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
A TRAVEL IN HISTORY…… Readers!You have travelled with me to the first half of 14th century England, to watch,as digital eyewitnesses, the fight for Power between king Edward II andhis not so dear cousin Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, initially loyal to the king,then fell out with him for personal and political reasons, like king’s favouritismof a Gascon nobleman, Piers Gaveston, with whom he [the king] was very closeand who [Piers Gaveston] ended horribly, with an evil role of Thomas of Lancasterhimself [but the majority of British nobility played his nasty of less nasty part in it]And for political reasons it had to do with the eternal strugglefor power between kings nobles, between centralisation and decentralisation. You have watched, as digital eyewitnesses in tension, like at a good movie,how the struggle intensified and ended sadly for the Earl of Lancaster, whowas executed on 22 march 1322, after lost the last open battle against theking, his cousin. SEE THE FORMER CHAPTERS: ONE
But that was not the end at all, neither politically, nor personally, as we’ll see.Because Thomas still had adherents, as political friends, who later wouldplay their role.Besides:Thomas had a brother, Henry, his later heir, who didn’t participate in hisbrother’s rebellion.But that didn’t mean, that he ever would not forget or forgivesome mighty persons, who had a hand in the execution of his brother…..But that will come later, as the major role he would play……. We meet the later Earl Henry, Thomas of Lancaster’s brother, in this Chapter Nine………. So it was not over yet:What puzzled me long was the fact, that Earl Thomas the warlord was declared a Saint [though not officially by the Holy Church]after his death.The puzzling question to me and I think many others, who are familiar with thelife and time of Earl Thomas was:How does a declared warlord, that certainly not led a holy life [you see fewSaints, who engage in battle, HAHAHA] became a Saint? Read further and you’ll learn…..
”.O Thomas, strenuous champion of plentiful charity, who didst combat for the law of England’s liberty, intercede for our sins with the Father of Glory, that he may give us a place with the blessed in the heavenly court.”
Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, was no more. But not forgotten, as this amazing story will tell:
Because within several weeks after his execution , miracles were reported at the site of his execution and
on his tomb at Pontefract Priory, a dignified final resting place for a man, who loved Pontefract Castle the world… 
And there were great stories to be told:
There was a story of a blind priest, who dreamed, that he should go to the hill where Thomas of Lancaster was executed, and that he should have his sight again. Because the priest had this dream for three consecutive nights, he went to the execution hill in Pontefract, he prayed, that he might have his sight again and that great thing happened. 
One of the authors of the Brut chronicles  reported: ”And as he was in his prayers, he laid his hand upon the same place there the good man was martyred on; and a drop of dry blood and small sand cleaved on his hand, and therewith he rubbed his eyes, and anon, through the might of God and of St Thomas of Lancaster, he had his sight again, and thanked Almighty God and St Thomas.” [translation of Kathryn Warner, historian and writer of among else ”Edward II, the unconventional King and and host of the weblog ”EdwardthesecondBlogspot.com] 
Another reported miracle was of a young child drowned in a well in the town of Pontefract, and was dead three days and three nights; The child was laid upon the tomb of Thomas of Lancaster and arose from death. 
The rich man from Condom [Gascony]
Another great story was from a rich man from Condom [Gascony]: About him the above mentioned author of the Brut chronicler wrote:
” “Also there was a rich man in Condom in Gascony; and such a malady he had, that all his right side rotted, and fell away from him; and men might see his liver, and also his heart; and so he stank, that scarcely men might come near him. Wherefore his friends were for him full sorry. But at the last, as God wanted, they prayed to St Thomas of Lancaster, that he would pray to Almighty God for that prisoner, and promised to go to Pontefract for to do their pilgrimage. And the good man soon after slept full soft, and dreamed that the martyr St Thomas came unto him, and anointed all over his sick side. And therewith the good man awoke, and was all whole; and his flesh was restored again, that before was rotted and fell away; for which miracle the good man and his friends loved God and St Thomas evermore after. ” 
A touching story. The rich man kept his promise and went to pilgrimage to Pontefract and took with him four other men. When back in his own country [France], they told about the miracle of Saint Thomas [the executed Thomas of Lancaster] 
Two men healed from ”morimal” [cancer or gangrene]
There was also a thrilling story of two men, healed from ”morimal” [cancer or gangrene] 
Bad news travels fast.
Good news too.
Given the amazing stories, it didn’t take long, before they were spread under the common people, the clergy, the nobility, and even to Royal Court, as we shall see.
And you don’t have to be a Medieval man [or woman] to understand, that with such stories, hundreds, no, thousands of people came to visit the tomb of ”Saint Thomas” [Thomas of Lancaster] hoping to be cured of some disease or having a healthy childbirth, etc, etc.
REACTION OF KING EDWARD II/THE DESPENSERS
Those miracles were reported to King Edward II during the parliament that was held in York during april 1322.  Since Thomas was executed on orders of the King, it will come as no surprise, that neither he, nor his favourites the Despensers, were very happy with the news about the veneration of ”Saint Thomas”.
According to again the Brut chronicler, the Despensers said that it was ”great heresy”.  Of course they reacted like that: Thomas of Lancaster had been their great adversary, wanting them ousted from influence over the King.
The King himself was not pleased either, for the same reasons [and not to forget, Thomas’ involvement in the execution of his favourite Piers Gaveston in 1312].
In June 1323, Edward II ordered the bishop of London (Stephen Gravesend, a good friend and ally of the King] to prevent people praying and making offerings at a tablet in St Pauls “whereon are depicted statues, sculpture or images of diverse persons,” Thomas of Lancaster’s among them, “as the king learns with displeasure that many of the people go to the said tablet and worship it as a holy thing without the authority of the church of Rome, asserting that miracles are done there.” 
The Croniques de London describes this object instead as a tablet which Thomas of Lancaster had had made to celebrate Edward’s granting of the Ordinances in 1311.  So Saint’s veneration was mixed here with Lancaster’s struggle to curb royal power and obtaining more freedoms for the barons [which subsequently later could benefit other classes like the burgesses, etc] 
The story goes on:
In early september 1323, from Barnard Castle, King Edward II ordered Richard Moseley, his clerk and the constable of Pontefract Castle, to “go in person to the place of execution of Thomas, late earl of Lancaster, and prohibit a multitude of malefactors and apostates from praying and making oblations there in memory of the said earl not to God but rather to idols, in contempt of the king and contrary to his former command.” 
Direct cause for the orders of the King: In 1323, 2000 people, some of them from as far away as Kent, gathered to pray and make oblations at Thomas of Lancaster’s tomb. 
But the more the King pushed to prevent the veneration of Saint Thomas, the more recalcitrant the people became:
Moseley and his servants, the men the King had ordered to prohibit those, who went to pilgrimage, to pray at the tomb of Saint Thomas were assaulted, and two of them, Richard de Godeleye and Robert de la Hawe, were killed. 
But not only the King wrote disapprovingly about the veneration of ”Saint Thomas” The archbishop of York, Edward II’s loyal friend and ally William Melton [who had sent the correspondence of Thomas of Lancaster with the Scots to the King] wrote the Official of the Archdeacon of York, banning the cult and empowering its activity there, pointing out that Thomas of Lancaster was not a canonised saint, 
The veneration of ”Saint Thomas” grew in popularity according as the tyranny of Edward II and his favourites the Despensers , became worse and worse.
And not only Thomas of Lancaster was venerated as a Saint: Two Contrariants [you know: the rebels who fought the Despenser influence over the King and forced their banishment, under leadership of the Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster, in the Despenser War]  executed in March 1322 in Bristol were Henry de Montfort and Henry Wilington: in September 1323, miracles were also said to have taken place at their execution site.  The mayor of Bristol told Edward II that Montfort’s brother Reginald bribed a ‘poor child’ of the city with two shillings “to pronounce to the people that he received healing of his sight.” 
On the contrary: Men named William Cliff and William and John Corteis “went there many times and preached to the people that miracles were done and forcibly maintained this, saying that without doubt the things done there were true.” 
But a really impressive cult was the veneration of Saint Thomas, that grew and grew during the last four years of the reign [from 1322, the execution year of Thomas of Lancaster until 1326-27, the invasion of Isabella of France and former Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer and Edward II’s subsequent downfall from power] of his cousin, King Edward II.
AFTER EDWARD II’S DOWNFALL/ATTEMPTS TO CANONIZE ”SAINT” THOMAS OF LANCASTER
With Edward II’s downfall in 1327 and the rise in power of Isabella of France [his estranged wife] and her [presumably] lover, Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer and former ally of Thomas of Lancaster [Mortimer surrendered to Edward II at Shrewsbury, in january 1322, was imprisoned in the Tower, escaped and fled to France, to return to England with Isabella and an invasion army] , the attitude towards the cult of ”Saint Thomas” changed. Not only was it no longer officially banned, but royal and ecclasiastical efforts were made to turn Thomas of Lancaster from a popular to a canonized martyr.  A campaign to canonise Thomas of Lancaster began in earnest, yet before Lancaster’s death sentence was officially annulled by King Edward III in march 1328 [after it had been discussed in the first parliament of the new reign, february-march 1327] 
AND THEY SURE WENT FOR IT!
In a parliamentary petition to King Edward III [who had succeeded his father Edward II after his forced abdication or deposition, you can call it both]  in the first year of his reign, the commons asked to promote the canonization of Thomas of Lancaster.  On the last day of february 1327 a letter was sent under Edward III’s seal to Pope John XXII, requesting an inquiry into the canonization of Lancaster. Thomas of Lancaster was referred to as the Kings ”most beloved kinsman” (nostrumque consanguinem carissimum”) and described not only as a martyr by the manner of his death, but also a pious man in life. He was described as ”generous, provident and faithful”  But this appeal for canonization was grounded not only in his ”holy” life or ”martyr’s death” [as it was described and which were conditions for a possible canonization], but also on the miracles, performed after his execution. 
King Edward III wrote another two letters to the Pope to promote Thomas of Lancaster’s canonization:
A second in march 1330  and remarkably, a third AFTER his deposing his mother Isabella of France and her [possible] lover Roger Mortimer from power , meaning, that he had not solely acted according to the wishes of Isabella and Roger Mortimer [since he wrote the two first letters, when they were the de facto rulers in England]
There was also this visit to the Pope:
After the downfall of Edward II [and before the third letter of King Edward III to the Pope], Edward II’s own halfbrother, so the uncle of Edward III, the earl of Kent – who, by the way, was one of the men who condemned Thomas of Lancaster to death  – visited Pope John XXII in 1329 to ask him to canonise Thomas. 
But the royal letters as the attempts of the Earl of Kent were not the only ones:
Not surprisingly, Thomas of Lancaster’s brother Henry of Lancaster [our ”mystery man, as described in chapter seven, F], also wrote to the Pope, a few days earlier than the first letter of King Edward III on the last day of february 1327. Archbishop William Melton of York [who in 1320 had sent Thomas of Lancaster’s correspondence with the Scots to King Edward II]  wrote the letter on behalf of Henry of Lancaster, requesting the Pope to inquire into the canonization of the popular ”Saint”. 
But Henry did more: In collaboration with Isabella [springing probably from Isabella and Mortimer’s desire to keep Henry of Lancaster on board in the rank of of their supporters], an agreement [confirmed by King Edward III] took place between the Priory and the Convent of Pontefract. It dealt 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. He was to be assisted by a clerk appointed by Isabella and Henry of Lancaster.  And that was not all: A clerk was appointed for collecting alms from all over the Kingdom for the construction of the said chapel. It proved succesful: The offerings received were very generous! 
CULT UNDER KING EDWARD III
Under King Edward III, the cult of ”Saint Thomas” continued to flourish and was greatly encouraged: Hagiographies  about him were written  and pilgrims continued to visit his tomb or place of execution. In time, new attributes were added to the list of Lancaster’s superlatives, as Christ’s noble knight and athlete (nobili Christi miles et athleta) 
A text written in Latin probably in the late 1320s laments Thomas as “the blessed martyr” and “flower of knights,” and says “the pouring out of prayers to Thomas restores the sick to health; the pious earl comes immediately to the aid of those who are feeble.” It begins “Rejoice, Thomas, the glory of chieftains, the light of Lancaster, who by thy death imitatest Thomas [Becket] of Canterbury, whose head was broken on account of the peace of the Church, and thine is cut off for the cause of the peace in England; be to us an affectionate guardian in every difficulty.”
The text further emphasizes the notion that Thomas was condemned to death unfairly and was a freedom fighter for the people of England against royal despotism. 
That was not entirely untrue, since the trial of Thomas of Lancaster was utterly unfair  [although proofs of his letters with the Scots would eventually have eventually led to death sentence or at least life imprisonment of exile] and Thomas of Lancaster DID combat the Edward II arbitrary favouritism on the avaricious Despensers and tried to defend the Ordinances.  On the other hand: For a very important part he was guided by lust for power and not idealism…….
The text also suggests, that Lancaster cared a lot about the common people, writing ”Who when he perceived that the whole commons were falling into wreck, did not shrink from dying for the right, in the fatal commerce…he is delivered to dire death, on account of which England mourns. Alas! he is beheaded for the aid of the commons..”  The reader may judge for his or herself, whether Thomas of Lancaster really cared much about the common people….
Pilgrim’s badge were made for his veneration and Thomas’ hat and belt preserved at Pontefract were used as remedies in childbirth and for headaches as late as the Reformation. 
Lancaster was never officially canonized, although the chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote in 1390, that Thomas WAS. [Sanctus Thomas de Lancastria canonizatus est] , which led to a big revival of his cult.
But although Thomas never received the official papal status of martyr, he remained a martyr by popular acclamation for the next two hundred years…..
TRANSFORMATION FROM A WARLORD REBEL INTO A SAINT
Now what intrigues me most in this amazing story -I wrote that on the start of this book [HAHAHA, my article], is the transformation of Thomas of Lancaster from a warlord into a saint. How was it possible that a man of high birth and rank from double royal descent [both from his father’s as his mother’s side] , who was a rebel warlord for nearly ten years, taking up arms against his King, feuded with other nobles , made the King’s favourite [Piers Gaveston] executed [joined by other nobles]  and was [as far as I know] seeking wordly power and wealth only, in death was transformed into a Saint? A miracle in itself.
According to Medieval standards, to become a saint, certain clear qualifications were necessary, like having led a pious life, having defended the rights of the Church and [recommendable] died for it, like Thomas Becket did, who indeed was canonized ….
Now Thomas of Lancaster certainly did NOT led a pious life, nor did he defend the rights of the Church. On the contrary, he sought [to put it in familiar Medieval terms] temporal power and wealth.
Besides: Thomas was not the best man of his time [I refer to the murder of Piers Gaveston, Thomas’ arrogance,
taking up arms against his King], although there were far worse men [I refer to the crimes of the Marcher Lords, which Thomas did NOT commit, although supporting the Lords]  Also he was NOT known for a particular generosity to the poor, in contrary to later hagiography. 
On the other hand, following Medieval standards, at least he had one qualification to Sanctity: Miracles were reported on his tomb and place of his execution. 
And because of those miracles, Thomas was considered to be a Saint.
MIRACLES BELIEF/POPULARITY/REACTION OF THE PEOPLE
Now in the Middle Ages, when every person from the King down to the lowliest peasant, lived lives, that were ordered around the beliefs, ceremonies and doctrines of the Catholic Church, the fenomenon ”miracle” was as real as computers and televisions in modern eyes. Regarding to the supposed miracles at the grave and the tomb of Thomas of Lancaster:
Now of course it is impossible to know what actually took place at his grave or tomb, but whatever happened, people believed in those miracles, which caused pilgrimages to his grave.
