Tagarchief: Edward III

Rozenoorlogen tussen Huizen York en Lancaster/Onzininformatie over hoofdrolspeler Richard Neville, 16e Graaf van Warwick, de ”Kingmaker”

Ontdek 02-2019: Game of Thrones

HISTORISCHE ACCURATESSE IS HET EERSTE VEREISTE BIJDE BESCHRIJVING VAN HISTORISCHE GEBEURTENISSEN!DAARAAN ONTBRAK HET IN TIJDSCHRIFT ”ONTDEK” MET ALSTHEMA THE GAME OF THRONES

Image result for edward iv in the white queen

750 × 447Images may be subject to copyright. Find out moreImage credits
AFBEELDING/HISTORISCHE FICTIERICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK [ACHTERIN] MET ZIJNNEEF EN KONING, EDWARD IV [VOORAAN], VAN WIE HIJ DE EERSTEJAREN VAN ZIJN KONINGSCHAP DE VOORNAAMSTE ADVISEUR ENBONDGENOOT WAS TOTDAT ZIJ DOOR EEN SAMENSPEL VAN FACTOREN GEBROUILLEERD RAAKTEN EN RICHARD NEVILLE OVERLIEP NAAR HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER, DE AARTSVIJANDEN VAN EDWARD IV[DIE TOT HET HUIS VAN YORK BEHOORDE]DE LANCASTERS EN DE YORKS, BEIDEN BEHOREND TOT HET ENGELSE KONINGSHUIS PLANTAGENET, VOERDEN EEN DERTIG JAAR DURENDE, VERBITTERDE STRIJD OM DE ENGELSE TROON, DE ROZENOORLOGEN OF COUSINS WAR GENOEMD
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosescauses-of-the-wars-of-the-rosesa-travel-to-the-past/

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

747 × 696

AFBEELDING HISTORISCHE FICTIEKONING EDWARD IV 
MET AAN DE ZIJKANT MARGARET BEAUFORT, MOEDERVAN HENRY TUDOR [DE LATERE HENRY VII, DIE NA ZIJN OVERWINNINGIN DE SLAG BIJ BOSWORTH IN 1485, HET OFFICIELE EINDE VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN, TROUWDE MET ELISABETH OF YORK, EDWARD IV”S OUDSTE DOCHTER, WAARMEE DE HUIZEN VAN LANCASTER EN YORKWAREN VERENIGD.HENRY VI EN ELISABETH OF YORK WAREN DE OUDERS VAN DE LATERE HENRY VIII]NAAST MARGARET BEAUFORT [BEHOREND TOT DE ONWETTIGE TAK VAN HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER, DE BEAUFORTS], HAAR DERDE MANTHOMAS STANLEY, EERSTE GRAAF VAN DERBY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby

KONING EDWARD IVAFBEELDING HISTORISCHE FICTIE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England
Richard Neville
Warwick as drawn in the Rous Roll. He displays on his shield the arms of Montagu quartering Monthermer. The bull’s head is the crest of the Neville family, the eagle is the crest of Montagu.

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY[RICHARD NEVILLE, 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, BIJGENAAMD ”DE KINGMAKER”[AFBEELDING IS HISTORISCHE NON FICTIE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

Image result for edward iv in the white queen

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, WITH ON THE BACKGROUND HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERSHISTORICAL FICTIONRICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, MET OP DE ACHTERGROND ZIJN VROUW EN DOCHTERS/HISTORISCHE FICTIE

Related image

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, DE KINGMAKERHISTORISCHE FICTIE


HISTORISCHE FICTIE [AFBEELDING]RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, AAN DE VOORAVOND VAN DE SLAG BIJ BARNET IN 1471 [DE DEFINITIEVE EINDSTRIJD TUSSEN HEM EN ZIJN NEEF KONING EDWARD IV, VAN WIE HIJ DE VOORMALIGE EN BELANGRIJKSTE ADVISEUR WAS.IN DEZE SLAG SNEUVELDE WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet

Battle of Barnet
Part of the Wars of the Roses

Late 15th-century artistic portrayal of the battle: Edward IV (left), wearing a circlet and mounted on a horse, leads the Yorkist charge and pierces the Earl of Warwick (right) with his lance; in reality, Warwick was not killed by Edward.

VIJFTIENDE EEUWSE VOORSTELLING VAN DE SLAG BIJ BARNET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet

DE UITEINDELIJKE STRIJD TUSSEN RICHARD NEVILLE EN KONING EDWARD IV, WAS EEN ONDERDEEL VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN, DE 30 JAAR DURENDE STRIJD OM DE ENGELSE TROON TUSSEN HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER EN HET HUIS VAN YORK, TWEE TAKKEN VAN HET ENGELSE KONINGSHUIS PLANTAGENET [DAT HEERSTE VAN 1154 TOT 1485]DE ROZENOORLOGEN DUURDEN VAN 1455 TOT 1485, WAARMEE EENEINDE KWAM AAN HET HUIS PLANTAGENET

ZIE VOOR ACHTERGRONDINFORMATIE EN OORZAKEN VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN

ROZENOORLOGEN TUSSEN HUIZEN YORK EN LANCASTER/ONZININFORMATIE OVER HOOFDROLSPELER RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK ”DE KINGMAKER”

AANDe Redactie van Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of ThronesUitgegeven in 2019
[Wegens drukke werkzaamheden is deze historische kritiek nu, september 2021, aan u verstuurd.Onderstaand magnum opus, want zo mag ik het wel noemen, is door mij aangevangen in september 2019, kort na lezing van uw tijdschriftDuik dus even in uw archieven]
Onderwerp:
Onzininformatie over Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, beter bekend als ”The Kingmaker”

Geachte Redactie,
Alvorens met mijn kritiek los te barsten, een oprecht woord van waardering.Als groot fan van de nu afgelopen grootse serie ”Game of Thrones” heb ik het buitengewoon gewaardeerd, dat u een uitgebreide achtergrondspecial hebt samengesteld, waarin u op een diversiteit aan aspecten over de serie zelf, maarook op een aantal historische perioden, zoals de Vikingen, de eerste christenen, kaliefen in het Midden-Oosten en andere onderwerpen, bent ingegaan.Of het allemaal historisch klopt, wat u schrijft, heb ik nog niet in detail kunnen nagaan, omdat ik nog niet alles heb gelezen [aanstonds zult u begrijpen, waarom ik dit naar voren breng], maar wat ik er wel van gelezen heb, komtals redelijk betrouwbaar en goed doorwrocht over.
Totdat ik bij het gedeelte over de Rozenoorlogen kwam [blz 20 t/m 25 van uw Magazine] en, excusez les mots,op een aantal ronduit onzinopmerkingen van uw kant stuitte.Kijk, DAT u de Rozenoorlogen in uw special hebt betrokken, vind ik interessant en is bijna vanzelfsprekend, omdat The Game of Thrones er in belangrijke mate op is gebaseerd.Of beter uitgedrukt:Schrijver George R.R. Martin heeft zich door die Rozenoorlogen in belangrijke mate laten inspireren, met hoog kwalitatief resultaat!
Maar als u nader op die Rozenoorlogen ingaat, mag verwacht worden, dat u met historisch juiste informatie komt.Anders zeg ik:Schrijf er dan niet over.
Ik ben nog niet in de gelegenheid geweest, alles en detail te lezen [wel enkele passages], wat u over die Rozenoorlogen geschreven hebt, vanwege een druk bezette agenda [misschien komt er nog een aanvullende brief, waarin ik u daarover te grazen neem, als ik dat nodig acht], maar ronduit belachelijk en historisch totale NONSENS [nogmaals, excusez lets mots] was, wat u over een van de hoofdrolspelers, Richard Neville, 16 de Graaf van Warwick, ook wel ”the Kingmaker” genoemd [1], hebt neergeschreven.
UW SCHRIJFSEL OVER RICHARD NEVILLE, DE KINGMAKER
Eerst maar eens uw schrijfsel over Richard Neville, de Kingmaker, wat te lezen is.Ik lees [en u nu met mij] bladzijde 24, links bovenaan:
”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Einde uw tekst
Dit, waarde Redactie, is een warwinkel van nonsens, taalverwarring en historische inaccuratesse.
TEN EERSTE:
Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, liep, hoewel aanvankelijk inderdaadeen ”aanhanger” van koning Hendrik VI [van het Huis van Lancaster, klopt], NIETover naar het Huis van York, NADAT zijn neef Eduard, 7e Earl [Graaf] of Marchen zoon van Richard, de hertog van York, als Eduard IV tot koning werd gekroond:Neen, hij [Richard Neville dus] was al jaren in oppositie tegen koning Hendrik VI, waarbij hij samenwerkte met zijn eigen vader  Richard, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en de hertog van York, vader van de latere Eduard IV [vanaf hier aangeduid als Edward, het was tenslotte een Engelse koning!]
Bovendien was hij juist de grote voortrekker van de kroning van neef Edward totkoning Edward IV! [2]
Ik kom hierop aanstonds uitgebreider terug.
TEN TWEEDE:
U schrijft
”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Dat ..machtswellust” is een zeer kort door de bocht en simplistische verklaringvoor de oorzaken tot het latere conflict tussen koning Edward IV en Richard Neville [van nu af aan aangeduid met de Graaf Warwick of Warwick], waarover aanstonds uitleg volgt.
Het klopt, dat Warwick de koning gevangen nam, maar het is aperte nonsens om neer te pennen, dat Warwick zelf op de Engelse troon wilde komen!Hij had [en dat was erg belangrijk in de Middeleeuwen!] in geen enkel opzicht, niet eens in de verte, recht op die troon, omdat hij niet tot het Huis Plantagenet behoorde en er ook niet zijdelings van afstamde.Kortom:Naar Middeleeuwse mores zou niemand voor hem gevochten hebben en al evenmin was er een schijn van kans, dat hij als koning zou zijn geaccepteerd.Wel probeerde hij, door een slimme wijze van uithuwelijking van zijn tweewettige dochters [hij had ook nog een onwettige dochter, Margaret]. [3],zo dicht bij de troon te komen, dat hij effectief macht kon uitoefenen.
Hierop kom ik terug.
TEN DERDE:Taalverwarring:
U schrijft
”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen”
Uit bovenstaande zin wordt volstrekt niet duidelijk om welke koning het nu ging en om welke veldslag.U had moeten aangeven, dat het hier ging om koning Edward IV [want zoalsu het hebt  neergeschreven, kon het ook wel om koning Hendrik VI, vanaf nu aangeduid als Henry VI,  gaan] en dat het ging om de volgende veldslag:The  Battle of Edgecote in 1469, waaraan de slimme Warwick overigens niet zelf deelnam….] [4]
Dergelijke duidelijkheid is van groot belang, omdat het anders de toch al ingewikkelde verwikkelingen rond de Rozenoorlogen nog gecompliceerder maakt!

ACHTERGRONDGRAAF WARWICK EN DE ROZENOORLOGEN
Om Graaf Warwick te kunnen begrijpen, moet hij gezien worden tegen het licht van de Rozenoorlogen, waarin hij zo’n belangrijke rol speelde.
Om de Rozenoorlogen te kunnen begrijpen, moet je iets afweten van het toenmalige recht van opvolging op de Engelse troon en de verwikkelingenrond de regering van koning Richard II. [5]Want de Rozenoorlogen wortelen diep en zijn in feite gezaaid door de afzettingvan Richard II.[6]

ROZENOORLOGEN:
We beginnen met de voorgeschiedenis van de Rozenoorlogen, waarover u al geschreven hebt in uw Magazine.Globaal lezend heb ik echter gezien, dat u weliswaar de Rozenoorlogen alssuccessiestrijd aanmerkt, maar niet duidelijk hebt gemaakt, hoe het zat met de exacte claims van de Huizen Lancaster en York [De Tweede en Derde Zoon problematiek, zie onderstaand] en ook niet naar de wortels van het conflict gegaan bent.Daarom krijgt u hier deze informatie gratis en voor niets.Eigenlijk zou u mij hiervoor moeten betalen, HAHAHAHAHA
De Rozenoorlogen, ook wel ”the Cousins War” genoemd [7] [pas een eeuw na het conflict raakte de term ”Rozenoorlogen;’ in zwang] waren een 30 jaar lang durend binnenlands militair conflict [burgeroorlog dus]  tussen tweetakken van het toenmalige Engelse Koningshuis, het Huis Plantagenet[aan de macht vanaf 1154 tot 1485], de Huizen Lancaster en York.Een ”adellijke” burgeroorlog, die hoogst bloedig werd uitgevochten, waarbijde diverse adellijke families partij kozen voor Lancaster en York , weer van kant wisselden, als het hen zo uitkwam en verraad, kuiperijen, intriges en bloedige veldslagen elkaar afwisselden.Voor meer verdieping en informatie [die u ook deels hebt beschreven] zie noot 8
GEZAAID ZAAD
Maar het conflict begon niet bij de eerste militaire veldslag of liever gezegd schermutseling, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans in 1455 [9]Ook niet bij het gerezen en hoogopgelopen conflict tussen de vrouw vande vreedzame en geestelijk labiele koning Henry VI, de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou [10]en haar gunsteling, Edmund Beaufort, Duke [hertog] of Somerset [behorend tot de Beauforts, de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster en neef van de Lancaster koning Henry VI] enerzijds en anderszijdsRichard, de hertog van York [vader van de latere koning Edward IV], ook een [weliswaar verdere] neef van koning Henry VI[11]Neen, het wortelde in de afzetting van koning Richard II door zijn neef, de latere koning Henry IV. [12]

RICHARD II/PRIMOGENITUUR RECHT
Ik heb weleens gekscherend opgemerkt, dat de diepere oorzaken van de Rozenoorlogen scholen in het feit, dat Edward III, de Engelse koning, die deHonderdjarige oorlog tegen Frankrijk startte, ook een soort successiestrijd [13],teveel zoons had.Het uiteindelijke Rozenoorlog conflict woedde dan ook tussen de nakomelingenvan de tweede zoon van Edward III [van wie de hertog van York van moederskant afstamde] en de derde zoon van Edward III [waartoe het Huis van Lancaster behoorde, de wettige tak en de onwettige tak]
Genoemde Koning Richard II was een zoon Edward of Woodstock, beter bekend als ”’De Zwarte Prins” [14] de oudste zoon van Edward III en volgde zijn grootvader Edward III op tienjarige leeftijd op, omdat zijn eigen vader reeds was overleden.En bij de Engelse troonopvolging gold het primogenituur recht [recht van de eerstgeborene] [15]Als de koning overleed, volgde zijn oudste zoon op.Wanneer deze overleed, diens zoon/nageslachtEn pas als zijn dynastie was uitgestorven, kwam de lijn van de tweede zoon aan de beurt,En zo ging het door.Vrouwen hadden in Engeland het recht op troonsopvolging, maar door de uitgesproken patriarchale samenleving in Middeleeuws Engeland probeerde men dat zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen. [16]
Door een aantal oorzaken en hoogoplopende conflicten met zijn edelen liep het helemaal mis met de regering van Richard II en werd deze uiteindelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke [Bolingbroke, naar het kasteel waar hij geboren was], afgezet [Richard II was kinderloos] [17] en liet Bolingbroke zichzelf kronen tot Henry IV en werd daarmee de  grootvader van Henry VI, die koning was tijdens het begin van de Rozenoorlogen. [18]
EN DAAR WRONG DE SCHOEN!
Niet alleen, dat de wettige koning van Engeland, Richard II, werd afgezet, was van doorslaggevend belang [19] maar ook door wie, namelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, zoon van de DERDE zoon vanEdward III, John of Gaunt [Jan van Gent, hij was in Gent geboren gedurende Edward III’s oorlog tegen Frankrijk], hertog van Lancaster [die titel had hij gekregen via zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche van Lancaster, die de dochter was van de hertog van Lancaster] [20]
Maar in feite waren er nog de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp [Lionel van Antwerpen, in Antwerpen geboren] [21], die dus een sterkere claim hadden op de Engelse troon.Lionel of Antwerp had echter geen zoons gehad, maar een dochter,  Philippa Plantagenet [22] en Philippa’s kleinzoon [zij was al overleden tijdens de afzetting van neef Richard II] Edmund was ten tijde van de afzetting van Richard II een kind van acht jaar en kon dus gemakkelijk opzij geschoven worden. [23]
TWEEDE EN DERDE ZOON VAN EDWARD III
Waar het dus op neer kwam was, dat de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III [Lionel of Antwerp], door die van de DERDE zoon [John of Gaunt dus] opzijgeschoven waren, terwijl in feite die ”tweede zoon” nakomelingen een groter recht hadden op de Engelse troon!En Richard, de hertog van York, die met bondgenoten uiteindelijk de strijd tegenLancaster aan zou gaan, was via zijn moeders kant [Anne Mortimer] [24], een afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp![Richard’s moeder, Anne Mortimer, was via de kant van haar vader, Roger Mortimer, de achterkleindochter van Lionel of Antwerp, zie de stamboom onder noot 25]

Om het lekker simpel te houden was Richard, de hertog van York [ik kan er ook niets aan doen, dat ze allemaal onder elkaar trouwden] van vaderskant ook nog eens de kleinzoon van de VIERDE ZOON van Edward III, Edmund of Langley, hertog van York.
Maar zijn recht op de troon, dat superieur was boven Lancaster, kwam van zijn MOEDERSKANT!, afstammende van de TWEEDE zoon! [25]
Dus samengevat:
De hertog van York, vader van de latere koningen Edward IV en Richard III [die de laatste Plantagenet koning was], had een sterkere claim op de troon dan Lancaster, omdat hij van moederskant afstamde van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III en Lancaster van de DERDE zoon.

LANCASTERS OP DE TROON
Wat het nog simpeler maakte was echter, dat de regerende koningen sinds de afzetting van Richard III dus uit het Huis Lancaster kwamen en al vanaf 1399 koning waren, wat ze een zekere legitimiteit gaf.
Onder koning Henry IV, de feitelijke usurpator [26] van de Engelse troon,brak er nog geen dynastieke twist uit [denk eraan, dat de claimant van deEngelse troon, zoals gezegd, een jongen van 8 jaar was bij afzettingvan Richard II] [27], maar bij zijn zoon Henry V, de grote militaire leider inde nog voortwoedende Honderdjarige Oorlog, gestart door overgrootvader Edward III [28], zag je al het prille begin, belichaamd in het Southampton complot in 1415, waarbij onder andere Richard Conisburgh, de derde Graaf van Cambridge en de vader van Richard, de latere hertog van York met handlangers had geprobeerd, koning Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [ Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, de broer van zijn vrouw Anne Mortimer [Edmund was [de ”achtjarige jongen” met de grotere claim, ten tijde van de afzetting vanRichard II en oom van moederskant van de latere Richard, hertog van York.]Dat hele complot mislukte en de complotteurs werden geexecuteerd. [29]R.I.P. [30]
KONING HENRY VI/HET FEEST KAN BEGINNEN/ROZENOORLOGEN
Maar het werd pas echt hommeles onder koning Henry VI, kleinzoon van usurpator koning Henry IV [onze ”Bolingbroke]Belangrijke oorzaak was de ontevredenheid, ontstaan door hetvoor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige Oorlog, het feit,dat de vreedzame Henry VI het tegenovergestelde was van een flinke militaire leider EN vooral het feit, dat de arme man ernstige psychische problemen had, waardoor ambitieuze mannen probeerden zichzelf en hun familie naar voren te schuiven en grip op de macht te krijgen.Waardoor de Engelse troon een speelbal werd in handen van mannen met echte en vermeende claims.
Tegen deze achtergrond laaide de strijd op tussen de Huizen Lancaster en York,aanvankelijk nog om de controle over de koning, maar gaandeweg om de troomzelf.
Grote tegenstanders waren bij het uitbreken van de strijd enerzijds Richard, derde hertog van York, als afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III[Lionel of Antwerp] [31] de man met de sterkste claim op de troon.Anderszijds Edmund Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, behorend tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster [32], die namens koning Henry VI optrad en gunsteling was van diens strijdbare vrouw, Margaret of Anjou.[33]Gaandeweg echter werd het steeds openlijker een strijd tussen York en zijn bondgenoten enerzijds en Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van de koning [de koning kon door zijn psychische problemen vaak niet effectief regeren] en haar bondgenoten anderszijds, zeker na cde geboorte van haar en de koning’s zoon in 1453.
Het verbale en politieke steekspel tussen de heren [York en Somerset], die beurtelings ”protectors of the realm” [een soort regenten, vervangers van de koning] waren in de tijd, dat koning Henry VI niet kon regeren [staat voor: geestelijke inzinking] [34] duurde voort tot de eerste militaire confrontatie in de Rozenoorlogen, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans [35], waarin Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, sneuvelde [36]
Daarna ging het van Kwaad tot Erger [lees noot 37] , ondanks EEN poging om de partijen te verzoenen, de door de vreedzame koning Henry VI goedbedoelde maar te laat gekomen geinstigeerde ”Loveday]] [door u genoemd in uw artikel: complimenten, niet veel mensen kennen deze gebeurtenis!] [38], maar daarna ging het al snel helemaal mis!En vanaf het sluiten van het Act of Accord [tussen York en koning Henry VI] [39] al snel gevolgd door de Slag bij Wakefield, waarin de hertog van York omkwam [40], ging het er niet meer om, wie koning Henry VI controleerde, maar een keihard gevecht om de troon.GAME OF THRONES! [41]

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground….” [42]Ja, DAT bewezen die Rozenoorlogen wel!

Het tijdperk brak aan  van de door u ook genoemde koning Edward IV, de Rozenoorlogkoning [43], die een redelijk stabiel bewind gevoerd heeft, slechts onderbroken door de Warwick opstand [44], waarover straks meer.Edward IV werd, niet geheel volgens wet en recht, opgevolgd door zijn broer Richard [Richard III]. [45]En tijdens zijn regering werden de Rozenoorlogen definitief beslecht in de Slag bij Bosworth in 1485 [46] tussen Richard III en Henry Tudor [de latere koning Hendrik VII][47], zoon van Margaret Beaufort [48] [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Bosworth werd gewonnen door Henry Tudor, waarbij niet alleen een definitief einde kwam aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ook aan het Huis Plantagenet. [49]en in feite aan de Engelse Middeleeuwen.Richard III was de laatste koning uit het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors [50] brak aan.
Henry Tudor, die zichzelf in feite koning maakte ”by right of conquest”  [51] was, bezegelde zijn legitimiteit als kining door te trouwen met Elisabeth of York, oudste dochter van koning Edward IV. [52]Slimme politieke zet:Want feite had Elisabeth of York [zoals zij werd genoemd en ook heette] natuurlijk koningin moeten worden, als dochter van Edward IV,die niet alleen koning geweest was, maar via zijn vader de hertog van York die superieure claim op de troon had geerfd, boven Lancaster en zeker boven de Beauforts, die onwettige [en later gewettigde tak van het Huis van Lancaster [53] [superieure York claim, weet u nog: via de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp….] [54]
Maar ja, Elisabeth of York was geen strijdbare Margaret of Anjou [55], anders had ze wel gevochten voor haar recht op de troon!Nu werd zij in plaats van Queen by right [heersend monarch], Queen consort [echtgenote van de ko ning][56]
Militaire overwinningen, he….Overigens waren Henry Tudor [Henry VII] en Elisabeth of York de ouders vande latere Henry VIII en dus de grootouders van koningin Elisabeth I.EN de voorouders van alle latere Engelse koningen!
Nou Redactie, was dat een mooi college over de Rozenoorlogen of niet somsHAHAHAHAHA!
NU naar Graaf Warwick, waar het om was begonnen en ZIJN plaats in die Rozenoorlogen.

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK/DE KINGMAKER/THE STORY
De geschiedenis van de Kingmaker is fascinerend en door uw redactie deelsverkeerd verteld en neergeschreven.Dat heb ik hierboven al gecorrigeerd:
Nu een uitgebreider curriculum vitae, om een modern woord te gebruiken:Geboren als Richard Neville in 1428, was hij de zoon van Richard Neville,[door zijn huwelijk, via het recht van zijn vrouw]  5e Graaf van Salisbury [57] en Alice Montegu, 5e Gravin van Salisbury [Salisbury was in feite haar bezit en haar wettelijke titel] [58]Richard Neville stamde uit het Geslacht Neville, een oud-adellijke geslacht [teruggaand van nog voor Willem de Veroveraar] [59], dat als bondgenoten vanRichard, hertog van York, een doorslaggevende rol zou spelen in de Rozenoorlogen. [60]
De Nevilles waren ook verwant aan de hertog van York!Want de tante van Richard Neville [de zuster van zijn vader] Cecily Neville, wasgetrouwd met de hertog van York. [61]Dus simpeler gezegd:
Richard Neville, onze latere ”Kingmaker” was de volle neef van de latere koning Edward IV [zoon dus van de hertog van York en Lady Cecily Neville]
De titel ”Graaf van Warwick” verwierf Richard Neville door zijn huwelijk metLady Anne Beauchamp, de dochter van de dertiende Graaf van Warwick.Door een aantal sterfgevallen binnen de Familie Warwick, werd Richard Neville[jure uxoris: bij het recht van zijn vrouw] [62], de 16e Graaf van Warwick.Genoeg over de ingewikkelde erfelijkheidskwesties binnen de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel.Nu waar het om begonnen is:De Rozenoorlogen.
DIE ROZENOORLOGEN EN DE ROL VAN GRAAF WARWICK, IN VOGELVLUCHT
De wortels van de Rozenoorlogen, dat gewapende conflict tussen de HuizenLancaster en York, dat broeder tegen broeder en neef tegen neef opzette [63] en de mannelijke lijn van zowel het Huis van Lancaster als York zou uitroeien [64], alsmede een groot deel van de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel, lagen, zoals ik al schreef, in het verleden en wel bij de afzetting van Richard II door zijn neef, Henry of Bolingbroke [de latere Henry IV] [zie uitgebreid relaas, hierboven] En zie noot 65
Maar hoewel het zaad reeds in 1399 [bij de afzetting van Richard II dus] was gezaaid, brak het feitelijke conflict uit tijdens de regering van Henry VI, kleinzoon van Henry IV, hoewel het al voorbodes had in the Southampton plot [66],waarbij de vader van de hertog van York, Richard Conisburgh [derde Graaf van Richmond] had geprobeerd [zonder enig succes!], Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [Richard of Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, 5e Graaf van March en feitelijke troonopvolger van Richard II, die in 1399 aan de kant was geschoven door de neef van zijn [Edmund’s] moeder, Henry of Bolingbroke [latere Henry IV] [67]

GOEDHet gewapende conflict brak dus uit onder de regering van Henry VI, in 1455,56 jaar na de afzetting van Richard II.
Uiteraard gingen er groeiende spanningen aan vooraf, met name tussenEdward IV’s vader Richard, de [derde, zal ik niet steeds meer vermelden] hertog van York, die in feite de superieure rechten op de troon had [als neef van Edmund Mortimer en via moederszijde afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp] [68], met als grote tegenspeler Edmund Beaufort [behorend dus tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster], tweede hertog van Somerset. [69]Tussen die twee, van wie Edmund Beaufort een grote gunsteling was van de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou, vrouw van Henry VI, barstte vanaf eind veertiger jaren tot 1455 [toen Somerset sneuvelde in de Eerste Slag bij St Albans] [70] een verbitterde machtsstrijd uit, waarbij op een zeker moment edelen partij gingen kiezen.
Grote spelers waren dus de hertog van York en de hertog van Somerset, waarbij de sympathie van de Kroon [in feite Margaretha van Anjou] duidelijk aan de kant van Somerset lag en er een steeds grotere vijandschap ontstond tussen Margaretha van Anjou en de hertog van York
Een machtsstrijd tussen twee machtige mannen dus, die in feite escaleerde door het feit, dat Henry VI een  vrome en zachtmoedige man,[In de Middeleeuwen was zachtmoedigheid niet bepaald handig voor een koning, die een keihard leider en een bekwaam militair moest zijn, wilde hij zijn macht handhaven], geen spoor van overwicht had.Rampzalig was bovendien, dat de man heftige psychische problemen had [71], waardoor hij hele periodes niet kon regeren en er een soort Regentschap[Protectoraat] werd ingesteld, beurtelings ingevuld door Somerset en York. [72]
Wat Henry VI miste aan vastberadenheid en overwicht, was aanwezig in Margaretha van Anjou, maar in die tijd was er voor een vrouw geen directe regeermacht weggelegd [wat ze wel graag wilde] [73], wat haar echter niet belette, het vuurtje flink op te stoken [zo zat zij nu eenmaal in elkaar], waardoor het conflict alleen maar excaleerde.
Naast de zwakke regering van de onevenwichtige Henry VI en de daaruitvolgende spanningen tussen de adel, speelde het slechte verloopvan de Honderdjarige Oorlog en sociale onrust ook een belangrijke rol. [74]
WHERE THE EARL OF WARWICK IS COMING IN
Wat opvalt aan de Rozenoorlogen was, dat de keuze, die edellieden maakten[voor Lancaster, dus trouw aan koning Henry VI] of voor York [een bondgenoot van de hertog van York [die steeds openlijker tegenover de koning kwam te staan, hoewel hij zijn trouw aan de koning bleef volhouden] [75], niet zozeer gebaseerd was op principes [het al dan niet erkennen van de betere claim op de troon, die de hertog van York inderdaad had] [76] en zelfs niet op het feit, dat ”s konings positie steeds onhoudbaarder werd door zijn psychische problemen [77], maar door hetzij eigen persoonlijke belangen, hetzij conflicten met andere edellieden.Het is niet teveel gezegd, dat heel veel edellieden tot begin vijftiger jaren nog de kat uit de boom keken.Zo ook Warwick, die het aanvankelijke protest en verzet in 1452, van zijn aangetrouwde oom, de hertog van York [de man van Warwick’s tante van vaderszijde, Cecily Neville] niet steunde, zoals vrijwel alle edelen, die trouw bleven aan Henry VI. [78]Maar dat zou om diverse redenen veranderen, waardoor Warwick EN zijn vader, ook een Richard Neville, de 5de Graaf van Salisbury, de trouwste bondgenoten werden van de hertog van York.Drie Richards, door historische fictie-schrijver Con Iggulden in zijn serie over de Rozenoorlogenaangeduid [hij refereerde aan de vijftiger jaren van die vijftiende eeuw] metde aparte benaming ”Trinity” in het Nederlands [correcter] vertaald als ”Het Drievoudig Verbond” [79]Maar goed:Wat Warwick triggerde om gaandeweg te belanden in het kamp van zijn aangetrouwde oom Richard, de hertog van York, was zijn conflict met zijn zwager, de 2de hertog van Somerset.[Somerset was getrouwd met de halfzuster van Warwick’s vrouw Anne Beauchamp.Zij heette Eleanor Beauchamp] [80]JA, dezelfde Somerset, die de aartsvijand/rivaal was van de hertog van York en een diehard gunsteling van Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van koning Henry VI.Dat Warwick/Somerset conflict ging, zoals zo vaak bij de Middeleeuwse adel, over land en dreef Warwick in de armen van de hertog van York. [81]Hierdoor, maar ook naarmate het conflict tussen de hertog van York en Somerset [lees ook de koning en vooral zijn vrouw Margaretha van Anjou] verder opliep en York [tijdelijk] Protector of the Realm [een soort regent] werd[de koning was weer eens uitgeschakeld], kwam ook de vader van Warwick [dus de broer van York’s vrouw Cecily Neville] steeds meer in het kamp van York [82] en vormden deze drie Richards, Richard, de hertog van York, Richard Neville, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en diens zoon, Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, een geducht bondgenootschap in de vijftiger jaren van de vijftiende eeuw!Daarnaast woedde ook nog een vernietigend conflict tussen de Huizen Neville[met aan het hoofd Warwick’s vader] en Henry Percy, 2de Graaf van Northumberland, over land, wat de geschiedenis in zou gaan als de Percy-Neville feud [de Percy Neville vete] [83]En de Percy’s waren felle verdedigers van de Kroon, dus langs deze lijnen ontvouwde het conflict zich ook nog eens.En alles liep zo hoog en fel op, dat in de eerste Rozenoorlog veldslag, de Eerste Slag om St Albans, Warwick’s vader [en zijn zoon en York] tegenover Henry Percy en de hertog van Somerset zouden komen te staan, die beiden sneuvelden, waardoor het zaad van verbittering en haat [hun zoons wilden wraak] verder werd gezaaid. [84][Extra pijnlijk, omdat die Henry Percy weer getrouwd was met een zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Eleanor, waardoor ook de neven tegenover elkaar kwamen te staan!]”[85]
Maar samengevatHet voor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige oorlog, de mentale instabiliteit van de koning, dat Percy Neville conflict en allerlei andere conflicten tussen edelen, triggerden die Rozenoorlogen. [86]En in deze atmosfeer maakte een man als Warwick zijn carriere!

WARWICK EN KONING EDWARD IVTOEN NOG THICK AS BROTHERS………….
Wat in de vijftiger jaren begon als een schermutseling tussen de aanhangers van de hertog van York [met als bondgenoten Warwick en zijn vader ook een Richard Neville, weet u nog?] enerzijds en de getrouwen van koning Henry VI anderszijds [87], De zogenaamde Eerste Slag bij St Albans [88], werd gaandeweg steeds grimmiger, wat uiteindelijk uitmondde in een verbitterde burgeroorlog en een regelrechte strijd om de troon.Zie voor dat verloop noot 89, waarin de strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, steeds meer de leider van de Lancaster Partij werd.Ook wel begrijpelijk:Ze verdedigde niet alleen haar incapabele echtgenoot, maar ook de rechten van haar in 1453 geboren zoon, de toenmalige Prince of Wales, Edward of Westminster [90]
Om een lang en bitter verhaal kort te maken:Na de nederlaag in de Slag bij Ludlow Bridge in 1459 waren de drie Richards gedwongen, in ballingschap te gaan, York en zijn tweede zoon Edmund, Earl of Rutland, naar Ierland, Warwick, zijn vader en York’s oudste zoon Edward, Earl of March [later Edward IV] naar Calais [91], ze kwamen terug, overwonnen aanvankelijk [92], waarna York koning Henry het recht van troonsopvolging afdwong [93], maar leden een bittere nederlaag in Wakefield, waarbij de hertog van York sneuvelde [of na afloop van de strijd gedood], zijn tweede zoon Edmund werd geexecuteerd, Warwick’s vader werd geexecuteerd en Warwick’s broer Sir Thomas Neville, sneuvelde. [94]Een militaire ramp dus, maar ook een persoonlijke tragedie,voor Warwick en Edward [latere Edward IV], die op dat moment pas 18 jaar oud was.Want beiden waren hun vader en een broer kwijt.
Natuurlijk triggerde deze rampzalige verliezen deze twee heren, zowel om wraak te willen nemen als wel om nu echt voor de troon te gaan, wat in 1461 lukte, toen Edward, mede door inspanning van Warwick, tot koning werd gekroond na een aantal klinkende York overwinningen! [95]De nieuwe, jongere generatie York Leiders was dus aanmerkelijk harder en ging verder.Voor vader York was de troonsopvolging van Henry VI genoeg [96], de zoon echter ging direct voor de hoofdprijs.DE TROON!

EDWARD EN WARWICKPARADISE?OR TROUBLE IN PARADISE…..THE BEGINNING:
In het begin van de heerschappij van Edward IV leek alles nog zo goed te gaan.Warwick was king’s best ally and trusted advisor[97], bekwaam als hij was op diplomatiek gebied.Vooral op de Fransen maakte hij indruk.Zo merkte de Gouverneur van Abbeville op in een brief aan de Franse koningLouis XI [Lodewijk XI]:[vertaald naar het Engels]””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.” [98]
Naar mijn mening vulden Warwick en zijn koning Edward IV elkaar perfect aan.Warwick had het politieke inzicht en hoewel een redelijk goed militair, was het Edward IV, die een brilliant legeraanvoerder was en zelden een veldslag  verloor.Zelfs op zijn achttiende had hij in de slag bij St Mortimers Cross in 1461, kort na de dood van zijn vader en broer [99] Jasper Tudor [oom van de latere koning Henry VII] , halfbroer [van moederskant] van koning Henry VI, verslagen en een zeer ervaren legeraanvoerder. [100]
Zelf schrijf ik in mijn artikel ”The Causes of the wars of the Roses/A travel to the Past:”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.” [101]
Het was een Golden Couple:
Edward IV, jong en een van de mooiste mannen van zijn tijd, een brilliant legeraanvoerder en Warwick, charmant, geslepen, zeer ervaren, een goed militair maar een nog veel betere diplomaat.
Helaas…..het mocht niet duren….
Het is nu eenmaal zo
”When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die.There is no middleground” [102]
Maar naast die machtsstrijd, die er ook tussen hen was, was het breekpunt het Geheime Huwelijk, dat Edward IV sloot met Elizabeth Woodville, weduwe van nota bene een Lancaster supporter, de edelman John Grey, die in de Tweede Slag om St Albans was gesneuveld [1461, uitgevochten tussen Warwick en Margaretha van Anjou/supporters, beslissende Lancaster overwinning] [103]Warwick was aan het onderhandelen over een politiek zeer voordelig huwelijk met de Franse prinses Bona, schoonzuster van de Franse koning Louis XI, toen bleek, dat de koning [zonder Warwick in kennis te stellen, al met Elizabeth Woodville getrouwd was. [104]Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick’s ego, die in het buitenland voor gek stond, de dame was ook nog eens weduwe van een man, die supporter geweest was van de Lancaster erfvijand!En tot overmaat van ramp begon de koning de aanzienlijke familie van zijn koningin, de Wooodvilles, te bevoordelen en aanzienlijke posities te geven, waardoor Warwick aan macht inboette! [105]Van Warwick’s kant dus wel begrijpelijk, dat zijn wrok gevoed werd en daarmee zijn zijn vervolgstappen beter te verklaren.Wat uw opmerking:”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.’ [106], dus wel zeer simplistisch maakt!
HEBT U ZOVER NOG MEEGELEZEN?/MOOI!/DAN STAAT U ECHT OPEN VOOR KRITIEK EN BENT U BEREID, BIJ TE LEREN:
VERVOLG:
EDWARD AND WARWICKDE BREUK
Ondanks de strubbelingen over het Geheime Huwelijk van de koningen de toenemende invloed van de Woodvilles [de familie van Edward IV’s koningin], hield, om het even populair te zeggen, Edward IV nog van Warwick.Zo werd zijn broer, George Neville, tot Aartsbisschop van York benoemd en in juli 1465, toen de tragische [voormalige] koning Henry VI gevangen genomen werd, begeleidde Warwick hem naar gevangenschap in The Tower. [107]

MAAR TOEN KWAM DE KLAPPER [OF KLAPPERS], DIE WARWICK EN EDWARD IV UIT ELKAAR DREEF!
Terwijl Warwick de Koninklijke Opdracht kreeg, zowel met de Fransen en de Boergondiers [elkaars vijanden, de Bourgondiers waren de bondgenoten van de Engelsen geweest gedurende de Honderdjarige Oorlog] [108] te onderhandelen over een huwelijk van de zuster van de koning [Margaret] met een van de twee partijen en Warwick langzamerhand de aandacht verschoof naar de Fransen, bij wie hij een uitstekende reputatie genoot [109], sloot Edward IV een geheim verdrag met de Bourgondiers [uiteindelijk werd Margaret uitgehuwelijkt aan de Boergondische Graaf Karel de Stoute] [110], waardoor Warwick weer voor Gek stond!Zaken liepen nog meer uit de hand, omdat de schoonvader van de koning, Richard Woodville, Graaf Rivers, fel voor de verbintenis met de Boergondiers was. [111]Maar los daarvan:Het WAS verstandige en wijze politiek van Warwick, de voorkeur te geven aan een Franse alliantie:Frankrijk was een machtige monarchie en de voormalige tegenstander in de door Engeland begonnen Honderdjarige Oorlog [112] en als bondgenoot veel waardevoller dan het Graafschap Boergondie!
MAAR ER GEBEURDE MEER TUSSEN WARWICK EN EDWARD IV
Want tot overmaat van ramp weigerde Edward IV een huwelijk goed te keuren tussen Warwick’s oudste dochter en zijn [Edward IV’s] broer George, de hertog van Clarence. [113]Waarmee de maat voor Warwick vol was en duidelijk werd, dat Graaf Rivers [de schoonvader van Edward IV] de machtsstrijd had gewonnen.Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick persoonljk, maar ook voor de gehele Familie Neville, waarvan Warwick het Hoofd was. [114]
Om een lang Verhaal kort te maken:
Warwick stoorde zich niet aan het verbod van de koning, maar huwelijkte zijn dochter Isabel vrolijk uit aan ’s Konings broer George, hertog van Clarence, die ook al zo zijn eigen ambities had en graag met Warwick opliep, ook al omdat hij de illusie had [en misschien was dat ook Warwick’s intentie], dat Warwick Edward IV door hem zou willen vervangen als koning [115] [en vergeet ook niet, dat Warwick, na de koning, de rijkste man in Engeland was en dat een huwelijk met zijn dochter een zeer lucratieve zaak was. [116]Het Paar trouwde in 1469 in Calais, met de zegen van de Aartsbisschop van York, George Neville, broer van Warwick. [117]
Daarna escaleerde de Zaak snel en een wervelwind aan gebeurtenissen volgde
Warwick orchestreerde een opstand in het Noorden, waarmee hij schijnbaar niets te maken had [slim!], onder leiding van een mysterieuze ”Robin van Redesdale” [118], keerde  [in 1469] met schoonzoon George PLantagenet terug naar Engeland, ’s koning’s troepen werden door Robin of Redesdale verslagen in de slag bij Edgecote [119], waarna de vader en broer van deKoningin gevangengenomen werden en geexecuteerd [120]
Drama ging door:Later werd de koning zelf gevangengezet, weer vrijgelaten door Warwick [121], een tijd leek dat dan weer redelijk te gaan tussen de koning en Warwick [de koning had Warwick en George hun verraad vergeven] [122], totdat de bom weer barstte, Warwick en George opnieuw in opstand kwamen en de koning gedwongen was, Engeland te verlaten en met een kleine groep getrouwen, waaronder zijn toen zeer loyale broer Richard. hertog van Gloucester en zijn boezemvriend, Lord Hastings [123].De koning ging in ballingschap  naar Bourgondie, waar zijn zuster Margaret inmiddels met Graaf van Bourgondie Karel de Stoute getrouwd was. [124]
Warwick sloot intussen een bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou en plaatste de geestelijk instabiele koning Henry VI opnieuw op de troon [maar Warwick regeerde uiteraard] [125]Hiermee was Warwick definitief naar de kant van Lancaster overgelopen,iets wat enkele jaren daarvoor nog ondenkbaar was [zijn eigen vader en broer waren omgekomen tijdens de strijd in 1461] [126]Zijn bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou werd bezegeld [voor wat, hoort wat!] door het huwelijk tussen Warwick’s jongste dochter Anne Neville en Margaretha’s en Henry VI’s zoon, Edward of Westminster, de Lancaster Prince of Wales. [127]

Het Einde verliep tragisch, want Warwick’s periode van macht was een korte vreugde.Edward IV [wat was ook anders te verwachten] keerde naar Engeland terug met een leger [geholpen door zijn zwager Graag Karel de Stoute van Bourgondie] en versloeg Warwick in de slag bij Barnet [128], waarbij Warwick en zijn broer John, de Eerste Markies van Montagu, sneuvelden.Warwick’s schoonzoon George Plantagenet had zich inmiddels weer verzoend met broer Edward, waarschijnlijk gepiqueerd omdat Warwick zijnkaarten niet meer op hem als koning zette. [129]

Zie voor een zeer interessant overzicht van Warwick’s carriere de documentaire van de Britse historicus Dan Jones [130]
Met de dood van Warwick kwam feitelijk een einde aan de machtspositie van de Familie Neville.Erbij gezegd moet nog worden, dat zij tot een van de weinige adellijke Families behoorden, die aan de kant van het Huis van York stonden.De meeste adelsfamilies waren Lancaster, en dus koning Henry VI, trouw gebleven. [131]Want de monarchie was nog praktisch sacraal en het afzetten van een koning, ook al was dat al wel gebeurd met Edward II [hoewel ten gunste van zijn eigen zoon] en Richard II [usurpatie door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, waarmee die het zaad van die ellende van de Rozenoorlogen werd gezaaid] [132], het afzetten van een koning dus, was nog net geen heiligschennis.

