Posts Tagged ‘Lord Edward’

Sunday 28 December 1264: Woodstock and Kenilworth

Sunday, December 28th, 2014

This week, Henry III’s court moved from Worcester to Woodstock, where the king celebrated Christmas. It would seem that the arrangements for the feast were more lavish than usual: the sheriff of Oxfordshire supplied 30 oxen, 100 sheep, five boars and nine dozen fowls; salted venison was brought from Wiltshire; salmon and lampreys were sent from Gloucester; six tuns of new wine were transported from Bristol, thirteen tuns from Northampton; and the bailiff of Woodstock provided charcoal and brushwood. In all, purchases for the feast amounted to £205, more than double what Henry had spent the year before. Christmas robes would be provided for lord Edward’s wife, Eleanor, and her household. While the king was at Woodstock, he also ordered repairs for the wall of the park and his chaplains’ chamber, as well as the planting of 100 pear saplings. (CLR 1260-67, 152-66; Wild, ‘A captive king’, TCE XIII, 49; Close Rolls 1264-68, 8)

At Woodstock, there was yet another attempt to order the northern royalists to come to the king, with the assurance that the northern leaders loyal to Simon de Montfort would not molest them; this was linked to the promise of discussions about the liberation of lord Edward, who would not be required as a hostage now that peace had been restored. At the same time, de Montfort was given still more power and privilege. Porchester castle was committed to him; lord Edward was said to have granted to him the county, castle and honour of Chester; and the earl of Derby was instructed to deliver the castle of the Peak to de Montfort. (CPR 1258-66, 397-8)

According to one chronicle, while Henry held Christmas solemnly at Woodstock, Simon de Montfort celebrated in his own castle of Kenilworth, surrounded by many knights. He was said to have at least 140 paid knights in his household (another chronicle gives the number as 160), with many more, devoted to him, who joined him when he went to war. Fortune smiled on everything he did, and the whole of England, apart from the far north, was subject to him. Everything in the kingdom was controlled by de Montfort, and the king could do nothing without his supervision. (Flores, II, 504; Rishanger, in Ypodigma Neustriae, 537)

The battle well, on the hill outside Evesham, the traditional site of Simon de Montfort’s death in battle, on 4 August 1265.

The battle well, on the hill outside Evesham, the traditional site of Simon de Montfort’s death in battle, on 4 August 1265.

Year’s end

This is where we have to leave the year 1264, with Simon de Montfort at the peak of his success. He ruled the country, having defeated the king’s army, deterred the threat of invasion, withstood the threats of the papal legate, and finally imposed peace on the barons of the Marches. The king was his puppet, the heir to the crown his hostage. Representatives of the nobility, church, counties and towns had been summoned to the parliament which would meet in January 1265, to endorse the new regime’s programme, as set out in the Provisions of Westminster. The events of Christmas week, however, show the weaknesses of this apparent triumph. The royalists of the north continued to disregard de Montfort’s instructions. Magnates like the earl of Derby were being pushed aside. De Montfort and his family were appearing increasingly greedy and arrogant, monopolizing power and the spoils of victory. De Montfort was making enemies, and when lord Edward escaped from captivity, he was soon able to assemble the army which would defeat de Montfort at Evesham in August 1265.

Sunday 21 December 1264: cash and castles

Sunday, December 21st, 2014

The court spent the week at Worcester, where it covered its expenses by borrowing £40 from the bishop. The bailiffs of Worcester contributed £15 from the farm of the town. Hugh Despenser, the justiciar, lent another £40, which was paid to John de Grey, who had been keeper of Nottingham castle. This was an indicator of another success for the government. John de Grey had been holding the castle for the royalists, but had now made peace. In return, the government ordered William Marshal to hand back Grey’s lands in Northamptonshire, which Marshal had been occupying.

The city of Gloucester in the early fourteenth century. From BL Royal 13 A III, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s  Historia Regum Britanniae.

The city of Gloucester in the early fourteenth century. From BL Royal 13 A III, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae.

