De namen van de 102.000 Joodse slachtoffers en 220 Roma en Sinti die in de Tweede Wereldoorlog door de nazi’s zijn vermoord, zijn vanaf vandaag te zien op het Holocaust Namenmonument aan het Weesperplantsoen. Het gedenkteken is het levenswerk van Jacques Grishaver van het Auschwitz Comité. “We brengen die mensen weer terug naar hun familie. Dat je ziet dat ze geleefd hebben.”
De muren met namen zijn gebouwd in de vorm van vier Hebreeuwse letters לזכר, die ‘in memoriam’ betekenen. Bovenop de muren zijn spiegelende objecten van roestvrij staal geplaatst in de vorm van dezelfde letters. Grishaver: “De muren symboliseren het verleden, de ruimte tussen de muren geeft de verandering van tijd aan en de spiegelende objecten, waarin het heden weerkaatst wordt, geeft de toekomst aan. Het Namenmonument is er ook om van te leren. Dat we dit nooit meer willen.”
Al in 2006 kwam Grishaver met het initiatief voor het Holocaust Namenmonument. Hij wilde een plek waar alle namen van de Nederlandse slachtoffers die geen eigen graf hebben, zichtbaar en tastbaar zijn voor de nabestaanden. In iedere steen is de naam, geboortedatum en leeftijd van overlijden gegraveerd.
Grishaver is iedere keer weer geëmotioneerd als hij het ziet. “Kijk, 1 jaar, 5 jaar”, leest hij hardop als hij langs de stenen met namen loopt. “Vooral al die jonge mensen die niet de kans hebben gehad om te leven. En het grootste deel van de namen die er op staan zijn van families die totaal zijn uitgeroeid. Daar is niemand meer van over.”
Voor de 85-jarige Max Arpels Lezer betekent het veel dat hij straks de naam van zijn moeder Flora Arpels en die van zijn grootouders in het Namenmonument kan zien. Ze werden in Auschwitz en Sobibor vermoord door de nazi’s.
Max werd op zesjarige leeftijd naar een onderduikadres gebracht in Friesland. “Ik heb mijn moeder nooit meer gezien. Maar ze komt wat dichterbij als ik haar steen straks kan aanraken, met haar naam, haar geboortedatum en leeftijd van overlijden. Dat is heel belangrijk voor mij. De herinnering aan mijn moeder is namelijk hier.”
Aan het realiseren van het monument ging een lange strijd vooraf. Het eerste ontwerp van Daniel Libeskind voor een monument in het Wertheimpark stuitte op grote bezwaren van buurtbewoners. Ze vonden het veel te groot voor het park. Maar ook de nieuwe locatie, het Weesperplantsoen, leidde tot protest uit de buurt. De noodzakelijke kap van 25 bomen, de angst voor teveel toeristen en onveilige donkere hoeken, waren de inzet van meerdere rechtszaken die een aantal omwonenden aanspanden. Op 9 juli 2019 kreeg Grishaver eindelijk groen licht en kon de bouw beginnen.
EINDE BERICHT
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 8/”Slegs vir etnische Oekraieners”
Alle Oekraïense vluchtelingen die zijn ondergebracht op een van de twee boten bij Java-eiland zijn op straat gezet. Het gaat om ongeveer 80 vluchtelingen. De reden van het plotselinge vertrek is dat de eigenaar van de boot eisen heeft gesteld wie er op zijn boot zit. Die wil dat er alleen vrouwen, kinderen en etnische Oekraïners terecht kunnen. Dit heeft de gemeente bevestigd.
De Oekraïense president Volodymyr Zelensky heeft donderdagavond in een decreet een algehele mobilisatie van de bevolking aangekondigd, meldt persbureau Interfax. Dat betekent onder meer dat mannelijke inwoners in de leeftijd van achttien tot zestig jaar het land niet meer uit mogen, omdat ze beschikbaar moeten zijn voor het leger.
Zelensky deed dit in de nasleep van de Russische inval die in de nacht van woensdag op donderdag begon.
Via sociale media riep het hoofd van de douane in de westelijke regio Lviv donderdagavond mannen in de leeftijdscategorie achttien tot zestig jaar ertoe op niet naar de grens te komen. “Alsjeblieft, veroorzaak geen paniek en probeer niet op eigen houtje de grens over te steken”, aldus Daniil Menshikov. “De overwinning is aan ons! Leve Oekraïne!”, besloot hij zijn oproep.
Het Russische persbureau Interfax meldt dat de mobilisatie binnen negentig dagen wordt uitgevoerd. De maatregel heeft betrekking op inwoners van het land voor wie de dienstplicht geldt en reservisten van het Oekraïense leger.
Eerder op de dag kondigde president Zelensky al een staat van beleg af en adviseerde hij inwoners “niet in paniek te raken” en zoveel mogelijk thuis te blijven. Hij zei toen dat Oekraïne “sterk is, klaarstaat en zal winnen”.
Duizenden buitenlandse studenten uit onder meer Afrika en Azië zitten vast in Oekraïne. Ze komen moeilijk het land uit omdat ze aan hun lot zijn overgelaten of bij de grens worden gediscrimineerd. Jongeren die wél hebben kunnen vluchten, proberen via sociale media en tussenpersonen lotgenoten het land uit te krijgen. Volgens de Internationale Organisatie voor Migratie (IOM) zijn sinds de Russische invasie bijna 80.000 buitenlanders uit 138 landen in Oekraïne op de vlucht geslagen. Onder hen zijn veel jongeren uit Afrika, Azië en Latijns-Amerika. In Charkov kwam een Indiase student om door beschietingen.
ZIE NOOT 5 ZIE OOK ”Burgemeester Femke Halsema reageert in een schriftelijke reactie met: “Dit is onacceptabel en in strijd met artikel 1 van de grondwet. Etniciteit of geslacht bepaalt niet of je wordt opgevangen en beschermd. Maar de vluchtmotieven, de vrees voor vervolging, oorlog en geweld.” AT5OEKRAIENSE VLUCHTELINGEN UIT OPVANGBOOT GEZET, EIGENAARWIL ”ALLEEN VROUWEN, KINDEREN EN ETNISCHE OEKRAIENERS”25 MAART 2012 https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/214345/oekraiense-vluchtelingen-uit-opvangboot-gezet-eigenaar-wil-alleen-vrouwen-kinderen-en-etnische-oekrainers
Zo’n 80 Oekraïense vluchtelingen die op een boot bij het Java-eiland verbleven, moeten vrijdag vertrekken. De gemeente Amsterdam verbreekt de samenwerking met de eigenaar van de riviercruiser omdat hij alleen vrouwen, kinderen en etnische Oekraïners wil onderbrengen.
Dat bevestigt een woordvoerder van het stadsbestuur. De vluchtelingen verblijven sinds half maart op de boot, het riviercruiseschip Amavenita. De gemeente huurt locaties van vele boot- en hoteleigenaren om voldoende opvangplekken voor Oekraïense vluchtelingen te regelen.
Maar eisen stellen aan de samenstelling van de groep is ‘geen punt voor discussie’, zegt een woordvoerder. “Wij maken geen onderscheid, aan eisen op dit vlak willen en kunnen we niet voldoen. De samenwerking met de betreffende eigenaar is daarom beëindigd.”
Nieuwe locaties
Er worden direct nieuwe opvanglocaties geregeld voor de mensen die moeten vertrekken.
Het is niet de enige boot op het Java-eiland waar vluchtelingen verbleven; in totaal werden 300 mensen op twee riviercruiseschepen ondergebracht. Sommige Oekraïners verhuizen van de ene naar de andere boot, want met de andere eigenaar gaat de samenwerking door. Ook in een leegstaand schoolgebouw op het Java-eiland kunnen sinds deze week 150 mensen terecht.
Rust bieden
De opvang wordt op deze locaties verzorgd door de Regenboog groep. Een woordvoerder laat weten dat de situatie niet ideaal is: “We willen mensen juist rust bieden, en nu moeten ze plotseling vertrekken. Maar het is de enige manier waarop we de opvang kunnen voortzetten zoals we dat willen.”
In totaal zijn er in Nederland 27.000 bedden beschikbaar voor Oekraïense vluchtelingen. Daarvan zijn er vrijdag 17.000 gevuld.