Margaretha van Anjou, die ook met een troepenmacht naar Engeland was gezeild, maar helaas voor de Lancaster zaak te laat in Engeland aankwam om samen met Warwick Edward IV in een militaire tangpositie te nemen, werd in mei 1471 door Edward IV verslagen in de slag bij Tewkesbury, waarbij de kans op een Lancaster heerschappij verkeken was. [133]Tijdens het leven van Edward IV, althans.
Na de dood van Edward IV bemachtigde zijn broer Richard, de hertog vanGloucester, de troon, als Richard III [Zie noot 45]] en werd hij, na twee jaar koningschap, zoals ikal in bovenstaande had vermeld, in de slagbij Bosworth verslagen door Henry Tudor, de latere Hendrik VII,  zoon van Margaret Beaufort [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Hiermee kwam niet alleen definitief een einde aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ookaan het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors brak aan. [Zie noten 46 t/m 50]
EPILOOG
Aanleiding tot mijn schrijven, een Opus, dat ik in september 2019 ben begonnen en nu heb voltooid, is uw ongenuanceerde uitspraakover een van de belangrijkste Spelers tijdens de Rozenoorlogen, Richard Neville,16e Graaf van WarwickNogmaals herhaald mijn reden tot kritiek:Op bladzijde 24 van uw uitgave ”De geschiedenis achter de Game of Thrones”,schreef u dus:”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Einde uw tekst
In bovenstaande heb ik u niet alleen uitgelegd, waarom deze Passage uituw tijdschrift kort door de bocht, verward en historisch onjuist is [ik verwijsnaar het begin van mijn schrijven], ook heb ik u meegenomen opeen Reis door de Tijd, met uitgebreide informatie over de achtergrondenvan de Rozenoorlogen, tegen welks licht de carriere van Richard Neville,bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” gezien moet worden.
Mensen zijn complexe wezens en zelden is iemand alleen ”de verrader” en handelt/zij hij alleen ”uit machtswellust”Handelingen van mensen, zeker uit voorbije tijden, die qua wereldbeelden opvattingen ver afstaan van de onze, moeten bekeken worden vanuitde complexiteit, die zij verdienen.
Ik hoop, dat ik met dit commentaar ertoe heb bijgedragen, dat u inhet vervolg complexe historische gebeurtenissen en ontwikkelingenniet zult afdoen met goedkope one liners, maar recht doetaan de tijd, waarin een en ander dient te worden geplaatst en deafwegingen die iemand tot zijn gedrag hebben bewogen, ook meeweegt.
Alleen dan doet u recht aan de historische werkelijkheid, voor zover wij die kennen.
Een gecompliceerd en veelzijdig carrierepoliticus [om maar eenmodern woord te gebruiken] als de Graaf van Warwick verdient beter.
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam 
NOTEN
Voor uw gemak heb ik de bijbehorende noten in links ondergebrachtZie voor noten 1 t/m 133
LINKS

OF

https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/noten-1-t-m-133-bij-brief-aan-historisch-tijdschrift-ontdek-over-verkeerde-historische-informatie-over-de-rozenoorlogen/

FYSIEKE NOTEN

[1]

Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, werd bekend als ”the Kingmaker”omdat hij twee koningen in het zadel heeft geholpen, eerst zijn neef Edward, de 7de Earl [Graaf] of March en zoon van Richard, hertog van York.Edward werd na een aantal overwinningen op de Lancasters, in 1461,tot koning gekroond, waarbij Warwick een beslissende rol speelde.Nadat er een breuk was ontstaan met zijn neef, koning Edward IV, trachtte Warwick George Plantagenet, de broer van Edward IV, die inmiddels metWarwick’s dochter getrouwd was [tegen de wil van Edward IV], op de troon te brengen.Toen dat mislukte, liep Warwick over naar de kant van Lancaster, zette de in 1461 afgezette koning Hendrik VI weer op de troon en bracht een huwelijktot stand tussen zijn jongste dochter Anne Neville en de zoon van koning Hendrik VI en zijn strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, Edward van Westminster.Tenslotte sneuvelde Warwick in de slag bij Barnet, de eindstrijd tegen zijnneef, koning Edward IV [die vanuit ballingschap in Bourgondie met een leger naar Engeland was teruggekeerd.
ZIE OP WIKIPEDIA:
”After a failed plot to crown Edward’s brother, George, Duke of Clarence, Warwick instead restored Henry VI to the throne.”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

LUMINARIUMRICHARD NEVILLE, EARL OF WARWICK
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warwick.htm

[2]

YOUTUBE.COMBRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE[WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY]

[3]
NEVILL FEASTA GLIMPSE AT WARWICK’S NATURAL DAUGHTER MARGARET
https://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/a-glimpse-at-warwicks-natural-daughter-margaret/

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HISTORYMARGARET ALMOST-NEVILLE
http://cupboardworld.blogspot.com/2014/08/margaret-almost-neville.html

[4]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE MOOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edgecote_Moor

LUMINARIUMTHE BATTLE OF EDGECOTE
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edgecote.htm

[5]

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

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

[6]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

”Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

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

[7]

Door tijdgenoten werd het conflict ”Cousins war” genoemd, omdat de Huizen Lancaster en York aan elkaar verwant waren, beiden behorend tot het Huis Plantagenet, en zij cousins [neven, vaak verre neven] van elkaar waren.De term ”Rozenoorlogen”, verwijzend naar de symbolen de Witte Roos [Huis van York] en de Rode Roos [Huis van Lancaster] is pas een eeuw later in zwang gekomen, met name door Shakespeare’s koningsdrama ”Henry VI, bestaande uit drie delenIn deel 1 romantiseert Shakespeare de gebeurtenissen [er is geen enkel historisch bewijs voor, dat het ook zo is gegaan] door de vertegenwoordigers van het Huis van York en Het Huis van Lancaster een respectievelijk witte en rode roos te laten plukken als ”strijd” symbool:
‘PLANTAGENET

Since you are tongue-tied and so loath to speak,
In dumb significants proclaim your thoughts:
Let him that is a true-born gentleman
And stands upon the honour of his birth,
If he suppose that I have pleaded truth,
From off this brier pluck a white rose with me.

SOMERSET

Let him that is no coward nor no flatterer,
But dare maintain the party of the truth,
Pluck a red rose from off this thorn with me.

WARWICK

I love no colours, and without all colour
Of base insinuating flattery
I pluck this white rose with Plantagenet.

SUFFOLK

I pluck this red rose with young Somerset
And say withal I think he held the right.

VERNON

Stay, lords and gentlemen, and pluck no more,
Till you conclude that he upon whose side
The fewest roses are cropp’d from the tree
Shall yield the other in the right opinion.

SOMERSET

Good Master Vernon, it is well objected:
If I have fewest, I subscribe in silence.
RICHARD

PLANTAGENET

And I.

VERNON

Then for the truth and plainness of the case.
I pluck this pale and maiden blossom here,
Giving my verdict on the white rose side.

SOMERSET

Prick not your finger as you pluck it off,
Lest bleeding you do paint the white rose red
And fall on my side so, against your will.

VERNON

If I my lord, for my opinion bleed,
Opinion shall be surgeon to my hurt
And keep me on the side where still I am.

SOMERSET

Well, well, come on: who else?

Lawyer

Unless my study and my books be false,
The argument you held was wrong in you:

To SOMERSETIn sign whereof I pluck a white rose too.
RICHARD

PLANTAGENET

Now, Somerset, where is your argument?

SOMERSET

Here in my scabbard, meditating that
Shall dye your white rose in a bloody red.
RICHARD

PLANTAGENET

Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses;
For pale they look with fear, as witnessing
The truth on our side. SHAKESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART ONE, SCENE IV, LONDON, THE TEMPLE GARDEN http://shakespeare.mit.edu/1henryvi/full.html

”PLANTAGENET” IS RICHARD PLANTAGENET, DE HERTOG VAN YORK, MET ALS SYMBOOL DE WITTE ROOS
SOMERSET, HENRY BEAUFORT, POLITIEKE TEGENSTANDER  VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK EN BEHOREND TOT DE ONWETTIGE TAK VAN HET HUIS LANCASTER, MET ALS SYMBOOL DE RODE ROOS

[8]

WIKIPEDIA
WARS OF THE ROSES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses
YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

WARS OF THE ROSES/CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES/A TRAVEL TO THE PAST
ASTRID ESSED
3 FEBRUARY 2015

[9]
WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

[10]

WIKIPEDIAENMITY OF MARGARET AND THE DUKE OF YORK  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou#Enmity_between_Margaret_and_the_Duke_of_York

ORIGINELE BRONWIKIPEDIA MARGARET OF ANJOU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou

ENGLISH HISTORY/THE WARS OF THE ROSES/MARGARET OF ANJOU AND RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, TWO MAJOR PLAYERSASTRID ESSED11 JANUARY 2015
https://www.astridessed.nl/english-historythe-wars-of-the-rosesmargaret-of-anjou-and-richard-duke-of-york-two-major-players/

[11]

Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset,[a]KG ( c. 1406 – 22 May 1455), was an English nobleman and an important figure in the Wars of the Roses and in the Hundred Years’ War. He also succeeded in the title of 4th Earl of Somersetand was created 1st Earl of Dorset and 1st Marquess of Dorset (previously held by his father and later forfeited), and Count of Mortain. He was known for his deadly rivalry with Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York.”

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND OF BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

HOUSE OF BEAUFORT

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

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[12]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND

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

[13]

Toen de laatste koning uit het Franse geslacht Capet, koning Charles IV overleed, was zijn naaste mannelijke bloedverwant de zoon van zijn zusterIsabella of France, de Engelse koning Edward IIIDe Franse troon werd door zijn moeder Isabella [die toen de macht achter de troon was] voor hem geclaimd, maar aangezien vrouwen in Frankrijk waren  uitgesloten van de erfopvolging, kon de zoon van een vrouw [Isabella was de dochter van de in 1314 overleden koning Philips IV en zuster van Charles IV]ook niet opvolgen
Gevolg was uiteindelijk, dat Edward III later de Honderdjarige Oorlog startteom de Franse troon te bemachtigen

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEAR’S WAR/ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Origin_of_the_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIA HUNDRED YEARS WAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

[14]

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE

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

[15]

WIKIPEDIAPRIMOGENITURE

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

[16]
KONING HENRY I, ZOON VAN WILLEM DE VEROVERAAR, LIET DE EDELEN ZWEREN, ZIJN ENIG OVERGEBLEVEN KIND, DOCHTER MATHILDA, TE ERKENNEN ALS KONINGIN VAN ENGELANDDIT DEDEN ZE ZEER TEGEN HUN ZIN, MAAR NA DE DOOD VAN HENRY I KWAMEN DE EDELEN DAARTEGEN IN OPSTAND EN CLAIMDE DE NEEF VAN MATHILDA, STEPHEN VAN BLOIS, EEN KLEINZOON VAN WILLEN DE VEROVERAAR VAN MOEDERSKANT, DE TROONEEN JARENLANGE STRIJD TUSSEN MATHILDA EN STEPHEN BRANDDE LOS, DE ANARCHY GENAAMD, MAAR EINDIGDE TOCH IN EEN OVERWINNING VOOR MATHILDA, OMDAT IN HET VERDRAG VAN WALLINFORD [OOK WEL BEKEND ALS VERDRAG VAN WINCHESTER] WERD BEPAALD, DAT STEPHEN TIJDENS ZIJN LEVEN KONING ZOU ZIJN, MAAR DAT MATHILDA’S ZOON, DE LATERE HENRY II [VADER VAN RICHARD LEEUWENHART EN JAN ZONDER LAND] HEM ZOU OPVOLGEN
ZIE:

”Meanwhile, Matilda’s younger brother, William Adelin, died in the White Ship disaster of 1120, leaving Matilda’s father and England facing a potential succession crisis. On Emperor Henry V’s death, Matilda was recalled to Normandy by her father, who arranged for her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou to form an alliance to protect his southern borders. Henry I had no further legitimate children and nominated Matilda as his heir, making his court swear an oath of loyalty to her and her successors, but the decision was not popular in the Anglo-Norman court. Henry died in 1135, but Matilda and Geoffrey faced opposition from Anglo-Norman barons. The throne was instead taken by Matilda’s cousin Stephen of Blois, who enjoyed the backing of the English Church. Stephen took steps to solidify his new regime but faced threats both from neighbouring powers and from opponents within his kingdom.”

WIKIPEDIA EMPRESS MATHILDA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda

WIKIPEDIATHE ANARCHY

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

”Stephen announced the Treaty of Winchester in Winchester Cathedral: he recognised Henry FitzEmpress as his adopted son and successor, in return for Henry doing homage to him. Other conditions included:

  • Stephen promised to listen to Henry’s advice, but retained all his royal powers;
  • Stephen’s remaining son, William, would do homage to Henry and renounce his claim to the throne, in exchange for promises of the security of his lands;
  • Key royal castles would be held on Henry’s behalf by guarantors, whilst Stephen would have access to Henry’s castles;
  • The numerous foreign mercenaries would be demobilised and sent home.[4]

Stephen and Henry sealed the treaty with a kiss of peace in the cathedral.[5] Henry II later rewarded Wallingford for its assistance in the struggle by giving the town its royal charter in 1155.”
TREATY OF WALLINGFORD/TERMS OF THE TREATY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Wallingford#Terms_of_the_treaty

ORIGINELE BRON
TREATY OF WALLINGFORD

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

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/LANCASTER AND YORK/USURPATION AND THE RIGHT TO THE THRONE THROUGH FEMALESASTRID ESSED17 FEBRUARY 2015
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-roseslancaster-and-yorkusurpation-and-the-right-to-the-throne-through-females-2/

[17]

‘Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

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

YOUTUBE.COMBRITAIN’S BLOODIEST DYNASTYTYRANNYPART 4 OF 4[RICHARD II]

Henry IV (15 April 1367 – 20 March 1413), also known as Henry Bolingbroke (/ˈbɒlɪŋbrʊk/), was King of England from 1399 to 1413.”
WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND

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

[18]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND

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

[19]
Voor het eerst in de geschiedenis van het Huis Plantagenet was met afzetting van een koning de erfelijke lijn verbroken:Er was al eerder een koning afgezet, koning Edward II, door toedoen van zijn van hem vervreemde vrouw, Isabella of France en haar bondgenoot [wellicht minnaar] Roger Mortimer, maar dat was geweest ten gunste van zijn [Edward II’s] eigen zoon, de latere Edward III, waarmee de opvolgingslijn niet werd verbroken
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD II OF ENGLAND

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


YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[20]

JOHN OF GAUNT, OFTEWEL JAN VAN GENT, WERD HERTOG VAN LANCASTER ”JURE UXORIS”/BIJ HET RECHT VAN ZIJN VROUWZIJN VROUW, BLANCHE VAN LANCASTER, WAS DE DOCHTER VAN HENRY GROSMONT, HERTOG VAN LANCASTER EN JOHN OF GAUNT ERFDE BIJ DE DOOD VAN ZIJN SCHOONVADER DIENS HERTOGELIJKE TITELBLANCHE OF LANCASTER WAS DE MOEDER VAN DE LATERE KONING HENRY IV [HENRY OF BOLINGBROKE], DIE ZIJN NEEF,KONING RICHARD II, AFZETTE ALS KONING

ZIE
Jure uxoris (a Latin phrase meaning “by right of (his) wife”[1][2]) is a title of nobility used by a man because his wife holds the office or title suo jure (“in her own right”). Similarly, the husband of an heiress could become the legal possessor of her lands. For example, married women in England were legally incapable of owning real estate until the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

WIKIPEDIAJURE UXORIS

WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT

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

”On 19 May 1359 at Reading Abbey, John married his third cousinBlanche of Lancaster, younger of the two daughters of Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Both shared a common descent from King Henry III. The wealth she brought to the marriage was the foundation of John’s fortune. Blanche died on 12 September 1368 at Tutbury Castle, while her husband was overseas. 
WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT/MARRIAGES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt#Marriages

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt

WIKIPEDIABLANCHE OF LANCASTER

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

”Henry was the son of John of Gaunt (the fourth son of Edward III) and Blanche of Lancaster. ”
WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND

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

[21]

WIKIPEDIALIONEL OF ANTWERP, 1ST DUKE OF CLARENCE

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

[22]

Philippa of Clarence (16 August 1355 – 5 January 1382) was the suo jureCountess of Ulster.  

WIKIPEDIAPHILIPPA, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER

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

[23]

‘Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

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


YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[24]

”Born on 27 December 1388,[2][3][4] Anne Mortimer was the eldest of the four children of Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March (1374–1398), and Eleanor Holland(1370–1405).[3] She had two brothers, Edmund, 5th Earl of March (1391–1425), and Roger (1393–1413?), as well as a sister, Eleanor.[3]

Anne’s father was a descendant of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, second surviving son of King Edward III of England, an ancestry which made Mortimer a potential heir to the throne during the reign of the childless King Richard II. Upon Roger Mortimer’s death in 1398, this claim passed to his son and heir, Anne’s brother Edmund, Earl of March.[5] In 1399, Richard II was deposed by Henry IV, of the House of Lancaster, making Edmund Mortimer a dynastic threat to the new king, who in turn placed both Edmund and his brother Roger under royal custody.”

WIKIPEDIA

ANNE DE MORTIMER/EARLY LIFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mortimer#Early_life

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

ANNE DE MORTIMER

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

[25]

KORTE STAMBOOM/AFSTAMMING RICHARD, HERTOG VAN YORK VAN DE TWEEDEZOON VAN EDWARD III

VOORAF:
KING EDWARD III [married with Philippa of Hainault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England

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

A

LIONEL OF ANTWERP, FIRST DUKE OF CLARENCE ENDE TWEEDE ZOON VAN EDWARD III [ [married with Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_of_Antwerp,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_de_Burgh,_4th_Countess_of_Ulster
B
PHILIPPA OF CLARENCE, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER, DOCHTER VAN LIONEL OF ANTWERP EN ELIZABETH DE BURGH:
PHILIPPA OF CLARENCE, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER[Married with Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa,_5th_Countess_of_Ulster

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

C

ROGER MORTIMER, FOURTH EARL OF MARCH, ZOON VAN PHILIPPA OF CLARENCE EN EDMUND MORTIMER, 3RD EARL OF MARCH.[Married with Alianore Holland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alianore_Holland,_Countess_of_March

D

ANNE DE MORTIMER, DOCHTER VAN ROGER MORTIMER, 4RD EARLOF MARCH EN ALIANORE HOLLAND [Married Richard of Conisburgh, Third Earl of Cambridge en zoonvan Edmund of Langley, First Duke of York,, vierde zoon van Edward III ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mortimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Conisburgh,_3rd_Earl_of_Cambridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_of_Langley,_1st_Duke_of_York

RICHARD, THIRD DUKE OF YORK [Titel erfde hij van de oudere broervan zijn vader Richard Conisburgh, genaamd Edmund, second Duke of York,die kinderloos overleed][Married Cecily Neville, uit de beroemde en invloedrijke familie Neville]

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

RICHARD, HERTOG VAN YORK WAS DE VADER VAN DE LATERE KONINGEN EDWARD IV EN RICHARD III [MOEDER WAS CECILY NEVILLE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

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

[26]

WIKIPEDIAUSURPATOR

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usurpator

[27]

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND MORTIMER, 5TH EARL OF MARCH

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


YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[28]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY V OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_of_England

[29]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Plot

[30]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Plot

NEVILFEASTLETTERS OF RICHARD EARL OF CAMBRIDGE TO HENRY V
https://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/letters-from-richard-earl-of-cambridge-to-henry-v/

TEXT

In 1415, when his son, Richard (later duke of York), was four years old, Richard, earl of Cambridge, was “accused of a treasonable conspiracy, indicted, convicted and beheaded” (p45). This has come to be known as the Southampton Plot. During his captivity he wrote two letters to the king, Henry V: a letter of confession and a plea for mercy, “but neither had any effect upon Henry” (p45).

Cambridge’s letter of confession:

My most dredfulle and sovereyne lege Lord, lyke to yowre hynesse to wete touchyng the purpose cast ageyns ʒowre hye estate. Havyng ye Erle of Marche by his aune assent, and by the assent of myself, Wher of y most me repent of all worde [worldly] thyng and by the acord of the lord Scrop and Sir Thomas Grey, to have hadde ye forseyd erle into the lond of Walys wyth outyn yowre lycence, takying upon hym the sovereynte of ʒys lond; ʒyf yondyr manis persone wych they callyn kynge Richard hadde nauth bene alyve, as Y wot wel yat he nys not alyve, for the wyche poynt I putte me holy in ʒowre grace. And as for ye forme of a proclamacyon wych schulde hadde bene cryde in ye Erle name, as he heyre to the Corowne of Ynglond ageyns ʒow, my lege lord, calde by auntreu [untrue] name Harry of Lancastre usurpur of Yngland, to the entent to hadde made the more people to hadde draune to hym and from ʒow, of the wych crye Scrop knew not of by me, but Grey dyd, havyng wyth the erle a baner of ye Armes of Ynglond, havyng also ye coroune of Speyne on a palet, wych, my lege Lord, is one of ʒowre weddys, for ye wych offence y put me holy in ʒowre grace. And as for ye p’pose takyn by Unfrevyle and Wederyngtoun for ye bryngyng in of that persone whych they namyd kyng Richard, and Herry Percye oute of Scotland wyth a power of Scottys, and theyre power togedyrs neyming to theyme able to geve ʒow a bataylle, of ye wych entent Sir Thomas Grey wyste of, and i also, but nauth Scrop as by me; of ye wych knawing i submytte me holy into ʒowre grace. And as touchyng the Erle of Marche, and Lusy hys man, they seyden me both yat the Erle was nauth schreven of a great whyle, but at all hys confessours putte hym in penaunce to clayme yat yey callyddyn hys ryth that wold be that tyme that every iknew, heny thyng yat ever to hym longyd … … … Of ye which poynttes and artycles here befor wretyn, and of al odyr wych now arne nauth in mynde, but treuly as oft as heny to myn mynd fallyn i schal deuly and treuly certefye now thee of, besekyng to now, my lege Lord, for hys love yat syffyrd passyoun on ye good fryday see compassyoun on me ʒowre lege men, and yf heny of thes persones whos names arne contenyd in ʒyz tyme, i schalle be redy wyth the myth of god to make hyt good, as ʒee my lege Lord will awarde me.

_____________________

_____________________

A plea for mercyMyn most dredfull and sovereyne Lege Lord, i Richard York ʒowre humble subgyt and very lege man, beseke ʒow of Grace of al maner offenses wych y have done or assentyd to in heny kynde, by steryng of odyr folke eggynge me yer to, where in y wote wel i have hyll offendyd to ʒowre Hynesse; besechyng ʒow at the reverence of God yat ʒyke to take me in to the handys of ʒowre gred goodnesse. My lege Lord, my fulle trust is yat ʒee wylle have consyderacyoun, thauth yat myn persone be of none valwe, ʒowre hye goodnesse wher God hath sette ʒow in so hye estat to every lege man yat to ʒow longyth plenteousely to geve grace, yat ʒow lyke to accept ʒys myn symple reqwest for ye love of oure Lady and of ye blysfulle Holy Gost, to whome I pray yat yey mot ʒowre hert enduce to all pyte and grace for yeyre hye goodnesse. 

[30]

R.I.P.
 Latin requiēscat (or requiēscantin pāce

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/r-i-p-

[31]

ZIE NOOT 25

[32]
KORT:De Beauforts, ook wel de ”onwettige” tak van het Huis Lancaster genoemd, behoorden feitelijk helemaal niet tot het Huis Lancaster,.aangezien zijgeen kinderen waren van John of Gaunt [derde zoon van Edward III]en zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche of Lancaster, maar afstamden van John of Gaunt en zijn DERDE vrouw, Katherine Swynford:
John of Gaunt’s eerste vrouw, Blanche of Lancaster, was de dochter van Henry Grosmont, de eerste hertog van Lancaster [zijn vader was Graaf Henry of Lancaster] en als zodanig erfde John of Gaunt de hertogelijke titel van zijnvrouw.”Jure uxoris”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris

John of Gaunt’s zoon, Henry Bolingbroke, de latere Henry IV, was ook de zoon van Blanche of Lancaster en als zodanig een Lancaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_of_Lancaster

DE BEAUFORTS echter waren dus kinderen van John of Lancaster en zijn derde vrouw Katherine Swynford, zijn gewezen maitresse.Omdat zij waren geboren tijdens het huwelijk van John of Gaunt, waren ze onwettig, maar werden achteraf gewettigd door zowel Richard II als  Paus Bonifacius IX  en kregen de naam Beaufort.
Maar met de fysieke Lancaster afstamming hadden zij dus niets te maken.Wat hen echter een rol gaf, was dat zij halfbroers/zusters waren van de eerste Lancaster koning, Henry IV en dus partij werden in het conflict .

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF BEAUFORT

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

[33]

WIKIPEDIAMARGARET OF ANJOU

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

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND  BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[34]
WIKIPEDIARICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK, PROTECTOR OF THE REALM, 1453-1455
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York#Protector_of_the_Realm,_1453–1455

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET, POLITICAL POWER AND CONFLICT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Political_power_and_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND

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

[35]

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS

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

”The first battle of St Albans was relatively minor in military terms,[dubious – discuss] but politically was a complete victory for York and the Nevilles: York had captured the king and restored himself to complete power, while Somerset and the Nevilles’ northern rivals Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford all fell during the rout”

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS/RESULT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans#Result

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS

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

[36]

”By now York was determined to depose Somerset by one means or another, and in May 1455 he raised an army. He confronted Somerset and the King in an engagement known as the First Battle of St Albans which marked the beginning of the Wars of the Roses. Somerset was killed in a last wild charge from the house where he had been sheltering.

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET/POLITICAL POWER AND CONFLICT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Political_power_and_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[37]

WIKIPEDIAWARS OF THE ROSES

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

[38]

WIKIPEDIALOVEDAY, 1458

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loveday,_1458

[39]

”The Act of Accord was passed by the English Parliament on 25 October 1460,[1] three weeks after Richard, Duke of York, had entered the Council Chamber and laid his hand on the empty throne. Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life but York and his heirs were to succeed, excluding Henry’s son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act.”

WIKIPEDIAACT OF ACCORD

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

[40]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF WAKEFIELD

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

[41]

WIKIPEDIAGAME OF THRONES

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

[42]

”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground”[Cersei Lannister in the Game of Thrones]

YOUTUBE.COMCERSEI LANNISTER: IN THE GAME OF THRONES YOU WIN OR YOU DIE

”The title of the episode is part of a quote from Cersei Lannister during the final confrontation with Eddard: “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”

WIKIPEDIAYOU WIN OR YOU DIE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Win_or_You_Die

[43]

De term voor Edward IV ”Rozenoorlogkoning” houdt verband met het feit, dat Edward, als 7de Earl [Graaf] van March en erfgenaam van zijn vader de hertog van York, letterlijk met ”bloed, zweet en tranen” voor de troon heeft moeten vechten:Zijn vaders superieure claim op de troon [van moederskant afstammend van de TWEEDE  zoon van Edward III, terwijl de Lancasters afstamden van de DERDEzoon] ging na zijn vaders dood op hem over.En dan was er ook nog het [van koning Henry VI afgedwongen] Act of Accord, dat inhield, dat Henry VI tijdens zijn leven zou regeren, maar dat na zijn dood de hertog van York en zijn erfgenamen de troon zouden bestijgen [waarmee de eigen zoon van de koning, Edward van Westminster, werd gepasseerd]Helemaal ”eerlijk” was de troonsbestijging van Edward IV [ondanks zijn superieure claim dus niet, want Henry VI was op dat moment nog in leven…..
MAAR GOED:Edward heeft dus keihard moeten vechten voor zijn troon en tijdens zijn bewind hebben de meeste veldslagen van de Rozenoorlogen plaatsgehad….
ZIE AAN DE RECHTERKANT VAN ONDERSTAANDE LINK
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warsoftheroses.htm

[44]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[45]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND/KING OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England#King_of_England

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND

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

[46]
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF BOSWORTH [BATTLE OF  BOSWORTH FIELD]

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

[47]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND/ANCESTRY AND EARLY LIFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England#Ancestry_and_early_life

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND

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

[48]

”She was the daughter and sole heiress of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (1404–1444), a legitimised grandson of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (third surviving son of King Edward III) by his mistress Katherine Swynford.”

WIKIPEDIALADY MARGARET BEAUFORT/ORIGINS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort#Origins

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIALADY MARGARET BEAUFORT 

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

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF BEAUFORT 

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

[49]
”The Battle of Bosworth Field (or Battle of Bosworth) was the last significant battle of the Wars of the Roses, the civil war between the Houses of Lancaster and York that extended across England in the latter half of the 15th century. Fought on 22 August 1485, the battle was won by the Lancastrians. Their leader Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, became the first English monarch of the Tudor dynasty by his victory and subsequent marriage to a Yorkist princess. His opponent Richard III, the last king of the House of York, was killed during the battle, the last English monarch to die in battle. Historians consider Bosworth Field to mark the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, making it one of the defining moments of English history.”

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF BOSWORTH [BATTLE OF  BOSWORTH FIELD]

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

[50]

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF TUDOR

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

[51]

”Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII, succeeded in presenting himself as a candidate not only for traditional Lancastrian supporters, but also for discontented supporters of their rival House of York, and he took the throne by right of conquest
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF TUDOR

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

WIKIPEDIARIGHT OF CONQUEST

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

[52]

”By 1483, Henry’s mother was actively promoting him as an alternative to Richard III, despite her being married to Lord Stanley, a Yorkist. At Rennes Cathedral on Christmas Day 1483, Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV, who was also Edward’s heir since the presumed death of her brothers, the Princes in the Tower, King Edward V and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND/RISE TO THE THRONE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England#Rise_to_the_throne

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND

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

[53]

”The family is descended from John of Gaunt by his then-mistress Katherine Swynford. Gaunt married Swynford in 1396, and their children were legitimized by Richard II and Pope Boniface IX. ”

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF BEAUFORT

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

[54]

ZIE NOOT 25

[55]

WIKIPEDIA MARGARET OF ANJOU

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

WIKIPEDIAELIZABETH OF YORK

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

[56]

QUEEN BY RIGHT OF QUEEN REGNANT

”A queen regnant (plural: queens regnant) is a female monarch, equivalent in rank to a king, who reigns in her own right, as opposed to a queen consort, who is the wife of a reigning king, or a queen regent, who is the guardian of a child monarch and reigns temporarily in the child’s stead”

WIKIPEDIAQUEEN REGNANT

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

WIKIPEDIAQUEEN CONSORT

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

[57]

”Three of Richard’s sisters married dukes (the youngest Cecily, marrying Richard, Duke of York), and Richard himself married Alice Montacute, daughter and heiress of Thomas Montacute, the Earl of Salisbury………..”At the time of the marriage, the Salisbury inheritance was not guaranteed, as not only was Earl Thomas still alive, but in 1424 he remarried (to Alice Chaucer, granddaughter of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer). This second marriage was without issue and when the Earl Thomas Montacute died in 1428, Richard Neville and Alice were confirmed as the Earl and Countess of Salisbury. From this point on, Richard Neville will be referred to as Salisbury.”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY/BACKGROUND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury#Background

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury

WIKIPEDIAJURE UXORIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris

[58]

ZIE NOOT 57

[59]

”But the male line of the Nevilles was of native origin, and the family may well have been part of the pre-conquest aristocracy of Northumbria.[1] The continuation of landowning among such native families was more common in the far north of England than further south.”
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/ORIGINS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville#Origins

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville

[60]

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/WARS OF THE ROSES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville#Wars_of_the_Roses

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE

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

[61]

Cecily Neville (3 May 1415 – 31 May 1495) was an English noblewoman, the wife of Richard, Duke of York (1411–1460), and the mother of two kings of EnglandEdward IV and Richard III. Cecily Neville was known as “the Rose of Raby”, because she was born at Raby Castle in Durham, and “Proud Cis”, because of her pride and a temper that went with it, although she was also known for her piety. She herself signed her name “Cecylle”.”
WIKIPEDIACECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_Neville,_Duchess_of_York

CECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS [HERTOGIN] OF YORK, WAS DE ZUSTER VAN DE VADER VAN DE 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK [THE KINGMAKER],RICHARD, DE VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURYMET ANDERE WOORDEN:CECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF YORK WAS WARWICK’S TANTE.
ZIE OOK

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury

[62]
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/BECOMING WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Becoming_Warwick

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[63]

BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER/COUSIN AGAINST COUSIN
VOORBEELD:
IN DE SLAG BIJ NORTHAMPTON [1460] STONDEN DE LATERE EDWARD IV [TOEN NOG EDWARD OF YORK,  7DE EARL OF MARCH] EN DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK TEGENOVER ONDER ANDERE HUN NEEF, THOMAS PERCY, EERSTE BARON EGREMONT, DIE AAN DE LANCASTER KANT VOCHT EN IN DEZE SLAG SNEUVELDE

THOMAS PERCY WAS EEN ZOON VAN HENRY PERCY, TWEEDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND EN LADY ELEANOR NEVILLE, DE ZUSTERVAN CECILY OF YORK-NEVILLE [MOEDER VAN EDWARD IV] EN RICHARD,VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, DE VADER VAN GRAAF WARWICK

WIKIPEDIATHOMAS PERCY, 1ST BARON EGREMONT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Baron_Egremont

WIKIPEDIA BATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON (1460)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Northampton_(1460)

IN DE SLAG BIJ TOWTON [1461] STONDEN EDWARD IV [TOEN NET TOT KONING GEKROOND, WAARMEE HIJ HENRY VI VERVING] EN DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, SAMEN MET ANDERE FAMILIELEDEN, ONDER ANDERE TEGENOVER HENRY PERCY, DE DERDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND EN BROER VAN THOMAS PERCY, EERSTE BARON VAN EGREMONT[ZIE DIRECT HIERBOVEN]DUS WEER TEGENOVER EEN NEEF, DIE AAN DE KANT VAN LANCASTER VOCHT.OOK HENRY PERCY SNEUVELDE, IN DE SLAG BIJ TOWTON
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF TOWTON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton

WIKIPEDIAHENRY PERCY, 3RD EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy,_3rd_Earl_of_Northumberland

EN ZO GING HET SCHERING EN INSLAGBROTHER AGAINST BROTHER/COUSIN AGAINST COUSIN……

[64]

The Wars of the Roses were a series of English civil wars for control of the throne of England fought between supporters of two rival cadet branches of the royal House of Plantagenet: the House of Lancaster, associated with the Red Rose of Lancaster, and the House of York, whose symbol was the White Rose of York. Eventually, the wars eliminated the male lines of both families. 

WIKIPEDIAWARS OF THE ROSES

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

[65]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT

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

Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

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

 [66]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT

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

[67]
ZIE NOOT 23 EN 65

[68]
ZIE NOOT 23

[69]

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET/POLITICAL POWER AND CONFLICT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Political_power_and_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[70]

ZIE NOOT 69

ZIE OOK
WIKIPEDIA FIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

[71]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England

[72]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD OF YORK, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[73]

”Margaret at the time seven months pregnant, attempted to claim the regency, but gained no support. It was given instead to Henry’s cousin, Richard, Duke of York, much to the annoyance of the Queen, who strongly felt that she and her party should govern England.”
ENGLISH MONARCHSMARGARET OF ANJOU
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_26.html

[74]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSESMARK GOACHER

[75]

”What Cade and York were challenging was the improper influence of the king’s advisors on the application of royal authority. It is difficult to regard this as anything other than a tactic intended to prevent the imputation of treason against them. In York’s case he embellished his complaints with the inference that the king was the innocent victim of evil councillors. It was a situation from which York — the king’s true and loyal subject — would recue him; thus, allowing him to rule properly as was always his intention. 

DUKE RICHARD, THE 3RD DUKE OF YORK, THE KING’S TRUE LIEGEMAN?

ZIE OOK
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosesmurreyandbluewordpress-comduke-richard-the-3rd-duke-of-york-the-kings-true-liegeman/

[76]

ZIE NOOT 23

ZIE OOK

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSESMARK GOACHER

[77]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSESMARK GOACHER

[77]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND/INSANITY AND THE ASCENDANCY OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England#Insanity,_and_the_ascendancy_of_York

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND

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

[78]
[78]

”When Richard, Duke of York, unsuccessfully rose up against the king in 1452, both Warwick and his father rallied to the side of King Henry VI”

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, BECOMING WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Becoming_Warwick

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[79]

CON IGGULDENTRINITY
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22468475-trinity
CON IGGULDEN [Vertaald in het Nederlands]HET DRIEVOUDIG VERBOND
https://www.bol.com/nl/f/de-rozenoorlogen-het-drievoudig-verbond/9200000036034854/
 [80]

STAMBOOM, WAARUIT HET ZWAGERSCHAP VAN RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK MET EDMUND BEAUFORT, 2DE HERTOG VAN SOMERSET, IS AF TE LEIDEN.HUN VROUWEN WAREN ELKAARS HALFZUSTERS, KINDEREN VANRICHARD, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICK UIT ZIJN EERSTE EN TWEEDE HUWELIJKZIE DIRECT HIERONDER:

RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICKUIT ZIJN EERSTE HUWELIJK MET ELIZABETH DE BERKELEY WERDEN GEBOREN:
MARGARET BEAUCHAMP, DE LATERE COUNTESS OF SHRESBURYELEANOR BEAUCHAMP, DE LATERE DUCHESS OF SOMERSETELIZABETH BEAUCHAMP, DE LATERE BARONESS LATIMER
UIT ZIJN TWEEDE HUWELIJK MET ISABEL LE DESPENSER WERDEN GEBOREN
HENRY, 14E GRAAF VAN WARWICK [OVERLEDEN IN 1446]ANNE [DIE DAARDOOR LATER DE TITEL ERFDE], 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK[NA HET OVERLIJDEN VAN DE DOCHTER VAN HAAR BROER HENRY, OOKEEN ANNE [OVERLEDEN IN 1449]
ZIEHIER DE DRAMATIS PERSONAE
RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beauchamp,_13th_Earl_of_Warwick
ZIJN EERSTE VROUW ELIZABETH DE BERKELEY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Berkeley,_Countess_of_Warwick
HUN DRIE DOCHTERS
MARGARET, COUNTESS OF SHREWSBURY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Beauchamp,_Countess_of_Shrewsbury
ELEANOR, DUCHESS OF SOMERSET, GETROUWD MET EDMUND BEAUFORT, 2E HERTOG VAN SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Beauchamp,_Duchess_of_Somerset

ELIZABETH, BARONESS LATIMER [GEEN WIKIPEDIA]

TWEEDE VROUW VAN RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICK
ISABEL LE DESPENSER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Despenser,_Countess_of_Warwick

ZOON EN DOCHTER UIT DIT TWEEDE HUWELIJK
HENRY BEAUCHAMP, 14E GRAAF VAN WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Beauchamp,_1st_Duke_of_Warwick

ANNE BEAUCHAMP, 16E GRAVIN VAN WARWICKGETROUWD MET RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK [JURE UXORIS]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Beauchamp,_16th_Countess_of_Warwick
[81]

”In June 1453, Somerset was granted custody of the lordship of Glamorgan – part of the Despenser heritage held by Warwick until then – and open conflict broke out between the two men.[15] Then, in the summer of that year, King Henry fell ill.[16] Somerset was a favourite of the king and Queen Margaret, and with the king incapacitated he was virtually in complete control of government.[17] This put Warwick at a disadvantage in his dispute with Somerset, and drove him into collaboration with York”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/CIVIL WAR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Civil_War

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[82]

” The political climate, influenced by the military defeat in France, then started turning against Somerset. On 27 March 1454, a group of royal councillors appointed the Duke of York protector of the realm.[19] York could now count on the support not only of Warwick, but also of Warwick’s father Salisbury, who had become more deeply involved in disputes with the House of Percy in the north of England

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/CIVIL WAR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Civil_War

ORIGINELE BRONWIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[83]
WIKIPEDIAPERCY-NEVILLE FEUD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy–Neville_feud

[84]

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[85]

Thomas Percy, 1st Baron Egremont (29 November 1422 – 10 July 1460) was the son of Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland, and Eleanor Neville, being made Lord Egremont in 1449. A northern baron, he became a leading figure in the internecine Percy-Neville feud, fighting at the Battle of Heworth Moor. When the Wars of the Roses began mid-decade, Egremont fought for the king on the Lancastrian side, being killed five years later at the Battle of Northampton.