The government made further attempts to assert its control over key strongholds, committing Nottingham castle to Hugh Despenser, the justiciar, Gloucester castle to Simon de Montfort junior, Bridgnorth and Shrewsbury castles to Ralph Basset of Drayton, and Hereford castle to Peter de Montfort. The problem would be to convince the royalists who still held several castles to hand them over. Lord Edward, the king’s son, was said to have committed the castle and town of Bristol to Simon de Montfort senior, and to have received Ludgershall, in Wiltshire; as Edward was Simon’s prisoner, he may not have had much choice in this exchange. On the other hand, Edward’s captivity may not have been too unpleasant; he was sent 50 tuns of wine from the king’s wines in Nottingham castle. Although the marchers agreed to make peace, plundering and disorder continued. The marcher leaders were offered safe conduct to go to Kenilworth to meet lord Edward, and again ordered to release prisoners they had taken at Northampton. (CPR 1258-66, 394-7, 475; Close Rolls 1264-68, 83-4; CLR 1260-67, 151, 154; CFR 1264-65, 630-7; Foedera, I, I, 449)

Preparations began for the king to celebrate Christmas at Evesham. The sheriffs of London were to arrange for the transport of supplies for the king’s wardrobe, such as wax, robes, napkins and towels. (CLR 1260-67, 153)

Sunday 23 November 1264: two Eleanors

Sunday, November 23rd, 2014

The court spent most of this week at Windsor, and at the end of the week began the planned move towards Northampton, reaching St Albans on 23 November.

Although the threat of invasion had largely dissipated, and the forces assembled by queen Eleanor had dispersed, the government continued to take precautions. The authorities in Winchelsea were instructed to continue guarding the Channel, and to prevent anyone crossing without permission. Any suspect arrivals from overseas were to be arrested and detained. It would appear that there was some justification for such measures: a ship belonging to the abbot of St Mary’s, Dublin, had been forced by rough seas to land at Yarmouth, Isle of Wight; the ship and its sailors were being held there because the bailiffs of the island had suspicions about a knight on the ship, who was being transported from Dieppe to Ireland with letters addressed to Irish magnates. (Close Rolls 1264-68, 80-1)

Preparations continued for further negotiations in France, with king Louis, the legate and queen Eleanor. The king of France’s envoys were expecting to meet an English delegation at Wissant, and escort them to the king. The French envoys were asked to wait, as the English negotiators were going with the court to meet lord Edward. The dean of Wells was then given safe conduct to go to France as an envoy. The dean was armed with a set of letters in king Henry’s name to Louis and the queen of France, queen Eleanor, Peter of Savoy, and the legate. Louis, Eleanor and Peter were asked to prevent the sale or alienation of royal rights and properties — a reference, presumably, to Eleanor’s attempts to raise money for her invasion force. The legate was asked to exercise mercy and kindness, rather than ecclesiastical coercion. The letter to Eleanor included a more personal opening paragraph, perhaps from the king himself rather than the council which spoke on his behalf: ‘Know that we and Edward our firstborn son are healthy and unharmed … we have firm hope of having secure and good peace in our kingdom, for which you may be cheerful and delighted.’ (CPR 1258-66, 388, 473-4; Foedera, I, I, 448)

Matthew Paris reports the death of William Marshal junior in 1231, showing his arms reversed. Marshal’s death left Eleanor a widow at the age of 16; she married Simon de Montfort in 1238.

Matthew Paris reports the death of William Marshal junior in 1231, showing his arms reversed. Marshal’s death left Eleanor a widow at the age of 16; she married Simon de Montfort in 1238. From BL Royal 14 C VII.

