Tag archieven: Edward II

Encyclopaedia Britannica versus Astrid Essed about the superior claim of the House of York on the English throne/Encyclopaedia Britannica corrects a mistake [2015]

HISTORICAL FICTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_(film)

Richard II King of England.jpg

HISTORICAL IMAGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

KING RICHARD II, [SON OF THE BLACK PRINCE, THE FIRST

SON OF KING EDWARD III AND THEREFORE SUCCESSOR

OF KING EDWARD III], WHO DECLARED ROGER MORTIMER

HIS HEIR PRESUMPTIVE.

ROGER MORTIMER WAS THE SON OF RICHARD II’S FIRST

COUSIN PHILIPPA,

THE DAUGHTER OF THE SECOND SON OF KING EDWARD III,

LIONEL OF ANTWERP

AND THEREFORE NEXT IN LINE TO THE SUCCESSION TO

THE THRONE, AS LONG AS RICHARD II WAS CHILDLESS.

ROGER MORTIMER HAD TWO CHILDREN, EDMUND, 4TH EARL OF

MARCH AND ANNE MORTIMER, WHO MARRIED RICHARD CONISBURGH,

SON OF EDMUND OF LANGLEY, DUKE OF YORK [FOURTH SON

OF EDWARD III]

AFTER HIS DEATH, ROGER MORTIMER PASSED HIS HEIR

PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT TO HIS SON EDMUND, 5TH EARL

OF MARCH, WHO PASSED THIS RIGHT TO HIS NEPHEW

RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK,  SON OF HIS SISTER

ANNE MORTIMER.

WHEN RICHARD II WAS USURPED BY HIS COUSIN

HENRY BOLINGBROKE [LATER KING HENRY IV, SON OF JOHN

OF GAUNT, THE THIRD SON OF KING EDWARD III AND

THEREFORE WITH A LESSER RIGHT TO THE THRONE

THAN EDMUND MORTIMER],

EDMUND, THE SON OF THE LATE ROGER MORTIMER,

BEING THE RIGHTFUL SUCCESSOR, WAS OVERLOOKED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_of_Antwerp,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa,_5th_Countess_of_Ulster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March

ROGER MORTIMER’S SON AND DAUGHTER, EDMUND AND

ANNE MORTIMER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Mortimer,_5th_Earl_of_March

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mortimer

ANNE MORTIMER’S SON, RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK,

GRANDSON [FROM HIS MOTHER’S SIDE]

OF ROGER MORTIMER

HIS CLAIM TO THE THRONE WAS BASED ON HIS

MATERNAL SIDE AND SUPERIOR TO THE LANCASTERS,

WHO DESCENDED FROM THE THIRD SON OF EDWARD III,

WHILE RICHARD DESCENDED FROM THE SECOND SON

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York

King Henry IV from NPG (2).jpg

KING HENRY IV, WHO USURPED THE THRONE OF RICHARD II AS

HENRY BOLINGBROKE, HIS COUSIN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England

File:Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York.jpg

RICHARD OF YORK, CLAIMANT TO THE ENGLISH THRONE

AND ONE OF THE MAIN LEADERS OF THE WAR OF ROSES

[WAR BETWEEN THE HOUSES OF LANCASTER AND YORK,

BOTH DESCENDANTS OF KING EDWARD III]

[HISTORICAL IMAGE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York

King Henry V from NPG.jpg

KING HENRY V, SON OF KING HENRY IV

[HISTORICAL IMAGE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_of_England

KING HENRY VI OF ENGLAND, SON OF KING HENRY V

[HISTORICAL IMAGE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England

MARGARET OF ANJOU, QUEEN OF ENGLAND

[HISTORICAL IMAGE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA VERSUS ASTRID ESSED ABOUT

THE SUPERIOR CLAIM OF THE HOUSE OF YORK ON THE THRONE/

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA CORRECTS A TEXT

WARS OF THE ROSES/ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA CORRECTS A TEXT

AND CHANGES ”USURPATION” IN ”OVERTHROWING” AFTER THE

ASTRID ESSED COMMENTS IN 2015!

READERS!

This you’ll love!

Encyclopaedia Britannica corrected a historical fault they made, due to some

comments from your author, Astrid Essed!

However:

Although they changed it, it would have been nice if they

had mentioned me. Astrid Essed as the person who pointed them on this fact…. 

READ!

As you know, I’ve written a number of articles and comments [and posted

from other authors] about the Wars of the Roses

https://www.astridessed.nl/?s=Wars+of+the+Roses

And writing those articles, I stumbled on Encyclopaedia Britannica, where

originally was written the following about a decisive episode

during the Wars of the Roses, that [in]famous Fight for the English throne

between the two Plantagenet branches of the Royal House,

the Lancasters and the Yorks.

Encyclopaedia Britannica wrote the following:

””House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet<http://www.britann ica.com/EBchecked/topic/ 463365/house-of-Plantagenet> of England<http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/700965/Eng land>. In the 15th century, having usurped the throne from the house of Lancaster<http://www.britannic a.com/EBchecked/topic/328992/ house-of-Lancaster>, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V<http://www.britannica.com/EB checked/topic/179763/Edward-V> , and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”

LETTER TO THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

In a Letter to the Encyclopaedia Britannica I made clear,

that the term ”usurpation” was wrong, since usurpation

means ””illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.” and it was no usurpation, since a long history preceded it and actually the House of

York, that took over the royal Power in 1461 after the

Battle of Towton, had a stronger claim 

than the House of Lancaster on the English throne,

descending from Lionel

of Antwerp, the second son of king Edward III, in the female

line, while

the Lancasters descended from John of Gaunt,

the third som of king Edward III, in the male line.

 I wrote about that to Encyclopaedia Britannica

”Although you call the overthrowing of the Act

of Accord an usurpation, to my opinion it is no

usurpation at all, since the Lancasters should not have to

be kings all along, due to the superior claim to the throne

of York, as the Lancaster usurpation of King Richard II.”

SEE FOR THE WHOLE LETTER IN WHICH I 

EMPHASIZED THE RIGHT OF FEMALES ON THE ENGLISH THRONE

[THE HOUSE OF YOURK HAD A SUPERIOR

RIGHT ON THE THRONE THROUGH FEMALE DESCENT] ON THE

THRONE]

https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-roseslancaster-and-yorkusurpation-and-the-right-to-the-throne-by-femalesletter-to-encyclopaedia-britannica/ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ACKNOWLEDGED THEIRFAULT AND CHANGED TEXT FROM ”USURPATION”TO ”OVERTHROWING”!
And you know what!The Encyclopaedia Britannica acknowlegded theirfault and…..changed their textHere was their reaction on my Letter:

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:15 PM, ukcustomerservice <ukcustomerservice@britannica. co.uk> wrote:

Dear Astrid Essed,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.

OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):

“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”

House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IVEdward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”

The revised article can be seen at http://www.britannica.com/E Bchecked/topic/653692/house-of -York.

Kind regards

Britannica Customer Service

If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.

We hope that this is of some help to you.  If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.

Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd
Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890”

THAT WAS THEIR REACTION!

You can understand I was a little proud on that and see the

text about the House of York you can read now!

SEE TEXT ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA UNDER NOTE 1

[NOTE 1, A]

And as an extra Source, under Note 1, my whole Correspondence with the Encyclopaedia Britannica

[B]

ENJOY!

ASTRID ESSED

A

NOTE 1

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

HOUSE OF YORK

https://www.britannica.com/topic/house-of-York

house of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IVEdward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.

The house was founded by King Edward III’s fifth son, Edmund of Langley (1341–1402), 1st Duke of York, but Edmund and his own son, Edward, 2nd Duke of York, had for the most part undistinguished careers. Edward, dying childless, passed on the dukedom to his nephew Richard (whose mother was a descendant of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence). Richard, 3rd Duke of York (1411–60), was the initial Yorkist claimant to the crown, in opposition to the Lancastrian Henry VI. It may be said that his claim, when it was advanced, was rightly barred by prescription, the house of Lancaster having then occupied the throne for three generations, and that it was really owing to the misgovernment of Queen Margaret of Anjou and her favourites that it was advanced at all. Yet it was founded upon strict principles of lineal descent, for the 3rd Duke of York was descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of Edward III, whereas the house of Lancaster came of John of Gaunt, a younger brother of Lionel. One thing that might possibly have been considered an element of weakness in Richard’s claim was that it was derived through females—an objection actually brought against it by Chief Justice John Fortescue (probably a reflection of the increasingly common practice among the English nobility of passing on their estates to a male heir). But apart from strict legality, Richard’s claim was probably supported in the popular view by the fact that he was descended from Edward III through his father no less than through his mother.

After seeking for many years to correct the weakness of Henry VI’s government, Richard first took up arms and at length claimed the crown in Parliament as his right. The Lords, or those who did not purposely stay away from the House, admitted that his claim was unimpeachable but suggested as a compromise that Henry should retain the crown for life and that Richard and his heirs succeed after his death. This was accepted by Richard, and an act to that effect received Henry’s own assent. But the act was repudiated by Margaret of Anjou and her followers, and Richard was slain at Wakefield fighting against them. In little more than two months, however, his son was proclaimed king at London by the title of

Edward IV, and the bloody victory in the Battle of Towton immediately after drove his enemies into exile and paved the way for his coronation.

After his recovery of the throne in 1471, Edward IV had little more to fear from the rivalry of the house of Lancaster. But the seeds of distrust had already been sown among the members of his own family, and in 1478 his brother Clarence was put to death—secretly, indeed, within the Tower of London, but still by his authority and that of Parliament—as a traitor. In 1483 Edward himself died; and his eldest son, Edward V, after a nominal reign of two months and a half, was put aside by his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who became Richard III, and then, it is said, caused him and his brother Richard, Duke of York, to be murdered. But in little more than two years Richard was slain at Bosworth Field by the Tudor Earl of Richmond, who, being proclaimed king as Henry VII, shortly afterwards fulfilled his pledge to marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV and so unite the houses of York and Lancaster.

Here the dynastic history of the house of York ends, for its claims were henceforth merged in those of the house of Tudor.

This article was most recently revised and updated by Jeff Wallenfeldt.
END OF NOTE 1

B

MY CORRESPONDENCE IN EMAIL WITH THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

ADDED

MY LAST REACTION ABOUT THE CHANGES OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA 

BRITANNICA

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/THE HOUSE OF YORK/

REACTION ON ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA’S CHANGES IN

THEIR ARTICLE AFTER MY COMMENTS

ASTRID ESSED

13 MARCH 2015

NOW:

CORRESPONDENCE WITH ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ON

EMAILOn Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:15 PM, ukcustomerservice <ukcustomerservice@britannica. co.uk> wrote:

Dear Astrid Essed,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.

OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):

“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”

House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IVEdward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”

The revised article can be seen at http://www.britannica.com/E Bchecked/topic/653692/house-of -York.

Kind regards

Britannica Customer Service

If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.

We hope that this is of some help to you.  If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.

Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd
Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890

______________________________ __
From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com]
Sent: 25 February 2015 04:38
To: ukcustomerservice
Subject: Re: (ESSED, Astrid) Britannica [AM]

TO BRITANNICA CUSTOMER SERVICE

Dear Sir/Madam,

You’re welcome.
I passed this feedback to you with great pleasure.
Thanks very much for your reaction and the trouble you
have taken to pass my feedback to your
Editorial Team.

To make things easier I send you the letter to Encyclopaedia
Britannica as posted on my website, as a later comment
on the same subject

See

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/LANCASTER AND YORK/
USURPATION AND THE RIGHT TO THE THRONE BY
FEMALES/LETTER TO ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

http://www.astridessed.nl/the- wars-of-the-roseslancaster-and -yorkusurpation-and-the-right- to-the-throne-by-femalesletter -to-encyclopaedia-britannica/

Later comment:

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/LANCASTER AND YORK/
USURPATION AND THE RIGHT TO THE THRONE THROUGH
FEMALES

http://www.astridessed.nl/the- wars-of-the-roseslancaster-and -yorkusurpation-and-the-right- to-the-throne-through-females- 2/

See also the page ”Wars of Roses” on my website

http://www.astridessed.nl/?s=W ars+of+the+Roses

I am looking forward to the reaction of your Editorial Team

Kind greetings

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam 
The Netherlands

On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:15 PM, ukcustomerservice <ukcustomerservice@britannica. co.uk> wrote:

Dear Ms Essed,

Thank you for your e-mail.

We have passed your comprehensive feedback on to our Editorial Team for review.  Thank you for taking the time to review this content and provide all of this feedback.  When they have reviewed your comments we will let you know their response.

Kind regards

Britannica Customer Service

If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.

We hope that this is of some help to you.  If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.

Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd
Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890

______________________________ __
From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com<mailto: astridessed@yahoo.com>]
Sent: 16 February 2015 22:19
To: enquiries – General Enquiries at Britannica.co.uk
Subject: Comments on your Page about the House of York

TO THE EDITORS OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT THE HOUSE OF YORK
SOME COMMENTS

Dear Editors,

At first I want to express my great admiration for your
large scale History Page about ther various periods
of human history,

http://www.britannica.com/topi c-browse/History

I especially paid attention on your contributions
to the English Late Medieval History and visited
your page about the Hundred Years War between England
and France  with pleasure, learning much of your
information

http://www.britannica.com/topi c-browse/History/Middle-Ages/ Hundred-Years-War

THE WARS OF THE ROSES
YOUR PAGE OF THE HOUSE OF YORK
COMMENTS

A historian myself, I wrote some articles about the
Wars of the Roses [1]
See some of my articles  below.

Regarding your excellent contributions,  I have  read
your page about the House of York with
much interest.

See

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, HOUSE OF YORK

http://www.britannica.com/EBch ecked/topic/653692/house-of- York

However I want to make some comments on your contribution,
referring to your remarks about the ”usurpation” of the House of
Lancaster by the House of York, as the ”weakness” of the
claim to the throne by Richard, Duke of York, being derived by
females.

But first, the usurpation:

FIRST:

USURPATION OF THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF
LANCASTER BY THE HOUSE OF YORK

In your comment you wrote

”House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet<http://www.britann ica.com/EBchecked/topic/ 463365/house-of-Plantagenet> of England<http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/700965/Eng land>. In the 15th century, having usurped the throne from the house of Lancaster<http://www.britannic a.com/EBchecked/topic/328992/ house-of-Lancaster>, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V<http://www.britannica.com/EB checked/topic/179763/Edward-V> , and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.” [2]

I think you are wrong here, since, according to my opinion,
there was no  ”usurpation” here, in the classic meaning of the
definition.
To go to the definition of ”usurpation”:

”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.” [3]

I will not go extensively  into your remark that the House
of York ”passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty”, which is wrong.
Because, although there was a certain [not Tudor,
but Beaufort/Lancaster] claim to the English throne [4], the
House of York had a far stronger claim to the throne.
I refer to that later.
And smart Henry Tudor [who became King Henry
VII and was undoubtedly aware of that stronger York claim]
claimed the throne as ”right of conquest”,not
by ”right of inheritance”,  after
his victory in the Battle of Bosworth, where he defeated
the Yorkist King Richard III. [5]
And as a ”right of conquest” the legality of Henry’s kingship
was considered generally. [6]

No, the main point I want to focus here is your remark
”’House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet<http://www.britann ica.com/EBchecked/topic/ 463365/house-of-Plantagenet> of England<http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/700965/Eng land>. In the 15th century, having usurped the throne from the house of Lancaster<http://www.britannic a.com/EBchecked/topic/328992/ house-of-Lancaster>”  [7]

USURPATION
THE ACT OF ACCORD

I said it before
According the definition, usurpation is
”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.”