Whoever does NOT want to be healed from a disease, freed from his [or her] headaches or having a healthy childbirth?  That can partly explain the agressive reaction on the King’s clerk, Richard Moseley and his servants, when they tried, on the orders of the King [Edward II], to prevent the people to venerate ”Saint Thomas” 
People [often poor people], who wanted to be healed, came ”as far as Kent”  [Kent lies in the South of England, Pontefract Castle lies in the middle of England, direction North]  in the hope to be healed, only to discover, that the autorities tried to prevent them reaching their goals: Veneration of Saint Thomas and healing of their illnesses! Of course they were furious [not to justify the violencer that took the lives of the two servants of Richard Morseley, of course]
MIRACLES/WHO GAINES AND WHO LOSES?
At every event in history or our times, whether wordly of ”holy” events, it is important to have a close look [with regard to the ”holy” events, with all respect], who benefits from it, or who loses.
That ”benefit” or ”lose” can be political or materialistic [money, possession, fame] Or ”non materialistic”; emotional and [or] spiritual [or a mix between materialistic and non materialistic]
Now take a look on those, who were the ”losers”
THOSE, WHO LOSE
”Losers” not in the present meaning of the word , because here was a King and high nobility involved, King Edward II and his favourites the Despensers. Being Thomas’ executioners [together with a number of ”colleague” nobles of the Despensers]  and knowing that he had still support [especially in the North of England], the news, that alleged miracles had taken place on his tomb [or place of execution], was, to put it mildly, disturbing to them. And let’s not forget: Thomas WAS a condemned traitor , in an unfair trial, admittedly, but a ”legal” one, confirmed by the King, who also had set in judgment over him. And a traitor as a Saint….? From their point of view, that must have been bizarre.
I can understand the King and the Despensers [who were so closely connected with the King that I think it is justified to mention them simultaneously] very well: They had a huge problem. Their government was growing in unpopularity  They didn’t know what really took place at the tomb [or place of execution] of Thomas, whether there was someone influential behind those ”miracle” rumours. Someone [with support from the North], who was able to rise against the King again? Yes, I can understand their worries.
So the King took measures to end the veneration of ”Saint Thomas” [see above : Reaction of King Edward II Despensers], to no avail. Because whatever he did to suppress the venerations, they only grew in popularity……..
THOSE WHO GAIN
Now take a look on those, who ”gained” or ”profited”.
The first I mention is Thomas’ brother Henry. Now it is known, that he took no part in his brother”s rebellion  and spent most of the ”hot years” [between 1319-1322, during which the feud between King Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster escalated, ending in his execution, see the chapters 5 t/m 8] in France.  There is even suggested, that Thomas and Henry were not that close. 
Be that as it may:  But of course the execution of his brother Thomas must have been dramatic for Henry, as his actions will show [see chapter 10, Aftermath] We don’t know, how the stories about the miracles were spread: Perhaps Henry had a hand in it [I don’t know, only pointing out the possibility] Perhaps not.
But for sure he came at the heart of the action: A few days earlier before the first letter of King Edward III in 1327 [King after the deposition of his father Edward II in 1327] , 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 on behalf of Henry of Lancaster, requesting the Pope to inquire into the canonization of the popular ”Saint” 
Under responsibility of Henry of Lancaster and Queen Isabella of France, also an agreement [confirmed by King Edward III] took place between the Priory and the Convent of Pontefract. It dealt with a chapel, which was to be built outside the city walls, on the hill where Lancaster had been executed five years ago A hermit was to reside there to receive alms for the building of the chapel. He was to be assisted by a clerk appointed by Isabella and Henry of Lancaster. 
Henry’s aim may have served several purposes:
An emotional one: Publicly commemorating his brother and restoring family honour [after all, Thomas was executed as a traitor] But also a materialistic one:
Veneration of Saints [and all the trade in pilgrimages etc] was very profitable.
Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer:
The second to be mentioned were Queen Isabella and her ally and possible lover, former Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer [see also the chapters six and seven about his role in the Despenser war]
Their motives were mainly political: First to counterbalance the potential posthumous popularity of Edward II [his tragic death aroused pity and the Isabella and Mortimer regime grew more and more unpopular, see chapter 10, Aftermath] Their second motive was, possibly, to keep Henry of Lancaster on board as their supporter, especially since he headed the new minor’s kings council. 
King Edward III
And King Edward III himself, who wrote three times to the Pope in order to get a canonization for ”Saint Thomas”
I bring the reader into memory, that the initial two letters were written by Edward III, when his mother Isabella and her [possible] lover Roger Mortimer were the de facto rulers , so it was on that moment not clear, whether the King [then 14 years old] acted of his own accord.
However, after having overthrown the regime of his mother and Isabella and Roger Mortimer , Edward III did wrote a third [and last] letter to the Pope . That WAS on his own accord, since now he was not king in name anymore, but the de facto ruler too.
Edward III’s motive could have been his appreciation for Henry of Lancaster, who not only served in his council [under the Isabella and Mortimer regime], but also helped the King to put an end to the Mortimer [and Isabella] regime.  Also Edward III’s great liking of Henry’s son, Henry of Grosmont [first Duke of Lancaster, the second duke in English history, after Edward III’s eldest son, the Black Prince] , who represented his father in parliament from 1330 [because of Henry of Lancaster’s loss of eyesight], could have played an important part in Edward III’s attempts to canonize Thomas of Lancaster 
Anyway, that were my considerations about the motives of the important players after the downfall of Edward II, regarding the canonization of Thomas of Lancaster.
Thomas did not lead a pious life, nor seemed to have cared much about the ”common people” or ”the poor” The only link with commons I can see is his devotion to the Ordinances , curbing the royal power and giving space to more power for the nobility, which eventually could have led to more power for the commoners too.
So he derived his Sanctity not from a pious life or for fighting the rights of the Church, but from the miracles that were reported on hisgrave and place of execution, since people were appartently healed.
I ask myself: Reported by who? The people who were ”healed” and their families? Or had Henry, Thomas’ brother, a hand in those rumours, desiring to repair the honour of his executed brother and the family name. Possible.
But at the end, there was more to it:
Not only people venerated ”Saint Thomas” because of the miracles, this veneration was also an act of protest against the mounting tyranny of the King and the Despensers, who repressed the Contrariant’s resistance severely [executions, imprisonments, hard treatment of the wives of the rebels] 
When faced with such a tyranny, those who opposed the ”tyrants” [The Contrariants, namely Thomas, the Marcher Lords and allies], soon became ”freedomfighters” and in the light of unfair trials, underdogs and in the case of Thomas of Lancaster, eventually, holy…..
Also by law Thomas had his honour preserved [ in 1328 his trial was reversed]  and his brother Henry his satisfaction.
I end with the beginning of this chapter:
A part of a prayer to ”Saint Thomas” “the blessed martyr” and “flower of knights,”
”.O Thomas, strenuous champion of plentiful charity, who didst combat for the law of England’s liberty, intercede for our sins with the Father of Glory, that he may give us a place with the blessed in the heavenly court.” 
The warlord had become ”Thomas the Martyr” 
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Nine
Yet new developments took place, resulting in the bombshell Oprah Winfreyinterview, which I share with you here, in full transcript!I will comment on it soon enough [look for my website]But firstly the interview! READ!
IT was the most sensational royal interview since Diana’s Panorama bombshell 26 years ago.
Speaking to Oprah Winfrey in California, Harry and Meghan blasted “racist” Britain, the Royal Family and the Press, while highlighting Meghan’s mental health struggles. Here, we reveal the full astonishing transcript…
OPRAH: We can’t hug, everybody is double- masked and has face shields. You look lovely. Do you know if you’re having a boy or a girl?
Meghan: We do this time. I’ll wait for my husband to join us and we can share that with you.
Oprah: That would be really great. Before we get into to it, I just want to make clear to everybody that, even though we’re neighbours, I’m down the road, you’re up the road, we’re using a friend’s place. There has not been an agreement, you don’t know what I’m going to ask, there is no subject that’s off limits and you are not getting paid for this interview.
Meghan: All of that’s correct.
Oprah: I remember sitting in the chapel — thanks for inviting me, by the way. I so recall this sense of magic. I never experienced anything like it. When you came through that door, you seemed like you were floating down the aisle. Were you even inside your body at that time?
Meghan: I’ve thought about this a lot. It was like having an out-of- body experience I was very present for. The night before, I slept through the night entirely, which is a bit of a miracle, and then woke up and started listening to Going To The Chapel, to make it fun and light and remind ourselves this was our day. We were both aware in advance of that this wasn’t our day, this was the day planned for the world.
Oprah: Everybody who gets married knows you’re really marrying the family. But you weren’t just marrying a family, you were marrying a 1,200-year-old institution, you’re marrying the monarchy. What did you think it was going to be like?
Meghan: I would say I went into it naively because I didn’t grow up knowing much about the Royal Family. It wasn’t part of something that was part of conversation at home. It wasn’t something that we followed. My mum even said to me a couple of months ago, ‘Did Diana ever do an interview?’ Now I can say. ‘Yes, a very famous one’, but my mum doesn’t know that.
Oprah: But you were aware of the royals and, if you were going to marry into the royals, you’d do research about what that would mean?
Meghan: I didn’t do any research about what that would mean.
Oprah: You didn’t do any research?
Meghan: No. I didn’t feel any need to, because everything I needed to know he was sharing with me. Everything we thought I needed to know, he was telling me.
Oprah: So, you didn’t have a conversation with yourself, or talk to your friends about what it would be like to marry a prince, who is Harry, who you had fallen in love with . . . you didn’t give it a lot of thought?
Meghan: No. We thought a lot about what we thought it might be. I didn’t fully understand what the job was: What does it mean to be a working royal? What do you do? What does that mean? He and I were very aligned on our cause- driven work, that was part of our initial connection. But there was no way to understand what the day-to- day was going to be like, and it’s so different because I didn’t romanticise any element of it. But I think, as Americans especially, what you do know about the royals is what you read in fairytales, and you think is what you know about the royals. It’s easy to have an image that is so far from reality, and that’s what was so tricky over those past few years, when the perception and the reality are two different things and you’re being judged on the perception but you’re living the reality of it. There’s a complete misalignment and there’s no way to explain that to people.
Oprah: With every family things get serious when you’re brought in to meet the grandmother or the mother. The grandmother is the matriarch and, in your situation it’s the Queen.’
Meghan: She was one of the first people I met. The real Queen.
Oprah: What was that like? Were you worried about making the right impression?
Meghan: There wasn’t a huge formality the first time I met Her Majesty The Queen. We were going for lunch at Royal Lodge, which is where some other members of the family live, specifically Andrew and Fergie, and Eugenie and Beatrice would spend a lot of time there. Eugenie and I had known each other before I knew Harry, so that was comfortable and it turned out the Queen was finishing a church service in Windsor and so she was going to be at the house. Harry and I were in the car and he says, ‘OK, well my grandmother is there, you’re going to meet her’. (I said) ‘OK, great’. I loved my grandmother, I used to take care of my grandmother. (He said) ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ ‘What?’ ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ I thought genuinely that’s what happens outside, that was part of the fanfare. I didn’t think that’s what happens inside. I go, ‘But it’s your grandmother’. He goes, ‘It’s the Queen!’
Meghan: And that was really the first moment the penny dropped?
Oprah: Did you Google how to curtsey?
Meghan: No, we were in the car. Deeply, to show respect, I learned it very quickly right in front of the house. We practised and walked in.
Oprah: Harry practised?
Meghan: Yeah, and Fergie ran out and said, ‘Are you ready? Do you know how to curtsey? Oh, my goodness, you guys’. I practised very quickly and went in, and apparently I did a very deep curtsey, and we just sat there and we chatted and it was lovely and easy and I think, thank God, I hadn’t known a lot about the family. Thank God, I hadn’t researched. I would have been so in my head about all of it.
Oprah: (What) you’re sharing with us is that you were no more nervous as a regular person who goes to meet somebody’s grandmother.
Meghan: I had confused the idea. I grew up in LA, you see celebrities all the time. This is not the same but it’s very easy, especially as an American, to go, ‘These are famous people’. This is a completely different ball game.
(Cut to them and Oprah at their house)
Oprah: What are you feeling here (their home)? What’s the word?
(Oprah narrates) The day after our interview, I stopped over to Harry and Meghan’s new home.
Meghan: Hi, Guy (dog).
Oprah: Hi, Guy.
Meghan: Yeah, Guy’s been — Guy’s been through everything with me.
Oprah: Yeah, from the beginning, from the very first date, yeah?
Meghan: If Guy, I mean, I had him in Canada. I got him from a kill shelter in Kentucky.
(In Harry and Meghan’s hen coop)
Meghan: Hi, girls!
(Oprah narrates) We put on wellies to feed the hens Meghan and Harry recently rescued from a factory farm. ‘I love your little designer house here. Archie’s chick inn. Oh, how cute is that.’
Harry: She’s always wanted chickens.
Meghan: Well, you know, I just love rescuing.
Oprah: So, this is a part of your new life? What are you most excited about?
Meghan: Whoop! You’re OK . . .
Oprah: What are you most excited about in the new life? What are you most excited about? Here, chick, chick, chick, chick.
Meghan: I think just being able to live authentically.
Meghan: Right? Like this kind of stuff. It’s so, it’s so basic, but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics. I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . .
Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that . . .
Harry: Just the three of us.
Harry: Just the three of us.
Meghan: Just the three of us.
(Back to Oprah)
Oprah: You know, the wedding was the most perfect picture, you know, anybody’s ever seen. But through that picture that we were all seeing, behind the scenes, obviously, there was a lot of drama going on. And soon after your marriage, the tabloids started offering stories that painted a not-so-flattering picture of you in your new world. There were rumours about you being ‘Hurricane Meghan’.
Meghan: I hadn’t heard that.
Oprah: So, there were rumours about you being Hurricane Meghan, for the departure of several high-profile palace staff members. And there was also a story — did you hear this one? — about you making Kate Middleton cry?
Meghan: This I heard about.
Oprah: You heard about that. OK.
Meghan: This was . . . that was . . . that was a turning point.
Oprah: That was a turning point?
Kate made me cry days before wedding, but I got blamed… that was hard.
(Oprah narrates) Six months after Harry and Meghan’s wedding, headlines began to swirl about a rift between Meghan and her sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton. It was reported that Meghan had left Kate “in tears” over the bride-to-be’s “strict demands” over flower-girl dresses.
Meghan: The narrative with Kate — which didn’t happen — was really, really difficult and something that . . . I think that’s when everything changed, really.
Oprah: You say the narrative with Kate, it didn’t happen. So, specifically, did you make Kate cry?
Oprah: So, where did that come from?
Oprah: Was there a situation where she might have cried? Or she could have cried?
Meghan: No, no. The reverse happened. And I don’t say that to be disparaging to anyone, because it was a really hard week of the wedding. And she was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologised. And she brought me flowers and a note, apologising. And she did what I would do if I knew that I hurt someone, right, to just take accountability for it. What was shocking was . . . what was that, six, seven months after our wedding?
Meghan: That the reverse of that would be out in the world.
Oprah: The story came out six, seven months after it actually happened?
Oprah: So, when you say . . .
Meghan: I would have never wanted that to come out about her ever, even though it had happened. I protected that from ever being out in the world.
Oprah: So, when you say the reverse happened, explain to us what you mean by that.
Meghan: A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something pertaining — yes, the issue was correct — about flower-girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings. And I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn’t make sense to not be just doing whatever everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot.