The government continued to pay special attention to the interests of the de Montfort family. Eleanor de Montfort had long complained that she had not received the full dower to which she was entitled, following the death of her first husband, William Marshal junior, earl of Pembroke. This dispute had helped to embitter relations between the de Montforts and Henry III. There was now to be an inquiry into Eleanor’s complaints against the king, by the bishops of Worcester and London, Hugh Despenser the justiciar, and Peter de Montfort. With such committed supporters of the regime to conduct the inquiry, its conclusions must have seemed rather predictable. (CPR 1258-66, 388-9; Wilkinson, Eleanor de Montfort, 106-7)

Sunday 16 November 1264: marchers and merchants

Sunday, November 16th, 2014

The court moved to Windsor this week, but preparations continued for a further move, to Northampton. The sheriff of Cambridge was instructed to send 20 tuns of wine to Northampton, in readiness for the king’s arrival. The Dunstable annals record that the king, on the advice of the barons, sent letters to every county, summoning all those who owed military service to be ready with horses and arms at Northampton by 25 November. The government was evidently preparing to take on the marcher lords who had seized the castles of Gloucester, Bridgnorth and Marlborough, and sacked Hereford on 10 November. (CLR 1260-67, 147-8; Ann Mon, III, 234-5)

Wallingford castle

Wallingford castle

About this time, the royalists who held Bristol castle made a daring attempt to free lord Edward and Richard of Cornwall from captivity at Wallingford. Led by Warin of Bassingbourn, some 300 men dashed across southern England undetected, and surprised the garrison of Wallingford. The attackers breached the outer defences of the castle, but withdrew empty-handed when the defenders threatened to throw Edward out of the castle, using a mangonel. Simon de Montfort then had the royal hostages moved to greater safety, in his own castle of Kenilworth. (Robert of Gloucester, II, 751-2; Flores, II, 503)

While the court was at Windsor, the king and his advisors made a generous gesture, which seems rather extravagant at a time when cash was in short supply. The king’s master carpenter at Windsor castle, Ralph Burnel, had died in 1262. The post, with 3d. a day in wages, had then been granted to his son, Thomas Burnel. It was now recorded that Thomas was not a carpenter, and therefore could not fill the office; nevertheless, in recognition of his father’s long service, he was still to be paid 3d. a day, for life. (CPR 1258-66, 202, 387)

The countess of Flanders wrote again to Henry III, requesting that he ensure that Flemish merchants were protected in England, as English merchants were in Flanders. Henry was asked not to allow violence or injury to merchants, their goods or their ships, so that merchants could freely enter England, do business, and return to Flanders. (Diplomatic Documents, I, 271) A reason for the countess’s concern may be indicated by the chronicler Thomas Wykes. He was a royalist, perhaps connected to Richard of Cornwall, and tended to stress the failings of the de Montfort regime. He presents, in rather lurid terms, what must have been a real problem, with overseas trade disrupted by the preparations for defence against invasion. According to Wykes, the sailors of the Cinque Ports turned to piracy, patrolling the coasts, seizing any ships they came across, cutting the throats of those on board and throwing their bodies into the sea. As a result, there were shortages of imported goods. The price of wine went up from 40s. to 10 marks; a pound of pepper which was hardly worth 6d. was sold for 3s. In addition, Henry de Montfort seized all the wool which merchants were bringing to the ports, so that he was commonly called a wool-merchant rather than a knight. (Ann Mon, IV, 157-9)

Sunday 5 October 1264: undelivered letters

Sunday, October 5th, 2014

Pope Urban IV died on 2 October, which formally ended Guy Foulquois’ appointment as papal legate, although the news would obviously take some time to reach the legate in northern France. The legate’s attempts to impose a settlement between the Montfortian government and the royalist exiles, led by the queen, had effectively collapsed. Queen Eleanor’s representatives had withdrawn from the talks, saying that the queen was outraged that nothing had been said about the hostages, her son and nephew. On 3 October, the representatives of the baronial government, the bishops of Winchester and London, also withdrew for further deliberations, taking with them a letter from the legate to the bishops of England. This ordered the bishops to announce the excommunication of the leading barons and of the citizens of London and the Cinque Ports, unless they had submitted to the legate’s demands within fifteen days. These demands included a complex scheme for arbitration, overseen by the legate, which would have required the barons to surrender Dover castle and the hostages – terms which were clearly unacceptable to the barons. The bishops were also ordered not to pay the tenth or any other form of subsidy to the baronial government. In any event, the legate’s letters never reached their destination; the citizens of Dover seized them, tore them up and threw them into the sea. (Heidemann, register, 43-4; Flores, II, 501)

Castle and ship, from BL Royal 10 E IV, the Smithfield Decretals.