That means not only deposing a King
(which was almost a deadly sin in the Middle
Ages), but also through someone
who had none or lesser right to the throne.

In this case, at first there was no deposal of
the throne at all, since there was ”the Act of Accord”
and later, when King Edward IV ascended the
throne, the deposal of King Henry VI  was not as ”illegal”
as it seemed, because of two factors:
The stronger claim of the House of York to the throne,
[the Mortimer claim to the throne],
as the fact, that the House of Lancaster itself rose into power
by usurpation.
But first the Act of Accord

I referred to the fact, that there was no deposal at all
at first, mentioning the Act of Accord in 1460. [8].
that  included, that King Henry VI remained King of England,
but that Richard, Duke of York and his heirs would
succeed Henry, thus desinheriting Henry´s son, Edward of Westminster. [9]

Of course one can put  questions by disinheriting the
Kings´s son, but that’s another story.
The Act of Accord was a legal document, as a
result of negociations between the Duke of York and
the Parliament.(10), after his come back from Ireland
and (indeed) seemed to have tried  to seize the throne.[11]

Admitted, that [the deal of the Duke of York with the Parliament] was power play, since the party
of the Duke of York was on the winning hand in the
Wars of the Roses at that moment, but the Act of Accord
did not come ´´out of the blue´´ either.

ACT OF ACCORD
WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE

Susan Higginbotham, historical fictional writer of
Margaret Anjou, mentions the Act of Accord as
´´York, after all, had bullied her husband (Henry VI, my remark)
into disinheriting his own son in favor of York´´ (12)
and it is her right to see it like that, but I have another vision,
because I take the whole history, which preceeded the Accord Act.
into consideration.

Since King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester,
died in 1447, Richard, Duke of York, was heir presumptive
to the then childless King Henry VI. [13]
But from various reasons, King Henry VI, and his wife,
Queen Margaret of Anjou [14] favourited the party
of the Duke’s adversary, Edmund Beaufort, 1st Duke
of Somerset [who was of the Lancaster Swynford line] [15]
and sent Richard as Lieutenant to Ireland,
obviously in a sort of exile.[16]
Tensions grew high in the 50ths between York and
the Duke of Somerset [with the Queen as his ally],
the King got mental ill and in 1453 became father, which
ended York’s position as heir presumptive, but due
to the mental illness of the King, he became Protector
of the Realm twice.
Enmity between York and Somerset [and Margaret of
Anjou] rose farther and probably they wanted York
to be arrested, so he and his allies armed themselves.
A military confrontation was enevitable and broke out between York [with
his brother in law and his nephew, Warwick the Kingmaker as
allies] and the King [actually the Queen and Somerset],
which was the start of the Wars of the Roses.
After several bloody battles, in 1459, the Coventry Parliament
[probably instigated by Margaret of Anjou] attainted York and his allies [declared them to ”traitors” without trial] and forfeited their lives and
estates [17], which left York [according to my opinion]
no choice than first flee to Ireland and later
trying to seize the throne, resulting in the Act of Accord.

I don’t think either York, however ambitious, was after the
throne, before 1460.
He had enough opportunities to have taken the throne before
that [especially when the King was in his power after the
First Battle of St Albans in 1455], but he never made an attempt
untill he was pushed to the edge by the attainder of 1459. [18]

THE ACT OF ACCORD
AFTERMATH
BLOODY WAR, WAKEFIELD

When the Act of Accord had been accepted by the Lancastrian party,
probably King Henry should have remained King till his death, but
the bloody battles intensified.
Understandably, Margaret of Anjou was furious about her son’s disinheritance
and refused to accept it.
She went to Scotland, asking Mary of Guelders, the Queen Regent,
military support against the Yorkist party[19]  and the military
confrontations went on.
In her absence,  the Battle of Wakefield took place,where the Duke
of York [higly probable] died in battle and his son Edmund Earl of
Rutland, as the Dukes brother in law, the 5th Earl of Salisbury
[the father of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the ”Kingmaker],
were executed after the battle. [20]
Unlike popular belief, Margaret of Anjou was not present at Wakefield, so
she couldn’t have ordered their executions. [21]
She returned to England and defeated Warwick in the 2nd Battle
of St Albans [22], where she was responsible for the
executions following. [23]
However, she spared the life of John Neville, brother of
the Earl of Warwick, probably since the brother
of her commander  the 3rd Duke of Somerset
[son to the late 2nd Duke of Somerset, enemy of Richard of York]
was a captive in Yorkist hands. [24]

But relieved as she might have been to get rid of the Duke of York,
she had a more formidable military adversary in his son and heir
Edward, now Duke of York, who defeated the Lancastrian forces in
the bloody and decisive Battle of Towton. [25]

THE ACT OF ACCORD/AFTERMATH
THE DUKE OF YORK’S SON AND HEIR’S
ASCENDANCY TO THE THRONE
KING EDWARD IV

Edward of York was not like his father, who had a loyalty
to the throne till he was pushed to the extremes.
Probably hardened by the loss of his father and brother at
Wakefield [where Warwick also lost his father and brother
Edward’s maternal uncle and cousin],as by an attitude
of machiavellistic politics,  he was not inclined
to hold on to the Act of accord, remaining Henry VI King of England.
In fact, since his mental instability, as the reality of
Edward’s victories, he wouldn’t have ruled anyway.
He was imprisoned in the Tower.

At march 1461, Edward was declared King of England, fulfilling
his father’s wishes for his sons.

USURPATION OR NOT?
THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE
OF YORK

Although you call the overthrowing of the Act
of Accord an usurpation, to my opinion it is no
usurpation at all, since the Lancasters should not have to
be kings all along, due to the superior claim to the throne
of York, as the Lancaster usurpation of King Richard II. [26]

The claims to the throne first.

Richard, Duke of York had superior claims to the throne.
He was the grandson of Edmund of Langley, the fourth son
of King Edward III, but that was not his superior claim, since
the House of Lancaster [The ”King Henry’s” as the Beauforts}
descended from John of Gaunt, the third son of King Edward III.
But it was his mother” side, that gave him the superior claim.[27]

York’s maternal grandfather, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March,
was the materrnal grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, the SECOND son
of King Edward III and that gave him a greater claim than that of the Lancaster.
See the Family Tree

King Edward III

Lionel of Antwerp [second son to Edward III]

Philippa P lantagenet [Lionel’s daughter], married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd
3th Earl of March

Roger, 4th Earl of March [Philippa Plantagenet’s son]

Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March [son to Roger]

Anne Mortimer [daughter to Roger], maried Richard Conisburtgh
[son of Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York]

Richard, Duke of York [son to Anne Mortimer, descendant of
Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward II]

Isabel Plantagenet [daughter to Anne Mortimer and sister to
Richard, Duke of York] [28]

MORTIMERS CLAIM TO THE THRONE

But there was more, which asserted the superior York claims.
Since King Richard II was childless, he appointed as his heir
presumptive, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March
  [Richard of York’s maternal grandfather].
Roger was the son of Richard II’s cousin Philippa
[Richard II and Philippa were the children of two brothers,
The Black Prince and Lionel of Antwerp, the first and second son
of King Edward III]. [29]

Roger Mortimer never became King, since he died a year before Richard II, but
his heir presumptive right passed to his son, Edmund, 5th Earl of March,
who was the maternal uncle of Richard of York. [30]

However, since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard II, Edmund,
only a boy, was overlooked, so also his superior right to the throne. [31]
However, when Edmund Mortimer [brother to Richard the Duke’s mother,
Anne Mortimer]died childless, York not only inherited his lands and estates,
as his titles, but also his heir presumptive right.

After the death of King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey,
Duke of Gloucester, [brother of his father Henry V],York became heir
presumptive till the birth of Henry’s son in 1453, Edward of
Westminster. [32]

WHO WERE THE REAL USURPERS?
LANCASTER USURPATION OF RICHARD II

I have shown above, that it was Henry IV, founder of the House
of Lancaster, who usurped not only the
throne of England by deposing the rightful King Richard II [33],
but also overlooked the rightful heir presumptive, Edmund  Mortimer.
When the right to the throne was justly followed, not King Henry IV,
but Edmund Mortimer had ascended the throne and was probably
succeeded by his nephew Richard, Duke of York.

Therefore it is [with all respect] utter nonsense to speak of
an ”usurpation of the throne” by Edward, son of Richard of York,
in 1461.
The only usurpators were the Lancasters.

Amitted, due to the military succesful reign of King Henry V [34],
the usurpation was forgotten, but that didn’t make it undone.
Therefore it were the Mortimers and their descendant
Richard of York, who should have been Kings from the beginning.

I think that was the reason, that York was ousted of power
and sent to Ireland in the late 40s.
And probably the reason, Margaret of Anjou didn’t trust him. [35]

SECOND:

THE ”WEAKNESS” OF THE CLAIM OF
RICHARD OF YORK, SINCE IT WAS DERIVED
FROM FEMALES?

You justly confirmed the superior claim of York
to the House of Lancaster, as you correctly state,
that was the reign of Henry VI succesful, the claim
was never advanced at all.
I also think, that the only reason York advanced his
claim was the unsuccesful rule of Henry VI,
due to his mental problems, his corrupt advisors,
as the great losses in the Hundred Years War.

But I disagree with you on the point, that the weakness
in the claim of York was, that it was derived from females.

Because although men had the first rights to the throne,
there was no Salic Law in England, that exclude women from
the throne, nor from claims to the throne, which passed
through their descendants.

For example Queen Maud [mother to the later
King Henry II and daughter to King Henry I, who was the
son to William the Conqueror] was declared heiress to
the throne by her father after the death of his only son. [36]
Granted, the Norman barons didn’t accept her after the death
of her father and civil war burst out [37], but were women excluded,
her father should not have declare his daughter heiress.

But moreover, claiming rights to the throne from female line
is done in English history at several occasions and was
considered legally and valid.

FOUR IMPORTANT HISTORICAL OCCASIONS
BY WHICH MEN CLAIMED OR INHERITED THE THRONE
FROM FEMALE LINE

There are at least four important occasions by which men
claimed the throne from female descent.

First:
Stephen of Blois, cousin to Queen Maud [daughter
of King Henry I and heiress to the throne], who claimed
the right to the throne through female line [being a maternal
grandson to William the Conqueror]

The first was in the time of Queen Maud [called also
”Empress Maud because of her earlier marriage with
the Holy Roman Emperor].
Her right to the English throne was challenged by her
cousin, Stephen of Blois, who claimed the throne
through his grandfather, William the Conqueror, who
was his maternal grandfather. [38]
He had men enough, prepared to support his maternal
claim, took the throne, drove his cousin Mathilda and her husband Henry
of Anjou out of the country and a yearlong military struggle, the
anarchy, started. [39]
Eventually, after the death of Stephen’s son and heir,
a deal was made, that Stephen would rule, but had to recognise
Maud’s son, Henry of Anjou, as his heir. [40]

Second:
Henry of Anjou [King Henry II], son to Queen Maud, who inherited the throne through his mother.

After Stephen’s death, Henry of Anjou would become King Henry
II [41], father to Richard Lion Heart [Richard I] (42) and John, King
of England [John Lackland] [43]
Henry II was the founder of the Plantagenet Dynasty. [44]

So here are two men who claimed or inherited their throne
from females.
Stephen of Blois, claiming the throne as a grandson of
William the Conqueror from his mother’s side as
King Henry II, who inherited the throne from his mother’s
side.
No ”weakness” here.

Third
King Edward III, who claimed the French throne through
his mother, Isabella of France
Resulting in the Hundred Years War with France, being the
maternal grandson of the French King Philip IV.

Perhaps most famous is the claim to the French throne,
laid by King Edward III [45], through is mother, Queen
Isabella of France (46), who was the daughter of the French
King, Philip IV (47)
That made Edward III the maternal grandson to a French King.
When the last son of King Philip IV, named Charles IV (48),
died in 1328 without a male heir, the question was
Who is going to be the new King!
His sister Isabella, mother of Edward III, claimed the throne
for her son, but problem was, that since 1316 the Salic
Law was introduced in France (which excluded women as
heirs to the throne). (49)
This was no coincidence, but due to an adultery scandal,
involving the wives of Charles IV and his brother Louis X (50),
The Tour de Nesle Affair (51), questioning the paternity
of the sons of the King.
This was particularly urgent after the death of Louis X, since
the legitimacy of his daughter Joan was in question, (52)
due to her mother´s alleged adultery. (53)

Anyway, Isabella´s claim to the throne for Edward III was
rejected, since she, being a woman, was excluded from the
rights to the throne and couldn´t transmit a right what she
didn´t possess. (54)
But that was the French Law.
Point I want to make is, that claiming through a female
was quite strong in England, which didn´t know the Salic
Law.
Eventually Edward III would claim the French throne
anyway [55], which was one of the causes of the
Hundred Year´s war with France.
And that´s my second point I want to state.
Since no one in England questioned Edward´s claim
through a female and the nobles wholeheartedly supported
him in the war with France, female claims were neither
unusual nor ´´weak´´.

FOURTH
LANCASTER CLAIM TO THE THRONE THROUGH
FEMALE LINE/THE QUESTION EDMUND CROUCHBACK

Since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne of Richard II in
1399, becoming King Henry IV, a Lancaster right to the throne
was of the greatest importance, that was superior
to  that of Richard II, son of the first son of Edward III
as the Mortimer right to the throne [descendants of
Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III.
So Henry IV was clever enough not to base his claim on his
fathers side, since John of Gaunt [his father] was the third son
of Edward III.
In stead of that, he based it on the side of his mother, Blanche,
of Lancaster [56], who was the great granddaughter of Edmund Crouchback.[57]
And Edmund Crouchback was the son of King Henry III [58] and the
younger brother of King Edward I. [59]
One could say?
So what about the claim.
Well, here it is.
According to Henry IV [Lancastrian views], this Edmund Crouchback was
not the second son of Henry III, but his first son in stead of Edward I,
but disinherited because of his bodily deformity [a twisted back]

You see the consequences?
That makes King Edward I, II, III and Richard II a sort of usurpers
and the rights to the throne of Richard II as the Mortimers claim
null and void, since Edward III would be an usurper king.
However, it’s a pity for Henry IV and the other Lancasters, who
claimed the Crouchback case, that there is no proof
whatsoever, that Edward I was not the first son of
King Henry III.
So its pure Lancastrian propaganda. [60]

I mentioned this ”Edmund Crouchback claim” as the fourth
historfical example of men, who based their claims on females
or inherited the throne by females.