WIKIPEDIATHOMAS PERCY, 1ST BARON EGREMONT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Baron_Egremont
ZOALS TE LEZEN [ZIE BOVENSTAANDE]
HET TRIESTE WAS, DAT DEZE THOMAS PERCY DE ZOON WAS VANGENOEMDE LORD PERCY, MAAR OOK VAN ELEANOR NEVILLE, TANTE VAN VADERSZIJDE [ZUSTER VAN ZIJN VADER] VAN WARWICK EN TANTE VAN MOEDERSZIJDE VAN DE LATERE EDWARD IV [ZUSTER VAN ZIJN MOEDER CECILY NEVILLE] , TOEN NOG DE 7E EARL OF MARCH [ZOON VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK]

IN DE BATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON STREED THOMAS PERCY TEGEN ZIJN NEVEN WARWICK EN DE EARL OF MARCH [ZOON VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK] EN SNEUVELDE
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON (1460)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Northampton_(1460)

[86]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

WIKIPEDIAPERCY-NEVILLE FEUD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy–Neville_feud

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEARS WAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

 [87]

BELANGRIJKE EDELEN, DIE GETROUWEN WAREN VAN KONING HENRY VI:
Edmund Beaufort, 2de hertog van York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

Henry Percy, 2e Graaf van Northumberland, getrouwd met Lady Eleanor Neville, zuster van Richard Neville [de vader van Warwick, tegenpartij en bondgenoot van York] en Cecily Neville, vrouw van de hertog van York.
Humphrey Stafford, Eerste hertog van Buckingham , getrouwd met Lady Anne Neville, ook een zuster van Richard Neville en Cecily Neville, vrouw van de hertog van YorkToen al liepen de Families in de Rozenoorlogen door elkaar!
HENRY PERCY, TWEEDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy,_2nd_Earl_of_Northumberland

HUMPHREY STAFFORD, EERSTE HERTOG VAN BUCKINGHAM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Stafford,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham

Eleanor Neville, Richard Neville en Cecily Nevilles zuster, Humphrey Stafford, Eerste hertog van Buckingham en getrouwd met de zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Anne Neville, die eveneens de zuster was van Cecily Neville, de vrouw van de hertog van York/Toen al stonden de families tegenover elkaar]

[88]

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

[89]

WIKIPEDIAWARS OF THE ROSES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

DE DRIE RICHARDS WERDEN DOOR HET ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS” ALS VERRADERS GEBRANDMERKT [FIGUURLIJK] EN HUN BEZITTINGEN VERBEURD VERKLAARD [ATTAINDER]DIT WAS VOORAL HET WERK VAN MARGARETHA VAN ANJOUKONING HENRY VI NEIGDE ALTIJD TOT VERGEVINGSGEZINDHEIDIK DENK, DAT DE PASSAGE [ZIE HET LAATSTE CITAAT, NA DE STIPPELLIJNEN] WAARBIJ VOLLEDIG PARDON WERD AANGEBODEN VOOR WIE ZICH AAN DE KONING ONDERWIERP, VAN DE HAND VAN HENRY VI KWAM……

”The Parliament opened in the chapter house of St. Mary’s priory with a speech by the chancellor, William Waynflete, bishop of Winchester, preaching on the text ‘Grace to you and peace be multiplied’, but the government’s purpose was undoubtedly to condemn York and his kinsmen and allies as traitors. A bill accused twenty-four persons of levying war against the King at Blore Heath and Ludford, and three more (including the countess of Salisbury) of plotting  his death elsewhere. It recited York’s treasons since 1450; what had been done at St. Albans (in 1455 when the duke had eliminated several of his political opponents in a pitched battle in the streets of the town) had been an ‘execrabill and moost detestable dede’, prompted by ‘the moost diabolique unkyndnesse and wrecched envye’. Attainder was fully justified, whereby the traitors were condemned to death and all their possessions declared forfeit. Furthermore, their heirs were to be barred from inheritance forever”…………”The chancellor’s choice of text for his sermon could be taken to imply an intention to pursue peace by softening the rigour of justice with the King’s prerogative of mercy, and at the end of the session Henry VI did indeed mitigate the effects of the act of attainder, insisting on a proviso that he could grant full pardon and restoration to those who humbly sought his grace”

THE HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTON THIS DAY: 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS” ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/periods/medieval/day-20-november-1459-parliament-devils-assembles-coventry

”The main business of the Parliament was to pass bills of attainder for High treason against the leading Yorkist nobles, following the start of a new stage in the Wars of the Roses and the Battle of Ludford Bridge.”

WIKIPEDIAPARLIAMENT OF DEVILS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Devils

”A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.”

WIKIPEDIABILL OF ATTAINDER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

NA DEZE HANDELINGEN VAN HET PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS, ONTVLUCHTTEN DE  DRIE RICHARDS [MET YORK’S ZOON EDWARD, DE EARL OF MARCH, LATER EDWARD IV] HET LAND
YORK NAAR IERLAND, WARWICK, NEEF EDWARD [EARL OF MARCH] EN VADER RICHARD NEVILLE, 5E GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, NAAR FRANKRIJK, CALAIS [LAATSTE ENGELSE BOLWERK IN FRANKRIJK,WARWICK WAS KAPITEIN VAN CALAIS

”Forced to flee the country, York left for Dublin, Ireland, with his second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, while Warwick and Salisbury sailed to Calais, accompanied by the Duke’s son, Edward, Earl of March (the future King Edward IV).”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/HOUSE OF YORK TRIUMPHANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#House_of_York_triumphant

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[90]

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD OF WESTMINSTER, PRINCE OF WALES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminster,_Prince_of_Wales

[91]

‘Forced to flee the country, York left for Dublin, Ireland, with his second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, while Warwick and Salisbury sailed to Calais, accompanied by the Duke’s son, Edward, Earl of March (the future King Edward IV).”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/HOUSE OF YORK TRIUMPHANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#House_of_York_triumphant
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[92]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON (1460)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Northampton_(1460)

[93]
”The Act of Accord was passed by the English Parliament on 25 October 1460,[1] three weeks after Richard, Duke of York, had entered the Council Chamber and laid his hand on the empty throne. Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life but York and his heirs were to succeed, excluding Henry’s son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act.”

WIKIPEDIAACT OF ACCORD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Accord

[94]

”The Duke of York was either killed in the battle or captured and immediately executed. Some later works support the folklore that he suffered a crippling wound to the knee and was unhorsed, and he and his closest followers then fought to the death at that spot;[38] others relate the account that he was taken prisoner (by one Sir James Luttrell of Devonshire), mocked by his captors and beheaded.[40]

His son Edmund, Earl of Rutland attempted to escape over Wakefield Bridge, but was overtaken and killed, possibly by Clifford in revenge for his father’s death at St Albans. Salisbury’s second son Sir Thomas Neville also died in the battle.[21] Salisbury’s son in law William, Lord Harington and Harington’s father, William Bonville, were captured and executed immediately after the battle. (The Bonvilles had been engaged in a feud with the Earl of Devon and the Courtenay family in Devon and Cornwall.) Salisbury himself escaped the battlefield but was captured during the night, and was taken to the Lancastrian camp. Although the Lancastrian nobles might have been prepared to allow Salisbury to ransom himself, he was dragged out of Pontefract Castle and beheaded by local commoners, to whom he had been a harsh overlord”

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF WAKEFIELD/CASUALTIES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wakefield#Casualties

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF WAKEFIELD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wakefield

[95]

[95]

”The death of his father left Edward, now Duke of York, at the head of the Yorkist faction. He defeated a Lancastrian army at Mortimer’s Cross in Herefordshire on 2–3 February 1461. He then united his forces with those of Warwick, whom Margaret’s army had defeated at the Second Battle of St Albans (17 February 1461), during which Henry VI had been rescued by his supporters.[7] Edward’s father had restricted his ambitions to becoming Henry’s heir, but Edward now took the more radical step of proclaiming himself king in March 1461.[7] He then advanced against the Lancastrians, having his life saved on the battlefield by the Welsh Knight Sir David Ap Mathew. He defeated the Lancastrian army in the exceptionally bloody Battle of Towton in Yorkshire on 29 March 1461.[8] Edward had effectively broken the military strength of the Lancastrians, and he returned to London for his coronation. King Edward IV named Sir David Ap Mathew Standard Bearer of England and allowed him to use “Towton” on the Mathew family crest.”

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/ACCESSION TO THE THRONE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Accession_to_the_throne

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND

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

[96]

WIKIPEDIAACT OF ACCORD

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

[97]

”Warwick’s position after the accession of Edward IV was stronger than ever.[59] He had now succeeded to his father’s possessions, and in 1462 he also inherited his mother’s lands and the Salisbury title.[60] Altogether he had an annual income from his lands of over £7,000 far more than any other man in the realm but the king.[61] Edward confirmed Warwick’s position as Captain of Calais, and made him High Admiral of England and Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster, along with several other offices”

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/WARWICK’S APEX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Warwick’s_apex

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[98]

””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.”– The Governor of Abbeville in a letter to Louis XI[2][58]

AAN DE RECHTERKANT VAN
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/WARWICK’S APEX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Warwick’s_apex

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick [99]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF MORTIMER’S CROSS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mortimer%27s_Cross

[100]

WIKIPEDIAJASPER TUDOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Tudor

[101]

”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.”

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES/A TRAVEL OF THE PASTASTRID ESSED3 FEBRUARI 2015
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosescauses-of-the-wars-of-the-rosesa-travel-to-the-past/

[102]
”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground”[Cersei Lannister in the Game of Thrones]

YOUTUBE.COMCERSEI LANNISTER: IN THE GAME OF THRONES YOU WIN OR YOU DIE

”The title of the episode is part of a quote from Cersei Lannister during the final confrontation with Eddard: “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”

WIKIPEDIAYOU WIN OR YOU DIE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Win_or_You_Die

[103]

”Sir John Grey was killed in the Second Battle of St Albans in 1461, fighting for the Lancastrian cause.[1] His widow, Dame Elizabeth Grey, later secretly married Edward IV who was the successful Yorkist claimant to the throne.”
WIKIPEDIAJOHN GREY OF GROBY/DEATH AT THE BATTLE OF ST ABLANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby#Death_at_the_battle_of_St_Albans
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAJOHN GREY OF GROBY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

[104]
”At the negotiations with the French, Warwick had intimated that King Edward was interested in a marriage arrangement with the French crown, the intended bride being Louis XI’s sister-in-law, Bona, daughter of Louis, Duke of Savoy.[71] This marriage was not to be, however, because in September 1464, Edward revealed that he was already married, to Elizabeth Woodville.[72] The marriage caused great offence to Warwick: not only due to the fact that his plans had been sabotaged, but also the secrecy with which the king had acted.[73] The marriage – contracted on 1 May of the same year – was not made public before Warwick pressed Edward on the issue at a council meeting, and in the meanwhile Warwick had been unknowingly deceiving the French into believing the king was serious about the marriage proposal.”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[105]

For Edward the marriage may very well have been a love match, but in the long run he sought to build the Woodville family into a powerhouse independent of Warwick’s influence.[74] The marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville caused Warwick to lose his power and influence. He accused Elizabeth, and her mother Jacquetta of Luxembourg, of witchcraft to try and restore the power that he had lost 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick


YOUTUBE.COM
BRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE/EP 2 OF 4 (WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY

[106]

”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”

Bladzijde 24Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of Thrones

[107]
This was not enough to cause a complete fallout between the two men, though from this point on Warwick increasingly stayed away from court.[76] The promotion of Warwick’s brother George to Archbishop of York shows that the earl was still in favour with the king. In July 1465, when Henry VI was once more captured, it was Warwick who escorted the fallen king to his captivity in the Tower. 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

WIKIPEDIA
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[108]

”The Burgundian party was a political allegiance against France that formed during the latter half of the Hundred Years’ War. The term “Burgundians” refers to the supporters of the Duke of BurgundyJohn the Fearless, that formed after the assassination of Louis I, Duke of Orléans. Their opposition to the Armagnac party, the supporters of Charles, Duke of Orléans, led to a civil war.”
WIKIPEDIABURGUNDIAN (PARTY)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundian_(party)

”The English negotiated with their Burgundian allies to transfer her to their custody, with Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan, assuming a prominent role in these negotiations and her later trial.[68] The final agreement called for the English to pay the sum of 10,000 livres tournois[69] to obtain her from Jean de Luxembourg, a member of the Council of Duke Philip of Burgundy.”
WIKIPEDIAJOAN OF ARC/CAPTURE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Capture

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAJOAN OF ARC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

[109]

””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.”– The Governor of Abbeville in a letter to Louis XI[2][58]

AAN DE RECHTERKANT VAN
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/WARWICK’S APEX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Warwick’s_apex

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[110]

”Meanwhile, Edward’s father-in-law, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, who had been created treasurer, was in favour of a Burgundian alliance.[80] This set up internal conflict within the English court, which was not alleviated by the fact that Edward had signed a secret treaty in October with Burgundy, while Warwick was forced to carry on sham negotiations with the French”

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

WIKIPEDIAMARGARET OF YORK/MARRIAGE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York#Marriage

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAMARGARET OF YORK

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

[111]

Meanwhile, Edward’s father-in-law, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, who had been created treasurer, was in favour of a Burgundian alliance 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[112]

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEARS WAR/BEGINNING OF THE WAR: 1337-1360
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Beginning_of_the_war:_1337–1360

ORIGINELE BERICHT

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEARS WAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

[113]

”Later, George Neville was dismissed as chancellor, while Edward refused to contemplate a marriage between Warwick’s oldest daughter Isabel, and Edward’s brother George, Duke of Clarence.[82] It became increasingly clear that Warwick’s position of dominance at court had been taken over by Rivers
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE. 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE. 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[114]
WARWICK ALS HOOFD VAN DE NEVILLE FAMILIE

Most of England’s leading families had remained loyal to Henry VI or remained uncommitted in the recent conflict. The new regime, therefore, relied heavily on the support of the Nevilles, who held vast estates and had been so instrumental in bringing Edward to the throne. However, the king increasingly became estranged from their leader the Earl of Warwick, due primarily to his marriage 

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

Edward’s impetuous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville greatly offended the Nevilles, largely because Warwick had been negotiating several continental alliances to support Edward’s tenuous reign, including a marriage to one of several family members of Louis XI of France.  

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

[115]

Warwick now orchestrated a rebellion in Yorkshire while he was away, led by a “Robin of Redesdale“.[87] Part of Warwick’s plan was winning over King Edward’s younger brother, George Plantagenet, possibly with the prospect of installing him on the throne 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[116]

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/DISAFFECTION AND DEFECTION

Disaffection and defection

Warwick, now the richest man in England after the king, was the power behind the throne in Edward’s regime during its early years, but the two men later fell out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville#Disaffection_and_defection

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

HOUSE OF NEVILLE

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

[117]

The king opposed the marriage as it would bring the already powerful Earl of Warwick too close to the throne. However the ceremony took place in secret at Calais on 11 July 1469, conducted by Isabel Neville’s uncle George Neville, archbishop of York.  

WIKIPEDIA

ISABEL NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF CLARENCE/LIFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville,_Duchess_of_Clarence#Life

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

ISABEL NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF CLARENCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville,_Duchess_of_Clarence

”Warwick retired in dudgeon to his estates, and began to plot in secret for his revenge. In the summer of 1469 he went over to Calais, where Isabel and Clarence were married without the king’s knowledge. ”

LUMINARIUM

RICHARD NEVILLE, EARL OF WARWICK

 ”THE KINGMAKER”

(1428-1471)

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warwick.htm  [118]

Robin of Redesdale (fl. 1469), sometimes called “Robin Mend-All”, was the leader of an insurrection against King Edward IV of England.[1] His true identity is unknown, but it is thought he could have been either Sir John Conyers of Hornby (d. 1490) or his brother Sir William Conyers of Marske (d. 1469), or even both. Whoever he was, the power behind his rebellion was Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (“Warwick the Kingmaker”).”
WIKIPEDIAROBIN OF REDESDALE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_of_Redesdale

”Warwick now orchestrated a rebellion in Yorkshire while he was away, led by a “Robin of Redesdale“.[87] Part of Warwick’s plan was winning over King Edward’s younger brother, George Plantagenet, possibly with the prospect of installing him on the throne”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[119]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE

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

[120]

”Following the battle, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, father of the Yorkist Queen Elizabeth Woodville, and his second son John were taken prisoners at Chepstow. Following a hasty show trial, they were beheaded at Kenilworth on 12 August 1469”

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE/THE REBELLION
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edgecote_Moor#The_rebellion
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE

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

[121]

With his army now defeated, King Edward IV was taken under arrest by George Neville.[95] Warwick then imprisoned the king in Warwick Castle, and in August, the king was taken north to Middleham Castle.[96] In the long run, however, it proved impossible to rule without the king, and continuing disorder forced Warwick to release King Edward IV in September 1469 
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick
[122]
At this point, Edward did not seek to destroy either Warwick or Clarence but sought reconciliation instead 

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

”A modus vivendi had been achieved between Warwick and the king for some months, but the restoration of Henry Percy to Montagu’s earldom of Northumberland prevented any chance of full reconciliation.[97] A trap was set for the king when disturbances in Lincolnshire led him north, where he could be confronted by Warwick’s men.[98] Edward, however, discovered the plot when Robert, Lord Welles, was routed at Losecote Field in Rutland, and gave away the plan

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[123]

”A few months later in March 1470, Warwick and Clarence chose this opportunity to rebel against Edward IV again”
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

”This time, Edward IV was forced to flee to Flanders when he learned that Warwick’s brother John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, had also switched to the Lancastrian side, making Edward’s military position untenable.[WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England 



”Despite this matrimonial relationship with the Nevilles, when Warwick drove Edward IV into exile in 1470, Hastings went with Edward and accompanied the king back the following spring

WIKIPEDIAWILLIAM HASTINGS, 1ST BARON HASTINGS/BIOGRAPHY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings#Biography 

ORIGINELE BRON


WIKIPEDIAWILLIAM HASTINGS, 1ST BARON HASTINGS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings  

”During the latter part of Edward IV’s reign, Richard demonstrated his loyalty to the king,[49] in contrast to their brother George who had allied himself with Warwick when the earl rebelled towards the end of the 1460s.[50] Following Warwick’s 1470 rebellion, before which he had made peace with Margaret of Anjou and promised the restoration of Henry VI to the English throne, Richard, William, Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers escaped capture at Doncaster by Warwick’s brother, Lord Montague.[51] On 2 October they sailed from King’s Lynn in two ships; Edward landed at Marsdiep and Richard at Zeeland.[52] It was said that, having left England in such haste as to possess almost nothing, Edward was forced to pay their passage with his fur cloak; certainly, Richard borrowed three pounds from Zeeland’s town bailiff.

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND/EXILE AND RETURN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England#Exile_and_return 

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England 
”Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne in 1470 in an event known as the Readeption of Henry VI, and Edward took refuge in Flanders, part of Burgundy, accompanied by his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III of England). The Duke of Burgundy had been Edward’s brother-in-law since the marriage of Edward’s sister Margaret of York to Charles, Duke of Burgundy, on 3 July 1468”
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/RESTORATION
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Restoration  


ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England  


[124]

”Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne in 1470 in an event known as the Readeption of Henry VI, and Edward took refuge in Flanders, part of Burgundy, accompanied by his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III of England). The Duke of Burgundy had been Edward’s brother-in-law since the marriage of Edward’s sister Margaret of York to Charles, Duke of Burgundy, on 3 July 1468”
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/RESTORATION
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Restoration  


ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England  



[125]

”Warwick soon gave up, and once more fled the country with Clarence. Denied access to Calais, they sought refuge with King Louis XI of France.[100] Louis arranged a reconciliation between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou, and as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry’s son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick’s daughter Anne



WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death 

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick 


”Warwick made an accord with Louis XI and Queen Margaret in which he agreed to restore Henry VI in return for French support for a military invasion of England”

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England 

[126]

”On 30 December, at the Battle of WakefieldYork was killed, as were York’s second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, and Warwick’s younger brother Thomas

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/HOUSE OF YORK TRIUMPHANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#House_of_York_triumphant

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[127]

Warwick soon gave up, and once more fled the country with Clarence. Denied access to Calais, they sought refuge with King Louis XI of France.[100] Louis arranged a reconciliation between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou, and as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry’s son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick’s daughter Anne 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[128]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF BARNET

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

[129]

”Henry VI rewarded Clarence by making him next in line to the throne after his own son, justifying the exclusion of Edward IV either by attainder for his treason against Henry VI or on the grounds of his alleged illegitimacy.[citation needed] After a short time, Clarence realized that his loyalty to his father-in-law was misplaced: Warwick had his younger daughter, Anne Neville, Clarence’s sister-in-law, marry Henry VI’s son in December 1470. This demonstrated that his father-in-law was less interested in making him king than in serving his own interests and, since it now seemed unlikely that Warwick would replace Edward IV with Clarence, Clarence was secretly reconciled with Edward ”

WIKIPEDIAGEORGE PLANTAGENET, 1ST DUKE OF CLARENCE/LIFE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence#Life

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAGEORGE PLANTAGENET, 1ST DUKE OF CLARENCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

[130]


YOUTUBE.COM
BRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE/EP 2 OF 4 (WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY

[131]
”Most of England’s leading families had remained loyal to Henry VI or remained uncommitted in the recent conflict. The new regime, therefore, relied heavily on the support of the Nevilles, who held vast estates and had been so instrumental in bringing Edward to the throne.”

WIKIPEDIA EDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA EDWARD IV OF ENGLAND

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

[132]

”Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND

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

ZIE VOOR HET SUPERIEURE RECHT VAN HET HUIS YORK OP DE TROON, OOK DE NOTEN 24 EN 25 

[133]

WIKIPEDIA BATTLE OF TEWKESBURY

Battle of Tewkesbury
Battle of TewkesburyThe Battle of Tewkesbury, which took place on 4 May 1471, was one of the decisive battles of the Wars of the Ros…

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Rozenoorlogen tussen Huizen York en Lancaster/Onzininformatie over hoofdrolspeler Richard Neville, 16e Graaf van Warwick, de ”Kingmaker”

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

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


ASTRID ESSED KEEPS HER WORD!

YOUTUBE.COMGAME OF THRONESA LANNISTER ALWAYS PAYS HIS DEBTS4.16-4.18

CHAPTERS
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN

LEAVING THE COUNTRY 

GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS

THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!

RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE

STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEEN

WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE

DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE

SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!

ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM

MARCH UNTIL AUGUST

FINAL

[END OF THE CHAPTERS, NOW READ MY ARTICLE!]

[Written between 10 March and 7 August 2021!]

Readers!At 10 March anno Domini 2021  I did a promise to you, that I wouldcomment on the Sensational Oprah Winfrey interview with PrinceHarry and his wife Meghan Markle [1], who both had finally decided not to return to their royal roles and duties [2]However,according to my information, Prince Harry is stillin the line for the throne [3],which I applaud, since as you’ll know, I cheered theroyal couple on from the beginning! [4]Why?Because Cheddar Man finally won. [5]HAHAHA/NO, That’s a half joke!I think one of the reasons is, that here I saw a Couple, that chose foreach other, despite the racist backlash Meghan Markle had from the beginning [6]and the courageous and honourable defense from Prince Harry on her behalf [7].Seems like a modern fairy Tale and Why not?People are allowed to dream, to juice the very life!
That was the Fairy Tale side of it.But like a bad dream in ”Alice in Wonderland” [8], it was not a”and they lived happily ever after” Story, not only because ofthe backlash at first [9], but because apparently there was an evil partyspoiler within the Royal Family.I’ll deal with that later.
But meanwhile the disturbing backlash continued [10], even a nasty petition to strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle from theirroyal titles ”The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” [11]The petitioner considered the titles as ” ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’and considered them as ” ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’. [12]Be that as it may [indeed, in 21st century monarchs and royal titles are a thing apart], but is this just an outburst of republicanism [13]or…it is more?Because, when it were just them ”holding royal titles”, then why especially directed against Prince Harry and his wife and not against the rest of the royal family, like Prince Harry’s elder brother, Prince William, heir to the throne after their father the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles?[Prince Willam is the Duke of Cambridge] [14]Seems suspicious to me!
Because the whole case felt unfair to me,  I send an email letter to the Council of Brighton, in which I wrote among else:
”Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. [1]Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;” [15]
I was pleased to receive the following letter from Mr R. Watson, Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council”
””Dear Astrid Essed,

Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.

Best regards,

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

[16]

The haters did not win! [17]

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN

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

fiancee Meghan Marke [18], there has been a nasty, racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle from nearly the beginning the press [and others]

knew, that she had a love relation with Prince Harry. [19]

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

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

nobodies [21]

By the way:

This Piers Morgan journalist is so obsessed by his vendetta against

Meghan Markle, that he recently [march 2021] left the ITV Good Morning Britain show program because of his [again] hateful remarks about Meghan Markle, even though she and her husband left the country for a time already [22]

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

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

[suicide thoughts] [24]

I refer to that later.

But of course not the whole press was led by either racist or hateful

[or a combination of the two] moties against Meghan Markle:

For example journalist Zoe Williams did a good job with her

article in the Guardian ”Whatever Meghan does, she’s damned. Let’s not

repeat history.”, fighting the nasty villification of Meghan Markle. [25]

Am I saying now, that Meghan Markle is a Saint?

Of course not!

Everybody makes mistakes and she will have made hers:

But here I am fighting the abnormal negative attention, with often

racist undertones Meghan Markle got [26] and I am glad that there were

journalists, who played fair play!

LEAVING THE COUNTRY 

Anyway, partly because of that continuing smear campaign against

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

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

North-America. [29]

That was in january 2020. [30]

The MEGXIT, as sensational tabloids called it [31], as if Meghan Markle

made that decision alone…..! 

Cherchez la Femme…../HAHAHAHA

First the Royal Couple went to Canada, later they moved to L.A. [Los Angeles] [32]

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

in the Oprah Winfrey interview. [35]

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

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

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

A Shrewd Couple!

GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS

As I wrote before, in the beginning of this year, Prince Harry and

Meghan made up their mind, not to return to their royal tasks and

duties. [38]

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

succession to the throne remains the same. [39]

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

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

Prince Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, issued a declaration,

stating, confirming this grand step of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan,

stating ”While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family” [41]

The Statement of the Queen also referred to the fact, that

the royal patronages were withdrawn:

”Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family.'[42]

THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!

RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE

So far, so good.

Now the interview with Oprah Winfrey

That D….mnd interview. [43]

Now assuming, that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spoke the truth

with Oprah Winfrey, did it shocked me?

For a part, yes.

For a part, no, since I already learnt [and wrote about] the racist smearcampaign against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by the press. [44]

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

uttering racist remarks. [45]

And not the least!

I quote from the interview:

”Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.” [46]

AND THAT’S SOMETHING!

OR ISN’T IT?

Before going deeper into this, there were twelve higlights in the notorious

[or famous] interview, which BBC clarified for us [47]:

I mention them for you, one by one:

1 Discussions about how dark Meghan’s baby might be

2 Kate ”made Meghan cry”, not the other way around

3 Meghan said she was on the verge of suicide but was refused help

4  Meghan spoke to one of Diana’s friends

5  Harry feels ”let down” by Charles

6  But the couple’s relationship with the Queen is good

7  Harry ”cut out financially”

8  The truth behind a photograph

9   Meghan ”didn’t do any research” on the Royal Family

10  They exchanged vowed three days before their wedding

11   Archie’s favourite phrase is ”drive safe”

12   And….it’s a girl!

[48]

Now I don’t comment on all the twelve highlights [the Megan-Katie thing [49] I consider as less important, I can’t judge who is right, I was not there], I only mention those things

which I think are really important.

To begin with:

THE FIRM, THAT MYSTERIOUS FIRM

During the interview with Oprah Winfrey, several times Meghan Markle

refers to an institution within the British Royal Family, ”The Firm” and she is very vague about the person or persons who back[s] this:

I quote from the interview:

”Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?

Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right? [50]

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

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

ANOTHER QUOTE ABOUT ”THE FIRM”/THE PRESSURE

” And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.” [52]

THE FIRM, AGAIN/IT’S WAY OF ACTING

[Quote]

”Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?

Meghan: No, it’s a person.

Oprah: It’s a person.

Meghan: It’s several people” [53]

THE FIRM/RACIST REMARKS

I must confess readers, that I don’t get grip on this, no persons

mentioned, no facts to check, no names

”It” or ” those people” can be anyone in the Royal Family, but, assuming that

Meghan Markle speaks the truth about some damaging sides of ”The Firm” [like having trouble with the skin colour of her and Prince Harry’s first child, Archie, a horror story, which was confirmed by Prince Harry, as denying Meghan a form of help, when she was depressed] [54], that Firm must be some important members of the Royal Family.

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

of this.

Only of course, that assuming Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the truth, there must be a racist cuckoo in the British Royal Family, which is

no suprise to me, after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,

in time of  slavery and colonialism. [55]

Would have been strange if it had not affected the Royal Family.

So ”The Firm” is a vague Institution of a series of people [who, is the big question] in the Royal Family with some power and some of them

have uttered very painful, racist things against Prince Harry about

the possible skin colour of the baby [who turned to be ”Lord Archie] [56]

I’ve puzzled and puzzled, like as I’m sure most people, who

saw or read the interview [I did noth], who that mysterious person or

persons might be, who made those nasty remarks about the skin colour

of Lord Archie, the great grandson of reigning Queen Elizabeth II!

If the whole thing is true-if Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the

truth and for now I have no reason to doubt that-it is a nasty business, but, again, not the whole amazing, that racism also exists between the British

Royal Family after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,

in time of  slavery and colonialism! [57]

STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS

More important is the Statement of the Queen, who spoke out concerns

about those racist remarks after the Oprah Winfrey interview. [58]

Quoting the message of Buckingham Palace:

”The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.

“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.

“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” [59]

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEENThat’s clear talk and as Meghan Markle remarked in the famous Oprah Winfreyinterview about the Queen:”So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . . 

Oprah: Was this on the train?

Meghan: Yeah, on the train.”

AND

”Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.

Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?

Meghan: Yes.” [60]

Prince Harry also commented:

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

ALSO

”My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be. ” [61]

[HAHAHA, THE MILITARY WAY……]

WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE

DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE

As I said before, I don’t comment on all the topics of that famous

Oprah Winfrey Interview

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

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

and brother [64], because fathers and sons often have their issues, like brothers.

After all, fathers and sons are fathers and sons and brothers will 

be brothers and  in most cases, everything will be allright and they”

ll end as one big, happy fami!y!

And I do believe, that a Royal Life can be a golden harnass [as Prince Harry commented, that his father and brother are ”trapped” [64], but that’s the price you pay for your privilege, isn’t it?

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

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

didn’t impress me.

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

the world [67] and you have been raised with all kinds of privileges

and financial advantages, than ”cut out financially” means a totally

different story than when it happens to the common man.

Besides, the first task of any man and father, royalty or not, is

to provide for his family on his own force.

So that’s for the royal privileges

But of course that all changes , when you are twelve [two weeks after his mother’s death, Prince Harry became thirteen years old] and fifteen years old

when you loses your mother far too early by a car crashincident, pushed

by the tabloids and you have to walk behind her coffin for the eyes

of the whole world to see [68]

I felt really sorry for Prince Harry and his brother Prince William at that moment.

Too young, far too young to lose one;s mother [although it is never the right time]

That also changes when you feel that depressed, like Meghan Markle stated in the Oprah  interview,  that you want to take your own life…..[69]

SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!

Even about that statement boulevard hater Piers Morgan made a nasty remark, so he had to leave Good Morning Britain after more than 40.000 complaints!  [70]

GOOD RIDDANCE TOO!

So therefore I wanted to comment that depression of Meghan Markle,

nearly ruining her life and that of her family.

And if it’s really true, that Meghan knocked on the door of

”the Firm” and they didn’t open it, when she was in need [refused to give 

the necessary help] [71], that that’s more than scandalous.

ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM

MARCH UNTIL AUGUST

Since I began to comment the famous Oprah Interview [in March] until now [August], much has happened in the British Royal Family, so including in the lives of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Prince Harry’s grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, died [72]

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

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s daughter, Lady Lilibeth, the eleventh grandchild of Queen Elizabeth and named after her greatgrandmother Queen Elizabeth [Lilibet was the name the Queen’s family called her] and her grandmother Princess Diana  [74]

[They listened to me:

I always said, that when Harry and Meghan became parents of a daughter,

they had to name her after her greatgrandmother the Queen/HAHAHA]

Also Prince Harry revealed some issues he had with his father concerning

the way he was raised [75], but I consider that as personal and I am sure

they will work that out.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have their own life now, far from any

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

FINAL

So as I promised at 10 march this anno Domini [77], I would comment on

the famous Oprah Winfrey interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Now I did.

And you readers probably will ask yourself:

Why she is bothering with an interview from march, we living in august?

Normally indeed I would not bother, but now it is important, because racism is there, that greeneyed monster [78] that can ruin lives.

But happily not the life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who choose the

right way to leave this mess behind them.

But this is racism in the highest circles, the British Royal Family and you

would think, that somebody who is that priviliged as the Duchess of Sussex, should not be subject of it.

Yet it happened, but luckily she has a true husband, Prince Harry, who supports her no matter what, as he has proved. [79]

That made it worth to write about this, although it was months ago, that

the interview was taken.

As I wrote in this article, I could not track down, who is the racist cuckoo

in the British Royal Family, but that matters not.

Fact is, that racism is appartently also the issue in those circles.

And alas, racism is with us for a long time yet, perhaps until

we are attacked by aliens and together we are defending our Mother Earth

[HAHAHA]

But fighting against racism and prejudice, wherever you find it, was worth

to write this article.

And the fact that I completed this article five months after the famous Oprah Winfrey interview [80], adds the worth of fighting for equality.

It was nice to write this!

Astrid Essed

SEE FOR NOTES 

OR

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

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Royal Family@RoyalFamilyCongratulations to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of Lilibet Diana! The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted with the news. Lilibet is Her Majesty’s 11th great-grandchild.9:00 PM · Jun 6, 2021·Twitter for iPhone3,275 Retweets511 Quote Tweets36.7K Like

PHOTO OF THE SECOND ROYAL BABY YET TO BE ADDED

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!


OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX
”“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.

She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home. 

Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.

This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.” [1]

This was the official Statement of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, the happy parents of now a son [ Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor] and a daughter [Lilibet Diana  Mountbatten-Windsor ] [2]

As at the birth of their son, Lord Archie [3], I add my congratulations to the happy parents!

Also to the Royal Girl’s uncle and aunt, the Duke and Duchess ofCambridge [Prince Harry’s brother, Prince William andhis wife, Kate Middleton], paternal grandfather Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Prince Harry’s stephmother, her maternal grandparents Doria Ragland and Thomas Markle.And of course her great grandmother, Queen Elisabeth and alas for him, her husband, paternal great grandfather Prince Philip didn’t live long enough to see this day….[4]
Of course the Duke and Duchess of Sussex received congratulationsfrom the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William [5]

After the birth of Lady Lilibet’s brother, Lord Archie, I remarked jokingly, that it would be nice if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex became parents of a daughter, who would

be named after Queen Elisabeth and so nice that they did indeed! 

But the most of all I appreciate that the Royal Couple named their daughter after Prince Harry’s mother, Princess Diana,

who died so tragically and made such a great contribution to

the fight against landmines [6], which remains greatly

memorable.

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

whom she regrettably never saw, after her.

Astrid Essed

NOTES

[1]

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.

She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.

Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.

This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.”

A MESSAGE OF THANKS FROM THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX

“On June 4th, we were blessed with the arrival of our daughter, Lili. She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”

ARCHEWELL

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF

SUSSEX

””It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.”
CNNMEGHAN AND HARRY WELCOME BABY GIRL, LILIBET DIANA
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/06/europe/meghan-harry-baby-girl-news-intl-scli/index.html

(CNN)Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has given birth to a daughter, the second child for her and Prince Harry, the couple announced in a statement on Sunday.”It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.Baby Lili is a sister for the couple’s 2-year-old son, Archie Harrison.Harry, Meghan and their baby son, Archie, meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu during their royal tour of South Africa on September 25, 2019.In a message on their Archewell foundation website, Meghan and Harry said they had been “blessed” by their daughter’s arrival.”She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”Buckingham Palace released a statement Sunday on the baby girl’s birth.”The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex,” it read.The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge tweeted their congratulations.The US Embassy in London also congratulated the Sussexes, noting the news comes just in time for Father’s Day.

‘Feeling of joy’

Harry and Meghan revealed they were expecting a girl during their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast in March.The newborn is the Queen’s 11th great-grandchild. She is eighth in line to the throne behind her grandfather Charles, uncle William, his three children (George, Charlotte and Louis), her father Harry, and big brother Archie.Her birth in the United States makes her the most senior royal in the line of succession to have been born overseas.It also makes her a dual US-UK citizen, meaning that the youngest Sussex could potentially go on to become US President when she grows up — while also being in line to the British throne.Meghan and Harry kept the pregnancy as private as possible, speaking just a handful of times about their daughter’s impending arrival.One of those occasions was for a pre-recorded message from Meghan for the recent Vax Live concert in May, which she and Harry co-chaired.”My husband and I are thrilled to soon be welcoming a daughter — it’s a feeling of joy we share with millions of other families around the world,” the Duchess told the audience at the event, intended to promote Covid-19 vaccine equity and gender equality.”When we think of her, we think of all the young women and girls around the globe who must be given the ability and support to lead us forward,” she said. “Their future leadership depends on the decisions we make, and the actions we take now to set them up, and set all of us up, for a successful, equitable, and compassionate tomorrow.”

Pregnancy announcement

The royal couple announced back in February they were expecting an addition to their family, sharing a black-and-white snap of them gazing at each other, while Meghan cradled her baby bump.The photo was shot by Misan Harriman, a Nigerian-born British photographer and friend of the couple, who took the picture remotely from his London residence.The timing of their Valentine’s Day announcement likely held special significance for the couple, coming almost exactly 37 years to the day after Prince Charles and Princess Diana revealed that they were expecting their second child: Prince Harry.

Meghan and Harry are expecting a second child

Meghan and Harry are expecting a second childMeghan disclosed in an opinion piece for The New York Times that she suffered a miscarriage last summer.Their newborn daughter is entitled to be a Lady from birth, but will likely not use the title.When Archie Harrison was born in 2019, the Duke and Duchess opted to forgo titles and indicated they would not use his father’s second peerage title, the Earl of Dumbarton.Neither of the Sussex children is currently eligible to use HRH titles, following the rules set out by George V in the 1917 Letters Patent. However, this will change when their grandfather Charles ascends to the throne.As for the question of whether Archie and his baby sister will be joined by more siblings in the future, that doesn’t seem to be on the cards right now.Harry revealed that he and his wife are likely to keep their brood limited to “two, maximum” while discussing the Earth’s dwindling resources with activist and chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall for a special edition of British Vogue last July.Harry and Meghan were married in a lavish wedding at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor, England, three years ago.They stepped back from their roles as senior working royals last year, relinquishing their HRH titles, and now live in Santa Barbara, California.

The private neighborhood

Harry and Meghan settled into their Santa Barbara home last July, according to August reports from People magazine.”They have settled into the quiet privacy of their community since their arrival and hope that this will be respected for their neighbors, as well as for them as a family,” a representative for the family told the magazine in August 2020.Richard Mineards, a columnist for Montecito Journal who covered the royals for 45 years, told CNN on Sunday that the area where they live is very “grand … with very large estates” and it does not have issues with paparazzi.”I mean, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, Oscar winner Kevin Costner (and) George Lucas live just down the road,” Mineards said. “We are a celebrity community.”The community also has “very wealthy people” such as tech billionaires, he said. “You name it, we have it,” he said.
END OF THE ARTICLE

[3]

WIKIPEDIA

ARCHIE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR

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

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

ASTRID ESSED

[4]

BBC

PRINCE PHILIP HAS DIED AGED 99, BUCKINGHAM

PALACE ANNOUNCES

9 APRIL 2021

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

Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband, has died aged 99, Buckingham Palace has announced.

