The moment the Archbishop of Canterbury placed St Edward’s Crown on the King
King Charles III receives the St Edward’s Crown during his coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey, London on May 6, 2023.
St. Edward’s Crown is considered the centerpiece of the coronation because it’s used at the exact moment of crowning.
WPA Pool//Getty Images
ANOINTING TOOK PLACE BEHIND HOLY CURTAINS
The coronation chair is kept inside Westminster Abbey in London.Photo: Dan Kitwood – PA Images/Getty Images
700 YEARS OLD CORONATION CHAIR!
Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY, THE CROWNING PLACE OF ENGLISH KINGS
[KING HAROLD WAS THE LAST CROWNED ENGLISH ANGLO-SAXON KING,
BROTHER IN LAW OF KING EDWARD THE CONFESSOR
KING HAROLD WAS DEFEATED BY WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR,
DUKE OF NORMANDY IN THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS IN 1066
AND SO THE HOUSE OF NORMANDY STARTED AS ENGLISH MONARCHY FROM WHICH ALL
SUBSEQUENT ENGLISH KINGS DESCEND
CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III/”I COME NOT TO BE SERVED, BUT TO SERVE”
CORONATION OATH OF KING CHARLES III
The King stands and the Archbishop says:
”Our Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law.
Are you willing to take the Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
The King places his hand on the Bible, and the Archbishop administers the Oath
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
The King replies
I solemnly promise so to do.
The Archbishop says
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
The King replies
The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The King replies
All this I promise to do.
The King places his hand on the Bible and says
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
The King kisses the Bible. The Archbishop says
Your Majesty, are you willing to make, subscribe, and declare to the statutory Accession Declaration Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
The King signs copies of the Oaths, presented by the Lord Chamberlain,whilst the choir sings
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
God of compassion and mercy whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The King returns to the Chair of Estate and sits.
On 6 May 2023, the Coronation of Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and
the Commonwealth Realms, took place. 
Actually, he acceded the throne on 8 september 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II 
At the age of 73, he became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having been the longest heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history 
His coronation took place at Westminster Abbey, where traditionally
the English monarchs are crowned, 
Simultaneously, his wife, Queen Camilla, was also crowned ,
as is usually the case 
ANCIENT MONARCHY/ANCIENT TRADITIONS
A QUICK WALK WITH ASTRID ESSED THROUGH HISTORY!
What I love about this Coronation [and those before] are
the old traditions, which is logically, since the English kings
stand in an impressive tradition of more than thousand years!
The eldest Royal House I can recall is the House of Wessex, in
899 to begin with, under king Alfred the Great! 
Before the House of Wessex under Alfred the Great, there was the
”old” House of Wessex, founded by Cerdic of the Gewisse [The West Saxon dynasty], but in those times England was not united, but
consisted of different kingdoms ’
[By the way, The House of Wessex was by times interrupted
by the House of Denmark, when England was under Danish control] 
It was under Alfred the Great, the first to call himself
”King of the Anglo Saxons [instead of just the West Saxons], that the first steps were
taken to unify England, which was completed by Alfred the Great’s
descendants.  The last king from the House of Wessex was king Edward the Confessor I will refer to him later in this Coronation article, with respect to the St Edward’s Crown”…….You will see, o Readers.
And the present English monarchy descents from William the Conqueror,the Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in the Battleof Hastings in 1066, defeating king Harold II [brother in lawof Edward the Confessor], the last Anglo Saxon king 
FASCINATING, when you realize, that the Dutch Monarchy only
exists since 1813, being one of the youngest monarchies in
THE CORONATION CEREMONY
A SACRED CEREMONY
The Coronation Ceremony is firstly a spiritual and sacred one.
But also one of traditional symbols.
Sacred are of course the Oath and the Anointing with the Holy Oil:
ANOINTING THE OIL [Behind Curtains]
The Coronation Ceremony of King Charles III was, like those of
his predecessors, firstly a SACRED Ceremony, which is seen, not only as performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but in the Kings’ Oath:[The Archbishop]”
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?”
”All this I promise to do”
[And the King, placing his hand on the Bible]
”The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.” 
Now this Holy Oath has everything to do with the fact, that
king Charles III is Head of the Anglican Church [the Church of England] , which is tradition since king Henry VIII, who broke with thePope and subsequently the old Catholic Church [called
”Holy Church” in Medieval England] 
Yet apart from that breach with the Holy Church, Coronation Ceremonies were always sacred:
See a part from the Oath that king Edward II, one of the forefathers
of king Charles III, took at his Coronation in 1308:[English translation from the original French text]”
Sire, will you in all your judgments, so far as in you lies, preserve to God and Holy Church, and to the people and clergy, entire peace and concord before God?
I will preserve them. HOWEVER:Oaths, based on the Church of England or on the Catholic Holy Church or not, those Sacred Customs were all based on the concept ofSacred Kingship, or in Western history: the concept of theDivine Right of Kings , which also has a pre Christian tradition  and is a universal concept from Old Historian Times.  Because in old Times [and perhaps the divine right of kingsis based upon that] there was that concept of a king, who wasalso high priest 
II ANOINTING THE OIL [SPIRITUAL] The English Coronation Ceremonies are ancient, very ancient,and main elements of
Through the centuries, there were different versions of coronation
services , but untill the Reformation, based on catholic traditions 
With the Reformation, there were changes , but some things,
especially regarding the Place of Coronation, the Holy Oil Anointing,
the Crown, the Chair and other traditions, remained largely unchanged.
I refer to those in a moment, a five minutes reading!
ANOINTING THE OILA MOST SACRED CEREMONY, STEMMING FROM THE BIBLE!
The anointing is the most sacred part of the coronation ceremony, and takes place before the crowning.
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head 
And this Anointing Tradition is based on
the Old Days, especially Biblical Ones!
I refer to the Old Testimony, Book ”Kings”
and quote about the Coronation of King Salomon:
”Then Zadok the priest took a horn of
oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon. And they blew the horn, and all the people said, “Long live King Solomon!”
[Book ”Kings” 1:39] 
Anointing was one of the medieval holy sacraments and it emphasised the spiritual status of the sovereign. Until the seventeenth century the sovereign was considered to be appointed directly by God and this was confirmed by the ceremony of anointing. Although the monarch is no longer considered divine in the same way, the ceremony of Coronation also confirms the monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. 
And since the anointing is considered as that holy
and sacred, it is NOT for others to see, but hidden for public view.
To hide the anointing for public, king Charles III’s
mother, Queen Elizabeth II, used a canopy, while
king Charles III kicked things up a notch with a full-blown screen 
Like I said before, the Coronation Ceremony
is firstly a sacred and religious One and emphasizing
the Divine Right of Kings [although that Divine Right Concept is ancient
and historical], the anointing has to be done in private!
See for important facts and events about the Coronation Ceremonies of English kings since the
Anglo Saxon king Edgar [Reign, 959-975] , under note 31!Exciting, isn’t it!
THE ANOINTING OILCHANGED TIMES….. Although the Anointing Ceremony of king Charles IIIwas largerly the same as his predecessors, there were some changes, especially in the use of the AnointingOil:
The holy oil that was traditionally used for coronations past contained civet oil, from the glands of the small mammals, and ambergris from whale intestines. The formula was used at Queen Elizabeth’s ceremony and is hundreds of years old. 
However, the holy oil that will be used at Charles’ coronation is vegan-friendly, in order to reflect modern anti-animal cruelty sentiments. It is made with olive oil, pressed just outside Bethlehem, and perfumed with essential oils such as sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin and amber and orange blossom. A 21st Century Monarch, Changed timesBut the Essentials of the Coronation are still maintained, despite different personal touchs ofkings throughout the centuries [and sometimes memorable things happened at Coronations]  and the change fromthe old Holy Church to the present, protestant Church of England. 
III WESTMINSTER ABBEY Interesting historical tradition is, that sincethe ancestor of all English kings [after his conquest ofEngland in 1066], William the Conqueror, allEnglish kings have been crowned at WestminsterAbbey  [although according to some sources, the lastAnglo Saxon king, Harold II, who was defeated byWilliam the Conqueror, was also crowned at Westminster Abbey Although…[and forgive me Readers, that my historicalheart takes it over again….] there were apart crowning ceremonies….Because king Henry III, father of the more famous king Edward I and [I mean king Henry III] the son of king John I [alsomentioned ”Lackland”, a brother of kingRichard Coeur de Lion and a greatgreatgrandsonof William the Conqueror] , that king Henry III was crowned twice!Firstly at Gloucester Cathedral in 1216 and only in 122o at Westminster Abbey! REASON?When Henry’s father, king John died [Henry was only nine years old], there was stilla rising of noblemen against his father’s government, ”the War with the Barons”, which by the way resulted in the Magna Charta And to make things worse, there was a French invasionalso See for more information, note 41So Henry III was hastily crowned in Gloucester Cathedral in 1216, since at that moment the French occupied London and after more stable times, in 122oin Westminster Abbey! And to make it more fascinating than it already was…..When king Henry had been crowned for the first time,THERE WAS NO ROYAL CROWN!Because during the Baron’s War the Crown had been lost, probably lost as king John crossed oneof the tidal estuaries which empties into the Walsh,being sucked in by quicksand and whirpools…So at his first Coronation, Henry had no Crown andtherefore was crowned with a golden Corolla[headdress] , belonging to his mother Isabella ofAngouleme! Interesting, isn’t it? IV ST EDWARD’S CROWN!We’ll stay in the king Henry III times awhile! Because when he was crowned at the second time,and now in Westminster Abbey [See above], he neededa real crown, since his father John’s crown was lost during the Baron’s War.And since king Henry III was a great admirer of Edward the Confessor, one of the last Anglo Saxon kings [the direct predecessor of King Harold, the king who was defeated by William the Conqueror in 1066], he calledthe crown, that was made for him ”St Edward’s Crown”According to some sources it really WAS the crownof Edward the Confessor, but that is open todiscussion I think HOWEVER, the crown with which king Charles III iscrowned, is called ”St Edward’s Crown, but not theoriginal, since a new Crown was made for king Charles II, since after the deposition and executionof his father King Charles I most of the British CrownJewels, the Crown included, were destroyed, broken upor sold off. So the Crown, that is used by the Coronationof king Charles III is the crown of king Charles II from the 17th Century!  V CORONATION SPEECH IN ENGLISH! What I found really exciting to learn was this:KingHenry IV, who by the way usurped the thronefrom his cousin Richard II  which eventually would cause the Wars of the Roses , was the firstEnglish king, who at his Coronation made a speechin English! 
Before this, the official language of the court was French, ever since William I conquered England 
MORE TRADITIONS AND SYMBOLS AT THE CORONATION
CEREMONY/THE SPOON, THE ANCIENT SPOON!
What makes the Coronation so fascinating, are,
as I said before, the ancient traditions.
Like the use of the Coronation Spoon, dated from the 12th century and probably made for either king
Henry II or his son king Richard Coeur de Lion
[respectively the father and brother of king John, alsonamed ”Lackland”, from whom all present Englishkings descent] It is also the only
piece of royal goldsmiths’ work to survive from the 12th century! 
The spoon is first recorded in 1349 as preserved among St Edward’s Regalia in Westminster Abbey. Already at this date it is described as a spoon of ‘antique forme’ 
About the role of the Coronation Spoon:
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) [the ampulla was made for the
Coronation of king Charles II] into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head. 
Interesting is, that the Spoon may originally have been used for mixing wine and water in a chalice, but it was certainly used for anointing the sovereign during the coronation of James I in 1603, son of the executed Mary, Queen of Scots, successor
of Queen Elizabeth I and the first Sovereign from the House of
Stuart and a unified England and Scotland, and at every subsequent coronation. 
THE CHAIR/THE CORONATION CHAIR!
Also a very ancient and fascinating symbol
is the 700 years old Coronation Chair!
The Coronation Chair was made by order of Edward I  to enclose the famous Stone of Scone , which he brought [stole, remark bij Astrid Essed see note 60] from Scotland to the Abbey in 1296, where he placed it in the care of the Abbot of Westminster.
The Stone of Scone had been used by Scottish kings for centuries to sit upon when they were crowned! 
The Chair has been in use at the coronation ceremony since 1308 although opinion is divided as to when it was actually used for the crowning, but this was certainly the case from 1399 when
Henry IV was crowned in the Chair. And after king Henry IV, nearly all English kings were crownedin that Chair  Just fascinating, when you think that the present king Charles III is crowned in a Chair, that his ancestor king Edward I has ordered to make at the beginning of the 14th century! 
VIII AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST:THE KING’S CHAMPION! I described some fascinating symbols and aspects ofthe Coronation, which is [see above] a Sacred CeremonySee about yet more details, note 65 However, the last fascinating aspect I want to share with you,o Readers, is ….”The King’s Champion!”……. which is atypically Medieval symbol!  As far as my investigation reaches, King’s Championtraditions stems from William the Conqueror, that Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066 and laid the foundation of the present British Monarchy [all subsequent kingsare his descendants]  This is how it went and how the King’s Champion tradition took shape:
When William, the Conqueror seized the English throne in 1066, he asked his friend Robert Marmion to act as his Champion. Marmion’s role was to literally throw down the gauntlet, openly challenging anyone doubting the new king’s legitimacy, to prove their case through armed combat. 
This was not a formality or a mere ceremony in the Middle Ages, but,
given the violent times then, a real Danger……
To make a long story short, out of gratitude for risking his life, Marmion was given an estate at Scrivelsby, in
The grant for this sets out that:
”The manor of Scrivelsby is holden … the service of finding on the day of Coronation, an armed knight who shall prove by his body, if need be, that the King is true and rightful heir to the kingdom.” 
Interesting is, that over the centuries, not only
the tradition of ”The King’s Champion” survived, but
that the role of King’s Champion remained with
Marmion’s descendants, who, since 1350, have been
the Dymoke Family 
Their family motto is the Latin phrase ”Pro Rege Dimico”
a play on their name, implying ”I contend for the King” 
See under note 72 the role of the Dymoke Family at theCoronation of King Edward IV [during the Wars of the Roses, with the Astrid Essed remark, that the PlantagenetBranch of the House of Edward IV, the House of York,had a superior claim to the English throne  THE KING’S CHAMPION IN ACTION! I already referred to the violent ancient times in whichthe role of the King’s Champion was notjust a ceremony.The last time however, the King’s Champion reallyperformed the ancient role of throwing down the gauntletwas at the coronation of King George IV!  THE KING’S CHAMPIONMODERN TIMES We are living in modern times now and F
rancis Dymoke won’t ride into King Charles III’s coronation on horseback and challenge any pretender to the throne to single combat as his ancestor did in 1066, but he will carry the Royal Standard into Westminster Abbey. 
Dymoke, a 67-year-old farmer from eastern England, will be the King’s Champion at the coronation, fulfilling a role performed by members of his family since William the Conqueror was crowned nearly 1,000 years ago……
An old tradition, anyway, although not so ”romantic” anymore
like in the ancient times……
Although I like Dymoke’s comment on his ceremonial
role as ”King’s Champion”
”“This is the one moment in my life that really matters,” ,
as he had told the Daily Telegraph 
Apart from the modern times we live in, one of
the reasons the King’s Champion doesn’t fullfill his
original role is this:
The King’s Champion originally rode into the coronation banquet on horseback, threw down a gauntlet and challenged anyone who doubted the king or queen’s right to rule.
there hasn’t been a coronation banquet since 1821, so Champions now perform other roles, usually bearing a flag or standard, the palace said. 
MODERN TIMES…..END You and I, readers, have watched the Coronation ofthe new English king, Charles III , followedthe symbols and traditions.Travelled through the Ages in which the Coronationstook shape, with the fascinating history of the CrownJewels, the 12th century Coronation Spoon, the 700years old Coronation Chair, the St Edward’s Crown,the King’s Champion, all those ancient andmeaningful traditions, from the Middle Ages untillModern Times. Much is changed, yet the tradition and the Bond with History remains.I will end with the words, king Charles III uttered at his Coronation:”I come not to be served, but to serve”  Readers, it was nice to travel with you to history againand….end in those modern times! Hope you enjoyed it [I CERTAINLY DID!] See to my next article Then I travel with you to the Middle Ages againThe Time of the Wars of the Roses! My next article will be about Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker!  See you then ASTRID ESSED NOTES NOTES 1 AND 2
NOTES 3 T/M 6
NOTES 7 T/M 13
NOTES 15 AND 16
NOTE 17[CORONATION OATH OF KING EDWARD II]
NOTES 18 T/M 20
NOTES 21 AND 22
NOTES 23 T/M 25
NOTES 26 AND 27
NOTES 28 AND 29
NOTES 30 AND 31
NOTES 32 AND 33
NOTES 34 AND 35
NOTES 36 AND 37
NOTES 38 T/M 42
NOTES 43 T/M 45
NOTES 46 T/M 49
NOTES 50 T/M 53
NOTES 55 T/M 57
NOTES 58 T/M 64
NOTES 66 T/M 77
NOTES 78 T/M 80
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Coronation of King Charles III/”I come not to be served, but to serve”
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
The house was founded by King Edward III’s fifth son, Edmund of Langley (1341–1402), 1st Duke of York, but Edmund and his own son, Edward, 2nd Duke of York, had for the most part undistinguished careers. Edward, dying childless, passed on the dukedom to his nephew Richard (whose mother was a descendant of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence). Richard, 3rd Duke of York (1411–60), was the initial Yorkist claimant to the crown, in opposition to the Lancastrian Henry VI. It may be said that his claim, when it was advanced, was rightly barred by prescription, the house of Lancaster having then occupied the throne for three generations, and that it was really owing to the misgovernment of Queen Margaret of Anjou and her favourites that it was advanced at all. Yet it was founded upon strict principles of lineal descent, for the 3rd Duke of York was descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of Edward III, whereas the house of Lancaster came of John of Gaunt, a younger brother of Lionel. One thing that might possibly have been considered an element of weakness in Richard’s claim was that it was derived through females—an objection actually brought against it by Chief JusticeJohn Fortescue (probably a reflection of the increasingly common practice among the English nobility of passing on their estates to a male heir). But apart from strict legality, Richard’s claim was probably supported in the popular view by the fact that he was descended from Edward III through his father no less than through his mother.
After seeking for many years to correct the weakness of Henry VI’s government, Richard first took up arms and at length claimed the crown in Parliament as his right. The Lords, or those who did not purposely stay away from the House, admitted that his claim was unimpeachable but suggested as a compromise that Henry should retain the crown for life and that Richard and his heirs succeed after his death. This was accepted by Richard, and an act to that effect received Henry’s own assent. But the act was repudiated by Margaret of Anjou and her followers, and Richard was slain at Wakefield fighting against them. In little more than two months, however, his son was proclaimed king at London by the title of
Edward IV, and the bloody victory in the Battle of Towton immediately after drove his enemies into exile and paved the way for his coronation.
After his recovery of the throne in 1471, Edward IV had little more to fear from the rivalry of the house of Lancaster. But the seeds of distrust had already been sown among the members of his own family, and in 1478 his brother Clarence was put to death—secretly, indeed, within the Tower of London, but still by his authority and that of Parliament—as a traitor. In 1483 Edward himself died; and his eldest son, Edward V, after a nominal reign of two months and a half, was put aside by his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who became Richard III, and then, it is said, caused him and his brother Richard, Duke of York, to be murdered. But in little more than two years Richard was slain at Bosworth Field by the Tudor Earl of Richmond, who, being proclaimed king as Henry VII, shortly afterwards fulfilled his pledge to marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV and so unite the houses of York and Lancaster.
Here the dynastic history of the house of York ends, for its claims were henceforth merged in those of the house of Tudor.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Jeff Wallenfeldt. END OF NOTE 1
MY CORRESPONDENCE IN EMAIL WITH THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
MY LAST REACTION ABOUT THE CHANGES OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
We have passed your comprehensive feedback on to our Editorial Team for review. Thank you for taking the time to review this content and provide all of this feedback. When they have reviewed your comments we will let you know their response.
Britannica Customer Service
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890
I especially paid attention on your contributions to the English Late Medieval History and visited your page about the Hundred Years War between England and France with pleasure, learning much of your information
However I want to make some comments on your contribution, referring to your remarks about the ”usurpation” of the House of Lancaster by the House of York, as the ”weakness” of the claim to the throne by Richard, Duke of York, being derived by females.
But first, the usurpation:
USURPATION OF THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER BY THE HOUSE OF YORK
I think you are wrong here, since, according to my opinion, there was no ”usurpation” here, in the classic meaning of the definition. To go to the definition of ”usurpation”:
”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.” 
I will not go extensively into your remark that the House of York ”passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty”, which is wrong. Because, although there was a certain [not Tudor, but Beaufort/Lancaster] claim to the English throne , the House of York had a far stronger claim to the throne. I refer to that later. And smart Henry Tudor [who became King Henry VII and was undoubtedly aware of that stronger York claim] claimed the throne as ”right of conquest”,not by ”right of inheritance”, after his victory in the Battle of Bosworth, where he defeated the Yorkist King Richard III.  And as a ”right of conquest” the legality of Henry’s kingship was considered generally. 
I said it before According the definition, usurpation is ”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.”
That means not only deposing a King (which was almost a deadly sin in the Middle Ages), but also through someone who had none or lesser right to the throne.
In this case, at first there was no deposal of the throne at all, since there was ”the Act of Accord” and later, when King Edward IV ascended the throne, the deposal of King Henry VI was not as ”illegal” as it seemed, because of two factors: The stronger claim of the House of York to the throne, [the Mortimer claim to the throne], as the fact, that the House of Lancaster itself rose into power by usurpation. But first the Act of Accord
I referred to the fact, that there was no deposal at all at first, mentioning the Act of Accord in 1460. . that included, that King Henry VI remained King of England, but that Richard, Duke of York and his heirs would succeed Henry, thus desinheriting Henry´s son, Edward of Westminster. 
Of course one can put questions by disinheriting the Kings´s son, but that’s another story. The Act of Accord was a legal document, as a result of negociations between the Duke of York and the Parliament.(10), after his come back from Ireland and (indeed) seemed to have tried to seize the throne.
Admitted, that [the deal of the Duke of York with the Parliament] was power play, since the party of the Duke of York was on the winning hand in the Wars of the Roses at that moment, but the Act of Accord did not come ´´out of the blue´´ either.
