5, 97, 431 GoldclifFe (Gwent), 439 Goldington, Thomas de, 341 Goldsmiths, 523 Gorddwr (Powys), 176 Gorges, Ralph, 382 Goronwy ap Heilyn, 186-7 Got, Bertrand de, see Clement V Gotham, Nicholas of, 11 Gower, (West Glam.), 538-9, 554 Graham, Patrick, 473

6o6

INDEX

Grailly, Jean de, 37, 83, 110, 304-5, 307, 310, 318-20,329, 551 Gramont (d e p . Tarn-et-Garonne), 14, 310 Grandson, Gerard de, bp of Verdun, 313, 317 Grandson, James de, 317 Grandson, Otto de, 22, 54, 110, 151, 298, 325, 350, 440, 542; and the crusade, 69, 75, 78, 81,83-4, 329; and Wales, 180, 192, 199, 206, 209, 215; in Gascony, 304-5; as a diplomat, 301, 313, 317, 326, 328, 360, 391, 397, 54 i Grandson, William de, 207, 214 Grantham (Lines), 11-12, 19-20, 22, 36, 38, 94, 261 Gravesend, Richard, bp of London, 255, 378, 437

Great Cause, see Scotland Greenfield, William, abp of York, 378 Gregory X, pope, 81,83, 326 Grey, Henry de, 347 Grey, John de, 26, 40 Grey, Reginald de, 183-5, r^7, *89, 191, 196, 204, 216-17, 221, 223, 350, 427 Grey, Thomas, 130 Grimsby (Humb.), 384 Gros, William le, e. of Aumale, 104 Gruffydd ap Dafydd, 207 Gruffydd ap Gwen, 187 Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, 172, 175-7, 1837, 205 Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, 16 Gruffydd ap Maredudd ap Owain, 176-7, 182-3, 187-8, 190 Gruffydd ap Tudor, 207 Guardians of Scotland, 360, 362-3, 369-70, 496, 5°4 Guelders, count of, 387 Guildford (Surrey), 7, 126 Guillaume, Arnold, 151 Guillaume du Puy, Arnold, 151 Guisborough, Walter of, 71, 76, 79, 124, 192, 221, 259, 262, 372, 380, 385, 404, 416, 433, 477,480,483,500,509,520,537, 542, 547,

552

Gunneys, Thomas, 139 Gunpowder, 499 Gurdon, Adam, 56 Guy, count of Flanders, 376, 388-9, 393-4, 3 9 6 , 3 9 9 - 4 °° Gwynedd, principality of, 16, 170, 184, 201, 220,228,230,232 Gwynionydd, cantred of, 205 Gylemyn, John, 162-3 Habsburg, Albrecht of, 390 Habsburg, Clementia of, 122 Habsburg, Hartmann of, 312, 348 Habsburg, Rudolf of, 317 Haddington (Lothian), 58, 471

Hagnaby (Lines), chronicle, 192-4, 223, 457, 528 Hailes Abbey (Glos), 131 Hainault, count of, 389 Hales, Philip of, 392 Halton, John, bp of Carlisle, 430 Hamilton, William, 141, 185, 546, 550 Hampshire, 56, 198 Harby (Notts), 125 Hardshull, Margaret de, 290 Harlech (Gwynedd), 171, 195, 203, 207-8, 210-11, 214-16,220,225, 231 Harwich (Essex), 474 Hastings, 540, 546 Hastings, John, 350, 358, 367-8, 370, 372, 419-20, 437,484,512 Hatch, Eustace, 150, 155, 214 Hauville, Elias de, 146 H a v e lo c k the D a n e , 559 Havering (Gtr London), 7, 124 Havering, John de, 207, 224-5, 308, 404, 553 Havering, Richard de, 225 Hawarden (Clwyd), 182, 189, 220 Hay (Powys), 42 Hegham, Roger de, 539, 544 Hengham, Ralph, 37, 233, 260, 270, 272, 2905 ?3 4 ° . 3 4 7 . 3 5 5 . 4 4 ° Henry I, k. of England, 228, 254, 482 Henry 1 1 , k. of England, 12-13, : 5 . 83, 108, 132, 228, 254-5, 271, 289, 298, 527, 559 Henry 1 1 1 , k. of England, 84, 90, 93, 118, 132, 156, 277, 280, 307, 346, 490, 526, 529; minority, 518; marriage, 83; birth of eldest son, 4; disputes with Edward, 15, 18-19, 21, 33; grants to Edward, 7-8, 11—13, 38, 80; Sicilian ambitions, 24; political role (125864), 24-6, 32-6, 38-43, 437; in civil war, 45-6, 50; after Evesham, 53-4, 61; and crusade, 68, 72; illness and death, 74, 82, 314; effigy, 119, 566 Policies towards Gascony, 8-10, 14-16, 62; and Ireland, 13-14; and magnates, 228, 258, 261, 565; parliament under, 442, 456, 459, 461,464; piety, 4, 112-14; and Wales, 16-19, 24. 59. H0. T72. 2°8. 228 Henry V, k. of England, 3, 114, 392 Henry 1 1 , k. of Cyprus, 121 Henry, s. of Edward I, 126-7, 315 Henry, s. of Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, 12 Henry, count of Bar, 153, 324-5, 389 Henry, e. of Northumberland, 358-9 Henry of Brittany, 126 Hereford, 39, 49-50, 217, 224; bp of, see Aigueblanche, Cantilupe; bishopric of, 200; e. of, see Bohun Hereford, Walter of, 209, 214 Herefordshire, 62, 176 Hertford, (Herts), 162 Hesdin (d ep . Pas-de-Calais), 452

INDEX

Hexham (Northumb.), 471, 507 Hobelars, 514 Hohenstaufen family, 318 Holderness (Humberside), 36, 104 Holebrook, Richard de, 102-3, 2 3 4 Holland, 129, 388-9, 391,456; counts of, see Florence, John Holmcoltram (Cumbria), 141, 556 Holt (Clwyd), 216 Holy Island (Northumb.), 365, 543 Honorius IV, pope, 323-4, 327-8 Hope (Clwyd), 183, 189, 217, 229 Hopton, Walter de, 186, 340-1 Horses, 75, h i , 162-3, *7 7 . *9 7 . 229, 494; valuation list, 484-5 Hospitallers, 77, 80-1,234 Hostage, Richard le, 431 Hotham, William de, abp ofDublin, 313, 325, 328,387.393

Hoton, Richard de, 541-4 Household, Edward’s as prince, 7, 15, 23, 26, 68-9; as k., 134fF; accounts, 479, 492, 507; clerks, 138-45, 478, 561; in Flanders, 478; jurisdiction, 165-8, 462, 523, 553; knights, 5 9 , 1 3 4 - 5 » 14 7 - 5 4 , J 7 6, 484-5; Ordinance (1279), 135, 143, 145-6, 168\ see a lso Edward I; Wardrobe Huelgas, las (Spain), 10 Hugh, k. of Cyprus, 66, 76-7 Hugh, Little St, of Lincoln, 345 Hull, see Kingston upon Hull Hulton, Vincent de, 201 Humber, river, 99, 460 Hundred Rolls, 92-8, 106, 235, 258, 262, 291, 301,460,560 Hungary, k. of, 330 Huntercombe, Walter de, 362 Hunting, 6-7, 115, 117, 161, 186 Huntingdonshire, 262, 272, 283, 289, 410 Huntington (Hereford and Worcester), 42 Huxloe Hundred (Northants), 95 Hyde (Hants), abt of, 276 Hyde, Roger de la, 460 Hythe (Kent), 383 Infantry, 180, 198, 498, 513; recruitment, 407, 470, 484-5, 493; Welsh, 480-1,485-6, 489; a n d see desertion Ingoldsmells (Lines), 432 Inquiries, into crown rights (1255), 93; in shires (1258), 29, 93; of 1279, 235—6; Kirkby’s Quest, 236-7, 243, 266; in Gascony, 301, 303, 311; of 1298, 431-2, 563; see a lso Hundred Rolls Inverkip (Strathclyde), 499 Ipswich, 165 Ireland, 22, 47-8, 188, 246, 299, 402, 438, 476, 510, 513; under Edward as prince, 1114, 19-20, 26, 40, 52; Edward’s rule of, as