A proof, that deriving a right to the throne from females,
as has done by Richard, Duke of York, was not ”weak”
at all, but has proven valid and generally accepted through
English history.

EPILOGUE

To my opinion, the deposing of King Henry VI by Edward of York,
son of Richard, Duke of York, was no usurpation, since
The Duke of York [who passed the right to the throne to his
eldest son, Edward] had a superior right to the throne than King Henry VI,
[called the Mortimer claim]
being the descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son
of Edward III, while Henry was the descendant of the third son
of Edward III, John of Gaunt.
In fact, after the death of King Richard II, the Dukes uncle,
Edmund Mortimer, who was heir presumptive to Richard II
should have become King of England.
So by deposing Henry VI, Edward of York took his rightful
place on the throne.

The reason why Edmund Mortimer didn’t become King was
lain in the usurpation of Henry IV [grandfather to Henry VI] of
the throne of Richard II, which was not only illegitimate,
but also overlooking the superior Mortimer claim of Edmund
Mortimer.

You also remarked the ”weak point” of the Mortimer claim
[York’s right to the throne] his deriving from females.
I’ve shown you four historical examples, by which claims
to the throne [or even inheritance] by females were made,
the most famous Edward III claim to the French throne by
his mother, Queen Isabella [wife to Edward II]
I think I have stated clearly, that the female right is
valid and not weak.

I wrote this letter out of appreciation with your work.
Thank you for reading it.

Much succes with your wortful historical research.

Kind greetings

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam 
The Netherlands

NOTES

[1]

ENGLISH HISTORY/THE WARS OF THE ROSES/
MARGARET OF ANJOU, TWO MAJOR PLAYERS
ASTRID ESSED

http://www.astridessed.nl/engl ish-historythe-wars-of-the- rosesmargaret-of-anjou-and- richard-duke-of-york-two-major -players/

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE
OF LANCASTER AND YORK
ASTRID ESSED

http://www.astridessed.nl/the- wars-of-the-rosesrichard-duke- of-yorkthe-claims-to-the-thron e-of-lancaster-and-york/

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/
CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES/A TRAVEL TO THE PAST
ASTRID ESSED

http://www.astridessed.nl/the- wars-of-the-rosescauses-of-the -wars-of-the-rosesa-travel-to- the-past/

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/MARGARET OF ANJOU/SHE WOLF
OR NOT/COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLE OF MR GARETH RUSELL
ABOUT MARGARET OF ANJOU
ASTRID ESSED

http://www.astridessed.nl/the- wars-of-the-rosesmargaret-of-a njoushe-wolf-or-notcomments-on -the-article-of-mr-gareth-ruse ll-about-margaret-of-anjou/

[2]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, HOUSE OF YORK

http://www.britannica.com/EBch ecked/topic/653692/house-of- York

[3]

”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.”

DICTIONARY.COM<http://dictiona ry.com/>
USURPATION

http://dictionary.reference.co m/browse/usurpation

[4]

”Henry’s main claim to the English throne derived from his mother through the House of Beaufort<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/House_of_Beaufort>. Henry’s mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/John_of_Gaunt,_1st_Duke_o f_Lancaster>, Duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward III<http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Edward_III_of_England>, and his third wife Katherine Swynford<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Katherine_Swynford>. Katherine was Gaunt’s mistress for about 25 years; when they married in 1396, they already had four children, including Henry’s great-grandfather John Beaufort<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/John_Beaufort,_1st_Ear l_of_Somerset>.”

WIKIPEDIA
HENRY VII OF ENGLAND
ANCESTRY AND EARLY LIFE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H enry_VII_of_England#Ancestry_a nd_early_life

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
HENRY VII OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H enry_VII_of_England

The Swynford branch of the Lancaster line [the children of John of Gaunt,
son to Edward III and his mistress Kathryn Swynford], called the
”Beauforts”, were legitimised first by King Richard II and later by
King Henry IV [as legitimate son of John of Gaunt, the halfbrother of
the Beauforts], on condition that they should not claim the throne.

YOUTUBE.COM<http://youtube.com />
CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES
MARK GOACHER

https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=d2QgaRbIjzQ

”The family is descended from John Beaufort<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/John_Beaufort> (1371-1410), John of Gaunt’s son by his then-mistress Katherine Swynford<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Katherine_Swynford>. Gaunt married Swynford in 1396, and their children were legitimized by Richard II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Richard_II_of_England> and Pope Boniface IX<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Pope_Boniface_IX>. They had three other children, also Beaufort: Henry, Thomas, and Joan.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/House_of_Beaufort#cite _note-FOOTNOTEChisholm1911-1>
The Beauforts were a powerful and wealthy family from the start, and rose to greater power after their (half-)brother and uncle became King Henry IV<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Henry_IV_of_England> in 1399. However, in 1406, Henry IV<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Henry_IV_of_England> decided that although the Beauforts were legitimate, their genetic line could not be used to make any claim to the throne.”

WIKIPEDIA
HOUSE OF BEAUFORT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H ouse_of_Beaufort

[5]

WIKIPEDIA
BATTLE OF BOSWORTH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B attle_of_Bosworth_Field

[6]

”So Henry VII didn’t claim the throne through right of inheritance: he claimed it through the right of conquest, not through any of his own royal lineage.”

WOMEN’S HISTORY
LEGITIMATE ENOUGH HERITAGE?
TUDOR’S CLAIM TO THE THRONE [1485]

http://womenshistory.about.com /od/medbritishwomen/ss/Birth- Controversies-and-the-Wars-of- the-Roses_2.htm

” Henry VII acknowledged the necessity of marrying Elizabeth of York to ensure the stability of his rule and weaken the claims of other surviving members of the House of York<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/House_of_York>, but he ruled in his own right and claimed the throne by right of conquest and not by his marriage to the heir of the House of York.”

WIKIPEDIA
ELIZABETH OF YORK
WIFE OF THE KING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E lizabeth_of_York#Wife_of_the_k ing

SOURCE

WIKIPEDIA
ELIZABETH OF YORK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E lizabeth_of_York

” It was truly through the defeat of Richard and the ‘right of conquest’ that Henry claimed the throne.”

TUDOR HISTORY
HENRY VII

http://tudorhistory.org/henry7 /

[7]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
HOUSE OF YORK

http://www.britannica.com/EBch ecked/topic/653692/house-of- York

[8]

WIKIPEDIA
THE ACT OF ACCORD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A ct_of_Accord

THE FULL TEXT OF THE ACT OF ACCORD

http://books.google.co.uk/book s?id=X_4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA104&dq= inauthor:%22John+Silvester+ Davies%22&output=html_text

BRITAIN EXPRESS
THE ACT OF ACCORD

http://www.britainexpress.com/ History/medieval/act-accord.ht m

HISTORY OF WAR
ACT OF ACCORD, 25 OCTOBER 1460

http://www.historyofwar.org/ar ticles/treaty_act_accord.html

[9]

WIKIPEDIA
THE ACT OF ACCORD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A ct_of_Accord

BRITAIN EXPRESS
THE ACT OF ACCORD

http://www.britainexpress.com/ History/medieval/act-accord.ht m

HISTORY OF WAR
ACT OF ACCORD, 25 OCTOBER 1460

http://www.historyofwar.org/ar ticles/treaty_act_accord.html

[10]

WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK
THE WEEL OF FORTUNE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk#The_wheel_of_fortune_.28145 9.E2.80.931460.29

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk

[11]

WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK
THE WEEL OF FORTUNE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk#The_wheel_of_fortune_.28145 9.E2.80.931460.29

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk

[12]

”Margaret undoubtedly rejoiced over York’s death—York, after all, had bullied her husband into disinheriting his own son in favor of York, and Margaret had every reason to fear for her husband’s future in a government controlled by York—but she did not have what to her might well have been the pleasure of seeing her enemy fall.”

MYTHS ABOUT MARGARET OF ANJOU
SUSAN HIGGINBOTHAM

http://www.susanhigginbotham.c om/subpages/margaretmyths.html

[13]

”The death of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, in 1447 left York next in line for succession to the throne, and the Beauforts had him sent—virtually banished—to Ireland<http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/293754/Ire land> as lord lieutenant.”

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
RICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK

http://www.britannica.com/EBch ecked/topic/653703/Richard- 3rd-duke-of-York

[14]

WIKIPEDIA
MARGARET OF ANJOU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M argaret_of_Anjou

[15]

Kings favouritism of the Somerset and Suffolk party [which
was the ”peace” party to France, more open for
negociations] against the Gloucester [the Kings uncle
Humphrey  Duke of Gloucester] and York party
[the war party to France]

YOUTUBE.COM<http://youtube.com />
CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES
MARK GOACHER

https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=d2QgaRbIjzQ

[16]

”His attitude toward the Council’s surrender of Maine<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Maine_(province_of_France )>, in return for an extension of the truce with France and a French bride for Henry, must have contributed to his appointment on 30 July as Lieutenant of Ireland<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Lord_Lieutenant_of_Irel and>. In some ways it was a logical appointment, as Richard was also Earl of Ulster<http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Earl_of_Ulster> and had considerable estates in Ireland, but it was also a convenient way of removing him from both England and France.”

WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD DUKE OF YORK
IRELAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk#Ireland_.281445.E2.80.93145 0.29

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk

[17]

”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk#The_wheel_of_fortune_.28145 9.E2.80.931460.29

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk

”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.”
ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS
ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY
HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE
http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry

WIKIPEDIA
PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P arliament_of_Devils

[18]

”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk#The_wheel_of_fortune_.28145 9.E2.80.931460.29

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_Yo rk

”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.”
ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS
ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY
HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE
http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry

WIKIPEDIA
PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P arliament_of_Devils

[19]

WIKIPEDIA
MARGARET OF ANJOU
MILITARY CAMPAIGNS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M argaret_of_Anjou#Military_camp aigns

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
MARGARET OF ANJOU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M argaret_of_Anjou#The_Wars_of_t he_Roses

”While Mary was still mourning the death of King James II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/James_II_of_Scotland>, the Lancastrian Queen Margaret of Anjou<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou> fled north across the border seeking refuge from the Yorkists. Mary sympathetically aided Margaret and took Edward of Westminster<http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminst er> into her household to keep them out of Yorkist hands.
Mary’s dealings with Margaret were mainly to provide aid to the deposed queen. Mary gave a number of Scottish troops to help Margaret and the Lancastrian cause”

WIKIPEDIA
MARY OF GUELDERS
REGENCY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M ary_of_Guelders#Regency

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
MARY OF GUELDERS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M ary_of_Guelders

[20]

WIKIPEDIA
BATTLE OF WAKEFIELD
CASUALTIES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B attle_of_Wakefield#Casualties

WIKIPEDIA
BATTLE OF WAKEFIELD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B attle_of_Wakefield

[21]

”While she was attempting to raise further support for the Lancastrian cause in Scotland,[15]<http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_ Anjou#cite_note-15> her principal commander, Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Henry_Beaufort,_3rd_Du ke_of_Somerset>,[16]<http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_ of_Anjou#cite_note-16> gained a major victory for her at the Battle of Wakefield<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Battle_of_Wakefield> on 30 December 1460 by defeating the combined armies of the Duke of York and the Earl of Salisbury. Both men were beheaded and their heads displayed on the gates of the city of York. As Margaret was in Scotland at the time the battle had taken place, it was impossible that she issued the orders for their executions despite popular belief to the contrary.”

WIKIPEDIA
MARGARET OF ANJOU
MILITARY CAMPAIGNS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M argaret_of_Anjou#Military_camp aigns

WIKIPEDIA
MARGARET OF ANJOU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M argaret_of_Anjou#The_Wars_of_t he_Roses

[22]

WIKIPEDIA
SECOND BATTLE OF ST ALBANS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S econd_Battle_of_St_Albans

[23]

”Two knights (Lord Bonville<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/William_Bonville,_1st_ Baron_Bonville> and Sir Thomas Kyriell<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Thomas_Kyriell>, a veteran leader of the Hundred Years War<http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Hundred_Years_War>) had sworn to let him come to no harm, and remained with him throughout. The next morning Margaret asked her son, the seven-year-old Edward of Westminster, how, not whether, the two knights were to die. Edward, thus prompted, sent them to be beheaded.[6]<http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_ St_Albans#cite_note-8>”

WIKIPEDIA
SECOND BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
AFTERMATH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S econd_Battle_of_St_Albans#Afte rmath

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
SECOND BATTLE OF ST ALBANS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S econd_Battle_of_St_Albans

[24]

”John Neville had been captured but was spared execution, as the Duke of Somerset feared that his own younger brother who was in Yorkist hands might be executed in reprisal”

WIKIPEDIA
SECOND BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
AFTERMATH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S econd_Battle_of_St_Albans#Afte rmath

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
SECOND BATTLE OF ST ALBANS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S econd_Battle_of_St_Albans

[25]

WIKIPEDIA
BATTLE OF TOWTON

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B attle_of_Towton

[26]

WARFARE HISTORY BLOG
PRELUDE TO THE WARS OF THE ROSES,
USURPATION,REBELLION AND MEDIEVAL
WARFARE  1387-1403

http://warfarehistorian.blogsp ot.nl/2012/10/prelude-to-wars- of-roses-usurpation.html

”Their son Henry<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Henry_IV_of_England> usurped the throne in 1399, creating one of the factions in the Wars of the Roses<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses>.”

WIKIPEDIA
HOUSE OF LANCASTER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H ouse_of_Lancaster

[27]

YOUTUBE.COM<http://youtube.com />
CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES
MARK GOACHER

https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=d2QgaRbIjzQ

”Though Parliament conceded that Richard had the better claim to the throne, they were unwilling to depose him outright. A compromise was reached, and that compromise was the Act of Accord.”

BRITAIN EXPRESS
THE ACT OF ACCORD

http://www.britainexpress.com/ History/medieval/act-accord.ht m

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/RICHARD, DUKE OF
YORK/THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE OF LANCASTER
AND YORK
ASTRID ESSED

http://www.astridessed.nl/the- wars-of-the-rosesrichard-duke- of-yorkthe-claims-to-the-thron e-of-lancaster-and-york/

[28]

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/RICHARD, DUKE OF
YORK/THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE OF LANCASTER
AND YORK
ASTRID ESSED

http://www.astridessed.nl/the- wars-of-the-rosesrichard-duke- of-yorkthe-claims-to-the-thron e-of-lancaster-and-york/

[29]

” During her own lifetime, Philippa was the heir presumptive<http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Heir_presumptive> to her first cousin Richard II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Richard_II_of_England>; she would have been displaced in the succession by any legitimate children of the king. Richard remained childless, so after her death, her position as first in line for the throne passed to her son, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_ of_March>. He was killed at the Battle of Kells in Ireland in 1398, making his six-year-old son, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Edmund_Mortimer,_5th_Earl _of_March>, Richard’s heir presumptive.”