Castle and ship, from BL Royal 10 E IV, the Smithfield Decretals.

The traditional enmity between the sailors of the Cinque Ports and those of Yarmouth had broken out again. The government intervened on the side of the Cinque Ports, which were playing a crucial role in the defence of the south-east coast against a possible landing by the forces which queen Eleanor had assembled across the Channel. They were to be compensated for any losses caused by the men of Yarmouth, as the men of the Cinque Ports were ‘labouring manfully about the defence of the sea and the maritime parts against the invasion of aliens’. Hostages from Yarmouth were to be delivered to the sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, who would hold them in Norwich castle, as security against disorder breaking out at Yarmouth fair. The sheriff was to ensure that the arguments between the Cinque Ports and Yarmouth did not lead to new contentions and grievances at the fair, while the burgesses of Yarmouth were warned to keep the peace, or ‘the king will betake himself so grievously to them that they and their heirs shall thenceforward feel themselves aggrieved in no small measure.’ (CPR 1258-66, 352, 372-3)
The liberate roll contains a passing reference to a sad event. Lord Edward, the king’s son, was still being held as a hostage. At this time, the only child of Edward and Eleanor of Castile was Katherine, of whom we know only that she was born some time between 1261 and 1263, and died in September 1264. The king’s almoner paid 4 marks for two cloths of gold adorned with wheels for the use of Katherine, Edward’s deceased daughter. The almoner also received £40 for making offerings on the day of Katherine’s funeral. Some of the usual pieties were evidently being observed, even while Edward was a captive. (CLR 1260-67,143; Morris, A Great and Terrible King, 73)

Sunday 13 April 1264: Looting, burning and murder

Sunday, April 13th, 2014

Following the capture of Northampton, Henry moved rapidly towards Leicester and Nottingham, burning and wasting the manors of his baronial enemies. At Nottingham, he entered the castle without opposition. Following his military successes in the Midlands, the king needed to ensure that he maintained control of the area through reliable sheriffs and castellans. The fine roll shows that, while Henry was in Northampton, he committed the county and the castle to his supporters. A few days later, in Nottingham, he made similar appointments for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Warwickshire and Leicestershire, and for Nottingham castle. 

Two royalist commanders, Roger of Leybourne and John de Warenne, the earl of Surrey, had been sent south to hold Rochester and Reigate castles. Meanwhile, lord Edward was leading another force into Derbyshire and Staffordshire, pillaging the estates of Robert de Ferrers, and destroying his castle of Tutbury. He was also engaging in extortion, demanding £200 to spare the wapentake of Wirksworth in Derbyshire; the Dunstable annals record that the prior of Dunstable had to contribute £10 towards this. In the words of a chronicler with baronial sympathies, wherever the armies of the king and Edward went, they were followed by three companions – looting, burning and murder. The only success for the barons was the capture of Warwick castle, using Simon de Montfort’s siege engines from his nearby castle of Kenilworth. (CFR 1263-64, nos. 94-100; Guisborough, 191; Ann Mon, III, 230; Flores, II, 489; London annals, 61-2) 

The baronial party was also guilty of atrocities. Simon de Montfort and many other prominent rebels were in London at the end of March, when they swore an oath of mutual support with the citizens of London. Some of these barons went immediately to Northampton, where they were captured, as we saw last week. The main baronial force had set out from London to support the defenders of Northampton, but had been too late. Henry had taken the town before they reached St Albans. They turned back, and in this week, which was the week before Palm Sunday, they embarked on a massacre of the Jewish community in London. At about the same time, Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, who had only recently declared his support for the barons, led an attack on the Jews of Canterbury. (Ann Mon, III, 230; Gervase of Canterbury, II, 235)