607

k-, 353-4. 553; franchises, 263, 539-40; law, 288; parliament, 464; profits from, 521,553; troops from, 493, 499; victuals from, 19, 179. 198-9. 225, 228, 231,480, 482, 486, 553 Irfon Bridge (Powys), 193 Irvine (Strathclyde), 477 Isabel of Fife, countess of Buchan, 109, 508-9 Isabella, countess of Aumale, 62 Isabella, qu. of Edward 1 1 , 395, 398, 452, 549- 5 0.553 Isabella, qu. of King John, 21 Iscennen, commote of, 204 Italian bankers, 36, 100, 137, 179, 219, 244-5, 249,278,332,344-5.390.403.438,533-5; see a lso

Ballardi, Frescobaldi, Riccardi

Jaffa (Israel), 66 Jaime, senor of Gerica, 152, 155 James 1 1 , k. of Aragon, 326, 389 James, k. of Majorca, 323-4 James, Master, see St George James, Steward of Scotland, 359, 473, 476-8,

483.500

Jardin, Eustace de, 152 Jay, Brian de, Master of the Temple, 481 Jeanne of Dammartin, 123, 126, 316 Jeanne of Navarre, 305, 315 Jeanne, qu. of Philip IV, 379 Jedburgh (Borders), 374, 497, 504, 514 Jerusalem, 66-7, 76-7, 79, 81,85, 328, 331, 545.565

Jesmond, Adam of, 68 Jews, 101, 188, 245, 250, 436; debts to, 35, 62, 65, 104, 125, 155; expelled from Gascony, 306, 345; expelled from England, 343-6; receipts from, 38, 80 Joan of Acre, dau. of Edward I, 79, 126-9, 312,317,343,348-51,439,538

Joan, dau. of Edward I (d. 1265), 126 John, k. ofEngland, 8, 12, 22, 115, 132, 228,

314.398,407.518

John, count of Holland, 128-9 John, duke of Brabant, 163, 317, 333, 387, 400,422 John, duke ofBrittany (d. 1305), 235, 275 John ofBrittany (e. ofRichmond), 127, 132, 298, 381-2, 385, 464, 504, 515 John, s. of Edward I, 82, 126 Joinville, Jean de (brother of Geoffrey de Geneville), 108 Jiilich, margrave of, 392 Justices, 102, 153, 537; trial of, 89-93, 460 Justiciar, post of, 25 Kalavun, sultan of Egypt, 329 Katherine, dau. of Edward I, 125-6 Katzenellenbogen, count of, 387 Keighley, Henry de, 449, 525-6, 551 Keith, Robert, 489

6 o8

INDEX

Kelso (Borders), 493 Kenilworth (Warks), 47, 50-3, 55-8, 110, 231, 354 5 D ic t u m o f, 57, 59, 61,63-4, 69, 500 Kennington (Kent), 227 Kent, 39, 55, 61, 198, 261, 263, 407, 431; e. of, see Edmund; sheriff of, 37 Kenum, Thomas de, 438 Kidwelly (Dyfed), 201 Kildare (Ireland), 253, 263, 539 Kildrummy (Grampian), 409, 508 Kilford (Clwyd), 171 Kilwardby, Robert, abp of Canterbury, 91, 2 4 9 , 357 Kincardine (Tayside), 473 Kinghorn (Fife), 358 King’s Bench, 256, 267, 273, 282, 289, 347 Kingsclere (Hants), 141 King’s Lynn (Norfolk), 384, 499, 536 Kingston upon Hull (Humb.), 308, 383 Kinloss (Grampian), 499 Kirkby,John, bp of Ely, 139, 234-8, 241, 243, 265.343.355.444

Kirkintilloch (Strathclyde), 498, 537 Kitchen, 134-6, 158 Knoville, Bogo de, 175-6, 208, 351 Knoville, Gilbert de, 287 K o s m in s k y , E . A . , 236 Kyme, Philip, 116 Lacy, Henry de, e. of Lincoln, 95, 121,310, 340, 350, 355, 357, 521,557, 562; and council, 437, 440; as diplomat, 130, 153, 3 7 8 , 3 9 7 . 4 4 0 . 4 5 2 , 4 9 L 5 4 L in Gascony, 305, 384-5, 413; grants to, 191,204, 483, 539; as Marcher lord, 171, 191, 204, 208, 216; and Q u o W a rra n to , 262; in Scottish wars, 481, 485, 493; swears on k.’s behalf, 482, 518; in Welsh wars, 176, 196, 221, 281; witnesses charters, 235 Lacy, John de, 379 Lafitte, Stephen, 118 Lalinde (d ep . Dordogne), 310 Lamberton, William, bp of St Andrews, 505 Lambeth (Gtr London), 251, 253, 256 Lamouilly, Jean de, 155, 501 Lanarkshire, 505 Lancashire, 198, 262, 480 Lancaster, e. of, see Edmund, Thomas Lanercost priory (Cumbria), 507, 509, 556; chronicle of, 457 Langley, Geoffrey de, 17, 22 Langley, Geoffrey de (envoy to Persia), 313— H. 3 3 0- 1 Langtoft, Pierre, 110, 121-2, 192, 225, 283, 333.356, 386>420, 433,452,469,474,487, 503» 526, 552, 560,562-3 Langton, John, bp of Chichester, chancellor, 15 5.2 9 0 .35 5.38°. 528,551

Langton, Walter, bp of Coventry and

Lichfield (also known as Chester), treasurer, 138, 154, 429, 510, 541,563; early career, 139-40; as councillor, 440; dispute with Prince of Wales, 549-50; as diplomat, 1 30. 3 9 1. 3 9 9 . 4 9 1 . 4 9 6. 5 4 1; and ecclesiastical patronage, 541,547; immorality, no, 140, 551; keeper of wardrobe, 144, 343, 355; land acquisitions, 141, 278-9; skulduggery, 353; as treasurer, 4°5. 535; unpopularity, 526, 548-50 Language, 4, 6, 383n Larchdeacon, Thomas, 175 La Rochelle (de'p. Charente-Maritime), 377 Latimer, William, sen., 149-50, 153, 192, 325, 340,382,499 Latimer, William, jun., 150 Launditch hundred (Norfolk), 407 Lawlessness, 42, 267, 280-7, 561 Lectoure (d é p . Hautes-Pyrénées), 301 Leeds Castle (Kent), 104, 155, 339 Legates, papal, see Otto, Ottobuono Leicester, 43 Leicester, e. of, see Montfort Leicester, Peter of, 340 Leicester, Robert of, 184 Leinster (Ireland), 13, 554 Leith (Lothian), 480 Lek, Peter of, 217 Lennox, e. of, 478 Lenton (Notts), 157 Leominster (Hereford & Worcs), 414 Lestrange, Hamo, 23, 27-8, 38, 41-2, 46, 52, 54.89

Lestrange, Roger, 191, 193-5, 2 3 3 Lewes, 44; battle of, 44-6, 51-2, 54, 64, 113, 229, 262; m ise of, 46, 48; S o n g of, 24, 559 Lewknor, Nicholas de, 53 Leyburn, Roger, 27-8, 31-3, 36-9, 41-3, 467 . 5 3 - 5 . 62,69, 15 °. 27 5 . 3 10 Leyburn, William, 104, 150, 153, 155, 215 L i b e r Q u o tid ia n u s , 145 Libourne (d ép . Gironde), 306, 308, 463 Lille (d ép . Nord), 130, 389, 392 Limoges (d ép . Haute-Vienne), 303, 316 Limousin (France), 306, 316 Lincoln, 125, 138, 203, 246, 252, 255, 327, 443; bishopric of, 546; bp of, see Sutton; e. of, see Lacy Lincolnshire, 62, 95-6, 117, 140, 278, 286, 432,480, 501 Lindsay, Simon, 152 Linlithgow (Lothian), 209, 480-1,493-4, 497-8,504,537 Limerick (Ireland), 11, 13 Lisbon, 377 Lisle, Baldwin de, 27 Littlebury, Martin of, 292 Llanbadarn (Dyfed), 179 Llandaff, bishopric of, 349; bp of, 538