Oprah: This was a really big story at the time, that you made Kate cry. Now you’re saying you didn’t make Kate cry, Kate made you cry. So, we all want to know, what would make you cry? What . . . what were you going through? You were going through all of the anxiety that brides go through putting their wedding together and going through all of the issues with your father: Was he coming? Was he not coming?
Oprah: And there was a confrontation over the . . . the dresses?
Meghan: It wasn’t a confrontation, and I actually don’t think it’s fair to her to get into the details of that, because she apologised.
Meghan: And I’ve forgiven her.
Meghan: What was hard to get over was being blamed for something that not only I didn’t do but that happened to me. And the people who were part of our wedding going to our comms team and saying, ‘I know this didn’t happen.’ I don’t have to tell them what actually happened.
Meghan: But I can at least go on the record and say she didn’t make her cry. And they were all told the same . . .
Oprah: So, all the time the stories were out that you had made Kate cry . . . you knew all along, and people around you knew that that wasn’t true?
Meghan: Everyone in the institution knew it wasn’t true.
Oprah: So, why didn’t somebody just say that?
Meghan: That’s a good question.
Meghan: I’m not sharing that piece about Kate in any way to be disparaging to her. I think it’s really important for people to understand the truth.
Meghan: But also I think, a lot of it, that was fed into by the media. And I would hope that she would have wanted that corrected, and maybe in the same way that the Palace wouldn’t let anybody else.
Meghan: Negate it, they wouldn’t let her, because she’s a good person. And I think so much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity, where if you love me, you don’t have to hate her. And if you love her, you don’t need to hate me.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. You know, there were several stories that compared headlines written about you to those written about Kate.
Oprah: Since you don’t read things, let me tell you what was said.
Oprah: There were stories where Kate was being praised for holding her baby bump.
Meghan: Oh, gosh, have I done it since we’ve been sitting down?
Oprah: Yes, you’ve been doing it the whole time.
Meghan: Probably. OK.
Oprah: Kate was praised for cradling her baby bump, and the headline about you doing the same thing said, ‘Meghan can’t keep hands off her baby bump for pride or vanity’.
Meghan: What does it have to do with pride or vanity?
Oprah: Well, I’m just — I’m just telling you about the stories, OK?
Meghan: OK, I hear you.
Oprah: Then there was a whole online piece about this: ‘Kate eating avocados to help with morning sickness’.
Meghan: (Laughs) I heard — OK, I heard about the avocado one.
Oprah: But you were eating avocados . . .
Meghan: And fuelling murder, apparently.
Oprah: Wolfing down a fruit linked to water shortages, illegal deforestation and environmental devastation. There was, seems . . . there seems to be . . . there was a . . .
Meghan: That’s a really loaded piece of toast. (Laughter) I mean . . . you have to laugh at a certain point, because it’s just ridiculous.
Oprah: That’s good: ‘That’s a loaded piece of toast.’ It’s about deforestation and . . .
Meghan: Oh, man!
Oprah: Oh, wow! So, do you think there was a standard for Kate in general and a separate one for you? And if so, why?
Meghan: I don’t know why. I can see now what layers were at play. Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And, again, they really seemed to want a narrative of a hero and a villain.
Oprah: Yeah. You came in as the first mixed-race person to marry into the family, and did that concern you in being able to fit in?
Oprah: And did that concern you in being able to fit in? Did you think about that at all?
Meghan: I thought about it because they made me think about it.
Meghan: Right? But at the same time now, upon reflection, thank God all of those things were true. Thank God I had that life experience. Thank god I had known the value of working. My first job was when I was 13, at a frozen yoghurt shop called Humphrey Yogart.
Meghan: I’ve always worked. I’ve always valued independence. I’ve always been outspoken, especially about women’s rights. I mean, that’s the sad irony of the last four years . . . is I’ve advocated for so long for women to use their voice, and then I was silent.
Oprah: Were you silent? Or were you silenced?
Meghan: The latter.
Oprah: So, how does that work? Were you told by the comms people, or the, I don’t know, the institution? Were you told to keep silent? How were you told to handle tabloids or gossip? Were you . . . were you told to say nothing?
Meghan: Everyone from . . . everyone in my world was given very clear directive, from the moment the world knew Harry and I were dating, to always say, ‘No comment’. That’s my friends, my mom and dad.
Meghan: And we did.
Meghan: I did anything they told me to do — of course I did, because it was also through the lens of, ‘And we’ll protect you’. So, even as things started to roll out in the media that I didn’t see — but my friends would call me and say, ‘Meg, this is really bad’ — because I didn’t see it, I’d go, ‘Don’t worry. I’m being protected’.
Meghan: I believed that. And I think that was . . . that was really hard to reconcile because it was only . . . it was only once we were married and everything started to really worsen that I came to under-stand that not only was I not being protected, but they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.
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. 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.
Meghan: We had breakfast together that morning, and she’d given me a beautiful gift, and I just really loved being in her company. And I remember we were in the car . . .
Oprah: Can you share what the gift was? Or . . .
Meghan: Yes. She gave me beautiful pearl earrings and a matching necklace. And we were in the car going between engagements, and she has a blanket that sits across her knees for warmth. And it was chilly, and she was like, ‘Meghan, come on’ and put it over my knees as well.
Oprah: Oh, nice.
Meghan: 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?
Oprah: Did you feel welcomed by everyone? It seemed like you and Kate . . . at the Wimbledon game where you were going to watch a friend play tennis . . .
Oprah: Was it what it looked like? You are two sisters-in-law out there in the world, getting to know each other. Was she helping you, embracing you into the family, helping you adjust?
Meghan: I think everyone welcomed me.
Meghan: And, yeah, when you say, ‘Was it what it looked like?’, my under-standing and my experience of the past four years is it’s nothing like what it looks like. It’s nothing like what it looks like. 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’.
I mean, there was a day that one of the members of the family, she came over, and she said, ‘Why don’t you just lay low for a little while, because you are everywhere right now’. And I said, ‘I’ve left the house twice in four months. I’m everywhere, but I am nowhere’. And from that standpoint, I continued to say to people, ‘I know there’s an obsession with how things look, but has anyone talked about how it feels? Because right now, I could not feel lonelier’.
Oprah: Hmm. You were feeling lonely, even though your prince . . . you’re in love, you’re with him.
Meghan: I’m not lonely . . . I wasn’t lonely with him.
Meghan: There were moments that he had to work or he had to go away, there’s moments in the middle of the night. And so, there was very little that I was allowed to do.
Meghan: And so, yeah, of course that breeds loneliness when you’ve come from such a full life or when you’ve come from freedom. I think the easiest way that now people can understand it is what we’ve all gone through in lockdown.
Oprah: Yeah, well, everybody can certainly relate now.
(Cuts to footage of interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby in South Africa in October, 2019)
Meghan: . . . asked if I’m OK, but it’s a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes.
Bradby: And the answer is, would it be fair to say, ‘Not really OK’, as in it’s really been a struggle?
(Back to Oprah)
Oprah: Well, I would have to say, in South Africa, when the reporter stopped and asked, ‘Are you OK . . ?’
Oprah: And, whooo, we all felt that. Why did that question strike such a nerve? What was going on with you, internally at that time?
Meghan: That was the last day of the tour. You know, those tours are . . . I’m sure they have beautiful pictures and it looks vibrant, and all of that is true. It’s also really exhausting. So, I was fried, and I think it just hit me so hard because we were making it look like every-thing was fine. I can understand why people were really surprised to see that there was pain there.
Meghan: Because we were doing our job. Our job was to be on and to smile. And so, when he asked me that, I guess I had felt that it had never occurred to anyone that I, that I wasn’t OK, and that I had really been suffering. And I had known for a long time and had been asking the institution for help for quite a long time.
Oprah: Help for what?
Meghan: After we had gotten back from our Australia tour — which was about a year before that — and we talked about when things really started to turn, when I knew we weren’t being protected. And it was during that part of my pregnancy, especially, that I started to understand what our continued reality was going to look like.
Oprah: What kind of protection did you want that you feel you didn’t receive?
Meghan: I mean, they would go on the record and negate the most ridiculous story for anyone, right? I’m talking about things that are super-artificial and inconsequential. But the narrative about, you know, making Kate cry, I think was the beginning of a real character assassination. And they knew it wasn’t true. And I thought, well, if they’re not going to kill things like that, then what are we going to do?
It had never occurred to anyone that I wasn’t OK…I was really suffering, and asked for help.
Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.
Meghan: It was really hard.
Oprah: What do you mean?
Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.
Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?
Meghan: That’s right, I know.
Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?
Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . . ‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.
Oprah: So, how do they explain to you that your son, the grandson, the great-grandson of the Queen . . .
Oprah: . . . is not going to have . . . he wasn’t going to be a prince? How did they tell you that? And what reasons did they give? And then say, ‘And so, therefore, you’re not . . . you don’t need protection’.
Meghan: There’s no explanation.
Meghan: There’s no version. I mean, that’s the other piece of that . . .
Oprah: Who tells you that?
Meghan: I heard a lot of it through Harry and then other parts of it through conversations with . . .
Meghan: . . . family members. And it was a decision that they felt was appropriate. And I thought, well . . .
Oprah: Was the title . . . was him being called a prince, Archie being called a prince, was that important to you?
Meghan: If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course. All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’ve always just still been Meghan, right? So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.
Meghan: But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . . You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.
Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . .
Oprah: . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.
Meghan: Well, why?
Oprah: Did you get an answer?
Oprah: You still don’t have an answer?
Oprah: You know, we had heard — the world, those of us out here reading the things or hearing the things — that it was you and Harry who didn’t want Archie to have a prince title. So, you’re telling me that is not true?
Meghan: No, and it’s not our decision to make, right?
Meghan: . . . even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad — and from my experience, a lot of pain.
Meghan: I, again, wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.
Oprah: OK, so it feels to me like things started to change when you and Harry decided that you were not going to take the picture that had been a part of the tradition for years and . . .
Meghan: We weren’t asked to take a picture. That’s also part of the spin, that was really damaging. I thought, ‘Can you just tell them the truth? Can you say to the world you’re not giving him a title, and we want to keep him safe, and that if he’s not a prince, then it’s not part of the tradition? Just tell people, and then they’ll understand?’
Meghan: But they wouldn’t do that.
Oprah: But you were . . . you both, obviously, were aware that had been a part of the tradition? And there was a . . . was there a specific reason why you didn’t want to be a part of that tradition? I think many people interpreted that as you were both saying, ‘We’re going to do things our way. We’re going to do things a different way’.
Meghan: That’s not it at all. I mean, I think what was really hard . . . so, picture, now that you know what was going on behind the scenes, right? There was a lot of fear surrounding it. I was very scared of having to offer up our baby, knowing that they weren’t going to be kept safe.
Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . . what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?
Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . .
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.
Meghan: And . . .
Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?
Meghan: So . . .
Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.
Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.
Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ?
Meghan: With Harry.
Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?
Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?
Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.
Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?
There were conversations …about no security, no title… and how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Meghan: That was relayed to me from Harry. Those were conversations that family had with him. And I think . . .
Meghan: It was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalised conversations.
Oprah: Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem? Are you saying that?
Meghan: I wasn’t able to follow up with why, but that — if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one, which was really hard to understand, right? Especially when — look, I — the Commonwealth is a huge part of the monarchy, and I lived in Canada, which is a Commonwealth country, for seven years. But it wasn’t until Harry and I were together that we started to travel through the Commonwealth, I would say 60 per cent, 70 per cent of which is people of colour, right?
Meghan: And growing up as a woman of colour, as a little girl of colour, I know how important representation is. I know how you want to see someone who looks like you in certain positions.
Meghan: Even Archie. Like, we read these books, and now he’s been — there’s one line in one that goes, ‘If you can see it, you can be it’. And he goes, ‘You can be it!’ And I think about that so often, especially in the context of these young girls, but even grown women and men who, when I would meet them in our time in the Commonwealth, how much it meant to them to be able to see someone who looks like them . . .
Meghan: . . . in this position. And I could never understand how it wouldn’t be seen as an added benefit . . .
Meghan: . . . and a reflection of the world today. At all times, but especially right now, to go — ‘how inclusive is that, that you can see someone who looks like you in this family, much less one who’s born into it?’
(Oprah narrates) When Meghan joined the Royal Family in 2018, she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks. Racist abuse online aimed at Meghan Markle. There were undeniable racist overtones. This stands apart from the kind of coverage we’ve seen of any other royal.
There was constant criticism, blatant sexist and racist remarks by British tabloids and internet trolls. We have seen the racism towards her play out in real time. Referring to her as ‘straight outta Compton’. The daily onslaught of vitriol and condemnation from the UK Press became overwhelming and, in Meghan’s words, ‘almost unsurvivable’. (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: You’d said in a podcast that it became ‘almost unsurvivable’, and that struck me, because it sounds like you were in some kind of mental trouble. What was actually going on? ‘Almost unsurvivable’ sounds like there was a breaking point.
Meghan: Yeah, there was. I just didn’t see a solution. I would sit up at night, and I was just, like, I don’t understand how all of this is being churned out. And, again, I wasn’t seeing it, but it’s almost worse when you feel it through the expression of my mom or my friends, or them calling me crying, just, like, ‘Meg, they’re not protecting you’. And I realised that it was all happening just because I was breathing.
Meghan: And, look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. And I . . . I just didn’t . . . I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember — I remember how he just cradled me. And I was — I went to the institution, and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that, ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution. And I called . . .
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. But I went to one of the most senior people just to . . . to get help. And that — you know, I share this, because there’s so many people who are afraid to voice that they need help. And I know, personally, how hard it is to not just voice it, but when you voice it, to be told no.
Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me. And I remember this conversation like it was yesterday, because they said, ‘My heart goes out to you, because I see how bad it is, but there’s nothing we can do to protect you because you’re not a paid employee of the institution’.
Meghan: This wasn’t a choice. This was emails and begging for help, saying very specifically, ‘I am concerned for my mental welfare’. And people going, ‘Oh, yes, yes, it’s disproportionately terrible what we see out there to anyone else’. But nothing was ever done, so we had to find a solution.
Oprah: Wow! ‘I don’t want to be alive any more,’ that’s . . .
Meghan: I thought it would have solved everything for everyone, right?
Oprah: So, were you thinking of harming yourself? Were you having suicidal thoughts?
Meghan: Yes. This was very, very clear.
Meghan: Very clear and very scary. And, you know, I didn’t know who to even turn to in that. And one of the people that I reached out to, who’s continued to be a friend and confidant, was one of my husband’s mom’s best friends, one of Diana’s best friends. Because it’s, like, who else could understand what’s . . .what it’s actually like on the inside?
Oprah: Did you ever think about going to a hospital? Or is that possible, that you can check yourself in some place?
Meghan: No, that’s what I was asking to do.
Meghan: You can’t just do that. I couldn’t, you know, call an Uber to the palace.
Meghan: You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.
Oprah: Well, the way you’re describing this, it . . . it’s like you were trapped and couldn’t get help, even though you’re on the verge of suicide. That’s what you are describing. That’s what I’m hearing.
Oprah: And that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?
Meghan: That’s the truth.
Oprah: That’s the truth.
Meghan: You know, and if you think about . . . it was one of the things that . . . it stills haunts me is this photograph that someone had sent me. We had to go to an official event. We had to go to this event at the Royal Albert Hall, and a friend said, ‘I know you don’t look at pictures, but, oh, my God, you guys look so great . . .’