The Dunstable annals report rumours that the Jews of London were preparing to betray the citizens: they had Greek fire to burn the city, copies of the keys to the city gates, and subterranean passages to each gate. Such tales were used to excuse an outbreak of looting and murder. One chronicler says that the Jews were suspected of betraying the barons and citizens, and almost all were killed. Another says that the Jewish quarter was pillaged, and any Jews who were caught were stripped, robbed and murdered. Estimates of the number killed range from 200 to 500, with the remainder forcibly converted or imprisoned (or, looking at it another way, the rest were saved by the justices and the mayor, who sent them to the Tower for protection). The chronicler Wykes, who tended to be less favourable to the baronial party, singled out the baronial leader John fitz John, who was said to have killed the leading Jew, Kok son of Abraham, with his own hands, and seized his treasure. Fitz John was then forced to share the proceeds with Simon de Montfort. It is possible that de Montfort was taking the Jewish treasure, not to enrich himself, but to finance his forces. At the same time, the cash of Italian and French merchants, deposited in religious houses around London, was also seized and taken to the city. (Ian Stone, ‘The rebel barons of 1264 and the commune of London’, EHR, CXXIX (2014), 1-18; Flores, II, 489; Cronica Maiorum, 62; Ann Mon, III, 230, and IV, 142-3)

Sunday 16 March 1264: Oxford, Gloucester and London

Sunday, March 16th, 2014

Henry III stayed in Oxford all week, waiting for his followers to respond to the summons he had sent out. He sent the students away, as many undisciplined men (indomiti) would be coming to the town. Henry would not be able to guarantee the safety of the clerks in an armed camp; in addition, his troops would presumably need to take over the students’ accommodation. We know the names of some of those who were already with him, because there is an entry on the charter roll from 14 March, the first charter to be recorded since December. The witnesses who were present in Oxford include earl Richard, Hugh Bigod, Philip Basset, Roger Leybourne, Warin de Bassingbourn, Roger Mortimer and James Audley – some of the leading royalist commanders. (Foedera, I, 1, 435; Royal Charter Witness Lists of Henry III)

The fine roll this week shows that Henry was losing such support as he had had in Wales. Back in 1257, he had granted the manors of Market Harborough, Great Bowden and Kingsthorpe to the Welsh magnate Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn. This was a reward for Gruffydd’s service to the king and lord Edward, against the rising power of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd. Gruffydd lost his lands and chattels in Powys during the war in Wales, but he and his family would be sustained by these English manors. In 1263, Gruffydd evidently saw which way the wind was blowing, and deserted the king’s cause, to attach himself to Llywelyn. Henry responded on 14 March, taking away Gruffydd’s manors, committing them to be managed by the men of those manors instead. (CFR 1257-58, no. 140; CPR 1247-58, 560, 608; CFR 1263-64, nos. 87-8)

Lord Edward began the week trapped in Gloucester castle, with baronial forces holding the town, and the troops of Robert de Ferrers approaching, following their sack of Worcester. In Robert of Gloucester’s verses:

Then they saw out of the tower the earl Robert of Ferrers
At the town’s end come, with noble men and fierce,
From the direction of Tewkesbury, armed well each one,
Horse and men, all ready battle to do anon.
When sir Edward saw this, nothing was he glad,
For it was said that he was not so sore afraid of any one.

Bishop Walter de Cantilupe negotiated a ceasefire between Edward and Henry de Montfort, much to Ferrers’ annoyance. Edward promised to arrange terms for peace by 13 March. De Montfort’s baronial forces withdrew from the town, under the terms of the agreement, which Edward promptly disregarded, ‘with foxlike cunning.’ Edward occupied the town, imprisoned the leading citizens and extorted a large ransom. The gatekeepers who had been tricked into letting the baronial forces into Gloucester were hanged from the west gate. The ransom was said to be £1,000; Roger Clifford, the royalist constable of Gloucester castle, was ordered to send £100 of this directly to the king. The king did take steps to negotiate with his opponents: on 13 March he appointed proctors to seek Simon de Montfort and negotiate with him, in the presence of a French envoy. (Church Historians, V, 365-6; Ann Mon, III, 228; Flores Hist, II, 487; Close Rolls 1261-64, 336-7; Foedera, I, 1, 436)