WIKIPEDIA
PHILIPPA, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P hilippa,_5th_Countess_of_Ulste r

[30]

” During her own lifetime, Philippa was the heir presumptive<http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Heir_presumptive> to her first cousin Richard II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Richard_II_of_England>; she would have been displaced in the succession by any legitimate children of the king. Richard remained childless, so after her death, her position as first in line for the throne passed to her son, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_ of_March>. He was killed at the Battle of Kells in Ireland in 1398, making his six-year-old son, Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Edmund_Mortimer,_5th_Earl _of_March>, Richard’s heir presumptive.”

WIKIPEDIA
PHILIPPA, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P hilippa,_5th_Countess_of_Ulste r

[31]

” A great-grandson of King Edward III of England<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Edward_III_of_England>, he was heir presumptive<http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Heir_presumptive> to King Richard II of England<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Richard_II_of_England>, his cousin once removed, when Richard II was deposed in favour of Henry IV<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Henry_IV_of_England>. Edmund Mortimer’s claim to the crown was the basis of rebellions and plots against Henry IV and his son Henry V<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Henry_V_of_England>, and was later taken up by theHouse of York<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/House_of_York> in the Wars of the Roses<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses>, though Mortimer himself was a important and loyal vassal of Henry V and Henry VI”

WIKIPEDIA
EDMUND MORTIMER, 5TH EARL OF MARCH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E dmund_Mortimer,_5th_Earl_of_Ma rch

[32]

WIKIPEDIA
EDWARD OF WESTMINSTER, PRINCE OF WALES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E dward_of_Westminster,_Prince_o f_Wales

[33]

WARFARE HISTORY BLOG
PRELUDE TO THE WARS OF THE ROSES,
USURPATION,REBELLION AND MEDIEVAL
WARFARE  1387-1403

http://warfarehistorian.blogsp ot.nl/2012/10/prelude-to-wars- of-roses-usurpation.html

”Their son Henry<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Henry_IV_of_England> usurped the throne in 1399, creating one of the factions in the Wars of the Roses<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses>.”

WIKIPEDIA
HOUSE OF LANCASTER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H ouse_of_Lancaster

[34]

WIKIPEDIA
HENRY V OF ENGLAND
CAMPAIGN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H enry_V_of_England#1415_campaig n

SOURCE

WIKIPEDIA
HENRY V OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H enry_V_of_England

[35]

WIKIPEDIA
MARGARET OF ANJOU
ENMITY BETWEEN MARGARET AND THE DUKE OF YORK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M argaret_of_Anjou#Enmity_betwee n_Margaret_and_the_Duke_of_ York

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
MARGARET OF ANJOU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M argaret_of_Anjou

[36]

”Meanwhile, Matilda’s younger brother, William Adelin<http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/William_Adelin>, died in the White Ship<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/White_Ship> disaster of 1120, leaving England facing a potential succession crisis. On Henry V’s death, Matilda was recalled to Normandy<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Duchy_of_Normandy> by her father, who arranged for her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Geoffrey_Plantagenet,_Cou nt_of_Anjou> to form an alliance to protect his southern borders. Henry I had no further children and nominated Matilda as his heir, making his court swear an oath<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Oath> of loyalty to her and her successors, but the decision was not popular in the Anglo-Norman<http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman> court.”

WIKIPEDIA
EMPRESS MATHILDA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E mpress_Matilda

[37]

WIKIPEDIA
THE ANARCHY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T he_Anarchy

[38]

WIKIPEDIA
STEPHEN, KING OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S tephen,_King_of_England

BIOGRAPHY
STEPHEN OF BLOIS

http://www.biography.com/peopl e/stephen-of-blois-9493736

”Adela of Normandy also known as Adela of Blois and Adela of England (c. 1067[1]<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Adela_of_Normandy#cite_ note-Women_and_Gender-1> – 8 March 1137), and Saint Adela in Roman Catholicism,[2]<http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Adela_of_Norman dy#cite_note-catholic.org-2> was, by marriage, Countess of Blois<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Blois>, Chartres<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Chartres>, and Meaux<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Meaux>. She was a daughter ofWilliam the Conqueror<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/William_I_of_England> and Matilda of Flanders<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Matilda_of_Flanders>. She was also the mother of Stephen, King of England<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Stephen_of_England> and Henry of Blois<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Henry_of_Blois>, Bishop of Winchester<http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Bishop_of_Winchester >.”

WIKIPEDIA
ADELA OF NORMANDY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A dela_of_Normandy

[39]

WIKIPEDIA
THE ANARCHY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T he_Anarchy

[40]

”The Treaty of Wallingford, also known as the Treaty of Winchester or the Treaty of Westminster, was an agreement reached in England<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/England> the summer of 1153. It effectively ended a civil war known as the Anarchy<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/The_Anarchy> (1135–54), caused by a dispute between Empress Matilda<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Empress_Matilda> and her cousin King Stephen of England<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Stephen_of_England> over the English crown. The Treaty of Wallingford allowed Stephen to keep the throne until his death (which was to come in October 1154), but forced Stephen to recognise Matilda’s son Henry of Anjou (also called Henry FitzEmpress), who later became Henry II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Henry_II_of_England>, as his heir.”

TREATY OF WALLINGFORD, ALSO KNOWN
AS THE TREATY OF WINCHESTER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T reaty_of_Wallingford

[41]

WIKIPEDIA
HENRY II OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H enry_II_of_England

[42]

WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD I OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R ichard_I_of_England

(43)

WIKIPEDIA
JOHN, KING OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J ohn,_King_of_England

[44]

WIKIPEDIA
HOUSE OF PLANTAGENET

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H ouse_of_Plantagenet

(45)

WIKIPEDIA
EDWARD III OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E dward_III_of_England

(46)

WIKIPEDIA
ISABELLA OF FRANCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I sabella_of_France

(47)

WIKIPEDIA
PHILIP IV OF FRANCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P hilip_IV_of_France

(48)

WIKIPEDIA
CHARLES IV OF FRANCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C harles_IV_of_France

(49)

´´ In 1316, a principle was established denying women succession to the French throne.´´

SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA
HUNDRED YEAR´S WAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H undred_Years%27_War

(50)

WIKIPEDIA
LOUIS X OF FRANCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ouis_X_of_France

(51)

WIKIPEDIA
TOUR DE NESLE AFFAIR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T our_de_Nesle_Affair

(52)

´´Louis’ second wife Clementia was pregnant at the time of his death, leaving the succession in doubt. A son would have primacy over Louis’ daughter, Joan<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Joan_II_of_Navarre>.[32]<h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo uis_X_of_France#cite_note-32> A daughter, however, would have a weaker claim to the throne, and would need to compete with Joan’s own claims – although suspicions hung over Joan’s parentage following the scandal in 1314´´

WIKIPEDIA
LOUIS X OF FRANCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ouis_X_of_France

(53)

WIKIPEDIA
TOUR DE NESLE AFFAIR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T our_de_Nesle_Affair

(54)

´´The French rejected the claim, maintaining that Isabella could not transmit a right which she did not possess.´´

WIKIPEDIA
HUNDRED YEAR´S WAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H undred_Years%27_War

(55)

´´ For about nine years (1328-1337), the English had accepted the Valois succession to the French throne. But the interference of the French king, Philip VI, in Edward III’s war against Scotland, led Edward III to reassert his claim to the French throne.
Several overwhelming English victories in the war—especially at Crecy<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy>, Poitiers<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers>, and Agincourt<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt>— raised the prospects of an ultimate English triumph. However, the greater resources of the French monarchy precluded a complete conquest. Starting in 1429, decisive French victories at Patay<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Battle_of_Patay>, Formigny<http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny>, and Castillon<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon> concluded the war in favor of France, with England permanently losing most of its major possessions on the continent.´´

WIKIPEDIA
HUNDRED YEAR´S WAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H undred_Years%27_War

[56]

WIKIPEDIA
BLANCHE OF LANCASTER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B lanche_of_Lancaster

[57]

WIKIPEDIA
EDMUND CROUCHBACK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E dmund_Crouchback

[58]

WIKIPEDIA
HENRY III OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H enry_III_of_England

[59]

WIKIPEDIA
EDWARD I OF ENGLAND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E dward_I_of_England

[60]

LANCASTER ”EDMUND CROUCHBACK”
CLAIM TO THE THRONE

YOUTUBE.COM<http://youtube.com />
CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES
MARK GOACHER

https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=d2QgaRbIjzQ

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Encyclopaedia Britannica versus Astrid Essed about the superior claim of the House of York on the English throne/Encyclopaedia Britannica corrects a mistake [2015]

Opgeslagen onder Divers

First Speech of king Charles III as a Monarch/Tribute to his mother Queen Elizabeth II

King Charles IIIIMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

At the moment the Queen died, the throne passed immediately and without ceremony to the heir, Charles, the former Prince of Wales.

FIRST SPEECH OF KING CHARLES III AS A MONARCH/A TRIBUTE

TO HIS MOTHER QUEEN ELIZABETH II

KING CHARLES III DELIVERS HIS FIRST SPEECH AS MONARCH

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a41122583/king-charles-iii-first-speech-transcript/

King Charles III has officially delivered his first speech as British monarch. In an address recorded in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace earlier this afternoon, Charles spoke of his beloved mother, who he said always saw the best in people, and promised his lifelong service.

“I shall endeavor to serve you with loyalty, respect, and love,” he said.

Here, read King Charles

Here, read King Charles III’s first speech in full:

I speak to you today with feelings of profound sorrow. Throughout her life, Her Majesty The Queen – my beloved Mother – was an inspiration and example to me and to all my family, and we owe her the most heartfelt debt any family can owe to their mother; for her love, affection, guidance, understanding and example. Queen Elizabeth was a life well lived; a promise with destiny kept and she is mourned most deeply in her passing. That promise of lifelong service I renew to you all today.

Alongside the personal grief that all my family are feeling, we also share with so many of you in the United Kingdom, in all the countries where The Queen was Head of State, in the Commonwealth and across the world, a deep sense of gratitude for the more than seventy years in which my Mother, as Queen, served the people of so many nations.

In 1947, on her twenty-first birthday, she pledged in a broadcast from Cape Town to the Commonwealth to devote her life, whether it be short or long, to the service of her peoples. That was more than a promise: it was a profound personal commitment which defined her whole life. She made sacrifices for duty. Her dedication and devotion as Sovereign never wavered, through times of change and progress, through times of joy and celebration, and through times of sadness and loss. In her life of service we saw that abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as Nations. The affection, admiration and respect she inspired became the hallmark of her reign. And, as every member of my family can testify, she combined these qualities with warmth, humour and an unerring ability always to see the best in people.

I pay tribute to my Mother’s memory and I honour her life of service. I know that her death brings great sadness to so many of you and I share that sense of loss, beyond measure, with you all. When The Queen came to the throne, Britain and the world were still coping with the privations and aftermath of the Second World War, and still living by the conventions of earlier times. In the course of the last seventy years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths. The institutions of the State have changed in turn. But, through all changes and challenges, our nation and the wider family of Realms – of whose talents, traditions and achievements I am so inexpressibly proud – have prospered and flourished. Our values have remained, and must remain, constant.

The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain, as does the Sovereign’s particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England – the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted. In that faith, and the values it inspires, I have been brought up to cherish a sense of duty to others, and to hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government. As The Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation. And wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the Realms and territories across the world, and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life.

My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply. But I know this important work will go on in the trusted hands of others. This is also a time of change for my family. I count on the loving help of my darling wife, Camilla. In recognition of her own loyal public service since our marriage seventeen years ago, she becomes my Queen Consort. I know she will bring to the demands of her new role the steadfast devotion to duty on which I have come to rely so much.

As my Heir, William now assumes the Scottish titles which have meant so much to me. He succeeds me as Duke of Cornwall and takes on the responsibilities for the Duchy of Cornwall which I have undertaken for more than five decades. Today, I am proud to create him Prince of Wales, Tywysog Cymru, the country whose title I have been so greatly privileged to bear during so much of my life and duty. With Catherine beside him, our new Prince and Princess of Wales will, I know, continue to inspire and lead our national conversations, helping to bring the marginal to the centre ground where vital help can be given. I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.

In a little over a week’s time we will come together as a nation, as a Commonwealth and indeed a global community, to lay my beloved mother to rest. In our sorrow, let us remember and draw strength from the light of her example. On behalf of all my family, I can only offer the most sincere and heartfelt thanks for your condolences and support. They mean more to me than I can ever possibly express.

And to my darling Mama, as you begin your last great journey to join my dear late Papa, I want simply to say this: thank you. Thank you for your love and devotion to our family and to the family of nations you have served so diligently all these years. May “flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest”..

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor First Speech of king Charles III as a Monarch/Tribute to his mother Queen Elizabeth II

Opgeslagen onder Divers

My Condolences on the death of Queen Elizabeth II/End of an Era

https://www.royal.uk/search?tags%5B0%5D=Buckingham%20Palace
https://www.royal.uk/search?tags%5B0%5D=Buckingham%20Palace

CONDOLENCES

Hereby I express my condolences to the British Royal Family with

the loss of their mother, grandmother and greatgrandmother.

Queen Elizabeth was a very remarkable and steadfast Queen, who, although

born in 1926 and a Daughter of her Time, was quite capable to meet the

challenges of the Modern Times, with all the changes, made from her

coronation as a Queen in 1952 untill 2022.

I find it extraordinary, that She was capable to function as a Queen 

to the bitter end, despite of all the bitter moments she had to face in

her long life, next to the many moments of happiness.

I think in her last years she especially took joy in her greatgrandchildren,

a Blessing not everyone sees in her/his life.

Much respect for her Dignity and Grace.

From Empress Maud [William the Conqueror’s granddaughter]

to Queen Elizabeth.

All respect for the English Power Ladies, who were Queens by Right.

Wishing King Charles III much wisdom, power, dignity and special

attention for the vulnerable people in England and the World.

I repeat the beautiful words king Charles III spoke in

his Speech and Tribute to his Mother:

And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!”

[Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, best friend

Horatio on the death of Hamlet]

ASTRID ESSED

AMSTERDAM

THE NETHERLANDS

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor My Condolences on the death of Queen Elizabeth II/End of an Era

Opgeslagen onder Divers

22 MARCH 1322/22 MARCH 2022/Execution of Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II/Warlord,Reformer,Saint

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterTHOMAS 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER

Thomas of Lancaster’s main possessions (Maddicott).THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S MAIN POSSESSIONShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

MURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELMURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELhttps://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

PONTEFRACT CASTLE, THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S FAVOURITECASTLE [INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW, HENRY DE LACY, 3TH EARL OFLINCOLN, AT HIS DEATH IN 1311]IN HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE HIS SOCALLED ”TRIAL” TOOKPLACE AND NEAR HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE,  IRONICALLY,  HE WAS EXECUTEDhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle#Historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle

manuscript-images-medieval-castles
Edward was twice jeered by Lancaster’s garrison at Pontefract in 1317 & 1320 as he passed from north to south 

EDWARD II WAS TWICE JEERED BY THOMAS OF LANCASTERAND HIS HOUSEHOLD, IN AT PONTEFRACT IN 1317 AND 1320, WHEN HEPASSED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH…..https://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasoflancaster.htm

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_74.html

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

PLANTAGENETCOAT OF ARMS OF EDMUND CROUCHBACK [SON OFKING HENRY III, BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I ANDFATHER OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER], THOMAS,EARL OF LANCASTER AND HIS SUCCESSORShttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterVENERATION CULTUS OF THOMAS, EARL OF LANCASTER”SAINT THOMAS” [THOMAS THE MARTYR]PICTURE BELOW:

DEVOTIONAL PANEL OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, PICTURINGHIS BEHEADING OUTSIDE OF PONTEFRACT CASTLEA DEVOTIONAL PANEL WAS A RELIGIOUS OBJECT, SOLDON PILGRIMAGE TO COMMEMORATE AND VENERATESAINTS AND MARTYRShttp://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/archaeology/art522182-devotional-panel-of-beheaded-rebel-14th-century-martyr-surfaces-on-shore-of-river-thames

A photo of a small dark silver religious panel depicting the beheading of a medieval man

The beheading of the Earl is portrayed within the panel© MOLA / Andy Chopping

22 MARCH 1322-22 MARCH 2022/THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS OFLANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II/WARLORD/REFORMER/SAINT
READERS
Today I want to travel with you to 14th century England again, for it’s aspecial Day!Because it is exactly 700 years ago, that Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, Leicesterand Derby, was executed for treason on the orders of his first cousin, king Edward II [the son of the better known Edward I ”Hammer of the Scots [1]and the father of king Edward III, who started the Hundred Years War betweenEngland and France, the war in which Jeanne d’Arc played her role asheroine of freedom [2]And painful for Thomas:He was executed in his own castle of Pontefract [quite sadistic….] [3]I think a role played too the fact, that Edward II wanted revenge allthose years for Earl Thomas summarily executing [with some othercomrades in evil] his favourite, Piers Gaveston [4]
Thomas of Lancaster was a very interesting man, whom I described beforein an extended article [nearly a book!] [5]He was about the Power, fought against his cousin king Edward IV for years,after an initial good and friendly contact [it is not known, why king Edward IIand his cousin Thomas fell out, but suddenly it happened, in november 1308 [6]and then the things went worse and worse.But although he did horrible things [like summarily executing Piers Gaveston,a favourite and close friend of Edward II], he was interesting, not onlybecause he held power for years against his cousin the king [from 1314-1318,when he signed a peace treaty with his cousin the King, the Treaty of Leake,which did not last very long…..[7],.No, he did moreWith Simon de Montfort [8] he laid the groundwork for the later Parliament,as driving power behind the Ordinances [9], which tried to limit the absolute Powerof the King.
And can you imagine:
This man, this warlord, who eventually rose in open rebellion againsthis cousin and king [10]  and was all but a Saint, was venerated as Saintafter his death, first as an outlet for those who opposed the king and hislater favourites the Despensers [11], but later as a real Saint [12], although he wasnever canonized. [13]
EARL THOMAS’ BROTHER, EARL HENRY [LATER THE 3RD EARLOF LANCASTER]
By the way, his brother, Earl Henry, who later inherited his titles [Thomasof Lancaster had only two illegitimate sons, his marriage was childless and bythe way, unhappy], is a very interesting person too and one of my favourites!For a nobleman, he was a real familyman, who rather stayed with his familythen playing powerpolitics.
He was clever too:Because most of the the period that his brother Thomas and king Edward II had their fight for power, he stayed in France [where he had possessions] and when his brother Thomas openly rebelled against Edward II, he did not participate and rather stayed in France, as to prevent that he had to make the painful choice between joining his brother in rebellion and treason or to stay loyal to the king and abandon his brother. [14]That must have been very painful for Earl Henry, but in the period after his brother Thomas’ execution, when his cousin king Edward II ruled with his favourites the Despensers [who were the driving forces behind the executionof Thomas of Lancaster, who rebelled against the king partly for lust ofpower and partly to destroy the Despenser influence on the king] [15], EarlHenry operated very carefully at Court and eventually played a majorrole in the fall of the Despensers, which also resulted in the abdicationand death of Edward II [16]Because his clever and careful manoevres during the Edward II/Despenserreign I called him the ”Mystery Man” [17]
By the way, by Earl Henry’s granddaughter Blanche of Lancaster [the daughterof his son Henry of Grosmont, later DUKE of Lancaster], he wasthe greatgrandfather of the later king Henry IV [who, by what nowpeople would call a ”coup” usurped the throne from the lawful kingRichard II, who was his first cousin, both grandsons of king Edward III][18]
And by Henry’s daughter Maud of Lancaster [19] he was one of the ancestorsof the present British monarchy [his daughter Maud of Lancaster wasthe mother in law of Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III andthe maternal  greatgreatgrandfather of Richard, Duke of York, who wasthe paternal grandfather of Elisabeth of York, who was the wife of Henry VII, and mother of king Henry VIII and via one of her daughters, thegreatgrandmother of Maria Stuart, from who all subsequent British kings andQueens descended] [20]
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, AGAIN
But it is about Earl Thomas of Lancaster today!And because it is 700 years after his execution, hereby the ExecutionChapter
And to honour a man, who, with all his faults and atrocities, was oneof the groundworkers for the later English parliament, althoughhe, of course, supported the Ordinances [21] in order to servethe interest of the high nobility, and of course his own

ASTRID ESSED
NOTES
NOTES 1 T/M 13

NOTES 14 T/M 21

THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II/FROM WARLORD TO SAINTCHAPTER EIGHT

THE END

The travel
Revenge of the King
Reception
Trial
The others
Last passage

””Now the king of Heaven give us mercy, for the earthly king has forsaken us!”

The long battle between Thomas and his cousin King Edward II
was over.
The way to the grisly end was about to begin:

An end, which was not about to bring the King and the
[in january returned] Despensers much joy, but
would cast a shadow on their lives and reign.

After the devastating end of the Battle of Boroughbridge,
resulting in the horrible death of the Earl of Hereford [452],
companion till the last of Thomas of Lancaster [and
by the way, the brother in law of Edward II] , Thomas
of Lancaster found himself prisoner of the King.

The humiliation could begin…….

THE TRAVEL

Thomas was taken by water via York to Pontefract Castle.
That was an intent torment and humiliation, since
Pontefract Castle was his favourite residence.
[His constable had surrendered to the King without a fight]
That must have been very bitter for Thomas.

He was forced to wear garments of the striped cloth which the squires of his household wore, an intentional humiliation of a man of high birth and rank. [453]

But that was not enough:

On the way to York, a crowd of people threw snowballs at him, called him a traitor, and shouted “Now shall you have the reward that long time you have deserved!” [454]
Interesting though that there must have been among them people,
who later revered him……

At the meantime other adherents of Thomas of Lancaster were
taken prisoner, who would share his fate, as the story will show.

REVENGE OF THE KING

The King had tried to make it as humiliating as possible
for his cousin and long time adversary Thomas.
He ”received” his cousin at his own favourite Castle
of Pontefract,
accompanied by his favourites the Despensers, who
must have thought, that it was their moment of joy.
Quod non [Latin for: that is not the case] [455] as will
the story reveal later [See Chapter 10, Aftermath]

But although sad for Thomas, the satisfaction the King’
undoubtedly felt, now his powerful cousin was
at his mercy, is in a way understandable.

It was not only the 10 year long resistance of Thomas,
complete with jeering at the King [in 1317 and 1320],
and blocking his way with armed guards [456], probably
the King’s most important feeling was revenge for the death of
Piers Gaveston, since Thomas was one of the responsibles
for his [Gaveston’s] murder [457], a cruel and illegal act against a man,
who was vain, avaricious and insulting [to the Lords] [458],
but further didn’t do the Lords any wrong.

And Edward II had made no secret of his need for revenge!
During the siege of Berwick in 1319 [459] in which Thomas had
cooperated with Edward [460], he [Edward] made clear what was on his mind by declaring “When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers.” [461]
That threat was obviously aimed at Thomas, who
left Berwick later [and right he was!]. [462]

And as I have said before, when it came to revenge, Edward II
was true to his word.

RECEPTION

On 21 march, Thomas of Lancaster arrived at his
Castle of Pontefract.
And what was to be expected, the Despensers couldn’t resist
to show their satisfaction in humiliating Lancaster.
Thomas was ”contemptuously insulted……to his face with
malicious and arrogant words” by the king and the recently returned Despensers” [463]
Nice reception in your own castle……

TRIAL

Now rumour had  it that Thomas of Lancaster had built a tower in which to hold the king captive for the rest of his life.
And, surprise, surprise……
In that very [supposed for imprisonment of the King] tower
Thomas was kept prisoner….. [464]
The day after Thomas’ arrival, 22 march 1322, his ”trial” took place.
I say ”trial” because it didn’t deserve the name at the least.

It was a mock trial, that took place in the hall of
Lancaster’s own castle [how bitter…..] and the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
Thomas was not allowed to speak in his own defence as his crimes were deemed ‘notorious’ [465]

According to sources he was said to have exclaimed:
” “This is a powerful court, and great in authority, where no answer is heard nor any excuse admitted,” [466]
And right he was!
The fact that Thomas didn’t grant Piers Gaveston a fair trial too
[yet apart from the fact that he had no right to give him
a trial anyway], doesn’t excuse his ”judges” to do the same with him.

And there were ”judges”, who undoubtedly would later
regret their own injustice…………

See Chapter 10 ”Aftermath”

”Judges”:

The composition of those  socalled ”judges” was a laughing
stock anyway, were it not so grave an affair, since they
consisted of either his enemies, or staunch adherents of
the King [or a combination of those two]

The ”judges” were:

Thomas’ first cousin, King Edward II

The Despensers [father and son]

The Earl of Pembroke  [Thomas’
first cousin once removed.
Originally one of the besiegers of Piers
Gaveston in 1312, now he was a staunch adherer of the King,
since he was against his will, forced to break his word
against Piers Gaveston, who was in his custody
and in Pembroke’s absence abducted by the 10th Earl
of Warwick, which lead to Gaveston’s execution.
His presence at this mock trial was a pity, I have mentioned
him several times as a man of honour, who repeatedly
tried to reconcile Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster,
but perhaps he
was forced to become part of this show trial] [467]

The Earl of Kent [halfbrother of King Edward II, and
first cousin to Thomas of Lancaster] [468]

The Earl of Richmond [first cousin to King Edward II
and Thomas of Lancaster] [469]

The Earl of Arundel [choose the King’s side
after the murder of Gaveston, whom he had executed
after a mock trial together with Thomas of Lancaster, the 10th Earl
of Warwick and the Earl of Hereford,
who died at the Battle of Boroughbridge] [470]

The Earl of Surrey , [originally one of
the besiegers of Piers Gaveston in 1312 and
later a mortal enemy of Thomas.
Under his responsibility Thomas’ estranged wife Alice de
Lacy was abducted, which lead to a private war between
Surrey and Thomas] [471]

The [Scottish] Earls of Atholl and Angus, who had once
served in the retinue of Thomas of Lancaster. [472]

The royal justice Robert Malberthorpe, who spoke out
the charges against him. [473]

Striking is, that three of the ”judges” [Edward II, the Earl of Kent,
the Earl of Richmond] were first cousins of Thomas of Lancaster
[474] and one, the Earl of Pembroke, his first cousin removed.
[475]

NICE FAMILY……..

Charges:

Thomas was charged [of course] for treason, as he and other Contrariants had invited several of Robert Bruce’s liegemen to England in 1322 to ride with them against their king. [476]

But that was not all:

The list of charges comprised the many grievances Edward managed to dredge up against his cousin, going back to Thomas’s seizure of his possessions at Tynemouth in 1312 [when Lancaster
and the other barons were pursuing the King and his favourite Piers Gaveston, after his return from permanent exile. The charge however was unjust, since Lancaster had given the
possessions back in 1313] [477] and including Thomas’s jeering at him from the Pontefract battlements in 1317, [478]
and Lancaster’s blocking of the roads in an attempt to prevent Edward’s travelling through Yorkshire. [479]

Verdict:
A fourtheenth century scandal

One need not to be surprised about the verdict:

Of course Thomas was found guilty, since this
was a show trial, containing ”judges”, who were
extremely hostile to him.

But to be fair:
Even if it WERE a fair trial, the exchanged letters and dealings with the Scots [480] were reason enough to condemn him.

Therefore it was not the CONDEMNATION  that was shocking, and caused a scandal, but the
fact, that Thomas was condemned to death, which was
a break with the convention of the time, not only because of his close
kinship to the King [first cousin, Lancaster’s father was the younger brother of King Edward I], but especially because since
Waltheof, the Earl of Northumbria was executed  in 1076 on the orders of William the Conqueror [481], no English Earl was ever executed. [482]
In cases, comparable with Lancaster, an Earl had to suffer
”only” life imprisonment or exile. [483]

I think, that the King perhaps had shown mercy [I mean, not
imposing the death penalty], were it not for Lancaster’s involvement
in the murder of King’s favourite Piers Gaveston[484],
which was not one of the charges, but the underlying reason
for the King’s need for revenge. [485]

But there was more:
Not only the death penalty was pronounced, Thomas was
condemned to the worst form, the traitor’s death:
In other words: to be hanged, drawn and quartered…..[486]

But the King was not totally crazy:
Executing a [royal] Earl was already a scandal,
but to be hanged, drawn and quartered……
Besides, whatever had happened between them, Thomas
was the King’s first cousin and of royal blood
Therefore the King commuted this verdict to ”merely”
beheading……[487]

However, some sources mention, that the King commuted
the ”hanged, drawn and quarted” verdict to beheading “for the love of Quene Isabell,”[488], which possibly means, that the King
commuted the verdict to beheading as a result of intercession
of Queen Isabella [489], who was with King Edward at
Pontefract [brrrrrr, horrifying, to accompany one’s husband
at the eve of an execution….yet when she really intervened,
it was a good thing that she came…..] [490]
Queen Isabella was, you remember still,,,, Thomas’ niece, since he was the halfbrother of her mother, Queen Joan I of Navarre]
[491]

Of course the phrase “for the love of Quene Isabell” can also

mean, that the beheading verdict was the King”s own decision,
but that he considered his and Queen Isabella’s relationship
with Thomas of Lancaster……

THE OTHERS

Before we follow Thomas on his last passage, there is
a lot to tell about his adherents, who were captured together
with him or on other locations around the same time:
I mention six knights, who were hanged at Pontefract around
or at the same time as Thomas were executed:
William Cheyne or Cheney, Warin Lisle, Henry Bradbourne, William Fitzwilliam, Thomas Mauduit and William Tuchet [492]

According to the Flores Historiarum [493], such a lack
of humanity was shown, that Thomas had to face their execution
before he himself was executed[494] [although the Flores Historiarum mentioned
nine of his knights, while other sources give six] [495]

Anyway, Edward II was not satisfied with seven executions
[Thomas and the six knights], as a whole at least between
19 and 22 lords and knights were executed and one, Lord
Badlesmere [from the Siege of Leeds, see Chapter 7] suffered
the traitor’s death. [496]
Many were imprisoned, even the wives and children of
the rebels [see also Chapter 10, Aftermath] [497]
A bloody project of a vengeful King, undoubtedly
stimulated by the [with right mentioned so by the rebels!] evil councillors, the Despensers. [498]

LAST PASSAGE

It was on the morning of 22 march, that Thomas of Lancaster
heard his verdict, condemned in the Hall of his own
Favourite Castle in Pontefract.
The same morning, on a cold, snowy day, Thomas was executed.
The King, apparently making a holiday of his cousin’s
trial and execution, had arrived there on 19 march, together
with Queen Isabella and spent there until 25 march…..[499]
[strong nerves they must have had…….]