A statement issued by the palace just after midday spoke of the Queen’s “deep sorrow” following his death at Windsor Castle on Friday morning.

The Duke of Edinburgh, the longest-serving royal consort in British history, was at the Queen’s side for more than her six decades of reign.

Boris Johnson said he “inspired the lives of countless young people”.

“It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen announces the death of her beloved husband,” the Palace said.

“The Royal Family join with people around the world in mourning his loss.”

It is understood that the Prince of Wales travelled from his home in Gloucestershire to visit his mother at Windsor Castle on Friday afternoon.

Speaking at Downing Street, the prime minister said that the duke had “earned the affection of generations here in the United Kingdom, across the Commonwealth, and around the world”.

Meanwhile, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said he “consistently put the interests of others ahead of his own and, in so doing, provided an outstanding example of Christian service”.

In tribute to the duke, Westminster Abbey began tolling its tenor bell once every 60 seconds at 18:00 BST. It rang out 99 times to honour each year of his life.

Earlier, the flag at Buckingham Palace was lowered to half-mast and a notice was posted on the gates to mark the duke’s death.

People placed floral tributes outside the palace, while hundreds visited Windsor Castle to pay their respects.

However, the government urged the public not to gather or leave tributes at royal residences amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The Royal Family has asked people to consider making a donation to a charity instead of leaving flowers in memory of the duke, and an online book of condolence has been launched on the official royal website for those who wish to send messages.

A message on the website of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s non-profit organisation Archewell paid tribute to the “loving memory” of the Duke of Edinburgh, saying: “Thank you for your service… you will be greatly missed.”

From midday on Saturday, a 41-gun salute will take place for Prince Philip in cities including London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as well as in Gibraltar and at sea from Royal Navy warships, the Ministry of Defence said. They will be broadcast online and on television for the public to watch from home.

The BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said it was “a moment of sadness” for the country and “most particularly, for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years – a bigger span of years than most of us can imagine”.

He said Prince Philip had made “a huge contribution to the success of the Queen’s reign”, describing the duke as “utterly loyal in his belief in the importance of the role that the Queen was fulfilling – and in his duty to support her”.

“It was the importance of the solidity of that relationship, of their marriage, that was so crucial to the success of her reign,” he added.

A bank of photographers and cameramen were lined up around the growing number of tributes at Buckingham Palace on Friday afternoon, said BBC News reporter Marie Jackson.

Rhea Varma, from Pimlico, pulled up to the gates on her bike to lay flowers and a note saying Rest in Peace Duke.

She said the news was “super sad”. To her, the duke was “the kind of stability that’s so old-fashioned it’s difficult to comprehend. He was a rock who brought integrity.”

Adam Wharton-Ward, 36, also arrived to leave lilies by the palace gates. He is visiting London from his home in France but was so moved by the news, he wanted to “rally round” for the Queen’s sake.

“It’s so sad. He’s been with her for 73 years. If it wasn’t for him who knows if she would have got through it,” he said.

The duke’s appeal, he added, was that he was “almost normal with his gaffes”.

“Now that normality has gone,” he said.

The prince married Princess Elizabeth in 1947, five years before she became Queen.

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

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

END OF THE ARTICLE

WIKIPEDIA

PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH

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

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

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

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

The Queen has not been able to meet little Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor yet, as she was born in California. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now living in Montecito with their son, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, and their new baby girl. The pandemic has made international travel difficult and, given the Queen’s age and schedule, she probably will not head to California soon. However, despite the distance, the monarch shared a sweet public message welcoming the new baby, according to a Buckingham Palace spokesperson.

The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The Royal Family’s social media channels also shared a note about the new baby, along with a photo from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding day.This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Lilibet, whose name is a tribute to both Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana, was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m weighing in at a healthy 7 lbs 11 oz. Her parents and older brother were all happy to welcome the little royal to their family. According to the statement, grandparents Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall are also “delighted” about the newest addition to their brood.

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

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


A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”

Prince William and Catherine, Duchess Of Cambridge have reportedly sent a gift to Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess Of Sussex for their new daughter Lilibet.

According to Us Weekly, the pair were “informed about the birth and have sent Lilibet a gift,” and later offered their congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, after it was confirmed that in their second child was born in Santa Barbara on June 4.

The Duke and Duchess admitted they were “delighted” to hear the news that Harry and Meghan have become parents to a little girl, whose full name is Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.

A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”

While the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall shared on their page: “Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana. Wishing them all well at this special time.”

Buckingham Palace officials also issued a statement to reveal the Royal Family were thrilled to hear about the baby’s arrival.

The statement released by the family read: “The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”

The couple’s happy news was confirmed on Sunday by their spokesperson.

They said in a statement: “It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

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

The Royal Family@RoyalFamilyCongratulations to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of Lilibet Diana! The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted with the news. Lilibet is Her Majesty’s 11th great-grandchild.


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

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

[6]

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

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

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

The photographs of Princess Diana wearing protective clothing and equipment, as well as her meeting landmine survivors, raised the profile of the work being done to clear landmines around the world. Her untimely death in August 1997 came only a few months before the United Nations Mine Ban Treaty — a legally binding prohibition on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of landmines — was opened for signature. Since then, 164 countries have become parties to the agreement, which is informally known as the Ottawa Treaty.

Here’s what to know about Princess Diana’s work on landmines, why it was so significant and how Prince Harry is continuing her legacy.

Why Princess Diana walked across a minefield

At the time of Princess Diana’s visit to Angola in January 1997, Prince William and Prince Harry were 14 and 12 years old, and her divorce from Prince Charles had been finalized the previous year. She was already known for her other charitable endeavors, such as her role in the 1987 opening of the U.K.’s first HIV/AIDS unit in London, which was designed specifically to treat patients with the virus at a time when it was perceived with much stigma.

Princess Diana brought her signature determination to her campaigning against landmines. She had been involved with the British Red Cross for several years before the charity organized and supported her January 1997 trip to Angola. It was there, in Huambo province, that she came across the work of the HALO Trust, which had been working to clear mines in Angola since 1994 amid the then-ongoing civil war there. (The civil war in Angola, which remains one of the world’s most heavily landmine-contaminated countries, ended in 2002 after more than 25 years of intermittent conflict.)

She met children who were landmine survivors, and she was also escorted by HALO students and mine-clearance experts through a cleared lane in one of the active minefields wearing protective armor and headgear. Images from her trip were immediately circulated across international media and provided a striking portrait of the princess among people in a humanitarian context.

“Diana’s visit is something that people in Huambo still talk about today,” says Ralph Legg, program manager of HALO Trust’s operations in Angola. “For the people that were here at that time, which was obviously still a time of conflict, it led to a feeling of acknowledgement, and that their plight was recognized around the world. The people I’ve spoken to who met Diana on that trip have all said how kind, considerate and how genuinely interested she seemed in them.”

After her visit to Angola, Princess Diana wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”

Angola wasn’t the only country affected by landmines that Diana visited; in early August 1997, she visited victims of mines in Bosnia and again focused the world’s attention on the issue. Zoran Ješić, now 46, remembers her visit well. Ješić stepped on a landmine in 1994, and now lives and works in Bosnia for the organization UDAS, which supports landmine survivors. “It was a very brave decision for her to come here only two years after the war,” he says. “The situation wasn’t so stable, and I had the feeling that Diana decided to use her popularity to help people in states like mine. Her contribution on the international level was enormous.”

The legacy of her advocacy against landmines

Diana’s Angola trip was reported on all over the world, and the legacy of her humanitarian work with landmines remains long-lasting. “At that time, she was probably the most recognizable person in the world, and so the fact that she went and met with landmine survivors was really quite incredible,” says Paul Hannon, Executive Director of Mines Action Canada, the Canadian member of International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which was awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. “She showed basic humanity to people who don’t normally get that, and I think that was a wake-up call to all of us.”

At the time of her visit at the beginning of 1997, negotiations were ongoing to initiate the Mine Bans Treaty. Diana had vocally appealed for an international ban on landmines during her time in Angola. Yet her efforts sparked criticism from U.K. lawmakers, who called her a “loose cannon” and out of line with government policy on the issue, which took a more cautious approach to negotiations about the use of landmines, which had not yet been banned in the U.K. Despite the controversy, she had a significant impact on the political process that successfully banned landmines.

The exposure she gave the issue on her visit, and her tragic death in August that year, created an added impetus for the treaty process; as TIME reported in September 1997: “[President Bill] Clinton and his wife Hillary had been touched by the Princess of Wales’ poignant visits to young victims of such mines in Bosnia and Angola a few weeks ago. After her death, the [mine bans] treaty being written in Oslo took on the luster of a humanitarian memorial to Diana and her cause.”

“We planned for the treaty signing here in Ottawa, and we would have loved to have had her there,” says Hannon, who volunteered at the signing of the treaty. “She was only involved for a few months, but everyone identifies her with the fight to ban landmines.”

How Prince Harry is continuing Princess Diana’s work

The upcoming visit is not the first time that the Duke of Sussex has visited the projects run by HALO Trust; he went to a minefield in Mozambique in 2010, and previously visited Angola in 2013. During the 10-day trip, Harry will visit other countries in southern Africa, including Malawi and Botswana, where he has connections with several other charities.

Over the past 22 years, several countries have made huge strides on clearing landmines. In 2015, the government in Mozambique declared the country was mine-free after two decades of clearance operations. With the financial support of international donors and the Angolan government, the HALO Trust alone has cleared about 100,000 landmines in the country, and 297 minefields across Huambo province — only one minefield away from the province being declared mine-free. On Friday, Harry detonated a landmine in southern Angola and walked across a minefield in Dirico province, echoing Diana’s 1997 walk in Huambo. However, the minefield area that his mother visited is now home to communities, schools and businesses. “It’s been totally transformed and is unrecognizable today from when she visited in 1997,” says program manager Legg.

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

Harry’s visit to Angola, with its focus on landmines, falls two months before a major conference on achieving a mine-free world by 2025 — one of the major ambitions of the Mine Ban Treaty and a cause that the Duke has spoken about in the past. “I’m hoping that Harry provides the same visibility and added momentum from his trip that his mother did, and that he will remind people that this is a human story,” says Hannon. “It’s a success story in progress. I hope he can remind everybody that the job’s not done yet, but it can be finished.”

Landmine survivor Ješić agrees: “In a way, he will continue something that his mother proudly started.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

”Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.

Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.”

THE BRITISH RED CROSS

MEMORIES OF PRINCESS DIANA AND THE BRITISH RED CROSS

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

Throughout her life, Princess Diana was a dedicated humanitarian who championed causes in the UK and overseas. We look back on her journey with the Red Cross.

Princess Diana was always committed to using her public profile to bring about positive change.

A firm believer in the power of young people, she became patron of the Red Cross Youth in 1983, which gave her an increasingly visible role with the British Red Cross.

In July 1985, Diana visited a Red Cross adventure camp for disabled children at Hindleap Warren, in East Sussex.

Barbara Summerfield, now in her 80s and from Saltdean, was a youth officer at the time and has fond memories of Diana’s visit.

“What went down well, more than anything else, was that Diana was a real person who the children could talk to,” said Barbara.

“They were very excited about her visit. I don’t think they got much sleep the night before. She watched them do their abseiling and other activities.

“They loved showing her what they could do. Some had serious disabilities and Diana was interested in their medical conditions.

THEY SPOKE TO DIANA AS A NORMAL PERSON, A FRIEND EVEN. AND THAT’S THE WAY SHE SPOKE TO THE CHILDREN.

Barbara Summerfield, British Red Cross vice president, Sussex

“The children made two lovely birdhouses for Diana to give to William and Harry, but they didn’t finish them in time. When they gave them to Diana, she said: ‘Don’t worry, they [William and Harry] will finish them off.’”

Barbara, who is currently British Red Cross vice president in Sussex, added: “I thought Diana had a lovely calming manner, soothing.

“You know how when you meet a princess you bow and there are the formalities, well the children didn’t seem to worry about that. They spoke to Diana as a normal person, a friend even. And that’s the way she spoke to the children.”

“She was interested in what we did”

Edith Conn is British Red Cross president for Greater Manchester. Edith met the Princess when she visited Manchester in the mid-1980s to see a youth orchestra perform.

“We spoke about the Red Cross Youth and she was interested in what we did,” recalled Edith.

“Then we just chatted about everyday things. The funny thing about it was I said to her: ‘What happens when you go home, do you go to another engagement?’

“She said: ‘Oh no I’m going home to have beans on toast and I’m going to watch EastEnders.’ That has always stuck in my mind!”

Diana later sent Edith a trinket for auction at a Red Cross gala ball.

“It was a real privilege to meet her”

“When she spoke to you she looked directly at you,” continued Edith. “You felt as though she was really very interested in what you did and what you had to say. She was lovely.

“I think I am very lucky to have met her. And to think back … that we chatted about beans on toast!

“It was a real privilege to have met her and this … should be a time to celebrate her life.”

In 1993, Diana became a vice president of the British Red Cross, and two years later she became patron of our 125th Birthday Appeal.

The Princess resigned her positions with the British Red Cross in July 1996, but continued to engage with the organisation until shortly before her death.

Princess Diana in Angola

Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.

Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.

She famously travelled to Angola in January 1997, a trip organised and supported by the British Red Cross.

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

Angola was littered with landmines, a deadly legacy from its civil war.

Estimates put the number of landmines in the country between nine and fifteen million. 

Between 1979 and 1996, the ICRC fitted 9,200 amputees with false limbs in Angola, and manufactured 12,800 prostheses in total.

A lasting impact

During her time in Angola, Princess Diana visited active minefields, met local victims of landmine violence and spoke in favour of a ban on anti-personnel mines.

After her visit, she wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”

Diana’s visit to Angola brought unprecedented attention to the landmine issue and sparked international discussion.

The Ottawa Treaty, which placed a ban on anti-personnel mines, was signed by 122 countries in December 1997 – less than a year after Diana’s Angola visit and a few months after her death. Today, 162 UN member states are parties to the treaty.

Dr Helen Durham, director of international law and policy at the ICRC, believes Diana’s visit to Angola highlighted the problems of using anti-personnel landlines to a broader audience.

“The glamour and global appeal of Princess Diana added another layer to the voices of lawyers, humanitarian workers and medical staff who were raising their concerns about weapons that cannot distinguish between children and combatants,” said Durham.

The treaty, also known as the Mine Ban Convention, has undoubtedly saved lives. Twenty years ago, the ICRC estimated that anti-personnel landmines maimed or killed 20,000 people every year.

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

However, due to conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Yemen, that figure actually represented a ten-year high of new casualties.

Durham added: “It is wonderful to see the progress today, but sadly we still have a long way to go to ensure that these weapons stop destroying the lives and livelihoods of thousands. Applying the Ottawa Treaty is the first step.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

WIKIPEDIA

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES

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

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

My Earl Thomas of Lancaster article in Chapters!

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

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

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

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

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

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

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

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

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

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

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

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

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

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

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

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

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

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

MY EARL THOMAS OF LANCASTER ARTICLE IN CHAPTERS!
READERS!

As I promised, I have divided my extended article ”Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint” [1] in Chapters, easier for you to readHereby the whole overview:It was nice to travel with you to fourtheenth century England.Until next time……

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

OVERVIEW IN CHAPTERS:

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER FIVEDANCE FOR POWER
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, THE UNCROWNED KING

CHAPTER SIX

OPEN WAR

DESPENSER WAR/FIRST PHASE
[February-August 1321]

CHAPTER SEVEN

OPEN WAR

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

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE END

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

CHAPTER NINESAINT THOMAS

CHAPTER TEN

AFTERMATH

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MAJOR PLAYERS IN THIS DRAMA

I

King Edward II

II

The Despensers

III

Roger Mortimer

IV

Queen Isabella

V

Henry of Lancaster

EPILOGUEWHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER?

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

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

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

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

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

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

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

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

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

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

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

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

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

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

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

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

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

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


READERS

And now it’s the END of our fascinating Historical Document aboutThomas of Lancaster, cousin of king Edward II!
You have travelled with me to the first half of fourteenth century England,have watched with me, as Digital Eyewitnesses, how a big Feud rose betweenking Edward II and his cousin, Earl Thomas of Lancaster, initially loyalto his cousin the king, then fell out with him for personal and political reason,rose against him in an open rebellion and finally was executed for treason.
You watched it all in here
CHAPTERS
ONE
https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/

TWO

THREE

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

NINE

TEN

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

For me and I don’t doubt for you Readers also, that was very fascinating.

THE END
And now we are at the End of this Story and in the Epilogue it isquestioned:
WHO REALLY WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTERWHAT WERE HIS GOALS/IDEALS?WHERE DID HE STAND FOR?
Travel with me Readers, to the Life and Times of this interesting noblemanfor one last time……

EPILOGUE
WHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER?

In defence of Thomas of Lancaster
TO SET THE RECORDS STRAIGHT……

Finally, I have come to the end of my travel
to fourtheenth century England and the life and times of Thomas,
2nd Earl of Lancaster, who was double royal and first cousin
of King Edward II.

THOMAS OF LANCASTER/HIS JOURNEY

The facts are known and described by me in the earlier chapters:

First Edward II’s close ally [939], he later moved into
opposition because of king’s favourite Piers Gaveston,,
killing the poor man together with his baron
allies in 1312 [940] , which set, of course
a deadly enmity between
him and Edward II. [941]
Simultaneously, Thomas and his allies pleaded for a set of reforms,
limiting the king’s power, the so called Ordinances.[942]
Then, after the desastrous defeat against the Scots at the battle
of Bannockburn in 1314 [943],
being the de facto ruler in England from 1314-1318,
battling new favourites of the King [944] and finally
droven into armed rebellion against the King because
of his most dangerous, favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger [945],
with the Ordinances as one of his playing cards [which gave Thomas
rightly or wrongly, a sort of heroism], leading to his execution in 1322. [946]

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

Fascinating.

And although his many faults and injustices [having
Piers Gaveston executed and having summarily executed
men who rebelled in Lancastershire against
him in the Banastre rebellion in 1315] [948]
, yet IT IS SOMETHING
to be ten years  in constant opposition against your king,
trying to limit his powers, gathering allies ansd adherents….

Some of those adherents were that loyal to Lancaster,
that years later they killed men, who had betrayed him….[949]

Or, like die his hard Lancaster ally Sir William Trussell, who was seething with
resentment against  the Despensers, to read out the
charges [and the verdict] against the captured Hugh  Despenser the Younger at his mock trial in 1326….[950]

That’s immediately debunking the often heard story, that Lancaster
couldn’t keep friends and allies…..[951]
Of course Lancaster lost allies, since it was a time of continually switching alliances, but the loyalty of some of his adherents, as described above, was striking.

And let’s not forget in this story the ”mystery man”,
Lancaster’s  often underestimated brother Henry of Leicester

[952], who sided with the Isabella and Mortimer invasion in 1326, stabbing a
dagger in the back of
Edward II , which lead to a general desertion of Edward II’s cause [953],
the execution of the Despensers and eventually, the deposition of Edward II
himself…….[954]
Henry, who would do whatever was in his power to restore the honour
of his brother by promoting him as a Saint [955] and did not
forget or forgive the ones who did his brother harm [The Despensers
and their enmity with Thomas of Lancaster,
see the Chapters, six, seven, eight and ten], or committed treason
against him, like Thomas’ close adherent and ally, Sir Robert Holland
, who deserted him, when he needed him most. [956]

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

WHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER?
WHAT DROVE HIM?

A

THOMAS OF LANCASTER
WHAT SOME SOURCES/HISTORIANS SAY ABOUT HIM:

There is much said about him:

I pick some examples:

Edwardthesecondblogspot [the great Blog of historian Kathryn Warner, writer
of a book about Edward II and Isabella of France and Edward II
expert] writes

”Whatever some of Thomas’s contemporaries may have thought of him – the extremely pro-Lancastrian Brut called him the ‘gentle earl’, for example – it’s hard to find a modern historian with a good word to say about him, and hard, for me at least, to find much sympathy for a man who did his utmost to thwart his cousin Edward II at every turn.”
[957]

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

Encyclopedia Britannica writes

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

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

Website the Lady Despenser’s Scribery writes

”Despite his seemingly high ideals about the poor and oppressed, fair patronage and justice, records show that Thomas was actually as vicious, ruthless and corrupt as those he opposed. He was well known for ignoring the matter of the law, especially when he wanted to take land and manors and his harshness as a landlord was also legendary.” [961]

Historian Stephen Spinks, wrote in a very interesting
article about Thomas of Lancaster
about his ”weakness” , describing him as
following:

”In short, he had no aptitude for government and once he was in a position to enact reform, the earl quickly found he did not understand nor was capable of achieving what he had long since demanded. Shouting about the Ordinances was one thing, but once he had them, enacting change was too arduous for him.” [962]

In his dissertation ”Lancashire in the reign of Edward II,
about the lordship of Thomas
of Lancaster in relation to the gentry in his county
[after which he and his family is named] Lancastrershire,
historian Gunnar A. Welle writes about Thomas
of Lancaster as ”avariciousness” and accuses him
of ”bad lordship”, at least referring to Lancashire
[the county Lancaster] [963]
FUNNY
Not one of the mentioned sources or writers was very
pleased with the Earl, therefore it was interesting to read
a less aphrehensive comment
on the website ”Lady Despenser’s Scribery, which is
very fair, given her less complimentary comments above


To be fair, Lancaster did his best to implement the Ordinances in full, purging the royal household and local government of men thought to be bad for the running of the country (in other words hostile to Lancaster), and he also attempted to get the country’s finances back into shape by limiting spending. ” [964]

AND

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

And now the following, very

complimentary comment on the New World Encyclopedia:

”……
His instinct, however, was to uphold the law and, notwithstanding his faults, he can not be accused of pure self-interest. He saw himself as answerable to Parliament, which, unlike Edward, he did not ignore or manipulate.”

…….
…….
”As an admirer of De Montford, Thomas would have subscribed to the principles that had developed subsequent to his Parliament of 1265, that all classes should be represented there, that all taxes except “those sanctioned by custom” must be approved by Parliament and that the “common man” was also entitled to protection, security and justice……….
……
…..
”Edward had vowed to “maintain the laws and rightful customs which the community of the realm shall have chosen,” as well as to “maintain peace and do justice” and Thomas had heard this promise. This development of the law was a shared responsibility—through their representatives, the “community of the realm”[14] would have a say in framing these laws for the common good. Thomas Plantagenet did his best to hold the king accountable to his oath. He can be said to have made a valuable contribution to the development of constraints on kingly power. In time, these constraints would result in full-blown democratic government.” [966]

READERS, DID YOU LET THOSE COMMENTS ABOVE

SINK IN?
GOOD.
I will come to that later

First this:

B

SOME THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE LOUPE
”NO INTEREST IN GOVERNMENT”/NOT ATTENDING
PARLIAMENT

Now people are complex natures, as in their relations to
others, as in their ”playing the game of thrones”, the
highest level power play of the Middle Ages.
Sometimes their actions are easy to understand, but in most
cases more complicated than expected af first sight.

Often there is written, that Thomas regularly didn’t attend
parliament and generally didn’t took part in government
at all, as if done to undermine the King’s orders and
position [967] and that may true to some extent:
On the other hand it may be possible, that illness played
a major part too.
In two letters of Edward II, the first to Lancaster himself
in 1305 [when they were still on very good terms] and the
second, in 1311 [when they already were in conflict because of
Piers Gaveston and the Ordinances], directed to Lancaster’s
close ally Sir Robert Holland, there was a reference to an
unknown] illness of Lancaster.
Historian Gunnar A Welles wrote in his dissertation that
the reason Lancaster preferred his Castle Pontefract in his
later  years was perhaps due to ill health. [968]

But why not Lancaster sent a message to his king like:

”To my Lord Edward, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aquitaine…..[969]
Your Grace,
I can’t attend parliament, due to illness ……”
Your faithful subject and cousin, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster” [”faithful”? HMMMMM……]
Well, of course Lancaster couldn’t and wouldn’t do that because
of the growing enmity and power struggle between him and Edward II, thus undermining his own position by referring to some illness.

No, better to seem ”defiant” [and for a great part he was,
of course], than weakening his position by admitting
an ”ill health”……

Except for [possible] illness there was an other plausible
explanation for Lancaster not to attend parliament.
Since his unlawful execution of Edward II’s favourite
Piers Gaveston [970] there was an obvious enmity
between him and his cousin Edward II.
Doubtless Edward II would have taken revenge on
Lancaster, were it not because that was quite impossible,
since the great power of Lancaster [you remember,
readers, due to Lancaster’s five Earldoms] [971]
The king more or less uttered his desire to
revenge, during the siege of Berwick [to which
Lancaster for once took part], when anncouncing:
”When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers.” [972]
Perhaps understandable from Edward II’s point of view,
but likewise understandable, that Thomas of Lancaster
not only left the battlefield in Berwick [973], but did not
trust the king anymore. [not that he trusted him
before, but things grew worse]
What if he attended parliament and was arrested?

To make matters worse, the 1315-1318
three favourites of Edward II, Roger Damory, Hugh
Audley and William Montacute did their utmost
best to undermine any reconciliation between Edward II
and his cousin Thomas and even threatened him
by openly calling him a traitor [974 and see also
chapter V]
It is even possible that Damory had persuaded the
king to attack Lancaster at his castle of Pontefract
in october 1317,
which  was prevented by the Earl of Pembroke
at the last moment. [975]
Of course it was understandable then, that Thomas
refused to come to parliament, or to meet the king
[who summoned him to come], as long as those three favourites
were at Court…..[976]
A very tense political situation.

So there some possible reasons why Lancaster
didn’t attend parliament or took much participation
in governmental affairs.

On the other hand he seemed to have done his best to
implement the Ordinances [977] which led to a serious
row between him and Edward II. [978]

So summarized:
Lancaster’s reluctance to attend
to parliament or to participate in the government is
not only simply explained as obstructing the king or indifference
and incompetence
in governmental affairs, but could also stem
from illness and Lancaster’s not imaginary
fear of the malicious intentions from Edward II’s 1315-1318
favourites, who intrigued against him [Thomas].
Add to that the [likely understandable] enmity of
Edward II because of Thomas’ involvement in the
murder of his great favourite Piers Gaveston and you
have a good explanation for Thomas’ ”reluctance”
It is a pity that that’s often overseen by some sources.

C

THOMAS OF LANCASTER’S CHARACTER

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

Thomas of Lancaster is called ”coarse, selfish and violent” [979] , ”arrogant”, [980], having a ”seeming desire for power” [981]
and a
”bad lord” in the sense of not meeting the needs and wishes
of his retainers , as some sources state [here limited
to his retainers in Lancashire] [982]

That may be true and I found it confirmed in what
I read about him, but so were the other nobles, who

were no peaches either, without of course justifying Lancaster’s behaviour and attitudes.

Let’s be honest:

During the Edward II reign, there  was a constant dance for power and switching of alliances
and but few nobles, among who was Hugh Despenser the Elder
[to be fair!] stayed where they were:
In this case:
Loyal to the King. [983]

There has also been stated, that Thomas of Lancaster
”found it difficult to keep friends and allies”
[984].
However, he managed to bind men to him,
who stayed diehard allies, even though they could not
benefit from him anymore.

A man like Sir William Trussell, his loyal adherent since the
beginning of the Lancaster/Edward II conflict, stayed loyal
to him, fought at his side at the battle of Bouroughbridge
,was imprisoned, later escaped and fled
to France, joining the Isabella and Mortimer invasion
and reading out the charges against Hugh Despenser. [985]
Lancaster had allies who were prepared to kill those,
who had betrayed him, years after his execution. [986]

And he WAS capable
of true friendship, for example to his close adherent, Sir Robert
Holland, whom he favoured that much, that an uprising
in Lancashire took place against Lancaster and Holland,
the Banastre rebellion….[987]

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

D

THOMAS OF LANCASTER/”DESIRE FOR PERSONAL
POWER AND STRUGGLE WITH THE KING
PERSONAL AND BROADER HISTORICAL VIEW

Describing Thomas of Lancaster only as the one

”who did his utmost to thwart his cousin Edward II at every turn”
[990],  a ”coarse, selfish and violent man” [991]
, ”that his opposition to royal power derived more from personal ambition than from a desire for reform [992],
is too one-sided.

On the other hand:
To pose him as ”having made a valuable contribution to the development of constraints on kingly power, which constraints
would, in time ” result in full-blown democratic government”
[993] thus making from the Earl a sort of pioneer of later
democratic developments, as the New World Encyclopedia
does [994], is, to my opinion, unbalanced either and a little
anachronistic, because it is somewhat dangerous to
compare the thoughts and opinions of a medieval
royal Earl with views about democracy that would
emerge much, much later.

Life and history are more complicated then that.

The sources, which gave Lancaster a bad press, calling him
”coarse and selfish”, ”a bad lord”, ”arrogant” and ”having a
desire for personal ambition”, etc fail to see, that be as it may.
looking this game of power only at the personal level is denying
one of the important historical developments, which rippled through Middle Ages, namely the struggle
between centralization and decentralization.

In Chapter one I pointed out, that, apart from the personal
matters, the Edward II/Thomas of Lancaster conflict stood in
a tradition of the struggle between centralization
[absolute royal power] amd decentralization [king’s liegemen/
nobles who tried to take as personal power for themselves
as possible]
See it not only as a power struggle, but also
as a fight for more equality:
Not all power concentrated in the hands of one man, but
influence for other groups too.

In this centralization-decentralizatio n game Edward II’s
great grandfather king John Lackland got trouble
with his barons, resulting in the Magna Charta [995]
John Lackland’s son King Henry III [father of Edward I and grandfather
of Edward II], got troubles with his brother in law, the
French noble Simon de Montfort with
English roots [6th Earl of Leicester by inheritance,
officially invested in the Earldom in 1239,
after coming to England and initially
in the favour of Henry III, marrying his siter
Eleanor of England with Henry’s approval]
a man of substance, who rose into open rebellion
against Henry and had far reached ideas about
more freedom for other groups.
In fact, he was the de facto ruler of England
for about a year and is known to have
established a Parliament [some refer to it as
the first English parliament] which stripped
the king of unlimited authority and a second, included
not only barons and knights, but also the burgesses of
the major towns. [996].

So in that light, the struggle between Edward II and
Thomas of Lancaster must be seen and in that light
I find it interesting to answer my final question:

WHO WAS THOMAS OF LANCASTER/
A TROUBLEMAKING AND POWERSEEKING
REBEL OR A SECOND SIMON DE MONTFORT

”Coarse”, ”selfish”, ”arrogant”, a troublemaker, a rebel, ”contributor to
later democratic developments”, ”droven by personal ambitions”
Was he merely a troublemaking rebel or a second Simon de
Montfort, as the New World Encyclopedia seems to think. [997]

There are many connections between Lancaster and England’s first great
”parliamentary” rebel, Simon de Montfort and o irony, one
connection between Lancaster and de Montfort is often overlooked.
They possessed the same Earldom:

After Simon de Montfort was killed in the battle of Evesham in
1265, fighting against the royalist troops under the command
of Prince Edward [eldest son and heir of Henry III, the latter Edward I].
his lands and title were forfeited, being a traitor [rebel against
his king] [998]
Then Henry III created the Earldom of Leicester for his second
son Edmund Crouchback [999], father of Thomas of Lancaster and his
brother Henry.
SO THAT’S THE WAY THE EARLDOM OF LEICESTER CAME INTO
THOMAS’ FAMILY!

New World Encyclopedia writes, that Thomas of Lancaster”based his policies on a strict adherence to the ordinances and an appeal to the work of Simon de Montfort” [1000]
In each case, with his implementing the Ordinances, limiting
royal power, he was building upon a tradition of baronial
opposition, for which de Montfort has given his life. [1001]

In their histories and lives, both men had many parallels.

Starting with royal favour, they fell out with their kings,
developed reform ideas, eventuallty rose in open rebellion
and died fighting their Kings, de Montfort in battle in 1265
and Lancaster, executed in 1322.
And, amazingly:
After their death both men were venerated as martyrs and attempts
were made to canonize them. [1002]

One of them, de Montfort, is now honoured as one of the founders
of modern parliament [1003], while Lancaster has got a
bad press, being a rebel, troublemaker etc
I don’t think that’ s completely fair and both men had more
in common then modern historians seem or are prepared to admit.

Because who was Simon de Montfort?

Reading about his life and times,
he seems to me an adventurer, who firstly enjoyed royal

favour, then fell out with his king,
sided with the already existing baronial opposition [inheritence from king Henry III’s father John
Lackland] and in the process developed radical
reform ideas [for that time] and at the end gave his life defending them..[1004]
And in contrary to Thomas of Lancaster, he had the chance to form
two parliaments to implement his ideas [1005], since he defeated
the king in battle and ruled England more than a year. [1006]
That’s why de Montfort did make a great impression and Lancaster was merely
seen as a troublemaking rebel.

Admittedly, Lancaster was the de facto ruler in England between 1314-1318, but he had much against him, what made it difficult to implement
the Ordinances, although he surely tried.
He had to deal with the Scottish raids in North England, with the Great famine [1007], and with the fact, that
after his execution of Piers Gaveston, he was politically isolated,
especially after the death of his main ally, the 10th Earl of Warwick in 1315. [1008]
And admittedly::
De Montfort was a better soldier and statesman

The nature of the reforms of de Montfort and Lancaster differed, but had in
common, curbing royal power:
De Montfort focused on the installation of a parliament, to which not
only the barons had access, but also the knights and even the burgesses.
[1009].
But the whole thing got further and was quite radical:
Because [according to Simon de Montfort’s ideas] although Henry III retained the
title and authority of King,  all decisions and approval now rested with his council, led by Montfort and subject to consultation with parliament. [1010]

The Ordinances, promoted by Lancaster and allies, focused on
curbing the royal power to raise armies and go to war, collecting taxation
and going abroad.
The Lords Ordainers had to give their consent for those royal plans.
[1011]
However, contrary to the  Simon de Montfort reforms,
the Lord Ordainers were especially
involved in giving more power to their own social
class, not to the ”lower classes” as the commoners.
But curbing the royal power like that was quite radical too
and in fact building on the ideas of Simon de Montfort.

But was it all ”noble”?

De Montfort’s end was tragic, dying for his ideals, but it was also a
struggle for power between him and king Henry III, no different
from the fight between Lancaster and Edward II.

For let’s be frank:
Would de Montfort really have grown out to a reform rebel, when
not falling out with Henry III, due to political circumstances?

Or would Thomas of Lancaster have developed his love for
the Ordinances, when he did not fall out with his king and cousin?
I doubt it.

Because neither de Montfort, neither Lancaster, seemed to have manifested
those high ideals when still in royal favour.

Both men suddenly ”discovered” those ideals, when falling out with their kings….

Both men developed ideals, but loved power likewise.

And stripped off the personal elements:
There we go again:

The Simon de Montfort/Henry III fight and the Thomas of Lancaster/.
Edward II fight is part of the greater struggle between centralization and
decentralization.

And without forgetting the injustices they committed [1012], they both were
reformers and at the end prepared and compelled [there was no way back!]
to pay the highest price.

It’s important, that de Montfort’s contribution is appreciated and honoured.

But it is also important, to see Lancaster in a more positive light and
acknowledge, that he made an important contribution to curbing
absolute monarchy and implementing the parliamentary rights.

It is high time for someone to write  this down, giving Lancaster,
with all his faults [but so had Simon de Montfort] a far better press than
he got untill now.

He held to the Ordinances [1013] against all odds and fought a king, who,
although certainly generous [1014] and sometimes unexpectedly forgiving [1015],
was a tool in the hands of ambitious and ruthless favourites
and therefore turned into a bad and even desastrous ruler.
And although rising against his king WAS treason and he had his own selfish motives,
Lancaster also fought to implement those Ordinances.
That deserves appreciation, which I want to
give him posthumously, 695 years after his execution, not closing
my eyes for his faults and injustices.

Readers, when you really read all those chapters out, KUDOS!

Hereby a bottle of champaign, out of appreciation.

It was nice to travel with you to the past.

Perhaps I’ll travel with you, again……

ASTRID ESSED

AND HERE COMES YOUR BOTTLE OF CHAMPAIGN!

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

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

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

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

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

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

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

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

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

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

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

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

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

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

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

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

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

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

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

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


Readers!Only yesterday I sent to you Chapter Nine of my ”Book” articleabout Earl Thomas of Lancaster, cousin of king EdwardYou know the drama story of course, situated in the first half of14th century England:It is all about the fight for Power between king Edward II and his not sodear cousin, Thomas, the 2nd Earl of Lancaster, initially loyal to his royalcousin king Edward, then fell out with him for various personal and politicalreasons, engaged him in open battle and finally was executed.AND…..what was extraordinary bizarre, since the man wasn’t ”Holy” at all,was declared a Saint in the twenties of the 14th century, although not officiallyby Holy Church.
SEE HERE THE FORMER CHAPTERS I SENT TO YOU:
ONE

TWO

THREE

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

NINE

AND NOW CHAPTER TEN!

For interesting Question:

The King had won the Fight for Power, but did he really win?

How did it really end?

Today I introduce Five Persons, who played a major role in

the later, destructive, Events:

THE COUSIN [KING EDWARD II]

THE KING’S SPOUSE [QUEEN ISABELLA OF FRANCE]

THE ARCH ENEMIES [THE FAVOURITES OF THE KING [THE DESPENSERS, FATHER AND SON, WHO PARTLY CAUSED THE TROUBLE IN THE DESPENSER WARS AND ONE OF THE MOTORS BEHIND EARL THOMAS’ EXECUTION]

THE ALLY [ROGER MORTIMER, LATER THE 1ST EARL OF MARCH,

ALLY OF THOMAS IN THE DESPENSER WARS, WHO WOULD PLAY A

PARTICULAR IMPORTANT ROLE]

THE BROTHER [EARL THOMAS’ YOUNGER BROTHER HENRY,

WHO KEPT HIMSELF LOW PROFILE, BUT NEVER FORGOT OR 

FORGAVE THE EXECUTION OF HIS BROTHER THOMAS]

READ FURTHER IN THIS AMAZING STORY AND SEE FOR YOURSELF,

WHO REALLY WON…….

CHAPTER TEN
AFTERMATH

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MAJOR PLAYERS IN THIS DRAMA

I

King Edward II

II

The Despensers

III

Roger Mortimer

IV

Queen Isabella

V

Henry of Lancaster

The unfair trial and execution of Thomas of Lancaster
was not the end of the story:
On the contrary:
It  would cast its shadows over the years to come.

With the champion of the Ordinances [588] dead, the way was paved for
a new and horrific Era in English history::
The tyranny……[589]
In may 1322, two months after the execution of Thomas
of Lancaster, the Ordinances were revoked [590], which gave King
Edward II and his favourites the Despensers all the space
they needed, without considering law and justice.

This had started with the execution and unfair trial of Thomas
of Lancaster, who was the first Earl to be executed since Waltheof [1076!],[591]
, following more Contrariants, also after unfair trials or simply
executed,  twenty or 22 in total [592], in one case even
the horrible traitor’s death.[593]
Prisons were filled with Contrariants, others were exiled
and some even being  forced to ”acknowledge” that they owed large debts to the king in return for a pardon. [594]
Pure maffialike extortion…..

Even their wives and children were imprisoned, although
they had nothing to to with the Despenser war rebellion,
often suffering harsh prison. [595]
But to be fair:
In case of Lady Badlesmere, who had refused
Queen Isabella admittance to Leeds Castle
, while on pilgrimage and
whose castle was besieged by the King in retaliation [596]:
She was imprisoned ”only” for a year and released seven
months after the brutal execution [traitor’s death] of
her husband in april 1322. [597]

ANYWAY:

Hell broke loose in those years of total arbitrariness and injustice in
which the Despensers did as they pleased, always backed by
a consenting King, as though they had hypnotised him…..

But as this dramatic story will reveal, soon
those, who imposed death penalty on Thomas of Lancaster,

pursued his and the Marcher Lord’s followers without mercy,  bringing
injustice and terror in the land, would learn,
that the very lawliness business they had created,  would
blow up in their faces……. [598]

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

I

KING EDWARD II

If the King had thought that he ”had it all”, by executing his cousin
Thomas of Lancaster
and crushing his opposition and that of the Marcher Lords,
he would be tragically mistaken.
Because now Lancaster gone and the opposition against Edward II’s destructive
reign [remember, those favourites!] destroyed, there was no one from
restraining him [Edward II], to run fast in the direction of his own downfall.
And holding the Despensers at his side, would prove desastrous for
both the King and the Despensers, although it must have seemed otherwise
in 1322.

Opposition not dead and buried:

At first not all opposition was dead and buried:
From 1323, Edward II had to deal with the veneration cult of
Saint Thomas [Edward II’s executed cousin Thomas of Lancaster] [599], which was
not only disconcerting for him and the Despensers, but also an
utterance of protest against his reign, that grew to be more unpopular
day by day.
Who were behind the ”reports” about the miracles at the tomb [or place
of execution] of Thomas of Lancaster, was unclear:
Perhaps just popular tales, but perhaps Thomas’ brother, Henry
of Lancaster [600], who, harmless as he looked [not participating
in his brother’s rebellions] would prove to be a very danger for Edward II and the
Despensers……

Another blow to Edward II was the spectacular escape from the Tower of London,
of leader Marcher Lord, Roger Mortimer in august 1323
[one of the few successful escapes from the Tower] [601].
Mortimer fled to France, what would prove desastrous for Edward II…..