ACT OF ACCORD WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE
Susan Higginbotham, historical fictional writer of Margaret Anjou, mentions the Act of Accord as ´´York, after all, had bullied her husband (Henry VI, my remark) into disinheriting his own son in favor of York´´ (12) and it is her right to see it like that, but I have another vision, because I take the whole history, which preceeded the Accord Act. into consideration.
Since King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, died in 1447, Richard, Duke of York, was heir presumptive to the then childless King Henry VI.  But from various reasons, King Henry VI, and his wife, Queen Margaret of Anjou  favourited the party of the Duke’s adversary, Edmund Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset [who was of the Lancaster Swynford line]  and sent Richard as Lieutenant to Ireland, obviously in a sort of exile. Tensions grew high in the 50ths between York and the Duke of Somerset [with the Queen as his ally], the King got mental ill and in 1453 became father, which ended York’s position as heir presumptive, but due to the mental illness of the King, he became Protector of the Realm twice. Enmity between York and Somerset [and Margaret of Anjou] rose farther and probably they wanted York to be arrested, so he and his allies armed themselves. A military confrontation was enevitable and broke out between York [with his brother in law and his nephew, Warwick the Kingmaker as allies] and the King [actually the Queen and Somerset], which was the start of the Wars of the Roses. After several bloody battles, in 1459, the Coventry Parliament [probably instigated by Margaret of Anjou] attainted York and his allies [declared them to ”traitors” without trial] and forfeited their lives and estates , which left York [according to my opinion] no choice than first flee to Ireland and later trying to seize the throne, resulting in the Act of Accord.
I don’t think either York, however ambitious, was after the throne, before 1460. He had enough opportunities to have taken the throne before that [especially when the King was in his power after the First Battle of St Albans in 1455], but he never made an attempt untill he was pushed to the edge by the attainder of 1459. 
THE ACT OF ACCORD AFTERMATH BLOODY WAR, WAKEFIELD
When the Act of Accord had been accepted by the Lancastrian party, probably King Henry should have remained King till his death, but the bloody battles intensified. Understandably, Margaret of Anjou was furious about her son’s disinheritance and refused to accept it. She went to Scotland, asking Mary of Guelders, the Queen Regent, military support against the Yorkist party and the military confrontations went on. In her absence, the Battle of Wakefield took place,where the Duke of York [higly probable] died in battle and his son Edmund Earl of Rutland, as the Dukes brother in law, the 5th Earl of Salisbury [the father of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the ”Kingmaker], were executed after the battle.  Unlike popular belief, Margaret of Anjou was not present at Wakefield, so she couldn’t have ordered their executions.  She returned to England and defeated Warwick in the 2nd Battle of St Albans , where she was responsible for the executions following.  However, she spared the life of John Neville, brother of the Earl of Warwick, probably since the brother of her commander the 3rd Duke of Somerset [son to the late 2nd Duke of Somerset, enemy of Richard of York] was a captive in Yorkist hands. 
But relieved as she might have been to get rid of the Duke of York, she had a more formidable military adversary in his son and heir Edward, now Duke of York, who defeated the Lancastrian forces in the bloody and decisive Battle of Towton. 
THE ACT OF ACCORD/AFTERMATH THE DUKE OF YORK’S SON AND HEIR’S ASCENDANCY TO THE THRONE KING EDWARD IV
Edward of York was not like his father, who had a loyalty to the throne till he was pushed to the extremes. Probably hardened by the loss of his father and brother at Wakefield [where Warwick also lost his father and brother Edward’s maternal uncle and cousin],as by an attitude of machiavellistic politics, he was not inclined to hold on to the Act of accord, remaining Henry VI King of England. In fact, since his mental instability, as the reality of Edward’s victories, he wouldn’t have ruled anyway. He was imprisoned in the Tower.
At march 1461, Edward was declared King of England, fulfilling his father’s wishes for his sons.
USURPATION OR NOT? THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF YORK
Although you call the overthrowing of the Act of Accord an usurpation, to my opinion it is no usurpation at all, since the Lancasters should not have to be kings all along, due to the superior claim to the throne of York, as the Lancaster usurpation of King Richard II. 
The claims to the throne first.
Richard, Duke of York had superior claims to the throne. He was the grandson of Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of King Edward III, but that was not his superior claim, since the House of Lancaster [The ”King Henry’s” as the Beauforts} descended from John of Gaunt, the third son of King Edward III. But it was his mother” side, that gave him the superior claim.
York’s maternal grandfather, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, was the materrnal grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, the SECOND son of King Edward III and that gave him a greater claim than that of the Lancaster. See the Family Tree
King Edward III
Lionel of Antwerp [second son to Edward III]
Philippa P lantagenet [Lionel’s daughter], married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd 3th Earl of March
Roger, 4th Earl of March [Philippa Plantagenet’s son]
Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March [son to Roger]
Anne Mortimer [daughter to Roger], maried Richard Conisburtgh [son of Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York]
Richard, Duke of York [son to Anne Mortimer, descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward II]
Isabel Plantagenet [daughter to Anne Mortimer and sister to Richard, Duke of York] 
MORTIMERS CLAIM TO THE THRONE
But there was more, which asserted the superior York claims. Since King Richard II was childless, he appointed as his heir presumptive, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March [Richard of York’s maternal grandfather]. Roger was the son of Richard II’s cousin Philippa [Richard II and Philippa were the children of two brothers, The Black Prince and Lionel of Antwerp, the first and second son of King Edward III]. 
Roger Mortimer never became King, since he died a year before Richard II, but his heir presumptive right passed to his son, Edmund, 5th Earl of March, who was the maternal uncle of Richard of York. 
However, since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard II, Edmund, only a boy, was overlooked, so also his superior right to the throne.  However, when Edmund Mortimer [brother to Richard the Duke’s mother, Anne Mortimer]died childless, York not only inherited his lands and estates, as his titles, but also his heir presumptive right.
After the death of King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, [brother of his father Henry V],York became heir presumptive till the birth of Henry’s son in 1453, Edward of Westminster. 
WHO WERE THE REAL USURPERS? LANCASTER USURPATION OF RICHARD II
I have shown above, that it was Henry IV, founder of the House of Lancaster, who usurped not only the throne of England by deposing the rightful King Richard II , but also overlooked the rightful heir presumptive, Edmund Mortimer. When the right to the throne was justly followed, not King Henry IV, but Edmund Mortimer had ascended the throne and was probably succeeded by his nephew Richard, Duke of York.
Therefore it is [with all respect] utter nonsense to speak of an ”usurpation of the throne” by Edward, son of Richard of York, in 1461. The only usurpators were the Lancasters.
Amitted, due to the military succesful reign of King Henry V , the usurpation was forgotten, but that didn’t make it undone. Therefore it were the Mortimers and their descendant Richard of York, who should have been Kings from the beginning.
I think that was the reason, that York was ousted of power and sent to Ireland in the late 40s. And probably the reason, Margaret of Anjou didn’t trust him. 
THE ”WEAKNESS” OF THE CLAIM OF RICHARD OF YORK, SINCE IT WAS DERIVED FROM FEMALES?
You justly confirmed the superior claim of York to the House of Lancaster, as you correctly state, that was the reign of Henry VI succesful, the claim was never advanced at all. I also think, that the only reason York advanced his claim was the unsuccesful rule of Henry VI, due to his mental problems, his corrupt advisors, as the great losses in the Hundred Years War.
But I disagree with you on the point, that the weakness in the claim of York was, that it was derived from females.
Because although men had the first rights to the throne, there was no Salic Law in England, that exclude women from the throne, nor from claims to the throne, which passed through their descendants.
For example Queen Maud [mother to the later King Henry II and daughter to King Henry I, who was the son to William the Conqueror] was declared heiress to the throne by her father after the death of his only son.  Granted, the Norman barons didn’t accept her after the death of her father and civil war burst out , but were women excluded, her father should not have declare his daughter heiress.
But moreover, claiming rights to the throne from female line is done in English history at several occasions and was considered legally and valid.
FOUR IMPORTANT HISTORICAL OCCASIONS BY WHICH MEN CLAIMED OR INHERITED THE THRONE FROM FEMALE LINE
There are at least four important occasions by which men claimed the throne from female descent.
First: Stephen of Blois, cousin to Queen Maud [daughter of King Henry I and heiress to the throne], who claimed the right to the throne through female line [being a maternal grandson to William the Conqueror]
The first was in the time of Queen Maud [called also ”Empress Maud because of her earlier marriage with the Holy Roman Emperor]. Her right to the English throne was challenged by her cousin, Stephen of Blois, who claimed the throne through his grandfather, William the Conqueror, who was his maternal grandfather.  He had men enough, prepared to support his maternal claim, took the throne, drove his cousin Mathilda and her husband Henry of Anjou out of the country and a yearlong military struggle, the anarchy, started.  Eventually, after the death of Stephen’s son and heir, a deal was made, that Stephen would rule, but had to recognise Maud’s son, Henry of Anjou, as his heir. 
Second: Henry of Anjou [King Henry II], son to Queen Maud, who inherited the throne through his mother.
After Stephen’s death, Henry of Anjou would become King Henry II , father to Richard Lion Heart [Richard I] (42) and John, King of England [John Lackland]  Henry II was the founder of the Plantagenet Dynasty. 
So here are two men who claimed or inherited their throne from females. Stephen of Blois, claiming the throne as a grandson of William the Conqueror from his mother’s side as King Henry II, who inherited the throne from his mother’s side. No ”weakness” here.
Third King Edward III, who claimed the French throne through his mother, Isabella of France Resulting in the Hundred Years War with France, being the maternal grandson of the French King Philip IV.
Perhaps most famous is the claim to the French throne, laid by King Edward III , through is mother, Queen Isabella of France (46), who was the daughter of the French King, Philip IV (47) That made Edward III the maternal grandson to a French King. When the last son of King Philip IV, named Charles IV (48), died in 1328 without a male heir, the question was Who is going to be the new King! His sister Isabella, mother of Edward III, claimed the throne for her son, but problem was, that since 1316 the Salic Law was introduced in France (which excluded women as heirs to the throne). (49) This was no coincidence, but due to an adultery scandal, involving the wives of Charles IV and his brother Louis X (50), The Tour de Nesle Affair (51), questioning the paternity of the sons of the King. This was particularly urgent after the death of Louis X, since the legitimacy of his daughter Joan was in question, (52) due to her mother´s alleged adultery. (53)
Anyway, Isabella´s claim to the throne for Edward III was rejected, since she, being a woman, was excluded from the rights to the throne and couldn´t transmit a right what she didn´t possess. (54) But that was the French Law. Point I want to make is, that claiming through a female was quite strong in England, which didn´t know the Salic Law. Eventually Edward III would claim the French throne anyway , which was one of the causes of the Hundred Year´s war with France. And that´s my second point I want to state. Since no one in England questioned Edward´s claim through a female and the nobles wholeheartedly supported him in the war with France, female claims were neither unusual nor ´´weak´´.
FOURTH LANCASTER CLAIM TO THE THRONE THROUGH FEMALE LINE/THE QUESTION EDMUND CROUCHBACK
Since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne of Richard II in 1399, becoming King Henry IV, a Lancaster right to the throne was of the greatest importance, that was superior to that of Richard II, son of the first son of Edward III as the Mortimer right to the throne [descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III. So Henry IV was clever enough not to base his claim on his fathers side, since John of Gaunt [his father] was the third son of Edward III. In stead of that, he based it on the side of his mother, Blanche, of Lancaster , who was the great granddaughter of Edmund Crouchback. And Edmund Crouchback was the son of King Henry III  and the younger brother of King Edward I.  One could say? So what about the claim. Well, here it is. According to Henry IV [Lancastrian views], this Edmund Crouchback was not the second son of Henry III, but his first son in stead of Edward I, but disinherited because of his bodily deformity [a twisted back]
You see the consequences? That makes King Edward I, II, III and Richard II a sort of usurpers and the rights to the throne of Richard II as the Mortimers claim null and void, since Edward III would be an usurper king. However, it’s a pity for Henry IV and the other Lancasters, who claimed the Crouchback case, that there is no proof whatsoever, that Edward I was not the first son of King Henry III. So its pure Lancastrian propaganda. 
I mentioned this ”Edmund Crouchback claim” as the fourth historfical example of men, who based their claims on females or inherited the throne by females.
A proof, that deriving a right to the throne from females, as has done by Richard, Duke of York, was not ”weak” at all, but has proven valid and generally accepted through English history.
To my opinion, the deposing of King Henry VI by Edward of York, son of Richard, Duke of York, was no usurpation, since The Duke of York [who passed the right to the throne to his eldest son, Edward] had a superior right to the throne than King Henry VI, [called the Mortimer claim] being the descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III, while Henry was the descendant of the third son of Edward III, John of Gaunt. In fact, after the death of King Richard II, the Dukes uncle, Edmund Mortimer, who was heir presumptive to Richard II should have become King of England. So by deposing Henry VI, Edward of York took his rightful place on the throne.
The reason why Edmund Mortimer didn’t become King was lain in the usurpation of Henry IV [grandfather to Henry VI] of the throne of Richard II, which was not only illegitimate, but also overlooking the superior Mortimer claim of Edmund Mortimer.
You also remarked the ”weak point” of the Mortimer claim [York’s right to the throne] his deriving from females. I’ve shown you four historical examples, by which claims to the throne [or even inheritance] by females were made, the most famous Edward III claim to the French throne by his mother, Queen Isabella [wife to Edward II] I think I have stated clearly, that the female right is valid and not weak.
I wrote this letter out of appreciation with your work. Thank you for reading it.
Much succes with your wortful historical research.
Amsterdam The Netherlands
ENGLISH HISTORY/THE WARS OF THE ROSES/ MARGARET OF ANJOU, TWO MAJOR PLAYERS ASTRID ESSED
The Swynford branch of the Lancaster line [the children of John of Gaunt, son to Edward III and his mistress Kathryn Swynford], called the ”Beauforts”, were legitimised first by King Richard II and later by King Henry IV [as legitimate son of John of Gaunt, the halfbrother of the Beauforts], on condition that they should not claim the throne.
” Henry VII acknowledged the necessity of marrying Elizabeth of York to ensure the stability of his rule and weaken the claims of other surviving members of the House of York<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/House_of_York>, but he ruled in his own right and claimed the throne by right of conquest and not by his marriage to the heir of the House of York.”
”Margaret undoubtedly rejoiced over York’s death—York, after all, had bullied her husband into disinheriting his own son in favor of York, and Margaret had every reason to fear for her husband’s future in a government controlled by York—but she did not have what to her might well have been the pleasure of seeing her enemy fall.”
Kings favouritism of the Somerset and Suffolk party [which was the ”peace” party to France, more open for negociations] against the Gloucester [the Kings uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester] and York party [the war party to France]
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
At the moment the Queen died, the throne passed immediately and without ceremony to the heir, Charles, the former Prince of Wales.
FIRST SPEECH OF KING CHARLES III AS A MONARCH/A TRIBUTE
TO HIS MOTHER QUEEN ELIZABETH II
KING CHARLES III DELIVERS HIS FIRST SPEECH AS MONARCH
King Charles III has officially delivered his first speech as British monarch. In an address recorded in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace earlier this afternoon, Charles spoke of his beloved mother, who he said always saw the best in people, and promised his lifelong service.
“I shall endeavor to serve you with loyalty, respect, and love,” he said.
Here, read King Charles
Here, read King Charles III’s first speech in full:
I speak to you today with feelings of profound sorrow. Throughout her life, Her Majesty The Queen – my beloved Mother – was an inspiration and example to me and to all my family, and we owe her the most heartfelt debt any family can owe to their mother; for her love, affection, guidance, understanding and example. Queen Elizabeth was a life well lived; a promise with destiny kept and she is mourned most deeply in her passing. That promise of lifelong service I renew to you all today.
Alongside the personal grief that all my family are feeling, we also share with so many of you in the United Kingdom, in all the countries where The Queen was Head of State, in the Commonwealth and across the world, a deep sense of gratitude for the more than seventy years in which my Mother, as Queen, served the people of so many nations.
In 1947, on her twenty-first birthday, she pledged in a broadcast from Cape Town to the Commonwealth to devote her life, whether it be short or long, to the service of her peoples. That was more than a promise: it was a profound personal commitment which defined her whole life. She made sacrifices for duty. Her dedication and devotion as Sovereign never wavered, through times of change and progress, through times of joy and celebration, and through times of sadness and loss. In her life of service we saw that abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as Nations. The affection, admiration and respect she inspired became the hallmark of her reign. And, as every member of my family can testify, she combined these qualities with warmth, humour and an unerring ability always to see the best in people.
I pay tribute to my Mother’s memory and I honour her life of service. I know that her death brings great sadness to so many of you and I share that sense of loss, beyond measure, with you all. When The Queen came to the throne, Britain and the world were still coping with the privations and aftermath of the Second World War, and still living by the conventions of earlier times. In the course of the last seventy years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths. The institutions of the State have changed in turn. But, through all changes and challenges, our nation and the wider family of Realms – of whose talents, traditions and achievements I am so inexpressibly proud – have prospered and flourished. Our values have remained, and must remain, constant.
The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain, as does the Sovereign’s particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England – the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted. In that faith, and the values it inspires, I have been brought up to cherish a sense of duty to others, and to hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government. As The Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation. And wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the Realms and territories across the world, and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life.
My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply. But I know this important work will go on in the trusted hands of others. This is also a time of change for my family. I count on the loving help of my darling wife, Camilla. In recognition of her own loyal public service since our marriage seventeen years ago, she becomes my Queen Consort. I know she will bring to the demands of her new role the steadfast devotion to duty on which I have come to rely so much.
As my Heir, William now assumes the Scottish titles which have meant so much to me. He succeeds me as Duke of Cornwall and takes on the responsibilities for the Duchy of Cornwall which I have undertaken for more than five decades. Today, I am proud to create him Prince of Wales, Tywysog Cymru, the country whose title I have been so greatly privileged to bear during so much of my life and duty. With Catherine beside him, our new Prince and Princess of Wales will, I know, continue to inspire and lead our national conversations, helping to bring the marginal to the centre ground where vital help can be given. I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.
In a little over a week’s time we will come together as a nation, as a Commonwealth and indeed a global community, to lay my beloved mother to rest. In our sorrow, let us remember and draw strength from the light of her example. On behalf of all my family, I can only offer the most sincere and heartfelt thanks for your condolences and support. They mean more to me than I can ever possibly express.
And to my darling Mama, as you begin your last great journey to join my dear late Papa, I want simply to say this: thank you. Thank you for your love and devotion to our family and to the family of nations you have served so diligently all these years. May “flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest”..
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor First Speech of king Charles III as a Monarch/Tribute to his mother Queen Elizabeth II
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 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 And painful for Thomas:He was executed in his own castle of Pontefract [quite sadistic….] 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  Thomas of Lancaster was a very interesting man, whom I described beforein an extended article [nearly a book!] 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 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…..,.No, he did moreWith Simon de Montfort  he laid the groundwork for the later Parliament,as driving power behind the Ordinances , 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  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 , but later as a real Saint , although he wasnever canonized.  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. 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] , 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 Because his clever and careful manoevres during the Edward II/Despenserreign I called him the ”Mystery Man”  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] And by Henry’s daughter Maud of Lancaster  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]  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  in order to servethe interest of the high nobility, and of course his own
ASTRID ESSED NOTES NOTES 1 T/M 13
NOTES 14 T/M 21
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II/FROM WARLORD TO SAINTCHAPTER EIGHT
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 , 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…….
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. 
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!”  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]  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 , 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 , a cruel and illegal act against a man, who was vain, avaricious and insulting [to the Lords] , 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  in which Thomas had cooperated with Edward , 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.”  That threat was obviously aimed at Thomas, who left Berwick later [and right he was!]. 
And as I have said before, when it came to revenge, Edward II was true to his word.
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”  Nice reception in your own castle……
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…..  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’ 
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,”  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”
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] 
The Earl of Kent [halfbrother of King Edward II, and first cousin to Thomas of Lancaster] 
The Earl of Richmond [first cousin to King Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster] 
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] 
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] 
The [Scottish] Earls of Atholl and Angus, who had once served in the retinue of Thomas of Lancaster. 
The royal justice Robert Malberthorpe, who spoke out the charges against him. 
Striking is, that three of the ”judges” [Edward II, the Earl of Kent, the Earl of Richmond] were first cousins of Thomas of Lancaster  and one, the Earl of Pembroke, his first cousin removed. 
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. 
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]  and including Thomas’s jeering at him from the Pontefract battlements in 1317,  and Lancaster’s blocking of the roads in an attempt to prevent Edward’s travelling through Yorkshire. 
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  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 , no English Earl was ever executed.  In cases, comparable with Lancaster, an Earl had to suffer ”only” life imprisonment or exile. 
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, which was not one of the charges, but the underlying reason for the King’s need for revenge. 
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…..
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……
However, some sources mention, that the King commuted the ”hanged, drawn and quarted” verdict to beheading “for the love of Quene Isabell,”, which possibly means, that the King commuted the verdict to beheading as a result of intercession of Queen Isabella , 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…..]  Queen Isabella was, you remember still,,,, Thomas’ niece, since he was the halfbrother of her mother, Queen Joan I of Navarre] 
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……
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 
According to the Flores Historiarum , such a lack of humanity was shown, that Thomas had to face their execution before he himself was executed [although the Flores Historiarum mentioned nine of his knights, while other sources give six] 
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.  Many were imprisoned, even the wives and children of the rebels [see also Chapter 10, Aftermath]  A bloody project of a vengeful King, undoubtedly stimulated by the [with right mentioned so by the rebels!] evil councillors, the Despensers. 
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….. [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] 
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] 
Then Thomas uttered the words:
“Now the king of Heaven give us mercy, for the earthly king has forsaken us!” 
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  was no more………
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor 22 MARCH 1322/22 MARCH 2022/Execution of Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II/Warlord,Reformer,Saint
THE PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE INTERVIEW/A RACIST CUCKOO IN THE ROYAL FAMILY?
ASTRID ESSED KEEPS HER WORD!
YOUTUBE.COMGAME OF THRONESA LANNISTER ALWAYS PAYS HIS DEBTS4.16-4.18
CHAPTERS RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEEN
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
[END OF THE CHAPTERS, NOW READ MY ARTICLE!]
[Written between 10 March and 7 August 2021!]