Alle Oekraïense vluchtelingen die zijn ondergebracht op een van de twee boten bij Java-eiland zijn op straat gezet. Het gaat om ongeveer 80 vluchtelingen. De reden van het plotselinge vertrek is dat de eigenaar van de boot eisen heeft gesteld wie er op zijn boot zit. Die wil dat er alleen vrouwen, kinderen en etnische Oekraïners terecht kunnen. Dit heeft de gemeente bevestigd.
De vluchtelingen moesten vanmorgen plotseling al hun spullen pakken en de boot verlaten. De groep werd sinds half maart opgevangen op de boot.
In de stad huurt de gemeente locaties waar vluchtelingen worden opgevangen zodat er voldoende opvangplekken zijn voor Oekraïners. Aan de eisen van de eigenaar van de boot kan en wil de gemeente geen gehoor geven. Om die reden is de samenwerking met de eigenaar per direct beëindigd. “De vluchtelingen die op de boot zijn opgevangen, zullen op een andere plek in de stad worden ondergebracht”, laat een woordvoerder weten.
Het gaat om een van de twee boten op het Java-eiland. De andere boot is eigendom van Peter Versluis van rederij VeKa, daar is niemand weggestuurd. Sommige vluchtelingen kunnen van de ene boot naar de andere. De rest zal op verschillende andere locaties in de stad worden opgevangen.
Versluis heeft nog een tweede boot in Wieringerwerf. De eigenaar gaat vanmiddag met de gemeente in gesprek over of die ook kan worden ingezet voor de opvang van vluchtelingen.
Burgemeester: ‘In strijd met grondwet’
Burgemeester Femke Halsema reageert in een schriftelijke reactie met: “Dit is onacceptabel en in strijd met artikel 1 van de grondwet. Etniciteit of geslacht bepaalt niet of je wordt opgevangen en beschermd. Maar de vluchtmotieven, de vrees voor vervolging, oorlog en geweld. Amsterdam veroordeelt het gedrag en de uitspraken van de eigenaar van de boot.”
De eigenaar van de boot waar vluchtelingen werden weggestuurd wilde niet bij AT5/NH Amsterdam reageren.
25 maart 2022, 11.22 uur · Aangepast 25 maart 2022, 14.51 uur · Door AT5/NH Amsterdam
Alle vluchtelingen die zijn ondergebracht op een van de twee boten bij Java-eiland in Amsterdam zijn op straat gezet. Het gaat om ongeveer 80 vluchtelingen. De reden van het plotselinge vertrek is dat de eigenaar van de boot eisen heeft gesteld wie er op zijn boot zit. Die wil dat er alleen vrouwen, kinderen en etnische Oekraïners terecht kunnen. Dit heeft de gemeente bevestigd.
De vluchtelingen moesten vanmorgen plotseling al hun spullen pakken en de boot verlaten. De groep werd sinds half maart opgevangen op de boot.
In de stad huurt de gemeente locaties waar vluchtelingen worden opgevangen zodat er voldoende opvangplekken zijn voor Oekraïners. Aan de eisen van de eigenaar van de boot kan en wil de gemeente geen gehoor geven. Om die reden is de samenwerking met de eigenaar per direct beëindigd. “De vluchtelingen die op de boot zijn opgevangen, zullen op een andere plek in de stad worden ondergebracht”, laat een woordvoerder weten.
Het gaat om een van de twee boten op het Java-eiland. De andere boot is eigendom van Peter Versluis van rederij VeKa, daar is niemand weggestuurd. Sommige vluchtelingen kunnen van de ene boot naar de andere. De rest zal op verschillende andere locaties in de stad worden opgevangen.Versluis heeft nog een tweede boot in Wieringerwerf. De eigenaar gaat vanmiddag met de gemeente in gesprek over of die ook kan worden ingezet voor de opvang van vluchtelingen.
Burgemeester: ‘In strijd met grondwet’
Burgemeester Femke Halsema reageert in een schriftelijke reactie met: “Dit is onacceptabel en in strijd met artikel 1 van de grondwet. Etniciteit of geslacht bepaalt niet of je wordt opgevangen en beschermd. Maar de vluchtmotieven, de vrees voor vervolging, oorlog en geweld. Amsterdam veroordeelt het gedrag en de uitspraken van de eigenaar van de boot.”
De eigenaar van de boot wilde niet bij AT5/NH Amsterdam reageren.
EINDE BERICHT
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 1/”Slegs vir etnische Oekraieners
Met enige aarzeling reageer ik toch maar op ‘No-fly 2. Rob Lubbersen reageert op Peter Storm’.(1) Aarzeling, want zoiets leidt na de eerste paar discussiebijdragen maar al te vaak tot geharrewar, jij-bakken en welles-nietes. Maar ik kan het toch niet laten, deels vanwege het belang van de discussie, deels ook omdat Lubbersen voor een deel reageert op zaken die ik niet zeg en niet bedoel. Een beetje opheldering kan dus wellicht geen kwaad.
Het eerste punt dat ik nog eens wil maken: we zijn het eens dat Rusland, preciezer gezegd de Russische heersers en hun militaire uitvoerders, deze misdaad plegen. We zijn het eens dat die misdaad ongerechtvaardigd is. We zijn het eens dat Rusland die soldaten waarvan Lubbersen zegt ‘ze horen daar niet! Wegwezen!’ nooit had mogen sturen en zo snel mogelijk weg moet halen. We zijn het trouwens hoogstwaarschijnlijk ook eens dat mensen in Oekraïne het volste recht hebben zich daartegen te verweren met alle middelen die zijn nodig vinden, en met alle wapens die ze kunnen maken, krijgen, kopen en stelen. Lubbersen gebruikt een boel woorden om zijn verontwaardiging er nog eens in te hameren. Maar die verontwaardiging hebben we allang gemeen.
Rusland voert een agressie- en veroveringsoorlog die door helemaal niets wordt gerechtvaardigd, en daar heb ik bij herhaling op gehamerd. In het stuk waar Lubbersen op reageert schreef ik dan ook: ‘Lubbersen heeft intussen wel degelijk gelijk in zijn volledige en felle afwijzing van Poetins agressie-oorlog.’ Dat ik de NAVO-rol kritisch en afwijzend belicht, betekent dan ook geenszins dat ik de NAVO als hoofdverantwoordelijke van de oorlog houdt, laat staan als schuldige. ‘Poetin daagt de volle verantwoordelijkheid voor zijn agressie, Lubbersens verontwaardiging is terecht!’ Ik voeg er aan toe: ‘Maar dat ontheft de NAVO niet van haar verantwoordelijkheid’ – een verantwoordelijkheid die ligt in het verschaffen van een context waarin zijn agressie oorlog ietsje makkelijker kon legitimeren als wat het dus niet is: een soort van legitieme zelfverdediging. De NAVO in deze zin mee verantwoordelijk houden voor de oorlog is echt iets anders dan de NAVO als schuldige aanwijzen. Dat laatste doe ik niet, en ik kom niet eens in de buurt.
Als Lubbersen in zijn reactie op mijn reactie dan ook de linkse Oekraïense linkse historicus Taras Bilous opvoert en citeert: ‘Als mensen de NAVO de schuld blijven geven van de Russische invasie, laten ze alleen maar zien dat ze de veranderde s situatie niet hebben begrepen’, dan kan ik Lubbersen wellicht geruststellen. Tot die ‘linkse mensen’ behoor ik niet, want nergens geef ik de NAVO dus van die invasie de schuld. Wat in Oekraïne gebeurt is het Russische imperialisme dat haar macht weer probeert uit te breiden. Hoe boos Lubbersen klaarblijkelijk ook is, hij hoeft verder niet te doen alsof ons meningsverschil daar ligt.
Waar ons meningsverschil ligt, is in het nut van een NAVO-ingrijpen. Daarover eerst dit. Het is verkeerd om de huidige NAVO politiek te omschrijven met: ‘en nu? Nu kijkt de NAVO toe hoe een compleet volk op de vlucht wordt gejaagd’, en zo verder. De NAVO kijkt helemaal niet toe. NAVO-staten leveren wapens, vaak van een buitengewoon effectief soort. NAVO-staten kiezen er voor om Oekraïne voldoende wapens te leveren om niet te worden verslagen, maar niet veel meer dan dat. NAVO-landen doen dat in communicatie met elkaar, en als ‘de NAVO’ het heel anders zou willen, dan zou het niet gebeuren.