INDEX

Llandovery (Dyfed), 18, 182, 218 Llantony (Powys), prior of, 351 Lleyn peninsula (Gwynedd), 173, 181, 203, 221,228 Llystynwynnan (Powys), 223 Llywelyn Fychan, 204 Llywelyn the Great, 16, 207 Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales, 92, 205, 220, 223, 226, 232, 301,444, 564; early career, 16-19, 38-9; alliance with Montfort, 41-2, 48, 50, 170; invades England, 54; recognized in Treaty of Montgomery, 59-60, 170; refuses homage, 101, 106, 174-6; marriage, 105, 175; intrigues with Montfort’s sons, 107; conflict with Marchers, 174-5; in war of 1277, 177, 180; agrees terms, 181-2; grievances (127782), 183-8; rebels (1282), 182, 193; negotiations, 191,473; death, 193-4 Rule in Wales, 171-3, 201; castle­ building, 174, 207; head of, 202, 435 Loch Doon (Strathclyde), 507 Lochindorb (Highland), 499 Lochmaben (Dumfries & Galloway), 141,

482-3,497,508

Loch Ryan (Dumfries & Galloway), 494 Loch Tay (Tayside), 507 Lombard, Henry, 156 London, 32, 51,91, 176-7, 181, 201, 236, 252, 277-8, 310, 361,426, 479; Edward descends on (1259), 33; Edward in (1263), 39; Montfort in (1264), 44; royalists enter (1265), 54; Gloucester attacks (1267), 58-9, 95; Edward given custody (1269),61-2; and coronation, 89-90; eyre in, 97; taken into king’s hands (1285), 264-6; galley built in, 384; in 1297, 414; musters at (1297), 419-20, 424, 426; Edward leaves (1298), 520; restoration of liberties (1298), 520; trailbaston in, 286; executions in, 462, 503 Air pollution in, 520; Annals of, 35; Blackfriars, 125; Charing Cross, 115, 161; Cheapside, 90; Clerkenwell hospital, 39; consent to taxation, 457; Italians in, 535; Jews in, 245; London Bridge, 40, 503; mayor of, 420, 430, 458, 503, a n d see Rokesle, Gregory; Waleys; mint, 246; munitions bought in, 200; New Temple, 39; St Martins-le-Grand, 139, 245, 546; St Paul’s, 405, 520, 588; sheriffs of, 438, 501; Tower of, 16, 39, 59, 62, 104, 160, 202, 224, 247, 339> 34 L 435> 4755 bishopric of, 254; bp of, see Gravesend London, John of, 108, 558-9 Londoners, 83, 89, 130, 161, 163, 203; accuse March, 405, 414; and Edward’s birth, 4; grievances, 414; in 1297, 420, 430, 435; and parliament, 458; provide troops, 407; rebel (1263), 40-1,43; routed at Lewes, 45

609

Longespée, Stephen, 16, 26-7 Loudoun Hill (Strathclyde), 510, 515 Louis IX, k. of France, 36, 40-1,44, 47, 67-73, 80, 82-3, 113, 122, 125, 132,211,314-15 Louis ofEvreux, 227 Lourdes (de'p. Hautes-Pyrénées), 310 Louth, Richard of, 408, 431-2 Louth, William of, bp of Ely, keeper of wardrobe, 92, 139-40, 154, 235, 244, 272, 325.3 4 0

Lovel, John, 394 Lovetot, John de, 340, 549 Lovetot, Nicholas, 167 Lucca (Italy), see Ballardi; Luke; Riccardj Luceby, Henry de, 543 Lucera (Italy), 211 Ludlow (Salop), 49, 58 Ludlow, Laurence of, 402, 418 Luke of Lucca, 98, 241 Lungevilers, John de, 38 Lusignan, family, 21-2, 24-6, 34, 63-4 Lusignan, Geoffrey de, 11, 14, 21-2, 25-6, 36 Lusignan, Guy de, 21-2, 34, 36, 46 Lusignan, Hugh of, count of La Marche, 21 Lyme Regis (Dorset), 384 Lynn, Henry de, 165 Lyon (d ép . Rhone), abpric of, 84; council of, io5 > 3 2 7

, 120, 335 Macau (d ép . Gironde), 382 Maccabeus, Judas, 119, 122, 558 Macclesfield (Cheshire), 162, 198 MacDouall, Dungall, 510 Macduff, s. ofe. Malcolm of Fife, 371,373-4 Macere, Rainald, 152 Mâcon (d ép . Saône-et-Loire), 319 Madog ap Llywelyn, 220-1, 223-5 Madog, Gruffydd ap, 16 Maelgwyn ap Rhys, 220, 224 Maelienydd (lordship of), 174 Maelor Saesneg (Clwyd), 217, 233 Maes Moydog, battle of, 223 Magna Carta, 3, 105, 250-1, 256, 260, 268, 273, 421-2, 426-30, 517, 520, 522, 524-6 Magnus Maximus, see Maxen Wledig Maidstone (Kent), 416 Maidstone, John de, 198 Maine (France), 29 M a i t la n d , F . W . , 453 Makejoy, Matilda, 117 Malcolm 1 1 1 , k. of Scots, 475 Malcolm IV, k. of Scots, 358 Malmesbury (Wilts), 156 Malore, Peter, 503 M a l t o l t , see Customs duties Mamluks, 66, 75, 328-30, 565; see a lso Baibars Man, Isle of, 362 Manfred, k. of Sicily, 67, 315 M a b in o g io n

6

io

INDEX

Mansel, John, 22 Manton, Ralph, 141-2, 498, 512, 546 Mar, e. of, 471,496 March, e. of, see Patrick March, William, bp of Bath & Wells, 139, 140, 142, 154, 340, 343, 355, 405, 414, 551 Marcher lords, Welsh; Llywelyn’s success against (1257), 18; attack bp of Hereford (1263), 39; links with Edward, 52, 64; in Barons’ Wars, 46-9; conflicts with Llywelyn, 173-4; in Welsh wars, 179, 194, 197, 208; and castles, 215-16; and franchises, 263, 348-52, 414, 435; and law, 184-6; in parliament, 447 Marches, Welsh, 28, 150, 171, 226, 419; Gloucester’s interests in, 48, 58, 347—51 ; Gloucester’s dispute with Hereford, 339, 348-52, 461; law in, 291; liberties of, 34752, 538-9; reconstruction after 1282-3, 110, 204-5; recruitment in, 180, 198; trouble in, 38-9, 42, 48, 58; and Welsh wars, 175-6, 189-90, 193, 200 Maredudd ap Rhys, 59, 172-3 Margaret of France, qu. of Edward I, 115, i 64 , 3 7 9 , 483, 5 ° 1?5 1°? 5 3 3 , 5 5 °, 5575 influence and role, 129-31; marriage, 3956, 520-1 Margaret, dau. of Edward I, 111, 126-7, 129, 3 ' 7 . 387 Margaret, dau. of Eric of Norway, qu. of Scots (the Maid of Norway), 358-60, 362, 367, 374-5

Margaret of France, qu. of Louis IX, 122,

301, 3r5, 3J7, 3J9, 326

Margaret, qu. of Alexander III of Scots, 57, 356 Margoth, 50 Marie, qu. of Philip III, 379 Marlborough (Wilts), see Statutes Marmion, Philip, 291 Marseilles (d é p . Bouches-du-Rhône), 245, 383 Marshal of England, office of, 147, 413, 416, 420, 482-3, 537; a n d see Bigod, Roger Marshal, John le, 239 Marshals of household, 146-7 Martel, Philip, 437, 469 Martin IV, pope, 255, 320-1, 327 Martin, William, 287 Mary, dau. of Edward I, 126-8 Matilda, qu. of England, 94 Matilda, qu. of Henry I, 475 Matilda, dau. of Michael of Chiswick, 282 Mauduit, William, e. of Warwick, 43 Maulay, Peter, 152, 285 Mauleon (d ép . Pyrénées-Atlantiques), 551 Mawbynion, cantred of, 265 Maxen Wledig, 120, 214 Meath (Ireland), 13, 539 Mechain Iscoed, cantred of, 204

Medicines, 556; vetinerary, 163 Meirionydd (Gwynedd), 18, 195, 220 Melrose abbey (Borders), 476 Melton, William, 154 Mendlesham (Suffolk), 132 Menteith, e. of, 359, 471; earldom of, 512 Menteith, John of, 502-4, 507 Mercenaries, 39-41,240 Merchants; English, 98-100, 184, 198, 277, 418, 530; foreign, 55, 80-2, 99-100, 245, 265, 277-8, 418, 471, 530, 534; see a lso under in d iv id u a l nam es