Readers!At 10 March anno Domini 2021 I did a promise to you, that I wouldcomment on the Sensational Oprah Winfrey interview with PrinceHarry and his wife Meghan Markle , who both had finally decided not to return to their royal roles and duties However,according to my information, Prince Harry is stillin the line for the throne ,which I applaud, since as you’ll know, I cheered theroyal couple on from the beginning! Why?Because Cheddar Man finally won. HAHAHA/NO, That’s a half joke!I think one of the reasons is, that here I saw a Couple, that chose foreach other, despite the racist backlash Meghan Markle had from the beginning and the courageous and honourable defense from Prince Harry on her behalf .Seems like a modern fairy Tale and Why not?People are allowed to dream, to juice the very life! That was the Fairy Tale side of it.But like a bad dream in ”Alice in Wonderland” , it was not a”and they lived happily ever after” Story, not only because ofthe backlash at first , but because apparently there was an evil partyspoiler within the Royal Family.I’ll deal with that later. But meanwhile the disturbing backlash continued , even a nasty petition to strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle from theirroyal titles ”The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” The petitioner considered the titles as ” ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’and considered them as ” ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’. Be that as it may [indeed, in 21st century monarchs and royal titles are a thing apart], but is this just an outburst of republicanism or…it is more?Because, when it were just them ”holding royal titles”, then why especially directed against Prince Harry and his wife and not against the rest of the royal family, like Prince Harry’s elder brother, Prince William, heir to the throne after their father the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles?[Prince Willam is the Duke of Cambridge] Seems suspicious to me! Because the whole case felt unfair to me, I send an email letter to the Council of Brighton, in which I wrote among else: ”Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;”  I was pleased to receive the following letter from Mr R. Watson, Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council” ””Dear Astrid Essed,
Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.
Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council”
The haters did not win! 
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
But like Prince Harry rightly stated in his declaration to defend his then
fiancee Meghan Marke , there has been a nasty, racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle from nearly the beginning the press [and others]
knew, that she had a love relation with Prince Harry. 
Of course it were not all journalists and the whole press:
Espexially low class ”journalist” Piers Morgan  led the smear campaign for resaons he knows best, followed by other journalistic
By the way:
This Piers Morgan journalist is so obsessed by his vendetta against
Meghan Markle, that he recently [march 2021] left the ITV Good Morning Britain show program because of his [again] hateful remarks about Meghan Markle, even though she and her husband left the country for a time already 
The reason for his nasty remarks led in the Oprah Winfrey interview 
and the remarks Meghan Markle made about her mental state of health
[suicide thoughts] 
I refer to that later.
But of course not the whole press was led by either racist or hateful
[or a combination of the two] moties against Meghan Markle:
For example journalist Zoe Williams did a good job with her
article in the Guardian ”Whatever Meghan does, she’s damned. Let’s not
repeat history.”, fighting the nasty villification of Meghan Markle. 
Am I saying now, that Meghan Markle is a Saint?
Of course not!
Everybody makes mistakes and she will have made hers:
But here I am fighting the abnormal negative attention, with often
racist undertones Meghan Markle got  and I am glad that there were
journalists, who played fair play!
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Anyway, partly because of that continuing smear campaign against
Meghan Markle , Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, who became happy parents of a son, Lord Archie, on 6 may 2019 , decided
to step back as senior royals, splitting their time between the UK and
That was in january 2020. 
The MEGXIT, as sensational tabloids called it , as if Meghan Markle
made that decision alone…..!
Cherchez la Femme…../HAHAHAHA
First the Royal Couple went to Canada, later they moved to L.A. [Los Angeles] 
According to my information, they now live in Montecito , where Meghan Markle expects their second child , a daughter, as they revealed
in the Oprah Winfrey interview. 
A special Blessing after the miscarriage Meghan suffered last year! 
By the way, I forgot to mention, that after leaving England, Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle signed contracts with Netflix and Spotify 
A Shrewd Couple!
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
As I wrote before, in the beginning of this year, Prince Harry and
Meghan made up their mind, not to return to their royal tasks and
Also we have seen Prince Harry and his son Lord Archie’s right on
succession to the throne remains the same. 
But [and that’s understandable, since they don’t do the
Royal Job anymore] that they lose their royal patronages. 
Prince Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, issued a declaration,
stating, confirming this grand step of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan,
stating ”While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family” 
The Statement of the Queen also referred to the fact, that
the royal patronages were withdrawn:
”Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family.'
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
So far, so good.
Now the interview with Oprah Winfrey
That D….mnd interview. 
Now assuming, that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spoke the truth
with Oprah Winfrey, did it shocked me?
For a part, yes.
For a part, no, since I already learnt [and wrote about] the racist smearcampaign against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by the press. 
But now the Royal Family was involved, at least one [or more?] members,
uttering racist remarks. 
And not the least!
I quote from the interview:
”Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.” 
AND THAT’S SOMETHING!
OR ISN’T IT?
Before going deeper into this, there were twelve higlights in the notorious
[or famous] interview, which BBC clarified for us :
I mention them for you, one by one:
1 Discussions about how dark Meghan’s baby might be
2 Kate ”made Meghan cry”, not the other way around
3 Meghan said she was on the verge of suicide but was refused help
4 Meghan spoke to one of Diana’s friends
5 Harry feels ”let down” by Charles
6 But the couple’s relationship with the Queen is good
7 Harry ”cut out financially”
8 The truth behind a photograph
9 Meghan ”didn’t do any research” on the Royal Family
10 They exchanged vowed three days before their wedding
11 Archie’s favourite phrase is ”drive safe”
12 And….it’s a girl!
Now I don’t comment on all the twelve highlights [the Megan-Katie thing  I consider as less important, I can’t judge who is right, I was not there], I only mention those things
which I think are really important.
To begin with:
THE FIRM, THAT MYSTERIOUS FIRM
During the interview with Oprah Winfrey, several times Meghan Markle
refers to an institution within the British Royal Family, ”The Firm” and she is very vague about the person or persons who back[s] this:
I quote from the interview:
”Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?
Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right? 
Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things” 
ANOTHER QUOTE ABOUT ”THE FIRM”/THE PRESSURE
” And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.” 
THE FIRM, AGAIN/IT’S WAY OF ACTING
”Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people” 
THE FIRM/RACIST REMARKS
I must confess readers, that I don’t get grip on this, no persons
mentioned, no facts to check, no names
”It” or ” those people” can be anyone in the Royal Family, but, assuming that
Meghan Markle speaks the truth about some damaging sides of ”The Firm” [like having trouble with the skin colour of her and Prince Harry’s first child, Archie, a horror story, which was confirmed by Prince Harry, as denying Meghan a form of help, when she was depressed] , that Firm must be some important members of the Royal Family.
I puzzled and puzzled, but without more information I can’t make sense
Only of course, that assuming Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the truth, there must be a racist cuckoo in the British Royal Family, which is
no suprise to me, after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism. 
Would have been strange if it had not affected the Royal Family.
So ”The Firm” is a vague Institution of a series of people [who, is the big question] in the Royal Family with some power and some of them
have uttered very painful, racist things against Prince Harry about
the possible skin colour of the baby [who turned to be ”Lord Archie] 
I’ve puzzled and puzzled, like as I’m sure most people, who
saw or read the interview [I did noth], who that mysterious person or
persons might be, who made those nasty remarks about the skin colour
of Lord Archie, the great grandson of reigning Queen Elizabeth II!
If the whole thing is true-if Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the
truth and for now I have no reason to doubt that-it is a nasty business, but, again, not the whole amazing, that racism also exists between the British
Royal Family after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism! 
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
More important is the Statement of the Queen, who spoke out concerns
about those racist remarks after the Oprah Winfrey interview. 
Quoting the message of Buckingham Palace:
”The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” 
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEENThat’s clear talk and as Meghan Markle remarked in the famous Oprah Winfreyinterview about the Queen:”So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . .
Oprah: Was this on the train?
Meghan: Yeah, on the train.”
”Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.
Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?
Meghan: Yes.” 
Prince Harry also commented:
” I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.
”My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be. ” 
[HAHAHA, THE MILITARY WAY……]
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
As I said before, I don’t comment on all the topics of that famous
Oprah Winfrey Interview
I leave the Meghan/Katie thing  for what it is, that Meghan didn’t do research on the Royal Family  etcetera.
Also I don’t comment on Prince Harry’s relationship between his father
and brother , because fathers and sons often have their issues, like brothers.
After all, fathers and sons are fathers and sons and brothers will
be brothers and in most cases, everything will be allright and they”
ll end as one big, happy fami!y!
And I do believe, that a Royal Life can be a golden harnass [as Prince Harry commented, that his father and brother are ”trapped” , but that’s the price you pay for your privilege, isn’t it?
As Prince Harry said himself ”It’s part of the job” 
Also Prince Harry’s remarks, that he was ”cut out financially” ,
didn’t impress me.
When you are the grandson of the Queen, one of the richest women in
the world  and you have been raised with all kinds of privileges
and financial advantages, than ”cut out financially” means a totally
different story than when it happens to the common man.
Besides, the first task of any man and father, royalty or not, is
to provide for his family on his own force.
So that’s for the royal privileges
But of course that all changes , when you are twelve [two weeks after his mother’s death, Prince Harry became thirteen years old] and fifteen years old
when you loses your mother far too early by a car crashincident, pushed
by the tabloids and you have to walk behind her coffin for the eyes
of the whole world to see 
I felt really sorry for Prince Harry and his brother Prince William at that moment.
Too young, far too young to lose one;s mother [although it is never the right time]
That also changes when you feel that depressed, like Meghan Markle stated in the Oprah interview, that you want to take your own life…..
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
Even about that statement boulevard hater Piers Morgan made a nasty remark, so he had to leave Good Morning Britain after more than 40.000 complaints! 
GOOD RIDDANCE TOO!
So therefore I wanted to comment that depression of Meghan Markle,
nearly ruining her life and that of her family.
And if it’s really true, that Meghan knocked on the door of
”the Firm” and they didn’t open it, when she was in need [refused to give
the necessary help] , that that’s more than scandalous.
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
Since I began to comment the famous Oprah Interview [in March] until now [August], much has happened in the British Royal Family, so including in the lives of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Prince Harry’s grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, died 
Prince Harry and his brother Prince William unveil a statue in the honour of their mother, Princess Diana  and of course the happy arrival of
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s daughter, Lady Lilibeth, the eleventh grandchild of Queen Elizabeth and named after her greatgrandmother Queen Elizabeth [Lilibet was the name the Queen’s family called her] and her grandmother Princess Diana 
[They listened to me:
I always said, that when Harry and Meghan became parents of a daughter,
they had to name her after her greatgrandmother the Queen/HAHAHA]
Also Prince Harry revealed some issues he had with his father concerning
the way he was raised , but I consider that as personal and I am sure
they will work that out.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have their own life now, far from any
racist smearcampaign  and I wish them, with their children, a happy life!
So as I promised at 10 march this anno Domini , I would comment on
the famous Oprah Winfrey interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Now I did.
And you readers probably will ask yourself:
Why she is bothering with an interview from march, we living in august?
Normally indeed I would not bother, but now it is important, because racism is there, that greeneyed monster  that can ruin lives.
But happily not the life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who choose the
right way to leave this mess behind them.
But this is racism in the highest circles, the British Royal Family and you
would think, that somebody who is that priviliged as the Duchess of Sussex, should not be subject of it.
Yet it happened, but luckily she has a true husband, Prince Harry, who supports her no matter what, as he has proved. 
That made it worth to write about this, although it was months ago, that
the interview was taken.
As I wrote in this article, I could not track down, who is the racist cuckoo
in the British Royal Family, but that matters not.
Fact is, that racism is appartently also the issue in those circles.
And alas, racism is with us for a long time yet, perhaps until
we are attacked by aliens and together we are defending our Mother Earth
But fighting against racism and prejudice, wherever you find it, was worth
to write this article.
And the fact that I completed this article five months after the famous Oprah Winfrey interview , adds the worth of fighting for equality.
It was nice to write this!
SEE FOR NOTES
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Interview/A Racist Cuckoo in the Royal Family?
THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX ”“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.
She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.
Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.
This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.” 
This was the official Statement of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, the happy parents of now a son [ Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor] and a daughter [Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor ] 
As at the birth of their son, Lord Archie , I add my congratulations to the happy parents!
Also to the Royal Girl’s uncle and aunt, the Duke and Duchess ofCambridge [Prince Harry’s brother, Prince William andhis wife, Kate Middleton], paternal grandfather Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Prince Harry’s stephmother, her maternal grandparents Doria Ragland and Thomas Markle.And of course her great grandmother, Queen Elisabeth and alas for him, her husband, paternal great grandfather Prince Philip didn’t live long enough to see this day…. Of course the Duke and Duchess of Sussex received congratulationsfrom the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William 
After the birth of Lady Lilibet’s brother, Lord Archie, I remarked jokingly, that it would be nice if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex became parents of a daughter, who would
be named after Queen Elisabeth and so nice that they did indeed!
But the most of all I appreciate that the Royal Couple named their daughter after Prince Harry’s mother, Princess Diana,
who died so tragically and made such a great contribution to
the fight against landmines , which remains greatly
Beautiful to honour her on this way, to name her granddaughter,
whom she regrettably never saw, after her.
“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.
She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.
Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.
This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.”
A MESSAGE OF THANKS FROM THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX
“On June 4th, we were blessed with the arrival of our daughter, Lili. She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF
””It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.” CNNMEGHAN AND HARRY WELCOME BABY GIRL, LILIBET DIANA https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/06/europe/meghan-harry-baby-girl-news-intl-scli/index.html
(CNN)Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has given birth to a daughter, the second child for her and Prince Harry, the couple announced in a statement on Sunday.”It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.Baby Lili is a sister for the couple’s 2-year-old son, Archie Harrison.Harry, Meghan and their baby son, Archie, meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu during their royal tour of South Africa on September 25, 2019.In a message on their Archewell foundation website, Meghan and Harry said they had been “blessed” by their daughter’s arrival.”She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”Buckingham Palace released a statement Sunday on the baby girl’s birth.”The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex,” it read.The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge tweeted their congratulations.The US Embassy in London also congratulated the Sussexes, noting the news comes just in time for Father’s Day.
‘Feeling of joy’
Harry and Meghan revealed they were expecting a girl during their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast in March.The newborn is the Queen’s 11th great-grandchild. She is eighth in line to the throne behind her grandfather Charles, uncle William, his three children (George, Charlotte and Louis), her father Harry, and big brother Archie.Her birth in the United States makes her the most senior royal in the line of succession to have been born overseas.It also makes her a dual US-UK citizen, meaning that the youngest Sussex could potentially go on to become US President when she grows up — while also being in line to the British throne.Meghan and Harry kept the pregnancy as private as possible, speaking just a handful of times about their daughter’s impending arrival.One of those occasions was for a pre-recorded message from Meghan for the recent Vax Live concert in May, which she and Harry co-chaired.”My husband and I are thrilled to soon be welcoming a daughter — it’s a feeling of joy we share with millions of other families around the world,” the Duchess told the audience at the event, intended to promote Covid-19 vaccine equity and gender equality.”When we think of her, we think of all the young women and girls around the globe who must be given the ability and support to lead us forward,” she said. “Their future leadership depends on the decisions we make, and the actions we take now to set them up, and set all of us up, for a successful, equitable, and compassionate tomorrow.”
The royal couple announced back in February they were expecting an addition to their family, sharing a black-and-white snap of them gazing at each other, while Meghan cradled her baby bump.The photo was shot by Misan Harriman, a Nigerian-born British photographer and friend of the couple, who took the picture remotely from his London residence.The timing of their Valentine’s Day announcement likely held special significance for the couple, coming almost exactly 37 years to the day after Prince Charles and Princess Diana revealed that they were expecting their second child: Prince Harry.
Meghan and Harry are expecting a second childMeghan disclosed in an opinion piece for The New York Times that she suffered a miscarriage last summer.Their newborn daughter is entitled to be a Lady from birth, but will likely not use the title.When Archie Harrison was born in 2019, the Duke and Duchess opted to forgo titles and indicated they would not use his father’s second peerage title, the Earl of Dumbarton.Neither of the Sussex children is currently eligible to use HRH titles, following the rules set out by George V in the 1917 Letters Patent. However, this will change when their grandfather Charles ascends to the throne.As for the question of whether Archie and his baby sister will be joined by more siblings in the future, that doesn’t seem to be on the cards right now.Harry revealed that he and his wife are likely to keep their brood limited to “two, maximum” while discussing the Earth’s dwindling resources with activist and chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall for a special edition of British Vogue last July.Harry and Meghan were married in a lavish wedding at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor, England, three years ago.They stepped back from their roles as senior working royals last year, relinquishing their HRH titles, and now live in Santa Barbara, California.
The private neighborhood
Harry and Meghan settled into their Santa Barbara home last July, according to August reports from People magazine.”They have settled into the quiet privacy of their community since their arrival and hope that this will be respected for their neighbors, as well as for them as a family,” a representative for the family told the magazine in August 2020.Richard Mineards, a columnist for Montecito Journal who covered the royals for 45 years, told CNN on Sunday that the area where they live is very “grand … with very large estates” and it does not have issues with paparazzi.”I mean, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, Oscar winner Kevin Costner (and) George Lucas live just down the road,” Mineards said. “We are a celebrity community.”The community also has “very wealthy people” such as tech billionaires, he said. “You name it, we have it,” he said. END OF THE ARTICLE
A ROYAL BABY FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX/LORD ARCHIE. WELCOME TO THE WORLD
PRINCE PHILIP HAS DIED AGED 99, BUCKINGHAM
9 APRIL 2021
Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband, has died aged 99, Buckingham Palace has announced.
A statement issued by the palace just after midday spoke of the Queen’s “deep sorrow” following his death at Windsor Castle on Friday morning.
The Duke of Edinburgh, the longest-serving royal consort in British history, was at the Queen’s side for more than her six decades of reign.
Boris Johnson said he “inspired the lives of countless young people”.
“It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen announces the death of her beloved husband,” the Palace said.
“The Royal Family join with people around the world in mourning his loss.”
It is understood that the Prince of Wales travelled from his home in Gloucestershire to visit his mother at Windsor Castle on Friday afternoon.
Speaking at Downing Street, the prime minister said that the duke had “earned the affection of generations here in the United Kingdom, across the Commonwealth, and around the world”.
Meanwhile, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said he “consistently put the interests of others ahead of his own and, in so doing, provided an outstanding example of Christian service”.
In tribute to the duke, Westminster Abbey began tolling its tenor bell once every 60 seconds at 18:00 BST. It rang out 99 times to honour each year of his life.
Earlier, the flag at Buckingham Palace was lowered to half-mast and a notice was posted on the gates to mark the duke’s death.
People placed floral tributes outside the palace, while hundreds visited Windsor Castle to pay their respects.
However, the government urged the public not to gather or leave tributes at royal residences amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The Royal Family has asked people to consider making a donation to a charity instead of leaving flowers in memory of the duke, and an online book of condolence has been launched on the official royal website for those who wish to send messages.
A message on the website of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s non-profit organisation Archewell paid tribute to the “loving memory” of the Duke of Edinburgh, saying: “Thank you for your service… you will be greatly missed.”
From midday on Saturday, a 41-gun salute will take place for Prince Philip in cities including London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as well as in Gibraltar and at sea from Royal Navy warships, the Ministry of Defence said. They will be broadcast online and on television for the public to watch from home.
The BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said it was “a moment of sadness” for the country and “most particularly, for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years – a bigger span of years than most of us can imagine”.
He said Prince Philip had made “a huge contribution to the success of the Queen’s reign”, describing the duke as “utterly loyal in his belief in the importance of the role that the Queen was fulfilling – and in his duty to support her”.
“It was the importance of the solidity of that relationship, of their marriage, that was so crucial to the success of her reign,” he added.
A bank of photographers and cameramen were lined up around the growing number of tributes at Buckingham Palace on Friday afternoon, said BBC News reporter Marie Jackson.
Rhea Varma, from Pimlico, pulled up to the gates on her bike to lay flowers and a note saying Rest in Peace Duke.
She said the news was “super sad”. To her, the duke was “the kind of stability that’s so old-fashioned it’s difficult to comprehend. He was a rock who brought integrity.”
Adam Wharton-Ward, 36, also arrived to leave lilies by the palace gates. He is visiting London from his home in France but was so moved by the news, he wanted to “rally round” for the Queen’s sake.
“It’s so sad. He’s been with her for 73 years. If it wasn’t for him who knows if she would have got through it,” he said.
The duke’s appeal, he added, was that he was “almost normal with his gaffes”.
“Now that normality has gone,” he said.
The prince married Princess Elizabeth in 1947, five years before she became Queen.
The Queen has not been able to meet little Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor yet, as she was born in California. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now living in Montecito with their son, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, and their new baby girl. The pandemic has made international travel difficult and, given the Queen’s age and schedule, she probably will not head to California soon. However, despite the distance, the monarch shared a sweet public message welcoming the new baby, according to a Buckingham Palace spokesperson.
The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The Royal Family’s social media channels also shared a note about the new baby, along with a photo from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding day.This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Lilibet, whose name is a tribute to both Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana, was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m weighing in at a healthy 7 lbs 11 oz. Her parents and older brother were all happy to welcome the little royal to their family. According to the statement, grandparents Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall are also “delighted” about the newest addition to their brood.
A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”
Prince William and Catherine, Duchess Of Cambridge have reportedly sent a gift to Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess Of Sussex for their new daughter Lilibet.
According to Us Weekly, the pair were “informed about the birth and have sent Lilibet a gift,” and later offered their congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, after it was confirmed that in their second child was born in Santa Barbara on June 4.
The Duke and Duchess admitted they were “delighted” to hear the news that Harry and Meghan have become parents to a little girl, whose full name is Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.
A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”
While the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall shared on their page: “Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana. Wishing them all well at this special time.”
Buckingham Palace officials also issued a statement to reveal the Royal Family were thrilled to hear about the baby’s arrival.
The statement released by the family read: “The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”
The couple’s happy news was confirmed on Sunday by their spokesperson.
They said in a statement: “It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.”
The Royal Family@RoyalFamilyCongratulations to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of Lilibet Diana! The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted with the news. Lilibet is Her Majesty’s 11th great-grandchild.
The photographs of Princess Diana wearing protective clothing and equipment, as well as her meeting landmine survivors, raised the profile of the work being done to clear landmines around the world. Her untimely death in August 1997 came only a few months before the United Nations Mine Ban Treaty — a legally binding prohibition on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of landmines — was opened for signature. Since then, 164 countries have become parties to the agreement, which is informally known as the Ottawa Treaty.
Here’s what to know about Princess Diana’s work on landmines, why it was so significant and how Prince Harry is continuing her legacy.