Meghan: . . . and sent it to me. And I zoomed in, and what I saw was the truth of what that moment was, because right before we had to leave for that, I had just had that conversation with Harry that morning, and it was the next day that I talked to the institution.
Oprah: You had the conversation ‘I don’t want to be alive any more’?
Meghan: No, and it was . . . it wasn’t even, ‘I don’t want to’.
Oprah: And then, you . . ?
Meghan: It was like, ‘These are the thoughts that I’m having in the middle of the night that are very clear . . .’
Oprah: Yes, clarification.
Meghan: ‘. . . and I’m scared, because this is very real. This isn’t some abstract idea. This is methodical, and this is not who I am’. But we had to go to this event, and I remember him saying, ‘I don’t think you can go’. And I said, ‘I can’t be left alone’.
Oprah: Because you were afraid of what you might do to yourself?
Meghan: And we went, and that . . .
Oprah: I’m so sorry to hear that.
Meghan: . . . and that picture, if you zoom in, what I see is how tightly his knuckles are gripped around mine. You can see the whites of our knuckles, because we are smiling and doing our job, but we’re both just trying to hold on. And every time that those lights went down in that Royal Box, I was just weeping, and he was gripping my hand.
Meghan: And then, it was, ‘OK, intermission’s coming, the lights are about to come on, everyone’s looking at us again’, and you have to just be on again.
Meghan: And that’s, I think, so important for people to remember is you have no idea what’s going on for someone behind closed doors. You have no idea. Even the people that smile the biggest smiles and shine the brightest lights, it seems, to have compassion for what’s actually potentially going on.
Oprah: I know. The public is looking at you. And to think that you, earlier in the day, had said to Harry that you didn’t want to be alive any more.
Meghan: Yeah. And just hours before, just sitting on the . . . the steps in our cottage . . .
Meghan: . . . just sitting there and then going, ‘ok, well, go upstairs and put your make-up bag in your sink and try to pull yourself together’.
Oprah: Nobody should have to go through that.
Meghan: And, you know, Harry and I are working on this mental health series for Apple, and we — yes, so — we, we, we hear a lot of these stories. Nobody should have to go through that. It takes so much courage to admit that you need help.
Meghan: It takes so much courage to voice that. And as I said, I was ashamed. I’m supposed to be stronger than that.
Meghan: I don’t want to put more on my husband’s shoulders. He’s carrying the weight of the world. I don’t want to bring that to him. I bring solutions. To admit that you need help, to admit how dark of a place you’re in.
Oprah: You’ve said some pretty shocking things here, revealing . . .
Meghan: I wasn’t planning to say anything shocking.
Meghan: I’m just telling you what’s happened.
Meghan: I’m sorry if it’s shocked you! It’s been a lot.
Oprah: I’m a little shocked.
Meghan: It’s been a lot.
Oprah: How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today? Are you afraid of a backlash or their reaction?
Meghan: I mean, I think I’m not going to live my life in fear. You know, I think so much of it is said with an understanding of just truth.
Meghan: But I think, to answer your question, I don’t know how they could expect that after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.
Meghan: That at a certain point, you’re going to go, ‘But, you guys, someone just tell the truth’. And if that comes with risk of losing things, I mean, I’ve lost . . . there’s a lot that’s been lost already.
Meghan: And I grieve a lot. I mean, I’ve lost my father. I lost a baby. I nearly lost my name. I mean, there’s the loss of identity. But I’m still standing, and my hope for people in the takeaway from this is to know that there’s another side.
Meghan: To know that life is worth living.
Oprah: OK. I’m so glad you see that now. We are going to take a break, y’all, and Harry’s going to join us.
(Ads and back to Oprah)
Oprah: So, hi.
Oprah: Thanks for joining us.
Harry: Thanks for having me.
Oprah: You’ve been watching on the side, yeah?
Harry: Some of it.
Oprah: Yes. I want to say, first of all, let’s say congratulations . . .
Harry: Thank you.
Oprah: . . . for the new addition to your family. Meghan said she wanted to wait until you were here to tell us, is it a boy or is it a girl?
Meghan: You can tell her.
Harry: No, go for it.
Meghan: No, no.
Harry: It’s a girl.
Meghan: It’s a girl.
Oprah: You’re going to have a daughter. Wow.
Meghan: It’s a girl.
Oprah: When you realised that and saw it on the ultrasound, what . . . what . . . what was your first thought?
Harry: Amazing. Just grateful, like any — to have any child, any one or any two would have been amazing. But to have a boy and then a girl, you know, what more can you ask for? But now, you know, now we — we’ve got our family. We’ve got, you know, the four of us and our two dogs, and it’s great.
Oprah: Done. Done? Two is it?
Meghan: Two is it.
Oprah: Two is it.
Meghan: Two is it.
Oprah: And when’s the baby due?
Meghan: In summertime.
Oprah: This summertime?
Oprah: So, you all have been living in sunny California now for . . .
Meghan: Since March.
Oprah: Since March, OK.
(Oprah narrates) In late 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan left the UK And moved to Canada. The couple says they chose Canada, a commonwealth of Britain, with the intention of continuing to serve the Queen. After their move, Harry and Meghan say security normally provided by the Royal Family was cut off. By March 2020, just days before the Covid lockdown began, Meghan, Harry and Archie relocated to Los Angeles, where media mogul Tyler Perry offered them his home as a temporary refuge. He also provided security.
Three months later they bought their own home and settled in the Santa Barbara area. Last spring, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex created their own foundation and media content company called Archewell.
Oprah: And so you stayed at Tyler Perry’s house for several months.
Harry: Three months, I believe.
Meghan: Yeah, because we didn’t have a plan. We needed . . . we needed a house and he offered security as well, so it gave us breathing room to try to figure out what we are going to do.
Harry: The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed. By this point, courtesy of the Daily Mail, the world knew exact . . . our exact location. So suddenly it dawned on me, ‘Hang on a second. The borders could be closed. We’re going to have our security removed. Who knows how long lockdown’s going to be? The world knows where we are. It’s not safe. It’s not secure’.
Meghan: Well, and also . . .
Harry: We probably need to get out of here.
Oprah: So, what security did you have at the time that was going to be removed?
Harry: We had our UK security.
Oprah: So you got word from overseas?
Oprah: That ‘we’re taking away your security’. Why were they doing that?
Harry: Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but due to our change of status, (by) which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family, they’re obviously . . . what we proposed was sort of part-time, or at least as much as we could do without being fully consumed because of, I think, what most of you guys have covered already.
Meghan: We actually didn’t talk about that. It’s been so spun in the wrong direction, as though we quit, we walked away, we . . . all the conversations of the two years before we finally announced it.
(Oprah narrates) In January 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan announced they would step back as senior members of the Royal Family. The swiftness with which they’ve taken this decision, only 18 months after they got married, has taken everyone by surprise, from the Queen all the way down.
The bombshell news sparked a worldwide media frenzy dubbed ‘Megxit’ by the British Press. Many reporters and viral posts blamed Meghan for the decision. In an official statement, Queen Elizabeth said: ‘Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.’ (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: OK, let me ask the question.
Oprah: So, over a year ago, you shocked the world. You announced you were stepping back as senior members of the Royal Family. And then the media reported that you had ‘blindsided’ the Queen, your grandmother. So here’s a time to set the record straight. What was the tipping point that made you decide you had to leave?
Harry: Yeah, it was desperate. I went to all the places which I thought I should go to, to ask for help. We both did.
Harry: Separately and together.
Oprah: So you left because you were asking for help and couldn’t get it?
Harry: Yeah, basically. But we never left.
Meghan: We never left the family and we only wanted to have the same type of role that exists, right? There’s senior members of the family and then there are non-senior members. And we said, specifically, ‘We’re stepping back from senior roles to be just like several . . .’ I mean, I can think of so many right now who are all . . . they’re royal highnesses, prince or princess, duke or duchess . . . who earn a living, live on palace grounds, can support the Queen if and when called upon. So we weren’t reinventing the wheel here. We were saying, ‘OK, if this isn’t working for everyone, we’re in a lot of pain, you can’t provide us with the help we need, we can just take a step back. We can do it in a Commonwealth country’. We suggested New Zealand, South Africa . . .
Harry: Take a breath.
Oprah: Yeah. And you wanted to take a breath from what specifically? Let’s be clear.
Harry: From this . . . this constant barrage. My biggest concern was history repeating itself and I’ve said that before on numerous occasions, very publicly. And what I was seeing was history repeating itself. But more, perhaps. Or definitely far more dangerous because then you add race in and you add social media in. And when I’m talking about history repeating itself, I’m talking about my . . . my mother.
Harry: When you can see something happening in the same kind of way, anybody would ask for help, ask the system of which you are a part of — especially when you know there’s a relationship there — that they could help and share some truth or call . . . call the dogs off, whatever you want to call it. So to receive no help at all and to be told continuously, ‘This is how it is. This is just how it is. We’ve all been through it’ . . . and I think the biggest turning point for me was the . . . and it didn’t take very long. It was actually right at the beginning . . . was, OK, this union . . . us, me, being . . . having a girlfriend was going to be a thing. Of course it was. But I . . . I never expected, or I never thought . . .
Oprah: Because she was mixed race?
Harry: No, just . . . just the two of us to start with. I hadn’t really thought about the mixed-race piece because I thought, well . . . well, firstly, you know, I’ve spent many years doing the work and doing my own learning. But my upbringing in the system, of which I was brought up in and what I’ve been exposed to, it wasn’t . . . I wasn’t aware of it to start with. But, my god, it doesn’t take very long to suddenly become aware of it.
Oprah: Yeah, because you said you really weren’t aware of unconscious bias and all that that represents . . .
Oprah: Until you met Meghan.
Harry: Yeah. You know, as sad as it is to say, it takes living in her shoes — in this instance, for a day, or those first eight days — to see where it was going to go and how far they were going to take it.
Oprah: And get away with it?
Harry: And get away with it and be so blatant about it. That’s the bit that shocked me. This is . . . we’re talking about the UK Press here, right? And this . . . the UK is my home. That is . . . that is where I was brought up. So yes, I’ve got my own relationship that goes back a long way with the media. I asked for calm from the British tabloids — once as a boyfriend, once as a husband and once as a father.
Oprah: So when I ask the question, ‘Why did you leave?’ the simplest answer is . . ?
Harry: Lack of support and lack of understanding.
Oprah: So, I want clarity. Was the move about getting away from the UK Press? Because the Press, as you know, is everywhere. Or was the move because you weren’t getting enough support from The Firm?
Harry: It was both.
Oprah: Did you blindside the Queen?
Harry: No. I’ve never blindsided my grandmother. I have too much respect for her.
Oprah: So where did that story come from?
Harry: I hazard a guess that it probably could have come from within the institution.
Meghan: So, I remember when you talked to her several times about this over . . .
Harry: Two years.
Meghan: Two years. But even the night before, days before, with the statement coming out, I remember that conversation.
Oprah: So, how do you know she wasn’t blindsided? Because the way it was presented through the Press is that suddenly you made this announcement. She didn’t know it was coming.
Harry: No, I . . . when we were in Canada, I had three conversations with my grandmother and two conversations with my father and — before he stopped taking my calls — and he said, ‘Can you put this all in writing what your plan is?’
Oprah: Your father asked you to put it in writing.
Prince Harry: Yeah. He asked me to put it in writing and I put all the specifics in there, even the fact that we were planning on putting the announcement out on January 7.
Oprah: So you just said that your dad stopped taking your calls. Why did he stop taking your calls?
Harry: Because I took matters in . . . by that point, I took matters into my own hands. It was like, ‘I need to do this for my family. This is not a surprise to anybody. It’s really sad that it’s gotten to this point but I’ve got to do something for my own mental health, my wife’s and for Archie’s as well’. Because I could see where this was headed.
Meghan: To have sat back and not said that for so long, it just feels really . . .
Oprah: To have been silenced all this time.
Harry: Been three and a half, four years. Or longer, actually.
Meghan: We were saying . . . gosh, it must have been years ago we were sitting in Nottingham (Nottingham Cottage, where Harry lived as a bachelor and when first married) . . . I was sitting in Nottingham Cottage and The Little Mermaid came on. Now, who watches . . . who as an adult really watches The Little Mermaid? But it came on and I was like, ‘Well, I’m just here all the time, so I may as well watch this’. And I went, ‘Oh, my god! She falls in love with the prince and because of that, she has to lose her voice’.
Meghan: But by the end, she gets her voice back.
Oprah: Gets her voice back.
Oprah: And this is what happened here? You feel like you got your voice back?
Oprah: So, you . . . you’re stepping back out of frustration and you just need to get out. And, you know, you heard Meghan share with us all . . .
Oprah: The moment that she came to you, had the courage enough to say out loud . . .
My father said: Can you put your plan in writing? Then he stopped taking my calls. I’d taken matters into my own hands.
Oprah: ‘I don’t want to live any more.’
Oprah: And you didn’t know what to do?
Harry: I had no idea what to do. I wasn’t . . . I wasn’t prepared for that. I went . . . I went to a very dark place as well. But I . . . I wanted to be there for her and . . .
Meghan: Also, we didn’t leave right that minute, right?
Harry: I was terrified.
Meghan: We still . . . that’s almost a year after.
Oprah: So then did you tell other people in the family, ‘I have to get help for her. We need help for her’?
Harry: No. That’s just not a conversation that would be had.
Harry: I guess I was ashamed of admitting it to them.
Harry: And I don’t know whether . . . I don’t know whether they’ve had the same . . . whether they’ve had the same feelings or thoughts. I have no idea. And it’s a very trapping environment that a lot of them are stuck in.
Oprah: You were ashamed of admitting that Meghan needed help?
Harry: I didn’t have anyone to turn to.
Harry: You know, we’ve got some very close friends that . . . that have been with us through this whole process but for the family, they very much have this mentality of, ‘This is just how it is. This is how it’s meant to be. You can’t change it. We’ve all been through it’.
Oprah: ‘We’ve all been through the pressure. We’ve all been through being exploited’?
Harry: Yes. But what was different for me was the race element, because now it wasn’t just about her, but it is about what she represents. And therefore it wasn’t just affecting my wife. It was affecting so many other people as well. And that’s . . . that was the trigger for me to really engage in those conversations with Palace . . . senior Palace staff and with my family to say, ‘Guys, this is not going to end well’.
Oprah: And when you say ‘end well’, what did you mean?
Harry: For anyone it’s not going to end well. Because the way that I saw it was there was a way of doing things but for us — for this union and the specifics around her race — there was an opportunity, many opportunities, for my family to show some public support.
Harry: And I guess one of the most telling parts — and the saddest parts, I guess — was over 70 Members of Parliament, female Members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour — came out and called out the . . . the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about
Meghan. Yet no one from my family ever said anything over those three years. And that . . . that hurts. But I also am acutely aware of where my family stand and how scared they are of the tabloids turning on them.
Oprah: Turning on them for what? They’re the Royal Family.
Harry: Yes, but it’s . . . there is this invisible . . . what’s termed or referred to as the ‘invisible contract’ behind closed doors between the institution and the tabloids, the UK tabloids.
Oprah: How so?
Harry: Well, it is . . . to simplify it, it’s a case of if you . . . if you as a family member are willing to wine, dine and give full access to these reporters, then you will get better press.
Oprah: What do you care about better press if you’re royal?
Harry: I think everyone needs to have some compassion for . . . for them in that situation, right? There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean, generations.
Oprah: But who’s controlling whom? It’s the institution. From our point of view, just the public. It’s . . .
Harry: Yeah but the institution survives based on that, on that perception. So actually, if you don’t . . .