Merioneth, 171, 206, 219 Merton, Walter de, 92, 269 Messager, Robert le, 544 Messengers, 156-7 Methven (Tayside), 507 Michelsone, Henry de, 291 Middleton (Oxon), 282 Middleton, William, bp of Norwich, 234, 305 Milan (Italy), 83 M i ls o m , S . F . C . , 279 Minstrelcy, 117-18, 121,521 Miramont (d e p . Landes), 311 M ir r o r o f J u s t ic e s , 275, 283, 342, 442, 453 M o d u s T e n e n d i P a r lia m e n t u m , 442, 444, 446, 448,

456-7

Mohaut, Roger de, 26 Mohaut, William de, 19 Mold (Clwyd), 220 Molieres (d ep . Dordogne), 310 Molis, James de, 5 Molis, Nicholas de, 5 Molis, Roger de, 413 Mongols, 75, 77-8, 82, 330-2 Montacute, Simon de, 486 Montague, William, 152 Montalt, John de, 145 Mont-Cenis, pass, 83 Monteny, Arnold de, 151 Montferrant (d ep . Gironde), 310 Montferrant, Imbert de, 22 Montfort, Amaury de, 105, 175 Montfort, Eleanor de, wife of Simon de Montfort, 29,31,34,55,64 Montfort, Eleanor de, wife of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, 105, 175-6, 204 Montfort, Guy de, 27, 51, 74, 83, 175, 319 Montfort, Henry de, 34, 42, 48-9, 51 Montfort, Peter de, 22, 25, 38, 43 Montfort, Simon de, e. of Leicester, 4, 24, 33, 36, 54, 64, 70, 500, 560; rule in Gascony, 89; quarrel with Valence, 25-6; dispute with Gloucester, 28, 32; obstructs negotiations in France, 29; agreement with Edward (1259), 31-2; sons knighted by Edward, 34; joins with Edward and Gloucester (1261), 35; position weakens, 37; returns to England (1263), 39; and French mediation, 40-1;

INDEX

Lewes campaign, 44-7; rule (1264-5), 478; and stewardship, 61; Evesham campaign, 50-1; death, 51 Montfort, Simon de, jun., 34, 42-3, 49-52, 55, 74

Montgomery (Powys), n , 171, 174-6, 195, 221, 233, 351,419, 420; Treaty of, 59-60, 65, 170, 173-5,231 Montgomery, Adam de, 184 Monthermer, Ralph de, e. of Gloucester, 128, 4 3 9 , 4 7 9 , 482, 484, 5 10, 5^, 5l8 Montmelian (Savoy), 84 Montpazier (d ep . Dordogne), 310 Montreuil {dep. Pas-de-Calais), 396-7, 452 Montrose (Tayside), 473 Montz, Eble des, 6, 22, 151 Moray (Scotland), 363 Morgan ap Maredudd, 220, 223-4 Morham, Herbert de, 152, 508 Morham, Thomas de, 152 Morlais (Mid-Glamorgan), 348 Morpeth (Northumb.), 167 M o r r is , J . E . , 189, 196, 200, 227 Mortimer, Edmund, 191, 204, 351,419 Mortimer, Roger, sen., 18, 42, 46-7, 49, 51, 58, 73, 174-7, 187, 189-90, 193-4 Mortimer, Roger, jun., 193-4, 204 Mortimer, William, 407 Mote, Ogerjun., 151 Murray, Andrew, 476-8 Mutiny, 514 Namur, John of, 397 Naples (Italy), 319, 326 Narbonne {dep. Aude), 80 Nassau, Adolph of, see Adolph Nassington (Northants), 546 Navarre, 315-16, 333, 380 Navy, 179, 190, 470-1,480, 486, 499; see a lso galleys Neath (West Glam.), 201 Nefyn (Gwynedd), 120, 221 Nevill, Margaret, 122 Nevill, Peter de, 62 Newbottle (Northants), 550 Newcastle Emlyn (Dyfed), 219 Newcastle under Lyme (Staffs), 47 Newcastle upon Tyne (Tyne & Wear), 141, 167, 342, 489, 501,503, 508, 556; Balliol summoned to, 373; council at, 370-1; galley built, 384; mint, 246; musters at, 469-70,

478

Newmarket (Suffolk), 407 New Mostyn (Clwyd), 216 Newsletters, 223, 442, 452 Neyrmouth, John, 290 Nicholas III, pope, 249, 327 Nicholas IV, pope, 324-5, 328, 332 Nithsdale (Dumfries & Galloway), 494, 510

6l I

Noaillan, Giles de, 301 Norfolk, 38, 62, 243, 257, 262, 285, 321,407, 432; e. of, see Bigod, Thomas of Brotherton Norham (Northumb.), 163, 363-4, 368, 463, 478 Normandy, 8, 29, 31, 314, 377, 383 Normanville, Thomas de, 102-3, i o 5 Northampton, 43, 50, 68, 70, 164, 166, 197, 295> 328, 346, 361, 370-1, 375, 426; meeting at (1283), 238, 454, 457 Northamptonshire, 95 Northumberland, 471,477-8, 501 ; e. of, see Henry Norway, 160; k. of, see Eric Norwich, archdeacon of, 340; bp of, see Middleton, Salmon, Skerning; diocese of, 256-7; prior of, 101 Nottingham, 43, 157 Nottinghamshire, 55, 198, 485 N o v e l d is s e is in , 70, 271-3, 511 O’Connor, family, 554 O’Connor, Felim, 14 Odiham, 162 Old Man of the Mountains, 78 Oléron, île d’, 7,9, 11, 22, 25-6, 308, 324, 553 Oliphant, William, 500-1 Oloron-Sainte-Marie {dép. PyrénéesAtlantiques), 324-5 Ordainers (1311), 279, 452 Ordinances ( 1311 ), 461, 553 Orford (Suffolk), 96 Orkney, 358, 362 Orleans {dép. Loiret), 324 Ormesby, William de, 544 Orthez (d ép . Basses-Pyrénées), 300 Orvieto (Italy), 83 Oseney, abt of, 413; annals of, 343 Oswestry (Salop), 171, 175-6, 182, 184, 187, 198, 200, 223, 228 Otto, papal legate, 4 Ottobuono, papal legate, 55, 57, 60, 63, 67 Overton (Clwyd), 216 Owain ap Dafydd ap Gruffydd, 508 Owain ap Gruffydd, 16-17, 172, 180-1 Owain ap Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, 172 Oxford, 7, 25, 42, 50, 62, 101, 112, 204, 236, 247, 505; Provisions of, 25, 35, 41,46, 48, 63; scholars from, 123, 368, 491; e. of, see Vere Oxfordshire, 62, 282 Oyer and terminer, 290-1 Panisseau, Bertrand de, 310 Pantry, 134-5, 158, 160 Paris, 34, 72, 80-1, 85, 113, 166, 257, 323-4, 368, 378, 388; p a rle m e n t o f, 299-301, 303-8, 315,322-3,375-6,378-9,389,395,465, 467; treaty of, 38, 299, 314, 316, 322-3, 3 63 , 3 7 6

