Astrid Essed
← Gesloten Gezinsvoorziening Kamp Zeist/Brief aan Amnesty International over medeplichtigheid aan Asielbeleid
Verdediging van Gezinsgevangenis door Amnesty International/Reactie op antwoord Amnesty International →
augustus 9, 2018 · 10:38 pm
The Treaty of Leake/700 years anniversary of the Fake reconciliation of two royal enemies/Edward II and his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Plantagenet,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster
THOMAS 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER
Thomas of Lancaster's main possessions (Maddicott).
THOMAS OF LANCASTER'S MAIN POSSESSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster
MURDER OF PIERS GAVESTON,
INTIMATE FRIEND ANS
[POSSIBLE] LOVER OF KING EDWARD II, UNDER THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE EARLS OF LANCASTER, WARWICK, HEREFORD AND ARUNDEL
https://themortimersblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-royal-traitor-the-life-execution-of-thomas-of-lancaster-a-guest-post-by-stephen-spinks/
PONTEFRACT CASTLE, THOMAS OF LANCASTER'S FAVOURITE
CASTLE [INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW, HENRY DE LACY, 3TH EARL OF
LINCOLN, AT HIS DEATH IN 1311]
IN HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE HIS SOCALLED "TRIAL" TOOK
PLACE AND NEAR HIS FAVOURITE CASTLE, IRONICALLY, HE WAS EXECUTED
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontefract_Castle
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 LANCASTER
AND HIS HOUSEHOLD, IN AT PONTEFRACT IN 1317 AND 1320, WHEN HE
PASSED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH…..
COAT OF ARMS OF EDMUND CROUCHBACK [SON OF
KING HENRY III, BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I AND
FATHER OF THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER], THOMAS,
EARL OF LANCASTER AND HIS SUCCESSORS
King Edward II met Thomas Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster, at Leake and together they "signed" the Treaty
KING EDWARD AND HIS REBEL COUSIN, THOMAS OF LANCASTER,
WHO SIGNED THE TREATY OF LEAKE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Leake
http://www.ladydespensersscribery.com/tag/treaty-of-leake/
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-treaty-of-leake-700-years-anniversary-of-the-fake-reconciliation-of-two-royal-enemies-edward-ii-and-his-cousin-thomas-of-lancaster/
THE TREATY OF LEAKE/700 YEARS ANNIVERSARY OF THE
FAKE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN TWO
ROYAL ENEMIES/EDWARD II AND HIS COUSIN, THOMAS OF LANCASTER
9 AUGUST 1318- 9 AUGUST 2018
700 YEARS ANNIVERSARY OF THE TREATY OF LEAKE!
Here is your Companion at the travelling to Medieval Times again
and this time she is EXTRA thrilled!
Because she is writing this TODAY, 9 AUGUST 2018,
when it is exactly 700 YEARS AGO, when King Edward II and his royal cousin
and enemy rival to Power, Thomas of Lancaster
[about whom I wrote a sort of mini book
[HAHAHA] [1] signed the Treaty of Leake [2], at Leake, a village
in Nottinghamshire with the meaning
of ending up their enmities.
QUOD NON!
Within four years this whole thing would blow up, one of them
would meet a tragic end and the other….well, it
did not work out for him nicely, as well…..
Read this fascinating story also in my "mini book", [3]
TALK BY THE HISTORIAN KATHRYN WARNER
So in underlying I write something about this Treaty, exactly 700 years later [how many times you have such a great
opportunity!.], but very interesting is the talk of the historian
and writer Kathryn Warner, in the village
of East Leake [yes the Place of "Reconciliation"!] to mark the 700th anniversary,
together with an other historian, Keith Hodgkinson. [4]
Kathryn Warner is a very skilled historian and a great expert
about the reign of Edward II and wrote a number of interesting
books about that period [including
one about king Richard II, greatgrandson of
Edward II] [5], soon followed by more! [6]
Very worth reading for people who are interested
in English fourteentyh century history.
Well Readers, here I come
Travel with me to those fascinating times…….
TREATY OF LEAKE/KING EDWARD II AND HIS
COUSIN, WARLORD THOMAS OF LANCASTER
To try to understand the background of the Treaty
of Leake, one must start a search through
personal and political ambitions, favouritism of Kings
and how dangerous that can be and the choices people make….
EDWARD II AND THOMAS OF LANCASTER/
King Edward II, before his reign known as "Edward of
Caernarfon" [called after the Castle of
Caernarfon, in North Wales, where he was born
in 1284] was the son of King Edward I and succeded
his father to the throne in 1307. [7]
Thomas of Lancaster was his first cousin [Thomas'
father, Edmund Crouchback, was the younger brother
of King Edward I] [8] and was born around
1278 or 1279. [9]
A man of royal importance, not only from his father's
side, but his mother was Blanche of Artois, a French
noblewoman, related to the French royal House.
She was the granddaughter of the French King Louis
VIII and the niece of the better known king Louis IX
["Saint Louis", because of his obsession with the Crusades
he joined twice. "Saint Louis"" younger brother, Robert I, Count of Artois,
was Blanche of Artois' father] [10]
No wonder, with such a glorious Family Tree, it went
to Thomas' head and he ultimately wanted the throne for himself!
Back to Thomas' career
The beginning was well, given Medieval standards.
He did a qualified job in fighting in the Scottish wars of
his uncle, Edward I [11], and his uncle arranged a very
profitable marriage with a rich heiress [only child, her brothers
died an untimely death], Alice de Lacy [12], daughter of
Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln [13], who was very
loyal to Edward I.
As I said, the marriage was very profitable to Thomas:
Alice de Lacy was a rich heiress, who
inherited the earldom of Lincoln from her father Henry and the earldom of Salisbury from her mother Margaret Longespee [14],
which gave Thomas [who controlled her lands, as was Medieval
English custom], an annual income of about 10,000 marks (£6666)
[much, much money in that time!] [15]
After his cousin Edward II [later King] he was the richest man in
the land and the greatest landowner, because besides the
Earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury, he had inherited from his
father Edmund Crouchback, the Earldoms Lancaster, Leicester and Derby! [16]
So it is not hard to imagine, that this royal cousin could pose
a great threath, when he was against you!
That being said, unfortunately the marriage became disastrous [17]
and there were no children, although Kathryn Warner discovered,
that Alice de Lacy at least must have been pregnant one time,
to no avail, alas. [18]
Thomas on the other hand had at least two illegitimate sons. [19]
RELATIONSHIP OF EDWARD II AND COUSIN THOMAS
And contrary to what you Readers will think,
following this story, they were no enemies from the start,
but on very good terms [20], which makes the story the more
tragic.
Edward of Caernarfon, then still heir to the throne, wrote
in 1305 the following letter to his cousin Thomas:
" "To the earl of Lancaster, greetings and dear affection. Very dear cousin, we hold you well excused that you have not come to us, and your illness weighs heavily on us, and if we can come to you we will do it gladly, to see and to comfort you. Very dear cousin, may our lord etc [have you in his keeping]. Given as above [in Windsor park, 22 September 1305] [21]
I think it is a touching letter of real concern about Thomas' illness.
This closeness continued after Edward became king of England in July 1307.
At the coronation of Edward II, Thomas carried the sword Curtana. [22]
In the first sixteen months of Edward's reign, Thomas was
in almost constant attendance on Edward and he was one of only a handful of men , who remained loyal to Edward II in the spring of 1308 when the majority of the barons were pressing for King's favourite, close friend and possible lover, Piers Gaveston's exile. [23]
That's remarkable, given the fact, that later, Thomas would
become one of the worst enemies of King's favourite
Piers Gaveston, with deadly consequences.
However, something went terribly wrong between the two
powerful cousins:
In November 1308, Thomas appears to have abruptly left court; he witnessed no more charters after this date until March 1310, and the constant flow of grants and favours to him from Edward also ceased.
Historian Kathryn Warner informs us, that there is
no evidence of an argument between Edward II and cousin
in any chronicle [24], but for some reason Thomas, who had previously been on amicable terms with Piers Gaveston
and supported the King, when others demanded the exile
of Piers Gaveston, became implacably opposed to Piers' return from Ireland, where Piers was sent in 1308 under pressure of his enemies
under the nobility. [25]
And then the relations between Edward and his powerful cousin
detoriated more and more….
The absolute breaking point between the two men was
the hunting down of the fleeing Edward II and his favourite Piers
Gaveston [26] [after his return from his third exile, while
the by most nobles supported Ordinances, except three, [27] demanded,
that he never set foot in England again [28].
