Tagarchief: Edward III

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

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

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

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_Lancaster7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.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_Castlemanuscript-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/

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


Readers, I greet you:Following my Chapers of the Earl of Lancaster Saga, whose feud withhis cousin, king Edward II, ended in an Open War, you’ll understand,that this exciting Drama must come to an End with one winner
The smart reader, who read my former chapters well, will have an idea,who that is.But was it a real victory?You’ll see
This were the chapters you read already
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/

NOW READ CHAPTER SEVEN…………………………..

CHAPTER SEVEN
OPEN WAR

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

I BOLDLY STATE, THAT IF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, THE MARCHER
LORDS AND THEIR ATTACHING ALLIES HAD JOINED TOGETHER
EFFECTIVELY, FORGOTTEN UNDERLYING FEUDS AND IGNORED THE
DIVIDE AND RULE GAME OF THE KING, THEY COULD HAVE WON.

Preview
For the readers, who failed to read Chapter six:

What happened in Despenser war, first phase?

After the Treaty of Leake in 1318 [reconciliation between the King and
his overmighty cousin Thomas of Lancaster, with whom he
the King feuded endlessly] and the banishment of the three favourites of the King [what Lancaster had demanded], a new favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger
rose [who took his father along with him in his enjoyment of favouritism].
The King’s excessive favouritism towards Despenser, and Despenser’s abnormal
avariciousness, drove the Marcher Lords
into rebellion and they made an alliance with Thomas of Lancaster, who
loathed those favourites of the King.
The Marcher Lords marched on London in 1321 [later supported by
Lancaster] and forced the King to send the Despensers in exile.

A
Prelude

B
Queen Isabella’s Pilgrimage to Canterbury and

her reception at Leeds Castle

C
Hell breaks loose:

The Siege of Leeds Castle
The Siege of Leeds: Aftermath
King’s military victory/Political consequences

D
Fight to the death

Edward II’s war with the Marcher Lords
Events in november, december and begin of january

E
Fight to the death
The Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster
Edward II’s war with the Marcher Lords
Swan Song

F
Fight to the death
Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster
Last dance

A

PRELUDE

After the Marcher Lords’ ”March on London” late july 1321 [348], in august backed

by Thomas of Lancaster [349] and eventually forcing the King to banish the Despensers, tensions grew high in the country, both sides mobilising their forces.
And of course the King sought for an opportunity, to bring back his favourite
Despensers as soon as possible.
Then in the autumn of 1321, Something took place, which would change
the course of events for the King, the Despensers and the opposing rebels.

B

QUEEN ISABELLA’S PILMGRIMAGE TO CANTERBURY
AND HER RECEPTION AT LEEDS CASTLE

It happened in october 1321, that Queen Isabella went on pilgrimage
to Canterbury, and, not taking the usual route headed for Leeds
Castle, where Lord Badlesmere was appointed as governor.
[350]
And this Lord Badlesmere was at first loyal to the King,
being the King’s household steward [351], but later switched sides and
became a Contrariant, thus an ally of the Marcher Lords
and Thomas of Lancaster. [352]
At the moment of the Queen’s arrival, Lord Badlesmere was
at a Contrariant’s meeting at Oxford and whether on instructions
of her husband or not [353], his wife, Lady Badlesmere, refused
the Queen entrance to the Castle, which, of course, was a gross insult.
Queen Isabella, probably furious,  ordered her escort to force an entry into the castle, and the garrison of Lady Badlesmere
opened up a volley of arrows at them, killing six men of the Queen.
Isabella was left outside and had to find other lodgings..,.
Of course the King was furious.
He avenged the insult to the Queen, by
besieging the Castle of Leeds. [354]

Coincidence or deliberate?

Now it is possible, that Queen Isabella for some innocent
reason had taken another route than usual, but
according to some historians, she did so to create a casus belli. [355]
With other words:
Her heading for Leeds Castle was deliberate and on the
orders of the King, in the hope that Lady Badlesmere
[what she did, indeed] as the wife of a Contrariant rebel,
would refuse the Queen entrance to the Castle, giving
the King the excuse to revenge his wife’s insult, starting
the war again. [356]
And not only that:
Because of the insult of the Queen, many moderate barons,
who didn’t take sides yet, would join the royal army.

It also gave the King opportunity to a policy of
”divide et impera” [Latin for ”divide and rule],
since Thomas of Lancaster loathed Lord Badlesmere
and would probably not come to Lady Badlesmere’s assistance, when the castle were besieged. [357]

And Thomas of Lancaster
fell right into the trap [poor Lord Thomas, not very smart
and dishonourable, the Lady was in need…..] and indeed didn’t help , even ordered the Marcher Lords not to  …..[358]
Lord Badlesmere himself assembled an army and tried
to help his wife and break the siege of the castle, but
was not able to do so, since Thomas of Lancaster
and the Marcher Lords didn’t come to his aid …[359]

This strategic failure of Lancaster led to a major strengthening of the position of the King:

Because of the insult to the Queen and King’s readiness
to go á royal ”fist to fist, toe to toe on this,
many barons and volunteers indeed rallied
to his  assistance ……[360]

AND his victory would lead to his regaining control of South-East England…..
Another ”great” thing happened
Edward II felt his position strong enough to revoke the
banishment order of the Despensers in december 1321…..[361]
So the same mess started over again……

THAT’S WHY I STATED, THAT ONE OF THE
CAUSES OF THE DEFEAT OF THE CONTRARIANTS
WAS UNDERLYING FEUDS [as between Thomas of Lancaster and Lord Badlesmere] AND THE DEVIOUS DIVIDE ET IMPERA POLICY OF THE KING…

But to the honour of Lord Badlesmere [who did get a bad press
in history, whether it is uncertain, if it is deserved] [362] must be said, that he fought
side by side with Thomas of Lancaster in his last battle
against the King, the Battle of Boroughbridge, in spite of the
fact, that Thomas didn’t come to the assistance of his wife,
when besieged, nor help him [Badlesmere] to break the siege….[363]

Now about the coincidence or deliberate act regarding
Queen Isabella heading for Leeds Castle:
Assuming that it was a deliberate trap of the King, it
was very clever strategy.
What poses the question, whether the King had thought this
out for himself, since he had, to put it mildly, no great
strategic talents:
Therefore some historians think, that he was in contact with
[and likely had met] the banished Hugh Despenser the Younger,
who perhaps was the mastermind behind the casus belli….[364]

And concerning the clever ”divide and rule” policy of the KIng:

Edward [and possibly Hugh Despenser, when it was true
that they had met and were together in this] must have known that the earl of Lancaster detested Badlesmere, and gambled that the he would not help him. [365]
And he gambled right, alas for Thomas of Lancaster, the
other Contrariants and Lord and Lady Badlesmere themselves,
as the story will tell….

But again:
It was no clever strategy of Lord Thomas either, not to
help a man, who was his ally, just because he didn’t
like him.
In a rebellion, you can’t always choose your friends,
my lord of Lancaster…..

C

HELL BROKE LOOSE
THE SIEGE OF LEEDS CASTLE

THE SIEGE AND AFTERMATH

Edward II mobilised his forces and placed Leeds
Castle under siege, giving Queen Isabella the Great Seal
and control of the Royal Chancery. [366]
The assault on the Castle persisted for more than five days
and on 31 october 1321 Lady Badlesmere surrendered. [367]

Now any siege of a city or a Castle is a nasty business,
but especially Edward II’s siege of Castle Leeds:
It was a siege of a Castle, held by a woman, who
was totally outnumbered by the forces of the King [368]
and got no help whatsoever from the Contrariants [as I
from now on will call the rebels against the King, the
Marcher Lords, the Earl of Lancaster and their forces and
allies] [369], despite of her husband Lord Badlesmere
begging them to come to the aid of his wife. [370]
Of course there was a problem here, in this case
for the Marcher Lords.
Destroying the Despenser lands is one thing, using
your forces in a direct battle against the King is another
and openly, treason.
Besides, their ally the Earl of Lancaster had ordered them,
not to come to the aid of Badlesmere [which included his
wife], since he had a great personal dislike of him
[Badlesmere] [371]

A nasty business, as I said.
The King, with on his side the Earls of Kent and Norfolk
[his two halfbrothers] and the Earls of Surrey, Arundel,
Pembroke and Richmond

[372]
The King even brought his nearly nine year old son, the Earl
of Chester [the later Edward III] [373]

I can’t see this siege , even if the King wanted to revenge
the insult to his Queen, as utter cowardly.
But to be fair:
Also is the behaviour of the Contrariants, not to
come to the aid of the wife of one of their allies.

Siege of Leeds
Aftermath:

The aftermath was gruesome:
Thirteen members of the garrison were drawn and hanged

after the end of the siege, even in those cruel times unusual,
since men had never been executed within for holding a castle against the king……….[374]
Lady Badlesmere pleaded for mercy, but was arrested and
with her children, sent to the Tower of London. [375]
She therefore became the first recorded woman, imprisoned
in the Tower. [376]
She was released in november 1322, seven months after
the horrible execution of her husband in april 1322
[hanged, drawn and quartered, the ”traitors’ death] [377], after
his fighting in the Battle of Boroughbridge, where Lancaster
was defeated by the royal forces. [378]

King’s military victory
Political consequences:

The Siege of Leeds [casus belli or coincidence…]
where the Contrariants failed to help Lady Badlesmere,
led to an enormous strenghtening of the position
of the King in the South-East [379] and a demoralisation
of the Contrariants, who must have realized, too late,
that they fell into the trap of the King’s game of
divide and rule….[380]

And not only his military position was strengthened,
also his political, with the increasement of
loyal barons [caused by the King’s readiness to avenge
the insult to the Queen] and the come back of the
Despensers, revoked out of banishment.

But now the fight  between the King, his
cousin Thomas of Lancaster and his allies
the Marcher Lords [together the Contrariants]
was about to begin in earnest.

D

FIGHT TO THE DEATH
EDWARD II’S WAR WITH THE MARCHER LORDS
EVENTS IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AND BEGIN JANUARY

As been said, Edward II’s succesful besiegement of
Leeds Castle led to his control over South-East England
again.
A setback for the Contrariants, and Marcher Lords
Roger Mortimer and the Earl of Hereford [brother
in law of the King], travelled North to discuss the situation
with Thomas of Lancaster, who in thed meantime and
as a reaction on Edward II’s regained control of South-East
England, had mobilised his forces in the North. [381]

They met on 29 november [Edward II had prohibited
the meeting, to no avail], probably in Pontefract Castle
[other sources call Doncaster] and they were sworn together a second time to maintain that which they had commenced.
[382]

Battle with words:
Amusing:
Doncaster petition
Thomas of Lancaster’s high opinion about himself…..

As shows the story [as has
shown already], the
Despenser war and its aftermath was an extremely bloody mess, complete
with executions [including the ”traitor’s death], pillaging lands, robbing and extortioning
innocent people, hard imprisonment of wives and children
of the Contrariants [as we shall see].
Yet there was not only fighting with weapons, but also
with words:
Famous example is the ”’Doncaster Petition’, drewn up
by Thomas of Lancaster and his allies, which said that Hugh Despenser the Younger, amusingly called Sire Huge throughout, had been exiled “for diverse reasonable reasons” with the consent of the king himself and all the magnates in parliament. It accused Edward of placing Despenser under the care of the men of the Cinque Ports [383] [which proved to be right] [384]and supporting him in his piracy and various other crimes and included the usual  references to Edward’s ‘evil counsellors’ [which was certainly true in the case of the Despensers]
See for the sample text of the petition note 385

Now the amusing thing is not only their accusation of their
own Lord the King of accomplicity with some crimes
of Hugh Despenser [which by the way
was probably not nonsense at all] [386], but the fact that the petition showed
how highly Thomas of Lancaster thought about himself.
That because the petitioners [Thomas and his allies]
asked Edward to respond to the petition by 20 December….[387]

Understandably, the King was not amused by this and
informed Lancaster,  that imposing a deadline on him on to reform the affairs of his kingdom gave the impression that he was the earl’s subject, not vice versa……[388]

This ”deadline” was not the first time for Thomas to do such an act, which proved his arrogance and high opinion about himself:

Apart from the jeering at the King from the walls
of Thomas’ Castle of
Pontefract [1317 and 1320] and blocking the King’s way [in 1317] [389], Thomas had done another shocking thing, considering
the fact, that he was Edward II’s subject and not vice versa:

In February 1311, his father-in-law Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, died, and Thomas inherited his lands by right of his wife Alice. He had to perform homage to Edward II for the lands, but Edward was then on campaign in Scotland. Thomas refused to cross the Tweed to meet the king; Edward refused to return to England
Edward II was right:
WHO THE HELL WAS THE KING HERE
It was absurd, for the King to come to a subject!
At the end, Edward gave in, met Thomas on the English side of the river Tweed.
And there Thomas payed homage…..[390]

Back to the Marcher Lords:

THE MARCHER LORDS/RETURN TO WALES/ATTACKS MAFFIA
STYLE AND UPRISING
After the meeting with the earl of Lancaster at Pontefract in
november where they renewed their allegiance against
the King [Edward II had forbidden the meeting, to
no avail] [391], the Marcher lords returned to the west of England and Wales with a great armed force [392] and
were playing the same  tricks, maffia
style again, as they did before:
Stealing, extorting and assualting mostly innocent
people under the pretext of attacking Despener lands [393]

This happened in november and december

Back in the Welsh borders, the Marcher Lords had firstly to
pay attention to an uprising of the  local peasantry [394]
Making use of the problems of the Marcher
Lords, in december the Edward II marched to
Cirencester to invade the Welsh borders. [395]

MEANWHILE IN THE NORTH/THOMAS OF LANCASTER

Meanwhile in the North, Thomas of Lancaster had tried to
win the support of the northern barons, his usual allies, but they stayed loyal to the king. [396]

Worse was, that Thomas to be already engaged in some
negociations with the Scots, to get their support, supposedly
to prevent the King to retake South Wales from the Marcher
Lords. [397]
How it came to light, that Thomas was engaged to parley with the Scots, the national enemy? [but I am on their
side, because they fought for their freedom….] [398]

It will be revealed in this article [or book, HAHAHAHAHA]
in this very chapter [seven]

Those military things took place in december 1321 and begin
january 1322.

E
FIGHT TO THE DEATH
END DECEMBER 1321 AND JANUARY 1322
EDWARD II’S WAR WITH THE MARCHER LORDS
SWAN SONG

As been said, the Contrariants [The Marcher Lords and Thomas of
Lancaster, and allies] could have won, were it not for
underlying feuds and the divide and rule policy of the King.
Added to that, a fatal strategic error of Thomas of Lancaster and lack of good
cooperation between the Marcher Lords themselves……
Tragic for them

EDWARD II’S WAR WITH THE MARCHER LORDS

December 1321/January 1322
Edward II’s war with the Marcher Lords

Edward marched to Cirencester in December 1321, preparing
to invade the

Welsh borders, [399] ordering the arrest of some main Contrariants,
like his former steward Bartholomew Badlesmere [the
man from ”The Siege of Leeds Castle”, see above], and his
[Edward’s] former Favourite, Roger Damory [first main enemy
of Thomas of Lancaster, now his ally, alienated from the King by the Despenser avariciousness] [400]
Meanwhile, the Marcher Lords seized Gloucester, twenty miles from Cirencester, and thus controlled the bridge over the river Severn.
[401]

”Strategy” of the Marcher Lords:
Don’t fight the King, run off from him…..

Now the strangest thing happened:
In stead of confronting the King in open war [when
Edward approached Gloucester], the Marcher Lords
failed to do that and simply….fled……
Not without playing their old maffia tricks of
robbing and assaulting innocent people again
[probably out of frustration not engaging the King
in battle] [402]

But there is a good explanation for their not engaging the
King in battle [although their forces were allegedly
almost four times bigger than the King’s]

Attacking Despenser lands and raging and pillaging
innocent people [who only happened to live on
or near Despenser lands] is one thing, openly engaging
the King in battle is treason…….

But the Marcher Lords were not totally crazy and hold
the bridge over the Severn against the King, so that he
could not cross it. [403]

And that was the last clever thing they did:

Fatal strategic errors of the Marcher Lords:
Not engaging the King in battle
Splitting up
Pillaging again

THEY SPLIT UP!
Damory remained at Worcester [a city, he at least took for the Contrariants], others headed north, while the earl of Hereford started plundering again [had The Marcher Lords

never got enough of those criminal games…….] and now for
a change not from innocent people, but their old goal:
Despenser property: this time Despenser the Younger’s younger Worcestershire castles of Hanley and Elmley. [404]

HOW STUPID!

Instead of staying together as a group, engaging the King in
battle, they fled, split up and started pillaging again.

When they saw, that their military position started
weaker and weaker, they desperately hoped for Thomas
of Lancaster to come to their aid.

The aid of Thomas was extremely necessary, since
Edward II had arrived at Shrewsbury at 14 january and managed to cross over the river Severn and Roger Mortimer of Wigmore and his uncle Roger
Mortimer of Chirk were in a desperate position:
They were running out of money, their men were deserting
them and they were squeezed between two forces, Edward’s on the east side of the Severn and his allies on the west side, and their lands being occupied and burnt [yes, the Marcher Lords
received a taste of their own medicine, poor people,
who lived on their lands…..] [405]

Thomas of Lancaster’s fatal strategic error:

I don’t know, whether Thomas of Lancaster knew exactly,
how desperate the position of the Marcher Lords was, but
he certainly knew that they were losing the game in Wales.

And in stead of coming to the rescue of the
besieged Mortimers, he wasted his time and forces
to besiege Edward II’s Castle at Tickhill [near Doncaster]…..
[406]

Had he ridden out to the rescue of the Mortimers, together they would
have good chance to defeat the forces of the King [Lancaster
had a big army]

But he did not.

SWAN SONG:

The end was predictable
Running out of money and men and without the help
of Thomas of Lancaster, who could not have come
to their aid anymore, anyway, since his two castles
of Holt and Bromfield were later seized by Edward’s forces [407],

the both Mortimers had no choice but surrender to Edward II…..
This happened on 22 january 1322 at Shrewsbury.
[408]

The last Contrariants surrendered on 6 february 1322 at Hereford [at the border of Wales] [409]

Their fight with the King was over, but there was still hope
for victory:
Thomas of Lancaster in the North.

So finally, the remaining Contrariants fled towards Yorkshire to seek refuge with the earl of Lancaster, their last hope
for fulfilling their cause…….

F
FIGHT TO THE DEATH
I EDWARD II AND THOMAS OF LANCASTER
II LAST DANCE

I

EDWARD II AND THOMAS OF LANCASTER

Now the Marcher Lords were dedeated, Edward could finally give his attention to his cousin, Thomas
of Lancaster.

HENRY OF LANCASTER, THE MYSTERY MAN

But before telling this dramatic story, first the readers attention
for a mystery man I mentioned occasionaly in this story:
Henry of Lancaster, younger brother of Thomas of Lancaster
and the great ancestor of the House of Lancaster [410]
To say it like it is:
Where the hell was he in this fight to the death of his brother?
Oddly perhaps [since rebels mostly were joined and supported by their brothers ] Henry spent most of the years between 1318-1322 in France,
where he in 1317 had inherited the lands of his younger brother John, who died childless. [411]
During the life of his brother Thomas, he seemed to have been loyal to the King and took part, on the orders of the King, in dealing with an uprising in Wales in 1316. [412]
So he was made from quite other stuff than his brother….
However, in 1320/begin 1321, he was one of the Lords who formed a coalition against the Despensers
and stood [at that time],
shoulder to shoulder with the Rogers Mortimer, the former
favourites of the King and others. [413]
Doubtless his brother Thomas [who would soon
join the club] appreciated that.
But Henry was an interesting ”come and go” guy:
He suddenly seemed to have disappeared to
France, in each case untill january 1322 [414] [and so
kept out of trouble], when the Despenser war reached its
finale, which turned out dramatically for
Henry personally.
So clearly he did not participate in his brother’s rebellion
and opposition against the King [except for his initial
opposition against the Despensers, Henry was by the way
married with the half sister of Hugh Despenser
the Younger, by his mother’s side]

But as we shall see later, Henry was a man
to settle old scores……[415]
We’ll meet him again.

LETTERS, ROYAL WARNINGS:

Back to Thomas and his last fight with his cousin, the King:

Oddly enough, after the surrender of the Marcher Lords,
there was no immediate fight between the King and
his not so dear cousin Thomas, as would be expected.
At first the King ”warned” Thomas.
On 8 February 1322 Edward II wrote to him, stating
that he “wished to continue and augment his affection to the earl” and ordering him not to adhere to the Contrariants, who “have publicly boasted that they were going to the earl, and that they would draw him to them in the aforesaid excesses, and that they were sure of this.” Edward pointed out that joining the Contrariants would render Thomas guilty of treason [416]

To put it mildly:
This was a strange letter, since Edward knew very well,
that Thomas and the Marcher Lords were ”thick as thieves”
[HAHAHA] [417]
Also the King knew [of course!] that since 10 january, Thomas
held his Castle Tickhill under siege. [418]

The answer of Thomas on the letter of the King
[but to be fair: he could hardly be honest,
criminalising himself as a traitor] was still stranger, since
he pretended not to have anything to do with rebels. [419]
YEAH RIGHT………

FIGHTING
THE CAPTURE OF CASTLES

But then the to be expected fight broke out:

And for the direct cause, the King certainly
was not to blame.
He was right:
Because, besiegement of a royal
Castle [Thomas had put Edward II’s Tickhill Castle
under siege] is a gross provocation and downright
treason.
And on 13 february, Edward announced his intention of going to raise the siege.
He asked his brother-in-law Charles IV of France – Thomas’s nephew,
son of his half sister Joan I of Navarre, who was also
the mother of Queen Isabella of France – to send men to help him fight Thomas and the Contrariants, and also asked his nephews the duke of Brabant and the count of Bar, his kinsmen the counts of Eu, St Pol, Aumale and Beaumont, Charles IV and Isabella’s uncle the count of Valois, and the count of Hainault to send horsemen and footmen, and ordered Amaury de Craon, steward of Gascony, to come to him with armed men and advice. [420]

I don’t know if they all send military aid to Edward, but
certain was, that Edward firmly wanted to confront his cousin
in battle.
On 19 february, Edward captured Thomas’s great Warwickshire stronghold of Kenilworth. [421]

But on 1 march 1322, Something would come to
light, what would lead, directly to the dramatic end
of the story…….

NEVER PUT YOUR TREASON ON PAPER/
THOMAS AND THE SCOTS
ANOTHER FATAL ERROR: THE LETTERS
”KING ARTHUR”

I mentioned the fatal error Thomas had made, not to come
to the aid of the besieged Rogers Mortimer, but instead of that, besieging
the royal Castle of Tickhill. [422]

But what directly  would seal his fate was writing
treason down!
The first lesson in the criminal’s handbook:
NEVER WRITE DOWN SOMETHING ON PAPER!

AND WHEN YOU WRITE TREASON LETTERS
OR RECEIVE ANSWER, BURN THEM!

That was the fatal error he made.

Poor Thomas.
Proud and a high, an extremely well connected
royal Lord, but not capable to see
the danger of the written word….

What was the case here:

As I wrote before, when Edward marched on Cirencester in
december 1321 to invade the Welsh border, Thomas had apparently
asked the Scots to come to his [and the Contrariants] help, to
prevent Edward to retake control over South Wales. [423]
Now of course he could have done such a request only
when he was already parleying with the Scots…..
[424]

Now he was, apparently, earlier suspected of dealing with the
Scots:
Because:
It was noticed that when the Scottish forces raided the north of England, they left his lands alone [425]

Now this is, obviously, circumstancial evidence [426],
since you can’t accuse someone of treason
for NOT being attacked by the national enemy,
but what raised understandable suspicion [although
not yet serious evidence] was the fact that although Thomas had a great army at Pontefract, he seemed not to have attempted to pursue the Scottish raiders……. [427]

Alas, for Thomas personally, real evidence DID show iself:

THE  FATAL 1 MARCH

1 March was a fatal date for Thomas, because then,
William Melton, archbishop of York,
came into possession [I don’t know how] of letters,
that had been exchanged between the Scottish Sir
James Douglas [The Black Douglas]
[428] and a mysterious ”King Arthur”
In one of those letters, ”King Arthur” informed Douglas that the earl of Hereford, Roger Damory, Hugh Audley, Roger Clifford, Henry Tyes, Thomas Mauduit, John Wilington and  Bartholomew Badlesmere [See the Siege of Leeds Castle]
had come to ”King Arthur”
They were prepared to treat with the Scots, as long as the Scots did what had previously been discussed: “to come to our aid, and to go with us in England and Wales” and “live and die with us in our quarrel.” [429]

HOW STUPID!
Using a pseudonym [430] but naming the men by their own name,
all adherents to Thomas of Lancaster!
And to make matters worse:
Thomas Randolph, earl of Moray and another close ally of Bruce, granted safe-conducts on 16 February 1322 for Roger Clifford, John Mowbray and forty horsemen to travel to Scotland.

Needless to say:
John Mombray and Roger Clifford [431]were diehard homies [432]
of Thomas of Lancaster.
By the way Mowbray was [not that the others were peaches,
but this went far] a  bad guy anyway.
When going on the rampage in one of those
Marcher Lords pillaging projects [somewhere in august or september 1321] he not only stole livestock, goods and chattels from the villagers of Laughton-en-le-Morthern in Yorkshire,
but even robbed the church! [433]

Back to the stupidity of putting treason on paper:

How is it possible that a high Lord, a political animal
as Thomas of Lancaster, who ruled de facto England for
four years [although not very cleverly, forlorn in feudism
with Edward II], could have fallen in the trap to put his
treason ON PAPER……,while he could have sent trusted men, with a verbal message,
then there was no evidence whatsoever…….
Unbelievable

Yet it happened

I think:
The arrogance of power.

Anyway, the discovery of the letters proved to be disastrous
for Thomas.