Anders gezegd; de NAVO grijpt allang in, actief en militair, zij het indirect. De NAVO zorgt er voor dat Oekraïne de oorlog niet helemaal kan verliezen. Het doel van dat ingrijpen is dus niet het helpen van de burgerbevolking. Doel van dat ingrijpen is Rusland de overwinning te ontzeggen. Dat komt neer op het eindeloos gaande houden van de oorlog, om Rusland leeg te bloeden ongeveer zoals de Sovjet-Unie eerder in Afghanistan is leeggebloed, met op de achtergrond een CIA die bereid was door te vechten tot de laatste Afghaan. Degenen die dit hebben bedacht en besloten, weten waar ze mee bezig zijn. Dit is dus de huidige NAVO: een bende leiders die Oekraïne gebruiken als slagveld om Rusland mee te bestrijden, en Oekraïners als kanonnenvoer in die strijd.
Dat Oekraïners intussen elk wapen dat uit NAVO-landen verwelkomen en roepen om meer, dat vind ik logisch. Nogmaals, mensen in Oekraïne hebben het volste recht om zich met alles wat ze verkrijgen kunnen zich met hand en tand tegen de Russische aanvallers te verweren. Maar aan de NAVO-politiek verandert dat niets. En van die NAVO hoopt Lubbersen iets humaans te verkrijgen? Hoe slecht Rusland ook bezig is, dat maakt de NAVO nog steeds niet tot iets goeds.
Ik kan me dus heel goed voorstellen dat mensen in Oekraïne, in hun wanhoop, toch deze verachtelijke NAVO te hulp roepen. Ik ga de dappere en scherpzinnige Taras Bilous niet de les lezen op dit punt. Maar ik zie niet in waarom mensen in een land als Nederland dit soort oproepen ook nog eens zouden gaan ondersteunen, herhalen en versterken. Dat Rusland in Oekraïne de vijand is, maakt nog helemaal niet dat die cynische, Oekraïners misbruikende NAVO nu opeens als potentiële bondgenoot in de strijd voor humaniteit kan worden opgevoerd.(*) De NAVO is voor het helpen van mensen niet ingericht en niet opgericht, en daar heb ik geen door Lubbersen aan mij toegedichte ‘anti-Navo-reflex’ voor nodig. Een beetje analyse volstaat. Lubbersen kan wel willen dat de NAVO mensen te hulp schiet, maar de NAVO is voor zoiets totaal niet ontvankelijk. De NAVO is geen instrument voor wat Lubbersen of ik wel allemaal kan willen of bedenken. We hebben dat ding nu eenmaal niet aan een touwtje.
Ten slotte: Lubbersen stelt mijn pleidooi en dat van hemzelf op een lijn waar het onze relatieve machteloosheid betreft. Lubbersen wijst op mijn ‘hoop op niet-militaire maatregelen’. Welnu, ik pleit nergens voor ‘maatregelen’, ik ben geen adviseur van de Nederlandse regering. Ik vraag dus ook niet om niet-militaire maatregelen, ik pleit tegen militaire maatregelen, hetgeen iets anders is. En hij zegt dat ik ook wel kan weten dat die geen ‘soelaas biedt’ voor wie of wat dan ook. Inderdaad, ik heb geen recept in de aanbieding dat snel en gegarandeerd werkt. Maar dat is nog geen reden om mee te gaan met recepten voor vergif. Soms is het niet mogelijk om op korte termijn te keren. Maar dat is nog geen reden om er een ander kwaad bovenop te doen. First, do no harm. Ik kan geen soelaas bieden, en ik pretendeer dat ook niet. Maar dat is nog geen reden om mijn mond te houden over levensgevaarlijke voorstellen richting verdere escalatie en oorlogsuitbreiding.
Lubbersens ‘voorstel om een no-fly zone boven de Oekraïne in te stellen’ kan wel degelijk op ‘erg veel bijval’ rekenen, ook al suggereert hij zelf van niet. De bijval komt kennelijk zelfs van die luchtmachtgeneraal en oorlogsprofessor Odinga die hij citeert. Het zou me weinig moeite kosten om pleidooien voor no-fly zone te citeren van mensen op machtsposities, met aanzienlijk meer invloed dat Lubbersen en dan ik. Wat Lubbersen doet is dus geen kansloos gevecht tegen de bierkaai, maar het ondersteunen van een trend die in hoge VS- en Britse kringen allang is ingezet: richting verder ingrijpen in de oorlog van Westerse zijde. Dat zegt nog niets over de zin of onzin van de no-fly zone. Ik zal mijn argumenten ertegen niet herhalen, want ze zijn wat mij betreft niet effectief weerlegd. Maar het beeld alsof Lubbersen met zijn pleidooi in die richting een roepende in de woestijn is, is weinig geloofwaardig. Eerder verschaft hij de NAVO wat extra cover op de linkerflank.
Toegegeven: als die no-fly zone er straks komt, dan zal het pleidooi van Lubbersen niet de doorslaggevende factor zijn geweest. Maar een heel klein beetje medeverantwoordelijkheid voor het creëren van ‘links’ draagvlak voor zo’n verkeerd en allang breed gedragen besluit-in-wording zij hem dan van ganser harte gegund.
(*) Opmerking, 25 maart 2022, 14.,14 uur: Aangepast kort na plaatsing, Wat er stond was een rommeltje.
PLANTAGENETCOAT OF ARMS OF EDMUND CROUCHBACK [SON OFKING HENRY III, BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I ANDFATHER OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER], THOMAS,EARL OF LANCASTER AND HIS SUCCESSORShttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterVENERATION CULTUS OF THOMAS, EARL OF LANCASTER”SAINT THOMAS” [THOMAS THE MARTYR]PICTURE BELOW:
22 MARCH 1322-22 MARCH 2022/THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS OFLANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II/WARLORD/REFORMER/SAINT READERS Today I want to travel with you to 14th century England again, for it’s aspecial Day!Because it is exactly 700 years ago, that Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, Leicesterand Derby, was executed for treason on the orders of his first cousin, king Edward II [the son of the better known Edward I ”Hammer of the Scots [1]and the father of king Edward III, who started the Hundred Years War betweenEngland and France, the war in which Jeanne d’Arc played her role asheroine of freedom [2]And painful for Thomas:He was executed in his own castle of Pontefract [quite sadistic….] [3]I think a role played too the fact, that Edward II wanted revenge allthose years for Earl Thomas summarily executing [with some othercomrades in evil] his favourite, Piers Gaveston [4] Thomas of Lancaster was a very interesting man, whom I described beforein an extended article [nearly a book!] [5]He was about the Power, fought against his cousin king Edward IV for years,after an initial good and friendly contact [it is not known, why king Edward IIand his cousin Thomas fell out, but suddenly it happened, in november 1308 [6]and then the things went worse and worse.But although he did horrible things [like summarily executing Piers Gaveston,a favourite and close friend of Edward II], he was interesting, not onlybecause he held power for years against his cousin the king [from 1314-1318,when he signed a peace treaty with his cousin the King, the Treaty of Leake,which did not last very long…..[7],.No, he did moreWith Simon de Montfort [8] he laid the groundwork for the later Parliament,as driving power behind the Ordinances [9], which tried to limit the absolute Powerof the King. And can you imagine: This man, this warlord, who eventually rose in open rebellion againsthis cousin and king [10] and was all but a Saint, was venerated as Saintafter his death, first as an outlet for those who opposed the king and hislater favourites the Despensers [11], but later as a real Saint [12], although he wasnever canonized. [13] EARL THOMAS’ BROTHER, EARL HENRY [LATER THE 3RD EARLOF LANCASTER] By the way, his brother, Earl Henry, who later inherited his titles [Thomasof Lancaster had only two illegitimate sons, his marriage was childless and bythe way, unhappy], is a very interesting person too and one of my favourites!For a nobleman, he was a real familyman, who rather stayed with his familythen playing powerpolitics. He was clever too:Because most of the the period that his brother Thomas and king Edward II had their fight for power, he stayed in France [where he had possessions] and when his brother Thomas openly rebelled against Edward II, he did not participate and rather stayed in France, as to prevent that he had to make the painful choice between joining his brother in rebellion and treason or to stay loyal to the king and abandon his brother. [14]That must have been very painful for Earl Henry, but in the period after his brother Thomas’ execution, when his cousin king Edward II ruled with his favourites the Despensers [who were the driving forces behind the executionof Thomas of Lancaster, who rebelled against the king partly for lust ofpower and partly to destroy the Despenser influence on the king] [15], EarlHenry operated very carefully at Court and eventually played a majorrole in the fall of the Despensers, which also resulted in the abdicationand death of Edward II [16]Because his clever and careful manoevres during the Edward II/Despenserreign I called him the ”Mystery Man” [17] By the way, by Earl Henry’s granddaughter Blanche of Lancaster [the daughterof his son Henry of Grosmont, later DUKE of Lancaster], he wasthe greatgrandfather of the later king Henry IV [who, by what nowpeople would call a ”coup” usurped the throne from the lawful kingRichard II, who was his first cousin, both grandsons of king Edward III][18] And by Henry’s daughter Maud of Lancaster [19] he was one of the ancestorsof the present British monarchy [his daughter Maud of Lancaster wasthe mother in law of Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III andthe maternal greatgreatgrandfather of Richard, Duke of York, who wasthe paternal grandfather of Elisabeth of York, who was the wife of Henry VII, and mother of king Henry VIII and via one of her daughters, thegreatgrandmother of Maria Stuart, from who all subsequent British kings andQueens descended] [20] THOMAS OF LANCASTER, AGAIN But it is about Earl Thomas of Lancaster today!And because it is 700 years after his execution, hereby the ExecutionChapter And to honour a man, who, with all his faults and atrocities, was oneof the groundworkers for the later English parliament, althoughhe, of course, supported the Ordinances [21] in order to servethe interest of the high nobility, and of course his own
The travel Revenge of the King Reception Trial The others Last passage
””Now the king of Heaven give us mercy, for the earthly king has forsaken us!”