6i2

INDEX

Paris, Matthew, 3, 8-11, 15, 1 7-18, 20, 23, 30,

65

Paries, Eustace, 167 Parliament (at Westminster unless otherwise specified), 168, 235, 428, 441^; Oxford (1258), 25-6, 28-9, 32; (1259), 29; (1263), 40-1; (1264), 47; (1265), 47; Winchester (1265), 53; Bury St Edmunds (1267), 58, 67; Winchester (1268), 61; Northampton (1268), 68; (1268), 454; Bordeaux (1275), 463; (1275), 9^> 99, 101; Winchester (1276), 105; Gloucester (1278), 259, 442; Bordeaux (1278), 304; (1279), 251; (1281), 254; Shrewsbury (1283), 202, 442, 458; Acton Burnell (1283), 218, 278; (1285), 256-7, 452- 3; Winchester (1285), 453; Libourne (1289), 306, 463; (1289), 339; (1290), 3423; Ashridge (1291), 352, 363; (1292), 350, 352; London & Canterbury (1293), 352; (1294), 372, 401,404, 454, 457; (1295), 383, 405, 441,454, 466; Bury St Edmunds (1296) , 391,405, 412, 414, 418, 450, 456; Salisbury (1297), 415, 419, 446, 452; (1297) , 422, 426-7, 429; (1298), 431, 458; (1299), 458, 520-1; ( 1300), 450, 522-5; Lincoln (1301), 226, 449, 491-2, 495, 5258, 5 4 3 , 5 4 9 ; St Andrews (1304), 501; (1305), 4 5 °, 4 63 , 5 0 3 , 5 3 7 ; (1306), 457; Carlisle (I 3 ° 7 ), 4 4 6 - 7 , 450, 4 5 7 , 5 4 5 , 5 5 °-*> 5 5 ® Clergy in, 251-2, 256, 383, 405-6, 4 4 5 ~7 , 450; Councillors in, 445; Gascon, 463; Irish, 464; justice in, 461-2, 538; legislation in, 453- 4; magnates in, 445-8; petitions in, 183, 458-61,465, 537, 553; representation in, 448-51,465, 525; Scottish, 463-4; tax grants in, 453-8 Parma (Italy), 83 Pascual ofValencia, t h e a d a lid , 152, 155 Paternoster, John, 435 Patrick, e. of March (also known as Dunbar), 4 7 L 5° ° ,5 ° 4 Patronage, no, 141, 154-5, 191,204,225, 233, 479-483.

Pauncefoot, Grimbald, sen., 49, 54 Pauncefoot, Grimbald, jun., 152, 200 Paynel, Katherine, 155 Paynel, Thomas, 533 Peak (Derbs), 162 Pebrée, Alexander de la, 151 Pecche, Bartholomew, 6 Pecham, John, abp of Canterbury, 112, 123, 125-6, 234, 257-8, 266, 328-9, 348, 462, 562; dispute with Edward I, 249-55; and Wales, 177, 186, 188, 191—2, 194, 200, 216; death, 403 Peebles (Borders), 493, 504 Peers, trial by, 462 Pembroke, e. of, see Valence Pencester, Stephen of, 445

Penllyn (Gwynedd), 181, 195 Percy, Henry, 437, 474, 477, 479, 506, 512 Périgord (France), 306, 316 Périgueux (d é p . Dordogne), 378 Perth (Tayside), 362, 481, 501, 503, 508 Perton, William de, 163, 199 Peter 1 1 1 , k. of Aragon, 318-20, 323-4 Peter, count ofChâlons, 85 Peter, infante of Aragon, 315 Peter of Savoy, 20-2, 25, 29, 32, 38 Peter, son ofCassiodorus, 552 Peter the Surgeon, 556 Peterborough, abt of, 36, 43; abbey, 295; chronicles, 193, 295 Pevensey (E. Sussex), 50 Peyrehorade {d ép . Landes), 386 Philip 1 1 1 , k. of France, 73, 85, 250, 300, 303, 314-22,334 Philip IV, k. of France, 113, 129, 153, 166, 308,333-4,355,402,461,483,564;

accession, 322; Edward I does homage to, 323, 376; opposes treaty with Aragon, 324; and outbreak of war with Edward I, 37481,392; war against English, 38iff, 476; builds fleet, 383; diplomacy against English, 372, 388-9; truce with English, 385, 393-4, 562; peace negotiations, 395-8, 437, 551; support forJohn Balliol, 490, 4957,515; relations with Boniface V III, 532; alleged plot against, 130 Philip, count of Savoy, 84, 245 Pickering, Robert, 439 Pinkeney, 358 Pins, Raymond des, 314 Pippard, Ralph, 430 Pisa (Italy), 80 P le n a p o te s ta s , 454-6, 465-6 P lu c k n e t t, T . F . T . , 277 Plugenet, Alan, 152, 224 Pluscardine (Grampian), prior of, 367 Plymouth (Devon), 384 Plympton (Devon), 386, 460 Podensac [d ép . Gironde), 382 Pogio, Orlandino da, 241, 245 Poitevins, 8, 21, 32; see a lso Lusignan Poitiers {d ép . Vienne), 558 Poitiers, Alphonse of, 303 Pole, Owen (Owain) de la, 152, 205 Polebrook hundred (Northants), 95 Pollards and crockards, 521,531 Polo, Marco, 81, 331 Ponte, William de, 156 Pontefract, Gregory of, 257 Ponthieu, 126, 199, 316, 321, 323, 334, 552 Pontigny {d ép . Yonne), 324 Ponto, Poncius de, 100 Pontoise, John of, bp of Winchester, 340, 437, 521 Popes, see Benedict X I, Boniface V III,

INDEX

Celestine V, Clement I V, Clement V, Gregory X, Honorius IV, Martin IV, Nicholas III, Nicholas IV, Urban IV Popular songs, 474-5 Portchester castle (Hants), 62 Portsmouth (Hants), 73, 377, 381,406 P o w ic k e , F . M . , 11,53, 227, 326, 356 Powys, 172, 205, 223 P r a e ro g a tiv a R e g is , 269 Prises, 427, 434, 436, 460, 519, 523-4, 526, 552-4; of food, 407-10, 422, 429, 431-2, 4 4 3 - 4 . 4 7 8 . 480. 486-7, 5 13 >5 27 . 5 4 8 ; of wool, 401,404, 418-19, 422, 425, 476, 548 Privy Seal, 134-5, *3 7 , r4 3 >208, 523, 553, 563 Protection, letters of, 544-5 Ptolemy of Lucca, 78 Pudlicote, Richard, 536 Pulesdon, Roger de, 217, 220 Pullici and Rembertini, 535 Purslow Hundred (Salop), 351 Purveyance, see prise Qaqun (Israel), 77 Quercy (France), 306, 309, 316, 323 Quincy, Roger de, e. of Winchester, 357 Q u o d o m n e s ta n g it , 412, 465-7, 563 Q u o w a rra n to inquiries, 98, 205, 236, 260, 311, 3 5 2 .4 5 9 .4 6 1 , 5 * 7 . 524» 5 3 8 - 9 . 5 6 2 ,5 6 5 ;

gains from, 263; at Gloucester parliament (1278), 258-9; Hengham’s views on, 260-1, 292, 340; ineffectiveness, 264; and major magnates, 261-2, 357; problems caused by, 339; statute of (1290), 346-7 Rabban Sauma, 330 Ragman Roll (Scotland), 491 Ragman Rolls, 94; see a lso Hundred rolls Ragman, statute of, see Statutes Ralph, clerk of the market, 199 Rama, Raymond Arnaud de, 390 Ramlah, emir of, 78 Ramsbury (Wilts), 94 Ramsey (Cambs), abt of, 272, 274, 406, 442 Rape, 206, 233, 279-82, 341 Raphorst, Christian de, 391 Rat, Andrew le, 152 Ravenna (Italy), abp of, 328 Rayleigh (Essex), 339 Ré, Ile de, 382 Reading (Berks), 250-1, 253-4, 256, 371 Reculver (Kent), 528 R e d m e re , J o h n , 277 R e g g io n e ir E m ilia ( I ta ly ) , 83

Reginald the Engineer, 501 Reigate (Surrey), 89, 260 Remonstrances, of 1297, 421,425, 427-8, 434 Renesse, John de, 388 Renfrew, barony of, 483 Réole, la, ( d ip . Gironde), 14

613

Representation, see Parliament Revenue, crown, estimate of (1284), 237, 242 Reynolds, Walter, 154 Rhodriap Gruffydd, 172, 184 Rhos, cantred of, see Cantreds Rhuddlan (Clwyd), 181, 184, 189-90, 194-5, 197, 199, 202, 205, 216, 223; castle, 182, 208-11,220, 231 Rhufonion, cantred of, see Cantreds Rhys ap Maredudd, 176-7, 183, 190, 205, 218-19, 348, 506 Rhys Fychan, 18, 177, 179, 187, 203 Rhys Wyndod, 177 Riccardi, 106, 161, 239, 323, 418, 522, 534, 561; bankruptcy, 401-3, 533; and crusade finance, 80; and customs duties, 99-100; debts to, 307; loan to Pecham, 252; and recoinage, 245; repayments, 344; rewards, 240-1, 278; and trade embargo, 98-9; and Welsh wars, 201, 219, 239-40; see a lso Luke, Pogio Richard I, k. of England, 12, 75, 518, 558 Richard, e. of Cornwall, 4-5, 7, 23, 25, 32, 34, 59, 64, 83; in Barons’ Wars, 42-5; in charge of Edward (1253), 9; crusading advice, 68; failure of his mediation (1263), 39; loans to Edward, 18, 80; looks after Edward’s interests, 72, 126; mediates between Edward and Gloucester (1270), 63, 71; reconciles k. and Edward (1260), 33; surrenders at Lewes (1264), 46 R ic h a r d so n , H . G . , 227, 441,459; see a lso S a y le s, G .O .