However, rather than have him executed in the castle
bailey, Edward II had a painful ”surprise” for
Thomas of Lancaster, which showed his desire for
revenge on the execution of his favourite, Piers Gaveston:
In fact, he arranged a ”parody” on the execution of
Piers Gaveston [who was executed on a hill, called
”Blacklow Hill” and also beheaded] [500]

Thomas was taken  outside to a small hill,  outside of the walls of his favourite Castle Pontefract, mirroring Piers’ 1312 death on Blacklow Hill.
He was forced to ride “some worthless mule” and “an old chaplet, rent and torn, that was not worth a half-penny,” was set on his head. A crowd of spectators again threw snowballs at him.
Apparently at the king’s order, Thomas was forced to kneel facing towards Scotland, in a pointed reminder of his  correspondence with Robert Bruce [which of course had been treason] [501]

Then Thomas uttered the words:

“Now the king of Heaven give us mercy, for the earthly king has forsaken us!” [502]

Two or three strokes of the axe and he was beheaded.

Thomas of Lancaster, Earl of Lancaster, Leicester, Derby,
Lincoln and Salisbury, long time adversary of his cousin
Edward II and the last to defend the Ordinances
[503] was no more………

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor 22 MARCH 1322/22 MARCH 2022/Execution of Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II/Warlord,Reformer,Saint

Opgeslagen onder Divers

The Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Interview/A Racist Cuckoo in the Royal Family?

THE PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE INTERVIEW/A RACIST CUCKOO IN THE ROYAL FAMILY?

Meghan and Harry, who introduced Archie in May 2019, said there were concerns about how dark their baby's skin would be
Meghan said the Queen was one of the first people she met
Related image


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

FINAL

[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 [1], who both had finally decided not to return to their royal roles and duties [2]However,according to my information, Prince Harry is stillin the line for the throne [3],which I applaud, since as you’ll know, I cheered theroyal couple on from the beginning! [4]Why?Because Cheddar Man finally won. [5]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 [6]and the courageous and honourable defense from Prince Harry on her behalf [7].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” [8], it was not a”and they lived happily ever after” Story, not only because ofthe backlash at first [9], but because apparently there was an evil partyspoiler within the Royal Family.I’ll deal with that later.
But meanwhile the disturbing backlash continued [10], even a nasty petition to strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle from theirroyal titles ”The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” [11]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’. [12]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 [13]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] [14]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. [1]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;” [15]
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.

Best regards,

Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council”

[16]

The haters did not win! [17]

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN

But like Prince Harry rightly stated in his declaration to defend his then

fiancee Meghan Marke [18], 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. [19]

Of course it were not all journalists and the whole press:

Espexially low class ”journalist” Piers Morgan [20] led the smear campaign for resaons he knows best, followed by other journalistic

nobodies [21]

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 [22]

The reason for his nasty remarks led in the Oprah Winfrey interview [23]

and the remarks Meghan Markle made about her mental state of health 

[suicide thoughts] [24]

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. [25]

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 [26] 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 [27], Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, who became happy parents of a son, Lord Archie, on 6 may 2019 [28], decided 

to step back as senior royals, splitting their time between the UK and

North-America. [29]

That was in january 2020. [30]

The MEGXIT, as sensational tabloids called it [31], 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] [32]

According to my information, they now live in Montecito [33], where Meghan Markle expects their second child [34], a daughter, as they revealed

in the Oprah Winfrey interview. [35]

A special Blessing after the miscarriage Meghan suffered last year! [36]

By the way, I forgot to mention, that after leaving England, Prince

Harry and Meghan Markle signed contracts with Netflix and Spotify [37]

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

duties. [38]

Also we have seen Prince Harry and his son Lord Archie’s right on

succession to the throne remains the same. [39]

 But [and that’s understandable, since they don’t do the

Royal Job anymore] that they lose their royal patronages. [40]

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” [41]

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.'[42]

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. [43]

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. [44]

But now the Royal Family was involved, at least one [or more?] members,

uttering racist remarks. [45]

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.” [46]

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 [47]:

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!

[48]

Now I don’t comment on all the twelve highlights [the Megan-Katie thing [49] 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? [50]

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things” [51]

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’.” [52]

THE FIRM, AGAIN/IT’S WAY OF ACTING

[Quote]

”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” [53]

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] [54], that Firm must be some important members of the Royal Family.

I puzzled and puzzled, but without more information I can’t make sense

of this.

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. [55]

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] [56]

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! [57]

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. [58]

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.” [59]

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.”

AND

”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.” [60]

Prince Harry also commented:

” I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.

ALSO

”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. ” [61]

[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 [62] for what it is, that Meghan didn’t do research on the Royal Family [63] etcetera.

Also I don’t comment on Prince Harry’s relationship between his father 

and brother [64], 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” [64], but that’s the price you pay for your privilege, isn’t it?

As Prince Harry said himself ”It’s part of the job” [65]

Also Prince Harry’s remarks, that he was ”cut out financially” [66],

didn’t impress me.

When you are the grandson of the Queen, one of the richest women in

the world [67] 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 [68]

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…..[69]

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!  [70]

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] [71], 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 [72]

Prince Harry and his brother Prince William unveil a statue in the honour of their mother,  Princess Diana [73] 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  [74]

[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 [75], 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 [76] and I wish them, with their children, a happy life!

FINAL

So as I promised at 10 march this anno Domini [77], 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 [78] 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. [79]

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

[HAHAHA]

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 [80], adds the worth of fighting for equality.

It was nice to write this!

Astrid Essed

SEE FOR NOTES 

OR

https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/notes-1-t-m-80-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-story-astrids-comments/

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Interview/A Racist Cuckoo in the Royal Family?

Opgeslagen onder Divers

A Royal Daughter for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!/Lady Lilibet Diana, welcome to the world!

A ROYAL DAUGHTER FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX!/LADY LILIBET DIANA, WELCOME TO THE WORLD!

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry wished everyone a merry Christmas from their family of four.Meghan Markle and Prince Harry wished everyone a merry Christmas from their family of four.

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1401614927236841474

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.9:00 PM · Jun 6, 2021·Twitter for iPhone3,275 Retweets511 Quote Tweets36.7K Like

PHOTO OF THE SECOND ROYAL BABY YET TO BE ADDED

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

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.” [1]

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 ] [2]

As at the birth of their son, Lord Archie [3], 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….[4]
Of course the Duke and Duchess of Sussex received congratulationsfrom the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William [5]

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 [6], which remains greatly

memorable.

Beautiful to honour her on this way, to name her granddaughter,

whom she regrettably never saw, after her.

Astrid Essed

NOTES

[1]

OFFICIAL 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 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.”

ARCHEWELL

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE 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,” 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.”

Pregnancy announcement

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 child

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

[3]

WIKIPEDIA

ARCHIE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Mountbatten-Windsor

A ROYAL BABY FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX/LORD ARCHIE. WELCOME TO THE WORLD

ASTRID ESSED

[4]

BBC

PRINCE PHILIP HAS DIED AGED 99, BUCKINGHAM

PALACE ANNOUNCES

9 APRIL 2021

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11437314

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.

In March, the duke left King Edward VII’s hospital in central London after a month-long stay for treatment.

He was admitted on 16 February after feeling unwell, and later underwent a procedure for a pre-existing heart condition at another London hospital – St Bartholomew’s.

END OF THE ARTICLE

WIKIPEDIA

PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh

[5]
TOWN AND COUNTRY MAGAZINEQUEEN ELIZABETH AND THE ROYAL FAMILY SHARE A WELCOME MESSAGE TO MEGHAN AND HARRY’S DAUGHTER
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a36332986/queen-elizabeth-message-prince-harry-meghan-daughter/

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle just announced the birth of their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.

Queen Elizabeth is now a great-grandmother to eleven! With the birth of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s new daughter, the Queen added yet another little one to her royal brood.

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.

Aside from Archie, the Queen’s other great-grandchildren include Prince William and Kate’s children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, who are the third, fourth, and fifth in line for the throne, respectively. There are also Peter Phillips’ two children, Savannah and Isla, and Zara Phillips’ kids, Mia, Lena, and Lucas. Princess Eugenie also recently welcomed her son, August Brooksbank, to the ever-growing British royal family.

END OF THE ARTICLEVANCOUVER SUNPRINCE WILLIAM REACHES OUT TO PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN AFTERBIRTH OF A DAUGHTER: REPORT
https://vancouversun.com/entertainment/celebrity/prince-william-reaches-out-to-prince-harry-meghan-after-birth-of-daughter-report/wcm/84e4eeba-a84c-4075-8a34-18ee0389c632


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.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1401614927236841474

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 Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall@ClarenceHouse·Jun 6Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana �� Wishing them all well at this special time

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge@KensingtonRoyal·Jun 6We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.

[6]

TIMEPRINCE HARRY IS HONOURING HIS MOTHER’S WORK INANGOLA. WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT PRINCESS DIANA’S LANDMINES’WALK27 SEPTEMBER 2019

https://time.com/5682006/princess-diana-landmines/

The tour across southern Africa begun Monday by Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex; and their son, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, will surely be as modern as they are — but Prince Harry’s plan for Thursday and Friday has also echoed the past. Harry is honoring Princess Diana’s advocacy against landmines in Angola by making a trip very similar to the one his mother made in January of 1997, when she walked across a minefield in Huambo in central Angola.

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.

However, campaigners are keen to highlight that there is still work to be done. According to the ICBL, some 61 countries and areas around the world are contaminated by landmines and 32 states remain outside of the Mine Ban Treaty. The Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded over 7,200 casualties caused by mines in 2017, and at least two people clearing mines in southwest Bosnia were killed as recently as Aug. 25.

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

https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/our-movement/our-history/princess-diana-a-strong-supporter-of-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.

In 1995, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) launched its international ‘Landmines must be stopped’ campaign in a bid to bring about the total ban on the use of anti-personnel mines.

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.

In 2015, that number had dropped to 6,461 casualties, according to a report from the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

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

WIKIPEDIA

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor A Royal Daughter for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!/Lady Lilibet Diana, welcome to the world!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

My Earl Thomas of Lancaster article in Chapters!

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterTHOMAS 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER

Thomas of Lancaster’s main possessions (Maddicott).THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S MAIN POSSESSIONShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

MURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELMURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELhttps://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

PONTEFRACT CASTLE, THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S FAVOURITECASTLE [INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW, HENRY DE LACY, 3TH EARL OFLINCOLN, AT HIS DEATH IN 1311]IN HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE HIS SOCALLED ”TRIAL” TOOKPLACE AND NEAR HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE,  IRONICALLY,  HE WAS EXECUTEDhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle#Historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle

manuscript-images-medieval-castles
Edward was twice jeered by Lancaster’s garrison at Pontefract in 1317 & 1320 as he passed from north to south 

EDWARD II WAS TWICE JEERED BY THOMAS OF LANCASTERAND HIS HOUSEHOLD, IN AT PONTEFRACT IN 1317 AND 1320, WHEN HEPASSED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH…..https://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasoflancaster.htm

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_74.html

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

PLANTAGENETCOAT OF ARMS OF EDMUND CROUCHBACK [SON OFKING HENRY III, BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I ANDFATHER OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER], THOMAS,EARL OF LANCASTER AND HIS SUCCESSORShttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterVENERATION CULTUS OF THOMAS, EARL OF LANCASTER”SAINT THOMAS” [THOMAS THE MARTYR]PICTURE BELOW:

DEVOTIONAL PANEL OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, PICTURINGHIS BEHEADING OUTSIDE OF PONTEFRACT CASTLEA DEVOTIONAL PANEL WAS A RELIGIOUS OBJECT, SOLDON PILGRIMAGE TO COMMEMORATE AND VENERATESAINTS AND MARTYRShttp://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/archaeology/art522182-devotional-panel-of-beheaded-rebel-14th-century-martyr-surfaces-on-shore-of-river-thames

A photo of a small dark silver religious panel depicting the beheading of a medieval man

The beheading of the Earl is portrayed within the panel© MOLA / Andy Chopping

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” [1] in Chapters, easier for you to readHereby the whole overview:It was nice to travel with you to fourtheenth century England.Until next time……

[1]
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II, FROM WARLORD TO SAINTASTRID ESSED
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-iifrom-warlord-to-saint/

OVERVIEW IN CHAPTERS:

ASTRID ESSED
SEE AND ENJOY THE CHAPTERS
CHAPTER ONE
IN GENERAL/
FAMILY TIES/HISTORICAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN
KINGS AND BARONS/PERSONAL LIFE/POWER AND WEALTH

CHAPTER TWO
BEGINNING OF HIS CAREER/SERVICE UNDER HIS
UNCLE KING EDWARD I

CHAPTER THREE
THOMAS OF LANCASTER/CONFLICT WITH HIS COUSIN,
KING EDWARD II
From day one?

CHAPTER FOURTHOMAS OF LANCASTER AND KING EDWARD II
OUTBURST OF THE CONFLICT/PIERS GAVESTON,
THE ROYAL FAVOURITE

CHAPTER FIVEDANCE FOR POWER
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, THE UNCROWNED KING

CHAPTER SIX

OPEN WAR

DESPENSER WAR/FIRST PHASE
[February-August 1321]

CHAPTER SEVEN

OPEN WAR

DESPENSER WAR/SECOND PHASE
[October 1321[March 1322]

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE END

The travel
Revenge of the King
Reception
Trial
The others
Last passage

CHAPTER NINESAINT THOMAS

CHAPTER TEN

AFTERMATH

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MAJOR PLAYERS IN THIS DRAMA

I

King Edward II

II

The Despensers

III

Roger Mortimer

IV

Queen Isabella

V

Henry of Lancaster

EPILOGUEWHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER?