The long battle between Thomas and his cousin King Edward II was over. The way to the grisly end was about to begin:
An end, which was not about to bring the King and the [in january returned] Despensers much joy, but would cast a shadow on their lives and reign.
After the devastating end of the Battle of Boroughbridge, resulting in the horrible death of the Earl of Hereford [452], companion till the last of Thomas of Lancaster [and by the way, the brother in law of Edward II] , Thomas of Lancaster found himself prisoner of the King.
The humiliation could begin…….
THE TRAVEL
Thomas was taken by water via York to Pontefract Castle. That was an intent torment and humiliation, since Pontefract Castle was his favourite residence. [His constable had surrendered to the King without a fight] That must have been very bitter for Thomas.
He was forced to wear garments of the striped cloth which the squires of his household wore, an intentional humiliation of a man of high birth and rank. [453]
But that was not enough:
On the way to York, a crowd of people threw snowballs at him, called him a traitor, and shouted “Now shall you have the reward that long time you have deserved!” [454] Interesting though that there must have been among them people, who later revered him……
At the meantime other adherents of Thomas of Lancaster were taken prisoner, who would share his fate, as the story will show.
REVENGE OF THE KING
The King had tried to make it as humiliating as possible for his cousin and long time adversary Thomas. He ”received” his cousin at his own favourite Castle of Pontefract, accompanied by his favourites the Despensers, who must have thought, that it was their moment of joy. Quod non [Latin for: that is not the case] [455] as will the story reveal later [See Chapter 10, Aftermath]
But although sad for Thomas, the satisfaction the King’ undoubtedly felt, now his powerful cousin was at his mercy, is in a way understandable.
It was not only the 10 year long resistance of Thomas, complete with jeering at the King [in 1317 and 1320], and blocking his way with armed guards [456], probably the King’s most important feeling was revenge for the death of Piers Gaveston, since Thomas was one of the responsibles for his [Gaveston’s] murder [457], a cruel and illegal act against a man, who was vain, avaricious and insulting [to the Lords] [458], but further didn’t do the Lords any wrong.
And Edward II had made no secret of his need for revenge! During the siege of Berwick in 1319 [459] in which Thomas had cooperated with Edward [460], he [Edward] made clear what was on his mind by declaring “When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers.” [461] That threat was obviously aimed at Thomas, who left Berwick later [and right he was!]. [462]
And as I have said before, when it came to revenge, Edward II was true to his word.
RECEPTION
On 21 march, Thomas of Lancaster arrived at his Castle of Pontefract. And what was to be expected, the Despensers couldn’t resist to show their satisfaction in humiliating Lancaster. Thomas was ”contemptuously insulted……to his face with malicious and arrogant words” by the king and the recently returned Despensers” [463] Nice reception in your own castle……
TRIAL
Now rumour had it that Thomas of Lancaster had built a tower in which to hold the king captive for the rest of his life. And, surprise, surprise…… In that very [supposed for imprisonment of the King] tower Thomas was kept prisoner….. [464] The day after Thomas’ arrival, 22 march 1322, his ”trial” took place. I say ”trial” because it didn’t deserve the name at the least.
It was a mock trial, that took place in the hall of Lancaster’s own castle [how bitter…..] and the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Thomas was not allowed to speak in his own defence as his crimes were deemed ‘notorious’ [465]
According to sources he was said to have exclaimed: ” “This is a powerful court, and great in authority, where no answer is heard nor any excuse admitted,” [466] And right he was! The fact that Thomas didn’t grant Piers Gaveston a fair trial too [yet apart from the fact that he had no right to give him a trial anyway], doesn’t excuse his ”judges” to do the same with him.
And there were ”judges”, who undoubtedly would later regret their own injustice…………
See Chapter 10 ”Aftermath”
”Judges”:
The composition of those socalled ”judges” was a laughing stock anyway, were it not so grave an affair, since they consisted of either his enemies, or staunch adherents of the King [or a combination of those two]
The ”judges” were:
Thomas’ first cousin, King Edward II
The Despensers [father and son]
The Earl of Pembroke [Thomas’ first cousin once removed. Originally one of the besiegers of Piers Gaveston in 1312, now he was a staunch adherer of the King, since he was against his will, forced to break his word against Piers Gaveston, who was in his custody and in Pembroke’s absence abducted by the 10th Earl of Warwick, which lead to Gaveston’s execution. His presence at this mock trial was a pity, I have mentioned him several times as a man of honour, who repeatedly tried to reconcile Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster, but perhaps he was forced to become part of this show trial] [467]
The Earl of Kent [halfbrother of King Edward II, and first cousin to Thomas of Lancaster] [468]
The Earl of Richmond [first cousin to King Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster] [469]
The Earl of Arundel [choose the King’s side after the murder of Gaveston, whom he had executed after a mock trial together with Thomas of Lancaster, the 10th Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Hereford, who died at the Battle of Boroughbridge] [470]
The Earl of Surrey , [originally one of the besiegers of Piers Gaveston in 1312 and later a mortal enemy of Thomas. Under his responsibility Thomas’ estranged wife Alice de Lacy was abducted, which lead to a private war between Surrey and Thomas] [471]
The [Scottish] Earls of Atholl and Angus, who had once served in the retinue of Thomas of Lancaster. [472]
The royal justice Robert Malberthorpe, who spoke out the charges against him. [473]
Striking is, that three of the ”judges” [Edward II, the Earl of Kent, the Earl of Richmond] were first cousins of Thomas of Lancaster [474] and one, the Earl of Pembroke, his first cousin removed. [475]
NICE FAMILY……..
Charges:
Thomas was charged [of course] for treason, as he and other Contrariants had invited several of Robert Bruce’s liegemen to England in 1322 to ride with them against their king. [476]
But that was not all:
The list of charges comprised the many grievances Edward managed to dredge up against his cousin, going back to Thomas’s seizure of his possessions at Tynemouth in 1312 [when Lancaster and the other barons were pursuing the King and his favourite Piers Gaveston, after his return from permanent exile. The charge however was unjust, since Lancaster had given the possessions back in 1313] [477] and including Thomas’s jeering at him from the Pontefract battlements in 1317, [478] and Lancaster’s blocking of the roads in an attempt to prevent Edward’s travelling through Yorkshire. [479]
Verdict: A fourtheenth century scandal
One need not to be surprised about the verdict:
Of course Thomas was found guilty, since this was a show trial, containing ”judges”, who were extremely hostile to him.