Oprah: So you’re saying there’s this relationship that Meghan was speaking of . . . it’s like, symbiotic. One lives or thrives because the other exists.
Oprah: That’s what you’re saying.
Harry: That’s the . . . that’s the idea.
Meghan: Well, see, I think there’s a reason that these tabloids have holiday parties at the Palace. They’re hosted by the Palace, the tabloids are. You know, there is a construct that’s at play there. And because from the beginning of our relationship, they were so attacking and inciting so much racism, really, it changed our . . . the risk level, because it went . . . it wasn’t just catty gossip. It was bringing out a part of people that was racist in how it was charged. And that changed the threat. That changed the level of death threats. That changed everything.
Oprah: So, tell me this: You said a moment ago, it hurts that your family has never acknowledged the role that racism played in here. Did you think she was well received in the beginning?
Harry: Yes. Far better than I expected. (Laughter) But, you know, my grandmother has been amazing throughout. You know, my father, my brother, Kate and . . . and all the rest of the family, they were, they were really welcoming. But it really changed after the Australia tour, after our South Pacific tour.
Meghan: That’s when we announced we were pregnant with Archie. That was our first tour.
Harry: But it was also . . . it was also the first time that the family got to see how incredible she is at the job. And that brought back memories.
Oprah: I’m thinking, because I watch The Crown OK? I watch The Crown. Do you all watch The Crown?
Harry:: I’ve watched some of it. You’ve watched some of it?
Meghan: I’ve watched some of it.
Oprah: But there’s this . . . I think it was the fourth season, actually, where there is an Australian tour. So, is that what you’re talking about? It brought back memories of that? The Australian tour.
Oprah: Where your father and your mother went there, and your mother was bedazzling. So, are you saying that there were hints of jealousy?
Harry: Look, I just wish that we would all learn from the past. But to see the . . . to see how effortless it was for Meghan to come into the family so quickly in Australia and across New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, and just be able to connect with people in such a . . .
Oprah: But . . .
Harry: I know, I know, I know, I know. But it’s . . .
Oprah: Why, I mean, why wouldn’t everybody love that? Isn’t that what you want? You want her to come into the family and to, as the Queen said at one point, the way that Meghan had basically, not her words, been assimilated into the family.
Harry: Yeah, I think, you know, as we talked about, she was very much welcomed into the family, not just by the family, but by the world.
Harry: Certainly by the Commonwealth. I mean, here you have one of the greatest assets to the Commonwealth that the family could have ever wished for.
Oprah: I just can’t . . . I’m kind of going back to this. So, then, you’re in Canada because you had stepped back. Your Firm says you’re no longer going to have protection. So, did you ask for that? Because did you want . . . were you trying to have it both ways? You wanted to step back but also keep your foot in royal business, it seems.
Harry: It’s interesting that you talk about it being, you know, ‘Have it both ways’ on the . . . on the security element. I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.
Oprah: So, that you as Prince Harry are going to have your security removed.
Meghan: Yeah. And I even . . . and I even wrote letters to his family saying, ‘Please, it’s very clear the protection of me or Archie is not a priority. I accept that. That is fine. Please keep my husband safe. I see the death threats. I see the racist propaganda. Please keep him safe. Please don’t pull his security and announce to the world when he and we are most vulnerable’. And they said it’s just not possible.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. I think what we really have got to clear up here is because one of the stories that continues to live, either through rumours or social media, out in the world, is that you, Meghan, are the one who manipulated, calculated, and are responsible for this Megxit.
Meghan: Oh, my gosh. It’s amazing how they can use Meg for everything.
Oprah: Yes. There are even stories that you knew all along that this was going to happen. You went through the whole process, and it was all intentional to build your brand.
Meghan: Can you imagine how little sense that makes? I left my career, my life. I left everything because I love him, right? And our plan was to do this for ever.
Meghan: Our plan . . . for me, I mean, I wrote letters to his family when I got there, saying, ‘I am dedicated to this. I’m here for you. Use me as you’d like’. There was no guidance, as well, right? There were certain things that you couldn’t do. But, you know, unlike what you see in the movies, there’s no class on how to . . . how to speak, how to cross your legs, how to be royal. There’s none of that training. That might exist for other members of the family. That was not something that was offered to me.
Oprah: So, nobody tells you anything?
Oprah: Nobody prepares you?
Meghan: Nobody even . . .
Harry: There’s . . .
Meghan: Sorry, but even down to, like, the National Anthem. No one thought to say, ‘Oh, you’re American. You’re not going to know that’. That’s me late at night, Googling how . . . what’s the National . . . I’ve got to learn this. I don’t want to embarrass them. I need to learn these 30 hymns for church. All of this is televised. We were doing the training behind the scenes, because I just wanted to make them proud.
Oprah: OK, but here’s the question: Do you think you would have left or ever stepped back were it not for Meghan?
Harry: No. The answer to your question is no.
Oprah: You would not have?
Harry: I wouldn’t have . . . I wouldn’t have been able to, because I myself was trapped as well. I didn’t see a way out.
Oprah: She felt trapped, you were trapped?
Harry: Yeah, I didn’t see a way out.
Oprah: But you’d this life, your whole life. This has been your life your whole life.
Harry: Yeah, but, you know, I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped.
Harry: But the moment that I met Meg, and then our worlds sort of collided in the most amazing of ways, and then to see how . . .
Oprah: Please explain how you, Prince Harry, raised in a palace and a life of privilege — literally, a Prince . . . how you were trapped.
Harry: Trapped within the system, like the rest of my family are. My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.
Oprah: Well, OK, so the impression of the world — maybe it’s a false impression — is that, for all these years before Meghan, you were living your life as a royal, Prince Harry . . . the beloved Prince Harry and that you were enjoying that life. We didn’t get the impression that you were feeling trapped in that life.
Harry: Enjoying the life because there were photographs of me smiling while I was shaking hands and meeting people? Like, I’m sure you guys have covered some of that. That’s . . . that’s a part of the job. That’s a part of the role. That’s what’s expected. No matter who you are in the family, no matter what’s going on in your personal life, no matter what’s just happened, if the bikes roll up and the car rolls up, you’ve got to get dressed, you got to get in there. You wipe your tears away, shake off whatever you’re thinking about and you got to be on your A-game.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. What would you think your mum would say about this stepping back, this decision to step back from the Royal Family? How would she feel about this moment?
Harry: I think she would feel very angry with how this has panned out, and very sad. But, ultimately, she’d . . . all she’d . . . all she’d ever want is for us to be happy.
Oprah: You wanted freedom from . . . from that life? You wanted freedom to make your own money. You wanted freedom to make deals with Netflix and Spotify. But you also wanted to serve the Queen?
Harry: Yeah, we didn’t want to . . . we didn’t want to give up, or we didn’t want to turn our backs on the associations and the people that we . . . that we’ve been supporting.
Meghan: But also, Oprah, it exists.
Harry: Yeah, it exists. But, also, the Netflix and the Spotify, they’re all . . . that was never part of the plan.
Oprah: Because you didn’t have a plan?
Meghan: We didn’t have a plan.
Harry: We didn’t have a plan. That was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford . . . afford security for us.
Oprah: Wait. Hold . . . hold up. Wait a minute. Your family cut you off?
Harry: Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2020. But I’ve got what my mum left me, and, without that, we would not have been able to do this.
Harry: So, you know, touching back on what you asked me, what my mum would think of this, I think she saw it coming. And I certainly felt her presence throughout this whole process. And, you know, for me, I’m . . . I’m just really relieved and happy to be sitting here talking to you with my wife by my side. Because I can’t begin to imagine what it must have been like for her going through this process by herself all those years ago, because it’s been unbelievably tough for the two of us, but at least we had each other.
Oprah: What’s your relationship like now with your family?
Harry: I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.
Oprah: Do you all have Zoom calls?
Harry: We did a couple of Zoom calls with Archie.
Meghan: Sometimes, yes, so they can see Archie.
Harry: My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .
Harry: . . . And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be.
Oprah: Your relationship with your father? Is he taking your calls now?
Harry: Yeah. Yeah, he is. There’s a lot to work through there, you know? I feel really let down, because he’s been through something similar. He knows what pain feels like, and this is . . . and Archie’s his grandson. And . . . but, at the same time, you know, I, of course I will always . . . I will always love him, but there’s a lot of hurt that’s happened. And . . . and I will continue to . . . to make it one of my priorities to try and heal that relationship. And, but they only know what they know, and that’s the thing. I’ve tried to . . .
Meghan: Or what they’re told.
Harry: Or what they’re told. And I’ve tried to educate them through the process that I have been educated.
Oprah: Because is it like being in a big royal bubble?
Oprah: Yeah. And your brother? Relationship? Much has been said about that.
Harry: Yeah, and much will continue to be said about that. You know, as I’ve said before, I love William to bits. He’s my brother. We’ve been through hell together. I mean, we have a shared experience. But we . . . you know, we’re on . . . we’re on different paths.
Oprah: Well, what is particularly striking is what Meghan shared with us earlier, is that no one wants to admit that there’s anything about race or that race has played a role in the trolling and the vitriol, and yet Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie’s skin tone.
Oprah: What was that conversation?
Harry: That conversation I’m never going to share, but at the time . . . at the time, it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.
Oprah: Can you . . . can you tell us what the question was?
Harry: No. I don’t . . . I’m not comfortable with sharing that.
Harry: But that was . . . that was right at the beginning, right?
Oprah: Like, what will the baby look like?
Harry: Yeah, what will the kids look like?
Oprah: What will the kids look like?
Harry: But that was right at the beginning, when she wasn’t going to get security, when members of my family were suggesting that she carries on acting, because there was not enough money to pay for her, and all this sort of stuff. Like, there was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.
Oprah: So, in conclusion, if you’d had the support, you’d still be there?
Harry: Without question.
Harry: I’m sad that . . . that what’s happened has happened, but I know, and I’m comfortable in knowing, that we did everything that we could to make it work. And we did everything on the exit process the way that . . . the way that it should have been done.
Meghan: With as much respect.
Harry: With as much respect.
Meghan: And, oh, my God, we just did everything we could to . . . to protect them.
Oprah: So, what do you say to the people who say you came here, you made these multimillion-dollar deals and that you’re just money-grabbing royals?
Harry: First off, this was never the intention.
Harry: And we’re certainly not complaining. We . . . our life is great now. We’ve got a beautiful house. We’ve got a beautiful . . . I’ve got a beautiful family. And the dogs . . . the dogs are really happy. But at the time, during Covid, the suggestion by a friend was, ‘What about streamers?’
Meghan: Yeah, we genuinely hadn’t thought about that before.
Harry: We hadn’t thought about it. So there were all sorts of different options. And, look, from my perspective, all I needed was enough money to be able to pay for security to keep my family safe.
Oprah: Mm. How will you use Archewell as a means of speaking to things that are important to you in the world?
Meghan: I think in creating . . . I mean, life is about storytelling, right? About the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we’re told, what we buy into. And . . . and for us to be able to have storytelling through a truthful lens, that hopefully is uplifting, is going to be great knowing how many people that can land with. And being able to give a voice to a lot of people that are under-represented and aren’t really heard.
Oprah: Any regrets?
Meghan: This morning, I woke up earlier than H and saw a note from someone on our team in the UK saying the Duke of Edinburgh had gone to the hospital.
Meghan: But I just picked up the phone and I called the Queen just to check in.
Oprah: You check in?
Meghan: Just like, I would . . . you know . . . that’s what we do. It’s like, being able to default to not having to every moment go, ‘Is that appropriate?’
Harry: For so many in my family, what they do is . . . there’s a level of control in it, right? Because they’re fearful of what the papers are going to say about them.
Harry: Whereas with us, it was just, like, just be . . . just be yourself. Just be genuine. Just be authentic. Just go and do what it is. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong. If you get it right, you get it right.
(Oprah narrates) On February 19, 2021, Buckingham palace released a statement announcing it was agreed that Prince Harry and Meghan would not return as working members of the Royal Family. Harry and Meghan’s royal patronages and Prince Harry’s honorary military titles would be returned to the Queen. The Queen’s statement was released after our interview took place. (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: Your exit agreement with the Royal Family, it’s . . . that is coming up at the end of this month.
Harry: The decision is, I think. Yeah, I mean, the decision — what, as of last week, or whatever it was — is that they will be removing everything.
Oprah: Are you hurt by that decision?
Harry: I am hurt. But at the same time I completely respect my grandmother’s decision. I would still love for us to be able to continue to support those associations, albeit without the title or the role.
Oprah: Could you be as satisfied now, doing this through your own organisation, Archewell?
Meghan: Well, we . . . this is what we’re doing, right? We’re still doing it. We’re still going to always do the work. But I also think it’s important for you or everyone to know this decision that was made about patronages and all of that was before anyone knew that we were sitting down with you.
Meghan: I think that it’s . . . I can only imagine . . .
Oprah: I heard a story that you’re getting punished now. Those were being taken away because you did sit down with me.
Meghan: Yeah, but that was . . . those letters, those conversations, that was . . . that was finalised before anyone even knew that we were going to sit down. So that’s just not true.
Oprah: All right, tell me this. Harry, what delights you now in your everyday experience and the things that you actually cherish in your life here with Archie and Meghan?
Harry: This year has been crazy for everybody. But to have outdoor space where I can go for walks with Archie, and we can go for walks as a family and with the dogs, and we can go on hikes — we’ll go down to the beach, which is so close — all of these things are just . . . I guess, the highlight for me is sticking him on the back of the bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on these bike rides, which is something I was never able to do when I was young. I can see him on the back and he’s got his arms out and he’s like, ‘Whoo!’ chatting, chatting, chatting, going, ‘Palm tree! House!’ and all this sort of stuff. And I do . . . I think to myself . . .
In some ways it’s just the beginning. Greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read…
Oprah: What’s his new favourite word? What’s his favourite word now?
Meghan: Oh my gosh, he’s on a roll. In the past couple weeks it has been hydrate, which is just hysterical.
Harry: But also, whenever everyone leaves the house, he’s like, ‘Drive safe’.
Meghan: ‘Drive safe’.
Harry: Which is really . . .
Meghan: He’s not even two yet!
Oprah: You said that your brother was trapped. You said that you love your brother and always will love your brother. You didn’t tell me what the relationship is now, though.
Harry: The relationship is space at the moment. And, you know, time heals all things, hopefully.
Oprah: Any regrets?
Harry: No. I mean . . . no, I think we’ve done . . . I’m really proud of us, you know? I’m so proud of . . . I’m so proud of my wife. Like, she safely delivered Archie during a period of time which was so cruel and so mean. And every single day, I was coming back from work, from London, I was coming back to my wife crying while breastfeeding Archie. That’s coming from someone who wasn’t reading anything. And as she touched on earlier, if she had read anything, she wouldn’t be here now. So we did what we had to do — and now we’ve got another little one on the way.
Meghan: I have one. My regret is believing them when they said I would be protected. I believed that. And I regret believing that because I think, ‘had I really seen that that wasn’t happening, I would have been able to do more’. But I think I wasn’t supposed to see it. I wasn’t supposed to know. And . . . and now, because we’re actually on the other side, we’ve actually not just survived but are thriving. You know, this . . . I mean, this is miracles. I . . . yeah, I think that all of those things that I was hoping for have happened . . . and this is in some ways just the beginning for us. You know, we’ve been through a lot. It’s felt like a lifetime. (Laughs.) A lifetime.
Oprah: So, your story with the prince does have a happy ending?
Meghan: It does.
Meghan: Yeah. (Laughs.) It really did.