This hunting down was organised by Thomas
of Lancaster and Guy Beachamp, 10th Earl of Warwick,
but to be fair, most nobles were involved in this [29].
To cut a long story short:
The whole thing ended eventually in
in the summary execution of poor Piers Gaveston
by Thomas of Lancaster, together with Guy Beauchamp, 10th
Earl of Warwick, Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford
[and brother in law of King Edward II, married to his sister
Elizabeth Plantagenet] and Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of
Arundel. [30]
Who wants to read the whole Piers Gaveston tragedy,
see Chapter Four of my mini-book "Thomas of
Lancaster, rebel cousin of King Edward II/From warlord to
Saint. [31]
O BITTER IRONY!
Probably Piers Gaveston didn't return from his third exile
to provoke the nobiliy, ad he had done before [32],
but for the birth of his daughter! [Edward had married him
off to his niece Margaret de Clare, daughter of his sister,
Joan of Acre] [33]
INTERESTING, HENRY OF LANCASTER
Before going through with this tragedy, this:
Thomas also had a younger brother, Henry [the later Earl Henry,
3rd Earl of Lancaster] [34], who was, in my eyes,
an honourable man:
Far less ambitious and bloodthirsty than most of his
collegue noblemen, he was also a Family man, who rather was
with his Family [wife and children, here], than mingle himself
in the adventures and ambitions of his brother, although
he was certainly loyal and attached to him, as later events showed,[35]
But not only he was honourable, less warlike then his brother
and yet attached to him, he was, most of his life, loyal
to his cousin King Edward, although he never betrayed
his brother. [36]
AND he was a man, who could wait untill the time was ripe,
to act. [37]
In that he also differed from his impulsive and hot headed brother.
A compex nature, worth studying.
Readers, read the coming Book of Kathryn Warner, "Blood Roses",
which gives more details about this Henry of Lancaster! [38]
In due time I write an article about him.
Worth reading about this man, whose importance is
often underestimated in history, seen the fact he is one of
the ancestors of Edward IV of Englanf and through his daughter
[married with Henry VII] of all subsequent English Kings! [39]
THOMAS OF LANCASTER/DE FACTO KING FROM
I don't have to tell you, readers, that the death, in fact murder'
of the so by Edward beloved Piers Gaveston, was the bitter
seed for an impacable feud with his murderers, first of
all his powerful cousin, Thomas of Lancaster.
Although Edward was, due to political circumstances,
the great power of Thomas of Lancaster and
the threat to civil war [all those rebellious
nobles had their private armies and when a King
is pursued by his own nobles, you have an idea,
where the power lies….],
was compelled to pardon Thomas and the others, involved in
murder on Piers Gaveston [40], he would
never forgive, nor forget.
Years later he said:
" "When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers." [41]
Anyway, wishful thinking [from Edward] is not always
achievable, at least not at the very moment.
England faced the threat of the Scots in the North and
in an effort to regain his prestige, he confronted the Scots
But since Lancaster [and other Lords] didn't intend
to strengten Edward"s power they had tried to diminish
by the Ordinances [42], many of them, of course Thomas
included, refused to accompany the King to the Scottish
campaign at Bannockburn and to fulfill the minimum of
his feudal obligations, sent only four knights and four men-at-arms!
A humiliating defeat at Bannockburn [44], which put
Edward II to Lancaster"s mercy……[45]
This was the beginning of a long period, in which
Lancaster was the de facto ruler in England and he and his
cousin Edward II played with each other like a Cat
with a Mouse. [46]
Edward couldn't military confront Lancaster, because he
was too powerful and Lancaster couldn't defeat
Edward either, yet apart from the fact, that it was the Big Question,
if the English nobility would accept Thomas of Lancaster
as a King instead of anointed King Edward.
In the meantime, there were so many problems in England
to be faced:
A serious plague of Famine [47], raids of the conquering
Scots in the North, a strong and good ruling in the country.
And the only thing Edward II and Thomas did, was to
to thwart each other instead of working together
to face the problems!
In fact:
Thomas of Lancaster, who was [with reason] very critical to
the reign of Edward II, did not show himself a better leader.
He seldom visited the Parliament [48], although, to be fair, a bad health
may have played a role, and even wasted his time by
jeering at Edward Ii, when passing his territory! [49] and
even blocked the road! [50]
While the Famine was killing England and the Scottish raided freely
in the North!
If this was not worse enough, Edward, not having learned from
the tragic experience with Piers Gaveston, had three favourites
again [although not that close and intimate as with Gaveston], who
did their best to hinder every reconciliation between Edward II
and his powerful cousin Thomas! [51]
FINALLY, THE TREATY OF LEAKE!
But happily, some wise nobles had been negotiating with the earl of Lancaster, and trying to persuade Edward and his cousin to overcome their hostility to each other. On 8 June, they came to a preliminary agreement: Edward would uphold the Ordinances, govern by the counsel of his magnates, and conciliate Thomas, who was threatened with sanctions if he continued to hold armed assemblies.
And on 7 August 1318 the two men exchanged the kiss of peace in a field between Loughborough and Leicester. Edward gave his cousin a fine palfrey "in recognition of his great love" of Thomas. [YEAH,
HAHAHA!]
Anyway, A formal agreement, the Treaty of Leake, was signed in the town of Leake near Loughborough two days later. [52]
AND THAT'S TODAY, 700 YEARS AGO!
You want to read, how the story continues and who wins
or looses, Edward II or his cousin, see my mini book or
the articles of Kathryn Warner. [53]
Nice you travelled with me to the past, again
I have appreciated it!
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, REBEL COUSIN OF KING EDWARD II/
FROM WARLORD TO SAINT
https://www.astridessed.nl/tho mas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin- of-king-edward-iifrom-warlord- to-saint/
http://community.dewereldmorge n.be/blog/astridessed/2017/09/ 18/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-c ousin-of-king-edward-iifrom-wa rlord-to-saint
TREATY OF LEAKE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Treaty_of_Leake
LADY DESPENSER'S SCRIBERY
THOMAS, EARL OF LANCASTER, PT 2, 1314-1318
http://www.ladydespensersscrib ery.com/2008/04/20/thomas-earl -of-lancaster-pt-2/
EDWARDTHESECONDBLOGSPOT
TREATY OF LAKE TALK; HUGH DESPENSER THE YOUNGER BIO
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2018/08/treaty-of-leake- talk-hugh-despenser.html
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LOCAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION
THE TREATY OF LEAKE 1318, EAST LEAKE AND DISTRICT LOCAL
https://nlha.org.uk/event/the- treaty-of-leake-1318-east-leak e-and-district-local-history-s ociety/
KATHRYN WARNER
Edward II: The Unconventional King (Stroud, 2014)
Isabella of France: The Rebel Queen (Stroud, 2016)
Long Live the King: The Mysterious Fate of Edward II (Stroud, 2017)
Richard II: A True King's Fall
'The Adherents of Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, in March 1330',English Historical Review, 126 (2011), pp. 779-805
"Bought by the King Himself': Edward II, his Chamber, his Family and his Interests in 1325-26′, Fourteenth Century England X, ed. Gwilym Dodd (Woodbridge, 2018), pp. 1-23
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/p/my-publications.html
" My next, and fifth, book is Blood Roses: The Houses of Lancaster and York Before the Wars of the Roses. This is due to be published in early October 2018 and is available for pre-order on Amazon. It opens in 1245 with the birth of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence's second son Edmund, first earl of Lancaster, and tells the story of the houses of Lancaster and York until 1415.
Edward II and Hugh Despenser the Younger: Downfall of a King's Favourite. This is due out on 30 October 2018. It's the first-ever biography of Hugh; oddly enough, there's never even been an academic thesis devoted to him, let alone an entire book, even though he was the most powerful man in Wales and England for much of the 1320s. I enjoyed researching and writing this one so much, I can't even tell you! Hugh was a bad boy. Not nearly as bad as he's painted – he wasn't a torturer or a rapist – but bad enough.
Following in the Footsteps of Edward II, a travel guide to locations in Britain associated with Edward, to be published c. spring/summer 2019. Very different from my other books, and intended to encourage people to visit historical sites in Wales, England and Scotland.
The Lives of the Clare Sisters, Nieces of Edward II, c. summer/autumn 2019. This is a joint bio of Edward II's nieces Eleanor, Margaret and Elizabeth de Clare from the 1290s to 1360; the final title is yet to be determined. The drama of the three sisters' lives can hardly be overstated. All married at age thirteen, all imprisoned during the reign of their uncle and its aftermath, all deprived of their lands and income at some point, all married to men who might have been their uncle's lovers.