But to be fair: Even if it WERE a fair trial, the exchanged letters and dealings with the Scots [480] were reason enough to condemn him.
Therefore it was not the CONDEMNATION that was shocking, and caused a scandal, but the fact, that Thomas was condemned to death, which was a break with the convention of the time, not only because of his close kinship to the King [first cousin, Lancaster’s father was the younger brother of King Edward I], but especially because since Waltheof, the Earl of Northumbria was executed in 1076 on the orders of William the Conqueror [481], no English Earl was ever executed. [482] In cases, comparable with Lancaster, an Earl had to suffer ”only” life imprisonment or exile. [483]
I think, that the King perhaps had shown mercy [I mean, not imposing the death penalty], were it not for Lancaster’s involvement in the murder of King’s favourite Piers Gaveston[484], which was not one of the charges, but the underlying reason for the King’s need for revenge. [485]
But there was more: Not only the death penalty was pronounced, Thomas was condemned to the worst form, the traitor’s death: In other words: to be hanged, drawn and quartered…..[486]
But the King was not totally crazy: Executing a [royal] Earl was already a scandal, but to be hanged, drawn and quartered…… Besides, whatever had happened between them, Thomas was the King’s first cousin and of royal blood Therefore the King commuted this verdict to ”merely” beheading……[487]
However, some sources mention, that the King commuted the ”hanged, drawn and quarted” verdict to beheading “for the love of Quene Isabell,”[488], which possibly means, that the King commuted the verdict to beheading as a result of intercession of Queen Isabella [489], who was with King Edward at Pontefract [brrrrrr, horrifying, to accompany one’s husband at the eve of an execution….yet when she really intervened, it was a good thing that she came…..] [490] Queen Isabella was, you remember still,,,, Thomas’ niece, since he was the halfbrother of her mother, Queen Joan I of Navarre] [491]
Of course the phrase “for the love of Quene Isabell” can also
mean, that the beheading verdict was the King”s own decision, but that he considered his and Queen Isabella’s relationship with Thomas of Lancaster……
THE OTHERS
Before we follow Thomas on his last passage, there is a lot to tell about his adherents, who were captured together with him or on other locations around the same time: I mention six knights, who were hanged at Pontefract around or at the same time as Thomas were executed: William Cheyne or Cheney, Warin Lisle, Henry Bradbourne, William Fitzwilliam, Thomas Mauduit and William Tuchet [492]
According to the Flores Historiarum [493], such a lack of humanity was shown, that Thomas had to face their execution before he himself was executed[494] [although the Flores Historiarum mentioned nine of his knights, while other sources give six] [495]
Anyway, Edward II was not satisfied with seven executions [Thomas and the six knights], as a whole at least between 19 and 22 lords and knights were executed and one, Lord Badlesmere [from the Siege of Leeds, see Chapter 7] suffered the traitor’s death. [496] Many were imprisoned, even the wives and children of the rebels [see also Chapter 10, Aftermath] [497] A bloody project of a vengeful King, undoubtedly stimulated by the [with right mentioned so by the rebels!] evil councillors, the Despensers. [498]
LAST PASSAGE
It was on the morning of 22 march, that Thomas of Lancaster heard his verdict, condemned in the Hall of his own Favourite Castle in Pontefract. The same morning, on a cold, snowy day, Thomas was executed. The King, apparently making a holiday of his cousin’s trial and execution, had arrived there on 19 march, together with Queen Isabella and spent there until 25 march…..[499] [strong nerves they must have had…….]
However, rather than have him executed in the castle bailey, Edward II had a painful ”surprise” for Thomas of Lancaster, which showed his desire for revenge on the execution of his favourite, Piers Gaveston: In fact, he arranged a ”parody” on the execution of Piers Gaveston [who was executed on a hill, called ”Blacklow Hill” and also beheaded] [500]
Thomas was taken outside to a small hill, outside of the walls of his favourite Castle Pontefract, mirroring Piers’ 1312 death on Blacklow Hill. He was forced to ride “some worthless mule” and “an old chaplet, rent and torn, that was not worth a half-penny,” was set on his head. A crowd of spectators again threw snowballs at him. Apparently at the king’s order, Thomas was forced to kneel facing towards Scotland, in a pointed reminder of his correspondence with Robert Bruce [which of course had been treason] [501]
Then Thomas uttered the words:
“Now the king of Heaven give us mercy, for the earthly king has forsaken us!” [502]
Two or three strokes of the axe and he was beheaded.
Thomas of Lancaster, Earl of Lancaster, Leicester, Derby, Lincoln and Salisbury, long time adversary of his cousin Edward II and the last to defend the Ordinances [503] was no more………
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II/FROMWARLORD TO SAINTCHAPTER TEN
THE COUSIN [KING EDWARD II]
THE KING’S SPOUSE [QUEEN ISABELLA OF FRANCE]
THE ARCH ENEMIES [THE FAVOURITES OF THE KING [THE DESPENSERS, FATHER AND SON, WHO PARTLY CAUSED THE TROUBLE IN THE DESPENSER WARS AND ONE OF THE MOTORS BEHIND EARL THOMAS’ EXECUTION]
THE ALLY [ROGER MORTIMER, LATER THE 1ST EARL OF MARCH,
ALLY OF THOMAS IN THE DESPENSER WARS, WHO WOULD PLAY A
[17]THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II/FROMWARLORD TO SAINTCHAPTER TEN
THE COUSIN [KING EDWARD II]
THE KING’S SPOUSE [QUEEN ISABELLA OF FRANCE]
THE ARCH ENEMIES [THE FAVOURITES OF THE KING [THE DESPENSERS, FATHER AND SON, WHO PARTLY CAUSED THE TROUBLE IN THE DESPENSER WARS AND ONE OF THE MOTORS BEHIND EARL THOMAS’ EXECUTION]
THE ALLY [ROGER MORTIMER, LATER THE 1ST EARL OF MARCH,
ALLY OF THOMAS IN THE DESPENSER WARS, WHO WOULD PLAY A
On 21 march, Thomas of Lancaster arrived at his Castle of Pontefract. And what was to be expected, the Despensers couldn’t resist to show their satisfaction in humiliating Lancaster. Thomas was ”contemptuously insulted……to his face with malicious and arrogant words” by the king and the recently returned Despensers” [463] Nice reception in your own castle……”
….’
”LAST PASSAGE
It was on the morning of 22 march, that Thomas of Lancaster heard his verdict, condemned in the Hall of his own Favourite Castle in Pontefract.”
….
….
”Thomas was taken outside to a small hill, outside of the walls of his favourite Castle Pontefract, mirroring Piers’ 1312 death on Blacklow Hill.
He was forced to ride “some worthless mule” and “an old chaplet, rent and torn, that was not worth a half-penny,” was set on his head. A crowd of spectators again threw snowballs at him. Apparently at the king’s order, Thomas was forced to kneel facing towards Scotland, in a pointed reminder of his correspondence with Robert Bruce [which of course had been treason] [501]
Then Thomas uttered the words:
“Now the king of Heaven give us mercy, for the earthly king has forsaken us!” [502]
Two or three strokes of the axe and he was beheaded.”
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD IV,
”Because of their kinship and Lancaster’s royal blood, the King commuted the sentence to beheading, as opposed to being hanged, drawn and beheaded,[4] and Lancaster was executed on 22 March 1322 near Pontefract Castle.”
The Ordinances were an attempt by the Barons to both resolve the problems and differences they had had with Edward I and which had continued into the new reign, and put an end to the crisis caused by Edward II’s reckless favouritism towards Piers Gaveston.
It has been described as ‘oligarchical’; the phrase ‘community of the realm’ doesn’t appear, the ordinances stress the role of the baronage in parliament. In fact, it’s doubtful that the barons had any intention of removing the powers and rights of knights and towns; more that they were simply not present at the parliament where the barons forced acceptance on Edward.