Why Princess Diana walked across a minefield
At the time of Princess Diana’s visit to Angola in January 1997, Prince William and Prince Harry were 14 and 12 years old, and her divorce from Prince Charles had been finalized the previous year. She was already known for her other charitable endeavors, such as her role in the 1987 opening of the U.K.’s first HIV/AIDS unit in London, which was designed specifically to treat patients with the virus at a time when it was perceived with much stigma.
Princess Diana brought her signature determination to her campaigning against landmines. She had been involved with the British Red Cross for several years before the charity organized and supported her January 1997 trip to Angola. It was there, in Huambo province, that she came across the work of the HALO Trust, which had been working to clear mines in Angola since 1994 amid the then-ongoing civil war there. (The civil war in Angola, which remains one of the world’s most heavily landmine-contaminated countries, ended in 2002 after more than 25 years of intermittent conflict.)
She met children who were landmine survivors, and she was also escorted by HALO students and mine-clearance experts through a cleared lane in one of the active minefields wearing protective armor and headgear. Images from her trip were immediately circulated across international media and provided a striking portrait of the princess among people in a humanitarian context.
“Diana’s visit is something that people in Huambo still talk about today,” says Ralph Legg, program manager of HALO Trust’s operations in Angola. “For the people that were here at that time, which was obviously still a time of conflict, it led to a feeling of acknowledgement, and that their plight was recognized around the world. The people I’ve spoken to who met Diana on that trip have all said how kind, considerate and how genuinely interested she seemed in them.”
After her visit to Angola, Princess Diana wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”
Angola wasn’t the only country affected by landmines that Diana visited; in early August 1997, she visited victims of mines in Bosnia and again focused the world’s attention on the issue. Zoran Ješić, now 46, remembers her visit well. Ješić stepped on a landmine in 1994, and now lives and works in Bosnia for the organization UDAS, which supports landmine survivors. “It was a very brave decision for her to come here only two years after the war,” he says. “The situation wasn’t so stable, and I had the feeling that Diana decided to use her popularity to help people in states like mine. Her contribution on the international level was enormous.”
The legacy of her advocacy against landmines
Diana’s Angola trip was reported on all over the world, and the legacy of her humanitarian work with landmines remains long-lasting. “At that time, she was probably the most recognizable person in the world, and so the fact that she went and met with landmine survivors was really quite incredible,” says Paul Hannon, Executive Director of Mines Action Canada, the Canadian member of International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which was awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. “She showed basic humanity to people who don’t normally get that, and I think that was a wake-up call to all of us.”
At the time of her visit at the beginning of 1997, negotiations were ongoing to initiate the Mine Bans Treaty. Diana had vocally appealed for an international ban on landmines during her time in Angola. Yet her efforts sparked criticism from U.K. lawmakers, who called her a “loose cannon” and out of line with government policy on the issue, which took a more cautious approach to negotiations about the use of landmines, which had not yet been banned in the U.K. Despite the controversy, she had a significant impact on the political process that successfully banned landmines.
The exposure she gave the issue on her visit, and her tragic death in August that year, created an added impetus for the treaty process; as TIME reported in September 1997: “[President Bill] Clinton and his wife Hillary had been touched by the Princess of Wales’ poignant visits to young victims of such mines in Bosnia and Angola a few weeks ago. After her death, the [mine bans] treaty being written in Oslo took on the luster of a humanitarian memorial to Diana and her cause.”
“We planned for the treaty signing here in Ottawa, and we would have loved to have had her there,” says Hannon, who volunteered at the signing of the treaty. “She was only involved for a few months, but everyone identifies her with the fight to ban landmines.”
How Prince Harry is continuing Princess Diana’s work
The upcoming visit is not the first time that the Duke of Sussex has visited the projects run by HALO Trust; he went to a minefield in Mozambique in 2010, and previously visited Angola in 2013. During the 10-day trip, Harry will visit other countries in southern Africa, including Malawi and Botswana, where he has connections with several other charities.
Over the past 22 years, several countries have made huge strides on clearing landmines. In 2015, the government in Mozambique declared the country was mine-free after two decades of clearance operations. With the financial support of international donors and the Angolan government, the HALO Trust alone has cleared about 100,000 landmines in the country, and 297 minefields across Huambo province — only one minefield away from the province being declared mine-free. On Friday, Harry detonated a landmine in southern Angola and walked across a minefield in Dirico province, echoing Diana’s 1997 walk in Huambo. However, the minefield area that his mother visited is now home to communities, schools and businesses. “It’s been totally transformed and is unrecognizable today from when she visited in 1997,” says program manager Legg.
Harry’s visit to Angola, with its focus on landmines, falls two months before a major conference on achieving a mine-free world by 2025 — one of the major ambitions of the Mine Ban Treaty and a cause that the Duke has spoken about in the past. “I’m hoping that Harry provides the same visibility and added momentum from his trip that his mother did, and that he will remind people that this is a human story,” says Hannon. “It’s a success story in progress. I hope he can remind everybody that the job’s not done yet, but it can be finished.”
Landmine survivor Ješić agrees: “In a way, he will continue something that his mother proudly started.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
”Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.
Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.”
THE BRITISH RED CROSS
MEMORIES OF PRINCESS DIANA AND THE BRITISH RED CROSS
Throughout her life, Princess Diana was a dedicated humanitarian who championed causes in the UK and overseas. We look back on her journey with the Red Cross.
Princess Diana was always committed to using her public profile to bring about positive change.
A firm believer in the power of young people, she became patron of the Red Cross Youth in 1983, which gave her an increasingly visible role with the British Red Cross.
In July 1985, Diana visited a Red Cross adventure camp for disabled children at Hindleap Warren, in East Sussex.
Barbara Summerfield, now in her 80s and from Saltdean, was a youth officer at the time and has fond memories of Diana’s visit.
“What went down well, more than anything else, was that Diana was a real person who the children could talk to,” said Barbara.
“They were very excited about her visit. I don’t think they got much sleep the night before. She watched them do their abseiling and other activities.
“They loved showing her what they could do. Some had serious disabilities and Diana was interested in their medical conditions.
THEY SPOKE TO DIANA AS A NORMAL PERSON, A FRIEND EVEN. AND THAT’S THE WAY SHE SPOKE TO THE CHILDREN.
Barbara Summerfield, British Red Cross vice president, Sussex
“The children made two lovely birdhouses for Diana to give to William and Harry, but they didn’t finish them in time. When they gave them to Diana, she said: ‘Don’t worry, they [William and Harry] will finish them off.’”
Barbara, who is currently British Red Cross vice president in Sussex, added: “I thought Diana had a lovely calming manner, soothing.
“You know how when you meet a princess you bow and there are the formalities, well the children didn’t seem to worry about that. They spoke to Diana as a normal person, a friend even. And that’s the way she spoke to the children.”
“She was interested in what we did”
Edith Conn is British Red Cross president for Greater Manchester. Edith met the Princess when she visited Manchester in the mid-1980s to see a youth orchestra perform.
“We spoke about the Red Cross Youth and she was interested in what we did,” recalled Edith.
“Then we just chatted about everyday things. The funny thing about it was I said to her: ‘What happens when you go home, do you go to another engagement?’
“She said: ‘Oh no I’m going home to have beans on toast and I’m going to watch EastEnders.’ That has always stuck in my mind!”
Diana later sent Edith a trinket for auction at a Red Cross gala ball.
“It was a real privilege to meet her”
“When she spoke to you she looked directly at you,” continued Edith. “You felt as though she was really very interested in what you did and what you had to say. She was lovely.
“I think I am very lucky to have met her. And to think back … that we chatted about beans on toast!
“It was a real privilege to have met her and this … should be a time to celebrate her life.”
In 1993, Diana became a vice president of the British Red Cross, and two years later she became patron of our 125th Birthday Appeal.
The Princess resigned her positions with the British Red Cross in July 1996, but continued to engage with the organisation until shortly before her death.
Princess Diana in Angola
Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.
Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.
She famously travelled to Angola in January 1997, a trip organised and supported by the British Red Cross.
Angola was littered with landmines, a deadly legacy from its civil war.
Estimates put the number of landmines in the country between nine and fifteen million.
Between 1979 and 1996, the ICRC fitted 9,200 amputees with false limbs in Angola, and manufactured 12,800 prostheses in total.
A lasting impact
During her time in Angola, Princess Diana visited active minefields, met local victims of landmine violence and spoke in favour of a ban on anti-personnel mines.
After her visit, she wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”
Diana’s visit to Angola brought unprecedented attention to the landmine issue and sparked international discussion.
The Ottawa Treaty, which placed a ban on anti-personnel mines, was signed by 122 countries in December 1997 – less than a year after Diana’s Angola visit and a few months after her death. Today, 162 UN member states are parties to the treaty.
Dr Helen Durham, director of international law and policy at the ICRC, believes Diana’s visit to Angola highlighted the problems of using anti-personnel landlines to a broader audience.
“The glamour and global appeal of Princess Diana added another layer to the voices of lawyers, humanitarian workers and medical staff who were raising their concerns about weapons that cannot distinguish between children and combatants,” said Durham.
The treaty, also known as the Mine Ban Convention, has undoubtedly saved lives. Twenty years ago, the ICRC estimated that anti-personnel landmines maimed or killed 20,000 people every year.
However, due to conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Yemen, that figure actually represented a ten-year high of new casualties.
Durham added: “It is wonderful to see the progress today, but sadly we still have a long way to go to ensure that these weapons stop destroying the lives and livelihoods of thousands. Applying the Ottawa Treaty is the first step.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor A Royal Daughter for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!/Lady Lilibet Diana, welcome to the world!
MY EARL THOMAS OF LANCASTER ARTICLE IN CHAPTERS! READERS!
As I promised, I have divided my extended article ”Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint”  in Chapters, easier for you to readHereby the whole overview:It was nice to travel with you to fourtheenth century England.Until next time……
And now it’s the END of our fascinating Historical Document aboutThomas of Lancaster, cousin of king Edward II! You have travelled with me to the first half of fourteenth century England,have watched with me, as Digital Eyewitnesses, how a big Feud rose betweenking Edward II and his cousin, Earl Thomas of Lancaster, initially loyalto his cousin the king, then fell out with him for personal and political reason,rose against him in an open rebellion and finally was executed for treason. You watched it all in here CHAPTERS ONE https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/
For me and I don’t doubt for you Readers also, that was very fascinating.
THE END And now we are at the End of this Story and in the Epilogue it isquestioned: WHO REALLY WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTERWHAT WERE HIS GOALS/IDEALS?WHERE DID HE STAND FOR? Travel with me Readers, to the Life and Times of this interesting noblemanfor one last time……
EPILOGUE WHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER?
In defence of Thomas of Lancaster TO SET THE RECORDS STRAIGHT……
Finally, I have come to the end of my travel to fourtheenth century England and the life and times of Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, who was double royal and first cousin of King Edward II.
THOMAS OF LANCASTER/HIS JOURNEY
The facts are known and described by me in the earlier chapters:
First Edward II’s close ally , he later moved into opposition because of king’s favourite Piers Gaveston,, killing the poor man together with his baron allies in 1312  , which set, of course a deadly enmity between him and Edward II.  Simultaneously, Thomas and his allies pleaded for a set of reforms, limiting the king’s power, the so called Ordinances. Then, after the desastrous defeat against the Scots at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314 , being the de facto ruler in England from 1314-1318, battling new favourites of the King  and finally droven into armed rebellion against the King because of his most dangerous, favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger , with the Ordinances as one of his playing cards [which gave Thomas rightly or wrongly, a sort of heroism], leading to his execution in 1322. 
And being a warlord during his later life, became a Saint after his death! 
And although his many faults and injustices [having Piers Gaveston executed and having summarily executed men who rebelled in Lancastershire against him in the Banastre rebellion in 1315]  , yet IT IS SOMETHING to be ten years in constant opposition against your king, trying to limit his powers, gathering allies ansd adherents….
Some of those adherents were that loyal to Lancaster, that years later they killed men, who had betrayed him….
Or, like die his hard Lancaster ally Sir William Trussell, who was seething with resentment against the Despensers, to read out the charges [and the verdict] against the captured Hugh Despenser the Younger at his mock trial in 1326….
That’s immediately debunking the often heard story, that Lancaster couldn’t keep friends and allies….. Of course Lancaster lost allies, since it was a time of continually switching alliances, but the loyalty of some of his adherents, as described above, was striking.
And let’s not forget in this story the ”mystery man”, Lancaster’s often underestimated brother Henry of Leicester
, who sided with the Isabella and Mortimer invasion in 1326, stabbing a dagger in the back of Edward II , which lead to a general desertion of Edward II’s cause , the execution of the Despensers and eventually, the deposition of Edward II himself……. Henry, who would do whatever was in his power to restore the honour of his brother by promoting him as a Saint  and did not forget or forgive the ones who did his brother harm [The Despensers and their enmity with Thomas of Lancaster, see the Chapters, six, seven, eight and ten], or committed treason against him, like Thomas’ close adherent and ally, Sir Robert Holland , who deserted him, when he needed him most. 
But when everything is said and done, I raise one major question
WHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER? WHAT DROVE HIM?
THOMAS OF LANCASTER WHAT SOME SOURCES/HISTORIANS SAY ABOUT HIM:
There is much said about him:
I pick some examples:
Edwardthesecondblogspot [the great Blog of historian Kathryn Warner, writer of a book about Edward II and Isabella of France and Edward II expert] writes
”Whatever some of Thomas’s contemporaries may have thought of him – the extremely pro-Lancastrian Brut called him the ‘gentle earl’, for example – it’s hard to find a modern historian with a good word to say about him, and hard, for me at least, to find much sympathy for a man who did his utmost to thwart his cousin Edward II at every turn.” 
Luminarium Encyclopedia describes him as a ”coarse, selfish and violent man, without any attributes of a statesman” 
Encyclopedia Britannica writes
”His opposition to royal power derived more from personal ambition than from a desire for reform.” 
Website ”English monarchs” described Thomas of Lancaster as someone initially loyal, who was forced into opposition because of the King’s favourite policies 
Website the Lady Despenser’s Scribery writes
”Despite his seemingly high ideals about the poor and oppressed, fair patronage and justice, records show that Thomas was actually as vicious, ruthless and corrupt as those he opposed. He was well known for ignoring the matter of the law, especially when he wanted to take land and manors and his harshness as a landlord was also legendary.” 
Historian Stephen Spinks, wrote in a very interesting article about Thomas of Lancaster about his ”weakness” , describing him as following:
”In short, he had no aptitude for government and once he was in a position to enact reform, the earl quickly found he did not understand nor was capable of achieving what he had long since demanded. Shouting about the Ordinances was one thing, but once he had them, enacting change was too arduous for him.” 
In his dissertation ”Lancashire in the reign of Edward II, about the lordship of Thomas of Lancaster in relation to the gentry in his county [after which he and his family is named] Lancastrershire, historian Gunnar A. Welle writes about Thomas of Lancaster as ”avariciousness” and accuses him of ”bad lordship”, at least referring to Lancashire [the county Lancaster]  FUNNY Not one of the mentioned sources or writers was very pleased with the Earl, therefore it was interesting to read a less aphrehensive comment on the website ”Lady Despenser’s Scribery, which is very fair, given her less complimentary comments above
” To be fair, Lancaster did his best to implement the Ordinances in full, purging the royal household and local government of men thought to be bad for the running of the country (in other words hostile to Lancaster), and he also attempted to get the country’s finances back into shape by limiting spending. ” 
”Edward II certainly had his faults as a king and many of Lancaster’s Ordinances were indeed worthy suggestions for much needed reform.” 
And now the following, very
complimentary comment on the New World Encyclopedia:
”…… His instinct, however, was to uphold the law and, notwithstanding his faults, he can not be accused of pure self-interest. He saw himself as answerable to Parliament, which, unlike Edward, he did not ignore or manipulate.”
……. ……. ”As an admirer of De Montford, Thomas would have subscribed to the principles that had developed subsequent to his Parliament of 1265, that all classes should be represented there, that all taxes except “those sanctioned by custom” must be approved by Parliament and that the “common man” was also entitled to protection, security and justice………. …… ….. ”Edward had vowed to “maintain the laws and rightful customs which the community of the realm shall have chosen,” as well as to “maintain peace and do justice” and Thomas had heard this promise. This development of the law was a shared responsibility—through their representatives, the “community of the realm” would have a say in framing these laws for the common good. Thomas Plantagenet did his best to hold the king accountable to his oath. He can be said to have made a valuable contribution to the development of constraints on kingly power. In time, these constraints would result in full-blown democratic government.” 
READERS, DID YOU LET THOSE COMMENTS ABOVE
SINK IN? GOOD. I will come to that later
SOME THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE LOUPE ”NO INTEREST IN GOVERNMENT”/NOT ATTENDING PARLIAMENT
Now people are complex natures, as in their relations to others, as in their ”playing the game of thrones”, the highest level power play of the Middle Ages. Sometimes their actions are easy to understand, but in most cases more complicated than expected af first sight.
Often there is written, that Thomas regularly didn’t attend parliament and generally didn’t took part in government at all, as if done to undermine the King’s orders and position  and that may true to some extent: On the other hand it may be possible, that illness played a major part too. In two letters of Edward II, the first to Lancaster himself in 1305 [when they were still on very good terms] and the second, in 1311 [when they already were in conflict because of Piers Gaveston and the Ordinances], directed to Lancaster’s close ally Sir Robert Holland, there was a reference to an unknown] illness of Lancaster. Historian Gunnar A Welles wrote in his dissertation that the reason Lancaster preferred his Castle Pontefract in his later years was perhaps due to ill health. 
But why not Lancaster sent a message to his king like:
”To my Lord Edward, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aquitaine….. Your Grace, I can’t attend parliament, due to illness ……” Your faithful subject and cousin, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster” [”faithful”? HMMMMM……] Well, of course Lancaster couldn’t and wouldn’t do that because of the growing enmity and power struggle between him and Edward II, thus undermining his own position by referring to some illness.
No, better to seem ”defiant” [and for a great part he was, of course], than weakening his position by admitting an ”ill health”……
Except for [possible] illness there was an other plausible explanation for Lancaster not to attend parliament. Since his unlawful execution of Edward II’s favourite Piers Gaveston  there was an obvious enmity between him and his cousin Edward II. Doubtless Edward II would have taken revenge on Lancaster, were it not because that was quite impossible, since the great power of Lancaster [you remember, readers, due to Lancaster’s five Earldoms]  The king more or less uttered his desire to revenge, during the siege of Berwick [to which Lancaster for once took part], when anncouncing: ”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.”  Perhaps understandable from Edward II’s point of view, but likewise understandable, that Thomas of Lancaster not only left the battlefield in Berwick , but did not trust the king anymore. [not that he trusted him before, but things grew worse] What if he attended parliament and was arrested?
To make matters worse, the 1315-1318 three favourites of Edward II, Roger Damory, Hugh Audley and William Montacute did their utmost best to undermine any reconciliation between Edward II and his cousin Thomas and even threatened him by openly calling him a traitor [974 and see also chapter V] It is even possible that Damory had persuaded the king to attack Lancaster at his castle of Pontefract in october 1317, which was prevented by the Earl of Pembroke at the last moment.  Of course it was understandable then, that Thomas refused to come to parliament, or to meet the king [who summoned him to come], as long as those three favourites were at Court….. A very tense political situation.
So there some possible reasons why Lancaster didn’t attend parliament or took much participation in governmental affairs.
On the other hand he seemed to have done his best to implement the Ordinances  which led to a serious row between him and Edward II. 
So summarized: Lancaster’s reluctance to attend to parliament or to participate in the government is not only simply explained as obstructing the king or indifference and incompetence in governmental affairs, but could also stem from illness and Lancaster’s not imaginary fear of the malicious intentions from Edward II’s 1315-1318 favourites, who intrigued against him [Thomas]. Add to that the [likely understandable] enmity of Edward II because of Thomas’ involvement in the murder of his great favourite Piers Gaveston and you have a good explanation for Thomas’ ”reluctance” It is a pity that that’s often overseen by some sources.
THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S CHARACTER
”VIOLENCE”, ”ARROGANCE”/”DIFFICULTY TO KEEP FRIENDS AND ALLIES”
Thomas of Lancaster is called ”coarse, selfish and violent”  , ”arrogant”, , having a ”seeming desire for power”  and a ”bad lord” in the sense of not meeting the needs and wishes of his retainers , as some sources state [here limited to his retainers in Lancashire] 
That may be true and I found it confirmed in what I read about him, but so were the other nobles, who
were no peaches either, without of course justifying Lancaster’s behaviour and attitudes.
Let’s be honest:
During the Edward II reign, there was a constant dance for power and switching of alliances and but few nobles, among who was Hugh Despenser the Elder [to be fair!] stayed where they were: In this case: Loyal to the King. 
There has also been stated, that Thomas of Lancaster ”found it difficult to keep friends and allies” . However, he managed to bind men to him, who stayed diehard allies, even though they could not benefit from him anymore.
A man like Sir William Trussell, his loyal adherent since the beginning of the Lancaster/Edward II conflict, stayed loyal to him, fought at his side at the battle of Bouroughbridge ,was imprisoned, later escaped and fled to France, joining the Isabella and Mortimer invasion and reading out the charges against Hugh Despenser.  Lancaster had allies who were prepared to kill those, who had betrayed him, years after his execution. 
And he WAS capable of true friendship, for example to his close adherent, Sir Robert Holland, whom he favoured that much, that an uprising in Lancashire took place against Lancaster and Holland, the Banastre rebellion….
Yes, that same Sir Robert Holland, who deserted Lancaster in his hour of need , something his brother Henry, the later Earl of Lancaster, would never forgive or forget….
THOMAS OF LANCASTER/”DESIRE FOR PERSONAL POWER AND STRUGGLE WITH THE KING PERSONAL AND BROADER HISTORICAL VIEW
Describing Thomas of Lancaster only as the one
”who did his utmost to thwart his cousin Edward II at every turn” , a ”coarse, selfish and violent man”  , ”that his opposition to royal power derived more from personal ambition than from a desire for reform , is too one-sided.
On the other hand: To pose him as ”having made a valuable contribution to the development of constraints on kingly power, which constraints would, in time ” result in full-blown democratic government”  thus making from the Earl a sort of pioneer of later democratic developments, as the New World Encyclopedia does , is, to my opinion, unbalanced either and a little anachronistic, because it is somewhat dangerous to compare the thoughts and opinions of a medieval royal Earl with views about democracy that would emerge much, much later.