Philippa of Hainault, Mother of the English Nation, c. late 2019/early 2020. A bio of Edward III's beloved queen and companion, who was born in c. 1314 and died in 1369; the title is not yet fixed.
1326: A Year in the Life of England, c. spring 2020. I'm really excited about this one. It's a chronological narrative of the year 1326, very much focused on the ordinary, common people. It was the year when Queen Isabella invaded her husband's kingdom with an army, but it was also the year of the great drought, the year when Henry of Cambridge was appointed chief blacksmith at the Tower of London, the year Robert Clavering of Newcastle-upon-Tyne was born, the year Edward the parker of Kennington rebuilt his house, the year John Toly fell out of the window of his London house and died, the year Johane Mereworth of Henley-on-Thames gave birth to a child…
John of Gaunt: Time-Honour'd Lancaster, c. late 2020. A bio of Edward III and Queen Philippa's third son, Richard II's uncle and Henry IV's father. John was born in 1340 and died in 1399.
The Despensers: The Rise and Fall of a Medieval Family 1261-1439, c. late 2020/early 2021. An account of the fascinating family whose fortunes rose and fell, from Hugh the justiciar (d. 1439) to Isabelle, countess of Worcester and Warwick (d. 1439).
The Daughters of Edward I, c. summer 2021. Title not yet fixed; a joint bio of Edward II's five sisters Eleanor, Joan of Acre, Margaret, Mary and Elizabeth.
MY FORTHCOMING BOOKS
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2018/07/my-forthcoming-b ooks.html
EDWARD II OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Edward_II_of_England
THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster
EDMUND CROUCHBACK
FATHER OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER AND
YOUNGER BROTHER OF KING EDWARD I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Edmund_Crouchback
EDWARD I OF ENGLAND
PATERNAL UNCLE OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Edward_I_of_England
THOMAS OF LANCASTER AND HIS RELATIONSHIP
WITH EDWARD II (1)
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2010/04/thomas-of-lancas ter-and-his.html
BLANCHE OF ARTOIS
MOTHER OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Blanche_of_Artois
ROBERT I, COUNT OF ARTOIS
FATHER OF BLANCHE OF ARTOIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Robert_I,_Count_of_Artois
LOUIS VIII OF FRANCE
FATHER OF ROBERT I, COUNT OF ARTOIS ,
WHICH MADE HIM
GRANDFATHER OF BLANCHE OF ARTOIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Louis_VIII_of_France
LOUIS IX OF FRANCE, "SAINT LOUIS"
SON OF LOUIS VII AND ELDER BROTHER OF
ROBERT I, COUNT OF ARTOIS, WHICH
MADE HIM THE PATERNAL UNCLE OF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Louis_IX_of_France
LOUIS IX OF FRANCE/INVOLVEMENT IN THE CRUSADES:
LOUIS IX OF FRANCE/CRUSADING
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Louis_IX_of_France#Crusading
LOUIS IX OF FRANCE/
" On reaching full age he became hereditary Sheriff of Lancashire, but spent most of the next ten years fighting for Edward I in Scotland, leaving the shrievalty in the care of deputies. He was present at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 as part of Edward I's wing of the army."
THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER/LIFE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Thomas,_2nd_Earl_of_Lancaster# Life
THOMAS, 2ND EARL OF LANCASTER/
" The following year, Thomas was betrothed to Alice de Lacy, who inherited the earldom of Lincoln from her father Henry and the earldom of Salisbury from her mother Margaret Longespee, and they married in October 1294 when Alice was twelve going on thirteen and Thomas fifteen or sixteen. Marriage to Beatrice would have provided Thomas with an annual income of £4500; marriage to Alice de Lacy gave him about 10,000 marks (£6666) per annum, and he got two more English earldoms (on top of the three, Lancaster, Leicester and Derby, he inherited from his father) into the bargain."
ALICE DE LACY, 4TH COUNTESS OF LINCOLN
WIFE OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Alice_de_Lacy,_4th_Countess_of _Lincoln
HENRY DE LACY, 3RD EARL OF LINCOLN
FATHER OF ALICE DE LACY, WHICH MADE HIM AND FATHER IN
LAW OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Henry_de_Lacy,_3rd_Earl_of_Lin coln
" The following year, Thomas was betrothed to Alice de Lacy, who inherited the earldom of Lincoln from her father Henry and the earldom of Salisbury from her mother Margaret Longespee, and they married in October 1294 when Alice was twelve going on thirteen and Thomas fifteen or sixteen."
" Marriage to Beatrice would have provided Thomas with an annual income of £4500; marriage to Alice de Lacy gave him about 10,000 marks (£6666) per annum, and he got two more English earldoms (on top of the three, Lancaster, Leicester and Derby, he inherited from his father) into the bargain"
" The following year, Thomas was betrothed to Alice de Lacy, who inherited the earldom of Lincoln from her father Henry and the earldom of Salisbury from her mother Margaret Longespee, and they married in October 1294 when Alice was twelve going on thirteen and Thomas fifteen or sixteen. Marriage to Beatrice would have provided Thomas with an annual income of £4500; marriage to Alice de Lacy gave him about 10,000 marks (£6666) per annum, and he got two more English earldoms (on top of the three, Lancaster, Leicester and Derby, he inherited from his father) into the bargain
" Unfortunately, the marriage of Alice and Thomas – which seemed such a splendid match for both – proved completely disastrous. Alice mostly lived alone in her castle of Pickering, Yorkshire, while Thomas took a host of mistresses ("He defouled a great multitude of women and noble wenches"). He fathered at least two illegitimate children, Thomas and John, but Alice remained childless. The two seemed to have detested each other."
ABANDONMENT AND ABDUCTION: THE EVENTFUL LIFE
OF ALICE DE LACY
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2007/01/abandonment-and- abduction-eventful-life.html
" His marriage to Alice de Lacy was not successful. They had no children together, while he fathered, illegitimately, with another woman, two sons. In 1317 she was abducted from her manor at Canford, Dorset by Richard de St Martin, a knight in the service of John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey."
" Thomas did have two illegitimate sons, John and Thomas, who joined the Church, and I have recently discovered that Alice de Lacy was pregnant in 1307 or 1308. She sent a messenger to Leicester, one of Thomas's towns, to inform the mayor and townspeople of her pregnancy sometime between Michaelmas (29 September) 1307 and Michaelmas 1308. The messenger was rewarded with a shilling for bringing the good news. Sadly, Alice must have lost this child – perhaps a miscarriage or stillbirth, or s/he died in early infancy."
EDWARDTHEASECONDBLOGSPOT
C. 28 OCTOBER 1294: WEDDING OF ALICE DE
LACY AND THOMAS OF LANCASTER
http://edwardthesecond. blogspot.com/2017/10/c-28- october-1294-wedding-of-alice- de.html
" His marriage to Alice de Lacy was not successful. They had no children together, while he fathered, illegitimately, with another woman,"
" Unfortunately, it proved to be a disastrous, and childless, match, and Alice left Thomas in 1317. Thomas, however, was certainly not bereft of female company and fathered at least two illegitimate sons, Thomas and John: John is mentioned in papal letters and various other sources as a Master of Arts, a 'scholar of theology' and a canon of Lincoln and Uttoxeter, and Thomas was a knight who requested permission in 1354 to become a Friar Minor."
" Edward of Caernarfon and Thomas of Lancaster were apparently on very good terms before Edward's accession. In 1305, Thomas was forced to apologise to Edward for being unable to come and attend him, as he was ill. Edward wrote back to say that he hoped to visit Thomas soon, "to see and to comfort you."
"To the earl of Lancaster, greetings and dear affection. Very dear cousin, we hold you well excused that you have not come to us, and your illness weighs heavily on us, and if we can come to you we will do it gladly, to see and to comfort you. Very dear cousin, may our lord etc [have you in his keeping]. Given as above [in Windsor park, 22 September 1305]."