The ordinances have a number of groups of issues they try to address:
Exactions of the king – the vexed questions of impositions such as prise and purveyance
Control of royal officials – such as forest officials, household officers
Legal reform – such as trying to stop malicious accusations
Specific individuals – the ‘evil counsellors’ the barons didn’t like
In the end, the ordinances started a period of conflict – between Thomas, Earl of Lancaster and his supporters, and the king, rather than bringing one to an end. But despite the fact that there are few innovations in the Ordinances, most clauses hark back to the Articles on the Charters of Edward I’s reign, there are significant changes. Never before had the king been required to answer to parliament so comprehensively – such as appointing his officials, or leaving the country, or changing the currency.
The version of the ordinances below is not complete –omissions are marked through lacunae and numbering.
Whereas, through bad and deceitful counsel, our lord the king and all his men have everywhere been dishonoured and his crown in many ways has been debased and ruined, while his lands of Gascony, Ireland, and Scotland are on the point of being lost unless God improves the situation, and his realm of England has been brought to the verge of rebellion through prises and [other] oppressive and destructive measures—which facts are known and proved—our lord the king of his free will has granted to the prelates, earls, and barons, and to the other good men of his realm, that certain persons should be elected to ordain and determine the condition of his household and of his realm, as appears more fully in the commission issued by our lord the king in this connection.
The 21 Ordainers were a mix of churchmen and barons, as in the table below. Edward did his best to get men on the group who were moderate on his side – but had little success. Edward fought as hard as he knew how to stop the Ordinances going forward – but in 1311 he and Gaveston were pretty much on their own.
The Ordainers
Bishops
Earls
Barons
Canterbury
Gloucester
Hugh de Vere
London
Lancaster
Hugh de Courtenay
Salisbury
Lincoln
Robert FitzRoger
Chichester
Pembroke
John de Grey
Norwich
Hereford
William Marshal
St Davids and Llandaff
Warwick
William Martin
(Worcester, later)
Richmond
Henry de Percy
Arundel
Therefore we, Robert, by the grace of God archbishop of Canterbury and primate of all England, and the bishops, earls, and barons elected by virtue of the said commission, do ordain for the honour of God and Holy Church and of the king and his realm in the manner following:—
1. In the first place it is ordained that Holy Church shall have all its liberties as heretofore and as it should have them.
2. Item, it is ordained that the king’s peace shall be firmly kept throughout the entire kingdom; so that everyone may safely go, come, and remain according to the law and custom of the realm. 3. Item, it is ordained that, in order to acquit the king’s debts, to relieve his estate, and the more honourably to maintain it, no gift of land, rent, liberty, escheat, wardship, marriage, or office shall be made to any of the said Ordainers during their [tenure of] power under the said ordinance, or to any other person, without the counsel and assent of the said Ordainers or the majority of them—or of six of them at least—but that all sources of profit shall be improved for the benefit of the king until his estate is properly relieved and some other ordinance may be made for the honour and profit of the king. 4. Item, it is ordained that the customs of the kingdom shall be received and kept by men of the kingdom itself, and not by aliens ; and that the issues and profits of the same customs, together with all other issues and profits pertaining to the kingdom from any source whatsoever, shall in their entirety come to the king’s exchequer and be paid by the treasurer and the chamberlain for maintaining the king’s household and [to be spent] in other ways for his benefit ; so that the king may live of his own without taking prises other than those anciently due and accustomed. And all others shall cease.
An interesting clause. Firstly the echoes of the disputes of Henry IIIrd’s reign still rumble on – Gaveston himself was a Gascon. Secondly, under Edward I the kings wardrobe had become more and more central to the royal finances, bypassing the exchequer. As far as the barons were concerned, this gave the king far too much freedom of action. So here they are saying this must stop – everything goes through the Exchequer, so parliament can control and check it.
And finally the phrase ‘live of his own’ is mighty interesting; it will take a remarkably long time for your average baron to accept that taxation is now part of the weft and warp of government finances; the days of William the Conqueror, where the king owned half the country and could govern without financial assistance were gone for ever.
6. Item; it is ordained- that the Great Charter shall be observed in all its particulars ; so that, if there is any point in the said charter that is doubtful or obscure, it shall be interpreted by the said Ordainers and other men whom they may see fit to call upon for that purpose….
7. And besides, since the crown has been so abased and ruined by numerous grants, we ordain that all grants made to the damage of the king and the impoverishment of the crown since the commission was given to us . . . shall be annulled; and we do annul them entirely, so that they shall not be given back to the same persons without the common assent [of the baronage] in parliament… 9. Whereas the king, on account of the many perils that he and his kingdom may incur, ought not to undertake an act of war against any one, or to go out of the kingdom, without the common assent of his baronage, we ordain that henceforth the king shall neither go out of the kingdom nor undertake an act of war against any one without the common assent of his baronage, and that in parliament. . .
So here’s the point about the role of parliament – far broader than it has been before.
10. And whereas it is feared that the people of the land will rebel on account of the prises and divers oppressions recently established…we ordain that henceforth all prises shall be abolished except the ancient and lawful prises due to the king and to others who are lawfully entitled to them. And if any prises are taken contrary to the ordinance aforesaid by any one whomsoever, no matter of what condition he may be—that is to say, if any one, under colour of purveyance for the use of our lord the king or of someone else, takes grain, wares, merchandise, or other goods against the will of those to whom they belong, and does not immediately .give in return money to the true value [of the goods], unless he thereof has respite by the free will of the seller according to the provision in the Great Charter regarding prises taken by constables of castles and their bailiffs, saving the accustomed prises aforesaid—notwithstanding any commission that may be [issued], pursuit with hue and cry shall be raised against him and he shall be taken to the nearest jail of the king, and the common law shall be enforced against him as against a robber or thief, should he be convicted of sail [wrong-doing].
11. Also, [whereas] new customs have been levied and the old [customs] have been increased upon wool, cloth, wines, avoirdupois, and other things—whereby [our] merchants come more rarely and bring fewer goods into the country, while alien merchants reside longer than they used to, and by such residence things become dearer than they used to be, to the damage of the king and his people—we ordain that all manner of customs and maltotes levied since the coronation of King Edward, son of King Henry, are to be entirely removed and utterly abolished forever, notwithstanding the charter which the said King Edward granted to alien merchants because –it was issued contrary to the Great Charter and contrary to the liberty of the city of London and without the assent of the baronage. . . .
13 And whereas the king, as aforesaid, has been badly advised and guided by evil councillors, we ordain that all the evil councillors shall be put out and utterly removed, so that neither they nor other such persons shall be near him or shall be retained in any office under the king; and that other persons who are fit shall be put in their places. And the same shall be done in the case of domestics, officials, and other men in the king’s household who are not fit.
The barons would soon present a further ordinance to the king, removing a number of specific household officials.
14 And whereas many evils have been incurred through [the employment of] such councillors and such ministers, we ordain that the king shall appoint the chancellor, the chief justices of both benches, the treasurer, the chancellor and the chief baron of the exchequer, the steward of the household, the keeper of the wardrobe, the comptroller and a fit clerk to keep the privy seal, a chief keeper of the forests on this side of Trent and one on the other side of Trent, also an escheator on this side of Trent and one on the other side, as well as the king’s chief clerk of the common bench, by the counsel and assent of the baronage, and that in parliament. And if by some chance it happens that there is need to appoint any of the said ministers before parliament meets, then the king shall make such appointments by the good counsel [of those] whom he shall have near him up to the time of the parliament. And so let it be done henceforth with regard to such ministers whenever there is need.
15 Item, we ordain that the chief wardens of ports and of castles on the sea shall be appointed and installed in the aforesaid manner, and that such wardens are to be of the land itself.
16 And whereas the lands of Gascony, Ireland, and Scotland are in peril of being lost through default of good ministers, we ordain that worthy and fit ministers to keep ward in the said lands shall be named according—to the form set forth in the article before the last [preceding]
17 Moreover, we ordain that sheriffs shall henceforth be appointed by the chancellor, the treasurer, and others of the council who are present; and if the chancellor is not present, let them be appointed by the treasurer, the barons of the exchequer, and the justices of the bench. And such men are to be named and installed as are fit and worthy, and as have lands and tenements through which they may be held responsible for their actions to the king or to the people. And only such persons shall be appointed, and they shall have their commissions under the great seal. . . .