Also, other Contrariants fled to France  [602], where they formed a circle
of resistance against the Edward II/Despenser regime…

1
Growing opposition against the regime Edward II/Despensers:

But the remaining Contrariant’s opposition [later led from France] is one thing.
More dangerous, at the moment, was the growing resistance against
the avariciousness and maffia like practices of the Despensers [603], with
the blessing of the King.
People,not only his magnates, but also lower born,  got more and more fed up with the bad rule, the injustice and King’s favouritism towards the Despensers, who ruled
in Edward’s name as if they were the King.
But that was not enough:
King Edward, champion in making enemies in those days [which proved to
be tragic], even managed to estrange a part of the higher clergy from him,
driving some of them right in the arms of the Contrariants inspired resistance. [604]
I mention the Bishops Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford,
John Droxford, bishop of Bath and Wells, Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, John Statford, bishop of Winchester
Stratford, John Hothum, bishop of Ely and William Airmyn,  bishop of Norwich [605]

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

2
Tensions with France:

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

big time [607]  with his brother in law, [his wife Isabella’s brother], King
Charles IV [608]
They had a serious row over Gascony [the land in France, the Plantagenet Kings had
inherited via their ancestor Eleanor of Aquitaine.
For that land they had to do homage
for the French King for their lands, the French King being their liegelord in France,
but that homage always was a source for tension between England and France] [609]
Edward also had to pay homage for Ponthieu, which was his inheritance
from his mother, Eleanor of Castile, countess of Ponthieu in her own right. [610]
ANYWAY
WAR BROKE OUT OVER THE QUESTION GASCONY. [611]
This war had far reaching consequences for the relation between Edward II
and his wife Isabella, the sister of Charles IV.

Because Edward II did a ”great thing” ……..
During the war, ordered the arrest of any French persons in England and seized Isabella’s lands, on the basis that she was of French origin……[612]

Given the fact, that those measures were unfair anyway, since the
French in England, nor the Queen, were NOT responsible for the
measures of the French King, it was utterly unfair to Isabella,
who, until now, had been a loyal Queen to Edward.
Her life was not made much easier, by this, added to the fact,
that favourite Hugh Despenser was [seemingly] the TOP priority
for Edward and the Despensers did not allow ANYONE alone
with the King, even not his wife……[613]

But back to the war:
At a certain moment, it was agreed, that negociations would
take place between Edward II and Charles IV.

To perform them, Edward II sent his wife Isabella, sister
of Charles IV, to France [which proved to be desastrous later] [614]
who started the negociations late march 1325.
She did the best she could, but it proved to be difficult.

Charles IV insisted, that Edward II came to France to pay homage
for Gascony and Ponthieu.
And don’t underestimate it:
That homage thing was very serious:
When one failed, the lands were forfeited to the liege lord,
in this case, Charles IV. [615]
So homage was necessary.

Now Edward II had a huge problem.
He could not leave England like that, since the growing
unrest in the country, stemming from the unpopularity
of the Edward II/Despenser rule.
But that was not the only worry of Edward II.

One can safely say, that at that moment
[apart from his children], Hugh Despenser the Younger perhaps
was the most important person in Edward’s life.
He depended strongly upon him, both political and emotional.
Now there was a clear chance, that without Edward II’s protection,
Hugh and his father risked to be killed in an uprising.

But taking Hugh with him to France was no option either, since
Hugh was hated there because of his piracy [during his banishment
during the Despenser War] and risked to be arrested. [616]

So it was an enormous dilemma for Edward, which he tried to
solve by sending his son Edward of Windsor [ [the later Edward III,
whom his father had made duke of Aquitaine and count of Ponthieu]  to pay homage in his father’s place.

Was that a wise decision?
NO
Because now the successor to the throne was out of
his father’s control and under the influence of his mother
Isabella [he was 12 years old], who had an agenda of her own…..

Yet Edward II had no other options……

Because when nether he nor his son would pay homage,
his lands would be forfeited, as I have pointed out above.

3
Isabella in France/Refusal to return to England

Well, Edward of Windsor, the 12 year old son of Edward II, payed homage in september
1325 [617], but then the mess really began.
Because apparently Edward II expected his wife and son to come back
to England and Isabella refused, pointing out, that she wanted Hugh Despenser
removed from Court.
Out in the open she accused her husband from supposedly having a
romantic and sexual relationship with Hugh.
In France she held a speech, stating
”’”I feel that marriage is a joining together of man and woman, maintaining the undivided habit of life, and that someone has come between my husband and myself trying to break this bond; I protest that I will not return until this intruder is removed, but discarding my marriage garment, shall assume the robes of widowhood and mourning until I am avenged of this Pharisee.” [618]
She made quite a show by dressing like a widow, since
Hugh Despenser had come beteen her and her husband. [619]

Her refusal to return to her husband was, of course,
a scandal in those Medieval times.

Some sources suggest, that the intention
of her speech was, that she wanted to save her marriage and to go back to her husband, when he would send Despenser away, while
others say, that she knew quite well, that the King would
refuse and that she used it as a pretext to side with his enemies
and depose him.

Now I can’t read Queen Isabella’s mind [no one can],
but I think that whatever her intentions, she could have known
that Edward would never send Despenser away….

Anyway, whatever Isabella wanted, felt or planned, Edward
made it perfectly clear, that sending Hugh away would
NEVER going to happen. [620]

AND THEN IT BECAME QUITE A SHOW BETWEEN
EDWARD AND ISABELLA, HAHAHA

Learning, that his wife refused to come back [since
HE refused to send his favourite Hugh Despenser away],
Edward began to write a series of letters, to the Pope
and King Charles IV of France, urging his concern about
his wife’s absence, but to no avail. [621]
Charles IV protected his sister, replying: ‘The queen has come of her will, and may freely return if she so wishes. But if she prefers to remain in these parts, she is my sister, and I will not detain her.’ [622]
[Wikipedia mentions not ”detain” but ”expel”] [623]

Edward II, in reaction of  Isabella’s refusal return to him
, cut off her expenses in mid-November 1325, and, short of funds, the queen was forced to borrow 1000 Paris livres from Charles IV on 31 December. [624]

Edward II wrote his last-ever letter to Isabella on 1 December 1325, ordering her home and claiming that he was suffering badly from her ‘so very long absence’.
This letter contained [certainly to the annoyment of Isabella!]
endlessly long  justifications for Hugh Despenser the Younger’s behaviour. [625]
Edward wrote simulateous letters  to his son Edward of Windsor, Charles IV and numerous French magnates and bishops. [626]

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

If there were tabloids in those days, what a sensational stories
they could have written.
HAHAHAHAHA

Contrariants, with a vengeance!/Roger Mortimer

We have met Roger Mortimer already, the powerful
Marcher Lord and ally of Thomas of Lancaster in
the Despenser war, imprisoned in the Tower and escaped
in 1323, fled to France. [628]

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

In and around february 1326 , that Edward II complained that his queen was ‘adopting the counsel’ of Roger Mortimer and his allies on the Continent [630] [meaning other English noblemen and knights who had joined the 1321/22 Contrariant rebellion against the king and the Despensers and who fled the country after the Contrariant defeat at the battle of Boroughbridge on 16 March 1322, where Thomas
of Lancaster was captured and the Earl of Hereford was
killed in battle]
Of course it was obvious, that taken from Edward II’s and
medieval point of view, this act of Isabella was treason and
he was right to complain.

There is often suggested, that she already had associated
herself with him in England and even helped him escape
from the Tower.
Possible, I don’t know

What I DO know is, that they associated in France and would
stay allies until the end.
Were they lovers, as is usually assumed? [631]
Probably:
In each case, they were very closely associated, but of course
there is no proof for a romance, as there is no proof for the romantic
relationship of Edward II with Hugh Despenser, [although
Edward II with Hugh Despenser seems
seems yet more probable, since the intense need of Edward
for this guy, defending him against all odds….]

Be as it may, Isabella associated herself with Roger and
other Contariants as Sir William Trussel [632], a die hard ally of
Thomas of Lancaster and soon her environment
became a circle for the resistance against the Edward II
Despensers rule.

Invasion:

To cut a long story short.
The ”Court” of Isabella became a centre of the resistance
against the Edward II/Despenser rule, including
King’s own halfbrother, the Earl of Kent [633]:
In order to do that, they had to invade England.
So Isabella and Roger went to Hainault [part of
modern Belgium], where her son Edward of Windsor
[the later Edward III] was bethroted to the daughter of the
Count of Hainault with as a ”dowry”, ships, mercenaries
and cash to invade England. [634]
Which they did on september 1326.
Alas for King Edward II, they were received with great
approval and his support crumbled almost immediately.
One of the main causes was the joining with the rebels
[Isabella and Roger] of Henry of Lancaster, brother of
the executed Thomas of Lancaster [at the moment of the
invasion, Henry was only Earl of Leicester] [635], he was,
to put it mildly, certainly no friend of the Despensers.
The cause of that may be clear:
The Despensers were the main force behind the execution
of his brother Thomas, although not the only ones. [636]
Also [must be very painful for the King], King’s other
halfbrother [and full brother of the Earl of Kent] abandoned
the King and joined the rebels.

Almost deserted by everybody [with special thanks to the
Despenser’s evil councils, although it was Edward II’s choice
to favourite them], the King and the Despensers fled London,
westwards with the King.
Despenser the Elder tried to defend Bristol, but had to
surrender himself. [637]

After a mock trial [a parody of that of Thomas of Lancaster]

he was condemned to be hanged, drawn and quatered [horrible!]
on the orders of Roger Mortimer, Queen Isabella, Henry of Lancaster
and others. [638]

The King and Hugh Despenser [his great favourite],

fled west and tried to sail to Lundy, a small island
off the Devon coast, but failed, because of the weather [639]
and were captured at South Wales by the forces of Henry

of Lancaster. [640]

The King went to Kenilworth, the castle of Henry
of Lancaster, who was ordered to hold him in custody
and treated him very courteously, according to his
royal rank [641]

But poor Hugh Despenser was treated totally otherwise:

After a horribly humiliating journey to Hereford, where
Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer were waiting for him.
Actually, Queen Isabella wanted him to be executed
in London [because of course he was a fair trial], but since he tried to starve himself
to death [poor man], she was afraid he would not make
London.
Therefore his ”trial” in Hereford with his horrible execution,
to be hanged, drawn and quarted”
This gruesome execution took place on 24 november
1326. [642]

Deposition

I can imagine the immense grief Edward II must have felt:
First the execution of Hugh’s father, Hugh Despenser the Elder [643]
and a month later the execution of his favourite Hugh, whom
he had defended unconditionally, whatever the consequences.
It must have been devastating to him.

As if that were not enough,
he had to face an immense humiliation, his deposition as a King.
For us, modern people, it’s hard to understand what pain
he must have been through.
Because deposing a King was unprecendented in English history
[as far as we know], the Kingship was divine [644] and was supposed
to end with the death of the King.
But of course the new de facto rulers, Isabella and Mortimer,
had this huge problem.
Edward II was still King in name, but beaten, powerless
and imprisoned.
So to execute power de jure [645], they had to get rid of him
as a King.
So the whole thing was orchestrated.
Adam Orleton, the Bishop of Hereford, strong supporter of Isabella and
Mortimer, since the King had alienated him by his unfunded accusations
of siding with the Contraraints [646], made a series of public allegations about Edward’s conduct as king, and in January 1327 a parliament convened at Westminster at which the question of Edward’s future was raised
Edward II refused to attend the gathering;[647]

To cut a long story short:
After consent of the leading barons and the clergy, in january 1327 a representative delegation of barons, clergy and knights was sent to Kenilworth to speak to the King.
Probably under thtreat [the story is told, that  if he were to resign as monarch, his son Prince Edward would succeed him, but if he failed to do so, his son might be disinherited as well, and the crown given to an alternative candidate]
, the King abdicated. [648]
His reign was formally ended, when Sir William Trussell, a strong adherer
of Thomas of Lancaster, representing the kingdom as a whole, withdrew his homage. [649]

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

His father was the first English King, who was deposed.

Edward II
From Kenilworth to Berkeley Castle

During his custody under his cousin Henry of Lancaster
[brother of Thomas of Lancaster] he was treated with all honour,
due to a King.
But, doubtless to the regret of Edward II, this was not going to last,
since there were a number of plots to free him.
Therefore the new rulers [his son Edward III was only King in name] probably for security reasons,
removed Edward from his cousin Henry to another location,
Berkeley Castle. [652]
Whereas Edward enjoyed an honourable treatment at his cousin Henry’s Castle, it is not clear, what
treatment he got in Berkeley Castle.

His custodians were Thomas Berkeley [son in law of
Roger Mortimer] [653] and his [Thomas’] brother in law, John Maltravers, who sided with the Marcher Lords in the Despenser War and fought at the side of Thomas of Lancaster in the last decisive battle, the Battle of Boroughbridge.,
after which he fled abroad, to return to England with
Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer in 1326. [654]

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

Well, perhaps he was not mistreated, but I have an idea, that his treatment was totally different than at his cousin Henry’s Castle, since he was surrounded by his enemies.

For whatever grudge Henry -probably- held against Edward II
because of the execution of his brother Thomas, being his
royal cousin he must have had a thorough respect of monarchy
and after all, he was a less hardliner than his brother and almost certainly no enemy of Edward [in contrary with his brother], at least not before the execution of his brother.

With Berkeley and Maltravers, I think it was another matter….

For Isabella and Roger Mortimer their problems were
not over, since new plots arose to free former King Edward II.
What happened then in Berkeley Castle is not clear, but at
23 September Edward III was informed that his father had died at Berkeley Castle during the night of 21 September. [657]

Generally accepted by fourtheenth century chroniclers
was that Edward II died indeed in Berkeley Castle at 21 september,
some wrote that he was murdered, while there were chroniclers
who thought that he died from natural causes. [658]
However, a majority, as the most historians, are in agreement,
that he probably was murdered, [659], what is quite a logical
assumption, since a natural death seemed to be too
”convenient” dor the de facto rulers and it was
clear, that Edward formed a security risk and a source of fear.

Because:

What as the adherents of Edward succeeded in their attempts to
free him and he was restored  to power again, revoked his abdication
and doubtless would take mercilessly revenge on those,
who executed the Despensers?
Exactly, Isabella and her ally/favourite and likely lover,
Roger Mortimer!

About the possible murder of Edward II a horrifying story circulated,
which was lontime widely believed, that he was murdered
by a ”red hot poker” [see for details under note 660]
But now it is commonly believed by historians as a complete invention.
[661]

DIDN’T EDWARD II DIE IN BERKELEY CASTLE, BUT MUCH LATER

Now obviously, in the Middle Ages and in our times, celebrity stories are celebrity stories and tend to be fantastic [however it CAN be the truth]
Fantastic tales about contemporary as historical celebrities,
like Kings, who were not the sons of their fathers, however fancied [662], change of babies or children [663], etc, etc, are from all
times and places and will always excite people.

So it would seem a matter of time when a story rose,
that Edward II not died at Berkeley at all, but somehow
escaped [or was freed], went abroad and lived long
after that.
But there is a minority of historians, who believe this
seemingly fantastic story and support it with evidence,
they have found.
However, it is not convincing to me yet,
but under note 664 I present to you some articles.
Judge for yourself.

But no matter how and when he died and whether he
was murdered or not, to me, Edward II was a tragic character,
who was emotionally dependent on men, yet had to marry to
secure the line of succession.
And  his deep feelings towards men, sexually or
not, which explained his dangerous and silly favouritism,
led to his downfall.
I am not saying here that he had no feelings at all
for Isabella.
There are plenty occasions where he proved his
respect and affection for her. [665]
But I am nearly convinced, that his deepest feelings were
not for her, as he clearly showed in his loves for Piers
Gaveston and especially Hugh Despenser, whom he refused
to send away from him, despite Isabella’s pleas.

That absolute loyalty to his favourites was his weakness, but makes him
sympathetic in my eyes [only that aspect, NOT his clear
vindictiveness and merciless conduct, especially after the Despenser
War], as his affinities for common people, and his generosity.  [666]

An inadequate [to put it mildly] military leader and ruler.
But also a man, capable of great loves.

A pity, that he ended so tragically, whether murdered or died
at Berkeley, whether escaped and died faraway, losing
his dearest friend Hugh, without ever seeing
his children again and never knowing his grandchildren……

II

THE DESPENSERS

Now about the Despensers, who were [not to exclude of
course  the King’s own responsibility!] the main persons,
responsible for Edward II”s and tragically also their own downfall:

HUGH DESPENSER THE ELDER

One thing I must say to the defence of Hugh Despenser the Elder:
He is one of the rare magnates, who were loyal to Edward II
from start to finish, [667] in contrary with his son Hugh, who in his early years
had followed the political line of his maternal uncle, Guy de Beauchamp,
the 10th Earl Warwick, one of the executioners of Piers Gaveston.
of Warwick, one of the executioners  of Piers Gaveston…… [668]
YEAH
Rather surprisingly, seen in the light of the 1320’s……..
Loyal to Edward I and serving him on numerous cases on battles [669],
Hugh Despenser the Elder was likewise to his son and successor, Edward II.
As a reward for Despenser’s loyal service and to settle a debt, Edward I owed
him, he [Edward I] married his granddaughter Eleanor de Clare [669]
to Despenser’s son, Hugh, the later favourite of Edward II. [671]

Despenser the Elder was by the way one of the few barons, who remainedloyal to Edward during the controversy regarding Piers Gaveston.
So Despenser became Edward’s loyal servant and chief administrator after
the execution [by the barons] of Piers Gaveston. [672]

And there ends the credit I give to Hugh Despenser the Elder:
It has been said over and over again:
Hugh the Elder and his son were nearly abnormally avarious and
it was one great show of landgrabbing, extortioning and imprisoning
people [in order to get their lands from them] and further misuse of
power.
They even managed to give no one access to the King [especially
in the 1320’s, when they were at the top of their power], unless
one of them attended. [673]
Even Queen Isabella was victim to that dangerous nonsense. [674]
It comes as no surprise that they became the most hated men in
England! [675]

That show all began, when Hugh’s son, also ”Hugh” was appointed
as royal chamberlain in 1317 and somehow managed to charm
his way to the top. [676]
Because of their avariciousness and their violation of the rights
of the Marcher Lords and Despenser’s robbing of his
own brothers in law [the husbands of his sisters in law],
the former favourites of the King [Roger d’Amory and Hugh de Audley] [677],
The Despenser war started, with the King, his adherents and the Despensers
at one side and the Marcher Lords and King’s turbulent cousin Thomas
of Lancaster at the other side. [678]
The Despensers were initially exiled [the demand of the Marcher Lords and
Thomas of Lancaster], but later revoked.
The King was successful, the Marcher Lords surrendered, his cousin Thomas
of Lancaster and approximately nineteen or twenty two adherents were
executed in 1322. [679]
Those executions were preceded by either mock trials or no trial at all.
In the case of Thomas of Lancaster, a mock trial took place in his
own, favourite Castle of Pontefract with as ”judges”, his cousin King
Edward II, of course the Despensers and others [ the earls of Kent, Pembroke, Richmond, Surrey, Arundel, the Scottish earls of Angus and Atholl and the justice Robert Malberthorpe] [680]

The Ordinances [curbing the royal power], to which Thomas
of Lancaster had given his heart, were revoked in may 1322
and nothing stood in the way of the reign of terror, Edward II
and the Despensers established. [681]
And in 1322, Despenser the Elder was created Earl of Winchester. [682]

Eventually, due to tensions with France, Queen Isabella
[who had suffered by the King’s favouritism of Despenser the
Younger] left for France as a mediator between Edward II and
her brother, Charles IV. [683]
She did not come back, associated herself with Roger Mortimer
[the most powerful Marcher Lord and ally of Thomas of Lancaster,
who, Mortimer I mean, had escaped from the Tower of London].
They invaded England in 1326, captured the King and
Hugh Despenser the Younger and put an end to that terror regime.
[684]

That’s the history.
Before capturing the King however, Hugh Despenser the Elder,
who tried to defend Bristol, surrendered Bristol Castle to
Isabella and Mortimer.

He was given a mock trial by Mortimer, Isabella, Henry of Lancaster [who had scores to settle with the Despensers….]and a few others at Bristol Castle in October 1326, in what was clearly intended as a parody of Thomas of Lancaster’s trial.

Gory detail:
He was hanged in his armour, his head was sent to Winchester on a spear, and his body was cut up and fed to dogs…[685]

Barbaric.

Edmund Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, one of the executioners
of King’s favourite Piers Gaveston [686] [together with
the 10th Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Hereford and Thomas
of Lancaster], who later completely changed sides and
became loyal to the King.
He was one of the ”judges”, who condemned
Thomas of Lancaster, his former ”partner in evil”
[execution of Piers Gaveston] to death…… [687]
To his credit however must be said, that he
stayed loyal to Edward II till the end and fled with him
and Hugh Despenser the Younger [his close relation
by marriage, since his son was married with Despenser’s
eldest daughter Isabel] to Wales.
In November 1326, Edmund was captured by John Charlton, who had been Edward II’s chamberlain until 1318.

Edmund was beheaded, almost certainly without a trial, on 17 November 1326, probably at Hereford, though one chronicle says Shrewsbury.

Two of Edmund’s friends, John Daniel and Thomas [or Robert] de Micheldever, were executed with him…….[688]

Horrible, all those executions…..

Hugh Despenser the Younger

Despenser the Elder’s son, another ”Hugh”, was the great favourite
of King Edward II.
Originally following the political line of his uncle [brother
of his mother Isabella de Beauchamp, married Despenser],
the 10th Earl of Warwick [one of the executioners
of Edward II’s favourite Piers Gaveston] [689], nevertheless he
was appointed to royal chamberlain in the autumn of 1318 [690]
and somehow managed to charm himself into the favour
of Edward II.
Now the function of royal chamberlain was an extremely powerful one. since the chamberlain controlled access, physical and written, to the king and the physical proximity and the frequent contact gave Despenser a real advantage to become ”intimate” with the King
[whether physical or not].

Be it as it may:
Despenser became the second great favourite of Edward II,
after Piers Gaveston and he could do almost anything and yet
hold the King’s favour.

The Despenser war [the name says enough] was fought because of him [reason: his and
his father’s extreme avariciousness and ambition, disadvantaging
the other nobles, especially the Marcher Lords] [691], leading to
his [and his father’s] banishment, but revoked by Edward as soon
as possible.

Edward held on to his extreme attachment to him, against
the pleas of his estranged wife Isabella [from France], to
send him away, as we have seen in my writings above.

His and his father’s [rising with his son’s power] avariousness
and numerous crimes in the 1320’s after the Despenser war was won by the King and the Ordinances [the great cause of Thomas of
Lancaster] were
revoked and all their enemies were either dead, imprisoned
or exiled, led to his downfall.

After the invasion in september 1326 of Queen Isabella and her ally [lover] Roger Mortimer
and the support of Edward II was crumbling down [mainly
because of the hatred against the Despensers], theDespenser  game was over.

His father Hugh was captured in Bristol and executed after a
mock trial, a parody of the trial and execution of Thomas
of Lancaster [692] and Hugh and the King were captured
in South Wales by the forces of Henry of Lancaster [brother
of the executed Thomas of Lancaster, who immediately
had taken the sides of Isabella and Roger Mortimer against
King Edward II and the Despensers] [693]
and Hugh Despenser’s fate was sealed.

Poor vain man, who overplayed his hands….

It was now all suffering, to the end:
Significant:
It was reported by several chroniclers that, since the capture, Hugh had refused all food and water in an attempt to try and starve himself to death before his execution. [694]

Now I can’t resist to point out the following:
Hugh Despenser was captured at 16 november, and executed
on the 24th.
Now it IS possible, that someone can manage without food
for eight days [in a very weakened state, the maximum seems three weeks], but it is impossible not to DRINK for eight days.
The maximum without drink [and then you are from the world
already] seems to be a week. [695]
But complete with hallicunations, complete weakness.
So no way Despenser should have made a journey from
South Wales to Hereford [where they brought him in a rather fast
time, between eight days] and survived….

So he will have refused FOOD and survived the journey, but not drink.

His journey was utterly humiliating and he was accompanied to Hereford by Henry de Leyburne
[who had fought for Thomas of Lancaster in the last
Battle of Boroughbridge] and Robert de Stangrave and
they made sure that it was a journey from hell. [696]

Factually, Queen Isabella wished to have Hugh executed in
London, but apparently because of his weakness [the hungerstrike], Hereford was decided for the ”trial”
and place of execution.

When he arrived in Hereford, of course, horrible, new
humiliations were the poor man’s fate [697]

At last, he faced his ”trial” at the marketplace in Hereford:

His ”judges” were Henry, earl of Lancaster, the earl of Kent
[ironic! Kent also was, together with the Despensers,
one of the ”judges” in the trial of Thomas of
Lancaster…], Roger de Mortimer and others [698]

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

And the outcome was, of course predictable, since revenge
[from Isabella and Roger Mortimer against Despenser, from Henry of Lancaster against Despenser] was the case here.

Hugh was sentenced to the traitors death:
To be hanged, drawn and quartered and he suffered the whole
horror of that sentence……

Sir William Trussel, strong adherer of Thomas of Lancaster,
who had fought at his side at the Battle of Boroughbridge
‘fled to France and returned with Isabella and Roger Mortimer]
[700] read out the charges  against Hugh Despenser [701]

And the outcome was, of course predictable, since revenge
[from Isabella and Roger Mortimer against Despenser, from Henry of Lancaster against Despenser] was the case here.

Hugh was sentenced to the traitors death: [702]
To be hanged, drawn and quartered and he suffered the whole
horror of that sentence……

At 24 november 1326 [703]
Together with him also Simon Reading, a rather unknown man,
who was captured together with Despenser and the King and whose ”crime” seemed to have been [he got no trial]
to have ”insulted” the Queen, was hanged. [704]

That was the hideous end of Hugh Despenser the Younger, the
great favourite of Edward II.

What a death.
Whatever he had done, no he didn’t deserves to die like that.
No one deserves to die like that.

III

ROGER MORTIMER

”WE BOW TO NO MAN……..”

And now about Roger Mortimer, powerful Marcher Lord and
ally of Thomas of Lancaster.
How fared he?

The story is known about the Despenser war Roger, Thomas and
their allies fought out against the Despensers and ultimately
King Edward II,  I wrote it already extensively in chapter six and
seven.

A powerful Marcher Lord, Initially loyal to the King, being King’s Lieutenant and
Justiciar in Ireland [705], Roger Mortimer came into
rebellion, together with his uncle Roger Mortimer de Chirk  and
many others, because of Edward II´s extreme favouritism of the Despensers, which
disadvantaged the Marcher Lords. [706]
This resulted in the Despenser war in which the Marcher Lords destroyed
Despenser lands [707], but also attacked, pillaged and extortioned
innocents, with as main victims poor villagers ¨[708]
They formed a close alliance with Thomas of Lancaster, who was yearlong
in opposition against his cousin and King.
At the end, Thomas of
Lancaster was defeated in the Battle of Boroughbridge on 16 march 1322 and executed on 22 march 1322 after
a mock trial [709], with so many others also executed (not always after a ´´trial,
[710].
Roger Mortimer and his uncle de Chirk, who were already complelled
to surrender in january 1322 [711], were imprisoned at the Tower of London.
BUT IN 1323 ROGER MORTIMER ESCAPED! [712]
SPECTACULAR!

One of the few who ever escaped the Tower of London!
He fled to France and there he met other Contrariants (rebels against the
King in the Despenser war), who fled England after the defeat at Boroughbridge.

SO FAR, SO GOOD!

But Mortimer was an ambitious man, who wanted his power, position and
lands back.
That was only possible with a military victory against the King, which meant a military
invasion of England.
Now for him, that step was not so great.
He had rebelled against his king before.

But the main problem:
With whom to associate, who enabled him to raise an
army and for whom the people in England were prepare to fight?

Question, question, untill Queen Isabella arrived in France in 1325,
for mediating between her husband Edward II and brother
King Charles IV in their military conflict over Gascony [713]
She DID mediate, but then did not return to England under the pretext
(or perhaps she really meant it, which is more likely) that Hugh Despenser had
ruined her marriage (as if he did that singlehanded, without the passionate
cooperation of Edward II) and that she would not return to England unless Edward
would send him away [714]
Of course he refused (she could have known that before….) infatuated
with the man as he was. [715]

To cut a long story short
Isabella and Mortimer associated with each other, probably as lovers
(or perhaps that came later), but chiefly for having a strong common interest,
certainly now the successor to the throne, prince Edward (who payed homage over Gascony and Ponthieu instead of his father Edward II) was in France under
his mother´s guard.

Mortimer alone could not go to England and demand the throne for prince Edward.
But Isabella, his ally änd possible lover, and the mother of the successor to
the throne, could and, presenting her as a Lady in distresss, put aside by
her husband, who preferred his favourite, would do for the people to
fight for her…..[716]
CLEVER, VERY CLEVER

So Isabella promised to marry her son Edward to Philippa, daughter of
the Count of Hainault.
As  a ´´dowry´´ she got the necessary troops, cash and
merecenaries [717] and she and Mortimer invaded England in september 1326.
The support for Edward II was now crumbling down, his cousin Henry of Lancaster
(brother of Thomas of Lancaster) and his halfbrother the Earl of Norfolk [718]
[his other halfbrother and full brother of the Earl of Norfolk, the Earl of Kent,
had already joined Isabella and Mortimer in France) [719] abandoned him and at the end, Edward II was captured together with his favourite, Hugh Despenser the Younger.
The Despensers were hideously executed…..

Edward was compelled to abdicate in january 1327 in favour of his son [720]
who became Edward III, but for the moment, only ruler in name (until 1330)
Isabella and Mortimer were the de facto rulers..

AND NOW
POWER WAS ISABELLA´S AND ROGER MORTIMER’S!

Because of the period of tyranny of Edward II and the Despensers, Isabella
and Mortimer were received as heroes and saviours of the nation
and in the beginning
it must have seemed for many people, that better times had come:
But soon they would be disappointed

But first:
Apart from the hideous executions of the Despensers and the executions
of some of their adherents [like the Earl of Arundel], some good things
turned out of this invasion.
Many people, imprisoned by the Despensers, were pardoned [721] and doubtless
to the satisfaction of Henry of Lancaster and the former adherents of his
brother Thomas [and remember, Roger Mortimer had been Thomas’ ally during
the Despenser war], the trial of Thomas was reversed [722]

AND:
Henry, who  had  petitioned for his brothers
Earldoms and got Leicester back in 1324 [723] [but NOT the rest of his Earldoms, which were forfeited,
since Thomas was executed as a traitor], was restored in his brother’s Earldoms and
now officially the Earl of Lancaster. [724]
In 1327, Henry also was made chief of the Council of Regency [since King Edward III
was a minor, yet] [725]

EDWARD II

In september 1327, former King Edward II died at Berkeley Castle,
probably murdered [726], although some modern historians presume that he
escaped and lived years and years  abroad. [727]
Be as it may:
Young King Edward III believed his father was murdered, since
that was one of the charges against Roger Mortimer in 1330. [728]

REIGN OF ISABELLA AND ROGER MORTIMER/TERROR, AGAIN!

The rather abrupt death of King Edward II casted, of course, a shadow
on their reign, but there was more:
If people had hoped, all things would be better with the Despensers gone,
they were mistaken!
There was a new terror reign, this time not the Despenser terror, but the Isabnella
and Mortimer terror.
In fact, there was a new ”favourite” in the land, Hugh Despenser, favourite
of former King Edward Ii, was simply replaced by Roger Mortimer, favourite
of Queen Isabella…..
The pair was abnormally avaricious, worse than the Despensers ever had
been and their political opponents suffered prison and execution too. [729]
They rewarded themselves  [and family] with vast estates and the expenses of the royal
treasury and in 1328 Roger Mortimer was made the Earl of March.

Moreover they made peace with Scotland, which made them very unpopular. [730]

This and their avariciousness led to great discontentment in the lands and their allies
began to desert them.
The first was Henry of Lancaster, who had enough of the ”tyranny”,among else since the Council of Regency [from which he was chief] was de facto ousted out of power.
He raised an army against the Mortimer/Isabella regime in 1328, since like his
brother Thomas before, he had many armed man at his disposal, but
he failed, although he was spared from death.
But in exchange for the ”mercy” of Isabella and Mortimer, he had to
pay a very huge fine……[731]
Apparently, Henry resembled his brother Thomas’ rebellious nature more
than it had seemed in the past…..

So discontent with Isabella and Mortimer grew day by day and more former adherents abandoned them. [732]

THE EARL OF KENT DRAMA:

As if they were not unpopular enough, the Isabella and Mortimer
pair executed the King’s uncle, Edmund of Woodstock, the Earl of Kent. [733]

This Earl of Kent had interesting ”life and times”:
Halfbrother of King Edward II, he, together with the Despensers
[and others] had been one of the ”judges” in the mock trial
against Thomas of Lancaster [734], later went to the Pope to promote
the very Thomas’ canonization ……[735]
He took part in the rebellion of Isabella and Mortimerf against
his halfbrother King Edward II.
And to make the story complete:
He was one of the ”judges”  at the mock
trial of Hugh Despenser the Elder [736] and present at the trial against
Hugh Despenser the Younger [737]
The same men with whom he sentenced Thomas of Lancaster to death….
Speaking from ”switching sides”………

ANYWAY:
What lead to Kent’s execution:

After apparently have participated  in the failed rebellion of
Henry of Lancaster [Thomas’ brother] against Isabella and Mortimer [738]
[and, as Henry, been spared by the Isabella/Mortimer regime], it
was not over yet and Kent played a far more dangerous game:

He became involved in another plot against the Isabella/Mortimer pair
, when he was convinced by rumours that his halfbrother was still alive…..[739]

According to some historians, the whole ”Edward II is still alive” thing,
was a set up by Roger Mortimer to lure Kent into a trap to commit
treason against his nephew, the present King, Edward III [740]
Some modern historians allege, that in fact Edward II WAS still alive and
that somehow Kemt had got some proof of that [741]

Be as it may [I let the reader judge for him or herself], whether
Kent was naive and gullible enough to believe that the dead Edward
II was not dead after all or that Edward II REALLY lived, it is to be praised
in Edmund, Earl of Kent, that he tried to free his halfbrother, former
King Edward II.

Needless to say, that Roger and Isabella were not pleased at all:

Poor Earl of Kent was executed at 19 march 1330…..[742]

But at the end, this worked all wrong for Roger Mortimer, since
the death of Kent was one of the charges against him in 1330…..[743]

BIZARRE DETAIL:

Since Kent had that high royal status [son of late king Edward I, halfbrother of
former king Edward II and uncle of present king Edward III] [744] the executioner was unwilling to take part in the judicial murder of a king’s son and fled, and so the unfortunate Kent had to wait around in his shirt for many hours until a common felon under sentence of death was offered his freedom if he agreed to wield the axe……. [745]

THE LION AWAKES
SWAN SONG/NOTTINGHAM CASTLE/DOWNFALL

””Whereas the king’s affairs and the affairs of his realm have been directed until now to the damage and dishonour of him and his realm and to the impoverishment of his people, as he has well perceived and as the facts prove*, wherefore he has, of his own knowledge and will, caused certain persons to be arrested, to wit the earl of La Marche [i.e. Roger Mortimer], Sir Oliver de Ingham, and Sir Simon de Bereford, who have been principal movers of the said affairs, and he wills that all men shall know that he will henceforth govern his people according to right and reason, as befits his royal dignity**, and that the affairs that concern him and the estate of his realm shall be directed by the common counsel of the magnates of the realm and in no other wise…” [746]

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

I wrote it before:
People became more and more fed up with the Isabella and
Mortimer terror and the execution of the Earl of Kent,
King’s uncle, was probably the last straw.
But there was more to it.

Young King Edward III, who was untill now the ‘puppet king”
in the hands of his mother and Roger Mortimer, grew more
and more dissatisfied about this state of affair.

And I can state safely here, that the execution of his uncle,
Earl of Kent, did NOT have Edward III’s consent, since
one of the later charges against Roger Mortimer was
procuring the death of King Edward III’s uncle, the
said Earl of Kent. [748]

To cut a long story short:

King Edward III was fed up with Mortimer [probably
he suspected him Mortimer already of the alleged
murder on his father, since that also was one of
the charges held against Mortimer] [749]
Likely the last straw was the birth of his
eldest son, the later ”Black Prince” in june 1330 [750]

So the King Edward III, with the help of his dearest and
closest friend, William Montecute [son of
the former favourite of Edward II, William Montecute,
who formed a ”triumvirate” together with the two other favourites,
Roger Damory and Hugh Audley] [751]
and other companions of his [Edward III’s] age,
made a clever plan, that was very well prepared.
Although spontaneous by nature, probably
Edward had planned some sort of movement
against Mortimer all along
[which was difficult enough to execute, since
Isabella and Mortimer had spies in his household]

AND IT WAS SPECTACULAR!

Mortimer and Isabella were at Nothingham Castle
and there the show began:

Via a secret tunnel [likely Isabella and Mortimer
were not aware of that] Edward III, his close friend Montecute
and his other loyal knights entered the Castle and Isabella and
Mortimer, who were in conference with their few adherents left,
were totally surprised and Roger was arrested, despite [according
to the chroncicles] Isabella was supposed to have pleaded for him:
‘Fair son, have pity on gentle [translated as ”from noble birth”]
Mortimer”  [752]

The reign of Edward III now de facto [Latin for ”in fact”] had started.

Mortimer was imprisoned  in the Tower of London until his trial on 26 November. [753]
But ”trial” is a too big word for what really happened:
Like of Thomas of Lancaster and the Despensers, Roger was not permitted to speak in his own defence when he was taken before Parliament at Westminster.
He was charged with fourteen crimes, including: the murder of Edward II; procuring the death of Edward’s half-brother Kent; and taking royal power and using it to enrich himself, his children and his supporters. [754]

Of course, Roger was found guilty of these crimes, and ‘many others’, by notoriety, that is, his crimes were ‘notorious and known for their truth to you and all the realm’. [755]

He was convicted to be ”hanged, drawn and quartered” [the
”traitors death”], but King Edward III showed himself
merciful and commuted his punishment to ”merely” hanging. [756]

He was executed at Tyburn, the first nobleman to be hanged there.
Tyburn was the execution site for common criminals, and hanging was the method used to dispatch them. Noblemen were usually beheaded. [757]

But obviously, Edward III wanted him to be executed as a
common criminal.

Some of the young knights who supported and aided Edward III during his coup were later rewarded with earldoms: William Montacute, with Salisbury [758] Robert Ufford, with Suffolk; William Clinton, with Huntingdon and so others [759]

DEATH AND ROYAL DESCENDANTS

And so passed Roger de Mortimer, 3rd baron de Mortimer,
1st Earl of March. [760]
He had gambled for power and eventually lost.

But…….through the marriage of his greatgrandson Edmund, 3rd
Earl of March, with the
granddaughter of Edward III, Philippa [daughter of his son
Lionel of Antwerp], Mortimer became the ancestor of Richard,
Duke of York, his sons, the Plantagenet Kings Edward IV and
Richard III and via Edward IV’s daughter, Elizabeth of York
[wife of Henry Tudor, Henry VII and mother of Henry VIII],
the ancestor of  all subsequent monarchs in England! [761]

NO BAD CURRICULUM VITAE FOR A REBEL TO THE THRONE!

IV

QUEEN ISABELLA

And now:
Queen Isabella:

How fared she after the execution of her cousin by marriage
and uncle [halfbrother of her mother Joan I of Navarre] Thomas
of Lancaster?
Much about her life I have written already:
See above ”King Edward II” and ”Roger Mortimer”

To cut a long story short [at least an attempt…..]

ISABELLA INTO REBELLION

King Edward II clearly was totally infatuated with Hugh Despenser
the Younger, and he and his father held such a power, that no one
could access the King without one of them being present. [762]
That also applied to Queen Isabella [763], what must have been
very disconcerting to her.
And her position further deteriorated, when, due to tensions
with France and the outbroken war, Edward II reduced her income,
seized her lands and treated her more like an enemy than his Queen.
[764]
Due to the fact it was difficult for Edward II to leave the country
to pay homage for Gascony and Ponthieu
[growing unrest and great unpopularity of the Despensers and subsequently,
the King] [765], he sent Isabella to France to mediate between him and her
brother Charles IV, King of France. [766]
She did mediate, but stayed in France, made publicly known, not
to return to England before Despenser was sent away from Court. [767]

Edward II and Isabella made from their marriage  laughing stock by sending
letters to each other [and to others], rejecting Hugh Despenser [Isabella] and defending him firmly [Edward II] [768] and at that time it became clear to Isabella
[what she could have known from the start], that Edward II was NOT going
to send dear Hugh away from him…..[769]

When prince Edward [the later Edward III] came to pay homage for Gascony
and Ponthieu instead of his father and now under his mother’s control,
Isabella came into the position to pose a serious threat on her husband.
In the meantime, she had began a cooperation [romantic or not]
with escaped Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer and more and more
fled Contrariants [rebels against King Edward II in the Despenser war
and adherents of the Marcher Lords and Thomas of Lancaster]

At the end, after promising her son Edward in marriage with the daughter
of the Count of Hainault [and so getting the necessary military aid],
Isabella and Mortimer invaded England, defeated Edward II [whose support
was crumbling down into almost nothing], executed the Despensers in the
style of Thomas of Lancaster [in mock trials] [770] and establising their
power.