Life and history are more complicated then that.
The sources, which gave Lancaster a bad press, calling him ”coarse and selfish”, ”a bad lord”, ”arrogant” and ”having a desire for personal ambition”, etc fail to see, that be as it may. looking this game of power only at the personal level is denying one of the important historical developments, which rippled through Middle Ages, namely the struggle between centralization and decentralization.
In Chapter one I pointed out, that, apart from the personal matters, the Edward II/Thomas of Lancaster conflict stood in a tradition of the struggle between centralization [absolute royal power] amd decentralization [king’s liegemen/ nobles who tried to take as personal power for themselves as possible] See it not only as a power struggle, but also as a fight for more equality: Not all power concentrated in the hands of one man, but influence for other groups too.
In this centralization-decentralizatio n game Edward II’s great grandfather king John Lackland got trouble with his barons, resulting in the Magna Charta  John Lackland’s son King Henry III [father of Edward I and grandfather of Edward II], got troubles with his brother in law, the French noble Simon de Montfort with English roots [6th Earl of Leicester by inheritance, officially invested in the Earldom in 1239, after coming to England and initially in the favour of Henry III, marrying his siter Eleanor of England with Henry’s approval] a man of substance, who rose into open rebellion against Henry and had far reached ideas about more freedom for other groups. In fact, he was the de facto ruler of England for about a year and is known to have established a Parliament [some refer to it as the first English parliament] which stripped the king of unlimited authority and a second, included not only barons and knights, but also the burgesses of the major towns. .
So in that light, the struggle between Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster must be seen and in that light I find it interesting to answer my final question:
WHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER/ A TROUBLEMAKING AND POWERSEEKING REBEL OR A SECOND SIMON DE MONTFORT
”Coarse”, ”selfish”, ”arrogant”, a troublemaker, a rebel, ”contributor to later democratic developments”, ”droven by personal ambitions” Was he merely a troublemaking rebel or a second Simon de Montfort, as the New World Encyclopedia seems to think. 
There are many connections between Lancaster and England’s first great ”parliamentary” rebel, Simon de Montfort and o irony, one connection between Lancaster and de Montfort is often overlooked. They possessed the same Earldom:
After Simon de Montfort was killed in the battle of Evesham in 1265, fighting against the royalist troops under the command of Prince Edward [eldest son and heir of Henry III, the latter Edward I]. his lands and title were forfeited, being a traitor [rebel against his king]  Then Henry III created the Earldom of Leicester for his second son Edmund Crouchback , father of Thomas of Lancaster and his brother Henry. SO THAT’S THE WAY THE EARLDOM OF LEICESTER CAME INTO THOMAS’ FAMILY!
New World Encyclopedia writes, that Thomas of Lancaster”based his policies on a strict adherence to the ordinances and an appeal to the work of Simon de Montfort”  In each case, with his implementing the Ordinances, limiting royal power, he was building upon a tradition of baronial opposition, for which de Montfort has given his life. 
In their histories and lives, both men had many parallels.
Starting with royal favour, they fell out with their kings, developed reform ideas, eventuallty rose in open rebellion and died fighting their Kings, de Montfort in battle in 1265 and Lancaster, executed in 1322. And, amazingly: After their death both men were venerated as martyrs and attempts were made to canonize them. 
One of them, de Montfort, is now honoured as one of the founders of modern parliament , while Lancaster has got a bad press, being a rebel, troublemaker etc I don’t think that’ s completely fair and both men had more in common then modern historians seem or are prepared to admit.
Because who was Simon de Montfort?
Reading about his life and times, he seems to me an adventurer, who firstly enjoyed royal
favour, then fell out with his king, sided with the already existing baronial opposition [inheritence from king Henry III’s father John Lackland] and in the process developed radical reform ideas [for that time] and at the end gave his life defending them.. And in contrary to Thomas of Lancaster, he had the chance to form two parliaments to implement his ideas , since he defeated the king in battle and ruled England more than a year.  That’s why de Montfort did make a great impression and Lancaster was merely seen as a troublemaking rebel.
Admittedly, Lancaster was the de facto ruler in England between 1314-1318, but he had much against him, what made it difficult to implement the Ordinances, although he surely tried. He had to deal with the Scottish raids in North England, with the Great famine , and with the fact, that after his execution of Piers Gaveston, he was politically isolated, especially after the death of his main ally, the 10th Earl of Warwick in 1315.  And admittedly:: De Montfort was a better soldier and statesman
The nature of the reforms of de Montfort and Lancaster differed, but had in common, curbing royal power: De Montfort focused on the installation of a parliament, to which not only the barons had access, but also the knights and even the burgesses. . But the whole thing got further and was quite radical: Because [according to Simon de Montfort’s ideas] although Henry III retained the title and authority of King, all decisions and approval now rested with his council, led by Montfort and subject to consultation with parliament. 
The Ordinances, promoted by Lancaster and allies, focused on curbing the royal power to raise armies and go to war, collecting taxation and going abroad. The Lords Ordainers had to give their consent for those royal plans.  However, contrary to the Simon de Montfort reforms, the Lord Ordainers were especially involved in giving more power to their own social class, not to the ”lower classes” as the commoners. But curbing the royal power like that was quite radical too and in fact building on the ideas of Simon de Montfort.
But was it all ”noble”?
De Montfort’s end was tragic, dying for his ideals, but it was also a struggle for power between him and king Henry III, no different from the fight between Lancaster and Edward II.
For let’s be frank: Would de Montfort really have grown out to a reform rebel, when not falling out with Henry III, due to political circumstances?
Or would Thomas of Lancaster have developed his love for the Ordinances, when he did not fall out with his king and cousin? I doubt it.
Because neither de Montfort, neither Lancaster, seemed to have manifested those high ideals when still in royal favour.
Both men suddenly ”discovered” those ideals, when falling out with their kings….
Both men developed ideals, but loved power likewise.
And stripped off the personal elements: There we go again:
The Simon de Montfort/Henry III fight and the Thomas of Lancaster/. Edward II fight is part of the greater struggle between centralization and decentralization.
And without forgetting the injustices they committed , they both were reformers and at the end prepared and compelled [there was no way back!] to pay the highest price.
It’s important, that de Montfort’s contribution is appreciated and honoured.
But it is also important, to see Lancaster in a more positive light and acknowledge, that he made an important contribution to curbing absolute monarchy and implementing the parliamentary rights.
It is high time for someone to write this down, giving Lancaster, with all his faults [but so had Simon de Montfort] a far better press than he got untill now.
He held to the Ordinances  against all odds and fought a king, who, although certainly generous  and sometimes unexpectedly forgiving , was a tool in the hands of ambitious and ruthless favourites and therefore turned into a bad and even desastrous ruler. And although rising against his king WAS treason and he had his own selfish motives, Lancaster also fought to implement those Ordinances. That deserves appreciation, which I want to give him posthumously, 695 years after his execution, not closing my eyes for his faults and injustices.
Readers, when you really read all those chapters out, KUDOS!
Hereby a bottle of champaign, out of appreciation.
Readers!Only yesterday I sent to you Chapter Nine of my ”Book” articleabout Earl Thomas of Lancaster, cousin of king EdwardYou know the drama story of course, situated in the first half of14th century England:It is all about the fight for Power between king Edward II and his not sodear cousin, Thomas, the 2nd Earl of Lancaster, initially loyal to his royalcousin king Edward, then fell out with him for various personal and politicalreasons, engaged him in open battle and finally was executed.AND…..what was extraordinary bizarre, since the man wasn’t ”Holy” at all,was declared a Saint in the twenties of the 14th century, although not officiallyby Holy Church. SEE HERE THE FORMER CHAPTERS I SENT TO YOU: ONE
AND NOW CHAPTER TEN!
For interesting Question:
The King had won the Fight for Power, but did he really win?
How did it really end?
Today I introduce Five Persons, who played a major role in
the later, destructive, Events:
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
PARTICULAR IMPORTANT ROLE]
THE BROTHER [EARL THOMAS’ YOUNGER BROTHER HENRY,
WHO KEPT HIMSELF LOW PROFILE, BUT NEVER FORGOT OR
FORGAVE THE EXECUTION OF HIS BROTHER THOMAS]
READ FURTHER IN THIS AMAZING STORY AND SEE FOR YOURSELF,
WHO REALLY WON…….
CHAPTER TEN AFTERMATH
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MAJOR PLAYERS IN THIS DRAMA
King Edward II
Henry of Lancaster
The unfair trial and execution of Thomas of Lancaster was not the end of the story: On the contrary: It would cast its shadows over the years to come.
With the champion of the Ordinances  dead, the way was paved for a new and horrific Era in English history:: The tyranny…… In may 1322, two months after the execution of Thomas of Lancaster, the Ordinances were revoked , which gave King Edward II and his favourites the Despensers all the space they needed, without considering law and justice.
This had started with the execution and unfair trial of Thomas of Lancaster, who was the first Earl to be executed since Waltheof [1076!], , following more Contrariants, also after unfair trials or simply executed, twenty or 22 in total , in one case even the horrible traitor’s death. Prisons were filled with Contrariants, others were exiled and some even being forced to ”acknowledge” that they owed large debts to the king in return for a pardon.  Pure maffialike extortion…..
Even their wives and children were imprisoned, although they had nothing to to with the Despenser war rebellion, often suffering harsh prison.  But to be fair: In case of Lady Badlesmere, who had refused Queen Isabella admittance to Leeds Castle , while on pilgrimage and whose castle was besieged by the King in retaliation : She was imprisoned ”only” for a year and released seven months after the brutal execution [traitor’s death] of her husband in april 1322. 
Hell broke loose in those years of total arbitrariness and injustice in which the Despensers did as they pleased, always backed by a consenting King, as though they had hypnotised him…..
But as this dramatic story will reveal, soon those, who imposed death penalty on Thomas of Lancaster,
pursued his and the Marcher Lord’s followers without mercy, bringing injustice and terror in the land, would learn, that the very lawliness business they had created, would blow up in their faces……. 
Let’s have a close look at how fared the mayor players in this drama:
KING EDWARD II
If the King had thought that he ”had it all”, by executing his cousin Thomas of Lancaster and crushing his opposition and that of the Marcher Lords, he would be tragically mistaken. Because now Lancaster gone and the opposition against Edward II’s destructive reign [remember, those favourites!] destroyed, there was no one from restraining him [Edward II], to run fast in the direction of his own downfall. And holding the Despensers at his side, would prove desastrous for both the King and the Despensers, although it must have seemed otherwise in 1322.
Opposition not dead and buried:
At first not all opposition was dead and buried: From 1323, Edward II had to deal with the veneration cult of Saint Thomas [Edward II’s executed cousin Thomas of Lancaster] , which was not only disconcerting for him and the Despensers, but also an utterance of protest against his reign, that grew to be more unpopular day by day. Who were behind the ”reports” about the miracles at the tomb [or place of execution] of Thomas of Lancaster, was unclear: Perhaps just popular tales, but perhaps Thomas’ brother, Henry of Lancaster , who, harmless as he looked [not participating in his brother’s rebellions] would prove to be a very danger for Edward II and the Despensers……
Another blow to Edward II was the spectacular escape from the Tower of London, of leader Marcher Lord, Roger Mortimer in august 1323 [one of the few successful escapes from the Tower] . Mortimer fled to France, what would prove desastrous for Edward II…..
Also, other Contrariants fled to France , where they formed a circle of resistance against the Edward II/Despenser regime…
1 Growing opposition against the regime Edward II/Despensers:
But the remaining Contrariant’s opposition [later led from France] is one thing. More dangerous, at the moment, was the growing resistance against the avariciousness and maffia like practices of the Despensers , with the blessing of the King. People,not only his magnates, but also lower born, got more and more fed up with the bad rule, the injustice and King’s favouritism towards the Despensers, who ruled in Edward’s name as if they were the King. But that was not enough: King Edward, champion in making enemies in those days [which proved to be tragic], even managed to estrange a part of the higher clergy from him, driving some of them right in the arms of the Contrariants inspired resistance.  I mention the Bishops Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, John Droxford, bishop of Bath and Wells, Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, John Statford, bishop of Winchester Stratford, John Hothum, bishop of Ely and William Airmyn, bishop of Norwich 
Not a clever chess player, King Edward II…….
2 Tensions with France:
As if the problems at home were not enough , to make things worse [poor King Edward II……], in 1324 Edward II quarreled
big time  with his brother in law, [his wife Isabella’s brother], King Charles IV  They had a serious row over Gascony [the land in France, the Plantagenet Kings had inherited via their ancestor Eleanor of Aquitaine. For that land they had to do homage for the French King for their lands, the French King being their liegelord in France, but that homage always was a source for tension between England and France]  Edward also had to pay homage for Ponthieu, which was his inheritance from his mother, Eleanor of Castile, countess of Ponthieu in her own right.  ANYWAY WAR BROKE OUT OVER THE QUESTION GASCONY.  This war had far reaching consequences for the relation between Edward II and his wife Isabella, the sister of Charles IV.
Because Edward II did a ”great thing” …….. During the war, ordered the arrest of any French persons in England and seized Isabella’s lands, on the basis that she was of French origin……
Given the fact, that those measures were unfair anyway, since the French in England, nor the Queen, were NOT responsible for the measures of the French King, it was utterly unfair to Isabella, who, until now, had been a loyal Queen to Edward. Her life was not made much easier, by this, added to the fact, that favourite Hugh Despenser was [seemingly] the TOP priority for Edward and the Despensers did not allow ANYONE alone with the King, even not his wife……
But back to the war: At a certain moment, it was agreed, that negociations would take place between Edward II and Charles IV.
To perform them, Edward II sent his wife Isabella, sister of Charles IV, to France [which proved to be desastrous later]  who started the negociations late march 1325. She did the best she could, but it proved to be difficult.
Charles IV insisted, that Edward II came to France to pay homage for Gascony and Ponthieu. And don’t underestimate it: That homage thing was very serious: When one failed, the lands were forfeited to the liege lord, in this case, Charles IV.  So homage was necessary.
Now Edward II had a huge problem. He could not leave England like that, since the growing unrest in the country, stemming from the unpopularity of the Edward II/Despenser rule. But that was not the only worry of Edward II.
One can safely say, that at that moment [apart from his children], Hugh Despenser the Younger perhaps was the most important person in Edward’s life. He depended strongly upon him, both political and emotional. Now there was a clear chance, that without Edward II’s protection, Hugh and his father risked to be killed in an uprising.
But taking Hugh with him to France was no option either, since Hugh was hated there because of his piracy [during his banishment during the Despenser War] and risked to be arrested. 
So it was an enormous dilemma for Edward, which he tried to solve by sending his son Edward of Windsor [ [the later Edward III, whom his father had made duke of Aquitaine and count of Ponthieu] to pay homage in his father’s place.
Was that a wise decision? NO Because now the successor to the throne was out of his father’s control and under the influence of his mother Isabella [he was 12 years old], who had an agenda of her own…..
Yet Edward II had no other options……
Because when nether he nor his son would pay homage, his lands would be forfeited, as I have pointed out above.
3 Isabella in France/Refusal to return to England
Well, Edward of Windsor, the 12 year old son of Edward II, payed homage in september 1325 , but then the mess really began. Because apparently Edward II expected his wife and son to come back to England and Isabella refused, pointing out, that she wanted Hugh Despenser removed from Court. Out in the open she accused her husband from supposedly having a romantic and sexual relationship with Hugh. In France she held a speech, stating ”’”I feel that marriage is a joining together of man and woman, maintaining the undivided habit of life, and that someone has come between my husband and myself trying to break this bond; I protest that I will not return until this intruder is removed, but discarding my marriage garment, shall assume the robes of widowhood and mourning until I am avenged of this Pharisee.”  She made quite a show by dressing like a widow, since Hugh Despenser had come beteen her and her husband. 
Her refusal to return to her husband was, of course, a scandal in those Medieval times.
Some sources suggest, that the intention of her speech was, that she wanted to save her marriage and to go back to her husband, when he would send Despenser away, while others say, that she knew quite well, that the King would refuse and that she used it as a pretext to side with his enemies and depose him.
Now I can’t read Queen Isabella’s mind [no one can], but I think that whatever her intentions, she could have known that Edward would never send Despenser away….
Anyway, whatever Isabella wanted, felt or planned, Edward made it perfectly clear, that sending Hugh away would NEVER going to happen. 
AND THEN IT BECAME QUITE A SHOW BETWEEN EDWARD AND ISABELLA, HAHAHA
Learning, that his wife refused to come back [since HE refused to send his favourite Hugh Despenser away], Edward began to write a series of letters, to the Pope and King Charles IV of France, urging his concern about his wife’s absence, but to no avail.  Charles IV protected his sister, replying: ‘The queen has come of her will, and may freely return if she so wishes. But if she prefers to remain in these parts, she is my sister, and I will not detain her.’  [Wikipedia mentions not ”detain” but ”expel”] 
Edward II, in reaction of Isabella’s refusal return to him , cut off her expenses in mid-November 1325, and, short of funds, the queen was forced to borrow 1000 Paris livres from Charles IV on 31 December. 
Edward II wrote his last-ever letter to Isabella on 1 December 1325, ordering her home and claiming that he was suffering badly from her ‘so very long absence’. This letter contained [certainly to the annoyment of Isabella!] endlessly long justifications for Hugh Despenser the Younger’s behaviour.  Edward wrote simulateous letters to his son Edward of Windsor, Charles IV and numerous French magnates and bishops. 
Edward defended Hugh Despenser also before before the parliament which began at Westminster – the last one he ever held – on 18 November 1325. 
If there were tabloids in those days, what a sensational stories they could have written. HAHAHAHAHA
Contrariants, with a vengeance!/Roger Mortimer
We have met Roger Mortimer already, the powerful Marcher Lord and ally of Thomas of Lancaster in the Despenser war, imprisoned in the Tower and escaped in 1323, fled to France. 
Probably between october 1325 and february 1326, Isabella associated herself with Roger Mortimer. 
In and around february 1326 , that Edward II complained that his queen was ‘adopting the counsel’ of Roger Mortimer and his allies on the Continent  [meaning other English noblemen and knights who had joined the 1321/22 Contrariant rebellion against the king and the Despensers and who fled the country after the Contrariant defeat at the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322, where Thomas of Lancaster was captured and the Earl of Hereford was killed in battle] Of course it was obvious, that taken from Edward II’s and medieval point of view, this act of Isabella was treason and he was right to complain.
There is often suggested, that she already had associated herself with him in England and even helped him escape from the Tower. Possible, I don’t know
What I DO know is, that they associated in France and would stay allies until the end. Were they lovers, as is usually assumed?  Probably: In each case, they were very closely associated, but of course there is no proof for a romance, as there is no proof for the romantic relationship of Edward II with Hugh Despenser, [although Edward II with Hugh Despenser seems seems yet more probable, since the intense need of Edward for this guy, defending him against all odds….]
Be as it may, Isabella associated herself with Roger and other Contariants as Sir William Trussel , a die hard ally of Thomas of Lancaster and soon her environment became a circle for the resistance against the Edward II Despensers rule.
To cut a long story short. The ”Court” of Isabella became a centre of the resistance against the Edward II/Despenser rule, including King’s own halfbrother, the Earl of Kent : In order to do that, they had to invade England. So Isabella and Roger went to Hainault [part of modern Belgium], where her son Edward of Windsor [the later Edward III] was bethroted to the daughter of the Count of Hainault with as a ”dowry”, ships, mercenaries and cash to invade England.  Which they did on september 1326. Alas for King Edward II, they were received with great approval and his support crumbled almost immediately. One of the main causes was the joining with the rebels [Isabella and Roger] of Henry of Lancaster, brother of the executed Thomas of Lancaster [at the moment of the invasion, Henry was only Earl of Leicester] , he was, to put it mildly, certainly no friend of the Despensers. The cause of that may be clear: The Despensers were the main force behind the execution of his brother Thomas, although not the only ones.  Also [must be very painful for the King], King’s other halfbrother [and full brother of the Earl of Kent] abandoned the King and joined the rebels.
Almost deserted by everybody [with special thanks to the Despenser’s evil councils, although it was Edward II’s choice to favourite them], the King and the Despensers fled London, westwards with the King. Despenser the Elder tried to defend Bristol, but had to surrender himself. 
After a mock trial [a parody of that of Thomas of Lancaster]
he was condemned to be hanged, drawn and quatered [horrible!] on the orders of Roger Mortimer, Queen Isabella, Henry of Lancaster and others. 
The King and Hugh Despenser [his great favourite],
fled west and tried to sail to Lundy, a small island off the Devon coast, but failed, because of the weather  and were captured at South Wales by the forces of Henry
of Lancaster. 
The King went to Kenilworth, the castle of Henry of Lancaster, who was ordered to hold him in custody and treated him very courteously, according to his royal rank 
But poor Hugh Despenser was treated totally otherwise:
After a horribly humiliating journey to Hereford, where Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer were waiting for him. Actually, Queen Isabella wanted him to be executed in London [because of course he was a fair trial], but since he tried to starve himself to death [poor man], she was afraid he would not make London. Therefore his ”trial” in Hereford with his horrible execution, to be hanged, drawn and quarted” This gruesome execution took place on 24 november 1326. 
I can imagine the immense grief Edward II must have felt: First the execution of Hugh’s father, Hugh Despenser the Elder  and a month later the execution of his favourite Hugh, whom he had defended unconditionally, whatever the consequences. It must have been devastating to him.
As if that were not enough, he had to face an immense humiliation, his deposition as a King. For us, modern people, it’s hard to understand what pain he must have been through. Because deposing a King was unprecendented in English history [as far as we know], the Kingship was divine  and was supposed to end with the death of the King. But of course the new de facto rulers, Isabella and Mortimer, had this huge problem. Edward II was still King in name, but beaten, powerless and imprisoned. So to execute power de jure , they had to get rid of him as a King. So the whole thing was orchestrated. Adam Orleton, the Bishop of Hereford, strong supporter of Isabella and Mortimer, since the King had alienated him by his unfunded accusations of siding with the Contraraints , made a series of public allegations about Edward’s conduct as king, and in January 1327 a parliament convened at Westminster at which the question of Edward’s future was raised Edward II refused to attend the gathering;
To cut a long story short: After consent of the leading barons and the clergy, in january 1327 a representative delegation of barons, clergy and knights was sent to Kenilworth to speak to the King. Probably under thtreat [the story is told, that if he were to resign as monarch, his son Prince Edward would succeed him, but if he failed to do so, his son might be disinherited as well, and the crown given to an alternative candidate] , the King abdicated.  His reign was formally ended, when Sir William Trussell, a strong adherer of Thomas of Lancaster, representing the kingdom as a whole, withdrew his homage. 