London remained hostile to the king. It is notable that he had avoided the capital when he travelled from Rochester to Oxford. The city was controlled by baronial sympathizers, who appointed a constable and marshal to command the Londoners. The Tower appears to have been in the hands of Hugh Despenser, who had been appointed Justiciar (the chief administrative and judicial officer) and keeper of the Tower by the baronial council in 1260-61. Despenser had returned to these offices in 1263, when de Montfort was briefly in control. Although he ceased to function as Justiciar in October 1263, as Henry re-asserted his authority, Despenser seems to have kept control of the Tower. This week, Despenser and the Londoners attacked and plundered earl Richard’s manor of Isleworth, and destroyed his house in Westminster. The London mob also ‘ravaged with fire and destruction’ the estates of other royalists, including Philip Basset. Basset was one of the charter witnesses with the king in Oxford; he was also Despenser’s father-in-law, and had replaced him as Justiciar between 1261 and 1263. The Londoners are said to have attacked and imprisoned the king’s clerks, the barons of the Exchequer and the justices of the Bench. Henry responded by imposing sanctions (as we would now say): the constable of Windsor castle was to prevent supplies reaching London by boat, cart or pack-horse; royalist supporters were not to pay debts owed to burgesses who held their manors, which were to be seized by the sheriff of Kent. (Cronica Maiorum, 61; Ann Mon, IV, 140-1; Flores Hist, II, 487; Close Rolls 1261-64, 375-6)

Sunday 9 March 1264: summoning an army

Sunday, March 9th, 2014

After a relatively quiet few weeks, Henry III had a sudden burst of activity. He moved from Rochester, via Windsor and Reading, to Oxford. He resumed control of the machinery of government. And he summoned his supporters to prepare for all-out war.

Henry arrived in Oxford at a difficult time. There had been violent riots, following conflict in 1263 between the university and the city authorities over scholars’ immunity from arrest. Henry had written to the chancellor and the mayor from Rochester on 28 February, supporting arbitration, and ordering the scholars to remain peacefully in the town. According to Robert of Gloucester, further troubles broke out just before the king’s arrival, on the first Thursday in Lent (6 March). (History of the University of Oxford, I, 128-9; CPR 1258-66, 383; Church Historians, V, 364)

C60-61_m5_returnK

The fine roll records the king’s return. There are similar headings in the patent, close and liberate rolls during this week. The second entry here, ‘De homagio’, concerns the de Vere inheritance.

Although Henry had returned to England on 15 February, it was not until this week that the Chancery rolls recorded his return. His brother Richard stopped authorizing writs, and it was Henry himself who witnessed entries on the rolls from 4 March onwards.

The second fine roll entry which Henry witnessed concerned the earl of Oxford’s estates. Hugh de Vere, earl of Oxford, had died in December 1263. His estates had been taken into the king’s hands, to be administered by William of Axmouth (along with much else, as we have recently seen). The heir, Robert de Vere, had now done homage for Hedingham castle and all his father’s other possessions, which were to be handed over to him. If this was an attempt to win support from the new earl, it failed: de Vere fought with the baronial forces at the battle of Lewes; he was one of the young men whom de Montfort knighted on the eve of the battle. (CFR 1263-64, no. 80)

While he was at Windsor on 6 March, Henry sent letters to some 120 nobles and knights, instructing them to gather at Oxford at the end of March, with their followers, with horses and arms. Similar letters went to the bishops and abbots, and to the sheriffs of each county, who were to provide their due military service. The nominal reason for this summons was to deal with Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, who was occupying the lands of the king and Edward, occupying and destroying their castles. There was a hint of the real reason in a note in the close roll after the list of those summoned: ‘Those who are against the king are not written to.’ There was also a hint of the king’s actual target: he appointed John Lovel as constable of Northampton castle, and ordered Roger of Walton, who held it for the barons, to hand it over to Lovel. (Close Rolls 1261-64, 377-80; CPR 1258-66, 306)