ISABELLA’S VINDICTIVENESS
NOT TO FORGET/THREE LITTLE NUNS

Edward II had shown his vindictiveness against the women and
children of the Contrariants after 1322 [defeat and execution of Thomas
of Lancaster, which marked the end of the Despenser war] [771],
but Isabella proved not to be better:

In january 1327, Isabella revenged herself on three little daughters of
the late Hugh Despenser, by forcibly let them veiled to nuns.  [772]
Hugh’s eldest daughter escaped, since she was already married with
Richard Fitzalan [773]
the son of the executed Earl of Arundel [once one of the executioners
of Piers de Gaveston, together with the 10th Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Hereford
and Thomas of Lancaster, then returned to loyalty to Edward II and paid the
highest price being beheaded by Isabella and Mortimer] [774]
Hughs youngest daughter also escaped, being too young or still
in her mother’s womb. [775]

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

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

NEW TYRANNY

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

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

However:

Edward III, who was King only in name, had enough of it and in october
1330 overthrew the power of Mortimer and his mother and had Mortimer
executed in november 1330, among else on the charges of the murder
of his father and the execution of his uncle, the Earl of Kent,
halfbrother of his father. [783]

That was the end of Mortimer and the power of the Isabella/Mortimer pair…..

AFTER MORTIMER’S EXECUTION: ISABELLA

Whatever Edward III must have thought of possible
accomplicity of Isabella in the [what he then thought] murder
of his father, she was still his mother:
In contrary with all dramatic stories, EDWARD III DID NOT LOCK
UP HIS MOTHER FOREVER IN CASTLE RISING! [784]
In fact, Edward held her out of the storm:
In the charges against Mortimer, she was mentioned in only one charge: “the said Roger falsely and maliciously sowed discord between the father of our lord the King and the Queen his companion…the said Queen remained absent from her said lord, to the great dishonour of our lord the King and the said Queen his mother…” [785]

After Mortimer’s arrest, Isabella was taken to Berkhamsted Castle and placed under temporary house arrest., where she was treated
with respect, due to her royal status.[786]
Later she lived at Windsor Castle and from 1332 in her own Castle
Rising. [787]
On 1 December, Isabella surrendered her vast estates into the hands of her son [many she had stolen to enrich herself], but Edward turned

to be very lenient with her and granted her  an income of £3000 a year: “Grant for life, with the assent of Parliament, to queen Isabella of a yearly sum of 3,000l at the Exchequer to provide for her estate…”
[in 1331 her estates, which belonged to HER, were given back to
her, not what she had stolen] [788]
This income was in fact higher than her income as reigning Queen. And considering that most people in England earned less than five pounds per year, and forty pounds qualified a man for knighthood, it was still a vast income by any standards. In 1337, it was raised to £4500.[789]

So she lived a luxuriously life, returning to Castle Rising in 1332
[790], although her political influence and power was over.

And the relationship with her son Edward seemed to be well.
In 1330, she passed Christmas with her son and likely
her daughter in law and baby grandson, the later
Black Prince, with whom she became very close. [791]

The death [execution] of Mortimer must have been very painful
for her and perhaps she suffered a nervous breakdown [792],
what some historians have suggested,
but she was smart enough not to show any grief in public.
[which was by the way highly uncommon by people
of noble birth and certainly royals]

Anyway, she led a comfortable, but conventional life
until her death, received visitors, had a regular contact
with her son the King and especially with her favourite grandson
Edward, the Black Prince, who visited her regularly and vice
versa [793].
Interesting too was, that she was often visited
by the captive French King John II, son of
her first cousin, who was the first Valois
King, Philip VI [Philip VI’s father, Charles
of Valois, was the brother of Philip IV, the Fair,
father of Isabella] [794]
The last period of her life her youngest daughter
Joan, who had been married with David the Bruce [son
of Robert the Bruce and King of the Scots, her grandfather Edward I
would have exploded!], took care for her. [795]

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

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

Isabella left the bulk of her property to her favourite grandson,
Edward the Black Prince and some of her belongings to
her youngest daughter Joan, who nursed her the last
period of her life. [800]

And so passed Isabella of France, daughter of Philip IV the Fair of France, wife of King Edward II and mother of King Edward III.
A remarkable, tumultuous royal Lady, who broke with
the conventions of her time to rebel openly
against her Lord and husband…..

MARRIAGE

However, the story isn’t over yet:
Because I can’t describe the life and times of Queen Isabella
, without some thoughts about her marriage with Edward II:

How was the marriage of King Edward II and Queen Isabella of
France?
Well, there are conflicting opinions about that
Some sources say, that this marriage was a disaster from day one
[due to Edward II’s extreme favouritism of Piers Gaveston], but
that version you mostly see by older historians and often in fiction.
According to more, modern versions, it was a good and happy marriage
until along came Hugh Despenser…….. [only in that case
you can question WHY Hugh got such an emotional impact
on the King, if his marriage was that good…..]
And although modern writers don’t make of this marriage an
extremely romantic thing, they tend to it, perhaps as a countraweight
against the ”disaster” version.[801]
I think both versions are wrong.
To my view, the marriage was a well working Medieval union
at least from the death of Piers Gaveston until the coming of Hugh Despenser
but not neccessarily loving.

Now nobody can’t possibly know how the marriage really was, since the only sources are the chronicle
writers, who  gave insight in that time and the lives of Edward II and Isabella,
but were NOT in the royal bedchamber….
Medieval documents [letters, offiicial documents etc] are valuable, but
the relationship between two persons, which is complex and can change, is, of course, not recorded.
So the quality of their marriage  remains a matter of interpretation.

BUT

Taken into consideration, that, bisexual [or homosexual] or
not [a matter of interpretation, nobody can know for sure],
Edward II had a strong, emotional need for male companions [802]
and got at lengths [especially in the case of Gaveston and Despenser]
to keep them at his side, that is no recipe for a good, succesfull and happy marriage,……

My view [but only a view] is that the marriage was NO disaster from day one, , ,neither a succesful, loving and happy marriage, but a well working Medieval union
[four children, including the successor to the throne and his brother, John
of Eltham], Isabella fulfillling her royal duties loyally, as
trying to act as peacemaker and mediator, and Edward
having a high regard of her, untill along came
Hugh Despenser……..

That the marriage was not particulary loving and happy seems understandable, since it was arranged.
But that is not the only explanation, since some arranged marriages
[for example Edward I’s and Edward III’s, as Isabella of France’s father]
were seemingly very happy. [803]
No, another aspect was the Kings infatuation
and obsession with Piers Gaveston [I can safely assume: HIS
great love] and later Hugh Despenser.

How Isabella really thought about Gaveston, is not recorded, although
it is often presented, that she loathed and hated him.

The only recorded source however is a letter she wrote, after Gaveston”s third
exile to the receiver of Ponthieu “concerning the affairs of the earl of Cornwall.” [804]
That was perhaps an indication, that she had agreed to help
Gaveston in his exile, at least financially [interpretation
on EdwardthesecondBlogspot and I can agree with that] [805]
But I can’t see it as a proof, that she actually LIKED him.
More as a possible indication, that she must be glad to have him out of the way
and to make sure [from financial perspective] that he stayed where he was…..

After the arrival of Hugh Despenser in the royal favour however, from
a working union, the marriage became a disaster, with Isabella
leaving for France, invading England and the deposition of Edward II.
I wrote it all above here.

But to say in the defence of Despenser:
However reproachable his role into the marriage was, it was Edward II
who made the choice to lay explosives under his marriage,
not only becoming that infatuated with Hugh, but wanting to
hold him at his side,
no matter which plea of Isabella to send him away. [806]

That was HIS choice, not [only] the machinations of Hugh Despenser.

Was Edward a man, who led a ”great  happy marriage” before Hugh’s coming?
I don’t think so, since his extreme emotional dependence of men
[Gaveston, and to lesser extent, the trumvirate Roger Damory, Hugh Audley
and William Montecute]

Whether Isabella loved Edward on the great, happy, romantic way
before Despenser, I can’t say.
There is no proof of that, nor proof of the contrary.

But it takes two to make a happy and loving marriage….

NO

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

V

HENRY OF LANCASTER

I vividly imagine a scene in, let’s say
1324, when Hugh Despenser the Younger meets
Henry of Lancaster in the Westminster Palace.

With feigned friendliness he asks for Henry’s welfare and
pretends some ”cordiality”, knowing full well, that
Henry doesn’t like him at all.
After all, he was one of the ”judges”, who condemned his
brother Thomas to death in a mock trial in 1322…….

Despenser suggests, that although the death of his brother must have been painful
for Henry, life goes on.
After all, he was not that close to his brother?

”Forgiven and forgotten, my Lord brother?” [807]
Despenser falsely asks: [Henry
was married with Despenser’s maternal half sister
Maud Chaworth]
Henry, having no alternative,  Despenser being
the most powerful man in the land, responds

”Yes my Lord” and bows.

But when Despenser leaves, Henry’s face is stern and grief-stricken

Because whether close or not, Thomas after all WAS his brother.

So he mutters against the disappearing back of Despenser

”SEE YOU AROUND, BUDDY BOY. IT AIN’T OVER YET’….
NO PEACE WITH YOU MY LORD, NO PEACE”

Despenser overconfident as always, had no idea whatsoever,
what was really in Henry’s mind…..

Such a scene COULD have happened.
Did it really happen?
No idea.

OUR MYSTERY MAN

Now during the turbulent 1312-1322 part of the reign of Edward II, in
which Thomas of Lancaster, Henry’s elder brother, and Edward II had
a furious struggle for power, which eventually led to the execution
of Thomas, Henry almost seems forgotten, gone away to France or
in each case, rather mysteriously absent.

Yet in 1326, Edward II and Despensers would know, that
Henry all those years played his own games
And waiting for his chance to settle old scores. [808]
But then, for them, it was too late……

HENRY/CURRICULUM VITAE:

Born in or about 1281, he was the younger son of Edward I’s brother Edmund [Crouchback],
Earl of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby and Blanche of Artois,
and brother of Thomas of Lancaster and the not well known
John [809]

So Henry and his brothers were the first cousins of
Edward II [their fathers being brothers]
Henry also was the halfbrother of Queen Joan I of Navarre
[daughter of Blanche of Artois from her first marriage with King
Henry of Navarre], who was the wife of the French King Philip
IV and the mother of Isabella of France, Edward II’s wife [and the French Kings Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV]
Which made Henry [and Thomas] the maternal uncles of
Isabella of France! [810]

After their father’s death in 1296, the bulk of his lands was inherited by Thomas, being the eldest son.
Yet Henry inhertited a part of his father’s vast lands, and was lord of Kidwelly and owned the Three Castles in Monmouthshire (Grosmont, Skenfrith and the White Castle) [811]

On  6 February1298/99 his uncle Edward I had a surprise for him:
He was summoned to Parliament on 6 february 1298/99 by writ directed to Henrico de Lancastre nepoti Regis (“Henry of Lancaster, nephew of the king”), by which he is held to have become Baron Lancaster. [812]

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

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

In 1308 Henry was present at the coronation of his cousin
Edward II and his wife Isabella, Thomas carrying the sword
”Curtana” and Henry had the honour to carry the royal
rod. [817]

HENRY, THE MYSTERIOUS MAN

Concerning Henry of Lancaster, two things puzzles me:

Why the hell he didn’t participate in his brother Thomas’
rebellions?

And the  fact, that he managed to hold himself ”low profile”
until he emerged out of from nowhere, to become the main force
behind the fall of Edward II and the Despensers…..

I will come back to my ”puzzles” later in the story.
Continuing:

You should think, that with such an impressive family background,
Henry would be destined to play an important role in political affairs.
But that was not the case, at least not until 1326….

Now the fact, that he, as a younger son, was not rich, doesn’t explain
everything:
Since his brother Thomas was twice in open rebellion to
Edward II [1311-1312, the Piers Gaveston case and in 1321-22,
Despenser war] [818]and continually, from about 1312 until 1322,
was struggling with Edward II for power, one should think, that
Henry would take part in his brother’s rebellions.
Quod not.

According to some historians, Henry was not that close with his brother [819]
I don’t know, whether that’s really true, but that can hardly be
an explanation for
his lack of political/military participation on behalf of Thomas,
since it was usual, that brothers joined each other when there was
a rebellion and they were not all close with each other either.
Besides, when the rebellion succeeded, the supporting brothers
could be assured of high positions, so it was their
own interest as well.

What perhaps can explain his lack of political involvement
was the fact, that Henry was a real family man
with such a close and affectionate bond with his son and daughters,
to that extent, that his daughters
lived a great part of their life with him, even when they were married.
[820]
And that was not usual.
He also seemed to have had a more quiet temper than Thomas, which
perhaps urged him to keep out of political turbulences.

But living in England could bring him in an impossible
position, since he could eventually have been forced to choose between his brother and his cousin the King.

I think that he didn’t want to fight against the King [there was
no indication whastoever, that Henry was not altogether loyal to Edward II and the relationship between them was seemingly well, at least until Thomas’ execution], but he certainly would not have wanted to fight against his own brother, whether they were ”close”
or not.

He seemed to have tried  not to meddle in the quarrels of his brother:
In 1316 he was among the men chosen by the King [821], to
take part in the campaign against Llywellyn Bren, which Henry did
[822] with Sir William Montacute [823], one of
the King’s favourites from around  1316-18, who, together with Roger Damory and
Hugh Audley [HAHAHA, the latter two would end up as allies of
Thomas] [824], would become serious enemies of his
brother Thomas. [825]
Although, admittedly, that animosity with Thomas was not
so apparent in 1316 yet:

The great trouble between Thomas
and those destructive favourites [I wrote about them
extendedly in chapter five] would fully emerge in 1317 [826], a year after the campaign against Llywellyn Bren…..[827]

Taking no part in the quarrels of his brother and yet didn’t

want to be turned against him, can be the reason, that
Henry ”escaped” when the opportunity rose and
his escape route was France.
His ”escape”  however was a sad one:

In 1317, Henry’s [and Thomas’]  younger brother John died childless and in May 1318 Edward II granted Henry permission to travel to France to “obtain the inheritance in that land which by the death of John de Lancastre, his brother, descended to him.” [828]

So since he had possessions now in France, he could live there.

So he said ”Hasta la vista” to England and spent spent much if not all of the next few years in France, to judge from the number of times Edward granted him permission and protection to remain overseas (he was still out of England in January 1322 and perhaps even later) [829]

But strangely enough he did crop up sometimes.
During the tensions  before the outbreak of the Despenser war,
which would cost his brother Thomas his life, Henry had participated in an anti Despenser coalition, perhaps [speculation
from my side] because Henry had possessions in Wales  [830] [where the Despensers went on the rampage, with full consent of the King] [831]
Which proved that he must have been in England somewhere between let’s say 26 october 1320 and the early months of 1321…..[832]

Anyway:

Henry was part of a confederation of allies against Hugh
Despenser the Younger [remember: Hugh was his brother in law,
since he was married to Hugh’s half sister Maud Chaworth], in
and around 1321
with among else, Roger Mortimer and his uncle Roger Mortimer
de Chirk, the King’s former favourites Roger Damory and Hugh Audley and others. [833]

Doubtless Henry’s brother Thomas was pleased with Henry’s
involvement, but then Henry seemed to have dissappeared again…
To France, where he stayed at least untill january 1322……[834]
Mysterious fellow…..

TRAGEDY  IN 1322/EXECUTION OF HIS BROTHER THOMAS

I don’t know whether Henry was in France or back in
England around march 1322.
However, the execution of his brother Thomas on 22 march
must have been a great shock to him, whether he was
”close” to him or not.
Thomas was condemned to death by King Edward II, the Despensers, the earls of Kent, Pembroke, Richmond, Surrey, Arundel and the Scottish earls of Angus and Atholl, in an unfair trial, where Thomas
was not allowed to speak  in his own defence or asked anyone
to raise a defence on his behalf. [835]
Some of Thomas’ ”judges” had no idea yet, that this mock trial some
day would be used against them in their own so called ”trials”, with
now HENRY as one of their ”judges”….

And there was another person, who would not be forgotten,
by Henry either:
Sir Robert Holland, a former close ally of Thomas of Lancaster,
who had betrayed him, one of the reasons why he had lost
the Battle of Boroughbridge……[836]
I will deal with that later.
To the honour of King Edward II must be said, that he didn’t
appreciate the treacherous changes of sides of Robert Holland at all:
He imprisoned him and it was not before 1327, that he
was released by Queen Isabella. [837]

THE EARLDOMS/HENRY’S PETITION

After the execution of his brother, Henry, apparently,
kept himself low profile.
Not that it was very likely, that he was in danger, since
he didn’t participated in his brother’s rebellion,
but in those times of tyranny [he was after all Thomas’
brother] you never can tell….
But he had one advantage, which protected him against
the possible vindictiveness of the Despensers [don’t forget
he had been part of the anti-Despenser coalition just before
the outbreak of the Despense war] [838]:
He was married with Maud Chaworth, halfsister of
Hugh Despenser the Younger from his mother’s side.
[839]

But although he kept on the background, in the years to
come he at least once rose his voice:
To petition for his brother Thomas’ lands and titles
[he was Thomas’ heir, since he had no legitimate children], which were
forfeited after his execution for treason. [840]
He did that partially successfully, since Edward II restored
the Earldom of Leicester to him.
In 1324 he was created Earl of Leicester.[841]

You may wonder why Edward II didn’t give him all the lands
of his brother back?
I don’t know, of course, but I will make a speculation
here:
The possession of all those Earldoms had made Thomas not
only the richest, but also most powerful man, after King Edward II and he had used that power in a 10 years long battle
for power with his cousin the King.

Edward II and the Despensers could not be sure of Henry’s
loyalty-after all they had executed his brother and he might
take it into his head to take revenge on them-and from their
point of view, it could be dangerous to give him that power.
Henry had loyal men at his disposal and some former adherents
of his late brother appeared in his retinue. [842]
It was a ”security risk” to make him too powerful……

CULT OF ”SAINT THOMAS”

But there was more to it:
Shortly after the execution of Henry’s brother, Thomas of
Lancaster, rumours began to circulate about miracles, performed
at his tomb and the place of his execution. [843]
And it didn’t take long before hundreds, no thousands of people
came to worship ”Saint Thomas” [yes, Thomas of Lancaster]
as a Saint. [844]
I have described this extendedly in chapter nine.
Now it is not clear, how those rumours came into the
world, but it is not imaginary, that brother Henry was behind those
tales about the Sainthood of his brother.
It was the perfect revenge on Edward II and the Despensers
[since Henry had no other option], since the more people
venerated ”Saint Thomas”, the more the already hated Despensers
would be despised.
At the other hand:
Apart from Henry’s possible need for revenge, the veneration of
Saint Thomas, however stemmed from, had a source in the
discontentment with the Despenser tyranny, condoned by
a doting Edward II…..[845]

However:
That the veneration of his brother meant a lot to
Henry, appeared from the fact, that, at his request, in
1327  [after the downfall of Edward II of course],
Archbishop William Melton of York [who in 1320 had sent
Thomas of Lancaster’s correspondence with the Scots to
King Edward II] [846] wrote a letter to the Pope,
with the request  to inquire
into the canonization of the popular ”Saint” [”Saint Thomas”]
. [847]
Also, in collaboration with Queen Isabella,
an agreement took place with Queen Isabella [confirmed
by King Edward III], dealing with
a chapel, which was to be built outside

the city walls, on the hill where Lancaster had been executed
five years ago [so this great event took place in 1327]
A hermit was to reside there to receive alms
for the building of the chapel and was to be
assisted by a clerk appointed by Isabella and Henry. [848]

But back to 1322-23:
The veneration of ”Saint Thomas” was a source of great
worry to Edward II and although he did his utmost to finish it,
it only grew in popularity. [849]

How Henry further fared between 1323 until 1326, I have
no idea, but being a man of surprises, he was to make his great
move in 1326…..

1326/HENRY’S WAY/THE GREAT MOVE
INVASION OF ISABELLA AND MORTIMER

So our ”mystery man” Henry, who didn’t participate
in his brother Thomas’ rebellions and kept to himself most
of those turbulent years [1317-1322] in France and hardly
made any appearance during the Edward II and Despenser
tyranny, suddenly rose, to play a key role in the events in
1326!

When Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer invaded in England
in 1326, Henry, then ”merely” Earl of Leicester, was one
of the first to abandon Edward II and join the Isabella
and Mortimer rebellion. [850]
Not so difficult, why, although it might have been a mixture
of reasons.
He doubtless must have wanted to take revenge for the
execution of his brother, especially wished by the Despensers,
and, of course,  also by Edward II, because of Lancaster’s involvement with
the murder of his favourite Piers Gaveston] [851].
Discontentment with the greedy tyranny of EdwardII/The Despensers
may have also played a role, as the fact, that Henry was granted only the Earldom of Leicester, when he petitioned for
his brother’s inheritance in 1323.

But to my opinion, Henry’s most important reason
to support Isabella and Mortimer was revenge for the
execution of his brother.

The joining Isabella and Mortimers” rebellion was
an enormous problem for Edward II, since his cousin Henry,
like Henry’s brother Thomas before, had many means and
men at his disposal, as a number of former adherents of Thomas,
who had now joined Henry’s retinue. [852]
In a futile attempt of damage control, Edward II ordered
to seize Henry’s Welsh castles of Grosmond,
Skenfirth and White Castle. [853]

Painful for Edward II must have been the desertion of
his own halfbrother, Thomas, Earl of Norfolk. [854]
His other halfbrother [and full brother of Thomas of
Norfolk], Edmund, Earl of Kent, had already joined
Isabella and Mortimer in France and invaded with them….
[855]

Kent was to play a very strange role in 1330 in an
attempt to free his supposedly dead halfbrother Edward II
from prison and was executed for it……[856]

TO SETTE OLD SCORES/THE DESPENSERS

SEE YOU AROUND, BUDDY BOY, IT AIN’T OVER YET…

NOW it was Henry’s chance to settle old scores with
the Despensers……

Following the invasion of Isabella and Mortimer, Edward II
and the Despensers left London.
In the meantime, Despenser the Elder failed to defend
Bristol Castle against the forces of Isabella and Mortimer,
surrerendered and was given a mock trial in what was clearly intended as a parody of Thomas of Lancaster’s trial.
He was not allowed to speak to his own defence.
His ”judges” were Mortimer, Isabella, Henry of Lancaster and a few others….. [857]
So it was-hard, but true-”what goes around, comes around.”
[858]
Thomas of Lancaster had been ”judged” in a mock trial,
by among else Despenser the Elder and his son [859], and now
Thomas’  Henry set in ”judgement” over him…..
Despenser the Elder was hanged in his own armour…..[860]
Sadly enough for him and his family….

To be fair with Despenser the Elder:
He committed many crimes, but was
one of the few barons, who were loyal to Edward II
from start to finish and never switched sides. [861]

Now Henry was ordered to pursue Edward II and Despenser the Younger [accompanied by a few faithful adherents], who
fled to Wales, where they were captured by Henry’s forces
at 16 november. [862]
Edward II and Despenser the Younger were split up:
Edward II was taken in Henry’s custody to Kenilworth
Castle, Henry’s family Castle where Henry treated
him with honour and respect, due to a King. [863]

Poor Despenser the Younger suffered a totally other fate:
After a humiliating journey in which he had tried
to starve himself [864], he was taken to Hereford, to
undergo, as his father before him, a mock trial:
They, again, made a cruel show of it and a clear
parody of the mock trial of Thomas of Lancaster:
He was not permitted to speak in his own defence….[865]

The charges against him [followed by his verdict] were
read by Sir William Trussell, a die hard supporter
of Thomas of Lancaster, who had fought at his side
at the Battle of Boroughbridge, fled to France and returned
with the Isabella and Mortimer invasion. [866]
As a proof that this verdict was- apart from the just charges as
piracy, extortions, stealing and imprisonment- also a revenge
for the execution of Thomas of Lancaster, the following charge/
passage was included:

”You took the good earl of Lancaster [le bone Counte de Lancastre], who was the cousin-german of our lord the king and his brothers and uncle of the very noble king of France and his sister my lady the queen of England, and had him falsely imprisoned and robbed, and in his own hall in his castle, by your royal power which you had seized from our lord the king, had him judged by a false record contrary to law and reason and Magna Carta and also without response, and you had him martyred and murdered by hard and piteous death.” [867]

To be fair, that was not quite right, since Thomas was not ”falsely
imprisoned” or ”robbed”, but ”judged” [even though it was no fair
trial] because of his open rebellion against Edward II…..

Trussell ended the charges with the dramatic words:

”Withdraw, you traitor, tyrant, renegade; go to take your own justice, traitor, evil man, criminal! [868]
[In French, likely the language in which the charges
were read out: Retrees vous traitour, tyrant, Reneye, si ales vostre iuys prendre, traitour, malueys, et atteyntmalueys or malveis]

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

Those present were Queen Isabella and her son [then still] Prince
Edward [the later Edward III], Roger Mortimer, Edward II’s halfbrother the Earl of Kent, many others and Henry of Lancaster….
[870]

The lawliness of the mock trial of Thomas of Lancaster
had not only boomeranged on the Despensers and other
executed loyal friends of Edward II [often without
ANY trial] [871], but cast a foreboding on the coming years:
The Isabella and Despenser regime proved to be as
lawless and tyrannic as the Edward II/Despenser rule….

But before continuing there, first a notorious ”Sir Traitor”,
Sir Robert Holland and the scores Henry had to settle with him…
This Sir Robert Holland was a yearlong  very close and trusted ally of
Henry’s brother Thomas:
In 1311 Edward II wrote to  Robert about some illness
of Thomas of Lancaster and spoke out his hope to see
him in parliament soon, accompanied by  Robert….[872]
However, Robert, who was that close to Thomas, would proof
to be a big traitor:
He abandoned Thomas when he needed him most:
During the Battle of Boroughbridge on 16 march……..[873],
which he lost, was taken captive and executed on 22 march….

However, Sir Traitor Robert was imprisoned by Edward II, who couldn’t appreciate his betrayal [874], but released by Isabella in 1327 [875].

A former adherent of Thomas of Lancaster
killed him in 1328 and his head was sent to
Henry. [876]
Was Henry behind this murder, since he must
have been very upset about the betrayal of Robert, leading
to his brother’s defeat and execution?
Probably we’ll never know, but in each case he
must have felt like settle old scores, since he
took the killers under his protection….[877]

This betrayal
against his brother must have touched him
very deeply, especially because Robert
Holland had been so close with Earl Thomas.

Yes
Old scores……..

HENRY UNDER THE ISABELLA AND MORTIMER REGIME
TRUST AND CONSENT

At first Henry must have gone well with the Isabella and
Mortimer regime:

An initial token of Isabella and Mortimer’s trust and
appreciation for his military support was their order
to him to pursue and
capture Edward II and Despenser the Younger [as written above]
hold Edward II in custody in his Castle of Kenilworth, where he
treated the fallen King with honour and respect. [878]
Later he was made chief of the Council of Regency for the minor
King Edward III. [879]

One of the other things the Isabella and Mortimer regime did,
which doubtless meant a lot to Henry was the reversion
of the treason conviction of his brother Thomas. [880]
And  to his satisfaction, he was granted  the full restoration of his brother’s inheritance. [881]

Now he was , finally, Earl of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby.

He [see above] also promoted the veneration cult
of his brother Thomas in collaboration with
Isabella, dealing with
a chapel, which was to be built outside

the city walls, on the hill where Lancaster had been executed. [882]

HENRY AND THE ISABELLA AND MORTIMER REGIME
TROUBLE IN PARADISE

But the first troubles in paradise appeared…….
And it related with the very task Isabella and Mortimer
gave Henry:
The custody of his cousin Edward II, the lenient
way Henry treated the King, the security risks and the power
this custody gave Henry, which easily could be misused……

Whether Henry still held a grudge against Edward II for
the execution of his brother Thomas, I don’t know.

However, Edward II was the King after all [and after his
deposition the King’s father], and Henry
treated him, regardless of what he possibly must have felt, with dignity and honour, according to his royal state. [883]

Security risks:

Now keeping a fallen King in custody is an enormous
responsibility, also in this case:
There were several plots to free Edward II, also
when he stayed in Kenilworth. [884]
So for security reasons Isabella and Mortimer
removed Edward II from Kenilworth, Henry’s family
Castle, to Berkeley Castle. [885]
The security reasons were a sensible argument”, of course, since
Berkeley Castle had the advantage of being far away from Scotland, where many of Edward’s allies were, and also, the Dunheveds
[a gang, very loyalto Edward II who repeatedly tried to free Edward II] were strong in the vicinity of Kenilworth…..[886]

Besides the loyalty of Lord Berkeley was assured:
Not only he was the son in law, but also he and his father
had been imprisoned under Edward II [his father, an adherent
of Thomas of Lancaster,  who rebelled with him
against Edward II died in prison] [887]

So he had no reason at all to be ”sympathetic”
to Edward II…..

Henry’s lenient treatment of Edward II:

Besides over important ”security reasons”, there was more:

Henry was very courteous to Edward II, not forgot
his royalty and after all, they were royal cousins:
[remember, Henry had, certainly
before the execution of his brother, never been Edward II’s
enemy and never rebelled against him]
Perhaps his treatment
of Edward II was too lenient in the eyes of the regime [especially
Mortimer and possibly Isabella]

Very, very important: Henry’s powerful position:

What mattered more to the Isabella and Mortimer couple was the POWER Henry had, not only
as Edward II’s custodian, but especially by the restored Earldoms
he had inherited from his dear brother Thomas.
And Thomas, Edward II’s not so dear cousin, had used the power
he derived from his Earldoms in a to year long battle for
power against Edward II.
My ”overmighty subject” theory is confirmed by note 888

ANYWAY:

I can understand, that the fear that the whole Thomas of Lancaster
show would be repeated by brother Henry, caused Isabella and
Mortimer to remove the custody out of the hands of Henry and
place them in the more reliable hands of Sir Thomas Berkeley,
son in law of Roger Mortimer, who, to repeat it again,
would have no inclination
to treat Edward II as an honoured guest, since he had been
imprisoned by him and his [Berkeley’s] father had died in
imprisonment under Edward II…..[889]

So King Edward II was removed to Berkeley Castle,
after his courteous custody at his cousin
Henry, where he had stayed from
november 1326 until the end of march 1327.

It’s not certain, how Henry reacted on the removal of
his cousin Edward II , king no more, from Kenilworth:
There are sources, stating that he was quite relieved
to be freed of his huge responsibility [890], but other
sources claim, that he was very angered about Edward II’s
replacement. [891]

And what threatment [good or bad]
Edward II got in Berkeley Castle, is not
clear, although it is stated, that he was often mistreated
[892]
There is no evident proof for that,
but I also can’t imagine that he was treated like an honoured
guest,  Lord Berkeley being yearlong prisoner
of Edward II and his father even died in Edward II’s
prison……[893]
There are statements, that he was treated well, since
Queen Isabella sent him gifts and letters [894], but for me,
that proves nothing.
Because who says that he ever really received
those ”gifts and letters”?

Possibly the only reason they were sent was, that
the Isabella and Mortimer couple wanted to keep up
appearances, at least towards Edward’s and Isabella’s son ,
the now King Edward III.

Admittedly, Edward III still was  a ”puppet king”, under tutelage
of Isabella and Mortimer, but he would grow up
one day, be the real King.
Than
it was better for Isabella/Mortimer, when Edward thought
his father had been treated well.
And by the way?
Why should a woman, who had rebelled against her
husband, took his kingdom from him, executed
his great favourite cruelly [knowing how that must
have hurt Edward II], giving him no chance to see
his children and, by the way, imprisoned him,
sent ”gifts and letters”’to him?
Out of love, as is sometimes claimed? [895]
COME ON…….

A woman, who loves her husband or ”still feels
affection for him”, does NOT imprison him
HAHAHAHA
Who would believe that?

It is either convincible to me, that Edward II got a
”royal treatment”:
The Berkeley Castle muniments roll records the purchase of wine, cheese, eggs, beef, capons and spices for Edward (Seymour Phillips, Edward II, p. 541 n. 118, citing rolls 39, 41, 42) [896]

I think it is well possible, that Edward II never ate that delicious
food in Berkeley Castle….
And whether he died there or not [murdered or natural causes]
is still open to speculation, as I wrote already in this very chapter 10, ”Aftermath” under ”King Edward II”
See also note 897

TROUBLE IN PARADISE/
DISCORD WITH ISABELLA AND MORTIMER
HENRY’S GREAT REBELLION

Let’s go back to Henry:

The problem between Henry and the Isabella/Mortimer
pair over Henry’s custody of his cousin, king no
more Edward II and his [Edward II’s] removal from Kenilworth
Castle [Henry’s castle] to Berkeley Castle, was one thing:

Soon worse points of disagreement rose:

There was that peace agreement with the Scots, which
Isabella and Mortimer closed, the Treaty of Northampton. [898]
Henry of Lancaster was very much against it [899], like many
others, especially [of course!], the earls, who had lost
their Scottish estates without compensation, like [I come
to him later] Henry’s future relative, Lord Beaumont. [900]
And the compensation the Scots DID pay, 20. 000 [pounds,
Medieval] were seized by Isabella and Mortimer…..[901]

But especially Henry was annoyed by the fact, that Mortimer sidelined him:

He was chief council of the Regency [of the minor King Edward III],
but his position was somehow ”usurped” by Roger Mortimer
and Henry was even allegedly denied access to King Edward III.
[902]

The beginning of the open confrontation between Henry
and Roger Mortimer took place at the time of the Salisbury
parliament in october 1328, in an attempt of Henry to regain
power again as chief council of the Regency and so reassert
his influence over the king, which failed. [903]

However, the ”trouble in paradise” seems to have
started earlier that year, since in the middle of september
1328, he ceased to attest royal charters. [904]

Anyhow, hell broke loose between Henry and the Isabella/
Mortimer couple:
The end of 1328 was a deja vu, since the whole Thomas
of Lancaster show seemed to be repeated again:
As his brother Thomas in the good old days, Henry had
large numbers of men at his disposal, who once
came to the rescue of Isabella and Mortimer at their
invasion in 1326. [905]
Now they were against them.
And not only that:
Henry, being one of the most important magnates
in England now, being restored to the vast inheritance of his
dear brother Thomas, could attract discontented people
and the discontentment against the  tyranny and
greed of Isabella and Mortimer was big, let alone the
unpopularity of the Treaty of Northampton. [906]

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

But sadly for Henry, his rebellion failed.
In january 1329 he was  defeated and a large amount
of his estates were seized, resulting in his surrender. [908]
But unlike his brother Thomas in 1322 under the Edward II
Despenser regime, he didn’t lose his life, but had
to pay a huge fine, which crippled his political
power. [909]
However, the most followers of Henry were pardoned by
the Isabella/Mortimer regime. [910]
Of course, after that, he was out of grace and didn’t seem to
have played any role under the Isabella and Mortimer regime.
Or did he play a role yet?
I come to that point later

Meantime, there are some interesting
facts about some important men, who joined

Henry in his rebellion:

Two  important men of the realm, who joined
Henry’s rebellion [initially, later they seemed to have
abandoned the venture] were former king Edward II’s halfbrothers,
the Earls of Norfolk and Kent [911], first adherents
of Isabella and Mortimer, now fallen
out with them, probably because out of annoyance with the
dominant position of Mortimer [912] and  because of the Scottish war,
which ended in the unpopular Treaty of Northampton. [913]
Henry’s son in law, Thomas Wake, 2nd baron Wake of
Lidell, who had joined Isabella and Mortimer in 1326, following
his father in law, [914], buty later fell out with
the regime, also supported him. [915]

Another significant figure who joined Henry
was a nobleman named Henry Beaumont.

The career of that man was interesting, as his relation
with Henry:
Henry was a French nobleman, who came to England in the
1290s.

Being 1st baron Beaumont and 4th Earl of Buchan [a Scottish
Earldom] jure uxoris [916], he was
initially loyal to Edward II, fought for him at the

Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 against the Scots
-was one of the few nobles to attend the funeral of Piers
Gaveston- [917] AND fought at Edward’s side against Henry’s brother, Thomas of Lancaster. [918]

However later was out of grace with Edward II, was imprisoned,
then [in favour again] sent as an envoy to France and later
accompanied Edward’s son prince Edward [the later Edward III]
to France, who did  homage to his [Edward III’s] uncle Charles IV
in the place of father Edward II.
Eventually imprisoned again…..and [understandably]
joining Isabella and Mortimer. [919]

But after falling out with them, Beaumont joined Henry. [920]
And because of his support Henry, who must not have
been pleased with Beaumont fighting against his brother,
will have consented to the marriage of his son Henry
[the later
Duke of Lancaster] with Isabella, daughter of
Henry Beaumont.
Also Henry’s daughter Eleanor was married to Beaumont’s
son, John. [921]

After the failing of the rebellion of Henry, Henry Beaumont
was forced to go in exile, since he
was one of the four men specifically excluded from a pardon in early 1329, like William Trussell [922], that loyal supporter
of Thomas of Lancaster [fought at his side at the
Battle of Boroughbridge] [923], who had read the charges
against Hugh Despenser the Younger. [924]
Thomas Wake, Henry’s son
in law [who perhaps was implicated in the
plot of the Earl of Kent to free the supposedly
dead Edward II] also fled the country. [925]
As well as Beaumont as Wake returned after the fall of Isabella and
Roger Mortimer. [926]
Trussell fared well, became Edward III’s secretary, fulfilled
diplomatic missions for him [Edward III] and died peacefully
in 1347. [927]

HENRY’S LATER YEARS UNDER THE ISABELLA AND MORTIMER REGIME

Having rebelled against Isabella and Mortimer in 1328-29
, it may be clear,
that Henry was heavily out of grace.
How he fared in that period is shrouded in clouds, as his
[possible] role in the overthrowing the Isabella and Mortimer
regime by Edward II’s and Isabella’s son Edward III, until
now king only in name. [928]
It was commonly accepted, that he played no role whatsoever,
in that overthrow, but some modern sources doubt that and state, that
Henry, possibly, was more involved than hitherto had been
presumed. [929]
However, it happened and Henry must have been quite relieved.
Historian sources state, that on hearing the news of Roger
Mortimer’s arrest, he supposedly threw his cap in the air with joy…..[930]

However, horribly for Henry, he gradually lost his eyesight
in the course of 1330, so he couldn’t play a role on political
and military level anymore.

LAST YEARS

He retired from public life and from now he would be represented in parliament and public life by his son, the
flamboyant and charismatic Henry of Grosmont, the later
[and first] Duke of Lancaster, warrior, diplomat and politician,
good friend of King Edward III [931] and [via his daughter Blanche], Henry of Grosmont became
the grandfather of the later King Henry IV. [932]

The last fifteen years of his life he stayed at Leicester
Castle, where he founded a hospital for the poor and
died in 1345, being one of the few Earls from the era
of Edward II, who died peacefully.
His funeral was attended by King Edward III
and Queen Philippa. [933]

He was a loving and caring father [934], a ”mystery
man”, who came and went to France, when
England was ”hot” [during the struggle
between his brother Thomas and Edward II],
who didn’t participate in his brother Thomas’
rebellions, but yet was a loyal brother, promoting Thomas
as a ”Saint” [935] and never forgot those, who
had betrayed him at the battle of Boroughbridge [936]

And then, while most men must have thought he was of no importance [he didn’t participate in his brother’s
rebellions, which was not usual in those times],
he was one of the leading forces in the deposition of
Edward II and the fall of the Despensers…..[937]

An interesting, but underestimated man, and one of
the great ancestors of all subsequent English Kings.

See note 938

Henry of Lancaster, brother of Thomas of Lancaster.

A man, who deserves to be remembered!

AND READERS,SOON YOU’LL MEET THE FINAL DANCE,

THE EPILOGUE!

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

NOTES 348-400

NOTES 401-451

NOTES 452-503

NOTES 504-587

NOTES 588-666

NOTES 667-761

NOTES 762-806

NOTES 807-938

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

File:Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster.jpg

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

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

7626ba0b19e62826ef9090c93b10a11b.jpg

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

File:Pontefract Castle.JPG

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

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

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

Image result for thomas 2nd earl of lancaster

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

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster

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

File:Edmund Crouchback Arms.svg

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

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

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

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


A TRAVEL IN HISTORY……
Readers!You have travelled with me to the first half of 14th century England, to watch,as digital eyewitnesses, the fight for Power between king Edward II andhis not so dear cousin Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, initially loyal to the king,then fell out with him for personal and political reasons, like king’s favouritismof a Gascon nobleman, Piers Gaveston, with whom he [the king] was very closeand who [Piers Gaveston] ended horribly, with an evil role of Thomas of Lancasterhimself [but the majority of British nobility played his nasty of less nasty part in it]And for political reasons it had to do with the eternal strugglefor power  between kings nobles, between centralisation and decentralisation.
You have watched, as digital eyewitnesses in tension, like at a good movie,how the struggle intensified and ended sadly for the Earl of Lancaster, whowas executed on 22 march 1322, after lost the last open battle against theking, his cousin.
SEE THE FORMER CHAPTERS:
ONE

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

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

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

But that was not the end at all, neither politically, nor personally, as we’ll see.Because Thomas still had adherents, as political friends, who later wouldplay their role.Besides:Thomas had a brother, Henry, his later heir, who didn’t participate in hisbrother’s rebellion.But that didn’t mean, that he ever would not forget or forgivesome mighty persons, who had a hand in the execution of his brother…..But that will come later, as the major role he would play…….
We meet the later Earl Henry, Thomas of Lancaster’s brother, in this Chapter Nine……….
So it was not over yet:What puzzled me long was the fact, that Earl Thomas the warlord was declared a Saint [though not officially by the Holy Church]after his death.The puzzling question to me and I think many others, who are familiar with thelife and time of Earl Thomas was:How does a declared warlord, that certainly not led a holy life [you see fewSaints, who engage in battle, HAHAHA] became a Saint?
Read further and you’ll learn…..