Edward of Windsor, son of Edward II, was the new King. He crowned in february, 1327 as King Edward III.  Henry of Lancaster, his father’s cousin, was appointed as ”chief advisor” of King Edward III. 
His father was the first English King, who was deposed.
Edward II From Kenilworth to Berkeley Castle
During his custody under his cousin Henry of Lancaster [brother of Thomas of Lancaster] he was treated with all honour, due to a King. But, doubtless to the regret of Edward II, this was not going to last, since there were a number of plots to free him. Therefore the new rulers [his son Edward III was only King in name] probably for security reasons, removed Edward from his cousin Henry to another location, Berkeley Castle.  Whereas Edward enjoyed an honourable treatment at his cousin Henry’s Castle, it is not clear, what treatment he got in Berkeley Castle.
His custodians were Thomas Berkeley [son in law of Roger Mortimer]  and his [Thomas’] brother in law, John Maltravers, who sided with the Marcher Lords in the Despenser War and fought at the side of Thomas of Lancaster in the last decisive battle, the Battle of Boroughbridge., after which he fled abroad, to return to England with Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer in 1326. 
Now I have not the faintest idea, what treatment Edward II got in Berkeley Castle. According to some sources he was often mistreated , other sources doubt it. 
Well, perhaps he was not mistreated, but I have an idea, that his treatment was totally different than at his cousin Henry’s Castle, since he was surrounded by his enemies.
For whatever grudge Henry -probably- held against Edward II because of the execution of his brother Thomas, being his royal cousin he must have had a thorough respect of monarchy and after all, he was a less hardliner than his brother and almost certainly no enemy of Edward [in contrary with his brother], at least not before the execution of his brother.
With Berkeley and Maltravers, I think it was another matter….
For Isabella and Roger Mortimer their problems were not over, since new plots arose to free former King Edward II. What happened then in Berkeley Castle is not clear, but at 23 September Edward III was informed that his father had died at Berkeley Castle during the night of 21 September. 
Generally accepted by fourtheenth century chroniclers was that Edward II died indeed in Berkeley Castle at 21 september, some wrote that he was murdered, while there were chroniclers who thought that he died from natural causes.  However, a majority, as the most historians, are in agreement, that he probably was murdered, , what is quite a logical assumption, since a natural death seemed to be too ”convenient” dor the de facto rulers and it was clear, that Edward formed a security risk and a source of fear.
What as the adherents of Edward succeeded in their attempts to free him and he was restored to power again, revoked his abdication and doubtless would take mercilessly revenge on those, who executed the Despensers? Exactly, Isabella and her ally/favourite and likely lover, Roger Mortimer!
About the possible murder of Edward II a horrifying story circulated, which was lontime widely believed, that he was murdered by a ”red hot poker” [see for details under note 660] But now it is commonly believed by historians as a complete invention. 
DIDN’T EDWARD II DIE IN BERKELEY CASTLE, BUT MUCH LATER
Now obviously, in the Middle Ages and in our times, celebrity stories are celebrity stories and tend to be fantastic [however it CAN be the truth] Fantastic tales about contemporary as historical celebrities, like Kings, who were not the sons of their fathers, however fancied , change of babies or children , etc, etc, are from all times and places and will always excite people.
So it would seem a matter of time when a story rose, that Edward II not died at Berkeley at all, but somehow escaped [or was freed], went abroad and lived long after that. But there is a minority of historians, who believe this seemingly fantastic story and support it with evidence, they have found. However, it is not convincing to me yet, but under note 664 I present to you some articles. Judge for yourself.
But no matter how and when he died and whether he was murdered or not, to me, Edward II was a tragic character, who was emotionally dependent on men, yet had to marry to secure the line of succession. And his deep feelings towards men, sexually or not, which explained his dangerous and silly favouritism, led to his downfall. I am not saying here that he had no feelings at all for Isabella. There are plenty occasions where he proved his respect and affection for her.  But I am nearly convinced, that his deepest feelings were not for her, as he clearly showed in his loves for Piers Gaveston and especially Hugh Despenser, whom he refused to send away from him, despite Isabella’s pleas.
That absolute loyalty to his favourites was his weakness, but makes him sympathetic in my eyes [only that aspect, NOT his clear vindictiveness and merciless conduct, especially after the Despenser War], as his affinities for common people, and his generosity. 
An inadequate [to put it mildly] military leader and ruler. But also a man, capable of great loves.
A pity, that he ended so tragically, whether murdered or died at Berkeley, whether escaped and died faraway, losing his dearest friend Hugh, without ever seeing his children again and never knowing his grandchildren……
Now about the Despensers, who were [not to exclude of course the King’s own responsibility!] the main persons, responsible for Edward II”s and tragically also their own downfall:
HUGH DESPENSER THE ELDER
One thing I must say to the defence of Hugh Despenser the Elder: He is one of the rare magnates, who were loyal to Edward II from start to finish,  in contrary with his son Hugh, who in his early years had followed the political line of his maternal uncle, Guy de Beauchamp, the 10th Earl Warwick, one of the executioners of Piers Gaveston. of Warwick, one of the executioners of Piers Gaveston……  YEAH Rather surprisingly, seen in the light of the 1320’s…….. Loyal to Edward I and serving him on numerous cases on battles , Hugh Despenser the Elder was likewise to his son and successor, Edward II. As a reward for Despenser’s loyal service and to settle a debt, Edward I owed him, he [Edward I] married his granddaughter Eleanor de Clare  to Despenser’s son, Hugh, the later favourite of Edward II. 
Despenser the Elder was by the way one of the few barons, who remainedloyal to Edward during the controversy regarding Piers Gaveston. So Despenser became Edward’s loyal servant and chief administrator after the execution [by the barons] of Piers Gaveston. 
And there ends the credit I give to Hugh Despenser the Elder: It has been said over and over again: Hugh the Elder and his son were nearly abnormally avarious and it was one great show of landgrabbing, extortioning and imprisoning people [in order to get their lands from them] and further misuse of power. They even managed to give no one access to the King [especially in the 1320’s, when they were at the top of their power], unless one of them attended.  Even Queen Isabella was victim to that dangerous nonsense.  It comes as no surprise that they became the most hated men in England! 
That show all began, when Hugh’s son, also ”Hugh” was appointed as royal chamberlain in 1317 and somehow managed to charm his way to the top.  Because of their avariciousness and their violation of the rights of the Marcher Lords and Despenser’s robbing of his own brothers in law [the husbands of his sisters in law], the former favourites of the King [Roger d’Amory and Hugh de Audley] , The Despenser war started, with the King, his adherents and the Despensers at one side and the Marcher Lords and King’s turbulent cousin Thomas of Lancaster at the other side.  The Despensers were initially exiled [the demand of the Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster], but later revoked. The King was successful, the Marcher Lords surrendered, his cousin Thomas of Lancaster and approximately nineteen or twenty two adherents were executed in 1322.  Those executions were preceded by either mock trials or no trial at all. In the case of Thomas of Lancaster, a mock trial took place in his own, favourite Castle of Pontefract with as ”judges”, his cousin King Edward II, of course the Despensers and others [ the earls of Kent, Pembroke, Richmond, Surrey, Arundel, the Scottish earls of Angus and Atholl and the justice Robert Malberthorpe] 
The Ordinances [curbing the royal power], to which Thomas of Lancaster had given his heart, were revoked in may 1322 and nothing stood in the way of the reign of terror, Edward II and the Despensers established.  And in 1322, Despenser the Elder was created Earl of Winchester. 
Eventually, due to tensions with France, Queen Isabella [who had suffered by the King’s favouritism of Despenser the Younger] left for France as a mediator between Edward II and her brother, Charles IV.  She did not come back, associated herself with Roger Mortimer [the most powerful Marcher Lord and ally of Thomas of Lancaster, who, Mortimer I mean, had escaped from the Tower of London]. They invaded England in 1326, captured the King and Hugh Despenser the Younger and put an end to that terror regime. 
That’s the history. Before capturing the King however, Hugh Despenser the Elder, who tried to defend Bristol, surrendered Bristol Castle to Isabella and Mortimer.
He was given a mock trial by Mortimer, Isabella, Henry of Lancaster [who had scores to settle with the Despensers….]and a few others at Bristol Castle in October 1326, in what was clearly intended as a parody of Thomas of Lancaster’s trial.
Gory detail: He was hanged in his armour, his head was sent to Winchester on a spear, and his body was cut up and fed to dogs…
Edmund Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, one of the executioners of King’s favourite Piers Gaveston  [together with the 10th Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Hereford and Thomas of Lancaster], who later completely changed sides and became loyal to the King. He was one of the ”judges”, who condemned Thomas of Lancaster, his former ”partner in evil” [execution of Piers Gaveston] to death……  To his credit however must be said, that he stayed loyal to Edward II till the end and fled with him and Hugh Despenser the Younger [his close relation by marriage, since his son was married with Despenser’s eldest daughter Isabel] to Wales. In November 1326, Edmund was captured by John Charlton, who had been Edward II’s chamberlain until 1318.
Edmund was beheaded, almost certainly without a trial, on 17 November 1326, probably at Hereford, though one chronicle says Shrewsbury.
Two of Edmund’s friends, John Daniel and Thomas [or Robert] de Micheldever, were executed with him…….
Horrible, all those executions…..
Hugh Despenser the Younger
Despenser the Elder’s son, another ”Hugh”, was the great favourite of King Edward II. Originally following the political line of his uncle [brother of his mother Isabella de Beauchamp, married Despenser], the 10th Earl of Warwick [one of the executioners of Edward II’s favourite Piers Gaveston] , nevertheless he was appointed to royal chamberlain in the autumn of 1318  and somehow managed to charm himself into the favour of Edward II. Now the function of royal chamberlain was an extremely powerful one. since the chamberlain controlled access, physical and written, to the king and the physical proximity and the frequent contact gave Despenser a real advantage to become ”intimate” with the King [whether physical or not].
Be it as it may: Despenser became the second great favourite of Edward II, after Piers Gaveston and he could do almost anything and yet hold the King’s favour.
The Despenser war [the name says enough] was fought because of him [reason: his and his father’s extreme avariciousness and ambition, disadvantaging the other nobles, especially the Marcher Lords] , leading to his [and his father’s] banishment, but revoked by Edward as soon as possible.
Edward held on to his extreme attachment to him, against the pleas of his estranged wife Isabella [from France], to send him away, as we have seen in my writings above.
His and his father’s [rising with his son’s power] avariousness and numerous crimes in the 1320’s after the Despenser war was won by the King and the Ordinances [the great cause of Thomas of Lancaster] were revoked and all their enemies were either dead, imprisoned or exiled, led to his downfall.
After the invasion in september 1326 of Queen Isabella and her ally [lover] Roger Mortimer and the support of Edward II was crumbling down [mainly because of the hatred against the Despensers], theDespenser game was over.
His father Hugh was captured in Bristol and executed after a mock trial, a parody of the trial and execution of Thomas of Lancaster  and Hugh and the King were captured in South Wales by the forces of Henry of Lancaster [brother of the executed Thomas of Lancaster, who immediately had taken the sides of Isabella and Roger Mortimer against King Edward II and the Despensers]  and Hugh Despenser’s fate was sealed.
Poor vain man, who overplayed his hands….
It was now all suffering, to the end: Significant: It was reported by several chroniclers that, since the capture, Hugh had refused all food and water in an attempt to try and starve himself to death before his execution. 
Now I can’t resist to point out the following: Hugh Despenser was captured at 16 november, and executed on the 24th. Now it IS possible, that someone can manage without food for eight days [in a very weakened state, the maximum seems three weeks], but it is impossible not to DRINK for eight days. The maximum without drink [and then you are from the world already] seems to be a week.  But complete with hallicunations, complete weakness. So no way Despenser should have made a journey from South Wales to Hereford [where they brought him in a rather fast time, between eight days] and survived….
So he will have refused FOOD and survived the journey, but not drink.
His journey was utterly humiliating and he was accompanied to Hereford by Henry de Leyburne [who had fought for Thomas of Lancaster in the last Battle of Boroughbridge] and Robert de Stangrave and they made sure that it was a journey from hell. 
Factually, Queen Isabella wished to have Hugh executed in London, but apparently because of his weakness [the hungerstrike], Hereford was decided for the ”trial” and place of execution.
When he arrived in Hereford, of course, horrible, new humiliations were the poor man’s fate 
At last, he faced his ”trial” at the marketplace in Hereford:
His ”judges” were Henry, earl of Lancaster, the earl of Kent [ironic! Kent also was, together with the Despensers, one of the ”judges” in the trial of Thomas of Lancaster…], Roger de Mortimer and others 
As had happened at the trial of Thomas of Lancaster in 1322, Hugh was not permitted to speak in his defence. 
And the outcome was, of course predictable, since revenge [from Isabella and Roger Mortimer against Despenser, from Henry of Lancaster against Despenser] was the case here.
Hugh was sentenced to the traitors death: To be hanged, drawn and quartered and he suffered the whole horror of that sentence……
Sir William Trussel, strong adherer of Thomas of Lancaster, who had fought at his side at the Battle of Boroughbridge ‘fled to France and returned with Isabella and Roger Mortimer]  read out the charges against Hugh Despenser 
And the outcome was, of course predictable, since revenge [from Isabella and Roger Mortimer against Despenser, from Henry of Lancaster against Despenser] was the case here.
Hugh was sentenced to the traitors death:  To be hanged, drawn and quartered and he suffered the whole horror of that sentence……
At 24 november 1326  Together with him also Simon Reading, a rather unknown man, who was captured together with Despenser and the King and whose ”crime” seemed to have been [he got no trial] to have ”insulted” the Queen, was hanged. 
That was the hideous end of Hugh Despenser the Younger, the great favourite of Edward II.
What a death. Whatever he had done, no he didn’t deserves to die like that. No one deserves to die like that.
”WE BOW TO NO MAN……..”
And now about Roger Mortimer, powerful Marcher Lord and ally of Thomas of Lancaster. How fared he?
The story is known about the Despenser war Roger, Thomas and their allies fought out against the Despensers and ultimately King Edward II, I wrote it already extensively in chapter six and seven.
A powerful Marcher Lord, Initially loyal to the King, being King’s Lieutenant and Justiciar in Ireland , Roger Mortimer came into rebellion, together with his uncle Roger Mortimer de Chirk and many others, because of Edward II´s extreme favouritism of the Despensers, which disadvantaged the Marcher Lords.  This resulted in the Despenser war in which the Marcher Lords destroyed Despenser lands , but also attacked, pillaged and extortioned innocents, with as main victims poor villagers ¨ They formed a close alliance with Thomas of Lancaster, who was yearlong in opposition against his cousin and King. At the end, Thomas of Lancaster was defeated in the Battle of Boroughbridge on 16 march 1322 and executed on 22 march 1322 after a mock trial , with so many others also executed (not always after a ´´trial, . Roger Mortimer and his uncle de Chirk, who were already complelled to surrender in january 1322 , were imprisoned at the Tower of London. BUT IN 1323 ROGER MORTIMER ESCAPED!  SPECTACULAR!
One of the few who ever escaped the Tower of London! He fled to France and there he met other Contrariants (rebels against the King in the Despenser war), who fled England after the defeat at Boroughbridge.
SO FAR, SO GOOD!
But Mortimer was an ambitious man, who wanted his power, position and lands back. That was only possible with a military victory against the King, which meant a military invasion of England. Now for him, that step was not so great. He had rebelled against his king before.
But the main problem: With whom to associate, who enabled him to raise an army and for whom the people in England were prepare to fight?
Question, question, untill Queen Isabella arrived in France in 1325, for mediating between her husband Edward II and brother King Charles IV in their military conflict over Gascony  She DID mediate, but then did not return to England under the pretext (or perhaps she really meant it, which is more likely) that Hugh Despenser had ruined her marriage (as if he did that singlehanded, without the passionate cooperation of Edward II) and that she would not return to England unless Edward would send him away  Of course he refused (she could have known that before….) infatuated with the man as he was. 
To cut a long story short Isabella and Mortimer associated with each other, probably as lovers (or perhaps that came later), but chiefly for having a strong common interest, certainly now the successor to the throne, prince Edward (who payed homage over Gascony and Ponthieu instead of his father Edward II) was in France under his mother´s guard.
Mortimer alone could not go to England and demand the throne for prince Edward. But Isabella, his ally änd possible lover, and the mother of the successor to the throne, could and, presenting her as a Lady in distresss, put aside by her husband, who preferred his favourite, would do for the people to fight for her….. CLEVER, VERY CLEVER
So Isabella promised to marry her son Edward to Philippa, daughter of the Count of Hainault. As a ´´dowry´´ she got the necessary troops, cash and merecenaries  and she and Mortimer invaded England in september 1326. The support for Edward II was now crumbling down, his cousin Henry of Lancaster (brother of Thomas of Lancaster) and his halfbrother the Earl of Norfolk  [his other halfbrother and full brother of the Earl of Norfolk, the Earl of Kent, had already joined Isabella and Mortimer in France)  abandoned him and at the end, Edward II was captured together with his favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger. The Despensers were hideously executed…..
Edward was compelled to abdicate in january 1327 in favour of his son  who became Edward III, but for the moment, only ruler in name (until 1330) Isabella and Mortimer were the de facto rulers..
AND NOW POWER WAS ISABELLA´S AND ROGER MORTIMER’S!
Because of the period of tyranny of Edward II and the Despensers, Isabella and Mortimer were received as heroes and saviours of the nation and in the beginning it must have seemed for many people, that better times had come: But soon they would be disappointed
But first: Apart from the hideous executions of the Despensers and the executions of some of their adherents [like the Earl of Arundel], some good things turned out of this invasion. Many people, imprisoned by the Despensers, were pardoned  and doubtless to the satisfaction of Henry of Lancaster and the former adherents of his brother Thomas [and remember, Roger Mortimer had been Thomas’ ally during the Despenser war], the trial of Thomas was reversed 
AND: Henry, who had petitioned for his brothers Earldoms and got Leicester back in 1324  [but NOT the rest of his Earldoms, which were forfeited, since Thomas was executed as a traitor], was restored in his brother’s Earldoms and now officially the Earl of Lancaster.  In 1327, Henry also was made chief of the Council of Regency [since King Edward III was a minor, yet] 
In september 1327, former King Edward II died at Berkeley Castle, probably murdered , although some modern historians presume that he escaped and lived years and years abroad.  Be as it may: Young King Edward III believed his father was murdered, since that was one of the charges against Roger Mortimer in 1330. 
REIGN OF ISABELLA AND ROGER MORTIMER/TERROR, AGAIN!
The rather abrupt death of King Edward II casted, of course, a shadow on their reign, but there was more: If people had hoped, all things would be better with the Despensers gone, they were mistaken! There was a new terror reign, this time not the Despenser terror, but the Isabnella and Mortimer terror. In fact, there was a new ”favourite” in the land, Hugh Despenser, favourite of former King Edward Ii, was simply replaced by Roger Mortimer, favourite of Queen Isabella….. The pair was abnormally avaricious, worse than the Despensers ever had been and their political opponents suffered prison and execution too.  They rewarded themselves [and family] with vast estates and the expenses of the royal treasury and in 1328 Roger Mortimer was made the Earl of March.
Moreover they made peace with Scotland, which made them very unpopular. 
This and their avariciousness led to great discontentment in the lands and their allies began to desert them. The first was Henry of Lancaster, who had enough of the ”tyranny”,among else since the Council of Regency [from which he was chief] was de facto ousted out of power. He raised an army against the Mortimer/Isabella regime in 1328, since like his brother Thomas before, he had many armed man at his disposal, but he failed, although he was spared from death. But in exchange for the ”mercy” of Isabella and Mortimer, he had to pay a very huge fine…… Apparently, Henry resembled his brother Thomas’ rebellious nature more than it had seemed in the past…..
So discontent with Isabella and Mortimer grew day by day and more former adherents abandoned them. 
THE EARL OF KENT DRAMA:
As if they were not unpopular enough, the Isabella and Mortimer pair executed the King’s uncle, Edmund of Woodstock, the Earl of Kent. 
This Earl of Kent had interesting ”life and times”: Halfbrother of King Edward II, he, together with the Despensers [and others] had been one of the ”judges” in the mock trial against Thomas of Lancaster , later went to the Pope to promote the very Thomas’ canonization …… He took part in the rebellion of Isabella and Mortimerf against his halfbrother King Edward II. And to make the story complete: He was one of the ”judges” at the mock trial of Hugh Despenser the Elder  and present at the trial against Hugh Despenser the Younger  The same men with whom he sentenced Thomas of Lancaster to death…. Speaking from ”switching sides”………
ANYWAY: What lead to Kent’s execution:
After apparently have participated in the failed rebellion of Henry of Lancaster [Thomas’ brother] against Isabella and Mortimer  [and, as Henry, been spared by the Isabella/Mortimer regime], it was not over yet and Kent played a far more dangerous game:
He became involved in another plot against the Isabella/Mortimer pair , when he was convinced by rumours that his halfbrother was still alive…..
According to some historians, the whole ”Edward II is still alive” thing, was a set up by Roger Mortimer to lure Kent into a trap to commit treason against his nephew, the present King, Edward III  Some modern historians allege, that in fact Edward II WAS still alive and that somehow Kemt had got some proof of that 
Be as it may [I let the reader judge for him or herself], whether Kent was naive and gullible enough to believe that the dead Edward II was not dead after all or that Edward II REALLY lived, it is to be praised in Edmund, Earl of Kent, that he tried to free his halfbrother, former King Edward II.
Needless to say, that Roger and Isabella were not pleased at all:
Poor Earl of Kent was executed at 19 march 1330…..
But at the end, this worked all wrong for Roger Mortimer, since the death of Kent was one of the charges against him in 1330…..
Since Kent had that high royal status [son of late king Edward I, halfbrother of former king Edward II and uncle of present king Edward III]  the executioner was unwilling to take part in the judicial murder of a king’s son and fled, and so the unfortunate Kent had to wait around in his shirt for many hours until a common felon under sentence of death was offered his freedom if he agreed to wield the axe……. 