I don’t know, whether the King already suspected Thomas of
possible parleying with the Scots, but it must have
been a great shock to him anyway.
In each case, he gave orders, to make the letters
public, which was, of course, a great moral setback
for Thomas, because the support he still enjoyed
, just scrumbled away.
After all, getting along with Thomas of Lancaster
now didn’t mean merely resistance against the destructive
influence of the Despensers on the King and subsequently
[since the King was so closely tied with those Despenser
guys] against the King [which was treason], but also
conspiring with the national enemy, the Scots…….[434]

And he felt it instantly.
Not only he had absolutely no hope to gain others for his cause
anymore [remember he wanted the Despensers out of
the throne’s influence and the Ordinances to be executed][435]
his allies were deserting him.
Sir Robert Holland, one of his most faithful men, deserted
him, when he needed him most [436], something his brother,
Henry of Lancaster [our ”mystery man”, who did not take part
in his brother’s rebellion] would not forget nor forgive. [437]

And others would soon follow. [438]

Battle of Burton-on-Trent:

Thomas and the earl of Hereford and their allies left Pontefract on 1 March, broke the siege of Tickhill, and took up position at Burton-on-Trent near Tutbury Castle in Staffordshire, which belonged to Thomas.

In the meantime, Edward had pronounced Thomas, Roger Damory, Hugh Audley, Hereford, Lords Clifford and Mowbray and others to be traitors, and ordered all the sheriffs of England, the justice of Chester and the bishop of Durham to arrest them, saying that they “inflicted evil against the king’s servants, conducting war against the king with banners displayed.” [439]
To cut a long story short:
Thomas tried to hold the stronghold at Burton on Trent, but when
Edward II’s forces came and Thomas saw, that he was outnumbered, he and his adherents withdrew [440]
[smart, when you see you can’t make it].
According to some sources, “they turned their backs, set fire to the town, and fled.” [441]

They retreated to Pontefract [442], where a heated debate
took place about what to do now.
Some wanted to flee to  Dunstanburgh, yet another of Thomas’s great castles on the Northumbrian coast, but Thomas didn”t want
that, since it would seem as fleeing towards the Scots [you remember: Scottish raids were succesfully held in North
England]. [443]
Strange way of reasoning, since Thomas’ correspondence
with the Scots had already been revealed……

At the end,Thomas was ”persuaded” [yeah, with Lord
Clifford’s sword waving in Thomas face….] [444] and they fled North anyway.
At least, they tried……

II

LAST DANCE

They did not get far.
On 16 march, as the King’s army continued to move
up from the North, Thomas of Lancaster, the Earl of
Hereford, Lord Clifford and others were suddenly
halted at Boroughbridge by the arrival of Edward’s second
army of approximately 4000 men under the command of Sir Andrew Harclay [445], sheriff of Cumberland and a
former adherent of Thomas of
Lancaster [446], who already
had secured the bridge against the rebels. [447]
Commanders at the side of the rebels were:

Thomas of Lancaster
his faithful companion [and also a Marcher Lord]
the Earl of Hereford [who had Piers Gaveston executed, together with Thomas of Lancaster, the Earl
of Arundel and the 10th Earl of Warwick]
And Roger, 2nd
Baron de Clifford [son of Robert de Clifford, one
of the besiegers of Piers Gaveston and died at the Battle
of Bannockburn in 1314] [448]

The Royal Commander was:

Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle [449]

To cut a long, dramatic story short:

Thomas and his men were forced to battle, the Earl
of Hereford and others, attempting to walk across the bridge  to break through Harclay’s lines, didn’t succeed and Hereford
died horribly. [450]

So they lost the Battle of Boroughbridge, which
took place on 16 march 1322. [451]

And Thomas, the great Earl of Lancaster, saw himself
made prisoner…….

The long battle between him and his cousin King
Edward II was over.

But Thomas’ humiliation and suffering was about to begin…….

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

NOTES 348-400

NOTES 401-451

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

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

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_Lancaster7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.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_Castlemanuscript-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/

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


Readers!Here is your traveller to history again!And she is continuing the Thomas of Lancaster drama saga!My attentive readers will remember:Earl Thomas of Lancaster, cousin of king Edward II, initially loyal to his king,then for political and personal reasons fell out with him, which would end up inan open battle.See the chapters that I sent you before:
ONE
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-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

But not only Earl Thomas was a warlord, but also was proclaimed asa Saint after his death, which I find fascinatingFor how becomes a warlord a Saint?
Read all about that!
AND NOW DEAR READERS, CHAPTER SIX!

CHAPTER SIX
OPEN WAR

DESPENSER WAR/FIRST PHASE
[February-August 1321]

First

This ”book” [this article is so long, beginning to show like a book
really, patience readers] is about Thomas of Lancaster, but since
so many other players play a part in this magnificent story, they
have to be described too.
Especially to point out the complicated situation and all those
changements of alliances…..
I will mention the events of the war, but probably not all details, I am sorry
Would I have done that, it would fill a university paper…
For more reading, just look to the notes below…….

The reader must realize also, that in the first phase of
the Despenser war, the role of Thomas of Lancaster is
important, but limited.
The biggest role is played by his allies
the Marcher Lords.
You will see, that in fact, they started the war, which
was, in short, due to the Kings excessive favouritism
of his friends the Despensers.
The first phase of the war ends with the coerced banishment
of the Despensers.

A Prelude
B United against the King’s favourites/
Despenser war/Unlikely allies
C The storm breaks out/Despenser war/ started/Sworn Oaths/Fist to
fist/Toe to toe/I [First phase february-august 1321]

A

PRELUDE

In chapter five I wrote, that Thomas of Lancaster cooperated
well with the King in the unsuccesful siege of Berwick  [in the war
against the Scots][277]
But as I wrote earlier, the fragile co operation between
the two most powerful men, was ruined by the following
remark of the King
””When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers.” [278]
That despite the earlier pardons for the murder
of Piers Gaveston, the King had issued in
1313 [279] and the extended pardons to Lancaster and
his allies, given at the Treaty
of Leake. [280]
To say it again:
A king must rise above his personal feelings and must
be true to his word.
Edward II couldn’t or wouldn’t do that……

That being said:
Understandably Thomas of Lancaster, knowing
that the King’s remark about Piers Gaveston was directly aimed against him,
said ”Hasta la vista” and left Berwick. [281]
And from that moment, relations between the two men deterioriated again.

But not only the unpredictability of the King was to blame
for the deteriation between the two men,
also the rising of a new star favourite, more dangerous
than all the others had been:
You’ve met him already:
Hugh Despenser the Younger [282] and
with his coming, things would never be the same again….

To be fair, Thomas himself was certainly NOT
innocent either [not to speak about the murder of Gaveston],
because of his repeated provocations of the King.
I wrote about it in chapter five
Jeering at the King from his [Thomas’] castle Pontefract,
in 1317 [that jeering would be repeated in 1320 with the Queen accompanying the King] [283]
Once blocking the King’s path…. [284]

That could be considered as treason, and not without reason!
In each case it was to be expected, that the King would not
consider those insults lightly as will appear in this
story….. [285]

B

UNITED AGAINST THE KING’S FAVOURITES
DESPENSER WAR/UNLIKELY ALLIES

Thomas of Lancaster and his allies
The Marcher Lords and allies
Two former royal favourites

The last ”fight to the death” between Thomas and his cousin,
King Edward II, was actually a fight against the influence
of a new, far more dangerous favourite, Hugh
Despenser the Younger [286] and his father,
Hugh Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester[ Despenser
the Elder]. [287]
Who were in this fight and why?
Thomas of Lancaster of course, being the leader
of the baronial opposition against the King,
the ”Marcher Lords” [288],
Roger Mortimer and his uncle, Roger Mortimer de
Chirk [289] and their allies.
And, painfully for Edward II, his two former favourites, Roger Damory and Hugh
Audley. [290]
Once deadly enemies of Thomas of Lancaster, now allies……

In the last battle Lancaster would fight against his king,
the battle of Boroughbridge [291], Hugh Audley  would even
fight at his side…..[292]
While Sir Robert Holland, his [Thomas’] close and die hard ally, would abandon him
in his hour of need… [293]
Something Thomas’ brother Henry of Lancaster [who by
the way NOT participated in any of his brother”s rebellions, although
he seemed to be involved in the anti Despenser coalition]
[294] , would not forget or forgive…..[295]

This anti Despenser  fight [and subsequently against the King]
was called the ”Despenser war”, with the aim to
crush the Despenser’s influence over the King, which
would eventually result  in avariciousness and tyranny. [296]
But that’s for later.

What thar Despenser influence really meant?

For the Marcher Lords, to be robbed of their lands
and privileges, as the revival of an old feud.

The former favourites of the King held a grudge against Hugh
Despenser the Younger regarding his land grabbing as
the ”Gloucester inheritance case”[see below]

And for Thomas of Lancaster it was threefold:
A personal matter [he seemed to have loathed Despenser
the Elder, the reason why I don’t know]
A wish to curb royal power through the Ordinances [297]
[which included no avaricious favourites].
And of course [let’s not make an idealist of Thomas, hahaha]
a personal need for power.

COMEBACK OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER, LEADER OF THE BARONIAL
OPPOSITION AGAINST THE KING, BUT TEMPORARILY POLITICALLY
ISOLATED

As written in chapter four, after the death of his father in law in 1311,
the 3rd Earl of Lincoln [called ”Burst Belly” by vain and tragic Piers Gaveston],
Thomas became very powerful [inherited from his father in law the Earldoms
Lincoln and Salisbury, already in the possession of Lancaster, Leicester and
Derby, inherited from his own father, Edmund Crouchback, brother of King
Edward I].
So he became the ”natural” leader of the opposition against
Edward II and his favourite Piers Gaveston.
After the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, which ended so destastrous
for England, Edward II was at the mercy of Thomas, in name King,
while Thomas was the real king, de facto.
See chapter five
He became gradually politically isolated  [298] [not attending parliaments,
personal conflicts/feuds with other barons, no wise political insight, lack
of governmental talents, unable to protect the borders
against the Scottish raids, etc], but was yet too powerful
to be ignored, because of his five Earldoms and,not to forget, his royal
birth [being first cousin of Edward II]

However, when the resistance against the Despensers grew, The Marcher
Lords and others looked up to Thomas as a leader of the resistance
again, since he was the most constant factor in the struggle
against King’s favourites [and the King]….. [299]

Together, they would go ”fist to fist’, toe to toe” in this rebellion……[300]

THE MARCHER LORDS

Let’s say it like it is.
The Despensers, father and son, were a bunch of thieves
and criminals, who went into length to aggrandise their power
and wealth, with less [or not at all] scrupules.
From noble birth, admitted and married into the royal family [301],
but nevertheless, thieves.
Whether Hugh Despenser the Younger [favourite of the
King] was really attached to Edward II[302]  is food for
Medieval historians [although even they can’t look into
the royal bedchamber, supposedly Hugh was the ”husband”
of Edward II, as Queen Isabella would write later [303].
In each case, he was a shameless royal adventurer
[funny side  was, not for his victims of course, that he was a pirate
during his exile, hahahahaha [304]
And one thing was sure:
Edward II was really very attached to him. [305]

ANYWAY:

Appointed as chamberlain of the King in 1318, Hugh moved himself
into the affections of the King [306], replaced the former royal
favourites [Roger Damory, Hugh Audley and William Montecute]
and the Piers Gaveston story [but this time a far more dangerous
player] started all over again.
But this time worse, given the greed and avariciousness of
the Despensers, their excessive ambition and need for
political power.
They didn’t allow anyone access to Edward unless at least one of them was present.
Even Queen Isabella couldn’t see her husband alone! [307]
Such a crazy situation existed….

Back to the avariciousness of the Despensers:

In the Middle Ages, land was power and that was just the thing
the Despensers wanted.
They wanted to build a huge ‘empire’ in South Wales and
that was the very territory where the Marcher Lords
[keepers of the borders with Wales] had lands.
They feared their lands to be taken over, with consent
of the King [who was infatuated with our Hugh Despenser..]

Their fears were proved to be right.
In october 1320 Edward II ordered the peninsula of Gower in South Wales to be taken into his own hands, apparently to
give it to Hugh Despenser.
See for the whole, complicated story, note 308
Roger Mortimer , his uncle Roger Mortimer of
Chirk and the other Marcher Lords were furious, considering
this as a deprivation of their rights [309]
Hugh Despenser was granted also other lands in the
Marches [Welsh territory]’, which was taken fromRoger
Mortimer and  other Marcher Lords [310]

Not only unfair, but also foolish of Edward, since
most of the Marcher Lords, especially Roger Mortimer and his uncle, were, until Edward’s clear favouritism of
Despenser, at the cost of them and the other
Marcher Lords, were loyal to the throne. [311]

To make matters complicated, there also was an old
feud between Marcher Lords Roger Mortimer [and his uncle,
Roger Mortimer de Chirk] and the Despensers….
Read about that in note 312

TWO FORMER ROYAL FAVOURITES AND HUGH DESPENSER
THE YOUNGER

Hugh Despenser the Younger [as his father] had a mastertalent to
incite the fury and hatred from his colleague noblemen.
He pushed the Marcher Lords to the edge with his avariciousness
and unlimited ambition, and his avariciousness also led to a big
conflict with two former favourites of Edward II, Roger Damory and
Hugh Audley:

Not only Hugh Despenser replaced Damory and
Audley as favourites[also Montecute, but he played no further role, died in 1319 in
Gascony], he also claimed the best lands from the Gloucester inheritance.
[Hugh Despenser, Hugh Audley and Roger Damory were married to
the three sisters of the 8th Earl of Gloucester and when he died in the
battle of Bannockburn childless, his sisters were his heirs] [313]

And to further enrage Damory and Audley:
In october 1320 Edward II took the South Wales peninsula of Gower into his own hands prior to granting it to Hugh Despenser
See for background information about that, note 314
Despenser also had taken the Welsh lands of Hugh
Audley. [315]
That Despenser really was a man, who knew how to
make friends……[hahahahahaha] [316]

Is it wonder, that men like the Marcher Lords
, who once were loyal to the throne,
were driven into rebellion and that even sworn enemies
as Thomas of Lancaster and the former favourites found each other and fought side by side?

C

THE STORM BREAKS OUT/DESPENSER
WAR/SWORN OATHS/FIST TO FIST/TOE TO
TOE
I
FIRST PHASE/FEBRUARY-AUGUST 1321

1

The Marcher Lords on the rampage/sworn oaths:

The  MarcherLords must have thought:
”Attack is the best way of defence.”

Because the war started with them attacking the
Despenser lands and properties in Wales. [317]
Those calamities [sacking, looting, pillaging,
with most of the victims of course the common
people….] took place from may 1321.
Stealing from the Despensers was one thing, far more
worse was, that, as usual, the poor and defenseless people
paid the highest price:
Sacking, looting, pillaging, extorting money
from poor villagers with the threath of burning their
village. [318]
It was degrading and cruel.
Those same horrors the Marcher Lords would repeat
in the second phase of the Despenser war, in
november and december 1321. [319]

But before going on the rampage, the Marcher Lords had arranged for support in the back:

In february 1321, they held a meeting with Thomas of
Lancaster [probably at his favourite Castle Pontefract]
and there was decided to attack
Despenser lands. [320]
However, Thomas  did not take part in the attack
itself.

As a reaction on the Marcher Lords-Lancaster agreement
[to attack Despenser lands], Edward II responded in March by mobilising his forces in Wales, demonstrating that he intended to make any attack on the Despensers an attack on the crown, and therefore treasonable
[321]

That was no clever movement of the King, thereby confirming his onesided favouritism of the Despensers
and making it nearly impossible for those who were hesitant
to go into rebellion, to stay loyal to the crown.
At the other hand, the King tried to placate the
rebels [or resistance fighters against the Despenser
avariciousness, it depends from how you see it], by
calling them [the Marcher Lords] to convene with him [first in Gloucester, later in Bristol] to no avail. [322]

After attacking Despenser properties [lands, castles, etc]
as much as they pleased, Roger Mortimer and Hereford
[brother in law of Edward II and together with Thomas of Lancaster, the 10th Earl of Warwick and the 9th Earl of
Arundel, the murderer of Piers Gaveston in 1312] marched
North to join Lancaster at Pontefract.

In june the barons swore an alliance at Sherburn-in-Elmet,
near Pontefract, calling their faction
the ”Contrariants” and promised
to remove the Despensers for good.
Sadly for Thomas and his allies:
An attempt to attract the northern Lords to
their cause failed.
They stayed loyal to the King. [323]

Lancaster and the Marcher Lords would swear an oath once more on 29 november 1321, in the second phase of
the Despenser war ”to maintain what they had
commenced” [324]

2

March on London
”We bow down to no man”………..

One thing you can say about the Marcher Lords”
They DID have guts……..

Not only destroying, looting, pillaging, extortioning
and terrorising as they pleased and not
only the Despenser possessions [and innocent
people, who were unlucky to live on Despenser
lands] [325].

No, they went farther.
Much farther…..

After making their alliance with Thomas of
Lancaster at Sherburn-in-Elmet [326], the
Marcher Lords marched [hahaha, but that was what
they did] from Sherburn [near Pontefract, in
Yorkshire] to…….London….
From all places, they had the audacity to march
on the royal centre of power….

From Yorkshire to London they repeated the
same atrocities as in Wales:
Assault, extortion and terror:
They seized victuals from local inhabitants and pillaged the countryside – not only Despenser manors – all the way from Yorkshire to London. [327]
Four Marchers [John Mowbray, Stephen Baret, Jocelyn Deyville and Bogo Bayouse] even robbed the Church in Laughton-en-le-Morthen [in Yorkshire] [328]

Further they tried to buy people’s allegiance with money, and seized the property of those who refused to join them. [329]

Real maffia practices……

But that terrorising and pillaging was only
a [bad] game:
Their goal was London, to put pressure on the King
in order to banish the Despensers for good.

When they arrived outside of London on july 1321,
not really surprisingly [even without Internet
and smartphone, bad news travels fast], the citizens
of London refused to let them in.
The King also refused to meet them or even to listen to their demands that the Despensers be perpetually exiled from England, and they and their heirs disinherited “as false and traitorous criminals and spies.” [330]

Then, to go  a stadium further [in fact that was treason]
, they   placed themselves and their armies outside the city walls, at strategic locations, to prevent the king leaving……[331]

Let us put this straight:
THEY BESIEGED LONDON, ”IMPRISONING”
THE KING IN HIS OWN CAPITAL!

They then sent two knights as envoys to Edward II, to tell him that they held both Hugh Despensers “enemies and traitors to you and to the kingdom, and for this they wish them to be removed from here.” [332]
Not surprisingly, the King, again, refused to meet the envoys.

On 1 August the Marchers entered London, while their
great ally, Thomas of Lancaster, arrived also in August to support
them. [333]
Meanwhile, Despenser the Younger threatening them
from a ship  on the River Thames, and the rebels [Contrariants]
threatened  to begin to destroy royal properties and lands outside London unless he desisted. [334]

To cut a long story short:
the earls of Pembroke, Richmond, Surrey and Arundel finally brought the Marchers’ demands to Edward. If he refused to consent to the Despensers’ exile, he would be deposed. [335]

Even then the King refused.

3

QUEEN ISABELLA ON HER KNEES

And as in the chess play [336], where the Queen holds the most
important playing position, the solution came from Queen
Isabella:

Queen Isabella went down on her knees before her husband and begged him, for the good of his realm, to exile the Despensers.
[337]

That had not only the desired effect, it gave the King the opportunity, to get out from this without losing his
face, making it look like fulfilling his wife’s desire.

But it must have been very painful for Edward II, losing
his friends, who meant that much to him….
I think we must consider that, besides his foolish
and unfair favouritism at the cost of the other Lords.

4

AGAIN A MAN OF HONOUR
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE, MEDIATOR

And with all that negociating, let’s not forget the
important role of the Earl of Pembroke [the man of
honour, who didn’t want to breach his oath against
Piers Gaveston and after Gaveston’s death, diehard
loyal to the King [338] , who continually had
mediated between the Marcher Lords and the King and
was behind the exile plea of Queen Isabella. [339]

5

BANISHMENT

And finally the King decided on the banishment of
The Despensers, father and son [the favourite]
At 14 August in the Great Hall of Westminster it was to
be, in the presence, of course, of the King
Charges:
”They were accused, among many other things, of “evil covetousness,” accroaching to themselves royal power, guiding and counselling the king evilly, only allowing the magnates to speak to Edward in their presence, “ousting the king from his duty,” removing good counsellors from their positions and replacing them “by other false and bad ministers of their conspiracy,” and “plotting to distance the affection of our lord the king from the peers of the land, to have sole government of the realm between the two of them.”  [340]
[They were also called ”evil councillors” by the
Contrariants [The Marcher Lords, Thomas of Lancaster and
allies]
That was all true. [341]
The judgement decreed that the Despensers “shall be disinherited for ever as disinheritors of the crown and enemies of the king and his people, and that they shall be exiled from the realm of England, without returning at any time,” saving only the consent of the king, prelates, earls and barons in parliament. They were convicted by notoriety, with no chance to speak in their own defence. [342]

Utterly unfair, that they had no chance to speak in their own
defence, but what was ”fair trial” in that time?

The same reprehensible thing happened to so many other noblemen thereafter……

The departure date was set on 29 August, 1321.
Despenser the Elder left England immediately, perhaps to one of Edward II’s French territories, Gascony or Ponthieu.
However, his son, Despenser the Younger BECAME A PIRATE
IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL [HAHAHAHAHA] [343]

[6]

AGAIN, ”ROYAL PARDONS”……

Between 20 August and late September 1321, Edward II
granted a pardon to more than 400 men for the murders, abductions, thefts and vandalism they had committed in the Despensers’ lands, which crimes the Marchers claimed were “a case of necessity, [and] ought not to be corrected or punished by the rigour of the law, nor could this happen without causing too much trouble.” [344]

Which of course was a hypocrite excuse and bagatellising
of serious and undefensible crimes.

Edward later protested that he had done this unwillingly and that any pardon he had given under coercion was invalid and contravened his coronation oath. [345]

I must say, the King had a point here.
The attentive reader remembers, that I wrote at the beginning
of this chapter [chapter VI], that the King was not true to his word, issuing
pardons and later to come back on them, [346]

But this case was different, because now the King was besieged
in his own capital as threathened with deposition,
if he didn’t consent with the Despensers exile.
That’s clearly coercion. And treason.

[7]

PLANNING FOR REVENGE

The King was furious, of course and by the way [but the reader
has already understood] never to consent with the permanent
exile of his Despenser friends.

The following morning at breakfast, the king talked to his ally Hamo Hethe, bishop of Rochester, “anxious and sad.”  He swore that he would “within half a year make such an amend that the whole world would hear of it and tremble,” [347]

And as we will see in the next chapter, he was true to his word…..

END OF THIS CHAPTER

SEE FOR NOTES

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

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

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_Lancaster7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.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_Castlemanuscript-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/

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

Readers!

In the chapters one, two, three and four we saw, how the initial loyalcousin of king Edward II, fell out with him in a feud/conflict, for political andpersonal reasons and we watched the tragic fate of king’s dear favourite,Piers Gaveston and Thomas of Lancaster’s deadly role in it.

For reasons you’ll read in Chapter Five, Thomas of Lancaster, England”s wealthiest and most powerful man after king Edward II, became the uncrowned king of England
Read furthrer:

CHAPTER FIVE:

CHAPTER FIVE
DANCE FOR POWER
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, THE UNCROWNED KING
1314-1315

A Battle of Bannockburn [1314]
B The Great Famine [1315-1317]
C Lincoln Parliament [1316]/Thomas triumphant
D Three destructive favourites [1315-1318]
E Thomas of Lancaster/Feud with Warenne
F Thomas a peach?/Dangerous incidents
G Pembroke, man of honour/Treaty of Leake [1318]
H Aftermath/The favourites
I After the Treaty of Leake/New danger….

With his good friend and ally the [10th] Earl of Warwick gone, Thomas of Lancaster
not only suffered a personal loss [they were close, since
Warwick had named his son after Thomas [192], but
also it was a political setback.
Warwick was a skilled and clever ruler, while Lancaster,
although tough and forceful in action, was as incompetent as his
cousin Edward II, when it came to ruling, as the story will show…..

From the moment Piers Gaveston was murdered by Thomas and
his accomplices, it was a dance to the death between him
and Edward II, the two most powerful men in the land, yet apart’
from the struggle for power.
For although Edward officially had pardoned Thomas [and others]
for the murder of Gaveston [193],
it was quite clear, that he would never forgive or forget his cousin’s role
in the murder of a man, whom he lhad oved that much.

During  the [unsuccesful] siege of Berwick [in which Thomas of Lancaster
cooperated, for a change, with Edward II], in 1318, Edward was stated to have said::
””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.” [194]

So there was a situation in which two powerful men
competed for the rule of England, both incompetent
rulers, who could not put their own personal feelings above
the general political problems, like the war with the
Scots and internal questions [I’ll refer to the
great Famine between 1315-1317 later]
Disastrous for the country and eventually for
themselves.

THE FUN WAS JUST ABOUT TO BEGIN:

A

BATTLE OF BANNOCKBURN/1314

After a tense and dangerous year [since the murder
of Gaveston in 1312], where civil war threatened in a
moment and eventually there seemed some
de escalation, tensions flew high, again.
Presumably with the aim of strenghtening his position
[a victory on the Scots would enlarge both Kings popularity
as his royal position against the barons], Edward II decided to take a military campaign
against the Scots, who were leaded by the formidable military
commander and King, Robert the Bruce. [195]

And yes, Thomas of Lancaster reacted!

As to be expected, in June 1314, Thomas refused to accompany his cousin to Scotland for the Bannockburn campaign, and sent only four knights and four men-at-arms to fulfil his feudal obligations. [196]

The outcome was disastrous.
England suffered one of the most humiliating defeats
against the Scots, in the battle of Bannockburn [197]
in which the King’s nephew [remember, Gaveston’s
brother in law, who had refused to help him], the
[8th] Earl of Gloucester, was killed in battle, [198]
as Robert de Clifford, 1st Baron de Clifford,
one of the besiegers of Piers Gaveston at
Scarbourough Castle. [199]

To the great credit of the King must be said,
that although a bad military commander, he
fought very bravely and eventually they practically
had to drag
him from the battlefield to prevent the greatest
humiliation: to be captured, as would happen, years
later [in 1356], to the French King John II during
the Hundred Years War with England…. [200]

And figure:
A perhaps yearlong regency for his 2 year old
son [Edward, later Edward III, born in 1312…],
under the leadership of….guess who?
Likely, his cousin Thomas, Earl of Lancaster [King’s
halfbrothers were still too young].

SO:
THIS WAS THE GOLDEN CHANCE FOR THOMAS!