CHAPTER  NINE

SAINT THOMAS

”.O Thomas, strenuous champion of plentiful charity, who didst combat for the law of England’s liberty, intercede for our sins with the Father of Glory, that he may give us a place with the blessed in the heavenly court.”

Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, was no more.
But not forgotten, as this amazing story will tell:

Because within several weeks after his execution
, miracles were reported at the site of his execution and

on his tomb at Pontefract Priory, a dignified final  resting
place for a man, who loved Pontefract Castle
the world… [504]

And there were great stories to be told:

MIRACLES:

Blind priest:

There was a story of a blind priest, who dreamed, that he should
go to the hill where Thomas of Lancaster was executed, and that he should have his sight again.
Because the priest had this dream for three consecutive nights,
he went to the execution hill in Pontefract, he prayed, that he might have his sight again and that great thing happened. [505]

One of the authors of the Brut chronicles [506] reported:
”And as he was in his prayers, he laid his hand upon the same place there the good man was martyred on; and a drop of dry blood and small sand cleaved on his hand, and therewith he rubbed his eyes, and anon, through the might of God and of St Thomas of Lancaster, he had his sight again, and thanked Almighty God and St Thomas.”
[translation of Kathryn Warner, historian and writer of among else ”Edward II, the unconventional King and
and host of the weblog ”EdwardthesecondBlogspot.com] [507]

Drowned child:

Another reported miracle was of a young child drowned in a well in the town of Pontefract, and was dead three days and three nights;
The child was laid upon the tomb of Thomas of Lancaster
and arose from death. [508]

The rich man from Condom [Gascony]

Another great story was from a rich man
from Condom [Gascony]:
About him the above mentioned author of the Brut chronicler wrote:


“Also there was a rich man in Condom in Gascony; and such a malady he had, that all his right side rotted, and fell away from him; and men might see his liver, and also his heart; and so he stank, that scarcely men might come near him. Wherefore his friends were for him full sorry. But at the last, as God wanted, they prayed to St Thomas of Lancaster, that he would pray to Almighty God for that prisoner, and promised to go to Pontefract for to do their pilgrimage. And the good man soon after slept full soft, and dreamed that the martyr St Thomas came unto him, and anointed all over his sick side. And therewith the good man awoke, and was all whole; and his flesh was restored again, that before was rotted and fell away; for which miracle the good man and his friends loved God and St Thomas evermore after. ” [509]

A touching story.
The rich man kept his promise and went to pilgrimage to
Pontefract and took with him four other men.
When back in his own country [France], they told about
the miracle of Saint Thomas [the executed Thomas of
Lancaster] [510]

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

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

GREAT STORIES/PILGRIMAGES

Bad news travels fast.

Good news too.

Given the amazing stories, it didn’t take
long, before they were spread under the common people, the clergy, the nobility, and even to Royal Court, as we shall see.

And you don’t have to be a Medieval man [or woman]
to understand, that with such stories,
hundreds, no, thousands of people came to visit
the tomb of  ”Saint Thomas” [Thomas of Lancaster]
hoping to be cured of some disease or having a healthy childbirth,
etc, etc.

REACTION OF KING EDWARD II/THE DESPENSERS

Those miracles were reported to King Edward II during
the parliament that was held in York during april 1322. [512]
Since Thomas was executed on orders of the King, it
will come as no surprise, that neither he, nor his
favourites the Despensers, were very
happy with the news about the veneration of ”Saint Thomas”.

According to again the Brut chronicler, the Despensers
said that it was ”great heresy”. [513]
Of course they reacted like that:
Thomas of Lancaster had been their great adversary, wanting
them ousted from influence over the King.

The King himself was not pleased either, for the same reasons
[and not to forget, Thomas’ involvement in the execution of
his favourite Piers Gaveston in 1312].

In June 1323, Edward II ordered the bishop of London (Stephen Gravesend, a good friend and ally of the King] to prevent people praying and making offerings at a tablet in St Pauls “whereon are depicted statues, sculpture or images of diverse persons,” Thomas of Lancaster’s among them, “as the king learns with displeasure that many of the people go to the said tablet and worship it as a holy thing without the authority of the church of Rome, asserting that miracles are done there.” [514]

The Croniques de London describes  this object instead as a tablet which Thomas of Lancaster had had made to celebrate Edward’s granting of the Ordinances in 1311. [515]
So Saint’s veneration was mixed here with Lancaster’s struggle
to curb royal power and obtaining more freedoms for the
barons [which subsequently later could benefit other classes
like the burgesses, etc] [516]

The story goes on:

In early september 1323, from Barnard Castle, King Edward II
ordered Richard Moseley, his clerk and the constable of Pontefract Castle, to “go in person to the place of execution of Thomas, late earl of Lancaster, and prohibit a multitude of malefactors and apostates from praying and making oblations there in memory of the said earl not to God but rather to idols, in contempt of the king and contrary to his former command.”  [517]

Direct cause for the orders of the King:
In 1323, 2000 people, some of them from as far away as Kent, gathered to pray and make oblations at Thomas of Lancaster’s tomb. [518]

But the more the King pushed to prevent the veneration of
Saint Thomas, the more recalcitrant the people became:

Moseley and his servants, the men the King had ordered
to prohibit those, who went to pilgrimage, to pray
at the tomb of Saint Thomas were assaulted, and two of them, Richard de Godeleye and Robert de la Hawe, were killed. [519]

But not only the King wrote disapprovingly about the
veneration of ”Saint Thomas”
The archbishop of York, Edward II’s loyal friend and ally William Melton [who had sent the correspondence of Thomas
of Lancaster with the Scots to the King] [520]wrote
the Official of the Archdeacon of York, banning the cult
and empowering its activity there, pointing out
that Thomas of Lancaster was not a canonised saint, [521]

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

And not only Thomas of Lancaster was venerated as a
Saint:
Two Contrariants [you know: the rebels who fought
the Despenser influence over the King and forced their
banishment, under leadership of the Marcher Lords and
Thomas of Lancaster, in the Despenser War] [523] executed in March 1322 in Bristol were Henry de Montfort and Henry Wilington: in September 1323, miracles were also said to have taken place at their execution site. [524]
The mayor of Bristol told Edward II that Montfort’s brother Reginald bribed a ‘poor child’ of the city with two shillings “to pronounce to the people that he received healing of his sight.” [525]

On the contrary:
Men named William Cliff and William and John Corteis “went there many times and preached to the people that miracles were done and forcibly maintained this, saying that without doubt the things done there were true.” [526]

But a really impressive cult was the veneration of
Saint Thomas, that grew and grew during the last four
years of the reign [from 1322, the execution year of Thomas
of Lancaster until 1326-27, the invasion of Isabella of France and
former Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer and Edward II’s
subsequent downfall from power] of his cousin, King Edward II.

AFTER EDWARD II’S DOWNFALL/ATTEMPTS TO
CANONIZE ”SAINT” THOMAS OF LANCASTER

With Edward II’s downfall in 1327 and the rise in power
of Isabella of France [his estranged wife] and her [presumably]
lover, Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer and former
ally of Thomas of Lancaster [Mortimer surrendered to
Edward II at Shrewsbury, in january 1322, was imprisoned
in the Tower, escaped and fled to France, to return to England
with Isabella and an invasion army] [527], the
attitude towards the cult of ”Saint Thomas” changed.
Not only was it no longer officially banned, but royal and
ecclasiastical efforts were made to turn Thomas of Lancaster
from a popular to a canonized martyr. [528]
A campaign to canonise Thomas of Lancaster began in earnest, yet before Lancaster’s death sentence was
officially annulled by King Edward III in march 1328 [after
it had been discussed in the first parliament of the
new reign, february-march 1327] [529]

AND THEY SURE WENT FOR IT!

In a parliamentary petition to King Edward III
[who had succeeded his father Edward II after his forced
abdication or deposition, you can call it both] [530]
in the first year of his reign, the commons asked to
promote the canonization of Thomas of Lancaster. [531]
On the last day of february 1327 a letter was sent under
Edward III’s seal to Pope John XXII, requesting an inquiry into
the canonization of Lancaster.
Thomas of Lancaster was referred to as the Kings ”most
beloved kinsman” (nostrumque consanguinem carissimum”)
and described not only as a martyr by the manner of his death,
but also a pious man in life.
He was described as ”generous, provident and faithful” [532]
But this appeal for canonization was grounded not only
in his ”holy” life or ”martyr’s death” [as it was described and
which were conditions for a possible canonization], but also
on the miracles, performed after his execution. [533]

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

A second in march 1330 [534] and remarkably, a third AFTER his
deposing his mother Isabella of France and her [possible]
lover Roger Mortimer from power [535], meaning, that
he had not solely acted according to the wishes of Isabella and
Roger Mortimer [since he wrote the two first letters, when they
were the de facto rulers in England]

There was also this visit to the Pope:

After the downfall of Edward II [and before the third
letter of King Edward III to the Pope], Edward II’s own halfbrother,
so the uncle of Edward III,
the earl of Kent – who, by the way, was one of the men who condemned Thomas of Lancaster to death [536]
– visited Pope John XXII in 1329 to ask him to canonise Thomas. [537]

But the royal letters as the attempts of the Earl of Kent
were not the only ones:

Not surprisingly, Thomas of Lancaster’s
brother Henry of Lancaster [our ”mystery man, as
described in chapter seven, F], also wrote to the Pope,
a few days earlier than the first letter of King Edward III
on the last day of february 1327.
Archbishop William Melton of York [who in 1320 had sent
Thomas of Lancaster’s correspondence with the Scots to
King Edward II] [538] wrote the letter on behalf of
Henry of Lancaster,  requesting the Pope to inquire
into the canonization of the popular ”Saint”. [539]

But Henry did more:
In collaboration with Isabella [springing
probably from Isabella and Mortimer’s desire to
keep Henry of Lancaster on board in the rank of of their supporters],
an agreement [confirmed by King Edward III] took place
between the Priory and the Convent of Pontefract.
It dealt with a chapel, which was to be built outside
the city walls, on the hill where Lancaster had been executed
five years ago [so this great event took place in 1327]
A hermit was to reside there to receive alms
for the building of the chapel.
He was to be assisted by a clerk appointed by Isabella
and Henry of Lancaster. [540]
And that was not all:
A clerk was appointed for collecting alms from all
over the Kingdom for the construction of the said chapel.
It proved succesful:
The offerings received were very generous! [541]

CULT UNDER KING EDWARD III

Under King Edward III, the cult of ”Saint Thomas”
continued to flourish and was greatly encouraged:
Hagiographies [542] about him were written [543]
and pilgrims continued to visit his tomb or place
of execution.
In time, new attributes were added to the list of Lancaster’s
superlatives, as Christ’s noble knight and athlete (nobili
Christi miles et athleta) [544]

A text written in Latin probably in the late 1320s laments Thomas as “the blessed martyr” and “flower of knights,” and says “the pouring out of prayers to Thomas restores the sick to health; the pious earl comes immediately to the aid of those who are feeble.” It begins “Rejoice, Thomas, the glory of chieftains, the light of Lancaster, who by thy death imitatest Thomas [Becket] [545]of Canterbury, whose head was broken on account of the peace of the Church, and thine is cut off for the cause of the peace in England; be to us an affectionate guardian in every difficulty.”

The text further emphasizes the notion that Thomas was condemned to death unfairly and was a freedom fighter for the people of England against royal despotism. [546]

That was not entirely untrue, since the trial
of Thomas of Lancaster was utterly unfair [547] [although
proofs of  his letters with the Scots would eventually have
eventually led to death sentence or at least life
imprisonment of exile] and Thomas of Lancaster
DID combat the Edward II arbitrary favouritism on the
avaricious Despensers and tried to defend the Ordinances. [548]
On the other hand:
For a very important part he was guided by lust for
power and not idealism…….

The text also suggests, that Lancaster cared a lot about
the common people, writing
”Who when he perceived that the whole commons were falling into wreck, did not shrink from dying for the right, in the fatal commerce…he is delivered to dire death, on account of which England mourns. Alas! he is beheaded for the aid of the commons..” [549]
The reader may judge for his or herself, whether Thomas of
Lancaster really cared much about the common people….

Pilgrim’s badge were made for his veneration and
Thomas’ hat and belt preserved at Pontefract were used as remedies in childbirth and for headaches as late as the Reformation. [550]

NEVER CANONIZED

Lancaster was never officially canonized, although the
chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote in 1390, that
Thomas WAS. [Sanctus Thomas de Lancastria canonizatus est]
[551], which led to a big revival of his cult.

But although Thomas never received the official papal
status of martyr, he remained a martyr by popular acclamation
for the next two hundred years…..[552]

TRANSFORMATION FROM A WARLORD REBEL INTO
A SAINT

Now what intrigues me most in this amazing story
-I wrote that on the start of this book [HAHAHA, my article],
is the transformation of Thomas of Lancaster from
a warlord into a saint.
How was it possible that a man of high birth and rank
from double royal descent [both from his father’s as his
mother’s side] [553], who was a rebel warlord for nearly ten
years, taking up arms against his King, feuded with other
nobles [554], made the King’s favourite [Piers Gaveston]
executed [joined by other nobles] [555] and was [as far as I know] seeking wordly power and wealth only, in death was transformed
into a Saint?
A miracle in itself.

According to Medieval standards, to become a saint, certain clear qualifications were
necessary, like having led a pious life,
having defended the rights of the Church and [recommendable]
died for it, like Thomas Becket did, who indeed was
canonized [556]….

Now Thomas of Lancaster certainly did NOT
led a pious life, nor did he defend the rights of the Church.
On the contrary, he sought [to put it in familiar Medieval
terms] temporal power and wealth.

Besides:
Thomas was not the best man of his time [I refer
to the murder of Piers Gaveston, Thomas’ arrogance,

taking up arms against his King], although there were
far worse men [I refer to the crimes of the Marcher Lords,
which Thomas did NOT commit, although supporting
the Lords] [557]
Also he was NOT known for a particular generosity to
the poor, in contrary to later hagiography.
[558]

On the other hand, following  Medieval standards, at least he
had one qualification to Sanctity:
Miracles were reported on his tomb and place
of his execution. [559]

And because of those  miracles, Thomas was considered
to be a Saint.

MIRACLES
BELIEF/POPULARITY/REACTION OF THE PEOPLE

Now in the Middle Ages, when every person from
the King down to the lowliest peasant, lived lives,
that were ordered around the beliefs, ceremonies
and doctrines of the Catholic Church, the fenomenon ”miracle” was as real as computers and
televisions in modern eyes.
Regarding to the supposed miracles at the grave and
the tomb of Thomas of Lancaster:

Now of course it is impossible
to know what actually took place at his grave or tomb,
but whatever happened, people believed in those
miracles, which caused pilgrimages to his grave.

Because:

Whoever does NOT want to be healed
from a disease, freed from his [or her]
headaches or having a healthy childbirth? [560]
That can partly explain the agressive reaction on
the King’s clerk, Richard Moseley and his servants,
when they tried, on the orders of the King [Edward II],
to prevent the people to venerate ”Saint Thomas” [561]

People [often poor people], who wanted to be healed,
came ”as far as Kent” [562] [Kent lies in the
South of England, Pontefract
Castle lies in the middle of England, direction North] [563]
in the hope to be healed, only to discover, that the autorities
tried to prevent them reaching their goals:
Veneration of Saint Thomas and healing of their
illnesses!
Of course they were furious [not to justify
the violencer that took the lives of the
two servants of Richard Morseley, of course]

MIRACLES/WHO GAINES AND WHO LOSES?

At every event in history or our times, whether
wordly of ”holy” events,  it is important to have a close look
[with regard to the ”holy” events, with all respect],
who benefits from it, or who loses.

That ”benefit” or ”lose” can be political or materialistic [money, possession, fame]
Or ”non materialistic”;
emotional and [or] spiritual [or a mix between materialistic
and non materialistic]

Now take a look on those, who were the ”losers”

THOSE, WHO LOSE

”Losers” not in the present meaning of the word [564],
because here was a King and high nobility involved,
King Edward II and his favourites the Despensers.
Being Thomas’ executioners [together with a number
of ”colleague” nobles of the Despensers] [565] and
knowing that he had still support
[especially in the North of England], the news, that alleged
miracles had taken place on his tomb [or place of execution],
was, to put it mildly, disturbing to them.
And let’s not forget:
Thomas WAS a condemned traitor [566], in an unfair trial,
admittedly, but a ”legal” one, confirmed by the King,
who also had set in judgment over him.
And a traitor as a Saint….?
From their point of view, that must have been bizarre.

I can understand the King and the
Despensers [who were so closely connected with the
King that I think it is justified to mention them
simultaneously] very well:
They had a huge problem.
Their government was growing in unpopularity [567]
They didn’t know what really took place at
the tomb [or place of execution] of Thomas,
whether there was someone influential behind those ”miracle”
rumours.
Someone [with support from the North], who was
able to rise against the King again?
Yes, I can understand their worries.

So the King took measures to end the veneration
of ”Saint Thomas” [see above : Reaction of King Edward II
Despensers], to no avail.
Because whatever he did to suppress the venerations, they only
grew in popularity……..

THOSE WHO GAIN

Now take a look on those, who ”gained” or ”profited”.

The first I mention is Thomas’ brother Henry.
Now it is known, that he took no part in his
brother”s rebellion [568] and spent most of
the ”hot years” [between 1319-1322, during which the
feud between King Edward II and Thomas of
Lancaster escalated, ending in his execution, see the
chapters 5 t/m 8] in France. [569]
There is even suggested, that Thomas and Henry were not that
close. [570]

Be that as it may: [571]
But of course the execution of his brother
Thomas must have been dramatic for Henry, as
his actions will show [see chapter 10, Aftermath]
We don’t know, how the stories about the
miracles were spread:
Perhaps Henry had a hand in it [I don’t know,
only pointing out the possibility]
Perhaps not.

But for sure he came at the heart of the action:
A few days earlier before the first letter
of King Edward III in 1327 [King after the deposition
of his father Edward II in 1327] [572], Archbishop William Melton of York [who in 1320 had sent
Thomas of Lancaster’s correspondence with the Scots to
King Edward II] [573] wrote a letter on behalf of
Henry of Lancaster,  requesting the Pope to inquire
into the canonization of the popular ”Saint” [574]

Under responsibility of Henry of Lancaster and Queen Isabella of France, also an agreement [confirmed by King Edward III] took place
between the Priory and the Convent of Pontefract.
It dealt with a chapel, which was to be built outside
the city walls, on the hill where Lancaster had been executed
five years ago
A hermit was to reside there to receive alms
for the building of the chapel.
He was to be assisted by a clerk appointed by Isabella
and Henry of Lancaster. [575]

Henry’s aim may have served several purposes:

An emotional one:
Publicly commemorating his brother and
restoring family honour [after all, Thomas was
executed as a traitor]
But also a materialistic one:

Veneration of Saints [and all the trade
in pilgrimages etc] was very profitable.

Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer:

The second to be mentioned were Queen
Isabella and her ally and possible
lover, former Marcher Lord Roger Mortimer
[see also the chapters six and seven about his
role in the Despenser war]

Their motives were mainly political:
First to counterbalance the potential
posthumous popularity of Edward II
[his tragic death aroused pity and the
Isabella and Mortimer regime grew more and
more unpopular, see chapter 10, Aftermath]
Their second motive was, possibly, to keep
Henry of Lancaster on board as their supporter,
especially since he headed the new minor’s kings
council. [576]

King Edward III

And King Edward III himself, who wrote three times
to the Pope in order to get a canonization for ”Saint Thomas”

I bring the reader into memory, that the initial two letters
were written by Edward III, when his mother Isabella
and her [possible] lover Roger Mortimer were the de facto
rulers [577], so it was on that moment not clear, whether the King
[then 14 years old] acted of his own accord.

However, after having overthrown the regime of his
mother and Isabella and Roger Mortimer [578],
Edward III did wrote a third [and last] letter to the Pope [579].
That WAS on his own accord, since now he was
not king in name anymore, but the de facto ruler too.

Edward III’s motive could have been his appreciation
for Henry of Lancaster, who not only served
in his council [under the Isabella and Mortimer regime],
but also helped the King to put an end to
the Mortimer [and Isabella] regime. [580]
Also Edward III’s great liking of Henry’s son, Henry
of Grosmont [first Duke of Lancaster, the second duke in
English history, after Edward III’s eldest son, the Black
Prince] [581], who represented his father in parliament
from 1330 [because of Henry of Lancaster’s loss of
eyesight], could have played an important part in
Edward III’s attempts to canonize Thomas of
Lancaster [582]

Anyway, that were my considerations about the motives
of the important players after the downfall of Edward II,
regarding the canonization of Thomas of Lancaster.

WARLORD/FREEDOMFIGHTER/SAINT

Thomas did not lead a pious life, nor seemed
to have cared much about the ”common people”
or ”the poor”
The only link with commons I can see is his
devotion to the Ordinances [583], curbing the royal power
and giving space to more power for the nobility,
which eventually could have led to more power
for the commoners too.

So he derived his Sanctity not from a pious
life or for fighting the rights of the Church,
but from the miracles
that were  reported on hisgrave and place
of execution, since people were appartently healed.

I ask myself:
Reported by who?
The people who were ”healed” and their
families?
Or had Henry, Thomas’ brother, a hand in those rumours,
desiring to repair the honour of his executed brother
and the family name.
Possible.

But at the end, there was more to it:

Not only people venerated ”Saint Thomas”
because of the miracles, this veneration was
also an
act of protest against the mounting tyranny of the King and
the Despensers, who repressed the Contrariant’s resistance
severely [executions, imprisonments, hard treatment of
the wives of the rebels] [584]

When faced with such a tyranny, those who opposed the
”tyrants” [The Contrariants, namely Thomas, the Marcher
Lords and allies], soon became ”freedomfighters” and in the light
of unfair trials, underdogs and in the case of
Thomas of Lancaster, eventually, holy…..

Also by law Thomas had his honour preserved [ in
1328 his trial was reversed] [585] and his brother
Henry his satisfaction.

I end with the beginning of this chapter:

A part of a prayer to ”Saint Thomas” “the blessed martyr” and “flower of knights,”

”.O Thomas, strenuous champion of plentiful charity, who didst combat for the law of England’s liberty, intercede for our sins with the Father of Glory, that he may give us a place with the blessed in the heavenly court.” [586]

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

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

NOTES 348-400

NOTES 401-451

NOTES 452-503

NOTES 504-587

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Oprah Winfrey meets Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle/Full text of the interview

OPRAH WINFREY MEETS PRINCE HARRY AND HIS WIFE MEGHANMARKLE/FULL TEXT OF THE INTERVIEW

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


Readers!Earlier I wrote about Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Dukeand Duchess of Sussex.I applauded their marriage, rejoiced about the birth of Lord Archie andmoreover:PAID ATTENTION TO THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE,BECAUSE OF THE RACIST UNDERTONES!I also applauded the fact, that Prince Harry loyally, like a true husband, defended his wife!
SEE
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/

INTERVIEW WITH OPRAH WINFREY
As you know, largely because of the hatred and smear campaign againstMeghan Markle, the royal couple [to me, they remain royals] left England,but it was  nice to see, that Queen Elisabeth, Prince Harry’s grandmother,remained loyal and supportive to the couple!
https://www.astridessed.nl/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

Yet new developments took place, resulting in the bombshell Oprah Winfreyinterview, which I share with you here, in full transcript!I will comment on it soon enough [look for my website]But firstly the interview!
READ!

THE OPRAH WINFREY  INTERVIEW!!

THE SUNMEGHAN MARKLE OPRAH INTERVIEW: READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPTOF DUCHESS AND PRINCE HARRY’S BOMBSHELL CONFESSIONS8 MARCH 2021
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14277841/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/

IT was the most sensational royal interview since Diana’s Panorama bombshell 26 years ago.

Speaking to Oprah Winfrey in California, Harry and Meghan blasted “racist” Britain, the Royal Family and the Press, while highlighting Meghan’s mental health struggles. Here, we reveal the full astonishing transcript…

OPRAH: We can’t hug, everybody is double- masked and has face shields. You look lovely. Do you know if you’re having a boy or a girl?

Meghan: We do this time. I’ll wait for my husband to join us and we can share that with you.

Oprah: That would be really great. Before we get into to it, I just want to make clear to everybody that, even though we’re neighbours, I’m down the road, you’re up the road, we’re using a friend’s place. There has not been an agreement, you don’t know what I’m going to ask, there is no subject that’s off limits and you are not getting paid for this interview.

Meghan: All of that’s correct.

Oprah: I remember sitting in the chapel — thanks for inviting me, by the way. I so recall this sense of magic. I never experienced anything like it. When you came through that door, you seemed like you were floating down the aisle. Were you even inside your body at that time?

Meghan: I’ve thought about this a lot. It was like having an out-of- body experience I was very present for. The night before, I slept through the night entirely, which is a bit of a miracle, and then woke up and started listening to Going To The Chapel, to make it fun and light and remind ourselves this was our day. We were both aware in advance of that this wasn’t our day, this was the day planned for the world.

Oprah: Everybody who gets married knows you’re really marrying the family. But you weren’t just marrying a family, you were marrying a 1,200-year-old institution, you’re marrying the monarchy. What did you think it was going to be like?

Meghan: I would say I went into it naively because I didn’t grow up knowing much about the Royal Family. It wasn’t part of something that was part of conversation at home. It wasn’t something that we followed. My mum even said to me a couple of months ago, ‘Did Diana ever do an interview?’ Now I can say. ‘Yes, a very famous one’, but my mum doesn’t know that.

Oprah: But you were aware of the royals and, if you were going to marry into the royals, you’d do research about what that would mean?

Meghan: I didn’t do any research about what that would mean.

Oprah: You didn’t do any research?

Meghan: No. I didn’t feel any need to, because everything I needed to know he was sharing with me. Everything we thought I needed to know, he was telling me.

Oprah: So, you didn’t have a conversation with yourself, or talk to your friends about what it would be like to marry a prince, who is Harry, who you had fallen in love with . . . you didn’t give it a lot of thought?

Meghan: No. We thought a lot about what we thought it might be. I didn’t fully understand what the job was: What does it mean to be a working royal? What do you do? What does that mean? He and I were very aligned on our cause- driven work, that was part of our initial connection. But there was no way to understand what the day-to- day was going to be like, and it’s so different because I didn’t romanticise any element of it. But I think, as Americans especially, what you do know about the royals is what you read in fairytales, and you think is what you know about the royals. It’s easy to have an image that is so far from reality, and that’s what was so tricky over those past few years, when the perception and the reality are two different things and you’re being judged on the perception but you’re living the reality of it. There’s a complete misalignment and there’s no way to explain that to people.

Oprah: With every family things get serious when you’re brought in to meet the grandmother or the mother. The grandmother is the matriarch and, in your situation it’s the Queen.’

Meghan: She was one of the first people I met. The real Queen.

Oprah: What was that like? Were you worried about making the right impression?

Meghan: There wasn’t a huge formality the first time I met Her Majesty The Queen. We were going for lunch at Royal Lodge, which is where some other members of the family live, specifically Andrew and Fergie, and Eugenie and Beatrice would spend a lot of time there. Eugenie and I had known each other before I knew Harry, so that was comfortable and it turned out the Queen was finishing a church service in Windsor and so she was going to be at the house. Harry and I were in the car and he says, ‘OK, well my grandmother is there, you’re going to meet her’. (I said) ‘OK, great’. I loved my grandmother, I used to take care of my grandmother. (He said) ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ ‘What?’ ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ I thought genuinely that’s what happens outside, that was part of the fanfare. I didn’t think that’s what happens inside. I go, ‘But it’s your grandmother’. He goes, ‘It’s the Queen!’

Oprah: Wow!

Meghan: And that was really the first moment the penny dropped?

Oprah: Did you Google how to curtsey?

Meghan: No, we were in the car. Deeply, to show respect, I learned it very quickly right in front of the house. We practised and walked in. 

Oprah: Harry practised?

Meghan: Yeah, and Fergie ran out and said, ‘Are you ready? Do you know how to curtsey? Oh, my goodness, you guys’. I practised very quickly and went in, and apparently I did a very deep curtsey, and we just sat there and we chatted and it was lovely and easy and I think, thank God, I hadn’t known a lot about the family. Thank God, I hadn’t researched. I would have been so in my head about all of it.

Oprah: (What) you’re sharing with us is that you were no more nervous as a regular person who goes to meet somebody’s grandmother.

Meghan: I had confused the idea. I grew up in LA, you see celebrities all the time. This is not the same but it’s very easy, especially as an American, to go, ‘These are famous people’. This is a completely different ball game.

(Cut to them and Oprah at their house)

Oprah: What are you feeling here (their home)? What’s the word?

Meghan: Peace.

Oprah: Peace?

Meghan: Yeah.

(Oprah narrates) The day after our interview, I stopped over to Harry and Meghan’s new home.

Meghan: Hi, Guy (dog).

Oprah: Hi, Guy.

Meghan: Yeah, Guy’s been — Guy’s been through everything with me.

Oprah: Yeah, from the beginning, from the very first date, yeah?

Meghan: If Guy, I mean, I had him in Canada. I got him from a kill shelter in Kentucky.

Oprah: Yeah?

(In Harry and Meghan’s hen coop)

Meghan: Hi, girls!

(Oprah narrates) We put on wellies to feed the hens Meghan and Harry recently rescued from a factory farm. ‘I love your little designer house here. Archie’s chick inn. Oh, how cute is that.’

Harry: She’s always wanted chickens.

Meghan: Well, you know, I just love rescuing.

Oprah: So, this is a part of your new life? What are you most excited about?

Meghan: Whoop! You’re OK . . . 

Oprah: What are you most excited about in the new life? What are you most excited about? Here, chick, chick, chick, chick.

Meghan: I think just being able to live authentically.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: Right? Like this kind of stuff. It’s so, it’s so basic, but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics. I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . . 

Oprah: Ah!

Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that . . . 

Harry: Just the three of us.

Oprah: Really?

Harry: Just the three of us.

Meghan: Just the three of us.

(Back to Oprah)

Oprah: You know, the wedding was the most perfect picture, you know, anybody’s ever seen. But through that picture that we were all seeing, behind the scenes, obviously, there was a lot of drama going on. And soon after your marriage, the tabloids started offering stories that painted a not-so-flattering picture of you in your new world. There were rumours about you being ‘Hurricane Meghan’.

Meghan: I hadn’t heard that.

Oprah: OK.

Oprah: So, there were rumours about you being Hurricane Meghan, for the departure of several high-profile palace staff members. And there was also a story — did you hear this one? — about you making Kate Middleton cry?

Meghan: This I heard about.

Oprah: You heard about that. OK.

Meghan: This was . . . that was . . . that was a turning point.

Oprah: That was a turning point?

Meghan: Yeah.

Kate made me cry days before wedding, but I got blamed… that was hard.

(Oprah narrates) Six months after Harry and Meghan’s wedding, headlines began to swirl about a rift between Meghan and her sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton. It was reported that Meghan had left Kate “in tears” over the bride-to-be’s “strict demands” over flower-girl dresses.

Meghan: The narrative with Kate — which didn’t happen — was really, really difficult and something that . . . I think that’s when everything changed, really.

Oprah: You say the narrative with Kate, it didn’t happen. So, specifically, did you make Kate cry?

Meghan: No.

Oprah: So, where did that come from?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: Was there a situation where she might have cried? Or she could have cried?

Meghan: No, no. The reverse happened. And I don’t say that to be disparaging to anyone, because it was a really hard week of the wedding. And she was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologised. And she brought me flowers and a note, apologising. And she did what I would do if I knew that I hurt someone, right, to just take accountability for it. What was shocking was . . . what was that, six, seven months after our wedding?

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: That the reverse of that would be out in the world.

Oprah: The story came out six, seven months after it actually happened?

Meghan: Yeah.

Oprah: So, when you say . . . 

Meghan: I would have never wanted that to come out about her ever, even though it had happened. I protected that from ever being out in the world.

Oprah: So, when you say the reverse happened, explain to us what you mean by that.

Meghan: A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something pertaining — yes, the issue was correct — about flower-girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings. And I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn’t make sense to not be just doing whatever everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot.

Oprah: This was a really big story at the time, that you made Kate cry. Now you’re saying you didn’t make Kate cry, Kate made you cry. So, we all want to know, what would make you cry? What . . . what were you going through? You were going through all of the anxiety that brides go through putting their wedding together and going through all of the issues with your father: Was he coming? Was he not coming?

Meghan: Mmm.

Oprah: And there was a confrontation over the . . . the dresses?

Meghan: It wasn’t a confrontation, and I actually don’t think it’s fair to her to get into the details of that, because she apologised.

Oprah: OK.

Meghan: And I’ve forgiven her.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: What was hard to get over was being blamed for something that not only I didn’t do but that happened to me. And the people who were part of our wedding going to our comms team and saying, ‘I know this didn’t happen.’ I don’t have to tell them what actually happened.

Oprah: OK.

Meghan: But I can at least go on the record and say she didn’t make her cry. And they were all told the same . . . 

Oprah: So, all the time the stories were out that you had made Kate cry . . . you knew all along, and people around you knew that that wasn’t true?

Meghan: Everyone in the institution knew it wasn’t true.

Oprah: So, why didn’t somebody just say that?

Meghan: That’s a good question.

Oprah: Hmm.

Meghan: I’m not sharing that piece about Kate in any way to be disparaging to her. I think it’s really important for people to understand the truth.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: But also I think, a lot of it, that was fed into by the media. And I would hope that she would have wanted that corrected, and maybe in the same way that the Palace wouldn’t let anybody else.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: Negate it, they wouldn’t let her, because she’s a good person. And I think so much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity, where if you love me, you don’t have to hate her. And if you love her, you don’t need to hate me.

Oprah: Mm-hmm. You know, there were several stories that compared headlines written about you to those written about Kate.

Meghan: Mmm.

Oprah: Since you don’t read things, let me tell you what was said.

Meghan: OK.

Oprah: There were stories where Kate was being praised for holding her baby bump.

Meghan: Oh, gosh, have I done it since we’ve been sitting down?

Oprah: Yes, you’ve been doing it the whole time.

Meghan: Probably. OK.

Oprah: Kate was praised for cradling her baby bump, and the headline about you doing the same thing said, ‘Meghan can’t keep hands off her baby bump for pride or vanity’.

Meghan: What does it have to do with pride or vanity?

Oprah: Well, I’m just — I’m just telling you about the stories, OK?

Meghan: OK, I hear you.

Oprah: Then there was a whole online piece about this: ‘Kate eating avocados to help with morning sickness’.

Meghan: (Laughs) I heard — OK, I heard about the avocado one.

Oprah: But you were eating avocados . . . 

Meghan: And fuelling murder, apparently.

Oprah: Wolfing down a fruit linked to water shortages, illegal deforestation and environmental devastation. There was, seems . . . there seems to be . . . there was a . . . 

Meghan: That’s a really loaded piece of toast. (Laughter) I mean . . . you have to laugh at a certain point, because it’s just ridiculous.

Oprah: That’s good: ‘That’s a loaded piece of toast.’ It’s about deforestation and . . . 

Meghan: Oh, man!

Oprah: Oh, wow! So, do you think there was a standard for Kate in general and a separate one for you? And if so, why?

Meghan: I don’t know why. I can see now what layers were at play.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: And, again, they really seemed to want a narrative of a hero and a villain.

Oprah: Yeah. You came in as the first mixed-race person to marry into the family, and did that concern you in being able to fit in?

Meghan: Mmm.

Oprah: And did that concern you in being able to fit in? Did you think about that at all?

Meghan: I thought about it because they made me think about it.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: Right? But at the same time now, upon reflection, thank God all of those things were true. Thank God I had that life experience. Thank god I had known the value of working. My first job was when I was 13, at a frozen yoghurt shop called Humphrey Yogart.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: I’ve always worked. I’ve always valued independence. I’ve always been outspoken, especially about women’s rights. I mean, that’s the sad irony of the last four years . . . is I’ve advocated for so long for women to use their voice, and then I was silent.

Oprah: Were you silent? Or were you silenced?

Meghan: The latter.

Oprah: So, how does that work? Were you told by the comms people, or the, I don’t know, the institution? Were you told to keep silent? How were you told to handle tabloids or gossip? Were you . . . were you told to say nothing?

Meghan: Everyone from . . . everyone in my world was given very clear directive, from the moment the world knew Harry and I were dating, to always say, ‘No comment’. That’s my friends, my mom and dad.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: And we did.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: I did anything they told me to do — of course I did, because it was also through the lens of, ‘And we’ll protect you’. So, even as things started to roll out in the media that I didn’t see — but my friends would call me and say, ‘Meg, this is really bad’ — because I didn’t see it, I’d go, ‘Don’t worry. I’m being protected’.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: I believed that. And I think that was . . . that was really hard to reconcile because it was only . . . it was only once we were married and everything started to really worsen that I came to under-stand that not only was I not being protected, but they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.

Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?

Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right?

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . . 

Oprah: Was this on the train?

Meghan: Yeah, on the train.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: We had breakfast together that morning, and she’d given me a beautiful gift, and I just really loved being in her company. And I remember we were in the car . . . 

Oprah: Can you share what the gift was? Or . . . 

Meghan: Yes. She gave me beautiful pearl earrings and a matching necklace. And we were in the car going between engagements, and she has a blanket that sits across her knees for warmth. And it was chilly, and she was like, ‘Meghan, come on’ and put it over my knees as well.

Oprah: Oh, nice.

Meghan: Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.

Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?

Meghan: Yes.

Oprah: Did you feel welcomed by everyone? It seemed like you and Kate . . . at the Wimbledon game where you were going to watch a friend play tennis . . . 

Meghan: (Laughs)

Oprah: Was it what it looked like? You are two sisters-in-law out there in the world, getting to know each other. Was she helping you, embracing you into the family, helping you adjust?

Meghan: I think everyone welcomed me.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: And, yeah, when you say, ‘Was it what it looked like?’, my under-standing and my experience of the past four years is it’s nothing like what it looks like. It’s nothing like what it looks like. And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.

I mean, there was a day that one of the members of the family, she came over, and she said, ‘Why don’t you just lay low for a little while, because you are everywhere right now’. And I said, ‘I’ve left the house twice in four months. I’m everywhere, but I am nowhere’. And from that standpoint, I continued to say to people, ‘I know there’s an obsession with how things look, but has anyone talked about how it feels? Because right now, I could not feel lonelier’.

Oprah: Hmm. You were feeling lonely, even though your prince . . . you’re in love, you’re with him.

Meghan: I’m not lonely . . . I wasn’t lonely with him.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: There were moments that he had to work or he had to go away, there’s moments in the middle of the night. And so, there was very little that I was allowed to do.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: And so, yeah, of course that breeds loneliness when you’ve come from such a full life or when you’ve come from freedom. I think the easiest way that now people can understand it is what we’ve all gone through in lockdown.

Oprah: Yeah, well, everybody can certainly relate now.

(Cuts to footage of interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby in South Africa in October, 2019)

Meghan: . . . asked if I’m OK, but it’s a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes.

Bradby: And the answer is, would it be fair to say, ‘Not really OK’, as in it’s really been a struggle?

Meghan: Yes.

(Back to Oprah)

Oprah: Well, I would have to say, in South Africa, when the reporter stopped and asked, ‘Are you OK . . ?’

Meghan: Mmm.

Oprah: And, whooo, we all felt that. Why did that question strike such a nerve? What was going on with you, internally at that time?

Meghan: That was the last day of the tour. You know, those tours are . . . I’m sure they have beautiful pictures and it looks vibrant, and all of that is true. It’s also really exhausting. So, I was fried, and I think it just hit me so hard because we were making it look like every-thing was fine. I can understand why people were really surprised to see that there was pain there.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: Because we were doing our job. Our job was to be on and to smile. And so, when he asked me that, I guess I had felt that it had never occurred to anyone that I, that I wasn’t OK, and that I had really been suffering. And I had known for a long time and had been asking the institution for help for quite a long time.

Oprah: Help for what?

Meghan: After we had gotten back from our Australia tour — which was about a year before that — and we talked about when things really started to turn, when I knew we weren’t being protected. And it was during that part of my pregnancy, especially, that I started to understand what our continued reality was going to look like.

Oprah: What kind of protection did you want that you feel you didn’t receive?

Meghan: I mean, they would go on the record and negate the most ridiculous story for anyone, right? I’m talking about things that are super-artificial and inconsequential. But the narrative about, you know, making Kate cry, I think was the beginning of a real character assassination. And they knew it wasn’t true. And I thought, well, if they’re not going to kill things like that, then what are we going to do?

It had never occurred to anyone that I wasn’t OK…I was really suffering, and asked for help.

Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: It was really hard.

Oprah: What do you mean?

Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.

Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?

Meghan: That’s right, I know.

Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?

Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . .
‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.

Oprah: So, how do they explain to you that your son, the grandson, the great-grandson of the Queen . . . 

Meghan: Mm-hmm.

Oprah: . . . is not going to have . . . he wasn’t going to be a prince? How did they tell you that? And what reasons did they give? And then say, ‘And so, therefore, you’re not . . . you don’t need protection’.