THE LION AWAKES SWAN SONG/NOTTINGHAM CASTLE/DOWNFALL
””Whereas the king’s affairs and the affairs of his realm have been directed until now to the damage and dishonour of him and his realm and to the impoverishment of his people, as he has well perceived and as the facts prove*, wherefore he has, of his own knowledge and will, caused certain persons to be arrested, to wit the earl of La Marche [i.e. Roger Mortimer], Sir Oliver de Ingham, and Sir Simon de Bereford, who have been principal movers of the said affairs, and he wills that all men shall know that he will henceforth govern his people according to right and reason, as befits his royal dignity**, and that the affairs that concern him and the estate of his realm shall be directed by the common counsel of the magnates of the realm and in no other wise…” 
Proclamation of King Edward III, the day after the arrest of Roger Mortimer 
I wrote it before: People became more and more fed up with the Isabella and Mortimer terror and the execution of the Earl of Kent, King’s uncle, was probably the last straw. But there was more to it.
Young King Edward III, who was untill now the ‘puppet king” in the hands of his mother and Roger Mortimer, grew more and more dissatisfied about this state of affair.
And I can state safely here, that the execution of his uncle, Earl of Kent, did NOT have Edward III’s consent, since one of the later charges against Roger Mortimer was procuring the death of King Edward III’s uncle, the said Earl of Kent. 
To cut a long story short:
King Edward III was fed up with Mortimer [probably he suspected him Mortimer already of the alleged murder on his father, since that also was one of the charges held against Mortimer]  Likely the last straw was the birth of his eldest son, the later ”Black Prince” in june 1330 
So the King Edward III, with the help of his dearest and closest friend, William Montecute [son of the former favourite of Edward II, William Montecute, who formed a ”triumvirate” together with the two other favourites, Roger Damory and Hugh Audley]  and other companions of his [Edward III’s] age, made a clever plan, that was very well prepared. Although spontaneous by nature, probably Edward had planned some sort of movement against Mortimer all along [which was difficult enough to execute, since Isabella and Mortimer had spies in his household]
AND IT WAS SPECTACULAR!
Mortimer and Isabella were at Nothingham Castle and there the show began:
Via a secret tunnel [likely Isabella and Mortimer were not aware of that] Edward III, his close friend Montecute and his other loyal knights entered the Castle and Isabella and Mortimer, who were in conference with their few adherents left, were totally surprised and Roger was arrested, despite [according to the chroncicles] Isabella was supposed to have pleaded for him: ‘Fair son, have pity on gentle [translated as ”from noble birth”] Mortimer” 
The reign of Edward III now de facto [Latin for ”in fact”] had started.
Mortimer was imprisoned in the Tower of London until his trial on 26 November.  But ”trial” is a too big word for what really happened: Like of Thomas of Lancaster and the Despensers, Roger was not permitted to speak in his own defence when he was taken before Parliament at Westminster. He was charged with fourteen crimes, including: the murder of Edward II; procuring the death of Edward’s half-brother Kent; and taking royal power and using it to enrich himself, his children and his supporters. 
Of course, Roger was found guilty of these crimes, and ‘many others’, by notoriety, that is, his crimes were ‘notorious and known for their truth to you and all the realm’. 
He was convicted to be ”hanged, drawn and quartered” [the ”traitors death”], but King Edward III showed himself merciful and commuted his punishment to ”merely” hanging. 
He was executed at Tyburn, the first nobleman to be hanged there. Tyburn was the execution site for common criminals, and hanging was the method used to dispatch them. Noblemen were usually beheaded. 
But obviously, Edward III wanted him to be executed as a common criminal.
Some of the young knights who supported and aided Edward III during his coup were later rewarded with earldoms: William Montacute, with Salisbury  Robert Ufford, with Suffolk; William Clinton, with Huntingdon and so others 
DEATH AND ROYAL DESCENDANTS
And so passed Roger de Mortimer, 3rd baron de Mortimer, 1st Earl of March.  He had gambled for power and eventually lost.
But…….through the marriage of his greatgrandson Edmund, 3rd Earl of March, with the granddaughter of Edward III, Philippa [daughter of his son Lionel of Antwerp], Mortimer became the ancestor of Richard, Duke of York, his sons, the Plantagenet Kings Edward IV and Richard III and via Edward IV’s daughter, Elizabeth of York [wife of Henry Tudor, Henry VII and mother of Henry VIII], the ancestor of all subsequent monarchs in England! 
NO BAD CURRICULUM VITAE FOR A REBEL TO THE THRONE!
And now: Queen Isabella:
How fared she after the execution of her cousin by marriage and uncle [halfbrother of her mother Joan I of Navarre] Thomas of Lancaster? Much about her life I have written already: See above ”King Edward II” and ”Roger Mortimer”
To cut a long story short [at least an attempt…..]
ISABELLA INTO REBELLION
King Edward II clearly was totally infatuated with Hugh Despenser the Younger, and he and his father held such a power, that no one could access the King without one of them being present.  That also applied to Queen Isabella , what must have been very disconcerting to her. And her position further deteriorated, when, due to tensions with France and the outbroken war, Edward II reduced her income, seized her lands and treated her more like an enemy than his Queen.  Due to the fact it was difficult for Edward II to leave the country to pay homage for Gascony and Ponthieu [growing unrest and great unpopularity of the Despensers and subsequently, the King] , he sent Isabella to France to mediate between him and her brother Charles IV, King of France.  She did mediate, but stayed in France, made publicly known, not to return to England before Despenser was sent away from Court. 
Edward II and Isabella made from their marriage laughing stock by sending letters to each other [and to others], rejecting Hugh Despenser [Isabella] and defending him firmly [Edward II]  and at that time it became clear to Isabella [what she could have known from the start], that Edward II was NOT going to send dear Hugh away from him…..
When prince Edward [the later Edward III] came to pay homage for Gascony and Ponthieu instead of his father and now under his mother’s control, Isabella came into the position to pose a serious threat on her husband. In the meantime, she had began a cooperation [romantic or not] with escaped Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer and more and more fled Contrariants [rebels against King Edward II in the Despenser war and adherents of the Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster]
At the end, after promising her son Edward in marriage with the daughter of the Count of Hainault [and so getting the necessary military aid], Isabella and Mortimer invaded England, defeated Edward II [whose support was crumbling down into almost nothing], executed the Despensers in the style of Thomas of Lancaster [in mock trials]  and establising their power.
ISABELLA’S VINDICTIVENESS NOT TO FORGET/THREE LITTLE NUNS
Edward II had shown his vindictiveness against the women and children of the Contrariants after 1322 [defeat and execution of Thomas of Lancaster, which marked the end of the Despenser war] , but Isabella proved not to be better:
In january 1327, Isabella revenged herself on three little daughters of the late Hugh Despenser, by forcibly let them veiled to nuns.  Hugh’s eldest daughter escaped, since she was already married with Richard Fitzalan  the son of the executed Earl of Arundel [once one of the executioners of Piers de Gaveston, together with the 10th Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Hereford and Thomas of Lancaster, then returned to loyalty to Edward II and paid the highest price being beheaded by Isabella and Mortimer]  Hughs youngest daughter also escaped, being too young or still in her mother’s womb. 
Think! Their grandfather and father dead, brutally executed, their mother imprisoned  Bereaved from their hitherto priviliged state.
From Isabella’s side a low act of pure vindictiveness, to those innocent girls…..
The Isabella and Mortimer pair deposed King Edward II in favour of his son, now Edward III , poor King Edward II was imprisoned, first at his cousin Henry of Lancaster’s castle Kenilworth [treated with all honour and respect] , thereafter at Berkeley Castle [no idea how he was treated, but I guess less honourably] , where he officially died in september 1327, probably murdered  [some historians however think he survived and lived years later abroad] 
Discontentment grew, since Isabella and Mortuimer proved no better rulers than the Despensers and were more avaricious than even the Despensers had been. 
Edward III, who was King only in name, had enough of it and in october 1330 overthrew the power of Mortimer and his mother and had Mortimer executed in november 1330, among else on the charges of the murder of his father and the execution of his uncle, the Earl of Kent, halfbrother of his father. 
That was the end of Mortimer and the power of the Isabella/Mortimer pair…..
AFTER MORTIMER’S EXECUTION: ISABELLA
Whatever Edward III must have thought of possible accomplicity of Isabella in the [what he then thought] murder of his father, she was still his mother: In contrary with all dramatic stories, EDWARD III DID NOT LOCK UP HIS MOTHER FOREVER IN CASTLE RISING!  In fact, Edward held her out of the storm: In the charges against Mortimer, she was mentioned in only one charge: “the said Roger falsely and maliciously sowed discord between the father of our lord the King and the Queen his companion…the said Queen remained absent from her said lord, to the great dishonour of our lord the King and the said Queen his mother…” 
After Mortimer’s arrest, Isabella was taken to Berkhamsted Castle and placed under temporary house arrest., where she was treated with respect, due to her royal status. Later she lived at Windsor Castle and from 1332 in her own Castle Rising.  On 1 December, Isabella surrendered her vast estates into the hands of her son [many she had stolen to enrich herself], but Edward turned
to be very lenient with her and granted her an income of £3000 a year: “Grant for life, with the assent of Parliament, to queen Isabella of a yearly sum of 3,000l at the Exchequer to provide for her estate…” [in 1331 her estates, which belonged to HER, were given back to her, not what she had stolen]  This income was in fact higher than her income as reigning Queen. And considering that most people in England earned less than five pounds per year, and forty pounds qualified a man for knighthood, it was still a vast income by any standards. In 1337, it was raised to £4500.
So she lived a luxuriously life, returning to Castle Rising in 1332 , although her political influence and power was over.
And the relationship with her son Edward seemed to be well. In 1330, she passed Christmas with her son and likely her daughter in law and baby grandson, the later Black Prince, with whom she became very close. 
The death [execution] of Mortimer must have been very painful for her and perhaps she suffered a nervous breakdown , what some historians have suggested, but she was smart enough not to show any grief in public. [which was by the way highly uncommon by people of noble birth and certainly royals]
Anyway, she led a comfortable, but conventional life until her death, received visitors, had a regular contact with her son the King and especially with her favourite grandson Edward, the Black Prince, who visited her regularly and vice versa . Interesting too was, that she was often visited by the captive French King John II, son of her first cousin, who was the first Valois King, Philip VI [Philip VI’s father, Charles of Valois, was the brother of Philip IV, the Fair, father of Isabella]  The last period of her life her youngest daughter Joan, who had been married with David the Bruce [son of Robert the Bruce and King of the Scots, her grandfather Edward I would have exploded!], took care for her. 
Isabella died at 22 august 1358 at Hertford Castle.  At her request, she was buried with her wedding clothes.  Edward III visited his mother’s funeral, the convention that kings did not attend funerals belonging to later centuries, not the fourteenth. 
There are rumours, that she was also buried with the heart of Edward II, but that is not sure. 
Isabella left the bulk of her property to her favourite grandson, Edward the Black Prince and some of her belongings to her youngest daughter Joan, who nursed her the last period of her life. 
And so passed Isabella of France, daughter of Philip IV the Fair of France, wife of King Edward II and mother of King Edward III. A remarkable, tumultuous royal Lady, who broke with the conventions of her time to rebel openly against her Lord and husband…..
However, the story isn’t over yet: Because I can’t describe the life and times of Queen Isabella , without some thoughts about her marriage with Edward II:
How was the marriage of King Edward II and Queen Isabella of France? Well, there are conflicting opinions about that Some sources say, that this marriage was a disaster from day one [due to Edward II’s extreme favouritism of Piers Gaveston], but that version you mostly see by older historians and often in fiction. According to more, modern versions, it was a good and happy marriage until along came Hugh Despenser…….. [only in that case you can question WHY Hugh got such an emotional impact on the King, if his marriage was that good…..] And although modern writers don’t make of this marriage an extremely romantic thing, they tend to it, perhaps as a countraweight against the ”disaster” version. I think both versions are wrong. To my view, the marriage was a well working Medieval union at least from the death of Piers Gaveston until the coming of Hugh Despenser but not neccessarily loving.
Now nobody can’t possibly know how the marriage really was, since the only sources are the chronicle writers, who gave insight in that time and the lives of Edward II and Isabella, but were NOT in the royal bedchamber…. Medieval documents [letters, offiicial documents etc] are valuable, but the relationship between two persons, which is complex and can change, is, of course, not recorded. So the quality of their marriage remains a matter of interpretation.
Taken into consideration, that, bisexual [or homosexual] or not [a matter of interpretation, nobody can know for sure], Edward II had a strong, emotional need for male companions  and got at lengths [especially in the case of Gaveston and Despenser] to keep them at his side, that is no recipe for a good, succesfull and happy marriage,……
My view [but only a view] is that the marriage was NO disaster from day one, , ,neither a succesful, loving and happy marriage, but a well working Medieval union [four children, including the successor to the throne and his brother, John of Eltham], Isabella fulfillling her royal duties loyally, as trying to act as peacemaker and mediator, and Edward having a high regard of her, untill along came Hugh Despenser……..
That the marriage was not particulary loving and happy seems understandable, since it was arranged. But that is not the only explanation, since some arranged marriages [for example Edward I’s and Edward III’s, as Isabella of France’s father] were seemingly very happy.  No, another aspect was the Kings infatuation and obsession with Piers Gaveston [I can safely assume: HIS great love] and later Hugh Despenser.
How Isabella really thought about Gaveston, is not recorded, although it is often presented, that she loathed and hated him.
The only recorded source however is a letter she wrote, after Gaveston”s third exile to the receiver of Ponthieu “concerning the affairs of the earl of Cornwall.”  That was perhaps an indication, that she had agreed to help Gaveston in his exile, at least financially [interpretation on EdwardthesecondBlogspot and I can agree with that]  But I can’t see it as a proof, that she actually LIKED him. More as a possible indication, that she must be glad to have him out of the way and to make sure [from financial perspective] that he stayed where he was…..
After the arrival of Hugh Despenser in the royal favour however, from a working union, the marriage became a disaster, with Isabella leaving for France, invading England and the deposition of Edward II. I wrote it all above here.
But to say in the defence of Despenser: However reproachable his role into the marriage was, it was Edward II who made the choice to lay explosives under his marriage, not only becoming that infatuated with Hugh, but wanting to hold him at his side, no matter which plea of Isabella to send him away. 
That was HIS choice, not [only] the machinations of Hugh Despenser.
Was Edward a man, who led a ”great happy marriage” before Hugh’s coming? I don’t think so, since his extreme emotional dependence of men [Gaveston, and to lesser extent, the trumvirate Roger Damory, Hugh Audley and William Montecute]
Whether Isabella loved Edward on the great, happy, romantic way before Despenser, I can’t say. There is no proof of that, nor proof of the contrary.
But it takes two to make a happy and loving marriage….
To my opinion: A good and working union,after the death of Piers Gaveston and untill Hugh Despenser came. No more, no less.
HENRY OF LANCASTER
I vividly imagine a scene in, let’s say 1324, when Hugh Despenser the Younger meets Henry of Lancaster in the Westminster Palace.
With feigned friendliness he asks for Henry’s welfare and pretends some ”cordiality”, knowing full well, that Henry doesn’t like him at all. After all, he was one of the ”judges”, who condemned his brother Thomas to death in a mock trial in 1322…….
Despenser suggests, that although the death of his brother must have been painful for Henry, life goes on. After all, he was not that close to his brother?
”Forgiven and forgotten, my Lord brother?”  Despenser falsely asks: [Henry was married with Despenser’s maternal half sister Maud Chaworth] Henry, having no alternative, Despenser being the most powerful man in the land, responds
”Yes my Lord” and bows.
But when Despenser leaves, Henry’s face is stern and grief-stricken
Because whether close or not, Thomas after all WAS his brother.
So he mutters against the disappearing back of Despenser
”SEE YOU AROUND, BUDDY BOY. IT AIN’T OVER YET’…. NO PEACE WITH YOU MY LORD, NO PEACE”
Despenser overconfident as always, had no idea whatsoever, what was really in Henry’s mind…..
Such a scene COULD have happened. Did it really happen? No idea.
OUR MYSTERY MAN
Now during the turbulent 1312-1322 part of the reign of Edward II, in which Thomas of Lancaster, Henry’s elder brother, and Edward II had a furious struggle for power, which eventually led to the execution of Thomas, Henry almost seems forgotten, gone away to France or in each case, rather mysteriously absent.
Yet in 1326, Edward II and Despensers would know, that Henry all those years played his own games And waiting for his chance to settle old scores.  But then, for them, it was too late……
Born in or about 1281, he was the younger son of Edward I’s brother Edmund [Crouchback], Earl of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby and Blanche of Artois, and brother of Thomas of Lancaster and the not well known John 
So Henry and his brothers were the first cousins of Edward II [their fathers being brothers] Henry also was the halfbrother of Queen Joan I of Navarre [daughter of Blanche of Artois from her first marriage with King Henry of Navarre], who was the wife of the French King Philip IV and the mother of Isabella of France, Edward II’s wife [and the French Kings Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV] Which made Henry [and Thomas] the maternal uncles of Isabella of France! 
After their father’s death in 1296, the bulk of his lands was inherited by Thomas, being the eldest son. Yet Henry inhertited a part of his father’s vast lands, and was lord of Kidwelly and owned the Three Castles in Monmouthshire (Grosmont, Skenfrith and the White Castle) 
On 6 February1298/99 his uncle Edward I had a surprise for him: He was summoned to Parliament on 6 february 1298/99 by writ directed to Henrico de Lancastre nepoti Regis (“Henry of Lancaster, nephew of the king”), by which he is held to have become Baron Lancaster. 
Around 1297, he married Maud Chaworth, the elder maternal halfsister of Hugh Despenser the Younger. 
He fought for his uncle, King Edward I, in the Scottish wars  and in the Flanders campaign  With his elder brother Thomas he visited the future Edward II [then ”just” heir to the throne] during the 1290 years. 
In 1308 Henry was present at the coronation of his cousin Edward II and his wife Isabella, Thomas carrying the sword ”Curtana” and Henry had the honour to carry the royal rod. 
HENRY, THE MYSTERIOUS MAN
Concerning Henry of Lancaster, two things puzzles me:
Why the hell he didn’t participate in his brother Thomas’ rebellions?
And the fact, that he managed to hold himself ”low profile” until he emerged out of from nowhere, to become the main force behind the fall of Edward II and the Despensers…..
I will come back to my ”puzzles” later in the story. Continuing:
You should think, that with such an impressive family background, Henry would be destined to play an important role in political affairs. But that was not the case, at least not until 1326….
Now the fact, that he, as a younger son, was not rich, doesn’t explain everything: Since his brother Thomas was twice in open rebellion to Edward II [1311-1312, the Piers Gaveston case and in 1321-22, Despenser war] and continually, from about 1312 until 1322, was struggling with Edward II for power, one should think, that Henry would take part in his brother’s rebellions. Quod not.
According to some historians, Henry was not that close with his brother  I don’t know, whether that’s really true, but that can hardly be an explanation for his lack of political/military participation on behalf of Thomas, since it was usual, that brothers joined each other when there was a rebellion and they were not all close with each other either. Besides, when the rebellion succeeded, the supporting brothers could be assured of high positions, so it was their own interest as well.
What perhaps can explain his lack of political involvement was the fact, that Henry was a real family man with such a close and affectionate bond with his son and daughters, to that extent, that his daughters lived a great part of their life with him, even when they were married.  And that was not usual. He also seemed to have had a more quiet temper than Thomas, which perhaps urged him to keep out of political turbulences.
But living in England could bring him in an impossible position, since he could eventually have been forced to choose between his brother and his cousin the King.
I think that he didn’t want to fight against the King [there was no indication whastoever, that Henry was not altogether loyal to Edward II and the relationship between them was seemingly well, at least until Thomas’ execution], but he certainly would not have wanted to fight against his own brother, whether they were ”close” or not.
He seemed to have tried not to meddle in the quarrels of his brother: In 1316 he was among the men chosen by the King , to take part in the campaign against Llywellyn Bren, which Henry did  with Sir William Montacute , one of the King’s favourites from around 1316-18, who, together with Roger Damory and Hugh Audley [HAHAHA, the latter two would end up as allies of Thomas] , would become serious enemies of his brother Thomas.  Although, admittedly, that animosity with Thomas was not so apparent in 1316 yet:
The great trouble between Thomas and those destructive favourites [I wrote about them extendedly in chapter five] would fully emerge in 1317 , a year after the campaign against Llywellyn Bren…..
Taking no part in the quarrels of his brother and yet didn’t
want to be turned against him, can be the reason, that Henry ”escaped” when the opportunity rose and his escape route was France. His ”escape” however was a sad one:
In 1317, Henry’s [and Thomas’] younger brother John died childless and in May 1318 Edward II granted Henry permission to travel to France to “obtain the inheritance in that land which by the death of John de Lancastre, his brother, descended to him.” 
So since he had possessions now in France, he could live there.
So he said ”Hasta la vista” to England and spent spent much if not all of the next few years in France, to judge from the number of times Edward granted him permission and protection to remain overseas (he was still out of England in January 1322 and perhaps even later) 
But strangely enough he did crop up sometimes. During the tensions before the outbreak of the Despenser war, which would cost his brother Thomas his life, Henry had participated in an anti Despenser coalition, perhaps [speculation from my side] because Henry had possessions in Wales  [where the Despensers went on the rampage, with full consent of the King]  Which proved that he must have been in England somewhere between let’s say 26 october 1320 and the early months of 1321…..
Henry was part of a confederation of allies against Hugh Despenser the Younger [remember: Hugh was his brother in law, since he was married to Hugh’s half sister Maud Chaworth], in and around 1321 with among else, Roger Mortimer and his uncle Roger Mortimer de Chirk, the King’s former favourites Roger Damory and Hugh Audley and others. 
Doubtless Henry’s brother Thomas was pleased with Henry’s involvement, but then Henry seemed to have dissappeared again… To France, where he stayed at least untill january 1322…… Mysterious fellow…..
TRAGEDY IN 1322/EXECUTION OF HIS BROTHER THOMAS
I don’t know whether Henry was in France or back in England around march 1322. However, the execution of his brother Thomas on 22 march must have been a great shock to him, whether he was ”close” to him or not. Thomas was condemned to death by King Edward II, the Despensers, the earls of Kent, Pembroke, Richmond, Surrey, Arundel and the Scottish earls of Angus and Atholl, in an unfair trial, where Thomas was not allowed to speak in his own defence or asked anyone to raise a defence on his behalf.  Some of Thomas’ ”judges” had no idea yet, that this mock trial some day would be used against them in their own so called ”trials”, with now HENRY as one of their ”judges”….