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor My Earl Thomas of Lancaster article in Chapters!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Epilogue

THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II, FROMWARLORD TO SAINT/EPILOGUE

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterTHOMAS 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER

Thomas of Lancaster’s main possessions (Maddicott).THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S MAIN POSSESSIONShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

MURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELMURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELhttps://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

PONTEFRACT CASTLE, THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S FAVOURITECASTLE [INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW, HENRY DE LACY, 3TH EARL OFLINCOLN, AT HIS DEATH IN 1311]IN HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE HIS SOCALLED ”TRIAL” TOOKPLACE AND NEAR HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE,  IRONICALLY,  HE WAS EXECUTEDhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle#Historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle

manuscript-images-medieval-castles
Edward was twice jeered by Lancaster’s garrison at Pontefract in 1317 & 1320 as he passed from north to south 

EDWARD II WAS TWICE JEERED BY THOMAS OF LANCASTERAND HIS HOUSEHOLD, IN AT PONTEFRACT IN 1317 AND 1320, WHEN HEPASSED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH…..https://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasoflancaster.htm

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_74.html

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

PLANTAGENETCOAT OF ARMS OF EDMUND CROUCHBACK [SON OFKING HENRY III, BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I ANDFATHER OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER], THOMAS,EARL OF LANCASTER AND HIS SUCCESSORShttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterVENERATION CULTUS OF THOMAS, EARL OF LANCASTER”SAINT THOMAS” [THOMAS THE MARTYR]PICTURE BELOW:

DEVOTIONAL PANEL OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, PICTURINGHIS BEHEADING OUTSIDE OF PONTEFRACT CASTLEA DEVOTIONAL PANEL WAS A RELIGIOUS OBJECT, SOLDON PILGRIMAGE TO COMMEMORATE AND VENERATESAINTS AND MARTYRShttp://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/archaeology/art522182-devotional-panel-of-beheaded-rebel-14th-century-martyr-surfaces-on-shore-of-river-thames

A photo of a small dark silver religious panel depicting the beheading of a medieval man

The beheading of the Earl is portrayed within the panel© MOLA / Andy Chopping


READERS

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/

TWO

THREE

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

NINE

TEN

https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-ten/
SAINT THOMAS!
And what was the most amazing in this Story was the fact, that this grand nobleman, adversary and enemy of his cousin the King, who was all but”Holy”, was declared ”A Saint” [although not officially by Holy Church], who wasvenerated as a Saint by 250 years until Reformation in England destroyed it
SEE CHAPTER NINE!
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-nine/

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 [939], he later moved into
opposition because of king’s favourite Piers Gaveston,,
killing the poor man together with his baron
allies in 1312 [940] , which set, of course
a deadly enmity between
him and Edward II. [941]
Simultaneously, Thomas and his allies pleaded for a set of reforms,
limiting the king’s power, the so called Ordinances.[942]
Then, after the desastrous defeat against the Scots at the battle
of Bannockburn in 1314 [943],
being the de facto ruler in England from 1314-1318,
battling new favourites of the King [944] and finally
droven into armed rebellion against the King because
of his most dangerous, favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger [945],
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. [946]

And being a warlord during his later life, became a Saint
after his death! [947]

Fascinating.

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] [948]
, 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….[949]

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….[950]

That’s immediately debunking the often heard story, that Lancaster
couldn’t keep friends and allies…..[951]
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

[952], 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 [953],
the execution of the Despensers and eventually, the deposition of Edward II
himself…….[954]
Henry, who would do whatever was in his power to restore the honour
of his brother by promoting him as a Saint [955] 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. [956]

But when everything is said and done, I raise one major question

WHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER?
WHAT DROVE HIM?

A

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.”
[957]

Luminarium Encyclopedia describes him as a
”coarse, selfish and violent man, without any attributes of
a statesman”
[958]

Encyclopedia Britannica writes

”His opposition to royal power derived more from personal ambition than from a desire for reform.” [959]

Website ”English monarchs” described Thomas of
Lancaster as someone initially loyal, who was forced into opposition
because of the King’s favourite policies [960]

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.” [961]

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.” [962]

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] [963]
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. ” [964]

AND

”Edward II certainly had his faults as a king and many of Lancaster’s Ordinances were indeed worthy suggestions for much needed reform.” [965]

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”[14] 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.” [966]

READERS, DID YOU LET THOSE COMMENTS ABOVE

SINK IN?
GOOD.
I will come to that later

First this:

B

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 [967] 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. [968]

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…..[969]
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 [970] 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] [971]
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.” [972]
Perhaps understandable from Edward II’s point of view,
but likewise understandable, that Thomas of Lancaster
not only left the battlefield in Berwick [973], 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. [975]
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…..[976]
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 [977] which led to a serious
row between him and Edward II. [978]

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.

C

THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S CHARACTER

”VIOLENCE”, ”ARROGANCE”/”DIFFICULTY TO
KEEP FRIENDS AND ALLIES”

Thomas of Lancaster is called ”coarse, selfish and violent” [979] , ”arrogant”, [980], having a ”seeming desire for power” [981]
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] [982]

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. [983]

There has also been stated, that Thomas of Lancaster
”found it difficult to keep friends and allies”
[984].
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. [985]
Lancaster had allies who were prepared to kill those,
who had betrayed him, years after his execution. [986]

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….[987]

Yes, that same Sir Robert Holland, who deserted Lancaster in his hour
of need [988], something his brother Henry, the later Earl of
Lancaster, would never forgive or forget….[989]

D

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”
[990],  a ”coarse, selfish and violent man” [991]
, ”that his opposition to royal power derived more from personal ambition than from a desire for reform [992],
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”
[993] thus making from the Earl a sort of pioneer of later
democratic developments, as the New World Encyclopedia
does [994], 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 [995]
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. [996].

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. [997]

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] [998]
Then Henry III created the Earldom of Leicester for his second
son Edmund Crouchback [999], 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” [1000]
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. [1001]

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. [1002]

One of them, de Montfort, is now honoured as one of the founders
of modern parliament [1003], 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..[1004]
And in contrary to Thomas of Lancaster, he had the chance to form
two parliaments to implement his ideas [1005], since he defeated
the king in battle and ruled England more than a year. [1006]
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 [1007], 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. [1008]
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.
[1009].
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. [1010]

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.
[1011]
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 [1012], 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 [1013] against all odds and fought a king, who,
although certainly generous [1014] and sometimes unexpectedly forgiving [1015],
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.

It was nice to travel with you to the past.

Perhaps I’ll travel with you, again……

ASTRID ESSED

AND HERE COMES YOUR BOTTLE OF CHAMPAIGN!

Image result for A bottle of sparkling champagne/Images
Image result for A bottle of sparkling champagne/Images
Image result for A bottle of sparkling champagne/Images
Image result for A bottle of sparkling champagne/Images

NOTESNOTES 1-1015https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-1-1015-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/SPECIFIED1-250https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-1-250-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/251-347https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-251-347-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/348-400https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-348-400-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/401-451https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-401-451-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/452-503https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-452-503-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/504-587https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-504-587-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/588-666https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-588-666-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/667-761https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-667-761-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/762-806https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-762-806-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/807-938https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-807-938-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/939-1015https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-939-1015-at-article-about-thomas-earl-of-lancaster/

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Epilogue

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of King Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Ten

THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II, FROM WARLORD TO SAINT/CHAPTER TEN

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterTHOMAS 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER

Thomas of Lancaster’s main possessions (Maddicott).THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S MAIN POSSESSIONShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

MURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELMURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELhttps://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

PONTEFRACT CASTLE, THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S FAVOURITECASTLE [INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW, HENRY DE LACY, 3TH EARL OFLINCOLN, AT HIS DEATH IN 1311]IN HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE HIS SOCALLED ”TRIAL” TOOKPLACE AND NEAR HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE,  IRONICALLY,  HE WAS EXECUTEDhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle#Historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle

manuscript-images-medieval-castles
Edward was twice jeered by Lancaster’s garrison at Pontefract in 1317 & 1320 as he passed from north to south 

EDWARD II WAS TWICE JEERED BY THOMAS OF LANCASTERAND HIS HOUSEHOLD, IN AT PONTEFRACT IN 1317 AND 1320, WHEN HEPASSED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH…..https://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasoflancaster.htm

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_74.html

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

PLANTAGENETCOAT OF ARMS OF EDMUND CROUCHBACK [SON OFKING HENRY III, BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I ANDFATHER OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER], THOMAS,EARL OF LANCASTER AND HIS SUCCESSORShttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterVENERATION CULTUS OF THOMAS, EARL OF LANCASTER”SAINT THOMAS” [THOMAS THE MARTYR]PICTURE BELOW:

DEVOTIONAL PANEL OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, PICTURINGHIS BEHEADING OUTSIDE OF PONTEFRACT CASTLEA DEVOTIONAL PANEL WAS A RELIGIOUS OBJECT, SOLDON PILGRIMAGE TO COMMEMORATE AND VENERATESAINTS AND MARTYRShttp://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/archaeology/art522182-devotional-panel-of-beheaded-rebel-14th-century-martyr-surfaces-on-shore-of-river-thames

A photo of a small dark silver religious panel depicting the beheading of a medieval man

The beheading of the Earl is portrayed within the panel© MOLA / Andy Chopping


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

TWO

THREE

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

NINE

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

I

King Edward II

II

The Despensers

III

Roger Mortimer

IV

Queen Isabella

V

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 [588] dead, the way was paved for
a new and horrific Era in English history::
The tyranny……[589]
In may 1322, two months after the execution of Thomas
of Lancaster, the Ordinances were revoked [590], 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!],[591]
, following more Contrariants, also after unfair trials or simply
executed,  twenty or 22 in total [592], in one case even
the horrible traitor’s death.[593]
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. [594]
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. [595]
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 [596]:
She was imprisoned ”only” for a year and released seven
months after the brutal execution [traitor’s death] of
her husband in april 1322. [597]

ANYWAY:

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……. [598]

Let’s have a close look at how fared the mayor players in this drama:

I

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] [599], 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 [600], 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] [601].
Mortimer fled to France, what would prove desastrous for Edward II…..

Also, other Contrariants fled to France  [602], 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 [603], 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. [604]
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 [605]

Not a clever chess player, King Edward II…….

2
Tensions with France:

As if the problems at home were not enough [606], to
make things worse [poor King Edward II……], in 1324 Edward II quarreled

big time [607]  with his brother in law, [his wife Isabella’s brother], King
Charles IV [608]
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] [609]
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. [610]
ANYWAY
WAR BROKE OUT OVER THE QUESTION GASCONY. [611]
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……[612]

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……[613]

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] [614]
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. [615]
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. [616]

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 [617], 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.” [618]
She made quite a show by dressing like a widow, since
Hugh Despenser had come beteen her and her husband. [619]

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. [620]

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. [621]
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.’ [622]
[Wikipedia mentions not ”detain” but ”expel”] [623]

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. [624]

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. [625]
Edward wrote simulateous letters  to his son Edward of Windsor, Charles IV and numerous French magnates and bishops. [626]

Edward defended Hugh Despenser also before before the parliament which began at Westminster – the last one he ever held – on 18 November 1325. [627]

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. [628]

Probably between october 1325 and february 1326, Isabella associated
herself with  Roger Mortimer. [629]

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 [630] [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? [631]
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 [632], a die hard ally of
Thomas of Lancaster and soon her environment
became a circle for the resistance against the Edward II
Despensers rule.

Invasion:

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 [633]:
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. [634]
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] [635], 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. [636]
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. [637]

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. [638]

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 [639]
and were captured at South Wales by the forces of Henry

of Lancaster. [640]

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 [641]

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. [642]

Deposition

I can imagine the immense grief Edward II must have felt:
First the execution of Hugh’s father, Hugh Despenser the Elder [643]
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 [644] 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 [645], 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 [646], 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;[647]

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. [648]
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. [649]

Edward of Windsor, son of Edward II, was the new King.
He crowned in february, 1327 as King Edward III. [650]
Henry of Lancaster, his father’s cousin, was appointed as
”chief advisor” of King Edward III. [651]

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. [652]
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] [653] 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. [654]

Now I have not the faintest idea, what treatment Edward II got
in Berkeley Castle.
According to some sources he was often mistreated [655], other sources doubt it. [656]

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. [657]

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. [658]
However, a majority, as the most historians, are in agreement,
that he probably was murdered, [659], 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.

Because:

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.
[661]

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 [662], change of babies or children [663], 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. [665]
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.  [666]

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……

II

THE DESPENSERS

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, [667] 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…… [668]
YEAH
Rather surprisingly, seen in the light of the 1320’s……..
Loyal to Edward I and serving him on numerous cases on battles [669],
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 [669]
to Despenser’s son, Hugh, the later favourite of Edward II. [671]

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. [672]

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. [673]
Even Queen Isabella was victim to that dangerous nonsense. [674]
It comes as no surprise that they became the most hated men in
England! [675]

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. [676]
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] [677],
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. [678]
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. [679]
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] [680]

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. [681]
And in 1322, Despenser the Elder was created Earl of Winchester. [682]

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. [683]
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.
[684]

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…[685]

Barbaric.

Edmund Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, one of the executioners
of King’s favourite Piers Gaveston [686] [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…… [687]
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…….[688]

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] [689], nevertheless he
was appointed to royal chamberlain in the autumn of 1318 [690]
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] [691], 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 [692] 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] [693]
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. [694]

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. [695]
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. [696]

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 [697]

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 [698]

As had happened at the trial of Thomas of Lancaster in 1322, Hugh was not permitted to speak in his defence. [699]

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]
[700] read out the charges  against Hugh Despenser [701]

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: [702]
To be hanged, drawn and quartered and he suffered the whole
horror of that sentence……

At 24 november 1326 [703]
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. [704]

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.

III

ROGER MORTIMER

”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 [705], 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. [706]
This resulted in the Despenser war in which the Marcher Lords destroyed
Despenser lands [707], but also attacked, pillaged and extortioned
innocents, with as main victims poor villagers ¨[708]
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 [709], with so many others also executed (not always after a ´´trial,
[710].
Roger Mortimer and his uncle de Chirk, who were already complelled
to surrender in january 1322 [711], were imprisoned at the Tower of London.
BUT IN 1323 ROGER MORTIMER ESCAPED! [712]
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 [713]
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 [714]
Of course he refused (she could have known that before….) infatuated
with the man as he was. [715]

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…..[716]
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 [717] 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 [718]
[his other halfbrother and full brother of the Earl of Norfolk, the Earl of Kent,
had already joined Isabella and Mortimer in France) [719] 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 [720]
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 [721] 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 [722]

AND:
Henry, who  had  petitioned for his brothers
Earldoms and got Leicester back in 1324 [723] [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. [724]
In 1327, Henry also was made chief of the Council of Regency [since King Edward III
was a minor, yet] [725]

EDWARD II

In september 1327, former King Edward II died at Berkeley Castle,
probably murdered [726], although some modern historians presume that he
escaped and lived years and years  abroad. [727]
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. [728]

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. [729]
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. [730]

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……[731]
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. [732]

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. [733]

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 [734], later went to the Pope to promote
the very Thomas’ canonization ……[735]
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 [736] and present at the trial against
Hugh Despenser the Younger [737]
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 [738]
[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…..[739]

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 [740]
Some modern historians allege, that in fact Edward II WAS still alive and
that somehow Kemt had got some proof of that [741]

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…..[742]

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…..[743]

BIZARRE DETAIL:

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] [744] 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……. [745]

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…” [746]

Proclamation of King Edward III, the day after the arrest of Roger
Mortimer [747]

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. [748]

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] [749]
Likely the last straw was the birth of his
eldest son, the later ”Black Prince” in june 1330 [750]

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] [751]
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”  [752]

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. [753]
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. [754]

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’. [755]

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. [756]

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. [757]

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 [758] Robert Ufford, with Suffolk; William Clinton, with Huntingdon and so others [759]

DEATH AND ROYAL DESCENDANTS

And so passed Roger de Mortimer, 3rd baron de Mortimer,
1st Earl of March. [760]
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! [761]

NO BAD CURRICULUM VITAE FOR A REBEL TO THE THRONE!