Those against the king had taken the town of Gloucester, as we saw two weeks ago. Lord Edward, after capturing Humphrey de Bohun junior’s castles, moved rapidly to the rescue of the royalist garrison in Gloucester castle, which continued to hold out. Edward forced his way into the castle, getting past the baronial besiegers either by repairing the bridge over the Severn, which had been burned, or by taking a ship belonging to the abbot of Tewkesbury. (Flores Hist, II, 486-7; Ann Mon, II, 227; Church Historians, V, 365)

Sunday 24 February 1264: writs and verse

Sunday, February 23rd, 2014

Henry III’s return to England seems somewhat muted after the successful completion, from his point of view, of the arbitration by Louis IX. Henry spent this week in Canterbury, accompanied by Hugh Bigod and Roger Leybourne, who had gone to France to urge his return. Henry’s only recorded activity consists of a few writs issued in Canterbury: an order to the authorities in Dover to obey Leybourne’s bailiff, a writ in favour of a Canterbury church, and some minor grants for the benefit of members of his entourage.  Henry had not even resumed control of the machinery of government. The clerks of the Chancery remained with earl Richard in Hereford, where they recorded writs and fines made on his authority. (CPR 1258-66, 381-2; Close Rolls 1261-64, 335; CFR 1263-64, no. 77)

Richard was a good deal closer to the significant events of this period. Confused fighting and pillaging was going on in the Welsh Marches and Midlands. Simon de Montfort’s sons Henry and Simon junior were attacking the lands of the Marcher lords, taking Thomas Corbet’s castle at Radnor and Roger Mortimer’s castle at Wigmore. (Gervase of Canterbury, II, 233) Richard was trying to provide financial support for the royalist forces, commanded by lord Edward: the city authorities in Worcester, Shrewsbury and Hereford were instructed to anticipate the next two instalments of the farm of those towns, and pay it in advance to Edward; they were to do this without fail, ‘to despatch certain most urgent business of the king, for which he is at present in great need of money.’ (CLR 1260-67, 131)

The 1264 pipe roll shows that the citizens of Worcester did indeed pay the £30 they owed for the annual farm of their town to lord Edward, for carrying out the king’s business. (E 372/108 rot 10d) Shrewsbury also provided Edward with £30, although this was not recorded until 1267.  (E 372/111 rot 6) Herefordshire accounted a year later, covering all the transactions of the past seven years – the Exchequer did its best keep track of what it was owed, even in these turbulent times – and recorded that the citizens of Hereford provided Edward with £40 for carrying out the king’s business in Wales. (E 372/112 rot 11d)

Edward was thus able to pay and provision his troops. He joined forces with Mortimer, and captured Humphrey de Bohun’s castles at Hay and Huntington. (Flores Hist, II, 486) But he was too late to prevent a remarkable coup by the baronial forces in Gloucester. The king had committed Gloucestershire to Roger de Clifford, and ordered him to hold the strategically important bridge over the Severn. His local rival, John Giffard of Brimpsfield, supported de Montfort. The English verse chronicle attributed to Robert of Gloucester gives this account, translated into modern English (or at least 19th-century English) by Joseph Stevenson (Church Historians, V, 363):

And sir Roger de Clifford kept Gloucester also,
And at each end of the town placed a good watch.
Sir John Giffard came one day, and sir John de Balun there,
Riding upon two woolpacks, merchants as if they were,
To the west gate over the bridge, and asked the porters,
To let two woolmongers bring in their merchandise.
Covered they both were with two Welsh mantles.
When the gates were undone they both hopped down
From their horses, and cast their mantles away anon,
And then they stood armed from the head to the toes.
Then were the porters sore afraid at that sight,
And threw them the keys, glad that they might. …
Then the barons had the town, and the king had the castle.