The battle of Bannockburn not only was
a great personal humiliation for Edward II, it
put him entirely at Thomas’ mercy. [201]

Had Edward been victorious, he would
have gained a great prestige and popularity, as
secure borders in the North.
That would have strengthened his position
towards Thomas of Lancaster and the other
opposing barons enormously.

But the painful reality was a humiliating defeat
[and for the Scots a great step in their freedom
fight!]

So Edward needed his cousin Thomas:
Without his help, the borders couldn’t be
defended against the Scottish raids, that now
ravaged English soil. [202]

A nasty position for a King, dependency on
a subject, who was his most powerful
nobleman and enemy.

1315/
THOMAS OF LANCASTER
DE FACTO RULER

In name Edward was the King, but the de facto
ruler was Thomas.
Alas, he proved to be as incompetent ruler
as his cousin Edward and although tough in military
action, he nevertheless was incapable to defend England against the Scottish attacks.

Perhaps it is not fair to reproach him that:
Robert the Bruce was an extraordinary skilled
military leader and the Scots were very motivated
to fight for their freedom [in the meantime ravaging
North England….]

But it IS reproachable, that neither the King nor
Thomas were capable to rise above personal
matters to work together in the State interests.

It was said, that
””Whatever pleases the lord king, the earl’s servants try to upset; and whatever pleases the earl, the king’s servants call treachery…and their lords, by whom the land ought to be defended, are not allowed to rest in harmony.” [203]

B

THE GREAT FAMINE/1315/1317

This disaster lasted from 1315 till 1317:

The first duty of a Medieval Lord [and certainly a King] was to look
to the welfare of the people.
To take care of them.
To feed the poor.
To defend the weak. [204]

When Thomas of Lancaster had sold some of his
precious belongings to feed the poor during that famine,
he should have been a saint already during his life….

That’s a pure joke, of course
Not ONE Lord in that time
would mind about the need of the poor [the chivalric
codes were merely theoretical] or would put it in his
head to sell precious things for the poor.
Besides that, the famine problem was not that simple,
because it was not only merely a question of not
HAVING food, but not capable to PRODUCE it.

The Great Famine started with bad weather in spring 1315. Crop failures lasted through 1316 until the summer harvest in 1317.

It rained heavily and constantly for much of the summer of 1314 and most of 1315 and 1316.
This torrential rain, inevitably, caused flooding; crops rotted away and livestock drowned in the waterlogged fields. So the result was the Great Famine, which is estimated to have killed at least five per cent, and perhaps much more, of the population of England. The rest of northern Europe suffered a similar or higher death toll. [205]

Edward II did his best to handle the crisis, but was not capable
to solve the problem. [206]
Perhaps Thomas of Lancaster took some measures
too, I don’t know.

Of course the famine was a hugh problem, yet it is the task
of rulers to handle wisely and competently.
Both failed, King and cousin, to handle the problems
and of course they didn’t cooperate together, which is
more than just bad ruling.
When famine is concerning, it is a crime against the poor population, which suffered the most.

However, to say to their defence, the situation WAS alarming
and partly they were powerless:
Even the King when visiting St Albans from 10 to 12 August 1315, had difficulties buying bread for himself and his household…….[207]

It is a wonder, that there had been no uprisings or peasants
revolt in that time….

The weather finally improved in 1317, and gradually the famine loosened its dread grip. [208]

Two big disasters and yet the most powerful men in the land couldn’t rise above personal matters and work together…..

A foreboding for all the mess, which was yet to come.

EDWARD II AND THOMAS OF LANCASTER/
TWO IRRESPONSIBLE FOOL RULERS

Just when there were such challenges and a need for strong
leadership, Edward II and his cousin Thomas could
do no better than thwarting each other, to the destruction
of many, including themselves.

For example [to begin with Thomas]:

Although Thomas was chosen as one of the godfathers of Edward and Isabella of France’s second son John of Eltham [209], Thomas’s great-nephew, he failed to attend the boy’s christening, a gross insult to the king and queen. [210]

But honesty obliges me to say, that before the christening solemnity of the second son of the King, Thomas and the King seemed
to have had a serious row in York…..[211]

But yet, try to keep the peace, my Lord Lancaster…..

The King acted no better:

”In April 1318 the Scots took the English town of Berwick which led to a shaky reconciliation between Lancaster and his cousin Edward.
The king, however, had not forgotten, or forgiven the death of Gaveston and was so ”wise” to have said:
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”.[212]

Well, the temporary ”peace” was over and Lancaster [Thomas] left. [213]
Not strange, since the remark of the King was aimed
directly against Lancaster, for his role in the murder of Gaveston.

But since the King had pardoned those involved in the
murder of Gaveston in 1313, [214]
he was obliged to his royal status to hold his word, whatever
his personal feelings and how painful for him as a person.

That’s the honour of a King AND wise ruling.
This remark but showed, that Lancaster was right, not
to trust the King…..

Nor could the King trust Lancaster.
And as will be revealed in the story, there were people
around the king, trusted ”friends”, who played a dirty role
to prevent any reconciliation between the King and
cousin Thomas.[215]

C

1316
LINCOLN PARLIAMENT/THOMAS TRIUMPHANT

The Lincoln parliament of early 1316 – at which Thomas of Lancaster attended,  more than two weeks late – requested of the king’s “dear cousin” that “he might be pleased to be chief of his council, in all the great or weighty matters concerning him [Edward] and his realm,” and Thomas, “for the great love which he bears towards his said lord the king,” agreed. [216]

To cut this shortly
Thomas was appointed to the ”chief place” in the Council
[Chief Councillor]. [217]
Unfortunately, he seemed to take little part in government and
preferred to stay at his favourite residence at Pontefract Castle
[which he had inherited jure uxoris from his father in law,
Henry de Lacy, the 3rd Earl of Lincoln] [218]
That formed a problem, since Edward II and the Council
had to communicate with him ”as though he were an independent
potentate, or another King” [219]
[Hahaha, there was no Internet then/Otherwise they could
have mailed or Facebooked…….”’Dear Cousin”, ”Sire,
my cousin……]

SURPRISE, SURPRISE/ROW WITH COUSIN KING EDWARD II

Edward and Thomas met in York in the summer of 1316 and had a furious row, apparently over Edward’s ongoing reluctance to accept the Ordinances [220], to which Thomas was devoted. [221]

Now I can imagine, that Thomas was irritated:
After all Edward II had agreed with the ordinances in 1311, and
although he was more or less coerced to[222], when a King gives
his word, his subjects have a right to expect, that he holds it.
I refer to the last passage from the coronation oath of the
King [pronounced in French]

”Sire, graunte vous à tenir & garder les loys & les custumes droitureles, les quiels la communaute de vostre roiaume aura esleu, & les defendrez & afforcerez, al honour de DIEU, à vostre poer?”
And his answer and promise
Jeo les graunte & promette.”

[English translation:
Sire, do you grant to be held and observed the just laws and customs that the community of your realm shall determine, and will you, so far as in you lies, defend and strengthen them to the honour of God?

Answer and promise of the King
” I grant and promise them.”] [223]

That means of course, that if the King grants the Ordinances,
he has to hold word.
And as a subject, Thomas of Lancaster had the right
to hold the King accountable to his oath. [224]

On the other hand I can understand the King’s position
too.
He was more or less coerced to those Ordinances, which
assaulted his royal position.
Yet a King is bound to his ”promises”…..

But of course that was not the point here.

After the brutal murder on Gaveston, any conflict
between Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster was in fact
about the King’s need for revenge on his cousin.
Maybe understandable being a private person, but a
King must put the interests of the State first.
And that Edward II was not willing or able
to do.

That was the King’s tragedy, which would led to his downfall.

D

THREE DESTRUCTIVE FAVOURITES
ROGER DAMORY, HUGH AUDLEY AND WILLIAM
MONTECUTE, THREE DESTRUCTIVE FAVOURITES
1315/1318

To make matters worse, the next years [untill the
”reconciliation” treaty of Leake], three friends and
favourites of Edward II, declared enemies of Thomas
of Lancaster, would do their utmost to further arouse
Edward’s hostility towards his cousin Thomas.
Their names were Roger Damory, Hugh Audley and
William Montecute [father of that William Montecute,
close friend of Edward III, who helped him overthrow
the regime of his mother Isabella of France and her lover
Roger Mortimer] [225]
And I am not exaggerating, when saying, that their influence
was destructive, doing everything to enlarge the tensions
in the country.

Roger Damory/Favourite and first disturber of the peace

After having mourned Piers Gaveston for about three years, Edward II had a close companion again [I don’t speculate, whether
their relationship was sexually intimate or not, let the reader
form his or her own opinion] in Roger Damory,
the most important of the three favourites [ancestor of Walt Disney, hahahaha] [226]
That man was one of a kind:

First favourite of the King [about 1315-1319], later ally of the same Thomas of Lancaster he tried to destroy during the time
he was favourite……[227]
Joining the retinue of King’s nephew, the [8th] Earl of Gloucester
[also brother in law of Piers Gaveston, whom Gloucester didn’t help, when he [Gaveston] was in the dungeons of Warwick Castle]
, Damory fought bravely
in the Battle of Bannockburn [1314] and thus attracted the King’s attention.
And so he made a quick career. [228], which especially
seemed to have been characterized by seeking his own advantage
and hinder all reconciliation attempts between Edward II and his] cousin Thomas of Lancaster. [229]
Rightly Pope John XXII wrote to King Edward ” to “remove those friends whose youth and imprudence injure the affairs of the realm.” [230]
By the way, Edward II married Roger Damory to his
niece, Elizabeth de Clare, sister of the [8th] Earl
of Gloucester. [231]

Hugh Audley/Favourite and second disturber of the peace
[only favourite to survive the reign of Edward II  and also
rebel against the King and ally of Thomas of Lancaster
and the Marcher Lords]

Hugh Audley rose in royal favour in 1315 and the relationship
came that close, that Edward II married him to his niece
Margaret de Clare, sister of the [8th] Earl of Gloucester
and dowager countess of Cornwall, widow of Edward II’s
beloved Piers Gaveston [232].
That was a beautiful catch!
Remember, Edward married Roger Damory to his other
niece Elizabeth, sister of Margaret de Clare.

William Montecute/Favourite and third disturber of the peace

William Montecute, father of his namesake William, who
was one of the closesr friends of Edward III [233], rose
into royal favour after 1315 and was a good soldier.
He was appointed steward of the royal household in 1317,
which gave him direct access to the King, so a powerful
position. [234]
He had a reputation as a good soldier. [235]

Alas, he also was a great hindrance in bringing reconciliation
between Edward II and his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster……

THE DESTRUCTIVE TRIUMVIRATE
DANGEROUS THREAT TO THE PEACE
IN THE COUNTRY

Roger Damory, Hugh Audley and William Montecute
had a highly destructive and fatal influence on the
King, intruiging against Thomas of Lancaster at any means
necessary.
The reason I condemn them so harshly is because this
dangerous policy led to further destabilisation of
the situation in the land, which was already torn
apart by the continuing threat of civil war, because of
the enmity between Edward and his cousin Thomas.

And as I see it, the destructive policy came mainly
from those three favourites, not from Thomas of
Lancaster [Thomas is no peach at all, but here he was
certainly not the attacker], who had reason to
feel himself threatened by those three.

For example [list is not complete]

At a meeting of the king’s council at Clarendon in the spring of 1317, the three openly called Thomas a traitor. [236]

That is a very serious accusation, dangerous too.

So understandably, Thomas protested.
He sent letters to the King, to say that “he fears the deadly stratagems of certain persons who thrive under the protection of the royal court…they have already carried off the earl’s wife to his disgrace and shame.” [on the history of his wife I refer later] [237]
That he subsequently [and repeatedly] asked the banishment from
Court of Damory, Audley and Montecute, comes as no suprise
either, since those gentlemen continued to sow discord
and counselled the king to remain hostile to his cousin. [238]

Out of self interest of course, and highly damaging for the
peace in the country.

Edward II, no great champion in knowledge of human nature,
was misled by those three and wrote Thomas, as reaction of
his letters with the request of banishment
””I will avenge the despite done to the earl when I can; I refuse to expel my household; for the abduction of his wife let him seek a remedy in law only.” [239]
By this, the King made things worse.

And Thomas was not alone, but was supported by Pope
John XXII, who wrote the King repeatedly in 1317 and 1318,
warning the King  not to allow any “backbiter or malicious flatterer” to bring about disunity between himself and Thomas, and to send away from court those men who offended the earl. [240]
He advised the King to “remove those friends whose youth and imprudence injure the affairs of the realm. [241]
He also warned  Thomas to “separate himself” from those who displeased Edward and to reject “suggestions of whisperers and double-tongued men.”[242]

The Pope was a real peacemaker!
In addition to the King and his cousin Thomas, he also
wrote to Thomas’ brother, Henry, [later] Earl of Lancaster several times in 1318 as a close kinsman of both the king and Thomas and “bound to pay them reverence and affection,” asking him to promote accord between them “so that the realm may be freed from disturbance” [243]

I don’t know whether Henry tried to mediate, since
it is likely, that he spent the most of that period
in France [perhaps because he wouldn’t be involved
in his brothers’ feud with the King? } [244]

But the machinations of the three favourites were
not done yet:

After several summons of the King to Thomas of
Lancaster to attend council meetings, which he not
attended [not suprisingly, since the three favourites attended,
sometimes armed…][245], the King asked his household and
friends for advice in this situation:
””You see how the earl of Lancaster has not come to parliament. You see how he scorns to obey our commands. How does it seem to you?” [246]
Some advised to arrest or exile Thomas, others, more sensible,
advised to negociate.
After all, although politically isolated now, Thomas of
Lancaster WAS a force of nature, since very powerful by the
possession of his five Earldoms and not to be underestimated,
his private army.

Be as it may, a very dangerous situation threatened:

To cut a long story short:
At the instigation of two cardinalswho had recently arrived in the country – they were with the king at York in September 1318 – a date was finally set for a meeting between Edward and Thomas, although it was postponed.
Edward agreed to take no hostile action against Thomas and his adherents, and Thomas agreed to attend the next parliament, due to be held at Lincoln in January 1318. [247]

At the beginning of October 1317, The King left York to return to London.
Alas, despite his promise a few days earlier not to take action against his cousin, he commanded his men to take up arms and attack him. [248]
Apparently one of Edward’s friends – most likely Roger Damory – had persuaded him that the earl posed a threat to Edward and that he should attack him first.
Fortunately the King informed the earl of Pembroke beforehand what he was intending to do.
He said “I have been told that the earl of Lancaster is lying in ambush, and is diligently preparing to catch us all by surprise.” [249]
Pembroke fortunately managed to convince Edward that this was not in fact the case, and talked the King out of it…..[250]

This unsound situation would continue from 1315 to 1318,
when the man of honour [see the Piers Gaveston story], Lord
Pembroke and the Middle Party intervened and managed to
reach the Treaty of Leake. [251]
But that’s for later

E

FEUD WITH WARENNE

Never a dull moment in the Edward II/Thomas of
Lancaster times.
Not only Edward and his cousin had become
bitter enemies, which included enmity between
Lancaster and the named destructive favourites,
Thomas also had a bitter feud with John de Warenne,
7th Earl of Surrey [one of the besiegers of Piers Gaveston
in Scarbourough Castle].
What the original nature of the hatred of Warenne for Lancaster
was, is not sure:
Probably he blamed Lancaster for his [Warenne’s] inability to secure a divorce [he was unhappily married]. This may be because Lancaster had persuaded the Bishop of Chichester to prosecute Warenne for his adultery [252]

In each case, Warenne retaliated with the abduction
of Lancaster’s wife, Alice de Lacy, with whom he [Lancaster]
was unhappily married. [253]
Whether the abduction took place with or without
the consent of Lady Alice, is not clear.
Lancaster, not a man to forgive an insult, retaliated again
with seizing two castles from Warenne. [254]

At last the King intervened, which led to an uneasy
peace between the two noblemen. [255]

WHAT A FUN!

However, Lancaster also thought, that the three favourites
were behind the abduction [256], which made matters
worse and worse…….

F

THOMAS OF LANCASTER A PEACH?/
FORGET IT/DANGEROUS INCIDENTS
[Jeering at the King/1318/1320/Blocking his way….]

The attentive reader shall have noticed, that I defended
Thomas of Lancaster several times:
Against the unpredictable behaviour of the King
[stating not to attack Lancaster and yet planning
an attack, not holding his word and failing to obey the Ordinances
of 1311] [257]
Against his destructive favourites, who did everything
in their power to prevent a reconciliation between the
King and his cousin Thomas.

But was Thomas then, a peach, only intended to hold
the King to his word?
NOT AT ALL!

The reader has read about his [and others’]  execution
of poor and vain Piers Gaveston.
That’s not ”peach” behaviour, but lawless and ruthless.

The King, on his part, was not ”true to his word”, stating
at one moment not to attack Thomas, and the second
moment attempting to attack him [Thanks to
the Earl of Pembroke, nothing came from that]
Stating to observe the ordinances and then not
to hold his promise.

But to the defence of the King must be said, that Thomas
did, also, his best to stir up the animosity”, which the
King [understandably] harboured because of the tragic
murder on Gaveston:

I already mentioned the absence of Thomas at the
battle of Bannockburn, as his failing to attend the
christening of the Kings second son, John of
Eltham, although he was one of the godfathers. [258]

But it became worse:

BLOCKING THE PATH OF THE KING

During the time of high tension [when the three favourites
accused Thomas of treason, his wife Alice had been abducted]
Edward and Isabella left Nottingham and the failed council meeting on 7 August 1317 [where Thomas didn’t attend, not willing
to meet the King, as long as the three destructive favourites were
not expelled from Court]] , and travelled to York. The most direct route would have taken Edward right through the town, but Thomas had blocked his way by placing armed guards on the roads and bridges south of York,
claiming he had the right to be informed about the
movement of armed men as he was the hereditary Steward
of England…..[259]

Of course the King was furious that a subject had blocked his way!

MORE FUN/
JEERING AT THE KING

Next to blocking the King’s path in his own Kingdom,
one of the worst things subjects can do is, make
a joke of their King, by jeering at him.
And that was precisely what Thomas of Lancaster
did:
1317
”Thomas made matters worse by leading his men out to the top of the castle ditch and jeering at Edward as he and his retinue travelled past. [260]

AND HE DID IT AGAIN!
1320
After the parliament in York ended [which Thomas failed to
attend], Edward II and his wife Isabella of France travelled through Pontefract on their way to London, and Thomas’s retainers once again jeered at the king, and also the queen, from the safety of the castle. [261]

NOT VERY CLEVER, MY LORD THOMAS
Not very clever……

G

PEMBROKE, MAN OF HONOUR/THE MIDDLE
PARTY AND THE TREATY OF LEAKE

Finally a reconciliation
between the two most powerful men, Edward II and his cousin Thomas,
was about to take place.
With special compliments for the Earl of Pembroke, the man of honour, who
had been offended by Gaveston’s abduction since he had given
his word [262].
The same man, who had talked Edward II out of his foolish
and dangerous intention to attack Thomas of Lancaster at his
stronghold at Pontefract [263]

With Pembroke playing an important role,
since April 1318, a group of barons and prelates [the
”Middle Party] [264] had been negotiating with the earl of Lancaster, and trying to persuade Edward and his cousin to overcome their hostility to each other. On 8 June, they came to a preliminary agreement: Edward would uphold the  Ordinances, govern by the counsel of his magnates, and conciliate Thomas, who was threatened with sanctions if he continued to hold armed assemblies [which he indeed had held,
but also the King had permitted armed Lords to his councils]. [265]

On 7 August 1318 the two men exchanged the kiss of peace in a field between Loughborough and Leicester. Edward gave his cousin a fine palfrey “in recognition of his great love” of Thomas. (Hmmmm.) A formal agreement, the Treaty of Leake, was signed in the town of Leake near Loughborough two days later [266]

Thomas of Lancaster demanded [and right he was!] that
Roger Damory, Hugh Audley and William Montacute be sent away from court, the King consented and off they went…..[267]

GOOD RIDDANCE WORKS!

I

THE FAVOURITES/AFTERMATH

Finally the destructive influence of the King’s
three favourites had come to an end!

How fared they?

Roger Damory

From Kings friend to enemy

His influence was over, athough he seemed to have been in the
favour of the king for a while.
At last, he clashed with the new and most destructive favourite
of the King, Hugh Despenser the Younger [268], joined the Marcher
Lords [sworn enemies of the Despensers, father and son and
allies of Thomas of Lancaster] [269]
He fought with the Marcher Lords against the Kings army, was
captured and tried [condemned to the traitor’s death, which was
not executed, happily for him] and died at Tutbury Priory on 12 March 1322, presumably of wounds sustained fighting against the royal army…… [270]

William Montecute

As his co favourites Roger Damory and Hugh Audleu he had
done everything to instigate further animosity between Edward II
and his cousin Thomas of Lancaster.
Therefore he was removed from his post as steward of the royal household and appointed steward of Gascony in november
1318.
He died in Gascony in 1319. [271]

Hugh Audley

Hugh Audley also turned from the friend of the King
to his enemy…..
Hugh fought with the Marcher Lords against the King
[and the Despensers] and later fought at the side of
Thomas of Lancaster [the Marcher Lords were his ally]
in the fatal Battle of Bouroughbridge [272].
He was spared execution thanks to his wife Margaret de
Clare’s pleas [she was the niece of Edward II and widow
of his former lover Piers Gaveston], somehow
survived the reign of Edward II and the regime
of his wife Isabella of France and lover Roger Mortimer [see his life/273]
and died peacefully in november 1347. [274]

He was the only one of Edward II’s favourite to
survive those turbulent times.

J

AFTER THE TREATY OF LEAKE/NEW DANGER

By late 1318, the relationship between Edward II and the earl of Lancaster was relatively good and Pembroke and
the other barons [as the other subjects of the King]
doubtless sighed with relief, because civil war
seemed to be at the end.
And for those, who doubt Thomas:
He actually co-operated with the king and took part in the siege of Berwick in 1319. [275]
But as we shall see:
Nothing lasts forever and the destructive favourites
would soon be replaced by a far more dangerous man:
Hugh Despenser the Younger [276], who would lead the King
to his destruction and his own [Hugh’s]

More about the Despensers and Thomas of Lancaster’s
role in the next chapter.

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II/From warlord to Saint/Chapter Four

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

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

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_Lancaster7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.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_Castlemanuscript-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/

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

Dear Readers
Travel with me to 14th century England again……
Recently I sent you chapter one, two and three of my ”book” article ”Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint”It inarrates the turbulent lifeof Earl Thomas of Lancaster, cousin of king Edward IIBecause it is extended, I do you the favour of sending my major article to you in chapters
You still remember chapters one, two and three?
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/

AND NOW……CHAPTER FOUR!ENJOY AND WATCH CLOSELY, HOW THE DRAMA UNFOLDS……..

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

[This is a rather elaborated story about Piers Gaveston,
since he played a large part in the enmity between Thomas
and his cousin Edward II]

It was the tragedy of Piers Gaveston, who set a deep and nearly
invincible enmity between King Edward and his cousin Thomas……

The first indication of tension between Edward II and his
cousin Thomas was his abrupt leave of the Court in 1308, the fact
that he, obviously, witnessed no charters after that day, until
march 1310 AND that the constant flow of grants and favours to him from Edward also ceased. [82]
I don’t know, what the cause of the conflict was.
In each case, it didn’t seem to be referred to Gaveston, since
Lancaster, at first, was on friendly terms with him and remained
loyal, when the barons were pressing for Gaveston’s exile
in the spring of 1308 [83], he later completely turned against
Piers Gaveston.

Before going to that, something about Piers Gaveston
[about whom I will write an article in the future, just wait and
see]
He was a fascinating man.
Intelligent, witty, charming, with martial skills and later proved
to be a skilled military administrator.

Alas……
Too arrogant and provocative, which eventually led to his downfall.

PIERS GAVESTON

Piers Gaveston was an English nobleman from Gascon descent.
His father was a Gascon knight, Arnaud de Gabaston, his mother was
a noble woman,
Claramonde de Marsan [84]. Some sources suggest, that she is burned as
a witch [85], but there is no proof for that.
His father was in the service of King Edward I [Edward II’s father] and Piers
[Gaveston]
seems to have served King Edward likewise. [86]
Anyway, King Edward I was apparently impressed by Gaveston’s conduct and martial skills, and wanted him to serve as a model for his son [the
later Edward II], so he became a member of his household. [87]

FIRST EXILE

To cut a long story short:
Prince Edward and Piers Gaveston grew very fond of each other, probably too fond in the
eyes of the King…..and  fearing the apparent influence
of Piers on the [then] Prince of Wales [88], Edward [II], Piers
Gaveston was banished. [89]
That was the first time.
There were still two times to go…..

RETURN TO ENGLAND

Old King Edward I died on 7 july, 1307 and his son, Edward of
Caernarfon [named after his Welsh birthplace] [90], was now King of England.
One of his first acts was, surprise, surprise…..to recall his favourite
Piers Gaveston from exile.[91]

TROUBLES WITH THE BARONS/FAVOURS FROM THE
KING AND PROVOCATIONS

Very soon this led to great displeasure, to say it mildly under
the greatest part of the nobility, since Edward made him
”Earl of Cornwall” and this title was reserved for the members of
the royal family. [92]
So the great barons felt insulted, not only because of this title,
as for the fact, that compared with them, Piers Gaveston was of relatively
humble origins. ‘[93]

And then that coronation business!

As I wrote, Thomas of Lancaster carried the sword ”Curtana” at
the coronation of Edward II [and his wife Isabella of France], his
brother Henry carried  the royal rod, as were many other members
of high nobility involved in the ceremony. [94]

BUT PIERS GAVESTON STOLE THE SHOW!
While the Earls wore cloth-of-gold, as they were entitled to do in the king’s presence (cloth-of-gold is material shot through with gold thread), Gaveston wore royal purple, of silk, encrusted with jewels. [95]
They were beaten by Piers Gaveston at the tournament at
Wallingford in december 1307, what seemed to have aroused fury. [96]
They were also insulted, that the King married Piers
Gaveston off to his niece Margaret de Clare [97], daughter
of Kings sister Joan of Acre [married Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Gloucester] [98] and sister of the powerful [8th] Earl of Gloucester.
[99]

And then those nicknames!