THREE LETTERS FROM EDWARD OF CAERNARFON,
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2017/08/three-letters-fr om-edward-of-caernarfon.html
" Significantly, though, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, who had not been involved in the campaign to exile Gaveston, seems to have become disaffected at this time"
PIERS GAVESTON, 1ST EARL OF CORNWALL/FIRST EXILE AND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Piers_Gaveston,_1st_Earl_of_Co rnwall#First_exile_and_return
PIERS GAVESTON, 1ST EARL OF CORNWALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Piers_Gaveston,_1st_Earl_of_Co rnwall
" In November 1308, however, Thomas appears to have abruptly left court; he witnessed no more charters after this date until March 1310, and the constant flow of grants and favours to him from Edward also ceased. [6] There is no evidence of an argument between the king and his powerful cousin in any chronicle, but for some reason Thomas, who had previously been on amicable terms with Piers Gaveston, became implacably opposed to Piers' return from Ireland, and when Thomas and the earls of Pembroke, Warwick and Hereford visited Edward at Kennington in May 1309, they asked for safe-conducts, which were guaranteed by the earls of Lincoln, Richmond, Gloucester and Arundel – evidence of how little Thomas now trusted the king. "
SHE WOLVES, ENGLAND'S EARLY QUEENS/ISABELLA AND
[HUNTING DOWN AND KILLING OF
MINUTES 7.12 – 8.50
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=192QjemfTh0&t=1080s
In late August 1310, Edward departed for Scotland, his clear aim to avoid the Ordainers rather than out of any desire to fight in Scotland, and spent almost a year there, with Piers and the earls of Gloucester and Surrey, his nephew and nephew by marriage.
Surrey was one of only three earls not an Ordainer – the others were Oxford, a nonentity, and Cornwall, Piers Gaveston himself.
PIERS GAVESTON'S THIRD EXILE
http://edwardthesecond. blogspot.com/2008/03/piers- gavestons-third-exile.html
ORDINANCES OF 1311
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ordinances_of_1311
THE ORDINANCES OF 1311
https://www.bl.uk/collection-i tems/the-ordinances-of-1311
https://thehistoryofengland.co .uk/resource/the-ordinances-of -1311/
TEXT OF THE ORDINANCES
Therefore we, Robert, by the grace of God archbishop of Canterbury and primate of all England, and the bishops, earls, and barons elected by virtue of the said commission, do ordain for the honour of God and Holy Church and of the king and his realm in the manner following:—
1. In the first place it is ordained that Holy Church shall have all its liberties as heretofore and as it should have them.
2. Item, it is ordained that the king's peace shall be firmly kept throughout the entire kingdom; so that everyone may safely go, come, and remain according to the law and custom of the realm.
3. Item, it is ordained that, in order to acquit the king's debts, to relieve his estate, and the more honourably to maintain it, no gift of land, rent, liberty, escheat, wardship, marriage, or office shall be made to any of the said Ordainers during their [tenure of] power under the said ordinance, or to any other person, without the counsel and assent of the said Ordainers or the majority of them—or of six of them at least—but that all sources of profit shall be improved for the benefit of the king until his estate is properly relieved and some other ordinance may be made for the honour and profit of the king.
4. Item, it is ordained that the customs of the kingdom shall be received and kept by men of the kingdom itself, and not by aliens ; and that the issues and profits of the same customs, together with all other issues and profits pertaining to the kingdom from any source whatsoever, shall in their entirety come to the king's exchequer and be paid by the treasurer and the chamberlain for maintaining the king's household and [to be spent] in other ways for his benefit ; so that the king may live of his own without taking prises other than those anciently due and accustomed. And all others shall cease.
An interesting clause. Firstly the echoes of the disputes of Henry IIIrd's reign still rumble on – Gaveston himself was a Gascon. Secondly, under Edward I the kings wardrobe had become more and more central to the royal finances, bypassing the exchequer. As far as the barons were concerned, this gave the king far too much freedom of action. So here they are saying this must stop – everything goes through the Exchequer, so parliament can control and check it.
And finally the phrase 'live of his own' is mighty interesting; it will take a remarkably long time for your average baron to accept that taxation is now part of the weft and warp of government finances; the days of William the Conqueror, where the king owned half the country and could govern without financial assistance were gone for ever.
6. Item; it is ordained- that the Great Charter shall be observed in all its particulars ; so that, if there is any point in the said charter that is doubtful or obscure, it shall be interpreted by the said Ordainers and other men whom they may see fit to call upon for that purpose….
7. And besides, since the crown has been so abased and ruined by numerous grants, we ordain that all grants made to the damage of the king and the impoverishment of the crown since the commission was given to us . . . shall be annulled; and we do annul them entirely, so that they shall not be given back to the same persons without the common assent [of the baronage] in parliament…
9. Whereas the king, on account of the many perils that he and his kingdom may incur, ought not to undertake an act of war against any one, or to go out of the kingdom, without the common assent of his baronage, we ordain that henceforth the king shall neither go out of the kingdom nor undertake an act of war against any one without the common assent of his baronage, and that in parliament. . .
So here's the point about the role of parliament – far broader than it has been before.
10. And whereas it is feared that the people of the land will rebel on account of the prises and divers oppressions recently established…we ordain that henceforth all prises shall be abolished except the ancient and lawful prises due to the king and to others who are lawfully entitled to them. And if any prises are taken contrary to the ordinance aforesaid by any one whomsoever, no matter of what condition he may be—that is to say, if any one, under colour of purveyance for the use of our lord the king or of someone else, takes grain, wares, merchandise, or other goods against the will of those to whom they belong, and does not immediately .give in return money to the true value [of the goods], unless he thereof has respite by the free will of the seller according to the provision in the Great Charter regarding prises taken by constables of castles and their bailiffs, saving the accustomed prises aforesaid—notwithstanding any commission that may be [issued], pursuit with hue and cry shall be raised against him and he shall be taken to the nearest jail of the king, and the common law shall be enforced against him as against a robber or thief, should he be convicted of sail [wrong-doing].
11. Also, [whereas] new customs have been levied and the old [customs] have been increased upon wool, cloth, wines, avoirdupois, and other things—whereby [our] merchants come more rarely and bring fewer goods into the country, while alien merchants reside longer than they used to, and by such residence things become dearer than they used to be, to the damage of the king and his people—we ordain that all manner of customs and maltotes levied since the coronation of King Edward, son of King Henry, are to be entirely removed and utterly abolished forever, notwithstanding the charter which the said King Edward granted to alien merchants because –it was issued contrary to the Great Charter and contrary to the liberty of the city of London and without the assent of the baronage. . . .
13 And whereas the king, as aforesaid, has been badly advised and guided by evil councillors, we ordain that all the evil councillors shall be put out and utterly removed, so that neither they nor other such persons shall be near him or shall be retained in any office under the king; and that other persons who are fit shall be put in their places. And the same shall be done in the case of domestics, officials, and other men in the king's household who are not fit.
The barons would soon present a further ordinance to the king, removing a number of specific household officials.
14 And whereas many evils have been incurred through [the employment of] such councillors and such ministers, we ordain that the king shall appoint the chancellor, the chief justices of both benches, the treasurer, the chancellor and the chief baron of the exchequer, the steward of the household, the keeper of the wardrobe, the comptroller and a fit clerk to keep the privy seal, a chief keeper of the forests on this side of Trent and one on the other side of Trent, also an escheator on this side of Trent and one on the other side, as well as the king's chief clerk of the common bench, by the counsel and assent of the baronage, and that in parliament. And if by some chance it happens that there is need to appoint any of the said ministers before parliament meets, then the king shall make such appointments by the good counsel [of those] whom he shall have near him up to the time of the parliament. And so let it be done henceforth with regard to such ministers whenever there is need.
15 Item, we ordain that the chief wardens of ports and of castles on the sea shall be appointed and installed in the aforesaid manner, and that such wardens are to be of the land itself.
16 And whereas the lands of Gascony, Ireland, and Scotland are in peril of being lost through default of good ministers, we ordain that worthy and fit ministers to keep ward in the said lands shall be named according—to the form set forth in the article before the last [preceding]
17 Moreover, we ordain that sheriffs shall henceforth be appointed by the chancellor, the treasurer, and others of the council who are present; and if the chancellor is not present, let them be appointed by the treasurer, the barons of the exchequer, and the justices of the bench. And such men are to be named and installed as are fit and worthy, and as have lands and tenements through which they may be held responsible for their actions to the king or to the people. And only such persons shall be appointed, and they shall have their commissions under the great seal. . . .