It is not often that a source for 13th-century history reads more like a ballad of the adventures of Robin Hood.

Sunday 27 January, 1264: two kings, two saints, and two castles

Sunday, January 26th, 2014
Henry and Louis

Henry III meets Louis IX in 1259. British Library MS Royal 16 G VI.

Henry III spent another week in Amiens, and was at last rewarded when Louis IX delivered his verdict on the competing cases put to him by the king and his baronial opponents. This decision, known as the Mise of Amiens, was announced on 23 January.1

The Mise begins with letters from the royal and baronial parties, written in December 1263, submitting their differences to Louis for his arbitration, and swearing to abide by his decision. The letters describe their dispute as concerning ‘the provisions, ordinances, statutes and all other obligations of Oxford.’ Louis then states that he had heard and understood both cases, and gives his conclusions: the provisions had harmed the rights and honour of the king, and disturbed the realm; Louis quashed and invalidated the provisions, as the pope had already done; all castles should be restored to the king; the king should appoint and dismiss his officials as he wished; foreigners should be allowed to stay in the realm, and to provide counsel to the king; the king should have full power and free authority in his kingdom, as he did before the provisions, subject to the charters and liberties which were in force before the provisions; and the king and the barons should be reconciled.

Louis had effectively awarded Henry everything he wanted (apart from his financial demands). The Mise turned the clock back to 1258, before the Provisions of Oxford, although it retained Magna Carta and the forest charter as limits to the king’s power.

Two saints

Henry led his own delegation to Amiens, to put his case in person to his fellow-monarch. The barons’ leader, Simon de Montfort, being detained in England by a broken leg, the baronial side was represented by William Marshal, Adam of Newmarket, Peter de Montfort and Thomas de Cantilupe. Cantilupe may well have drafted the baronial statement. He was an intellectual from an aristocratic background, a former chancellor of Oxford university. He was briefly to become Chancellor for the de Montfort regime, and from 1275 bishop of Hereford. Cantilupe died in 1282. Many miracles were attributed to him, including the resuscitation of a hanged man, and he was canonized in 1320. The Mise of Amiens was thus delivered by the future Saint Louis, rejecting the arguments of the future Saint Thomas of Hereford.2

Two castles

The Chancery at home was still quiet, with few fines or writs to record. But there were indications that, despite the apparent settlement announced at Amiens, the royalist party in England was continuing to prepare for hostilities.

On 20 January, an order was issued at Windsor by Edward, the king’s son, and Henry of Almain, son of Richard of Cornwall. This would seem to indicate that Edward had returned from France before the mise. (Or that he had not actually accompanied his father – could the chronicler who reported his presence on their rough sea voyage, noted on 6 January, have meant Edmund rather than Edward?) Roger of Leybourne, as sheriff of Kent, was to pay  200 marks to himself, in one of his other roles, as constable of Rochester castle. He was to equip the castle ‘and do other things enjoined on him.’3

On 26 January, the Exchequer carried out the audit of the accounts of Alan la Zuche, sheriff of Northampton. The completion of the sheriff’s accounting, the sum, was later deferred because he was detained on the king’s arduous business’. This included the provision of munitions for Northampton castle. He was instructed to spend whatever was reasonably necessary, and the inspectors of the works told the Exchequer that he had spent £110, out of the county’s revenues. He had to wait for this account to be settled. A writ to cover this expenditure of £110 was issued in January 1267, and the amount was included in his authorized expenditure for 1263-64, when he finally came to account in the 1266 pipe roll.4

Both Rochester and Northampton castles were to play significant roles in the next few months.

  1. Documents of the Baronial Movement, no. 38.
  2. R.C. Finucane, ‘Cantilupe, Thomas de [St Thomas of Hereford] (c. 1220-1282)’, ODNB. Robert Bartlett, The Hanged Man.
  3. CLR 1260-67, 131.
  4. E 159/38 m. 7, 4d. CLR 1260-67, 256. E 372/110 rot. 3.