Perhaps out of self-defence, or merely
for the pleasure of provocation, Piers gave the Earls
and barons all sort of insulting nicknames:

Henry de Lacy, [3rd] Earl of Lincoln, the father in
law of Thomas of Lancaster, was called ”burst belly” [boule
crevee], Thomas of Lancaster himself was called ”the churl”
or ”the fiddler”, the [2nd] Earl of Pembroke [100]
[a man of honour, which will show later] ”Joseph
the Jew” and  the [10th] Earl of Warwick [101], one of Piers”
most bitter enemies, was called ”the Black Dog of Arden.” [102]
Whether Piers really called his brother in law, the [7th] Earl of Gloucester ”whoreson”, is doubtful, since the lady in question,
Gloucester’s mother [as the mother of Piers” wife]
was the sister of the King….[103]

Yet, although annoying [apart of course from
that ”whoreson” what really was serious]
, one should think, that some
teasing, defeat at a tournament and arrogance would
not trigger such a hatred, as especially Thomas of
Lancaster and Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick
have had for the vain, witty and charming
Piers, who did them, further [unlike the later
favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger, who was
real powerseeking and dangerous [104] no harm.

But those were high Earls, most of them royal or
else married with royalty and no men to forget insults,
especially from a man, who was, in their eyes, of
”humble origin” [105] and considered to be an adventurer.

And the King did nothing to stop Piers” arrogance.
On the contrary:
He seemed the witty remarks of Piers ”funny”

Seen the King’s great love and emotional dependence
of Piers Gaveston [as shows not only the  numerous
gifts and honours he bestowed at him, as his reaction
on his banishments], some writers assumed they were lovers
and others, not [106]

I can’t look into the Medieval royal bedchamber, of course, but
given Edward’s great emotional need for Piers, that he swore
vengeance after his death [107] as the fact that
he never forgot him [108], it seems likely to me.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH/YOUR GRACE, BANISH THAT
RASCAL!
SECOND EXILE

No part to play for Thomas of Lancaster
Not yet……..

Tensions rose between at one side the Earls and barons and
at the other side Piers Gaveston [and subsequently, the King]

This led to the second [Piers was already banished firstly
by Edward I, recalled by Edward II] banishment of Piers Gaveston in 1308

I already mentioned the arrogant behaviour of Piers,
the insulting nicknames, the fact that the King married him
off to a member of the royal family [his niece Margaret
de Clare], Piers” showing off at the coronation
of the King [and Isabella, his wife] [109], his beating of
important members of the nobility at the tournament
of Wallingford, the fact, that the King had made him
regent during his absence [his marriage in France, with
Isabella, daughter of King Philip IV] [110]

Reasons enough for the high and mighty Lords to hate Piers.
What I DIDN’T mention [and do now], that the King
refused to see any of his barons unless Piers was also present, and rudely ignored them, talking only to Piers. [111]

The Medieval
chronicle Vita Edwardi Secundi [Latin: Life of Edward the Second]
wrote about Piers” growing arrogance:’
””scornfully rolling his upraised eyes in pride and in abuse, he looked down upon all with pompous and supercilious countenance…indeed the superciliousness which he affected would have been unbearable enough in a king’s son.”

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, the Earls and barons must have said:
He has to go!

Under pressure of nearly every member of the nobility, the King was forced to banish Gaveston. [112]

Another powerful influence came from the French King, Philip IV
who, apparently offended by the Edward II’s favouritism
of Gaveston and the [intended or not] neglect, at least
at the coronation banquet [113] of his [Philip IV’s] daughter Isabella, and Edward’s wife, supported the barons. [114]

According some sources he said to have sent 40,000 livres to the earls of Lincoln [Thomas of Lancaster’s father
in law] and Pembroke to encourage them to proceed against Gaveston. [115]

Strangely although, at that time Thomas of Lancaster was
still supportive to the King, along with a small minority,
and was not behind the banishment. [116]
However, that would change, dramatically

Well, on 18 may [1308] Edward consented to exile
Piers, which he did grudgedly, but with no choice:
Civil war was treathening [figure, ONE YEAR a King
and already the nobility willing to rise against you…..]
and although he was stripped from his lands [being
Earl of Cornwall], but was allowed to hold the title.
And he was not without an income!
Edward granted Piers £2000 worth of lands in his homeland of Gascony, and another £2000 of English lands for
him and his wife Margaret [who accompanied him
in exiler, although she was not banished, being
the granddaughter of King Edward I and the sister
of the Earl of Gloucester.
Edward also gave him a gift of 1180 marks, about 786 pounds, an enormous sum ![117]

And he was not actually BANISHED from the realm, since
he was appointed Lieutenant General in Ireland, where he
showed [granted] a skilled military administrator and even
beat down a rebellion. [118]

Meanwhile Edward did his utmost to bring Piers back.
Through distribution of patronage and concessions to political demands, he won over several of the earls who had previously been of a hostile disposition. [119]
Henry de Lacy [Earl of Lincoln, Thomas
of Lancaster’s father in law], who was the leader of the baronial opposition due to his age and great wealth, was reconciled with Edward by late summer 1308. Even Warwick, who had been the most unyielding enemies, of Gaveston, was gradually mollified
The excommunication with which Piers was threatened by the
Archbishop of Canterbury should he come
back, was nullified by Pope Clement V. [120].
That was in april 1309.

So the way was free for Piers to return.
Of course it had come with a price:
At the parliament that met at Stamford in July, Edward had to agree to a series of political concessions, The so-called Statute of Stamford was based on a similar document Edward I had consented to in 1300, called the articuli super carta, which was in turn based on Magna Carta.

The ”Statute of Stamford” implied a promiose to redress baronial grievances. [121]

However:
At 27 june 1309, Piers had returned to England.
On 5 August 1309, Gaveston was reinstated with the earldom of Cornwall.

RETURN/AS ARROGANT AS EVER!

BUT SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN.

You would expect some modesty, some cautiousness.

But no, Piers Gaveston was as arrogant as ever, perhaps
even worse and the King did nothing to stop him.
He played the old game again, provocating the nobility
and giving them insulting nicknames. [122]

Of course the Earls and barons were furious!
They had enough of it.

The political climate became so hateful that in February 1310, a number of the earls refused to attend parliament as long as Gaveston was present. Gaveston was dismissed, and, when parliament convened, the disaffected barons presented a list of grievances they wanted addressed. On 16 March, the King was forced to appoint a group of men to ordain reforms of the royal household.[This group of so-called Lords Ordainers cons isted of eight earls, seven bishops and six barons.[123]

Among them supporters of the King, like the Earl of Gloucester
[his nephew and brother in law of Piers Gaveston], but also die hard
opponents of Piers Gaveston [and subsequently the King], like
the [10th] Earl of Warwick and Thomas of Lancaster, who was now
neither a friend of the king, nor of Piers Gaveston.
The natural leader of the Ordainers was ”burst belly” [nickname
by Piers Gaveston….], Henry de Lacy, the [3rd] Earl of Lincoln
and father in law of Thomas of Lancaster.
Lincoln had a moderate influence, which, alas, would disappear…..

LORD ORDAINERS

The meaning of the Ordinances, as eventually presented in 1311 [124], was
twofold.
The great Lords wanted to get rid of Piers Gaveston, surely, but I
think, that even when there had been no Gaveston, such as the Ordinances
would have been presented [since Edward II was not the strong leader
his father was], aiming at limiting royal power.

To say it otherwise:
The eternal struggle between centralization and decentralization, as
I have described in part one.

So:

Hatred against Piers Gaveston, the ”Gascon adventurer” and his
influence over the King, combined with adesire for reforms, partly
based on the ideas of Simon de Montfort [125]
Partly [or mainly, as you see it] based on greater influence for
the nobility and a weaker kingship.

With the King doting over Gaveston no difficult task…..

Anyway, to cut a long story short:

When the Lord Ordainers were working on reforms [consisting
diminishing royal power], the King launched a military campaign against
the Scots, but many barons refused to follow him.
Except his nephew [and brother in law of Gaveston] Gloucester, Warenne [126] and of course, Piers Gaveston.
It came to nothing, however, when the Scottish King and leader
Robert the Bruce [127] refused to engage in open battle, or even get involved in negotiations.
In February, Gaveston was sent with an army north from
Roxburgh to Perth, but he failed to track down the Scottish army. [128]

EXIT ”BURST BELLY”/THE COMING OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER

In the meantime it went worse and going to a new tragedy for the
King and Gaveston:
”Burst Belly”, Thomas of Lancaster’s father in law died on 6 february 1311,
which meant the end of the moderate influence in the
baronial opposition against the King.

Thomas of Lancaster, as his heir [now in the possession of five Earldoms,
three from his father and two from his father in law]
became the new leader of the Lords Ordainers and  a hardliner!

With the Ordainers ready to present their programme of reform, Edward had to summon a parliament. In late July he appointed Gaveston Lieutenant of Scotland, and departed for London.
The Bruce still evaded the English successfully, in early August even staging a raid into northern England, and shortly after this Gaveston withdrew to Bamburgh Castle in Northumberland.

When parliament met on 16 August, the King was presented with a set of proposed reforms of the royal household, as well as specific attacks on individuals, including a demand for the renewed exile of Piers Gaveston.
Edward initially offered to agree to the reforms as long as Gaveston was allowed to stay, but the Ordainers refused.

The King eventually had to agree to the Ordinances, which were published on 27 September.
On 3 November, two days after the allotted deadline, Gaveston left England ………..[129]

A triumph for the barons
A deep, personal tragedy for the King.

DETORIATION OF THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THOMAS OF LANCASTER AND THE KING/
CLASHES

Before continuing with the Piers Gaveston tragedy, some examples of
the detoriation of the relationship between the King and his cousin
Thomas of Lancaster:

In February 1311, Thomas’  father-in-law Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, died, and Thomas inherited his lands by right of his wife Alice. He had to perform homage to Edward II for the lands, but Edward was then on campaign in Scotland. Thomas refused to cross the Tweed to meet the king; Edward refused to return to England. According to the Lanercost chronicle, Thomas threatened to forcibly enter his lands with a hundred knights, at which Edward gave in and met Thomas at Haggerston, on the English side of the river Tweed.
Whatever they felt for each other by then, the men at least managed to conceal any hostility and “saluted each other amicably and exchanged frequent kisses.” [130]

This in fact was a declaraion of war against his King and is
considered to be treason…..

But there is more:

”In June 1314, Thomas refused to accompany his cousin to Scotland for the Bannockburn campaign, and sent only four knights and four men-at-armsto fulfil his feudal obligations.” [131]

Of course the Gaveston tragedy….. [132]

And in 1316, when open war was imminent between those two
most powerful men in England, the following:

Although Thomas was chosen as one of the godfathers of Edward and Isabella of France’s second son John of Eltham [133], Thomas’s great-nephew, he failed to attend the boy’s christening, a gross insult to the king and queen. [134]

But honesty obliges me to say, that before the christening solemnity of the second son of the King, Thomas and the King seemed
to have had a serious row in York…..[135]

Back to Gaveston:

RETURN TO ENGLAND
PIERS GAVESTON GOES HOME……..

You noticed the hatred, the barons felt for Piers Gaveston
Their attempts to get rid of him.
Twice
And this time, his exile was really
meant forever……

And guess who’s coming to visit?

PIERS GAVESTON!
Came back again.

Despite the fact the barons hated him.
Despite the fact that he was to be excommunicated,
whenever he set his foot on English soil again.

If the man was not playing a crazy and reckless game, his return
must have had a pressing need:
I think perhaps he came back for the birth of his
child.
And for him it must have been a wonderful thing,
that at least he saw his child:
At 12 january, Piers’ wife Margaret gave birth to a
daughter, Joan.
Edward seems to have met Piers at Knaresborough on 13 January, [I don’t know when Piers set foot on English soil]
and the two men rushed the seventeen miles to York that same day, likely so Piers could see his wife and baby. [136]

Seen in the light of the tragic events, it’s good to know
that he at least saw his child, before the tragedy befell him……

What then happened was no clever politics
from the King:
He publicly revoked Gaveston”s exile. [137]
So the barons knew that he was back and were now
preparing for civil war, with Thomas of Lancaster
and The Earl of Warwick ahead!
In march Gaveston was excommunicated [138]
and soon he, the King and Queen Isabella were hunted
down by the barons.

Thomas of Lancaster came after them with an army
and Edward fled with his wife and Gaveston, pursued
by his own cousin Thomas! [139]

WHAT A DEGRADING SITUATION!
WHEN A KING MUST TAKE FLIGHT FOR
HIS OWN, ARMED SUBJECTS, HIS RULE
AND KINGSHIP IS BANKRUPT AND AT THAT
MOMENT HE IS, AS A KING, A TOTAL FAILURE!

Edward should have been warned by this, that if he was not
able to restore his authority in short time, this could be
the beginning of the end!

And it was………

How powerful Thomas of Lancaster must have felt.
As if HE were the King…….

It was a dramatic flight, with a dramatic end.
Edward’s desperate attempts to keep
Gaveston safe seem to have gone so far, that he offered
Robert the Bruce [King of the Scots and the great leader
of the rise against the English domination] to acknowledge
him as King in exchange for the protection of Gaveston. [140]
Which the Bruce refused, who seems to have exclaimed
””How shall the king of England keep faith with me, since he does not observe the sworn promises made to his liege men?…No trust can be put in such a fickle man; his promises will not deceive me.”
[141]

I ask my readers:
If the king wanted to go that far to save his favourite, Gaveston,
were they just friends or lovers?
I think, lovers……

SIEGE OF SCARBOROUGH

Meanwhile the barons, under the leadership of
Thomas of Lancaster, were determined ”to get him”
[Gaveston]

Thomas of Lancaster nearly captured the King and his favourite,
when they were in Newcastle and the [2nd] Earl of Pembroke [142]
and the [7th] Earl of Surrey, John de Warenne [143], were given the task to capture Gaveston. [144]

The King and Gaveston split up [probably the King wanted
to get reinforcements to protect Gaveston] [145], the king and
Queen went to York and Gaveston was in Scarbourough Castle.
That was the last time, King Edward would ever see Gaveston…..

Soon Gaveston was besieged by Pembroke, Warenne, Henry de Percy
[1st Baron Percy] [146] and Robert de Clifford [1st Baron de Clifford][147]

ONE MAN OF HONOUR…..

The rest of the story is gruesome, but one
man should get the credits he deserved.
Aymer de Valence, [2nd] Earl of Pembroke.
As written, Gaveston was besieged in Scarborough by
Pembroke, Warenne, with the help of Henry de Percy
and Robert de Clifford.

Gaveston could not held the castle, so he surrendered to the
besiegers.
The terms of the surrender were that Pembroke, Warenne and Percy would take Gaveston to York, where the barons would negotiate with the king. If an agreement could not be reached by 1 August, Gaveston would be allowed to return to Scarborough. The three swore an oath to guarantee his safety.After an initial meeting with the King in York, Gaveston was left in the custody of Pembroke, who escorted him south for safekeeping.

Pembroke [who was the cousin of the late King Edward I, his father
being the halfbrother of Edward I’s father, King Henry III] [148]
did his utmost to behold his word.
When leaving Gaveston in the rectory at Deddington in Oxfordshire
to visit his wife, Gaveston’s bitter enemy and great ally of Thomas of Lancaster, the 10th Earl of Warwick,
found out about Gaveston’s whereabouts, he immediately rode out to capture him. The next morning he appeared at the rectory, where he took Gaveston captive and brought him back to his castle at Warwick.

Pembroke, who was shocked, that he broke his word without
his guilt and found therefore his honour affronted, did his utmost
to bring Gaveston back:
He appealed for justice both to Gaveston’s brother-in-law Gloucester and to the University of Oxford, but to no avail. [149]

SO, THAT’S A MAN OF HONOUR, AN MAN TRUE TO HIS WORD!

He [Pembroke] was so shocked about what happened thereafter, that
he left the baronial opposition and sided from then with King Edward. [150]

AFTERMATH/PIERS GAVESTON GOES HOME…..
DIRTY ROLE TO PLAY FOR THOMAS OF LANCASTER AND
CO

What happened then was dishonourable and criminal:

After putting Gaveston in his dungeons, Warwick sent word
to Thomas of Lancaster, the [4th] Earl of Hereford [married with the
sister of King Edward….] [151] and the [9th] Earl of Arundel [152]

They came to Warwick Castle and in a show trial they condemned poor Gaveston to death [among
else ”for having violated the Ordinances…]
On 19 June, he was taken out on the road towards Kenilworth as far to
a place, Blacklow Hill, which was on the Earl of Lancaster’s land.

There he was beheaded by two Welshmen….. [153]

They at least ”granted” him the ”honour” of
beheading, the nobleman’s death, since he was
the brother in law of the [8th] Earl of Gloucester, the
King’s nephew. [154]

Poor Gaveston, who flew too high and was too vain and
had a too sharp tongue…..

His daughter was just five months old.
She never knew her father [155]

”MY BROTHER PIERS”/AFTERMATH

[My Brother Piers, that was the way King Edward II called
Piers Gaveston…] [156]

If Thomas of Lancaster and [the 10th Earl of] Warwick had thought,
that their unlawful killing of Piers Gaveston would end the  threat of civil war,
they were wrong.
It only made things worse.

Not only the King who [understandably] was beside himself of grief and
rage and swore revenge on Gaveston’s killers [157],
many former adherents of Lancaster and Warwick were
alienated from them, shocked by the  illegality and brutality of
the murder of a man, who was only too arrogant, witty and
avarious, but posed no political threat.[158]
That would be totally different in the case of a later favourite, Hugh Despenser
the Younger, who, with his father, also Hugh, 1st Earl of Winchester,
would pose a real political threat, was powerseeking, greedy and dangerous
in a way, Gaveston never was…….[159]
People would miss Gaveston en wish he were here, in place ofthe  Despensers
…………….

So the brutal killing of Gaveston had the effect of garnering
support for the king and marginalising the rebellious barons.

So, many  turned to the King again, also those
directly  involved with the fight against Gaveston, especially

the Earl of Pembroke, who reproached Warwick to have offended his
honour by abducting Gaveston, when in his [Pembroke’s] custody
[see above] [160]
But also Warenne, the [7th] Earl of Surrey [161], with Pembroke, one of
the bersiegers of Scarbourough Castle [where Gaveston was hiding]
was pushed back into the kings’ camp, unhappy
about Gaveston’s execution. [162]
By the way:
Later, Warenne would become a bitter enemy of Thomas of
Lancaster, who accused him to have played a role in the abduction
of his wife, Alice de Lacy, with whom he was married unhappily…. [163]

But there was more to it:

Since civil war was still on the move, Thomas of Lancaster and his gang
[let’s bring some humour in this sordid story], the Earls of Warwick and Hereford
[who was, remember, King’s brother in law] [164], brought their armies
in Hertfordshire [immediately North of London] [165] and the King,
moving from York [where he had heard the news of the death of Gaveston],
headed for London.

He arrived in Westminster and on 14 July and stayed there for the rest of the month, and made an impassioned public speech at the house of the Dominicans asking the Londoners to defend the city against Piers Gaveston’s killers.
London supported him and closed the gates of the city against the earls of Lancaster, Warwick and Hereford. [166]

KING’S PARDONS

What to do?
That was the question.
Piers Gaveston was brutally murdered, the King wanted
revenge, he went to London, but the murderers of Gaveston
also brought their armies to Hertfordshire [immediately North
of London], although the Londoners closed the gates for them.

Civil war was close to begin, in earnest.

Something had to be done:

There were mediators between the King and the Earls
[Thomas of Lancaster, Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick and the Earl of Hereford, brother in law of
the King]
I mention here:

The [8th] Earl of Gloucester, nephew of the King
[who, by the way, had refused to help Gaveston when
imprisoned in Warwick Castle [167]
Lord Clifford [one of the besiegers of Scarbourough,
but further loyal to the King]
Louis, Count of Evreux [168], halfbrother of King Philip
IV [father in law of Edward II], sent by him to mediate.
The Pope [Pope Clement V] [169], sent two
envoys, Arnaud d’Aux, bishop of Poitiers, and Cardinal Arnaud Nouvel.
Another negotiator was Edward II’s first cousin John of Brittany, earl of Richmond, grandson of Henry III [170]

High profile mediators, thus.

Yet a military confrontation threatened throughout the summer and early autumn of 1312.

But, luckily, nothing came from that.

Meanwhile, Edward II must have been consolated in a way
for the grief about Gaveston, when on 13 november 1312,
his first son, the future King Edward III was born [171], which
of course delighted his father [Edward II] and his
mother, Queen Isabella. [172]

Anyway, a treaty was made and sealed in London on 20 December 1312, in the presence of Cardinal Arnaud Nouvel, Arnaud d’Aux, bishop of Poitiers, Louis, count of Evreux, and the earls of Gloucester and Richmond.
It was agreed that the three earls and various barons would make obeisance to Edward II in his great hall at Westminster, “with great humility, on their knees” (oue graunte humilite as genuz/cum magna humilitate flexis genibus) and “humbly beg him to release them from his resentment and rancour, and receive them into his good will.” [173]

The precious goods, belonging to Edward II and Piers Gaveston,
seized by Thomas of Lancaster [174], must be returned
to the King.

On 16 December, four days before the treaty, Edward had granted Lancaster a safe-conduct and permission to use an escort of forty men-at-arms to bring him his possessions.

No action would be taken against Piers’ followers, and the three earls and all their own followers would be pardoned for anything they had done to Piers.

On 16 October 1313 at Westminster, Edward II pardoned the three earls, and more than 350 of their adherents, “of all causes of rancour, anger, distress, actions, obligations, quarrels and accusations, arisen in any manner on account of Piers Gaveston, from the time of our marriage with our dear companion, our very dear lady, Lady Isabella queen of England.”
Over 350 men were pardoned.
[175]

Of course this was only a show, because the King wanted
to take his revenge, but was was not in
the opportunity, since the power of the Earls was too strong.

The drama would continue.

And another dramatic addition:

When Piers Gaveston was murdered and the body
[that was simply ”left behind” at the place of the execution
and later found by a group of Dominican friars
brought the body and embalmed the body],
Piers Gaveston could not be buried in consecrated ground,
since he was excommunicated.
So the King had to wait, until he had secured a papal
absolution for his favourite. [176]
Eventually  when the absolution was given, Piers
Gaveston was burned at Langley Priory [founded
by Edward II]
at 2 or 3 january 1315…… [177]

AFTERMATH

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE KILLERS/BESIEGERS OF GAVESTON?

Readers, although the story writes itself, I think you want
to know in advance, what happened to the killers of
Piers Gaveston.

An overview:

Guy de Beauchamp, the [10th] Earl of Warwick:

As been written, Guy de Beauchamp, that great ally
of Thomas of Lancaster and bitter enemy of Piers
Gaveston, had abducted him [Piers Gaveston] from
the custody of the Earl of Pembroke,
brought him to Warwick Castle, put him in one of his dungeons
and awaited Thomas of Lancaster and the Earls of Hereford
and Arundel.
Gaveston was given a mock trial and put to
death at Blacklow Hill.
Warwick didn’t attend the murder, in contary with the other
three Earls.

After Gaveston’s death, Warwick remained the enemy
of the King [received pardon nevertheless] and refused
to participate in the campaign of Edward II against
the Scots, which resulted in the defeat at Bannockburn. [178]
However, In mid-July Warwick had to withdraw from government to his estates, due to illness.[36]
He died on 12 August 1315. [179]
There were rumours that Edward II had him poisoned,
but there is no proof for that. [180]

In contrary with Thomas Lancaster, he was an intelligent and skilled politician and was undoubtedly greatly missed by him [:Lancaster]

HUMPHREY DE BOHUN, 4TH EARL OF HEREFORD

One of the killers of Piers Gaveston, who attended his
murder was King’s the [4th] Earl of Hereford.
He did fight in the battle of Bannockburn, was taken
prisoner and although he was out of grace after the
murder of Piers Gaveston, was ransomed by Edward
II, obviously on the pleading of his [Edward’s] wife,
Isabella. [181]
Éventually, he joined the second rebellion of Thomas
of Lancaster and was killed in the Battle of Bouroughbridge.
[182]

EDMUND FITZALAN, [9TH] EARL OF ARUNDEL

Together with Thomas of Lancaster and the  Earl of
Hereford, the Earl of Arundel watched the murder of
Piers Gaveston, after [with Warwick, Lancaster and Hereford]
condemning him to death in a mock trial.
However, he turned to the King again in 1313 [and married
his son Richard to the daughter of Hugh Despenser the Younger,
the Kings later favourite].
As result of his loyalty, he was executed in 1326, when
Isabella of France and her [supposed] lover Roger
Mortimer invaded England and deposed Edward II. [183]

AYMER DE VALENCE, 2ND EARL OF PEMBROKE

The Earl of Pembroke was one of the besiegers of Castle
Scarbourough, where Piers Gaveston was hiding.
And he was a man of honour, who gave Gaveston his
word for his safety and was honestly shocked, when
the Earl of Warwick abducted him.
He tried to save Gaveston by appealing for justice
at the University of Oxford and Gaveston’s brother in
law, the Earl of Gloucester, but to no avail. [184]
Being shocked at this violation of his honour,
he sided with the King again [185], tried to prevent
civil war by mediating between the King and Thomas
of Lancaster.
Eventually he came into trouble because the rise
of the Despensers, was sent to an embassy in France
and died there.  [186]

JOHN DE WARENNE, 7TH EARL OF SURREY

With the Earl of Pembroke and others one of the besiegers
of Castle Scarbourough.
However, unhappy with the extrajudicial execution of Piers Gaveston,
he sided with the King again.
Later he had a long lasting feud with Thomas of Lancaster over
his supposed role in the abduction of Lancaster’s wife.
Together with the Earl of Arundel, they were the last Earls, who
remained loyal to Edward II, when his wife Isabella of France
and her [possible] lover Roger Mortimer invaded England.
After the execution of Arundel, he went over to Isabella and
Mortimer.
Eventually he died peacefully in 1345, as one of the few Earls
during the reign of Edward II. [187]

HENRY DE PERCY, 1ST BARON PERCY

Together with Thomas of Lancaster he had pusued the King and Gaveston
on their way north.
Later he was one of the besiegers of Castle Scarbourough, but as Pembroke
and Warenne, not involved in the murder of Gaveston.
Yet out of revenge and being less powerful than the Earls, complicitín the
murder, the King confiscated his lands in 1312 and had him imprisoned.
However:
The earls made Percy’s release a priority in their dnegotiations with the king and he was freed in January 1313. and was formally pardoned,

with the others involved. [188]
He didn’t participate in the Battle of Bannockburn, along with five of the earls and many other nobles refused summonses to this campaign because it had not been sanctioned by parliament, as required by the Ordinances.
In the first half of October 1314 Henry Percy died, aged forty one, of unknown causes. [189]

ROBERT CLIFFORD, 1ST BARON DE CLIFFORD

As Henry Percy, baron de Clifford had pusued the King and
Gaveston on their way North, under the leadership of
Thomas of Lancaster.
He also was one of the besiegers of Castle Scarbourough.
And in contrary with Henry Percy, Thomas of Lancaster,
the Earl of Warwick and many other nobles he DID fight
in the Battle of Bannockburn and was killed. [190]

Who also was killed in the Battle of Bannockburn,
was Gilbert de Clare, the [8th] Earl of Gloucester,
the brother in law of Piers Gaveston, who neither pusued him or
besieged him, but refused to help him when was asked
by the Earl of Pembroke. [191]

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST/THOMAS, 2ND  OF LANCASTER
What happened to Thomas of Lancaster, how his
illustrious life ended, is yet shrouded in mist……

The story will tell…….