20 Because it is known, and by examination by the prelates, earls and barons, knights and other good people of the kingdom found, that Piers Gavaston has acted badly towards and has badly advised our lord the king and has incited him to do wrong in divers and deceptive ways; in taking possession of for himself all the king's treasure and sending it out of the kingdom; in drawing to himself royal power and royal dignity, as in making alliances on oath with people to live and die with him against all men, and this by the treasure he acquires from day to day; in lording it over the estate of the king and of the crown, to the ruin of the king and of the people; and especially in estranging the heart of the king from his lieges; in despising their counsels, not allowing good officers to carry out the law of the land; in removing good officers, appointing those of his own gang, as well aliens as others, who at his will and command offend against right and the law of the land; in taking the king's lands, tenements and bailiwicks to himself and his heirs; and has Caused the king to give lands and tenements of his crown to divers people to the great loss and diminution of the estate of the king and of his crown, and this as well since the ordinance that the king granted to the ordainers to act for the profit of himself and his people as before against the ordinance of the ordainers ; and in maintaining robbers and murderers and getting for them the king's charter of his peace, in emboldening wrongdoers to do worse, and in taking the king into a land where there is war without the common assent of his baronage to the danger of his person and the ruin of the kingdom, and in causing blank charters under the great seal of the king to be sealed to the deceit and disinheritance of the king and of his crown, and against his homage; and feloniously, falsely and traitorously has done the aforesaid things to the great dishonour and loss of the king and disinheriting of the crown and to the ruin of his people in many ways: And in addition to this we having regard to what was done by the most noble king, the father of the present king, by whose adjudgment the aforesaid Piers abjured the realm of England and whose will it was that our lord the king, his son, should abjure forever his company, and that since by the common assent of all the realm and of the king and of the same prelates, earls and barons it was heretofore adjudged that he should leave the said realm, and he did leave it, and that his return was never by common assent, but only by the assent of some individuals who agreed to it on condition of his behaving well after his return: and now his bad conduct is established beyond doubt, for which conduct and for the great wickednesses aforementioned and for the many others that could befall our lord the king and his people, and in order to foster good understanding between the king and his people and avoid many kinds of discords and dangers, We ordain, by virtue of the commission our lord the king granted us, that Piers Gavaston as the evident enemy of the king and of his people be completely exiled as well from the kingdom of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales as from the 'whole lordship of our lord the king overseas as well as on this side, forever without ever returning; and that he leave the kingdom of England and all the aforesaid lands and absolutely all the lordship of our lord the king between now and the feast of All Saints next to come; and we assign to him as port in the way aforesaid Dover and nowhere else for crossing and leaving. And if the said Piers stays in the kingdom of England or anywhere else in the lordship of our lord the king beyond the said day that has been given him for leaving and crossing as is aforesaid, then let there be done with him as would be done with the enemy of the king and of the kingdom and of his people. And let all those who from now on contravene this ordinance with regard to the said exile or the penalty that follows, be dealt with accordingly, if they are convicted of it.
21 Also we ordain that Amerigo and those of the company of Frescobaldi come to the accounting in the way that was ordained and published, notwithstanding the account they say they have rendered, within the fortnight after next Michaelmas and in the meantime let there be arrested all the persons and all the goods of members of the company of Frescobaldi that can be found in the power of the king of England, and that all the lands of the said Amerigo be seized into the hand of the king whereso-ever they are in the said power of the king. And if the said Amerigo does not come within the day assigned, because the aforesaid ordinance has been infringed by him and by his non-appearance he renders himself culpable and suspect we ordain that he be banished from the power of the king and from now on be deemed an enemy and it be done with him as would be done with an enemy of the king and of the kingdom, if he be found anywhere in the power of the king as well overseas as on this side.
22 Also because sir Henry de Beaumont has received from our lord the king to the loss ,and dishonour of the king, since the time of the ordinance of the ordainers to which the king agreed, the kingdom of Man and other lands, rents, liberties and bailiwicks and has caused lands and tenements liberties and bailiwicks to be given to others contrary to this ordinance, and because he has badly advised the king contrary to his oath, We ordain that he be removed from the king's counsel for ever and that he come no more near the king anywhere — unless it be at the common summons of parliament or in war if the king wishes to have him — save by common assent of the archbishop, bishops, earls and barons and that in full parliament; and all the other lands that he holds within the kingdom of England be taken into the hand of the king of England and held until the king has received from the issues of these lands the value of all the yield that the said sir Henry has had from the lands received co4rary to the said ordinance, and if the said sir Henry in any point contravenes these ordinances let him be disinherited forever of all the lands that he has in England of the king's gift.
Because it is found by examination by the prelates, earls and barons that the lady de Vescy has caused the king to give to sir Henry de Beaumont, her brother, and to others, lands, liberties and bailiwicks to the loss and dishonour of the king and the evident disinheritance of the crown and also caused to be sent out letters under the urge' against the law and the intention of the king, We ordain that she go to her house — and that within the fortnight after next Michaelmas — without ever returning to the court to stay there, and that for all these aforesaid things and because it is understood that Bamburgh castle belongs to the crown, we also ordain that this castle be retaken from her into the hand of the king and that it be no more given to her or to another except at the king's pleasure.
24 And whereas the people feel much aggrieved because of divers debts demanded of them for the king's use by summons from the exchequer, of which debts, being actually paid, the people have various acquittances . . . ; we ordain that henceforth in the account of every sheriff, or other minister of the king who is answerable at the ex-chequer, such tallies, writs, and franchises as are allowable in the account shall be allowed. . . . And if the treasurer and the barons of the exchequer do not act in the manner aforesaid, the plaintiffs shall enjoy [the right of] recovery through petition in parliament.
25 Whereas ordinary merchants and many others of the people are allowed to bring pleas of debt and trespass in the exchequer, through the fact that they are received by the ministers of the said court more favourably than they should be—whereby accounts and other concerns of the king are greatly delayed and, in addition, a large number of people are aggrieved—we ordain that henceforth no pleas shall be held in the said court of the exchequer except pleas touching the king and his ministers : [namely] those answerable at the exchequer by reason of their offices, the ministers of the court itself, and their subordinates and servants who most of the time are with them in those places where the exchequer may be. And if anybody s received by the said court with permission to plead in the manner aforesaid, those impleaded shall have their [right to] recovery in parliament.
26 Item, whereas the people feel much aggrieved because stewards and marshals hold many pleas that do not pertain to their offices and also because they will not receive attorneys for defendants as well as for plaintiffs, we ordain that henceforth they shall receive attorneys for defendants as well as for plaintiffs, and that they shall hold no pleas of freehold, debt, covenant, or contract, nor any common plea touching men of the people—saving [to their jurisdiction] only trespasses of the household itself other trespasses committed within the verge [i.e. the area distinguished by the king's presence and thereby set apart from common law], and contracts and covenants which anyone of the king's household may make with another of the same household within the household itself and not elsewhere. . . .
28 Whereas the people feel much aggrieved because men are emboldened to kill and rob by the fact that the king, through evil counsel, so lightly grants them his peace against the provisions of the law; we ordain that henceforth no felon or fugitive shall be protected or defended in any sort of felony by the king's charter granting his peace, except only in case the king can give grace according to his oath, and that by process of law and the custom of the realm. And if any charter is henceforth made and granted to any one in any other manner, it shall be of no avail and shall be held as null. And no recognized malefactor against the crown and the peace of the land is to be aided or maintained by any one
29 Whereas in the king's court persons find their cases delayed because a party alleges that in the king's absence answer should not be made to demands, and [whereas] also many persons wrongfully suffer injuries from the king's ministers, with regard to which injuries one can secure recovery only in common parliament; we ordain that the king shall hold a parliament once a year, or twice if need be, and that in a convenient place. And [we ordain] that in those parliaments pleas which are delayed in the said manner, and pleas wherein the justices are of different opinions shall be recorded and settled. And likewise those bills which are brought to parliament shall be settled as heretofore in accordance with law and right.
30 Whereas all the people suffer greatly in many ways whenever a change of money is made in the kingdom, we ordain that, when there is need and the king wishes to make a change, he shall do so by the common counsel of his baronage, and that in parliament
31 Item, we ordain that all statutes which were made in amendment of the law and for the benefit of the people by the ancestors of our lord the king shall be kept and maintained as heretofore in accordance with law and right, provided that they are not contrary to the Great Charter or to the Forest Charter or to the ordinances by us made. And if any statute is made contrary to what has been said, it shall be held as null and as utterly void
32 Whereas, to the great injury of the people, the law of the land and common right have often been delayed by letters issued under the king's privy seal, we ordain that henceforth neither the law of the land nor common right shall be delayed or disturbed by letters under the said seal. And if, through such letters issued under the privy seal contrary the right or to the law of the land, anything is done in any session of the court of our lord the king, it shall be of no avail and shall be held as null.
33 Whereas many of the people other than those known to be merchants feel much aggrieved and injured by the Statute of Merchants made at Acton Burnell, we ordain that hereafter this statute shall hold only as between merchant and merchant and with regard to dealing made between them. . .