Meghan: There’s no explanation.

Oprah: Hmm.

Meghan: There’s no version. I mean, that’s the other piece of that . . . 

Oprah: Who tells you that?

Meghan: I heard a lot of it through Harry and then other parts of it through conversations with . . . 

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: . . . family members. And it was a decision that they felt was appropriate. And I thought, well . . . 

Oprah: Was the title . . . was him being called a prince, Archie being called a prince, was that important to you?

Meghan: If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course. All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’ve always just still been Meghan, right? So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.

Meghan: But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . . You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.

Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.

Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . . 

Oprah: . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?

Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: Well, why?

Oprah: Did you get an answer?

Meghan: No.

Oprah: You still don’t have an answer?

Meghan: No.

Oprah: You know, we had heard — the world, those of us out here reading the things or hearing the things — that it was you and Harry who didn’t want Archie to have a prince title. So, you’re telling me that is not true?

Meghan: No, and it’s not our decision to make, right?

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: . . . even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad — and from my experience, a lot of pain.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: I, again, wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.

Oprah: OK, so it feels to me like things started to change when you and Harry decided that you were not going to take the picture that had been a part of the tradition for years and . . . 

Meghan: We weren’t asked to take a picture. That’s also part of the spin, that was really damaging. I thought, ‘Can you just tell them the truth? Can you say to the world you’re not giving him a title, and we want to keep him safe, and that if he’s not a prince, then it’s not part of the tradition? Just tell people, and then they’ll understand?’

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: But they wouldn’t do that.

Oprah: But you were . . . you both, obviously, were aware that ha­d been a part of the tradition? And there was a . . . was there a specific reason why you didn’t want to be a part of that tradition? I think many people interpreted that as you were both saying, ‘We’re going to do things our way. We’re going to do things a different way’.

Meghan: That’s not it at all. I mean, I think what was really hard . . . so, picture, now that you know what was going on behind the scenes, right? There was a lot of fear surrounding it. I was very scared of having to offer up our baby, knowing that they weren’t going to be kept safe.

Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . . what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . . 

Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: And . . . 

Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?

Meghan: So . . . 

Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.

Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.

Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ? 

Meghan: With Harry.

Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?

Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.

Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?

Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.

Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?

There were conversations …about no security, no title… and how dark his skin might be when he’s born.

Meghan: That was relayed to me from Harry. Those were conversations that family had with him. And I think . . . 

Oprah: Whoa.

Meghan: It was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalised conversations.

Oprah: Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem? Are you saying that?

Meghan: I wasn’t able to follow up with why, but that — if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one, which was really hard to understand, right? Especially when — look, I — the Commonwealth is a huge part of the monarchy, and I lived in Canada, which is a Commonwealth country, for seven years. But it wasn’t until Harry and I were together that we started to travel through the Commonwealth, I would say 60 per cent, 70 per cent of which is people of colour, right?

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: And growing up as a woman of colour, as a little girl of colour, I know how important representation is. I know how you want to see someone who looks like you in certain positions.

Oprah: Obviously.

Meghan: Even Archie. Like, we read these books, and now he’s been — there’s one line in one that goes, ‘If you can see it, you can be it’. And he goes, ‘You can be it!’ And I think about that so often, especially in the context of these young girls, but even grown women and men who, when I would meet them in our time in the Commonwealth, how much it meant to them to be able to see someone who looks like them . . . 

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: . . . in this position. And I could never understand how it wouldn’t be seen as an added benefit . . . 

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: . . . and a reflection of the world today. At all times, but especially right now, to go — ‘how inclusive is that, that you can see someone who looks like you in this family, much less one who’s born into it?’

(Oprah narrates) When Meghan joined the Royal Family in 2018, she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks. Racist abuse online aimed at Meghan Markle. There were undeniable racist overtones. This stands apart from the kind of coverage we’ve seen of any other royal.

There was constant criticism, blatant sexist and racist remarks by British tabloids and internet trolls. We have seen the racism towards her play out in real time. Referring to her as ‘straight outta Compton’. The daily onslaught of vitriol and condemnation from the UK Press became overwhelming and, in Meghan’s words, ‘almost unsurvivable’. (Back to Oprah)

Oprah: You’d said in a podcast that it became ‘almost unsurvivable’, and that struck me, because it sounds like you were in some kind of mental trouble. What was actually going on? ‘Almost unsurvivable’ sounds like there was a breaking point.

Meghan: Yeah, there was. I just didn’t see a solution. I would sit up at night, and I was just, like, I don’t understand how all of this is being churned out. And, again, I wasn’t seeing it, but it’s almost worse when you feel it through the expression of my mom or my friends, or them calling me crying, just, like, ‘Meg, they’re not protecting you’. And I realised that it was all happening just because I was breathing.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: And, look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. And I . . . I just didn’t . . . I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember — I remember how he just cradled me. And I was — I went to the institution, and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that, ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution. And I called . . . 

Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?

Meghan: No, it’s a person.

Oprah: It’s a person.

Meghan: It’s several people. But I went to one of the most senior people just to . . . to get help. And that — you know, I share this, because there’s so many people who are afraid to voice that they need help. And I know, personally, how hard it is to not just voice it, but when you voice it, to be told no.

Oprah: Whoo.

Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me. And I remember this conversation like it was yesterday, because they said, ‘My heart goes out to you, because I see how bad it is, but there’s nothing we can do to protect you because you’re not a paid employee of the institution’.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: This wasn’t a choice. This was emails and begging for help, saying very specifically, ‘I am concerned for my mental welfare’. And people going, ‘Oh, yes, yes, it’s disproportionately terrible what we see out there to anyone else’. But nothing was ever done, so we had to find a solution.

Oprah: Wow! ‘I don’t want to be alive any more,’ that’s . . . 

Meghan: I thought it would have solved everything for everyone, right?

Oprah: So, were you thinking of harming yourself? Were you having suicidal thoughts?

Meghan: Yes. This was very, very clear.

Oprah: Wow.

Meghan: Very clear and very scary. And, you know, I didn’t know who to even turn to in that. And one of the people that I reached out to, who’s continued to be a friend and confidant, was one of my husband’s mom’s best friends, one of Diana’s best friends. Because it’s, like, who else could understand what’s . . .what it’s actually like on the inside?

Oprah: Did you ever think about going to a hospital? Or is that possible, that you can check yourself in some place?

Meghan: No, that’s what I was asking to do.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: You can’t just do that. I couldn’t, you know, call an Uber to the palace.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.

Oprah: Well, the way you’re describing this, it . . . it’s like you were trapped and couldn’t get help, even though you’re on the verge of suicide. That’s what you are describing. That’s what I’m hearing.

Meghan: Yes.

Oprah: And that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?

Meghan: That’s the truth.

Oprah: That’s the truth.

Meghan: You know, and if you think about . . . it was one of the things that . . . it stills haunts me is this photograph that someone had sent me. We had to go to an official event. We had to go to this event at the Royal Albert Hall, and a friend said, ‘I know you don’t look at pictures, but, oh, my God, you guys look so great . . .’

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: . . . and sent it to me. And I zoomed in, and what I saw was the truth of what that moment was, because right before we had to leave for that, I had just had that conversation with Harry that morning, and it was the next day that I talked to the institution.

Oprah: You had the conversation ‘I don’t want to be alive any more’?

Meghan: Yeah.

Oprah: Whoo.

Meghan: No, and it was . . . it wasn’t even, ‘I don’t want to’.

Oprah: And then, you . . ? 

Meghan: It was like, ‘These are the thoughts that I’m having in the middle of the night that are very clear . . .’

Oprah: Yes, clarification.

Meghan: ‘. . . and I’m scared, because this is very real. This isn’t some abstract idea. This is methodical, and this is not who I am’. But we had to go to this event, and I remember him saying, ‘I don’t think you can go’. And I said, ‘I can’t be left alone’.

Oprah: Because you were afraid of what you might do to yourself?

Meghan: And we went, and that . . . 

Oprah: I’m so sorry to hear that.

Meghan: . . . and that picture, if you zoom in, what I see is how tightly his knuckles are gripped around mine. You can see the whites of our knuckles, because we are smiling and doing our job, but we’re both just trying to hold on. And every time that those lights went down in that Royal Box, I was just weeping, and he was gripping my hand.

Oprah: Wow.

Meghan: And then, it was, ‘OK, intermission’s coming, the lights are about to come on, everyone’s looking at us again’, and you have to just be on again.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: And that’s, I think, so important for people to remember is you have no idea what’s going on for someone behind closed doors. You have no idea. Even the people that smile the biggest smiles and shine the brightest lights, it seems, to have compassion for what’s actually potentially going on.

Oprah: I know. The public is looking at you. And to think that you, earlier in the day, had said to Harry that you didn’t want to be alive any more.

Meghan: Yeah. And just hours before, just sitting on the . . . the steps in our cottage . . . 

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: . . . just sitting there and then going, ‘ok, well, go upstairs and put your make-up bag in your sink and try to pull yourself together’.

Oprah: Nobody should have to go through that.

Meghan: And, you know, Harry and I are working on this mental health series for Apple, and we — yes, so — we, we, we hear a lot of these stories. Nobody should have to go through that. It takes so much courage to admit that you need help.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: It takes so much courage to voice that. And as I said, I was ashamed. I’m supposed to be stronger than that.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: I don’t want to put more on my husband’s shoulders. He’s carrying the weight of the world. I don’t want to bring that to him. I bring solutions. To admit that you need help, to admit how dark of a place you’re in.

Oprah: You’ve said some pretty shocking things here, revealing . . . 

Meghan: I wasn’t planning to say anything shocking.

Oprah: OK.

Meghan: I’m just telling you what’s happened.

Oprah: OK.

Meghan: I’m sorry if it’s shocked you! It’s been a lot.

Oprah: I’m a little shocked.

Meghan: It’s been a lot.

Oprah: How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today? Are you afraid of a backlash or their reaction?

Meghan: I mean, I think I’m not going to live my life in fear. You know, I think so much of it is said with an understanding of just truth.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: But I think, to answer your question, I don’t know how they could expect that after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: That at a certain point, you’re going to go, ‘But, you guys, someone just tell the truth’. And if that comes with risk of losing things, I mean, I’ve lost . . . there’s a lot that’s been lost already.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: And I grieve a lot. I mean, I’ve lost my father. I lost a baby. I nearly lost my name. I mean, there’s the loss of identity. But I’m still standing, and my hope for people in the takeaway from this is to know that there’s another side.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: To know that life is worth living.

Oprah: OK. I’m so glad you see that now. We are going to take a break, y’all, and Harry’s going to join us.

Meghan: (Laughter)

(Ads and back to Oprah)

Oprah: So, hi.

Harry: Hello.

Oprah: Thanks for joining us.

Harry: Thanks for having me.

Oprah: You’ve been watching on the side, yeah?

Harry: Some of it.

Oprah: Yes. I want to say, first of all, let’s say congratulations . . . 

Harry: Thank you.

Oprah: . . . for the new addition to your family. Meghan said she wanted to wait until you were here to tell us, is it a boy or is it a girl?

Meghan: You can tell her.

Harry: No, go for it.

Meghan: No, no.

Harry: It’s a girl.

Oprah: (Squeals)

Meghan: It’s a girl.

Harry: Yes!

Oprah: You’re going to have a daughter. Wow.

Meghan: It’s a girl.

Oprah: When you realised that and saw it on the ultrasound, what . . . what . . . what was your first thought?

Harry: Amazing. Just grateful, like any — to have any child, any one or any two would have been amazing. But to have a boy and then a girl, you know, what more can you ask for? But now, you know, now we — we’ve got our family. We’ve got, you know, the four of us and our two dogs, and it’s great.

Oprah: Done. Done? Two is it?

Harry: Done.

Meghan: Two is it.

Oprah: Two is it.

Meghan: Two is it.

Oprah: And when’s the baby due?

Meghan: In summertime.

Oprah: This summertime?

Meghan: Yeah.

Oprah: So, you all have been living in sunny California now for . . . 

Meghan: Since March.

Oprah: Since March, OK.

(Oprah narrates) In late 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan left the UK And moved to Canada. The couple says they chose Canada, a commonwealth of Britain, with the intention of continuing to serve the Queen. After their move, Harry and Meghan say security normally provided by the Royal Family was cut off. By March 2020, just days before the Covid lockdown began, Meghan, Harry and Archie relocated to Los Angeles, where media mogul Tyler Perry offered them his home as a temporary refuge. He also provided security.

Three months later they bought their own home and settled in the Santa Barbara area. Last spring, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex created their own foundation and media content company called Archewell.

Oprah: And so you stayed at Tyler Perry’s house for several months.

Harry: Three months, I believe.

Meghan: Yeah, because we didn’t have a plan. We needed . . . we needed a house and he offered security as well, so it gave us breathing room to try to figure out what we are going to do.

Harry: The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed. By this point, courtesy of the Daily Mail, the world knew exact . . . our exact location. So suddenly it dawned on me, ‘Hang on a second. The borders could be closed. We’re going to have our security removed. Who knows how long lockdown’s going to be? The world knows where we are. It’s not safe. It’s not secure’.

Meghan: Well, and also . . . 

Harry: We probably need to get out of here.

Oprah: So, what security did you have at the time that was going to be removed?

Harry: We had our UK security.

Oprah: So you got word from overseas?

Harry: Yeah.

Oprah: That ‘we’re taking away your security’. Why were they doing that?

Harry: Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but due to our change of status, (by) which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family, they’re obviously . . . what we proposed was sort of part-time, or at least as much as we could do without being fully consumed because of, I think, what most of you guys have covered already.

Meghan: We actually didn’t talk about that. It’s been so spun in the wrong direction, as though we quit, we walked away, we . . . all the conversations of the two years before we finally announced it.

(Oprah narrates) In January 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan announced they would step back as senior members of the Royal Family. The swiftness with which they’ve taken this decision, only 18 months after they got married, has taken everyone by surprise, from the Queen all the way down.

The bombshell news sparked a worldwide media frenzy dubbed ‘Megxit’ by the British Press. Many reporters and viral posts blamed Meghan for the decision. In an official statement, Queen Elizabeth said: ‘Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.’ (Back to Oprah)

Oprah: OK, let me ask the question.

Meghan: Yeah?

Oprah: So, over a year ago, you shocked the world. You announced you were stepping back as senior members of the Royal Family. And then the media reported that you had ‘blindsided’ the Queen, your grandmother. So here’s a time to set the record straight. What was the tipping point that made you decide you had to leave?

Harry: Yeah, it was desperate. I went to all the places which I thought I should go to, to ask for help. We both did.

Meghan: Mm-hmm.

Harry: Separately and together.

Oprah: So you left because you were asking for help and couldn’t get it?

Harry: Yeah, basically. But we never left.

Meghan: We never left the family and we only wanted to have the same type of role that exists, right? There’s senior members of the family and then there are non-senior members. And we said, specifically, ‘We’re stepping back from senior roles to be just like several . . .’ I mean, I can think of so many right now who are all . . . they’re royal highnesses, prince or princess, duke or duchess . . . who earn a living, live on palace grounds, can support the Queen if and when called upon. So we weren’t reinventing the wheel here. We were saying, ‘OK, if this isn’t working for everyone, we’re in a lot of pain, you can’t provide us with the help we need, we can just take a step back. We can do it in a Commonwealth country’. We suggested New Zealand, South Africa . . . 

Harry: Take a breath.

Meghan: Canada.

Oprah: Yeah. And you wanted to take a breath from what specifically? Let’s be clear.

Harry: From this . . . this constant barrage. My biggest concern was history repeating itself and I’ve said that before on numerous occasions, very publicly. And what I was seeing was history repeating itself. But more, perhaps. Or definitely far more dangerous because then you add race in and you add social media in. And when I’m talking about history repeating itself, I’m talking about my . . . my mother.

Harry: When you can see something happening in the same kind of way, anybody would ask for help, ask the system of which you are a part of — especially when you know there’s a relationship there — that they could help and share some truth or call . . . call the dogs off, whatever you want to call it. So to receive no help at all and to be told continuously, ‘This is how it is. This is just how it is. We’ve all been through it’ . . . and I think the biggest turning point for me was the . . . and it didn’t take very long. It was actually right at the beginning . . . was, OK, this union . . . us, me, being . . . having a girlfriend was going to be a thing. Of course it was. But I . . . I never expected, or I never thought . . . 

Oprah: Because she was mixed race?

Harry: No, just . . . just the two of us to start with. I hadn’t really thought about the mixed-race piece because I thought, well . . . well, firstly, you know, I’ve spent many years doing the work and doing my own learning. But my upbringing in the system, of which I was brought up in and what I’ve been exposed to, it wasn’t . . . I wasn’t aware of it to start with. But, my god, it doesn’t take very long to suddenly become aware of it.

Oprah: Yeah, because you said you really weren’t aware of unconscious bias and all that that represents . . . 

Harry: No.

Oprah: Until you met Meghan.

Harry: Yeah. You know, as sad as it is to say, it takes living in her shoes — in this instance, for a day, or those first eight days — to see where it was going to go and how far they were going to take it.

Oprah: And get away with it?

Harry: And get away with it and be so blatant about it. That’s the bit that shocked me. This is . . . we’re talking about the UK Press here, right? And this . . . the UK is my home. That is . . . that is where I was brought up. So yes, I’ve got my own relationship that goes back a long way with the media. I asked for calm from the British tabloids — once as a boyfriend, once as a husband and once as a father.

Oprah: So when I ask the question, ‘Why did you leave?’ the simplest answer is . . ? 

Harry: Lack of support and lack of understanding.

Oprah: So, I want clarity. Was the move about getting away from the UK Press? Because the Press, as you know, is everywhere. Or was the move because you weren’t getting enough support from The Firm?

Harry: It was both.

Oprah: Both.

Harry: Yeah.

Oprah: Did you blindside the Queen?

Harry: No. I’ve never blindsided my grandmother. I have too much respect for her.

Oprah: So where did that story come from?

Harry: I hazard a guess that it probably could have come from within the institution.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: So, I remember when you talked to her several times about this over . . . 

Harry: Two years.

Meghan: Two years. But even the night before, days before, with the statement coming out, I remember that conversation.

Oprah: So, how do you know she wasn’t blindsided? Because the way it was presented through the Press is that suddenly you made this announcement. She didn’t know it was coming.

Harry: No, I . . . when we were in Canada, I had three conversations with my grandmother and two conversations with my father and — before he stopped taking my calls — and he said, ‘Can you put this all in writing what your plan is?’

Oprah: Your father asked you to put it in writing.

Prince Harry: Yeah. He asked me to put it in writing and I put all the specifics in there, even the fact that we were planning on putting the announcement out on January 7.

Oprah: So you just said that your dad stopped taking your calls. Why did he stop taking your calls?

Harry: Because I took matters in . . . by that point, I took matters into my own hands. It was like, ‘I need to do this for my family. This is not a surprise to anybody. It’s really sad that it’s gotten to this point but I’ve got to do something for my own mental health, my wife’s and for Archie’s as well’. Because I could see where this was headed.

Meghan: To have sat back and not said that for so long, it just feels really . . . 

Oprah: To have been silenced all this time.

Meghan: Yeah.

Harry: Been three and a half, four years. Or longer, actually.

Meghan: We were saying . . . gosh, it must have been years ago we were sitting in Nottingham (Nottingham Cottage, where Harry lived as a bachelor and when first married) . . . I was sitting in Nottingham Cottage and The Little Mermaid came on. Now, who watches . . . who as an adult really watches The Little Mermaid? But it came on and I was like, ‘Well, I’m just here all the time, so I may as well watch this’. And I went, ‘Oh, my god! She falls in love with the prince and because of that, she has to lose her voice’.

Oprah: Mmm.

Meghan: But by the end, she gets her voice back.

Oprah: Gets her voice back.

Meghan: Yeah.

Oprah: And this is what happened here? You feel like you got your voice back?

Meghan: Yeah.

Oprah: So, you . . . you’re stepping back out of frustration and you just need to get out. And, you know, you heard Meghan share with us all . . . 

Harry: Mm-hmm.

Oprah: The moment that she came to you, had the courage enough to say out loud . . . 

Harry: Mm-hmm.

My father said: Can you put your plan in writing? Then he stopped taking my calls. I’d taken matters into my own hands.

Oprah: ‘I don’t want to live any more.’

Harry: Mm-hmm.

Oprah: And you didn’t know what to do?

Harry: I had no idea what to do. I wasn’t . . . I wasn’t prepared for that. I went . . . I went to a very dark place as well. But I . . . I wanted to be there for her and . . . 

Meghan: Also, we didn’t leave right that minute, right?

Harry: I was terrified.

Meghan: We still . . . that’s almost a year after.

Oprah: So then did you tell other people in the family, ‘I have to get help for her. We need help for her’?

Harry: No. That’s just not a conversation that would be had.

Oprah: Why?

Harry: I guess I was ashamed of admitting it to them.

Oprah: Oh.

Harry: And I don’t know whether . . . I don’t know whether they’ve had the same . . . whether they’ve had the same feelings or thoughts. I have no idea. And it’s a very trapping environment that a lot of them are stuck in.

Oprah: You were ashamed of admitting that Meghan needed help?

Harry: Yeah.

Oprah: Mmm.

Harry: I didn’t have anyone to turn to.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Harry: You know, we’ve got some very close friends that . . . that have been with us through this whole process but for the family, they very much have this mentality of, ‘This is just how it is. This is how it’s meant to be. You can’t change it. We’ve all been through it’.

Oprah: ‘We’ve all been through the pressure. We’ve all been through being exploited’?

Harry: Yes. But what was different for me was the race element, because now it wasn’t just about her, but it is about what she represents. And therefore it wasn’t just affecting my wife. It was affecting so many other people as well. And that’s . . . that was the trigger for me to really engage in those conversations with Palace . . . senior Palace staff and with my family to say, ‘Guys, this is not going to end well’.

Oprah: And when you say ‘end well’, what did you mean?

Harry: For anyone it’s not going to end well. Because the way that I saw it was there was a way of doing things but for us — for this union and the specifics around her race — there was an opportunity, many opportunities, for my family to show some public support.

Oprah: Mmm.

Harry: And I guess one of the most telling parts — and the saddest parts, I guess — was over 70 Members of Parliament, female Members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour — came out and called out the . . . the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about

Meghan. Yet no one from my family ever said anything over those three years. And that . . . that hurts. But I also am acutely aware of where my family stand and how scared they are of the tabloids turning on them.

Oprah: Turning on them for what? They’re the Royal Family.

Harry: Yes, but it’s . . . there is this invisible . . . what’s termed or referred to as the ‘invisible contract’ behind closed doors between the institution and the tabloids, the UK tabloids.

Oprah: How so?

Harry: Well, it is . . . to simplify it, it’s a case of if you . . . if you as a family member are willing to wine, dine and give full access to these reporters, then you will get better press.

Oprah: What do you care about better press if you’re royal?

Harry: I think everyone needs to have some compassion for . . . for them in that situation, right? There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean, generations.

Oprah: But who’s controlling whom? It’s the institution. From our point of view, just the public. It’s . . . 

Harry: Yeah but the institution survives based on that, on that perception. So actually, if you don’t . . . 

Oprah: So you’re saying there’s this relationship that Meghan was speaking of . . . it’s like, symbiotic. One lives or thrives because the other exists.

Meghan: Mmm.

Oprah: That’s what you’re saying.

Harry: That’s the . . . that’s the idea.

Meghan: Well, see, I think there’s a reason that these tabloids have holiday parties at the Palace. They’re hosted by the Palace, the tabloids are. You know, there is a construct that’s at play there. And because from the beginning of our relationship, they were so attacking and inciting so much racism, really, it changed our . . . the risk level, because it went . . . it wasn’t just catty gossip. It was bringing out a part of people that was racist in how it was charged. And that changed the threat. That changed the level of death threats. That changed everything.

Oprah: So, tell me this: You said a moment ago, it hurts that your family has never acknowledged the role that racism played in here. Did you think she was well received in the beginning?

Harry: Yes. Far better than I expected. (Laughter) But, you know, my grandmother has been amazing throughout. You know, my father, my brother, Kate and . . . and all the rest of the family, they were, they were really welcoming. But it really changed after the Australia tour, after our South Pacific tour.

Meghan: That’s when we announced we were pregnant with Archie. That was our first tour.

Harry: But it was also . . . it was also the first time that the family got to see how incredible she is at the job. And that brought back memories.

Oprah: I’m thinking, because I watch The Crown OK? I watch The Crown. Do you all watch The Crown?

Meghan: (Laughs)

Harry:: I’ve watched some of it. You’ve watched some of it?

Meghan: I’ve watched some of it.

Oprah: But there’s this . . . I think it was the fourth season, actually, where there is an Australian tour. So, is that what you’re talking about? It brought back memories of that? The Australian tour.

Harry: Yeah.

Oprah: Where your father and your mother went there, and your mother was bedazzling. So, are you saying that there were hints of jealousy?

Harry: Look, I just wish that we would all learn from the past. But to see the . . . to see how effortless it was for Meghan to come into the family so quickly in Australia and across New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, and just be able to connect with people in such a . . . 

Oprah: But . . . 

Harry: I know, I know, I know, I know. But it’s . . . 

Oprah: Why, I mean, why wouldn’t everybody love that? Isn’t that what you want? You want her to come into the family and to, as the Queen said at one point, the way that Meghan had basically, not her words, been assimilated into the family.

Harry: Yeah, I think, you know, as we talked about, she was very much welcomed into the family, not just by the family, but by the world.

Oprah: Yeah.

Harry: Certainly by the Commonwealth. I mean, here you have one of the greatest assets to the Commonwealth that the family could have ever wished for.

Oprah: I just can’t . . . I’m kind of going back to this. So, then, you’re in Canada because you had stepped back. Your Firm says you’re no longer going to have protection. So, did you ask for that? Because did you want . . . were you trying to have it both ways? You wanted to step back but also keep your foot in royal business, it seems.

Harry: It’s interesting that you talk about it being, you know, ‘Have it both ways’ on the . . . on the security element. I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.

Oprah: So, that you as Prince Harry are going to have your security removed.

Meghan: Yeah. And I even . . . and I even wrote letters to his family saying, ‘Please, it’s very clear the protection of me or Archie is not a priority. I accept that. That is fine. Please keep my husband safe. I see the death threats. I see the racist propaganda. Please keep him safe. Please don’t pull his security and announce to the world when he and we are most vulnerable’. And they said it’s just not possible.

Oprah: Mm-hmm. I think what we really have got to clear up here is because one of the stories that continues to live, either through rumours or social media, out in the world, is that you, Meghan, are the one who manipulated, calculated, and are responsible for this Megxit.

Meghan: Oh, my gosh. It’s amazing how they can use Meg for everything.

Oprah: Yes. There are even stories that you knew all along that this was going to happen. You went through the whole process, and it was all intentional to build your brand.

Meghan: Can you imagine how little sense that makes? I left my career, my life. I left everything because I love him, right? And our plan was to do this for ever.

Harry: Yes.

Meghan: Our plan . . . for me, I mean, I wrote letters to his family when I got there, saying, ‘I am dedicated to this. I’m here for you. Use me as you’d like’. There was no guidance, as well, right? There were certain things that you couldn’t do. But, you know, unlike what you see in the movies, there’s no class on how to . . . how to speak, how to cross your legs, how to be royal. There’s none of that training. That might exist for other members of the family. That was not something that was offered to me.

Oprah: So, nobody tells you anything?

Meghan: No.

Oprah: Nobody prepares you?

Meghan: Nobody even . . . 

Harry: There’s . . . 

Meghan: Sorry, but even down to, like, the National Anthem. No one thought to say, ‘Oh, you’re American. You’re not going to know that’. That’s me late at night, Googling how . . . what’s the National . . . I’ve got to learn this. I don’t want to embarrass them. I need to learn these 30 hymns for church. All of this is televised. We were doing the training behind the scenes, because I just wanted to make them proud.

Oprah: OK, but here’s the question: Do you think you would have left or ever stepped back were it not for Meghan?

Meghan: Hm.

Harry: No. The answer to your question is no.

Oprah: You would not have?

Harry: I wouldn’t have . . . I wouldn’t have been able to, because I myself was trapped as well. I didn’t see a way out.

Oprah: She felt trapped, you were trapped?

Harry: Yeah, I didn’t see a way out.

Oprah: But you’d this life, your whole life. This has been your life your whole life.

Harry: Yeah, but, you know, I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped.

Oprah: Mmm.

Harry: But the moment that I met Meg, and then our worlds sort of collided in the most amazing of ways, and then to see how . . . 

Oprah: Please explain how you, Prince Harry, raised in a palace and a life of privilege — literally, a Prince . . . how you were trapped.

Harry: Trapped within the system, like the rest of my family are. My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.

Oprah: Well, OK, so the impression of the world — maybe it’s a false impression — is that, for all these years before Meghan, you were living your life as a royal, Prince Harry . . . the beloved Prince Harry and that you were enjoying that life. We didn’t get the impression that you were feeling trapped in that life.

Harry: Enjoying the life because there were photographs of me smiling while I was shaking hands and meeting people? Like, I’m sure you guys have covered some of that. That’s . . . that’s a part of the job. That’s a part of the role. That’s what’s expected. No matter who you are in the family, no matter what’s going on in your personal life, no matter what’s just happened, if the bikes roll up and the car rolls up, you’ve got to get dressed, you got to get in there. You wipe your tears away, shake off whatever you’re thinking about and you got to be on your A-game.

Oprah: Mm-hmm. What would you think your mum would say about this stepping back, this decision to step back from the Royal Family? How would she feel about this moment?

Harry: I think she would feel very angry with how this has panned out, and very sad. But, ultimately, she’d . . . all she’d . . . all she’d ever want is for us to be happy.

Oprah: You wanted freedom from . . . from that life? You wanted freedom to make your own money. You wanted freedom to make deals with Netflix and Spotify. But you also wanted to serve the Queen?

Harry: Yeah, we didn’t want to . . . we didn’t want to give up, or we didn’t want to turn our backs on the associations and the people that we . . . that we’ve been supporting.

Meghan: But also, Oprah, it exists.

Harry: Yeah, it exists. But, also, the Netflix and the Spotify, they’re all . . . that was never part of the plan.

Meghan: Yeah.

Oprah: Because you didn’t have a plan?

Meghan: We didn’t have a plan.

Harry: We didn’t have a plan. That was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford . . . afford security for us.

Oprah: Wait. Hold . . . hold up. Wait a minute. Your family cut you off?

Harry: Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2020. But I’ve got what my mum left me, and, without that, we would not have been able to do this.

Oprah: OK.

Harry: So, you know, touching back on what you asked me, what my mum would think of this, I think she saw it coming. And I certainly felt her presence throughout this whole process. And, you know, for me, I’m . . . I’m just really relieved and happy to be sitting here talking to you with my wife by my side. Because I can’t begin to imagine what it must have been like for her going through this process by herself all those years ago, because it’s been unbelievably tough for the two of us, but at least we had each other.

Oprah: What’s your relationship like now with your family?

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

Oprah: Do you all have Zoom calls?

Harry: We did a couple of Zoom calls with Archie.

Meghan: Sometimes, yes, so they can see Archie.

Oprah: Yeah.

Harry: My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . . 

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Harry: . . . And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be.

Oprah: Your relationship with your father? Is he taking your calls now?

Harry: Yeah. Yeah, he is. There’s a lot to work through there, you know? I feel really let down, because he’s been through something similar. He knows what pain feels like, and this is . . . and Archie’s his grandson. And . . . but, at the same time, you know, I, of course I will always . . . I will always love him, but there’s a lot of hurt that’s happened. And . . . and I will continue to . . . to make it one of my priorities to try and heal that relationship. And, but they only know what they know, and that’s the thing. I’ve tried to . . . 

Meghan: Or what they’re told.

Harry: Or what they’re told. And I’ve tried to educate them through the process that I have been educated.

Oprah: Because is it like being in a big royal bubble?

Harry: Yeah.

Oprah: Yeah. And your brother? Relationship? Much has been said about that.

Harry: Yeah, and much will continue to be said about that. You know, as I’ve said before, I love William to bits. He’s my brother. We’ve been through hell together. I mean, we have a shared experience. But we . . . you know, we’re on . . . we’re on different paths.

Oprah: Well, what is particularly striking is what Meghan shared with us earlier, is that no one wants to admit that there’s anything about race or that race has played a role in the trolling and the vitriol, and yet Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie’s skin tone.

Harry: Mm-hmm.

Oprah: What was that conversation?

Harry: That conversation I’m never going to share, but at the time . . . at the time, it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.

Oprah: Can you . . . can you tell us what the question was?

Harry: No. I don’t . . . I’m not comfortable with sharing that.

Oprah: OK.

Harry: But that was . . . that was right at the beginning, right?

Oprah: Like, what will the baby look like?

Harry: Yeah, what will the kids look like?

Oprah: What will the kids look like?

Harry: But that was right at the beginning, when she wasn’t going to get security, when members of my family were suggesting that she carries on acting, because there was not enough money to pay for her, and all this sort of stuff. Like, there was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.

Oprah: So, in conclusion, if you’d had the support, you’d still be there?

Harry: Without question.

Meghan: Yeah.

Harry: I’m sad that . . . that what’s happened has happened, but I know, and I’m comfortable in knowing, that we did everything that we could to make it work. And we did everything on the exit process the way that . . . the way that it should have been done.

Meghan: With as much respect.

Harry: With as much respect.

Meghan: And, oh, my God, we just did everything we could to . . . to protect them.

Oprah: So, what do you say to the people who say you came here, you made these multimillion-dollar deals and that you’re just money-grabbing royals?

Harry: First off, this was never the intention.

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: Yeah.

Harry: And we’re certainly not complaining. We . . . our life is great now. We’ve got a beautiful house. We’ve got a beautiful . . . I’ve got a beautiful family. And the dogs . . . the dogs are really happy. But at the time, during Covid, the suggestion by a friend was, ‘What about streamers?’

Meghan: Yeah, we genuinely hadn’t thought about that before.

Harry: We hadn’t thought about it. So there were all sorts of different options. And, look, from my perspective, all I needed was enough money to be able to pay for security to keep my family safe.

Oprah: Mm. How will you use Archewell as a means of speaking to things that are important to you in the world?

Meghan: I think in creating . . . I mean, life is about storytelling, right? About the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we’re told, what we buy into. And . . . and for us to be able to have storytelling through a truthful lens, that hopefully is uplifting, is going to be great knowing how many people that can land with. And being able to give a voice to a lot of people that are under-represented and aren’t really heard.

Oprah: Any regrets?

Meghan: This morning, I woke up earlier than H and saw a note from someone on our team in the UK saying the Duke of Edinburgh had gone to the hospital.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: But I just picked up the phone and I called the Queen just to check in.

Oprah: You check in?

Meghan: Just like, I would . . . you know . . . that’s what we do. It’s like, being able to default to not having to every moment go, ‘Is that appropriate?’

Oprah: Yeah.

Harry: For so many in my family, what they do is . . . there’s a level of control in it, right? Because they’re fearful of what the papers are going to say about them.

Oprah: Yeah.

Harry: Whereas with us, it was just, like, just be . . . just be yourself. Just be genuine. Just be authentic. Just go and do what it is. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong. If you get it right, you get it right.

(Oprah narrates) On February 19, 2021, Buckingham palace released a statement announcing it was agreed that Prince Harry and Meghan would not return as working members of the Royal Family. Harry and Meghan’s royal patronages and Prince Harry’s honorary military titles would be returned to the Queen. The Queen’s statement was released after our interview took place. (Back to Oprah)

Oprah: Your exit agreement with the Royal Family, it’s . . . that is coming up at the end of this month.

Harry: The decision is, I think. Yeah, I mean, the decision — what, as of last week, or whatever it was — is that they will be removing everything.

Oprah: Are you hurt by that decision?

Harry: I am hurt. But at the same time I completely respect my grandmother’s decision. I would still love for us to be able to continue to support those associations, albeit without the title or the role.

Oprah: Could you be as satisfied now, doing this through your own organisation, Archewell?

Meghan: Well, we . . . this is what we’re doing, right? We’re still doing it. We’re still going to always do the work. But I also think it’s important for you or everyone to know this decision that was made about patronages and all of that was before anyone knew that we were sitting down with you.

Harry: Yeah.

Meghan: I think that it’s . . . I can only imagine . . . 

Oprah: I heard a story that you’re getting punished now. Those were being taken away because you did sit down with me.

Meghan: Yeah, but that was . . . those letters, those conversations, that was . . . that was finalised before anyone even knew that we were going to sit down. So that’s just not true.

Oprah: All right, tell me this. Harry, what delights you now in your everyday experience and the things that you actually cherish in your life here with Archie and Meghan?

Harry: This year has been crazy for everybody. But to have outdoor space where I can go for walks with Archie, and we can go for walks as a family and with the dogs, and we can go on hikes — we’ll go down to the beach, which is so close — all of these things are just . . . I guess, the highlight for me is sticking him on the back of the bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on these bike rides, which is something I was never able to do when I was young. I can see him on the back and he’s got his arms out and he’s like, ‘Whoo!’ chatting, chatting, chatting, going, ‘Palm tree! House!’ and all this sort of stuff. And I do . . . I think to myself . . . 

In some ways it’s just the beginning. Greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read…

Oprah: What’s his new favourite word? What’s his favourite word now?

Meghan: Oh my gosh, he’s on a roll. In the past couple weeks it has been hydrate, which is just hysterical.

Harry: But also, whenever everyone leaves the house, he’s like, ‘Drive safe’.

Meghan: ‘Drive safe’.

(Oprah laughs)

Harry: Which is really . . . 

Meghan: He’s not even two yet!

Oprah: You said that your brother was trapped. You said that you love your brother and always will love your brother. You didn’t tell me what the relationship is now, though.

Harry: The relationship is space at the moment. And, you know, time heals all things, hopefully.

Oprah: Any regrets?

Harry: No. I mean . . . no, I think we’ve done . . . I’m really proud of us, you know? I’m so proud of . . . I’m so proud of my wife. Like, she safely delivered Archie during a period of time which was so cruel and so mean. And every single day, I was coming back from work, from London, I was coming back to my wife crying while breastfeeding Archie. That’s coming from someone who wasn’t reading anything. And as she touched on earlier, if she had read anything, she wouldn’t be here now. So we did what we had to do — and now we’ve got another little one on the way.

Meghan: I have one. My regret is believing them when they said I would be protected. I believed that. And I regret believing that because I think, ‘had I really seen that that wasn’t happening, I would have been able to do more’. But I think I wasn’t supposed to see it. I wasn’t supposed to know. And . . . and now, because we’re actually on the other side, we’ve actually not just survived but are thriving. You know, this . . . I mean, this is miracles. I . . . yeah, I think that all of those things that I was hoping for have happened . . . and this is in some ways just the beginning for us. You know, we’ve been through a lot. It’s felt like a lifetime. (Laughs.) A lifetime.

Oprah: So, your story with the prince does have a happy ending?

Meghan: It does.

Harry: Yeah.

Meghan: Yeah. (Laughs.) It really did.

Oprah: It has a happy ending because you made it so.

Meghan: Yeah, greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read.

Oprah: Greater than any fairytale.

Meghan: Yeah, yeah.

Oprah: What you’ve described here today — being trapped and not even being aware of it and all the things that had transpired, and then she comes into your life and then you’re doing therapy — do you think in some way she saved you?

Harry: Yeah. Without question. There was . . . there was a bigger purpose. There was other forces at play, I think, throughout this whole process. I’m the last person to think, ‘Ooh!’ You know? But it’s undeniable when these things have happened, where the overlap is. So yeah, she did. Without question she saved me.

Meghan: And I would . . . I would . . . I mean, I think that’s lovely. I would disagree. I think he saved all of us, right? He ultimately called it and was like, ‘We’ve got to find a way for us, for Archie’. And you made a decision that saved . . . certainly saved my life and saved all of us. But, you know, you need to want to be saved.

Oprah: Well, thank you for sharing your love story. We can’t wait for the big day some time this summer.

Meghan: Yes, indeed.

Oprah: Sometime this summer.

Meghan: Yeah.

Oprah: Thank you both for trusting me to share your story.

END OF THE INTERVIEW

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Oprah Winfrey meets Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle/Full text of the interview

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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

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

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


FOLLOWING THE STORY……
Smart Readers with interest in English medieval history have travelled withme to the first half of the fourteenth century, where we were Internet eyewitnessesof the feud between king Edward II and his cousin Thomas, Second Earlof Lancaster, which resulted in an open war, lost by…….
Read the former chapters

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

TWO

THREE

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

SO!Now you know who won and who lost
But was it a real victory?
I’ll deal with that in a next chapter
BUT FIRST THE SAD CONTINUATION OF CHAPTER SEVEN:
CHAPTER EIGHT

THE END

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

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

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

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

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

The humiliation could begin…….

THE TRAVEL

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

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

But that was not enough:

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

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

REVENGE OF THE KING

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

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

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

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

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

RECEPTION

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

TRIAL

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

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

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

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

See Chapter 10 ”Aftermath”

”Judges”:

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

The ”judges” were:

Thomas’ first cousin, King Edward II

The Despensers [father and son]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NICE FAMILY……..

Charges:

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

But that was not all:

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

Verdict:
A fourtheenth century scandal

One need not to be surprised about the verdict:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE OTHERS

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

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

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

LAST PASSAGE

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

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

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

Then Thomas uttered the words:

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

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

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

ASTRID ESSED

NOTES 1-250

NOTES 251-347

NOTES 348-400

NOTES 401-451

NOTES 452-503

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

Opgeslagen onder Divers

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