READ FURTHER

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II/From warlord to Saint/Chapter Three

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

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

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_Lancaster7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.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/

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_Castlemanuscript-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/

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

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_Lancaster


Dear Readers
Recently I sent you chapter one and two of my ”book” article ”Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint”It is a travel to 14th century history of England and narrates the turbulent lifeof Earl Thomas of Lancaster, cousin of king Edward IIBecause it is extended, I do you the favour of sending my major article to you in chapters
So recently the chapters one and two
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/

Today, chapter threeENJOY and travel with me to 14 century England……

CHAPTER THREE

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

No.
Because of the bitter battle between King Edward II and his
cousin, Thomas of Lancaster, there are people, who think,
that they were enemies from the very beginning.
However, that’s not the case.

Originally, Thomas was loyal to Edward and in good terms with him,
also before his accession of King.
For example:
In 1305, Thomas was forced to apologise to Edward for being unable to come and attend him, as he was ill. Edward wrote back to say that he hoped to visit Thomas soon, “to see and to comfort you.” [76]

At Edward’s Edward’s coronation, on 25 february 1308, Thomas carried Curtana,
the sword of St Edward the Confessor [one of the last
Anglo Saxon Kings before William the Conqueror]  [77]
And when you read the rest of the story, it will come as
a surprise to you, that according to some sources,Thomas was not after Kings’ favourite Piers Gaveston [78] from day one, but was initially rather on good terms
with him. [79]
He remained loyal to Edward, when in the spring of 1308, the majority
of the barons were pressing for Piers Gaveston’s exile. [80]

However it seems, that  in november 1308, Thomas suddenly
left the Court, from reasons unknown. [81]

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1 -250

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II/From warlord to Saint/Chapter Two

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

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_Lancaster


Dear Readers
Recently I sent you chapter one of my ”book” article ”Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint”It is a travel to 14th century history of England and narrates the turbulent lifeof Earl Thomas of Lancaster, who was one of the mightiest man of his Time, ,nobleman, warlord and cousin of king Edward II.And the most fascinating question:How does a warlord become a Saint?Read further, then you’ll get the answer…..
Because it is extended, I do you the favour of sending my major article to you in chapters
Recently chapter one
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/

Today, chapter twoENJOY and travel with me to 14 century England……

CHAPTER TWO

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

In the beginning there seemed to be no trouble in paradise.
Grandson of King Henry III, nephew of King Edward I, who
probably arranged for him  the splendid marriage with Alice de
Lacy [70], daughter of Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln [71]
[by the death of his father in law, Henry de Lacy, Thomas was to inherit the
Earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury, added to the Earldoms
he inherited from his father, Edmund Crouchback [72] namely Lancaster, Leicester and Derby, which made him one of the richest
nobles in the land] [73],
what stood in the way of a splendid career?

And it all seemed going just fine:

On reaching On reaching full age he became hereditary Sheriff of Lancashire, but spent most of the next ten years fighting for Edward I in Scotland, leaving the shrievalty in the care of deputies.[74]
He served his uncle King Edward I, by participating in the battle
of Falkirk in 1298. [75]

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1 – 250

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II/From warlord to Saint/Chapter One

THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II

/FROM WARLORD TO 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_Lancaster

Chapter one

Travelling to 14th century Medieval England….

INTRODUCTION:Readers,
This is a fascinating story about
Thomas of Lancaster and the persons
and events that played an important part in his
life in a very turbulent time.
But like
all fascinating stories, it is not told
in two minutes. It is a real longread.

To understand the political situation
in the early fourteenth century, especially
chapter one, four and five are important.
Chapters six describes the outbreak of the
war between Thomas and his cousin
the King, the chapters seven and eight the
dramatic end.
Chapters nine and ten, what happened
thereafter.

And I end with the Epilogue, giving my final opinionabout the life and activitities of Thomas of Lancaster.Read all the Chapters with care and attention and you
will enter the Medieval world…..
As the attentive reader will know, I have editedmy ”Book” before
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-iifrom-warlord-to-saint/

OR
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint/

But to make it easily readable for my readers, who enjoy history like me, I’ll send itto you in different chapters, so for you it is more easy to read and newreaders can wonder, how the story goes on
SO HERE COMES FIRSTCHAPTER ONEThe next chapters you’ll see in the next days
ENJOY!
BEFORE CHAPTER ONE
”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.
There is no middle ground”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ You_Win_or_You_Die
How many warlords were proclaimed ”holy” after
their death and were venerated as Saints?
Not many, I presume…..
Read further  and experience the excitement of a turbulent
time, with violent, lawless men, thirsty for power.Come with me…..Today I, your travel companion through the Middle Ages, introduce to you
an extroardinary man, who was a warlord, England’s
de facto ruler for certainly four years,  fighting his cousin
King Edward II for nearly ten years.His name was Thomas, the second Earl of Lancaster [1].
No, NOT to be confused with his younger  brother Henry, third Earl of Lancaster, [2]
one of the ancestors of the House of Lancaster [3], that branch of
the Plantagenet Royal House, which fought
a battle to the death with another Plantagenet branch,
the House of York [4] in the Wars of the Roses. [5]
This was Thomas, second Earl of Lancaster, lesser
known, but in his time, a man of power and absolutely not insignificant.
That’s the reason I write about him, because I feel
people should know more about him.Besides:He intrigues me
Because as I said,  not only he was the de facto ruler in England
for certainly four years, fighting his cousin, King Edward II
for many years and making his own laws.

But again:

How many warlords end up ”holy”, as a Saint?

Follow me, through the chapters of history, containing
power,treason, ambition, passion
deceit, cruelty, but also….chivalry….
CHAPTER ONE

A

IN GENERAL/
FAMILY TIES/HISTORICAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN
KINGS AND BARONS/PERSONAL LIFE/POWER AND WEALTH

FAMILY TIES (1)

Thomas was the first cousin of  King Edward II
[King from 1307-1327] [6], since Thomas’ father, Edmund
Crouchback, the first Earl of Lancaster [7], was the younger brother of King Edward I [8],
,father of Edward II.
But he also was the uncle of Queen Isabella of France [9] [wife
of Edward II and daughter of the French King, Philip IV, the Fair,
the Hammer of the Templars] [10], since he was the half-brother
of her mother, Joan I of Navarre [wife of King Philip IV] [11]

Yes my readers, so complicated were the family relations of the
English nobility, not only because of internarriage
with each other, but also with French nobility [also Spanish,
Flemish and other, but often, French]

To give another example to ”tease” you a little and showing
the complexity of noble family relations:

Edward II had two halfbrothers, Thomas, Earl of
Norfolk [12] and Edmund, Earl of Kent [13], since
his father Edward I remarried after the death of his first wife,
Edward II’s mother, Eleanor of Castile. [14]

But the wife he remarried, was Margaret of France. [15]
the sister of the French
King, Philip IV [the Fair] [16], father of Isabella, future wife
of Edward II
[on the moment Edward I married the lady, Isabella was not
yet married to Edward II]

SO:
The Earls of Norfolk and Kent [halfbrothers of Edward II]
were, of course, the brothers in law of Queen Isabella, but
also her first cousins, since their mother, Queen Margaret of France [17], was
also the sister of Isabella’s  father, King Philip IV, the Fair. [18]

No wonder Papal Dispensation was often needed for noble
marriages! [19]

B

CONFLICT SEEN IN A BROADER LIGHT/ABOUT
CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION

Let’s go to Thomas’ interesting, but turbulent life, in a turbulent
time, which led to the disaster of many, including the King. [20]

As shows the story, Thomas of Lancaster had a major conflict with the
King, was four years long the uncrowned King and  two times
leader of oppositional barons against King’s power, leading two
rebellions against the King. [21]

Now some sources called Thomas lawless, violent and powerseeking. [22]
He may have been all that [I am not going to deny that, on the contrary],
but it is shortsighted to see the conflict only from that personal point of view.

It’s more complicated:

Because this was not only a conflict between two powerful men,
cousins, one the King and the other close to the throne.
No:
Moreover this conflict revealed the eternal struggle between centralization and
decentralization.
Between a King and his feudal lords about who should control
the country.

When the King was a ”strong leader”, like Edward I [23], he held the
nobles in order, when the authority was weaker, the nobles
gained power.
The causes of a weak authority may have differed, but fact was,
that nobility, of course, took advantage of weak leadership.

C

EARLIER CONFLICTS BETWEEN KINGS AND THEIR BARONS [24]

KING JOHN [LACKLAND] AND HIS BARONS

As I wrote, apart from the specific circumstances [see below], the fight
between Edward II and his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster has to be viewed
in a broader light:
The struggle between centralization [the Kings absolute power, ”divine
majesty”] [25]
and decentralization [increasing inluence of his feudal lords, the nobility].

Edward II was not the first King, who had serious conflicts with his barons

As well as his greatgrandfather John Lackland [John, King of England], [26]
as his grandfather, King Henry III [27], clashed with their barons:

Because the times changed:

Were John Lackland’s father, King Henry II [28], as his brother, Richard I
of England [The Lion Heart] [29], kings, who ruled on the basis, that the King was
”above the law” [divine majesty”]
, in the time of John Lackland,
there were contrary opinions expressed about the nature of kingship, and many contemporary writers believed that monarchs should rule in accordance with the custom and the law, and take counsel of the leading members of the realm. [30]

[31]
Now John Lackland was, as a person,  hard to
deal with and increasing troubles were ahead:

He had a serious conflict with Pope Innocentius III [32], which resulted in
an interdict of England [33] and John’s excommunication [34]
King John was  reported nearly to have converted to Islam in order
to get support from Caliph Nasir, asking for help…..[35]

He clashed [almost from the beginning of his reign]
with his barons, wanting to hold on

his ”rights” and claimed an “almost imperial status” for himself as ruler. [36]

This resulted in a number of wars with the barons, leading
to the Magna Charta in 1315, enlarging the power of the barons. [37]

KING HENRY III AND HIS BARONS/SIMON DE
MONTFORT

During the reign of King Henry III [38], son of John Lackland and
grandfather of Edward II, at first peace seemed to be restored with
the barons. [39]

But…..nothing lasts forever!

Henry faced a true crisis with the barons, who rose against him
under the leadership of Henry’s brother in law, Simon de Montfort,
6th Earl of Leicester [40], who had [seen in the light of that
time], radical reform ideas. [41]
He was the de facto ruler of England for less than a year. [42]
and is known to have established a Parliament, with not only
the barons and the knights of the shires [43], but also burgesses
[44] of the major towns. [45]
This parliament is sometimes referred to as the first English parliament and Montfort himself is often termed the founder of the Commons.[46]

At the end, he died in the battle of Evesham in 1265, beaten by
the troops of prince Edward [eldest son of Henry III], the latter King
Edward I [47]

In sofar there is a similarity with Thomas of Lancaster, who also ruled England
[de facto] and seemed to have been influenced by
Simon de Montfort’s ideas. [48]

That being said:
Yet I think, that Thomas, far more than Simon de Montfort,
had a personal power motive to wage war on his cousin Edward II.

Besides I don’t think, that Thomas of Lancaster was interested in more
reforms than greater power for the barons.

D

THOMAS OF LANCASTER, DESCENT AND FAMILY TIES [EXTENDED] (2)

Thomas of Lancaster [c 1278-1322], who became the great adversary of his cousin
King Edward II, was the eldest son of Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl
of Lancaster [49], who
was the second son of King Henry III [50], and brother of King Edward I. [51]
Thomas’ younger brother was Henry, [later the 3rd Earl of Lancaster] [52], ancestor
of the House of Lancaster.  [53]

SO:
He was the cousin of King Edward II, since his father [Edmund Crouchback] was
the brother of Edward II’s father, King Edward I.

Thomas’ mother was Blanche of Artois [54], daughter of Count
Robert I of Artois [55], who was the son of the French King Louis
VIII [56] and the brother of King Louis IX [also called ”Saint Louis”] [57]
Which made Blanche the niece of King Louis [IX]
”Saint Louis”

SO:
Thomas of Lancaster descended from both English and French royal
Houses, being the grandson of King Henry III and the greatgrandson
of the French King Louis VIII.

A good Medieval curriculum vitae!

But there was more to the story:

When his mother, Blanche of Artois, married his father,
Edmund Crouchback, she was a Dowager Queen, having been
married with King Henry I of Navarre. [58]
From that marriage, a daughter was born, Joan I of Navarre. [59]

And this Joan I of Navarre was the mother of Isabella of
France, the wife of King Edward II.

Thomas was, therefore, the cousin of King Edward II, and
the uncle of Queen Isabella of France!

E
THOMAS OF LANCASTER/PERSONAL LIFE

Thomas of Lancaster was married with Alice de Lacy [60], daughter
and heiress of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln [61].
Jure uxoris [inheritance by the right of a wife] [62] Thomas had inherited in 1311 the lands of his father in law,
for which he paid homage to King Edward II [quite a story! See below] [63],
which made him rich and powerful, in combination with the lands he had
inherited from his father. [64]
The marriage is assumed to be unhappy [65] and they had no children together.
Although, Thomas fathered, llegitimately, two sons with another woman. [66]

Alice was abducted in 1317 by Richard de St Martin, a knight in the service
of John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey. [67]
This incident caused a feud between Lancaster and Surrey; Lancaster divorced his wife and seized two of Surrey’s castles in retaliation. King Edward then intervened, and the two Earls came to an
uneasy truce.[68]

F

POWER AND WEALTH

Because of his royal position and the inherited lands of his
father and father in law, Thomas was one of the richest and
most powerful men in England.
His annual income was a huge eleven thousand pounds. [69]

Of course it was easy for a that powerful man to raise
an army, when the time was ripe…..

SEE YOU SOON, FOR CHAPTER TWO

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1 – 250

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Archie Harrison’s first Birthday!/Lord Archie, Happy Birthday for you and your parents, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!

ARCHIE HARRISON’S FIRST BIRTHDAY!/LORD ARCHIE, HAPPY BIRTHDAY FOR YOU AND YOUR PARENTS THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX! 

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
The Sussexes in South Africa

The Sussexes in South Africa. Credit: PA
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-06/in-pictures-archies-first-year/

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-revealshttps://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/https://www.astridessed.nl/a-royal-baby-for-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-lord-archie-welcome-to-the-world/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJSNMqub8g
Today, the 6th of may, is the first Birthday of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.It is my great pleasure , from my website, to congratulate Lord Archie and wish him and his parents a Happy Birthday!As also his grandparents.And especially too his greatgrandparents Queen Elisabeth and her husband, Prince Philip  [Duke of Edinburgh]

MANY HAPPY RETURNS OF THE DAY!

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

Astrid Essed 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Archie Harrison’s first Birthday!/Lord Archie, Happy Birthday for you and your parents, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Royal exit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle mainly caused by racist smearcampaign/Letter to the Editor

ROYAL EXIT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE MAINLY CAUSED BY RACIST SMEARCAMPAIGN/LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Queen Elizabeth II and the Duchess of Sussex

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

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
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

INTRODUCTION
As my loyal readers know, I’ve recently written some pieces about the step by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle no longer to use their royal titles and divide their life between Great Britain and North America. [1]As I wrote before, I am convinced that this step, apart from  royalty pressure, the couple has been bullied away by the systematic smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, with racist undertones, openly and more hidden.[2]I wrote about this and pointed out some dirty examples. [3]But the beauty of the whole thing is, that Prince Harry and Meghan were completely supported by the Queen, who gave two firm statements to empower them [4]In the last statement, where all arrangements were confirmed regarding the new life of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Queen utterly stated, how proud she wsas of Meghan:I quote from the statement of the Queen:I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. [5]The Queen also stated:”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. [6]That’s a statement!Well done, Your Majesty, as I wrote at the occasion of her first supportive statement [7]

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
As I told you, I wrote an article about the racist smearcampagn against Meghan Markle [8], which was launched since Meghan was still a special girlfriend of Prince Harry.In the article you can read how some racist remarks were made already in 2016 [9] and also the statement of Prince Harry in which he referred to the ”racist undertones in some comments” [10]But the harassing of Meghan Markle went on and last year, in 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt compelled to sue a newspaper for publicizing a private letter of Meghan and again they referred to the bullying campaign of the press, or at least parts of them [11]
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
But I was not finished writing about the Prince Harry/Meghan case, mainly because I can’t stand injustice and racism is one of the most injustice things you can imagine.
So I decided to write a Letter to the Editor, which I’ve sent to a great scala of English, Scottish, US and also Irish newpapers.
No Idea whether it is published or not, so here I share my Letter to the Editor with you and you can read it right below.Under my Letter to the Editor, the notes belonging to this Introduction piece.
And especially for you, readers, in note 12 the consequences of the new step in the life of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
ENJOY READING!
Astrid Essed

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TITLE:ROYAL EXIT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MAINLY CAUSED BY RACIST SMEARCAMPAIGN 

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

The role that parts of the British press and the tabloids have played in the decision of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to give up their role as senior royals and divide their life between England and North America, is a shame and disgrace.Because I am convinced that, except for other possible causes of their departure [like the burden of royal publicity], the couple is bullied away by a smear campaign against Meghan Markle.This smearcampaign with openly and more hidden racist undertones, is proven true by some very destructive comments in the press:The most horrible one was done by the now fired BBC radio broadcaster jour Danny Baker, calling Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie a chimpanzee.However, this racism started from the moment it was known, that Meghan Markle was Prince Harry’s special girlfriend.In november 2016, in a statement Prince Harry accused the press of  racist undertones in some comment against Meghan Markle and expressed his worries about her safety.A  tabloid columnist wrote in 2016  about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA” , referring to her Afro Americam descent from her mother’s side.Also in 2016,  a newspaper described Meghan Markle’s roots as almost ”straight outta Compton”, referring to ghetto and gang violence.Recently [january 2020] a radio producer called Meghan  ”uppity”, a word, wich, in connection with Afro Americans, meant, that they ”didn’t know their place”Then there is the exaggerated way every act of  Meghan Markle is watched, in the most childish way:She was criticized because she ate avocado’s [in 2019], another time because she kept holding her hands on her bump [in 2019], while pregnant [while Kate Middleton was praised for that same act by the same newspaper, in 2018], for wearing dark nail polish [in 2019], and so on.Why not blame her for the global warming and the forest fires in Australia?Again, in october 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt the need to complain about this harassment, sueing a newspaper for publicising a private letter of Meghan.One of the individuals who is nearly obsessed by Meghan Markle is TV personality Piers Morgan, who has made his life goal of harassing Meghan Markle nearly from the moment she set foot on British soil.But the haters didn’t win, because like the Queen stated, Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of her family.I wish the couple all the peace and happiness in the world and the journalists, under you, who harassed Meghan Markle:Shame on you!
Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands

NOTES AT ”INTRODUCTION”

[1]

BBCPRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

Last October, Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”

They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”

‘Major rift’

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong”.

“I think it indicates a real strength of feeling in the palace tonight – maybe not so much about what has been done but about how it has been done – and the lack of consultation I think will sting.“This is clearly a major rift between Harry and Meghan on one part, and the rest of the Royal Family on the other.”

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were “at an early stage”, adding: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”

Over Christmas, the couple took a six-week break from royal duties to spend some time in Canada with their son, Archie, who was born in May.After returning to the UK on Tuesday, Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, visited Canada’s High Commission in London to thank the country for hosting them and said the warmth and hospitality they received was “unbelievable”.

During the visit, Meghan said it was an “incredible time” to enjoy the “beauty of Canada”.

“To see Archie go ‘ah’ when you walk by, and just see how stunning it is – so it meant a lot to us.”Former actress Meghan lived and worked in Toronto during her time starring in the popular US drama Suits, and she has several Canadian friends.

Close up, it was painfully clear that there were great chunks of the job they simply could not stand.

Both of them appeared to come alive with the crowds. But Harry hated the cameras and was visibly bored by the ceremonial.

And though Meghan was often the consummate professional, at times her impatience with the everyday slog of the role sometimes broke through.

She said she didn’t want to become a voiceless figurehead; but when she raised her voice, she found criticism waiting for her.

They both made their feelings known in the 2019 interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.

But beyond the detail, what was so shocking was how unhappy they both seemed. The sun-drenched wedding of the year before seemed like a dream; here were two people visibly struggling with their lives and positions.

There are far more questions than answers; what will their new role be? Where will they live, and who will pay for it? What relationship will they have with the rest of the Royal Family?

And there’s the institutional question. What does this mean for the Royal Family?

It comes just a few months after Prince Andrew stepped back from his duties. Some might see this as the slimmed-down monarchy that the 21st century needs.

But Harry and Meghan reached people that other royals didn’t.They were part of the reinvention and refreshing of the institution. This was not the way anyone would have planned its future.

Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter suggested the decision showed Prince Harry’s “heart ruling his head”.

He told the BBC the “massive press onslaught” when their son Archie was born may have played a part in the decision.

And he compared the move to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 in order to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.“That is the only other precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in modern times,” Mr Arbiter said.

Asked how being a “part-time” member of the Royal Family might work, Mr Arbiter said he did not know.

“If they’re going to be based in the UK, it means they are going to be doing a lot of flying [with] a big carbon footprint,” he said, adding that this may “raise eyebrows”.

He also questioned how the couple would become financially independent.

“I mean, Harry is not a poor man, but to settle yourself in two different continents, to raise a family, to continue to do your work – how’s the work going to be funded?

“How is their security going to be funded?

“Because they’re still going to have to have security – who’s going to have to pay for this? Where’s the security coming from? Is the Metropolitan Police going to be providing it and if so whether there’s going to be any contribution in covering the security cost?”Mr Arbiter also suggested questions would be raised over why £2.4m of taxpayer’s money was spent on renovating the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, if they will now be living elsewhere for some of the year.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have “considerable savings”, including Harry’s inheritance from Princess Diana’s estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.

But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: “There is a problem for members of the Royal Family – relatively senior ones, even if they say they’re no longer senior – getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest”.

He added that we are now in “wait and see mode” as to whether this new model of being a royal can work – “or if this is really a staging post for them to leave the Royal Family”.

The Prince of Wales pays for the public duties of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate and some of their private costs, out of his Duchy of Cornwall income, which was £21.6m last year.

Accounts from Clarence House show this funding – in the year Meghan officially joined the Royal Family – stood at just over £5m, up 1.8% on 2017-18.

Royal author Penny Junor said she “can’t quite see how it’s going to work”, adding: “I don’t think it’s been properly thought through.”“I think it’s extraordinary but also I think it’s rather sad,” she said. “They may not feel they are particularly loved but actually they are very much loved.”

In an ITV documentary last year, Meghan admitted motherhood was a “struggle” due to intense interest from newspapers.

Prince Harry also responded to reports of a rift between him and his brother William, the Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.

In October, the duchess began legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.And the duke also began legal action against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking.

Prince Harry also released a statement, saying: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

The duke and duchess moved out of Kensington Palace, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge live, in 2018 to set up their family home in Windsor.

Then last summer, they split from the charity they shared with Prince William and Kate to set up their own charitable projects.The couple’s announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.

[2]
DEWERELDMORGEN.BEQUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!ASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[3]
DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[4]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS
https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
[5] 
”I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family”

STATEMENT FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

The British Monarchy

Published 18 January 2020

Statement from HM The Queen.

Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my

grandson and his family.

Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.

I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.

I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.

ENDS

Statement from Buckingham Palace

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties.  With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private

patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.

This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.ENDS

[6]
”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family 

STATEMENT FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

[7]

DEWERELDMORGEN.BEQUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!ASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[8]

DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[9]

SEE FOR THE RACIST UNDERTONES OF PARTS OF THE BRITISH PRESS AND TABLOIDS

DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[10]
A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
8 NOVEMBER 2016 
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

The British Monarchy

Published 8 November 2016

Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never 

been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.

Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.
[11]

THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father

Prince compares wife’s treatment to Diana’s as proceedings over private letter are announced

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.

The decision came as Prince Harry launched an extraordinary and highly personal attack on the British tabloid press and its treatment of his wife, saying he could no longer be a “silent witness to her private suffering”.Emphasising his respect for the importance of “objective, truthful reporting”, he accused parts of the media of “waging campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences” and compared the treatment of Meghan to coverage of his mother, Princess Diana.

The duke said his “deepest fear is history repeating itself”. He wrote: “There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

“Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one … I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person.“I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

The statement, issued on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official website on Tuesday, was published as Meghan moved to start proceedings in the high court over the misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).The Guardian reported this year that the Mail on Sunday was being threatened with legal action because the authors of letters retain ownership of the copyright even after the physical correspondence is in the possession of another individual. Pursuing legal action on this narrow basis also gives the royals a greater chance of success against DMG Media, formerly Associated Newspapers, which also owns the Daily Mail and MailOnline – both of which have run a substantial number of stories about Meghan.

The Mail on Sunday has run multiple embarrassing stories involving the duchess’s father, Thomas Markle, including staged paparazzi photographs of him visiting an internet cafe to read about his daughter’s engagement to the prince.

Other critical coverage of the couple has ranged from their use of private jets to their refusal to allow media coverage of the christening of their baby son Archie or name his godparents. They have also been criticised for the £2.4m cost to the public purse for renovations at their Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage.However, the royals have limited ability to stop the publication of such stories, prompting the decision to focus on the publication of Meghan’s letter to her father.