38 Item, we ordain that the Great Charter of Liberties and the Forest Charter issued by King Henry, son of King John, shall be observed in all their particulars, and that points in the said charters of liberties which are doubtful shall be explained in the next parliament after this by the advice of the baronage, the justices, and other persons learned in the law. And this is to be done because we are unable to attend to the matter during our term [of office].
39 Item, we ordain that the chancellor, the Treasurer, the chief justices of both benches, the chancellor of the exchequer, the treasurer of the wardrobe, the steward of the king' household, and all justices, sheriffs, escheators, constables, investigators for any cause whatsoever, and all other bailiffs and ministers of the king, whenever they receive their offices and bailiwicks, shall be sworn to keep and observe all the ordinances made by the prelates, earls, and barons for that purpose elected and assigned—[to maintain] every one of those [ordinances] without contravening them in any particular.
40 Item, we ordain that in each parliament one bishop, two earls, and two barons shall be assigned to hear and determine all plaints of those wishing to complain of the king's ministers, whichever they may be, who have contravened the ordinances aforesaid. And if the said bishop, earls, and barons cannot all attend, or are prevented from hearing and determining the said plaints, then two or three of them shall do so. And those who are found to have contravened the said ordinances, in the interest of the king and in the interest of the plaintiffs, shall be punished at the discretion of the persons thus assigned.
41 Item, we ordain that the aforesaid ordinances are to be maintained and observed in all their particulars, and that our lord the king shall cause them to be issued under his great seal and sent into every county of England, to be published, held, and strictly kept as well within franchises as without. . . .
These ordinances, having been shown to us and published on Monday next before the feast of St. Michael just past, we agree to, accept, and confirm. And we will and grant, for us and our heirs, that all and several of the said ordinances, made according to the form of our letters aforesaid, shall be published throughout our entire realm, henceforth to be strictly maintained and observed. In testimony whereof we have caused these our letters patent to be drawn up. Given at London, October 5, in the fifth year [TEXT ENDED]
THIS IS THE ANTI PIERS GAVESTON ARTICLE
20 OF THE ORDINANCES, WHICH MATTERED
THE MOST TO EDWARD II:
LAST PIECE OF THE TEXT AND DEMANDS/DECISION
OF THE LORDS ORDAINERS,DIRECTLY UNDERLYING
SEE FOR THE WHOLE TEXT OF ARTICLE 20, UNDER THE LINK
" And in addition to this we having regard to what was done by the most noble king, the father of the present king, by whose adjudgment the aforesaid Piers abjured the realm of England and whose will it was that our lord the king, his son, should abjure forever his company, and that since by the common assent of all the realm and of the king and of the same prelates, earls and barons it was heretofore adjudged that he should leave the said realm, and he did leave it, and that his return was never by common assent, but only by the assent of some individuals who agreed to it on condition of his behaving well after his return: and now his bad conduct is established beyond doubt, for which conduct and for the great wickednesses aforementioned and for the many others that could befall our lord the king and his people, and in order to foster good understanding between the king and his people and avoid many kinds of discords and dangers, We ordain, by virtue of the commission our lord the king granted us, that Piers Gavaston as the evident enemy of the king and of his people be completely exiled as well from the kingdom of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales as from the 'whole lordship of our lord the king overseas as well as on this side, forever without ever returning; and that he leave the kingdom of England and all the aforesaid lands and absolutely all the lordship of our lord the king between now and the feast of All Saints next to come; and we assign to him as port in the way aforesaid Dover and nowhere else for crossing and leaving. And if the said Piers stays in the kingdom of England or anywhere else in the lordship of our lord the king beyond the said day that has been given him for leaving and crossing as is aforesaid, then let there be done with him as would be done with the enemy of the king and of the kingdom and of his people. And let all those who from now on contravene this ordinance with regard to the said exile or the penalty that follows, be dealt with accordingly, if they are convicted of it.
https://thehistoryofengland. co.uk/resource/the-ordinances- of-1311/
WHOLE ARTICLE 20
' 20 Because it is known, and by examination by the prelates, earls and barons, knights and other good people of the kingdom found, that Piers Gavaston has acted badly towards and has badly advised our lord the king and has incited him to do wrong in divers and deceptive ways; in taking possession of for himself all the king's treasure and sending it out of the kingdom; in drawing to himself royal power and royal dignity, as in making alliances on oath with people to live and die with him against all men, and this by the treasure he acquires from day to day; in lording it over the estate of the king and of the crown, to the ruin of the king and of the people; and especially in estranging the heart of the king from his lieges; in despising their counsels, not allowing good officers to carry out the law of the land; in removing good officers, appointing those of his own gang, as well aliens as others, who at his will and command offend against right and the law of the land; in taking the king's lands, tenements and bailiwicks to himself and his heirs; and has Caused the king to give lands and tenements of his crown to divers people to the great loss and diminution of the estate of the king and of his crown, and this as well since the ordinance that the king granted to the ordainers to act for the profit of himself and his people as before against the ordinance of the ordainers ; and in maintaining robbers and murderers and getting for them the king's charter of his peace, in emboldening wrongdoers to do worse, and in taking the king into a land where there is war without the common assent of his baronage to the danger of his person and the ruin of the kingdom, and in causing blank charters under the great seal of the king to be sealed to the deceit and disinheritance of the king and of his crown, and against his homage; and feloniously, falsely and traitorously has done the aforesaid things to the great dishonour and loss of the king and disinheriting of the crown and to the ruin of his people in many ways: And in addition to this we having regard to what was done by the most noble king, the father of the present king, by whose adjudgment the aforesaid Piers abjured the realm of England and whose will it was that our lord the king, his son, should abjure forever his company, and that since by the common assent of all the realm and of the king and of the same prelates, earls and barons it was heretofore adjudged that he should leave the said realm, and he did leave it, and that his return was never by common assent, but only by the assent of some individuals who agreed to it on condition of his behaving well after his return: and now his bad conduct is established beyond doubt, for which conduct and for the great wickednesses aforementioned and for the many others that could befall our lord the king and his people, and in order to foster good understanding between the king and his people and avoid many kinds of discords and dangers, We ordain, by virtue of the commission our lord the king granted us, that Piers Gavaston as the evident enemy of the king and of his people be completely exiled as well from the kingdom of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales as from the 'whole lordship of our lord the king overseas as well as on this side, forever without ever returning; and that he leave the kingdom of England and all the aforesaid lands and absolutely all the lordship of our lord the king between now and the feast of All Saints next to come; and we assign to him as port in the way aforesaid Dover and nowhere else for crossing and leaving. And if the said Piers stays in the kingdom of England or anywhere else in the lordship of our lord the king beyond the said day that has been given him for leaving and crossing as is aforesaid, then let there be done with him as would be done with the enemy of the king and of the kingdom and of his people. And let all those who from now on contravene this ordinance with regard to the said exile or the penalty that follows, be dealt with accordingly, if they are convicted of it.
STAY AWAY FROM THE KING, YOU GASCONS
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2012/01/stay-away-from-k ing-you-gascons.html
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2008/03/piers-gavestons- third-exile.html
" The royal and baronial parties now both began preparations for war. In March, Gaveston settled at Scarborough, and began to fortify the castle.[73] Around the same time, he was pronounced excommunicate by Archbishop Winchelsey at St Paul's. At the same meeting the barons – under the leadership of Lancaster – divided up the realm to oppose the King. Pembroke and Warenne were given the responsibility of capturing Gaveston.[74] On 4 May, the King and Gaveston were at Newcastle, and barely escaped a force led by Lancaster, Henry Percy and Robert Clifford.[75]Gaveston then returned to Scarborough, while the King left for York. Scarborough was soon besieged by Pembroke, Warenne, Percy and Clifford, and on 19 May Gaveston surrendered to the besiegers.[76] "
PIERS GAVESTON, 1ST EARL OF CORNWALL/RETURN AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Piers_Gaveston,_1st_Earl_of_ Cornwall#Return_and_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Piers_Gaveston,_1st_Earl_of_ Cornwall
GUY DE BEAUCHAMP, 10TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Guy_de_Beauchamp,_10th_Earl_of _Warwick
HUMPHREY DE BOHUN, 4TH EARL OF HEREFORD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Humphrey_de_Bohun,_4th_Earl_of _Hereford
EDMUND FITZALAN, 9TH EARL OF ARUNDEL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Edmund_FitzAlan,_9th_Earl_of_A rundel
" At Warwick, Gaveston was condemned to death for violating the terms of the Ordinances, before an assembly of barons, including Warwick, Lancaster, Hereford and Arundel.[83] On 19 June, he was taken out on the road towards Kenilworth as far as Blacklow Hill, which was on the Earl of Lancaster's land. Here, two Welshmen ran him through with a sword and beheaded him"
PIERS GAVESTON'S INSULTING NAMES AND
AN ILLEGITIMATE SQUIRE
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2008/03/piers-gavestons-insulting-nicknames-and.html
PIERSPERROTGAVESTONBLOGSPOT
THOSE INSULTING NICKNAMES
https://piersperrotgaveston.blogspot.com/2011/09/those-insulting-nicknames.html
However, in January 1312, he returned to England.