Richmond, archdeaconry of, 252; honour of, 21,447; e. of, see John of Brittany Ringwood (Hants), 92 Rioms (d i p . Gironde), 382 Rishanger, William, 131,452, 457, 537 Rivaux, Peter des, keeper of the wardrobe, 22 Rivoli (Italy), 84 Robert, pantler, 160 Robin, Little, 156 Rochelle, Richard de la, 13, 52, 69 Rochester, 43, 425; bishopric of, 234 Rokesle, Adam de, 159 Rokesle, Gregory de, 245, 264-5 Roman law, 206, 366, 368, 415, 424, 454-7, 465-6,491 R o m e , 83, 143, 153. 3^3. 327. 3 6 0 ,4 1 7 .4 2 6 , 4 9 L 4 9 5 . 549

Romeyn, John le, abp of York, 352, 404 Roquepine (d ep . Dordogne), 310 Ros, Robert de, 470 Ros, William de, 358 Roslin (Borders), 141,498 Ross, e. of, 471 Rothbury, Gilbert, 442, 444 Rothbury, Robert of, 542 Rothesay (Strathclyde), 499

614

INDEX

Roxburgh (Borders), 109, 374, 473, 479, 497, 504, 508,514,518 Roy, James le, 277 Royston (Herts), 419 Russel, Elias, 400 Rustichello of Pisa, 118, 120 Rutherglen (Strathclyde), 506, 513 Ruthin (Clwyd), 190, 204, 217, 220 Rye, Robert de, 224

Sauveterre de Guyenne {dep. Gers), 309 Sauveterre la Lemance {dep. Lot & Garonne), 3 10 Savage, Rose, 282 Savoy, 83-4, 122, 214, 326; count of, 317, 387, see a lso Amadeus, Peter, Philip Savoy, Beatrice of, 83 Savoyards, 21-2, 24, 83, 207 S a y le s, G . O . , 167, 441,459; see a lso R ic h a rd so n ,

Sabina, Peter of, cardinal, 551 Safad (Israel), 66-7 Saham (Cambs), 104 Saham, William de, 340-1 St Albans (Herts), 129, 162, 164-5,420 St Andrews (Fife), 464, 481,501 ; bp of, see Fraser, Lamberton St Asaph (Clwyd), 208 St Briavels (Glos), 103, 179 St Buryan (Cornwall), 546 St Davids, bp of, see Bek, Thomas St Denis (Paris), 113 St Edward of Acre, 79 St George, 199 St George, Giles of, 209 St George, Master James of, 84, 118, 209-10, 214-15, 225,230-1,498,559 St George, Stephen of, 143 St Georges d’Espéranche (d é p . Isère), 83-4, 209-10 St Georges-de-Lebeyne (Israel), 76-7 St Ives (Cambs), 98 St John, John de, 153, 155, 325, 340, 370, 381— 2,385,484-5,495,511,533 St Macaire {d ép . Gironde), 384 St Maurice de Agaune (Savoy), 84 St Omer {d ép . Pas-de-Calais), 32 St Philibert, Hugh de, 115 St Quentin, Bonet de, 143, 305, 363 St Sever {d ép . Landes), 300-1, 304, 382, 386, 463 St Valery, Richard of, 279 Saintes {dép. Charente-Maritime), 310 Saintonge (France), 306, 316 Salerno, Charles of, see Charles Salines, William de, 22 Salisbury (Wilts), 141, 277, 360, 416, 443; see a lso parliament Sallowe, Robert, 167 Salmon, John, bp of Norwich, 437 Sancho of Castile, 318 Sandale, John, 142, 154, 399, 445, 504, 506,

Scarborough (N. Yorks), 62, 265 Schiltroms, 481 Scone (Tayside), 370, 464, 474, 506, 509 Scota, 495 Scoteny, Walter de, 27 Scoti, 81 Scotland; Edward visits (1267), 57-8; succession crisis in, 332, 356ff; Great Cause, 3631!; Edward I in (1292-3), 163, 365; entrusted to Balliol, 369; alliance with France, 372-3, 469-70; 1296 campaign, 168, 305, 469-75; rebellion (1297), 476-8; 1298 campaign, 479-82; problems in 1299, 396-7, 483; 1300 campaign, 484-90; 1301 campaign, 137, 438, 493-4; English occupation (1302), 497-8; 1303-4 campaign, 498-502; arrangements for government (1305), 503-5; John of Brittany appointed to, 132, 504; Bruce rebellion (1306-7), 505-1 r Costs of war in, 514—15, 553; English administration of, 142, 299, 497, 503-4; justifications of English policy towards, 121, 154; land grants in, 461,479, 483, 500, 511— 12, 515; law in, 188, 504-5; negotiations over, 130, 396-7, 490-2, 494, 496; status of, 475- 6 Scrutiny of treasure (1294), 403-5, 460, 552 Scullery, 134, 136, 158 Segrave, John de, 70, 498-500, 503 Segrave, Nicholas de, 59, 149, 387, 461 Segre, Robert de, 390, 399 Selkirk (Borders), 498 Senlis {d ep . Oise), 38 Sescas, Barrau de, 386 Seton, Christopher, 508 Sevenoaks (Kent), 413 Severn, river, 42, 49-50 Sex, 45, 60-1, 101, 128-9, ! 3L 133, 234, 2834. 3°5, 380, 470, 502-3, 559; see a lso rape, whores Sherfield (Cambs), 147 Sheriffs, 54, 91, 339, 458, 487; annual farms, 242, 244, 526; duties, 103; and elections, 99, 449; oath, 93; payments, 535; replaced, 93,

H .G .

512,541

Sandford, John, abp of Dublin, 390 Sandwich (Kent), 55, 395, 431 Sandwich, Ralph de, 102, 105, 265, 503 Santiago de Compostella (Spain), 113 Sardinia, 73 Sardinia, William de, 491

253

Shotwick (Cheshire), 214 Shrewsbury (Salop), 96, 137, 174, 202-3, 220, 228, 285; see a lso Parliament

INDEX

Shrewsbury, Geoffrey of, 202 Shropshire, 62, 93-5, 176, 190, 198, 204, 287 Sicilian Vespers, 318-19, 321 Sicily, 24, 71, 73-4, 82, 324, 326 Siddington, Thomas, 340-1 Siege equipment, 47, 219, 486-7, 493, 499, 501-2,507 Silverstone (Northants), 7 Skerning, Roger, bp of Norwich, 101 Skinburness (Cumbria), 141,486 Skipton (N. Yorks), 104 Sluys (Netherlands), 394 Smithfield (London), 503 Snowdonia, 16, 39, 180-1, 190-1, 193, 195, 205, 223, 228-30 Soler, family, 8, 15, 37, 299 Soler, Gaillard del, 15-16, 62 Solway estuary, 491 Sorde (d é p . Landes), 386 Soules, John de, 500-1 Soules, Nicholas de, 358 Southampton, 384, 411 Southwark (Gtr London), 23, 98, 253 Southwell (Notts), 141 Spalding (Lines), 96 Spaldington, Osbert de, 224 Spies, 50-2, 175, 1 9 2 , 3 8 3 , 4 9 9 Spigurnel, Henry, 287 Spini, 534 Springhose, Roger, 204 Stafford (Staffs), 254, 286 Staffordshire, 62, 198 Staincliffe (Yorks), 95 Staines (Surrey), 40 Stamford (Lines), 11—12, 19-20, 22, 36, 48, 94 Stapleton, Nicholas de, 342 Statutes, 267-97 p a s s im , 452-3, 560; Merton (1236), 268; Marlborough (1267), 7, 59, 251, 268-9; Westminster I (1275), 96, too, 106, 269, 271, 275-7, 279, 281-2, 452-3, 560; exchequer (1275), 102; Jewry (1275), 240, 345; de b ig a m is (1276), 105-6; Ragman (1278), 97; Gloucester (1278), 97, 271, 291; Mortmain (1279), 251-3, 256, 274, 522; Acton Burnell (1283), 278, 453; Rhuddlan (1284), 242-3; Wales (1284), 205, 217, 504; Westminster 11 (1285), 256, 270, 273; (d e d o n is c o n d itio n a lib u s ) , 275-8, 280-2, 290, 292, 296, 452, 461, 522, 560; Winchester (1285), 280-1, 287, 523; Merchants (1285), 278; Q u ia em ptores (1290), 270, 274; Q u o W a rra n to (1290), 347; D e f i n i b u s le v a tis (1299), 276, 290, 520; Stepney (1299), 443, 531; St Albans (1300), 146, 159; Joint tenants (1306), 272; Carlisle (1307), 552; Stamford