The photographs of the letter remain available on MailOnline. A spokesman for the newspaper stood by its reporting, setting up a potential court showdown: “The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously. Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.”

Meghan and Harry, who are on a 10-day tour of southern Africa, have employed the libel lawyers Schillings, using private funds to bring the case.

In his statement, Harry emphasised that he and Meghan believed in “media freedom and objective, truthful reporting” as a “cornerstone of democracy”.“There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been.

“Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

“I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.”

The statement is unprecedented in the scale of its attack on the media, although it is far from the first time Harry has taken on the press.

When news of his relationship with Meghan Markle became public, he criticised “racial overtones” in reporting.Last week, it emerged he had complained to the BBC for broadcasting and publishing online an image from a neo-Nazi social media site that called him a “race traitor” and depicted the royal with a gun pointed at his head. Although the BBC internally and the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom rejected the complaint, ruling that the use of the image in a report about the activities of the group was in the public interest, the BBC did apologise for not warning the duke in advance.

His latest statement accused the British tabloid press of waging a “ruthless” campaign against Meghan that had “escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son”.

Harry, said the recent positive coverage of their African tour exposed “the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave”.

“She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.“For these select media, this is a game and one we have been unwilling to play from the start.”

A legal spokesperson for Schillings said: “We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband.

“Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

THE GUARDIANPUT SIMPLY, IT’S BULLYING: PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media

Prince says he has been ‘a silent witness’ to Meghan’s private suffering for too long’

Prince Harry’s full statement on his family’s relationship with the media, issued on Tuesday night after his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday over its decision to publish a private letter she had sent to her father.

As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.

There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack
that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.

For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.

This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.

There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.

[12]

IS HARRY STILL A PRINCE & OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT HARRY & MEGHAN MARKLE’S NEW ROLES ANSWERED
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/01/9234123/is-harry-still-a-prince

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle continue to step further away from the traditional royal path by abandoning their titles, an unexpected announcement just 10 days after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said they would split their time between North America and the U.K. Buckingham Palace said in a statement that Prince Harry and Meghan have agreed to no longer use the titles His/Her Royal Highness (HRH) as they step away from public duties as senior members of the royal family. The two will continue to work towards financial independence and have made their intention to pay back the public for renovations of their home, Frogmore Cottage. The latest announcement comes to the surprise of those who suspected the couple would retain their titles while stepping back from the royal family.
What does it mean to give up royal titles? Will Prince Harry get a last name? Is he still in line for the throne? Here are the answers to these burning questions and everything else you need to know about what will happen now that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are stepping back from their roles as senior members of the royal family.

Is Harry still a prince?

Yes, Prince Harry’s title sticks because he was born into it as the child of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. The titles in question that Prince Harry and Meghan are giving up are the HRH, or His/Her Royal Highness titles. These titles were limited to only the children (of either gender) and grandchildren of a sovereign in the male line by Queen Victoria in the 1830s, according to the BBC’s History Extra. It has since been expanded to include female heirs who may ascend to the throne. Additionally, Dr. Jonathan Spangler, a senior lecturer in history at Manchester Metropolitan University specializing in the history of the monarchy, explains that “George V in 1917, when modifying the house rules…clarified this, and added the eldest son of the eldest grandson.” Prince Harry will still be Prince Harry by birthright, but he will no longer be His Royal Highness Prince Harry, a title now granted at the pleasure of the Queen to senior working members of the royal family who are direct heirs.

Will Prince Harry and Meghan keep their titles?

Yes, Prince Harry and Markle are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The only title they are giving back are the HRH designation as they step back from royal duties. Otherwise, Prince Harry retains that official title, as well as those of Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. Meanwhile, Meghan’s official titles are Duchess of Sussex, which takes precedence because she holds it on her own right, and Princess Henry of Wales, which she holds through marriage.

What will Prince Harry and Meghan be called?

It is currently unknown whether the couple will take a last name after giving up their HRH titles. There is a case to be made for taking the name Wales, as Prince Harry was called Captain Harry Wales in the British Army. They may be known as the Sussexes, given that the Queen referred to them in her statement as “Harry and Meghan” and Buckingham Palace’s official statement referred to them as the Sussexes. The Sussex name is also prominent on baby Archie’s birth certificate, where Prince Harry’s full name is listed as His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex. The couple could also take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, as Windsor was officially adopted as the surname for the family in 1917 and Mountbatten-Windsor given as the specific distinction for direct descendants of the Queen and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. They could also come up with something completely different, like when Princess Eugenie took on the title Mrs. Jack Brooksbank after her wedding. Prince Harry, Mr. Meghan Markle, anyone? If in doubt, however, you can still call them Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

What does this mean for Prince Harry’s role British line of succession?

Nothing has changed in this regard. Prince Harry still remains sixth in line for the throne. It is still unlikely he will face any need to worry about the line of succession. Additionally, Prince Harry has not turned his back on his royal position completely — just the HRH title — in contrast with Edward VIII, who abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson in 1936, thus losing HRH and becoming the Duke of Windsor after his marriage. This led to King George VI, who left the throne upon his untimely death to his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II. Harry needing to ascend to the throne is a possibility only an is an extremely unlikely sequence of events. 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Royal exit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle mainly caused by racist smearcampaign/Letter to the Editor

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples

SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLES

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

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
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

”Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you”
Those are the words of Afua Hirsch, writer, broadcaster and former barrister [1], in connection with all the tabloid fuss against Meghan Markle, wife of Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex. [2]Words she wrote in the New York Times. [3]
Now I think the truth is somewhat in the middle:Even though racism plays a destructive part in British society, as in so many other countries, European or not, I think that, although racism follows you, it is not the only factor and one’s behaviour can make a change.
At the other side:
I must admit, that in the case of Meghan Markle, racism played a big part in the way the tabloids commented on her.
I was and am very annoyed by that and as you know or don’t know, I wrote two articles and a letter to the Council of Brighton to defend her. [4]Who knows me realizes that I can’t stand injustice and feel myself obliged to fight it.
And racism is one of the ugliest forms of injustice!

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STEPPED BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS
Now you all know, that recently, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back as senior royals [5] and that the Queen, Prince Harry’s grandmother, supported them in this [6], but declared:”Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.’ [7]
Of course she preferred them to stay.As a grandmother and greatgrandmother, wishing to spend time with her eighthgreatgrandchild, as a royal matriarch and as a Queen, keeping the roles of the Family intact!

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Recently I wrote a defense article, prasing the supportive statement of the Queen and analysing what, according to my views, among else [there may be other reasons I don’t know about] have led to Megxit, the fact that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out,their roles as fulltime royals in England.
And I stated, and the more I read the more I am convinced, that an important reason was the smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, shich had dirty, racist undertones and sometimes more than just undertones.
LORD ARCHIE A ”CHIMPANZEE”
Like the hateful Tweet of Donald Baker, no fired BBC reporter, who compared Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle newborn son with a chimpanzee! [8]
DO YOU IMAGINE!
Not only highly racist [people, who deny that this person is a racist or at least racist led in his comments, are close to suffer the same racist ”decease”’ [9]also mean and ugly, when you realize that new parents, who just were blessed with their first son, were confronted with this despicable stuff!

RACIST UNDERTONES
From the beginning of the relation between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a couple of tabloids and some other parts of the press launched a hateful smearcampaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones, as confirmed in a statement of Prince Harry, in november 2016, nearly two years before their marriage
I quote from the statement:
”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments” [10]
And although the racist thing is denied, for example by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle villifier, the broadcaster, journalist and TV personality, Piers Morgan [11], who stated, that their racism accusations are ”completely and grotesquely wrong” [12] I will show you in underlying, that there ARE racist undertones in the Meghan Markle smearcampaign broadcasting, as well openly, as more hidden.
But not only the press and tabloids!Newspaper The Sun wrote in march 2019, that Meghan Markle was bombed with 5200 hateful racist and sexist tweets in two months, and 70 percent abuse came from twenty trolls! [13]And also her sister in law, Kate Middleton, the wife of the Duke of Cambridge [Prince William, Harry’s elder brother and heir to the throne after his father, Prince Charles], was subjected to hateful, sexist tweets! [14]
READ ON ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE PRESS/TABLOIDS AND BE INDIGNANT WITH ME!
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART IOPENLY RACIST

A
 ”EXOTIC DNA” 
A tabloid columnist wrote about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA”, which refers to her Afro American descent [from her mother’s side, her father is a white American, Thomas Markle, a former TV lighting director and director of photography] [15] and therefore racist undertoned.
B
STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON
Another dubious  remark was made in a Daily Mail headline article, describing Meghan’s Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. [16]As you probably know, ”Straight outta Compton” as a picture about the rise and fall of the gangster rap group, N.W.A. from rapper and businessman Dr Dre and others[17]Those connection between being of Afro American descent and gangster life or ”gang-scarred neighborhood” is despicable and suggests THAT there is an automatic relation between being black and born in a hood [ghetto]and also being criminal.Newspapers should know better!

C
THE CHIMPANZEE AFFAIR
What was the limit, was the comparing of Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie, with a chimpzanzee by a now fired [because of this affair] BBC reporter, Danny Baker. [18]If that’s not a racist remark, then I don’t know what is!Yet idiots like Piers Morgan declare, that Danny Baker ”is not remotely racist as anyone who knows him” [19]I think that tells more about Piers Morgan than about Danny Baker…….
And now, a few minutes ago, I learnt, that Meghan has been bombarded with hundreds of racist and sexist tweets because of her and Harry’s stepping back as royals! [20]And not for the first time:As is written above, the newspaper the Sun wrote in march 2019 about thousands of racist and sexist tweets against Meghan, 70 percent coming from twenty trolls[see the notes 13 and 14]
How many idiots are there in this world?
D

UPPITY
There is more.Recently, after Megxit was announced [Harry and Meghan’s step out as senior royals], a Hannity radio producer called Meghan  ”uppity’ [21]I quote:”MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know? [22]
Now according to Cambridge dictionnary ”uppity” is a sort of ”neutral” term [I mean, nothing to do with race or descent]I quote Cambridge dictionnary:”An uppity person behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are” [23]
However, that’s only part of the story.For historically,  the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations [24]Namely it was used in the US in the 19th century as an insult to black people, ”who didn’t know their place” [25]Places the word in a whole different other light…..
Of course:Most people don’t know the racist meaning of ”uppity”, but from journalists and TV personalities one may expect, that they know their historical stuff and otherwise do a proper investigation. After all, I found the sources also by proper searching! [26]
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART II/RACIST, IN A HIDDEN FORM
CHILDISH TABLOID STUFF
Not all negative comments on Meghan Markle are openly racist or have a racist undertone:But striking is the abnormal attention Meghan Markle gets, in the most silly circumstances.That says a lot and although not provable, seen in the whole light of the anti Meghan smear campaign, those not openly racist related comments must have a racist undertone, since Meghan Markle is practically singled out in the tsunami of negativity and other royals are more or less off the hook.
AND since the facts the socalled critique is that childish, that even children of primary school would find it below their dignity.



PIERS MORGAN/NOTORIOUS MEGHAN MARKLE STALKER
There isfor example  journalist and TV personality Piers Morgan, who seems obssessed by Meghan Markle, and also, in a lesser extent, by Prince Harry.  [27]So it was no surprise that he ranted and raved at the news that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out as senior royals and the supportive reaction of the Queen. [28]
LOL!AND THEN THE SUPER CHILDISH STUFF
Now some examples of being on Meghan’s ”tail” [29], which make no sense.There are a lot more, I presume, yet underlying things give an idea of the nonsense written about Meghan:
LOL 1
LOL!MEGHAN MARKLE EATS AVOCADO’S!/HOW DARES SHE!/
Surprise, surprise, the Daily Mail again…..In a nonsense article, Meghan Markle was critized for…..eating avocado’s [I quote] ”the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.” [30]
YEAH….A GREAT ONEFirstly, the one, who wrote that nonsense article, admitted, that avocado’s are well loved by all millennials [31], so why single Meghan Markle out!Secondly, I can understand, that people protest when avocado’s are produced in occupation countries as Israel, openly violating elementary human rights [32], but then there is a choice not to eat them, when descending from those countries, like I do.But not to eat all avocado’s is just nonsense.The problems the writer of this article mentioned ”water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation” [33], refers to more Third World products and has everything to do with unfair relations in the world, caused for a great part [apart from natural and climatical causes] by Western economic dominance of the Third World, supported by their local elites.
Does the writer of this article protests against those injustices?
No, he only uses it to attack Meghan Markle, simply eating an avocado!What about all the other royals, eating avocado’s?What about all milennials, eating avodaco’s?
No, this is only a childish attack on Meghan Markle!And I have news for him
I, Astrid Essed, eat avocado’s too [although not from certain countries like Israel, that very openly and shamelessly violate human rights]So I am a Third World destroyer too?
NONSENSE

LOL 2
VAIN AND PRIDEN  MEGHAN, YOU KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR BUMP!/OF COURSE IT IS ”TENDER” WHEN YOUR SISTER IN LAW KATE MIDDLETON DOES THE SAME THING!THERE MUST BE A DIFFERENCE/QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI! [33]
The following all too childish thing, Meghan Markle was critized for, of course [among else], again by stalking newspaper Daily Mail, was the fact, that Meghan, mother to be, had had the audacity to ”keep her hands on her bump”, a normal and affectionate thing any pregnant mother does.This nonsense article was titled ”Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride, vanity, acting – or a new age bonding technique?” [34]
No you, readers, will probably say”What nonsenseWhat is it to the Daily Mail, whether Meghan Markle keeps her hands on her OWN bump or not?What’s the newsvalue in it, even for tabloids?It is a private gesture of a happy mother to be, done by milliards of mothers before and after us!
It’s about stalking and harassing Meghan Markle again!
But now the cat is out of the bag! [35]
The Daily Mail anti Meghan article about ”keep her hands on her bump” was written on 26 january 2019 [36]But when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, acted on a similar way, that same Daily Mail wrote on 21 march 2018 ”NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW” [37]

Clearly, according to The Daily Mail, when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, keeps her hand on her bump” it is ”tenderly cradling her baby bump” [38], but when Meghan Markle acts the similar way, a year later it is suddenly ”vain” or acting” [39] 

Striking, isn’t it. Is this mere ”coincidence” or has it perhaps something to do with the fact that Kate Middleton is white and Meghan Markle is black.I don’t like to draw the black and white card, but the reader must admit, that this difference in approach from, here the Daily Mail, is at least, odd.
YEAH”QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI’ !” [40]

LOL 3O, NAUGHTY NAUGHTY MEGHAN, WEARING DARK NAIL POLISH
I think this newsmessage has written to give me a good laughHereby:HAHAHAHAHA!
It is really written:Meghan Markle wearing dark nail polish at some charity event and some Fashion award….. [41] and some royal watchers ”questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol” [42] Yes, some newsvalue.Of course I am not going to analyse such nonsense.I only mentioned it to show, what happens when they look at you through a magnifying glass.
EPILOGUE
I have enough of it!And if I do, how tiring and exhausting must it be for Meghan and also her husband Prince Harry.For it seems, that Meghan can’t do good, whatever she does. [43]
Types like obsessed Meghan stalker Piers Morgan [44]should be delighted, that the couple stepped out as senior royals, but yet they have something to bully and stalking them again! [45]
I can only cheer them on, taking the step to choose a new life [46] and the Queen for supporting them. [47]

EPILOGUE
Is Meghan the only British royal, ever to be bullied by the tabloid press?Of course not!In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops. [48]Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed. [49] 
But however unpleasant that is, that is nothing to compare with the ”damned if you do, damed if you don’t” campaign against Meghan Markle, with the apparent racist undertones:
Not convinced?Then againAbout Meghan is written among else [there was more, but Google for yourself]
Her “exotic” DNAHer Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood” She is described as ”uppity”Meghan’s and Prince Harry’s newborn son had been compared with a ”chimpanzee” [SEE MY NOTES]
That are all, without excemption, racist expressions!
FURTHER THE SILLY STUFF
That she keeps her hand on her OWN bump, that she is eating avocado’s, that she is wearing dark nail polish
By the way”:Did you know, dear readers, that the Global Warmimg, the outburst of Ebola and the forest fires in Australia is also Meghan’s fault?

EVERYTHING SAID AND DONE
Meghan and Prince Harry are driven out of England, mainly out of racism and parts of the British press and the tabloids are guilty of that.
Be proud of yourself, Meghan haters
It is in fact, what Guardian journalist Zoe Williams recently wrote
”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.

We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.” [50]

Happily, she has a supportive husband and I admire him for that, like I said before ‘[51]

The Queen also supports them [52]

And again, from this place, I defend them and especially -and that is the main reason I wrote this article – I fiercely condemn the racism that lead to it.

But haters, you will not win,

The fight for Freedom and Equality will continue, whether you like it or not!

Astrid Essed

NOTES[1]

WIKIPEDIAAFUA HIRSCH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afua_Hirsch

[2]
“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK
https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

TEXT

LONDON (AP) — When accomplished, glamorous American actress Meghan Markle married Prince Harry in 2018, she was hailed as a breath of fresh air for Britain’s fusty royal family. That honeymoon didn’t last.

Now the couple wants independence, saying the pressure of life as full-time royals is unbearable. And a debate is raging: Did racism drive Meghan away?When Prince Harry, who is sixth in line to the throne, began dating the “Suits” actress — daughter of a white father and African American mother — the media called it a sign that Britain had entered a “post-racial” era in which skin color and background no longer mattered, even to the royal family.

U.K. Labour Party lawmaker Clive Lewis, who like Meghan has biracial heritage, says the royal rift shows that Britain still has a problem with “structural racism.”

“We can see it with Meghan Markle and the way that she’s been treated in the media, we know that this is a reality of the 21st century, still,” Lewis told Sky News. “After 400 years of racism you can’t just overturn it overnight.”

Frederick W. Gooding, an assistant professor of African American studies at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, said it would be “disingenuous” to claim race had not been a factor in Meghan’s treatment.

“She was always going to be an outsider,” he said. “There was always going to be this barrier because of her race.”

From the start, some in the media wrote about Meghan using racially loaded terms. One tabloid columnist referred to her “exotic” DNA. A Daily Mail headline described her Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. A TV host described Meghan as “uppity.”

Meghan was criticized for everything from eating avocados — which the Daily Mail claimed fuel “human rights abuses, drought and murder” — to wearing dark nail polish, apparently an etiquette faux pas.

Morgan Jerkins, a senior editor at Zora, a Medium.com site for women of color, said that because Meghan was “an outsider, culturally, racially, and socioeconomically, she has been the royal family’s scapegoat.”

Others point out that Meghan is hardly the first royal to get a rough ride in the media. The press and the royal family have an intense and often toxic relationship going back decades. Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, was snapped by paparazzi wherever she went. When she and Prince Charles admitted that their marriage was in trouble, her private life became public property.

Diana was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997 while being pursued by photographers. Prince Harry, who was just 12 when his mother died, said in October he feared “history repeating itself. … I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

After Diana’s death, a chastened British press mended its ways — a bit. The media left young William and Harry alone in exchange for carefully staged interviews and photo opportunities as they grew up. That practice has continued with the three young children of William and his wife, Kate.

But in many ways little really changed. Royal stories still sell newspapers and generate clicks. That has meant intense — and even illegal — scrutiny. In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops.

Younger female royals are routinely judged on appearance, demeanor and habits. Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed.

Still, Meghan’s treatment has sometimes seemed harsher. Last year the Daily Mail ran photos of a pregnant Meghan cradling her bump under the headline: “Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump?” Months earlier the same paper had described a pregnant Kate as “tenderly” cradling her bump.

British Home Secretary Priti Patel denied Meghan has suffered from racist media coverage,

“I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all,” Patel, who is of Indian heritage and whose parents emigrated to Britain from Uganda, told the BBC. “I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”

But others say the media double standard Meghan faced is evidence that talk of “post-racial” Britain is wildly premature.

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

That feeling was echoed by Hayley Oliver, a recent Virginia Tech graduate who wrote a college essay about how Meghan and other mixed-race women are treated in popular culture. She said Meghan had years of charitable work, including advocacy for women’s healthcare and gender equality worldwide that preceded her marriage into the royal family.

“What about her in those roles?” said Oliver, who is also biracial and says she’s inspired by Meghan for the stances she takes. “When you see someone who looks like you. … it makes it easier to imagine yourself in that situation or the possibility of where you could go.”

While Britain is by most measures less racist than it used to be, non-white Britons are still over-represented among the poor and imprisoned, and under-represented at the top of well-paid professions, including politics, journalism and the law. Britain’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union — a move fueled in part by concerns about immigration — was followed by an increase in cases of racist abuse reported to police.

Meghan acknowledged in an October interview that she had been unprepared for the intense media scrutiny she would get as a member of the royal family. She told ITV journalist Tom Bradby that before she married Harry, “my British friends said to me, ‘I’m sure he’s great, but you shouldn’t do it, because the British tabloids will destroy your life.’”

“And I very naively … I didn’t get it,” she said.

Unlike other members of the royal clan, Meghan and Harry have pushed back. As long ago as 2017, Harry criticized “the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”

Now the couple has had enough. They plan to move part-time to Canada, withdraw from royal media-coverage arrangements and seek financial independence. The queen has reluctantly agreed to let them become semi-detached royals in order to avoid a damaging family split.

The racism debate will rage on. Writing in The Guardian, British columnist Nesrine Malik said she doubted it would have much positive effect.

She argued that the racism debate had become a “pantomime, in which everyone — people of color, tabloid journalists, TV hosts — is playing well-rehearsed parts.”

“Britain’s conversation about race endlessly repeats itself, first as tragedy, and for ever thereafter as farce,” she wrote.

[3]

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times. 
QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK

https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

[4]

QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!

ASTRID ESSED

14 JANUARY 2020

COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL 

ASTRID ESSED

20 DECEMBER 2019

NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!

ASTRID ESSED

21 DECEMBER 2019

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO

ASTRID ESSED

2 OCTOBER 2019

[5]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

Last October, Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.” 

END OF NEWS MESSAGE

STATEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE ON INSTAGRAM ABOUT STEP OUT

INSTAGRAM SUSSEXROYAL

https://www.instagram.com/sussexroyal/?utm_source=ig_embed

After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.

“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.

“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.

“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.

END OF THE INSTAGRAM MESSAGE OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE

SEE ALSO FOR THE MESSAGE

BBC

IN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947

[6]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

END OF THE ANNOUCEMENT OF THE QUEENBBCQUEEN  AGREES ”TRANSITION” TO NEW ROLE FOR HARRY AND MEGHAN14 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51099102

TEXT

The Queen has agreed a “period of transition” in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend time in Canada and the UK.

She said she was “entirely supportive” of their desire for a new role but “would have preferred” them to remain full-time working royals.

She expected final decisions to be made in the coming days, she said.

Senior royals have been in talks about Prince Harry and Meghan’s role after they said they wanted to “step back”.

In a statement, the Queen said the talks at Sandringham, which also involved the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, had been “very constructive”.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family,” she said.

“Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

She said it had been agreed there would be “a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK” after Harry and Meghan “made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives”.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days,” she said.

The urgent talks were convened after the Sussexes surprised the rest of the Royal Family on Wednesday with a statement expressing their desire to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family”.

They also said they wanted a “progressive new role” within the institution, where they would be financially independent and divide their time between the UK and North America.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Global News there had been “no discussions” about the details of the couple’s move, including on the issues of security and any potential impact on Canada’s taxpayers.

Although no other family member was consulted about the timing of the announcement, the duke and duchess said it came after “many months of reflection and internal discussions”.

Both Prince Harry and Meghan spoke of the difficulties of royal life and media attention in recent months, with the duke saying he feared his wife would fall victim to “the same powerful forces” that led to his mother’s death.

The talks about their future took place as Prince Harry and Prince William issued a joint statement denying “false claims” that their relationship had been damaged by “bullying” on the part of the older brother.

They said that the “inflammatory language” in the claims was “offensive” and “potentially harmful”, given their support for mental health causes.

This is a remarkably candid and informal, almost personal, statement from the Queen.

Her regret over Harry and Meghan’s move is obvious – she would have preferred them to stay in their current roles.

But she also makes clear that they are still royals and that they will be valued in the family as they become a more independent couple.

There are buckets of questions outstanding – on their future royal role, their relationship with the rest of the Palace, on who will pay what (not, the Queen says, the taxpayer), and on how Harry and Meghan will support themselves.

There’s still a lot to thrash out and to agree on. Not all of it may become public.

And it looks like the Queen sees this as a process, not an event. She writes of a transition period when Harry and Meghan divide their time between Canada and the UK.

The Queen has asked for decisions to be made over the next few days. But those decisions may well be up for review in the coming months and years.

line

Historian Robert Lacey told the BBC Radio 4’s PM programme the Queen’s statement following the meeting was unusually personal, with several references to “my family” and “my grandson”.

“It is remarkably hands-on. I mean it may have been processed through officials but this is the Queen, speaking to her people and speaking about her family, and I think coming right through it is the concern she feels,” he said.

Instead of using the formal titles of the couple – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – the Queen simply called them “Harry and Meghan”.

Penny Junor, an author of books about the royals, said that the statement “read to me like a grandmother talking about the family”, adding that it would “take the pressure off” the duke and duchess.

“I think they’re in a very vulnerable state at the moment. I think they’re unhappy, they feel isolated and unloved, unappreciated and they needed careful handling,” she said.

“My reading from that statement is that the family has been sensitive to their vulnerability.”

How did we get here?

In their statement on Wednesday, posted on the couple’s official Instagram account, the duke and duchess said they intend to “step back” as senior royals, spending time in North America, while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

It came after an interview last October, when Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

The duke also issued an impassioned statement attacking what he described as “relentless propaganda” in parts of the media, as lawyers for his wife began legal action against the Mail on Sunday.

The couple were already preparing to launch their own Sussex Royal charity, which they set up after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s foundation in June last year.

It was revealed in December that the couple had made an application to trademark their Sussex Royal brand for items including books, calendars, clothing, charitable fundraising, education and social care services.

[7]

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family. 


THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885 [8]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[9]

”Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

TEXT

Piers Morgan clashed with a Good Morning Britain guest in an explosive debate about whether the British press has been racist towards Meghan Markle. Writer, broadcaster, and former barrister Afua Hirsch joined the programme alongside columnist Sarah Vine, PR expert Nick Ede and former royal butler Paul Burrell and locked horns with the host as they discussed coverage of the Duchess of Sussex. ‘There have been allegations that she has been associated with very racialised forms of crime, there have been discussions about her “exotic” DNA, her newborn baby was compared to a baby chimp,’ Afua began. But Piers quickly snapped back: ‘Is her DNA not exotic by royal standards? She’s the first mixed-race person to enter the royal family. Why do you take exception to the word exotic?’ ‘Because it others her and associates her with a history that has posited people of African heritage as other,’ Afua responded.

Susanna Reid then chipped in to urge Piers to let Afua speak as he attempted to speak over her. ‘You can’t just say these things are racist when they’re not,’ Piers quipped. ‘I’m telling you that as someone who’s lived the experience of being a person of African heritage in this country that there are narratives that are regularly…’ Afua continued. But before she had time to continue her point, Piers asked if she was accusing him of being racist. ‘I’m saying that the narratives that you’re perpetuating are racist,’ Afua added.

And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

[10]

A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
8 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

TEXT

The British Monarchy

Published 8 November 2016

Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.

He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.

But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.

[11]

WIKIPEDIAPIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[12] 
”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/13/piers-morgan-clashes-good-morning-britain-guest-explosive-meghan-markle-racist-media-coverage-debate-12048124/ 
[13]

THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

TEXT
The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by a group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

MEGHAN Markle was bombarded with 5,200 hateful and racist tweets in two months with the majority of abuse coming from 20 vile trolls, an investigation has found.The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by the group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

New analysis has revealed that these 20 accounts sent more than 3,600 hateful tweets directed at, or about, the Duchess of Sussex in just two months, CNN reported.

The Twitter bios associated with the trolls typically contained Meghan-related hashtags like #Megxit and #Charlatanduchess.

Advocacy group Hope Not Hate analysed a sample of more than 5,000 tweets, posted between January and the middle of February, that contained the most commonly used anti-Meghan hashtags.

VILE TROLL GANG

Analysis of the tweets found that 20 accounts were responsible for about 70 per cent of the tweets, sharing anti-Meghan hashtags, pictures and memes.

The small group of accounts that troll the Duchess often re-tweet news articles that portray Meghan negatively and use racist language.

The findings come after the Royal Family declared war on social media trolls warning that the worst offenders will be reported to police.

Buckingham Palace published rules for those wanting to post on all social media channels run by them, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.

Courtiers have said they will block abusers and even encourage police to take legal action if tweets or posts are particularly bad.

ABUSE TARGETED AT MEGHAN AND KATE

It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.

The Palace statement said: “We ask that anyone engaging with our social media channels shows courtesy, kindness and respect for all other members of our social media communities.”

The rules, listed on the Royal Family’s website, call for comments not to “contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence” or “promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.”

ROYALS DECLARE WAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA TROLLS

Palace aides are understood to have been particularly concerned about users abusing one another, often in the guise of supporting “Team Meghan” or “Team Kate”.

Meghan has been accused of faking her pregnancy, had horrendous racist abuse and even been subject to threats of violence.

When Meghan made a surprise appearance at the British Fashion Awards, the British Fashion Council removed an Instagram picture of her as there were more than 500 abusive comments.

In one appalling post about Meghan, a user wrote: “I publicly state I believe this woman is a textbook sociopath narcissist. 99.99999% she’s a vile wreckingball.”

On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”

Kensington Palace has already said that aides spend several hours a week trying to moderate and delete abusive comments – often on pictures of the Cambridges or the Sussexes.The statement said: “We reserve the right to determine, at our discretion, whether contributions to our social media channels breach our guidelines.

[14]
”It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.”

….

”On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”  
THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

[15]EXOTIC DNA

”If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”

THE DAILY MAILRACHEL JOHNSON: SORRY HARRY, BUT YOUR BEAUTIFUL BOLTER HAS FAILED MY MUM TEST6 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3909362/RACHEL-JOHNSON-Sorry-Harry-beautiful-bolter-failed-Mum-Test.html

When I look at Meghan Markle – the American small-screen actress currently starring as “Harry’s Hottie” – I can’t help it. I assess her as a future daughter-in-law.

Prince Harry, 32, lost his mother when he was a boy, and ever since that dark day I’ve had feelings for him. Maternal feelings. And every time he has a girlfriend, I subject her to the “Mum Test”. I try to decide whether Princess Diana (and the Queen) would give Chelsy, or Cressida, or Jenna, or whomever, the thumbs-up or down as a potential Royal consort and addition to The Firm.

So I have done my due diligence on Miss Markle, and this is where I stand. Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA. Miss Markle’s mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye. Miss Markle has an active social conscience, and anti-landmine campaigner Princess Diana would be delighted that she is the Ambassador for World Vision and has toured Afghanistan and Rwanda as part of her humanitarian effort.

She is also an accomplished actress and, indeed, her role as sultry paralegal Rachel Zane in TV series Suits is so popular that some clips from it have been viewed many, many thousands of times online (on a site I’m afraid readers will be unacquainted with called YouPorn).

Like Princess Diana, she wears her heart on her sleeve, and is emotionally open. “My cup runneth over,” she told the Toronto Sun, in her only comment on her new squeeze. “And I’m the luckiest girl in the world.”

As part of my research I had a look at her Instagram feed, along with the rest of the world, trying to read clues of her relationship status into pictures of bananas spooning and one of a jigsaw puzzle and a tea cup. (That one’s easy. “Jigsaw and cup of tea?” is, obvs, the couple’s secret, social media code for ‘Netflix and chill?’)

Apart from these teasing images (which add to the impression this showgirl has expertly ‘played’ the playboy Prince) you will find motivational quotes such as “Throw Kindness Around Like Confetti” and cute pictures of her two rescue dogs. This is all good so far, but there are, I admit, a couple of things that don’t pass the Mum Test.

She’s divorced and, as soon as she met Prince Harry, she is said to have dropped her gorgeous chef boyfriend like a hot brick, as she reeled in the biggest fish in the dating universe by not replying to Harry’s texts for several days (that old trick!).

And that’s a red line for a future mother-in-law. You see, if a girl does it to one man, to two men – there’s every chance she’ll do it to your son, too. As far as the Royal Family is concerned, a bolter is far worse than a black sheep.

Harry needs a sticker, a tremendous, limpet-like sticker, like Sophie Wessex. Or Kate Middleton. Nobody cares that Miss Markle is mixed race or a tease, but racy is a different story. Racy is not official Wife Material. Flirty Harry has met his match – and that means one thing.

I’ve turned up my hearing aid, but I’m still not hearing wedding bells, not this side of the Atlantic, anyway. Miss Markle may be truly scrumptious, but she still fails my Mum Test. 

WIKIPEDIA

THOMAS MARKLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

[16]THE DAILY MAILEXCLUSIVE: HARRY’S GIRL IS (ALMOST) STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON, GANG SCARRED HOME OF HER MOTHER REVEALED-SO WILL HE BE DROPPING BY FOR TEA?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html

Plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs, the troubled Los Angeles neighborhood that Doria Ragland, 60, calls home couldn’t be more different to London’s leafy Kensington.

But social worker Ragland might now find herself welcoming a royal guest to downtrodden Crenshaw after Prince Harry was revealed to be dating her daughter – Suits actress Meghan Markle.Markle, 35, is now based in Toronto, Canada, but her mother remains in LA and moved to her modest green-painted home five years ago after the death of her own father, Alvin, in 2011.

Markle was brought up in a large yellow-colored detached home in central Los Angeles, while her rumored royal boyfriend spent much of his childhood between Kensington Palace and Prince Charles’ Gloucestershire mansion, Highgrove.

But Harry’s literally palatial homes couldn’t be more different from the tatty one-storey homes that dominate much of Crenshaw.

And while there have been a total of 21 crimes in the immediate area around Highgrove over the past 12 months, 47 have taken place in Crenshaw in the last week alone – including murder and robbery.Other crimes noted over the past seven days include multiple drug-related misdemeanors, vehicle thefts, vandalism and disturbing the peace.

Local gangs include Crenshaw Mafia Gangster, which has been plaguing the area since 1981, and Bloods affiliates Center Park Blood.

Operating close by are the Westside Rollin’ 60’s Neighborhood Crips, one of the largest street crime collectives in Los Angeles, and branches of the Compton-based Piru gang.

Nevertheless – and in spite of the gangs – parts of Crenshaw are considered to be improving, among them the aptly named Windsor Hills.

Neighbor Michael McWilliams, 49, said he had not seen Doria since news of her daughter’s alleged dalliance with Prince Harry broke but described her as ‘a nice woman’.

‘I’ve never seen the little girl [Meghan] though,’ added McWilliams. ‘She [Doria] has been living here since her daddy [Alvin] died.’

Markle remains close to her mother, who divorced her father Thomas, 72, when she was six, and is often seen with her on the red carpet.

Thomas, a lighting director, is currently thought to be in Mexico and recently filed for bankruptcy after racking up debts of $30,000 (£24,000).Doria, who also filed for bankruptcy herself in 2002 over a $52,750 credit-card bill, appears to be the one of the defining influences in her daughter’s life.

Writing in an article about her background, Markle addressed being mixed race, saying: ‘While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: “My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African-American.”‘

She also wrote about being a ‘light-skinned’ baby so when people saw her black mother pushing her in the pram ‘they assumed she was the nanny.’And she has spoken of how her mother’s great-great grandfather was born into slavery and freed at the end of the Civil War.

Crenshaw is one of a cluster of Los Angeles boroughs famous for gangs – along with Compton, Long Beach, South Central and Inglewood.

The latter, which borders Crenshaw to the south, is also home to another member of Meghan’s family – her maternal aunt, Ava Burrow, 63.Burrow, who was not at home when DailyMail.com visited, lives on an Inglewood street with the dubious distinction of having its own branch of the Bloods crime gang in situ.

Known as the Queen Street Bloods, famous former members include rapper Mack-10 and Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Marqise Lee.

Indeed, so famous is the area for gang crime, it was name-checked in Dr Dre’s 1999 rap hit The Next Episode along with Compton and Long Beach.

The crime-plagued neighborhoods of Markle’s mother and aunt are a far cry from the leafy part of Long Island where her former husband, Trevor Engleson, 40, grew up.

The Hollywood producer now lives in Los Angeles but was brought up in an affluent suburb of Long Island close to the New York City limits.

His parents declined to comment at their detached home.

One family friend, who declined to be named, said that the family had not spoken to Markle since the divorce.

Her ex-husband told relatives that he had learned of the actress’s new romance at the weekend but was reticent to discuss it further.

Their divorce was in Los Angeles, where Markle legally resides although she spends much of her time in Toronto.

It was a ‘quickie’ divorce which used a legal procedure which limits the information the couple have to disclose – including their marital assets.

The papers associated with it show that both parties agreed to the split and that any financial settlement was entirely confidential.

Markle also gave up using her ex-husband’s surname, the papers said.He continues to run his production company from an office in Los Angeles and was not available for comment.

[17]

WIKIPEDIASTRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON (FILM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Outta_Compton_(film)

WIKIPEDIADR. DRE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre

[18] 

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[19]

”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

[20]ALPHANEWSEXCLUSIVE: MEGHAN MARKLE TARGETED BY HUNDREDS OF RACIST AND SEXIST TWEETS AMID PLAN TO STEP BACK15 JANUARY 2020
https://alphanews.co/exclusive-meghan-markle-targeted-by-hundreds-of-racist-and-sexist-tweets-amid-plan-to-step-back/

TEXT

Hundreds of tweets containing sexist and racist abuse aimed at Meghan Markle were posted following the announcement that she and Prince Harry were quitting royal duties

A study for HuffPost UK carried out by digital journalism analysts at the University of Sunderland captured the offensive posts mentioning the Duchess of Sussex.

Some 400 tweets were captured in the the most severe category of abuse, containing sexist and racist insults.

Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash”, “meghan the queen, of monkey island”, “the woke Meghan bint” and “poisonous cow”. Markle was also described as a “bitch”, “c*nt”, “whore”, “slut” and “witch”, among other terms.

Responding to the analysis, Dr John Price, senior lecturer in journalism at Sunderland, said: “These results give a sense of the levels of abuse that have been published about Meghan Markle in the days after the announcement.

“There will be many more tweets not captured in the study, as racism and misogyny are often expressed in more subtle terms that do not use overtly abusive language.

“The vast amount of abuse captured in these findings is startling. It shows that aspects of social media, such as Twitter, have become a haven for people wishing to express hatred against women.”

Researchers set up a program using negative sentiment analysis to capture all tweets mentioning variations of the duchess’ name and an array of commonly used misogynistic and racist terms of abuse. 

The sample of social media posts was collected between the time of the royal couple’s announcement on January 8 and midnight the following day.

The same researchers previously investigated trolling of female MPs during the 2017 general election.

It comes amid national discussion about the duchess’s treatment by parts of the UK media – and whether it factored into her and Harry’s big announcement.

The couple have faced significant media scrutiny and Markle has endured frequent racist abuse from the public, especially online.

In July, presenter Eamonn Holmes came under fire for calling Markle “uppity” on This Morning during a discussion about the Duchess’s requests for privacy with reporter Lainey Lui who was in Canada.

Historically the word was used in the US in the 19th Century as an insult to Black people who “didn’t know their place”.

She also claimed anchor Piers Morgan was “spouting […] nasty and vile comments” loaded with “bigotry, misogyny, sexism and racism” aimed at the duchess.

Jeremy Corbyn shared Prince Harry’s concerns over the “racial undertones” of media coverage of his wife Meghan, the Labour Party revealed on Wednesday.

The Labour leader’s spokesperson said: “Jeremy has commented in the past in relation to Prince Harry and Meghan, about press intrusion and its impact on people and their families and, to use Prince Harry’s words as well, the ‘racial undertones’ in relation to how the media has approached Meghan.”

Corbyn’s message came as another Labour MP, Holly Lynch, told HuffPost UK that Meghan had been “hounded” by the press.Lynch, who was personally phoned by the duchess last year to thank her for an open letter signed by 72 female MPs attacking “colonial undertones” of her treatment, said it was time to “call out” the media “frenzy” around the Sussexes’ decision to step away from the royal family. 
[21]

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): There’s something off here. Don’t you think there’s something off? Apparently William, his brother, said, “You know, you may be moving a little too fast, maybe slow it down,” apparently that didn’t go over well.  

LYNDA MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, I think his family thinks he’s an idiot, because he is. And I think that —

HANNITY: Why do you think he’s an idiot?

MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, Harry’s always been the red-headed child. He’s always been the one, he can’t get it together, he’s at the parties, the clubs, he’s a hot mess.

HANNITY: What I didn’t like in this whole thing — I’ll say one thing I didn’t like.  I didn’t like that Meghan didn’t even get on the phone as she was in Canada, and she was invited to be a part of that meeting. That I didn’t like. That, to me is –MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?

[22]
  MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?  

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity
[23]

An uppity person behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are”
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONNARY
”UPPITY”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/uppity

[24]

;”
A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations”
THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

TEXT

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history.ELSPETH REEVENOVEMBER 22, 2011

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history. President Obama has been a well-known public figure for several years and his conservative critics, in particular, keep making the “uppity” mistake. This week it’s Rush Limbaugh, who said Michelle Obama was booed at a weekend Nascar race because she showed “uppity-ism,” as well as the conservative site Newsbusters, which is just shocked that anyone might call that comment racially problematic. Glenn Beck, too, is defending Limbaugh’s analysis, saying it’s just a synonym for snobby. It’s hard to explain how they’ve managed to avoid finding out about “uppity” secret past.
Limbaugh said Monday “Nascar people… are mature, tolerant people who fully understand when they’re being insulted and condescended to,” Limbaugh said, then listed Obama’s transgressions such as taking expensive vacations and saying exercise is good. He continued, “They understand it is a little bit of uppity-ism.”  Glenn Beck defended the comment, saying on Imus’ radio show, “Uppity? You don’t think she’s a little snotty? Really? Really? Miss Arugula? Come on!”  (Arugula is a type of lettuce that is offensive to some conservatives.) “I’m not going to apologize for saying the woman who says ‘I’d like a good steak and arugula once in a while’… Please. We’re living in a country where you can’t say that’s a little uppity?” 

Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place. In fairness, a lot of people don’t know for sure whether “uppity” is racist. Various forms of the question “Is uppity racist?” is a very popular on Yahoo Answers. But a little more digging could help these guys out. The most liked and most disliked definition at Urban Dictionary notes that “uppity” is often followed by the n-word. Maybe these media guys don’t know how to Google. Even so, they’ve had a lot of practice with uppity in recent years. In 2008, Rep. Lynn Westmorland claimed he didn’t know “uppity” had racial connotations when he used the term to describe then-Sen. Barack Obama. This is especially curious because Westmorland is from Georgia. In 2010, Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said Sarah Palin’s habit of deriding Obama as a “professor” was code for “uppity.” Limbaugh responded by saying the term was racist when applied to Clarence Thomas, but true when applied to Obama: “Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man.” (Thomas received his law degree, by contrast, from plebian institution Yale.)But maybe that practice is starting to sink in. While Newsbusters’ Brent Baker was appalled that ABC News had “elevated” the “left-wing hit,” he didn’t quite go so far as to explicitly say the comment wasn’t racist. That’s progress.

[25]
”Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place.”

THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[26]THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[27]WIKIPEDIA
PIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[28]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[29]
FREE DICTIONNARYBE (SITTING] ON (ONE’S) TAIL
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+on+her+tail

”be (sitting) on (one’s) tailTo follow close behind someone or something.Why is this guy sitting on my tail when I’m already going over the speed limit?The cops are definitely on our tail now—we have to turn ourselves in!

[30]

”The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.”
THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html

The Duchess of Sussex has rightly been praised for making the fusty old Royal Family more socially and ethically aware.

But that was until an old friend from her Hollywood days was invited round for a bite to eat and posted online a picture of what was widely assumed to be high tea.

Pride of place went to avocado on toast —on silver platters, no less. ‘Still being the avocado toast whisperer, YUM!’, trilled her guest, Daniel Martin. The celebrity make-up artist said it took him back to the days when he and Meghan Markle collaborated on her lifestyle blog, The Tig.

‘The consummate hostess,’ he enthused.Well, perhaps not so much.

The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.

It has proved so lucrative in Mexico that it has been dubbed ‘green gold’ and is even filling the coffers of brutal drug cartels.

In her defence, the duchess is hardly the only celebrity who’s extolled the wonders of avocados, which are full of vitamins, proteins and healthy fats.

The lifeblood of the millennial generation — who can’t stop posting pictures of avocado on toast on Instagram — this so-called ‘super food’ has been championed by everyone from nutritionists to Hollywood stars.

The duchess revealed in her Grenfell cookbook that a green chilli and avocado dip was a favourite. Pop star Miley Cyrus went further with an avocado tattoo on her arm.

Grown in Mexico for 9,000 years, the avocado has come a long way since the 16th century, when Spanish conquistadors disparagingly called it aguacate, after ahuacatl, Aztec for testicle. Between 2000 and 2015, avocado consumption in the U.S. tripled. In the UK, the avocado market is estimated to be worth around £200 million a year.

But it has become a victim of its own popularity, prompting restaurants and cafes to remove it from menus over concerns about its environmental and social impact.

The Wild Strawberry Cafe in Bucks substituted avocados, its most popular item, with garlic-sauteed mushrooms on toast. Its owner cited the ‘demand on avocado farmers, pushing up prices to the point where there are even reports of Mexican drug cartels controlling lucrative exports’.

Tincan Coffee in Bristol has replaced ‘avo’ with pea guacamole after they were judged not to ‘fit’ with it’s ‘core beliefs’. The Wildflower Restaurant in South London followed suit, citing the violence in Mexico.

Its chef, Joseph Ryan, suggested the world may be entering a ‘post-avocado era’.

Haute cuisine has also jumped on board. In Ireland, the Michelin-starred chef JP McMahon has called them the ‘blood diamonds of Mexico’ and compared avocados to battery chickens. Where trendy restaurants and chefs go, the image-conscious supermarkets may not be far behind.

The problems that come from the West’s trendy fascination with avocados have a lot to do with geography. Some 40 per cent come from Mexico and almost all of that is grown in the rural western state of Michoacan.

The region’s fertile volcanic soil and temperate climate allow avocados to be harvested all year round (in other countries they can only be harvested in summer). The rich soil means the notoriously thirsty avocado trees need only a third as much water as they do elsewhere.

Mexico now makes more money exporting avocados than oil. Unfortunately, Michoacan is also home to some of Mexico’s most violent cartels. They include La Familia Michoacana, whose leaders once tossed five rivals’ heads on to the dance floor of a nightclub; their equally vicious rivals in the Knights Templar, a quasi-religious death cult; and Los Viagras, named for their leader’s heavily moussed, erect hair.

In Michoacan, the cartels now make more money from avocados than cannabis. Some drug criminals are becoming growers themselves, others simply terrorise the industry. Avocado farmers, who in Michoacan can easily earn more than £115,000 a year, a vast sum in Mexico, live in continual fear of kidnapping and extortion.

The Knights Templar started charging a fee for every box of avocados gathered by farmers. They also extorted money from the fertiliser and pesticide retailers. Many farmers have been forced to hand over the title deeds to their farms.

If they don’t pay protection money, growers and packers risk being raped or killed, their bodies tied to avocado trees with warning notices attached. Some kidnapped farmers have been killed even after their families paid their ransom.

A businessman whose family refused to pay up was chained to one of his trees and shot dead. Officials estimated the Knights Templar alone earn as much as £115 million a year from avocados.

The cartel’s 2014 kidnap, rape and murder of an avocado farmer’s young daughter prompted the town of Tancitaro to drive out the Knights after a bloody battle. However, the cartels remain a menacing presence.

Mexico’s avocado industry is also accused of damaging the health of locals with the chemicals sprayed on the orchards. Experts are concerned that the fumigation of the trees is behind growing breathing and stomach problems, and may be polluting water supplies.

Unscrupulous farmers are clearing land for avocado orchards, often illegally by cutting down oak and pine forests. The latter provide a crucial winter nesting ground for the imperilled Monarch butterfly.

Indeed, a Mexican government study concluded that soaring avocado production has caused a loss of biodiversity, environmental pollution and soil erosion. It has also damaged the natural water cycle and threatened the survival of animal species only found in the area. Farmers exacerbate deforestation by using trees for avocado crates.

We can’t be certain where Meghan’s avocados came from, but fashionable eaters who think they can safely switch to sourcing them from the Dominican Republic, Chile or Peru should think again.

Wherever they come from, the thousands of miles any avocado has to travel to get to Britain means they leave a heavy carbon footprint.

This is because they are perishable but cannot be frozen because it alters their texture.

They must therefore be transported either by air or in air-conditioned container ships so they ripen at just the right moment.

Their relatively heavy weight and bulky packaging to prevent bruising further ratchets up their carbon footprint. Two avocados have a footprint of 846g of CO2, compared to 160g for two bananas.

The enormous amounts of water required to grow avocados is even more of an eco-issue in countries without Mexico’s volcanic soil. It can take as much as 1,000 litres (220 gallons) to grow a single kilo (about three avocados).

The Chilean province of Petorca is suffering an acute water shortage thanks to ‘green gold’. Water has been privatised in Chile (which specialises in the Hass variety so popular in the UK), meaning that those who pay — such as deep-pocketed big avocado growers — can use as much as they want.

When activists complained after a 2012 aerial survey revealed 64 pipelines were diverting river water underground to irrigate the orchards, they received death threats. Local rivers have now dried up and supplies have to be trucked in for local people while the avocado farms rely on artificial reservoirs.

Although the avocado is essentially a jungle plant, greedy growers are determined to cultivate it in dry, perennially sunny areas such as California, where orchards sap water from a state already prone to wildfires and drought.

In Israel, avocado trees are irrigated with treated waste-water, prompting fears that harmful nano-particles are not only permanently damaging the soil but penetrating the fruit.

The Chinese are being gripped by avocado mania, too, so demand is expected to keep soaring.

But given the damaging cost of ‘avocado fever’, might it not be better to eat them more sparingly — and not, for example, serve them up on silver platters?

Since Meghan’s guest was invited to high tea, surely it should have been a case of let him eat cake.

[31]THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html
[32]

ISRAEL/HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
BTSELEM.ORG
TORTURE AND ABUSE IN INTERROGATION
https://www.btselem.org/topic/torture

BTSELEM.ORGFATALITIES DURING OPERATION CAST LEAD
https://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/during-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND PALESTINIAN RIGHTS/LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DUTCH PARLIAMENTASTRID ESSED4 FEBRUARI 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/israeli-occupation-and-palestinian-rights-letter-to-the-members-of-the-dutch-parliament/

EU CANCELS MEETING WITH ISRAEL AFTER SETTLEMENT’S VOTE/EU, TAKE MEASURES AGAINST ISRAEL NOW!ASTRID ESSED1 MARCH 2017
https://www.astridessed.nl/eu-cancels-meeting-with-israel-after-settlements-voteeu-take-measures-against-israel-now/

[33]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[34]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

  • Meghan cradling her baby bump is a subject that has got the nation talking
  • From a double hand clasp to handbag shield we identify different types of holds 
  • Experts were asked to explain why they think she does it so often in public

It’s the subject that has got the nation talking: why does Meghan constantly cradle her bump? Here we identify the different types of embrace… and ask experts to explain why they think she does it.

Make like Meghan in a burgundy dress by Club Monaco

The Duchess of Sussex turned to one of her favourite labels, Club Monaco for an engagement in London last week.

Meghan wore the brand’s ‘Sallyet’ dress in a chic burgundy colour that simply exuded winter-chic vibes. We love the contrasting velvet collar! The stylish royal then finished off with a co-ordinating coat also by Club Monaco and a pair of cut-out ankle boots by Givenchy.

We’ve spotted her wearing the label on a lot of different occasions, most recently throughout the Royal tour, plus back in August when she attended a wedding on her birthday.

Deep berry and plum shades are perfect for this time of year, so click (right) to snap up this exact dress before the Meghan effect takes hold. You can also get your hands on her exact coat and ankle boots below to recreate the look in full.

Alternatively, we’ve hand-picked even more must-have maroon dresses that have a cute collar neckline just like Meghan’s. La Redoute and Warehouse have the best lookalikes.[35]
”the cat is out of the bagSome secret or surprise has been revealed or exposed.Well, we were going to keep this project a secret until we were a little further along in development, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now.We’ve had hidden cameras and microphones installed in his apartment to gather incriminating evidence, but I think the cat’s out of the bag.