Oprah: It has a happy ending because you made it so.
Meghan: Yeah, greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read.
Oprah: Greater than any fairytale.
Meghan: Yeah, yeah.
Oprah: What you’ve described here today — being trapped and not even being aware of it and all the things that had transpired, and then she comes into your life and then you’re doing therapy — do you think in some way she saved you?
Harry: Yeah. Without question. There was . . . there was a bigger purpose. There was other forces at play, I think, throughout this whole process. I’m the last person to think, ‘Ooh!’ You know? But it’s undeniable when these things have happened, where the overlap is. So yeah, she did. Without question she saved me.
Meghan: And I would . . . I would . . . I mean, I think that’s lovely. I would disagree. I think he saved all of us, right? He ultimately called it and was like, ‘We’ve got to find a way for us, for Archie’. And you made a decision that saved . . . certainly saved my life and saved all of us. But, you know, you need to want to be saved.
Oprah: Well, thank you for sharing your love story. We can’t wait for the big day some time this summer.
Meghan: Yes, indeed.
Oprah: Sometime this summer.
Oprah: Thank you both for trusting me to share your story.
END OF THE INTERVIEW
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Oprah Winfrey meets Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle/Full text of the interview
FOLLOWING THE STORY…… Smart Readers with interest in English medieval history have travelled withme to the first half of the fourteenth century, where we were Internet eyewitnessesof the feud between king Edward II and his cousin Thomas, Second Earlof Lancaster, which resulted in an open war, lost by……. Read the former chapters
SO!Now you know who won and who lost But was it a real victory? I’ll deal with that in a next chapter BUT FIRST THE SAD CONTINUATION OF CHAPTER SEVEN: CHAPTER 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 Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Eight
I BOLDLY STATE, THAT IF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, THE MARCHER LORDS AND THEIR ATTACHING ALLIES HAD JOINED TOGETHER EFFECTIVELY, FORGOTTEN UNDERLYING FEUDS AND IGNORED THE DIVIDE AND RULE GAME OF THE KING, THEY COULD HAVE WON.
Preview For the readers, who failed to read Chapter six:
What happened in Despenser war, first phase?
After the Treaty of Leake in 1318 [reconciliation between the King and his overmighty cousin Thomas of Lancaster, with whom he the King feuded endlessly] and the banishment of the three favourites of the King [what Lancaster had demanded], a new favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger rose [who took his father along with him in his enjoyment of favouritism]. The King’s excessive favouritism towards Despenser, and Despenser’s abnormal avariciousness, drove the Marcher Lords into rebellion and they made an alliance with Thomas of Lancaster, who loathed those favourites of the King. The Marcher Lords marched on London in 1321 [later supported by Lancaster] and forced the King to send the Despensers in exile.
B Queen Isabella’s Pilgrimage to Canterbury and
her reception at Leeds Castle
C Hell breaks loose:
The Siege of Leeds Castle The Siege of Leeds: Aftermath King’s military victory/Political consequences
D Fight to the death
Edward II’s war with the Marcher Lords Events in november, december and begin of january
E Fight to the death The Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster Edward II’s war with the Marcher Lords Swan Song
F Fight to the death Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster Last dance
After the Marcher Lords’ ”March on London” late july 1321 , in august backed
by Thomas of Lancaster  and eventually forcing the King to banish the Despensers, tensions grew high in the country, both sides mobilising their forces. And of course the King sought for an opportunity, to bring back his favourite Despensers as soon as possible. Then in the autumn of 1321, Something took place, which would change the course of events for the King, the Despensers and the opposing rebels.
QUEEN ISABELLA’S PILMGRIMAGE TO CANTERBURY AND HER RECEPTION AT LEEDS CASTLE
It happened in october 1321, that Queen Isabella went on pilgrimage to Canterbury, and, not taking the usual route headed for Leeds Castle, where Lord Badlesmere was appointed as governor.  And this Lord Badlesmere was at first loyal to the King, being the King’s household steward , but later switched sides and became a Contrariant, thus an ally of the Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster.  At the moment of the Queen’s arrival, Lord Badlesmere was at a Contrariant’s meeting at Oxford and whether on instructions of her husband or not , his wife, Lady Badlesmere, refused the Queen entrance to the Castle, which, of course, was a gross insult. Queen Isabella, probably furious, ordered her escort to force an entry into the castle, and the garrison of Lady Badlesmere opened up a volley of arrows at them, killing six men of the Queen. Isabella was left outside and had to find other lodgings..,. Of course the King was furious. He avenged the insult to the Queen, by besieging the Castle of Leeds. 
Coincidence or deliberate?
Now it is possible, that Queen Isabella for some innocent reason had taken another route than usual, but according to some historians, she did so to create a casus belli.  With other words: Her heading for Leeds Castle was deliberate and on the orders of the King, in the hope that Lady Badlesmere [what she did, indeed] as the wife of a Contrariant rebel, would refuse the Queen entrance to the Castle, giving the King the excuse to revenge his wife’s insult, starting the war again.  And not only that: Because of the insult of the Queen, many moderate barons, who didn’t take sides yet, would join the royal army.
It also gave the King opportunity to a policy of ”divide et impera” [Latin for ”divide and rule], since Thomas of Lancaster loathed Lord Badlesmere and would probably not come to Lady Badlesmere’s assistance, when the castle were besieged. 
And Thomas of Lancaster fell right into the trap [poor Lord Thomas, not very smart and dishonourable, the Lady was in need…..] and indeed didn’t help , even ordered the Marcher Lords not to ….. Lord Badlesmere himself assembled an army and tried to help his wife and break the siege of the castle, but was not able to do so, since Thomas of Lancaster and the Marcher Lords didn’t come to his aid …
This strategic failure of Lancaster led to a major strengthening of the position of the King:
Because of the insult to the Queen and King’s readiness to go á royal ”fist to fist, toe to toe on this, many barons and volunteers indeed rallied to his assistance ……
AND his victory would lead to his regaining control of South-East England….. Another ”great” thing happened Edward II felt his position strong enough to revoke the banishment order of the Despensers in december 1321….. So the same mess started over again……
THAT’S WHY I STATED, THAT ONE OF THE CAUSES OF THE DEFEAT OF THE CONTRARIANTS WAS UNDERLYING FEUDS [as between Thomas of Lancaster and Lord Badlesmere] AND THE DEVIOUS DIVIDE ET IMPERA POLICY OF THE KING…
But to the honour of Lord Badlesmere [who did get a bad press in history, whether it is uncertain, if it is deserved]  must be said, that he fought side by side with Thomas of Lancaster in his last battle against the King, the Battle of Boroughbridge, in spite of the fact, that Thomas didn’t come to the assistance of his wife, when besieged, nor help him [Badlesmere] to break the siege….
Now about the coincidence or deliberate act regarding Queen Isabella heading for Leeds Castle: Assuming that it was a deliberate trap of the King, it was very clever strategy. What poses the question, whether the King had thought this out for himself, since he had, to put it mildly, no great strategic talents: Therefore some historians think, that he was in contact with [and likely had met] the banished Hugh Despenser the Younger, who perhaps was the mastermind behind the casus belli….
And concerning the clever ”divide and rule” policy of the KIng:
Edward [and possibly Hugh Despenser, when it was true that they had met and were together in this] must have known that the earl of Lancaster detested Badlesmere, and gambled that the he would not help him.  And he gambled right, alas for Thomas of Lancaster, the other Contrariants and Lord and Lady Badlesmere themselves, as the story will tell….
But again: It was no clever strategy of Lord Thomas either, not to help a man, who was his ally, just because he didn’t like him. In a rebellion, you can’t always choose your friends, my lord of Lancaster…..
HELL BROKE LOOSE THE SIEGE OF LEEDS CASTLE
THE SIEGE AND AFTERMATH
Edward II mobilised his forces and placed Leeds Castle under siege, giving Queen Isabella the Great Seal and control of the Royal Chancery.  The assault on the Castle persisted for more than five days and on 31 october 1321 Lady Badlesmere surrendered. 
Now any siege of a city or a Castle is a nasty business, but especially Edward II’s siege of Castle Leeds: It was a siege of a Castle, held by a woman, who was totally outnumbered by the forces of the King  and got no help whatsoever from the Contrariants [as I from now on will call the rebels against the King, the Marcher Lords, the Earl of Lancaster and their forces and allies] , despite of her husband Lord Badlesmere begging them to come to the aid of his wife.  Of course there was a problem here, in this case for the Marcher Lords. Destroying the Despenser lands is one thing, using your forces in a direct battle against the King is another and openly, treason. Besides, their ally the Earl of Lancaster had ordered them, not to come to the aid of Badlesmere [which included his wife], since he had a great personal dislike of him [Badlesmere] 
A nasty business, as I said. The King, with on his side the Earls of Kent and Norfolk [his two halfbrothers] and the Earls of Surrey, Arundel, Pembroke and Richmond
 The King even brought his nearly nine year old son, the Earl of Chester [the later Edward III] 
I can’t see this siege , even if the King wanted to revenge the insult to his Queen, as utter cowardly. But to be fair: Also is the behaviour of the Contrariants, not to come to the aid of the wife of one of their allies.
Siege of Leeds Aftermath:
The aftermath was gruesome: Thirteen members of the garrison were drawn and hanged
after the end of the siege, even in those cruel times unusual, since men had never been executed within for holding a castle against the king………. Lady Badlesmere pleaded for mercy, but was arrested and with her children, sent to the Tower of London.  She therefore became the first recorded woman, imprisoned in the Tower.  She was released in november 1322, seven months after the horrible execution of her husband in april 1322 [hanged, drawn and quartered, the ”traitors’ death] , after his fighting in the Battle of Boroughbridge, where Lancaster was defeated by the royal forces. 
King’s military victory Political consequences:
The Siege of Leeds [casus belli or coincidence…] where the Contrariants failed to help Lady Badlesmere, led to an enormous strenghtening of the position of the King in the South-East  and a demoralisation of the Contrariants, who must have realized, too late, that they fell into the trap of the King’s game of divide and rule….
And not only his military position was strengthened, also his political, with the increasement of loyal barons [caused by the King’s readiness to avenge the insult to the Queen] and the come back of the Despensers, revoked out of banishment.
But now the fight between the King, his cousin Thomas of Lancaster and his allies the Marcher Lords [together the Contrariants] was about to begin in earnest.
FIGHT TO THE DEATH EDWARD II’S WAR WITH THE MARCHER LORDS EVENTS IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AND BEGIN JANUARY
As been said, Edward II’s succesful besiegement of Leeds Castle led to his control over South-East England again. A setback for the Contrariants, and Marcher Lords Roger Mortimer and the Earl of Hereford [brother in law of the King], travelled North to discuss the situation with Thomas of Lancaster, who in thed meantime and as a reaction on Edward II’s regained control of South-East England, had mobilised his forces in the North. 
They met on 29 november [Edward II had prohibited the meeting, to no avail], probably in Pontefract Castle [other sources call Doncaster] and they were sworn together a second time to maintain that which they had commenced. 
Battle with words: Amusing: Doncaster petition Thomas of Lancaster’s high opinion about himself…..
As shows the story [as has shown already], the Despenser war and its aftermath was an extremely bloody mess, complete with executions [including the ”traitor’s death], pillaging lands, robbing and extortioning innocent people, hard imprisonment of wives and children of the Contrariants [as we shall see]. Yet there was not only fighting with weapons, but also with words: Famous example is the ”’Doncaster Petition’, drewn up by Thomas of Lancaster and his allies, which said that Hugh Despenser the Younger, amusingly called Sire Huge throughout, had been exiled “for diverse reasonable reasons” with the consent of the king himself and all the magnates in parliament. It accused Edward of placing Despenser under the care of the men of the Cinque Ports  [which proved to be right] and supporting him in his piracy and various other crimes and included the usual references to Edward’s ‘evil counsellors’ [which was certainly true in the case of the Despensers] See for the sample text of the petition note 385
Now the amusing thing is not only their accusation of their own Lord the King of accomplicity with some crimes of Hugh Despenser [which by the way was probably not nonsense at all] , but the fact that the petition showed how highly Thomas of Lancaster thought about himself. That because the petitioners [Thomas and his allies] asked Edward to respond to the petition by 20 December….
Understandably, the King was not amused by this and informed Lancaster, that imposing a deadline on him on to reform the affairs of his kingdom gave the impression that he was the earl’s subject, not vice versa……
This ”deadline” was not the first time for Thomas to do such an act, which proved his arrogance and high opinion about himself:
Apart from the jeering at the King from the walls of Thomas’ Castle of Pontefract [1317 and 1320] and blocking the King’s way [in 1317] , Thomas had done another shocking thing, considering the fact, that he was Edward II’s subject and not vice versa:
In February 1311, his father-in-law Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, died, and Thomas inherited his lands by right of his wife Alice. He had to perform homage to Edward II for the lands, but Edward was then on campaign in Scotland. Thomas refused to cross the Tweed to meet the king; Edward refused to return to England Edward II was right: WHO THE HELL WAS THE KING HERE It was absurd, for the King to come to a subject! At the end, Edward gave in, met Thomas on the English side of the river Tweed. And there Thomas payed homage…..
Back to the Marcher Lords:
THE MARCHER LORDS/RETURN TO WALES/ATTACKS MAFFIA STYLE AND UPRISING After the meeting with the earl of Lancaster at Pontefract in november where they renewed their allegiance against the King [Edward II had forbidden the meeting, to no avail] , the Marcher lords returned to the west of England and Wales with a great armed force  and were playing the same tricks, maffia style again, as they did before: Stealing, extorting and assualting mostly innocent people under the pretext of attacking Despener lands 
This happened in november and december
Back in the Welsh borders, the Marcher Lords had firstly to pay attention to an uprising of the local peasantry  Making use of the problems of the Marcher Lords, in december the Edward II marched to Cirencester to invade the Welsh borders. 
MEANWHILE IN THE NORTH/THOMAS OF LANCASTER
Meanwhile in the North, Thomas of Lancaster had tried to win the support of the northern barons, his usual allies, but they stayed loyal to the king. 
Worse was, that Thomas to be already engaged in some negociations with the Scots, to get their support, supposedly to prevent the King to retake South Wales from the Marcher Lords.  How it came to light, that Thomas was engaged to parley with the Scots, the national enemy? [but I am on their side, because they fought for their freedom….] 
It will be revealed in this article [or book, HAHAHAHAHA] in this very chapter [seven]
Those military things took place in december 1321 and begin january 1322.
E FIGHT TO THE DEATH END DECEMBER 1321 AND JANUARY 1322 EDWARD II’S WAR WITH THE MARCHER LORDS SWAN SONG
As been said, the Contrariants [The Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster, and allies] could have won, were it not for underlying feuds and the divide and rule policy of the King. Added to that, a fatal strategic error of Thomas of Lancaster and lack of good cooperation between the Marcher Lords themselves…… Tragic for them
EDWARD II’S WAR WITH THE MARCHER LORDS
December 1321/January 1322 Edward II’s war with the Marcher Lords
Edward marched to Cirencester in December 1321, preparing to invade the
Welsh borders,  ordering the arrest of some main Contrariants, like his former steward Bartholomew Badlesmere [the man from ”The Siege of Leeds Castle”, see above], and his [Edward’s] former Favourite, Roger Damory [first main enemy of Thomas of Lancaster, now his ally, alienated from the King by the Despenser avariciousness]  Meanwhile, the Marcher Lords seized Gloucester, twenty miles from Cirencester, and thus controlled the bridge over the river Severn. 