Why he did this is not clear. It may be that he only intended to slip into England for a little while, to see his wife Margaret de Clare, who was pregnant when he left, and their newborn child – then leave again once he knew they were well. It may also be that Edward recalled him, as the Vitasuggests: "out of hatred for the earls he recalled Piers, swearing as he was wont on God's soul that he would freely use his own judgement."
" The chronology of events is murky, but what seems to have happened is this. Edward spent Christmas 1311 at Westminster with Queen Isabella, and left a few days later, leaving her behind. He spent New Year at Windsor, and Isabella sent him 'precious gifts' there. Sometime in early January 1312, Edward left Windsor and headed north to Yorkshire, collecting his niece Margaret de Clare from Wallingford on the way. From Wallingford to York is 200 miles, a dreadful journey for the very pregnant Margaret, especially on winter roads.
Presumably, Edward knew that Piers was on his way back, and wanted to get Margaret out of the way of the Ordainers, who, furious at Piers' return, might use her as a hostage – or to ensure that Margaret gave birth far away from the Ordainers, so that Piers could slip into the country to see her and his child."
" Margaret gave birth to Piers' daughter Joan, named after her mother and Edward II's sister Joan of Acre, on or around 12 January (so she was close to nine months pregnant when dragged on the long journey north, poor thing, and the timing suggests that they travelled very fast). Edward seems to have met Piers at Knaresborough on 13 January, and the two men rushed the seventeen miles to York that same day, almost certainly so Piers could see his wife and baby."
EDWARDTHESECOND
GAVESTON'S RETURN TO ENGLAND, 1312
http://edwardthesecond.blogspo t.com/2008/03/gavestons- return-to-england-1312.html
" The reason for his quick return might have been the birth of his child, a daughter named Joan, around this time."
PIERS AGVESTON, 1ST EARL OF CORNWALL/RETURN AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Gaveston,_1st_Earl_of_Cornwall#Return_and_death
PIERS AGVESTON, 1ST EARL OF CORNWALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Gaveston,_1st_Earl_of_Cornwall
MARGARET DE CLARE
WIFE OF PIERS GAVESTON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_de_Clare
JOAN GAVESTON, PIER'S DAUGHTER
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2012/07/joan-gaveston-piers-daughter.html
PIERS GAVESTON ALSO HAD AN ILLEGITIMATE DAUGHTER.
PERS GAVESTON AND HIS DAUGHTERS JOAN AND AMY
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2006/03/piers-gaveston-and-his-daughters-joan.html
HENRY, EARL OF LANCASTER
http://edwardthesecond. blogspot.com/2011/04/henry-of- lancaster.html
HENRY, 3RD EARL OF LANCASTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Henry,_3rd_Earl_of_Lancaster
" He was opposed to the Despensers, for the greediness of the younger threatened the lords marchers generally; but he does not seem to have had any violent feelings against the king, and was not involved in his brother's treason [see Thomas, earl of Lancaster]. In 1324 he was created Earl of Lancaster, Earl of Leicester, and steward of England, dignities which had been held by his brother.
It is evident that he was indignant at his brother's fate, and was resolved to avenge it, and was not appeased by these honours. He assumed the arms of his brother instead of his own, as though, so the king's friends said, he denied that they were condemned by the late earl's attainder. Moreover, he built a cross for his brother's soul outside the town of Leicester. The Bishop of Hereford [Adam of Orlton] wrote to ask him to plead for him with the king, and he replied in a letter full of sympathy and encouragement. This became known to the king, who, in May 1324, was anxious to convict him of treason, and called on him to answer for these offences. He defended himself successfully, and the matter was dropped, for he was regarded as the foremost man in the kingdom. "
HENRY OF LANCASTER, EARL OF LANCASTER
(1281? – 1345)
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/henrylancaster.htm
Petition for succession and inheritance
" After a period of longstanding opposition to King Edward II and his advisors, including joining two open rebellions, Henry's brother Thomas was convicted of treason, executed and had his lands and titles forfeited in 1322. Henry did not participate in his brother's rebellions; he later petitioned for his brother's lands and titles, and on 29 March 1324 he was invested as Earl of Leicester."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry,_3rd_Earl_of_Lancaster#Petition_for_succession_and_inheritance
Revenge[edit]
On the Queen's return to England in September 1326 with Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, Henry joined her party against King Edward II, which led to a general desertion of the king's cause and overturned the power of Hugh le Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester, and his namesake son Hugh the younger Despenser.
He was sent in pursuit and captured the king at Neath in South Wales. He was appointed to take charge of the king and was responsible for his custody at Kenilworth Castle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry,_3rd_Earl_of_Lancaster#Revenge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry,_3rd_Earl_of_Lancaster
SEE ALSO CHAPTER TEN, UNDER V OF MY MINI BOOK
SEE BEGINNING OF V
[SCROLLING THE CHAPTER, PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE….]
PREVIEW: OF 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
READ FURTHER IN:
" Thomas, having married into the Lancaster family, was a staunch Lancastrian adherent for the rest of his life, so the period of the Contrariant rebellion in 1321/22 headed by Thomas, earl of Lancaster, must have been somewhat awkward for him. His uncle-in-law Earl Thomas was executed in March 1322, but his father-in-law Henry of Lancaster was abroad for most of 1320 to April 1322 so avoided having to make the awful decision either to follow his brother into rebellion and treason, or to abandon him."
THOMAS, LORD WAKE [1298-1349]
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2017/10/thomas-lord-wake-1298-1349.html
FAMILY TREE FROM EARL HENRY TO ELIZABETH OF
YORK [DAUGHTER OF EDWARD IV], WHO IS THE ANCESTRESS
OF ALL SUBSEQUENT ENGLISH KINGS
WHICH MADE EARL HENRY ONE OD THE ANCESTORS
OF THE SUBSEQUENT ENGLISH KINGS UNTILL NOW!
ONE OF HENRY'S DAUGHTER'S:
MAUD OF LANCASTER, COUNTESS OF ULSTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Maud_of_Lancaster,_Countess_of _Ulster
ELIZABETH DE BURGH, 4TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER,
DAUGHTER OF MAUD OF LANCASTER AND
GRANDDAUGHTER OF EARL HENRY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Elizabeth_de_Burgh,_4th_Counte ss_of_Ulster
PHILIPPA PLANTAGENET, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER AND DAUGHTER
OF ELIZABETH DE BURGH AND LIONEL OF ANTWERP, SECOND
SON OF EDWARD III
SHE WAS THE GREATGRANDDAUGHTER OF EARL HENRY!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Philippa,_5th_Countess_of_Ulst er
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Lionel_of_Antwerp,_1st_Duke_of _Clarence
ROGER MORTIMER, SON OF PHILIPPA PLANTAGENET AND
EDMUND MORTIMER AND GREATGREATGRANDSON OF
EARL HENRY
[ROGER MORTIMER WAS ALSO A DESCENDANT OF ROGER MORTIMER, ALLY AND
POSSIBLE LOVER OF ISABELLA OF FRANCE, WIFE OF EDWARD II AND
MOTHER OF EDWARD III]
HIS FATHER WAS EDMUND MORTIMER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_ March
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Edmund_Mortimer,_3rd_Earl_of_ March
ANNE MORTIMER, DAUGHTER OF ROGER MORTIMER AND
MOTHER OF RICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Anne_de_Mortimer
RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, SON OF ANNE MORTIMER AND
RICHARD CONISBURGH,, 3RD EARL OF CAMBRIDGE [WHO WAS THE GRANDSON
OF EDWARD III BY HIS FATHER, EDMUND LANGLEY, FIRST
DUKE OF YORK]
RICHARD WAS THE FATHER OF THE LATER KINGS EDWARD IV
[WHO HAD ISSUE] AND RICHARD III [WHOSE ONLY SON
DIED DURING HIS REIGN]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_ York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Richard_of_Conisburgh,_3rd_ Earl_of_Cambridge
PATERNAL GRANDFATHER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Edmund_of_Langley,_1st_Duke_ of_York
MATERNAL GRANDFATHER, ROGER MORTIMER
[DESCENDANT OF EARL HENRY]
EDWARD IV, SON OF RICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Edward_IV_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cecily_Neville,_Duchess_of_ York
ELIZABETH OF YORK, MARRIED WITH
HENRY VII, FIRST KING OF THE
DAUGHTER OF EDWARD IV
THROUGH HER, DESCENDANT OF EARL HENRY,
EARL HENRY IS ANCESTOR OF ALL SUBSEUQUENT ENGELSH
KINGS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Elizabeth_of_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Henry_VII_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Elizabeth_Woodville
DECEMBER 1312/OCTOBER 1313: EDWARD II MAKES PEACE WITH
PIERS GAVESTON'S KILLERS
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2015/02/december-1312october-1313-edward-ii.html
" Revenge would have to wait a while longer. But Edward never forgot his promise. In September 1319, during the siege of Berwick, he said "When this wretched business is over, we will turn our hands to other matters. For I have not forgotten the wrong that was done to my brother Piers."