FREE DICTIONARYTHE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+cat+is+out+of+the+bag

[36]
THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?26 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[37]

THE DAILY MAILNOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

  • Pregnant Duchess is attending symposium at Royal Society of Medicine in London
  • Event will discuss early intervention to support child mental health 
  • Kate, 36, is due to give birth to her third child next month 
  • Is set to complete celebratory Commonwealth engagements with William tomorrow

She’s weeks away from having her third child, but there’s no rest for the Duchess of Cambridge as she continues her busy schedule of royal engagements ahead of the birth.

Pregnant Kate, 36, is this morning attending a symposium at the Royal Society of Medicine in London of leading academics and charities championing early intervention into the lives of children.

The mother-to-be looked radiant in a bespoke green coat dress with a bow detail at the collar by Jenny Packham, worn over a mint dress, teamed with her favourite blush suede heels.  

And she looked as if she’d taken inspiration from the Queen who wore a remarkably similar ensemble to watch polo at Windsor in 1973.

Today’s meeting is thought to be Kate’s penultimate engagement before she commences her maternity leave and comes after Prince William’s confirmation that she’s due to give birth ‘any minute now’. 

According to Hello! magazine, the Duke of Cambridge made the revelation that the new royal baby will be here sooner rather than later, while knighting Ringo Starr yesterday. 

Despite the impending birth, Kate has had her busiest start to the year yet and if William’s admission is anything to go by, it seems that she’s determined to keep working as close to her due date as possible. 

The royal used today’s engagement to call for teenagers to be taught parenting and relationship skills to avoid the danger of their future children developing mental health problems in later life.

In a speech on the benefits of early intervention in supporting children’s mental wellbeing she said it was important to get the next generation of parents ‘child-ready’ even before they have children.

Go green like the Duchess of Cambridge in Jenny Packham

The Duchess of Cambridge is getting closer and closer to her due date, but that’s not holding her back from her duties. It’s certainly not holding her back in the style stakes, either.

Arriving for a conference held by The Royal Foundation today, Kate worked a new maternity look. Despite re-wearing most of her outfits lately, she had splashed out here opting for a bespoke dress and coat by one of her go-to British designers, Jenny Packham.

The look was a bright one that ensured she stood out on arrival and we love the pretty bow detail at the collar.

You cannot buy this outerwear as it’s bespoke, but click right to head to NET-A-PORTER where you can shop ready-to-wear pieces by the brand. Or you can go green and look royally stylish in one of our alternative coats below by Theory, Harris Wharf London, Boden and more. 

Kate was speaking at a symposium of academics, professionals and charities organised by the Royal Foundation, the charitable arm of William, Kate and Harry’s public work.

The royal also announced she was setting up a steering group to explore how to help experts provide children with the best start in life.

It will look at how to create a partnership between experts and organisations examining issues around as perinatal, maternal and infant mental health. The steering group will also look at how to improve the support for children, parents and teachers.

Kate’s busiest year yet 

At the beginning of March, the Duchess had completed 38 official engagements – including.

That’s compared with just 11 for the same period in 2017 and seven in 2016.

In January and February in 2015, when Kate was pregnant with Charlotte, she completed 13 engagements.

In 2014 and 2013, she completed three official engagements in the first two months of the year.

In 2012, she completed 10 engagements during the same period. 

Aides say it will report back to the duchess later this year and it is hoped the Royal Foundation will announce a strategy in late autumn or early next year.

In her speech at the Royal Society of Medicine, the duchess said she believes society ‘cannot intervene early enough’ to break ‘the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage’.

She said: ‘We need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

‘We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children.

‘We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially even before they give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

‘And potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.’

She added: ‘Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.’

Professor Peter Fonagy, chief executive of the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, described the duchess as the person ‘who has done more to turn the tide of stigma around mental health more than any other single individual that I could name.’

He had seen her visiting providers, ‘energising, enthusing, deepening the commitment of front-line workers in an invaluable way’, he said.

He added: ‘She has also changed all our way of thinking by her intelligent questioning and crystal-clear focus.

‘It is vitally important to work together, to form a community that cares about early childhood.’

The Duchess of Cambridge’s speech on early intervention

As I look around the room, I see friends from many different sectors: friends who have shared with me their knowledge, and who have answered my questions patiently whilst I’ve interrogated them in my endeavour to learn about this complex range of issues. 

  • Academic colleagues who have shown me their ground-breaking research into the causes of perinatal and post-natal depression, and how they are addressing these in the clinic; 
  • Those who I have visited over the years who provide crucial links within the community, and whose services help families with essential parenting support and guidance;
  • and other wonderful organisations which have done so much to improve support for the emotional wellbeing of children in schools. I could name so many of you, but I’m utterly grateful to you all for giving your time and wisdom so freely. 

We all know how important childhood is; and how the early years shape us for life. We also know how negative the downstream impact can be, if problems emerging at the youngest age are overlooked, or ignored. It is therefore vital that we nurture children through this critical, early period.

But as we’ve heard, at what stage in a child’s development could we, or should we, intervene, to break the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage?

The more I have heard, the more I am convinced that the answer has to be: ‘early’ and ‘ ‘the earlier, the better’.

In fact, it would seem that we cannot intervene early enough.

We do need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children. 

We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially before they even give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

But potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.

After listening to those working in this complex area, my own view is that children’s experiences in their early years are fundamental. They lay the foundations not only for healthy outcomes during the teenage years, but also for adulthood.

Addressing the issues only when they take root, later in life, results in huge detriment; detriment to the healthcare, education and social support systems in our country; but, perhaps more importantly, detriment to future generations over the long term.

In 2011, Graham Allen, who is with is here today, wrote a report for Government on the need for early intervention. 

I hope, Graham, you don’t mind me quoting from your report, in which you referred to the cycle of deprivation and dysfunction, from generation to generation.

There, you said that, ‘If we intervene early enough, we can give children a vital social and emotional foundation, which will help to keep them happy, healthy and achieving throughout their lives and, above all, equip them to raise children of their own.’

I could not agree more.

Because these are ‘lifetime’ issues, they require a very long term perspective. But the issues are also complex and multi-sided, so they need integrated, collective approaches to create real impact. This is what I am so keen to explore.

We are here today because we all believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life.

I have therefore entrusted The Royal Foundation, under the leadership of Aida Cable, to gather a group of experts to develop the thinking in this critical area: experts and partners to build upon existing work, and to look at developing sustainable solutions which will help deliver our shared ambitions.

Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel so passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.

Thank you. 

Prof Fonagy said the Royal Foundation could play a massive role in bringing voluntary organisations and statutory services to work together.

Professor Sir Simon Wessely, president of the Royal Society for Medicine and Regius Professor of Psychiatry at King’s College London, thanked the duchess for the work she and Prince William and Prince Harry had done on mental health.

It had, he said, been ‘fantastic in all sorts of ways, and in particular in engaging with ordinary people, with friends, families, relatives and indeed non-professionals for the work they can do, which is probably more important than the work any of us do… in improving the mental health and resilience of our nation.’

He said: ‘About 50 per cent of the work that adult psychiatry does arises from childhood adversity, mistreatment and so on.’

Tomorrow, Kate and Prince William will complete two engagements celebrating the Commonwealth before Kate signs off for her maternity leave. 

The Duke and Duchess will begin the day at a SportsAid event to learn how the charity is helping the next generation of aspiring Olympic, Paralympic, Commonwealth and world champions, before taking part in preparations for a Commonwealth Big Lunch at a London community centre.  

[38]
THE DAILY MAIL
NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

[39]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[40]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[41]

”Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem.”……..”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible”

BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem. However, the Duchess of Sussex didn’t wear the bold polish on her hands. Instead, she wore a deep shade on her toes while rocking a light pink color on her finger tips.Meghan’s pedicure was noticeable as she wore open-toe shoes (Stuart Weitzman heeled sandals, to be exact) for the event. It also helped that her glittery Roland Mouret gown had a leg slit, revealing her footwear as she walked.
The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.” After all, Meghan had been wearing neutral manicures for past royal appearances, and other women in the family like Duchess Kate, Duchess Camilla, and even the Queen have frequented natural-looking nails.

However, “there’s no actual protocol about dark nail polish,” royal correspondent Omid Scobie told BAZAAR.com at the time. “It’s simply about being appropriate—we’d never see this at a royal engagement. But tonight’s event is a celebration of fashion and there’s a lot more flexibility on what one can wear.”And ultimately, it looked good with her outfit. The same goes for last night’s pedi.

The Cirque du Soleil performance at Royal Albert Hall, which raised money for Prince Harry’s charity, Sentebale, was previously announced by Kensington Palace. However, perhaps there was more leeway for daring nail shades considering it was an evening gala rather than, say, a formal daytime engagement with Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace.
Kate Middleton has actually rocked a dark pedicures at similar events with glamorous looks of her own. One of them was also at Royal Albert Hall years ago, while attending a concert celebrating the 2012 Olympics in London.

[42]
”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.”
BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

[43]
THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

TEXT
The level of scrutiny the Duchess of Sussex receives is devoid of human feeling. This vilification must end  

Last month I nominated Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as a hate figure for the nation in 2019: the person we all need to get us through a difficult time, like your cousin’s girlfriend who waxes her eyebrows and yammers on about yoga at the start of a fraught Christmas. As I then explained about a million times on Twitter, I was joking: I do not hate Meghan, or even consider her vaguely hateful. I could no more despise the woman than I could flick through the pages of a magazine and take against a salt-and-pepper male model with a watch on. She wasn’t the point; the point was that society quests ceaselessly for an enemy, and if you’re going to have one, at least let it be one who probably won’t care.

This was right in an ambient, premonitory way, but I was wrong to think it was funny. The poor woman is being vilified round the clock – this week for having the audacity to have a baby shower with her friends in New York. It has gone beyond the point of mattering what her personality is like, were anyone in any position to know: she would have to be so thoroughly bad to warrant this level of scrutiny, so devoid of human feeling, so malicious in every intention, that the media’s daily censure wouldn’t be enough. We’d have to paint her yellow and black like a bee.

She can’t leave the house, pregnant, without being accused of “flaunting” her bump. She can’t walk into a room without wild speculation about whether or not she breached a protocol, by people who have no idea what royal protocols are. If a friend comes to her defence and asks people to stop hounding her, then who does she think she is, having a friend like that? OK, so maybe it is George Clooney. Someone’s got to be his friend. He might be perfectly nice.

If she smiles for the cameras, then she’s luxuriating in the attention. “She’s being victimised, you say, George; you with your fancy hair and your coffee habits … then why is she smiling? Riddle me that.”

 Tormenting Meghan Markle has become a national sport that shames us

Catherine Bennett

Catherine Bennett

 Read more

If she goes to New York, she’s pointedly “without Prince Harry”. But if she had taken Prince Harry, then you can guarantee that she would have been dragging her husband away from his duties, to partake of her frivolity, and what kind of princelet might she raise with priorities like that? If she has a baby shower, some journalist, who was most likely trained to dig into the affairs of the mighty and powerful, sets those investigative skills to pricing her gifts then translating dollars into pounds. We’re asking the big questions, here: who spends $379 (£290) on a crib? For their friend’s baby? And besides: ew, baby shower, that’s so American. But isn’t she, though? No, she’s English now, until she gives any sign that she considers herself English, whereupon she will be American again. Randomised disapproval has rendered her stateless.Advertisement

If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice. 

[44]
THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

SEE ALSO NOTE 28 ABOUT PIER MORGAN’S OBSESSION WITH MEGHAN MARKLE

[45]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[46]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

[47]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

[47]QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY, MEGHAN/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTYASTRID ESSED14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[48]

THE NEW YORK TIMESRABLOID HACK ATTACK ROYALS AND BEYOND
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html

IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s  biggest tabloids, News of the World.

The stories were banal enough (Prince William pulled a tendon in his knee, one revealed). But the royal aides were puzzled as to how News of the World had gotten the information, which was known among only a small, discreet circle. They began to suspect that someone was eavesdropping on their private conversations.

By early January 2006, Scotland Yard had confirmed their suspicions. An unambiguous trail led to Clive Goodman, the News of the World reporter who covered the royal family, and to a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who also worked for the paper. The two men had somehow obtained the PIN codes needed to access

Scotland Yard told the aides to continue operating as usual while it pursued the investigation, which included surveillance of the suspects’ phones. A few months later, the inquiry took a remarkable turn as the reporter and the private investigator chased a story about Prince William’s younger brother, Harry, visiting a strip club. Another tabloid, The Sun, had trumpeted its scoop on the episode with the immortal: “Harry Buried Face in Margo’s Mega-Boobs. Stripper Jiggled . . . Prince Giggled.” 

As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.

The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne. The eavesdropping could not have gone higher inside the royal family, since Prince Charles and the queen were hardly regular mobile-phone users. But it seemingly went everywhere else in British society. Scotland Yard collected evidence indicating that reporters at News of the World might have hacked the phone messages of hundreds of celebrities, government officials, soccer stars — anyone whose personal secrets could be tabloid fodder. Only now, more than four years later, are most of them beginning to find out.

  • You have 3 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

AS OF THIS SUMMER, five people have filed lawsuits accusing News Group Newspapers, a division of Rupert Murdoch’s publishing empire that includes News of the World, of breaking into their voice mail. Additional cases are being prepared, including one seeking a judicial review of Scotland Yard’s handling of the investigation. The litigation is beginning to expose just how far the hacking went, something that Scotland Yard did not do. In fact, an examination based on police records, court documents and interviews with investigators and reporters shows that Britain’s revered police agency failed to pursue leads suggesting that one of the country’s most powerful newspapers was routinely listening in on its citizens.

The police had seized files from Mulcaire’s home in 2006 that contained several thousand mobile phone numbers of potential hacking victims and 91 mobile phone PIN codes. Scotland Yard even had a recording of Mulcaire walking one journalist — who may have worked at yet another tabloid — step by step through the hacking of a soccer official’s voice mail, according to a copy of the tape. But Scotland Yard focused almost exclusively on the royals case, which culminated with the imprisonment of Mulcaire and Goodman. When police officials presented evidence to prosecutors, they didn’t discuss crucial clues that the two men may not have been alone in hacking the voice mail messages of story targets.

“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman,” said John Whittingdale, the chairman of a parliamentary committee that has twice investigated the phone hacking. “To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.” Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with News of the World. Police officials have defended their investigation, noting that their duties did not extend to monitoring the media. In a statement, the police said they followed the lines of inquiry “likely to produce the best evidence” and that the charges that were brought “appropriately represented the criminality uncovered.” The statement added, “This was a complex inquiry and led to one of the first prosecutions of its kind.” Officials also have noted that the department had more pressing priorities at the time, including several terrorism cases.[49]
”According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. ”
ROYALFOIBLES.COMKATE’S DILEMMA
https://www.royalfoibles.com/kates-dilemma/

TEXT


By now the world has long since heard the news that Britain’s most famously grumpy infant won’t be hogging the spotlight much longer as his parents will soon be welcoming a new edition to their family. The author is of course referring to the announcement made earlier this week that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her second child. The irony of this announcement is that it was made under the same circumstances as news of Her Royal Highness’ first pregnancy was divulged to the general public: i.e. because the Duchess was overcome by such a severe case of Hyperemesis Gravidarum, more commonly known as morning sickness, that she was forced to cancel several public engagements while being treated by doctors at Kensington Palace. Kate’s ill health also forced the Palace to announce her pregnancy sooner than the expectant mother, her husband, in-laws and their retainers would’ve liked. Far be it from the author to cast a shadow on this otherwise happy event, but he can’t help but wonder if the Duchess’ latest bout of severe, briefly debilitating morning sickness is but the latest sign of the long held rumor that HRH, like her late mother-in-law, suffers from at least one on going, and increasingly severe, eating disorder. After all, many a medical expert interviewed on American television at the time of Kate’s first pregnancy announcement stated categorically that one of the leading causes of Hyperemesis Gravidarum is dehydration resulting from the expectant mother being under weight. Reoccurring bouts of Bulimia, and certainly Anorexia Nervosa, can lead to an expectant mother being dangerously thin. Before the author continues, he would like to make it clear to his online community, as he always does concerning posts of this nature, that he’s engaging in nothing more than idle speculation. After all, libel is an all too real legal concept that has a funny way of seeking out and striking even the most deliberately anonymous of Internet bloggers. With that caveat stated, the author can’t help but notice certain cracks that are continually forming in the Duchess of Cambridge’s painstakingly well crafted public facade.

No one can under estimate the kind of pressure that Her Royal Highness has been subjected to from the moment she officially became a member of the Royal Family. Even during her engagement it was noticed by the more discerning of royal commentators that her weight perceptibly dropped in the weeks leading up to her wedding. By the time her father walked her down the aisle at Westminster Abbey she’d morphed into a literal stick figure and, despite the handful of pounds she gained during her first pregnancy, she’s remained one ever since. Photos of the Duchess of Cambridge in her current manifestation are particularly striking when compared to those taken of her at the time her relationship with Prince William began while they were undergraduates at Scotland’s University of St. Andrew’s. While certainly a young woman whose frame could be described as naturally thin, Kate Middleton’s appearance possessed a genuine healthiness back then that all but disappeared as her royal courtship progressed.

There’s no shortage of rumors concerning why Kate’s physical transformation came to pass. One aspect of these stories that many of them have in common is that Kate’s weight decreased in direct proportion to her increasing desperation to marry Britain’s heir presumptive. While no one doubts that Prince William fell madly in love with Kate while they were both in college, by the the time he was studying to become a pilot at Sandhurst his feelings are alleged to have noticeably cooled, while his roving eye led him to the first of several dalliances with other women that occurred during his prolonged courtship. In fact, there are many who believe that one of the reasons why his relationship with Ms. Middleton was so prolonged was because he relished his bachelor status, and the freedom to date other women that came with it, too much to settle into marriage. While never the serial philanderer that both his father and grandfather have undoubtedly been, it’s long been whispered that His Royal Highness was no stranger to other women throughout the greater part of his courtship with Ms. Middleton. These same whisperers have also made it clear, however, that William always returned to Kate’s patiently waiting arms after every brief affair, and the two of them would continue on as if nothing had happened. The author has been given two explanations for this.

The first is that His Royal Highness, as an enabled, pampered young man who prefers security and routine over risk and adventure, preferred to have a long term, official girlfriend whom he could parade before the tabloid press, would love and trust above all other women, and eventually marry; but none the less would sow his wild oats behind her back while she stoically awaited his inevitable marriage proposal. While there were other contenders for the role of William’s conjugal nanny/long suffering girlfriend/eventual wife and consort, none had the endurance or palace backing of Kate Middleton.

This leads one to the second alleged reason why William always reunited with the girlfriend the tabloid press eventually dubbed “Waity Katy.” It’s never been a secret among royal insiders that from the moment the late Diana, Princess of Wales perished in a car crash, her ex-husband’s courtiers were desperate for William’s future bride to be his mother’s more level headed, more Royal Court compliant and more humbly born replacement. After all, who better to succeed the so called “People’s Princess” than a glamorous, well educated, and naturally graceful young woman who was a genuine commoner born of the people, or at least more of the people than the former Lady Diana Spencer had ever been? It’s said the Prince of Wales’ advisors at Clarence House specifically became sold on the idea of Kate Middleton one day becoming Prince William’s bride, or at the very least Prince William’s future bride being a young lady as similar to Kate Middleton as possible, when they became aware that she almost single handedly talked him out of dropping out of college, and could more than likely be relied upon to convince the British throne’s heir presumptive to abandon his long term plan to eventually abdicate his succession rights.

Many a royal watcher, journalist, and courtier is aware that His Royal Highness, unlike his father, has never relished his destiny as Britain’s future king. While it’s rumored that he’s resigned himself to his fate more and more as the years have passed, he’s still said to find his royal duties more a burden than anything else, and the main reason why he’s been allowed to return to his career as a search and rescue/ambulance pilot is because of the abject misery he’s expressed behind palace walls at the prospect of whiling away his youth at public engagements that bore him to tears. Although the Queen’s court at Buckingham Palace initially rejected the idea of Kate Middleton becoming William’s spouse because of her lack of aristocratic birth, they were always in agreement with Prince Charles’ Clarence House staff that a loving and supportive spouse, who was on their side, was the key to Prince William accepting his destiny. They eventually realized that if Kate Middleton was the only woman who seemed able to fulfill that task, then so be it.

In the meantime, as the combined pressures of maintaining a relationship with her privately mercurial boyfriend increased with the prospect of her becoming Diana 2.0, Kate appears to have developed a case of body dysmorphia that haunts her to this day. One of the many ironies of the Duchess of Cambridge being the designated torch bearer of Diana’s legacy is that she appears to have taken on at least one of her late mother-in-law’s coping mechanisms to deal with the predicament of being married to Britain’s future king.

One may wonder, as many have, what lies beneath Kate’s seemingly plastered on smile and her outwardly friendly public demeanor. According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. Several among their social friends have also stated that the Duke and Duchess compliment each other precisely because their tastes are somewhat juvenile and neither of them are intellectuals. All in all, Kate gives the impression of being a modestly intelligent, genuinely selfless and utterly devoted young woman whose more than willing to sacrifice her needs for the happiness of those she loves most, chief among them obviously being her husband. While someone with a stronger disposition might be able to take this predicament in their stride, Her Royal Highness’ latest bout of ill health at the outset of her latest pregnancy indicates otherwise.

While many have presumed since the ordeal of Charles and Diana’s divorce and Diana’s tragic, early death that the Palace has modernized some of its more ossified practices vis a vis how the courtiers and Royal Family deal with their newly arrived in-laws, the seemingly blasé manner in which the Palace has handled the Duchess’ latest health crisis, coupled with the seemingly unconcerned manner in which her husband and his family have cheerfully gone about their public engagements since the announcement that Kate’s expecting leads one to deduce that little has changed regarding the Palace’s internal practices. The author more than concedes that royal engagements are what they are, and the traveling Windsor show must go on regardless of what’s going on within its members’ private lives, but one doubts anyone would’ve begrudged Prince William’s absence from the opening ceremonies of the Invictus Games, least of all Prince Harry, who organized them, so that he could spend as much time as possible next to his especially delicate wife. Through his smilingly unbothered demeanor in public, Prince William is giving the message that his wife vomiting herself into near delirium every time she gets knocked up is nothing to get concerned about. He’s not worried, so no one else should be. As far as the Buckingham Palace press office is concerned, that’s probably the point.

There are, however, several silver linings to this latest chapter in Kate’s life, chief among them being that, with William being allowed to resume his military career, he and his wife have been given the all clear to make their country estate, Anmer Hall, their primary residence. As the author predicted in his first post concerning the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate definitely didn’t take to the stultifying and Victorian atmosphere of Princess Margaret’s former apartment at Kensington Palace, where she was observed and scrutinized almost as much behind palace walls as she was in public. According to a recent article about her in the Daily Telegraph, which reported on her “baby making plans” shortly before it was publicly divulged that she’s pregnant and seems lately to be surpassing the Daily Mail as the Palace’s preferred organ for press leaks, it’s Kate’s genuine wish to have a third child before she’s 35. Her move to a new primary residence, according to the article, is central to her plans. Perhaps while ensconced in the country, Kate will be able too seek treatment away from prying eyes for what is becoming an increasingly obvious health problem. Otherwise, there may never be a third Cambridge child.

EXPRESS

KATE MIDDLETON BODY LANGUAGE: HOW ”WAITY KATY” TRANSFORMED INTO ”DRIVEN” DUCHESS

5 NOVEMBER 2019

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1199874/kate-middleton-body-language-transformation-prince-william-royal-family-news

TEXT

KATE, DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE is an established member of the British Royal Family but she hasn’t always been the confident figure she is today. Here’s how the popular royal went from “waity-Katie” to the driven Duchess she is now.

Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, 37 married Prince William, 37, in 2011 and has become a much-loved member of the British Royal Family. Kate and William met at university and were officially an item by the time they graduated in 2005. Once a shy student Kate has transformed into a driven and charismatic future Queen consort. 

One royal source claimed it has taken Kate several years to become comfortable in her royal role but now there is no stopping the diligent Duchess.Before Prince William and Kate tied the knot she was branded work shy by critics who claimed after graduating she seemed to be waiting around for William to propose instead of pursuing her own career.

However, since then Kate has proven her critics wrong and is among the most industrious members of the younger royals.

A royal source has claimed Kate has grown into herself and matured into her role.

They told Fabulous Magazine: “Like the finest of wines, she has taken years to mature to perfection, but the woman you see today has no peers on the global stage.”“What people are seeing now is a confident, driven woman with a purpose.

For the first time in her life, Kate knows where she is going and has the self-belief to get there under her own steam.”

Nearly two decades since he and William first met, Kate’s body language has dramatically changed.

The source said: “Back then she was full of self-doubt, despite all her assets.“These days she’s a force to be reckoned with.”

Kate has always been admired for her incredible figure and famously caught William’s eye on the catwalk at a university fashion show.

But it has taken the mum-of-three years to feel at home in her body.

Following the Cambridges recent tour of Pakistan, the Duchess has been praised for the ease with which she handles royal engagements.Vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and political author, Sir Anthony Seldon told the Sun: “Kate has that rare ability, possessed by very few people, of being able to talk and relate to those of different ages, backgrounds and ethnicities.”

He added: “It’s a magical talent that is infinitely precious and you either have it in life or you don’t.

“Most people don’t, but Kate does.”

According to Palace insiders, Kate is as popular within The Firm as she is with the general public and her no-fuss approach to royal duty is a hit with her grandmother-in-law, the Queen.

Kate’s ability to juggle motherhood with a packed schedule of royal engagements puts her in good stead as future Queen Consort.

The insider added: “The Queen is not one for platitudes, so when she gives a compliment you know she means it.

“She has been extremely impressed by the Duchess of Cambridge’s ability to keep several balls in the air at once.

“Never before has a royal of the Duchess’ standing taken such a hands-on role in raising a future king – and don’t forget that is George’s destiny. It has traditionally been left to nannies and governesses.“Catherine seems to thrive on the workload.”

[50]

”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.

We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.”THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

[51]

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DOASTRID ESSED2 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-sue-tabloid-prince-harry-defending-his-wife-the-only-honourable-thing-to-do/

[52]
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 
https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples

Opgeslagen onder Divers