(>309). 553

Staunton, Robert of, 341 Staunton, Simon of, 341 Stephen, the painter, 209

6 15

Stewardship of England, 61,90 Steward of household, 145-6, 166-7 \ see a lso Beauchamp, Walter de, sen., de Chauvent, Fitzjohn, FitzOtho, de Montait, de la Warde Stirling (Central), 157, 481,494, 503-4; surrender of ( 1296), 473; siege of ( 1299), 483-4; treatment of garrison by Scots, 489; siege of (1304), 109, 155,231,283, 500-2, 5 *4 »565 Stirling Bridge, battle of, 394, 427, 434, 478 Stracathro (Tayside), 473 Strata Florida, abbey (Dyfed), 224 Strathbogie, John de, e. of Atholl, 508 Stratford (Gtr London), 421-2, 424 Strathord (Tayside), 500 Stratton, Adam, 250, 268, 341-2 S tu b b s , W ., 76, 267, 441,465 S t u d d J . R . , 11 Stuteville, Nicholas de, 196 Suetonius Paulinus, 228 Suffolk, 38, 62, 243, 257 Summonses, see writs Surrey, 198, 540; e. of, see Warenne Susa (Italy), 84 Sussex,198,260,262, 276, 413, 426, 448 Sutton, Oliver, bp of Lincoln, 255, 281,404 Swans, feast of, 121,512 Swansea (West Glam.), 201,539 Sweetheart abbey (Dumfries & Galloway), 491 Swinnerton, Roger, 431 Tails, allegedly possessed by English, 471 Tallies, 142, 242, 514 Talmont (d ép . Charente-Maritime), 310 Talybont (Dyfed), 224 Tange, Andrew, 364, 491 Tany, Luke de, 70, 190-2, 228, 300-1, 303-4, 310 Tarascon (d ép . Bouches-du-Rhône), 326 Taxation; grants of, 453—8; 20th (1270), 72; 15th (1275), 101-2, 105-6, 238, 455; 30th (1283), 197, 238-40, 455; feudal aid (1290), 343, 457; 15th (1290), 219, 343, 455, 529; 10th & 6th (1294), 404, 408, 431, 441,457; 11th & 7th ( 1295), 405, 408-9, 431 ; 12th & 8th (1296), 405, 409, 418, 436; 8th & 5th (1297), 422, 424-8, 433, 455, 457, 466; 9th (1297), 409, 457, 521; 20th (1300), 455, 523-5; !5th (i3°0, 438, 440, 525-7, 529;

feudal aid (1302), 529; tallage, 438, 529; 30th & 20th (1306), 447, 455-6, 467, 52930, 545 Clerical; assessment of 1254, 238; papal 10th (1266), 71-2; papal 10th (1274), 102; Canterbury 15th (1279-80), 238, 252; York 10th (1279-80), 238, 252; Canterbury 20th (1283), 239, 255; York 30th (1286), 239;

6 16

INDEX

Taxation - cont. ioth (1290), 343; assessment of 1291,411; moiety (1294), 404; burden, 411—12; refusal of grants (1297), 414, 423; 3rd & 5th (1297), 423; Canterbury ioth (1297), 429, 540; York 5th (1297), 430; refusal of grant (1300), 523; papal ioth (1301), 527, 532; papal ioth (1305), 532-3 In Gascony, 15, 304; and Roman law, 545-7; and parliament, 453-8; in Wales and Marches, 219, 226, 351 T a y lo r , A . J . , 214 Tees, river, 544, 546 Tegeingl, cantred of, j^Cantreds, the Four Templars, 77; master of, 78-9, 251,438; see a lso Jay Temple Liston (Lothian), 480 Testa, William, 551 Tewkesbury (Glos), 363 Thame (Oxon), 281 Thomas of Brotherton, e. of Norfolk, 5,131 Thomas, count of Savoy, 83 Thomas, e. of Lancaster, 285, 447, 521, 540, 566 Thornton, Gilbert de, 261, 293, 347, 355 Thorpe, John, 146 Three Castles (Gwent), 11, 19, 28, 32-3, 36, 38, 60 Tibbers (Dumfries & Galloway), 506 Tibetot, Robert de, 47, 68, 180, 189-90, 218, 35° Tickhill (S. Yorks), 7, 19-20, 38, 426 Tonbridge (Kent), 44-5, 89 Tontoulon ( d ip . Gironde), 310 Tony, Ralph de, 351 Tony, Robert de, 483 Torel, William, 119 Toulouse (d e p . Haute-Garonne), 385 Touraine (France), 29 Tournaments, 7, 28, 30, 34, 38, 48, 60, 65, 85, 109, 120-1, 510, 521 T o u t , T . F . , 134-5, ' 3 7 Towy valley (Dyfed), 18 Toys, 127, 131 Trahaern ap Madog, 187 Trailbaston, 285; Song of, 286-7 Transvestism, 50 Trapani (Sicily), 75, 81-2 Traquair (Borders), 493 Treason, 206, 383, 503 Treasurers, see Chauncy, Kirkby, March, Langton, Ware Treasury, robbery of, 536 Trebizond (Turkey), 313 T r e h a m e , R . F . , 35, 63 Trespas, Raymond, 277 Trim (Co. Meath), 13, 540 Tripoli (Lebanon), 75, 329, 333 Trivet, Nicholas, 108, h i , 115, 117

Tunis (Tunisia), 71, 73-4, 80, 82 Turberville, Hugh, 150, 215 Turberville, Thomas, 150, 373, 382-3 Turnberry (Strathclyde), 494 Turnemire, William, 245-6 Turri, Gerard de, 308 Tutbury (Staffs), 43, 285 Tweed, river, 470, 478, 493 Tyne, river, 544, 546 Tynedale, 543, 545 Tynemouth (Tyne & Wear), 542 Tyngewyke, Elias de, 460 Ufford, Robert, 35, 98 Ulster, 40, 179; e. of, see Burgh Umfraville, family, 357 Umfraville, Gilbert de, e. of Angus, 447 Umfraville, Ingram de, 500 Urban IV, pope, 67 Vale Royal (Cheshire), 113-14, 204 Valence, Aymer de, bp of Winchester, 21,25, 34

Valence, Aymer de, e. of Pembroke, 115, 155, 4 9 5 . 4 9 9 . 5 ° 6 - 7 >510— 12, 557 Valence (d é p . Drome), William bp elect of, 21 Valence, William de, e. of Pembroke, 21, 256, 91, 233, 310; receives Stamford and Grantham from Edward, 20, 22, 36; meets Edward in France and returns with him (1260), 34-5; in Barons’ Wars, 45-6, 48-9; and crusade, 68-9, 78; in Gascony, 303; in Welsh wars, 192, 195, 221 ; as diplomat, 318; as Marcher lord, 204, 350-1 Valence, William de,jun., 190 Valois, see Charles Vaux, John de, 23, 27, 38, 41-2, 54, 243, 260,

304

Vegetius, 123, 228 Venables, William de, 183 Venice (Italy), 66, 75, 80 Verdun, bp of, see Grandson, Gerard de Verdun, family, 539 Verdun, Theobald of, 351 Vere, Hugh de, 382, 495 Vere, Robert de, e. of Oxford, 235, 281,406,