IV

QUEEN ISABELLA

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. [762]
That also applied to Queen Isabella [763], 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.
[764]
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] [765], he sent Isabella to France to mediate between him and her
brother Charles IV, King of France. [766]
She did mediate, but stayed in France, made publicly known, not
to return to England before Despenser was sent away from Court. [767]

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] [768] 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…..[769]

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] [770] 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] [771],
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.  [772]
Hugh’s eldest daughter escaped, since she was already married with
Richard Fitzalan [773]
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] [774]
Hughs youngest daughter also escaped, being too young or still
in her mother’s womb. [775]

Think!
Their grandfather and father dead, brutally executed, their mother imprisoned [776]
Bereaved from their hitherto priviliged state.

From Isabella’s side a low act of pure vindictiveness, to those innocent girls…..

NEW TYRANNY

The Isabella and Mortimer pair deposed King Edward II in favour of his son, now Edward III [777],
poor King Edward II was imprisoned, first at his cousin Henry of Lancaster’s castle
Kenilworth [treated with all honour and respect] [778], thereafter at Berkeley
Castle [no idea how he was treated, but I guess less honourably] [779],
where he officially died in september 1327,  probably
murdered [780] [some historians however think he survived
and lived years later abroad] [781]

Discontentment grew, since Isabella and Mortuimer proved no better rulers than the Despensers and were more avaricious than even the Despensers had been. [782]

However:

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. [783]

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! [784]
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…” [785]

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.[786]
Later she lived at Windsor Castle and from 1332 in her own Castle
Rising. [787]
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] [788]
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.[789]

So she lived a luxuriously life, returning to Castle Rising in 1332
[790], 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. [791]

The death [execution] of Mortimer must have been very painful
for her and perhaps she suffered a nervous breakdown [792],
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 [793].
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] [794]
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. [795]

Isabella died at 22 august 1358 at Hertford Castle. [796]
At her request, she was buried with her wedding clothes.
[797]
Edward III visited his mother’s funeral, the convention that kings did not attend funerals belonging to later centuries, not the fourteenth. [798]

There are rumours, that she was also buried with the heart
of Edward II, but that is not sure. [799]

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. [800]

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…..

MARRIAGE

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.[801]
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.

BUT

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 [802]
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. [803]
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.” [804]
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] [805]
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. [806]

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….

NO

To my opinion:
A good and working union,after the death of Piers Gaveston and
untill Hugh Despenser came.
No more, no less.

V

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?” [807]
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. [808]
But then, for them, it was too late……

HENRY/CURRICULUM VITAE:

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 [809]

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! [810]

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) [811]

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. [812]

Around 1297, he  married Maud Chaworth, the elder maternal halfsister of Hugh Despenser the Younger. [813]

He fought for his uncle, King Edward I, in the Scottish wars [814]
and in the Flanders campaign [815]
With his elder  brother Thomas he visited the future Edward II
[then ”just” heir to the throne] during the 1290 years. [816]

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. [817]

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] [818]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 [819]
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.
[820]
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 [821], to
take part in the campaign against Llywellyn Bren, which Henry did
[822] with Sir William Montacute [823], 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] [824], would become serious enemies of his
brother Thomas. [825]
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 [826], a year after the campaign against Llywellyn Bren…..[827]

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.” [828]

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) [829]

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  [830] [where the Despensers went on the rampage, with full consent of the King] [831]
Which proved that he must have been in England somewhere between let’s say 26 october 1320 and the early months of 1321…..[832]

Anyway:

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. [833]

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……[834]
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. [835]
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……[836]
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. [837]

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] [838]:
He was married with Maud Chaworth, halfsister of
Hugh Despenser the Younger from his mother’s side.
[839]

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. [840]
He did that partially successfully, since Edward II restored
the Earldom of Leicester to him.
In 1324 he was created Earl of Leicester.[841]

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. [842]
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. [843]
And it didn’t take long before hundreds, no thousands of people
came to worship ”Saint Thomas” [yes, Thomas of Lancaster]
as a Saint. [844]
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…..[845]

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] [846] wrote a letter to the Pope,
with the request  to inquire
into the canonization of the popular ”Saint” [”Saint Thomas”]
. [847]
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. [848]

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. [849]

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. [850]
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] [851].
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. [852]
In a futile attempt of damage control, Edward II ordered
to seize Henry’s Welsh castles of Grosmond,
Skenfirth and White Castle. [853]

Painful for Edward II must have been the desertion of
his own halfbrother, Thomas, Earl of Norfolk. [854]
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….
[855]

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……[856]

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….. [857]
So it was-hard, but true-”what goes around, comes around.”
[858]
Thomas of Lancaster had been ”judged” in a mock trial,
by among else Despenser the Elder and his son [859], and now
Thomas’  Henry set in ”judgement” over him…..
Despenser the Elder was hanged in his own armour…..[860]
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. [861]

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. [862]
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. [863]

Poor Despenser the Younger suffered a totally other fate:
After a humiliating journey in which he had tried
to starve himself [864], 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….[865]

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. [866]
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.” [867]

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! [868]
[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 atteyntmalueys or malveis]

His verdict and death was gruesome:
To be hanged, drawn and quartered……[869]

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….
[870]

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] [871], 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….[872]
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……..[873],
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 [874], but released by Isabella in 1327 [875].

A former adherent of Thomas of Lancaster
killed him in 1328 and his head was sent to
Henry. [876]
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….[877]

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. [878]
Later he was made chief of the Council of Regency for the minor
King Edward III. [879]

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. [880]
And  to his satisfaction, he was granted  the full restoration of his brother’s inheritance. [881]

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. [882]

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. [883]

Security risks:

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. [884]
So for security reasons Isabella and Mortimer
removed Edward II from Kenilworth, Henry’s family
Castle, to Berkeley Castle. [885]
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…..[886]

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] [887]

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

ANYWAY:

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…..[889]

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 [890], but other
sources claim, that he was very angered about Edward II’s
replacement. [891]

And what threatment [good or bad]
Edward II got in Berkeley Castle, is not
clear, although it is stated, that he was often mistreated
[892]
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……[893]
There are statements, that he was treated well, since
Queen Isabella sent him gifts and letters [894], 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? [895]
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) [896]

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. [898]
Henry of Lancaster was very much against it [899], 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. [900]
And the compensation the Scots DID pay, 20. 000 [pounds,
Medieval] were seized by Isabella and Mortimer…..[901]

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.
[902]

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. [903]

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. [904]

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. [905]
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. [906]

So Henry mobilised his army against Isabella and Mortimer. [907]

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. [908]
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. [909]
However, the most followers of Henry were pardoned by
the Isabella/Mortimer regime. [910]
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 [911], first adherents
of Isabella and Mortimer, now fallen
out with them, probably because out of annoyance with the
dominant position of Mortimer [912] and  because of the Scottish war,
which ended in the unpopular Treaty of Northampton. [913]
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, [914], buty later fell out with
the regime, also supported him. [915]

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 [916], 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- [917] AND fought at Edward’s side against Henry’s brother, Thomas of Lancaster. [918]

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. [919]

But after falling out with them, Beaumont joined Henry. [920]
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. [921]

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 [922], that loyal supporter
of Thomas of Lancaster [fought at his side at the
Battle of Boroughbridge] [923], who had read the charges
against Hugh Despenser the Younger. [924]
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. [925]
As well as Beaumont as Wake returned after the fall of Isabella and
Roger Mortimer. [926]
Trussell fared well, became Edward III’s secretary, fulfilled
diplomatic missions for him [Edward III] and died peacefully
in 1347. [927]

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. [928]
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. [929]
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…..[930]

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.

LAST YEARS

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 [931] and [via his daughter Blanche], Henry of Grosmont became
the grandfather of the later King Henry IV. [932]

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. [933]

He was a loving and caring father [934], 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” [935] and never forgot those, who
had betrayed him at the battle of Boroughbridge [936]

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…..[937]

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,

THE EPILOGUE!

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

NOTES 348-400

NOTES 401-451

NOTES 452-503

NOTES 504-587

NOTES 588-666

NOTES 667-761

NOTES 762-806

NOTES 807-938

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of King Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Ten

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Nine

THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II, FROMWARLORD TO SAINT/CHAPTER NINE

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterTHOMAS 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER

Thomas of Lancaster’s main possessions (Maddicott).THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S MAIN POSSESSIONShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

MURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELMURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,INTIMATE FRIEND ANS[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITYOF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDELhttps://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

PONTEFRACT CASTLE, THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S FAVOURITECASTLE [INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW, HENRY DE LACY, 3TH EARL OFLINCOLN, AT HIS DEATH IN 1311]IN HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE HIS SOCALLED ”TRIAL” TOOKPLACE AND NEAR HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE,  IRONICALLY,  HE WAS EXECUTEDhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle#Historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle

manuscript-images-medieval-castles
Edward was twice jeered by Lancaster’s garrison at Pontefract in 1317 & 1320 as he passed from north to south 

EDWARD II WAS TWICE JEERED BY THOMAS OF LANCASTERAND HIS HOUSEHOLD, IN AT PONTEFRACT IN 1317 AND 1320, WHEN HEPASSED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH…..https://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasoflancaster.htm

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

THE EXECUTION OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTERhttp://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_74.html

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

PLANTAGENETCOAT OF ARMS OF EDMUND CROUCHBACK [SON OFKING HENRY III, BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I ANDFATHER OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER], THOMAS,EARL OF LANCASTER AND HIS SUCCESSORShttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_LancasterVENERATION CULTUS OF THOMAS, EARL OF LANCASTER”SAINT THOMAS” [THOMAS THE MARTYR]PICTURE BELOW:

DEVOTIONAL PANEL OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, PICTURINGHIS BEHEADING OUTSIDE OF PONTEFRACT CASTLEA DEVOTIONAL PANEL WAS A RELIGIOUS OBJECT, SOLDON PILGRIMAGE TO COMMEMORATE AND VENERATESAINTS AND MARTYRShttp://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/archaeology/art522182-devotional-panel-of-beheaded-rebel-14th-century-martyr-surfaces-on-shore-of-river-thames

A photo of a small dark silver religious panel depicting the beheading of a medieval man

The beheading of the Earl is portrayed within the panel© MOLA / Andy Chopping
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-nine/


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

TWO
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-two/

THREE
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-three/

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

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…..

CHAPTER  NINE

SAINT THOMAS

”.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… [504]

And there were great stories to be told:

MIRACLES:

Blind priest:

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. [505]

One of the authors of the Brut chronicles [506] 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] [507]

Drowned child:

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. [508]

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. ” [509]

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] [510]

Two men healed from ”morimal” [cancer or gangrene]

There was also a thrilling story of two men, healed
from ”morimal” [cancer or gangrene] [511]

GREAT STORIES/PILGRIMAGES

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. [512]
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”. [513]
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.” [514]

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. [515]
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] [516]

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.”  [517]

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. [518]

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. [519]

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] [520]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, [521]

The veneration of  ”Saint Thomas” grew in popularity
according as the tyranny of Edward II and his favourites
the Despensers [522], 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] [523] 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. [524]
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.” [525]

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.” [526]

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] [527], 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. [528]
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] [529]

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] [530]
in the first year of his reign, the commons asked to
promote the canonization of Thomas of Lancaster. [531]
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” [532]
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. [533]

King Edward III wrote another two letters to the Pope to
promote Thomas of Lancaster’s canonization:

A second in march 1330 [534] and remarkably, a third AFTER his
deposing his mother Isabella of France and her [possible]
lover Roger Mortimer from power [535], 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 [536]
– visited Pope John XXII in 1329 to ask him to canonise Thomas. [537]

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] [538] wrote the letter on behalf of
Henry of Lancaster,  requesting the Pope to inquire
into the canonization of the popular ”Saint”. [539]

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. [540]
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! [541]

CULT UNDER KING EDWARD III

Under King Edward III, the cult of ”Saint Thomas”
continued to flourish and was greatly encouraged:
Hagiographies [542] about him were written [543]
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) [544]

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] [545]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. [546]

That was not entirely untrue, since the trial
of Thomas of Lancaster was utterly unfair [547] [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. [548]
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..” [549]
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. [550]

NEVER CANONIZED

Lancaster was never officially canonized, although the
chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote in 1390, that
Thomas WAS. [Sanctus Thomas de Lancastria canonizatus est]
[551], 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…..[552]

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] [553], who was a rebel warlord for nearly ten
years, taking up arms against his King, feuded with other
nobles [554], made the King’s favourite [Piers Gaveston]
executed [joined by other nobles] [555] 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 [556]….

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] [557]
Also he was NOT known for a particular generosity to
the poor, in contrary to later hagiography.
[558]

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. [559]

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.

Because:

Whoever does NOT want to be healed
from a disease, freed from his [or her]
headaches or having a healthy childbirth? [560]
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” [561]

People [often poor people], who wanted to be healed,
came ”as far as Kent” [562] [Kent lies in the
South of England, Pontefract
Castle lies in the middle of England, direction North] [563]
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 [564],
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] [565] 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 [566], 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 [567]
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 [568] 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. [569]
There is even suggested, that Thomas and Henry were not that
close. [570]

Be that as it may: [571]
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] [572], Archbishop William Melton of York [who in 1320 had sent
Thomas of Lancaster’s correspondence with the Scots to
King Edward II] [573] wrote a letter on behalf of
Henry of Lancaster,  requesting the Pope to inquire
into the canonization of the popular ”Saint” [574]

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. [575]

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. [576]

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 [577], 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 [578],
Edward III did wrote a third [and last] letter to the Pope [579].
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. [580]
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] [581], 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 [582]

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.

WARLORD/FREEDOMFIGHTER/SAINT

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 [583], 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] [584]

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] [585] 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.” [586]

The warlord had become ”Thomas the Martyr” [587]

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

NOTES 348-400

NOTES 401-451

NOTES 452-503

NOTES 504-587

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint/Chapter Nine

Opgeslagen onder Divers