THE DEATH OF PIERS GAVESTON
http://edwardthesecond. blogspot.com/2008/06/death-of- piers-gaveston.html
http://edwardthesecond. blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas- of-lancaster-and-his.html
BATTLE OF BANNOCKBURN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn
" In June 1314, Thomas refused to accompany his cousin to Scotland for the Bannockburn campaign, and sent only four knights and four men-at-armsto fulfil his feudal obligations. Edward's defeat to Robert Bruce put him at Thomas's mercy, and for the next few years the men were joint rulers of England – or, Edward was king in name and Thomas in reality. "
" At a time when England and Wales were suffering from famine, Robert Bruce's brother Edward was invading Ireland and Bruce himself the north of England, and Edward II's subjects were crying out for strong leadership, he and Thomas did their best to thwart each other and were incapable of working together: "Whatever pleases the lord king, the earl's servants try to upset; and whatever pleases the earl, the king's servants call treachery…and their lords, by whom the land ought to be defended, are not allowed to rest in harmony."
THE GREAT FAMINE, 1316 TO 1317
http://edwardthesecond. blogspot.com/2009/01/great- famine-1315-to-1317.html
EDWARD II AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH
THOMAS OF LANCASTER (2)
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-of-lancaster-and-his_25.html
" Pembroke fortunately still retained some influence over the king and managed to convince Edward that this was not in fact the case, and the party returned to London with no further incidents – despite the fact that Thomas did his utmost to make matters worse by leading his men out to the top of the castle ditch and jeering at Edward as he and his retinue travelled past."
" Edward and Isabella left Nottingham and the failed council meeting on 7 August 1317, and travelled to York. The king was forced to stay as far to the east of Pontefract, Thomas's stronghold, as possible: the most direct route would have taken him right through the town, but Thomas had blocked his way by placing armed guards on the roads and bridges south of York.
" Whatever the truth of Thomas's allegations, it seems clear that Damory, Audley and Montacute were doing their best to hinder any reconciliation between the king and the earl, and at a meeting of the king's council at Clarendon in the spring of 1317, the three openly called Thomas a traitor. [3] Thomas sent letters to Edward to say that "he fears the deadly stratagems of certain persons who thrive under the protection of the royal court…they have already carried off the earl's wife to his disgrace and shame." [4] Thomas asked Edward to expel the earl of Surrey, Damory, Audley and Montacute from court, and demanded "such satisfaction as he can get for the wrong done to him." He wrote to Edward to complain that his companions were "not suitable to stay beside you or in your service…but you have held them dearer than they ever were before…every day you give them of your substance, so that little or nothing remains to you." [5] To be fair, he did have a point: Damory, Audley and Montacute had no intention of allowing Lancaster to reduce their vast influence over Edward and therefore counselled the king to remain hostile to his cousin and "intrigued against the earl as best they could." The Flores calls them "men who stir up discord and many problems for the kingdom daily attending the lord king, continually supporting his arrogance and lawless designs." [6] Pope John XXII tried to heal the breach between the king and his cousin in 1317 and 1318, begging Edward not to allow any "backbiter or malicious flatterer" to bring about disunity between himself and Thomas, and to send away from court those men who offended the earl. The pope also asked Thomas to "separate himself" from those who displeased Edward and to reject "suggestions of whisperers and double-tongued men." [7]"
" Finally, Edward dismissed most of his soldiers, Thomas removed his guards from the roads and bridges south of York, and at the beginning of October 1317, Edward left York to return to London. The road through Pontefract was now clear, but instead of doing the sensible thing and ignoring Thomas, Edward took it into his head, despite his promise a few days earlier not to take action against his cousin, to command his men to take up arms and attack him. Apparently one of Edward's friends – most likely Roger Damory – had persuaded him, in his own selfish interests, that the earl posed a threat to Edward and that he should attack him first. Fortunately for the stability of his kingdom, Edward, who was incapable of distinguishing between good and bad advice and who tended to believe and act on whatever the last person had told him, informed the earl of Pembroke beforehand what he was intending to do. He said "I have been told that the earl of Lancaster is lying in ambush, and is diligently preparing to catch us all by surprise." [16] Pembroke fortunately still retained some influence over the king and managed to convince Edward that this was not in fact the case…..
" Since April 1318, a group of barons and prelates had been negotiating with the earl of Lancaster, and trying to persuade Edward and his cousin to overcome their hostility to each other. On 8 June, they came to a preliminary agreement: Edward would uphold the hated Ordinances, govern by the counsel of his magnates, and conciliate Thomas, who was threatened with sanctions if he continued to hold armed assemblies. Thomas's violence and lawlessness were thus condoned, as he was too powerful for the king to ignore and his co-operation with Edward was essential if England was ever to find peace. Although Thomas declared that he did not trust Edward's safe-conducts, he did eventually consent to meet the king, and on 7 August 1318 the two men exchanged the kiss of peace in a field between Loughborough and Leicester. Edward gave his cousin a fine palfrey "in recognition of his great love" of Thomas. (Hmmmm.) A formal agreement, the Treaty of Leake, was signed in the town of Leake near Loughborough two days later. [21]
So by late 1318, the relationship between Edward II and the earl of Lancaster was about as good as anyone could have hoped for, and in September 1319 Thomas actually co-operated with the king and took part in the siege of Berwick.
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-of-lancaster-and-his.html
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Treaty of Leake/700 years anniversary of the Fake reconciliation of two royal enemies/Edward II and his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster
Filed under Divers
Tagged as Alice de Lacy fourth Countess of Lincoln, Aymer de Valence 2nd Earl of Pembroke, Battle of Boroughbridge, Blanche of Artois, Charles IV of France, Despenser War, Edmund Crouchback, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Eleanor de Clare, English history, Guy de Beauchamp 10th Earl of Warwick, Henry 3rd Earl of Lancaster, Henry de Lacy 3rd Earl of Lincoln, Henry III of England, history, Hugh de Audley 1st Earl of Gloucester, Hugh Despenser 1st Earl of Winchester, Hugh Despenser the Elder, Hugh Despenser the Younger, Humphrey de Bohun 4th Earl of Hereford, Hundred Years War, In English, Isabella of FRance, Joan I of Navarre, John de Warenne 7th Earl of Surrey, Marcher Lords, Middle Party, Philip IV of France, Piers Gaveston 1st Earl of Cornwall, Robert de Holland 1st baron Holand, Roger Damory, Roger de Cliffiord 2nd baron de Clifford, Roger Mortimer 1st Earl of March, Roger Mortimer de Chirk, Sir Robert Holland, The Treaty of Leake, Thomas 2nd Earl of Lancaster, Treaty of Leake, William Montacute, William Montagu 2nd baron Montagu
Afghanistan Asielbeleid AT5 bezetting Boycot Israel burgemeester van der Laan burgemeester vd Laan Dijkhoff discriminatie etnische zuiveringen EU Forum voor Democratie Gaza haatzaaien Human Rights imperialisme In English Internationaal Recht Irak Islamofobie Israel Joke Kaviaar Mensenrechten Misdaden tegen de menselijkheid nederzettingen Oorlogsmisdaden Palestina Politiegeweld Politieoptreden pvv Racisme Reactie AT5 Reactie op AT5 Teeven Terugkeerbeleid Ned Overheid Thierry Baudet van der Laan vd Laan Verenigde Staten vluchtelingen Vrijheid van meningsuiting VS Waakzaamheid Wilders Zwarte Piet
Astrid Essed ·