And there was another person, who would not be forgotten, by Henry either: Sir Robert Holland, a former close ally of Thomas of Lancaster, who had betrayed him, one of the reasons why he had lost the Battle of Boroughbridge…… I will deal with that later. To the honour of King Edward II must be said, that he didn’t appreciate the treacherous changes of sides of Robert Holland at all: He imprisoned him and it was not before 1327, that he was released by Queen Isabella. 
THE EARLDOMS/HENRY’S PETITION
After the execution of his brother, Henry, apparently, kept himself low profile. Not that it was very likely, that he was in danger, since he didn’t participated in his brother’s rebellion, but in those times of tyranny [he was after all Thomas’ brother] you never can tell…. But he had one advantage, which protected him against the possible vindictiveness of the Despensers [don’t forget he had been part of the anti-Despenser coalition just before the outbreak of the Despense war] : He was married with Maud Chaworth, halfsister of Hugh Despenser the Younger from his mother’s side. 
But although he kept on the background, in the years to come he at least once rose his voice: To petition for his brother Thomas’ lands and titles [he was Thomas’ heir, since he had no legitimate children], which were forfeited after his execution for treason.  He did that partially successfully, since Edward II restored the Earldom of Leicester to him. In 1324 he was created Earl of Leicester.
You may wonder why Edward II didn’t give him all the lands of his brother back? I don’t know, of course, but I will make a speculation here: The possession of all those Earldoms had made Thomas not only the richest, but also most powerful man, after King Edward II and he had used that power in a 10 years long battle for power with his cousin the King.
Edward II and the Despensers could not be sure of Henry’s loyalty-after all they had executed his brother and he might take it into his head to take revenge on them-and from their point of view, it could be dangerous to give him that power. Henry had loyal men at his disposal and some former adherents of his late brother appeared in his retinue.  It was a ”security risk” to make him too powerful……
CULT OF ”SAINT THOMAS”
But there was more to it: Shortly after the execution of Henry’s brother, Thomas of Lancaster, rumours began to circulate about miracles, performed at his tomb and the place of his execution.  And it didn’t take long before hundreds, no thousands of people came to worship ”Saint Thomas” [yes, Thomas of Lancaster] as a Saint.  I have described this extendedly in chapter nine. Now it is not clear, how those rumours came into the world, but it is not imaginary, that brother Henry was behind those tales about the Sainthood of his brother. It was the perfect revenge on Edward II and the Despensers [since Henry had no other option], since the more people venerated ”Saint Thomas”, the more the already hated Despensers would be despised. At the other hand: Apart from Henry’s possible need for revenge, the veneration of Saint Thomas, however stemmed from, had a source in the discontentment with the Despenser tyranny, condoned by a doting Edward II…..
However: That the veneration of his brother meant a lot to Henry, appeared from the fact, that, at his request, in 1327 [after the downfall of Edward II of course], Archbishop William Melton of York [who in 1320 had sent Thomas of Lancaster’s correspondence with the Scots to King Edward II]  wrote a letter to the Pope, with the request to inquire into the canonization of the popular ”Saint” [”Saint Thomas”] .  Also, in collaboration with Queen Isabella, an agreement took place with Queen Isabella [confirmed by King Edward III], dealing with a chapel, which was to be built outside
the city walls, on the hill where Lancaster had been executed five years ago [so this great event took place in 1327] A hermit was to reside there to receive alms for the building of the chapel and was to be assisted by a clerk appointed by Isabella and Henry. 
But back to 1322-23: The veneration of ”Saint Thomas” was a source of great worry to Edward II and although he did his utmost to finish it, it only grew in popularity. 
How Henry further fared between 1323 until 1326, I have no idea, but being a man of surprises, he was to make his great move in 1326…..
1326/HENRY’S WAY/THE GREAT MOVE INVASION OF ISABELLA AND MORTIMER
So our ”mystery man” Henry, who didn’t participate in his brother Thomas’ rebellions and kept to himself most of those turbulent years [1317-1322] in France and hardly made any appearance during the Edward II and Despenser tyranny, suddenly rose, to play a key role in the events in 1326!
When Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer invaded in England in 1326, Henry, then ”merely” Earl of Leicester, was one of the first to abandon Edward II and join the Isabella and Mortimer rebellion.  Not so difficult, why, although it might have been a mixture of reasons. He doubtless must have wanted to take revenge for the execution of his brother, especially wished by the Despensers, and, of course, also by Edward II, because of Lancaster’s involvement with the murder of his favourite Piers Gaveston] . Discontentment with the greedy tyranny of EdwardII/The Despensers may have also played a role, as the fact, that Henry was granted only the Earldom of Leicester, when he petitioned for his brother’s inheritance in 1323.
But to my opinion, Henry’s most important reason to support Isabella and Mortimer was revenge for the execution of his brother.
The joining Isabella and Mortimers” rebellion was an enormous problem for Edward II, since his cousin Henry, like Henry’s brother Thomas before, had many means and men at his disposal, as a number of former adherents of Thomas, who had now joined Henry’s retinue.  In a futile attempt of damage control, Edward II ordered to seize Henry’s Welsh castles of Grosmond, Skenfirth and White Castle. 
Painful for Edward II must have been the desertion of his own halfbrother, Thomas, Earl of Norfolk.  His other halfbrother [and full brother of Thomas of Norfolk], Edmund, Earl of Kent, had already joined Isabella and Mortimer in France and invaded with them…. 
Kent was to play a very strange role in 1330 in an attempt to free his supposedly dead halfbrother Edward II from prison and was executed for it……
TO SETTE OLD SCORES/THE DESPENSERS
SEE YOU AROUND, BUDDY BOY, IT AIN’T OVER YET…
NOW it was Henry’s chance to settle old scores with the Despensers……
Following the invasion of Isabella and Mortimer, Edward II and the Despensers left London. In the meantime, Despenser the Elder failed to defend Bristol Castle against the forces of Isabella and Mortimer, surrerendered and was given a mock trial in what was clearly intended as a parody of Thomas of Lancaster’s trial. He was not allowed to speak to his own defence. His ”judges” were Mortimer, Isabella, Henry of Lancaster and a few others…..  So it was-hard, but true-”what goes around, comes around.”  Thomas of Lancaster had been ”judged” in a mock trial, by among else Despenser the Elder and his son , and now Thomas’ Henry set in ”judgement” over him….. Despenser the Elder was hanged in his own armour….. Sadly enough for him and his family….
To be fair with Despenser the Elder: He committed many crimes, but was one of the few barons, who were loyal to Edward II from start to finish and never switched sides. 
Now Henry was ordered to pursue Edward II and Despenser the Younger [accompanied by a few faithful adherents], who fled to Wales, where they were captured by Henry’s forces at 16 november.  Edward II and Despenser the Younger were split up: Edward II was taken in Henry’s custody to Kenilworth Castle, Henry’s family Castle where Henry treated him with honour and respect, due to a King. 
Poor Despenser the Younger suffered a totally other fate: After a humiliating journey in which he had tried to starve himself , he was taken to Hereford, to undergo, as his father before him, a mock trial: They, again, made a cruel show of it and a clear parody of the mock trial of Thomas of Lancaster: He was not permitted to speak in his own defence….
The charges against him [followed by his verdict] were read by Sir William Trussell, a die hard supporter of Thomas of Lancaster, who had fought at his side at the Battle of Boroughbridge, fled to France and returned with the Isabella and Mortimer invasion.  As a proof that this verdict was- apart from the just charges as piracy, extortions, stealing and imprisonment- also a revenge for the execution of Thomas of Lancaster, the following charge/ passage was included:
”You took the good earl of Lancaster [le bone Counte de Lancastre], who was the cousin-german of our lord the king and his brothers and uncle of the very noble king of France and his sister my lady the queen of England, and had him falsely imprisoned and robbed, and in his own hall in his castle, by your royal power which you had seized from our lord the king, had him judged by a false record contrary to law and reason and Magna Carta and also without response, and you had him martyred and murdered by hard and piteous death.” 
To be fair, that was not quite right, since Thomas was not ”falsely imprisoned” or ”robbed”, but ”judged” [even though it was no fair trial] because of his open rebellion against Edward II…..
Trussell ended the charges with the dramatic words:
”Withdraw, you traitor, tyrant, renegade; go to take your own justice, traitor, evil man, criminal!  [In French, likely the language in which the charges were read out: Retrees vous traitour, tyrant, Reneye, si ales vostre iuys prendre, traitour, malueys, et atteynt; malueys or malveis]
His verdict and death was gruesome: To be hanged, drawn and quartered……
Those present were Queen Isabella and her son [then still] Prince Edward [the later Edward III], Roger Mortimer, Edward II’s halfbrother the Earl of Kent, many others and Henry of Lancaster…. 
The lawliness of the mock trial of Thomas of Lancaster had not only boomeranged on the Despensers and other executed loyal friends of Edward II [often without ANY trial] , but cast a foreboding on the coming years: The Isabella and Despenser regime proved to be as lawless and tyrannic as the Edward II/Despenser rule….
But before continuing there, first a notorious ”Sir Traitor”, Sir Robert Holland and the scores Henry had to settle with him… This Sir Robert Holland was a yearlong very close and trusted ally of Henry’s brother Thomas: In 1311 Edward II wrote to Robert about some illness of Thomas of Lancaster and spoke out his hope to see him in parliament soon, accompanied by Robert…. However, Robert, who was that close to Thomas, would proof to be a big traitor: He abandoned Thomas when he needed him most: During the Battle of Boroughbridge on 16 march…….., which he lost, was taken captive and executed on 22 march….
However, Sir Traitor Robert was imprisoned by Edward II, who couldn’t appreciate his betrayal , but released by Isabella in 1327 .
A former adherent of Thomas of Lancaster killed him in 1328 and his head was sent to Henry.  Was Henry behind this murder, since he must have been very upset about the betrayal of Robert, leading to his brother’s defeat and execution? Probably we’ll never know, but in each case he must have felt like settle old scores, since he took the killers under his protection….
This betrayal against his brother must have touched him very deeply, especially because Robert Holland had been so close with Earl Thomas.
Yes Old scores……..
HENRY UNDER THE ISABELLA AND MORTIMER REGIME TRUST AND CONSENT
At first Henry must have gone well with the Isabella and Mortimer regime:
An initial token of Isabella and Mortimer’s trust and appreciation for his military support was their order to him to pursue and capture Edward II and Despenser the Younger [as written above] hold Edward II in custody in his Castle of Kenilworth, where he treated the fallen King with honour and respect.  Later he was made chief of the Council of Regency for the minor King Edward III. 
One of the other things the Isabella and Mortimer regime did, which doubtless meant a lot to Henry was the reversion of the treason conviction of his brother Thomas.  And to his satisfaction, he was granted the full restoration of his brother’s inheritance. 
Now he was , finally, Earl of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby.
He [see above] also promoted the veneration cult of his brother Thomas in collaboration with Isabella, dealing with a chapel, which was to be built outside
the city walls, on the hill where Lancaster had been executed. 
HENRY AND THE ISABELLA AND MORTIMER REGIME TROUBLE IN PARADISE
But the first troubles in paradise appeared……. And it related with the very task Isabella and Mortimer gave Henry: The custody of his cousin Edward II, the lenient way Henry treated the King, the security risks and the power this custody gave Henry, which easily could be misused……
Whether Henry still held a grudge against Edward II for the execution of his brother Thomas, I don’t know.
However, Edward II was the King after all [and after his deposition the King’s father], and Henry treated him, regardless of what he possibly must have felt, with dignity and honour, according to his royal state. 
Now keeping a fallen King in custody is an enormous responsibility, also in this case: There were several plots to free Edward II, also when he stayed in Kenilworth.  So for security reasons Isabella and Mortimer removed Edward II from Kenilworth, Henry’s family Castle, to Berkeley Castle.  The security reasons were a sensible argument”, of course, since Berkeley Castle had the advantage of being far away from Scotland, where many of Edward’s allies were, and also, the Dunheveds [a gang, very loyalto Edward II who repeatedly tried to free Edward II] were strong in the vicinity of Kenilworth…..
Besides the loyalty of Lord Berkeley was assured: Not only he was the son in law, but also he and his father had been imprisoned under Edward II [his father, an adherent of Thomas of Lancaster, who rebelled with him against Edward II died in prison] 
So he had no reason at all to be ”sympathetic” to Edward II…..
Henry’s lenient treatment of Edward II:
Besides over important ”security reasons”, there was more:
Henry was very courteous to Edward II, not forgot his royalty and after all, they were royal cousins: [remember, Henry had, certainly before the execution of his brother, never been Edward II’s enemy and never rebelled against him] Perhaps his treatment of Edward II was too lenient in the eyes of the regime [especially Mortimer and possibly Isabella]
Very, very important: Henry’s powerful position:
What mattered more to the Isabella and Mortimer couple was the POWER Henry had, not only as Edward II’s custodian, but especially by the restored Earldoms he had inherited from his dear brother Thomas. And Thomas, Edward II’s not so dear cousin, had used the power he derived from his Earldoms in a to year long battle for power against Edward II. My ”overmighty subject” theory is confirmed by note 888
I can understand, that the fear that the whole Thomas of Lancaster show would be repeated by brother Henry, caused Isabella and Mortimer to remove the custody out of the hands of Henry and place them in the more reliable hands of Sir Thomas Berkeley, son in law of Roger Mortimer, who, to repeat it again, would have no inclination to treat Edward II as an honoured guest, since he had been imprisoned by him and his [Berkeley’s] father had died in imprisonment under Edward II…..
So King Edward II was removed to Berkeley Castle, after his courteous custody at his cousin Henry, where he had stayed from november 1326 until the end of march 1327.
It’s not certain, how Henry reacted on the removal of his cousin Edward II , king no more, from Kenilworth: There are sources, stating that he was quite relieved to be freed of his huge responsibility , but other sources claim, that he was very angered about Edward II’s replacement. 
And what threatment [good or bad] Edward II got in Berkeley Castle, is not clear, although it is stated, that he was often mistreated  There is no evident proof for that, but I also can’t imagine that he was treated like an honoured guest, Lord Berkeley being yearlong prisoner of Edward II and his father even died in Edward II’s prison…… There are statements, that he was treated well, since Queen Isabella sent him gifts and letters , but for me, that proves nothing. Because who says that he ever really received those ”gifts and letters”?
Possibly the only reason they were sent was, that the Isabella and Mortimer couple wanted to keep up appearances, at least towards Edward’s and Isabella’s son , the now King Edward III.
Admittedly, Edward III still was a ”puppet king”, under tutelage of Isabella and Mortimer, but he would grow up one day, be the real King. Than it was better for Isabella/Mortimer, when Edward thought his father had been treated well. And by the way? Why should a woman, who had rebelled against her husband, took his kingdom from him, executed his great favourite cruelly [knowing how that must have hurt Edward II], giving him no chance to see his children and, by the way, imprisoned him, sent ”gifts and letters”’to him? Out of love, as is sometimes claimed?  COME ON…….
A woman, who loves her husband or ”still feels affection for him”, does NOT imprison him HAHAHAHA Who would believe that?
It is either convincible to me, that Edward II got a ”royal treatment”: The Berkeley Castle muniments roll records the purchase of wine, cheese, eggs, beef, capons and spices for Edward (Seymour Phillips, Edward II, p. 541 n. 118, citing rolls 39, 41, 42) 
I think it is well possible, that Edward II never ate that delicious food in Berkeley Castle…. And whether he died there or not [murdered or natural causes] is still open to speculation, as I wrote already in this very chapter 10, ”Aftermath” under ”King Edward II” See also note 897
TROUBLE IN PARADISE/ DISCORD WITH ISABELLA AND MORTIMER HENRY’S GREAT REBELLION
Let’s go back to Henry:
The problem between Henry and the Isabella/Mortimer pair over Henry’s custody of his cousin, king no more Edward II and his [Edward II’s] removal from Kenilworth Castle [Henry’s castle] to Berkeley Castle, was one thing:
Soon worse points of disagreement rose:
There was that peace agreement with the Scots, which Isabella and Mortimer closed, the Treaty of Northampton.  Henry of Lancaster was very much against it , like many others, especially [of course!], the earls, who had lost their Scottish estates without compensation, like [I come to him later] Henry’s future relative, Lord Beaumont.  And the compensation the Scots DID pay, 20. 000 [pounds, Medieval] were seized by Isabella and Mortimer…..
But especially Henry was annoyed by the fact, that Mortimer sidelined him:
He was chief council of the Regency [of the minor King Edward III], but his position was somehow ”usurped” by Roger Mortimer and Henry was even allegedly denied access to King Edward III. 
The beginning of the open confrontation between Henry and Roger Mortimer took place at the time of the Salisbury parliament in october 1328, in an attempt of Henry to regain power again as chief council of the Regency and so reassert his influence over the king, which failed. 
However, the ”trouble in paradise” seems to have started earlier that year, since in the middle of september 1328, he ceased to attest royal charters. 
Anyhow, hell broke loose between Henry and the Isabella/ Mortimer couple: The end of 1328 was a deja vu, since the whole Thomas of Lancaster show seemed to be repeated again: As his brother Thomas in the good old days, Henry had large numbers of men at his disposal, who once came to the rescue of Isabella and Mortimer at their invasion in 1326.  Now they were against them. And not only that: Henry, being one of the most important magnates in England now, being restored to the vast inheritance of his dear brother Thomas, could attract discontented people and the discontentment against the tyranny and greed of Isabella and Mortimer was big, let alone the unpopularity of the Treaty of Northampton. 
So Henry mobilised his army against Isabella and Mortimer. 
But sadly for Henry, his rebellion failed. In january 1329 he was defeated and a large amount of his estates were seized, resulting in his surrender.  But unlike his brother Thomas in 1322 under the Edward II Despenser regime, he didn’t lose his life, but had to pay a huge fine, which crippled his political power.  However, the most followers of Henry were pardoned by the Isabella/Mortimer regime.  Of course, after that, he was out of grace and didn’t seem to have played any role under the Isabella and Mortimer regime. Or did he play a role yet? I come to that point later
Meantime, there are some interesting facts about some important men, who joined
Henry in his rebellion:
Two important men of the realm, who joined Henry’s rebellion [initially, later they seemed to have abandoned the venture] were former king Edward II’s halfbrothers, the Earls of Norfolk and Kent , first adherents of Isabella and Mortimer, now fallen out with them, probably because out of annoyance with the dominant position of Mortimer  and because of the Scottish war, which ended in the unpopular Treaty of Northampton.  Henry’s son in law, Thomas Wake, 2nd baron Wake of Lidell, who had joined Isabella and Mortimer in 1326, following his father in law, , buty later fell out with the regime, also supported him. 
Another significant figure who joined Henry was a nobleman named Henry Beaumont.
The career of that man was interesting, as his relation with Henry: Henry was a French nobleman, who came to England in the 1290s.
Being 1st baron Beaumont and 4th Earl of Buchan [a Scottish Earldom] jure uxoris , he was initially loyal to Edward II, fought for him at the
Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 against the Scots -was one of the few nobles to attend the funeral of Piers Gaveston-  AND fought at Edward’s side against Henry’s brother, Thomas of Lancaster. 
However later was out of grace with Edward II, was imprisoned, then [in favour again] sent as an envoy to France and later accompanied Edward’s son prince Edward [the later Edward III] to France, who did homage to his [Edward III’s] uncle Charles IV in the place of father Edward II. Eventually imprisoned again…..and [understandably] joining Isabella and Mortimer. 
But after falling out with them, Beaumont joined Henry.  And because of his support Henry, who must not have been pleased with Beaumont fighting against his brother, will have consented to the marriage of his son Henry [the later Duke of Lancaster] with Isabella, daughter of Henry Beaumont. Also Henry’s daughter Eleanor was married to Beaumont’s son, John. 
After the failing of the rebellion of Henry, Henry Beaumont was forced to go in exile, since he was one of the four men specifically excluded from a pardon in early 1329, like William Trussell , that loyal supporter of Thomas of Lancaster [fought at his side at the Battle of Boroughbridge] , who had read the charges against Hugh Despenser the Younger.  Thomas Wake, Henry’s son in law [who perhaps was implicated in the plot of the Earl of Kent to free the supposedly dead Edward II] also fled the country.  As well as Beaumont as Wake returned after the fall of Isabella and Roger Mortimer.  Trussell fared well, became Edward III’s secretary, fulfilled diplomatic missions for him [Edward III] and died peacefully in 1347. 
HENRY’S LATER YEARS UNDER THE ISABELLA AND MORTIMER REGIME
Having rebelled against Isabella and Mortimer in 1328-29 , it may be clear, that Henry was heavily out of grace. How he fared in that period is shrouded in clouds, as his [possible] role in the overthrowing the Isabella and Mortimer regime by Edward II’s and Isabella’s son Edward III, until now king only in name.  It was commonly accepted, that he played no role whatsoever, in that overthrow, but some modern sources doubt that and state, that Henry, possibly, was more involved than hitherto had been presumed.  However, it happened and Henry must have been quite relieved. Historian sources state, that on hearing the news of Roger Mortimer’s arrest, he supposedly threw his cap in the air with joy…..
However, horribly for Henry, he gradually lost his eyesight in the course of 1330, so he couldn’t play a role on political and military level anymore.
He retired from public life and from now he would be represented in parliament and public life by his son, the flamboyant and charismatic Henry of Grosmont, the later [and first] Duke of Lancaster, warrior, diplomat and politician, good friend of King Edward III  and [via his daughter Blanche], Henry of Grosmont became the grandfather of the later King Henry IV. 
The last fifteen years of his life he stayed at Leicester Castle, where he founded a hospital for the poor and died in 1345, being one of the few Earls from the era of Edward II, who died peacefully. His funeral was attended by King Edward III and Queen Philippa. 
He was a loving and caring father , a ”mystery man”, who came and went to France, when England was ”hot” [during the struggle between his brother Thomas and Edward II], who didn’t participate in his brother Thomas’ rebellions, but yet was a loyal brother, promoting Thomas as a ”Saint”  and never forgot those, who had betrayed him at the battle of Boroughbridge 
And then, while most men must have thought he was of no importance [he didn’t participate in his brother’s rebellions, which was not usual in those times], he was one of the leading forces in the deposition of Edward II and the fall of the Despensers…..
An interesting, but underestimated man, and one of the great ancestors of all subsequent English Kings.
See note 938
Henry of Lancaster, brother of Thomas of Lancaster.
A man, who deserves to be remembered!
AND READERS,SOON YOU’LL MEET THE FINAL DANCE,
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of King Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Ten