”Strategy” of the Marcher Lords: Don’t fight the King, run off from him…..
Now the strangest thing happened: In stead of confronting the King in open war [when Edward approached Gloucester], the Marcher Lords failed to do that and simply….fled…… Not without playing their old maffia tricks of robbing and assaulting innocent people again [probably out of frustration not engaging the King in battle] 
But there is a good explanation for their not engaging the King in battle [although their forces were allegedly almost four times bigger than the King’s]
Attacking Despenser lands and raging and pillaging innocent people [who only happened to live on or near Despenser lands] is one thing, openly engaging the King in battle is treason…….
But the Marcher Lords were not totally crazy and hold the bridge over the Severn against the King, so that he could not cross it. 
And that was the last clever thing they did:
Fatal strategic errors of the Marcher Lords: Not engaging the King in battle Splitting up Pillaging again
THEY SPLIT UP! Damory remained at Worcester [a city, he at least took for the Contrariants], others headed north, while the earl of Hereford started plundering again [had The Marcher Lords
never got enough of those criminal games…….] and now for a change not from innocent people, but their old goal: Despenser property: this time Despenser the Younger’s younger Worcestershire castles of Hanley and Elmley. 
Instead of staying together as a group, engaging the King in battle, they fled, split up and started pillaging again.
When they saw, that their military position started weaker and weaker, they desperately hoped for Thomas of Lancaster to come to their aid.
The aid of Thomas was extremely necessary, since Edward II had arrived at Shrewsbury at 14 january and managed to cross over the river Severn and Roger Mortimer of Wigmore and his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk were in a desperate position: They were running out of money, their men were deserting them and they were squeezed between two forces, Edward’s on the east side of the Severn and his allies on the west side, and their lands being occupied and burnt [yes, the Marcher Lords received a taste of their own medicine, poor people, who lived on their lands…..] 
Thomas of Lancaster’s fatal strategic error:
I don’t know, whether Thomas of Lancaster knew exactly, how desperate the position of the Marcher Lords was, but he certainly knew that they were losing the game in Wales.
And in stead of coming to the rescue of the besieged Mortimers, he wasted his time and forces to besiege Edward II’s Castle at Tickhill [near Doncaster]….. 
Had he ridden out to the rescue of the Mortimers, together they would have good chance to defeat the forces of the King [Lancaster had a big army]
But he did not.
The end was predictable Running out of money and men and without the help of Thomas of Lancaster, who could not have come to their aid anymore, anyway, since his two castles of Holt and Bromfield were later seized by Edward’s forces ,
the both Mortimers had no choice but surrender to Edward II….. This happened on 22 january 1322 at Shrewsbury. 
The last Contrariants surrendered on 6 february 1322 at Hereford [at the border of Wales] 
Their fight with the King was over, but there was still hope for victory: Thomas of Lancaster in the North.
So finally, the remaining Contrariants fled towards Yorkshire to seek refuge with the earl of Lancaster, their last hope for fulfilling their cause…….
F FIGHT TO THE DEATH I EDWARD II AND THOMAS OF LANCASTER II LAST DANCE
EDWARD II AND THOMAS OF LANCASTER
Now the Marcher Lords were dedeated, Edward could finally give his attention to his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster.
HENRY OF LANCASTER, THE MYSTERY MAN
But before telling this dramatic story, first the readers attention for a mystery man I mentioned occasionaly in this story: Henry of Lancaster, younger brother of Thomas of Lancaster and the great ancestor of the House of Lancaster  To say it like it is: Where the hell was he in this fight to the death of his brother? Oddly perhaps [since rebels mostly were joined and supported by their brothers ] Henry spent most of the years between 1318-1322 in France, where he in 1317 had inherited the lands of his younger brother John, who died childless.  During the life of his brother Thomas, he seemed to have been loyal to the King and took part, on the orders of the King, in dealing with an uprising in Wales in 1316.  So he was made from quite other stuff than his brother…. However, in 1320/begin 1321, he was one of the Lords who formed a coalition against the Despensers and stood [at that time], shoulder to shoulder with the Rogers Mortimer, the former favourites of the King and others.  Doubtless his brother Thomas [who would soon join the club] appreciated that. But Henry was an interesting ”come and go” guy: He suddenly seemed to have disappeared to France, in each case untill january 1322  [and so kept out of trouble], when the Despenser war reached its finale, which turned out dramatically for Henry personally. So clearly he did not participate in his brother’s rebellion and opposition against the King [except for his initial opposition against the Despensers, Henry was by the way married with the half sister of Hugh Despenser the Younger, by his mother’s side]
But as we shall see later, Henry was a man to settle old scores…… We’ll meet him again.
LETTERS, ROYAL WARNINGS:
Back to Thomas and his last fight with his cousin, the King:
Oddly enough, after the surrender of the Marcher Lords, there was no immediate fight between the King and his not so dear cousin Thomas, as would be expected. At first the King ”warned” Thomas. On 8 February 1322 Edward II wrote to him, stating that he “wished to continue and augment his affection to the earl” and ordering him not to adhere to the Contrariants, who “have publicly boasted that they were going to the earl, and that they would draw him to them in the aforesaid excesses, and that they were sure of this.” Edward pointed out that joining the Contrariants would render Thomas guilty of treason 
To put it mildly: This was a strange letter, since Edward knew very well, that Thomas and the Marcher Lords were ”thick as thieves” [HAHAHA]  Also the King knew [of course!] that since 10 january, Thomas held his Castle Tickhill under siege. 
The answer of Thomas on the letter of the King [but to be fair: he could hardly be honest, criminalising himself as a traitor] was still stranger, since he pretended not to have anything to do with rebels.  YEAH RIGHT………
FIGHTING THE CAPTURE OF CASTLES
But then the to be expected fight broke out:
And for the direct cause, the King certainly was not to blame. He was right: Because, besiegement of a royal Castle [Thomas had put Edward II’s Tickhill Castle under siege] is a gross provocation and downright treason. And on 13 february, Edward announced his intention of going to raise the siege. He asked his brother-in-law Charles IV of France – Thomas’s nephew, son of his half sister Joan I of Navarre, who was also the mother of Queen Isabella of France – to send men to help him fight Thomas and the Contrariants, and also asked his nephews the duke of Brabant and the count of Bar, his kinsmen the counts of Eu, St Pol, Aumale and Beaumont, Charles IV and Isabella’s uncle the count of Valois, and the count of Hainault to send horsemen and footmen, and ordered Amaury de Craon, steward of Gascony, to come to him with armed men and advice. 
I don’t know if they all send military aid to Edward, but certain was, that Edward firmly wanted to confront his cousin in battle. On 19 february, Edward captured Thomas’s great Warwickshire stronghold of Kenilworth. 
But on 1 march 1322, Something would come to light, what would lead, directly to the dramatic end of the story…….
NEVER PUT YOUR TREASON ON PAPER/ THOMAS AND THE SCOTS ANOTHER FATAL ERROR: THE LETTERS ”KING ARTHUR”
I mentioned the fatal error Thomas had made, not to come to the aid of the besieged Rogers Mortimer, but instead of that, besieging the royal Castle of Tickhill. 
But what directly would seal his fate was writing treason down! The first lesson in the criminal’s handbook: NEVER WRITE DOWN SOMETHING ON PAPER!
AND WHEN YOU WRITE TREASON LETTERS OR RECEIVE ANSWER, BURN THEM!
That was the fatal error he made.
Poor Thomas. Proud and a high, an extremely well connected royal Lord, but not capable to see the danger of the written word….
What was the case here:
As I wrote before, when Edward marched on Cirencester in december 1321 to invade the Welsh border, Thomas had apparently asked the Scots to come to his [and the Contrariants] help, to prevent Edward to retake control over South Wales.  Now of course he could have done such a request only when he was already parleying with the Scots….. 
Now he was, apparently, earlier suspected of dealing with the Scots: Because: It was noticed that when the Scottish forces raided the north of England, they left his lands alone 
Now this is, obviously, circumstancial evidence , since you can’t accuse someone of treason for NOT being attacked by the national enemy, but what raised understandable suspicion [although not yet serious evidence] was the fact that although Thomas had a great army at Pontefract, he seemed not to have attempted to pursue the Scottish raiders……. 
Alas, for Thomas personally, real evidence DID show iself:
THE FATAL 1 MARCH
1 March was a fatal date for Thomas, because then, William Melton, archbishop of York, came into possession [I don’t know how] of letters, that had been exchanged between the Scottish Sir James Douglas [The Black Douglas]  and a mysterious ”King Arthur” In one of those letters, ”King Arthur” informed Douglas that the earl of Hereford, Roger Damory, Hugh Audley, Roger Clifford, Henry Tyes, Thomas Mauduit, John Wilington and Bartholomew Badlesmere [See the Siege of Leeds Castle] had come to ”King Arthur” They were prepared to treat with the Scots, as long as the Scots did what had previously been discussed: “to come to our aid, and to go with us in England and Wales” and “live and die with us in our quarrel.” 
HOW STUPID! Using a pseudonym  but naming the men by their own name, all adherents to Thomas of Lancaster! And to make matters worse: Thomas Randolph, earl of Moray and another close ally of Bruce, granted safe-conducts on 16 February 1322 for Roger Clifford, John Mowbray and forty horsemen to travel to Scotland.
Needless to say: John Mombray and Roger Clifford were diehard homies  of Thomas of Lancaster. By the way Mowbray was [not that the others were peaches, but this went far] a bad guy anyway. When going on the rampage in one of those Marcher Lords pillaging projects [somewhere in august or september 1321] he not only stole livestock, goods and chattels from the villagers of Laughton-en-le-Morthern in Yorkshire, but even robbed the church! 
Back to the stupidity of putting treason on paper:
How is it possible that a high Lord, a political animal as Thomas of Lancaster, who ruled de facto England for four years [although not very cleverly, forlorn in feudism with Edward II], could have fallen in the trap to put his treason ON PAPER……,while he could have sent trusted men, with a verbal message, then there was no evidence whatsoever……. Unbelievable
Yet it happened
I think: The arrogance of power.
Anyway, the discovery of the letters proved to be disastrous for Thomas.
I don’t know, whether the King already suspected Thomas of possible parleying with the Scots, but it must have been a great shock to him anyway. In each case, he gave orders, to make the letters public, which was, of course, a great moral setback for Thomas, because the support he still enjoyed , just scrumbled away. After all, getting along with Thomas of Lancaster now didn’t mean merely resistance against the destructive influence of the Despensers on the King and subsequently [since the King was so closely tied with those Despenser guys] against the King [which was treason], but also conspiring with the national enemy, the Scots…….
And he felt it instantly. Not only he had absolutely no hope to gain others for his cause anymore [remember he wanted the Despensers out of the throne’s influence and the Ordinances to be executed] his allies were deserting him. Sir Robert Holland, one of his most faithful men, deserted him, when he needed him most , something his brother, Henry of Lancaster [our ”mystery man”, who did not take part in his brother’s rebellion] would not forget nor forgive. 
And others would soon follow. 
Battle of Burton-on-Trent:
Thomas and the earl of Hereford and their allies left Pontefract on 1 March, broke the siege of Tickhill, and took up position at Burton-on-Trent near Tutbury Castle in Staffordshire, which belonged to Thomas.
In the meantime, Edward had pronounced Thomas, Roger Damory, Hugh Audley, Hereford, Lords Clifford and Mowbray and others to be traitors, and ordered all the sheriffs of England, the justice of Chester and the bishop of Durham to arrest them, saying that they “inflicted evil against the king’s servants, conducting war against the king with banners displayed.”  To cut a long story short: Thomas tried to hold the stronghold at Burton on Trent, but when Edward II’s forces came and Thomas saw, that he was outnumbered, he and his adherents withdrew  [smart, when you see you can’t make it]. According to some sources, “they turned their backs, set fire to the town, and fled.” 
They retreated to Pontefract , where a heated debate took place about what to do now. Some wanted to flee to Dunstanburgh, yet another of Thomas’s great castles on the Northumbrian coast, but Thomas didn”t want that, since it would seem as fleeing towards the Scots [you remember: Scottish raids were succesfully held in North England].  Strange way of reasoning, since Thomas’ correspondence with the Scots had already been revealed……
At the end,Thomas was ”persuaded” [yeah, with Lord Clifford’s sword waving in Thomas face….]  and they fled North anyway. At least, they tried……
They did not get far. On 16 march, as the King’s army continued to move up from the North, Thomas of Lancaster, the Earl of Hereford, Lord Clifford and others were suddenly halted at Boroughbridge by the arrival of Edward’s second army of approximately 4000 men under the command of Sir Andrew Harclay , sheriff of Cumberland and a former adherent of Thomas of Lancaster , who already had secured the bridge against the rebels.  Commanders at the side of the rebels were:
Thomas of Lancaster his faithful companion [and also a Marcher Lord] the Earl of Hereford [who had Piers Gaveston executed, together with Thomas of Lancaster, the Earl of Arundel and the 10th Earl of Warwick] And Roger, 2nd Baron de Clifford [son of Robert de Clifford, one of the besiegers of Piers Gaveston and died at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314] 
The Royal Commander was:
Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle 
To cut a long, dramatic story short:
Thomas and his men were forced to battle, the Earl of Hereford and others, attempting to walk across the bridge to break through Harclay’s lines, didn’t succeed and Hereford died horribly. 
So they lost the Battle of Boroughbridge, which took place on 16 march 1322. 
And Thomas, the great Earl of Lancaster, saw himself made prisoner…….
The long battle between him and his cousin King Edward II was over.
But Thomas’ humiliation and suffering was about to begin…….
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Seven
But not only Earl Thomas was a warlord, but also was proclaimed asa Saint after his death, which I find fascinatingFor how becomes a warlord a Saint? Read all about that! AND NOW DEAR READERS, CHAPTER SIX!
CHAPTER SIX OPEN WAR
DESPENSER WAR/FIRST PHASE [February-August 1321]
This ”book” [this article is so long, beginning to show like a book really, patience readers] is about Thomas of Lancaster, but since so many other players play a part in this magnificent story, they have to be described too. Especially to point out the complicated situation and all those changements of alliances….. I will mention the events of the war, but probably not all details, I am sorry Would I have done that, it would fill a university paper… For more reading, just look to the notes below…….
The reader must realize also, that in the first phase of the Despenser war, the role of Thomas of Lancaster is important, but limited. The biggest role is played by his allies the Marcher Lords. You will see, that in fact, they started the war, which was, in short, due to the Kings excessive favouritism of his friends the Despensers. The first phase of the war ends with the coerced banishment of the Despensers.
A Prelude B United against the King’s favourites/ Despenser war/Unlikely allies C The storm breaks out/Despenser war/ started/Sworn Oaths/Fist to fist/Toe to toe/I [First phase february-august 1321]
In chapter five I wrote, that Thomas of Lancaster cooperated well with the King in the unsuccesful siege of Berwick [in the war against the Scots] But as I wrote earlier, the fragile co operation between the two most powerful men, was ruined by the following remark of the King ””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 despite the earlier pardons for the murder of Piers Gaveston, the King had issued in 1313  and the extended pardons to Lancaster and his allies, given at the Treaty of Leake.  To say it again: A king must rise above his personal feelings and must be true to his word. Edward II couldn’t or wouldn’t do that……
That being said: Understandably Thomas of Lancaster, knowing that the King’s remark about Piers Gaveston was directly aimed against him, said ”Hasta la vista” and left Berwick.  And from that moment, relations between the two men deterioriated again.