413

Vergers, Guy de, 209 Vescy, Agnes de, 263 Vescy, Isabella de, 372, 406, 413, 550 Vescy, John de, 57, 64, 70, 79, 84, 149, 153, 180, 199, 305, 321,324-5 Vescy, William de, 353, 358, 461, 539 Victualling, 19, 50, 143, 166, 408; in 1277, 180-2; in 1282-3, 198—9; in 1294-5, 220-1, 225; in Scotland, 480-3, 486-7, 513, 527; see a lso food, prise Villani, 131 Virelade (d ép . Gironde), 382

INDEX

Visconti, Tedaldo, see Gregory X Viterbo (Italy), 74, 83, 300 Vive-saint-Bavon (Belgium), truce of, 393, 531 Wages, military, 485-6, 532 Wake, Baldwin, 55, 239 Wakering, Peter of, 6 Wale, Thomas, 154, 492, 495 Walerand, Robert, 11, 22, 27-8, 32, 39, 47, 5 7 , 73 Wales, 11, 16, 19-20, 24, 27, 38, 52, 123, 136, 142,235, 299, 564; war of 1277, 103, 17682, 237; war of 1282-3, 110, !37, *39> !47> 151—2, 188-201, 237; revolt (1287), 218-19; revolt (1294-5), H2, 215-26, 232, 404, 406; law in, 185-6, 188, 205-6, 216, 227, 288; towns founded in, 216-17, 474; see a lso Llywelyn ap Gruifydd, Marches, Statutes Waleys, Henry le, 264-5, 310 Waleys, Robert, 290 Walhope, William de, 554 Wallace, John, 510 Wallace, William, 427, 462, 476-8, 481,499502, 512; trial and execution, 503 Wallingford (Oxon), 23, 47, 53 Walsingham (Norfolk), 112, 339 Waltham (Essex), 420 Waltham, Matilda de, 111 Waltham, Nicholas, 175 Wappenham (Northants), 439 Warde, Robert de la, 145, 153 Wardrobe, 53, 134-43, 169; accounts & account books, 139, 143-5, 168-9, 240, 529, 536,548, 56 i>566; clerks,138-43» 512-13; debts, 521,529; and exchequer, 137-8, 535-6; expenditure, 237; financial functions, 137-8, 244, 522, 535; keepers of, see Bek, Droxford, Langton, Lewknor, Louth, Rivaux, Willoughby Wardrobe, Great, 160-1 Wardship, 96, 154-5 Ware, Richard, 234 Warenne, John de, e. of Surrey (also known as Earl Warenne) (d. 1304), 94, 216, 276, 357, 371,413, 430, 495, 515, 521; associated with Edward in youth, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33-4; parts company with Edward (1262), 37-8; rejoins Edward (1263), 41; in Barons’ Wars, 43, 45-6, 48-9, 53-4; takes cross, 68; on Edward I’s return (1274), 89, 91; grants in Wales, 191, 204; and quo w a rra n to , 25962; on 1296 campaign, 471,473; keeper of Scotland (1296), 447, 474, 477; defeated at Stirling Bridge (1297), 393, 427, 478; contract to serve (1297), 478; swears on k.’s behalf (1298), 482, 518; on 1300 campaign,

485,489

Warenne, John de, e. of Surrey (d. 1347), 128, 445

617

Warenne, William de, e. of Surrey, 4, 12 Wark on Tweed (Northumb.), 470, 510 Warwick, e. of, see Beauchamp, Mauduit Warwickshire, 94, 527 Warwolf, 502 Waterville, Ralph de, 135 Waverley (Surrey), annals of, 356 Welshpool (Powys), 205 Westminster, 4, 8, 62, 89, 101, 137, 175-6, 265» 293,300,339-40,347,350,353,429;

Abbey, 4, 89, 125, 443, 474, 536, 558, 566; abbot of, 462; chronicle, 541; Coronation Stone, 474; dean, 566; Hall, 462, 563; Painted Chamber, 119, 122,405,443,558; Palace, 119; Provisions of (1259), 30, 251, 268, 274, 334; St Stephen’s Chapel, 119, 443; Treasury, ^Treasury; see a lso Parliament, Statutes Westmorland, 342, 448 Weston, John de, 512 Wetnurses, 5,131 Wexford, seneschal of, 554 Weyland, Thomas de, 339, 368 Wheatley, Henry of, 140 Whitchurch (Salop), 187 Whitecastle (Gwent), 209 Whores, 45, 147, 482 Wight, Isle of, 353, 383-4, 513 Wigmore (Hereford & Worcs), 49, 51, 190, 351

., 358, 439 William 1 1 , k. of England, 114 William the Lion, k. of Scots, 358 William, lord of Tournon, 84 Willoughby, Philip de, keeper of the wardrobe, 69, 138 Wilton (Wilts), 256 Wilton, William de, 17, 22, 28 Wiltshire, 94, 431 Winchelsea (E. Sussex), 10, 44, 55, h i , 153, 163, 266, 308, 310, 383-4,424,514 Winchelsey, Robert, abp of Canterbury, 114, 258, 431,521,562; returns to England W ilk in s o n , B

(1295). 403-5; fealty to k., 412-13;

opposition to k. in 1297, 414-17, 420, 423, 426, 430, 433-5;concerns in 1298, 519; and political troubles of 1300-2, 522, 527-8, 532, 543; presents papal bull to k. (1300), 491; suspended, 533, 540-1,546 Winchester (Hants), 25, 27, 50, 54, 103, 105, 164, 175, 203, 277, 456; annals of, 61, 103; bishopric of, 198, 234, 239, 255; bp of, see Pontoise, Valence; e. of, see Quincy; see a lso Statutes Winchester, Richard of, 308 Windmill Psalter, 559 Windmills, 46, h i Windsor (Berks), 5-7, 40-1,45, 54, 56, 125, 164-5, 176, 203, 460

618

INDEX

Winterbourne, Walter de, 542 Wirksworth, hundred of (Derbs), 43 Wirral (Cheshire), 179, 225 Wishart, Robert, bp of Glasgow, 364, 372, 4 7 6 - 7 . 4 9 7 . 5 °6

Wissant (d é p . Pas-de-Calais), 177 Wogan, John, 493, 554 Wolvesey (Hants), 164 Woodstock (Oxon), 7, 16, 103, 162 Wool, export of, 98-9, 239, 389, 400, 532; forfeited, 438; see a lso prise Woolmer (Hants), 164 Wootton (Oxon), 103 Worcester, 49, 50-1, 105, 176-7, 179, 189, 220, 234, 411,426, 540; bp of, 234; see a lso Cantilupe, Walter; Giffard, Godfrey Worcestershire, 94 Wrexham (Clwyd), 221 Writs; authorized by council, 439; case, 2767; c e ss a v it , 275; circu m sp ecte a g a tis, 257-8, 269; devoured, 462; e le g it, 278; formedon in descender, 273; lib e r a te , 535; of military summons, 419, 446, 483-4, 493, 523-4, 527-8, 533; parliamentary summons, 441, 444, 446, 448, 450, 454\ p o n e , 291; p ra em u n ien tes, 446, 450; of prohibition, 253, 256; of protection, 511; record ari, 291; served in parliament, 462; trampled in mud, 414 Wykes, Thomas, 32, 41,47, 52, 57, 101, 192, 24 5 >321

Wymerseley hundred (Northants), 95 Yale, see Bromfield Yarmouth, 10, 278, 383, 392 Yarmouth, Hugh of, 426 Yolande of Dreux, qu. of Scots, 358, 360 York, 164, 203, 259, 278, 430, 439, 556; assembly of 1283 at, 197, 454, 457; assembly of 1298 at, 430, 479; clergy of, 252, 403, 405, 423, 430; council at, 438, 440; galley built, 384; in hands of corrupt guild, 286; meeting of merchants at (1303), 530; mint, 246; prison, 283; royal officials at, 137, 513; St Mary’s, 259; St Peter’s, 546-7; taken into k.’s hands, 265; abps of, 251,443; see a lso Corbridge, Giffard, Greenfield, Romeyn Yorkshire, 140, 263, 283, 289, 460, 480 Ypres (Belgium), 389 Ystlwyf (Dyfed), 351 Ystrad Alun (Clwyd), 187 YstradTywi (Dyfed), 173 Ythel, Hugo ap, 204 Zagan,331 Zouche, Alan la, 17 Zouche, William la, 27, 34 Zwyn, estuary, 392