20 Because it is known, and by examination by the prelates, earls and barons, knights and other good people of the kingdom found, that Piers Gavaston has acted badly towards and has badly advised our lord the king and has incited him to do wrong in divers and deceptive ways; in taking possession of for himself all the king’s treasure and sending it out of the kingdom; in drawing to himself royal power and royal dignity, as in making alliances on oath with people to live and die with him against all men, and this by the treasure he acquires from day to day; in lording it over the estate of the king and of the crown, to the ruin of the king and of the people; and especially in estranging the heart of the king from his lieges; in despising their counsels, not allowing good officers to carry out the law of the land; in removing good officers, appointing those of his own gang, as well aliens as others, who at his will and command offend against right and the law of the land; in taking the king’s lands, tenements and bailiwicks to himself and his heirs; and has Caused the king to give lands and tenements of his crown to divers people to the great loss and diminution of the estate of the king and of his crown, and this as well since the ordinance that the king granted to the ordainers to act for the profit of himself and his people as before against the ordinance of the ordainers ; and in maintaining robbers and murderers and getting for them the king’s charter of his peace, in emboldening wrongdoers to do worse, and in taking the king into a land where there is war without the common assent of his baronage to the danger of his person and the ruin of the kingdom, and in causing blank charters under the great seal of the king to be sealed to the deceit and disinheritance of the king and of his crown, and against his homage; and feloniously, falsely and traitorously has done the aforesaid things to the great dishonour and loss of the king and disinheriting of the crown and to the ruin of his people in many ways: And in addition to this we having regard to what was done by the most noble king, the father of the present king, by whose adjudgment the aforesaid Piers abjured the realm of England and whose will it was that our lord the king, his son, should abjure forever his company, and that since by the common assent of all the realm and of the king and of the same prelates, earls and barons it was heretofore adjudged that he should leave the said realm, and he did leave it, and that his return was never by common assent, but only by the assent of some individuals who agreed to it on condition of his behaving well after his return: and now his bad conduct is established beyond doubt, for which conduct and for the great wickednesses aforementioned and for the many others that could befall our lord the king and his people, and in order to foster good understanding between the king and his people and avoid many kinds of discords and dangers, We ordain, by virtue of the commission our lord the king granted us, that Piers Gavaston as the evident enemy of the king and of his people be completely exiled as well from the kingdom of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales as from the ‘whole lordship of our lord the king overseas as well as on this side, forever without ever returning; and that he leave the kingdom of England and all the aforesaid lands and absolutely all the lordship of our lord the king between now and the feast of All Saints next to come; and we assign to him as port in the way aforesaid Dover and nowhere else for crossing and leaving. And if the said Piers stays in the kingdom of England or anywhere else in the lordship of our lord the king beyond the said day that has been given him for leaving and crossing as is aforesaid, then let there be done with him as would be done with the enemy of the king and of the kingdom and of his people. And let all those who from now on contravene this ordinance with regard to the said exile or the penalty that follows, be dealt with accordingly, if they are convicted of it.
21 Also we ordain that Amerigo and those of the company of Frescobaldi come to the accounting in the way that was ordained and published, notwithstanding the account they say they have rendered, within the fortnight after next Michaelmas and in the meantime let there be arrested all the persons and all the goods of members of the company of Frescobaldi that can be found in the power of the king of England, and that all the lands of the said Amerigo be seized into the hand of the king whereso-ever they are in the said power of the king. And if the said Amerigo does not come within the day assigned, because the aforesaid ordinance has been infringed by him and by his non-appearance he renders himself culpable and suspect we ordain that he be banished from the power of the king and from now on be deemed an enemy and it be done with him as would be done with an enemy of the king and of the kingdom, if he be found anywhere in the power of the king as well overseas as on this side.
22 Also because sir Henry de Beaumont has received from our lord the king to the loss ,and dishonour of the king, since the time of the ordinance of the ordainers to which the king agreed, the kingdom of Man and other lands, rents, liberties and bailiwicks and has caused lands and tenements liberties and bailiwicks to be given to others contrary to this ordinance, and because he has badly advised the king contrary to his oath, We ordain that he be removed from the king’s counsel for ever and that he come no more near the king anywhere — unless it be at the common summons of parliament or in war if the king wishes to have him — save by common assent of the archbishop, bishops, earls and barons and that in full parliament; and all the other lands that he holds within the kingdom of England be taken into the hand of the king of England and held until the king has received from the issues of these lands the value of all the yield that the said sir Henry has had from the lands received co4rary to the said ordinance, and if the said sir Henry in any point contravenes these ordinances let him be disinherited forever of all the lands that he has in England of the king’s gift.
Because it is found by examination by the prelates, earls and barons that the lady de Vescy has caused the king to give to sir Henry de Beaumont, her brother, and to others, lands, liberties and bailiwicks to the loss and dishonour of the king and the evident disinheritance of the crown and also caused to be sent out letters under the urge’ against the law and the intention of the king, We ordain that she go to her house — and that within the fortnight after next Michaelmas — without ever returning to the court to stay there, and that for all these aforesaid things and because it is understood that Bamburgh castle belongs to the crown, we also ordain that this castle be retaken from her into the hand of the king and that it be no more given to her or to another except at the king’s pleasure.
24 And whereas the people feel much aggrieved because of divers debts demanded of them for the king’s use by summons from the exchequer, of which debts, being actually paid, the people have various acquittances . . . ; we ordain that henceforth in the account of every sheriff, or other minister of the king who is answerable at the ex-chequer, such tallies, writs, and franchises as are allowable in the account shall be allowed. . . . And if the treasurer and the barons of the exchequer do not act in the manner aforesaid, the plaintiffs shall enjoy [the right of] recovery through petition in parliament.
25 Whereas ordinary merchants and many others of the people are allowed to bring pleas of debt and trespass in the exchequer, through the fact that they are received by the ministers of the said court more favourably than they should be—whereby accounts and other concerns of the king are greatly delayed and, in addition, a large number of people are aggrieved—we ordain that henceforth no pleas shall be held in the said court of the exchequer except pleas touching the king and his ministers : [namely] those answerable at the exchequer by reason of their offices, the ministers of the court itself, and their subordinates and servants who most of the time are with them in those places where the exchequer may be. And if anybody s received by the said court with permission to plead in the manner aforesaid, those impleaded shall have their [right to] recovery in parliament.
26 Item, whereas the people feel much aggrieved because stewards and marshals hold many pleas that do not pertain to their offices and also because they will not receive attorneys for defendants as well as for plaintiffs, we ordain that henceforth they shall receive attorneys for defendants as well as for plaintiffs, and that they shall hold no pleas of freehold, debt, covenant, or contract, nor any common plea touching men of the people—saving [to their jurisdiction] only trespasses of the household itself other trespasses committed within the verge [i.e. the area distinguished by the king’s presence and thereby set apart from common law], and contracts and covenants which anyone of the king’s household may make with another of the same household within the household itself and not elsewhere. . . .
28 Whereas the people feel much aggrieved because men are emboldened to kill and rob by the fact that the king, through evil counsel, so lightly grants them his peace against the provisions of the law; we ordain that henceforth no felon or fugitive shall be protected or defended in any sort of felony by the king’s charter granting his peace, except only in case the king can give grace according to his oath, and that by process of law and the custom of the realm. And if any charter is henceforth made and granted to any one in any other manner, it shall be of no avail and shall be held as null. And no recognized malefactor against the crown and the peace of the land is to be aided or maintained by any one
29 Whereas in the king’s court persons find their cases delayed because a party alleges that in the king’s absence answer should not be made to demands, and [whereas] also many persons wrongfully suffer injuries from the king’s ministers, with regard to which injuries one can secure recovery only in common parliament; we ordain that the king shall hold a parliament once a year, or twice if need be, and that in a convenient place. And [we ordain] that in those parliaments pleas which are delayed in the said manner, and pleas wherein the justices are of different opinions shall be recorded and settled. And likewise those bills which are brought to parliament shall be settled as heretofore in accordance with law and right.