But not only the unpredictability of the King was to blame for the deteriation between the two men, also the rising of a new star favourite, more dangerous than all the others had been: You’ve met him already: Hugh Despenser the Younger  and with his coming, things would never be the same again….
To be fair, Thomas himself was certainly NOT innocent either [not to speak about the murder of Gaveston], because of his repeated provocations of the King. I wrote about it in chapter five Jeering at the King from his [Thomas’] castle Pontefract, in 1317 [that jeering would be repeated in 1320 with the Queen accompanying the King]  Once blocking the King’s path…. 
That could be considered as treason, and not without reason! In each case it was to be expected, that the King would not consider those insults lightly as will appear in this story….. 
UNITED AGAINST THE KING’S FAVOURITES DESPENSER WAR/UNLIKELY ALLIES
Thomas of Lancaster and his allies The Marcher Lords and allies Two former royal favourites
The last ”fight to the death” between Thomas and his cousin, King Edward II, was actually a fight against the influence of a new, far more dangerous favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger  and his father, Hugh Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester[ Despenser the Elder].  Who were in this fight and why? Thomas of Lancaster of course, being the leader of the baronial opposition against the King, the ”Marcher Lords” , Roger Mortimer and his uncle, Roger Mortimer de Chirk  and their allies. And, painfully for Edward II, his two former favourites, Roger Damory and Hugh Audley.  Once deadly enemies of Thomas of Lancaster, now allies……
In the last battle Lancaster would fight against his king, the battle of Boroughbridge , Hugh Audley would even fight at his side….. While Sir Robert Holland, his [Thomas’] close and die hard ally, would abandon him in his hour of need…  Something Thomas’ brother Henry of Lancaster [who by the way NOT participated in any of his brother”s rebellions, although he seemed to be involved in the anti Despenser coalition]  , would not forget or forgive…..
This anti Despenser fight [and subsequently against the King] was called the ”Despenser war”, with the aim to crush the Despenser’s influence over the King, which would eventually result in avariciousness and tyranny.  But that’s for later.
What thar Despenser influence really meant?
For the Marcher Lords, to be robbed of their lands and privileges, as the revival of an old feud.
The former favourites of the King held a grudge against Hugh Despenser the Younger regarding his land grabbing as the ”Gloucester inheritance case”[see below]
And for Thomas of Lancaster it was threefold: A personal matter [he seemed to have loathed Despenser the Elder, the reason why I don’t know] A wish to curb royal power through the Ordinances  [which included no avaricious favourites]. And of course [let’s not make an idealist of Thomas, hahaha] a personal need for power.
COMEBACK OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, LEADER OF THE BARONIAL OPPOSITION AGAINST THE KING, BUT TEMPORARILY POLITICALLY ISOLATED
As written in chapter four, after the death of his father in law in 1311, the 3rd Earl of Lincoln [called ”Burst Belly” by vain and tragic Piers Gaveston], Thomas became very powerful [inherited from his father in law the Earldoms Lincoln and Salisbury, already in the possession of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby, inherited from his own father, Edmund Crouchback, brother of King Edward I]. So he became the ”natural” leader of the opposition against Edward II and his favourite Piers Gaveston. After the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, which ended so destastrous for England, Edward II was at the mercy of Thomas, in name King, while Thomas was the real king, de facto. See chapter five He became gradually politically isolated  [not attending parliaments, personal conflicts/feuds with other barons, no wise political insight, lack of governmental talents, unable to protect the borders against the Scottish raids, etc], but was yet too powerful to be ignored, because of his five Earldoms and,not to forget, his royal birth [being first cousin of Edward II]
However, when the resistance against the Despensers grew, The Marcher Lords and others looked up to Thomas as a leader of the resistance again, since he was the most constant factor in the struggle against King’s favourites [and the King]….. 
Together, they would go ”fist to fist’, toe to toe” in this rebellion……
THE MARCHER LORDS
Let’s say it like it is. The Despensers, father and son, were a bunch of thieves and criminals, who went into length to aggrandise their power and wealth, with less [or not at all] scrupules. From noble birth, admitted and married into the royal family , but nevertheless, thieves. Whether Hugh Despenser the Younger [favourite of the King] was really attached to Edward II is food for Medieval historians [although even they can’t look into the royal bedchamber, supposedly Hugh was the ”husband” of Edward II, as Queen Isabella would write later . In each case, he was a shameless royal adventurer [funny side was, not for his victims of course, that he was a pirate during his exile, hahahahaha  And one thing was sure: Edward II was really very attached to him. 
Appointed as chamberlain of the King in 1318, Hugh moved himself into the affections of the King , replaced the former royal favourites [Roger Damory, Hugh Audley and William Montecute] and the Piers Gaveston story [but this time a far more dangerous player] started all over again. But this time worse, given the greed and avariciousness of the Despensers, their excessive ambition and need for political power. They didn’t allow anyone access to Edward unless at least one of them was present. Even Queen Isabella couldn’t see her husband alone!  Such a crazy situation existed….
Back to the avariciousness of the Despensers:
In the Middle Ages, land was power and that was just the thing the Despensers wanted. They wanted to build a huge ‘empire’ in South Wales and that was the very territory where the Marcher Lords [keepers of the borders with Wales] had lands. They feared their lands to be taken over, with consent of the King [who was infatuated with our Hugh Despenser..]
Their fears were proved to be right. In october 1320 Edward II ordered the peninsula of Gower in South Wales to be taken into his own hands, apparently to give it to Hugh Despenser. See for the whole, complicated story, note 308 Roger Mortimer , his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk and the other Marcher Lords were furious, considering this as a deprivation of their rights  Hugh Despenser was granted also other lands in the Marches [Welsh territory]’, which was taken fromRoger Mortimer and other Marcher Lords 
Not only unfair, but also foolish of Edward, since most of the Marcher Lords, especially Roger Mortimer and his uncle, were, until Edward’s clear favouritism of Despenser, at the cost of them and the other Marcher Lords, were loyal to the throne. 
To make matters complicated, there also was an old feud between Marcher Lords Roger Mortimer [and his uncle, Roger Mortimer de Chirk] and the Despensers…. Read about that in note 312
TWO FORMER ROYAL FAVOURITES AND HUGH DESPENSER THE YOUNGER
Hugh Despenser the Younger [as his father] had a mastertalent to incite the fury and hatred from his colleague noblemen. He pushed the Marcher Lords to the edge with his avariciousness and unlimited ambition, and his avariciousness also led to a big conflict with two former favourites of Edward II, Roger Damory and Hugh Audley:
Not only Hugh Despenser replaced Damory and Audley as favourites[also Montecute, but he played no further role, died in 1319 in Gascony], he also claimed the best lands from the Gloucester inheritance. [Hugh Despenser, Hugh Audley and Roger Damory were married to the three sisters of the 8th Earl of Gloucester and when he died in the battle of Bannockburn childless, his sisters were his heirs] 
And to further enrage Damory and Audley: In october 1320 Edward II took the South Wales peninsula of Gower into his own hands prior to granting it to Hugh Despenser See for background information about that, note 314 Despenser also had taken the Welsh lands of Hugh Audley.  That Despenser really was a man, who knew how to make friends……[hahahahahaha] 
Is it wonder, that men like the Marcher Lords , who once were loyal to the throne, were driven into rebellion and that even sworn enemies as Thomas of Lancaster and the former favourites found each other and fought side by side?
THE STORM BREAKS OUT/DESPENSER WAR/SWORN OATHS/FIST TO FIST/TOE TO TOE I FIRST PHASE/FEBRUARY-AUGUST 1321
The Marcher Lords on the rampage/sworn oaths:
The MarcherLords must have thought: ”Attack is the best way of defence.”
Because the war started with them attacking the Despenser lands and properties in Wales.  Those calamities [sacking, looting, pillaging, with most of the victims of course the common people….] took place from may 1321. Stealing from the Despensers was one thing, far more worse was, that, as usual, the poor and defenseless people paid the highest price: Sacking, looting, pillaging, extorting money from poor villagers with the threath of burning their village.  It was degrading and cruel. Those same horrors the Marcher Lords would repeat in the second phase of the Despenser war, in november and december 1321. 
But before going on the rampage, the Marcher Lords had arranged for support in the back:
In february 1321, they held a meeting with Thomas of Lancaster [probably at his favourite Castle Pontefract] and there was decided to attack Despenser lands.  However, Thomas did not take part in the attack itself.
As a reaction on the Marcher Lords-Lancaster agreement [to attack Despenser lands], Edward II responded in March by mobilising his forces in Wales, demonstrating that he intended to make any attack on the Despensers an attack on the crown, and therefore treasonable 
That was no clever movement of the King, thereby confirming his onesided favouritism of the Despensers and making it nearly impossible for those who were hesitant to go into rebellion, to stay loyal to the crown. At the other hand, the King tried to placate the rebels [or resistance fighters against the Despenser avariciousness, it depends from how you see it], by calling them [the Marcher Lords] to convene with him [first in Gloucester, later in Bristol] to no avail. 
After attacking Despenser properties [lands, castles, etc] as much as they pleased, Roger Mortimer and Hereford [brother in law of Edward II and together with Thomas of Lancaster, the 10th Earl of Warwick and the 9th Earl of Arundel, the murderer of Piers Gaveston in 1312] marched North to join Lancaster at Pontefract.
In june the barons swore an alliance at Sherburn-in-Elmet, near Pontefract, calling their faction the ”Contrariants” and promised to remove the Despensers for good. Sadly for Thomas and his allies: An attempt to attract the northern Lords to their cause failed. They stayed loyal to the King. 
Lancaster and the Marcher Lords would swear an oath once more on 29 november 1321, in the second phase of the Despenser war ”to maintain what they had commenced” 
March on London ”We bow down to no man”………..
One thing you can say about the Marcher Lords” They DID have guts……..
Not only destroying, looting, pillaging, extortioning and terrorising as they pleased and not only the Despenser possessions [and innocent people, who were unlucky to live on Despenser lands] .
No, they went farther. Much farther…..
After making their alliance with Thomas of Lancaster at Sherburn-in-Elmet , the Marcher Lords marched [hahaha, but that was what they did] from Sherburn [near Pontefract, in Yorkshire] to…….London…. From all places, they had the audacity to march on the royal centre of power….
From Yorkshire to London they repeated the same atrocities as in Wales: Assault, extortion and terror: They seized victuals from local inhabitants and pillaged the countryside – not only Despenser manors – all the way from Yorkshire to London.  Four Marchers [John Mowbray, Stephen Baret, Jocelyn Deyville and Bogo Bayouse] even robbed the Church in Laughton-en-le-Morthen [in Yorkshire] 
Further they tried to buy people’s allegiance with money, and seized the property of those who refused to join them. 
Real maffia practices……
But that terrorising and pillaging was only a [bad] game: Their goal was London, to put pressure on the King in order to banish the Despensers for good.
When they arrived outside of London on july 1321, not really surprisingly [even without Internet and smartphone, bad news travels fast], the citizens of London refused to let them in. The King also refused to meet them or even to listen to their demands that the Despensers be perpetually exiled from England, and they and their heirs disinherited “as false and traitorous criminals and spies.” 
Then, to go a stadium further [in fact that was treason] , they placed themselves and their armies outside the city walls, at strategic locations, to prevent the king leaving……
Let us put this straight: THEY BESIEGED LONDON, ”IMPRISONING” THE KING IN HIS OWN CAPITAL!
They then sent two knights as envoys to Edward II, to tell him that they held both Hugh Despensers “enemies and traitors to you and to the kingdom, and for this they wish them to be removed from here.”  Not surprisingly, the King, again, refused to meet the envoys.
On 1 August the Marchers entered London, while their great ally, Thomas of Lancaster, arrived also in August to support them.  Meanwhile, Despenser the Younger threatening them from a ship on the River Thames, and the rebels [Contrariants] threatened to begin to destroy royal properties and lands outside London unless he desisted. 
To cut a long story short: the earls of Pembroke, Richmond, Surrey and Arundel finally brought the Marchers’ demands to Edward. If he refused to consent to the Despensers’ exile, he would be deposed. 
Even then the King refused.
QUEEN ISABELLA ON HER KNEES
And as in the chess play , where the Queen holds the most important playing position, the solution came from Queen Isabella:
Queen Isabella went down on her knees before her husband and begged him, for the good of his realm, to exile the Despensers. 
That had not only the desired effect, it gave the King the opportunity, to get out from this without losing his face, making it look like fulfilling his wife’s desire.
But it must have been very painful for Edward II, losing his friends, who meant that much to him…. I think we must consider that, besides his foolish and unfair favouritism at the cost of the other Lords.
AGAIN A MAN OF HONOUR THE EARL OF PEMBROKE, MEDIATOR
And with all that negociating, let’s not forget the important role of the Earl of Pembroke [the man of honour, who didn’t want to breach his oath against Piers Gaveston and after Gaveston’s death, diehard loyal to the King  , who continually had mediated between the Marcher Lords and the King and was behind the exile plea of Queen Isabella. 
And finally the King decided on the banishment of The Despensers, father and son [the favourite] At 14 August in the Great Hall of Westminster it was to be, in the presence, of course, of the King Charges: ”They were accused, among many other things, of “evil covetousness,” accroaching to themselves royal power, guiding and counselling the king evilly, only allowing the magnates to speak to Edward in their presence, “ousting the king from his duty,” removing good counsellors from their positions and replacing them “by other false and bad ministers of their conspiracy,” and “plotting to distance the affection of our lord the king from the peers of the land, to have sole government of the realm between the two of them.”  [They were also called ”evil councillors” by the Contrariants [The Marcher Lords, Thomas of Lancaster and allies] That was all true.  The judgement decreed that the Despensers “shall be disinherited for ever as disinheritors of the crown and enemies of the king and his people, and that they shall be exiled from the realm of England, without returning at any time,” saving only the consent of the king, prelates, earls and barons in parliament. They were convicted by notoriety, with no chance to speak in their own defence. 
Utterly unfair, that they had no chance to speak in their own defence, but what was ”fair trial” in that time?
The same reprehensible thing happened to so many other noblemen thereafter……
The departure date was set on 29 August, 1321. Despenser the Elder left England immediately, perhaps to one of Edward II’s French territories, Gascony or Ponthieu. However, his son, Despenser the Younger BECAME A PIRATE IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL [HAHAHAHAHA] 
AGAIN, ”ROYAL PARDONS”……
Between 20 August and late September 1321, Edward II granted a pardon to more than 400 men for the murders, abductions, thefts and vandalism they had committed in the Despensers’ lands, which crimes the Marchers claimed were “a case of necessity, [and] ought not to be corrected or punished by the rigour of the law, nor could this happen without causing too much trouble.” 
Which of course was a hypocrite excuse and bagatellising of serious and undefensible crimes.
Edward later protested that he had done this unwillingly and that any pardon he had given under coercion was invalid and contravened his coronation oath. 
I must say, the King had a point here. The attentive reader remembers, that I wrote at the beginning of this chapter [chapter VI], that the King was not true to his word, issuing pardons and later to come back on them, 
But this case was different, because now the King was besieged in his own capital as threathened with deposition, if he didn’t consent with the Despensers exile. That’s clearly coercion. And treason.
PLANNING FOR REVENGE
The King was furious, of course and by the way [but the reader has already understood] never to consent with the permanent exile of his Despenser friends.
The following morning at breakfast, the king talked to his ally Hamo Hethe, bishop of Rochester, “anxious and sad.” He swore that he would “within half a year make such an amend that the whole world would hear of it and tremble,” 
And as we will see in the next chapter, he was true to his word…..
END OF THIS CHAPTER
SEE FOR NOTES
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Six