30 Whereas all the people suffer greatly in many ways whenever a change of money is made in the kingdom, we ordain that, when there is need and the king wishes to make a change, he shall do so by the common counsel of his baronage, and that in parliament
31 Item, we ordain that all statutes which were made in amendment of the law and for the benefit of the people by the ancestors of our lord the king shall be kept and maintained as heretofore in accordance with law and right, provided that they are not contrary to the Great Charter or to the Forest Charter or to the ordinances by us made. And if any statute is made contrary to what has been said, it shall be held as null and as utterly void
32 Whereas, to the great injury of the people, the law of the land and common right have often been delayed by letters issued under the king’s privy seal, we ordain that henceforth neither the law of the land nor common right shall be delayed or disturbed by letters under the said seal. And if, through such letters issued under the privy seal contrary the right or to the law of the land, anything is done in any session of the court of our lord the king, it shall be of no avail and shall be held as null.
33 Whereas many of the people other than those known to be merchants feel much aggrieved and injured by the Statute of Merchants made at Acton Burnell, we ordain that hereafter this statute shall hold only as between merchant and merchant and with regard to dealing made between them. . .
38 Item, we ordain that the Great Charter of Liberties and the Forest Charter issued by King Henry, son of King John, shall be observed in all their particulars, and that points in the said charters of liberties which are doubtful shall be explained in the next parliament after this by the advice of the baronage, the justices, and other persons learned in the law. And this is to be done because we are unable to attend to the matter during our term [of office].
39 Item, we ordain that the chancellor, the Treasurer, the chief justices of both benches, the chancellor of the exchequer, the treasurer of the wardrobe, the steward of the king’ household, and all justices, sheriffs, escheators, constables, investigators for any cause whatsoever, and all other bailiffs and ministers of the king, whenever they receive their offices and bailiwicks, shall be sworn to keep and observe all the ordinances made by the prelates, earls, and barons for that purpose elected and assigned—[to maintain] every one of those [ordinances] without contravening them in any particular.
40 Item, we ordain that in each parliament one bishop, two earls, and two barons shall be assigned to hear and determine all plaints of those wishing to complain of the king’s ministers, whichever they may be, who have contravened the ordinances aforesaid. And if the said bishop, earls, and barons cannot all attend, or are prevented from hearing and determining the said plaints, then two or three of them shall do so. And those who are found to have contravened the said ordinances, in the interest of the king and in the interest of the plaintiffs, shall be punished at the discretion of the persons thus assigned.
41 Item, we ordain that the aforesaid ordinances are to be maintained and observed in all their particulars, and that our lord the king shall cause them to be issued under his great seal and sent into every county of England, to be published, held, and strictly kept as well within franchises as without. . . .
These ordinances, having been shown to us and published on Monday next before the feast of St. Michael just past, we agree to, accept, and confirm. And we will and grant, for us and our heirs, that all and several of the said ordinances, made according to the form of our letters aforesaid, shall be published throughout our entire realm, henceforth to be strictly maintained and observed. In testimony whereof we have caused these our letters patent to be drawn up. Given at London, October 5, in the fifth year
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 September 2017
Summary
Medieval England was rife with national and local, official and unofficial cultic centers, drawing pilgrims up, down, and across the country. ‘From every shires ende/ Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende’, as well as to Durham, Oxford, Walsingham, Evesham, and a multitude of towns and villages in between. Medieval Christianity cleaved to a strong belief in the curative power of relics and places and the simple efficacy of the pilgrimage act. Every church and cathedral housed a relic of some saint or holy person, and claims of miracle cures wrought by the saint via their relic lured the pilgrims with their open coin purses to the shrine. Stories of saints, relics, and miracles passed along the pilgrimage roads and were discussed as hotly as any other gossip of the day. The number of popular pilgrimage centers multiplied throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, including officially sanctioned cults and the cults of unofficial political saints like Simon de Montfort and Thomas of Lancaster.
Thomas, earl of Lancaster, was executed for rebellion on 22 March 1322, and there arose a cult almost immediately at his execution site at Pontefract in Yorkshire. Devotees were drawn by rumors of miracles at the site and were surely intrigued by the immediacy of the act; this was not some long-dead holy man, but a high-ranking noble of their own time. Edward II endeavored to curtail the reverence paid to his executed cousin; however, his actions may only have prompted an increase in the popular devotion. Politics often played a part in pilgrimage, and during the civil disorder of the later 1320s Thomas of Lancaster became the saintly focus for those opposed to Edward II and the Despenser regime. Although he was never canonized, Lancaster was venerated as a saint who stood against an oppressive and unjust king.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Notes 1 t/m 13/Execution of Thomas of Lancaster
I’ve learnt with astonishment about the assumption of a number of European newspapers that the publication of the Danish cartoons by the Jylands Posten, picturing the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist, is being considered as freedom of opinion. In the first place, freedom of opinion is not absolute but is limited by local and European legislation, which forbids verbal or public insulting utterances against the religion of a group of people. In the second place, editions of newspapers are to be expected to show an elementary respect regarding the religious values of minority groups, living in their countries.
Evidently the official Arab and Iranian government reactions, boycotting Danish products and asking the Danish government to justify itself, are not only extra-proportional, but also deny the fact that a government is not responsible for the management policy of a paper edition.
Apart from the publications of the cartoons, the outbursts of violence must also be seen in the light of the common feelings of powerlessness and humiliation regarding the European support for the British-American occupation of Iraq and the growing anti-Islam climate in Europe.
Seen in this light, I consider the republishing of the Danish cartoons by a number of European newspapers not only provocative but also contrary to the fundamental human rights principles, which are based on respect for all human beings, regardless of descent or religion.
Amsterdam
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Publication in the Baltic Times/2015/About the Muhammad cartoons
The recent verdict of the Israeli High Court, which states that the building of the Israeli Wall at the West Bank must be adjusted with 30 kilometers because of the violations of human rights is not only a partial fullfilling of the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population, but is also in contarily with International Law.
In the first place the motivation for the verdict is being based on the fact that because of the building of the Wall the inhabitants of the Beit Surik community had no entrance to their agricultural grounds and schools, but in the named verdict the Court doesn’t refer to the other Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank [85.000 people], who are likewise excluded from their agricultural grounds.
In the second place the Israeli building of the Wall is as such a violation of International Law, because it cuts deeply in the occupied Palestinian areas which is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 dd 1967 by which Israel was summoned to withdraw from the in the june-war occupied Palestinian areas.
Further the building of the Wall is being made possible by hugh Palestinian landownings which is yet apart from the flagrant injustice a violation of International Law [the 4th Geneva Convention] which forbids land and house-ownings of ”protected people” [people who are living under an occupation] It is therefore highly recommendable, that the Israeli High Court adjusts its vedict according to the principles of International Law.
Like most people who respect international law, I condemn Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The UN General Assembly, the US and European Union are also right to condemn the invasion. However, the EU’s hypocrisy over the tragedy also stands out.
First, its sanctions against Russia go too far. They are causing ordinary people in Russia, who have nothing to do with Vladimir Putin’s war policies, to suffer. Such collective punishment is not fair.
Even more dangerous is the fact that the EU and individual European countries are sending all sorts of military weaponry to Ukraine. This is provoking Russia and risks setting off a bigger war.
Putin’s reaction to EU sanctions has been to put his nuclear forces on high alert. This is no joke. He may also decide to turn off the gas tap to Europe, with disastrous consequences. The EU should stop putting peace at risk with such cowboy-like behaviour.
European countries have expressed their solidarity with the Ukrainian people. But while they are rightly doing everything they can to help Ukrainian refugees, what about the Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian refugees who were trapped last year between the borders of Belarus and Poland, brutally pushed back by Polish border guards and abandoned to die in the winter cold?
The EU supported Poland in “defending” its borders. The same Poland that welcomes Ukrainian refugees is at this very moment building a wall to prevent refugees from the Middle East from entering. This is inhumane and also contrary to international law.
It’s very good that the EU is condemning the Russian invasion in Ukraine, but European countries must also stop provoking Russia by sending weaponry to Ukraine and start treating refugees from the Middle East as humanely as they do the Ukrainian refugees.
Astrid Essed, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Published in the South China Morning Post!/EU welcoming of Ukrainian refugees in stark contrast with those from Middle East
